3 ms·
Times seem inflated in Austin, too. The smaller the time, the greater the error. The ten-minute area should be two or three times larger, but the 45-minute ar
by dkarl 14y ago
Times seem inflated in Austin, too. The smaller the time, the greater the error. The ten-minute area should be two or three times larger, but the 45-minute area bears some resemblance to rush-hour reality.
Also, every route seems to be treated the same. In the morning, the road I live on is always empty in one direction and congested in the other. I used to commute against traffic and now go the same way as everybody else, and I could go twice as far in ten minutes as I can now. The numbers will never be accurate until you ground them in real traffic data.
- Zimahl 14y agoIt appears that non-freeway streets seem way off, with freeway travel closer to being accurate. For example, Beaverton, OR, into Portland. Where I live it's at most, even at rush hour, 15 minutes to one of the two freeways near my house and this is estimating 30-35 minutes. The entire (house -> downtown) calculation is close (about 45 minutes downtown) but only for rush hour. Other than if there was an accident on I-5, there isn't a possibility of taking 50-55 minutes to get from my house to Tigard or Tualatin without spending 30 minutes lounging at Starbucks along the way. Looking at the data a little more, surface streets seem to simply be an estimate outward radially, with what appears to be very little taken into account otherwise. The freeways seem to be good, educated guess estimates.
- lallysingh 14y agoFunny, commute times for both me and my wife in the NJ/NY area are longer than those listed here. That said, it's not too far off, and useful for when we buy a home.