Boston 2024

I assume some of that $10m, at least, would come from corporate sponsors, if not most of it.

As an example of a public-private partnership that actually works, consider the deal Apple struck with the CTA - where they would overhaul and maintain North/Clybourn in exchange for exclusive advertising rights there. That cost Apple about $3.8 million dollars, as I recall - $3.8 million dollars that could have instead been thrown in to the $10 million entry fee pool, with Apple being one of the "corporate sponsors."

Like I said, I don't care where the money is coming from. It could have been spent better elsewhere.
 
Untrue. Urban planning and "what a city looks like" are arguably two of the most important parts of any bid - the technical side (i.e. transport, planning of the location of facilities, etc.) and the ability to wow the IOC with compelling images and visits.



My understanding is that the USOC would like Chicago and even NY to throw in bids again. I don't think they have a chance with NY, but Chicago might reconsider. It has a chip on its shoulder about its national and international status and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that successive bids eventually succeed - Pyeongchang was legendary for bidding year after year after year before winning.

DC's lack of state support is a good point, but I'd imagine the games would be regional enough that Maryland (this is what Baltimore has to offer) and Virginia would pitch in (and maybe the federal government). It's a surprisingly cosmopolitan city given the number of embassies and IGOs like the World Bank and IMF and I don't think it'd be that freighted with "imperialism" connotations (anywhere in Texas or the south would be worse as far as Europeans are concerned) but you may be right that other US cities have the advantage in avoiding that stigma more.

The IOC doesn't care about how "well" a city's planned, at least not by any of the definitions we've got around here. If they did, they wouldn't have chosen Rio and they'd never touch a Middle East games with a thousand-foot pole. They care about a city's profile and how picturesque the venues will be and how good the aerial shots will look. They might care about transportation infrastructure, but they're not going to deny LA because it doesn't have a dense subway network. My point was simply that saying LA=Dallas because they both have suburban sprawl is pretty silly, not that the IOC doesn't take aesthetics into account when making a decision.

The USOC would absolutely love NYC, Chicago, SF, and LA to be their set of choices. If NYC tried it, no one else would even be in the running. The bad news for them is that Chicago and New York are simply sick of this game and SF is sick of planning international events (they'll get the Super Bowl in a few years, remember, so they're not wanting for profile builders right now).

NYC has an open invitation and will never accept it. Chicago's been asked and has said no. Boston has now been asked, and the question is if we will say yes.

CBS: SS Expansion will not "happen anyway." You're going there based on the Governor, who will be out of office in 18 months, claiming it as part of a highball tax proposal? I mean, the State has been under court order to build GLX and Red-Blue for over a decade and we'll be lucky if GLX is running by 2024.

I'm not denying that bids are expensive and can be rejected, but this is the only place we're going to get the popular and political pressure to get anything done on these projects. Deval isn't running for re-election and can be bold, but even in a left-wing state spending money will never be a popular policy unless you can play the "whole world is watching" card.
 
CBS: SS Expansion will not "happen anyway." You're going there based on the Governor, who will be out of office in 18 months, claiming it as part of a highball tax proposal? I mean, the State has been under court order to build GLX and Red-Blue for over a decade and we'll be lucky if GLX is running by 2024.

I'm not denying that bids are expensive and can be rejected, but this is the only place we're going to get the popular and political pressure to get anything done on these projects. Deval isn't running for re-election and can be bold, but even in a left-wing state spending money will never be a popular policy unless you can play the "whole world is watching" card.

No, I'm going there based on a short-list of things that we MUST do, or there will be no more new train service in Boston. It's a very short list, in fact, there's only two things on it:
  1. Another 7 tracks at South Station
  2. Maintenance facility at Readville Yard
Not having those two things today are the hugely limiting factors on adding new commuter rail service (the first causes the NEC and Worcester Line to overwhelm the available platform space, blocking OC and Fairmount Line trains; you can blame the second for causing a bunch of dead commuter rail trains to consume what platforms we DO have available) and will be an obstacle to running more Regional or Acela services when the time comes. The Rail Link would render both of them irrelevant, but while we're waiting to get that done, these are the two things that need to happen.

