60 Replies to "Next step in Highland Park Way hill lane-conversion project: March 4 online meeting"

• Ped February 22, 2026 (6:49 pm)

  Maybe then there will be less likely to have a head on collision as they rocket up and down that hill 50mph. 

  • AT February 23, 2026 (9:29 am)

    Can you remind us of the most recent head-on collisions?  I commute that way several times a week and don’t recall many incidents.  How many fatalities over how many years?

• Erik February 22, 2026 (6:53 pm)

  No one wants this. Seriously. It would be nice if SDOT took the communities input into consideration instead of just doing whatever the hell they want. 

  • Female February 22, 2026 (7:03 pm)

    I do! And I let SDOT know that as well ❤️

    • nrrd March 4, 2026 (1:00 pm)

      Do you live on the hill?  No one in my neighborhood wants this. 

  • Seattlite February 22, 2026 (7:11 pm)

    Totally agree.  It seems like there is a pattern of SDOT taking functional streets that flow without impediments and turn them into dysfunctional streets aka obstacle courses.

  • K February 22, 2026 (7:13 pm)

    I want this.  So do plenty of other people who have been dealing with that terrible hill for decades.  You don’t speak for everyone.

    • Alki resident February 22, 2026 (9:47 pm)

      What exactly makes this hill terrible? Never had an issue after driving it for decades. 

      • Foop February 23, 2026 (10:24 am)

        Well I’ve nearly been hit while cycling up it several times, going down it I have to take the left lane because I need to get into the turn lane to effectively get to the bike path at the bottom and cars will aggressively tailgate me or cut me off, and all the manhole covers have gotten worse as far as needing to avoid those to go flying.I’d love a better way to access Southpark.

        • Kyle February 24, 2026 (7:28 am)

          Sorry that happened to you, but it sounds like you’ve been ignoring the separate path and riding in the general purpose lanes to avoid using the crosswalks at the bottom. Even in SDOT’S proposals you will still need to use the crosswalks to be safer for everyone. Cutting across the bike path, across the general purpose lane and then using the vehicle left turn lane to save 30 seconds seems risky to me.

        • Foop February 24, 2026 (5:11 pm)

          As a cyclist going 35 mph (10 over, even while braking) in the vehicle lane should not be “risky” what a truly misguided take. As a bike I am entitled to my lane and the sidewalk is not a safe place to ride downhill or with pedestrians. You keep calling it a shared path. It’s not a MUP. It’s as much a shared path as the road lane, however I am going speed much more safe and appropriate for the road lane.

        • Kyle February 25, 2026 (7:24 am)

          I am curious then, if SDOT’s new bike lane does get built as designed would you even use it? Or would you still ride 35 MPH in the manhole covered vehicle lane, as you are entitled, so that you don’t have to wait 30 seconds for the crosswalks? 

    • Canton February 23, 2026 (7:05 am)

      But yet YOU, speak for everyone… 😅🤣

  • Amy February 22, 2026 (7:36 pm)

    Speak for yourself.

  • Admiral Neighbor February 22, 2026 (8:35 pm)

    I don’t want this either. Fix the sidewalk but leave 4 lanes of travel 

  • Kyle February 22, 2026 (9:09 pm)

    SDOT’s most recent survey of ~2000 respondents on the 3 design options that all took away the lane showed only 36% supported it. So some people support it, but not even close to a majority.

    • Platypus February 23, 2026 (8:29 am)

      Streets are not designed by majority rule. They look at the facts and design to reduce harm. The hill is one of of the few ways off West Seattle, it is overbuilt for the traffic volume, there is excessive speeding, the bike facility is insufficient. Turns out all of these issues can be solved with a traffic redesign will little impact and lots of benefits. 

      • Kyle February 23, 2026 (9:02 am)

        Please point me to another traffic project with support numbers that low that got built. Since you seem anemic to numbers here are some more for you: 20,000 vehicle users, 3000 transit users, 50-70 daily bike/pedestrian users. Reducing throughput for the 99% of users who drive and take transit is not a benefit. From the 2020 article, SDOT was supposed to look at widening and repaving the path, which still sounds great not sure what happened there.

        • Greebo February 23, 2026 (11:14 pm)

          Bikers avoid streets where they’re likely to get killed by some jerk driving to fast. Build decent, safe bike infrastructure and bikers will come. Truly not that complicated. 

