For lightweight transclusion in Madrid bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics.
| Evaluation of the Madrid bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criteria and Sub-criteria | Madrid | Chicago | Rio | Tokyo | |||
| (Weighting) | Minimum | Maximum | Average | Average | Average | Average | |
| Government support, legal issues and public opinion (2) | 7.5 | 9.0 | 8.2 | 8.0 | 7.0 | 7.7 | |
| Government support & commitment | 7.0 | 9.0 | 8.2 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | |
| Olympic Charter & legal aspects | 8.0 | 9.0 | 8.5 | 7.0 | 8.5 | 8.5 | |
| Public opinion | — | — | 9.0 | 7.4 | 7.7 | 9.0 | |
| General infrastructure (5) | 7.9 | 8.9 | 8.4 | 6.4 | 6.2 | 8.2 | |
| Existing transport infrastructure | 8.0 | 9.0 | 8.5 | 7.0 | 6.0 | 8.7 | |
| Planned and additional transport infrastructure | 8.5 | 9.5 | 9.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 8.5 | |
| Airport | 8.5 | 9.5 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 6.2 | 9.0 | |
| IBC/MPC | 8.0 | 9.0 | 8.5 | 8.0 | 7.0 | 7.2 | |
| Sports venues (4) | 7.9 | 8.8 | 8.3 | 6.5 | 6.2 | 7.8 | |
| Existing venues | 8.0 | 9.0 | 8.5 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 7.7 | |
| Planned and additional venues | 8.0 | 9.0 | 8.5 | 6.5 | 7.2 | 8.0 | |
| Sports concept & legacy | 8.0 | 9.0 | 8.5 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 | |
| Olympic Village (3) | 7.4 | 8.7 | 8.0 | 7.8 | 6.8 | 8.2 | |
| Location | 8.0 | 9.0 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 7.0 | 9.0 | |
| Concept | 7.0 | 9.0 | 8.0 | 7.5 | 7.0 | 8.0 | |
| Legacy | 8.5 | 9.5 | 9.0 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 8.7 | |
| Environmental conditions and impact (2) | 7.4 | 8.8 | 8.1 | 7.0 | 6.6 | 8.2 | |
| Conditions | 6.5 | 8.5 | 7.5 | 7.0 | 6.0 | 7.7 | |
| Impact | 8.0 | 9.0 | 8.5 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 8.5 | |
| Accommodation (5) | 7.8 | 8.8 | 8.3 | 9.6 | 5.9 | 9.8 | |
| Concept | 7.0 | 9.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | |
| Transport concept (3) | 8.0 | 9.0 | 8.5 | 6.5 | 6.5 | 8.0 | |
| Distances and travel times | 8.0 | 9.0 | 8.5 | 6.5 | 6.0 | 8.5 | |
| Transport organisation and traffic management | 8.0 | 9.0 | 8.5 | 6.5 | 7.0 | 7.5 | |
| Safety and security (3) | 7.1 | 7.9 | 7.5 | 7.6 | 5.8 | 8.4 | |
| Experience from past sports events (2) | 7.2 | 8.2 | 7.7 | 6.7 | 7.2 | 7.0 | |
| Number of sports events organised | 8.0 | 9.0 | 8.5 | 6.5 | 7.7 | 7.0 | |
| Quality | 6.0 | 7.0 | 6.5 | 7.0 | 6.5 | 7.0 | |
| Finance (3) | 6.5 | 8.5 | 7.5 | 7.2 | 6.8 | 7.7 | |
| Overall project and legacy (3) | 8.0 | 9.0 | 8.5 | 6.5 | 6.7 | 8.0 | |
| Average scores | — | — | 8.1 | 7.0 | 6.4 | 8.3 | |
| Feasibility | |||||||
| Criteria and Sub-criteria | Minimum | Maximum | Average | Average | Average | Average | |
| General infrastructure Planned and additional transport infrastructure |
— | — | 0.90 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.90 | |
| Sports venues Planned and additional venues |
— | — | 0.95 | 0.90 | 0.85 | 0.95 | |
| Olympic Village(s) Concept |
— | — | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.85 | 0.90 | |
| Accommodation Number of rooms (3-5 star) |
0.70 | 0.90 | 0.80 | — | 0.80 | — | |
| Accommodation Number of rooms (Media villages) |
0.60 | 0.80 | 0.70 | — | 0.75 | — | |
| Accommodation Number of rooms (Other) |
0.50 | 0.70 | 0.60 | — | 0.75 | — | |
| Telecommunications | |||||||
| Category | Minimum | Maximum | Average | Average | Average | Average | |
| Cities/countries which already offer a very good level of general telecom infrastructure and service availability to support the 2016 Summer Olympics. | — | — | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | |
| Cities/countries which appear to offer a satisfactory level of development with modernisation plans underway that would support the 2016 Summer Olympics. | — | — | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | |
| Cities/countries for which the level of telecommunication platforms and services is less advanced and would require clear planning and commitment to develop all necessary telecom aspects to support the organisation of the 2016 Summer Olympics. | — | — | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | |