Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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 The state transportation plan that you linked was never fully funded and is out of date.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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Boston, Massachusetts is taking the first big steps towards looking into the feasibility of a Summer Games bid for the earliest year 2024. On Thursday, January 10, 2013, the MA State Senate file a Re

Oslo was an abortion - Boston is a miscarriage.

We prefer "Masshole" to "total douche".

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.

The people running the bid are educated businessmen and politicians. They know how to try and win over the pouplar vote, and thats by low-balling potential costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Seoul Stadium was actually built to hold over 100,000 people today it holds under 70k

and Montreal was 72,406

That is different. We are not saying it is a bad idea to downscale a stadium, but we are saying that it is unrealistic to have a 60,000 seat stadium for a US games in a major US city. Another thing you may notice is that those stadiums have only seen small drops in size, so if Boston wants a 60,000 seat stadium then they would should start out with an 80,000 seat stadium and then take off 20,000 seats.

One final note is that temporary stadiums are not as affordable as they sound. Sure they do not last forever, but they will still rack you up in the millions.

The people running the bid are educated businessmen and politicians. They know how to try and win over the pouplar vote, and thats by low-balling potential costs.

Well duh, but they still know nothing about the process or what to expect if they win. That is how they loose their jobs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, the idea of Boston hosting is really exciting, especially after all of this exposure. I guess LA has just been so quiet, I've kinda lost interest in them. Boston is, at least creating excitement and stir amongst this seemingly boring (ie quiet) race. The idea of reusing a historic stadium that itself has been used as one of the grand legacies of the games is certainly appealing. Boston's 60k seater may seem very malnourished when put up against it's previous Olympic predecessor's stadia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well duh, but they still know nothing about the process or what to expect if they win. That is how they loose their jobs.

No, you can't confirm that the people running this bid are clueless. If you want to say they have a lack of experience because they're first time bidders that is different, but we know they have a plan, and they've been working with the USOC for sometime now, and that leads me to believe that they know what to do should they win.

Not to mention, if people on Gamesbids can come to a decent understanding of the bid process, then shouldn't accomplished politicians and business men too?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you can't confirm that the people running this bid are clueless. If you want to say they have a lack of experience because they're first time bidders that is different, but we know they have a plan, and they've been working with the USOC for sometime now, and that leads me to believe that they know what to do should they win.

Not to mention, if people on Gamesbids can come to a decent understanding of the bid process, then shouldn't accomplished politicians and business men too?

Okay, well then they lack experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Are you working on the bid? :o

Anywho, This video won't load for me, but I'm assuming it has some valuable information (as I only watched the first minute or so of it) http://www.necn.com/news/politics/Mapping-the-Route-to-Boston-2024-278465991.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

. 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.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

It's not words (or votes) that count but actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand this budget

$4.5bn will cover the OCOG costs, and none will be left over for venue building from that. The income from tickets, sponsorships, merchandise and broadcasting will add up to about the same amount as it costs to put on the show.

$5bn is transport infrastrcture and according to the article that's already in the pipeline.

So where is the budget for venue construction?

Link to post
Share on other sites

These guys truly have no idea what they're talking about. The fact that the one guy proposed holding the Paralympics right after the Olympics is evidence of that. I really hope Boston loses so that we won't have to endure TeamRik's drivel for much longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you can't confirm that the people running this bid are clueless.

Not to mention, if people on Gamesbids can come to a decent understanding of the bid process, then shouldn't accomplished politicians and business men too?

Especially when some of the people on Gamesbids lately are teenage running "experts". :roll eyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you working on the bid? :o

Anywho, This video won't load for me, but I'm assuming it has some valuable information (as I only watched the first minute or so of it) http://www.necn.com/news/politics/Mapping-the-Route-to-Boston-2024-278465991.html

After watching that video I will not be able to handle those accents...there is a reason I stay away from NOLA unless I have to go.

Especially when some of the people on Gamesbids lately are teenage running "experts". :roll eyes:

I'm not an expert, but think nearly everyone here at Gamesbids can see that the Boston group is being WAY too optimistic or low balling everything for politics.

These guys truly have no idea what they're talking about. The fact that the one guy proposed holding the Paralympics right after the Olympics is evidence of that. I really hope Boston loses so that we won't have to endure TeamRik's drivel for much longer.

It is still a great city, it just needs some more people who know what they are talking about running the show.

I still don't understand this budget

$4.5bn will cover the OCOG costs, and none will be left over for venue building from that. The income from tickets, sponsorships, merchandise and broadcasting will add up to about the same amount as it costs to put on the show.

$5bn is transport infrastrcture and according to the article that's already in the pipeline.

So where is the budget for venue construction?

They are not going to say that budget because *hopefully* people in Boston and Mass. will calculate the cost and realize that it is not just going to be some quick and easy $4.5bn investment.

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.

That does not mean it will bring sweeping reform, judging that it had that much support then don't expect much change.

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...

Are you working on the bid? If you are then go and research some more. Your opposition is LA, two times host and the nations second largest city. It is home to the most historic Olympic Stadium that seats almost double the people Boston is proposing. The best part is that some of those larger venues already exist. When you have a great city like LA come up and a great city like Boston come up it is going to come down to the nitty-gritty details. For Boston this could be the difference between a win and a loose. So far Boston has given off a very Atlanta vibe to me, not only would the USOC stray from this but the IOC would too no matter the out come of Agenda 2020. LA on the other hand is offering up a very unique and modern games that would still be affordable and spread the legacy around the whole city. So do not be surprised come December when LA beats Boston.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and one more thing, Boston is being real damn shady with this. LA had a good plan in March of this year, it is October and according to planners the Boston plan is not finished? It will be finished in November and month before they get the nomination? Do you expect me to believe that they made it all this way by talking about how great the plan will be? To me it looks like they have everything planned, they are just keeping it under-wraps so there is not a huge dip in support before December. It seems like they are hiding costs, hiding plans, and waiting to get the nomination then come out and say what the plan will consist of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and one more thing, Boston is being real damn shady with this. LA had a good plan in March of this year, it is October and according to planners the Boston plan is not finished? It will be finished in November and month before they get the nomination? Do you expect me to believe that they made it all this way by talking about how great the plan will be? To me it looks like they have everything planned, they are just keeping it under-wraps so there is not a huge dip in support before December. It seems like they are hiding costs, hiding plans, and waiting to get the nomination then come out and say what the plan will consist of.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...