Route planning priorities

[empirestate]

Of course, we all have been known to map out some pretty far-fetched itineraries just to check out a new stretch of bypass, or snap a pic of that old button copy sign. :-) But for now, leave that aside and assume you're planning an optimal route from A to B, according to your priorities. Which type of planner are you?

[Max Rockatansky]

If I'm trying to get somewhere fast I prioritize the lowest traffic as possible or leave at a time where rush hour isn't a problem.  Otherwise I tend to prioritize Highways with scenic value or feature something I'm looking for or haven't seen.  A lot of my road trips are actually to purposefully seek out new routes or roads I haven't explored yet. 

[hobsini2]

It all depends on a bunch of factors. Time. Mileage. Scenic. Tolls. When I drove down to metro Nashville from Chicagoland to visit my brother last month, I could have taken either I-57/24 or I-65. I had time on my hands. I also wanted to be a bit more scenic. I chose to go down via I-57, I-74, and ILL 1 to Cave in the Rock. I had never been there before and it is a ferry crossing over the Ohio. I then meandered a bit to Eddyville KY where I hooked up with I-24 to get to Nashville. To me, it was worth it.  On the way back, I took I-65 to Bowling Green, the Natcher Pkwy to Owensboro, US 231 and I-69 to Bloomington, Indiana, then cut back northwest to US 231, US 231 to I-65, I-65/80/355/55 back home. Again, worth it.

[oscar]

My priorities are a mix of all four factors in the poll. But usually "fastest route by time" comes out on top unless it's particularly annoying and/or I've driven it so often it bores me to death.

Usually, "adjustments made strictly for roadgeeking purposes" dominate all the other considerations, unless I'm in a hurry for some reason or I'm close enough to home that I've done all the roadgeeking there I really want to do.

[vdeane]

For me, generally fastest/least annoying, but I do have a few peculiarities, most glaringly how I favor interstates, then freeways, then state/US routes.  This is because I tend to view such things from a system level, so discontinuities feel weird to me; if I have one, it takes longer than usual for me to fully be in sync with the fact that I am, in fact, where I am, and not some other point on the system.  I put up with it for roadgeeking purposes but otherwise try to avoid it.

Something similar happens with respect to the ticket system portions of the Thruway and other toll roads (which fall in between freeways and US/state routes in my hierarchy).  I tend to view the toll road as a system unto itself, distinct from the rest of the interstate/freeway system.  If the Thruway passes through a metro area, I don't count portions on the ticket system as being part of the area's "local freeway system".

These quirks are, incidentally, the reason why things like the I-81 "community grid" or the lack of ramps to/from I-690 west and I-81 north annoy me as they do.

[webny99]

For me it really depends on the nature of the trip.

Usually its "fastest time-wise", but sometimes "least likely to hit frustrating slowdowns". I'm likely to consider a freeway option if it's available, even if it's considerably longer mileage. I rarely give much consideration to fuel efficiency.

[empirestate]

If I'm trying to get somewhere fast I prioritize the lowest traffic as possible or leave at a time where rush hour isn't a problem.  Otherwise I tend to prioritize Highways with scenic value or feature something I'm looking for or haven't seen.  A lot of my road trips are actually to purposefully seek out new routes or roads I haven't explored yet. 

It all depends on a bunch of factors. Time. Mileage. Scenic. Tolls. When I drove down to metro Nashville from Chicagoland to visit my brother last month, I could have taken either I-57/24 or I-65. I had time on my hands. I also wanted to be a bit more scenic. I chose to go down via I-57, I-74, and ILL 1 to Cave in the Rock. I had never been there before and it is a ferry crossing over the Ohio. I then meandered a bit to Eddyville KY where I hooked up with I-24 to get to Nashville. To me, it was worth it.  On the way back, I took I-65 to Bowling Green, the Natcher Pkwy to Owensboro, US 231 and I-69 to Bloomington, Indiana, then cut back northwest to US 231, US 231 to I-65, I-65/80/355/55 back home. Again, worth it.

I think I'd include scenery along with "strictly roadgeeking purposes"–I'm thinking more along the lines of necessary trips–commutes, errands, etc.–those where achieving the destination is at least the primary, if not the sole, consideration.

For me, I take a variety of different trips around my area for work. And while I certainly take plenty of diversions just for the hell of it, all else being equal I will opt for the "least annoying" route. Thus, while the fastest route by time might involve trips on the Westchester parkways and perhaps I-287 or I-95, I will almost always avoid that because they aren't pleasurable to drive. (Not to mention, they're longer mileage-wise, and also prone to unexpected slowdowns that make them no longer the fastest route anyhow.)

