FOLLOWUP: SDOT says it’s reviewing community groups’ counterproposals for Highland Park Way hill

(WSB file photo)

SDOT says it’s giving a “comprehensive review” to a letter three community groups sent regarding the Highland Park Way hill lane-conversion proposal. We’ve been reporting on the proposal since May; SDOT says it plans to convert one downhill driving lane into either a bicycle lane, a new multipurpose path, or both. Here’s the letter sent last month by HPAC, West Seattle Bike Connections, and the Morgan Community Association, spelling out concerns and offering two additional options. Here’s the letter in its entirety:

Dear Highland Park Connection Team, SDOT, & Seattle City Council Transportation Committee Members –

Thank you for the initial round of presentations aimed to improve public safety infrastructure on Highland Park Way SW, AKA Boeing Hill. We appreciate the robust effort you all made to get out into the community of users of this route.

Highland Park Way SW is a major transportation route from West Seattle. Capacity and transportation options for travel by bus, car, truck and bike are critical for resiliency of the transportation network, as we have painfully learned from the recent extended closure of the West Seattle high bridge. Added to the corridor is increasing Single Occupancy Vehicle traffic from the Vashon/Southworth/Fauntleroy ferry route and growing housing density in the region.

Highland Park Way SW is also a key segment of a potential mid-peninsula east-west bike route over the ridges and valleys connecting Morgan Junction, High Point, Delridge, Highland Park and the Duwamish Trail and South Park.

From speaking with SDOT staff and our constituencies over the last month of outreach we all agree with the perception that the hill:
• Encourages vehicle speeding and unsafe driving practices due to the 11% grade.
• Needs better facilities separated from vehicle traffic for those walking, biking and rolling.

We also heard numerous remarks regarding the lack of solutions offered by SDOT for improvements. All options put to the public so far were variations of a single idea. Will the agency be listening to the feedback from the public and pivoting to responsive design options, or just checking the “outreach completed” box in their workplan? Working in true partnership with community is a two-way communication.

Concerns we have heard about the design to date:
• Loss of vehicle carrying capacity and lanes needed to stack vehicles at the bottom of the hill as drivers self-sort to access West Marginal, the First Ave South Bridge, SR599 and SR509.
• Unsafe bus/bike/vehicle interactions as coaches stop to serve transit riders.
• Driver fear of head on interactions with opposing traffic.
• Loss of capacity for large semi-trucks, garbage trucks, emergency vehicles, snowplows,
tandem gravel trucks, and the like. While not designated as a “freight route”, the fact of the matter is that it is frequently used as such by delivery vehicles of all sorts and sizes.
• Reduction in resiliency of the route (which is prone to interruption by landslides, downed trees, accidents, etc.) The five lanes at the base of the hill are needed to route traffic around these short and historically long term interruptions as noted by Seattle Police Department.
• As has been stated numerous times in public conversations, this route is an essential option for folks living on the West Seattle peninsula at large to access the rest of the City, providing redundancy in emergency situations such as the closure of the West Seattle High Bridge, low bridge maintenance, etc.
• Pedestrians and drivers fear of road rage incidents from choked off traffic produced in a single lane of downhill traffic.
• Adverse Impacts to egress/ingress for residents on the east side of Highland Park Way who rely on SW Othello St. There are at least 79 households currently that rely on that route to get out of the neighborhood.
• High volumes of runoff water on the roadway surface during rain events causing unsafe conditions for bike-riders.
• Non-intuitive bike riding on the “wrong side”, riding on the left of oncoming bike riders instead of on the right in two-way bike lanes.
• This type of roadway design should not be considered as ‘one size fits all.’ The improvements should be related to the unique hillside conditions as well as the needs of the project.
• We have seen multiple examples of this sort of bicycle mitigation done as “paint-and-post” protected bike lanes on other city streets. Protection for cyclists is minimal, and much of it appears as clutter to our city, with frequent vehicle damage breaking off white poles and creating garbage in the roadway. This is an entry portal into our area, a beautiful greenspace and natural corridor. Any work done should complement this in design and materials and provide robust protection for people biking and walking.
• Our area has been overlooked for decades by the City and lacks infrastructure taken for granted elsewhere. We expect this project to be a step to rectify this in a quality manner.

