News:

Per request, I added a Forum Status page while revamping the AARoads back end.
- Alex

Main Menu

Redesigning the Sirius/XM Traffic & Weather Channels

Started by thenetwork, March 31, 2015, 11:17:33 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

thenetwork

Over on a NY Thruway thread, there was a conversation starting about the traffic & weather satellite radio channels and their sometimes odd groupings.  We had listed out the current channels and started discussing how to streamline and improve the channels.  Here are my thoughts:

132 Boston/Philly/Pittsburgh
133 NYC
Put Boston and NYC on the same channel as the Northeast Channel, and include major traffic/weather issues from points in-between when warranted.


134 DC/Balt/Atl
Switch out Philadelphia with Atlanta and call it the Mid-Atlantic Corridor channel.  Atlanta would either be on it's own channel or paired up with other "isolated" Southern cities (New Orleans, Charlotte??)

135 Chicago/Detroit
136 Miami/Orlando/St Pete
No Problems with these channels, they make sense.

137 DFW/Houston/Phoenix
Switch out San Antonio for Phoenix and put Phoenix on it's own channel with Las Vegas.


138 St Louis/Minneapolis
St. Louis/KC/I-70 corridor would make a better stand alone channel.  Perhaps you could add Indianapolis.


139 SF/Seattle
Spin off Seattle onto a new channel pairing with Portland.  Rename the SFO Channel as the Bay Area Channel, including San Jose, Sacramento & Oakland.


140 LA/San Diego
Another perfect channel.   You could arguably put Vegas on this channel too for the I-15 corridor, but SoCal is a big enough monster on it's own already.


As for the remaining cities currently covered by Sirius/XM:

Minneapolis -- this is such an isolated major city with no real good large city neighbor, unless you add Milwaukee (which should really be part of the CHI/DET Channel) or maybe even Denver (another isolated major city which merits a satellite traffic channel).


Pittsburgh -- Sports fans may not like it due to bitter rivalries, but put Pittsburgh on a channel with Cleveland, Buffalo and/or Columbus (all are large enough cities to warrant satellite traffic reports).

Not sure if a Nashville/Memphis channel is warranted, but would make for a logical pairing.


Other ideas?


jeffandnicole

I would group Philly & Baltimore together, because the coverage of the 2 cities involves a significant number of routes that travelers take near and between the 2 cities. 

Philly coverage starts around the Trenton area, and will include the Wilmington & Newark, DE areas for significant issues.  Cecil County and points south are generally covered on Baltimore's traffic alerts, allowing for nearly seamless coverage of over 150 miles of main and alternate roadways associated with those 2 cities.

Include Washington DC, and now we're talking a very extensive area where long-distance travelers can get continuous traffic updates.

jeffandnicole

Pittsburgh/Cleveland makes sense.  Nearly every other channel mix involves bitter rivalries anyway.

1995hoo

I would also combine DC/Baltimore/Philadelphia. DC and Baltimore obviously belong on the same channel. The local AM and FM stations often report on major incidents affecting traffic in and near the other city, which makes sense because so many people either commute between the two or pass between the two in short order in the course of longer travel. The distance "between the Beltways" on I-95 is only about 22 miles. Philadelphia is further, of course (it's about 75 miles from I-695 to I-476), but it's still a place someone driving north or south along the corridor would encounter within a reasonable time before or after passing Baltimore.

Pittsburgh, on the other hand, is several hours west of Philadelphia and even farther from Boston, much as Atlanta is some 660 miles south of Washington. It doesn't really make sense to have the Pennsylvania cities on the same channel as Boston and it doesn't make sense to have Atlanta on the same channel as DC and Baltimore.

I recognize they had to put them somewhere, of course.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

PHLBOS

A few years back (likely prior to the Sirius/XM merger), Sirius Channel 132 only had just Boston & Philly.  Pittsburgh was a later addition to that channel (not sure whether another channel carried Pittsburgh back then).
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Henry

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 31, 2015, 11:50:42 AM
Pittsburgh/Cleveland makes sense.  Nearly every other channel mix involves bitter rivalries anyway.

Add Cincinnati to that, and you'd have something.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Gulol

I second adding Denver to this list.  Unfortunately it seems it's not in the cards to expand the roster of cities included in traffic reports ... at least that's what the SiriusXM operator told me when I had called to inquire about this.  They want you to subscribe to their traffic program that runs on a vehicle's existing GPS system.  With a new report today stating that Denver is in the Top 25 for worst traffic in the US, I certainly think it's worth consideration for SiriusXM to add them

http://kdvr.com/2015/03/31/study-denver-area-in-top-25-for-worst-traffic-in-u-s/

cpzilliacus

Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Wilmington and Philadelphia on one channel.

For fun, add Richmond, Virginia.

Major problems on I-95 (and I-295) south of Carmel Church/Ruther Glen do get mentioned on D.C.-area terrestrial radio traffic reports from time to time.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Zzonkmiles

Given the demographics of the population in the DC area, I'd be comfortable with it having its own channel like NYC does. By "demographics," I mean politicians, high-level government workers, high-ranking military officers, congressional staffers, etc. Not that these people are "better" than the average commuters, but I do believe that if they had better access to traffic information, they could plan their routes accordingly and make it to their next meetings or briefings or media availability on time.

JKRhodes




Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.