U.S. Winter Bid for 2022 or 2026

[baron-pierreIV]

There is no such thing as equal opportunity quota at the WOG. All teams and athletes who qualify, met the qualification standard especially in sledding sports. Also the track and Sapporo does not exist anymore.

Int, I didn't mean that literally. It was meant as...it looks good for the international image of the IOC that 3rd world, non-whites were also playing in this particular sport, thereby adding to the 'all-inclusive' image that the IOC wants to achieve.

Re Sapporo track -- so even Japan no longer had use for that older track.

[Athensfan]

Athens 2004 and Beijing 2008 were spectacular in a sense of building too much and too big. London decided to break the tradition. With the winter games growing larger and becoming prohibitive even for traditional bidders (Austria, Sweden...), Salt Lake could bring the 'sensible host' narrative and maybe turn to be THE contender in times of crisis, sustainability etc...

P.S.: Torino 2006 just lost its underused sliding venue due to maintenance costs and this adds to the point of the cities which prefer bidding with venues they already have in place.

Yes and no. While I believe London was fiscally responsible, their bid still proposed the most expensive plan of all the 2012 candidates. They razed a whole section of the city to build the Olympic park and did construct many brand new venues.

So no, they didn't throw caution to the wind like Beijing, but they still spent a great deal of money on transforming the city and building new venues. There is a vast and tangible legacy for London 2012.

SLC may be a responsible choice, but it's very difficult to see where the new energy would come from, where the legacy could come from or how the IOC could look back on SLC 2026 as anything other than merely fulfilling the unofficial American quota. Responsibility is good, but it isn't a compelling hook.

London was responsible, but still offered something fresh and exciting. Any American bid, Summer or Winter, must do the same.

[baron-pierreIV]

Maybe SLC'll raze the old Tabernacle and put in the Figure skating arena there so they can have an "exciting," sexy new bid?

[paul]

I'm fine with the rest of it, but there's no reason to put the big alpine events way out in Snowbasin unless you are trying to use the Olympic name to scam the US government out of valuable real estate.

I also suspect there might be transportation/development programs with putting events in Little Cottonwood Canyon (Alta/Snowbird)

Today? No. In the future? Maybe. Without that change of heart, I don't see the games returning to SLC for a long, long time.

Didn't they get all the land they wanted already at Snowbasin?

I'd love to see a downhill course at Snowbird but how can capacity increase in the canyon? Plus it's only a few miles less from SLC than Snowbasin, so it dosn't really improve compactness much. It would be really spectacular to see Snowbird become even more flashy and sexy as an Olympic venue. Both are great options, the lodges and everything at Snowbasin are superb, Snowbird could use a little renovation of their spectacular existing facilities.

[zekekelso]

In my opinion, SLC is doomed by 2002 and Reno is doomed by virtually non-existent venues, a totally inadequate airport,

The only American candidate that may be viable for 2026 is Denver -- which I would support if they bid.

SLC is doomed since they hosted recently and have venues. Reno is doomed because it doesn't have venues. Reno's airport is "totally inadequate" despite having more capacity than 75%+ of the cities that have ever hosted. Nope, no bias there. As for Denver, I'll wager large sacks of money you find reason to attack it.

[Athensfan]

SLC is doomed since they hosted recently and have venues. Reno is doomed because it doesn't have venues. Reno's airport is "totally inadequate" despite having more capacity than 75%+ of the cities that have ever hosted. Nope, no bias there. As for Denver, I'll wager large sacks of money you find reason to attack it.

2002 will scupper SLC's chances at 2026. Reno does not have hardly any ice venues and the few it does have are very dated. The Winter Games continue to grow and Reno's airport would require a serious upgrade in order to accommodate the increased traffic. I have no idea what your source is for "75% of cities."

As for Denver, I think they could be a fine host. They have two big challenges: 1.) their historical albatross 2.) transportation to the snow events. If they commit to working on those problems I think they can be competitive. I don't believe Reno or SLC can.

Zeke, if you believe that 2002 does not compromise SLC's chances and if you believe Reno is well-equipped to host, I look forward to reading your arguments.