In conclusion, given these concerns, we are not satisfied that this is the best solution that can be attained for the two problems above. We urge SDOT to go back to the drawing board, and suggest study of the following ideas:

Option 4:
• Replace the existing narrow asphalt sidewalk with a wide multi-use path on south side, outside of existing roadway, with a curb separating downhill bike from uphill bike/pedestrian traffic. Unlike the SDOT concepts, put the downhill bike lane on the right of uphill lane (as is the custom in the US).
• Avoid the dangers of bus pullouts into a downhill bike lane as in SDOT concepts. There is plenty of right-of-way width for a good design. Toward the top and at the base of the hill some retaining walls will be needed, some poles will need to be relocated and a small number of trees would need to be removed. It is worth funding a project that meets safety standards and is intuitive, comfortable, and predictable for all users.
• Maintain existing vehicle lane configurations.
• Enforce speed limits with enforcement cameras and police patrols.

Option 5:
• Narrow HP Way SW to one vehicle lane at the top of the hill as cars start downhill from the Highland /Holden intersection. Convert the right-hand lane for downhill bike traffic and replace the existing sidewalk with a multi-use path for uphill bike and uphill and downhill pedestrian use.
• As traffic reaches Othello St, move all bike and pedestrian traffic off road to the right onto a widened and improved off-road bike/pedestrian pathway. This allows the bus coaches to pull over to serve the Othello bus stop while letting vehicle drivers pass them to the left. It also keeps this area wider where the most active landslide slopes are on the uphill side.
• As the roadway opens up into two downhill lanes, vehicles will be approaching the curve, where most drivers naturally slow down, keeping traffic speeds down.
• The right of way below Othello Street is much wider at this point and can support a widened bike path without retaining walls until near the base of the hill.

Note that Option 5 would cost less than option 4, but is less intuitive for bike riders, requiring either a bike crossover at Othello, or riding on the “wrong side” on the lower section as in SDOT’s options.

We understand that solutions retaining the lower three eastbound downhill traffic lanes may require more work like drainage and retaining walls on the trail, but feel that the option should be studied. We also suggest consideration of automated camera enforcement of the speed limit in any solution proposed.

We also suggest a pilot of any design(s) chosen to go forward that would reduce vehicle roadway width. By installing temporary orange traffic buffers like those recently placed on the 4th Avenue South Bridge drivers can experience the conditions and make further improvement suggestions.

We look forward working together in authentic collaboration to develop a safer route for all.

Highland Park, Riverview & South Delridge Action Coalition (HPAC)
West Seattle Bike Connections (WSBC)
Morgan Community Association (MoCA)

SDOT’s James Le sent the groups an acknowledgment of the letter yesterday, six weeks after they sent it to SDOT; he wrote, “We want to assure you that we have received your letter and we’re taking a comprehensive review. Thank you for your understanding. We’ll get back to you with our response soon.” HPAC’s Kay Kirkpatrick confirmed that was the first they’d heard from SDOT since sending the letter (which you can read in PDF here).

37 Replies to "FOLLOWUP: SDOT says it's reviewing community groups' counterproposals for Highland Park Way hill"

  • Kyle August 14, 2024 (8:48 pm)

    Where do I sign? Both these ideas are better than SDOT’s initial proposal.

  • HO Resident August 14, 2024 (9:16 pm)

    Both of the ideas proposed in this letter seem way more reasonable than the city’s proposals. Glad someone is offering constructive alternatives!

    • Pelicans August 15, 2024 (2:38 pm)

      In one of the earlier articles on this, I believe I read that SDOT was quoted as stating this stretch of Highland Park Way had “…too much capacity…”  Huh? It’s a major arterial – isn’t capacity its main purpose?

  • Seattlite August 14, 2024 (9:26 pm)

    It’s incredibly amazing that everyday citizens have to do SDOT’s job in pointing out SDOT’s ill advised plans to transform a major ingress/egress roadway that works into an unworkable roadway that would cause major problems for vehicle commuters.  OPTION 4 is the logical common sense option.  The city has wasted money on other projects that have not been successful.  The city can now redeem itself by doing the right thing, the common sense thing by agreeing with OPTION 4.  

