WBZ Traffic Reports

[Michael Benveniste]

Does anyone else find WBZ's traffic reports to be useless or even
outright misleading?

For the entire duration of this morning's nightmare commute, WBZ was
reporting "slow from Main St. to I-93 and from Route 3 to Trapelo
Road." Tune in virtually any day of the week to hear the same.

In the meantime, SmarTraveler was accurately reporting the
hour-and-a-half commuting time.

So, is it me, the route, or WBZ/Metro Traffic in general?

[John F. Carr]

Post by Michael Benveniste
Does anyone else find WBZ's traffic reports to be useless or even
outright misleading?
For the entire duration of this morning's nightmare commute, WBZ was
reporting "slow from Main St. to I-93 and from Route 3 to Trapelo
Road." Tune in virtually any day of the week to hear the same.

I took Soldiers Field Road today because of a mythical backup
on the Pike from Boston to Newton Corner.

[Jay Levitt]

Post by John F. Carr
I took Soldiers Field Road today because of a mythical backup
on the Pike from Boston to Newton Corner.

If this was during evening rush, it wasn't mythical. I saw it on my way
in... I thought it was odd, since that's not a usual spot for
congestion. I didn't see where it started (er, ended...) but IIRC it
went all the way through Newton Corner toward the Allston/Brighton
tolls.

[John F. Carr]

Post by Jay Levitt

Post by John F. Carr
I took Soldiers Field Road today because of a mythical backup
on the Pike from Boston to Newton Corner.

If this was during evening rush, it wasn't mythical. I saw it on my way
in... I thought it was odd, since that's not a usual spot for
congestion. I didn't see where it started (er, ended...) but IIRC it
went all the way through Newton Corner toward the Allston/Brighton
tolls.

Traffic was free-flowing on the Turnpike shortly after 7:00 when
WBZ was still reporting bad delays.

[Jay Levitt]

Post by John F. Carr
Traffic was free-flowing on the Turnpike shortly after 7:00 when
WBZ was still reporting bad delays.

Ah. Whoops! I saw it around 5:30. Perhaps they were doing a daily
traffic roundup. :)

Jay

[Cheryl Isaak]

On 3/9/05 7:38 PM, in article

Post by Michael Benveniste
Does anyone else find WBZ's traffic reports to be useless or even
outright misleading?
For the entire duration of this morning's nightmare commute, WBZ was
reporting "slow from Main St. to I-93 and from Route 3 to Trapelo
Road." Tune in virtually any day of the week to hear the same.
In the meantime, SmarTraveler was accurately reporting the
hour-and-a-half commuting time.
So, is it me, the route, or WBZ/Metro Traffic in general?

I used to use them as a guide if I was going south from NH to the Cape.
Completely useless


Cheryl

[c***@post.harvard.edu]

I listen to Traffic On The 3s, and when I can verify, it's accurate
about half the time. Often it's reporting delays (or clear roads) that
are "historical" by 30 minutes or so.

And I have trouble picking out the roads I'm interested in -- if it
really matters, I dial SmarTraveler.

[Jonathan F Carpenter]

Post by c***@post.harvard.edu
I listen to Traffic On The 3s, and when I can verify, it's accurate
about half the time. Often it's reporting delays (or clear roads) that
are "historical" by 30 minutes or so.
And I have trouble picking out the roads I'm interested in -- if it
really matters, I dial SmarTraveler.

That's the other thing that bugs me - WBZ never report on the same roads
in the same order, and they talk so fast sometimes it's hard to pick out
the road you are interested in. Sometimes, they start with 128 north, and
don't get to 128 south until the end of the report. And they'll mention
locations based on cross streets or local names, but never give the name
of the city or town! They'll say Rt. 128 at East St., but never mention
where it is. Someone's who's driving 128 or 93 for the first time won't
know where the "cloverleaf" is, and aren't the upper and lower decks in
Boston gone now? Yet they still refer to them by that name.

--Jon

[John F. Carr]

... and aren't the upper and lower decks in Boston gone now?

The decks exist but are shorter. I-93 is double-decked
for about a mile between the Leverett Connector exit and
the new bridge with the overly-long name.

[c***@post.harvard.edu]

Post by Jonathan F Carpenter
Someone's who's driving 128 or 93 for the first time won't
know where the "cloverleaf" is, and aren't the upper and lower decks in
Boston gone now? Yet they still refer to them by that name.

According to WBZ, the "lower deck" can be backed up as far
back as Montvale Avenue. They've got a peculiar name for each
of the major commuter roads, and a set of landmark points on
each road. It sort of makes sense: if they had to explain each road
at every report, they'd be spending 10 minutes on each report.

