AARoads Forum

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 05, 2019, 07:18:55 PM
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. 

Quote from: hobsini2 on May 05, 2019, 07:55:20 PM
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.)

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: kphoger on May 06, 2019, 08:56:14 PM
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. :rolleyes:

Quote from: webny99 on May 06, 2019, 09:20:36 PM
But 11 miles vs 3 miles is even more extreme than what you are talking about. :rolleyes:

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.

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.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi67.tinypic.com%2F8x4idh.png&hash=a3d2b526e4b456315c472561d7f6b83ba5ea1571)
(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.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi67.tinypic.com%2F2ni8gsw.png&hash=2c2c1a92b197670ecaa2f2ba7b9d0384a137ca49)
(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.

^ 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.

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.

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.

Quote from: kphoger on May 06, 2019, 09:31:36 PM

Quote from: webny99 on May 06, 2019, 09:20:36 PM
But 11 miles vs 3 miles is even more extreme than what you are talking about. :rolleyes:

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 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/I-35,+Laredo,+TX+78045/27.2989393,-99.599681/@27.6057173,-99.7509655,9.92z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m5!1m1!1s0x8660c5b12399e9c7:0x175fe05f78946714!2m2!1d-99.4037818!2d27.8544669!1m0!3e0!5m1!1e1), 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.

Quote from: kphoger on May 06, 2019, 09:31:36 PM
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/30.7063971,-97.6499846/I-35,+Von+Ormy,+TX+78073/@29.9858647,-98.2662764,9z/data=!4m10!4m9!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x865c50888bc14301:0x64c92ac7638ab88a!2m2!1d-98.6130761!2d29.312569!3e0!5i1), 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.

Quote from: empirestate on May 05, 2019, 06:59:36 PM
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").

Quote from: webny99 on May 07, 2019, 08:41:42 AM
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.

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).

Quote from: oscar on May 05, 2019, 08:04:15 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: 1995hoo on May 07, 2019, 09:04:01 PM
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!  :D

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.

Quote from: 1995hoo on May 07, 2019, 09:04:01 PM
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. :-D

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 07, 2019, 10:15:49 PM
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.

Yes, the passenger definitely feels less in control than the driver when following closely.

Quote from: kphoger on May 07, 2019, 02:10:35 PM

Quote from: webny99 on May 07, 2019, 08:41:42 AM
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.

The 18 extra miles seems to roughly equate to 18 extra minutes, so all other factors aside, that would sway me towards the I-35 > Fed-85 route. But like I said for the Austin example, I would probably try both routes a few times before deciding on a preference.

Quote from: webny99 on May 08, 2019, 02:53:58 PMThe 18 extra miles seems to roughly equate to 18 extra minutes, so all other factors aside, that would sway me towards the I-35 > Fed-85 route. But like I said for the Austin example, I would probably try both routes a few times before deciding on a preference.

Border wait times are longer, with more variability, on the southern border than on the northern one.  (I suspect this reflects an underlying belief that Mexico has a deeper pool of less desirable immigrants than Canada and a determination to punish US natives for spending time in Mexico.)  I think the point Kphoger is working to is basically that it is a no-brainer to take the route that is 18 miles longer.

I know that when you go to Canada you generally don't have much of a problem, the issue is always coming back to the US. Is it the same way with Mexico? I've never been to Mexico and haven't been to Canada since about 2003.

Quote from: webny99 on May 08, 2019, 02:53:58 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 07, 2019, 02:10:35 PM

Quote from: webny99 on May 07, 2019, 08:41:42 AM
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.

The 18 extra miles seems to roughly equate to 18 extra minutes, so all other factors aside, that would sway me towards the I-35 > Fed-85 route. But like I said for the Austin example, I would probably try both routes a few times before deciding on a preference.

Current wait times, northbound at the US side:

Laredo – Bridge #2 – 60 minutes
Laredo – Colombia Solidarity Bridge – 0 minutes

Does that give you an idea of why one might want to avoid downtown?  Don't push all other factors aside.  They matter.

Quote from: Flint1979 on May 08, 2019, 03:46:27 PM
I know that when you go to Canada you generally don't have much of a problem, the issue is always coming back to the US. Is it the same way with Mexico? I've never been to Mexico and haven't been to Canada since about 2003.

