SDOT finally goes public with SW Admiral Way changes


After more than a year, SDOT has just gone public with what it’s decided to do on SW Admiral Way, between Admiral Junction and Alki. Here’s the full text of the e-mailed announcement, including plans for “walk-and-talk” meetings on August 20th:

We’ve spent the last few months incorporating feedback into a street design that will reduce speeding and crashes and preserve parking where it’s in high demand.

We heard during public engagement that people are driving too fast along SW Admiral Way, crashing into parked cars, and residents are afraid to cross the street. In fact, one mother choked up at our first public meeting at the thought of walking her children across SW Admiral Way.

When we started the project data showed there had been 71 vehicle crashes, two bike crashes and one pedestrian crash between 2011 and 2014. From January 2015 through May 2016 an additional 34 crashes have occurred. This statistic shows that crashes along Admiral Way SW have increased by nearly 28% in the past 1 ½ years. The neighborhood has people who’ve lived here for decades, new families, and visitors enjoying Alki Beach. Each person deserves safe travel whether walking, biking or driving.

After sharing a few designs with the neighborhood, studying on-street parking occupancy during the summer, and talking with community members, (the map above shows) what will be installed.

You may be wondering how the new design improves safety. We have proven success throughout the city that narrower travel lanes reduce the speeds people drive and the number of crashes.

We are also adding buffered bike lanes. Adding buffered bike lanes makes the street operate more predictably by giving everyone a space; and makes biking more comfortable, which can encourage more people to give it a try.

Here is how your input was included:

· Parking study. We conducted an on-street parking study during the month of August. Study times were 5-7AM, 1-3PM and 5-7PM on a sunny Saturday and Tuesday. The study confirmed what you told us. Parking spaces on the west end of the street with convenient access to Alki Beach are in high demand.

· Center turn lane. At our first public (meeting) you suggested we remove the center turn lane rather than impact on-street parking, so we did in the high-demand parking area.

· Left turn access at 57th and 59th Avenues SW. At the second public meeting, you requested left turn access to help reduce the risk of being rear-ended. We’ve included the access. To make room for them, about nine on-street parking spaces will be removed on the south side.

· Crosswalk at 61st Ave SW. We asked if you would like a new crosswalk in this location and one is included in the project.

Here is what we were not able to include and why:

· All-way stop at 59th Ave SW. You suggested we change the pedestrian activated signal at this location to an all-way stop. Unfortunately, studies showed that an all-way stop at this location did not meet guidelines. However, we have agreed to look at it again in the future.

Finally, we heard you want improved pedestrian crossings and supplied information on where. We’ll conduct a second round of outreach on August 20 in the form of “Walk and Talks” to gather site-specific input and talk about low-cost opportunities (visit web site for more details). The Walk and Talks will build off of comments collected through the first phase of outreach. Any improvements identified would be installed as a second phase of construction.

Our project web site at has information on the walk and talk; and a flier with similar information will be mailed early August. Construction information will be shared as soon as available. However, work to restripe the street is expected to be completed before October 2016.

BACKSTORY: The first version of the plan was unveiled in April 2015 at an Admiral Neighborhood Association meeting. Ten months have passed since the second and final community meeting held by SDOT – which wasn’t planned until community members demanded it.

Datapoint regarding one assertion in the city news release: The “mother who choked up at (the) first public meeting at the thought of walking her children across Admiral Way” was reacting to what the city was proposing at the time, removing parking on the side of the street where her family lives, as noted in our coverage of that meeting.

73 Replies to "SDOT finally goes public with SW Admiral Way changes"

  • Ann Schumann July 21, 2016 (6:24 pm)

    Hoping the radar is for both bikes and cars.

    • Joe Dirt July 21, 2016 (7:05 pm)


    • Jort July 21, 2016 (8:58 pm)

      Why? How many bikes have killed or injured people due to excessively speeding in America?

      Or are you saying that they annoy you and you just want to find someway to get back at them?

      • chemist July 22, 2016 (12:30 am)

        It’s for the safety of people getting into their parked cars.  I have seen people on bicycles run into people exiting buses.

        • Jort July 22, 2016 (9:25 am)

          A reminder that people opening their doors to get into or out of their parked vehicles must wait until there is no traffic, whether it is bikes or automobiles. 

          Cyclists have no obligation whatsoever to yield to people opening their automobile doors.

