[Racer Duck]

Aurora City Council Members Want NASCAR Track

AURORA, Colo. (CBS4) ― Aurora City Council members are still hoping to bring a NASCAR track to the city.

The International Speedway Corporation announced a desire to build a NASCAR racetrack in the metro area 10 months ago. Commerce City has already rejected that.

Talks in Aurora have slowed in recent months because of City Council elections.

One of the possible sites is near the Front Range Airport.

A new race track would require voter approval and it could include a tax increase.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

Aurora City Council Members Want NASCAR Track

AURORA, Colo. (CBS4) ― Aurora City Council members are still hoping to bring a NASCAR track to the city.

The International Speedway Corporation announced a desire to build a NASCAR racetrack in the metro area 10 months ago. Commerce City has already rejected that.

Talks in Aurora have slowed in recent months because of City Council elections.

One of the possible sites is near the Front Range Airport.

A new race track would require voter approval and it could include a tax increase.

This one mystifies me, Duck.

They had a perfectly good track within easy driving distance, down at Pikes Peak. They wouldn't support it.
They had a great short track at Englewood, back in the late 70's. It's gone.
They have a fantastic 1/2-mile track (National) north of Denver, between Denver and Greeley. I attended a race there last summer and the track was less than half filled.

If NA__AR absolutely HAS TO HAVE a track out west, why do they continue to ignore Portland? It's in the desired NW corner of the country, and the area has a long-standing tradition of racing. Shorty Templeman and Hershel McGriff, just to name two. They've held successful CART races there in the past and if those things can be successful, surely NA__AR could do equally as well?

IMNSVHO, all a Denver site represents is a NYC in cowboy boots.

[nascarfan24]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

They had a perfectly good track within easy driving distance, down at Pikes Peak. They wouldn't support it.
They had a great short track at Englewood, back in the late 70's. It's gone.
They have a fantastic 1/2-mile track (National) north of Denver, between Denver and Greeley. I attended a race there last summer and the track was less than half filled.
IMNSVHO, all a Denver site represents is a NYC in cowboy boots.

1. Colorado supported the heck out of PPIR. ISC bought it and closed it to raise demand. The track is still standing out there, nothings been torn down in the 2 years it's been closed.
2. I've heard that track was fantastic too.
3. Colorado National Speedway is usally packed and is way to small for a cup race. It'd be a miracle to fit the truck series in there.
4. NYC in cowboy boots? I'm not arguing.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by nascarfan24

1. Colorado supported the heck out of PPIR. ISC bought it and closed it to raise demand. The track is still standing out there, nothings been torn down in the 2 years it's been closed.
2. I've heard that track was fantastic too.
3. Colorado National Speedway is usally packed and is way to small for a cup race. It'd be a miracle to fit the truck series in there.
4. NYC in cowboy boots? I'm not arguing.

I stand corrected. Sorry. I watched the BGN races on TV and I remember them making some statements that the stands weren't close to being packed.

IRT National, I was there one weekend during the 2006 summer. I thought the program was great, ran smooth, only three classes ran as I remember. The racing started at 7:30 I believe and the main ended by 10:30. The night I was there the stands were half empty. I don't know why. It was convenient to get into and out of; right on the Interstate. You're right about being too small for the NA__AR main series. I figure the stands hold... 12,000 tops?

I still have no idea as to why ISC bought Pikes Peak, just to left it sit, or demolish it. The decision to do this obviously wasn't in my pay grade.

[thunderfoot]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

This one mystifies me, Duck.

They had a perfectly good track within easy driving distance, down at Pikes Peak. They wouldn't support it.
They had a great short track at Englewood, back in the late 70's. It's gone.
They have a fantastic 1/2-mile track (National) north of Denver, between Denver and Greeley. I attended a race there last summer and the track was less than half filled.