I've typically had a longer wait time to re-enter the USA, yes.

At least in the general lanes, every single vehicle coming north has to stop and speak to a customs officer.  This is not the case heading south, where there is a red/green light setup:  stop if the light turns red, proceed if the light turns green.

Quote from: Flint1979 on May 08, 2019, 03:46:27 PMI know that when you go to Canada you generally don't have much of a problem, the issue is always coming back to the US. Is it the same way with Mexico? I've never been to Mexico and haven't been to Canada since about 2003.

It is always harder to get back into the US than it is to leave it.  On entry to Canada there is a script to be worked through--Firearms?  Alcohol?  Tobacco?  Goods to be consumed or left in Canada?--but other than that, it usually goes pretty quickly.  Mexico can be faster or slower depending on what you are trying to do.  If you are staying less than 72 hours and not travelling outside the frontier zone, questioning is usually very perfunctory.  If you need to secure a tourist permit and carry out temporary vehicle importation (both necessary if staying longer than 72 hours or travelling outside the frontier zone), the required formalities take about 30 minutes exclusive of waiting.

When re-entering the US, the issue is that staffing is not responsive to load.  Many years ago I tried to re-enter at Mariposa (Arizona SR 289 crossing) at the same time as seemingly millions of Californians trying to return from the coastal Sonora resorts.  (Apparently there are draconian sanctions in California for not having kids back in school the day after Christmas vacation.)  I had the battery go flat after about 3 hours of waiting.  This was a bona fide emergency and gave me an excuse to jump the queue by allowing the car to roll down the hill into neutral, where a Mexican trinket seller helped me ease it over the tire shredders and onto US soil where it could be jump-started using a battery charger the US officials keep on hand.  (The battery charger could not be taken into Mexico.)  I read later that there was still a long line when Mariposa closed for the night, so people had to U-turn and join the (very long) line for DeConcini in downtown Nogales, which is open 24 hours.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 08, 2019, 04:00:42 PM
I had the battery go flat after about 3 hours of waiting.  This was a bona fide emergency and gave me an excuse to jump the queue by allowing the car to roll down the hill into neutral, where a Mexican trinket seller helped me ease it over the tire shredders and onto US soil where it could be jump-started using a battery charger the US officials keep on hand.  (The battery charger could not be taken into Mexico.) 

You don't carry jumper cables in the car?

And just a general observation:  if you obtain a passport and use it to travel outside the US, in the eyes of US officialdom you become the man without a country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Without_a_Country).

Quote from: kphoger on May 08, 2019, 04:03:43 PMYou don't carry jumper cables in the car?

I had them, yes.  It was simpler to engineer rescue at the border itself than to look for someone else in line who might be willing to give me a jump off his or her battery.

Quote from: Flint1979 on May 08, 2019, 03:46:27 PM
I know that when you go to Canada you generally don't have much of a problem, the issue is always coming back to the US. Is it the same way with Mexico? I've never been to Mexico and haven't been to Canada since about 2003.

I've been to Canada a lot, and the border hassles US -> Canada generally are not much less than Canada -> US. On the Mexican border, the hassles on the US side are generally worse than on the Canadian border, while on the Mexican side they aren't usually much of a problem at all. But I did draw two searches entering Mexico. YMMV. Both cases I was just day-tripping and not venturing beyond the border area, which as others note probably helped reduce the Mexican-side hassle.

With Mexico, there's something to be said for crossing over and back as a pedestrian, rather than in a vehicle. A more hassle-free return to the U.S. plus not having to purchase the mandatory Mexican auto insurance policy. 

Ducked back and forth across the border at Alexandria Bay just yesterday.  Canadian customs officer was bored.  American customs searched my empty trunk.

Quote from: kphoger on May 08, 2019, 03:58:48 PM
Does that give you an idea of why one might want to avoid downtown?  Don't push all other factors aside.  They matter.

Oh, absolutely. When I checked yesterday, it roughly equated to 18 miles adding 18 minutes, but that was southbound.
I get that wait times can vary wildly, and your preferred route probably is often faster going northbound.

My last two drives between Seattle and Vancouver (with NEXUS) have consisted of identical questions in both directions:

Entering Canada: "any goods?" ... "thank you"
Entering US: "purpose of visit?"  ... "OK"

(literally said "OK"...say "thanks", bud! I don't know if I'm good to proceed or not.)