Amtrak's more than capable of providing the necessary pressure to get both of those done, because Amtrak is holding most of the cards and has demonstrated both a willingness and a capacity to play extreme hardball with the MBCR if they don't shut up and get in line. Sure, the Olympics would guarantee that the actual South Station building gets overhauled, but we're getting 7 more tracks there regardless.
 
No, I'm going there based on a short-list of things that we MUST do, or there will be no more new train service in Boston. It's a very short list, in fact, there's only two things on it:
  1. Another 7 tracks at South Station
  2. Maintenance facility at Readville Yard
Not having those two things today are the hugely limiting factors on adding new commuter rail service (the first causes the NEC and Worcester Line to overwhelm the available platform space, blocking OC and Fairmount Line trains; you can blame the second for causing a bunch of dead commuter rail trains to consume what platforms we DO have available) and will be an obstacle to running more Regional or Acela services when the time comes. The Rail Link would render both of them irrelevant, but while we're waiting to get that done, these are the two things that need to happen.

Amtrak's more than capable of providing the necessary pressure to get both of those done, because Amtrak is holding most of the cards and has demonstrated both a willingness and a capacity to play extreme hardball with the MBCR if they don't shut up and get in line. Sure, the Olympics would guarantee that the actual South Station building gets overhauled, but we're getting 7 more tracks there regardless.

I'm not "in the know" about Amtrak and interagency relations, but I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket - Amtrak is broke and powerless and any future Republican administration could pretty much kill it. Of course, if HSR gets going on the NEC we'll get the expansion, but I expect we would see a Boston Olympics come and go (and probably several subsequent ones) before we'd get that far.

I'm very excited about any alternate sources of impetus for these projects, like Amtrak here or Harvard at Allston/Brighton. I want these things done independent of my interest in an Olympic bid. Nonetheless, I think that the Olympics is a good way to get everyone on board, particularly if sites are chosen correctly to force the issue.
 
As an example of a public-private partnership that actually works, consider the deal Apple struck with the CTA - where they would overhaul and maintain North/Clybourn in exchange for exclusive advertising rights there. That cost Apple about $3.8 million dollars, as I recall - $3.8 million dollars that could have instead been thrown in to the $10 million entry fee pool, with Apple being one of the "corporate sponsors."

Like I said, I don't care where the money is coming from. It could have been spent better elsewhere.

Something tells me you'd manage to wrangle more and better corporate sponsors with an Olympic bid than with random transit station overhauls here or there. Maybe it wouldn't reduce the cost to other potential improvements that much, but it's not a zero sum thing we're talking about.

Not to mention that even an unsuccessful bid gets the city talking and prioritizing projects that wouldn't otherwise be on the drawing board.
 
Not to mention that even an unsuccessful bid gets the city talking and prioritizing projects that wouldn't otherwise be on the drawing board.

And that's where we disagree. An unsuccessful bid isn't going to get the city talking about and prioritizing projects that wouldn't be on the drawing board otherwise. What it will do is tie those projects to the Olympics, ensuring that they live or die based solely on the bid effort and how it proceeds.

For projects that are ultimately superflous, which offer a net-zero change in the system, or which aren't strictly necessary in the 2050 timeframe, this is fine. If the bid succeeds, we get something we wouldn't have had for a long time otherwise.

But for projects that are necessary to be completed NOW (or soon), that are mission-critical, things we cannot continue to defer because the system will fail without them - things like the Red-Blue Connector, like more tracks at South Station and like new maintenance facilities at Readville Yard - this is very, very bad. Once so attached to an Olympics bid, they will not only need to overcome opposition to the improvements themselves but also overcome the opposition to Boston 2024. And if (when) the bid fails, the reaction is not going to be "Well, no big deal, this doesn't change anything" - the reaction is going to be "scrap the plans again because the Olympics bid just went up in smoke."

A place like Dallas, with a nascent transportation network that can't overcome ideological opposition to it alone at this point, doesn't lose much if it fails to win the Olympics bid. After all, Dallas is not at the point where a cascading failure is a very real possibility if improvements are not made to the system, and frankly, the odds of Dallas's transit network expanding in any meaningful capacity are already at zero, so a failed bid won't hurt them any worse.

It's a different story in Boston. The system cannot survive through 2020 - let alone through an Olympics crush load in 2024 - without Red-Blue. Commuter Rail is maxed out, and when you add Amtrak to the equation, our slice of the NEC is beyond maxed out - if more tracks aren't added to South Station and a maintenance facility is not built at Readville Yard, then commuter rail trains are going to have to be axed to make room for expanding Amtrak service.