  • 1994 August 14, 2024 (9:55 pm)

    Option 4 makes the most sense. Here is hoping the SDoT values input from the community and will consider Option 4.  Everyone should be concerned about vehicles stacked up the hill if the downhill is reduced to 1 lane.  Inability to move traffic should be a chief concern for SDoT.Loss of vehicle carrying capacity and lanes needed to stack vehicles at the bottom of the hill as drivers self-sort to access West Marginal, the First Ave South Bridge, SR599 and SR509. 

  • Steph August 14, 2024 (11:02 pm)

    Thanks for sending this thoughtful letter. You fortunately are much more tactful and persuasive than me. I sincerely hope they take your advice.Your options are much safer for all of us. It would also be good if they just left it alone and spent the money putting in the promised but never delivered storm sewers and sidewalks in the adjacent areas.

  • SpencerGT August 15, 2024 (12:06 am)

    I like the idea of a downhill bike lane, but agree that vehicles need a place to queue near the intersection.

  • Gary August 15, 2024 (12:28 am)

    “Reviewing” 

  • IHeartBPP August 15, 2024 (7:40 am)

    I have no confidence in SDOT and, if history is our guide, the unelected bureaucrats will ignore citizen input and do what they want. I hope I am pleasantly surprised that is not the case this time. 

  • DRW August 15, 2024 (7:44 am)

     #4

  • Cogburn August 15, 2024 (8:01 am)

    How about widening the road corridor to add bike and barrier capacity.

    • k August 15, 2024 (11:27 am)

      That doesn’t address most of the issues identified, and would actually exacerbate some of them, plus add to landslide risk if they cut any further into existing hillsides to relocate sidewalks or anything else.  

  • AT August 15, 2024 (8:08 am)

    Bravo!  We deserve better than SDOT’s cheapest possible “solution” and gridlock.

  • Cogburn August 15, 2024 (8:28 am)

    The construction of light rail to West Seattle Junction will dramatically adversely affect transportation at the north end of WS. Highland Park Way is the corridor we all used when the bridge was down for years. Hope both projects are not done during the same timeline. 

  • VN August 15, 2024 (8:39 am)

    This route is a major traffic safety valve when the WS bridge is backed up or closed (which has occurred twice in my lifetime). I believe that this should be a major factor in any planning for traffic revisions.  SDOT should release a detailed report how they factored this consideration into their proposal.  

  • CeeBee August 15, 2024 (9:01 am)

    HPAC leadership is a model of thoughtfulness, inclusion of viewpoints, teasing out best solutions and being able to articulate them in an effective way.  I wish all neighborhoods had such capable leaders!

  • Philip August 15, 2024 (9:14 am)

    It is mind boggling that SDOT would consider lane reduction on HPW SW. Option 4 is the obvious choice. Enhance the existing sidewalk and be done with it. I am all for pedestrian and bicyclists safety but the money spent should coincide with usage. Simpler solutions for the roads less traveled. In my twenty five years of using HPW the amount of foot and bike traffic I see is negligible compared to most places in the city.

  • Monica Cavagnaro August 15, 2024 (9:20 am)

    Finally! The #4 option is on board. I drive that hill frequently and rarely see a biker. Spend the big $$$ on landscape maintenance please!!! 

  • AK August 15, 2024 (9:51 am)

    #4 for the win!

  • Resident August 15, 2024 (10:37 am)

    I’m confused by their “option 4”- they seem to be implying that the widened path would be expanded into the greenspace to the east/south, in order to keep the current lane configuration. But SDOT says they explicitly considered that and determined it was not feasible:

    1. “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.”

    Also aren’t speed cameras only allowed in school zones, and certain other specifically designated areas? And SPD is understaffed as is, so I guess you can hope there’s more speeding enforcement, but I doubt SDOT can just tell SPD what to prioritize and where.So it seems like option 4 isn’t a realistic possibility…

    • Bbron August 15, 2024 (12:55 pm)

      i’m all for community involvement; however these folks seem to have missed the crucial part that SDOT’s proposals involve: taking into account the hill. they want the path widened but the lanes to stay the same, yet SDOT calls out the reasoning that they’d need to take away a lane to widen the path. i glad the biking and community advocates have come together to try to get something that they feel works better for them, but they need to loop in a geologist, too, before their options can be taken seriously. the current support for option 4 is probably a support for a fantasy.

