Marathon of a decision

DAVID NICKLE

February 2, 2010

The two marathons that shut roads in Toronto each fall have two weeks to sort out a way to move one of the marathon before council adopts a One Marathon policy.

That was the decision from the city's Public Works and Infrastructure Committee Tuesday afternoon, after hearing from supporters of both the Goodlife Toronto Marathon and the Scotiabank Waterfront Marathon.

Both marathons have been sending runners along 42.2 kilometres of Toronto streets, trails and walkways for the past decade - and the older marathon, the Goodlife Toronto Marathon, has been operating since 1978.

The trouble is both marathons take place in the fall, with just three weeks between them. And according to a report from city transportation staff, the stress on the transportation system is too much.

"The extent of the route of both marathons monopolizes a number of communities in the city and, as such, concerns from residents and businesses about having both marathons approximately three weeks apart in the fall of each year..." the report reads.

Staff said a policy of having just one marathon a year would make things easier - and suggested the city would determine who had the right to organize that marathon through a Request for Proposals process.

The report brought out the city's marathoners' community in force, as proponents of each marathon made their case.

Marathon runner Ed Whitlock - who in 2004 ran the Toronto Waterfront Marathon in two hours and 53 minutes at the age of 73 - sang the praises of the waterfront route, which has been working to attract first-class marathon athletes and become a marathon on the scale of New York and Boston.

"Toronto should have a major marathon," he said. "Races receive worldwide media coverage. Even the motorists there are not caught by surprise. While the Toronto waterfront marathon is not in that league, it has made progress."

Alan Brookes, the race's director, said in five years he thought he could increase the 20,000 entries now to 35,000.

"We believe we have the right model with the balance of international competitive elite," he said.

Jay Glassman of the Goodlife Fitness Toronto Marathon, characterized his marathon - which runs from North York to Queen's Park - as a more egalitarian run, aiming at promoting general fitness.

Councillors listening to the deputations were frustrated. Toronto Centre - Rosedale Councillor Pam McConnell said the St. Lawrence Community needs relief, and she chided the two marathons for not being able to sort out a compromise where one marathon moves to the spring.

"I am saddened that they were not able to sit in a room and come up with something that they could present to staff and staff could present to council as a solution that everyone could live with," she said. "What staff has decided was kind of a Solomon solution - you guys can't find a solution so submit to us the values you bring forward today and then we will make a decision. Our decision will be final. So in a sense it's the final throwing of the dice and I'm sad about that."

Committee member Gord Perks offered up a final chance for both marathons to continue. The committee supported his motion to let the two marathons negotiate for two more weeks before council considers the matter at its February meeting.

"You have two weeks," he said. "No more thinking, maybe they'll defer the decision or accommodate us. Because it could be the case that neither of you wins the RFP. Unless we move out of kindergarten and graduate out of high school there will be only one race."

Both Glassman and Brookes said they'd go back and try and negotiate.

"I think this is a win-win-win situation for everyone in the city and for all the charities and the runners," said Glassman. "Both events have contributed significantly to the city's economy and to the charities. For the runners, if the events are separated by six months it will work for the charities and the communities we run through."

Brookes said he looked forward "to rolling up our sleeves to see what we can come up with. We thought it was a very innovative and fair amendment."