No need to post frownie faces if the actual UCI event costs are figured in and they are still greatly positive. Cyclocross would be a major winner in the US.Do you really think that the UCI would commission a study that found otherwise? I'm sure if you asked the Richmond World's organization about the weeks impact on the area, you would find nothing but positives. Ask them why there was no backing for a one day UCI race in the years after. My guess is that their answer won't be that people were afraid of so much success again.
Tour of California didn't net any major economic benefit to Napa and Sonoma Counties according to locals. Those areas are at near maximum housing capacity for tourists when the race came around and aren't looking for great increases in tourist development. Their land use governance make is difficult to permit a house remodel, let alone major tourist infrastructure. It's taken the 4 Seasons Hotels 6+ years to build a small hotel in Calistoga on the site of an existing condominium. I'm not sure there was any net increase in bed capacity. Sacramento may be a good balance but not much of a tourist destination compared to Napa, Tahoe and most coastal areas (that have fewer hotels than Napa).
The Tour, Giro pass through much tourist territory that boast huge winter tourist capacity. That is vacant income/bed capacity that makes sense in every way for a Tour event. I think the French national government budget covers repaving many of the roads on the Tour route which is a tremendous benefit if true and ASO still gets paid from the towns in some manner. Much easier math.