US Grand Prix- Austin (USA)

[botsquad]

+1 same designer as the turk circuit.
+1 close to one of the better cities in the us
+1 its called circuit of the americas...not usa.

im in

[JeremySmith]

I am a bit more concerned about the success of the Indian Grand Prix myself..

But we will have to wait and see if the race in Austin is successful?

[BobHWS]

Originally Posted by Spritle

This is one of the places where I believe this F1 circus could fail miserably in Austin. The cost of tickets and the cost & hassle of attending the race...

...F1 offers nothing that America can't live without, unless of course they stage a royal wedding at every USGP.

Good luck Austin, you'll need it!

Spritle, excellent summary of all the potential problems with F1 in Austin. The race can survive the first 2-4 years based on its novelty and glamour, but after that, people will begin to question whether the cost of tickets and hotel rooms is worth it.

The problem of poor transportation infrastructure also looms over the race. As far as I know, the question of who will pay for expanding the roads around the track remains unsettled. If there are massive traffic jams the first year, that will have a negative impact on attendance the next year. The novelty and glamour will wear off even more quickly.

Another problem for Austin is the lack of an American driver and/or team. The key to soccer (football) finally becoming somewhat popular in the U.S. (though nowhere near as popular as American football, basketball and baseball) was the emergence of the U.S. as a minor soccer power and the development of some native-born American star players. I don't see any American F1 driver or team on the horizon that would spur American interest in F1. It's the same in any country--interest in F1 picks up in any country when one of its drivers is doing well.

[BobHWS]

A guest editorial from the Austin paper:

Aleshire: If F1 racing is so lucrative, it shouldn't need public funding
Bill Aleshire, Local Contributor
statesman.com
Sunday, May 22, 2011

The more we hear about what a financially lucrative business Formula One is, the more taxpayers should object to using tax dollars to support it. If F1 is truly such a good business to locate in Austin, it should have enough "fuel" to make it around the track on its own from the starting line...

...F1 relies on magical math. F1 claims there will be increases in some consumption tax revenue (sales, alcohol, hotel, etc.) if it comes here. Thus, by kicking that revenue back to it, it says this is really "free" to the taxpayers.

The error in such thinking is that every profitable business has the same effect without such tax kickbacks. It's unfair and utter nonsense to give these chosen few businesses back the taxes they generate, leaving the rest of the taxpayers to actually fund the government...


Aleshire, an Austin lawyer, was Travis County judge between 1987 and 1998.

[chillibowl]

an ancient American adage. 'If you build it they will come!'

Originally Posted by BobHWS

The key to soccer (football) finally becoming somewhat popular in the U.S. (though nowhere near as popular as American football, basketball and baseball) was the emergence of the U.S. as a minor soccer power and the development of some native-born American star players.

arguably the key to the US soccer program, rather its biggest encouragement in terms of promotion and development of younger players, occurred after they were awarded the 94 World Cup. 20 years later, in 2014, they will be considered one of the top challengers.

from the linked article:

Originally Posted by BobHWS

The more we hear about what a financially lucrative business Formula One is, the more taxpayers should object to using tax dollars to support it.

is that kind of like saying 'if business was so lucrative why does business need tax dollars to support it.' a fair point to be sure, one which you have made about 40 times already in this thread, but i still dont see the connection.

every F1 race exists because of government help. every major sport in the US exists because of government help and that includes the use of public money.

i cant even think of one major sport anywhere that is self sufficient and doesn't either rely on direct handouts from government or indirect subsidies in the form of property tax breaks and loan security for stadium/arena projects or spending on ancillary services like hotels, road, parking, hospital, police and fire services, and airport construction.

as a sports fan and a tax payer (in Canada of course but so is Montreal so i hope the fact that they accept public funds doesn't keep you from visiting)i love thats what my gov't spends money on.

in a somewhat unrelated matter, my city just got screwed out of reclaiming our lost NHL team the Winnipeg Jets from Phoenix because they decided that their gov't should pay to keep them in Phoenix. anyways its all good because we are going to get Atlanta's team with the help of our local gov't and the countless millions in infrastructure renewal and improvement that will come with it.

