Jump to content

TeamRik

Premium Members
  • Content Count

    145
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by TeamRik

  1. I still don't think we have an answer re: venue budget. I'd be perfectly happy with an honest "we don't know yet", or an honest "it's being discussed", but it seems clear that neither the $4.5bn nor the $5bn are it.

    So saying the "First Estimated Operating Budget" "Very Fluid" "Still many hurdles to clear" and that "It does not included infrastructure or city upgrades" is not honest enough?

    Especially when a combination of these venues will be financed and are already planned or being adjusted by other entities like Umass, BU, BCEC, MBTA etc. etc. ?

    No other city has released this kind of information... LA only listed fairytale hollywood locations...

  2. No, it is not very very clear. I know that's what he said, but that part does seem shady to make. What happens if the budget for the Olympics is larger than the initial projections? What if ticket sales aren't as strong as expected? It's easy to say the city/state won't be on the hook for cost overruns. But again, the Olympics inevitably go over budget, so someone is going to have to make up for the shortfall. To say nothing of the fact that some of the revenues they're counting on won't come in until later on in the process. They'll need that money to operate beforehand.

    You're going to average the total cost? No, doesn't work that way..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games

    For the sake of fairness, we'll skip Beijing and Sochi since they are anomalies. But if you're looking at a realistic budget estimate, follow the trends, not an average translated into future dollars. Atlanta cost $2 billion. That was a pre-9/11 Olympics. Athens cost significantly more. London as well. Those are the trends you're looking at. So where Boston claims they can do it for $4.5 billion, the actual amount of money spent (and I'm not counting infrastructure projects that you noted are already underway) will probably be double that. I know you keep telling us about Agenda 2020, but I'll believe it when I see it. Here's some cautionary tales that are worth noting for any city, not just Boston..

    London Olympics exceed initial budget by £6.52bn

    Olympics 'may cost Greece dear'

    Olympic glory at any price?

    This has nothing to do with what I said... I did not say that's how you find the estimate that is a direct quote of how NoBostonOlympics.org found their estimate..

    And I already said everything you said above about the cost being closer to $8 etc.. still private money.

    Vancouver got stuck because they made bad partnerships and bad contracts.

    London destructed and rebuilt an entire new neighborhood so again not a figure that can be used.

    Greece was in financial disaster long before their bid and it was the first summer games directly after 9/11 the costs of security were huge and the only games to lose more than 2 billion let alone 15 billion only 6 games have not profited and none of those were in the US we have always been in the Green.

    And the IOC would not do interviews or post news about the Agenda and support on their own website if there was not at least an 90% chance it was gonna happen, that is how they operate.

  3. Taking the last 8 Olympics both Summer & Winter and averaging the Total Cost is as far from a realistic budget estimate that you can get.

    Especially with Beijing and Sochi included in that average when they made the conscious decision to spend that kind of money before even bidding. Asia did the same for the Youth Olympics and was actually reprimanded because that is not what those games are supposed to be about. And Sochi built an entire city, transportation system and waste treatment before even adding the venues.

  4. Then where is the detailed accounting regarding the privately financed venues that need to be built? Don't pretend that there's transparency where there isn't The Boston 2024 organizers are being opaque in this area for political reasons. Honestly, I think being discreet like this may be the better route for the time being. When the bid books are submitted in December, then it will be a different story.

    Case in point: the No Olympics crowd has already latched onto the $9.5 Billion sum reported in the press. You and I know it is dishonest for them to claim that the taxpayers are on the hook for a $9.5 Billion party, but yet that is exactly what happened. If the Boston 2024 organizers weren't being so shady the political fallout would have been much worse. Obfuscation is every politician's best friend.

    I have agreed I think it's a low number but I also know that NoBoston has never posted ONE fact from day one and they say in all of their interviews and website that it will cost up to $20 Billion and paid by taxpayers which is incorrect, until this week when they altered their verbal amount. They're pure propaganda which is what the Boston Globe loves and really the only legitimate press they have received.