[Athensfan]

Olympic Winter Games host city (and potential host city) airport capacities:

Denver: 52.2 million

Pyeongchang (Incheon): 44 million

Nagano (Narita): 35 million

Sochi: currently being upgraded to accommodate 25 million.

SLC: 21 million

Vancouver: 17 million

Reno: 5.2 million

Torino: 3.7 million

The only recent Winter host with less airport capacity than Reno is Torino. Torino's airport underwent extensive renovations to ready it for the Games. No such renovations have been planned for Reno. Considering the 2026 Games will take place 20 years after Torino (by which time the Games will be larger) it seems safe to say that Reno's airport is a weakness. This becomes even clearer when one considers that all other recent Olympic hosts and the other two potential American candidates for 2026 have at least 3 times the capacity of Reno's airport. Denver has 10 times the capacity.

The above figures represent the total number of passengers per annum.

[baron-pierreIV]

Olympic Winter Games host city (and potential host city) airport capacities:

Denver: 52.2 million

Pyeongchang (Incheon): 44 million

Nagano (Narita): 35 million

Sochi: currently being upgraded to accommodate 25 million.

SLC: 21 million

Vancouver: 17 million

Reno: 5.2 million

Torino: 3.7 million

The above figures represent the total number of passengers per annum.

Overly EXAGGERATED and misleading. The high -- not 52 million people will,or attempt to, flow into Denver for those 2 weeks. The low - Torino's 3.7 million. So what? You certainly didn't hear reports of 55,000 Ski Bunnies Not Able to Fly into Torino!! I mean that's why there are trains AND alternate land means. The Games still went off, didn't they? The crowds still got to Torino as they did for Squaw Valley 50 years ago. If people want to get to a destination, they will find ways.

Besides, Reno was NEVER even going to use their airport as the gateway for overseas flights. That would've been assigned to Sacramento. So it's like you're beating a dead horse here, AF.

[George_D]

Denver is the 1st choice then? Not SLC?

[baron-pierreIV]

Denver is the 1st choice then? Not SLC?

NAH. All 3 of them are VERY FLAWED bids.

[zekekelso]

AF: I'd be happy to explain the different between past tense and future tense if you need. But before I take the time, do you honestly not understand the difference, or are you just playing dumb?

As for SLC, of course recent hosting works against them. The difference between me and you is that I don't rule out a city for having a flaw. They all have flaws.

[baron-pierreIV]

They all have flaws.

And the main flaws of any European and Asian bids (vs. a US bid) for 2026 is that (if 2022 went Europe), then they just had them!!

Even the most flawed IOC Session bids or World Figure Skating Championships go through because the main point in the INTERNATIONALITY of these events is the rotation -- so one part of the globe gets to host at some time. The flaws are overlooked or worked through.

[George_D]

And the main flaws of any European and Asian bids (vs. a US bid) for 2026 is that (if 2022 went Europe), then they just had them!!

Even the most flawed IOC Session bids or World Figure Skating Championships go through because the main point in the INTERNATIONALITY of these events is the rotation -- so one part of the globe gets to host at some time. The flaws are overlooked or worked through.

Concerning WOG we have in a period of 6 olympic cycles (2 hosts in america, 3 in europe and 1 in asia) if we count from 1980 for example. Logic says that 2022 goes to Europe and especially in a Central/North European country, since last 2 in that continent were in South (Italy, Southern Russia). Then it is america's turn maybe..Asia again will wait some years i guess..

1980 Lake Placid, USA 1984 Sarajevo, Yugoslavia 1988 Calgary, Canada 1992 Albertville, France 1994 Lillehammer, Norway 1998 Nagano, Japan 2002 Salt Lake City, USA 2006 Turin, Italy 2010 Vancouver, Canada 2014 Sochi, Russia 2018 Pyeongchang, S.Korea 2022 2026

[Athensfan]

Overly EXAGGERATED and misleading. The high -- not 52 million people will,or attempt to, flow into Denver for those 2 weeks. The low - Torino's 3.7 million. So what? You certainly didn't hear reports of 55,000 Ski Bunnies Not Able to Fly into Torino!! I mean that's why there are trains AND alternate land means. The Games still went off, didn't they? The crowds still got to Torino as they did for Squaw Valley 50 years ago. If people want to get to a destination, they will find ways.

