Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It's not just the sliding track a proposed Denver bid would need to use. They'd likely have to use the ski jump complex as well, maybe even the speed skating oval. Is there really a need for another ski jumping complex in Colorado or another speed skating oval? Then Denver needs a second 10,000+ arena. The only arena in Colorado above 10,000 capacity other than the Pepsi Center is the Coors Event Center in Boulder which is a basketball arena and not equipped for ice hockey. While the IOC is open to regional bids, if there's the opportunity for a compact and feasible bid, I would think both the USOC and the IOC would choose it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nacre said:

It is still over four hours each way flying. (30 minutes to Denver airport, 90 minutes waiting for your flight, 80 minutes flying, and 50 minutes driving to Park City.) And that's if there's a flight at the exact moment you want one.

Olympic officials and Olympic family would have express flights pretty much like the express Olympic lanes they propose on freeways.  So, it's not like athletes, press and officials would have to thru that wait.  Fans, on the other hand, would be advised to just stay @ Park City.  But your arguments are weak in that they would center a been there/done that* ad because of a sliding track.  By 2026/30/34,  bobsledding and luge may not even be CRUCIAL WOG sports anymore considering the impediments they are giving viable bids.  

*yeah, FYI, LA is a been there/done that bid -- except a Summer Games is like 4x bigger than a WOG, so a huge metropolis has most of the moving parts that a SOG would require vs. a bobsled track (which is just one of the 13 or 14 sports in the present WOG repertoire -- and it's not even among the TOP 6 crowd draws or attracts the biggest TV numbers.  So, in the scheme of changing things, bobsledding/luge/skeleton are, in my view, rather tenuous winter sports.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, stryker said:

It's not just the sliding track a proposed Denver bid would need to use. They'd likely have to use the ski jump complex as well, maybe even the speed skating oval. Is there really a need for another ski jumping complex in Colorado or another speed skating oval? Then Denver needs a second 10,000+ arena. The only arena in Colorado above 10,000 capacity other than the Pepsi Center is the Coors Event Center in Boulder which is a basketball arena and not equipped for ice hockey. While the IOC is open to regional bids, if there's the opportunity for a compact and feasible bid, I would think both the USOC and the IOC would choose it.

Then why hasn't the USOC tamped down Denver's Olympic dreams once and for all, if one were to go by your argument?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to host just figure out how to build it or buzz off. Can afford it...to bad....there's always Almaty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just remembered one thing and there's always a precedent.  Squaw Valley 1960 played out WITHOUT Luge/Bobsled events.  And the IOC allowed it.  

Latest image of the Official entrance to the bustling metropolis of Lake Placid, NY.  Population: 1,000,000.  Errrr, take away the last three zeroes.  Ready to welcome at least 80,000 visitors, athletes and Olympic family for another 17 days of fun and games.  

Image may contain: sky, cloud, tree and outdoor

It should co-host with Squaw Valley - two megalopolises capable of hosting!! 

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not so sure that Denver would need to build much. 

Considering how spread out the games have become it shoud be remember that there are 127m and 100m hills at Steamboat Springs which is 150 miles approximately from Denver. There are a number of existing arenas in and around Denver and Colorado Springs including the Broadmoor World Arena, the Pepsi Center, Magness Arena, Denver Coliseum and without doubt a speed skating track could be designed with an alternative future use plan.

And there is considerable thought going into the development of temporary bobsleigh tracks

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gromit said:

Considering how spread out the games have become it shoud be remember that there are 127m and 100m hills at Steamboat Springs which is 150 miles approximately from Denver. There are a number of existing arenas in and around Denver and Colorado Springs including the Broadmoor World Arena, the Pepsi Center, Magness Arena, Denver Coliseum and without doubt a speed skating track could be designed with an alternative future use plan.

The Olympics have only been spread out in the sense of having separate ice and snow events, and for that you need separate villages at each site. Vancouver's games had two clusters, but each was tightly packed. The events in Vancouver were all in the greater downtown area. You can compare it to traveling from Greenwich Village to Harlem: they are both in Manhattan, just at different ends of it.