[ujoint]

Originally Posted by Spritle

This is one of the places where I believe this F1 circus could fail miserably in Austin. The cost of tickets and the cost & hassle of attending the race.

When the race was held at Indy, Tony George and IMS did their very best to keep the ticket prices reasonable. Parking was fair too. I had fantastic seats that cost me about $120 and way less for practice and quali. Food prices were also cheap at the track. One of the biggest reasons George balked at Bernie's price increase was the small margins due to the "affordability" factor he was trying to achieve. The only rip-off in the whole race weekend experience was the hotels which gouged like crazy. Indy was also located geographically closer to the northeast where the majority of the population resides making driving an option for the curious who might want to attend only one day's events.

If the Austin ticket prices are on par with the rest of F1 venues at 2-6 times the cost of Indy; I'm afraid the casual US fans, (and lets face it, 99% of them could care less about F1 and NEVER will), will check it out once or twice and decide it isn't worth it. Then of course you have the heat and hassle factor and gouging which no one can predict. If it costs a casual fan and arm & leg to get to Austin, ticket prices are high, it is scorching hot on race day, the ride to the track is the nightmare they predict it will be and the hotels & restaurants decide "all them F1 fans is easy pickins"; expect non-fanatical folks that are casually interested to quickly decide they have better things to spend their money on.

I hate to quote Bill Clinton but "it's the economy stupid!" Europeans may be used to paying a lot for petrol but in a country were driving huge distances is often a necessity and considered a birthright, folks here are cutting back A LOT on unnecessary expenses. Attendance at US sporting events is down and we are talking about ones they care about! Even NASCAR dropped ticket prices at certain events as has Major League Baseball.

There is no sense comparing Austin to other cities, circumstances or venues throughout the world though the eyes of a European or real US F1 fan. This is America, the same place that ignores football, (soccer) no matter how many times the rest of the world tells them they should be interested. My prediction, F1 will have a tough time after the first few years keeping the US citizenry interested, but maybe Tavo & company don't really care. I have to believe the choice of a city less than 200 miles from the Mexican border and the name of the track are an indication that the focus wasn't on the US and that more than 3/4 of the eggs that USGP basket aren't expected to come from US chickens. Maybe they should have built the track just across the border in Mexico and saved Texas & Austin a bundle of expense.

It's a good thing, a really good thing for the Texas taxpayers that there are plans for other events to use the facility because F1 offers nothing that America can't live without, unless of course they stage a royal wedding at every USGP.

Good luck Austin, you'll need it!

You friend are right on the money. One year only big deal. There is, in case you all don't already know it, one main interstate through Austin, Texas . It runs north and south and is the most congested single interstate passing through a major metro in the USA. After the fans taste of the beautiful entrance and exit experience from Austin town I would bet the next year crowd to be reduce by half. Assuming fans are interested in the first place. Not trying to stop F1 in the USA. It should have been located in the North East, USA for a better chance at long term survial. Ad infinitum. Ecclestien, you should have left things alone in Indiana.

[Purist]

I was thinking more along the lines of he should have left things alone in Watkins Glen, New York 31 years ago.

Salable land in the Northeast is too rare and too expensive anymore. Also, good transport links north of NYC aren't very plentiful. Liberty Park, or whatever the place was in New Jersey was NOT on. Monticello in Upstate New York would have REQUIRED COMPLETE bulldozing and reconstruction, and road links to it weren't anywhere near adequate, I don't think.

California and Texas are really the only places in the lower 48 with a desirable enough geographic location, sufficient population density, and enough truly open land to make a new GP circuit project really doable. And land in California particularly is still NOT all that cheap relatively speaking. Also, a track in the vicinity of L.A. would face the same, or worse, traffic issues as Austin for those trying to drive to the race.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by ujoint

You friend are right on the money. One year only big deal. There is, in case you all don't already know it, one main interstate through Austin, Texas . It runs north and south and is the most congested single interstate passing through a major metro in the USA. After the fans taste of the beautiful entrance and exit experience from Austin town I would bet the next year crowd to be reduce by half. Assuming fans are interested in the first place. Not trying to stop F1 in the USA. It should have been located in the North East, USA for a better chance at long term survial. Ad infinitum. Ecclestien, you should have left things alone in Indiana.