[hbelkins]

If I'm trying to get from Point A to Point B for the sole purpose of getting to Point B, then I will typically choose the fastest route. Sometimes I will opt for shortest over fastest. But rare is the personal trip for me that doesn't involve some roadgeeking factor.

[froggie]

Out here in the hinterlands, shortest usually means the fastest so no real difference there, but I've also been known to take slightly longer or slower routes that are less annoying.  Two examples of that from my Virginia days are taking US 1 between Thornburg and Ashland or taking US 60 between Bottoms Bridge and Toano.

[kphoger]

As others have stated, it depends on the nature of the trip.  It also depends on how long the trip is:  things I might put up with on a short drive become irritating on a long drive.

I voted for "least annoying" because that's the way I've been leaning lately.  This typically means avoiding major cities without any more than a handful of stoplights.  However, if no such decent alternative route exists, then I'll go with the fastest and deal with the urban traffic.  Even then, though, I'll gladly "waste" five minutes by taking a bypass rather than slugging it through downtown.

[webny99]

Even then, though, I'll gladly "waste" five minutes by taking a bypass rather than slugging it through downtown.

Being faced with that type of choice is what I have been grumbling about with regards to I-81 in Syracuse. But 11 miles vs 3 miles is even more extreme than what you are talking about.

[kphoger]

But 11 miles vs 3 miles is even more extreme than what you are talking about.

5 minutes was just a random number to thrown in there.  Looking at specifics...

When crossing the Mexican border from San Antonio to Monterrey, I have always opted to bypass Laredo along TX-255, which is 18 miles longer.  Once, when I couldn't get my toll account situated ahead of time, I even went all the way to Mines Road and then back northwest again, which is 31 miles longer than through downtown.

Farther north, going from Waco to Laredo, I've opted to bypass Austin and most of San Antonio by way of TX-130 and I-410, which is 19 miles longer than I-35 the whole way.

[CtrlAltDel]

My most obvious quirk in route planning is that I don't like to get off a certain route only to get on it again. So, I do not usually use bypasses unless they lead me to an intermediate destination. For example, I wouldn't travel on I-40 toward Nashville and get on I-840 and then get back on I-40 again.


(I would almost always take the blue route here, and not the gray.)

I also don't like taking a route between two other routes when those two routes intersect. So, when going from I-40 E to I-75 N in Knoxville, say, I wouldn't normally take I-640 or I-275, but loop around.


(My preferred route through Knoxville.)

These things have led to me driving extra distance or sitting in traffic that I could have avoided, but I usually plan things so that I avoid it. On the whole, though, I like seeing cities and skyscrapers. They add in a nice change to the rural scenery.

[vdeane]

^ Ah, I forgot to mention that with mine.  I'm the same way with wanting to stay on the same route.  I'm a bit more willing to take a route between two routes that intersect, at least if it's the same level in my hierarchy, though I do have a slight preference for going through town rather than bypassing.  Like you said, going through town and seeing the city is part of what keeps the trip interesting.  Constant rural scenery that goes on and on and on gets boring, even if the terrain is scenic.

[DandyDan]

It's usually the shortest route by distance although if I am in a hurry to get somewhere and an interstate helps, I  follow the interstate.

One other thing: if I am going from Point A to Point B and back, I usually take the fastest route one way and take a more leisurely route the other way. If I am going to the Twin Cities from here in Mason City, I almost always take I-35 one way, but I have also gone there by way of Austin and up MN 56 and US 52. I also drove back from the Minneapolis side of the Twin Cities area by going south on US 169, then south on MN 21 and MN 13 from Jordan to Albert Lea (a route which requires no turning, oddly enough). I just get bored otherwise.

[thspfc]

I like driving through city centers and seeing skyscrapers, but only if it doesn't cost me much time. For example, I'd rather take I-94 through the Twin Cities rather than I-694 around them, but if 94 is really backed up, I will use the bypass.
On drives of 10+ hours, I'll take the fastest route so I can do it comfortably in one day.

[webny99]

But 11 miles vs 3 miles is even more extreme than what you are talking about.

5 minutes was just a random number to thrown in there.  Looking at specifics...
When crossing the Mexican border from San Antonio to Monterrey, I have always opted to bypass Laredo along TX-255, which is 18 miles longer.

61 miles instead of 43, i.e. half again as long, which is not insignificant, but it's also a lot less extreme than quadruple the length. At least with the information I have, I personally wouldn't bypass Laredo if it was going to add that much time. I don't see anything wrong with the I-35 > Mexico FR 85 route.

Farther north, going from Waco to Laredo, I've opted to bypass Austin and most of San Antonio by way of TX-130 and I-410, which is 19 miles longer than I-35 the whole way.