    They have been asked to not release numbers like that until the Agenda 2020 because it could dramatically alter costs and what the IOC pays for. But if it's paid for privately there is no reason for them to be transparent about those numbers at this point anyways I am sure they don't have actual bid numbers for venues yet just locations and estimates.

  5. Easy bernham. There's nothing shady about all this, especially in comparison to LA. This is not something that needs to play out in a public forum. That's exactly what the USOC does NOT want to happen and why they changed the process to move away from open bidding. Good for LA that they had a plan in March. Doesn't matter. All that matters is what these cities have in December or whenever it is that the USOC makes their decision. We don't know if the USOC is insistent on a finalized plan and a bid book and all that. This is the work up that the USOC is using to vet out candidates. Boston is under no obligation to share any or all of this with us. This is not an effort by them to keep things under wraps. It's about a lack of reporting on specifics with their plans. I do agree with you and some of those specifics are a little shady, but that says nothing of how they're going about this IMO

    it has already been announced by both the USOC and Boston that they were asked to not put out certain information until it was time and well researched and the USOC announced that the US Bid submissions and choice would be made in early 2015 after the IOC 2020 Agenda Meeting in December.

    Why not talk about what you think the plans are for swimming? I think it be amazing if they did what Rio is doing for their "Future Arena" with "Nomadic Architecture" the building will be temporary and after the games the pieces are dismantled and will be reconstructed to create 4 brand new schools for 2000 students.

    Or talk about why with so much money behind the Boston bid they keep creating such horrible logos, graphics, websites etc.. They announced a logo competition over a year ago and never went through with it, the DC Website is awesome. And why they changed their URL from Boston2024.org to 2024Boston.org? LOL

  6. it couldn't be any less shady, regardless if the 4.5b is lowball or not it is very very clear that it won't be a public or city expense, if it is there won't be a bid so just stop attacking people for stupid **** be constructive with your hate of the bid the rest falls on deaf ears. I've made it clear I think if it can work it will if it can't it won't and from the beginning I have said I think Boston should be the first US city to bid for the Youth Olympics it's a better fit.

    "Dan OConnell, president of the Boston 2024 Partnership, said the $4.5 billion pricetag would be offset by $1.2 billion in expected broadcast revenue and large contributions from sponsors.

    Collins said organizers assured lawmakers that no public money would be required for construction projects directly related to the event, such as stadiums and housing for the athletes. Legislators, he said, would summarily reject any requests for taxpayers to foot the bill for these basic operations.

    If the private sector isnt going to pick up those costs, were not going to have these Games, Collins said. It was made very clear the public was not going to pick up the tab.

    However, OConnell acknowledged the $4.5-billion figure does not include the cost of public infrastructure, including road and transit improvements.

    Collins said substantial improvements to the regions transportation network are needed regardless of whether Boston is chosen."

  7. This $1 billion doesn't seem to be included in either the $4.5 Billion operational cost figure or the $5 Billion transportation cost figure. The Boston 2024 folks are just obfuscating over the costs in order to win public support, but I think they are well aware that a substantial sum of private money needs to be spent and that those figures are not yet public. For instance, rumor has it that Kraft will be the one bankrolling the Widett Circle stadium in exchange for the right to use the space for the Revolution afterwards.

    Why would a completely seperate already planned, approved and paid for expansion of the BCEC be included in a big for 2024? Its not being expanded because of or for us it's being expanded because we're one of the largest convention centers in the country which is also why we already have the adequate hotel rooms needed for the games. We are just going to be utilizing the location for events not building it.

  8. Uhm...I think you're looking at the IOC and its supposed "Agenda 2020" reforms with slightly too much optimism.

    it had unanimous support this past month at the Summit and from every NOC there is probably a 90% chance that it will pass... especially after the Oslo/2022 issues and Germany/Paris on the fence for 2024.

