Chicago comes up short in IOC report

ATHENS – Today is the first day Chicago 2016 bid committee chairman Patrick Ryan could talk up the city’s bid to International Olympic Committee members, and Ryan is making the most of the time before he flies home Friday.

Building those relationships, permitted now that the IOC has made the city a finalist along with Tokyo, Madrid and Rio de Janeiro, could be a decisive factor when the IOC members pick the 2016 host Oct. 2, 2009.

But Ryan also has to deconstruct the baggage the city is carrying from an IOC working group report that ranked Chicago’s bid third behind Tokyo and Madrid and raised issues about the city’s transport plans, venue costs and financial guarantee.

The city placed fifth in three of the 11 areas the report evaluated, fourth in three others and no higher than second in any. So much for the Internet “Olympic insider” analyses and betting sites that had made Chicago the favorite.

“We never thought we were,” Ryan said. “Where we are is a very good position to be in.

“This is an interim report on some specific parts of the bid process, i.e., the technical review. The good part is they have said, ‘Here are some areas you should address, and here are some thoughts on how to address them.’ ”

Though rankings at this stage of the process have had little impact on recent IOC host city decisions, lobbyists for the other finalists likely will remind many IOC members about the Chicago negatives cited in the report.

Ryan is taking the report the way the IOC wants, as a guideline for improvement. He will make use of it in another way.

“They also give you the opposition’s playbook,” Ryan said.

This is how Ryan reacted to the specific criticisms:

Transport: The IOC knocked Chicago’s plans in two areas of the evaluation, general infrastructure (Chicago ranked fourth) and transport concept (fifth).

The report noted Chicago’s application file said the city plans to spend $27 billion on highway and transit projects by 2016 and that was “not consistent” with the $2.7 billion figure for transport also included in the file.

“I think we confused them inadvertently on that,” Ryan said, explaining that the numbers likely reflected both money already appropriated and costs of long-term projects yet to be funded.

The report also questioned how people would get from rail lines to the large concentration of sports venues planned for the lakefront, saying they were “not in close proximity.”

“That surprised me a little,” Ryan said. “We know Chicago so well we realize people either walk or take a shuttle or get a bus.

“We will look at other modes of transportation [to the lakefront] from the trains. And when they come in [next spring] on the IOC evaluation commission, they will study the maps and reality of the rail system. When you physically see it, it becomes more readily understood.”

Venues: Ranking Chicago fifth, the report questioned costs for the five major venues that must be built, including the Olympic stadium and the aquatics center. “The construction budgets appear low and may warrant review,” the report said.

“I think they are asking us to look at it from a perspective of, ‘Have you factored in all of the costs and adjustments?’ and we really believed we have,” Ryan said. “We feel comfortable with the numbers.

“I think the issue is we answered the questions within the guidelines and detail that were asked, and it is clear that as we move forward, there is a requirement to answer the questions in a broader and deeper context.”

Guarantees: Chicago’s planned $1.15 billion public/private guarantee against operational shortfalls does not meet the Olympic Charter requirement that the city and Olympic organizing committee be fully responsible for all such shortfalls and absolve the IOC of any liability for them.

The IOC noted the other three finalists provided the four guarantees requested. That meant Chicago ranked fifth in government support, legal issues and public opinion.

“Reading between the lines, they say we addressed the guarantee in part,” Ryan said. “They are going to compare what we have to other guarantees. Not all have a national government guarantee.

“We feel comfortable with what we have. If it needs to be further addressed, of course we will. Clearly, they wouldn’t have encouraged our bid, which they have all along, if they had felt, ‘Don’t waste your time, don’t spend all this money, unless you can get the full guarantee.’ ”

Philip Hersh covers Olympic sports for The Times and Chicago Tribune.