Rob2012 Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 So the $4.5bn will be OCOG, the $5bn mentioned in the article is purely for transport. Which begs the question, how much is being budgeted for venue construction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquaman617 Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Ding Ding... that is correct Sir... and they made it pretty clear this will not becoming a public debt. I think you're confusing the situation. The $5b in infrastructure cited is most certainly coming from public debt (the $13b transport bill was passed thru state-issued bonds, aka public debt). But it is not public debt incurred for the purpose of hosting a Games. It is infrastructure funds already dedicated to a section of the city where the planning committee plans on placing venues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 So strange looking budget, and also this.... Normally, the Paralympics, which are held adjacent to the Olympics, are scheduled for two weeks afterward, due to alterations that have to be made to venues. However, O'Connell posited that a unique feature of the Boston bid would be to hold the Paralympics immediately after the Olympics ended, hopefully giving a more equal amount of media coverage to both events. http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2014/10/18/boston-2024-olympic-bid-details-budget-olympic-stadium-site-in-boston-marty-walsh-role-in-ioc-bid/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 A Boston Games could cost $7.75 bil. With a halfway decent Oly Stadium, I'd say $8.5 is a conservative estimate. So strange looking budget, and also this.... Normally, the Paralympics, which are held adjacent to the Olympics, are scheduled for two weeks afterward, due to alterations that have to be made to venues. However, O'Connell posited that a unique feature of the Boston bid would be to hold the Paralympics immediately after the Olympics ended, hopefully giving a more equal amount of media coverage to both events. http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2014/10/18/boston-2024-olympic-bid-details-budget-olympic-stadium-site-in-boston-marty-walsh-role-in-ioc-bid/ That guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamRik Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofan Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Boston's downtown core is quite small in area, which could work to it's advantage. These could be "walkable" Games. And gee, it'd really suck for these guys if they don't get the USOC nom. They're putting a hell of a lot of exposure on their plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khouseman1986 Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 I agree that 5bn and 4.5 are low numbers but the point of this initial info is to win public support and the usoc selection and after that they can revise the number higher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intoronto Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 So a Boston bid would cost less then what Oslo proposed for the 2022 Games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamRik Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquaman617 Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 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 That's not true. There is a $13b cost for the state-wide transportation bill, $5b of which will be spent in the Olympic zone. $5b is direct public cost. Now, there is no direct public outlay FOR the Olympics, it is money that will be spent in that neighborhood anyhow, but you cannot say that $5b spent on transit (which will end up helping a Games) does not have to be repaid by the taxpayers of Massachusetts. It absolutely does. I understand your enthusiasm, but don't pretend there will be no cost to taxpayers. There will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 That's not true. There is a $13b cost for the state-wide transportation bill, $5b of which will be spent in the Olympic zone. $5b is direct public cost. Now, there is no direct public outlay FOR the Olympics, it is money that will be spent in that neighborhood anyhow, but you cannot say that $5b spent on transit (which will end up helping a Games) does not have to be repaid by the taxpayers of Massachusetts. It absolutely does. I understand your enthusiasm, but don't pretend there will be no cost to taxpayers. There will be. And if a 60,000 seat temporary plan is essential to maintaining a small budget then they are in for a rude awakening when LA gets the nomination. I'm not saying that having 80,000 seats will be a very important but when two equally good plans (Boston from the looks is shaping up to be pretty nice and on par in a different way with LA) become the best options the smaller things like stadium capacity will factor in. From a legacy perspective 60,000 seems great, but from a ticket sales and TV view point 80,000 is more desirable. Boston's downtown core is quite small in area, which could work to it's advantage. These could be "walkable" Games. And gee, it'd really suck for these guys if they don't get the USOC nom. They're putting a hell of a lot of exposure on their plans. This is true, and it is a beautiful downtown. That is one thing I love about the idea of having a "walkable" Games, and it is something Boston could pull off. The only three US cities I could see pulling that off would be DC, Chicago, and New Orleans. I think the exposure is just a result of a city that is more in touch and dependent on voter approval/collaboration then other cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquaman617 Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 And if a 60,000 seat temporary plan is essential to maintaining a small budget then they are in for a rude awakening when LA gets the nomination. I'm not saying that having 80,000 seats will be a very important but when two equally good plans (Boston from the looks is shaping up to be pretty nice and on par in a different way with LA) become the best options the smaller things like stadium capacity will factor in. From a legacy perspective 60,000 seems great, but from a ticket sales and TV view point 80,000 is more desirable. This is true, and it is a beautiful downtown. That is one thing I love about the idea of having a "walkable" Games, and it is something Boston could pull off. The only three US cities I could see pulling that off would be DC, Chicago, and New Orleans. I think the exposure is just a result of a city that is more in touch and dependent on voter approval/collaboration then other cities. Honestly, though I support a Boston bid, an 80,000 seat stadium would be better. That said, Tokyo's stadium plan for 2020 is, I believe, around 55,000. Barcelona was in the 70,000 range, Montreal's stadium was around 60,000, Seoul's around 65,000. I always thought the USOC choice would come down to LA v. Boston because they are so different in style. While LA re-uses the Colosseum, it's plan is very spread out and very car dependent. Boston would lack a permanent stadium like LA would have, but all of its venues (save one or two) would be within a four mile radius and completely accessible by public transport or within walking distance