Besides, Reno was NEVER even going to use their airport as the gateway for overseas flights. That would've been assigned to Sacramento. So it's like you're beating a dead horse here, AF.

Baron, all I can tell you is that those numbers can all be independently verified. None were falsified. As I noted, they represent the annual passenger capacity of these airports. Certainly 52 million people will not descend on any city for the Olympics, but an airport that is capable of processing 52 million passengers a year is probably far better equipped to handle the Olympic influx than an airport that processes only 5 million people per year. If airport capacity is a non-issue, I have to wonder why Sochi is investing so much effort in increasing theirs. Incidentally, capacity is not the only problem with Reno's airport anyway. It is not particularly efficient or up to date and would have trouble processing large numbers of Olympic guests.

My expectation was that most international flights would stop in Sacramento or LA and that passengers would then take another flight to Reno. If the plan is for all air travel to terminate in Sacramento, all those visitors will a 2 and a half hour drive ahead of them after their international flights.

While I agree that people will find some way to get to wherever the Games are held, I do think the IOC hopes that the travel experience will be a relatively smooth and pleasant one. This is a drawback for Reno. If Reno had many other strengths, the airport would be less of a factor.

All 3 of them are VERY FLAWED bids.

I agree with this completely. It should not be minimized.

Part of the reason I would prefer to see American Summer Games before American Winter Games is lack of a compelling Winter candidate.

And the main flaws of any European and Asian bids (vs. a US bid) for 2026 is that (if 2022 went Europe), then they just had them!!

Even the most flawed IOC Session bids or World Figure Skating Championships go through because the main point in the INTERNATIONALITY of these events is the rotation -- so one part of the globe gets to host at some time. The flaws are overlooked or worked through.

This is the point where we diverge. I would not expect the IOC to vote for a "VERY FLAWED" American winter bid (your words and emphasis) over a European or Asian competitor simply because of continental rotation.

[paul]

Olympic Winter Games host city (and potential host city) airport capacities:

Denver: 52.2 million

Pyeongchang (Incheon): 44 million

Nagano (Narita): 35 million

Sochi: currently being upgraded to accommodate 25 million.

SLC: 21 million

Vancouver: 17 million

Reno: 5.2 million

Torino: 3.7 million

The only recent Winter host with less airport capacity than Reno is Torino. Torino's airport underwent extensive renovations to ready it for the Games. No such renovations have been planned for Reno. Considering the 2026 Games will take place 20 years after Torino (by which time the Games will be larger) it seems safe to say that Reno's airport is a weakness. This becomes even clearer when one considers that all other recent Olympic hosts and the other two potential American candidates for 2026 have at least 3 times the capacity of Reno's airport. Denver has 10 times the capacity.

The above figures represent the total number of passengers per annum.

Better than Torino then.

That aint bad.

[Athensfan]

Better than Torino then.

That aint bad.

Except Torino has excellent rail access as well. Reno doesn't.

[paul]

Except Torino has excellent rail access as well. Reno doesn't.

But the freeway to the lake is enormous, they can add dedicated road transportation, there are many lanes available, and building it bigger in Reno is possible.

[Athensfan]

It is a 2.5 hr drive from Sacramento.

[baron-pierreIV]

Except Torino has excellent rail access as well. Reno doesn't.

Well, Americans don't depend on the trains too much. They drove to Lake Placid, to LA, to Atlanta, to Salt Lake. Why should Reno, or SLC, or Denver be any different? It's a driving country.

Plus, whether it be Reno, SLC or Denver, whether air passengers of people driving in, they would head to their lodgings first, whether it be in Truckee, So. Lake Tahoe, Park City, Colorado Springs, etc. So why should all incoming visitors be funneled into one airport? Except for the Official O family who get herded into the hotels and Village, everyone pretty much goes their own way to their designated lodgings spread out all over host area.

