It’s not a bike project, it’s a safety project, SDOT insists at online community meeting about Highland Park Way hill lane conversion

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

SDOT has made another change in its plan for replacing a downhill driving lane on the Highland Park Way hill with a biking/walking/rolling lane.

Now, instead of separating the lane from motor-vehicle traffic with curbing, SDOT reps told an online community meeting last night, they’ll separate it with jersey barriers.

That makes the lane separation removable if the hill needs to be restored to four driving lanes – a “break glass in case of emergency” type of failsafe, as it was described at one point.

That wasn’t much consolation to project opponents among the attendees, who continued to express concern about backups even in routine times.

Also last night, co-chair Kay Kirkpatrick of the neighborhood coalition HPAC secured a commitment from SDOT communicator Dan Anderson to bring project-team reps to this month’s HPAC meeting – something she’s been requesting for many months. The online meeting format last night was also somewhat awkward; of note, though SDOT had a seven-person team available live, the narrated presentation toward the start was pre-recorded (they promised it would be added to the website “after the meeting” though as of this writing, it’s not there yet. We did obtain the full slide deck, from which most of the visuals in this report were taken – see that here.)

The proposal is not new, though one attendee lambasted SDOT for not getting the word out as thoroughly as befits a project that will affect road users who come from far beyond Highland Park to travel toward West Marginal Way, the 1st Avenue South Bridge, South Park, and elsewhere. From the slide deck, here’s the latest “early design” version of the “typical” crossection that would result:

The slide deck also focused on the plan for access to the hill from both residential streets and the near-the-hill-bottom Pioneer Industries, including:

And two options were offered for the bottom of the hill, where it meets West Marginal Way:

Another point of contention during the meeting, besides general opposition to the lane conversion, was the rationale for it. SDOT reps insisted that this is not a “bicycle project” but rather a “safety project,” that in its current configuration, two lanes each way, the road cannot be made safe enough for city standards, so it has to be redesigned. And, the questions continued, why does this seem to be so high up on the priority list when other seemingly more urgent matters – like the crash-prone section of the westbound West Seattle Bridge by “the curve” – have not had this kind of attention? Bicycling came more into play in the answer to this – that it was identified as a “gap” in the city bike network, to connect to the Duwamish River Trail, “part of a regional gap to fill,” said SDOT’s Christiana Farrell, who works on the city’s Bicycle Master Plan. As it has in many previous discussions, the point was made that few people currently walk/bike on the hill. And the answer as always could be distilled to (as the old movie quote goes) “if you build it, they will come.”

Speaking of low usage, all current bus stops on the hill will remain though they currently are experiencing that, according to SDOT. The low bus-stop usage was also cited in response to a question about what happens if a bike rider is headed downhill at the time a stopped bus is blocking the lane

What about emergency responders – have they been asked about how the loss of a driving lane might affect them? asked another attendee. Anderson said SFD and SPD had been consulted and had “no major concerns,” adding that other similar (unnamed) projects in the city had not resulted in problems; three lanes on the hill should provide them a way to get around if they need to, he said,

Still, meeting participants’ concerns were not quelled. One cited traumatic experiences from past backup problems, and working for years just to get the Highland Park Way/Holden intersection’s challenges addressed – something that had dragged on for years, and suddenly was addressed in a matter of days after the West Seattle Bridge closure in 2020 turned Holden into a major detour route. Another participant, observing that the situation was “miserable” during the 2 1/2-year bridge closure, said, “We care about safety, but we care about our mental health” – she and others contended that the hill’s vast majority of users are drivers and their concerns and opinions should get the most attention. “I’m astonished this idea has advanced to this point,” said yet another attendee.

SDOT stuck to its contention, however, that “even (significant opposition) doesn’t mean we don’t have a duty to safer streets.”

The meeting ran almost two hours, longer than planned. Assuming SDOT does indeed attend the next HPAC meeting, that would be March 25, time and location TBA. Here, meantime, is the project timeline presented last night:

BACKSTORY: In 2020, SDOT had a plan for a bike lane on the Highland Park Way hill, but put it on hold. The concept re-emerged in a 2022 application for federal funding. Then in May 2024, SDOT formally announced a plan for a downhill bike lane and/or expanded path along about half a mile of the hill.

107 Replies to "It's not a bike project, it's a safety project, SDOT insists at online community meeting about Highland Park Way hill lane conversion"

  • Kyle March 5, 2026 (1:45 pm)

    SDOT’s lack of data and reasoning in the face of this much opposition is astounding.

    • Avalonmower March 5, 2026 (2:15 pm)

      Never interfere with drivers that want to drive double the speed limit.

      • Kyle March 5, 2026 (3:31 pm)

        Not saying that at all. Saying taking away a lane of throughput is not the only way to reduce speeds. Clearly SDOT keeps ignoring that feedback.

