SDOT unveils new proposals for bike lane or trail expansion to replace downhill driving lane on Highland Park Way hill

| Highland Park | West Seattle news

Back in 2020, SDOT shelved a plan for a bike lane on the Highland Park Way hill. The idea resurfaced in a 2022 application for federal funding, but there was no design at the time. Now there is, as one of three options SDOT is proposing for the Highland Park Way hill, just unveiled today. All three would remove one motorized-vehicle lane on the downhill (north/eastbound) side, “to provide an improved path for people to walk, roll, and bike between the Highland Park and Riverview neighborhoods and the Duwamish River Trail.” They’re asking for feedback starting now. Here are the three options, as described and shown on the project page:

Option 1: Downhill Protected Bike Lane

For Option 1, we propose replacing the right northbound driving lane on Highland Park Way SW with a downhill protected bike lane. The bike lane would run parallel to the existing path and include a concrete barrier to divide the bike lane from traffic. At the intersection of Highland Park Way SW and West Marginal Way SW, we would add a diagonal bike crossing to connect people to the Duwamish River Trail … We would also add lighting and make some repairs to the existing path to improve accessibility for people walking and rolling.

Option 2: Multi-use Path

For Option 2, we propose replacing the existing path and the right northbound driving lane with a multi-use path. The multi-use path would include a wider landscape buffer and a wider path for people walking, rolling, and biking in both directions. This path will include bus stop landing pads in the landscape buffer, so people have a paved area to wait that is off the multi-use path. As in Option 1, we would add more lighting for people traveling along the path at night and add a diagonal bike crossing at the intersection of Highland Park Way SW and West Marginal Way SW to connect people to the Duwamish River Trail.

Option 3: Combination of Options 1 and 2

Option 3 is a combination of Options 1 and 2. In this approach, we would build the protected bike lane first – as it takes less time and less money to build – and then develop the new multi-use path later when additional funding is available.

You can see maps and more information – including the SDOT answer to “why not expand into the greenspace rather than remove a driving lane?” – on the project page.

FEEDBACK: This survey is open until June 15. Or you can email highlandholden@seattle.gov. SDOT also plans various info events over the next two weeks, also listed on the project page.

WS Guy May 10, 2024 (11:37 am)

The rendering should depict the bike lane as empty, because that’s what they really look like.

NimbySlayer May 10, 2024 (11:51 am)

Because bike lanes are more efficient at moving than cars right? Since bikes take up less space.The more protected bike infrastructure we build, the more people will use it.
- Brandon May 10, 2024 (12:51 pm)
  
  Don’t get it. Several years ago people were saying “bikes belong on sidewalks not streets, they arent cars.” And the response was “bikes are like cars, they should use the street because the sidewalks don’t have ramps and things and bikes are a detriment to people walking.”
  
  Now bikes are on streets like cars just like was requested and the response is “bikes aren’t cars and are at danger from being hit, they should have their own multiuse lanes.” Well no s##t, Sherlock, did you just graduate 1st grade? Laughable, how those multiuse lanes function exactly like sidewalks. You know, infrastructure already in place? Instead of admitting the mistake the argument is now to double down and double the size of the sidewalk and eliminate a travel lane for cars.
  
  Is this progress? Changing things back and forth every several years for the sake of changing things? How many years do we have until the argument changes again and we waste more money? “Bike lanes are efficient at moving” will quickly morph into, “we can’t possibly bike everywhere, we need a transit system to take us large distances like intracity travel. But who needs cars and infrasturcture that used to exist?”
  
  On another point: Are bikers ever going to require license plates and pay tabs for these road costs? Or does progress not work that way? Asking for a 2nd grader.
- sna May 12, 2024 (10:15 am)
  
  You can google the “commute seattle” surveys back in 2010s and compare to most recent years. Despite all the added bike lanes and improvements, the number of people commuting by bike is still about the same at 3-4%. Any improvement is likely more from the growth of e-bikes. It will always be a niche mode of transport.
Platypus May 10, 2024 (1:00 pm)

This provides a real alternative that I think many people who hate sitting in car traffic may want to explore. This would be an extremely comfortable ride, that allows for people to move easily. With an E-bike this hill is nothing, and you would likely be home as fast or faster than you are now, and not even sweaty.
skeeter May 10, 2024 (1:04 pm)

I live in West Seattle. I use two different bike lanes on a daily basis — over 250 days per year. I assure you I’m not alone. There are frequently over 1,000 riders per day crossing the swing bridge (with a counter.) Bikes aren’t for everyone, but we simply need to give people options other than cars.
- Kyle May 10, 2024 (2:45 pm)
  