The shortness of this may be due to staffing for the regular lanes. The sheer number of Canadians who shop in Washington State has grown immensely as Vancouver gas prices near $5/gal USD, bu not all have NEXUS. This shifts staffing over to the regular lanes to handle declarations, etc, away from the NEXUS lanes. For the first time ever, last week, there was only one open NEXUS lane entering BC at the Peace Arch. Took me a whole five minutes to get through :-D.

---

I most often use the route that's most reliable. I filed that under "least annoying". These usually give me better fuel economy, too. Driving in stop-and-go traffic gets annoying with a stick as well, so whichever route keeps me moving is good with me!

Quote from: webny99 on May 08, 2019, 04:30:02 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 08, 2019, 03:58:48 PM
Does that give you an idea of why one might want to avoid downtown?  Don't push all other factors aside.  They matter.

Oh, absolutely. When I checked yesterday, it roughly equated to 18 miles adding 18 minutes, but that was southbound.
I get that wait times can vary wildly, and your preferred route probably is often faster going northbound.

How did you determine that?  I don't know that Google accounts for the border wait time.

Quote from: kphoger on May 08, 2019, 05:05:07 PM

Quote from: webny99 on May 08, 2019, 04:30:02 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 08, 2019, 03:58:48 PM
Does that give you an idea of why one might want to avoid downtown?  Don't push all other factors aside.  They matter.

Oh, absolutely. When I checked yesterday, it roughly equated to 18 miles adding 18 minutes, but that was southbound.
I get that wait times can vary wildly, and your preferred route probably is often faster going northbound.

How did you determine that?  I don't know that Google accounts for the border wait time.

If the road segment shows up with live traffic (which it does in this case) I would assume border wait times are included. It's probably not exact, but a pretty good rough estimate -- same as any other congestion, just with a bit more volatility.

As of the time of this post (11 AM local time):
Northbound (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/27.2987125,-99.5996022/27.8442996,-99.4066135/@27.6546909,-99.6491067,9.88z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m5!3m4!1m2!1d-99.5030757!2d27.5030134!3s0x8661222ae4d4f07b:0x7d0c78b9a750dff3!1m0!3e0!5m1!1e1): 58 minutes, 47 without traffic. Read: some delay, allow for 15-20 min wait at the border.
Southbound (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/27.8443225,-99.4068718/27.2995103,-99.5993286/@27.5568013,-99.6235444,10.46z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0!5m1!1e1): 53 minutes, no mention of delay, small road segment showing red near the border. Read: minimal to no wait at the border.

Obviously, I'll never know to what extent that holds true!  :)

Quote from: J N WinklerIt is always harder to get back into the US than it is to leave it.

Usually, but not always.  My last couple times up to Quebec were the other way around...easier heading back into Vermont.  Had my car fully searched heading north once last year.

Quote from: webny99 on May 09, 2019, 12:03:51 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 08, 2019, 05:05:07 PM

Quote from: webny99 on May 08, 2019, 04:30:02 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 08, 2019, 03:58:48 PM
Does that give you an idea of why one might want to avoid downtown?  Don't push all other factors aside.  They matter.

Oh, absolutely. When I checked yesterday, it roughly equated to 18 miles adding 18 minutes, but that was southbound.
I get that wait times can vary wildly, and your preferred route probably is often faster going northbound.

How did you determine that?  I don't know that Google accounts for the border wait time.

If the road segment shows up with live traffic (which it does in this case) I would assume border wait times are included. It's probably not exact, but a pretty good rough estimate -- same as any other congestion, just with a bit more volatility.

As of the time of this post (11 AM local time):
Northbound (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/27.2987125,-99.5996022/27.8442996,-99.4066135/@27.6546909,-99.6491067,9.88z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m5!3m4!1m2!1d-99.5030757!2d27.5030134!3s0x8661222ae4d4f07b:0x7d0c78b9a750dff3!1m0!3e0!5m1!1e1): 58 minutes, 47 without traffic. Read: some delay, allow for 15-20 min wait at the border.
Southbound (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/27.8443225,-99.4068718/27.2995103,-99.5993286/@27.5568013,-99.6235444,10.46z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0!5m1!1e1): 53 minutes, no mention of delay, small road segment showing red near the border. Read: minimal to no wait at the border.