Using Colorado Springs and Steamboat Springs would require separate athletes villages in those places and would be an enormous PITA for the organizers, fans, IOC, NOC officials, etc.

1 hour ago, gromit said:

And there is considerable thought going into the development of temporary bobsleigh tracks

It would only be possible to build a temporary structure in a location cold enough for a natural track. Vail is too warm for a natural track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nacre said:

It would only be possible to build a temporary structure in a location cold enough for a natural track. Vail is too warm for a natural track.

Surely, you/they've heard of refrigeration?   I can't believe that the USA CANNOT find creative ways of financing even a temporary bobsleigh track, maybe in the $60 million range, that will NOT look like an extravagant waste of money.  Surely, it's something they can donate to some 3rd world nation afterwards -- like, Jamaica, for example??  :lol:  J/k.  How about sending it to NZ or Oz afterwards??  That would make it look like it had paid for itself.  

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nacre said:

The Olympics have only been spread out in the sense of having separate ice and snow events, and for that you need separate villages at each site. Vancouver's games had two clusters, but each was tightly packed. The events in Vancouver were all in the greater downtown area. You can compare it to traveling from Greenwich Village to Harlem: they are both in Manhattan, just at different ends of it.

Using Colorado Springs and Steamboat Springs would require separate athletes villages in those places and would be an enormous PITA for the organizers, fans, IOC, NOC officials, etc.

Beijing and ZhYankeeJoe are 164km apart as the crow flies.  There's an  old adage -- beggars can't be choosy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Surely, you/they've heard of refrigeration?

The refrigeration equipment is the expensive part and requires a concrete supporting structure.

2 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Beijing and ZhYankeeJoe are 164km apart as the crow flies.

Yes, and the Chinese will build two Olympic villages and a high speed train connecting them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Nacre said:

Yes, and the Chinese will build two Olympic villages and a high speed train connecting them.

Exactly - & Coloradans will balk at all of that. Like I said earlier, Colorado ain't China. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Nacre said:

The refrigeration equipment is the expensive part and requires a concrete supporting structure.

Or, as I said, they can DISPENSE with the sport completely.  There ARE OPTIONS when there is an attractive ANCHOR city and there are ways around the bobsleigh run.

Quote

Yes, and the Chinese will build two Olympic villages and a high speed train connecting them.

It's CREATIVE solutions to the unique geographical challenges posed by the WOGs that will win the day.  The IOC is now open to those.  The old paradigm, esp. for the WOGs, is no longer an absolute.  All the more so, when there are NO other bidders. 

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Denver could just as easy be part of those 'NO other bidders'. At this point, SLC is to the Winter Olympics what L.A. is to the Summer Olympics in the U.S. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FYI said:

And Denver could just as easy be part of those 'NO other bidders'. At this point, SLC is to the Winter Olympics what L.A. is to the Summer Olympics in the U.S. 

Then what's the attraction for the IOC to do still another been there-done that thing?    What will the Village for another SLC WOG be?  

How will it hold up against Sion (never hosted)?  Innsbruck (last hosted in 1976)?  Ezerum (never hosted)?  Calgary (last hosted in 1988)?  Almaty (never hosted)?  On that score, SLC would be at the bottom of the list, so why even bother for the USOC to put it up again?   While the IOC may have to go with the been there/done that factor with the summer host cities because the SOGs are like 4x the size of the WOGs, it is then with the WOGs, even if the IOC had only 3 different bidders, where the IOC can go back to being a little picky in "bringing the Games to new places" in the hopes of spreading the growth of winter sports.  And that is where Denver would have the decisive edge over an SLC. 

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once upon a time, not THAT long ago actually, when the GamesBids Bid Index was still a regular feature of the bid races, one of the factors that was always very heavily weighted in their scores and reckoning was how recently a particular city or country or area had hosted a games. New frontiers always had a, quite largish, head start on that reckoning over more recently hosting cities and locals.