Where do you get your information from?

I drive I35 every day and have done for many years, it does not appear that congested to me, unless there is a traffic accident of course..

[BobHWS]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

every F1 race exists because of government help. every major sport in the US exists because of government help and that includes the use of public money.

I am always opposed, at least in principle, to government subsidies of sports facilities and events that mainly benefit the owners and participants. I am also skeptical of the claims made by consultants hired by those who will benefit from the subsidies of the "economic benefits" that will be result from the subsidies. As stated in a research paper that reviewed the economic literature on government subsidies of sports facilities and teams:

Both academic economists and consultants reach a conclusion about the economic impact of professional sports franchises and facilities, but these two groups reach opposite conclusions. The clear consensus among academic economists is that professional sports franchises and facilities generate no “tangible” economic impacts in terms of income or job creation and are not, therefore, powerful instruments for fostering local economic development. The clear consensus among consultants who produce “economic impact studies” is that professional sports franchises and facilities generate sizable job creation, incremental income increases, and additional tax revenues for state and local governments.

At the same time, I acknowledge that governments do subsidize sports facilities and events and that sometimes such subsidies may enjoy public support. I think it would be a good idea to always submit such proposed subsidies to a public referendum, as is often done in the U.S. with local bond issues for building public facilities like schools, libraries and roads (all of which have more obvious benefits to the public than sports facilities).

I do applaud Tavo and his buddies for funding the race track with private money. But the private money would probably not be there if they hadn't been able to get the state to underwrite the cost of Bernie's rights fee ($25M/year for 10 years). Also, according to news reports, the city will probably have to chip in $4M/year to support the race and some government will have to pay a lot of money to upgrade the roads leading to the track.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

...as a sports fan and a tax payer (in Canada of course but so is Montreal so i hope the fact that they accept public funds doesn't keep you from visiting)i love thats what my gov't spends money on.

Well, this will be my 11th year at the GP du Canada, so no it doesn't stop me. I realize that the Montreal race benefits from subsidies from the federal, provincial and local governments. But at least Montreal said no to Bernie when he arbitrarily tried to raise the rights fee for the race in 2008. The city lost the race in 2009 but got it back in 2010, supposedly for the same deal they had before.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

in a somewhat unrelated matter, my city just got screwed out of reclaiming our lost NHL team the Winnipeg Jets from Phoenix because they decided that their gov't should pay to keep them in Phoenix. anyways its all good because we are going to get Atlanta's team with the help of our local gov't and the countless millions in infrastructure renewal and improvement that will come with it.

It would be good if the citizens of Winnipeg got to vote yes or no on spending money in that fashion.

[chillibowl]

Montreal is great and am very envious of your trip.

Over the years they have truly encouraged this event. It has taken 30 plus years and is perhaps a model of how public finances can be used to benefit the local business community. Stepping back from my position i agree that this is not always the case and there are many examples of cities completely wasting funds to chase teams that do not have any true loyalty to the community that funds them.

from what i read of your last link i do think it raises some very interesting points.

namely the amount of money people have to spend on entertainment is fixed. having a new sporting events wont increase that amount as peoples incomes are also fixed. in effect it suggests that this will only take money away from other entertainment activities thereby not increasing the overall spend at all just funneling it towards subsidized activities crowding out the private sector which do not similar benefits.

very fair point i must admit, although im not sure that this should be a concern for the people of Austin if the overall net effect means that people may choose to spend their money in Austin instead of traveling to Dallas/Fort Worth or San Antonio (NFL or NBA) to spend their sports entertainment dollars. surely the local gov't priority should be for its own local economy. I think Montreal is case and point for this. This event draws people from all over the world. Should the money those visitors are pulling out of their own local economies in order to spend in MTL be a concern for the Mtl gov’t?

from another angle, how does a city like Austin compete against the bigger sports markets (again Dallas/Fort Worth or San Antonio) when those cities also subsidies their local sports franchises’? I suppose in this case they have chosen to fund F1. Only time will tell if it is a good investment or not. One day one of us will be eating our hats!