Obviously, I'll never know to what extent that holds true!  :)

Even if those wait times are legitimate, it still doesn't account for the difference in time spent at the actual customs office.

Quote from: kphoger on May 09, 2019, 01:46:18 PM
Even if those wait times are legitimate, it still doesn't account for the difference in time spent at the actual customs office.

Can't speak for Mexico, but at US and Canada crossings, if you're spending more than 3-5 minutes at the actual booth, you've probably got bigger problems than having picked a slow crossing.

(I'm used to NEXUS, so anything more than 30 seconds / a few brief questions feels like a long time to me.)

Quote from: webny99 on May 09, 2019, 01:51:44 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 09, 2019, 01:46:18 PM
Even if those wait times are legitimate, it still doesn't account for the difference in time spent at the actual customs office.

Can't speak for Mexico, but at US and Canada crossings, if you're spending more than 3-5 minutes at the actual booth, you've probably got bigger problems than having picked a slow crossing.

(I'm used to NEXUS, so anything more than 30 seconds / a few brief questions feels like a long time to me.)

When I'm traveling to Mexico, my time at the border includes...

paying the bridge toll,
proceeding to/through the inspection area,
parking,
walking into the customs building,
waiting in line,
presenting my passport to the immigration officer and requesting an immigration form,
filling out the immigration form,
waiting in line again,
paying for the immigration form (may or may not be at a separate window),
getting the immigration form stamped by the officer,
waiting in line at another window to obtain a temporary importation permit for my car,
presenting all sorts of personal and vehicle ID (with copies),
paying a deposit on my vehicle importation plus a processing fee,
going to the bathroom,
walking back out to the parking lot,
applying the RFID sticker to my windshield,
getting back on the road.

All of that process doesn't even take into account the possibility of being questioned and/or searched at either of the following:

CPB checkpoing on the US side,
Navy checkpoint on the Mexican side,
Customs officers on the Mexican side

The heavier the vehicle, the more likely it is to trigger a red light for inspection/search.  I drive a seven-passenger SUV, I load it beyond capacity, I use a rooftop cargo box, and I generally have at least five people in the car.  Even if my car doesn't get searched, I'm usually traveling in caravan with one or two other cars and, if they get searched, then I have to wait for them to finish up.

Coming back north again, my time at the border includes...

waiting in line (in my car) to have the permit canceled and RFID sticker removed,
parking,
walking into the customs building,
waiting in line,
presenting ID and cancelation paperwork at the window,
obtaining the refund for my vehicle importation deposit,
going to the bathroom,
walking back out to the parking lot,
getting back on the road,
paying the bridge toll.

Then there's the matter of waiting in line and the possibility of being questioned and/or searched on the US side, and/or later on at the interior checkpoint farther north.  (So far, I've never been searched at the interior checkpoint so.)

So, as you can see, there is a LOT more for me to consider than just how many minutes of driving Google Maps says it will take.  Each of those steps has its pros and cons at each border crossing point, and a lot of the waiting can vary substantially.

Quote from: kphoger on May 09, 2019, 02:09:19 PM. . . Navy checkpoint on the Mexican side . . .

They have the navy doing that now?  In my day these puestos de revisión militar were all army.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 09, 2019, 02:35:00 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 09, 2019, 02:09:19 PM. . . Navy checkpoint on the Mexican side . . .

They have the navy doing that now?  In my day these puestos de revisión militar were all army.

How can you tell the difference?  I assumed they were Navy merely because the drug war in Mexico is under Navy command.

Quote from: kphoger on May 09, 2019, 02:44:35 PMHow can you tell the difference?  I assumed they were Navy merely because the drug war in Mexico is under Navy command.

They were wearing olive green fatigues.  In Mexico army uniforms (https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/mexico/personnel-uniforms.htm) are green or khaki while navy (including marine) uniforms are white or dark blue.  Now, admittedly, I was not trying to read shoulder or collar insignia, so I can't exclude the possibility these were naval personnel who had been issued army-style uniforms for extended shore duty.

(Mexican flag officer ranks are confusing, BTW.  One-star general is brigadier general, just like the US, but two-star general--equivalent to our major general--is brigade general.)

Quote from: kphoger on May 09, 2019, 02:09:19 PM
When I'm traveling to Mexico, my time at the border includes...