[baron-pierreIV]

Baron, all I can tell you is that those numbers can all be independently verified. None were falsified. As I noted, they represent the annual passenger capacity of these airports. Certainly 52 million people will not descend on any city for the Olympics, but an airport that is capable of processing 52 million passengers a year is probably far better equipped to handle the Olympic influx than an airport that processes only 5 million people per year. If airport capacity is a non-issue, I have to wonder why Sochi is investing so much effort in increasing theirs. Incidentally, capacity is not the only problem with Reno's airport anyway. It is not particularly efficient or up to date and would have trouble processing large numbers of Olympic guests.

My expectation was that most international flights would stop in Sacramento or LA and that passengers would then take another flight to Reno. If the plan is for all air travel to terminate in Sacramento, all those visitors will a 2 and a half hour drive ahead of them after their international flights.

I didn't say you falsified them. I just said -- that like your clarification of the cost of the 2004 Olympics vis-a-vis the huge Greek debt -- that those figures don't amount much to a hill of beans. Those are ANNUAL figures. They are NOT ALL GOING TO DESCEND on whichever city all at the same time. Also, I never said that flights would end in Sacramento. You still have a choice to take a smaller commuter flight to Reno or take ;and transportation. C'mon, AF, you can't be that naive and ignorant.

This is the point where we diverge. I would not expect the IOC to vote for a "VERY FLAWED" American winter bid (your words and emphasis) over a European or Asian competitor simply because of continental rotation.

VERY FLAWED is an exaggeration -- which I just did for you since you take every chance to downplay the Winter cities' chances over an even MORE IMPOSSIBLE summer bid. That is an extremely flawed vision.

[Athensfan]

Well, Americans don't depend on the trains too much ... It's a driving country.

By contrast, all Europe is connected by a vast rail network. Foreigners could easily get to Torino by train. It's far more complicated to ask a foreigner to get a bus ticket or rent a car to get from Sacramento to Reno.

I never argued that Reno's airport wouldn't be used. You seemed to be making that point in an effort to dismiss Reno's small and outdated airport as irrelevant. Which is it? Either the airport will be used or it won't.

As for the data, I'm sorry but annual figures DO provide relevant information about an airport's capabilities.

[Athensfan]

VERY FLAWED is an exaggeration -- which I just did for you since you take every chance to downplay the Winter cities' chances over an even MORE IMPOSSIBLE summer bid. That is an extremely flawed vision.

You wrote "VERY FLAWED" in response to someone else's post -- not to mine.

The only reason we have so much information about the Winter candidates is because they were gunning for 2022. Neither you, nor I know about how possible a Summer bid is or is not. However, the notion does seem to have traction in the media.

But let's imagine that you are correct. There are "three VERY FLAWED" potential winter bids and the summer options are "even MORE IMPOSSIBLE." If your scenario is true, there is only one course of action for the USOC: refrain from bidding for either 2024 or 2026. I have always said that it is entirely possible that this will be the wisest course of action. There is no reason why the USA must bid. If there aren't any good summer or winter candidates, then the USOC should wait until one emerges. The next American bid should be a highly competitive one and the next American Games should be a success. Even if a mediocre bid were fortunate enough to be selected by the IOC, it would most likely result in mediocre Games. This would not benefit anyone. Better to wait and do it right.

[baron-pierreIV]

. I have always said that it is entirely possible that this will be the wisest course of action. There is no reason why the USA must bid. If there aren't any good summer or winter candidates, then the USOC should wait until one emerges.

But you DON'T know that. Shudda-cudda. Yeah, of course. People here postulate on possible bids--which is what this board and forum are all about. But you are the only one always saying -- if we disagree with you: "...well,we don't know that." Of course, we don't know that. But this board is for postulating and guessing possible bids...on likely scenarios that may move forward. I really wonder why you even come here because the discussion always ends with "...we don't know that." With that therefore, the discussion always redounds to... we DON'T KNOW anything. If all of us were to end up with that conclusion, then Rob might as well close shop and we all say goodbye. I mean what's there to discuss UNTIL something concrete happens? Makes one wonder how this board has lasted this long.