        • Kyle February 24, 2026 (6:59 am)

          Agree, let’s widen and repaved the path. We don’t need to take away a lane of traffic to do that. 

  • E February 23, 2026 (6:00 am)

    I want this. Here is SDOT’s actual summary of the survey results. You’ll note that they do not indicate 62% against any changes, as Kyle implies.

    “Of the three proposed concepts, the multi-use path for walking, biking, and transit received the most support with 36% of survey respondents, though some have concerns about pedestrian safety due to fast-moving cyclists.”

    • Kyle February 23, 2026 (4:10 pm)

      Did I not say the same thing? 36% was the highest support for any of the options. Does the Senate pass a bill with 36%? Can’t think of any representative public government function, maybe the current executive branch, that moves forward with such little support.

      • Female February 23, 2026 (7:35 pm)

        I feel this needs to be pointed out unfortunately—SDOT isn’t a democracy.

        • Kyle February 23, 2026 (8:35 pm)

          It’s about the customers, or in this case the public you are supposed to serve. If I presented 3 options to my clients/customers and only had 36% say they supported it, I’d be back to the drawing board with a new proposal or fired for ignoring who I was supposed to serve. 

  • Rob February 23, 2026 (8:48 pm)

    We are so excited to have this

    • WSzombie February 23, 2026 (9:37 pm)

      Who tf is “we”?!?This project benefits such a nominal number of cyclists compared to those negatively affected by the change, it should have never been considered. It smells like Saka’s sidewalk. One person with influence wastes money on a pet project, regardless of who fights against it. 

• DRW February 22, 2026 (7:39 pm)

  Worst idea ever. Quit wasting my tax dollars on stupid stuff. Like the new U turn on Delridge at 22nd Ave SW.

  • k February 22, 2026 (8:07 pm)

    Now THAT’S a proper example of something literally no one wanted except Councilmember Saka.  But seriously, the adjustments to Highland Park Way are desperately wanted by many, though clearly not all, as in evidence in the comments here.  I definitely left them feedback saying “please please do this”. I think the traffic NEEDS to be affected to make the hill safer. It’s not about bike lanes for me; it’s about the whole picture.

    • WSzombie February 23, 2026 (9:39 pm)

      But that hill isn’t nearly as unsafe as the west seattle bridge. I never hear about crashes there. West Seattle bridge? All the time. But people just say, “slow down”. Why aren’t they saying that here?

      • Platypus February 24, 2026 (1:19 pm)

        We should also solve that problem, but honstly this one is easier. Take the wins where you can get them.

• Derp February 22, 2026 (7:43 pm)

  They could redo the sidewalk and use the parking strip into one lane and not affect traffic at all.  

  • Canton February 23, 2026 (7:09 am)

    That’s how it should be, but it doesn’t disrupt the whole function of the road, like they want.

• Kyle February 22, 2026 (7:48 pm)

  From the 2020 article. “Le also observed that opposition to the proposed change was strong in the results they’ve received to this survey so far – 875 replies as of last night… For non-motor vehicle mobility improvements, he added, they’re looking at widening the trail that’s on the downhill side of the Highland Park Way hill to 12-14 feet.”

• B February 22, 2026 (8:56 pm)

  Bike lanes were installed on a hill like this on S Columbian way 7 or 8 years ago.  I travelled that road weekly for several years, and I think I saw it being used maybe two or three times.  My personal theory was that the city was installing bike lanes just to take credit for installing bike lanes.  Highland Park Way and Admiral Way have the same feel to me.  I am all for adding bike lanes, but I’m not all for wasting my tax money.  By all means, build them, but put them where they will be used!

  • Platypus February 23, 2026 (8:36 am)

    Riding bikes in west seattle only has three ways up or down on the east side of the ridge. The path is terrible right now with holes, cracks and huge bumps. Because its so bad, a lot of people will go south or north to avoid it.

    • Kyle February 23, 2026 (9:04 am)

      So let’s fix it. Your arguments that a lane of traffic also needs to be removed aren’t related and you keep conflating them.

      • Platypus February 23, 2026 (11:51 am)

        Additionally, the road is overbuilt for the volume of traffic, this encourages speeding, which I guess I have to say, is bad. The bike path is narrow, with insufficient room for a bike going up and down to safely pass. There are multiple benefits to the project.