Holy shit. No wonder I've never driven into Mexico. That sounds miserable. You can always rely on Waze for Canada, especially with NEXUS (as it knows if you have a pass, and sees the extra lane).

Gotta wonder if a fly-drive vacation might be a bit easier? At least that way, you're renting a Mexican vehicle, which might deter the Mexican police from glancing your way.

Quote from: jakeroot on May 09, 2019, 04:01:10 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 09, 2019, 02:09:19 PM
When I'm traveling to Mexico, my time at the border includes...

...

So, as you can see, there is a LOT more for me to consider than just how many minutes of driving Google Maps says it will take.  Each of those steps has its pros and cons at each border crossing point, and a lot of the waiting can vary substantially.

Holy shit. No wonder I've never driven into Mexico. That sounds miserable. You can always rely on Waze for Canada, especially with NEXUS (as it knows if you have a pass, and sees the extra lane).

Uh, yeah, what he said.  :wow:

I always knew crossing into & out of Mexico was more challenging than Canada, but I had no idea the difference was on that monumental of a scale. That makes US>Canada crossings look like the EU in comparison.

Quote from: jakeroot on May 09, 2019, 04:01:10 PMGotta wonder if a fly-drive vacation might be a bit easier? At least that way, you're renting a Mexican vehicle, which might deter the Mexican police from glancing your way.

For the kind of mission work Kphoger does, overland travel in one's own personal vehicle is really the easiest way to do it.  For a person like me who generally visits Mexico as a tourist, air travel is more feasible, but it makes the most sense for Mexico City and the Yucatán peninsula resorts.

The process for obtaining a tourist permit and temporary vehicle importation, as Kphoger outlines it, has many steps, but it is generally painless at smaller border crossings like Ojinaga.  In my experience, two-thirds of the trouble is connected with return to the US, and while most of it has to do with the border wait, in-person cancellation of the temporary vehicle importation creates poorly documented constraints that have to be navigated, since once the permit is cancelled, you are limited in the POEs you can reach without travel into the Mexican interior.  At Nogales, for example, the wait (entirely the fault of the US) was so bad I would gladly have considered diverting to Naco or Douglas, but I had no certainty of being able to reach either without being turned back at an internal customs post.

I likened being an American abroad to being the main character in the Edward Everett Hale short story because we really are a very under-served constituency.

Flying in is not reasonable for me.  I have a family of five, and I'm usually traveling with at least three other people–sometimes as many as a dozen of us total.  Also, as I mentioned, I load our vehicles down with a lot of cargo.  Besides which, if we did fly in, then what?  Haul all our stuff to a car rental lot?  Our work sometimes involves traveling off-pavement for miles (for a few days one year, in fact) with heavy cargo and people crammed in to each vehicle.  Not to mention that going off pavement typically voids any car rental insurance contract.

But that's not really the issue.  All of the steps I outlined (southbound)–even with two or three vehicles and up to a dozen people, including being searched–has never taken me more than 80 minutes total.  That's out of nine driving trips across the border.  I did luck out one trip, because both my southbound and northbound trips were in the direction opposite a holiday travel rush, but that would have added no more than 45 minutes to my total time.  You can lose that much time just by stopping to eat instead of doing drive-through.

Quote from: jakeroot on May 09, 2019, 04:01:10 PM
At least that way, you're renting a Mexican vehicle, which might deter the Mexican police from glancing your way.

I don't recall ever being singled out by the police for having US plates.  And that's out of probably something like 7000 miles of driving in Mexico with US plates.  I've been through plenty of checkpoints, and I've even been pulled over for speeding and bribed my way out of a ticket once.  But the only times I've had my US registration mentioned were (1) the municipal police officer from Nuevo Laredo who pulled me over for speeding saying that a ticket wouldn't count against my insurance because it was a foreign policy, and (2) an army officer at a roadside checkpoint west of Saltillo (in full riot gear and face mask with rifle) mentioning "gringo" to her fellow officer after I'd handed my ID through the window (she wished me well in English when she handed it back, with what sounded like a smile).

