Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Indeed LA is spread out. The "Olympic Blvd" thing would take about an hour to traverse on foot, and the Valley Cluster is ~30mi away from the Stubhub's cluster (whereas from one end of Paris to the other would only be ~8mi).

In terms of the Metro/spectators, I know that it also takes quite a fair amount of time to travel public transportation, too. Especially with the light rails and buses. Like, on the Expo Line, the trains slow down to unbearable speeds during peak hours since they're right next to vehicular traffic. (They also don't have the right of way in some parts, which I'm not sure if that's very common in other places of the world?) Plus stations are rarely ever less than a block away from venues unless you're in the Downtown area. For buses, there are bus lanes, but there isn't enough enforcement on them to keep it strictly for buses, as lots of our road-raged drivers tend to enjoy swerving into those mostly-empty lanes. Needless to say, LA still has a lot of work to get done.

UCLA is a fairly centralized location, so I wouldn't think it'd be too much trouble to make an Olympic lane system branching from there (and maybe giving them a bit of a right of way when needed? ;) )

USC is smack dab in the hubub of the games and city, and based on my experiences there during the Special Olympics, it's probably going to be a traffic nightmare there :S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

, it's probably going to be a traffic nightmare there

Uhmm ... Olympic days in LA in 1984 and in Atlanta 1996 saw some of the most deserted days on the freeways around the city. The non-Olympic crowds just stayed home, away or deferred their non-Olympic business.

You guys just have to bone up on history. No need to reinvent the wheel.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhmm ... Olympic days in LA in 1984 and in Atlanta 1996 saw some of the most deserted days on the freeways around the city. The non-Olympic crowds just stayed home, away or deferred their non-Olympic business.

You guys just have to bone up on history. No need to reinvent the wheel.

And in 2024, compared to 1984 and 1996, how much easier is it for some people (not all, but certainly some) to work from him and telecommute and not deal with the traffic and the hassle. So that will be an option.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhmm ... Olympic days in LA in 1984 and in Atlanta 1996 saw some of the most deserted days on the freeways around the city. The non-Olympic crowds just stayed home, away or deferred their non-Olympic business.

You guys just have to bone up on history. No need to reinvent the wheel.

I never said the whole city would be a traffic nightmare. I'm just saying that a great deal of people would still commute via the cramped streets of Expo park to get there, even with their options.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said the whole city would be a traffic nightmare. I'm just saying that a great deal of people would still commute via the cramped streets of Expo park to get there, even with their options.

But even in the "crowded parts of the city," they did things like schedule deliveries for businesses at night -- after hours, like between 11pm - 5am. Of course, school is on vacation, so no need to worry about the school buses. As Quaker said, telecommuting will go into even higher gear moving forward, so, if there are crowds, it would probably be folks who come to the City to try the Olympic experience, whether they are going to an Oly event or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last Olympics with meaningful traffic problems was Lake Placid. Since then London, Beijing and other traffic nightmare cites have hosted without issue. The planners have gotten really good at this. LA will be fine.

If we're talking about transport problems rather than merely "traffic", then you're talking about Atlanta. Speaking of when planners hadn't gotten good at it yet. But as the rhetoric tends to go here, as long as LA doesn't do what Atlanta did (which is like saying "if Billy jumped off a bridge, would you jump off a bridge too?"), then yes, they'll be fine. The LA area is already pretty famous for traffic, so that's the baseline they're starting from anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The choice of campus housing seems like a Plan B to me. Not necessarily a bad one if they can get it to work and if it's of high quality, but still a Plan B. You can certainly fit an Agenda 2020 argument around its inclusion, but I think it'll be hard for LA supporters to be too boastful or dogmatic about it given that they were arguing a different case less than a month ago. Search this thread for the word "housing" and the talk two months ago was how LA's bid was going to help ease the housing shortage in the city. As long as spending isn't profligate - like Sochi - you can make an Agenda 2020 case out of almost any scenario! But if I were an LA citizen, I think I'd be wondering if this was a bit of a missed opportunity rather than a sensible saving.

The new NFL stadium is, of course, nothing but a huge bonus. If it's going to be put forward as host for the football finals it's following in the footsteps of Wembley and the Maracana beautifully (I assume, as with most modern NFL stadiums it won't be too cramped for soccer compared with some of the older ones).

As for transport, my experience at London 2012 was the opposite of what people (doommongers) expected. Trains were perfect and emptier than usual because people expected everywhere to be so busy. This has been true of other Games as well, from what I've read. It seems transport is something that the IOC/OCOGs have more or less mastered. LA will cope, I'm sure.

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The choice of campus housing seems like a Plan B to me. Not necessarily a bad one if they can get it to work and if it's of high quality, but still a Plan B. You can certainly fit an Agenda 2020 argument around its inclusion, but I think it'll be hard for LA supporters to be too boastful or dogmatic about it given that they were arguing a different case less than a month ago. Search this thread for the word "housing" and the talk two months ago was how LA's bid was going to help ease the housing shortage in the city. As long as spending isn't profligate - like Sochi - you can make an Agenda 2020 case out of almost any scenario! But if I were an LA citizen, I think I'd be wondering if this was a bit of a missed opportunity rather than a sensible saving.

Exactly - & even when Hamburg was still in the picture, & with all of its newly proposed construction projects (more than any of the other 2024 candidates), supporters were arguing how it still also fits inline with "agenda 2020".

And when you have back Bach acknowledging things like this:

Bach told LA 2024 officials, you have done a great job in thinking how, in line with Olympic Agenda 2020, you can link your great Olympic legacy with an even greater Olympic future. How you can build this future on the strong foundation you have.

You are a strong candidate and it is a great race of four excellent cities, trying to embrace Olympic Agenda 2020 from very different angles.