        • Jort March 6, 2026 (3:57 pm)

          It may not be the only way to reduce speeds, but it is a very effective way, and it’s generally a lot cheaper than other methods. Unless, of course, you’d like to put an automated speed camera on the hill and have it ticket every single car that violates the legal speed limit without exception? Just a thought. Or would you rather have the single lane? 

          • Kyle March 6, 2026 (7:07 pm)

            Camera sounds fine, speed humps sound fine (even more effective and less costly). Reducing road capacity by half for all vehicles and transit on one of the few arterials leaving West Seattle is the opposite of what a transportation department should be doing.

          • E March 6, 2026 (8:25 pm)

            Transportation does not just mean motor vehicles. You can’t reduce car congestion by adding lanes, but you can make city streets safer by reducing them.

          • Kyle March 6, 2026 (9:45 pm)

            You’re right, they should focus on the 20,000 daily vehicle and 6,000 transit users of that road from their own data. Who are they helping transport by reducing a lane and not increasing transit? From their own survey only 50-75 bikes ride daily. Maybe that goes to like 500 with improvements?

          • E March 7, 2026 (5:38 am)

            We finally agree on something, just not in the fundamentals. I agree that SDOT should focus on the 20,000 cars moving along this street daily. They should focus on significantly reducing that number. Giving space towards other forms of mobility does just that.

          • Kyle March 7, 2026 (12:55 pm)

            You looked at this specific proposal right? This isn’t additive, their is no train nor increase transit. Get out of here with this idealistic pedestal when you clearly don’t rely on the hill for work, dr appointments, or school.

          • Alkistu March 6, 2026 (8:25 pm)

            Unfortunately, speed bumps on this steep of a hill is not possible. That would be a major safety concern as well as a severe rain water run off issue. I think there are enough reported accidents on this road already.

          • Kyle March 6, 2026 (9:46 pm)

            Not true on either account if designed properly.

  • Monica C March 5, 2026 (2:02 pm)

     This might slow down traffic but the back ups will be bad, especially with all the new houseing being built. SDOT needs to do more outreach & redesign. I believe they can redesign the existing asphalt bike trail, and look at other options for slowing down traffic. Stick to repairs on the big bridge before you create more problems.

    • Ms. Noem March 5, 2026 (6:00 pm)

      The problem with SDOT’s outreach is that they only go talk to walkers and bicyclists at public events. And the way the frame the questions are “do you think safer intersections are good for pedestrians and bicycles?” Then they come back and say, “see everyone is begging for these changes”. 

    • Mount Baker Phip March 6, 2026 (8:32 pm)

      For SDOI ie the Seattle Department of Immobility, backups are a feature, not a problem. Wherever they bo, they bray “safety, safety, safety” and mess up the ability to get around Seattle. Get used to it; if you’re a car driver, you’re a member of the despised majority, and fair game for whatever SDOI wants to do.

    • Allistu March 6, 2026 (8:36 pm)

      Thanks Monica for bringing up the housing increase. The current daily auto commute and single occupant drivers take up all of the street space during rush hour already. We could build more streets that would also fill up with cars and add to the maintenance cost. You are spot on. We can’t afford to maintain the roads we have even though it’s 1/3 of the budget. It looks like adding alternatives is essential.

  • George Huxley March 5, 2026 (2:03 pm)

    “It’s not an invasion, it’s a special military operation.”
    “It’s not a war, it’s a targeted, limited combat operation.”
    “It’s not a bike project, it’s a safety project.”

    Orwell’s spinning in his grave.

  • DRW March 5, 2026 (2:12 pm)

    The worst idea ever. With all the money already put into the study I wonder how many bicyclists actually use this route in a week.

    • Kathy March 5, 2026 (2:38 pm)

      Do you know a safer way to get by bicycle or ebike from this part of West Seattle to jobs and businesses in South Park, Georgetown and points south? Maybe you would be fine with them detouring all the way north to the Spokane Street Bridge and then backtracking to points south?

      • Ms. Noem March 5, 2026 (6:04 pm)

        To accommodate 50 (or less) bicyclists at the expense of 17,100 automobiles is absurd. And yes, there are other routes for bicycles to get from West Seattle to Georgetown. 

        • Foop March 5, 2026 (8:36 pm)

          This route is nice for you if you live up there. How nice to have that bike infrastructure. Your suggestion would more than double my commute. Here’s mine: 

          • Look Both Ways March 5, 2026 (9:30 pm)

            The city and its collective tax base does not owe individuals specific commute conveniences. Based on your map, an equivalent route exists for you to access Southpark (with “fewer turns”) without inconveniencing tens of thousands of motorists, at extravagant taxpayer cost. Or… SDOT could just improve the existing HPW bike / walk path without the wasted expense and hazards likely created from a lane reduction. 

          • Jort March 6, 2026 (3:59 pm)

            Sorry, when you said, “the city and its collective tax base does not owe individuals specific commute conveniences,” were you talking about conveniences for people on bikes? Or conveniences for people in cars?  Do you think one should get more “conveniences” than the other? Do you think both modes of transportation are entitled to not die while going from one place to another? Please help me understand what you meant, I would love to learn more. 

