SDOT makes it official: Admiral Way ‘rechannelization’ proposed

As first reported here in May, the city has been looking at a possible “rechannelization” for the Admiral Way southeastbound hill – and now, SDOT‘s official proposal is out, with news of an open house:

To reduce vehicle speeds and enhance safety for all roadway users, the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) is proposing to alter the lane configuration on SW Admiral Way between SW Olga St and the West Seattle Bridge on- and off-ramps at SW Manning St.

To brief the community on the rechannelization concept and receive public feedback, SDOT will hold an open house on Tuesday, July 13, from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. at the West Seattle Library, located at 2306 42nd Ave. SW.

The improvements are designed to reduce speeds and benefit everyone who uses the street, including commuters, truck drivers, bus passengers, pedestrians and bicyclists. SDOT is proposing the following for SW Admiral Way:

* Providing two travel lanes uphill that are wider than current lanes

* Removing one travel lane downhill between SW Olga St and SW City View St

* Maintaining a through lane and a right turn lane to SW Manning St at the bottom of the hill

* Providing a six-foot wide bike lane in each direction adjacent to the curb

* Placing the parking lane between the bike lane and the travel lane on the street’s uphill side

* Striping a two to three foot buffer zone between the bike lane and travel lane on the street’s down-hill side

* Remarking a crosswalk and constructing a median island at SW City View St

* Removing under-utilized parking on the uphill side of the street between the West Seattle Bridge off ramp and SW City View St

As average speeds are in excess of posted limits, this proposal will help address the speeding problem on SW Admiral Way. It will also make the roadway more accommodating for vulnerable users like pedestrians and cyclists.

SDOT is interested in hearing from the public about these recommended changes. Comments can be submitted by e-mail to or by calling 206-684-7583. This project is part of the voter-approved Bridging the Gap transportation initiative.

The project even has its own webpage already, with graphics showing the potential alternatives (we’ll add here shortly too). If this goes through, it will be the second major “rechannelization” in West Seattle in less than a year, following a similar process on Fauntleroy Way between Morgan Junction and The Triangle.

62 Replies to "SDOT makes it official: Admiral Way 'rechannelization' proposed"

  • Kjellupa July 6, 2010 (2:36 pm)

    Traffic around West Seattle is jacked up enough already. Lets not make it worse.

  • Delridge Denizen July 6, 2010 (2:56 pm)

    What if they built a Trader Joe’s and no one could come?

  • WTF July 6, 2010 (3:04 pm)

    Don’t we have better things to spend our money on?

  • Tony S July 6, 2010 (3:05 pm)

    Traffic speeds are higher than the ridiculously posted limit for a reason — Admiral way between Olga and the on ramps warrants at least 35mph if not 40. Now the city is intent upon creating further traffic problem areas, while spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on new monitors and screens to help us navigate out of traffic bottlenecks.

    I know someone is going to bring up the tragic fatality that occured in the middle of the night a few months back. DUI caused that incident, not Admiral Way. I’ve also read the handwringing post about the cars ‘going so fast’ on Admiral. I cross the arterial every day, at least twice a day. I have never experienced a dangerous situation or incident. I walk down the road on the sidewalk and it seems to share quite comfortably with bicycles. Perhaps a better use of the funds for this project would be re-paving California Avenue between Erskine Way and Morgan?

  • WorldCitizen July 6, 2010 (3:05 pm)

    Seems like worse morning traffic headed eastbound…great for the bikers, though.

  • owen July 6, 2010 (3:25 pm)

    I regularly bike the Admiral hill and I think these improvements would make it quite a bit safer.
    That said, I also drive the hill, and worry that dropping to one downhill traffic lane for most of the way will slow up traffic (particularly the bus) on days when the backup extends above City View. Would it be possible to make the transition from one downhill lane to two further up the hill?

  • William July 6, 2010 (3:29 pm)

    This is a waste of money and again shows the City is out of touch.

    It is down right dangerous to encourage bicyclists to use Admiral Way instead of California Ave. to head into town. When cyclists get to the bottom of Admiral, they find themselves in a dangerous weave across traffic to connect with road to the low level bridge. Any one that cycles into town or drives through the area knows this.