  9. The only people on that list that have some type of Olympic experience are Romney and the USOC everyone else brings nothing to the table but money and support. Based on what I am seeing come from this group it seems like they lack some serious experience and knowledge of what is expected and how things work within the movement and what really happens when they get the games. If they are working as closely as you say they are with other cities and the USOC then they would not be low-balling costs, they would know very well that it is going to cost a lot more then 5bn dollars to host the games, they would know it take a lot more then a well developed plan to win, they would know that the USOC places the minimum number of seats for the main stadium at 80,000, they would know that it takes a lot more then what they currently think (based on their recent comments) to host the games, I could go on...

    The point is that this team lacks experience and a firm understanding of the games. They think it is just as easy as having existing venues, lots of sponsors, and pretty graphics. That is what an outsider would perceive the games as, but someone with a firm knowledge would know that it takes a lot more and by a lot I mean more then a bunch of things that can be ticked off of a bullet point list.

    And clearly you don't know or care to listen to or believe that all of those prerequisites are a thing of the past especially for the United States to bid or any country other than China & Russia for that matter. The IOC has some huge changes coming on their end as well. We have the new USOC-IOC Agreements set, They have lowered the cost of bidding and we have the 2020 agenda coming up for vote in December and since the IOC distributes over 90% of its revenues to organisations throughout the Olympic Movement to support the staging of the Games they really have no reason to vote it down.

    But more about what you know as a person not working on the bid or any bid and what they don't know while they are working on it...

  10. Okay, well then they lack experience.

    No experience?

    1) they are literally working hand in hand with the USOC as are the other cities

    2) they have had extensive meetings with other bid cities and host cities

    - Mitt Romney - President and CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Committee

    - Boston's largest Construction Company, wealthiest residents and one of Forbes Largest Private Companies in the US.

    - Owner of the Patriots the 8th most valuable team in all of sports and the red sox the 11th most valuable

    - The Executive Assistant of the Red Sox

    - The former Manager of the Head of the Charles Regatta

    - USOC & World Championships Members

    - The Red Sox Legal Teams

    - Not to mention endless consultants and over 50 Olympians

    I think we're pretty experienced.

  11. There are currently no plans to do either of the things that I mentioned. The state transportation plan that you linked was never fully funded and is out of date. The Red-Blue Connecter in particular was also never mentioned in that proposal.

    The problem here is that the people trying to organize the Olympics in Boston are saying that current transportation plans are enough to handle the influx from the Olympics when that isn't true and misses the point of hosting the Olympics. The only legitimate argument for going through the process of hosting the games is so that the city can receive some infrastructure upgrades that it wouldn't normally get. If the transportation plan for the games is the same as the transportation plan without the games then why are we doing this at all???

    Also the current plans for transportation improvements are already severely lacking when accounting for current demographic shifts and expected increases in ridership and population. If you try to host an Olympics in Boston while only investing in some DMU vehicles then the rapid transit system, especially the Green Line spurs and the downtown core stations, will have major congestion issues.

    BTW there was a meeting/hearing regarding the Blue/Red Connector on Tuesday. It was in the Capital Improvement Plan but pulled because 16 other projects had already been fully funded on the Red & Blue lines including the renovation of all the blue stations and 3 red ones. But it's not dead yet ;-)

  12. There are currently no plans to do either of the things that I mentioned. The state transportation plan that you linked was never fully funded and is out of date. The Red-Blue Connecter in particular was also never mentioned in that proposal.

    The problem here is that the people trying to organize the Olympics in Boston are saying that current transportation plans are enough to handle the influx from the Olympics when that isn't true and misses the point of hosting the Olympics. The only legitimate argument for going through the process of hosting the games is so that the city can receive some infrastructure upgrades that it wouldn't normally get. If the transportation plan for the games is the same as the transportation plan without the games then why are we doing this at all???

    Also the current plans for transportation improvements are already severely lacking when accounting for current demographic shifts and expected increases in ridership and population. If you try to host an Olympics in Boston while only investing in some DMU vehicles then the rapid transit system, especially the Green Line spurs and the downtown core stations, will have major congestion issues.

