Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

That's something for the LA 2024 folks to worry about in the event baseball is added to the 2024 program.  Atlanta managed it with Fulton County Stadium in `96 as did the Dodgers in `84.  The Utah Jazz in 2002 spent nearly the entire month of February on the road to accommodate the Olympics.  If they have to do something similar with the Dodgers or Angels, they'll make it work.

Don't hold out hope for that one.  At this point, the odds of MLB shutting down for the Olympics are probably not as good as Rome landing 2024.  That the NHL is hesitant to commit to 2018 tells you all you need to know about how MLB would look at an Olympics, even in the United States.  It's been a necessary evil for hockey to lose those 2 weeks in February and the revenue they sacrifice to get that spotlight on the world stage in hopes of growing the sport.  They can more easily get away with it because they can still play a full schedule, something baseball wouldn't be able to do unless they moved those 2 weeks elsewhere.  Not to mentioned Olympic baseball wouldn't get the spotlight that Olympic hockey does.  Wouldn't be worth it for them.

Agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RuFF said:

LA reaches marketing agreement with USOC.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1041976/usoc-hail-marketing-agreement-with-la-2024-after-failed-new-york-and-chicago-bids

Something that I have been curious about. Apparently sporting federations are signing off on proposed LA2024 venues and as is obvious LA2024 is making changes to venues to accommodate the federations. As an example, Volleyball will be at the Honda Center should LA be awarded the games. While I don't post to the Paris thread I do read it. Is that something that competing bids are doing?  In the case of Paris specifically, does Paris have the ability to switch to other existing venues?

Kind of a big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Aquatic said:

You're nuts. And compulsive to boot. You've never read something in a magazine or a newspaper and tossed it down 'cause something you read you didn't like? Or thought it was stupid? Ridiculous? Really? And why do you interpret things to such extremes? And what significance does reading it in a newspaper have? Also, I actually lived in L.A. for over a decade. Did you? You're just as crazy here as others man. You really try to portray yourself as Mr. Know-it-all. Mr. I'm -So-Rational. But you're crazy. It's like you're yelling at eveyone and shaking your finger at them when you type. This place is a anylum of really....interesting people....and you're the leader.

So you think I'm the leader?  I wouldn't think that's true, but thank you!  I appreciate the flattery.  Actually, I think this place is more like a bad TV show high school than anything, but asylum works too.  We'll have to get you your inmate number.

Yea, I'm sure at some point I've reacted that way to something I've read.  But that's a pretty visceral response to something as innocuous as the selection of an Olympic host city, because most people wouldn't really give 2 shits about something like that.  But whatever.  I'm not trying to play psychiatrist here, just trying to get a little insight (and I'm not the only one on that boat, either).  No, I've never lived in LA.  Visited plenty of times and I know not everyone is a fan or urban sprawl.  If you want to dump on LA and extol the virtues of the Bay Area, go right ahead.  Maybe you're right that the USOC and the IOC would jump at a San Francisco Olympic bid.  But like you've said, that only applies if they have a solid, viable, supported bid.  Guess who has that right now.  And if LA doesn't get 2024 (which they probably won't), there's a pretty darn good chance they get 2028.  I have a feeling that's going to bother you for whatever reason and continue to make you question (your words here) "why the USOC has such desire to host anyway"  The answer to that one should be pretty obvious, particularly when we're talking about LA who - to use another school analogy - is maybe like that annoying kid in class that is always raising his hand that the teacher never calls on so that the other kids have a chance to answer.  That eagerness is probably going to land them another Olympics.  If the USOC wants another Olympics in the short term (even I would argue maybe that wasn't such a good thing so far as Atlanta was involved, but I don't have a personal stake in the USOC), it's more than likely going to be LA unless someone else gets their $hit together.

And you're right that I'm crazy.  Hang around here long enough and you'll be as crazy as the rest of us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

So you think I'm the leader?  I wouldn't think that's true, but thank you!  I appreciate the flattery.  Actually, I think this place is more like a bad TV show high school than anything, but asylum works too.  We'll have to get you your inmate number.

