Bidding on the Brain: A Range of Bids Related to the Olympics

While an Olympic bid denotes a city’s international endeavor to host the Summer or Winter Games, references to bids can also signify a variety of components associated with the Olympics. Recent headliners and news pieces on Olympic and Paralympic bids have been in regards to any of the below bid types:

Wrestling with Reality – Sports Must Bid for Inclusion in Games

The IOC’s executive board made a recent decision to drop wrestling as one of the core sports of the Olympic 2020 Games. This announcement stunned wrestling officials and athletes around the world. Comparable to how cities must participate in a bid process to host the Games, different international sports federations must vie for inclusion as one of the 25 sports in the Games. As of right now, wrestling has joined the ranks of those “short listed” sports bidding for 2020: baseball-softball, Wushu (a form of martial arts), squash, wakeboarding, roller sports, rock climbing, and karate. In an IOC meeting this May, the executive board will identify only one of these sports for acceptance in the Games.

Reactions of frustration and disbelief to this news have ranged from hunger strikes to returned medals to the unlikely accord between Iranian and American wrestlers. In a backlash to the decision, the President of the wrestling federation even stepped down while athletes came together with a campaign to save the historic Olympic sport.

To tie this occurrence even closer to the Olympic bids for cities, those currently in the running to host the 2020 Games were directly impacted by the wrestling decision. Olympic committee representatives and athletes from both Tokyo and Istanbul expressed concern that a loss of wrestling weakens their bids due to national ties to the sport

The First Frontier-Domestic Bids for a City to Host the 2024 Games

Before a city submits a proposal to the IOC declaring an intent to bid for the Olympics, each participating country must identify one city to represent the nation. While smaller countries have less trouble pinpointing one city, the U.S. must choose among many potential bid cities before putting forth one to the IOC. Just this month, the USOC sent out letters to 35 cities gauging their level of interest. Boston, Dallas, L.A., and a few others responded with a solid plan to explore the idea of bidding for the Games.

IOC Youth Olympics-Cities Bidding to host the 2018 Youth Olympics

As if the global anticipation related to the bid process for the 2020 Summer Games is not enough, three other cities are in pursuit of hosting the 2018 Youth Olympic Games. Parallel to the bid process for the traditional Olympics and Paralympics, these cities have submitted candidature applications to prove their ability to host a successful Youth Games. Emphasis is placed on a positive legacy throughout the bid process. These three finalists for the Youth Games include Buenos Aires, Argentina; Glasgow, United Kingdom; and Medellin, Colombia.

IOC Sessions-Bids for Cities to Host the IOC Meeting Sites 

Even the sites for the IOC Sessions during which decisions for the Games are announced must undergo a bid process! When an IOC Session takes place, the group weighs the current bids for future meeting locations and decides from these bids where the next session will take place. The IOC received two bids from cities to host the 125^th Session this September: Buenos Aires, Argentina and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Argentina it is…the site of the IOC’s declaration of a 2020 host city!

Why are there so many extensive bid processes related to the Olympics? They may primarily be in place as efforts to manage risk, address political pressures, and make strategic decisions. Other factors—global relations, city agendas, and even personal motivations—contribute to the bid processes.

Here at BID, a focus is placed on the role that any IOC-related bid has in urban development. As one can see, though, different types of bids play into different pieces of the Olympic Movement.

Photo compliments of The Sport Digest.

Cities Can’t Wing Air Travel Preparation

What do most visitors see first and last in a city? The airport. The need for efficient and accessible air travel is of even greater importance when a city plans for the Olympics and Paralympics. After last summer’s London Olympic Games, over 116,000 passengers flew out of Heathrow airport and 70,000 out of Gatwick in a one-day exodus. This surge of arrivals and departures surrounding the Games calls for an extensive amount of legwork by Olympic planners. Recognizing this need, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) requires for applicants to submit detailed plans around airport capacity and transportation networks during the bid process.

While the first phase of the IOC candidature application for the Olympics devotes a section to air travel, the second phase goes into greater depth. The file  for candidate cities requires charts of information on airfare. The questions focus on everything from an airport’s existing capacity and number of terminals and gates to the specific distances between the airport(s) and Olympic Villages. Cities must define projections for improvements, construction timelines, flight networks—international and domestic—as well as means of financing the projects.