  • J July 6, 2010 (3:33 pm)

    This looks like a vast improvement, to me.

  • KT July 6, 2010 (3:35 pm)

    “As average speeds are in excess of posted limits…” That’s because they are ridiculously low.

  • CMP July 6, 2010 (3:42 pm)

    I’m with Tony…spend that money to repave California south of the Alaska Junction! I’m going to email the project and advise raising the speed limit on Admiral to 35 mph…can’t hurt to ask since they seem to want public feedback!

  • on board July 6, 2010 (3:42 pm)

    This is great news. As Tony S points out… “Traffic speeds are higher than the ridiculously posted limit for a reason — Admiral way between Olga and the on ramps warrants at least 35mph if not 40.”

    the “warranted” speed is a result of designing Admiral to feel essentially like a freeway, which is why you have so many people speeding. Change the design, you change the speed people are naturally comfortable driving.

    Dropping the speed limit here has done absolutely zero to the daily throughput here, and has done absolutely zero for making anyone late for work. If there is a back up, it is simply the predictable result of too many people leaving for work at the same time.

    What I don’t understand however is why they are insisting on retaining the parking on the uphill. This parking is primarily used for car sales, which is not a very good use of the public right of way.

  • WTFx2 July 6, 2010 (3:43 pm)

    Seriously there has to be something behind this – does SDOT have NOTHING better than to do this all over the city? Apparently they are doing something similar to 23rd ave on Cap Hill too – the most idiotic road to do it to with the amount of traffic that funnels down to UW. All I can say is that its for the bikes (which is great) but if it stands in the way of moving traffic its not. Some of us can’t ride our bikes all the time sorry. Are they receiving federal $$ as an incentive? What is the big push? Enough already.

  • James July 6, 2010 (3:48 pm)

    I’m with Tony… why!? So many areas in West Seattle alone that seem to deserve more attention. Perhaps they can divert the money from this project towards a new sea wall and/or viaduct replacement.

  • John July 6, 2010 (3:50 pm)

    I don’t commute, but I would feel bad for those trying to get around the morning commute via Admiral. The line already goes all the way up the hill, and with this people won’t be able to get to Avalon St. between 7:45-9am without waiting 10 minutes in line. I don’t think this is the answer.

  • M July 6, 2010 (3:50 pm)

    I thought the city didin’t have any money???

    I agree increase the speed lmit in that part of Admiral to 35 MPH. All 30 MPH does is create a Speed Trap for SPD

    Sooo… attend the meeting and voice your opposition – and after that call the city council

  • msfan July 6, 2010 (3:58 pm)

    Please tell me I misread the part of the proposal that reduces eastbound Admiral to ONE lane. Do these people drive on Admiral during the morning commute?!?!?

  • Caprial July 6, 2010 (4:05 pm)

    Unbelievable! More bike lanes? I work in WS, have lived here for over 40 years, and rarely see bikes especially during rush hour. The changes they made to Fauntleroy are a total joke around WS, and now they’re going to include Admiral? Insanity. I’m all for making everyone safer, but what about the road rage this is going to cause due to the incessant lane blockages? Is DOT serious? And they have the money where?????????

  • Ken July 6, 2010 (4:26 pm)

    Both Admiral hill and Highland park way are so steep that any car geared to save gas at 35 (most since 1975) drop out of OD and cycle between 2nd and third if you try to do 30. 35 to 37 will keep it in OD or steady in third with most automatic transmissions.

    Downhill is a matter of steady vs periodic braking for the entire hill.

    It is annoying, wastes fuel and makes criminals of most of us. This will be more of the same and fits in with the concept that the mayor and SDOT are punishing WS for some political sins.

  • JAT July 6, 2010 (4:34 pm)

    As a regular cyclist on that road(downhill mainly – there are better routes for coming up the hill…) , a single downhill lane and a 6 foot wide (narrow!) bike lane sounds like a dangerous nightmare.