          • Look Both Ways March 6, 2026 (9:07 pm)

            Sorry that you’re confused. You may be more comfortable joining the Remedial Chat Room for the Disingenuous being held @ SDOT’s offices. 

        • Hebs March 5, 2026 (8:53 pm)

          Nothing is being sacrificed if this is not completed. There is ALREADY A SEPARATE SIDEWALK ON THIS HILL THAT CYCLISTS USE.  

        • Seth March 5, 2026 (8:55 pm)

          Man cherry pick. Your stats. The drivers can still drive and the road for 99% of the time will be fine. It’s not at the expense of.  You can map a car route and it’ll take less time so if you’re really worried just go round in your car. Bike distances matter way more than cars y’all just impatient AF. 

        • Allistu March 6, 2026 (8:39 pm)

          The cars will still be sitting comfortably at the light at the bottom of the hill. If you look around you might see a cyclist or someone who drove the speed limit right next to you. Just give a wave.

      • Wsmom March 6, 2026 (7:35 am)

        There is a huge easement along the road there They should use that and widen the existing path instead of removing a lane..

        • Alkistu March 6, 2026 (9:01 pm)

          I would be nervous riding on a separated path so close to speeding 2 ton pieces of metal. You all know that as long as there are so many cars you will find congestion on this street or most anywhere else. Just remember that you are sitting down, listening to the audio, heater or ac running and others are out there trying harder to avoid sitting in traffic through alternative means.

  • SDOT is the problem March 5, 2026 (2:25 pm)

    so you see, this is how democracy actually dies, when SDOT says that “significant opposition” is irrelevant.  It is time that we demand that our council members hold SDOT accountable and demand the repeal of the Vision Zero flimflam.  “SDOT stuck to its contention, however, that ā€œeven (significant opposition) doesn’t mean we don’t have a duty to safer streets.ā€Every single one of these flaks from SDOT should simply be ashamed of themselves, but instead they pat themselves on the back for some imagined, fabricated, and yet ironically authoritarian “duty.” Significant oppostion means exactly that.  You work for us, not for some “duty.”This is what the jackboots actually look like, people.  We have seen the enemy, and it’s right here at home.  

    • k March 5, 2026 (2:58 pm)

      I mean, if there is significant opposition to speed limits, should we just let everyone drive how they want?  If there’s significant opposition to crosswalks, should we just tell pedestrians they’re on their own trying to cross the street?  If there is significant opposition to a stop light, do we just let everyone plow through the intersection and see what happens?

      If there’s a safety issue, it’s SDOT’s responsibility to address it, whether it hurts your feelings or not.  Dangerous speeds are an issue on the road, and the road needs to be reconfigured to slow people down.  The fact that we’re getting bike lanes out of the deal is cool, but the primary objective is to slow cars down. 

      So no, opposition to doing the exact thing that needs to be done for safety should not and does not matter to SDOT.  And I’m thankful for that.

      • Kathy March 5, 2026 (4:48 pm)

        Truth! thank you!

      • Ms. Noem March 5, 2026 (6:07 pm)

        This is the problem with SDOT trying to solve the “safety” issue here. Eastbound West Seattle Bridge is a “safety” issue for SDOT to handle. The Highland Park Way Hill is a “safety” issue that is an issue for Seattle Police to resolve. Let’s not conflate the two problems. 

    • Kathy March 5, 2026 (3:03 pm)

      What exactly is your opposition to a safer road design for lower speeds and fewer crashes? SDOT is doing the job they were trained to do. Your credentials?

      • Ms. Noem March 5, 2026 (6:10 pm)

        No, they’re not doing the job they were trained to do. They were trained to make the best roads, not manage how they will be used. That’s like saying “engineers designed plastic bags for storage, they also needed to design them in a way so they don’t have to have “this bag is not a toy” written all over them”. Humans are going to human. SDOT designs roads, police handle unsafe road users. 

        • Foop March 5, 2026 (8:29 pm)

          Please point me to SPDs vision zero. I haven’t heard of it.

        • Alkistu March 6, 2026 (9:07 pm)

          Have you been out on the roads lately? There will never be enough funding for police to cover all of the dangerous driving going on out there. Design is the only sure way. We can design to benefit the dangerous and aggressive speeders or we can design to accommodate the patient and courteous drivers.

          • Steve March 11, 2026 (1:45 am)

            It’s not the ā€œsafe and patientā€ drivers I take issue with.  It’s the ā€œsanctimonious jerkā€ drivers who want to go 5 below the speed limit right until the light in front of them turns red and then speeds up.  It’s the bad driver who stops dead in the middle of the road for no reason, allowing traffic to pile up behind them when a second lane would have let everyone else get around the crazy person.  It’s the homeless guy who decides to camp in a crosswalk.  True stories that happen all every day all over Seattle and are met by a shrug and an ā€œoh wellā€ from the slowness-obsessed.Don’t let them do to you what they’re doing to Rainer Ave.  My commute gets worse and worse every day.  No left turns, no right turns on red, super slow and aggravating one lane traffic.  It’s an unnecessary nightmare that serves no one.No . Speed should not be illegal.  Cutting your nose to spite your neighbors should be.