Yea, I'm sure at some point I've reacted that way to something I've read.  But that's a pretty visceral response to something as innocuous as the selection of an Olympic host city, because most people wouldn't really give 2 shits about something like that.  But whatever.  I'm not trying to play psychiatrist here, just trying to get a little insight (and I'm not the only one on that boat, either).  No, I've never lived in LA.  Visited plenty of times and I know not everyone is a fan or urban sprawl.  If you want to dump on LA and extol the virtues of the Bay Area, go right ahead.  Maybe you're right that the USOC and the IOC would jump at a San Francisco Olympic bid.  But like you've said, that only applies if they have a solid, viable, supported bid.  Guess who has that right now.  And if LA doesn't get 2024 (which they probably won't), there's a pretty darn good chance they get 2028.  I have a feeling that's going to bother you for whatever reason and continue to make you question (your words here) "why the USOC has such desire to host anyway"  The answer to that one should be pretty obvious, particularly when we're talking about LA who - to use another school analogy - is maybe like that annoying kid in class that is always raising his hand that the teacher never calls on so that the other kids have a chance to answer.  That eagerness is probably going to land them another Olympics.  If the USOC wants another Olympics in the short term (even I would argue maybe that wasn't such a good thing so far as Atlanta was involved, but I don't have a personal stake in the USOC), it's more than likely going to be LA unless someone else gets their $hit together.

And you're right that I'm crazy.  Hang around here long enough and you'll be as crazy as the rest of us!

Didn't even bother to read more than a couple sentences. I'm done with this whacked site filled with angry crazy people who also have personality defects. You're ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/24/2016 at 8:21 AM, FYI said:

Just read your edited post. And yeah, okay, now I get your point, since I've been to Vegas lol. 

Hehe!

And in regards to the Inland Empire, I'll give it this much---at least it's somehow not as gross as Phoenix. 

 

21 hours ago, FYI said:

Ah, yes, Stockholm. I would love to go there. The only place in Scandinavia I've been to is Copenhagen, which was great. Tivoii right in the city was cool going to. Although, I think Stockholm's best & last chance was for the 2004 Games. Like Athens & Budapest, Stockholm would probably be hard-pressed to host the Games these days (at least the Summer Olympics anyway. The Winter Olympics are another story). Not to mention, the people there literally don't want the Games. The Swedes were so against the 2004 bid that it made Boston 2024 look like a cakewalk. And thinking about that now, I'm surprised that they didn't drop the bid like the way of Hamburg, Rome, Oslo, Munich, etc.

However, I do remember reading at the time (& actually, the 2004 Olympic bid race was the first one that I followed), that Stockholm was the most ideal candidate outta all the 2004 candidates. The only problem (I remember reading)? Is that the Swedes don't want them at all. But yeah, Athens was the most fitting in the end. The Romans were actually quite cocky with their 2004 bid, so that most likely didn't help their cause in the end, either.

Yeah, from what it seemed, Stockholm's bid for 2004 was technically very good, but the only thing that held it back were Stockholmers themselves. 

Stockholm is a great city; many beautiful areas.  The people are really nice too, and laid back.  When I was there, I actually stayed with someone who was from there but we met here in LA; he let me stay with him at his apartment.  His family lived in a suburban area of Stockholm, which looked very ordinary, but it was still very interesting to me.  And even though it was a suburban area, like many cities in Europe, it still had excellent public transportation, rail and bus.  You can go into many small towns in Europe but it will still have at least one train station and bus service, whereas in the US, good luck if you don't have the use of a car if you live in a small town.

 

On 09/24/2016 at 8:23 AM, Quaker2001 said:

LA is trying to craft the best bid they can put together (and "best" is pretty subjective, especially when they're trying to play to the IOC's preferences).  The value in shifting things around is that it may give them a slightly better shot at winning.  Appeasing those international entities is pretty important when they are the ones who vote for the winner.

I suppose so.  I was hoping, though, that all the venues (minus the rowing venue) would stay within LA County; I'll admit I'm a little disappointed that some of the events had to "bleed" into Orange County.  At least it's in a part of OC that's still considered the immediate/main LA metro area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^I didn't know Switzerland was going to put in a bid for 2026; I guess somehow they feel obligated to, being that no European city wanted the Winter Games the last bid cycle? 

I suppose if LA loses 2024, maybe the USOC might want to put in a Winter Games bid for '26, which means the USOC will skip 2028... right?  Or not? 

I don't really follow Winter Olympic bidding, so I don't know if there have been other cities expressing an interest in 2026.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

Switzerland is talking about a bid for 2026. Then again, Switzerland is always talking about bidding. WE'll see if a bid actually comes through, survives a referendum, etc. 

As for the US, if Calgary indicates it isn't bidding for 2026, we would be fools not to bid with SLC. 