  Yeah but not this section of bike trail right? I’m an infrequent biker/walker of this trail and that trail is never so busy that I wished it was wider. I’m usually the only one on it because it is so steep and just leads to an industrial area. It is bumpy and could be repaved, but removing a lane of traffic would be really dumb here. Incredibly biased survey that doesn’t have leave as is as an option.
  - Bill May 10, 2024 (8:07 pm)
    
    Thanks for expressing some sanity.
1994 May 10, 2024 (9:27 pm)

And how many people do we see walking up or down this street? Very few walkers.

Actually Mike May 10, 2024 (11:43 am)

The correct answer is, None of the Above. A path (sidewalk) already exists alongside existing traffic lanes and could easily be improved into a multi-use bike / pedestrian lane–without exacerbating already heavy traffic here by choking NB Highland Park Way down to one lane. C’mon, SDOT–it’s not rocket science. You can do this without making things worse.

WSB May 10, 2024 (11:51 am)

As mentioned toward the end of the story, the project page addresses that question. Here’s that quote from the SDOT page:

Some people have asked why we did not consider widening the path into the green space instead of removing a driving lane. The answer is two-fold:

-As mentioned above, our goals for this project are to improve safety and reduce vehicle speeds and collisions. Narrowing the street, calming traffic along Highland Park Way SW, and providing an improved dedicated space for people to bike, walk, and roll will help to achieve these goals.

-The green space to the east of the path is sloped and prone to landslides. This would mean we would need to build retaining walls and other stabilizing structures, which would increase the cost of the project significantly.

All that said, we are still early in the design process, and we are open to exploring different options that are feasible and aligned with our goals
- Actually Mike May 10, 2024 (12:09 pm)
  
  With all due respect, Nonsense. If a retaining wall would be needed in order to widen the existing sidewalk slightly into a multi-use path, then the retaining wall is already needed. It would be simple and straightforward to add a physical divider barrier between the RH northbound traffic lane and a slightly wider multi-use path situated where the existing sidewalk is to the east. And there are other reasonable ways to slow and “calm” traffic, rather than choking HP Way down into 1 lane northbound (which seems unlikely to calm anyone). Unless the real goal of the project is just to make it impossible to drive around Seattle anymore? Which won’t work for a lot of us seniors (not the high school kind) and folks with mobility issues. C’mon, SDOT–this isn’t rocket science.
  - Dawson May 10, 2024 (1:01 pm)
    
    Essentially what you’re saying is remove the landscape buffer that is already there and place a taller curb divider between the street and the path? That would actually make a lot of sense and provide mobility for all and be easier from a maintenance aspect (no mowing or on going vegetation removal needed). As a former bike commuter I can assure you SDOT won’t do something that makes sense.
  - Jort May 10, 2024 (2:09 pm)
    
    Driving the speed limit = “impossible to drive around Seattle anymore?” It’s interesting that you mention “rocket science” because SDOT is, in fact, taking a science-based approach to traffic safety with this proposal.
- Craig May 10, 2024 (5:43 pm)
  
  Sdot does address the question but their answer is confusing and looks more like an attempt to avoid the conversation for what is the obvious answer to maintaining vehicular throughput, while supporting a new bike path. Removing a lane at the base of the hill is a horrible idea and there is a way through this that will work for all users.We can have traffic calming, throughput and a multi use trail. Downhill traffic speeds could be slowed by taking a single lane on the upper half of the hill to be used as a buffer to oncoming traffic(only for the upper half) . The new multi use trail created by expanding the existing sidewalk on the SE side of HP Way, could be built for the lower third of the hill in front of Pioneer industries by widening the exiting sidewalk which would require some regrading, small tree removal, and relocating a fire hydrant and adding maybe two rows of eco blocks for a short distance. This would be expensive but is the answer to providing the right infrastructure for what will be one of two ways for bikers to leave the peninsula and one of three for vehicles.As far as slides that SDOT claims are prone on the East side of the path- Is there any evidence of this? I would like to see the documentation and talk more about the designs that they’ve reportedly looked at that would require the infrastructure they are siting as necessary. While there is plenty of evidence of slides on the N side of the street, I see no evidence of slides to the east or south. Given what we have been through and are likely to go through down the road with the eventual rebuild of the WS Bridge (planned or unplanned) or other closures on Roxbury or elsewhere. We should invest in an off-street facility that doesn’t restrict throughput at the base of the HP Way. Can we please explore what could be a win win for all users?
H20K9 May 10, 2024 (12:07 pm)

