Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ever been in Park Street at 5 PM before a Sox game? That's probably what it'd be like.
Granted in Boston most of those people could probably just walk back to their hotels.
Also, you forget that cities can close lanes for shuttles, which is what LA did last time they hosted.
I honestly think all four cities have perfectly suitable transit systems for the Games. Sure DC has the best, but it's probably not going to be the deciding factor. In fact, the last few times the US nominated our great transit cities (NYC, CHI) it did not turn out well when placed before the national committee.
This^
MD and others can try to center the entire discussion around transit, but as I pointed out earlier, the IOCs own evaluation of technical merit of bids put Chicago( and Tokyo and Madrid) way ahead of Rio but the delegates voted for Rio anyway while Chicago was the first city cut.
MD and others can try to center the entire discussion around transit, but as I pointed out earlier, the IOCs own evaluation of technical merit of bids put Chicago( and Tokyo and Madrid) way ahead of Rio but the delegates voted for Rio anyway while Chicago was the first city cut.
Yea, there are a lot of factors, and sometimes things seem a bit fishy. Rio did make sense in that IOC seems to have had the goal of trying to spread the Olympic games out to more parts of the world.
Also, for the London bid, one of the concerns was public transit--which is pretty crazy given how much better London's transit (even back in the bidding states) is than pretty much any US city's is now except for NYC's.
MD and others can try to center the entire discussion around transit, but as I pointed out earlier, the IOCs own evaluation of technical merit of bids put Chicago( and Tokyo and Madrid) way ahead of Rio but the delegates voted for Rio anyway while Chicago was the first city cut.
That's partly because there are countries that will pony up $$$ that American cities won't. Having an authoritarian regime that's willing to outspend the next closest competitor by a 3 to 1 margin makes your bid significantly more attractive.
That's partly because there are countries that will pony up $$$ that American cities won't. Having an authoritarian regime that's willing to outspend the next closest competitor by a 3 to 1 margin makes your bid significantly more attractive.
True about the $$$ but also, there is a very real resentment of the US abroad.
Rio is spending $20 Billion
And Oy is correct, there is a whole lot of fishyness involved in the IOC voting.
True about the $$$ but also, there is a very real resentment of the US abroad.
Rio is spending $20 Billion
And Oy is correct, there is a whole lot of fishyness involved in the IOC voting.
Is $20 Billion USD the estimated total costs? I have a hard time believing the benefits from hosting the Olympics is going to justify that much spending.
True about the $$$ but also, there is a very real resentment of the US abroad.
Rio is spending $20 Billion
And Oy is correct, there is a whole lot of fishyness involved in the IOC voting.
Yea! Ostensibly, Rio had a lot going for it during the bids.
Brazil seemed to be booming so could pony up a lot of money and wanted the notoriety, there had never been an Olympics in South America or a Lusophone country, the games would have been during a time of pretty perfect weather for Rio (it's their winter time with temperatures in the 70s and it's also their dry season), the city was already a massive metropolis and had a lot of the infrastructure in terms of stadia, they had already hosted the 2007 Pan-American games and had proven they could host a huge and long multi-sport event, they were already going to be one of the host cities for the world cup a few years before the Olympics so there was supposed to have been a lot of infrastructure (both in terms of stadia and transit), and it's a (BEAUTIFUL!) coastal city so access to the water sports part of the Olympics was going to be more or less co-located with all the other events.
Unfortunately, all that spending for FIFA and the Olympics didn't result in nearly as many infrastructural improvements as planned, so rumor has it that some people are getting pretty nervous about just how ready Rio will be in terms of infrastructure, especially whether or not the subway line that will be serving the neighborhood where the majority of the Olympic venues will be as well as the Olympic Village.
Is $20 Billion USD the estimated total costs? I have a hard time believing the benefits from hosting the Olympics is going to justify that much spending.
Not all of it goes to "waste"--much of that spending is supposed to be on various improvements to the city that is supposed to be a lasting and useful legacy of the Olympics. However, there is sometimes a lot of waste as can be seen by a few of the massive works that Beijing made which are basically empty these days--which might not be as bad for Rio given how big of a sports and events culture Rio/Brazil has in comparison to Beijing/China. London seems to be trying to make good use of its post-Olympics venues.
It would have to be a joint DC/Baltimore thing going which isn't that crazy of a comment. Don't you need a pretty decent body of water for those water events? Aren't you going to need a metric crapton of stadiums that could be already be good for use since the number of large stadia necessary for the Olympics is immense and immensely costly? How about the additional space and amenities for hosting a massive event that runs for more than two weeks--isn't that likely going to require Baltimore and its environs in the mix? How did this turn into another one of your DC persecution-paranoia jags again?
Oh, and guess what, it looks like proposals for it do include Baltimore as the commission says it's a joint DC-Baltimore bid. How amazing. I think I'll stand by the idea that the bid should include Baltimore and higher frequencies on MARC during the event even though that comment seems to make you blow a gasket.
Almost all of the venues for D.C. will be within 15 minutes of each other. Baltimore is no longer part of the bid.
Organizers initially pitched a regional Olympics stretching from Baltimore to Richmond, Virginia, but those two cities have faded from the plan. Washington 2024 now says the goal is to have 70 percent of the venues reachable within 15 minutes. The only far-flung sites might be sailing on the Chesapeake Bay, equestrian in Virginia's horse country and canoe-kayak at an existing world-class facility in western Maryland.
It also helps that D.C. is a city where a car isn't necessary. It boasts a large subway system, a major Amtrak hub and an extensive and popular bike-sharing network. Streetcars are on the way, and there are three major airports in the region.
I don't see how he's getting ahead of himself. The metro is a world class transit system and is arguably the best in the US behind NYC's subway. Although, transit is NOT the deciding factor as to whether a city is chosen so I do not understand as to why DC posters are using this as an argument.
Organizers initially pitched a regional Olympics stretching from Baltimore to Richmond, Virginia, but those two cities have faded from the plan. Washington 2024 now says the goal is to have 70 percent of the venues reachable within 15 minutes. The only far-flung sites might be sailing on the Chesapeake Bay, equestrian in Virginia's horse country and canoe-kayak at an existing world-class facility in western Maryland.
It also helps that D.C. is a city where a car isn't necessary. It boasts a large subway system, a major Amtrak hub and an extensive and popular bike-sharing network. Streetcars are on the way, and there are three major airports in the region.
Woof, I don't know about this then. It seems like a hell of a boondoggle for DC to do nearly on its own. DC is a big city, but it's not that big compared to the Olympics hosted in recent memory. I think without utilizing existing infrastructure in Baltimore, this is just asking for massive overspending compared to what the benefits of the Olympics would offer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
