London Olympics

By the way, and not knowing your particular perspective on whether it's good news or not :^), congrats to our British friends for being selected the Olympic host for 2012.

I like nothing more than a come-from-behind-victory!

Reply to
Ross Garrett
Loading thread data ...

Hardly! London and Paris have been the front-runners for ages.

I wonder when I can book tickets. 2010? Last went to the Olympics in 1972 (Munich).

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

Maybe in UK, but the rest of the world was convinced Paris had this thing in the bag. This is a massive surprise, not that London beat out NY, Moscow, Madrid, but that they beat out Paris. Given that France hasn't seen this thing since, what the 1920's, and that the games are essentially the idea of a Frenchman, it is a total shock that the games went Anglo-Saxon again....first.

Truth is: Paris deserved it. And there is probably more than a slice of political bullshit responsible for denying them. London was the safe choice.

But congrats to London. I think the UK is a wonderful place to host the games.

Reply to
Ross Garrett

Certainly the area in East London where they intend to have the majority of the facilities is pretty run down and with poor transport links, so well ready for some serious investment.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Which is one of the things the IOC looks for. They want a city transformed after the games. A legacy of improvement, to some degree, resulting from the games. And I think that hurt Paris a bit since they already had some of the major infrastructure in place.

I read somewhere that the French presentation, in regard to their ability and commitment to organizing a games for the world rather than glorifying France, ended with the words: "you can trust France, you can trust us".

Boy, my thought is if you have to actually say it, them maybe you yourself aren't convinced. The IOC has said the difference in the bids came down to the voting day presentations. I don't buy that fully, but that's what they have said.

I'm just glad they didn't come here. It'd just be more criticism of the US, and the American way of life, no matter what we did. It's better we don't spend a pile of money just to add fodder for the anti-Americanism so fashionable in the world today.

Reply to
Ross Garrett

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In that case, it should have been in Greece again...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

-Fred W

Reply to
Malt_Hound

This will save money to lotta French people who won't get any benefit from the olympic games ! I mean anybody who hasn't a company or a shop or involved in related business.

OTOH, let see what happened in Grenoble Dec. 1968. Lots of small villages made public loans and spent huge amounts of money. The consequence is that they went into bankrupt and the installations are still rusting if not destroyed ten years later. People had to pay for. Good luck to the rosbifs !

"Ross Garrett" a écrit dans le message news: NySye.25$ snipped-for-privacy@news.uswest.net...

Reply to
Pierre

Taken from BBC News website:

"News of London's victory delighted flag-waving supporters who had gathered in Trafalgar Square and Stratford in the East End of London, where the new Olympic park will be built.

Shares of British construction companies soared, while mortgage lenders predicted house prices in the capital would rocket.

But raindrops began falling on disappointed Parisians outside the Hotel de Ville in the French capital shortly after the result. "

Reply to
Neil

I dunno Paris that well - especially the suburbs - but the problem with London is that the majority of it (and suburbs) is old with narrow streets already at capacity traffic wise. So the only sensible way forward is with good public transport links - underground or overground. Because although you could provide decent roads round the Olympic development, there's no way the public would allow major demolition in the rest of London to link them to motorways, etc.

Although a certified car nut, I use public transport when I need to go into central London, or visit a suburb on the other side. It's faster and of course you don't have to find a parking space - or pay for it.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

I have been dieing for good public transport, other than buses, for use here in Denver. We have a light rail system but it doesn't yet travel the I-25 corridor of the city. I live just south of Denver in Greenwood Village and we should have our light rail leg up and running sometime in 2006. I will certainly use to to get to hockey, football and soccer games. Taking a car on I-25 to any of those venues can be a pain.

It's been close to 6 years now they have been widening the highway and adding light rails and all I think it has done is keep up with the growth. I don't suspect it will render a faster safer drive than we had 5 years ago when the city had fewer people. So the public transport will probably be a better option than the highway, even with it's new added lanes. For US cities, if they haven't thought ahead, it becomes awfully hard to catch-up, unless the city isn't growing...which presents a whole other host of problems.

Reply to
Ross Garrett

Interesting. Why do you think that?

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.