Now, yes, we are in a different era. The Bid Index was not really of much use in the past couple of races. The tide has turned, both fairly and unfairly, in public perceptions of the Olympics. The IOC has found itself in a position where it has needed to go to some safer, more assured options that shouldn't paint any story of profligacy or over-ambition. This has come in tandem with the efforts of NOCs wanting to bid, and finding that domestically they must now appease a more sceptical populace and are thus forced to put forward cities where the games would be less of a cost an infrastructure burden. In many cases this naturally means more recent hosts with the facilities in place. Both trends together has meant we are now looking at a sequence of repeat hosts in the 2020s and not much sign of any new locales that might make the grade, put their hand up.

And, yes, there's obviously benefits to improving the image of the games in that. And as I said, domestically, that's easier to sell these days to a home populace you are wanting to get behind a bid. But there seems to be a growing perception here that these are now the only possible bids. And while it may be inevitable that we're going to get a lot more repeat hosts in the future, that would be a trend that would start bringing diminishing rewards and may not be sustainable either in the long term. Having hosted a games in recent times does not automatically mean it's easy to do it again in the short term. Sydney probably couldn't do it again without major investment. London's 2012 plan is now really applicable any more. Paris said all along in the latest race that their plan really couldn't be adapted post 2024. The IOC would found itself in another major dilemma if it  found that its future options were a continually cycle between, say, LA, Beijing, Lillehammer and SLC. They will need new blood eventually, not just to realise their stated goal to spread the games to as many people and countries as possible, but also to ensure there are more options to choose from in the future.

Now, I've got no idea if a Denver bid would ever fly domestically. It may well be too difficult a sell to get the people of Denver behind it. It may well play better in US domestic circles and the USOC to see SLC's facilities get another spin. But, IF Denver could put forward a solid, reputable and supported bid, I'd be willing to bet it would stand a better chance in the international contest and in the minds of the IOC than SLC again. It maybe even would be enough to edge out competitors like Innsbruck or Lillehammer. Just saying, that at some point, if or when a "new frontier" host can come forward, it would offer some great attraction to the IOC.

As to the notion of the sliding track. C'mon, if the IOC has shown anything concrete from Agenda 2020, it's that they ARE willing to be a bit more flexible on such things, and especially the bob run. It was the IOC that tried to push the Koreans to using Nagano's facilities and the Koreans that knocked that back out of pride (and contracts signed already). You can bet your bottom dollar they're not going to put their noses up at European bids that use such existing facilities, even in different/neighbouring countries (indeed, they'll even start singing the virtues of that if it helps their image problems). If push came to shove, they probably would suggest or insist to the US that if it put Denver up, they should use the existing Utah sled track. Organising a separate village for a few hundred athletes and coaches and staff at most for one sport would be a far less onerous task than putting up a whole new facility. And they're not that adverse to widespread facilities - they're already getting used to big geographical splits between ice and mountain events. Have lived with sailing being a movable feast for years. Don't scream too much if events like equestrian at Beijing Hong Kong, or archery at Athens Olympia get moved around. They like football going to the wider nation beyond the host city. It's not a deal breaker or insurmountable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Then what's the attraction for the IOC to do still another been there-done that thing?   

Cost effectiveness in an era where many ("new") cities are now giving the IOC the cold shoulder; i.e. Boston, Hamburg, Budapest, Krakow. And even other been-there, done-thats like Rome (twice now), Oslo, Stockholm & Munich.

39 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

How will it hold up against Sion (never hosted)?  Innsbruck (last hosted in 1976)?  Ezerum (never hosted)?  Calgary (last hosted in 1988)?  Almaty (never hosted)?  On that score, SLC would be at the bottom of the list, so why even bother for the USOC to put it up again?  

I never claimed that SLC would hold it's own against Sion & Innsbruck. You're missing (or want to) the point, cuz that's not what this is about (& please, the IOC isn't going to no despot site if they have a very qualified & proven "been-there, done that" candidate on the table).

You're the one who initially used SIZE "against" SLC in favor for Denver, but guess what? Sion & Innsbruck are even SMALLER. And furthermore, Denver wouldn't be able to hold their own over Sion & Innsbruck either. In a race where those two (or just one of them) winter European cities survive their respective referendums, they'll be in the drivers seat for the 2026 race no matter who the U.S. candidate is (if the USOC even bids TBW). 

