Front Range runners may be stupefied to see Omaha ranked ahead of Denver in , but the Mile High City did place 10th.
The magazine took a list of leading cities with runners per capita, then “gathered data from myriad sources to create five indexes of special importance to runners.” San Francisco, Seattle and Boston went 1-2-3, respectively, and Omaha came in ninth.
“Omaha? Really? Itap true: The land of steak and corn is having a running renaissance,” the magazine said. “In 1989, the city began creating a system of interconnected trails. Today, there are 120 miles of trails throughout the city.”
As for Denver, the magazine wrote:
“Yes, winter happens here, but with 300 days of sunshine, life in the Mile High City is pretty bright for runners. Combine that with 19 running clubs (six of which have the sole purpose of running to drink beer) and it’s easy to see why Denver is a favorite spot for runners. Some locals say it’s almost a requirement to run if you live here.”
Proud local runners may consider the magazine’s “methodology” to be seriously flawed. Boulder wasn’t in the running because the magazine only looked at cities with populations in excess of 160,000. Perhaps a more fair view would have taken Denver-Boulder as a single entity. Boulder teems with Olympians and competitive recreational runners who are ridiculously fast compared to their counterparts in other parts of the country.
Colorado Springs ranked 13th.