Are you happy with nuvi traffic info?

It's not the Nuvi that's the problem. It's that the radio station providing the traffic information is not updated or current. If the radio station only updates traffic every 10 to 15 minutes, then the information is not 'instantaneous' and that's the expectation of everyone complaining about the traffic reporting. They expect a traffic update reporting a change to be broadcast before it happens. The other complaint, (and valid IMO) is that not all roads or even major streets are covered.

Speaking only for my NYC/LI metro area, I find the 2797 non HD traffic reporting generally useful. Often it runs ahead of local radio station reporting re jam ups on the major highways in this area. I note when I start a trip from Long Island to NJ the traffic app doesn't start working until I am closer in to the NYC border. Since the app doesn't use the older green,red,yellow flags, you have to click on the app to ensure it is functioning. It only alerts when a problem is noted along your route. If all is ok it will tell you no problems enroute. And I have found it to be accurate in this regard about 75%, since the system may run behind actual scenarios en route. All in all, a good feature.

I personlly feel FM/HD/3D/Whatever traffic is simply overrated. If it works and you get reception, you'll get traffic data. Whether or not that data is accurate is up to the traffic provider and how current the data is. Data accuracy and how fast it gets to you are the key issues. In reality, no matter how accurate the data is and how fast it's delivered, it will only help you so much. IMO, there are too many factors and variables involved for it to be very reliable (maybe 50%). Many times, you'll get the traffic incident reported on the GPS after you're already stuck in the jam. Many times, an incident will be reported but in reality, it has already cleared and there's smooth sailing up ahead...but you've taken the GPS's advice and taken an alternate route around an incident that is no longer an incident. However, long-term closure reports can be very helpful.

Use it as an additional tool along with your radio & cell phone. But the biggest tool will be the brain and common sense.

As far as FM Traffic vs Digital vs Whatever, it seems that (at least on my 3490LMT in the Los Angeles area) the digital receivers are much more prone to losing signal and sitting there "searching for service". The older FM traffic seems much more capable at holding a lock and sticking with one transmitting station rather than the newer digital service which jumps around, not holding a lock for longer that a minute or two. The area itself may have a big impact on how well the unit performs.

While it is nice to have the traffic reports, one should not expect it to be the end all solution.

Where I live, there are also AM redio stations with traffic every 10 minutes. So a combination of all that and using your noodle does help.

Just as you would not blindly follow the GPS to lead you into a river, lake or whatever. Even worse some woman leaving Belgium and driving for two days through several countries and ending up 1,000 miles away from where she wanted to be. That is where the grey matter between your ears comes into play!

It's not perfect.

Thanks for the input, all. I appreciate your help.

Traffic coverage in Canada is not very good. There is not much coverage for side streets in Toronto area in Canada. It may be lot better in US.

Regardless of the specific service, there is huge variation by location. I live in Albuquerque, New Mexico, a not so tiny city which does generate some traffic one might wish to avoid. None of the Garmin schemes for which I have viewed coverage maps have any coverage here at all, with the closest cities being El Paso, Phoenix, and Denver. One of the two family 3790LMTs came with a faulty traffic receiver, and I did not even realize it until one got data and the other did not on two successive trips to the San Francisco Bay area.

So a key question for you to tell us is "where are you most likely to attempt to use the traffic data?". People with experience there might have more helpful advice. My personal experience is zero utility at home, and we've only seen the signals on two trips, on neither of which has the unit suggested a useful diversion. I'm still hoping it may be useful on a trip soon near the Baltimore/DC area.

subjectively, the Tom Tom seems to have more coverage area but is no more accurate than the Garmin...furthermore, the worse the traffic jam the more accurate both units are mainly, I believe, because the time for reporting is greater.

I would say, statistically, both unts are right about 25-30% of the time in the Philadelphia area, not necessarily as to severity but just to the fact of a traffic situation. Bottom line, if you are trying to base your decision, based on traffic data, between unit from the same manufacturer or between units from different manufacturers you will most likely be disappointed.

JM2CYMMV

My Nuvi (2460LMT) Tells me when I'm stuck in traffic, something I can discern by looking out the window. It's not very good at impending doom -- up about 10 miles or so, or close-in on city streets.

Waze, on the other hand, is superb at this, showing you other Wazers and what luck they're having, such as 12 MPH a half mile ahead...