51 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

While the IOC may have to go with the been there/done that factor with the summer host cities because the SOGs are like 4x the size of the WOGs, it is then with the WOGs, even if the IOC had only 3 different bidders, where the IOC can go back to being a little picky in "bringing the Games to new places" in the hopes of spreading the growth of winter sports.  And that is where Denver would have the decisive edge over an SLC. 

You want to make this into a SLC vs Denver "size" battle (which this really isn't about that). But in a hypothetical 2026 race between (tiny) Sion, (been-there, done-that) Innsbruck & ("big & new") Denver, guess which one the IOC is going to pick there? It sure won't be Denver. And that's if Denver even wants to go through with all this in the end, & which I'm not necessarily convinced at this point that they are ready, willing & politically able to tackle the Winter Olympic Bull by the Horns. And there lies the rub, & which you want to conveniently just ignore & make this totally about something else, which in the end, won't matter anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, FYI said:

1.  Cost effectiveness in an era where many ("new") cities are now giving the IOC the cold shoulder; i.e. Boston, Hamburg, Budapest, Krakow. And even other been-there, done-thats like Rome (twice now), Oslo, Stockholm & Munich.

2. I never claimed that SLC would hold it's own against Sion & Innsbruck. You're missing (or want to) the point, cuz that's not what this is about (& please, the IOC isn't going to no despot site if they have a very qualified & proven "been-there, done that" candidate on the table).

You're the one who initially used SIZE "against" SLC in favor for Denver, but guess what? Sion & Innsbruck are even SMALLER. And furthermore, Denver wouldn't be able to hold their own over Sion & Innsbruck either. In a race where those two (or just one of them) winter European cities survive their respective referendums, they'll be in the drivers seat for the 2026 race no matter who the U.S. candidate is (if the USOC even bids TBW). 

You want to make this into a SLC vs Denver "size" battle (which this really isn't about that). But in a hypothetical 2026 race between (tiny) Sion, (been-there, done-that) Innsbruck & ("big & new") Denver, guess which one the IOC is going to pick there? It sure won't be Denver. And that's if Denver even wants to go through with all this in the end, & which I'm not necessarily convinced at this point that they are ready, willing & politically able to tackle the Winter Olympic Bull by the Horns. And there lies the rub, & which you want to conveniently just ignore & make this totally about something else, which in the end, won't matter anyway.

 

1. Well, guess what?  Per their new papers, the IOC is prepared to contribute $925 mil to whichever of the new WOG host cities would be.  

2.  Semantics.  You're twisting the whole argument - didn't say this/didn't say that.  I think the earliest the US might get a Winter Games might be 2030 -- if there are NO other viable bidders, in which case it doesn't matter which city the USOC puts forward.  But again, like this year, if say, it's Sion and Calgary are the only ones left for 2026, then the IOC might lock the 2 in for 26 and 32, if all the stars align.  

3.  And you know that odds that the USOC won't first put Denver as its first candidate because . . . you've read your tea leaves??  You're usually spot on with your deductions (that align with mine) but I really don't understand where your reasons for deduction in this hypothetical USOC WOG candidate race fall.  

The 2 biggest drawbacks for an SLC repeat candidacy which I see are:

- they're NOT the only US winter city with possibilities; as has been bruited about by reports, the USOC has at least 2 other sites (not counting Anchorage or even Boise)

- can their University accept more dorms for another 4,000 students?  Will BYU project that large a growth over when these Games may happen again?

If there are satisfactory responses to those 2 impediments, then I might agree that SLC has the strongest chance of being the repeat USOC candidate.  If not, then I really discount their chances.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

1. Well, guess what?  Per their new papers, the IOC is prepared to contribute $925 mil to whichever of the new WOG host cities would be.  

They were prepared to give $880 million for the 2022 host, but Oslo (Munich & Krakow) still said 'thanks, but no thanks'.