    You are very wrong... The FY2014 – FY2018 Transportation Capital Investment Plan was approved and it gets funded over a 5 year span. And all of the projects will be completed by or before 2023.

    It was a unanimous approval in fact.

    The Green Line Extension was funded in April and the purchase of 40 Green line Buses and 24 Green Line Trains was approved in May.

  13. Rik the new orange and red line trains wont even be arriving til 2018

    west station 2020

    dmus 2018-2020

    and thats only large size projects they finish spending the money by the doesnt everything will be done by then

    I was specifically referencing the signal systems you commented on...

    what has the MBTA done wrong lately? They have done quite a bit

    - first FREE Commuter rail Wi-Fi in the country - 258 cars and over 10,000 people use it a day

    - replaced the concrete slabs on the redline

    - built the first new subway station since 1987 - Assembly Square which is amazing.

    - late night service

    - Government Center (going to be amazing)

    - announced Fairmont Service Upgrades

    - announced the new Allston Commuter Station and line

    - Restored Weekend Service on 3 Commuter Lines

    - New Chelsea Silverline

    - Ruggles Station & Haymarket funding

    - Not to mention 8 consecutive months of increased monthly ridership despite fare increase

    They're certainly not going in the WRONG direction... It's the oldest public transportation system in the country it's not snap and done!

  14. Projects and spending from the State Transportation Bill have nothing to do with the Olympics. Some projects there might help somewhat with transportation in the region, but there will be other necessary projects to improve transit to handle capacity issues that the system would face in the future with or without an Olympics.

    If the MBTA doesn't get things like improved signal systems or the Red-Blue Connector then there is literally no reason to support the Olympics.

    Well then maybe you should read the bill? All of those things are to be completed by 2017...

  15. I stand corrected. I just read that Tokyo's plan was to increase it's 55k seater to an 80k seater.

    Even after having to scale down the new Tokyo stadium by 20% they managed to keep the 80,000 seats and cut the price in half... if they can do that we can do anything..

  16. So a Boston bid would cost less then what Oslo proposed for the 2022 Games?

    No Their Bid was $5 Billion which included investment in all facilities and venues, roads and infrastructure, as well as city improvement and development of green spaces.

    ours is $4.5b + $5b and no public cost

  17. Here we go... this story is much much more detailed...

    "In direct terms, O'Connell stated that if any gap existed between revenues and budget costs for the Games, the City of Boston would not pay a single dollar to it."

    One last critical note: All security costs would fall under the jurisdiction of the Secret Service, and would therefore be paid for by the federal government.

    http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2014/10/18/boston-2024-olympic-bid-details-budget-olympic-stadium-site-in-boston-marty-walsh-role-in-ioc-bid/

    Initial estimated budget: $4.5 billion

    • This includes all costs that pertain only to the Games itself. It does not include infrastructure upgrades to public transportation and other city improvements that were already being planned.
    • Of the 45,000 3-5 star hotel rooms need, O'Connell said that Boston actually already has that number, but that they estimate 5,000 more will be added in the next few years.
    • To pay for the Games budget, O'Connell noted that $1.2 billion will come from broadcast revenue (he singled out NBC in particular) that is allotted to the host city.
    • Other revenues put towards the budget will be derived from international and local sponsors. O'Connell specified pharmaceutical companies as a unique area that Boston could utilize, given the strength of the region's healthcare industry.
    • Ticket sales would be the third area of revenue.
    • In direct terms, O'Connell stated that if any gap existed between revenues and budget costs for the Games, the City of Boston would not pay a single dollar to it.
    • One last critical note: All security costs would fall under the jurisdiction of the Secret Service, and would therefore be paid for by the federal government.

    Desired venue sites and details:

    O'Connell went through several prospective sites for venues. However, he stressed that all of the plans right now are still in the very early stages, and that nothing was in anyway concrete yet.