          • Peter July 22, 2016 (11:14 am)

            Maybe so, but when I’m biking I still focus on the parked cars ahead of me more than anything else. It’s self preservation.

  • Qc July 21, 2016 (6:30 pm)

    Hurray for buffeted bike lanes!!!

  • Qc July 21, 2016 (6:31 pm)

    Buffered, that is. Too quick with the enthusiasm. 

  • Mark schletty July 21, 2016 (6:35 pm)

    Looks like kubly’s bike lobby wins again. Narrow lanes and remove the turn lane in favor of buffered bike lanes. The turn lane is exactly what the city touts as a safety improvement on 35th and fauntleroy. Why not here? Because the bike lobby wants buffered bike lanes even if it causes the elimination of the turn lane that the city claims increases safety on other streets. I drive up and down that hill at least 4 times a week at varying times, have done so for the past 13 years, and have never seen a bike on the road. Decrease safety to give a very very few bikers a bike lane. Absolute stupidity from kubly again.

    • Joe Dirt July 21, 2016 (7:04 pm)


    • PanicMonster July 21, 2016 (8:02 pm)

      I’ve been riding this route, also up and down, also a few times every week for over 2 years now. I’m sorry we’ve missed each other.

      On another (possibly related?) note: on a near weekly basis cars come dangerously close to me while passing when the turn lane is occupied.  Maybe they just don’t see me and all my blinky lights? 

      I’m glad this is happening.  Also: bicycles are everywhere.

    • Que July 21, 2016 (9:28 pm)

      Maybe it’s time to start riding a bike!

    • Pfft July 21, 2016 (10:00 pm)

      It helps if you watch for the bikes. There are lots of bikes on that hill every day. I drive and ride my bike on that hill every day.  Segregated bike lanes are a plus for both cyclists and drivers. 

    • Jort July 22, 2016 (9:28 am)

      You can say a lot of things about this re-design, but alleging that it will “decrease safety” is not one of them.

      Road improvements like the ones outlined here have been proven in numerous studies to reduce the number of automobile-caused fatalities and injuries. This is science. This is a fact.

      What I’m interested in is a study in how many objectively false statements are created in internet comment sections whenever road diets are proposed. It might provide some truly alarming statistics.

  • aRF July 21, 2016 (6:56 pm)

    I think this is a much improved design. I’m sorry to see parts of the center turn lane go, but at least that will keep some insane drivers from using it as a passing lane. Lander could probably use a signal for the increasing number of cars that use it to exit Alki. Looking forward to the discussion of pedestrian crossings. 

  • JN July 21, 2016 (7:04 pm)

    Mark Schletty, I bike up that hill literally every weekday coming back from work, year round. Just today a driver passed me within 1 foot. So yes, these changes are 100% needed. Just because you havent seen a bicyclist on that road doesn’t mean they are never there. That is simply an idiotic statement to make. 

    • Mark schletty July 22, 2016 (8:09 am)

      I didn’t say no bikes use it. I said that i had never seen one in 13 years. Of course some use it some time as i pointed out in my comment : ” very very few bikers”.  Just not near enough to warrant taking out a turn lane put there for safety in the first place, simply because Kubly prioritizes a few bikers over a vast majority of car drivers. That hill is only bikeable by very serious bikers- too long and steep for many other bikers. 

      • Jort July 22, 2016 (10:23 am)

        Thankfully, as has been proven in multiple studies spanning many years, when this new bike infrastructure is built, more people will feel safe enough to bike on it!

        The spaces where freeways now exist weren’t used by cars until they built a freeway on them. The land at SeaTac didn’t have airplanes on it until they built the airport. And bikes will begin using the road more frequently when they are given better safety protections.

        Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it’s unworthy of creation.

      • JN July 24, 2016 (12:09 am)

        I drive up and down that hill at least 4 times a week at varying times, have done so for the past 13 years, and have never seen a bike on the road.” The implication of that statement is that no cyclists use that road. You reinforce that point by claiming that since there is a minority of users who use bicycles, they do not deserve any consideration. And to your claim about only fit cyclists being able to ride up this hill: I used to not be able to ride up the hills downtown. Just this summer I completed a bicycle tour to San Francisco. Guess what? When you exercise your body you BECOME fitter. This hill is now a piece of cake, and can be for anyone who is not seriously handicapped. I even know some cyclists who most people would consider severely handicapped who ride this hill. 