12 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

2.  Semantics.  You're twisting the whole argument - didn't say this/didn't say that. 

This is extremely rich coming from the one who just a few years who was so ADAMANT that a Denver bid would be "DOA" due to their 1976 rejection faux-paux. But now you're so GUNG-HO for the Colorado capital. Talk about "twisting" their arguments now! :P

16 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

2a. I think the earliest the US might get a Winter Games might be 2030 -- if there are NO other viable bidders, in which case it doesn't matter which city the USOC puts forward.  But again, like this year, if say, it's Sion and Calgary are the only ones left for 2026, then the IOC might lock the 2 in for 26 and 32, if all the stars align.  

Not too much of an argument there, at least in another hypothetical double-lock anyway. Although, I think Sion is still more iffy than Innsbruck at this point. And Calgary is also on a bit of shaky ground, too.

20 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

3.  And you know that odds that the USOC won't first put Denver as its first candidate because . . . you've read your tea leaves??  You're usually spot on with your deductions (that align with mine) but I really don't understand where your reasons for deduction in this hypothetical USOC WOG candidate race fall.  

Bcuz Utah now is more ready, willing & politically motivated to do so. That's not to say that Colorado also couldn't be all those things, but at this point, I see SLC like I saw L.A. back in 2013 for the 2024 candidate (a city with the least amount of push back due to several factors), & despite where some would argue that "we just don't know" who is out there that couldn't come out to bid. But if one actually read the "tea leaves" without too much ambivalence back then, then it shouldn't have been too hard to figure it out. I see not too much difference in this instance, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, FYI said:

This is extremely rich coming from the one who just a few years who was so ADAMANT that a Denver bid would be "DOA" due to their 1976 rejection faux-paux. But now you're so GUNG-HO for the Colorado capital. Talk about "twisting" their arguments now! :P

Back then, Denver's history would be a huge black mark because the IOC and USOC had many cities to choose from.  But events of the last 2 years have twisted things around, including how the IOC is left with crumbs.  I say Denver's chances increase because there's a whole new set of factors @ play, both within the domestic wannabees' chances; and how the foreign competition will play out.  If the IOC weren't strapped for bidders, then yes, I would discount Denver; but if the city and with the USOC behind them, showed a new and convincing resolve, I would pick them OVER a smaller SLC to be the next possible US Winter candidate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I do NOT disagree with any of that. But the IOC being left with very little to choose from these days has, in itself, very little to do with what the actual PEOPLE of Colorado may want (or in this case, may *not* want), & again, THAT's the difference. 

For example, a high-speed rail to the mountains from Denver would cost about $20 Billion (that *alone* is MORE than the average cost of a typical Summer Olympic Games) & who is going to PAY for that?! I certainly wouldn't want any of my tax dollars going to such a vanity project like the Olympics. Something that Utah (or any other tax payers) wouldn't have to worry about (among other things).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Then what's the attraction for the IOC to do still another been there-done that thing?    What will the Village for another SLC WOG be?  

How will it hold up against Sion (never hosted)?  Innsbruck (last hosted in 1976)?  Ezerum (never hosted)?  Calgary (last hosted in 1988)?  Almaty (never hosted)?  On that score, SLC would be at the bottom of the list, so why even bother for the USOC to put it up again?   While the IOC may have to go with the been there/done that factor with the summer host cities because the SOGs are like 4x the size of the WOGs, it is then with the WOGs, even if the IOC had only 3 different bidders, where the IOC can go back to being a little picky in "bringing the Games to new places" in the hopes of spreading the growth of winter sports.  And that is where Denver would have the decisive edge over an SLC. 

3 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

Now, I've got no idea if a Denver bid would ever fly domestically. It may well be too difficult a sell to get the people of Denver behind it. It may well play better in US domestic circles and the USOC to see SLC's facilities get another spin. But, IF Denver could put forward a solid, reputable and supported bid, I'd be willing to bet it would stand a better chance in the international contest and in the minds of the IOC than SLC again. It maybe even would be enough to edge out competitors like Innsbruck or Lillehammer. Just saying, that at some point, if or when a "new frontier" host can come forward, it would offer some great attraction to the IOC.

