Interesting thread. I think the problem is defining "remote." Someone mentioned that the ability to fly in a plane or helicopter to a location makes otherwise "remote" places pretty easy to visit. So, would that make wilderness areas (in the US) the best candidates because you can't fly into them (as a private citizen) and have to use human power to travel to them?

As far as places with dwellings, I think parts of southwest Colorado and the four corners region are pretty remote in the sense that you're very far from even medium-sized cities. Take Telluride, CO: 360 miles to Denver, 400 miles to SLC, 300 miles to Albuquerque, 500 to Phoenix. The closest "city" is Montrose, CO, which is still 70 miles. It's 45 miles before you even hit a stoplight. 70 miles to find a Walmart. That's pretty "remote."

As far as the most remote place I've ever "felt" in Utah, it would have to be either Canyonlands NP or the Canyons of the Escalante area of the GSENM. Come to think of it, The Maze District of Canyonlands NP is awfully far from civilization and very difficult to travel through.

nartreb wrote:In Massachusetts? The maximum straight-line distance from a road is probably about a mile.

That's a real bummer.

Considering towns, I don't know if its the most remote, but Dixie, Idaho would be a consideration. Much of the year it can only be reached by snowmobile. When the road is open, its an hour drive to a town of about 700 (Elk City) and then an hour and a half drive to Grangeville, population 3,500. Grangeville is the largest town and has the only traffic light between McCall and Lewiston, about a four hour drive.

mrh wrote:But the most remote area could well be in the Owyhees in the far SW part of the state. Again I don't care to look it up. But the remotest place in the U.S. outside of Alaska is almost certainly in the American Outback, which is the vast empty country where SW Idaho, SE Oregon and northern NV meet.

You could be right, although if you drive 95 often enough you'll notice many MANY roads leading off into the never-never land. Of course during the wet season you couldn't go 10 yards without your tires locking up with gumbo. So if you could find your way into that country during that time, I'd bet you'd be pretty far from another person.

NancyHands wrote:

nartreb wrote:In Massachusetts? The maximum straight-line distance from a road is probably about a mile.

That's a real bummer.

You forget that most other states have counties bigger than Massachusetts. One hour north of Boston and you're in New Hampshire. New Hampshire, New York State, and especially Maine have some big tracts where "remoteness" depends on how recently the logging companies maintained the roads - they go un-drivable in just a couple of years, but it takes twenty or so for the trees to grow enough to make the roads hard to find on foot. In the roadless, trailless areas, how hard it is to get somewhere depends on the forest type - you can have open birch glades your grandma could ski through, or spruce thickets where you can hardly see far enough to read the compass in your hand.

Tought we don't have states the most remote place of the autonomous region where I live is near Pico del Lobo:

Here's another: Candelaria, Texas. It's a small town of about 30 people at the "dead end" of TX state route FM-170, about 20+ miles from Ruidosa and over 40 from Presidio, which is a good 300+ from El Paso or San Antonio. On the one hand it has a paved route to it, but getting there takes a real effort. Then, there are ranch properties on beyond Candelaria, reachable by dirt 4wd roads.

Check out:

http://www.amazon.com/Miles-Nowhere-Ame ... t_ep_dpi_4

This links to a great book by Dayton Duncan, who wrote about these very remote places in the west.

Dougb wrote:First you must define "remote". I once heard that the place in CA that is furthest from any road (dirt or paved) is something like 25-ish straight line miles from a road.

Any idea where that might be Doug? Furthest I've noted in the state is about 13mi from a road...

Taken from Google (as far as you can trust it):

Most remote point in the 50 states:

Ipnavik River, National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska, 68.45°N 156.41°W / 68.75°N 156.683°W / 68.75; -156.683 (most remote point); 120 miles (195 km) from nearest habitation

Dougb wrote:Well Bob, I goofed. I think you are correct... the most remote spot in CA is probably no more than 13 miles from the nearest road. The place in CA that is furthest from any road is probably in the Sierra NV, since even Death Valley is criss-crossed with numerous dirt roads. And military bases no doubt have lots of roads even though they aren't shown on maps.

http://www.pacificbio.org/products/roadmap.htm

I'm guessing Idaho has the most "remote" places in the lower 48.