          • Rainier Resident March 11, 2026 (1:45 pm)

            I live on Rainier Ave and I can say that the improvements so far have made a lot of difference to how safe I feel moving around. I think prioritizing the people who live in an area over those that drive through it is worthwhile. Whether im driving or walking, Rainier feels much safer. I just wish they would do something about the racing in the middle of the night!

    • johnny March 5, 2026 (3:26 pm)

      Finally, a sane person speaks some truth…. agree šŸ’Æ!

    • Jort March 6, 2026 (4:01 pm)

      I love this. The line between, “Let’s add a bike lane so that both cars and bikes and more safely use the road” and “SDOT is a fascist jackboot authoritarian dictatorship” is apparently the length of one public outreach meeting. Fascinating. Truly, truly fascinating. 

    • Alkistu March 6, 2026 (8:42 pm)

      Actually democracy is moving forward based on a transportation levy that passed by over 63% and stated in the levy description that this is exactly what a small portion of the budget would be used for.

  • gh March 5, 2026 (2:55 pm)

    “Jackboots”, “Authoritarianism”, “Orwellian”.  Do you people realize how ridiculous you sound? You’re screaming yourselves into a frenzy over a lane reduction. Are there ways SDOT could improve the design of this change?  I don’t know, maybe, but declaring that even discussing it is on par with a war where people are dying is so absurd that you reveal yourselves to be irrational bad faith actors whose objections should not be taken seriously. 

    • Duwamesque March 5, 2026 (5:21 pm)

      Car rights are the equivalent of gun rights to West Seattleites.

      • Alkistu March 6, 2026 (8:43 pm)

        You will be driving your car and toting your gun tomorrow.

    • George Huxley March 5, 2026 (7:41 pm)

      The whole premise of this entire project is that is being done because people are dying (hence Vision Zero), so your objections ring hollow. Of course, following the hysterical logic of some on your side, we should reduce the number of lanes to zero, followed by the speed limit of 0 mph. That way, no one ever dies. And all the newly undead can rejoice in the celebration of how none of this was done in order to push the parochial agenda of the bicycle riders and their war on automobiles. I’m sure thousands of them are getting ready to ride their bikes from White Center to downtown Seattle in November rain.

      • Justin kimball March 6, 2026 (5:24 am)

        I for one am waiting to ride up that hill in the rain.  I just rode down it last week.  At 20mph which was to slow for everyone apparently.

  • In the name of safety March 5, 2026 (2:56 pm)

    No where am I hearing what past incidents this project would help prevent. Is there any history of bad accidents? And if SDOT was worried about safety, wouldn’t they be spending these resources on the curve on the West Seattle Bridge where there is a very well documented of accidents? 

    • AT March 5, 2026 (5:34 pm)

      This!  Show us the incident numbers, and show us how having less room to maneuver makes driving safer.  Nobody WANTS to to have an accident.  Set up a speed trap and make money while slowing people down instead of spending it and creating gridlock.

    • Ms. Noem March 5, 2026 (6:14 pm)

      I presented this question during the call. The response shifted from “this is a safety issue” to “this is a bike lane issue”. I also asked for the bike and pedestrian data they had. That wasn’t available, and probably never will be shared. I asked if there were other options considered that don’t reduce a lane. The answer was, “no”. I’m not mad about the construction anymore. I’m furious about the lack of integrity and transparency coming from 7, yes 7, people on that call. And not one of them was leading it. It was just a bunch of random talking heads that very clearly didn’t want to be there. And none of them had authority to do anything about the situation. 

      • 1994 March 5, 2026 (8:48 pm)

        And did a question come up as to how traffic would be managed in the event there is an accident & the road is blocked? Detours over to Roxbury & down that highly unsafe corridor Olson Place SW with new housing on the curve? That might be the next road worked over by the SDOT in the name of safey. The SDOT word salad is mind boggling. Sure we are not transportation engineers but we are daily travelers who count on being able to travel around as needed. 

    • Justinian March 6, 2026 (5:31 am)

      Yes, the project webpage sites many.  One that crossed into oncoming traffic into the shoulder on the opposite side.  One that killed a pedestrian (there have been more peds killed there than they listed).  Excessive speeds of over 50mph going down the hill are a big problem.

  • E March 5, 2026 (3:04 pm)

    Once again, the boisterous minority asserts their will. The concession of the jersey barriers instead of the curb is the start of the slippery slope. Speaking to the vocal minority, car dominance has reached its peak. This forced car dependence does not work in urban settings. Motorists will likely continue to feel pinched until a tipping point is reached and more people choose other forms of transportation. That is the only way to reduce emissions and increase safety in cities.

