Road Trip tools - Total elevation lost/gain? Other perspectives?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
So my fiancee and I are planning a road trip from Santa Fe, NM to Portland, OR next week.

I was thinking, it would be kinda cool if there was something out there that could tell you the best route from a topography perspective, or other perspectives.

For example, we're planning a stop in Grand Junction, Colorado. However, there are two ways to get from Santa Fe, NM to Grand Junction, CO.

The route using US-285N and US-50W is 7 hours and 10 minutes, 388 miles.

The route using US-84W and US-550N is 7 hours and 16 minutes, 381 miles.

They're essentially the same time/distance. However, it would be interesting to know some other statistics about the routes, like total elevation gain/loss. This would help determine which route would be best for fuel economy. Are there any tools like this available? Maybe a plugin for Google Earth, or something?

It is unfortunate that most route planners only take into account the road's speed limit. For example, one route may be technically faster, but if you're winding up and down switchbacks most of the way, it will end up being slower - because you can't maintain the posted speed limit. While another route may be technically slower, but faster overall because it's a straight shot.

I have had this exact scenario happen while using my GPS to get to a location. It had me go over a mountain pass - destination was 50 miles away, and it said it would take an hour - meaning it thought the speed limit on the road was about 50MPH. However, this was a single lane mountain road, full of blind corners. I'd have ended up at the bottom of a ravine if I tried to go 50MPH. It ended up taking 2.5 hours to get to my destination.

lol.. Anyway, anybody have any insight to these problem?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,642
62
91
Using the Satellite view in Google Maps can give you a view of the land.

It looks like US285 to US50 would be the fastest, you go through a large town, but fewer mountain roads.
 
Last edited:

Numenorean

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2008
4,442
1
0
I would imagine the 285 route would be quicker.

But I would still take the 550 even though it would probably be slower because that will take you through Durango, Silverton and Ouray. The San Juans are awesome. It's worth the trip taking longer because of the scenery. The 285 doesn't offer as much, though there is some.
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
I would imagine the 285 route would be quicker.

But I would still take the 550 even though it would probably be slower because that will take you through Durango, Silverton and Ouray. The San Juans are awesome. It's worth the trip taking longer because of the scenery. The 285 doesn't offer as much, though there is some.

Don't really care about scenery, overall MPG is my main concern. I'd like to try and break my record of 78MPG over 800 miles. ;)

Not to mention it will be dark when we do the Santa Fe to Grand Junction leg of the trip. I've taken this trip many times before, but never really paid attention to the topography in comparison with another route. I just thought it would be interesting..

I guess there aren't really very many options for the Grand Junction to Portland leg of the trip.
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
Well if you don't care about scenery, then just blindfold yourself and get in the car and drive.


Anyway, why bother going to GJ if scenery isn't a concern? Skirt the lower part of CO and go up Utah into Moab:

http://local.google.com/maps?f=q&so...8.462192,-109.489746&spn=4.937271,7.77832&z=7

That's a lot faster way to get to I70.

We're stopping in GJ to see my fiancee's Dad and pick up her birthday present from him. Otherwise, yeah.. it would be faster to just head straight towards SLC.

Surprisingly, stopping in GJ only adds ~50 minutes to the trip; 24.0 hours instead of 23 hours and 11 minutes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.