Could London handle the Olympics?

If London were to win an Olympic bid for the Games in 2012 or 2016, could we put in place the infrastructure to make the games as successful as in Sydney? Stadia, transport, tens of thousands of volunteers, and a whole array of other qualities would be required to host a successful Games - has London and the UK's population got what it takes?

Culture Secretary Chris Smith has warned that Britain might be unable to cope with the hosting the Olympics.

Mr Smith said that the prospect of moving thousands of athletes and spectators around London with the current system "filled him with alarm".

Not only is the capital's transport network in question - the stadia situation has been well documented.

Commitment from over 50,000 volunteers made the Australian Olympics work - would the British be so forthcoming in donating their time and effort to the Olympic cause?

Passion and commitment will be required form the top to the bottom - politicians, sports bodies and the general public.

What do you think? Have the British got what it takes to host the biggest sporting event in the world?

---

We must bid for the Olympics and we have to hold them in London. Unfortunately, at a global level, this is the only UK city that has enough clout.

The only possible way to stage the Olympics in such a shambles of a city would be to build a new stadium etc in the Thames Gateway region of East London. This area has acres of space, crying out for a purpose. The docks are ideal for watersports and London City airport, the DLR and Jubilee line all provide transport links. It makes perfect sense.
Emma Bedford, UK

I've lived in London, Birmingham and Manchester and I have to say that London probably has the worst transport and the most over priced. There is no way the already fragile transport system could cope with the Olympics without having a hernia.
Ramz, England

Before talk of any major sporting event happening in London lets see if we can first manage the daily rush hour - the last time I was in London this "hour" lasted all day. Or for a less flippant response take a drive, bus ride or tube trip on any given Saturday to any major London football ground. That should answer the question!!
Frank (Ex-pat in Aruba), Aruba

The Olympics are now too big to consider just one city. Atlanta had events spread far and wide and some football games in Sydney were played in Melbourne and Adelaide. London is too congested. Liverpool and Manchester would be quite capable of sharing host status. The two cities are vitually side by side with adequate links by road and rail that could, if needed, be updated. Further still, a bid submitted from a region should be considered just as equally as from a city.

Let's all just sit back and see how Manchester copes with the Commonwealth Games next year. Although they are not on the same scale as the Olympics, they are a multi-sport event that takes a great amount of organising to ensure everything runs swimmingly.
David, UK

We must stage the Olympics. I am in my mid thirties and have never seen a major event in this country. We finally have a bid for the Athletics world championships. Somebody has said we need to realise we are not good enough. I am afraid the truth is we need to realise we are good enough and do it.

Transport it is a problem but the Olympics is an opportunity to fix that and to fix accommodation and to regenerate and to get some TV money to do it. We just need some vision. I was in Athens recently and took two hours to travel six miles. I could have walked it quicker. So let's stop this British disease of whinging, moaning and saying we can''t do it. We need a proper bid and to go for it and don't forget we still have the National Lottery.
Paul Brooks, UK

We should not be so blinkered as to think that everything has to revolve around the capital

  Mark, England

A lot of this comes down to money and Manchester and Birmingham can't complain: they've had stacks of public money and have excellent facilities to show for their attempts. But London will always get preferential treatment. The building of separate football and athletics stadia in a city with a 85,000 seat rugby ground is an appalling waste of public money. If Paris can combine the three sports in one beautiful ground, how can the Government justify £200M for Wembley and £60M for an athletics venue which wouldn't even be big enough for the major games?
Gordon, Scotland

The Government spent £760 million on the Dome, which was a disaster! If only it would have spent that money on building an Olympic stadium on the same site with proper rail, road and boat facilities we might have stood a chance of winning an Olympic bid! There is nowhere else in London where a stadium could be built without complete disruption for all concerned!
Jud, England

Why London? It is the same rational that would put the new football stadium in Wembley, without even considering making it accessible to the rest of the country. We should not be so blinkered as to think that everything has to revolve around the capital. Manchester has got the Commonwealth Games coming up, and would not require half as much work to host the Olympics as London would. We risk creating the view that Great Britain consisted of London only, to the outside world.
Mark, England

When it comes to investment in most things, it inevitably goes to the UK's largest and best known city - London. I feel even though with the investment that the transport system needs and deserves it would need far too much time and money for it to be in time for any such bid for either 2012 or 2016. If Britain wants to host an Olympic Games then another city should be chosen. As a country we have many possible bidders. Cardiff has just spent millions on building new stadia and sporting facilities, Manchester is another worthy bidder, athough with it hosting the Commonwealth Games in 2002 would it want to host another major event so soon? And how about Sheffield - it is the national city of sport after all. Sheffield has numerous sporting venues which could all be brought to Olympic standards. The city has a comprehensive bus system and a budding light rail system that already has plans for extension. Come on London - give someone else a chance for glory!!
David, UK

There is a great danger that any seriously backed bid in this country would become a political bargaining tool or hot potato like the Dome