  • Aaron G March 5, 2026 (4:16 pm)

    The average speed of 43mph matches my experience of driving on HPW and also explains the exceptional number of crashes there (41 over a 4 year period?!). I try to drive safely down this road but every time I do, others speed by me, cut me off, and endanger me. This design looks like a real improvement to me. And I understand the concerns about reduced capacity but only one lane feeds into HPW, so the bottleneck, as such, is Holden, not Highland Park Way. I’m sure Highland Park folks don’t want to add lanes to Holden just to increase capacity on HPW. Do they? 

    • CyclistandDriver March 5, 2026 (5:25 pm)

      I appreciate the fact you drive the speed limit, or try to, and I would guess, because of your comment about being endangered by others on this stretch of road, that you consistently choose the inside lane when you get to the curve when you are going downhill. And, you and just about all of humanity, choose to travel on the inside lane (I do too) to give yourself plenty of space between your car and the uphill speeders that like to hug the yellow line on the apex of the well-known curve. That’s exactly the reason why this plan sucks and is dangerous since now your only choice for travel is that outside vulnerable lane. This forces you closer to what you are saying is endangering you. if this is about safety then this is a strong argument against this plan.

      • TC March 5, 2026 (11:49 pm)

        I want this road to made safer, but I tend to agree this plan does nothing to slow down the uphill drivers going 45+ that hug I the inside lane. This, like you said, forces you to drive closer to that. I actually do think they should reduce it to one downhill lane, but do it in a way that separates uphill/downhill car traffic while also making a very wide path for walkers and bikes. What a missed opportunity if they go this design.
        Auburn has an example of how to do this right on a similar hill

        • Foop March 6, 2026 (7:33 am)

          I agree that we would really build a separate, wider, clearer path off the roadway, instead of using cyclists as speed bumps. But every time sdot tries to just build a bike lane in west Seattle without using as as a bludgeon for some other project (especially closing off parking for RVs, like Andover) the banshees come out screaming.

      • Justinian March 6, 2026 (5:35 am)

        Not to sure about your logic.  But it it is a good reason for lane reduction.

    • Craig March 5, 2026 (7:42 pm)

      I agree  with you on the  need to slow traffic but think you(and some at SDOT) are 100% wrong on the capacity dismissal given Option two – reducing all traffic heading east to 599S, 99N, I5 via Michigan St, AND 509(!) to a single lane.  You are correct that there are two alternating arterial feeders(Holden and HP Way/9th) which could be seen as “one lane” but it generates a fairly steady flow of traffic during peak hours leading to a much more major intersection at the base of the hill with longer cycles causing the larger cues that feed into multiple lanes.  The longer wait time creates the need for multiple lanes downstream.  The base of the hill is working well now but a single lane would take twice as long to move the cue forward and will cause  massive backups.  I’m strongly opposed to option two but SDOT could prove us non believers wrong by closing the bottom right-hand lane for a few weeks and see how it goes.  Both options are seriously flawed.  We need a better design. 

  • Aaron G March 5, 2026 (4:44 pm)

    41 crashes in 4 years?? 43 mph average? This road really does need traffic calming. 

  • CyclistandDriver March 5, 2026 (5:10 pm)

    I’ve ridden this hill down in the car lanes and slowly up the sidewalk for years, it’s a beautiful thing. As a cyclist you can choose in the lane for speed or sidewalk to go slowly (downhill).Reducing to one lane car traffic going downhill will inevitably cause more collisions simply because the chances of near misses will become 100%, since ALL cars will be pushed to the outside lane. Collisions will increase (and likely from uphill speeders), and not NECESSARILY because of the speed, but now the consistent proximity. The illogic of this is maddening.If safety was the primary concern then leave two lanes traffic both ways with reflective pilons (similar to new ones on Sylvan)  in the middle, and jersey barrier on existing curb (to stop the random cars veering over curb into a pedestrian), then re-surface existing sidewalk and add lighting. Pilons and Barrier will slow traffic naturally and not cause congestion by eliminating a lane.  And more consistent police presence, would further do the trickBike infrastructure is primary reason this is being pushed, not speed or safety, no matter what they say. While I agree on safe bike lanes, this is not the place for wasting money modifying (because the sidewalk acts as a dang bike lane). Where we actually need one is on Michigan to connect to Corson :) Let’s have that fight

    • MRCVU March 6, 2026 (9:51 pm)