Looking back to recent Games, a few examples of host cities that followed through on their bid commitments to enhance airport travel are featured below:

• Beijing 2008- Since the Beijing airport’s level of passengers increased by 24 million during the Games, the city’s international terminal was opened to manage the traffic. Stand-by airports were renovated and new airport express roads were constructed. The Games prompted Beijing’s NOC to add disability parking spots and other accessibility features that are still used today.
• Vancouver 2010-Among what are considered the many Vancouver Olympic legacy projects, transport developments servicing the international airport rise to the top for their lasting importance. The new Canada Line—catalyzed by Olympic planning—continues to rush travelers between the airport and downtown areas. Additionally, innovative custom baggage carts created for the Vancouver airport that managed the influx of large ski equipment for the Winter Games have made the overall baggage process more efficient. The same model will be used for the Sochi 2014 Games.

Istanbul has accelerated ambitious infrastructure plans, an increasing priority outlined in  BID’s report. A critical part of these developments are related to air travel. Turkish Airlines’ and Pegasus Airlines’ recently revealed global expansion strategies for Istanbul that tie closely into the bid committee’s latest plans for a new international airport. According to Airbus’s Executive Vice President in a Beyond the Rings article, “ ‘Turkey is rapidly developing into Europe’s most dynamic commercial aviation market’, and the national government has recently concluded the tender process for a huge third airport in Istanbul to support the growth. It will feature six runways and accommodate an estimated annual capacity of up to 150 million passengers by 2020, making it the largest in the world.”

In this sense, the bid provides an opportunity for any city interested in hosting the Games—regardless of outcome—to focus on their region’s airfare. A well-organized, accessible, and efficient international airport is crucial in making a city as a global destination.

 

Photo Compliments of Daily Star Lebanon

Bid Wars: The Bids within the Bid

Photo credit to Construction International: http://www.construction-int.com/news/page/5

 

As the complexity of the Olympics and Paralympics has increased, the IOC bid process to host the Games has also intensified. Since 1999, cities bidding for the Olympics and Paralympics have been required to go through two bid phases. These candidature applications demand that cities seeking to host the Games describe thorough and feasible plans for the Olympics.

Keeping in stride with the dynamic nature of the Games as well as the intricate bid process, another variety of bid has come to be: corporate bids for Olympics-related projects. A city’s decision to bid for the Games is intrinsically related to the private sector’s desire to tap into “big business” opportunities. Companies are involved from the onset in many capacities and as early as pre-bid phases. Companies interested in securing contracts related to the Games—contracts that focus on anything ranging from infrastructure construction to marketing and branding to hospitality services—must also develop a strategy to win “their piece of the pie.”

Corporate entities may “bid” to become directly involved in the Games even before host city decisions or Organizing Committees of the Olympics Games (OCOG’s) have been made. For instance, Helios Partners is an Atlanta-based sports marketing consultancy created and managed by former leaders of the 1996 Olympics committee. This company seeks to “clinch” contracts with cities bidding to host the Olympics and Paralympics. For London, Helios was selected to develop promotional messages for Lloyd’s TSB, the first London-specific Olympic sponsor, and Deloitte, the American professional services firm, long before the 2012 Games took place. And the official sponsor company selection process is another huge episode in itself!

Once the IOC announces a host city winner—seven years in advance of the Games—the OCOG’s are created. Generally, these committees work with the host government to hire corporate contractors for large-scale Olympics projects. Much of this “legwork” is related to urban development, engineering, and transportation-related construction.

According to a quote by David Higgins (Chief Executive of the Olympic Delivery Authority) in  CH2M HILL’s 2006 report regarding the firm’s London 2012 construction contract:

“This is a first class shortlist from a very strong field. We will continue the rigorous scrutiny of applications as we now move to the next stage. I am confident that the competitive dialogue procurement process will help ensure we make the right appointment for this critical role.”

The Olympic Delivery Authority from the London Games adheres to new European procurement laws that require “competitive dialogue” with first and a “short” listing stages of corporate contractors. Sound familiar? The IOC short-lists cities bidding for the Games too!