        • Kyle February 24, 2026 (6:53 am)

          Can’t help yourself conflating again I see. So let’s agree that it is safer to widen and repaved the bike path in the median. That would be further from cars than taking over an existing lane. To your unrelated additional point that 1 of 3 main arterials that leave the peninsula for a growing population is “overbuilt” please provide some data, or stop saying that. It should be two lanes to support growth and help quality of life for new residents riding transit or driving to work, doctors appointments, etc. Hopefully we don’t have a major shutdown on any of the other arterials again but if we do we won’t have intentionally already made life worse for the majority of residents.

• HP Neighbor February 22, 2026 (9:02 pm)

  As someone who lives very close to this, was affected by all the traffic backing up into my small side street with the bridge closed, and who drives this hill everyday, I am in STRONG opposition to SDOT’s proposal and am disappointed by their lack of engagement with the local community. Here are two additional considerations:

  1. 1. We have dear friends that were horribly injured in a car accident on this hill while driving to our home not too long ago. The issue was not speeding – the downhill driver was under the influence when they veered into the opposite lane and hit our friends head-on! Squeezing traffic together will only further expose everyday drivers. If safety was truly the priority, they would add better traffic separation/barriers and stop being so lax on repeat DUI offenders.
  2. 2. I’m not opposed to creating a more welcoming environment for non-vehicular traffic. That, however, can be done without affecting the flow of traffic. In fact, the west side of the hill is in desperate need of TLC as it is a regular dumping ground. I never understood why there are two bus stops on that side of the street with no safe way of walking to/from them to get anywhere – no sidewalk and so many overgrown shrubs and landslide blocks. We had a very difficult time even navigating for litter removal.

• Mcat February 23, 2026 (8:32 am)

  I full support this bike lane. People travel at excessive and unsafe speeds here. We need to start taking traffic safety more seriously in WS and this project will help start that.

  • B February 23, 2026 (11:29 am)

    Weaponizing bike lanes will not make them more popular.  There are other ways to address unsafe driving.

    • E February 23, 2026 (3:19 pm)

      “Weaponizing bike lanes”. Bwahahaha! Now that’s some serious bikelash. Let’s not focus on the murder mobiles that most people are forced to depend on just to safely and effectively use for mobility based on our current urban designs. No no, bikes are the real enemies and aggressors. They kill 44,000 people a year in this country! Oh wait, that’s not bikes…#WarOnCars

      • bill February 23, 2026 (7:29 pm)

        E: I think that B is saying SDOT adds bike lanes to unpopular road changes to deflect heat from SDOT to cyclists. Feels like what happened when the cyclepath on W Marginal was added. Same here. Traffic calming is desperately needed on Highland. Changes can’t be due to the drivers’ bad behavior. West Seattle drivers are all above average, right? Or is it below average?

• Noah February 23, 2026 (9:17 am)

  I look forward to getting to know all of you a little bit better while we’re stuck in traffic together on the hill. I’ll be in the little green car going exactly 25mph with a clear road ahead. Honk to say good morning, neighbor!

• wsn00b February 23, 2026 (9:17 am)

  First, do the basics and essentials.
  – Fix the Moon-grade road surface on 35th Ave SW first that has been promised in multiple levies and never really fully delivered.
  – Then, fix the completely under utilized Highland Park Way sidewalks and actually maintain them

  After that, if there is money left, please do whatever side projects you’d like to justify your design and engineering boredom and surplus tax dollars burning a hole in the budget pockets.

• snowskier February 23, 2026 (9:36 am)

  If the bike access isn’t working due to a sidewalk in poor condition, why not expand and renovate the sidewalk rather than remove a lane of traffic?  Seems like you would gain an amenity and improve the bike infrastructure while keeping street lanes in place.  Simple concept to implement and you wouldn’t tick off a bunch of people in the process.  Probably get it done faster too.

  • Foop February 23, 2026 (10:28 am)

    Everyone keeps suggesting widening the sidewalk, where do you think the space will come from do to that?I fully support a grader separated MUP with ped / cyclist separation (having cyclists and peds share a single sidewalk on that grade is asking for trouble) so widening the sidewalk to 12-16 ft to support those uses would be amazing, that still results in one less lane.i promise you traffic won’t be impacted by a lane reduction here. I’ll still see you at the next ride light.