      Any personal injury attorneys reading this thread, save this comment and others highlighting collision / injury risks. City is trying to force this well intended but accidentally unsafe configuration despite very well reasoned opposition from the community under guise of safety.  Having driven this road for better part of 30 years, it is notoriously hazardous. It is an old road that precedes modern design standards. SDOT would need to widen this maintain same level of safety for vehicles as exists now with a proposal if bike safety is the goal. The only configuration that is safer than existing conditions without widening the roadway is blocking left travel downhill lane and eliminating the bike path. This would be the safest option. If safety for humans is the ACTUAL objective, do this. This road will always be a hazard.  Drainage is very poor. Winter time ice is a major factor for spin outs and vehicles crossing the centerline. Uphill speeds are high for a variety of reasons (maintaining RPM of small ICE engines, passing slow busses, trucks, beaters). At night experienced travelers stay in the far right lanes up or down due to knowlege of how many nasty crashes have occured here. Taking the right lane out for downhill traffic as proposed exposes both uphill and downhill traffic to much higher risks for collision especially if black ice is present. The number of cyclists using the road might go up, but so will the number of injuries due to how easy it is go faster than intended on a bike. The first major injury accident or fatality will be blamed on this change. These comments will be mined by slick attorneys, who will hire expert witnesses and blow the city out of the water in front a sypathetic jury tired of these stupid projects and quickly find that the city is at fault. The cost to seattle tax payers for these avoidable lawsuits will likely be an order of magnitude greater than the cost to do this project and it will be undone eventually. Under the status quo the fault is going to be due to drivers who will sort it out with their insurance companies.  Highland Park way is not the place to be force idealism on the people that actually use it and deal with the risks it poses. Make it wider with two down hill lanes. Lay back the cut slopes, deal with the hazard trees. deal with the drainage. Do the environmental impact study, sacrifice some marginal urban forest. This is a solvable problem. Do a proper  civil engineering design that does not increase risks for any users, and listen to the community. And keep the urban planners as far from this as you can.

  • CarDriver March 5, 2026 (5:21 pm)

    Love the build it and dozens, if not hundreds of bike riders will be using it 365 days a year prognosticating. Even more poignant is the I’m a perfect driver so it’s so good that all the bad drivers will be reigned in and be forced to drive slower like I do.

    • Jort March 6, 2026 (4:03 pm)

      I’m sensing some sarcasm, but do you believe drivers should follow the speed limit law, or not? Please help me understand your answer. If somebody is driving the speed limit on the road, are you “stuck” behind them, or are just behind them? Please. I’d love to know your thinking. 

  • ActuallyMike March 5, 2026 (5:39 pm)

    Still a lousy, rotten bad idea. A waste of tax dollars that will make things worse rather than better. But then, it is Seattle…

  • Ms. Noem March 5, 2026 (6:20 pm)

    Can everyone please (safely) take pictures or video of traffic backed up past Pioneer Industries and send it to SDOT? SDOT was very adamant that traffic currently NEVER backs up that far. I see it all the time. Especially when a car is turning right onto W Marginal Wy SW. When it’s only one lane, and a car is turning right, all of traffic will be blocked for a full signal rotation. Also, the shipping containers on trucks tend to block that intersection as well. It’s going to be more dangerous than safer. 

    • Foop March 5, 2026 (8:30 pm)

      It’s currently illegal, and dangerous, to turn right on red as it is today so nothing will actually change here.

      • Ms. Noem March 6, 2026 (3:02 pm)

        I’m not talking about red lights, I’m actually referring to green lights. When the crosswalk has people crossing (currently the homeless going to panhandle the intersection), the cars turning right are unable to do so. The right lane gets backed up pretty far. Imagine only having a single lane available and having it blocked by a car turning right. 

        • E March 6, 2026 (8:34 pm)

          So, only “upstanding citizens” are allowed access to city streets, including legally using crosswalks? I’m shocked all of these “upstanding citizen” motorists waiting to turn right don’t just turn right, right through the crowd of panhandlers. That will teach them to travel outside of a car. Or to stand in the way “productivity”. Or to exist.

  • KM March 5, 2026 (6:37 pm)

    Thank you for not disappointing on these comments! I knew it would be good content from the usual suspects. 

  • Michele March 5, 2026 (7:23 pm)

    I don’t think this design will make the community safer. I believe it’s going to do exactly the opposite.

  • Admiral2009 March 5, 2026 (7:29 pm)

    This is not a safety improvement project!  A safety project would provide two uphill lanes a 4 to 6′ buffer space and then the downhill lane and widen the existing sidewalk into a multi purpose trail.

    • Cyclist and driver March 5, 2026 (8:28 pm)

      Exactly 

    • Little One March 6, 2026 (1:04 pm)

      Seconding this, and what CyclistandDriver said above too. It would be way simpler to improve the sidewalk to make a wider path vs. taking away an existing travel lane. We know this is our alternative route if the bridge is not usable, and that traffic can become massively backed up into the neighborhoods with enough volume. This is not the way to encourage alternate transit! 

  • B March 5, 2026 (8:27 pm)

    If it’s a safety project and not a bike project, then use the jersey barriers to separate the (2) downhill lanes from the (2) uphill lanes if there’s room.  That should help mitigate the more serious head on collisions.  There may also be enough room to widen the existing path on the east side to accommodate both bikes and pedestrians.