But he stopped short of favoring the U.S. bid as a frontrunner.

We now know wherever the Olympic Games take place in 2024 they will be great Games.

He added, we have finished our visits to the four candidate cities and therefore you see me very pleased. We have a fascinating competition ahead of us with four cities who can organize excellent Olympic Games in 2024.

Bach said, it will be up to the four different candidates to show their uniqueness and their strength. We at the IOC can relax and watch this great Olympic competition which is as competitive as an Olympic final, but with one big difference, there is only one medal, the gold medal.

The four candidates cities from all different angles are embracing the agenda and showing there is no one-size-fits-all solution. They are also showing you can be a candidate for the Olympic Games for very different reasons.

...then it makes arguments like this:

3. If IOC president Thomas Bach really wants Agenda 2020 to be relevant, here is a world city that, as he has put it, not only talks the talk but walks the walk. 4. This is the most-important host city election in the modern era, determining the course of future bids. If the IOC keeps rewarding stupidity and waste, you have to ask, seriously, about its direction.

...null & void, since it's then only a very subjective POV geared mainly towards your own preferential cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'For reference', I'm well aware that you were quoting an article. I didn't mean that it was a quote directly from you (but rather the POV of that article), & really I was quoting another post.

The article you speak of referenced Thomas Bach, so I then inserted excerpts from another (GB's) article where the interpretation isn't as clear-cut as from the one you posted.

As Bach concluded there, "agenda 2020" is not a "one-size fits-all solution", but rather a template. And therefore, all the 2024 candidates have the "unique" task in tailoring their bids that best fit *their* needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually really liked Paris' Logo, A lot of meaning packed into it. You get every motif that they're trying to convey without being overwhelmed by the image. Rome's wasn't bad as well. I hope LA comes up with something inspiring as well. Just to keep the momentum of good moves going. I must admit I was not a fan of the last 2 they designed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think LA should still build the Village at Piggyback Yards for all the UCLA and USC students who will be displaced by the athletes and media at their home dorms.

Would they still consider having classes open for the students during that summer though?

Because of the Olympics I wouldn't think that either school would hold summer classes for that year, so campus housing wouldn't be much of an issue. But there is always off-campus housing available that is in close proximity to the campus which could house summer school students. These are usually treated as regular apartments (signing a year lease) and aren't run by the school. With on-campus housing you're only there during the time of that semester you're registered for so you're not losing a place of your own since you're expected out of the place a day or two after the last day of finals.

But I don't think it's possible for these schools to balance both housing the Olympic athletes and media as well as have summer classes in session. These areas, specifically the athletes village, will be heavily secured and every single summer school student would have to get special clearance just to go to school. Sounds like a security nightmare.

If either of the schools could still have some summer classes without Olympic interference, it could be UCLA depending on when the games will take place. I'm looking at the academic calendars of both UCLA and USC and they are very different from each other. USC has one that I think is more common: fall semester starts late August and ends early December, spring semester starts early January and ends early May. Their summer session looks to be one long semester rather than broken down into two smaller sessions so summer classes during the Olympics at USC could be out of the question.

UCLA though has a weird schedule that has their academic calendar broken down to quarters. There is a winter quarter that starts early January and ends in mid-march. Because of this, spring quarter starts late march and ends early June. Their summer sessions are broken down to 2 6-week summer sessions, 1 10-week session and 1 8-week session. Their first 6-week session begins about the middle of June and ends in late July or early August. Their 2nd 6-week session starts days after that and ends in mid-September. And because of that, the fall quarter starts right after that last session and ends the beginning of December. Looks like if you only want to go to school for a fall and spring semester, go to UCLA because they are ridiculously short lol

UCLA would have to cancel all 8 and 10-week sessions of summer because of the games since they both will overlap. So if the Olympics started and ended in July, then UCLA could still hold their 2nd summer session during the Paralympics (which would take place 2 weeks later in August) and could provide student housing for that session since the amount of athletes and coaches participating in the Paralympics is half of the amount that participates at the regular Olympics. If they want to start everything in August, then they can still have the first 6-week summer session with little or no Olympic interference.

But I can't imagine they would want to have the Olympics and Paralympics linger on longer than late August because of college football. The Rose Bowl and Memorial Coliseum are the homes of the Bruins and Trojans and both teams start practicing in August. So they're going to want access of their stadiums regardless of what's going on.

And then you now have the LA Rams, and possibly the Chargers or Raiders in LA and NFL practice sessions start in July (usually taking place adjacent to the teams' stadium) and preseason games start in August. So if LA does win, the dates for the games should be very interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hadn't noticed it until I read this in this article, but Paris' new bid logo also looks like it reads LA and not just 24, haha.

Wow, you're right. :lol:

I love Paris' new logo, but accidentally spelling out the name of your main rival can't be a good omen.

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LA24 showcased it's 2024 Olympic plan this weekend when it held the 2016 Olymoic Trials. More here:

http://www.sportsfeatures.com/olympicsnews/story/52082/u.s.-olympic-marathon-team-trials-to-showcase-venues-in-la-2024-summer-olympics-bid

Running an elite Olympic-related marathon past the main proposed venues- yes, that's a smart value-added move.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LA24 showcased it's 2024 Olympic plan this weekend when it held the 2016 Olymoic Trials. More here:

http://www.sportsfeatures.com/olympicsnews/story/52082/u.s.-olympic-marathon-team-trials-to-showcase-venues-in-la-2024-summer-olympics-bid

Perhaps this is just an oversight but I noticed the article mentioned the runners passing the Staples Center and how it would be hosting basketball and a couple Paralympic sports. Interesting that gymnastics wasn't mentioned as well. Maybe its an oversight. Perhaps a new plan will reveal gymnastics has been relocated? City of Champions stadium perhaps?

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...