      • Seattlite August 15, 2024 (4:33 pm)

        Perhaps SDOT should just leave HPW SW as is  with the exceptions of adding a solid divider between the two inside lanes; plant more trees and ground cover to prevent slides on the north and south hillsides; do another survey of how many walkers, bicyclists use the south sidewalk in a 24-hour period over a 30-day window during clear and rainy weather vs how many vehicles use HPW SW in a 24-hour period over a 30-day window during clear and rainy weather.  Bottom line, WS’s population is increasing not decreasing which means more vehicles.  HPW SW is a main artery for vehicles to enter and leave WS and is needed during any future emergency closings of the WS Bridge.  

      • Kyle August 15, 2024 (6:32 pm)

        SDOT just proposed a $1.3B levy. Yes it will cost more to build a retaining wall and stabilize the slope (they actually should be doing that anyways). Engineering wise, it can be done. Let’s do this right if we are going to do it.

        • WSB August 15, 2024 (7:08 pm)

          $1.55 billion levy. Proposed by the mayor, amended by the council.

        • Bbron August 16, 2024 (9:48 am)

          right, lets take a massive chunk of budget away from other projects to help serve other disenfranchised  modes of transit so we can do an unnecessary earthen project and continue to bend over backwards for drivers by maintaining the same amount of car capacity here forever. nah.

          • Kyle August 16, 2024 (1:15 pm)

            It feels like a lot of your neighbors disagree. Also try to understand how large $1.5B is.

          • Bbron August 16, 2024 (5:35 pm)

            it doesn’t matter how big $1.5 billion is if it’s been earmarked already. To increase the budget significantly on one project is to take from elsewhere. also, don’t you not all hear yourself? car driver’s on one hand say projects for bike lanes, transit, and light rail are too expensive, and then on the other hand think every project needs to spend out the nose if it means maintaining the car maximalism we have today. Most of the people in Seattle are drivers, so I’m sure there’s plenty of neighbors that disagree with me; that doesn’t change anything because drivers also love to advocate against thier best interests because they’re confused about how transportation works. you want less cars on the street so “stacked queuing” isn’t even a concern? give people options with infrastructure that’s been given as much a share of the pie as cars. not going to be able to do that if we keep shelling out for entitled drivers.

          • Kyle August 16, 2024 (9:09 pm)

            Shouldn’t we be using our tax dollars for the majority? If you can get past the rhetoric and focus on this specific proposal option 4 will increase the safety for bike riders and walkers. Isn’t that the win you want? Or do you just want to make driving an untenable option for the majority of folks who live here and work off the peninsula? The money will go to making those walking/biking uses safer on the road. It’s the preferred alignment by the biking community group because having the bike lanes go the same direction as traffic is safer. Option 4 would do nothing to increase car capacity. It would add bike/walking safety without alienating the majority of users according to you and just reality.

  • Bbron August 15, 2024 (10:49 am)

    Few issues w/ the letter’s points:

    1. “Driver fear of head on interactions with opposing traffic.” this would already be a thing w/ folks in the left lane, and there are plenty of drivers okay navigating that. It would be a requirement anyway in the case of maintaining vehicle capacity and for getting around slower traffic uphill or downhill. Making drivers uncomfortable and more alert to their surroundings is a good thing. Drivers should always be cautious; that’s the only way they will ever slow down.
    2. “Pedestrians and drivers fear of road rage incidents…” why are we catering our infrastructure changes to the worst drivers? Why is road rage so normalized as something we have to put up with?  We put so much effort into policing “bad behaviors” that have incredible less impact to the community (see: tent sweeps) than this violent behavior. You don’t fix road rage on the street; it’s a reflection of lack of mental health access that all these folks can’t be calm.
    3. “Adverse Impacts to egress/ingress for residents on the east side of Highland Park Way who rely on SW Othello St.” use Austin St. it’s signalized, and folks shouldn’t be attempting a left turn out of Othello anyway, and to turn right you’ll always have to be in the sidewalk/bike lane to be able to see. It honestly shouldn’t be there at all, and saying it’s “relied on” when Austin is right there is silly.
    4. The concern about litter coming from the bike lane infrastructure is also silly. High traffic thru streets are notoriously filled with litter from Drivers. Car brake dust alone is magnitudes more impactful to the environment, and y’all want to maintain vehicle capacity, but because it’s not as visible as bike lane markers, the markers are what’s of concern.
    5. Option 4 still relies on enforcement after-the-fact. There will still be speeding. Drivers don’t care about enforcement b/c 1) the camera enforcement is easy to skirt b/c the law has no teeth in getting drivers to pay up and 2) you can’t realistically staff enough patrols in the area or stop every speeder. You’d also be relying on biased human enforcement, more police interactions w/ citizen, and this would be a reoccurring incredibly expensive cost. Infrastructure changes are incredibly more cost effective.
    • 1994 August 15, 2024 (9:56 pm)