of key tourism locales and transport hubs. LA presents a very west coast bid, Boston presents a very east coast bid. An interesting contrast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquaman617 Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 I stand corrected. I just read that Tokyo's plan was to increase it's 55k seater to an 80k seater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binary Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 Honestly, though I support a Boston bid, an 80,000 seat stadium would be better. That said, Tokyo's stadium plan for 2020 is, I believe, around 55,000. Barcelona was in the 70,000 range, Montreal's stadium was around 60,000, Seoul's around 65,000. at the time of the olympics tokyo will be 80k, and montreal was also at 80k as was seoul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 "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. I find it hard to believe they'll be able to hold to that promise. The actual costs of hosting the Olympics are probably going to be greater than what they initially project (inevitably, that's what almost always happens), so I'm curious where that money would come from. It's very foolish to think that Boston could host an Olympics and the city/state wouldn't be on the hook for any of it. Particularly if they think they can get this all done (minus pre-planned infrastructure improvements) for $5 billion. Athens spent double that and that was an Olympics that will have occurred 20 years prior. London spent more than double that. I find it hard to believe that Boston thinks they can do this for less money than previous hosts and that revenues from private sources and Games-related income (i.e. television revenue and ticket sales) will cover the entire budget. If that were the case, we probably wouldn't be seeing this backlash from Western European countries balking at the prospect of bidding for an Olympics. And keep in mind that Boston has to bid and win the vote to host the Olympics before they can start talking about all this money that the IOC is going to provide them. If it were that simple, a lot of cities would probably show more interest in hosting the Olympics. Now let me state one thing here. Most of us here are, at best, armchair experts on these sorts of manners. I'm not trying to imply that the folks running this committee and those reporting on it don't know what we're doing and that somehow they're missing some obvious points that we're bringing up here. But I've said it before and I'll say it again.. it's a lot easier putting all this on paper than it is actually putting plans in motion and convincing the USOC and then eventually the IOC to select Boston's plan as they one they want for 2024. Ok I really can't stand these new Boston guys. Am I the only one who feels that way? Go back to page 4 of this thread and I think you'll find your answer to that question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamRik Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 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.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proposition Joe Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamRik Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 at the time of the olympics tokyo will be 80k, and montreal was also at 80k as was seoul. The Seoul Stadium was actually built to hold over 100,000 people today it holds under 70k and Montreal was 72,406 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khouseman1986 Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 i think that there will be a separate bond bill to cover the olympics on top of the 13bn coming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamRik Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khouseman1986 Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 Well then maybe you should read the bill? All of those things are to be completed by 2017... 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamRik Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khouseman1986 Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 im not saying that they arent doing good things im just saying that the t has some big projects that wont be done before the end of 2017 and u forgot the glx (green line extension) beverly scott has said that the t needs to a new signal system if we want to be able to put on service that would be needed for the olympics also i think they should be doing more i have a feeling that the option for the red line cars will be. the t will purchase more then 30 dmus espically if the olympics r coming because dmus will basically be an olympic line for the most part when and if the olympics come to boston. lastly the green line cars will need to replaced by the time olympics would be coming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proposition Joe Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 Well then maybe you should read the bill? All of those things are to be completed by 2017... 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 I find it hard to believe they'll be able to hold to that promise. The actual costs of hosting the Olympics are probably going to be greater than what they initially project (inevitably, that's what almost always happens), so I'm curious where that money would come from. It's very foolish to think that Boston could host an Olympics and the city/state wouldn't be on the hook for any of it. Particularly if they think they can get this all done (minus pre-planned infrastructure improvements) for $5 billion. Athens spent double that and that was an Olympics that will have occurred 20 years prior. London spent more than double that. I find it hard to believe that Boston thinks they can do this for less money than previous hosts and that revenues from private sources and Games-related income (i.e. television revenue and ticket sales) will cover the entire budget. If that were the case, we probably wouldn't be seeing this backlash from Western European countries balking at the prospect of bidding for an Olympics. And keep in mind that Boston has to bid and win the vote to host the Olympics before they can start talking about all this money that the IOC is going to provide them. If it were that simple, a lot of cities would probably show more interest in hosting the Olympics. Now let me state one thing here. Most of us here are, at best, armchair experts on these sorts of manners. I'm not trying to imply that the folks running this committee and those reporting on it don't know what we're doing and that somehow they're missing some obvious points that we're bringing up here. But I've said it before and I'll say it again.. it's a lot easier putting all this on paper than it is actually putting plans in motion and convincing the USOC and then eventually the IOC to select Boston's plan as they one they want for 2024. Go back to page 4 of this thread and I think you'll find your answer to that question It's not that they do not know what they are doing, but that many of them have not studied the games as in depth as we have until now. I'm sure most people in that group are at best casual experts in the entire ordeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.