Los Angeles has hosted the Olympics twice already and has enough infrastructure to do the job. Sure there will be some expenses, like painting over graffiti and busing homeless out of main areas. But, it is not like they are building major infrastructure like Athens or Rio.

There are some LA Metro improvements being done but they were planned and tax introduced before the Olympic win, I believe.

I would disagree on "having enough infrastructure", after moving to SoCal a few years back. LAX is a complete nightmare. One can easily spend 20-30 mins trying to drive from the airport entrance to the terminal. The horseshoe design cannot handle capacity.

This comment is, sadly, on-point.

However, LAX is being redone, both terminal-by-terminal, and with a connector to transit and car rentals. One place to go for a summary is: https://www.lawa.org/en/connectinglax/lamp-news -- the current round of modernization is expected to be done by 2023.

Socal also has a network of regional airports to get in and out of besides LAX. Ontario, Long beach, OC, Burbank, even San Diego if needed.

IMHO, this highlights the main pain point: transportation.

The city of LA's population was about 3 million in 1984 and now it's about 4 million. The surrounding cities (which are often hard to distinguish from LA itself) have grown too. Road and freeway expansion have not kept pace. Car traffic has become far heavier.

In 1984, the events were spread all over the place. They'll probably do something similar in 2028.

Will people be able to drive their rental cars and take their Ubers in a timely manner to the drop-off points for these dispersed events?

Will the city and county governments and the MTA add public transport in an intelligent and sufficient way to eliminate the need or desire for large amounts of private transportation? (Answer: no)

The MTA has plans to expand, and having the focusing timeline of the 2028 Olympics is, imho, helpful for large projects.

https://la.curbed.com/2017/8/4/16098474/olympics-transit-fut...

The Metro goes 100x farther than in '84. Most of the stadiums are near it, and LAX getting more accessible. Yes it has a while more to go, and it will, but it is not correct to say there has been no improvement.

In the scheme of things, it's not that bad. Ever been to IAD or JFK?

Well, if you're driving to the terminal you're doing it wrong. Athletes and spectators won't be. Should be improved Metro access by then as well.

> busing homeless out of main areas

Something is really wrong with the world when a city throwing around billions of dollars for a sports competition thinks just moving homeless people out of the way is an ethical answer to the problem.

If there was anyone in the decision making process with empathy they might run "slightly overbudget" by a few hundred million to build a hospital, rehab center, and public housing development to get those homeless off the streets permanently.

For starters, the city is not spending billions of dollars on the Games, the funding is private sources and corporate sponsorships. Second, the 2028 Committee is a private, non-governmental organization...

That being said, LA's homeless problem is largely due to the homeless rejecting housing, rehab, drug treatment, etc. In CA, a person cannot be committed to rehab or treatment against their will. This is the single largest factor behind why CA's homeless problem is so much worse than comparable locations.

Empathy won't solve anything until you convince the homeless "advocates" that rehab and housing is more important than the "freedom" of the homeless to do drugs and wreck their lives.

Knew that sentence would hit a nerve, but it is a reality, and unfortunately I didn't take the time to soften it.

You are correct, though I'd shift the focus slightly to mental illness. Mentally ill homeless in LA are deemed competent to decide their own welfare, but not face criminal charges. Logically both or neither of those must be true. Leaving a giant gaping hole of "nothing can be done" in any long-term solution.

The previous LA hosting of the Olympics was one of the few to be on budget and schedule.

It helps to look at actual history instead of projecting tropes.

With the number of concerts and pro and college sporting events that are held in the Los Angeles area, they already had enough venues to handle most Olympic events. They only had to build something like two new venues (a swim center and a velodrome, I think).

They used student housing at a UCLA (and USC?) for Olympic Village. That had plenty of capacity because a lot of students go home during the summer break.

Basically, the Olympics wasn't a lot more than Los Angeles normally handles, so I'm not surprised it went off well.

For starters, its not a government contract...

It's a private organization that contracted with another private organization with the support of the local governments and populace.