    • The Athlete's Village would potentially go near UMass Boston/Bayside Expo. After the games, the university would take over much of the housing.
    • The Olympic Stadium would only need to seat 60,000, instead of 80,000 (recently altered by the International Olympic Committee). Initial plans have it being built in Widett Circle in South Boston. Gillette Stadium can't be used because it isn't possible to install an Olympic track inside. The constructed stadium would be "temporary," and pieces of it would be sold after the Games, like London 2012.
    • Boston Convention and Exhibition Center would hold tae kwon do, table tennis, judo, and handball. This is an area that O'Connell cited as part of the "walkable Games" concept.
    • MIT's Killian Court would be used for archery.
    • MIT also be the location for fencing, as the school would keep a newly built facility for its own usage.
    • The Olympic marathon would not follow the Boston Marathon's course, since it's too undulating. The finish line would be on Charles Street near Boston Common.
    • Beach volleyball would also take place on the Common.
    • Sailing could potentially take place in Boston Harbor, but special rules would have to be worked out to allow helicopters (necessary for event coverage) to be allowed to fly so close to Logan Airport.
    • Equestrian competitions would be held in Franklin Park.
    • White Stadium would be rebuilt to host the pentathlon.
    • Rowing would not be held along the Head of the Charles course, due to the narrowness imposed by the abutments on the Massachusetts Avenue Bridge. As a result, rowing would be held on the Merrimack in Lowell.
    • Gillette Stadium would be one of the sites for soccer.
  18. There was a big state-wide transportation bill passed earlier in 2014 (something like $13 billion), which included certain projects the article referenced - expanded subway lines, expanded rail stations, etc. in and around Boston. I read the article as meaning that of the transport bill's $13 billion, $5 billion has already been dedicated to infrastructure projects around the potential venue sites.

    I have shared it in this thread before in fact...

    Here is the PDF to the $13 Billion Massdot Capital Investment Transportation Bill

    http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/0/docs/infoCenter/docs_materials/cip_FY14_FY18.pdf

  19. There was a big state-wide transportation bill passed earlier in 2014 (something like $13 billion), which included certain projects the article referenced - expanded subway lines, expanded rail stations, etc. in and around Boston. I read the article as meaning that of the transport bill's $13 billion, $5 billion has already been dedicated to infrastructure projects around the potential venue sites.

    Ding Ding... that is correct Sir... and they made it pretty clear this will not becoming a public debt.

  20. OK, so the article says...

    Ticket sales, broadcast rights and sponsorships (+ merchandising) covered the OCOG costs at London 2012.

    They were not even a part of the infrastructure or venue budget.

    Which is fine, but the article goes on to say....

    It's those last few words that throw me.

    Ticket sales, broadcast rights and sponsorships will cover the OCOG budget as per usual. That's taken as given. What you can make back from these, you spend on the show. And $5bn is projected on top of that for infrastrcture, BUT it's happening anyway?

    Clarification needed here I think. Not entirely clear if I'm reading this properly.

    Also need to think of the writer and publication as well... The Boston Globe has been telling everyone on Twitter and online that the $4.5 Billion is coming from public money... But who would expect anything less from the Globe :-)

  21. You mean like when he said it would be $4.5b, plus $5b not included in the $4.5?

    A Canadien not liking Boston. Shocking.

    No the $5 Billion was the amount for infrastructure projects that are already planned and being paid for separately.. . obviously there will be some of that which will be added additionally but there was a reason to have them separate.

    Did you miss the part where the $4.5 and runoff is being paid for with PRIVATE funds? That was very clear and the most important fact I'd say

  22. The US Government pays for all of the Security Costs and you also have to remember that the Domestic Partnerships with the IOC and NOC pay and supply a lot of things.. just for example Panasonic provides all the surveillance equipment etc.. Any costs involved with the operations of the games are covered.
    So their estimates seem pretty legit.
    Atlanta only cost $1.7 Billion today with inflation that would be $2.8 billion and they made a $10 million profit

  23. What are you saying? This is a Boston bid, which last time I checked falls under the USOC's jurisdiction.

    Last we all checked they were in close works with the USOC so they obviously know what they do and don't need... The Olympics are changing contrary to popular belief

  24. Today was a huge day for the Boston 2024 Movement The Committee had a busy legislative day at the State House and then a Press & Media conference.