  • dsa July 21, 2016 (7:36 pm)

    The map and text show removing center turn lane all the way up to California Ave.  If in fact that is what they plan on doing this will be a disaster every morning.  Make that a disaster all day long, since the left east bound lane will get blocked by left hand turners, and right east bound lane is not reliable since it is often blocked due to the crosswalk.  

    This change did not show in the earlier plan.  There were no lane revisions near California except maybe some parking spots.

    • Jort July 21, 2016 (10:49 pm)

      You’ll live. 

      • dsa July 21, 2016 (11:21 pm)

        Taking out the left turn at California not only causes congestion, it also  bike decreases bike safety.  Left turners will also be delayed because they too will not be able to even reach California so they will seek alternative routes through the community, crossing the bike line doing so.  I’m seldom a eastbound or a left turner, so it matters little to my commute but this change is terrible traffic engineering so I spoke up.

  • sarah wells July 21, 2016 (8:57 pm)

    When are people going to realize that Seattle is  a Car City… I understand about the Speeding but that won’t change, 

    • Jort July 22, 2016 (9:30 am)

      I see congestion every day in Seattle. I see 97% of our public space (streets and roads) dedicated to the conveyance of private automobiles. I see people on bikes and walking on streets killed by automobiles.

      I don’t think anybody doubts that Seattle is a “car city.”

      Hopefully it will be an “everybody” city, soon.

      Sorry, cars are going to give up a little of their stranglehold on the region’s transportation infrastructure. If you don’t like it, I recommend trying out a bike!

      • Mike July 22, 2016 (7:15 pm)

        97.4567% to be accurately making bogus Internet stats.

    • Peter July 22, 2016 (11:32 am)

      No, Seattle is not a “car city.” Vehicle miles travelled per resident continue to decline while transit ridership is booming, commute share for biking and walking are also increasing, and only about a third of workers drive to work. Just because you dirve does not mean Seattle is a “car city.”

  • Jort July 21, 2016 (8:59 pm)

    This is great news. Anything that makes it easier to bike is great benefit!

  • Norma July 21, 2016 (9:59 pm)

    I’m very under impressed.  When are you folks bringing back the neighborhood buses so that those of us who can no longer ride bikes have an alternative to driving our cars all over town?  Everything is for bikes nowadays and nothing for the majority of commuters.  Rapid transit just doesn’t cut it unless you’re able to walk a mile to get to it.  It’s time to bring back neighborhood buses!

  • Mike July 21, 2016 (9:59 pm)

    yay, more cars ripping through the side streets with kids walking to school, that’ll be safe!  Good job Kubly, you just made things worse.  Can I bail you out again, maybe cut your charges in half again…when are you going to jail, Kubly?

    • Jort July 22, 2016 (9:31 am)

      Yes! Imprison transportation directors for decisions I disagree with! 

      • Mike July 22, 2016 (7:20 pm)

        You know he was found guilty of ethics violations, right?  He gave his prior employer a government contract without proper approval AND didn’t disclose he was involved in decisions at the company prior to his current government job, that’s fraud.  He needs to go to jail.  

  • Denise July 21, 2016 (11:48 pm)

    Mark. Thankyou. Never see  bicyclist! Or very few..

  • Chris July 22, 2016 (12:14 am)

    Am I understanding this correctly that we will be unable to turn left off of Admiral onto California Ave going north?   We use this route numerous times of day to stay out of the neighborhoods for safety reasons as some drivers do not pay attention at intersections.  We already see people cutting through the gas station parking lot to bypass sometimes long lights & suspect this might make it worse.

    Also, how is this new design going to impact all the employees and traffic, etc. that will be coming and going at the new facility that will soon be built on the old LifeCare Nursing Home site or has that been considered in the design?

    • WSB July 22, 2016 (12:50 am)

      No to #1; look at the SDOT map, “left turn access” won’t change.

      Otherwise, any questions folks have, I’ll see if I can get answers to – this literally arrived in early evening so there was no chance even to read it through closely and ask followups before the end of the business day (not ours ).

      • dsa July 22, 2016 (1:37 am)

        #1 is from the plan dated May 4th, 2016. It appears to be outdated.

        The plan you just published *today* July 22, 2016, shows an orange line up to California denoting “remove center turn line”.