Quote from: kphoger on May 09, 2019, 04:37:28 PM
Flying in is not reasonable for me.  I have a family of five, and I'm usually traveling with at least three other people–sometimes as many as a dozen of us total.  Also, as I mentioned, I load our vehicles down with a lot of cargo.  Besides which, if we did fly in, then what?  Haul all our stuff to a car rental lot?  Our work sometimes involves traveling off-pavement for miles (for a few days one year, in fact) with heavy cargo and people crammed in to each vehicle.  Not to mention that going off pavement typically voids any car rental insurance contract.

My bad. Didn't realize you were a tour guide! Genuinely. I see JN's comment above about missionary work.

Quote from: kphoger on May 09, 2019, 04:48:51 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on May 09, 2019, 04:01:10 PM
At least that way, you're renting a Mexican vehicle, which might deter the Mexican police from glancing your way.

I don't recall ever being singled out by the police for having US plates.

I recall in another thread, discussion about American vehicles in Mexico without front plates being a target for the police.

Quote from: jakeroot on May 09, 2019, 05:23:45 PM
I recall in another thread, discussion about American vehicles in Mexico without front plates being a target for the police.

I mentioned that I once had to explain to a local cop that my state doesn't issue front license plates.  But I was not targeted by the police at that checkpoint because of it:  every vehicle was being stopped.

---

Quote from: jakeroot on May 09, 2019, 04:01:10 PM
Gotta wonder if a fly-drive vacation might be a bit easier?

Because flying has fewer steps and less waiting?  Ha!  Good one!   :-D

Quote from: kphoger on May 10, 2019, 12:52:41 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on May 09, 2019, 04:01:10 PM
Gotta wonder if a fly-drive vacation might be a bit easier?

Because flying has fewer steps and less waiting?  Ha!  Good one!   :-D

hell of a lot fewer steps than crossing the Mexican border, apparently.

Quote from: jakeroot on May 11, 2019, 01:04:46 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 10, 2019, 12:52:41 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on May 09, 2019, 04:01:10 PM
Gotta wonder if a fly-drive vacation might be a bit easier?

Because flying has fewer steps and less waiting?  Ha!  Good one!   :-D

hell of a lot fewer steps than crossing the Mexican border, apparently.

Yeah, right.  We'll skip the first step of either driving in and paying for parking or taking public transit;  let's assume you just walk into the airport off the street.

Wait in line at the ticket counter.
Request a ticket to wherever you're going.
Show ID.
Pay for the ticket.
Check your baggage.
Wait in line at security.
Take everything out of your pockets, take your shoes off, strip down naked, whatever...
Proceed to your gate and sit around doing nothing for a while.
Wait in line at the gate when it's time to board.
Present your ID and ticket.
Upon landing, wait in line to get off the plane.
Proceed to baggage claim and wait around till you find yours.
Walk out.

And before you say some of those steps can be avoided by purchasing an online ticket and not checking a bag, allow me to say that some of the steps in driving into Mexico can be avoided too.  Specifically, the vehicle importation permit can be obtained in advance.  I don't do that, primarily because I don't like the idea of sending the originals of my personal and vehicle documents in the mail to a government agency and then waiting around for them to be processed and come back to me. 

I usually take the fastest time route, but I have taken different routes in order to clinch counties or certain segments of highways.

Two weeks ago, I had to drive 700 miles all over lower Michigan for my father's work. The total mileage would likely have been in the 600-650 range if I had optimized the route as much. My points of interest were as follows:
Manistee -> Kaleva -> Brohman -> Bridgeton -> Grand Rapids -> Baroda -> Jackson -> Albion -> Springport -> Six Lakes -> Morley -> McBain -> Manistee
From Bridgeton to Grand Rapids, the quickest route would likely have been B-35 south to M-46 to M-37 into Grand Rapids. However, I went B-35 north to M-82 to US-131 into Grand Rapids in order to clinch (a) M-82 and (b) all state highway mileage in Newaygo County.
Going to Baroda, I clinched BL I-94 through Benton Harbor and St. Joseph instead of using I-94.
In Albion, I clinched BL I-94. If I had more time, I would have clinched M-199 and possibly the Marshall BL I-94.
In the Eaton Rapids area, I clinched M-188, which IMHO is the biggest waste of a state highway in Michigan.
In the Lansing area, instead of getting on I-96 at exit 101, I took M-99 all the way to I-496 and then to I-96.
Between Morley and McBain, the quickest route would have been US-131 north to M-115 east to 48 Rd/Stoney Corners Rd east. Instead, I cut through the Canadian Lakes area to meet M-20 and M-66 in Remus, and then went up M-66 to McBain.