138 miles instead of 122, and probably a toss-up time-wise given Austin traffic. Google actually recommends (as of 7:30 AM local time on Tuesday) taking I-35 through San Antonio and then using TX 45 to cut over to TX 130. What I would personally do depends on the specifics and the time of day. I would probably try both (or all three) routes at least once before deciding on a preference.

It's not a frustrating choice like it will be in Syracuse, where all of your options are bad, the only good one being slated for conversion to a surface street. These are all high quality roads, and time-wise, a difference of a few minutes over several hours is not that significant.

[michravera]

Of course, we all have been known to map out some pretty far-fetched itineraries just to check out a new stretch of bypass, or snap a pic of that old button copy sign. :-) But for now, leave that aside and assume you're planning an optimal route from A to B, according to your priorities. Which type of planner are you?

My options on route planning software are these
Distances in km (unless I am planning a flight, in which case it's NM).
Shortest time (unless being charged for distance)
Avoid Tolls
Favor Major Highways
   and because of my fiancee,
Avoid Perpetual Traffic Bottlenecks
Google and Yahoo don't have a choice for the last one

Because of her, I will take a route that is up to 8% longer in distance or time to avoid complaints (which, as they say in "Pulp Fiction",  "will be forthcoming directly").

[kphoger]

At least with the information I have, I personally wouldn't bypass Laredo if it was going to add that much time. I don't see anything wrong with the I-35 > Mexico FR 85 route.

Border wait times are typically longer at the downtown crossings, the customs building in Nuevo Laredo is awkward to get to, there are plenty of stoplights in Nuevo Laredo.  In contrast, the Colombia border crossing usually has fairly short lines (I've seen it wide open before), the customs building is very convenient, there is a total of three stop signs and zero stoplights between I-35 and Fed-85 going that way.

[J N Winkler]

I picked "other" because at various times I have chosen geodesics by all of the criteria listed in the poll.  For long-distance travel I do tend to apply a route diversity criterion--in other words, if I have taken a particular route before and it has alternatives that are reasonably feasible in the time available, I will generally try one of those alternatives rather than rack up retread mileage.  When my travel involves through transits of major metropolitan areas that are already familiar to me and tend to have difficult traffic (KC and DFW come immediately to mind), I will often treat the urbanized area as a Chinese wall and seek to avoid it if I can find a rural alternative that affords smooth travel (few stoplights, stop signs, or built-up areas with reduced limits).

[1995hoo]

My priorities are a mix of all four factors in the poll. But usually "fastest route by time" comes out on top unless it's particularly annoying and/or I've driven it so often it bores me to death.

Usually, "adjustments made strictly for roadgeeking purposes" dominate all the other considerations, unless I'm in a hurry for some reason or I'm close enough to home that I've done all the roadgeeking there I really want to do.

I pretty much concur in this. For me, an added consideration is whether my wife is with me. She has less patience for some of my out-of-the-way exploring, and she doesn't particularly like two-lane roads (for some reason, she dislikes it when I pass on them, but she also dislikes it if I'm stuck behind someone and I get impatient). So if she's with me, I may try to avoid two-lane roads where practical in order to preserve in-car peace.

[Flint1979]

It depends on what kind of mood I'm in most of the time. Lately I've been going with the fastest route no matter what but there are times where I get tired of the Interstate highway system and take a US or state highway. I like to stay on Interstate, US, state and county highways whenever I can.

I hate waiting at traffic lights so I try to plan routes that have the longest green wave or a route that doesn't have a lot of lights. The city I live in I have just about every traffic light in town figured out and this is an area of about 120,000 people. Saginaw itself has about 45,000-50,000ish but the Township which is adjacent to the city has about 40,000 itself.

[webny99]

she doesn't particularly like two-lane roads (for some reason, she dislikes it when I pass on them, but she also dislikes it if I'm stuck behind someone and I get impatient).

Sounds exactly like my parents.. to a T! 

[J N Winkler]

In regard to driving on two-lane roads, passing pole position equates to about a one-second following distance and I find that very uncomfortable as a passenger.  I think it makes sense to avoid accompanied driving on two-lanes except when the LOS (which is in inverse relationship to time spent with speed constrained by a vehicle in front) is reliably good.

[empirestate]

I pretty much concur in this. For me, an added consideration is whether my wife is with me. She has less patience for some of my out-of-the-way exploring, and she doesn't particularly like two-lane roads (for some reason, she dislikes it when I pass on them, but she also dislikes it if I'm stuck behind someone and I get impatient). So if she's with me, I may try to avoid two-lane roads where practical in order to preserve in-car peace.

Sounds like adding a poll option "Choose the route my spouse will best tolerate?" is warranted.