If NA__AR absolutely HAS TO HAVE a track out west, why do they continue to ignore Portland? It's in the desired NW corner of the country, and the area has a long-standing tradition of racing. Shorty Templeman and Hershel McGriff, just to name two. They've held successful CART races there in the past and if those things can be successful, surely NA__AR could do equally as well?

IMNSVHO, all a Denver site represents is a NYC in cowboy boots.

I would vote for Portland. We did have a great track there called Rose City Speedway. A most excellent 1/2 mile facility. Lots of stories about the blackberry bushes in turn 3 and 4. Just ask Hersch about those. How about Chuck and Jimmie Bown? Mike Bliss is from Milwalkie Oregon and would run Rose City alot. Of course there is Biffle, Little and Cope. But they be the has beens (the later two that is). I never did like them. Pompass A$$ little whining babies. The thing is there was a lot of history at that track. I always enjoyed running there even though the win eluded us. Rose City was the only track in the Northwest we never got to win at. Portland could support a good track better than any city or county in Washington. We have evil and theives in our government up here. But I cant get into that for fear of being escorted to the trailer. But I would bring a half rack for you guys and 7-up for me. It used to be Dew but the caffiene is a big No-No now says the doctors. I would even make a donation for a new Lazy-Boy. My favorite color of course "Ford Blue"

[wingkey1]

why do they continue to ignore Portland?

While quite/very tedious were one to closely examine the comparative NWS historic percipation records (Portland to near anywhere in Colorado), the possible reasoning behind "not Portland" can be seen.

Now come the day of acceptable "racing in the wet" for the series (NASAR or whatever), it becomes a non-issue. Don't hold yer breath, you're likely to pass out.

The associated direct and domino impact/effect on cost and plain inconvenience across the board (Teams, promoters, venues, fans, sponsors, etc., etc.) is near unimaginable to anyone who has not had direct/personal involvement in the scheduling and execution of an event that draws wide geographic interest and attendance. We have, but on a scale that is "little fish" (sub-minnow?) compared to the professional level serie(s). It's mind boggling.

Weather matters, whether we like or understand it or not.

But what do we know?!

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by wingkey1

why do they continue to ignore Portland?

While quite/very tedious were one to closely examine the comparative NWS historic percipation records (Portland to near anywhere in Colorado), the possible reasoning behind "not Portland" can be seen.

Now come the day of acceptable "racing in the wet" for the series (NASAR or whatever), it becomes a non-issue. Don't hold yer breath, you're likely to pass out.

The associated direct and domino impact/effect on cost and plain inconvenience across the board (Teams, promoters, venues, fans, sponsors, etc., etc.) is near unimaginable to anyone who has not had direct/personal involvement in the scheduling and execution of an event that draws wide geographic interest and attendance. We have, but on a scale that is "little fish" (sub-minnow?) compared to the professional level serie(s). It's mind boggling.

Weather matters, whether we like or understand it or not.

But what do we know?!

Very good points, Wing. Tis true. The weather is not necessarily the race promoter's friend.

My question is why the continued tendency to ignore Portland and the attempt to make a track in the SeaTac area? According to annual rainfall reports both average between 36" and 37" annually. It seems to me that a choice between SeaTac and Portland would be a more or less toss up. Portland has the racing history yet the name never seems to surface in "Let's expand to the Pacific Northwest" conversations we hear from NA__AR?

Colour me perplexed.

[wingkey1]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Very good points, Wing. Tis true. The weather is not necessarily the race promoter's friend.

My question is why the continued tendency to ignore Portland and the attempt to make a track in the SeaTac area? According to annual rainfall reports both average between 36" and 37" annually. It seems to me that a choice between SeaTac and Portland would be a more or less toss up. Portland has the racing history yet the name never seems to surface in "Let's expand to the Pacific Northwest" conversations we hear from NA__AR?

Colour me perplexed.

And that is an entirely different query from the initial pondering of Colorado vs. Oregon. rather than Oregon vs. Washington/Oregon. In the second we now know (Thanks to your data) that rainfall differential ain't the deciding factor.