As the world’s premier and most wide-scale mega-event, the Olympics has rising implications for every sector and stakeholder of a city and region. While the companies winning the “bid” contract may experience benefits, it is unclear and debated as to whether all stakeholders benefit—particularly the residents.

Depending on their degree of success, though, these private firm contractors can ideally support a strong Games and contribute to a positive legacy. In theory, the benefits reaped by these corporations can also help trigger economic growth in the host region.

For an interactive grid in The Financial Times, please visit: http://goo.gl/MWQ6e

 

 

Will Istanbul’s transport investments set it apart?

Haliç metro bridge under construction.

 

It has been about two weeks since Tokyo, Madrid, and Istanbul participated in the IOC’s official London 2012 Games debriefing in Rio de Janeiro. As these candidate cities return home to place the finishing touches on their bid books for the 2020 Games, the question is will they be able to match London’s successes and what will set them apart as the most promising candidate city to the IOC Evaluation Commission?

It should be no surprise to our readers that BID expects Istanbul’s significant transportation investments made over the course of its multiple Olympic bids, as well as the political will and resources these repeat bids have coalesced, to make it a standout candidate city in the eyes of the IOC. Hasan Arat, Istanbul’s bid champion and former vice-president of the National Olympic Committee of Turkey, has indicated that it is these strengths which will allow Istanbul 2020 to match the success and technical capability of the 2012 Games:

Istanbul is a bustling metropolis spanning two continents—but in 2020 we will still be able to offer athletes average travel times of 20 minutes or less […] These ambitious infrastructure developments show our country’s determination to deliver on all our promises to the Olympic family and match London’s organization excellence. The strength of Turkey’s economy and the committed support from all levels of government mean we are better placed than ever to realize our vision. (Hasan Arat)

If it turns out fifth time’s the charm for Istanbul, it will be exciting to see the trend of a truly global Games continue where emerging economies are actively pursing and playing host to the Olympics.  It will also be instructive to understand how decades of bidding will ultimately shape their Olympic Games.

BID expects Istanbul’s impressive mega-event resume and smart infrastructure investments to pay dividends in terms of their ability to buck the trend of net economic losses from hosting the Games.  Goldman Sachs economist Jose Ursua’s August report on “The Economy of the Olympics” seems to support this point of view. Ursua explains that while “the potential for economic benefits from hosting the Olympics is obviously country-specific […] a country with a better physical infrastructure […] will likely be in a better position to minimize the costs and maximize the benefits associated with the Games.”

During the past seven years alone, Istanbul has invested on average of $1.2 billion each year upgrading its transportation infrastructure. Here is a short list of the major transport investments we can expect to see just in the next three years:

• 2013: Haliç metro will open across the Golden Horn with a capacity of one million passengers daily.
• 2014: Istanbul’s third airport will open with a capacity to move 150 million passengers annually.
• 2015: Work will begin on a third bridge to ease downtown traffic.

These three mega-projects, combined with almost two decades of foundational and aspirational transportation development are game-changers regardless of the outcome of the 2020 bid.  The IOC will announce their choice for the 2020 Olympics on September 7, 2013, and then the world will see if pricey infrastructure investments equate to Olympic Gold.

Is Istanbul an Olympic city or a traffic disaster?

Istanbul has been rated the Most Congested City in Europe. What could this mean for the city’s bid to host the 2020 Olympics? When people talk about the Olympics, transportation is typically the farthest topic from their minds. And yet transportation is absolutely critical to smooth operations. Consider that during the most recent Olympics, London’s Underground had to accommodate 8.8 million ticket holders attending the Games, 21,000 reporters broadcasting the Games, and another 21,000 athletes and Games officials actually participating, in addition to the regular London commuters.

As the IOC considers Tokyo, Madrid, and Istanbul as hosts of the 2020 Olympics, the cities are striving to demonstrate that they have a capacity for smooth transportation operations during the Games. Many of the concerns and challenges cities must address are exemplified in previous Games:

• Can athletes and officials make it to the games on time, avoiding situations like Atlanta 1996?
• Can the transportation infrastructure handle record-setting numbers of customers, including regular commuters, as in London 2012?
• Can the city address the environmental considerations first exemplified by Sydney in 2000?