  Peter, England

London could never successfully host any major international sporting occasion. It is overcrowded, over-rated and over-priced. Public transport is dreadful and the shops, restaurants and pubs generally charge rip-off prices. Any major event should go to the Midlands or the North where people still appreciate sport and are not totally driven by money.
John, England

While it would be spectacular to see the Olympics here, can any intelligent person really believe they will happen. It is not only the infrastructure that needs to be addressed but the whole mentality of those concerned. There is a great danger that any seriously backed bid in this country would become a political bargaining tool/hot potato like the Dome. Meanwhile vested interests are quibbling over details of the New National Stadium. What message do we send out to the world when builidng a national stadium with a smaller capacity than many international venues without an athletics track? As for finding 50,000 volunteers - you can see the whole project losing money hand over fist and becoming the bane of the British people. Quite frankly, as a highly patriotic but disillusioned Englishman I'd rather see a well run Olympics which has the facilities to enable our top sportsmen and women to perform to their high standards - Sydney was a great Olympics both for Australia and Britain.
Peter, England

It seems Britain begins and ends with London. Let's not forget the disasterous year long celebration of the millenium, the controversy of the London mayoral electoral campaign and the abject negligence of planners of the new Wembley Stadium to include facilities for athletics. Other cities have excellent transport schemes such as the re-introduction of trams, park and ride areas and the particularly successful metro and and 'bendi-bus' schemes in Birmingham. Why not bring international sport to places like the Midlands where both the venues (NIA & NEC) and the community are committed to representing the international stage of sport (Davis Cup and World Championship indoor athletics to name but two). I for one am proud of Birmingham's commitment to changing transport infrastructure and the way in which the rest of the UK perceive us. I thought de-centralisation to local government was a feasible way to target individual problem areas and to elevate the status of local city areas. I'm increasingly viewing this as an opportunity for Westminster to forget that there is life outside of London.
Rebecca, UK

The British do not have a wide range of sporting interests. While Olympic sports such as athletics, rowing and football would be very popular, no one would bother to go and see events such as fencing, shooting and handball...
Tom, UK

Why would the IOC give the Games to a vast gridlocked sprawl with an awful climate

  Paul, Australia

I'm a Londoner living in Sydney and went to many Olympic events. Having seen first hand what's required to stage a great Games, my heartfelt advice to anyone thinking about a London bid is - please don't bother. Why would the IOC give the games to a vast gridlocked sprawl with an awful climate ? Cities of 10 million plus simply don't lend themselves to the Olympics, let alone ones with a hope less transport infrastructure. I personally believe Birmingham would be a better host city, but as it's been ruled out, the UK should not waste public money on a no-hope London bid.
Paul, Australia

My home is Sydney but I have had the pleasure of spending the last two years in London. Of course London can hold the Olympics and it would be a great stage for the athletes to appear on. The inherent conservativeness of Australian ancestry (ie British) made the people of Sydney question if it was all possible. The answer is without doubt, a resounding YES! For the price of the Millennium Dome, the people of Sydney got a fantastic sporting stadium and state of the art sporting facilities that are now available to both the professional sportsman and families alike. For a little extra we now have improved road, rail and ferry links. London has a sound infrastructure for moving large numbers of people around the city (with smart use of the river you could move millions without added pressure on the rail). With the right planning and most importantly, commitment from both the government and the public, it could be a great opportunity for the city. You can do it and would put on a great show. Time to take the bull by the horns!
Daryl, Australia

Improvements in infrastructure is necessary. Look at other host cities, Sydney and Atlanta and look at how much they spent on transport and adequate facilties. To be a capable host any bidding city would be expected to improve facilities and infrastructure. Chris Smith is just stating the obvious. It's 2001, we want to hold the games in 2012 or 2016, doesn't he think we have time to get ready? Come on, London is world famous, we have a chance to show the rest of the world why we are proud of it. If we keep moaning all our lives we are going to get nowhere, maybe if we got on with mounting a bid where everyone supported it, maybe just maybe London will host a future games.
Paul, Northern Ireland

The question to me is not could London put on the Olympic Games but why would London want to put on the Olympic Games. The Olympics cost a fortune, paid for by the ordinary taxpayers, who, when the games arrive either can't afford tickets or more likely can't get tickets to any glamour events. In my opinion the Olympics are staged by the 'social set' and the media to give themselves a wonderful time. The public, who are paying through the nose for the event, are not wanted or needed except as unpaid volunteer workers. Let them who want the games "Pay for the Games".
Mal, Australia

To have any hope of hosting the Olympics, you will have to pay for it in terms of more investment in public transport