    While I don’t agree that the posted speed limit is ridiculously low (as opined by many here…) I do agree that the traffic volume won’t be improved by re-engineering the lanes in a scheme which might make more sense on roads with less slope.

    Now, let me naively pose the question: why is there parking on that stretch of Admiral at all?…

  • E July 6, 2010 (4:34 pm)

    I know it seems counterintuitive, but often these rechanelizations actually make throughput of cars better. I use to avoid Fauntleroy at all costs, but since the changes and repaving, it’s much faster and better to drive. I drive it all the time now and traffic zips right through.

  • AnotherIdiotInWS July 6, 2010 (4:37 pm)

    If “they” take away that lane, what on earth will the morning-cheaters do? They won’t be able zip all the way down to the on-ramp only to cut into the long line of traffic anymore, and that’s going to put more cars up on Admiral all the way into the Junction!
    Couldn’t “they” increase the speed going down the hill (starting at Olga) to 35 and leave everything else as-is? I think I will be at this meeting.

  • dsa July 6, 2010 (4:50 pm)

    A previous article pointed out how broke SDOT is.
    Since they think they have the funds, they should do a trial run and try closing one downhill lane for a few days and see how well it works…or not.

  • K July 6, 2010 (5:08 pm)

    What about all the cars turning off of and onto Admiral onto the side streets (like City View)? This will now be more of a nightmare than it already is.

  • wsgolfer July 6, 2010 (5:11 pm)

    To all the naysayers that think this will adversely affect traffic flow, I have a question. Have you driven on Fauntleroy between Alaska & California since it was “rechannelized”? In my observation, it is significantly improved since the change, & traffic flows a lot smoother.

    It’d be interesting to see if the city monitors traffic rate through there, as I’d be willing to bet the # of vehicles/hour through there is actually higher now than when it was two lanes.

  • WorldCitizen July 6, 2010 (5:54 pm)


    Most major traffic pattern studies since the late 70s state, as this one from the Texas DOT does, that:
    The concept of delaying a merge when two lanes are funneled into one, as often happens during road repair work, caught on with traffic engineers after studies showed that traffic flow speeded up as much 15 percent over the old “merge early and politely” philosophy. The driver you shake your fist at while he speeds by in the lane to be closed is actually making your trip shorter. What happens is that all that early merging creates an underused lane — everybody crammed into one lane while there are still two useable ones. Merging when necessary, in zipper fashion, is the better way to go.

  • ToddinWestwood July 6, 2010 (6:38 pm)

    has anyone thought of repaving California south of the Junction?
    I need a 4×4 rally car to go eat dinner in the Junction.

  • Mr. Bradley July 6, 2010 (8:10 pm)

    So much whining. Try riding your bike, just once, up Admiral during evening commute times. And try it once more in the dark and rain in the winter. It’s insane how fast people persist in driving up this street. It is a street, not a freeway. You aren’t entitled to drive at 35 or 50 miles an hour up a public street. Take a deep breath and take it easy. I too, drive often up and down this street as I live in the Admiral District – but the sense of entitlement in the comments here illustrates all that is wrong with the “American Way”. Just think if it were your kids and loved ones who chose to take the most direct route home from Downtown Seattle to the Admiral District on their bicycles. Get over your “right” to drive when you want and where you want and put yourselves in a shoe that is different than the one that pushes the gas pedal.

  • wsparent July 6, 2010 (8:41 pm)

    This is idiotic. The only reason for taking the bus in the morning is that it can pass all the cars sitting in the left lane and legally cut in at the “last minute”. If the bus has to sit in the same traffic, that will increase already too long bus travel times. How about a carpool/bus lane instead?

  • raybro July 6, 2010 (9:00 pm)

    What is the point? This is the last thing we need when it comes spending money on road projects in WS. Just drive on California south of the Junction.

  • Mike July 6, 2010 (9:47 pm)

    Fantastic proposal. It is more than welcome. I live just off Admiral, and heartily agree that something must be done to slow traffic down and encourage bicyclists and pedestrians.

  • D July 6, 2010 (10:24 pm)

    Not surprised to see this, given our anti-car mayor. Anything that will make a commute more of a nightmare encourages people to ditch their cars. I thinks it’s literally a city policy now.