We can't afford for these projects to not happen, and we especially can't afford for them to not happen because they were left on the cutting room floor in the wake of us getting screwed by the IOC.
 
While having the Olympics come to Boston would be really cool, I don't think the cities transportation infrastructure can handle it at the moment. What we need to get done first is expand south station, the red blue connector, and northeast high speed rail at the least.

I think that Boston has enough supports facilities to hold the Olympics what with all the colleges here and everything. I would however want a large stadium in Boston or Cambridge because Gillette Stadium wouldn't really make a great impression of Boston for the rest of the world. I could however see a new, bigger Harvard stadium being a good place for the opening/closing ceremonies however.

We would also have enough room to house all of the athletes and spectators because the colleges will all be on break for the summer and we could probably pay the colleges to use their dorms.

Edit: also the Olympics would probably bankrupt Boston and Massachusetts so that's another turn off.
 
Last edited:
I am sure you have noticed, but the IOC has zero interest in any bid that utilizes existing infrastructure. The use of our many dorms and perfectly good stadiums, tracks, etc. is worthless to them. They want everything new and specially built to fan their egos and line their pockets. They want purpose-built centrally located Olympic Villages and new centerpieces everywhere. If you don't commit to building billions of dollars of new and unneeded sporting infrastructure, kiss you bid goodbye.
 
I am sure you have noticed, but the IOC has zero interest in any bid that utilizes existing infrastructure. The use of our many dorms and perfectly good stadiums, tracks, etc. is worthless to them. They want everything new and specially built to fan their egos and line their pockets. They want purpose-built centrally located Olympic Villages and new centerpieces everywhere. If you don't commit to building billions of dollars of new and unneeded sporting infrastructure, kiss you bid goodbye.

London used a ton of existing infrastructure. Sure they built some venues at their Olympic Park, but mostly they retrofitted existing buildings and locations, just like Boston would.
 
The dissenting argument (currently CBS) seem to be founded on practicality. Everything seems to be supporting arguments for the driving point - the money can be better spent as there's a high likelihood of bid failure and little good from that.

Yet, I have to point out there's a major flaw in that foundational point: How likely would the money be spent on a more "sure thing" benefit?

The probabilities for improvement to occur may well be greater by winning an Olympic bid than not bidding with hope we'll spend it wiser. And the point like the South Station project is going to happen anyways remains an assertion. We're seen Boston get out of way too many other projects. Amtrak pressure is not enough of a supporting point to allow assumption it is truly different.
 
The dissenting argument (currently CBS) seem to be founded on practicality. Everything seems to be supporting arguments for the driving point - the money can be better spent as there's a high likelihood of bid failure and little good from that.

Yet, I have to point out there's a major flaw in that foundational point: How likely would the money be spent on a more "sure thing" benefit?

The probabilities for improvement to occur may well be greater by winning an Olympic bid than not bidding with hope we'll spend it wiser. And the point like the South Station project is going to happen anyways remains an assertion. We're seen Boston get out of way too many other projects. Amtrak pressure is not enough of a supporting point to allow assumption it is truly different.

Boston, for all its best efforts in trying, wasn't able to walk away from GLX because of outside pressure. Amtrak, and the interests of the region (especially NY/DC) that Amtrak represents, will provide that same level of pressure and Boston isn't going to be able to walk away from that either.

You have to understand, when I say that the system will fail without some of these projects - I am not exaggerating, and I am not bluffing. We will not have a functional subway in 2020 if Red-Blue isn't done by then. And I am so confident in that that I can make a guarantee that the money better spent elsewhere is actually going to get spent - because at the end of the day, trying to use the Olympics as a distraction to get things done isn't going to get us any farther along than Park Street and DTX coming to a grinding halt every day at 8 and 5 will, nor is it going to give us anything that we aren't already getting from the Providence Line becoming even more peaky and more inconveniently scheduled as the organization in control of dispatching starts making itself more and more of a nuisance until it gets what it wants.

We don't NEED the circus to come to town to get these things done. The pressure inherent in the reality of the system is going to do a much better job of overcoming opposition than any amount of support for an Olympics bid will or even can, as far as the critical projects are concerned.
 