    • snowskier February 23, 2026 (2:04 pm)

      There’s landscaping and turf on both sides that could be cut into to widen it.  Bikes and pedestrians can share the path, just like they do while cross the Spokane St Low Bridge, 520 and I-90.  Build  a tall curb between street and path and you’ve got grade separation.

• sls February 23, 2026 (10:13 am)

  Looking ahead, when the West Seattle bridge needs replacing, (how many years was the 2022 repair supposed to last?) it would be difficult to have this alternate route cut down by a lane. I agree that the bike lanes and sidewalks could be improved, and that could be enough. And perhaps put high-visibility rubber poles on the center line, like the ones on parts of Sylvan Way now, for opposing traffic safety.

  • WSB February 23, 2026 (11:15 am)

    The repair is expected to facilitate the bridge’s original lifespan – decades away.

• KB1000 February 23, 2026 (11:59 am)

  The Highland Park neighborhood has already told SDOT many time, in no uncertain terms we do not want this. This change is 1) inequitable. For many HP residents this is our best access to the city and freeway. This will fundamentally reduce access to / from HP. 2) it’s not needed. why reduce access?  SDOT is bullying our neighborhood, isn’t listening (even while they claim to be) and are clearly just looking to spend money they have budgeted for random projects. They have already ruined our neighborhood with speed humps and bumps everywhere and now this. Not to mention they are dozens of other road projects which we as a community have requested many times. How about fixing the massive roadway issues on 12th avenue bike lane that cause the entire roadway to flood with any rain? 

• Henry Fondue February 23, 2026 (4:23 pm)

  They should stop pussyfooting around and get to the ultimate goal of their Zero Vision: close all the streets in Seattle to vehicle traffic and convert them to bicycle and pedestrian traffic. And sure, we’d expel all businesses out of Seattle, but that’s actually another benefit – house prices would go back to the 1970’s levels! Then we could take all the newly empty houses and give them to every single homeless person in the US. Make Seattle Great Again. 

  • bill February 23, 2026 (7:33 pm)

    Then we would be able to bulldoze all the empty houses and expand every street to six lanes wide. Just like Houston and LA. How’s the commute time in those places? 

• jt February 23, 2026 (9:01 pm)

  Much of the hill is an 11% grade (Cherry is 17%). I remain skeptical that a
  single lane will see significantly slower speeds without additional
  traffic slowing measures. And bikes don’t like the rough existing
  surfaces partly because of the speed of downhill travel (bumpy surfaces
  are safer at slower speeds). With previous designs showing unseparated
  modalities, including buses crossing the ped/bike lane (bus weight
  causes significant surface damage) this proposal seems equally if not
  more dangerous than current. Hopefully we’ll see better design this time.

• Philip P February 24, 2026 (9:08 am)

  When I first heard of this project I thought it was ridiculous and I still do. I have been driving this street multiple times a week for years and I have rarely seen bikers or pedestrians going up or down the hill. If the road was used by hundreds of bikers a day I still could see no reason not to make the sidewalk and parking strip into PROTECTED pathways. This is not a major bicycle and pedestrian thoroughfare and there is zero reason to make it look like one. This project has boondoggle written all over it. 

• Put tabs on bikes February 24, 2026 (11:30 am)

  1. Getting stuck behind a transit or school bus when there is only 1 lane will cause traffic jams.2. Bikes riding on streets should need a registration. Until you pay to ride on the streets like the cars do, you should have no say. 3. West Seattle really hates cars. 

  • Platypus February 24, 2026 (1:31 pm)

    1) There is a plan for a transit bus pull out, to not affect traffic. 2) Bikes on streets should not need registration, do your shoes need registration for walking? Cars need it cause they weigh 4,000lbs and can drive 100 mph and take literal training to drive safely. Most bikers also own cars, and even if they didn’t, the majority of road fees aren’t paid by gas tax, but by all of our other taxes. 3) I don’t hate cars, I hate car-dependent cities where we have fewer choices. Cars are piles of metal and plastic, they do not need advocates. 

  • GH February 24, 2026 (1:57 pm)

    West Seattle has the least bike infrastructure of any region of the city by a pretty significant margin.

    • WSzombie February 24, 2026 (8:45 pm)

      Do you have evidence proving this or is your statement purely anectdotal? 

  • Foop February 26, 2026 (7:29 pm)

    I pay more taxes in this city than the average person, more bike lanes please. I would like to not have 2 cars in my household.

Sorry, comment time is over.