      Have you been caught in the stack up when heading downhill due to severe congestion further down the roads at the bottom? I got caught one time & took me about 20-25 minutes to get from about 1/4 of the way up hill to clear the intersection at the bottom. This was prior to the WS bridge shut down. Severe traffic that detoured off I-5 to take the 99 north and First Ave S Bridge was the cause of that severe stack up.  The stack up the hill with 1 lane downhill will be a nightmare. As the letter points out a big concern is Loss of vehicle carrying capacity and lanes needed to stack vehicles at the bottom of the hill as drivers self-sort to access West Marginal, the First Ave South Bridge, SR599 and SR509. 

  • Brandon August 15, 2024 (4:25 pm)

    Wheres option 6? Save money and leave it. Something else is actually going to need fixing and would be a better use of these funds.

  • Jeff P August 16, 2024 (8:53 am)

    Whatever side favors cyclists more. Sorry but car drivers don’t get final say on every single damn thing there is. We need better infrastructure and safety for cyclists.

  • Actually Mike August 16, 2024 (3:09 pm)

    Option 4 is the only one that makes any sense.

  • Robert August 17, 2024 (8:14 am)

    There is a critical issue regarding the proposals regarding Highland Park Way that has yet to be considered.

    1. Industrial Traffic: The presence of Pioneer Industries in the middle of Highland Park Way means that any proposal must account for the industrial traffic, including semi-trucks entering and exiting the business multiple times a day.
    2. Blind Corner: The entrance to Pioneer Industries is located on a blind corner, which poses a significant risk, especially if the street is narrowed to one lane.
    3. Employee Safety: With over 80 employees coming and going, there have been incidents, such as an employee being t-boned by a speeding car while attempting to enter the parking lot.
    4. Option 4: You suggest that Option 4 is the most sensible, but it must consider the traffic from Pioneer Industries to ensure safety for all vehicles, including cars and bicycles.

    These concerns about the safety and practicality of traffic flow around Highland Park Way are well-founded. But keep in consideration the hazards these options would add, including the ingress and egress of vehicle traffic to and from Pioneer Industries.  It would be greatly beneficial for the planners to take these points into account to ensure a safe and efficient solution for all road users.

    • Bbron August 17, 2024 (10:15 am)

      how does reducing the number of lanes make the blind corner worst? wouldn’t having to cross less lanes of traffic reduce the opportunities to have a collision? the speed reduction that comes with narrowing would also allow more time for vehicles entering and exiting. you bring up a good point that lane reduction would increase the safety of the workers at Pioneer.

    • KayK August 20, 2024 (8:24 am)

      Thanks for adding these points Robert!

  • morealex August 18, 2024 (11:05 pm)

    I’ve lived in Highland Park since 2005, and ever since, I’ve used Highland Park Way almost every day, both uphill and down, at both busy and slow times of day. I see bicyclists occasionally going downhill. Bikes going up hill are a much rarer sight. Occasionally will see a person walking their bike up the hill, but those are even rarer than the bikes heading down.  The few (count on only one hand over 20 yrs) people I’ve seen actually pedaling UP the hill have all looked fit with builds like 27 year old triathletes. I know others who wait for a bus at the bottom of the hill, rack their bikes to the front of the coach for a lift up the hill then get off either at Kenyon or Elmgrove. I know a couple of Highland Park bicycle commuters who head into town for work. Neither goes HPW. They go 16th past SSC (or use 21st) then go via Pigeon Point on their way to the low bridge bicycle/ped protected way.  Options 4 & 5 make much more common sense, and have been thought out by smart and service-minded people who actually live in our community.

Sorry, comment time is over.