Boston, for all its best efforts in trying, wasn't able to walk away from GLX because of outside pressure. Amtrak, and the interests of the region (especially NY/DC) that Amtrak represents, will provide that same level of pressure and Boston isn't going to be able to walk away from that either.

Do you have a better supporting argument to your counterpoint? Because to counter using GLX is a poor supporting argument. Aren't we not in the middle of a delayed year to the start of a new Lechmere station? Do you see any construction that is markedly for GLX? GLX is not a strong supporting argument to your counterpoint until trains start running on it (and if is done ala 2050, then it still a fails as a supporting argument). BTW, it is arguable even the start of real construction isn't enough to make GLX a qualified supporting argument. Didn't they built an entire new and shiny Arborway station with wire and tracks and was never used? Thus, I remain skeptical Amtrak or anyone can make the projects happen.

You have to understand, when I say that the system will fail without some of these projects - I am not exaggerating, and I am not bluffing. We will not have a functional subway in 2020 if Red-Blue isn't done by then. And I am so confident in that that I can make a guarantee that the money better spent elsewhere is actually going to get spent - because at the end of the day, trying to use the Olympics as a distraction to get things done isn't going to get us any farther along than Park Street and DTX coming to a grinding halt every day at 8 and 5 will, nor is it going to give us anything that we aren't already getting from the Providence Line becoming even more peaky and more inconveniently scheduled as the organization in control of dispatching starts making itself more and more of a nuisance until it gets what it wants.

2020? 7 years? I can take a bet that there won't be a new connector at 2020. I don't want to be right and would be very glad to be wrong.Yet, I feel very skeptical of the 2020 Red-Blue line. And if you're only half right, we may well just live with the system fail for year or even decades.

We don't NEED the circus to come to town to get these things done. The pressure inherent in the reality of the system is going to do a much better job of overcoming opposition than any amount of support for an Olympics bid will or even can, as far as the critical projects are concerned.

If the money is used wisely, then perhaps we won't need the need the circus to come to town to make the things on the list happen. If not by good leadership than by inherent pressures to force the projects. Yet, as I pointed above of your use of GLX as an example, I fear the overestimation of the pressure to do these projects or the underestimation of Boston's desire/ability to weasel out. If that is true, then our best hope is the jackpot of winning the circus. For anything less may just means nothing or worse.
 
You have to understand, when I say that the system will fail without some of these projects - I am not exaggerating, and I am not bluffing. We will not have a functional subway in 2020 if Red-Blue isn't done by then.

Well, that's your opinion - and there's plenty of informed people on this board to either confirm or challenge it - but it doesn't really make it more likely that projects will get done. Frankly, if Red-Blue has to be done for the T to be functional in 2020, then the T won't function in 2020, since there's not a chance in hell that it gets done in that time frame.

"Emergencies" don't matter to governments until they effect something lawmakers actually use. Senators and Congresspeople fly commercially but don't take public assistance, so the former part of the sequester was resolved while the latter wasn't. Mass. lawmakers don't generally commute by train, so T delays and fare increases don't impact them at all. I mean, the T's been a hot mess for 15 years... clearly that's not bothering anybody too much (except for Deval, apparently).

Your point about the danger of tying projects to bids that can fail and ruin momentum is a good one. Chicago's Circle Line fell victim to just that effect. One way to mitigate the risk is to line up development partners who like the added PR from helping with the Olympics but have an interest in doing the work anyway. For instance, Harvard won't need the Beacon Park land until after 2024, but would have to move the ramps anyway to use it and gets a huge PR boost from having the Olympic Park on Harvard land. If the bid fails, they still have to move the ramps to build there and the odds of them doing so are no different than they are now.

What you want to avoid is tying pie-in-the-sky grand schemes to Olympic bids if they're things you really want to do. I might actually avoid tying N-S Rail Link to the bid for this reason-It seems like a luxury project if you're not a rail geek. Similarly, I absolutely wouldn't tie NEC HSR to a bid.
 
Globe article today:

2024 Boston Olympics? Let’s check it out, they say

An effort to bring the Olympics to Boston is getting an enthusiastic response from business and government leaders in the region north of the would-be host city. One local lawmaker sees the 2024 Summer Games as a potential boon to tourism throughout Massachusetts and wants a state study to see if a bid — something of a long shot — is worth pursuing.