[baron-pierreIV]

You wrote "VERY FLAWED" in response to someone else's post -- not to mine.

I know I did...and I qualified myself.

[Quaker2001]

Good to see the rhetoric hasn't changed here one iota with regard to the Winter bid candidates from the United States. Let's recap..

We know there are 3 cities chomping at the bit (2 moreso than the 3rd.. we've heard more from Salt Lake and Reno/Tahoe than we have from Denver) that are like over-eager kids sitting with their hands raised waiting for the teacher to call on them. All 3 of them have upsides and have downsides.

Salt Lake has much of their infrastructure in place. Should the IOC change their tune, they could be a viable candidate. But of course, that's not the IOC's general line of thinking, so the recent hosting is a problem. And what do you do to differentiate a future SLC bid and offer something new.

Reno/Tahoe can offer a wonderful setting on the mountain side of things, but they're very much lacking on the city side (we'll get to the airport issue in a sec). It would be a tough sell to the citizens of Nevada and California to spend copious amounts of money on venues and infrastructure that might not be all that useful a week after the games end, and what's there in Reno already is less than ideal to hosting Winter Olympic competition (to put it mildly)

Denver is the opposite of Reno.. perfectly adequate to handle the city venues, but questions on what to do with the mountain venues. And, as always, the 800-pound gorilla in the room of how to guarantee funding for such a project, not to mention the NIMBY folks who may not be interested (not that most other potential hosts don't have similar issues).

So those are the options should the USOC pursue 2026. Pretty good bet that continental rotation will be favorable for them. Is it enough to overcome a few minor flaws? Probably. But it is enough for a flawed bid to defeat a more compelling candidate? Much tougher. That's what the USOC is up against. And I agree it's very possible that if the USOC doesn't like what they see for 2026 (and/or they find something they do like for 2024), they could easily sit it out entirely. After which we'd probably still be left with the same 3 cities.

Now to the airport/transportation issue, and I'm going to say it again.. you cannot view these candidates in a vacuum. This is a competition. If your plan is within the realm of acceptable but the city you're going up against has a better plan than you, who is going to win? Torino may have a small airport, but you also have Milan's airport nearby with connections to no less than 3 other continents and I would imagine is accessible by train. Athens mentioned Narita Airport with regard to Nagano. Distance-wise, I think that's a longer trip than Sacramento to Reno. But Narita is a major international gateway, and the high-speed rail line was there.

So what of the U.S. candidates? Salt Lake is a major hub for Delta and offers direct flights to Europe (they had 1 to Tokyo, but it got discontinued). Ditto for Denver with United Airlines and I believe they do have direct flights to both Europe and Asia. Sacramento has none of those. They are not a major gateway, so most folks would be better served making a connection somewhere else and then making a connection into Reno rather than making a connection to SMF and renting a car and driving.

Now could Reno expand its airport and increase capacity to ease the burden on travel for the Olympics? Of course. But that costs money and might not necessarily serve the city and surrounding area well. Salt Lake is planning a full-scale rebuild of their airport at a price tag of $1.8 billion. Why? Because they feel they need it, regardless of whether they attract an Olympics. That is what Reno is up against. They are not like Sochi who has $30 billion to spend on building a mini-city of sporting venues. They are not Pyeongchang who is building a new winter resort in hopes they'll be able to turn Korea into a Winter sports destination. Not that Denver and Salt Lake aren't in a similar boat, but being larger cities and having more infrastructure, it's an easier sell to them to invest in an Olympics.

This all is not to say that Reno should pack it in and give up. It is not inconceivable that they could land an Olympics. But if Denver and Salt Lake are out there offering more than Reno can offer, what's to entice the USOC to pick Reno, let alone the IOC? I just don't think a city of their size in the current economic climate (that part at least could change) is going to be the most compelling candidate the USOC can offer.