Seattlest: Are You Bispannual?

BobH

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:52:07 -0800

On southbound 405 in Kirkland the DOT posts travel time to Seattle (specifically the Mercer exit) via both 520 and 90. It's a awesome service, and in my experience exceptionally accurate. That said, it's an extraordinary circumstance that makes it worth driving all the way through Bellevue to get to I-90, then back north through downtown Seattle on the other side. But occasionally there's an accident on the 520 bridge, or waves crashing over the side, and then it's nice to be told that I-90 is the better option.

James

Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:31:28 -0800

Jason: The image came from HistoryLink, which says it's from "the 1960s." What's especially odd, to me, about including the bridge status every morning is that it's only really news when 520 is a better option than I-90. 19 times out of 20, traffic is better on 90 or they're equally backed up. I'd rather that the traffic reports weren't litanies of the usual backup spots, and focused more on the areas that were unusually heavy or light.

jason

Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:08:58 -0800

How old is the photo you used for this post? I'd love to see a traffic day like that -- you can barely get that at 2am.

JPF

Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:13:17 -0800

Anyone who lives North of SR-520 on one side of the lake, and works South of I-90 on the other side, should in theory be able to choose a bridge without going too far out of their way. Same for the vice versa, living South of I-90 and working North of 520. That makes for a pretty substantial pool of commuters that Harmon Shay can help.

JPF

Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:10:21 -0800

Disclaimer: I live & work in Seattle so I can't be sure, but I do study travel behavior so I know a thing or two. In particular, I imagine that anyone who lives further north than SR-520 on one side of the lake, and further south than I-90 on the other side, should be able to choose freely which bridge to use without going far out of their way. Same for the vice-versa (live S. of 90, work N. of 520). That's a fairly substantial pool of commuters.

jeff

Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:33:54 -0800

When I lived on the west side of Capitol Hill, and worked in Bellevue, I would often flip bridges if one was plugged up (which was 520 99% of the time). I don't think you could pull this off unless you were in between 90 and 520 on either side, or somewhere close to that.

Seth

Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:15:10 -0800

An oldtimer's take: it's a holdover from the days when traffic was so light that rerouting up 5 or 405 to get to the other bridge wasn't such a pain--so if there was heavier traffic on one bridge it made sense to go out of your way to get to the other one. When it gets really bad I'm going to start a car ferry service like the ones I took across lakes in Ecuador.

kayvaan

Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:05:14 -0800

I also sometimes wonder why they recommend a bridge. There are not very many people, I think, who would really have an option. You'd kind of have to be fairly equidistant...

Meegan

Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:45:53 -0800

I do listen to traffic reports. But I have to hit 2 potentially nasty bridges-West Seattle and I-90, and it's the WS one that I worry most about. But unless there was some terrible accident on I-90 I would probably steer clear of 520. If I do need to take 520 because of an afterwork engagement north of downtown, I make a point of leaving work (in Bellevue) by 4:30, then it's not sooo bad (only 45 min to get across).

Anita Rowland

Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:38:25 -0800

If you live in Madrona and work in Bellevue, I think it would be worth looking at traffic maps before you leave the house.