“It would be a tremendous opportunity to highlight the Boston region and the North Shore, the South Shore, the western suburbs, and even beyond into New England,” said Robert G. Bradford, president of the North Shore Chamber of Commerce. “It would have a very positive economic impact on our region.”

Malden Mayor Gary Christenson also likes the idea. “I think anything to create an amenity that would draw people not only from all over the state and country but also the world is something I think is needed for our state,” he said.

The United States Olympic Committee has contacted Boston and 34 other municipalities to gauge their interest in hosting the 2024 Summer Olympics. A private group, the Boston Olympic Exploratory Committee, is trying to build support for a Boston bid.

State Senator Eileen Donoghue, a Lowell Democrat, has sponsored a bill to create a special commission to explore the issues involved in an Olympic bid. The bill was the subject of a hearing on May 7 before the Joint Committee on Tourism, Arts, and Cultural Development.

‘It would be a tremendous opportunity to highlight the Boston region and the North Shore, the South Shore, the western suburbs, and even beyond into New England.’


Donoghue said her interest in a possible bid for the Summer Games grew from her term as chairwoman of the panel. “I came to understand in more depth how important tourism is to Massachusetts, to our economy,” she said, noting it is the state’s third-largest industry.

“When you look at the tourism aspects of the Olympics not just during the weeks of the games but before and well after the games, it certainly would bring a huge benefit,” Donoghue said. “And certainly New England and Boston is a huge sports mecca.”

From her own research, Donoghue said she was encouraged by London’s positive experience when it hosted the 2012 Summer Olympics. She said in preparation for the games, for instance, the city made long-term upgrades to its transportation and other infrastructure. Londoners “feel very strongly that there were huge benefits beyond the games,” she said.

Donoghue said the benefits of Boston hosting the games could extend far beyond the city, including to her district. She said, for example, that sites in Greater Lowell, such as the Tsongas Center, could potentially serve as venues for Olympic events.

She said for the Boston region, and even New England in general, the Olympics would also offer a chance “to highlight on an international level so many of our attractions.”

Before moving forward with a bid, Donoghue said, a feasibility study is needed to examine all the issues and potential costs involved in being a host city.

The study is expected to cost $2 million to $3 million, with the intent that it be privately funded, according to Donoghue’s office. The cost of making a bid could range from $6 million to $10 million, and under International Olympic Committee rules, it has to be privately financed.

Donoghue said the Boston Marathon bombings did not change her mind about pursuing the idea.

“Those tragic events certainly resonate with all of us and will for a lifetime,” she said. “But the response by Boston, the cooperative spirit of ‘Boston Strong,’ shows how extraordinarily not only the city but the Commonwealth worked together in response to the tragic events. It demonstrated to the world what a first-class city and state we have, and that we’re fortunate to have the leadership we have in the public safety area.”

Donoghue noted that London officials had similar safety concerns in preparing for the 2012 Olympics. “They were determined to have the utmost security and they did, and the [games] were successfully completed without any type of problem. So I’m confident Boston and Massachusetts are up to the challenge.”

Deborah Belanger, executive director of the Greater Merrimack Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau, finds the idea of the Olympics coming to the Boston area exciting, and she welcomes a study.

She said her own experience helping organize the 2006 World Men’s Curling Championship in Lowell showed her the positive impact even an event of that smaller size can have for a host region. “It brought [people from] 145 different countries to Lowell, and they were here 10 days,” she said, estimating the event brought $4 million to the local economy.

Gary Barrett, executive director of the North Shore Alliance for Economic Development, said there is natural interest in an Olympic bid in the area’s business community, “particularly when one considers the tourism industry is one of the main business sectors on the North Shore and the Olympics hosts people from around the world.

“I would expect the North Shore would be a target of a lot of those visitors to Massachusetts with the cultural gems we have, the natural seashore, and the other resources here,” he said.

State Representative John D. Keenan, a Salem Democrat who previously served as House chairman of the tourism committee, also supports exploring an Olympic bid, though he said he is not sure a commission is needed.

“I’d be thrilled to have it come to Boston, because it would mean a tremendous amount of business for Salem as well as Cape Cod and everywhere else people might go to do day trips,” he said.