        • WSB July 22, 2016 (1:41 am)

          It’s 1:40 am. What I published (map AND text) came directly from the e-mail sent eight hours ago. I’ll be checking with the project team first thing in the (business) morning so everybody just keep calm till then. – TR

    • dsa July 22, 2016 (12:53 am)

      The plan map shows remove left turn lane at California.  And since it remains at 49th near the old nursing home, I suspect people will turn into the residential area there instead and cut up to California.

      • dsa July 22, 2016 (1:01 am)

        I meant 47th, not 49th.  People would turn left at the 47th light and work their way to California through the neighborhood if the left hand turn land is removed at California.

  • Neighbor July 22, 2016 (7:30 am)

    I disagree that Seattle is a “car city.”  However, like other bicyclist have commented, there are many aggressive drivers in the city and on this road.  If viewed by a police officer they could easily be arrested for agressive driving. Buses are a different matter and run by King County.  And, everything is not “for bikes”. Mostly everything is for cars still (an archaic way of thinking today) including reducing speeds so that parked cars can be safer from moving ones. 

  • EmilyC July 22, 2016 (8:36 am)

    It will be interesting to see what drivers do when it’s trash day or when they’re behind bus that doesn’t fit into the bus turnoff. Right now, everyone passes in the turn lane. I can’t imagine cars are going to sit behind the trash truck while it stops at every single house — imagine the backup that would create. I pointed this out to them at the meeting in September — with pictures. He admitted they hadn’t thought of this problem. The cars are going to pass — and there aren’t sightlines to do this safely on much of this stretch — so is it going to be backups or crashes?


    Bike riders: please please please STOP for the red light at 59th. The large majority of bikes I’ve seen at that intersection in my six years of crossing it do not stop. *Please stop* when the light is red.


    Drivers: When turning off 59th at the same intersection, when the light is red, that means the pedestrians have a walk light. *Please stop* for them. My kids and I would have been hit a couple weeks ago (and many times before that) if I weren’t used to the intersection and know that drivers just don’t look for the pedestrians.


    And what happened to the proposed crosswalk at 57th? SDOT is saying this is making it safer for everyone, but their answer to pedestrian safety is making car lanes narrower (which will slow traffic and therefore make it safer). There’s more to pedestrian safety than that.

  • jtm July 22, 2016 (8:43 am)

    I’m a fan of buffered bike lanes (as a driver). I’m always well aware of cyclists while driving because many: don’t use hand signals, run red lights, roll through stop signs, cut my right corner when turning right, ride in the traffic lane. It’s just part of being an urban driver, you have to be hyper aware. 

    • Jort July 22, 2016 (9:34 am)

      Thank you, jtm.

      Cyclists may choose to ignore some traffic laws, just like auto drivers do, but that doesn’t mean either of them deserve to die or be injured because of it.

      In any matchup between a cyclist and an automobile driver, the automobile is going to win. It is therefore incumbent upon the driver to ensure they keep the cyclist safe.

      • Mike July 22, 2016 (7:23 pm)

        no, it’s not.  The driver is responsible for not causing accidents or intentionally using their vehicle as a weapon.  Cyclists are responsible for not causing accidents or intentionally using their bicycle as a weapon (I had my elbow split open by a cyclist downtown on a sidewalk while I was walking, he was angry I was …walking, yelled at me and flipped me off after hitting me on purpose).  So lets put it this way.  PEOPLE are responsible for their OWN actions.  Period.

    • Nancy Folsom July 22, 2016 (11:19 am)

      @jtm: I would challenge you to do something for a week…that is count the number of infractions bicyclists make, total # of bicyclists, and the same for cars. I will wager you real money that the times drivers don’t use their signals a % of total drivers is more than cyclists.

      Also, please be sure you’re familiar with what the laws really for cyclists. It may surprise you, say, to know that they are allowed to use sidewalks and crosswalks. 

      I see cyclists commit infractions when the maneuver is actually safer for them. 

      But, again, drivers break so many laws that we drivers have no room to criticize cyclists. 

      • jtm July 22, 2016 (11:46 am)

        I guess I missed the part in my post condoning drivers making infractions? I’ll criticize both drivers and cyclists when I see safety compromised.

        And good challenge about counting infractions – happy to do so!

        • Jort July 22, 2016 (12:22 pm)

          The thing is, the infractions that drivers make (speeding, texting while driving, not yielding to people in crosswalks or to cyclists in their lanes) have incredibly dangerous and sometimes deadly consequences, because they’re driving 5,000 pound machines capable of massive injuries.

