To the editor: As I sit here in Rancho Park, trapped in my house by traffic eight hours after the Los Angeles Marathon, I would sincerely like to know which bureaucrat at City Hall thinks it’s a good idea to split West L.A. — and other areas — in two for nearly a day.
A Westside where traffic is borderline or beyond unbearable for 10 to 12 hours per day. A Westside where, for the past two months, we have added innumerable cars due to Pacific Coast Highway closures. A Westside that is, as I write this, completely gridlocked, meaning if there were an emergency people could die before help arrives.
L.A. does not need a marathon to be a great city. But if it must be run, let it end in all parts of the city, not just on the Westside or in Santa Monica. End it on the Eastside, in South L.A., in the downtown area, in one of the valleys, or even in one of the fire-damaged areas as a tribute to their resilience. Only affect the Westside (and the other areas) once every five years or so.
Brent Byrd, Rancho Park
..
To the editor: The Los Angeles Marathon has come and gone with too little discussion of the extended traffic disaster that it creates annually. There are several major issues with the route and operation of the marathon that should be addressed.
One important problem is how long streets (especially the cross streets) remain closed; they reopen at something close to a brisk-walking rate. After four or five hours, the walkers can wait for the crossing signals.
Second, there is no real on-the-ground publicity about the route. Residents must seek out information on street closures and opening times.
Third, the cost to the city. The celebration parade following the Dodgers’ World Series victory last year got a lot of attention due to the cost to the city for traffic control, but the team paid about $1.7 million for the event. How much does the marathon pay the city for traffic control and disruption for an event that lasts longer, covers a larger area and attracts far fewer people?
Keith Price, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: Oh, there it is, finally, on B3 of Monday’s California section (“An American wins the L.A. Marathon for the first time in 31 years,” March 16). Was coverage of the L.A. Marathon, with thousands running through the city the L.A. Times represents, not a big enough story to give better coverage? I wonder if it would have been covered at all had an American not won the competition for the first time in 31 years.
Bill Glazier, Fullerton