AGREED 100%

OneTimeCharley May 10, 2024 (12:24 pm)

Stop with the road diets disguised as “improvements”. This project will negatively impact 100 times more people than will ever utilize it. It’s a steep hill. MOST people will not walk or ride a bike up or down a steep hill because MOST people will find an alternative to avoid the discomfort. This is another installment in the agenda to make private vehicle ownership less attractive gussied up as some feel good idea. Just leave the damn road be. What if we only had one lane down for the two years the high bridge was closed. I suppose we could have torn it all up, or maybe one day we will forced into the decision by circumstance. Get lost with this crap idea.

Platypus May 10, 2024 (1:06 pm)

This isn’t a road diet, it’s a moving one of the lanes to better accommodate people outside of cars. As you know, West Seattle is a big hill with very few routes in or out. By making a very nice alternative to driving, coupled with the amazing strides e-bikes have provided, this provides a legitimate alternative. There are many bikers that avoid this hill because of the bad infrastructure and go way north or way south. This is like installing a whole option that didn’t exist. The T in SDOT is for transportation of people, not cars. Cars are one way, and from the frustration I experience, and see on the faces of other drivers, driving sucks and we would all be better to know there are very good other options. It takes just a little to try them and see if they can work for you.
- Adam May 12, 2024 (8:44 am)
  
  So driving sucks, and you believe the answer is to make it worse? Because it sounds like there’s also an argument here that biking sucks, so we should improve biking paths. Why take two different approaches to the same problem? I say they both suck, so why not just improve the space already there east of the 4 lanes? Why does one have to happen at the expense of the other? All this will do is make 35th and Delridge busier, and not just for cars but for cyclists as well. I’m all for bike paths and other options and always wondered why Seattle hadn’t invested more in this, but it’s crazy to think that now that they are, it’s also used as a guise to restrict driving. If biking is such a great option, then adding more paths will show that. You don’t have to make driving more and more terrible to prove that point. It makes me think of all the bus lanes added at the cost of taking lanes from cars. It’s as if SDoT is using the added drive times from taking lanes away as proof that drive times are bad. Yeah. You took lanes away. And I tried bussing, still costs more and takes longer than driving. Like I said, one thing doesn’t have to be taken away for the other thing to happen. We just need SDoT to quit being disingenuous about their aims to get people out of cars.
  - Kathy May 12, 2024 (1:55 pm)
    
    The more sucky the driving, the less people will drive because bus or bike will be the better option. The more people who drive in single occupancy vehicles, the more sucky the drive will become due to roads becoming parking lots. Because population is growing, so more of the road surface should be dedicated to buses, bikes and sidewalks instead of cars unless everyone wants to be stuck trying to get in and out of West Seattle.
skeeter May 10, 2024 (1:16 pm)

If we “Just leave the damn road be” then motorists will continue to drive way too fast and put lives in danger.
Zac Thomas May 12, 2024 (9:16 am)

Amen. Need to ensure this does not go through….this will be a nightmare for traffic through this area if reduced to a single lane. Pain for many for the benefit of very few.

Jeepney May 10, 2024 (12:28 pm)

I am a casual cyclist and I have ridden up Highland multiple times, and on the sidewalk. It is plenty wide, although could use some repairs. That hill has to be one of the steepest in Seattle, and I highly doubt the average cyclist will attempt to pedal up it. Has a test counter been utilized to determine how much bicycle traffic that hill gets?As far as using these measure as a traffic calming tool, good luck. Both Avalon and Delridge still have numerous accidents caused by reckless driving, I would anticipate the same on Highland.

Bird May 10, 2024 (1:01 pm)

Lots of ebikers, which makes hills a non-issue. If basic traffic calming measures aren’t working, perhaps we need more aggressive measures like speed bumps and bollards to narrow the road. I see accidents and serious injuries reported on here pretty near daily and it’s not necessary.
- Look Both Ways May 12, 2024 (5:07 pm)
  
  Accidents “pretty near daily”? Doubtful. I drive this road 4x/day minimum, and see only a couple incidents/year — minor ones. Not unusual for any busy road. And rarely see pedestrians or bikes in the area. This is a popular & necessary vehicle thoroughfare, not a bike route. It should remain as is. Many, many better ways to spend SDOT’s budget.
Jort May 10, 2024 (2:11 pm)

There are many neighbors who use e-bikes as transportation, which have the handy benefit of flattening many of Seattle’s hills.

mnw May 10, 2024 (12:33 pm)

I rarely see cyclists on this hill. Use these funds elsewhere where they are actually needed, please.