Now participating in its fifth bid, Istanbul faces serious concerns about transportation. After the first bid for the 2000 Olympics, submitted in 1993, IOC officials told Istanbul’s organizing committee that they “were concerned at [Istanbul’s] general lack of infrastructure at the time.” In the bids for the 2004, 2008, 2012 Games, Istanbul’s transportation vision has gradually become clear.

 

Istanbul had the perfect storm of identified needs and disparate resources that are the preconditions for using the bid process to accelerate transportation development. As one of the largest cities in Europe, Istanbul has seen tremendous economic growth even during the global recession. In this bid, Istanbul is able to clearly demonstrate previous investment in transportation infrastructure, and show the numerous construction projects already underway to relieve congestion:

• The first subway line on the Asian side of the city opened in August.
• A controversial third bridge over the Bosphorus to be completed by 2015.
• The Eurasia tunnel will reduce a 100-minute cross-city commute to just 15 minutes.

All of these projects stem from previous planning and feedback from prior bids. Istanbul is an impressive example of how the bid process can work in tandem with a city’s needs and goals. WhileTokyo is using the bid to recover from last year’s tsunami and the worst nuclear disaster in 25 years and Madrid is hoping its bid will save the city from the global recession, Istanbul has used the bid process to transform its infrastructure in an attempt to keep pace with a vibrant but complex emerging economy. The question the IOC is asking this time is if Istanbul’s infrastructure is finally ready to host the Olympics, or if the city will be benched for another season.

The Thrill of Defeat: Taking Advantage of an Olympic Loss

Years of commitment, intensive training, and a great deal of resources go into preparing for the Olympics. After investing so much physical and mental effort into winning the gold, what happens to the athletes that don’t even medal? In a split second, an athlete’s, and a country’s, vision of victory can disappear. One may become depressed and feel defeated. Or, a judicious Olympian may take advantage of his or her prime physical shape, personal progress, and global fame.

Similarly, the cities that bid to host the Olympics face the same decision. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) bid process  is as demanding and high-stakes as athletic competitions. A prospective host city usually embarks on its campaign a decade before the actual Games. In order to remain as a contender throughout the bid process, each city’s National Organizing Committee must identify funding and sponsors to support projects, create public and private partnerships to implement plans, and seek “buy in” from citizens. Cities must also clearly outline—if not start and complete—infrastructure projects for the Games. These complex preparations are on par with the physical efforts and mental determination required of Olympians.

After two phases of candidacy applications, questionnaires, and thorough onsite inspections, the IOC Evaluation Commission determines the final host city. What happens to the cities that fail to win the Games? Just as motivated athletes can turn the tides in their favor, strategic cities may garner the momentum of bidding for the Games in a positive way.  See below a list of cities that bring to light different means of doing so. Each city is paired with athletes that share a comparable story:

Learn from this failure to succeed next time

Despite Manchester’s failed bids to host the 1996 and 2000 Summer Olympics, the city won its bid to host the 2002 Commonwealth Games. The triumphant campaign for the Commonwealth Games was dramatically impacted by the city’s successive bids for the Olympics. The city used the infrastructure development plans so well laid out in the Olympics bids to their advantage. These plans were part of a larger city scheme to redeem impoverished areas. From the rigorous Olympics bid process, Manchester was able to efficiently achieve its objective to enhance physical infrastructure and sociocultural legacy. For all of these reasons, the Commonwealth Games were a great success.

Similar to the way that Manchester leveraged its failed bid work toward a first-rate Commonwealth Games, Kenyan runner Margaret Muriuki’s failure at the Olympics led to Bix success. Muriuki felt that she was able to succeed in Africa’s Bix 7 long distance race because she was so conditioned from her Olympics training and focused on the Bix after missing out on this summer’s Games.

Use the Olympic spotlight to advocate for change

New York bid to host the 2012 Games and failed….but is said to have “won” the Games.  The city’s motivations to redeem underdeveloped areas proved positive from a societal and urban standpoint. Public transport improvement and sporting venue construction are still underway and going quite smoothly. So although New York lost the bid for the 2012 Games, the bid process catalyzed construction projects—particularly in Manhattan’s West Side—that jumpstarted economic development in the area.