Some times Waze offers too much information -- possibly a vehicle on the shoulder up ahead -- sometimes there, sometimes not, but I get better info from Waze than from my Nuvi.

what is waze

From reading this forum for a few years, it seems to vary in accuracy across the country. Here in So Calif, it seems to be reasonably accurate most of the time. And it's definitely better than nothing! I once avoided a 45 minute traffic delay using my Nuvi and selecting the detour mode. That alone was worth the extra cost to me.

Nuvi 2460LMT FM-based traffic is disappointingly undependable. It's better than nothing, but I always check INRX on the smartphone before relying on the GPSr.

Generally I find if the GPSr shows traffic, it is accurate. It is too often the case, however, that it shows no traffic -- the same traffic I run smack dab into after it's too late to detour around it.

It can take annoyingly long for "Traffic Up to Date" to be achieved. Sometimes over 10 minutes after turning on the unit, even in a metropolitan area on a clear day. Note that if the unit uses the power wire for the antenna, it will not receive traffic unless plugged in. I have taken to using a cigarette adapter that plugs into the wall and starting up the GPS before I need to head to the vehicle.

Overall, it's one more tool in the shed, not the sharpest, not the dullest. I would not buy a unit without free lifetime traffic (and map updates), but it's not nearly as dependable a feature as I thought it would be. But when it works right, it is a real time saver. YMMV.

I have a Garmin 2460LMT, the T being traffic, don't know what flavor it is. What I do know, in the Philadelphia, PA area more often than not, a few seconds after I pull into a traffic jam I'll hear .... "Traffic Ahead"

Better knowing than not knowing at all.

i have the 1490 and the red traffic info is only accurate 1/3 of the time. i ignore all the yellow traffic alerts.

from what i read, gtm 35 receivers are better than gtm 25.
which models have which, i dont know.

and why one is better than the other i also dont know.

Ditto, can someone explain what this is. I recall the paper mentioning it was an Israeli company recently bought by google? Microsoft?

Waze is an android app that shows user reports of traffic issues and type. It is instantaneous and helpful but I found it took too much interaction with the phone to be safe. Its use requires texting and driving which is becoming illegal in many areas.

It is free. I took it off my phone.

The Garmin traffic, like others said, is only as good as the reporting stations. I find it useful around town in conjunction with the radio reports.

While traveling, I find that the routing and traffic don't interact. If I set it to avoid the delay, it will still route me through the worst mess possible when I know (and take) much more efficient routes.

Also, the estimated delay time needs to be multiplied by at least 5. An estimated delay of 2 minutes may delay your trip by 10 minutes. If it is red and over 10 minutes, go another route if the backup is near and won't have time to clear.

Because of delays in reports, most snags have cleared by the time you get to them.

Off topic: I have found Garmin routing very inaccurate. It has routed me in circles, suggested I go the wrong way on a one-way street in a school zone (calculate that fine), and insists on going to freeways even if you have to go a several miles out of the way (it tried to route me through downtown Dallas when I was on the street going directly to my destination). It is a tool you can choose to use or not. Rely on the higher intelligence behind your eyes first and always consult a real map before heading out.

As we are told that stuff is better we only find out it is getting worse.

My subscription for traffic ran out long ago...and I could not wait for it to end.

Generally useless was my evaluation. The avoidance recommendations were many many times worse than the traffic as the data had no knowledge about the reroute streets which could be many times worse.

Too little coverage, too late added up to glad the subscription ended.

HD traffic is Garmin best traffic and it's spotty at best.

I rely on WAZE, INRIX, and Google traffic. WAZE is the best service so far.

I find INRX the most accurate.

It is spotty. When it works, it usually works well. However, I am often in locations that are unable to receive the signal. That's not necessarily the fault of the GPS, but Garmin should probably build out its network more.

(accuracy & appropriateness aside) ... info is at best humorous, mostly irrelevant. Think it through: do you really need to be told by an electronic gadget that you are bogged down in traffic? If there really were viable options to the traffic you are sitting in would the locals in front, back & sides of you really be there playing bumper tag along w/you? While most feel LM has value, I frankly wouldn't pay 10 cents extra for LT!

Nuvi 2460 LMT seems to work best on highways close to metro areas.

I find that it seems to work sometimes but other times it's totally inaccurate. I guess it's better than nothing.

I've bin through this in other posts concerning the 3590, and I do not agree. My 3790 has so far not failed me in any way concerning traffic. My 3590 on the other hand is heading for Craigslist as soon as i choose its replacement. Unless your going to suggest that both my units are looking for different radio stations and if so then it's still gone. The 3790 works just as one would expect. Green for no traffic, yellow for delays and red for backup. It's quick, its accurate, gives me what i want. Can't tell you how often this unit has gotten me out of traffic because it warned me way ahead of time.