But absolutely, it's the mixed order that confuses me the most. I
understand if there's a major tie-up it comes first, but otherwise I
can't tell how they choose the order between their four sectors
(south, north, west, and downtown.)

[John F. Carr]

Post by c***@post.harvard.edu

Post by Jonathan F Carpenter
Someone's who's driving 128 or 93 for the first time won't
know where the "cloverleaf" is, and aren't the upper and lower decks

in

Post by Jonathan F Carpenter
Boston gone now? Yet they still refer to them by that name.

According to WBZ, the "lower deck" can be backed up as far
back as Montvale Avenue. They've got a peculiar name for each
of the major commuter roads, and a set of landmark points on
each road.

The I-93 landmarks are less confusing than they used to be
but they still refuse to use the Leverett Connector exit
and beginning of the double deck structure as a landmark.

[Dick Margulis]

Post by c***@post.harvard.edu

Post by Jonathan F Carpenter
Someone's who's driving 128 or 93 for the first time won't
know where the "cloverleaf" is, and aren't the upper and lower decks

in

Post by Jonathan F Carpenter
Boston gone now? Yet they still refer to them by that name.

According to WBZ, the "lower deck" can be backed up as far
back as Montvale Avenue. They've got a peculiar name for each
of the major commuter roads, and a set of landmark points on
each road. It sort of makes sense: if they had to explain each road
at every report, they'd be spending 10 minutes on each report.
But absolutely, it's the mixed order that confuses me the most. I
understand if there's a major tie-up it comes first, but otherwise I
can't tell how they choose the order between their four sectors
(south, north, west, and downtown.)

Sounds to me like they've got all you commuters convinced these are real
traffic reports when what the station is actually doing is replaying
randomized snippets from recorded traffic reports from several years
ago. Think of all the money they must save ;-)

[c***@post.harvard.edu]

And another thing: The slowdowns are reported relative to how the road
ought to be at that hour. I normally leave work after 6pm (to beat
traffic.) If I leave at 5pm the traffic reports don't report problems,
because they're the same volume-related problems in the same places
every day. If I were a regular commuter at those hours I would know
that those area are tied up without being reported, but I'm not, and I
get surprised that the "no problems" condition then is slower than the
"no problems" condition an hour later.

[John]

Post by Jonathan F Carpenter
That's the other thing that bugs me - WBZ never report on the same roads
in the same order, and they talk so fast sometimes it's hard to pick out
the road you are interested in. >
--Jon

Very good point.

And don't forget when ever they get to road that I want info on my wife
starts to talk and I miss it.

[Jonathan F Carpenter]

Post by Michael Benveniste
Does anyone else find WBZ's traffic reports to be useless or even
outright misleading?
For the entire duration of this morning's nightmare commute, WBZ was
reporting "slow from Main St. to I-93 and from Route 3 to Trapelo
Road." Tune in virtually any day of the week to hear the same.
In the meantime, SmarTraveler was accurately reporting the
hour-and-a-half commuting time.
So, is it me, the route, or WBZ/Metro Traffic in general?

Based on my experience, it's WBZ. I can't tell you the number of times
I've driven on 128 or Route 9 and they mention a backup, when I just went
through the same location at normal speed. Then, they'll continue to
report the backup for next half hour. Or, the alternate can happen, and
I'll be stopped dead, and they say it's clear sailing.

The only time I trust their traffic reports now is when they are reporting
on major accidents, when they are getting their information from multiple
sources.

--Jon

[John S]

Post by Michael Benveniste
Does anyone else find WBZ's traffic reports to be useless or even
outright misleading?
For the entire duration of this morning's nightmare commute, WBZ was
reporting "slow from Main St. to I-93 and from Route 3 to Trapelo
Road." Tune in virtually any day of the week to hear the same.
In the meantime, SmarTraveler was accurately reporting the
hour-and-a-half commuting time.
So, is it me, the route, or WBZ/Metro Traffic in general?

I've found WBZ traffic reports to be useless. Its own sister stations
in New York, Detroit, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles do much better.
The silly monakers for certain areas aren't very helpful either. I
understand that they need to describe where a problem is, but other
places use exit numbers or even mile posts, which is much more useful,
at least in my opinion. (Admittedly using mile posts is more useful in
the rest of the country because that's how exits are numbered). And
why do they always say Route 4 AND Route 225 for that multiplex in
Bedford, but never seemed to have been clued in that I-95 is multiplexed
too.