  • J July 6, 2010 (11:27 pm)

    Fascinating….same calls of “idiots” and “insanity” and doomsday we heard about the Fauntleroy rechannelization, which has not fulfilled the predictions of disaster–and, as some have noted, it’s much nicer to drive, now. SDOT 1, naysayers 0.

  • old timer July 6, 2010 (11:28 pm)

    Good grief…look at what’s been written here:
    I want to go faster
    anti-car mayor
    raise the speed limit
    What planet do you live on?
    11 men died on an oil well that is now systematically destroying
    lives, economies, entire species are endangered, to support our oil addiction and you still want MORE?
    Do you really think you are outside of our Nation’s problems?
    Do you ever in your addled, self-centered, self-indulgent, oil addictive lives think of anyone but yourselves?
    By all means, consume the entire freaking planet so you can go faster to nowhere.
    rant off…

  • Nona July 7, 2010 (1:37 am)

    We cringe every time we hear “traffic improvements”, for this is rarely the case. At least this project is honest about wanting to slow down traffic—but is this really an improvement? Getting in and out of West Seattle is already difficult. (Think re-channeling Harbor Ave into one lane each way with an island in the middle, making it impossible to avert an accident/back-up, if necessary. Then factor in a bike lane and big trucks that park along there forcing cars into oncoming traffic.) We use this road most often to get to/from our home in the N. Admiral district, with Admiral Way as an alternative. Now it looks like that route will also be “improved”.
    Another pet peeve is the cyclists who stay on (narrow) California Way coming up the hill around Hamilton View Point. There is no reason not to use the sidewalk along that stretch. We seem to want to emulate European countries who favor bike lanes. However, they got it right—they don’t incorporate bikes in already ccongested street traffic. Cyclist have their own paths which mirror roads and are NOT pedestrian sidewalks (if you linger in this area, you will be run into).

  • amused July 7, 2010 (6:20 am)

    Regardless of how PC it may be to favor bikes, when you mix bikes and cars, bikes lose.

  • about time July 7, 2010 (7:29 am)

    This is long overdue. Reducing the speed limit was the first step, and it has taken this long to train many of us to slow down, but it is not enough alone. There is no reason to maintain this road as an in the city freeway with speeds of 50mph. These kinds of traffic calming projects actually increase the throughput of vehicles, and do not create the doomsday scenario that these hand wringers who are fearful of any change usually predict.

    The only problem with this proposal is that they have left the parking on the uphill side.

  • joshuadf July 7, 2010 (8:01 am)

    The operative word is “safety.” Hopefully all of us reading this are excellent drivers, but we know not everyone is. There is a road safety epidemic in the US, mostly because of high speeds. We have far higher rates of collisions (and fatalities) than the rest of the developed world, and the problem is getting worse due to cell phones and texting while driving.

  • Dan July 7, 2010 (8:10 am)

    We need to get over this myth that cars are bad and bikes are good. Cars continue to get more and more efficient and clean. Biking is great but the future of mobility is not bikes, it’s electric cars (and other clean energy cars). Until that time we need to reduce pollution by reducing congestion. By eliminating one lane you will create congestion along that stretch of road. Congestion creates much more CO2 emissions than cars driving along at 30 MPH. By removing one lane we will actually be making the pollution worse along that stretch of road. We need mobility in and out of WS so that all of our local businesses and restaurants that we all love will survive. The harder it is to come to WS the more our friends from Beacon, Columbia City, etc. will chose to not come and spend money in WS. If this proceeds we will all live to regret it.