          The infractions that cyclists make (skipping red lights, rolling through stop signs, not using hand signals) are not inherently dangerous to other users on the road. They are, however, annoying to watch if you’re a car driver. I bet that must suck.

          Zero bicyclists have killed automobile drivers in their cars. They are not a safety danger.

  • AmandaKH July 22, 2016 (9:46 am)

    Looks like a good compromise from the City.  They listened to community feedback, did some more studying and came up with a plan that, while not pleasing everyone, seems fair.

  • MrsB July 22, 2016 (9:50 am)

    The intersection at Admiral and Lander/53rd is dangerous now with a turning lane; I can only imagine the rear-end collisions which will occur when the turning lane is removed.  In the 17 years we’ve been living by that intersection, traffic up and down Lander in both directions from Admiral has increased exponentially.  This is one of the most accident-prone sections of Admiral and this ill=conceived plan will only make it worse. 

    • Jort July 22, 2016 (10:26 am)

      It’s OK, it won’t make it worse. I know that you might want to think that, but reality proves it will not.

      Because the road will be more narrow, cars will drive slower, which will reduce the amount of pedestrian/cyclist injuries and speed-related collisions. 

      This has been proven time and time again whenever road diets are implemented. Yes, cars have to drive slightly slower. No, it does not make the roads more unsafe. Yes, cyclists and pedestrians are safer. No, it does not catastrophically destroy the fabric of urban automobile driving for eternity.

  • Nancy Folsom July 22, 2016 (11:21 am)

    Information about road diets, because…science.

  • WTF July 22, 2016 (11:35 am)

    I’m just curious about all the pro bike folks………do you not have families so that transportation isn’t an issue??  Do you ride your bike to the store to pick up groceries for your family of 4 or 4+ and then peddle your groceries home?  Do you pick up your kids from school on bikes or are they bussed?  What if you work in Northgate?  Do you bike all the way or do you hop on public transportation and haul your bike up there and your commute is 2 hrs?  At a drop of a hat can you make it to a meeting down south from the North or meet up on the Eastside for happy hour without it taking you two hrs to get there?  I seriously don’t know how you do it without a vehicle.  I’m certainly not going to ride my bike in the rain on a work day or pick up groceries either.

    • Jort July 22, 2016 (12:24 pm)

      Oh, don’t worry! Nobody is taking away your right to drive your car.

      However, in exchange for better safety for all road users, including cyclists, the trade-off is that you will have to drive a little slower and perhaps wait another 30-40 seconds for a left-turning vehicle.

      You’ll live.

    • newnative July 22, 2016 (1:23 pm)

      Lot’s of families ride the buses, ride bikes and walk.  Why does having children = right to own a car?  And how does asking for safety for cyclists and pedestrians equate you can’t drive a car?  Why is asking people to drive slower and less often seen as some kind of human rights infringement?  

      I won’t even know where to start with the need for a car to drive to happy hour across town.  Yikes!  

      • sam-c July 22, 2016 (2:56 pm)

        I’ve actually been thinking about it for a while, and one thing I would love WSB to do (I know they don’t have time to do this though), is profile transportation choices for West Seattle-ites, like a weeklong story/ diary of how they commuted that week.

        To prove your point newnative, that it’s possible, I would like to see a photo-journalistic week-long diary of a family that doesn’t commute by car EVER.   This is the profile I would like to see for a non-car commuting family: all adults in the family must work full time jobs outside of the house, the family should have at least more than one child, all children be under the age of 10, and at least 2 of the children go to different day-care/ summer camps. I would love to see how they pull that off- I would actually learn some tricks to use.

        • newnative July 22, 2016 (3:09 pm)

          That’s a fairly narrow view of what constitutes an average family.  Cut out a car and you don’t need to have two parents working full time outside the home, dropping off kids at a summer camp.  

          • sam-c July 22, 2016 (3:37 pm)

            LOL, our 2nd income is much more than a car payment/ maintenance.  if we didn’t have 2 student loans to pay off, we might be able to survive on 1 income, but I doubt it. 

            but it sounds like you’re giving our family a pass for the one car we do have, since we’re not average

          • sam-c July 22, 2016 (3:38 pm)

            And I was serious about finding out how other families take care of all the stuff without a car, but apparently that wasn’t clear to you.