Sometimes it works ok, and then sometimes it says wreck 2 miles ahead and when you get there, nothing is there. Has already been moved.

I find that traffic alerts are a waste of time for me. We live in an area where the "Rush Hour" is actually a "Rush Minute".
I have had notices of "traffic ahead" in St Louis, San Francisco, Phoenix AZ, Los Angeles, and the desert so I generally disregard them for I am on a destination and a detour will probably cost more. To me it is not that important.

Generally, the traffic alerts are generic, such as delays during rush hours at major interstate intersections. The information is rarely updated on a continual basis. If you want a good gps application to notify you of traffic delays, try Waze.

It's very possible they could be listening to different stations as one is digital the other is RDS.

I have the 1490T and the 2460LMT with traffic. It is a hit and miss with traffic accuracy from these units but I usually have the radio on a news station that gives traffic reports every 10 minutes.

No. Reports are sketchy and you have to "pester" the GPSr to get any details.

I never knew that Waze was that good. I will have to give it a try.

Frankly, I am totally unsure if it's traffic or the nuvi has some issue. I don't get any reception at all in NJ area except when near NYC. I recently traveled to VA from NJ and it was spotty 70% of the time, not available. The funny thing is in areas where it always reported not available, it sometimes does find a station!

I used to be able to receive the traffic signals with the cable and Nuvi sitting down by my shifter.

Now I have to put the cable up on the dashboard in order to get the traffic info.

I guess that is why I never get any traffic. I will have to try that.

Living on the Eastern Shore, Maryland, my nuvi 3490LMT provides no traffic information here. On the rare occasions I travel to Baltimore or DC, it does give some traffic details. The highly touted HD traffic is really overrated due to extremely limited coverage.

Personally, I find the Map app on my iPhone 5 gives much better information, showing work zones and slow traffic areas everywhere.

http://www.waze.com/ - community based traffic reports

For up to the minute traffic your better to depend on the local radio or even CB radio. The longer the issue the better the coverage. Most sites strongly suggest NOT to factor in traffic when buying a unit.

I live in the Washington, DC metro area, and the signal coverage is really bad for some areas such as I-66 outside the beltway. Also, the quality of the traffic info is unreliable as sometimes it shows Red traffic conditions where there is no traffic at all, and Green traffic conditions when traffic is dead stopped for miles.

Whatever traffic service you decide, use it at you own risk and get to know the traffic service idiosyncrasies on your normal routes.

When I drive into Chicago, the traffic indicator seems to be quite accurate. I don't have many options other than to stay on the Toll road as getting off early could add even more time or route you through a rough area. Once I get near my destination, I often get off early and take surface streets to bypass a bit of the traffic.

I agree - I'm glad the 2350 has it, but it isn't very useful overall.

Slow and old info.

This makes sense. Furthermore, the different problems of hit and miss, etc. reported by many suggested to me that the traffic feature of a Nuvi or a GPS unit probably does not make sense to invest in.

I have a Nuvi 1490 equipped with a GM26 traffic receiver and a Dezl 760 equipped with a GM35. I occasionally run both simultaneously. Along the I-81 corridor in Pennsylvania, from the New York state line South into Maryland, the traffic information is about 60% accurate on the 1490 / GM26. It improves to around 75% with the Dezl 760 / GM35. The GM35 also updates more frequently than the GM26.

I recently purchased a GM60 traffic receiver for use with the Dezl 760 but have not used it enough to comment at this point.

These traffic receivers are not compatible with all Nuvi's. Check with Garmin before purchasing.

As others have pointed out, the traffic coverage varies with location. The quality is only as good as the frequency and accuracy of local radio station reporting.

It seems to come through soon enough to take a detour about 50% of the time. It would be a lot more useful if the icon on the screen gave an indication that it wasn't receiving a signal/traffic data.

It seems to be late on telling me about traffic. You are better if you listen to a radio that does traffic IMO.

Whatever traffic service/receiver you use, the traffic data will only be as good as the data that's being supplied and how quickly it reaches your unit. I've said this before and I'll say it again...use the traffic data supplied along with the old noodle and never expect much.

You can only know what the traffic was like 10 - 15 mins ago. Sometimes that is helpful and sometimes it is not.