As a comparison, U.S. Olympic gymnast Shawn Johnson officially retired in 2012 and will no longer compete in the Games. However, she maintains momentum from her Olympic fame and experience by serving as a motivational speaker for young people with a message of health and dedication.

Broadcast a global signal to an international audience

Dr. Richard Cashman stresses that the Olympics are mainly about promoting the host city as a “global city.” With this in mind, Baku’s bid to host the 2020 Olympic Games may be seen as the city’s willingness to enter the international arena—politically and socioeconomically. According to the head of the Azerbaijan Organizing Committee, “We want to give a new impetus to the sustainable social development of our country and people by implementing the Olympic ideas of excellence, friendship and justice.”

As a parallel, Wojdan Shaherkani of Saudi Arabia was not expected to win in her Olympic judo match at this summer’s Olympics. However, her participation as one of two of the first female athletes in the Games served as an important symbol of women’s empowerment.

Cities and athletes can redefine Olympic “victories” through other gains. Penka Skachkova, a weathered Olympic veteran, says it best:

“Get up, dust yourself off, and start all over again. Take the skills you have and go and improve them, make them better.”

Possible Salt Lake Bid Stands to Redefine Olympic Transportation Legacy

The Oval remains an active stadium and reminder of the impact of the 2002 Games on Salt Lake City. Source: http://www.paceindustrial.com

Over the last year, BID has poured over articles, reports, studies, and interviews to analyze the impact that an Olympic bid can have on transportation development.  No matter how many times a city may have bid, its pursuit of hosting a single Games is often very influenced by a need for transportation infrastructure and stadia that will ideally boost economic growth beyond the Olympics. However, BID had never considered repeat hosts.

This week, the commissioned Utah Olympic Exploratory Committee delivered its report and recommendations to Governor Herbert and Mayor Becker that support a Salt Lake City bid for the 2026 Winter Olympics. The report says, “Utah’s Olympic legacy is strong and vibrant and ready to provide the foundation for a future Olympic Winter Games.”

While the Governor and Mayor have not released any formal statements yet, BID is fascinated with the idea of a repeat bidder who may actually host two Olympics just over two decades apart.  Few cities have ever hosted the Olympics multiple times, and in the last century, none less that 40 to 50 years apart.  With the increased emphasis on Olympic legacy and sustainability by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), Salt Lake City provides a unique opportunity to see just how much added progress could be made in advancing transportation infrastructure given its perceived successes in 2002.

When Salt Lake City bid to host the 2002 Winter Games, the city already had the foundation for strong transportation infrastructure.  The preparation for the bid and implementation of the Olympic Transportation Plan included millions in federal and local funds for light rail, road expansion and city planning and management projects. However, these funded projects were all meant to enhance an already functioning transportation system. The result, as evidenced in a post-Olympic poll, was an incredible 92 percent of respondents stating transportation was ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ during the Games!  Olympic stadia in Salt Lake, much like roads and rail from the 2002 Games have actually increased in use since the Games ended. Colin Hilton, CEO of the Olympic Legacy Foundation, reports, “The venues have doubled the participation from 10 years ago.”

Given the  enduring positive legacy, which the Committee sites extensively, and integrity of structures and transportation systems from 2002, one has to marvel at how much the estimated $1.67 billion budget for the 2026 Games could do to advance the transportation and infrastructure capacity as well as the international interest and investment in Salt Lake City.  While transportation investments would no doubt be involved in the planning process for Utah Winter Olympics Part 2, it seems reasonable to assume that it would be a fraction of the typical first-time Olympic host city transportation costs. Combined with the close proximity of Salt Lake’s previous gig as an Olympic host, the potential economic benefits to the city will clearly be the focus. Utah and IOC officials contend that hosting the Olympics put Salt Lake “on the map,” but one will have to wait and see if the world is ready to return. At a minimum, the roads, planes and trains that transformed Salt Lake ten years ago, would be a part of the ultimate Olympic legacy…serving another Games.