I think if the US loses 2024 and bids for 2026, it's possible that the USOC won't bid for 2028.  That's why I was never in that camp that some are in here of "if LA loses 2024, it'll bid for 2028."  It's all up to the USOC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being that LA2024 recently announced the Honda Center as a proposed venue, for shits and giggles, I thought I'd post some pictures of ARTIC (Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center) that I took in February of 2015, a few months after it opened.

I really do think it's a nice facility. 

10959365_10202629135328223_4922829114039

 

10991086_10202629146288497_5201030631775

 

10417739_10202629151568629_8637290353494

 

10991160_10202629155648731_6837098966994

 

11020785_10202629157768784_1862290223888

 

There's the Honda Center in the background.

10440281_10202629162368899_7669761540330

 

Bus bays, outside of the station, with a pedestrian bridge to the train platforms.

10294388_10202629174489202_5466146377836

 

The Angel Stadium sign.

10384682_10202629175289222_5921756682077

 

11002583_10202629168569054_8778837693398

 

A Metrolink train pulling into the station.

11018996_10202629169849086_3465221795337

 

10407826_10202629179129318_3257138260610

 

11001758_10202629178129293_2947187891908

 

10993442_10202629176569254_4803342605409

 

According to Wikipedia, Anaheim city officials originally projected a daily ridership of about 10,000, but a typical weekday sees about 2,400 riders with 3,900 during concerts and sporting events at the nearby venues.  I hate to say it, but I think the low usage/ridership is because of Orange County's very suburban car-oriented attitude when it comes to transportation.  Orange County has invested millions of dollars in widening freeways and creating HOV lanes, toll lanes and toll roads, but seems not to have invested much in the way of public rail transit.  A number of streetcar and light rail projects proposed over the years in Orange County have been voted down.  In contrast, LA County's Metro Rail system is expanding with a number of projects already in construction and in the pipeline.  And the gorgeous Union Station in downtown LA is very busy, even on weekends, and especially during the work week. 

BTW I took these photos on a Sunday, so the place looks even more empty of people. 

 

Edited by ejaycat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, ejaycat said:

I think if the US loses 2024 and bids for 2026, it's possible that the USOC won't bid for 2028.  That's why I was never in that camp that some are in here of "if LA loses 2024, it'll bid for 2028."  It's all up to the USOC. 

The USOC is obviously more interested in a Summer Olympics (& rightly so), than another Winter Olympics so soon after Salt Lake 2002. Hence, why their last three bids have all been summer Olympic bids. If the USOC losses 2024, they'd be foolish not to go up for 2028, when the opportunity would be ripe for a North American Olympics.

I'm sure that the USOC would start right away with a 2028 run (if they lost 2024) before they'd even consider 2026. If they didn't go for 2022, where a U.S. bid would've beat the pants off Beijing & Almaty in the end, then a run against a Calgary & strong Swiss bid would be a much more uphill battle. If anything, the USOC could after 2030 instead (even with or without a 2028 win). But I'm sure all of the USOC's efforts right now are on a Summer Olympic win first before anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ejaycat said:

^^^I didn't know Switzerland was going to put in a bid for 2026; I guess somehow they feel obligated to, being that no European city wanted the Winter Games the last bid cycle? 

I suppose if LA loses 2024, maybe the USOC might want to put in a Winter Games bid for '26, which means the USOC will skip 2028... right?  Or not? 

I don't really follow Winter Olympic bidding, so I don't know if there have been other cities expressing an interest in 2026.

43 minutes ago, ejaycat said:

I think if the US loses 2024 and bids for 2026, it's possible that the USOC won't bid for 2028.  That's why I was never in that camp that some are in here of "if LA loses 2024, it'll bid for 2028."  It's all up to the USOC. 

Odds are pretty slim the USOC will put in a bid for 2026.  They're heavily invested in this 2024 bid and they know if they lose, their odds of a win in 2028 are pretty good.  I can't see them reversing course and giving up on the Summer Olympics.

56 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

Switzerland is talking about a bid for 2026. Then again, Switzerland is always talking about bidding. WE'll see if a bid actually comes through, survives a referendum, etc. 

As for the US, if Calgary indicates it isn't bidding for 2026, we would be fools not to bid with SLC. 