    • Erik March 5, 2026 (9:37 pm)

      Their obvious lies about that plan in the past. Saying ā€œthere isn’t enough roomā€. What a joke. There’s totally enough space to put barriers between the two directions. 

  • Don Brubeck March 5, 2026 (8:29 pm)

    We need these changes for safety for people driving and riding bikes on this crash-prone street.  At least for the downhill lane, it will prevent blind right-side passing by speeding drivers. There could also be enough extra width to add post separators between uphill and downhill traffic lanes. The bikeway is needed to make it safe and convenient to go from White Center and the middle and south end of West Seattle to the Duwamish Trail, South Park, Tukwila, and beyond. This is the only east-west route by bike from West Seattle to the Duwamish Trail other than going 3.4 miles north from SW Holden to the Spokane Street Bridge trail.  Most bike riders do not feel safe riding in 40+mph traffic on 4-lane arterials,  and the side path is too narrow and lumpy, so of course not many do. E-bikes have “flattened the hill”, so many more people would use it if it was safe and comfortable.   Only one lane of traffic enters HP Way at the top of the hill at the traffic light, alternating from Holden and from HP Way south of Holden, so capacity is already limited to one lane above the hill. It may add  a little to the wait at the light at West Marginal Way during peak periods, but losing a lane down the hill is not really a capacity problem. 

    • Craig March 6, 2026 (6:38 am)

      Don, what is loss of capacity if not “longer wait times” ?  And how do we (you or anyone else)know what the loss of capacity or extent of longer wait times would be without modeling? And why isn’t  there a third option that utilize the road edge on the S side of HP Way?  

      • Alkistu March 6, 2026 (9:15 pm)

        I don’t mind waiting if I am sitting comfortably in a car. Actually I see drivers speeding to the bottom just so they can sit and wait 

        • Craig March 7, 2026 (7:44 am)

          Good point Stu.  My concern is less for the off peak hours,  when drivers can go to their happy place during a reasonable delay, but more for resulting bottlenecking at peak hours and more concerning,  for decrease in capacity given temporary lane closures on HP Way (slides and tree fall like yesterday’s) or another WS Bridge closure.  Loosing a critical lane at the base of the hill would inarguably create a crippling bottleneck in the system during bridge closure levels traffic volumes.   As discussed add nauseum, Vision Zero could complete their mission of slowing traffic with a lane closure at the upper portion of the hill, and a bike on the arterial would be huge for WS but the bike lane should shift to the road edge at the base of the hill, preserving traffic flow and creating a safer experience for bikers. I missed the meeting, so am unaware how or why such a third bike path option was taken out of the conversation.  There would be surmountable design and costs challenges which should be evaluated. My read on SDOT, based on the title of this blog article,  is that designing a bike lane is not what Vision Zero(the funding source and primary driver of this effort) is focused on at the moment.  So why is Vision Zero seemingly half heartedly taking on design of such a major, impactful  piece of bike infrastructure if it’s under funded and unable to help us get to road design that optimally supports all users?  We need a better design for everyone, which we’re close to if we work together…  

    • Ms. Noem March 6, 2026 (3:11 pm)

      Don, you’re saying this as if you personally requested this project.  I assume you didn’t, but probably someone with significant influence probably did. 

      This is important for everyone at SDOT to understand. The people are not believing the story from SDOT that is supposedly justifying this project. To get more people on board, it has to make sense to the common person. And right now, the bs meter is going off for everyone who listened to the call. So you need to either provide more transparency to the project, or communicate honestly. Because the people aren’t buying it. 

      This project stinks. There’s something rotten in the state of Denmark

      • Jort March 7, 2026 (12:16 am)

        ā€œPeopleā€ (drivers who are afraid of losing what amounts on average to 20 or 40 seconds of their commutes) aren’t ā€œbelievingā€ (because they think speeding is inherently safe when they do it because they’re good drivers) what SDOT is saying is irrelevant and trivial. Who cares? Drivers think a minor speed reduction is the equivalent of an authoritarian fascist dictatorship. Look at the comments above! ā€œDrivers apoplectically angry at minor inconvenienceā€ is a headline as old as the first automobile. Drivers have had every decision about roadways go in their favor for 75 years. I can imagine a government agency giving minor, trivial prioritization to something other than drivers must feel like an existential threat to the habituated motorist. Oh well, get over it and move on with your life. 

    • MRCVU March 6, 2026 (10:10 pm)

      Have you biked this hill? After a month of experimentation I realized biking up and down HPW from HP to Sodo that HPW is just not safe and started going up/down Sylvan to Delridge. You are on your front and back breaks the entire way, and in the back seat so far its just sketchy. Any sudden stop and its endo time. There is ice in the winter, wet leaves and moss in the fall, and random tree branches coming down all year. its hectic. These hazards will still be there but admittedly be lower than the current path. the big issue will be downhill riders losing control due to the steep long grade, even if it is protected. If this new path encourages more use the chances for bike on bike collisions or falls goes up. Its an attractive nuisance problem waiting to happen.  I guess if all the up and down hill bike traffic can be separated and the other environmental hazards could be addressed it could work out for cyclists that know what they are getting into. If you don’t have a very good modern bike and know how to get behind the saddle you have to go very slow. Squishing lanes of traffic together on this steep hill is going to kill more people in cars than this hill currently does. The city should widen the corridor if this is an essential project.

