GPS Traffic Services Compared

February 9, 2007 10:41 AM

Does anyone have experience using a GPS with traffic updates (in the Chicago area?) Looking to compare XM Navtraffic to Clearchannel's FM traffic reports.

Specifically, I am buying a GPS and trying to decide between Garmin units with the XM Navtraffic option (subscription is pricey, but reportedly superior) and Clearchannel's FM traffic reports service (much cheaper.) I tend spend a lot of time stuck in traffic! Is Clearchannel's service "good enough?" to keep me out of jams? Is the extra money for the XM worth it? Has anyone directly compared the two? It occurs to me that the XM subscription will end up costing more then the GPS unit itself in only a few years. I am not interested in satellite radio, only the XM traffic service. Thanks.

posted by natness to travel & transportation (2 comments total)

I don't think that traffic updates are going to help you that much in the Chicago area, except maybe for a few routes for which there are multiple, nearly equivalent options. Maybe if you are heading to or from a place that is near 90/290/53 or somewhere where 80 or 88 could be a choice. Is knowing about the traffic useful for your specific route? Even for people I know who drive those kind of drives everyday, they say that it's nothing like being in Southern California or the Bay Area, where the choice of a particular road can affect your travel time significantly.
posted by jcwagner at 11:30 AM on February 9, 2007

Anyone have experience in Mpls? I have a built in Acura GPS and was thinking of moving to an Eclipse GPS with XM traffic data.
posted by thilmony at 12:40 PM on February 9, 2007