  • Al July 7, 2010 (8:42 am)

    1) I use Fauntleroy every day, both before and after the change, by bike, foot and car. And it’s vastly better now for all travel modes. 2) Travelling by bicycle is a legitimate, legal choice of travel. There are not enough separated (bike only) “paths” in the city (and mind you, where in West Seattle?) to get from neighborhoods to work, i.e. downtown. Paths are generally used for recreation not travel per se. The street is a legitimate, legal option for cyclists’ travel. 3) While sidewalks are also a legal travel option they are inherently more dangerous to use than the street (cross traffic, pedestrians, dogs, you name it…) and at 20 mph? Impossible. So if you don’t regularly ride a bike other than for casual neighborhood jaunts you really don’t understand cycling as transportation. 4) I agree a bike lane downhill on Admiral is not a good idea. Sharrows would be better used there as cyclists easily get up to the speed limit downhill and should be riding with traffic 5) That intersection at the bottom of the hill that’s so dangerous for cyclists is NOT because of the cyclists but the MOTOR VEHICLES; speed, volume, drivers not paying attention. The rechannelization will help this situation. 6) No bike lanes in Europe on busy city streets? Really? Not in London, Copenhagen, or Berlin? Really? Google “bike lanes – insert city name” for a review of this. And what are the death/injury rates in those cities for people injured by motor vehicles? If you think they are lower, you are correct. 7) Rechannelization does not happen because of cyclists. The streets are chosen for a variety of reasons, mostly due to traffic problems (cause by motor vehicles) and are paid for by the 2006 Bridging the Gap levy, which was approved by voters to provide safer streets and help provide non-single occupancy vehicle travel options; i.e. making the street usable for ALL not just car drivers. Too many cars in too big of a hurry is the problem here.

  • DW July 7, 2010 (8:44 am)

    With all due respect, I think there are way too many lanes and street resources being handed over to bike commuters.

  • Twiggie July 7, 2010 (8:50 am)

    I am with wsgolfer, I live on SW Graham and Fauntleroy and I was first completely against the idea to rechannelize Fauntleroy, but I have changed my tune as it has improved the flow of traffic dramatically. The parking, bike, and turn lanes are a blessing. All I can say is that I was a skeptic and now I love it. Maybe it will be the same for the Admiral area.

  • moving forward July 7, 2010 (8:53 am)

    This is a fantastic plan, about time! As we saw at Fauntleroy, these rechannelization projects actually improve vehicle throughput. Faster speeds do not equate with moving more cars through the same road folks. This will not only be safer for the community, but will also be an improvement in performance.

  • patricia davis July 7, 2010 (9:52 am)

    ANOTHER STUPID IDEA! I agree the speed limit it too low on Admiral and it is yet another stupid idea by the City to compress traffic and make getting to work and about miserable. Leave the lanes alone and increase the speed limit.

    Also: think of the increased air pollution from cars stacked up (let alone what will occur when the viaduct does down) stinking up our air.

  • Unbelievable July 7, 2010 (10:20 am)

    Tony S – >>Traffic speeds are higher than the ridiculously posted limit for a reason — Admiral way between Olga and the on ramps warrants at least 35mph if not 40<<

    Exactly! This is a major 4 lane arterial and there are few homes (thus children and pets). The average speed on my 25 mph "residential" street (repeatedly measured over the past two decades) is 33 mph with volumes over 2,000 cars per day (SDOT says the limit should be 700) and we have children and pets.

    But repeatedly, all SDOT does is agree and then does nothing when there are VERY simple neighborhood approved solutions. But here, they already have a silly speed limit, and then use that basis to make the situation even worse.

  • Looking Forward July 7, 2010 (10:20 am)

    The only downside I see to this is removing the second downhill lane prevents morning commuters trying to get to Avalon and buses from bypassing the backup that sometimes stretches most of the way down the hill. Construction on Spokane in Sodo and the the future AWV construction will make those back-ups more likely.

    Making the downhill curb lane a bus and bicycle only lane similar to 15th through Interbay would help keep transit on time.

  • Unbelievable July 7, 2010 (10:37 am)

    to AnotherIdiotInWS

    The right lane drivers are NOT always cheaters. Both lanes MUST be used during heavy traffic. Who taught Seattleites to always queue-up in one lane. This causes the exact backups “AnotherIdiotInWS” then goes on to describe.
    This is ignorance is especially noticable at intersections – if both lanes aren’t used not as many cars can get thru for each signal-cycle. This slows EVRYONE down. It is NOT cheating to use the second lane – it’s a must do. Furthermore, we all do this at some point, especially on freeway interchanges where we alternatively weave into a single lane from two lanes.

