What Are The Best Running Cities in America

Newark, NJ

EOT.

The biggest are probably Boulder, Flagstaff, and Eugene, though I too would be interested to hear about others.

Washington DC is pretty darn good.

NYC of course.

Boston of course

Don't agree with you two at all. NY City has Central Park and that is it, and that gets old fast.

Boston has nothing really. Too much asphalt and concrete. The marathon does not make it a great running city. The indoor tracks around don't do it either. The fact that the indoor tracks are such a highlight for some just shows how bad the weather is.

Don't know about "friendly" but San Francisco has some awesome views and some pretty good hills.

Austin

If you are a pro and/or have nothing else to worry about then a warmer high-altitude place like Albuquerque, Monmouth (sp?), Colorado Springs, are probably the best.

If you need a job or some diversions, then a bigger city will give you more opportunities. If you can afford Westchester / White Plains you will have some great trails and have Rockefeller State Park close by. I'm sure there are tons of cities that have great running too.

traveling man... wrote:

Boston has nothing really. Too much asphalt and concrete. The marathon does not make it a great running city. The indoor tracks around don't do it either. The fact that the indoor tracks are such a highlight for some just shows how bad the weather is.

It may be another year or two before I read a more ignorant post. Well done traveling man...

Used to be Rono wrote:

traveling man... wrote:

Boston has nothing really. Too much asphalt and concrete. The marathon does not make it a great running city. The indoor tracks around don't do it either. The fact that the indoor tracks are such a highlight for some just shows how bad the weather is.

It may be another year or two before I read a more ignorant post. Well done traveling man...

I'm sorry but I agree wit this guy. The weather is awful too. I really don't like Boston at all.

traveling man... wrote:

Don't agree with you two at all. NY City has Central Park and that is it, and that gets old fast.

New York City has 100 miles of traffic free running including trails and plenty of public tracks.

Used to be Rono wrote:

traveling man... wrote:

Boston has nothing really. Too much asphalt and concrete. The marathon does not make it a great running city. The indoor tracks around don't do it either. The fact that the indoor tracks are such a highlight for some just shows how bad the weather is.

It may be another year or two before I read a more ignorant post. Well done traveling man...

Ummm, he is talking about Boston, the city, not the surrounding areas.

Yes, the post asked about CITIES and that is my take.

And NY does not have a 100 mile miles of traffic free running. If you call running up and down the bike path on the east river traffic free, then good for you. But, that isn't good enough, and don't forget all the Fred's on bikes on that thing.

I'd agree with the people saying that Boston and New York aren't in the top tier of cities to run in. They're not awful but the routes get old quick (especially in New York). Sure, a lot of people run there but it also gets old dodging strollers and joggers on the overcrowded routes. As far as city running, I think DC is more enjoyable than either.

All cities have a lot of asphalt and concrete and actually, lots of people are fine running on it. But Boston also has plenty of places to run where you can be on grass or dirt. The whole path around the Charles has grass and dirt path next to the pavement. The Fens has a dirt path, the Arboretum is all soft ground.

But yes, in the winter you're likely going to need to run on what's been plowed and that's going to be asphalt or concrete, That's going to be the same in any cold weather city. The value of all the indoor tracks is not so much that they're a place to run when the ground's covered in snow and ice but that they provide more opportunities to race in the winter than you'd get in most other places.

traveling man... wrote:

Yes, the post asked about CITIES and that is my take.

And NY does not have a 100 mile miles of traffic free running. If you call running up and down the bike path on the east river traffic free, then good for you. But, that isn't good enough, and don't forget all the Fred's on bikes on that thing.

Manhattan does not equal New York City,

HRE wrote:

All cities have a lot of asphalt and concrete and actually, lots of people are fine running on it. But Boston also has plenty of places to run where you can be on grass or dirt.

... in addition to a wealth of indoor & outdoor ovals, Franklin Park, university facilities, open cross country meets, quality road races, The Emerald Necklace, Charles River path, retailers, coaches, access to sports medicine, running clubs, fan base, media coverage, et al.

A vote for the Twin Cities.

Miles and miles and miles of trails in and around the urban areas. Big running club culture. Frequent races. Great community support. Lots of talent and quality. Underrated but better than most of the bigger cities for sure.