That's where the big IF comes in.  Let's say the USOC is interested in eventually putting forth a Winter candidate, whether it's 2026 or 2030.  It's their job to decide which of the 2 cities they believe has the best shot at winning.  I agree there's an element where Denver, having never hosted, might have an edge over Salt Lake for the same reason Boston was initially chosen over LA.  The USOC wanted new and different, so they chose that option.  Needless to say, that was about as ill-advised a decision as they could have come to and it's not like so many of us didn't see that coming.  It's the prevailing wisdom that some here have long held that the USOC should exhaust all their options before they go back to LA.  In a sense, that's largely what they did and here we are.

So it is with the Winter bids.  Salt Lake is something of a last resort.  I believe the USOC will look to other options first before they'd nominate Salt Lake.  For better or worse, that list of options is pretty tiny.  Reno-Tahoe is a tough sell since the bid will involve the state of California and I doubt they'll be so helpful with LA already on the calendar.  Don't think Anchorage or Boise are even on the radar, and I doubt either would get a serious look anyway.

Which means we're left with Denver.  I very much agree with the sentiment that if Denver was able to get their act together, they could put together something that might entice the USOC.  But I don't see that hypothetical turning into reality for many of the reasons FYI already mentioned.  The USOC cannot count on who might or might not be competing against to win that Olympic bid, so by default, they need to put up the strongest city to account for any scenario between having multiple bidders where a newer city might have an edge and having fewer to no other bidders where the USOC can put up whatever they want.  Either way, I wouldn't count on Denver getting past that "if" hurdle to where they are the city to go with.  If that means the next Winter Olympics in this country is headed to the same city as the last one, so be it.  Can't impose on a city like Denver to force themselves into that if it's not destined to work.  Especially not where Salt Lake is out there and likely able put together a bid on much more solid footing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, FYI said:

1.  I do NOT disagree with any of that. But the IOC being left with very little to choose from these days has, in itself, very little to do with what the actual PEOPLE of Colorado may want (or in this case, may *not* want), & again, THAT's the difference. 

2.  For example, a high-speed rail to the mountains from Denver would cost about $20 Billion (that *alone* is MORE than the average cost of a typical Summer Olympic Games) & who is going to PAY for that?! I certainly wouldn't want any of my tax dollars going to such a vanity project like the Olympics. Something that Utah (or any other tax payers) wouldn't have to worry about (among other things).

1.  We don't know that.  I guess, like the other cities, a (binding) referendum could spell the difference.

2.  A high-speed train isn't a prerequisite.  It wasn't necessary in Sochi but Putin & Co. put it in, even if the IOC didn't require it.  So this is something YOU are assuming.  It doesn't have to be.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, FYI said:

They were prepared to give $880 million for the 2022 host, but Oslo (Munich & Krakow) still said 'thanks, but no thanks

To be fair though, Munich said no before the IOC bribe was ever mentioned (I think that was more to keep Oslo in the race while the others had fallen by the wayside).

But anyway, I had a good laugh when Baron claimed SLC would be bottom of a list that included Erzurum. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

1.  We don't know that.  I guess, like the other cities, a (binding) referendum could spell the difference.

And that could easily happen in Colorado. And it sure would suck if it happened AFTER a hypothetical Denver bid would get elected. Would "spell" Deja Vu all over again, wouldn't it?! ^_^

35 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

2.  A high-speed train isn't a prerequisite.  It wasn't necessary in Sochi but Putin & Co. put it in, even if the IOC didn't require it.  So this is something YOU are assuming.  It doesn't have to be.  

Yeah, tell that to the Chinese who are also buidling one for 2022. It may not be necessary per se, but even people in Colorado say it's the only way it would work there, cuz shutting down I-70 (the major thoroughfare there) for Olympic specific travel is not feasible. And when you're talking about going from a "big city" to the mountain venues, you're gonna need some sort of reliable & effcient transportation to get there since there will be long distances involved in those type of settings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×