Leslie Gould, president and chief executive of the Lynn Area Chamber of Commerce, can see similar benefits.

“I would think it would only be a positive not only for Boston but for every surrounding community, and quite frankly some of the Northeast states,” she said. Olympic visitors “might make it a Northeastern destination vacation.”

Mayors Michael J. McGlynn of Medford and Daniel Rizzo of Revere are also supportive.

“As the brother of a 1972 US hockey team Olympian, I can assure you it excites everyone,” said McGlynn, whose brother Richard, was on the US team that won a silver medal.

The mayor said he envisions that communities north of Boston would provide some of the venues for Olympic events, and if so would also benefit from funds spent to build or rehabilitate the facilities.

Rizzo said through a spokesman that hosting the Olympics “would be a great way to highlight Boston and the surrounding communities, all we have to offer on the East Coast.”

Chelsea City Manager Jay Ash has some concerns about an Olympic bid, but he favors a study.

“There have been many communities that have competed hard and been successful, only to lose money and regret the decision they’d made,” he said of Olympic hosts. “So while we have a great venue and we are used to hosting millions of tourists every year, I think a study is very appropriate to determine the costs and whether they would outweigh the benefits.”
 
Why not take that $3M for the study, skip the study, and literally walk around handing out $100 bills? A study for something that'll never happen is a waste of money.
 
Notice that no one in the article supporting this was from Boston. These are all suburban folks with everything to gain and nothing to lose. All of the construction, hassles, and spending would occur comfortably away from them. Afterwards, they can then leave and not have to worry about unneeded venues and massive debts.
 
Why not take that $3M for the study, skip the study, and literally walk around handing out $100 bills? A study for something that'll never happen is a waste of money.

Believe it or not giving the people who write studies cash is a stimulus, too. The government giving money to anyone is a stimulus. Maybe not as good a use of money as direct investment in infrastructure, but any investment in infrastructure would require a study, whether it happened or not - and many often do not, for higher aggregate cost than an Olympic study.

Notice that no one in the article supporting this was from Boston. These are all suburban folks with everything to gain and nothing to lose. All of the construction, hassles, and spending would occur comfortably away from them. Afterwards, they can then leave and not have to worry about unneeded venues and massive debts.

They are excited because of events that would happen in their own communities. Places like Lowell actually have little to gain from MA state money being spent in Boston without hosting an event or two in order to bring attention and investment to their city.
 
Sort of but no, because the study is presumed to be privately funded so it's not government giving money to anyone in this case.

But that wasn't my point. Do we really need a study to know that anal sex with a hamster is bad news bears? No. But I could commission Fenway Health to do one anyways. Asking VHB or someone like them to study the Olympics is a waste of money and my argument is it's more socially responsible to use those resources in a better fashion.
 
Notice that no one in the article supporting this was from Boston. These are all suburban folks with everything to gain and nothing to lose. All of the construction, hassles, and spending would occur comfortably away from them. Afterwards, they can then leave and not have to worry about unneeded venues and massive debts.

That's true and not true. It is true that most of the construction and security hassles would be in Boston, which would basically have to shut down for the two weeks of the games. On the other hand, any plan to hold the Olympics in Boston would have to place events (and thus hassles) in surrounding communities.

I have no specific idea how the funding would be divided, but I suspect that the government body most impacted would be the Commonwealth, not the City of Boston. If the Commonwealth had massive debts and spending due to the games, that would affect suburban communities just as much as it would affect Boston itself.

In any case, the lion's share of funding for any Olympics in the US is likely to come from corporate sources anyhow, as it did in Atlanta and certainly would in places like LA. Most public spending would probably be focused on infrastructure improvements, including the transportation construction we all hope would be the lasting impact of the games.

You may not want to fund a study into whether to host a bunch of fencing matches or shot put events, but studies that could lead to a N/S Rail Link, Red/Blue Subway, or reorganized A/B Interchange? That's a study I could support.
 
You may not want to fund a study into whether to host a bunch of fencing matches or shot put events, but studies that could lead to a N/S Rail Link, Red/Blue Subway, or reorganized A/B Interchange? That's a study I could support.

I agree. Just I want to say that I wish that we can just do it already instead of hoping that one more study will bring the hope we are looking for.
 

Back
Top