Jay May 10, 2024 (3:40 pm)

I detour because it isn’t safe with 50mph traffic and aggressive driving.
K May 10, 2024 (8:21 pm)

A lot of people avoid the hill because it’s dangerous. Making it less dangerous will make it more attractive to those who enjoy living as well as biking.

snowskier May 10, 2024 (12:35 pm)

Not removing a travel lane is the best option. Upgrade the sidewalk for people who want to ride uphill on this stretch of road that sees minimal foot/bike traffic. Riding downhill in a traffic lane is easy. Riding downhill on an upgraded sidewalk that is smooth and free of vegetation is also easy. No need for a special lane to ride down the hill. Put these project options back on the shelf where they belong.

Mike May 10, 2024 (12:37 pm)

Hahahaha 🤣

Scrappy May 10, 2024 (12:38 pm)

For those of us who live nearby it will be the WEST SEATTLE bridge closure 2.0. There is already traffic idling in front of ours homes during morning and evening commutes. There will be a long line of cars all day and night, just like the YEARS it took to re-open the bridge. Unacceptable!

K May 10, 2024 (12:48 pm)

Yay, and it could help end the race to the red light down that hill that several drivers seem to enjoy and the safety of themselves and others. This is a welcome change.

Deb May 10, 2024 (12:53 pm)

IMHO, this is an insane and outrageous proposal for all modes and from all perspectives. SDOT should focus on sidewalk widening and leave the vehicle lanes as is. Wasn’t the 2.5 year closure of the WS Bridge enough of a reason to maintain these vehicle lanes?

CS in HP May 10, 2024 (1:07 pm)

Please don’t do any of these! Currently bikes ride down with traffic and up on the sidewalk- and it’s works just fine. For the twenty years i’ve lived here, I’ve never had a conflict with a cyclist in the road- they go with the speed of traffic. The only improvements needed are more consistent mowing/maintenance and possibly a smidge wider sidewalk- please leave this alone! I filled out the survey- please do the same if you have a strong opinion, and show up to any community meetings discussing this. Whatever budget you have for this, please use it for year-round maintenance and any leftover money send over to seattle public schools.

New Deal May 10, 2024 (1:26 pm)

How about we install an escalator? Bikers can hop on and ride up the hill. Otherwise, average Joe isn’t going to use this. It is a steep, busy road which doesn’t make for a pleasant bike ride. Anyone use the neighborhood greenway on 30th ave SW between Brandon and Juneau? Once I saw a woman with her kid on the back of an electric bike fall to the side because her electric bike didn’t have enough power to get her up the hill. She pushed it the rest of the way. Doesn’t bode well for man powered cycles.

glennm May 10, 2024 (4:25 pm)

Don’t speak for cyclists, many of us can power up this hill with loaded analog bikes just fine! Not having to use that greasy narrow sidewalk would be a great addition.

Oerthehillz May 10, 2024 (1:29 pm)

I guess the plan here to “reduce car speeds” to make things safer means making lanes more crowded by taking one away. The only way I’d attempt that bike route is by electric bike on a nice day….maybe.

If you like the comments May 10, 2024 (1:29 pm)

Better to complete the survey to have your opinion heard by the decision makers even though it may bring you joy to share it in the West Seattle Blog comments. You can do both.

Crank May 10, 2024 (1:32 pm)

As a cyclist, not a fan. I take the lane on the downhill and easily keep up with (speeding) traffic. I need a bike lane or real path for the uphill stretch that is actually maintained. This is the way to downtown when the low bridge is out, so thoughtful improvements could help.What about uphill traffic calming? Folks go 40+ up that hill regularly, this seems like a half measure…

Reed May 10, 2024 (1:32 pm)

A double win: more bike infrastructure and a road diet to force reckless drivers to slow down!

Platypus May 10, 2024 (6:21 pm)

Additional speed calming should be done at the same time between the up and down lanes. I have seen far too many crashes. Slowing the downhill will work but people still drive too fast going up.

Sam May 10, 2024 (1:43 pm)

The bike line is clearly an afterthought. The purpose of this change is to slow drivers down by narrowing the road, which is an excellent idea. People drive way too fast on that road.

