That's the claim being made by a recent Navteq-sponsored study in which the company analyzed the driving data from drivers without any GPS, drivers with non-traffic enabled GPS, and drivers with real-time traffic information.
The results? Drivers with real-time traffic equipped GPS spent an average of 18% less time getting to their destination (which works out to roughly 4 days per year of saved driving time).
The study also concluded that drivers with traffic-enabled GPS devices drove shorter distances, decreasing CO2 emissions an average of .79 metric tons (21% less CO2 than drivers without a GPS).
Not so, do you think Navteq-sponsored study will say otherwise?
The photo you see is taking at intersection of 836 and 826 (looking south on 826 (Palmeto expressway))in Miami where I live.
I have had Traffic-Enabled GPS for over a year in Miami, everytime the I am in a traffic with major delay, I ask my GPS to give me an alternative route, however every single time my GPS tells me that the alternative route will take longer timewise, so I can tell you this much....Traffice alert does not save any time in Miami metropolitan area.
It is just a gimmic (toy to play with)I would say, not worth paying for it, I think the new Garmin 1690 with live Google might be better choice.
I continue to have doubts about the accuracy/timing of traffic on the various Garmin GPS devices I've had over the years. I just don't get a sense that the traffic updates happen quickly enough, at this point I've let the ClearChannel traffic receiver subscription on my wife's older Garmin as well as the MSN traffic info on my newer Garmin expire because I just felt like I wasn't getting accurate timely traffic info.
Yeah, but if Fletch were to tell us that even the most simple, cheapest Garmin performs and routes exactly the way more expensive units do, with all their useless gimmicks, what good would it be to have a site dedicated to navigation systems.
Through my I will tell everyone to buy the cheapest Garmin you can get your hands on, even if used. They all have the same routing engine whether you spend 50 bucks or 1,000 bucks. As for maps, the older ones (2008) work better in the northeast. The newer maps have POI's that are outdated anyway.
As a matter of fact, Garmin has gone backwards, as some Streetpilots had better and more options so you can tweak your route to be optimal. Since then, they've dumbed down their units, continuing to milk their lesser nuvi line.
Go cheap or used, friends. Trust me on this one.
You are partially right RobGPS, but not completely. I used to also think that all Garmin models route the same way. Yet when I compare the routes my old nuvi 660 calculates to the routes my much newer 1490T or 765T choose, there is an undeniable difference (all the models in question have the same Garmin mapping version installed, and the most current available firmware).
I suspect that Garmin makes minor tweeks to the routing engine with each new platform, and doesn’t always make all the changes available to legacy GPS devices.
I have to agree with Darien. Every time I have actually wanted to rely on the Navteq traffic data, I have been surprised to find out just how delayed it seems to be. A traffic alert for 10 miles ahead while I am sitting in it. A request to avoid then does not route me off where I'm at but suggests I continue ahead 8 miles and then select local streets. Getting off just angers Edith and she tells me to get back on the expressway with the congestion I just left. Can never be sure when/where the traffic clears up with out listening to local radio. Traffic data from Navteq sure as heck is not accurate and the whole frustration of messing with the unit and local street traffic is often more irritating than driving through the original traffic alert situation.
The main problem is, most of the new Garmin comes with lifetime traffic, that means Navteq gets paid with every unit sold, so Navteq does not care to improve the traffic...however if Garmin did not include the traffic with all the newer units, then Navteq would not have as much subscriptions. With bad service people would not pay to have the traffic on their Garmin, therefore Navteq would have no choice but improve the traffic...it is like going to a restaurant, if the tip is automatically added to the bill, the waiter will not try to give you a good service and they usually don't.....