Going off topic now (although i think i did that already). The one part of your argument that does resonate with me is your belief that it should be up to the people of that community to vote on this issue and not have it forced on them. Cant argue with that.

problem is, here at least, the hype/hope surrounding a possible return of the NHL means most everyone would vote yes if asked. It wouldn’t be an informed yes mind you. as your last link suggests the promotional material used to sway peoples’ minds is just not empirical in nature and ultimately easier to believe.

I cant fault people being swayed or for voting with their hearts im just not sure its going to get to any more of a reasonable conclusion than their representatives’ just doing what they were elected to do…spend the tax payers money for them. in the end i hope that encouraging development is valuable in its own right and sometimes its needs a little encouragement from the public sector.

[BobHWS]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Montreal is great and am very envious of your trip.

CB, thanks for your thoughtful response. If you want to attend the Montreal race, then you should plan a trip. It's not even too late for this year. It's one of the most affordable events on the F1 calendar. If you (or anyone) needs advice on planning a trip to Le Grand Prix du Canada, just ask and I'll offer my advice...though this would be a better thread in which to ask about Montreal.

[chillibowl]

thanks

i've been. lived there from 95-99 for uni. even got to go to a couple of races. live and in person for 95,97,and 10.

happily enough though, family commitments are keeping me away this year.

[BobHWS]

This article from the Austin newspaper describes a plan to "widen" the main access road, FM 812, for the new track. The interesting thing about the plan is that they don't plan to actually, you know, widen the the road. They are just going to repave the current two lanes and the adjacent shoulders and then re-stripe the lanes to create four lanes from two with no shoulders.

This plan reminds me of the Seinfeld episode when Kramer "adopted" part of a 4-lane NYC highway and decided to repaint the lanes into just 2 extra-wide "comfort cruise" lanes.

I see a race-weekend traffic disaster in the making.

F1 developers' offer to help pay for FM 812 work on Travis commissioners' agenda today
By John Maher
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Travis County commissioners could vote today on an agreement for racetrack developers to pay $375,000 of an estimated $1.5 million face-lift for a five-mile stretch of FM 812, which will be the main entrance to the $400 million venue southeast of Austin...

FM 812 is described as a two-lane road, but the five-mile segment to be reworked has shoulders on both sides that allow slower-moving cars to be passed. The lanes are now 12 feet wide, the shoulders 10 feet wide. After the resealing, all lanes would be striped to be 11 feet wide...

"It's not being widened in any way, shape or form," Lopez said...

In September, county planners estimated that traffic delays tied to a Formula One race could be as long as 12 hours. A study done later by the consulting firm Kimley-Horn and Associates concluded that delays would be a little more then three hours, even without any improvements to existing roads...

____________________
Here is a Google Earth view of the area around the racetrack including the track area (red marker), State Highway 130, a four-lane road that will provide the main highway access to the track, and FM812, the main access road that will be "widened" from two lanes to four.

[bella]

that's the arrangement in place for the main road to the nurburgring... albeit in one direction. presumably it's the same going the other way. traffic isn't as bad as you'd think... at least not leaving. arriving it's a nightmare.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bella

that's the arrangement in place for the main road to the nurburgring... albeit in one direction. presumably it's the same going the other way. traffic isn't as bad as you'd think... at least not leaving. arriving it's a nightmare.

With a few traffic police and temporary one way roads out of the circuit it looks like it would clear pretty quickly.
On arrival they need to set out parking lots in the fields around the track and direct the traffic to fill it logically.
I take it they will helicopter the VIPs to and from the circuit - on race day at least.
How far is Austin from the track ie how much traffic will the 130 hold before getting off at Austin becomes a problem, they should look at how they will clear the 130 once the traffic is on it.
I am with you here Bella if properly handled there shouldn't be too much of a problem getting to and from the track.