Quote from: kphoger on May 13, 2019, 01:38:39 PM
We'll skip the first step of either driving in and paying for parking or taking public transit;  let's assume you just walk into the airport off the street.

Wait in line at the ticket counter.
Request a ticket to wherever you're going.
Show ID.
Pay for the ticket.
Check your baggage.
Wait in line at security.
Take everything out of your pockets, take your shoes off, strip down naked, whatever...
Proceed to your gate and sit around doing nothing for a while.
Wait in line at the gate when it's time to board.
Present your ID and ticket.
Upon landing, wait in line to get off the plane.
Proceed to baggage claim and wait around till you find yours.
Walk out.

And before you say some of those steps can be avoided by purchasing an online ticket and not checking a bag, allow me to say that some of the steps in driving into Mexico can be avoided too.  Specifically, the vehicle importation permit can be obtained in advance.  I don't do that, primarily because I don't like the idea of sending the originals of my personal and vehicle documents in the mail to a government agency and then waiting around for them to be processed and come back to me. 

Let's be realistic for a moment, and recognize that there are some massive differences:

1) I'm referring to domestic flights; you, to crossing an international border by car;
2) each process can be sped up based on one's own experiences and preparedness;
3) not each step necessarily takes a long time, even if there are many steps.

For me, flying is much simpler than how you've presented it. I can usually be at the gate in about ten minutes (my ticket is on my phone, I use PreCheck, I don't check my bags). But for others, especially those in groups, it can take a bit longer. Mostly due to those who don't fly very often, and just aren't as prepared. But you can speed things up a ton by having everything ready to go. I just don't see how driving into Mexico can necessarily be sped up much, beyond obtaining that permit ahead of time. You can become accustomed to the process, but it still takes a certain amount of time, even on a good day.

Specifically when talking about crossing the Mexican border, one's proximity to the border, and the destination thereafter, is also pretty important. For those who live a significant distance from the border, there are hefty travel expenses. Flying usually isn't cheap, but if you're limited on time, it can be worth it.

Quote from: ftballfan on May 13, 2019, 02:17:37 PM
I usually take the fastest time route, but I have taken different routes in order to clinch counties or certain segments of highways.

Two weeks ago, I had to drive 700 miles all over lower Michigan for my father's work. The total mileage would likely have been in the 600-650 range if I had optimized the route as much. My points of interest were as follows:
Manistee -> Kaleva -> Brohman -> Bridgeton -> Grand Rapids -> Baroda -> Jackson -> Albion -> Springport -> Six Lakes -> Morley -> McBain -> Manistee
From Bridgeton to Grand Rapids, the quickest route would likely have been B-35 south to M-46 to M-37 into Grand Rapids. However, I went B-35 north to M-82 to US-131 into Grand Rapids in order to clinch (a) M-82 and (b) all state highway mileage in Newaygo County.
Going to Baroda, I clinched BL I-94 through Benton Harbor and St. Joseph instead of using I-94.
In Albion, I clinched BL I-94. If I had more time, I would have clinched M-199 and possibly the Marshall BL I-94.
In the Eaton Rapids area, I clinched M-188, which IMHO is the biggest waste of a state highway in Michigan.
In the Lansing area, instead of getting on I-96 at exit 101, I took M-99 all the way to I-496 and then to I-96.
Between Morley and McBain, the quickest route would have been US-131 north to M-115 east to 48 Rd/Stoney Corners Rd east. Instead, I cut through the Canadian Lakes area to meet M-20 and M-66 in Remus, and then went up M-66 to McBain.

I clinched M-199 one time and didn't even realize I did it until I got home and in fact never even knew about M-199 until I did that. M-188 is one I clinched just to do it and it really is a pointless highway. It's just there to serve the VFW Children's Home on Waverly and what's funny is that highway has more traffic outside of Eaton Rapids than it does in Eaton Rapids, neither of which is a very high traffic count in the first place. I think it was the same night I clinched M-99 that I clinched M-188.