"however if Garmin did not include the traffic with all the newer units, then Navteq would not have as much subscriptions. With bad service people would not pay to have the traffic on their Garmin, therefore Navteq would have no choice but improve the traffic"
I don' think so, since NavTeq traffic cost is offset by ads and the GPS manufacturers don't pay for those services they are offering to you free of charge. Think of it is the future yellow pages. There is no perfect solution regarding traffic issues even if you know there is traffic ahead and short cuts to by pass a certain section of the hwy with the heavy traffic, you still may take longer going the way you know to be a short cut. I would say the idea of re-routing is to save time and if the traffic does not move for hours, you would have saved time getting to your final destination. Otherwise, just sit in the traffic and wait, not much other options with or without the Traffic information.
RobGPS, good to see you back, can you contact me please when you have a chance? GPS4ME aka Auto Nav 2000.
Agreed - knowing that there is a traffic problem ahead doesn't always mean you won't have to sit in traffic and wait it out. Often the route around the traffic would take longer than waiting to get through the traffic, so the GPS doesn't change the route.
Still it would be nice to get timely notification of traffic congesting up ahead... ppl aren't paying for these subscriptions just for the heck of it... that way I at least have the ability to decide whether I want to manually route around it our not.
With the current situation its a crap shoot as to whether you'll even be told there is congestion. My local radio station that gives traffic updates every 8 minutes (DC area) is more reliable than my GPS local traffic info...
"I don' think so, since NavTeq traffic cost is offset by ads and the GPS manufacturers don't pay for those services they are offering to you free of charge."
James if that is true then why do they charge $60 for Garmin 760 or 750 for lifetime traffic?
According to tech support from Garmin "Garmin pays bulk rate of $10 per Garmin sold with lifetime traffic, ie Garmin 765t"
so it is not just by add alone
"James if that is true then why do they charge $60 for Garmin 760 or 750 for lifetime traffic?
According to tech support from Garmin "Garmin pays bulk rate of $10 per Garmin sold with lifetime traffic, ie Garmin 765t"
so it is not just by add alone"
The "free" traffic offering is only on those products that can display advertisements on them. So if the products you are referencing above were an older version before their new application that displays the ads, they would be paying for those. With Garmin, any model ending with T is the free traffic ad base units, with Magellan, it would be the newer Maestro 4700 etc... Magellan makes you pay for the traffic receiver. :(
James FYI; My 760 didn't come with traffic, I had to pay $60 for lifetime traffic....I still get the ads.
Ad base is free traffic and the model with the ad base ends with a T at the end of the model like 765T or 265WT etc.. If you have the older Nuvi unit I think you have to pay for the traffic due to the receiver Garmin have to have for the older models to work with traffic.
The traffic service is free to the manufacturers from NavTeq if they are supported by ads, so maybe this is just another way they can make a few bucks. Ask Garmin.
A Garmin GPS in Chicago, IL will not save you any time. I had some better luck with Tomtom, but not enough to really count.
So...if it's heavy traffic on the freeway...will the Garmin GPS suggest to take local streets as well...? Or, will it suggest only other freeway alternatives.
Thanks
BP
It will tell you how long is the delay due to traffic, it will also calculate the time it takes using local streets or other freeway, if the local streets or other freeway are faster, it will tell you, however most of the times (100% for me) it tells me that it is faster if I stay in the traffic.
Basically if traffic comes free with the unit then use it, if you have to pay for the traffic, save your money and don't buy it.
BP: It will tell you how long is the delay due to traffic, it will also calculate the time it takes using local streets or other freeway, if the local streets or other freeway are faster, it will tell you, however most of the times (100% for me) it tells me that it is faster if I stay in the traffic.
Basically if traffic comes free with the unit then use it, if you have to pay for the traffic, save your money and don't buy it.
Trafic doesnt work that well. I have sat in trafic, gps said nothing. Most of the time the gps says there is somthing, but when we get to that spot, there is nothing wrong.
Google maps on iphone is more accurate
i was dissappointed with the traffic capabilities of my garmin 765t along with the estimated arrival times. more often than not my garmin will show heavy traffic along an upcoming route in red and when i get there traffice is moving freely. in addition, the estimated arrival times are not very accurate, especially in any city that has traffic. very disappointed with this unit.