DelridgeDriver May 10, 2024 (1:44 pm)

I use Highland Park Way exclusively as a driver and I strongly support any safety improvements that will limit speeds. People treat it like a freeway. There is not enough traffic to warrant two lanes in either direction. The extra lane only serves to encourage dangerously fast driving. These plans leave two lanes in the uphill direction, so they don’t go far enough to make this road safer.

Actually Mike May 10, 2024 (3:23 pm)

One reason that removing a downhill traffic lane here would be problematic is that there is always some northbound (downhill) traffic on Highland Park Way that needs to turn right at the bottom of the hill in order to get on 99 / 509, etc. The intersection of W Marginal Way and Highland Park Way sometimes becomes massively clogged up even now, when trucks and other traffic SB on W Marginal Way try to squeeze through a yellow / red light and get stuck, completely bottling up the intersection. When that happens, folks who could have just turned right and been gone end up stuck along with everyone else. Removing the RH downhill lane on Highland Park Way would make that an everyday state of affairs. This isn’t caused by people driving too fast, it’s just an unfortunate fact due to the traffic volume at that intersection.

Automatic traffic cameras might help deter both speeding on Highland Park Way and yellow / red light violations which make congestion much worse than it should be in the Highland Park Way / W Marginal Way intersection. I don’t like cameras either, but they’ve changed people’s behavior on 35th Ave SW, etc . Just sayin’.
Scrappy May 10, 2024 (3:38 pm)

You would be wrong. I don’t know what time of day you are utilizing this roadway, but this is a MAJOR throughway out of WS. I’ve lived in the area for 25 years. I have lived experience in what traffic is ACTUALLY like. These different proposals will affect traffic flow GREATLY. This is a very bad idea! Initially, my guess, traffic will be backed up quite a ways, and then the side streets adjacent to SW Holden will take the brunt. Cars will be side-skirting Holden to get to the down-hill light on Highland Park Way. Once again, just like during the West Seattle bridge closure, Highland Park neighborhood will be inundated with idling cars, nonstop, polluting the air for our families. Just another ‘red-lining’ effect to our neighborhood.

Kyle May 10, 2024 (1:50 pm)

Option 4: Repair the existing sidewalk/bike path and stop all this road diet madness.

Curious May 10, 2024 (2:05 pm)

I want to see the bike and vehicle traffic stats for this roadway before I can weigh in on whether it makes sense.

Jort May 10, 2024 (2:52 pm)

I’m also curious what the traffic stats were for Interstate 5 before it was built!

Allistu May 10, 2024 (2:07 pm)

I have issues with the 2 lanes in one direction just about anywhere in the city. I get so much harassment driving the speed limit on that section of road with drivers either riding my bumper or cutting in close from the left lane. Even if I go a little over the speed limit with the downhill momentum. If the 2 lane design works so well as we sit comfortably behind the wheel then why do drivers flip out for having to change lane to pass you? Also why do I pull up along side of them at the bottom of the hill? The NIMBYs just want to drive as fast they please, which they do. I think a new East to West safe bicycle/Ebike route would be a better use of space than always giving law breaking speeders what they want.

Schoolhouse Rock May 10, 2024 (2:11 pm)

This is iNsANiTy.

Canton May 10, 2024 (2:14 pm)

Seems like a good opportunity to close the street for the day for a bike the hill event. We can invite SDOT, the council, and the mayor to bring THEIR personal bikes, and bike the hill together. No electric bikes allowed. (Some of us poor can’t afford them.)Be good leaders, and show us how it’s done.

Jort May 10, 2024 (2:51 pm)

I assure you that the average electric bike is cheaper than even the cheapest used automobile. Please — the “poor person equity” canard is an insultingly terrible argument.
- Canton May 10, 2024 (10:38 pm)
  
  In my case, poor is the ratio between hours spent commuting, and hours actually working. A bike commute would mean I lose working hours. But unlike yourself, I don’t worry about “me”. I think of the hundreds of thousands “other” commuters with many different aspects of their life that won’t work,… On a bike. Think about the complicated lives of other folks, instead of your personal life for a change…
  - Jort May 11, 2024 (12:42 am)
    
    OK Canton.
    - Adam May 12, 2024 (8:54 am)
      
      So Cannon makes a point that you could debate, and your response is “ok”. And you took the time to type that and hit send? Petty, Jort. Just come up with a good argument against his very salient point.
K May 10, 2024 (2:57 pm)

I don’t get this. Can “us poor” afford to own and maintain cars, or are only e-bikes cost prohibitive?
Jay May 10, 2024 (3:44 pm)

If anyone at SDOT or City Council regularly rode a bike for transportation then Seattle wouldn’t have any sharrows.
KBear May 10, 2024 (6:36 pm)

If you can afford to drive a car, you can afford an electric bike.