    This is just another insane Seattle driving idea, like NOT pulling INTO the intersection when taking a left turn, resulting in one or two fewer cars making it thru each signal cycle. People need to read their driving school manuals again. I’ve had people yell at me because they claim as a pedestrian I don’t have right-of way at unmarked/unsignled intersections, when the law says I do. But then most drivers nowadays, don’t think pedestrians have any rights – just privileges.

  • K July 7, 2010 (11:10 am)

    Why is there a need for a bicycle lane on the uphill side of Admiral between the bridge and City View? Most cyclists I know cut through 30th/Hinds/City View to connect with Admiral.

  • Chris M July 7, 2010 (11:35 am)

    As opposed to everyone else commenting here who (hopefully) read the proposal, I immediately felt good about the proposed changes. Admiral is downright scary to drive on at times with folks driving freeway speeds on a non-freeway road.

  • Smitty July 7, 2010 (12:54 pm)

    @ Unbelievable,

    SB 99 exit to the WS bridge is almost always backed up during the evening commute – often times all the way back to the viaduct itself. Do you use the middle lane and force your way in at the last minute, or do you que up in the right hand(exit) lane?

    I used to que up – and follow very closely to the car in front of me so as not to let anyone in – but quickly realized that I alone wasn’t going to change the world and find myself “cutting” in closer to the exit.

    If your answer is no, what differentiates the two examples? Speed of the other lane? Just curious.

  • Julie H July 7, 2010 (2:54 pm)

    The city won’t listen to any feedback, they did not change their mind on Faunterloy when many many voiced concerns, if they want it, they will put it through. Fauntleroy is now a nightmare to get onto during traffic and is worse than before. (I can see from other posts that there will be disagreement, but trying to get onto it during any commute times is horrible)

    Our voices don’t matter in a city where the main concern is elminating cars by causing gridlock.

  • allison July 7, 2010 (3:05 pm)

    Fauntleroy is Fine, i live on it and travel on it every day during commute times… the only thing that would have made Fauntleroy better was a bike lane going south as well not just sharrows. I think this is a great idea and not an expensive one…. road paint isn’t that expensive.

  • Kim July 7, 2010 (3:35 pm)

    This is different than Fauntleroy for two reasons: 1. they are only changing to a single-lane road one way (and people speed uphill just as much as downhill on Admiral). 2. they are not adding a turn-lane, so for the poor folks who need to go down Admiral to turn left onto City View, you’ll be holding up a whole neighborhood worth of traffic now. Additionally, the exit-only lane to Avalon goes away so to get from Admiral to Avalon during rush hour will require driving around via Harbor Ave or 35th. This plan SUCKS.

  • Rdoggy July 7, 2010 (4:29 pm)

    If Seattle really wants to become bike-friendly — and as long as they have money to piss away like this — I’d love for them to install a bike escalator or a rope tow up the Admiral hill. Riding up that thing really sucks sometimes.

  • John July 7, 2010 (4:30 pm)

    @ Unbelievable

    The Courtesy Queue Theory or whatever you want to call it creates efficiencies in most cases as AnotherIdiotInWS points out and you so emphatically endorse. However it most definitely does NOT in this case. You know this is true and you simply use the “it’s always the case” rule in your head to justify your cheating.

    Queueing up to access the West Seattle Bridge does not reduce throughput by one iota at any time during the day. Using the right lane and slowing down traffic for those who are legitimately using the right lane to access the rest of West Seattle IS cheating, and is discourteous to everyone else on the road…both those in the queue and those trying to legitimately use the lane. I will be the first to prevent those cars from cutting in line.

    @ Everyone Else

    Just a comment…I used to live on Fauntleroy until a few months ago. The new changes dramatically improve safety and throughput for both cars and bikes. But I don’t believe it’s nearly the same situation here.

  • J July 7, 2010 (5:25 pm)

    Regarding the Courtesy Queue: If drivers didn’t pack their cars too closely, and left room for right hand lane drivers to merge in a “zipper”, it would work very well for throughput to use both lanes, as people using the right hand for through traffic wouldn’t be held up by the people trying to merge. But drivers who bunch up too closely (and prevent mergers) make it so that those who try to use the right hand lane to increase throughput end up inconveniencing through drivers.