Quote from: jakeroot on May 13, 2019, 02:55:12 PM

Here's my point:  How much time passes between the moment you walk into an airport and the moment the wheels leave the runway?  Ten minutes from the front door to sitting down at the gate is pretty impressive, even with only carry-on and no need to stop at the ticket counter, but then you still have to wait for your flight once you get there.  I typically (used to, back in my single days, when flying was an affordable option) plan to be at the airport at least 90 minutes ahead of departure time.

Tying this back to the actual thread topic, minimizing the border wait time is part of my route planning.

It all depends upon who controls the agenda for the trip -- myself or someone else (singular or plural).  If it's myself, then I'll either -- depending upon time consideration -- select a "beeline" trip or, if brevity isn't a criterion, select something (fully or partially) that I haven't done before; if that isn't possible, then at least something I deem interesting.  If the trip is initiated by someone else not my GF, then it all depends upon who's driving.  The last trip I took, the previously mentioned 2-day SoCal jaunt over New Years', was with someone else supplying the vehicle and doing all the driving; my role was navigating the L.A. area (and occasionally overruling his GPS!) -- involving getting him to where he needed to go as well as making a stop at my storage unit near my former High Desert residence to snag some stored equipment.  But to satisfy his time criteria, I needed to plot the closest thing to beelines possible (although I did get him to use CA 99 en route home through the Valley rather than I-5 so I could check on upgrade progress plus the initial HSR construction near Fresno).   

Lately, because of my business, my trips have often zig-zagged between customers, vendors, or marketing targets.  One of my last cross-country trips when I was still based in SoCal visited a dealer in Denver, another in Kenosha, WI, a supplier in the Rochester, NY area, a dealer in Beckley, WV (nice way to get both I-99 and the New River Bridge into the mix), a vendor in Florence, SC (clinched much of the southern end of the I-73 corridor in the process), my GF in suburban Atlanta (where she was caring for her ailing father at the time), a dealer in Ft. Walton Beach, FL, a potential client for a sideline business in Jasper, AL, family in Broken Bow, OK (clinching I-30 in the process), and a close-to-beeline home via one of my seemingly zillion trips on US 287 between Wichita Falls and Amarillo and I-40 west of there.  In the late 1990's and early 2000's, that would have been a typical cross-country trip for me.  Today -- particularly since I'm now nearing 70, trips such as that might just be a bit too much; right now, I'm contemplating a fall trip to Denver for a trade show; although I won't be exhibiting this year, a couple of my business associates have seen the exhibitor list and want to go anyway -- and for the first time, I may let them go, take pictures and acquire information, while I stick close to home and tend to business here.  I normally would do all that myself more than willingly, but recent health issues have been a sticking point (just coming off a bout with pneumonia!).  And the older she gets, my GF is increasingly less willing to spend time on the road (and corresponding time off work!), preferring to fly out to my destination once I'm there.   

But I'll probably be limiting any out-of-state road trips to one per year as long as I can actually do them -- but in the process (and considering time of year and weather conditions) find new routes to get to even familiar destinations.   

Choose the least annoying route.

Meaning, the best mix of fuel efficiency, time, length, annoyance... I mean, there's a few routes where exiting off at *a particular road* is the "fastest" route but bottlenecks and close stoplights make a back way faster and less annoying (stop and go kills my MPGs)....

I'm definitely a bit eccentric about route choice.

1. If the drive isn't anyplace particularly interesting to me and I just want to get there AND I can do the drive at an off peak time I'll take whatever would be suggested by GPS or obvious routing.  But if I want to go someplace and I have reasonable expectation that the freeway will or might likely be annoyingly busy (such that maintaining speed limit +5 or more MPH will require a lot of effort or not be possible) then I'm likely to try for a back road even though it will surely take longer.

2. I ALWAYS try to avoid getting onto a limited access road for less than 2 miles.  I don't know why but merging onto the freeway just to take the next exit always makes me crazy so I'll take any reasonable frontage or local road I know every time if I can avoid it.

3. At least when living in Scranton (with I-476) or near Rochester (with I-90) I take the tollway anytime I can even if its slightly longer because in the case of going from Scranton to Wilkes-Barre or from home (Victor NY) to work (near Greece), the tollway is much more pleasant and has very little speed difference between peak on off peak travel compared to I-82 or I-490 respectively would.

4. If I have to drive somewhere truly horrendous or at the very worst time then of course there isn't much real choice to be made. But I structure large parts of my life to make this a rare outcome.