In Boston, WRKO has much more accurate traffic reports, although it is
only 4 times an hour rather than 6. Still 4 decent reports is better
than 6 useless reports.

[Charlie]

I spent a lot of years in sales, so I got the flavor of WBZ, WRKO and Smart
Routes and their coverage all over eastern Mass.

WRKO - Worthless. The worst traffic report you can crank out in the alloted
30 seconds. It's incomplete and inaccurate - and punctuated by sermonettes
from State Trooper Grant Mollison (PEOPLE - You've GOT to slow down / wear
your seatbelts / don't drink and drive / call your mother / eat a good
breakfast...)

WBZ - Better in the sense that they allot more time and report every 10
minutes. But remarkably inaccurate. I can't tell you how many times I've
found tie-ups that were not reported or driven through tie-ups that were not
there.

Smart Routes - Better still. The reporting is better at being up to date,
though still misses more often than they should, and the reported drive
times can be remarkably inaccurate at times.

Best Solution (just my opinion) - buy a VHF/UHF scanner and listen to:
- Traffic helicopters for the several reporting stations - they share
information with each other, and do it in MUCH better detail than you ever
hear in their reports.
- Smartroutes reporters on the ground and in the air. They fly an
airplane to the north and south of Boston and supplement those with drivers
on the ground. They all report back to Smart Routes - again in greater
detail than you hear in their reports.

You don't have to spend a fortune on a high-end scanner either. You can
pick up a new Radio Shack # 20-315 for $79, which covers the necessary
frequencies.

Charlie

Post by Michael Benveniste
Does anyone else find WBZ's traffic reports to be useless or even
outright misleading?
For the entire duration of this morning's nightmare commute, WBZ was
reporting "slow from Main St. to I-93 and from Route 3 to Trapelo
Road." Tune in virtually any day of the week to hear the same.
In the meantime, SmarTraveler was accurately reporting the
hour-and-a-half commuting time.
So, is it me, the route, or WBZ/Metro Traffic in general?
--
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

[John F. Carr]

Post by Charlie
- Traffic helicopters for the several reporting stations - they share
information with each other, and do it in MUCH better detail than you ever
hear in their reports.
- Smartroutes reporters on the ground and in the air. They fly an
airplane to the north and south of Boston and supplement those with drivers
on the ground. They all report back to Smart Routes - again in greater
detail than you hear in their reports.
You don't have to spend a fortune on a high-end scanner either. You can
pick up a new Radio Shack # 20-315 for $79, which covers the necessary
frequencies.

What are the frequencies?

[Charlie]

The one that I use most is 455.1125, but a quick google will provide others.
That's the inter-chopper frequency and is quite good.

I don't have my radio handy at the moment do I don't have the others. The
other very good one is that used by Smart Routes.

Charlie

Post by John F. Carr

Post by Charlie
- Traffic helicopters for the several reporting stations - they share
information with each other, and do it in MUCH better detail than you ever
hear in their reports.
- Smartroutes reporters on the ground and in the air. They fly an
airplane to the north and south of Boston and supplement those with drivers
on the ground. They all report back to Smart Routes - again in greater
detail than you hear in their reports.
You don't have to spend a fortune on a high-end scanner either. You can
pick up a new Radio Shack # 20-315 for $79, which covers the necessary
frequencies.

What are the frequencies?
--

[Raoul]

Post by Charlie
WRKO - Worthless. The worst traffic report you can crank out in the alloted
30 seconds. It's incomplete and inaccurate - and punctuated by sermonettes
from State Trooper Grant Mollison (PEOPLE - You've GOT to slow down / wear
your seatbelts / don't drink and drive / call your mother / eat a good
breakfast...)
WBZ - Better in the sense that they allot more time and report every 10
minutes. But remarkably inaccurate. I can't tell you how many times I've
found tie-ups that were not reported or driven through tie-ups that were not
there.
Smart Routes - Better still. The reporting is better at being up to date,
though still misses more often than they should, and the reported drive
times can be remarkably inaccurate at times.
- Traffic helicopters for the several reporting stations - they share
information with each other, and do it in MUCH better detail than you ever
hear in their reports.
- Smartroutes reporters on the ground and in the air. They fly an
airplane to the north and south of Boston and supplement those with drivers
on the ground. They all report back to Smart Routes - again in greater
detail than you hear in their reports.

The WRKO "sermonettes" are at least a little bit entertaining.

Of all all traffic reports, the worst are the ones on XM by by Traffic
Pulse. Traffic delivered by people completely unfamiliar with the
roads.