Whisky Woods May 10, 2024 (2:15 pm)

It would be cheaper to park a shuttle van at the top or bottom. It would get more use than a bike lane and be safer.

wetone May 10, 2024 (2:34 pm)

This is one of the many examples of wasteful spending, just as the 3yr road redesign project at Alki point from SDOT and City of Seattle government that will do little if anything for safety. Traffic already backs up hill (2 lanes) during commuting hours and other times. This is why I’m voting NO on upcoming levy. Because of the Huge Wasteful, Zero Common Sense Spending of tax dollars by our Seattle government. Having huge impacts to most all blue-collar workers, emergency issues, transportation services and taxpayers. Replacing existing sidewalk with new walking/bike path would be common sense and impact traffic little during construction. I believe there have been more auto crashes that were traveling up the hill than downhill also….. ;)

cwit May 10, 2024 (2:40 pm)

This post is bringing out the ‘Stop this war on cars’ and ‘I don’t see bikes one such and such road when I’m driving on it for a few seconds of the day so it must be true 100% of the time’ folks and I’m here for it.

VirtueSignal May 10, 2024 (2:48 pm)

Insane. The 4 people that use it will be thrilled.

Jort May 10, 2024 (2:49 pm)

I expect folks to show up here in the comments section of this very fine blog, adamant that the project be scrapped entirely, alleging a great and sinister conspiracy by the all-powerful “bike lobby” to make it impossible to drive in the city. That’s par for the course. What, of course, I also suspect, is that nearly every driver feels that United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights entitles them to speed, and the idea that their speeding could be curtailed due to a lane reduction is genuinely frightening and threatening to them. People have died on this very road. Slowing people down will save lives at the expense of, perhaps, 5 to 7 or so seconds difference in driving time from start to finish. But, of course, it’s the thought that counts — even the most anodyne of restrictions to the driving mind is seen quite literally as an existential threat.

intheneighborhood May 10, 2024 (2:51 pm)

NO to reducing lanes. NO to speed bumps (already TOO MANY in this city; they’re detrimental to vehicle longevity). YES to cleaning up the sidewalks on BOTH sides of the street, along with CONTINUED maintenance and making safer bus stops on this hill (Metro? Your bucks instead?). Maybe even adding a light and crosswalk halfway down to help people cross … how do people cross the street for the bus stops on HPW?

penpal May 10, 2024 (2:57 pm)

Hey I have a great idea we can build us a monorail down that hill….

Honest Opposer May 10, 2024 (3:02 pm)

I want to recklessly speed down this road in my 2 ton car and have an extra lane to pass people who dare drive the speed limit. How dare they take this from me!

uncle loco May 10, 2024 (3:18 pm)

I take this route daily to and from work. Can count on one hand the amount of cyclists I see in one month riding on this hill. I can count on the other hand the amount of pedestrians I see. Seems like a waste of our resources but hey that never stops anyone.

Azimuth May 10, 2024 (3:22 pm)

Option 2. Do it right. The first option is not an improvement. I drive that road all the time and it doesn’t need 2 lanes downhill so you can go 50 mph.

Jay May 10, 2024 (3:41 pm)

It needs to be one lane both ways. Drivers are out of control here.

Another One May 10, 2024 (3:42 pm)

I’m a cyclist (and driver) and I bike on this hill. The sidewalk is very bumpy with tree roots and too narrow. I would like to have the completely separated bike lane (yes I voted).

DRW May 10, 2024 (3:48 pm)

Mark May 10, 2024 (4:59 pm)

I used Highland Park Way for commuting to work on my (non-electric) bike for over a decade, 5 days a week, year-round. I still use it for recreational rides. I always ride downhill in the car lane and have never had a problem with maintaining a speed that negatively affected traffic flow. I always ride uphill on the existing sidewalk because no one on a non-electric bike could ride up that hill at any speed other than a crawl, which creates a danger to the cyclist and a nuisance for drivers, with cars being required to pass the rider. To this day, I rarely see anyone on foot or on a bike, (electric or not) on Highland Park Way. There is absolutely no need to remove a lane of traffic since there seems to be room to widen and improve the existing sidewalk to accommodate both bikers and walkers safely. As to landslide danger, I have never seen evidence of landslides or recall the terrain lending itself to the possibility of landslides on the east (downhill) side of Highland Park Way (the west side is a different matter!). The impact to drivers will be severe if a downhill lane is removed, and the last thing we need in Seattle are more angry drivers).