    A projected budget was announced of $4.5 Billon not including $5 Billion in infrastructure and they listed all of the proposed venues most of which I had previously mentioned especially the Olympic Stadium going by the Highway in South Boston.

    I know you will all say none of this will work and the IOC will hate it etc. etc. but honestly I am willing to bet that this is the new way the IOC does want to do it and I truly believe Boston is the frontrunner for the USOC's pick..

    I can also guarantee that most if not all of these locations and options are already locked in as being available because that was what Boston was waiting for, the USOC has asked the cities to be quiet and discreet until things were locked in.

    Boston 2024 Partnership offers details about where Olympics venues would be located:

    http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2014/10/boston-2024-partnership-offers-details-about-where.html?ana=twt&page=all

    - The goal would be to build a Summer Games that is almost entirely reliant on public transit, with no new parking spaces at the venues.

    -a projected budget of $4.5 billion — a price tag that would be covered through a combination of ticket sales, broadcast rights payments and sponsorships. That figure doesn't include a tally of at least $5 billion in public infrastructure investments — such as extra tracks at an expanded South Station and a new West Station in Allston — that the Partnership's backers say are on track to happen anyway.

    Widett Circle: The partnership is eyeing Widett Circle, a roughly 100-acre area for the Olympic stadium — a place that's now largely used to store towed cars and salt piles, hard by the Southeast Expressway. O'Connell says the Partnership is talking about construction of a 60,000-seat stadium for ceremonies as well as track and field competitions that would be temporary in nature, to be disassembled after the Games. The site, sandwiched between the Andrew and Broadway T stops on the Red Line, then would be primed for commercial redevelopment. The Dorchester Avenue stretch along the Fort Point Channel could be turned into a grand "Olympic boulevard" that could allow spectators to walk from South Station to the stadium (assuming the USPS finally agrees to leave its Fort Point station for new digs in Southie).

    UMass Boston: The Olympics would need at least 6,000 units to host some 16,000 athletes in a secure environment. These would go at the BaySide Expo site, now owned by UMass Boston. Most would be portable modular units that could be moved to other locations, including other universities. About 2,000 would remain on site for the former commuter school's use as the university looks to build up residential options for its growing body of undergraduates.

    Franklin Park: These would take place at Franklin Park, which has the benefit of animal care operations on site thanks to the zoo's presence. O'Connell concedes that this could disrupt the public golf course there, but says that funds from the Olympics could be used to restore the course in better condition after the Games are over. He also discussed using the Olympics as a way to spur new rapid bus transit into that area.

    The Boston Convention & Exhibition Center: Several events would take place there, including table tennis, judo and tae kwon do. The BCEC's $1 billion expansion, scheduled to open long before 2024, would play an important role in accommodating all the activities.

    The Boston Common: A beach volleyball facility would be built above the Boston Common garage. The marathon and long-distance cycling race would end by the park at Charles Street. (The Boston Marathon route, apparently, isn't flat enough for an Olympic competition.)

    MIT: Archery and fencing could be hosted at MIT's campus, with MIT eyeing the possibility of a new building dedicated to fencing.

    Allston: Harvard Stadium would be used for field hockey games, while BU's Agganis Arena and Nickerson Field, on the other side of the proposed West Station, would play a key role in games as well.

    Outside Route 128: There are some events that the Partnership could not locate in or close to Boston. That includes rowing, which would take place on the Merrimack River in Lowell. (The Charles River's bridges would get in the way, per Olympics guidelines.) Gillette Stadium in Foxborough would be needed for soccer games, which would likely take place throughout the entire three-week stretch of the Games and in other facilities in the region as well.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...