          • newnative July 22, 2016 (4:08 pm)

            I get your point but I’m saying there are ways to make it work.  When I quit working to stay at home and raise my son, you wouldn’t believe the grief I received but there are a lot of other costs that are cut when one person works and one person stays at home.  

  • Jim Dresser July 22, 2016 (11:37 am)

    I’ve found I can typically drive just as fast with these silly road diets.  Darting into N. Admiral where necessary also will work fine.  I see no problems with this change.  Probably bikers will feel a bit intimidated, but they’ll get over it. 

    • Jort July 22, 2016 (12:43 pm)

      Interesting that you don’t seem to care that you seem ambivalent to the concerns of cyclists being intimidated, since cyclists can easily die when people choose to speed unsafely on city streets. 

      In any case, I’m fascinated that you think you can and should still drive faster, despite street engineering attempts to reduce speed. 

      Do you know why people want cars to slow down? Here, take a look:

      • WSB July 22, 2016 (12:50 pm)

        Note, I had to remove the image that came through with this because some quirk in our system displayed it as an image that I recognized from a different commenter in an unrelated comment thread earlier this week; but comment images go into a DB separate from the ones we upload and I am unable to go try to retrieve whatever you intended to use. Please either try again or describe it – sorry, we are currently seeking new technical help and fixing some glitches in the commenting system is top of the list. – TR

  • Neighbor July 22, 2016 (2:35 pm)

    Love your comments, Jort!!!

     I disagree that admiral way is too difficult.  I ride the Westside of admiral up and down 5x a week and I’m not a super fit person and I have a clunker of a bike. As the city accommodates more and more people, putting my old body on a bike is more efficient (time is about the same to downtown) and healthier (for me and you cause I don’t pollute with my car).  I also make trips to the grocery and quick errands on my bike.  I would encourage people to give it a try.  

  • WSB July 22, 2016 (3:24 pm)

    Just in, the reply to DSA’s question from very early this morning: “Turning conditions at Admiral and California remain as is. The new striping will match to the existing striping around mid-block. Our intent is to keep the existing channelization on Admiral Way between the alley and California Ave.” – TR

    • dsa July 22, 2016 (9:06 pm)

      Just found this reply, thank you.  I hope the described left turn storage is sufficient without using any of the two-way center lane.  But this response is way better than what they mapped in the plan they supplied to you.

  • Augsburg July 22, 2016 (6:52 pm)

    As a cyclist that rides this section of Admiral Way several times a week, I cannot say I am happy with the city’s plan.  It’s a plan focused on trying to look good on paper, beat the drum, sound like the city is doing something for bikes – but has no substance and will not make it any safer – for pedestrians or bicyclists.  

    The worst offenders for driving too fast, and too close to cyclists are the Metro buses.  You cannot tell me any of the bus drivers will contain themselves (or anyone else for that matter) to the narrowed lanes.  (Perhaps they should be made to watch the Youtube video of the Brazilian bus drivers made to sit on bikes on the side of the road while buses roar past as part of their training.)  

    Anyway, thinking vehicles will stay in the narrow lanes as they speed up and down Admiral is a joke.    They know full well there is absolutely no enforcement of traffic safety laws.  Witness the delivery trucks and business patrons parking in the middle of the marked crosswalks and blocking traffic lanes at the corner of Admiral and 47th/Waite St every day of the week.  

    Unfortunately, this plan will give the novice cyclists a false sense of security – until they learn the hard way about the realities of riding on the streets of Seattle.  

    • Mike July 22, 2016 (8:27 pm)

      Spot on, you’re a sane human.  I applaud your response on here.

  • Chris July 22, 2016 (6:55 pm)

    Thank you Tracy for that clarification re the turn.   That helps.  
    As noted in comments,  trash trucks are a challenge to get around.   Also getting out of the way of speeders who want to ride your bumper and go faster than the speed limit.   We are not looking forward to having to make that left turn with those behind us that are honking horns or being anxious because we are holding them up & the line waiting behind during busy commute times to continue forward.  
    We hope there are no bus “bulbs” in these plans which would really clog things up.   We understand progress, though sometimes wish things would be left alone.   People coming off of Alki from parties, etc. with wider lanes & the turn lane buffer somehow seems safer than narrower lanes.  

    So many variables to the situation on Admiral.    Perhaps will start going around Alki….well not in the summer months come to think of it…..

  • Mike July 22, 2016 (8:20 pm)  everyone needs to read this, read it again…then again and remember it.

Sorry, comment time is over.