[chillibowl]

among other news from the FIA today is a 2012 calendar giving Austin a Jun 17 date and just one week after Canada.

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre...sc-030611.aspx

Canada/USA back to back again!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

among other news from the FIA today is a 2012 calendar giving Austin a Jun 17 date and just one week after Canada.

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre...sc-030611.aspx

Canada/USA back to back again!

That makes a lot of sense.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

among other news from the FIA today is a 2012 calendar giving Austin a Jun 17 date and just one week after Canada.

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre...sc-030611.aspx

Canada/USA back to back again!

I understand from a logistics point of view, but June is not a good month to hold a race here, one week after the Canadian Grand Prix?

[chillibowl]

i suppose it is its traditional spot. in light of the article BobHWS posted earlier, are your concerns about attendance, in so much as anyone who has the ability and means to attend a race will naturally choose Montreal over a new and untried venue?

presumably this could make the Austin race harder to promote...but not impossible.

Indy (although there is an immense history there) did not have attendance problems prior to 2005 despite its close proximity in both dates and distance to Montreal.

[chillibowl]

never mind i see this is being talked about in the 2012 calendar thread.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i suppose it is its traditional spot. in light of the article BobHWS posted earlier, are your concerns about attendance, in so much as anyone who has the ability and means to attend a race will naturally choose Montreal over a new and untried venue?

presumably this could make the Austin race harder to promote...but not impossible.

Indy (although there is an immense history there) did not have attendance problems prior to 2005 despite its close proximity in both dates and distance to Montreal.

No I am not worried about attendance figures as I think it will be huge, at a *guess* I would expect between 150,000- 200,000 race fans over the course of the three day race weekend..

It's a bit close to the Canadian Grand Prix but it's fine, It will be hot of course, but then I was out in it today 99F and much of it is a state of mind with the ambient temp..

Of course I am not driving a F1 car in that heat..

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

No I am not worried about attendance figures as I think it will be huge, at a *guess* I would expect between 150,000- 200,000 race fans over the course of the three day race weekend..

It's a bit close to the Canadian Grand Prix but it's fine, It will be hot of course, but then I was out in it today 99F and much of it is a state of mind with the ambient temp..

Of course I am not driving a F1 car in that heat..

I don't see both GPs being back a problem, apart from the temperature/hummidty, unless there's a clash with NASCAR.

[HJJ]

06/09/11 Circuit of Americas government subsidies being called out So how is it that the Texas Legislature appropriated $25 million to give to British monopolist Bernie Ecclestone as an annual fee to allow an annual Formula One race in Austin? He controls Formula One racing, purportedly the globe's largest spectator sport after soccer. The plan is to pay Ecclestone every year for a decade, which amounts to a cool quarter of a billion dollars transferred from Texas taxpayers to the head of Formula One.

Texas cannot afford its current roster of teachers, but it can afford Ecclestone's monopoly fee to license an automobile race? It can afford a subsidy of $41.66 for each of an estimated 300,000 fans, supposedly nearly all from outside Texas, to attend an annual road race? And yet it cannot afford the 300 or so teachers whose pay and benefits come to $25 million per year?

The race fee is part of a growing list of Texas subsidies to major entertainment events. Since 2004 those subsidies have ballooned as the controls have become weaker.

The Formula One subsidy gives up all pretense of promoting actual economic development, no matter how much the beneficiaries claim otherwise. Statements by Texas billionaire Red McCombs and his associates that the Formula One race will generate a pot of added tax revenues paid by people coming into Texas for the event are, to be polite, pure fantasy.

McCombs and crew claim they are building more than a racetrack. They promise rock concerts, motorcycle races, and a sprawling research center – the last for sure an invitation for public funding.

They also claim that on race day, 130,000 people will be in attendance and that 97,500 of them will come from outside Texas. McCombs, who knows numbers well enough to have earned his way onto the Forbes 400 list, states as fact that these fans spend on average $220 each day on food and beverages. Wow! Double wow! The top-end Austin restaurants must be salivating at the prospect of that kind of spending.