  • AN July 7, 2010 (9:22 pm)

    Agreed – merges should be treated as a zipper. But this isn’t a merge. It’s two lanes, one to go through straight and one to get on the bridge. @John is spot on – There’s no light here and the “mergers” are just making both lanes slower.

  • Tracy White July 7, 2010 (11:51 pm)

    “and at 20 mph? Impossible.”

    Wait a minute.. Cyclists decry divers for wanting to travel at a reasonable speed but them complain themselves when forced to slow down? Why can’t you just ride at 5 MPH man, enjoy the scenery…..

    I just moved out of West Seattle (last week, just missing the WS Bridge mess thank goodness) and drove Fauntleroy for the last five years daily and bussed it six years before that. Rechanneling did nothing but make it worse in my experience. I would be really interested in hearing those who say it is better define how it is better now.

    In my experience it takes longer and is more cramped and dangerous. I saw cyclists hugging the very left line of their lane because the parking lane is so narrow cars stick out into the bike lane. This causes the drivers to jam on the brakes or jerk into the turning lane when they suddenly realize how close they are. Buses frequently come to a stop and block flow completely as someone searches for change. And the anti-destination league gets their jollies from driving 30 or lower in a 35 and knowing there ain’t a durn thing people behind them can do.

  • GR July 8, 2010 (9:36 am)

    Slower speeds don’t equal less movement of people / vehicles through the area. Anyone who has watched some annoying twit tailgate and then impatiently pass them, only to find they are only 20 feet ahead of them at the next light can tell you that.

  • Diana July 8, 2010 (4:51 pm)

    I am thrilled with this proposal! After living on Admiral Way for 23 years I’ve seen it all and have posted many, many times regarding the speed issue. Anything that can be done to make this arterial safe for ALL of our community MUST be done. I do not blindly agree with all city plans or proposed improvements but I highly support SDOT for their expertise, responsiveness to concerns, and their technical ability to move ahead and solve problems. You all who want to get there first and get there the fastest but have no expertise in engineering or traffic management or safety brought this on. YOU DIDN’T DRIVE THE SPEED LIMIT. I’m looking forward to the start of construction.

  • maplesyrup July 9, 2010 (9:24 am)

    This morning *two* cops passed me on the right going down the hill. One was going close to 40mph and the other maybe 35mph.

    A couple of other cars did the same but the cops didn’t do anything. Maybe that’s part of the problem.

    I use Admiral to access Avalon Way and eventually 35th. If they take away the right lane downhill, I will start going through the residential area instead, and I imagine a lot of other people will too. Sorry, Belvedere.

  • Joanne July 10, 2010 (11:11 am)

    Admiral way is by far not one of the worst problems in the city.

  • S.Poulin July 12, 2010 (4:35 pm)

    I do not work in downtown Seattle and am too old to use a Bike for transportation! Daily for the past 20 years I’ve used this stretch of road. Why change a road that actually works for West Seattle? Bikers and Walkers need to use Harbor Avenue designed for ‘their’ transportation purposes, not North Admiral Way. The redesign is absolutely not needed – safety and speed is an issue on all roads which cannot be fixed by jamming everyone into one lane. Both vehicle lanes are needed in each direction – this road functions as an on/off ramp into West Seattle and should not be compared to Fauntleroy’s re-channelization – very few residential homes, walkers or bikers. It’s wide enough to accommodate all forms of traffic in both directions – place double white lines ½ way down hill so no last minute merges and a bike lane on far right. This overall short stretch of affected road for the proposed lane reduction is at capacity. The removal will lead to bus/trucks/and general traffic overflowing into all adjacent residential streets with backups onto California Avenue SW during morning/evening commutes. Daily I’ve been in these backups and one accident will doom the commute – might as well go home. I’ll be at the Open House next week. I suspect this is already a ‘done deal’ with SEA.GOV…..

Sorry, comment time is over.