Would near be willing to wager (something we never do so figure odds are high in favor) that similar to our own experience with event planning, things like demographics, available population for draw, access/egress (local, national, international, air rail, road), media coverage, area support of similar event types (same and lesser levels), hotel rooms, ancillary/supportive businesses and markets, brand recognition of leading sponsors, etc., etc., are all part of the decision process. Somewhere in there a probability of success for ones specific endeavor will become seemingly apparent. Been to both Seattle and Portland a number of times. Enjoyed both very much. Never had to go through comparative evaluatory excercise for the purpose of event or market planning though so any "offer" as to the "why" you pose would be - well pretty much a hip shot. Meaning pretty much nothing more than a worthless running of the mouth.

[thunderfoot]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Very good points, Wing. Tis true. The weather is not necessarily the race promoter's friend.

My question is why the continued tendency to ignore Portland and the attempt to make a track in the SeaTac area? According to annual rainfall reports both average between 36" and 37" annually. It seems to me that a choice between SeaTac and Portland would be a more or less toss up. Portland has the racing history yet the name never seems to surface in "Let's expand to the Pacific Northwest" conversations we hear from NA__AR?

Colour me perplexed.

In all reality Portland has better days than the Sea Tac area. Even though the rain fall records say they have the same amount its the frequency that it falls on that is the difference. Plus Portland is warmer than we are in Seattle. I can remember only one or two rainouts in Portland when we ran the series. We ran from 73 - 86 as competitors and then as officials through the 90's. Yes, us became them. "Traitor" was a favorite name I enjoyed. If you go east from Portland for 50 miles you get into high desert. Very dry, and it would be a great place to have a big track and be safe to schedule races without the threat of rain all the time. And its a central point as in people from Washington, Oregon and Idaho (dont forget B.C.) can drive there within just a few hours. Just build it, we will come!

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by wingkey1

And that is an entirely different query from the initial pondering of Colorado vs. Oregon. rather than Oregon vs. Washington/Oregon. In the second we now know (Thanks to your data) that rainfall differential ain't the deciding factor.

Would near be willing to wager (something we never do so figure odds are high in favor) that similar to our own experience with event planning, things like demographics, available population for draw, access/egress (local, national, international, air rail, road), media coverage, area support of similar event types (same and lesser levels), hotel rooms, ancillary/supportive businesses and markets, brand recognition of leading sponsors, etc., etc., are all part of the decision process. Somewhere in there a probability of success for ones specific endeavor will become seemingly apparent. Been to both Seattle and Portland a number of times. Enjoyed both very much. Never had to go through comparative evaluatory excercise for the purpose of event or market planning though so any "offer" as to the "why" you pose would be - well pretty much a hip shot. Meaning pretty much nothing more than a worthless running of the mouth.

Yeah, I think we can discount completely the idea that the Denver area is a sub for the NW. Not even geographically close. Colorado is a different case entirely. And it's one which I don't understand. Why buy a good track like Pokes Peak, then drop a date then replace that date with...? Martinsville? It's a better race at Martinsville but what happened to market share? I'd say, offhand, the Denver/Eastern Slope market has it all over the rural VA market.

Back to Portland v. SeaTac. As you have, I've been to both; didn't especially care for either. But that counts for nada. It would seem that Portland has the more abundant and cheaper land, the history of racing and better access for the attendees. Yet NA__AR continues, apparently to ignore the area? I repeat, that perplexes me.

[thunderfoot]

One could almost think that payoffs or just plain ole dirty politicians are in the works. Just look at our governor. She stole the seat in Olympia and has been the worst for many years.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by thunderfoot

One could almost think that payoffs or just plain ole dirty politicians are in the works. Just look at our governor. She stole the seat in Olympia and has been the worst for many years.

Don't you just love taxation without representation?

[thunderfoot]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Don't you just love taxation without representation?

Greatest thing since INSTANT TEA!