  Robin, France

The state of public transport in London would do significant damage to the reputation of the Olympics if they were to be held in London. Imagine trying to squash half a million spectators onto 30 year old slam door trains which travel at the same speed as when they were powered by steam. Imagine what these spectators are going to think when they suddenly realise that their train will probably be cancelled or delayed. The world's media spotlight will be on London (and England's) transport more than the actual games. That would also do lasting damage to tourism in London. To have any hope of hosting the Olympics, you will have to pay for it in terms of more investment in public transport. The forthcoming Olympics in Athens (with an equally appalling transport system as London) will be a good lesson for the IOC on the importance of having good public transport in a host city.
Robin, France

Although it would be great if London did hold the Olympics, we must realise that it can't, not even in 20 years. The UK just does not have the infrastructure to deal with this in any capacity, let alone organise a normal event. A lot of people in the UK still think that we are far more advanced that other European countries. People need to wake up, Great Britain is not as great as it used to be many eons ago. It's a sad fact but it true. We also need to wake up to the fact that despite what we think other countries do not hold the UK very high in their esteem. Far from it. With an international reputation like ours and our internal structure I'm surprised that we are even bidding for the Olympics.
Anthony, UK

I lived in, and worked at, the Barcelona Olympics from 1990 - '92 and saw all the preparations and hard work that made that such a successful Olympics. One of the main features was an integrated transport system - which the Government talks so lovingly about. It must also be stated that Barcelona had had its eye on staging the '92 Games since the 1940s - not as an afterthought which seems to be the case in the UK. Having said this, I still think London is a wonderful city and could stage a successful Olympics with VERY long term planning.
Mark, UK

I think the Government's attitude to the London Olympic bid is typically defeatest. The capital is a world class city, and the fact that Chris Smith thinks so little of our capital city's capability to stage a big sporting event only serves to highlight the Government's failings at not only improving services to withstand an increase in demand, let alone a transport system that can barely cope with the London population. I think it is time we had politicians that had some ambition and determination in their policy and actions. They haven't acheived much but embarrasment over the Millennium Dome, the new Wembley stadium, the national rail network and the 2001 New Year celebrations in London. The politicians are losing sight of what the public wants. I think that London should put in a bid for the Olympics, and give us an achievement to be proud of.
Daniel, England

Why not a national games, with cities such as Liverpool and Manchester sharing the event?

  Helen, Sweden

I think Cardiff would be a better venue than London. Wales has already hosted the Commonweath Games and the Millennium Stadium is proof that the Welsh capital could become a home to the world best Olympic Stadium built with lottery money. Also, a Celtic theme for the opening ceremony would be far more interesting than anything the English could produce - what would London put on as an example of English culture? 100 football hooligans throwing bottles at each other in the middle of the stadium while policemen on horses charge through their ranks? On second thoughts, perhaps that would make interesting opening entertainment.
Darrin, USA

As a Brit living in Sydney for the last year I agree that it should be possible for London to host the games in a few years (despite the truly monumental organisation required). But only London: Manchester/Birmingham will never be selected as the host city needs a 'wow' factor. Like it or not, London and Edinburgh (too small) are the only UK cities that qualify in that regard. Remember the Atlanta fiasco. It just confirms how misguided the decision was to rebuild Wembley stadium in a congested, unattractive and decaying inner suburb instead of investing in an out-of-town national complex near the M25 that could be adapted for the Olympics and provided with good road/rail links.
Ian, Australia

Why only London? Why place the Olympics in the most congested and over crowded part of the country. Why not a national games, with cities such as Liverpool and Manchester sharing the event? This would at least show the rest of the world that the North of England has a lot to offer, and some dedicated sports fans. People in London are just too jaded.
Helen, Sweden

What is so shaming about any British bid for the Olympics is that Birmingham and Manchester have effectively been banned from submitting a bid. What is the Governments reaction to this - NOTHING. It's typical of the establishment, London first, second and only.
David Sutcliffe, England

I was a volunteer at the Sydney Olympics working as part of the Environment Programme team. I therefore experienced the transport issues first hand and saw how this issue was integrated into the Green Games concept. During the final month preceding the Games, there was much public debate about transport, with the majority of Sydneysiders fearing problems. Traffic congestion and public transport failures were top discussion topics - along with property prices, so no difference there.

I would love to see a London Olympics but some serious changes of attitude and commitment need to be made in this country beforehand

  Brendan, UK

Ultimately Sydney's Games worked on all levels because of good long-term planning and organisation, which overcame potential local difficulties. To suggest in 2001 that London could not seriously sort out its transport difficulties by 2012 is hugely depressing and defeatist. Surely Londoners and the country as a whole would support and expect to see transport infrastructure improvements over the next decade. These will be needed in any case, not just for the Games. You do not build new systems just for two weeks of sport. But the Olympic Games could be a fantastic catalyst for getting things done across a whole range of social and environmental issues. Sydney residents suffered years of disruption as new roads and rail links were built. They now have some great new facilities, they have put their city on the 21st Century world map and they enjoyed a great sporting festival. If only we British could take the same spirited approach we too could one day be proud Olympic hosts and have the legacy of a better city environment.
David Stubbs, UK