Did baron steal your keyboard and start typing?  That's a really bad strategy.  2028 is being served up on a platter for the United States.  If Calgary isn't bidding for 2026, that probably means they're going to look to back Toronto for 2028.  Are we throwing LA out there again up against Toronto in hopes that the IOC will award the United States consecutive Olympics?  Not worth the chance.  Let someone else have 2026.  More important pursuits for the USOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I mentioned a little bit ago, if anything, the USOC could go after 2030 (with or without a 2028 win) instead. Much easier to get another Olympics if you've gotten your summer slot filled first then vice versa. Since the viable pickings for the Winter Olympics are what are getting harder & harder to come by these days for the IOC. But letting 2028 go by (if 2024 doesn't pan out) would be utterly foolish when the stars would be aligning very nicely for that North American win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is saying that. But the likelihood of that happening would be less since the Winter Games have traditionally been the easier of the two sets to get. So hence, a 2028/2030 combo would be likelier to acheive than a 2026/2028 one. Especially when you consider the two shitty options the IOC had in the end for the 2022 winter race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, it's really missing the point that the USOC isn't going to take that strategy this time around. Very doubtful they want to take a 2026 winter run, if a 2028 summer propect outlook looks much better. The USOC going after both set of Games simultaneously are likely long gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

I know we argue this way to often here, but I'll just point out that there is no reason to believe that the US getting the games in 2026 means we can't get them in 2028. 

It's not a matter of "can't."  How many times has it been pointed out that the IOC voters are fickle and they'll use any reason they want to not vote for a city?  A 2026 win doesn't change the odds of a 2028 win to 0% but it probably lowers it from whatever the numbers would have been otherwise.  And I think we'd both agree the odds of a 2028 win look like they could be pretty decent.  Remember also.. the decision whether or not to field a 2026 bid has to get started long before we know about Calgary.  So that's a tough way to go at it.

Here's another question for you.. if you think the USOC would be fools for not bidding for 2026 in the absence of a Calgary bid, would that logic still apply if LA wins 2024?  Because if you think a 2026 win wouldn't preclude a 2028 win, wouldn't the same logic same that a 2024 win wouldn't mean they can't win 2026?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Here's another question for you.. if you think the USOC would be fools for not bidding for 2026 in the absence of a Calgary bid, would that logic still apply if LA wins 2024?  Because if you think a 2026 win wouldn't preclude a 2028 win, wouldn't the same logic same that a 2024 win wouldn't mean they can't win 2026?

Of course. Even more so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would only make sense if both Calgary & Switzerland don't actually bid in the end. But that's far from a given at this early point in the game. The USOC would have to start the 2026 process now, like Calgary & Switzerland are doing ATM. And again, right now, the USOC's MAIN focus is a Summer Olympics rather than play around with a winter bid. So 2026 is a moot point, really, as far as the USOC is concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So L.A has made some changes to their venue plan. Any chance they might consider slalom canoeing at the Raging Water Park like they did for their 2016 bid? I never saw the specifics for the concept but it would seem to be a lot cheaper than constructing a new course in the Sepulveda Basin. Those whitewater canoeing courses are among the most expensive and difficult to find a proper legacy use for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how long it will take for the letters to take hold in everyday use. In New York, BRT, IRT, IND were still used by people 30-40 years after they were officially obsolete. In Moscow, each line has a name (that nobody uses) and a number (that some people use) but are usually referred to in conversation by map color. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zekekelso said:

I wonder how long it will take for the letters to take hold in everyday use. In New York, BRT, IRT, IND were still used by people 30-40 years after they were officially obsolete. In Moscow, each line has a name (that nobody uses) and a number (that some people use) but are usually referred to in conversation by map color. 

In Mexico, they use a Combination of Colors, Numbers, and Shapes.

There is still a seizable population of Mexican's that do not speak or read Spanish, and so relying solely on Spanish won't be enough.

They use shapes and pictures for the station stops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, JesseSaenz said:

Metro released a draft of the proposed changes to the map adopting a letter system much like NY's and SF's.

Whether or not LA wins the 2024 bid, this is what we can expect the Metro Rail Map to look like in Los Angeles.

2020 is when they expect to completely convert over to this new system.

I know I'll continue to call the Gold Line through Pasadena "the Gold Line" for a while.  In fact, I'll admit I was disappointed when I learned that once the Regional Connector is completed, the Pasadena leg of the Gold Line will become the Blue Line.  I try not to be classist, but the Blue Line has such a negative connotation.  And it's a fact that many people (myself included) have had unpleasant experiences (to put it politely) on the Blue Line in those areas south of downtown LA and north of Long Beach.  

Once the Metro system changes to the lettered designations, I guess Metro will have to spend a lot of money changing the signage on all the platforms, as well as the pylons on the outside of the stations.  

Edited by ejaycat
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...