A YEAR ago, the London Olympic bid was in disarray, having been castigated for its transport links and infrastructure, as well as the siting of many of its proposed venues. It ranked third, behind Paris and Madrid, after being placed on the shortlist of five cities in the wake of the examination of its candidate file by the IOC.

After the publication of the report on May 18, 2004, a rethink was necessary under the guidance of Lord Coe, its new leader. The first task was to explain in greater detail to the Evaluation Commission, when it spent four days visiting Britain in February, exactly how the transport would work. This was because the original plans had evidently been misunderstood by the IOC.

Coe had also to give lobbying a new impetus, something that, as one of the most celebrated athletes in Olympic history he was able to do more easily than Barbara Cassani, his predecessor. The majority of IOC members knew him personally or by sight and he was able to talk to many of them as former competitor to former competitor.

However, there were other tangible changes to be made so that the Evaluation Commission report would be more laudatory, allowing London to present a more powerful case when the IOC votes in Singapore on July 6.

The Times examines those key areas of concern.

Transport and Air Quality

In the assessment published last year, the railways in London were described as “often obsolete . . . considerable investments must be made to upgrade the existing system in terms of capacity and safety”.

The IOC also said that “urban expressways and main arterial road facilities lack the capacity to provide reasonable travel times”. It pointed out that London’s heavy road traffic causes severe pollution.

In the Evaluation Commission report, published yesterday, the IOC is far less condemnatory. It now understands the concept of using the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, with the shuttle trains taking only seven minutes between King’s Cross and Stratford, next to Olympic Park. It also recognises that the capital’s underground, light rail and regional rail networks will be substantially upgraded and extended, particularly in East London, with Olympic Park being served by ten different rail lines, something that no former host city has been able to boast.

It also accepts that during the bid process, substantial London rail transport infrastructure investments have been “confirmed, guaranteed and accelerated”. Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary, said that a total of £17 billion was to be spent on London’s infrastructure by 2012.

However, the commission only states that it “believes that London would be capable of coping with Games-time traffic”. This is rather different in tone from the even more positive note in the same report over Paris, with the commission stating that it “feels confident” that “Olympic and Paralympic transport requirements would be met”.

On pollution, the IOC now says that “air quality in London at proposed Games-time is generally satisfactory. Increasing levels of ozone pollution are, however, a concern, but legislation and actions now in place, such as the ‘low emission zone’ and the ‘congestion charge’, are aimed at correcting that trend and ensuring all air pollulants are within World Health Organisation and European Union target levels by 2010”. Similar satisfaction is expressed about the air quality in Paris.

Venues

Last year, the IOC criticised the location of many of the venues because they were too far from the Olympic Park. It stated that four of them were more than 30 miles from the Olympic village, “making athlete travel in general quite challenging”. It added that the number of venues and their geographical spread “could potentially create complex planning for security services”.

London has taken these points on board and made the spread of venues more compact, such as moving the shooting from Bisley to Woolwich, and the equestrianism events from outside the M25 to Greenwich Park. The IOC now seems content and states that the use of Wimbledon for tennis and Eton Dorney for the rowing and canoe kayak flat-water events, while requiring additional travel times for athletes, makes “very good use of existing world-class venues”.

Unlike the 2004 report, it has not raised the absence of some of the most important facilities for the Games, such as the main stadium, which is planned for Olympic Park and will be reconfigured as the national athletics arena after the Games. Paris already has the Stade de France, which, by regularly staging football and athletics, has a ready use for after the Olympics.

On football, the IOC notes that matches can be staged at leading Premiership grounds, with the final at Wembley. However, it points out that the guarantees delivered by Manchester United and Aston Villa are subject to future negotiations regarding the commercial conditions for the use of these venues for the Games.

Once again, Paris received no criticism in the IOC’s examination of its proposed stadiums. It also said: “The Commission noted that written guarantees were received for the use of all existing venues and proposed sites for new permanent/temporary venues, as well as for the respect of IOC commercial requirements within these venues.”

Experience of hosting leading events

In its report of May 2004, the IOC stated that London’s international sports experience was “rather limited, with no World Championships and few international events having been organised, with the exception of Wimbledon tennis and equestrian events”. In its latest report, it repeats some of this criticism, saying: “The city has staged World/European Championships in only eight Olympic sports over the past ten years, but the UK has successfully hosted international events in most Olympic sports as well as the 2002 Commonwealth Games.” It knows that Birmingham has staged several World Championships and officials, with this experience, could easily be used for the Olympics.

On the French bid, the IOC says: “Paris has good sports experience having held some 24 international sports events in the past ten years in Olympic sports/disciplines, including the 1998 World Cup, the 2003 World Athletics Championships and the Tour de France.”

Overall technical assessment

Whereas the IOC hints at some slight reservations over London, it seems to have none over Paris. This is one very good reason why the French remain the favourites to get the Games.