The Sinkyone Wilderness along the Mendocino coast is quite remote. There is a road - a tiny, barely passable road called Usla Road, that may make some points not as remote if going by the "distance from a road" metric.

Some places just seem remote in the mind, even if a road goes there (or nearby). How about some of those old ghost towns in the Mojave Desert? Midland... Eagle Mtn... Ivanpah... imagine going there a hundred years ago.

Some of the big Indian Reservations here in AZ have numerous roads but are so far off the usual arterial routes that going to some of these places really does seem remote. The Tohono O'odham Nation between Tucson and Organ Pipe is very distant, and most of those little towns are way off the main roads. You feel like you're in Mexico, 100 years ago, when down there (aside from the BP presence).

Smoove910 wrote:In the lower 48, Frank Church Wilderness here in Idaho, hands down. But that certainly doesn't mean any of you are invited.

With all due respect you should have read the thread.

"In terms of distance from the nearest road, the southeast corner of Yellowstone National Park is often quoted as the most remote spot in the lower 48 states - roughly 30 miles from the nearest road."

Well said. I have heard it said the remotest point is the Thorofare Patrol Cabin just inside Yellowsotne, however I believe it is not far away at Bridger Lake in the Teton Wilderness. With Yellowstone, the Teton Wilderness, the Washakie Wilderness, and adjacent roadless land you have an incedible chunk of wild.

I love the Absarokas but get to also look at the NE Wind Rivers and Downs Mt. just about every day. Look at the Downs Mt. Quad. Forget roads, see any trails?

...

1. 65 miles: Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness Area

Really? Maybe I'm confused about how "core-to-perimeter" is being used, but I'm not seeing where in the Frank this number could be correct. In my quite unscientific fiddling on Google Earth, I don't think you could draw a circle of more than about 16-17 mile radius that doesn't intersect the wilderness boundary, which in the Frank is a pretty accurate proxy for roads. I'd love it if the larger figure were true, though!

Where did you find this info? (Not trying to be argumentative, I'm genuinely interested.) I'd love to see figures for New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada.

Where did you find this info?

Wild Idaho in the Falcon series. Apparently the numbers come from the wilderness inventories. I thought 65 sounded high too, but numbers in Idaho seem to vary a lot for some reason from source to source. That doesn't seem to be the case in other states which have more consistant numbers. It's a pain to dig for info.

The Wild series seems to have some of the more accurate information out there which is better than most of the online and other sources, though even then I still use the phrase "to the best of my knowlege". I would really like to hear from anyone who has some more detailed information.

Some online and written info out there is way off such as the supposed stat for SE Yellowstone being farther from roads than so many others (although it is still wild).

I don't think you could draw a circle of more than about 16-17 mile radius that doesn't intersect the wilderness boundary

One thing important to note is that the figures include the entire roadless area rather than just designated wilderness. Some of the above aren't designated wilderness at all. A 10 mile figure (for example) can mean that the center of the wilderness may have a core to perimeter distance even if the designated wilderness isn't that big.

One thing important to note is that the figures include the entire roadless area rather than just designated wilderness. Some of the above aren't designated wilderness at all. A 10 mile figure (for example) can mean that the center of the wilderness may have a core to perimeter distance even if the designated wilderness isn't that big.

I thought about that, but I'm still not seeing it. Enough of the Frank's boundaries are where they are because of a road, I can't see that effect making a difference of more than a couple miles. If they're talking paved roads, the 65 mile figure looks a lot more feasible. I could also definitely believe that there might be some places 65 trail miles from a road.

Maybe mrh will weigh in with some thoughts. He seems to know these areas better than anyone.