There is just one little, teensy-weensy problem with this. People who spend $220 a day on eating and drinking tend to like nice hotels, what the lodging industry calls "amenity-filled" hotel rooms. Austin has only 6,000 such rooms, according to the Austin Convention and Visitors Bureau. So even if every one of those rooms is occupied by a couple, where will the other 85,500 out-of-town guests sleep?

Austin does have another 24,000 less elegant hotel rooms, from budget inns to fleabags, but even at two to a room that leaves about 35,000 fans sleeping in their SUVs and sports cars or driving an hour to San Antonio to find a room for the night.

And have I mentioned the traffic congestion from tens of thousands of imagined cars getting to the racetrack just south of Austin's airport? And the screaming whines of Formula One engines scaring the horses and children on neighboring parcels all race weekend long? And the need for taxpayer-financed water and sewer mains?

But that is hardly the worst of it. Robert Woods, the state comptroller's official in charge of the event giveaway money, told me that the state does not actually try to measure whether an event brings in extra tax dollars from visitors. "Basically we just skim off the money," he said when I asked how the state established a baseline.

Skimming a quarter of a billion in one American city, population less than 660,000, is quite a trick. That is nearly $1,000 per Austin household going to the British monopolist, with no evidence that it is anything but taking from existing revenues.

Other numbers used to justify the Circuit of the Americas project also show McCombs and crew are just making things up. Figures provided by Christian Sylt, who publishes Formula Money, a global newsletter on Formula One finances, indicate that the track will cost $14 million to $22 million per mile. Arkansas, Florida, and other southern states say building a road of comparable width costs no more than $6 million per mile in rural areas like the undeveloped brush land near Austin where the racetrack is planned.

And while the three-mile track has special surface materials, it is not built to carry the load of, say, tractor-trailer rigs with a gross weight of 90,000 pounds. Formula One racers weigh about 1,500 pounds. How about a referendum on taxpayer subsidies for a road that will get less annual traffic than a suburban cul-de-sac at a cost of as much as $22 million per mile?

And the claim that the majority of race fans will come from outside Texas, bringing in the dollars they spend? The British Formula One race draws an audience that is 95 percent British.

And then there is the economic problem. Americans have yet to show much of an interest in Formula One, no matter how well it plays in Monte Carlo. Formula One has been a disaster for taxpayers everywhere it has been tried in America. Long Beach, Calif.; Detroit; Indianapolis; and even Watkins Glen in the Finger Lakes region of New York, where a dedicated racetrack was built, all failed to attract an audience big enough to sustain the enterprise. Formula One just has not interested many Americans.

But if McCombs and Ecclestone can get a dedicated funding source, they can expect the money to just keep flowing. As difficult to stop as Medicare, Social Security, and school property taxes are, they involve big dollars and gets lots of public scrutiny. But a dedicated source of Texas taxes to give to a British monopolist? That is likely to receive much less attention from those obsessed with cutting spending.

Creating a dedicated tax for anything makes it hard to kill or even cut. For society that can be a universal good. For Ecclestone and McCombs, it is just another way for the rich to avoid the rigors of market competition. niemanwatchdog.org

.

[Flavio Galtieri]

Well he certainly has a downer on the "British" doesn't he? What relevance is Bernie's nationality for heaven's sake?

And 95% of the British GP's audience are British? So what? It's a sell out annually and there are other Grand Prix within easy driving distance in Belgium and Germany. Just like a short hop if you're from Texas!!

I can see why it's an easy target if budgets are being cut and schools are under pressure but I think if he revisits the issue in 5 years it will be seen as a success.

I've been to Austin myself and it's a really great town, I think the GP will be very well suited there. With a bit of luck there could be a US Formula One driver again soon and that'll help.

[Purist]

And Watkins Glen certainly seemed to be a reasonably popular venue for the GP back in the day. It lasted for 20 seasons there for goodness' sake, so it couldn't have been that bad.