Mark May 10, 2024 (7:57 pm)

Correction…I meant “not maintaining a speed that negatively affected traffic flow”
Bbron May 11, 2024 (9:55 am)

Mark, you seem to be an expert in both traffic simulation and geology, and it’s a darn shame you aren’t employed by SDOT who apparently have no one oj staff that has your level of expertise.

Admiral-2009 May 10, 2024 (5:19 pm)

There is a significant grade, trucks, busses and other large vehicles have a difficult time going uphill, thus it is a no brainer to maintain two uphill lanes!

Bdj May 10, 2024 (6:09 pm)

WSB, how could we find out how many people who ride bikes, regularly bike up and down Highland Pkwy on a daily or weekly basis? Fauntleroy, Delridge and 35th are a lot less steep and it seems to me Fauntleroy is the busiest of those. I hate getting stuck on Delridge, trying to turn right onto SW Holden. I have never, ever seen anyone bike riding there while we wait for the green light for bike riders. Sorry, our property and auto taxes paid for the streets, for cars. If they insist on narrowing every 2 lane road down to one lane in each direction, I want a refund!

Bbron May 11, 2024 (10:11 am)

gas, tabs, and other car related fees don’t even come close to covering road maintenance meaning that car infrastructure is subsidized by other sources of revenue. face it: the government ensures car drivers never pay their fair share of the costs. roads are public space; you can’t go full imperialism on us and say that property owners get to dictate to use of public space because you feel a sense of collectiveness, unverified, with your fellow fiefdom-desirers. I ride up and down Delridge once every 2 days for volunteering and groceries, and I’ve seen plenty of other bikers doing the same. it’s wild you think 20 seconds of your inconvenience in a car where 1 red light would have much more of an impact is more significant than a safey light for those that are actively reducing the number of vehicles on the road for you. car driver entitlement know no bounds.

Grilled Cheese May 10, 2024 (7:41 pm)

I am all for bike lanes, but why doesn’t SDOT invest more money in fixing the roads in WS? They are a mess, and you can’t see the lines at night. Who makes these decisions? They should be fired.

snowskier May 10, 2024 (8:14 pm)

They forgot the other cheaper option that will likely improve pedestrian usage. Highland Park Funicular.

HP resident May 10, 2024 (8:50 pm)

I disagree with all of these options. I live in Highland Park and go on this hill multiple times daily. Mostly driving but in the summer I have walked it and biked it. I filled out the survey and want the hill to stay as is. If they really want to spend money they can fix the sidewalk, but don’t take away a lane! I haven’t seen a single biker on it for months and rarely do I even see someone walking on it.

Todd HP May 10, 2024 (9:02 pm)

I think we should close the whole hill off with neighborhood signs stating that it’s not a street anymore and call it safe. We should use the whole hill for bikes, barbecue cook outs, and for kids to play on. It should be a safe place for people to set up tents and live also. We could put up graffiti walls for safe spaces for people that do graffiti. I feel like not enough people rollerblade anymore so part of the hill should only be allowed to be used if you rollerblade. Restricting the flow of traffic down this hill would be insane. Please do not screw up my neighborhood anymore than you already have! I grew up in Highland Park I built a house in Highland Park, I’m on my 48th year here I think they should leave the hill alone completely and those that don’t feel safe driving on it and riding their bike up the side of it like I do from time to time should just stay off the hill. That would be the best course of action so that you don’t screw up the flow of traffic in the neighborhood any further than it already is. I think the 25 mph speed limit along with speed bumps every 10 ft along with stop signs where they don’t belong, with all the closed streets and everything else is plenty. Leave the only road that works in West Seattle alone please. This is a request from someone that actually lives in the neighborhood and walks, rides, and drives it.

Jay May 11, 2024 (10:59 am)

This is such a ridiculous idea there is a path already on that hill that I hardly ever see people use so why would we need to close an entire lane and back up traffic? This will increase traffic in my neighborhood more than you already have with the 25 mile an hour speed limit and speed bumps. How about instead of creating more traffic we focus on serious problems like the people that camp on it? Or how about all of the roads around the city that need to be repaved. Please do not ruin this city’s transportation more than you already have, please stop making my neighborhood worse. I drive on this hill daily it is how I have gotten to school and It’s how I go to work, so please don’t make my day harder for the extremely low amount of people I never see walking or biking on that hill.
- HP resident May 11, 2024 (2:16 pm)
  
  Jay, You didn’t read the entire response above. He was being sarcastic. He doesn’t want the city to ruin this road either.

