How far are you willing to drive (and in turn pay) to go run?

There is a trailhead only 1.2 miles from our house...hee hee hee...33 miles of trails--just about all mine.

Today is a treat for us. We will drive about 60 miles to Baker Lake, do 28 this afternoon, 14 tomorrow, all the while having Mt. Baker and the North Cascades Wilderness in the background ==> about 120 miles, two nights in the tent...we just don't do it as often.

I once drove 1500 miles to run a marathon. Back when gas was only $2 a gallon

So now I guess I would only be willing to drive 1000 miles.

I would take out a small personal loan to keep my current trail running schedule if need be.

don't let gas prices crimp your life.

I drive to the track, which is 2.8 miles away.

Am I the only one who runs from his front door every day? Driving somewhere to train...silly. Even if gasoline were free, time isn't. I'm doing good to squeeze in 10 miles in the morning before rushing off to work. I certainly don't have time to drive somewhere to do it.

Dish Dog wrote:

Am I the only one who runs from his front door every day? Driving somewhere to train...silly. Even if gasoline were free, time isn't. I'm doing good to squeeze in 10 miles in the morning before rushing off to work. I certainly don't have time to drive somewhere to do it.

For obvious reasons, it is probably more healthy in the long run to run on trails, and most of us don't have those right out our front door.

i dont know where you live, but if i want to run on trails, i'm talking a 5 mile journey minimum. if i want to run on a track its over 3. sorry you dont have time to drive but some of us do and would prefer not to run on the exact same roads every single day

3 miles to a track. That's not a drive. That's your warmup and cooldown ...

legally blond wrote:

For obvious reasons, it is probably more healthy in the long run to run on trails, and most of us don't have those right out our front door.

Maybe more healthy for you, but less healthy for the planet. People drive to go running - no wonder the ice caps are melting.

Conventional Wisdom wrote:

legally blond wrote:

For obvious reasons, it is probably more healthy in the long run to run on trails, and most of us don't have those right out our front door.

Maybe more healthy for you, but less healthy for the planet. People drive to go running - no wonder the ice caps are melting.

well, I agree.

you do have a point.

Conventional Wisdom wrote:

legally blond wrote:

For obvious reasons, it is probably more healthy in the long run to run on trails, and most of us don't have those right out our front door.

Maybe more healthy for you, but less healthy for the planet. People drive to go running - no wonder the ice caps are melting.

And no wonder the days of cheap gasoline are gone forever. When trained distance runners are unwilling to cover 3 miles on foot to the local track, but instead jump into the gasoline powered car, just imagine how lazy non-runners are. "Yep, the store's a quarter mile away, better jump in the SUV..."

I hear you bro, and I agree.

The question was about how far you would go to run. Maybe the other question regards how far one would be willing to go to train. There is a difference between getting out the door from home for a run and heading to the trails or track with a more specific objective in mind. My sense is that the perils of global warming are due in minutely small part to distance runners using large amounts of gas to travel to running locales.

There's no f.'ing excuse for a runner to not run (or walk or jog) anywhere he needs to go to do a workout.

I can't believe this. Apparently some runners are too embarassed to be seen running by their neighbors? or their suburban streets are not fit for running in?

Dick Beardsley (et al.) fart in your general direction.

I usually run out the door to the local HS track three miles away to get some track work in. Definitely have cut back on the 'driving to a run' routine. I also try to get weeknight runs in straight after work at a couple of trailheads near the drive home.

I hate this shite. Dude, I have to get in my car to go run. If I tried to run to the track, I would get killed. No sidewalks, no shoulders. Not everyone lives in a pretty neighborhood development with thoughtful city planning.

It's funny you should start this thread. This past weekend with all the heavy rain I desperately needed a long run, like 20+ miles. I have a marathon in 2 weeks and the weekend before I had to cut it short so it was a must for me to get this one in. Saturday morning I gave it a shot in the heavy rain. After 6 miles and a sore throat I was drenched and decided to wait for the next morning. The rain was heavier Sunday. I looked at the dobler radar and saw that is wasn't raining in upstate New York. I live in the Boston area and it would have been about a 100 mile drive and I almost went for it. Instead I remembered a club nearby with a short track I used to be a member of and paid $10 for a one day pass. At 18 laps a mile I ran 2 hrs and 40 minutes around that f***ing track bored to death.

I'm with you. I could run in a park at the other end of town and it's only a 10 minute drive. But that's 20 minutes spent driving that could be spent running.

Anyway, I do better healthwise on roads than on uneven surfaces.

Booby wrote:

I hate this shite. Dude, I have to get in my car to go run. If I tried to run to the track, I would get killed. No sidewalks, no shoulders. Not everyone lives in a pretty neighborhood development with thoughtful city planning.

You can say that again. I dare someone to run from my house to the closest track and back. You'd have tread marks up your back. I don't care how "green" you are, sometime circumstances do not allow you to run or bike.

On Saturdays I'll drive 30 min across town to run a sweet 11 miles through the park. It's worth it because of scenary, no traffic, etc.. I can't say I'd drive much further, although I did drive some friends of mine 45 min. to run an old route of mine in a different town, just so they could see the hills and such.