Tired of the BS May 10, 2024 (10:33 pm)

Another example of Seattle wasting tax dollars on a non-problem. As a former cyclist, Cascade Bicycle Club member, senior citizen and now disabled person; I use my car exclusively to get around. These projects miss the fact that Seattle’s population is getting older. I would much rather see Seattle accelerate the implementation of ADA curb ramp consent decree and put the same amount of effort into remediating this deficiency as they are in removing drive lanes and not pushing it out over the remaining 11 years.

Don Brubeck May 11, 2024 (8:33 am)

We need a multi-use walking/biking path entirely out of the roadway. This is a potentially valuable section of an east-west bike route linking Morgan Junction, High Point, Delridge, Highland Park, the Duwamish Trail, and South Park. Of course you don’t see a lot of bike riders on it now. The sidewalk is narrow and bumpy and the traffic speed in lanes is too fast for most people to feel safe and comfortable, even on e-bikes that flatten the hill. None of the options are good. Option 1 is dangerous for bike riders where buses would pull into the bike lane at several stops. It also puts bike riders “on the wrong side” of oncoming bike riders, which is counter-intuitive and potentially confusing at top and bottom of the hill. Option 2 is dangerous for drivers where buses would stop in the single downhill lane and impatient drivers would pass using the oncoming traffic lane. Option 3 just costs more time and money. SDOT should come back with option 4: A Multi-Use Path entirely out of the roadway on the south side. There is plenty of right-of-way width. Not that much of the length requires extensive grading and retaining. Avoid a fight and do it right.

Mrs. myrtle May 11, 2024 (10:00 am)

This is SUCH a bad idea.

Wendell May 11, 2024 (10:14 am)

This is one of only two major arterials that allow an exit from the peninsula, and would prove chaotic should there be another emergency shutdown of the bridge, or an earthquake, not to mention daily commuting. Reducing four lanes to three is a bad idea, perhaps the money could be better spent on enforcement of dangerous driving on the hill.

Kb1000 May 11, 2024 (10:39 am)

This is such an inequitable proposal and once again Highland Park is being cut off from vital roadways that connect the residents to jobs, works and many other services. All for what? For a few cyclists? I walk this hill daily and I’m nearly always the lone pedestrian. Maybe we see 2-5 cyclists per day. Tops. We cannot lose a lane of vehicle traffic just for a few people. PLEASE TAKE THE SURVEY AND CALL TO VOICE YOUR OPINION. Save Highland Park!!!!!

Admiral-2009 May 11, 2024 (5:31 pm)

I second Don’s comment, use the ROW to the south and do it right and avoid the bickering.

Craig May 12, 2024 (3:14 am)

Thank you Don -100%

Tired of the BS May 12, 2024 (9:32 am)

We need to tell the King of the Pot Holes (AKA Rob Saka) to leave our road alone!!!

Highland Park Resident May 13, 2024 (9:36 am)

Count me as one of the locals that is always white knuckling it driving down Highland Park drive, feeling unsafe, and would love to break out the e-bike for more trips.

Johanne May 15, 2024 (5:14 pm)

A simple jersey barrier between the street and sidewalk would cure the majority of concerns here.

When the West Seattle high bridge was being repaired, we saw
tremendous volumes on this street. We need major arterials out of West Seattle
as an option in the case of a major accident or repair. This plan is short sighted.

When summer comes around people soon forget that the
majority of the year it rains here. When the precipitation starts, bicycle use
drops precipitously. This is a blue sky project with limited benefits.

With one downhill lane, when the bus stops while going down the
hill it will back up traffic all the way up the hill. Calming traffic does not
need to cause grid lock. Grid lock causes road rage in some, and anything but
calm.
Dangerous trees overhanging Highland Park Way should be cut down before they fall down and hurt
someone. Trees have fallen there and trapped one of our neighbors in her car.
It was life changing traumatic and they moved out of the neighborhood.

The real danger is oncoming traffic at the curve. There has been a multiple death accident there. We call it Dead Man’s curve. People race up the hill to cut in before the light at the top. If anything, the road should be widened &
separated there to make that curve safer for both uphill and downhill car traffic.

Sorry, comment time is over.