  • Hebs March 5, 2026 (8:58 pm)

    I will vote against EVERY transportation levy going forward if this idiotic plan is completed. SDOT’s disregard for the opinions of the adjacent neighbors is appalling . 

    • Jort March 6, 2026 (4:04 pm)

      Sorry for losing your vote, but they’ll still overwhelmingly pass. 

  • Nate March 5, 2026 (9:12 pm)

    I’m a driver and a cyclist. I go up and down this hill nearly every day, sometimes multiple times. This hill is pretty sketchy for both cars and bikes, and it looks like something is finally being done to try to fix some things about it.  I’ll be happy to go down that hill slower in my car, and safer on my bike. Some of y’all need to chill. Or find a new driving route.

  • Erik March 5, 2026 (9:48 pm)

    This project is so wrong on so many levels. The rationale that it is not a safe stretch of roads just because there are accidents there is just dumb. Admiral Way has a similar slope, similar traffic, similar number of bike users. And more importantly has accidents in the exact same way that Highland Park Way does. You know what the difference is? Race. The minority population surrounding the Highland Park Way project is more than DOUBLE that of Admiral Way. Say what you want, but this will absolutely have disparate impact for those drivers that have to suffer from additional traffic going the downhill direction. And their whole flip flopping and outright lying to the public is just a slap in the face. Initially it was a “bike lane project”. Then when people pointed out that they could preserve all 4 lanes and still better support bikes they were forced to come out and say “oops, our bad. We lied. We are actually trying to reduce traffic flow”. SDOT needs to be honest about their intentions instead of pulling this crap. And for those who think that reducing the road to 1 lane will somehow make it safer. Think again. All you are going to see is EVEN MORE road rage because people wont be able to pass slower drivers. They will veer into the lane of oncoming traffic to pass slower drivers and it will create an even bigger safety issue for those going uphill. 

    • Jort March 7, 2026 (11:43 am)

      Wait, what?! Can you help me understand how the greater “minority population” of Highland Park has anything to do with this?! WHAT?!

    • Platypus March 11, 2026 (2:50 pm)

      If it makes you feel better, Admiral also should have traffic calming.

  • EH March 6, 2026 (6:09 am)

    Ignore the haters  – SDOT please build this as designed! I bike down this hill regularly and this would make it feel a lot safer. Although, I agree with some commenters that simply fixing and widening the current sidewalk would accomplish the same thing without irritating so many drivers…

  • Churro Strength March 6, 2026 (8:01 am)

    Hey, car drivers, why don’t you try taking the bus? It would save you a lot of stress. 

    • Erik March 6, 2026 (9:24 am)

      Hey bus riders and cyclists. Why don’t you just buy a car and drive? It will save you a lot of time šŸ˜‰

      • Churro Strength March 7, 2026 (6:17 am)

        Hi Erik, I don’t buy a car because I have a disability makes driving unsafe for me and other people. I had to give up my drivers license when I was in my thirties, so I have had lots experience driving before I turned to bikes and public transportation. Cars are ridiculously expensive and don’t save as much time as drivers think they do. I was able to buy a house with the money I saved from not owning a car. Driving is incredibly stressful as you can see from the comments here. Imagine not having to worry about driving, it’s really freeing. Finally, Cars are terrible for the environment and I would rather take a bus than add to the problem. 

    • E March 6, 2026 (8:37 pm)

       

  • Allie March 6, 2026 (10:22 am)

    Will they make driving in the left lane going down the hill less scary? I always use the right lane.

    • Alkistu March 6, 2026 (9:18 pm)

      There is an option with a wider single lane to build a barrier between the uphill and downhill lanes.

  • Platypus March 6, 2026 (10:42 am)

    This plan is simple, obvious, and effective. The very notion that anyone in a car may ever be threatened with inconvenience, regardless of the outcome, is at a fever pitch. 

  • Gema March 6, 2026 (11:16 am)

    I’ve lived in the Highland Park neighborhood over 40 years.  Things were reasonably calm, until 1st, the high bridge at Spokane Street failed, 2nd, South Seattle College was completed, and at least 3rd, there’s been a HUGE increase in the actual numbers of cars, big trucks, busses, and delivery vans.  Sometimes it’s nearly impossible to get onto Holden from a side street due to constant East West traffic.I oppose the reduction of lanes in the north bound side of HPW.  There is adequate room on the east side of the street for a grand completion of bike and pedestrian lanes; and nice crosswalks at the top of the hill.  To suggest that drivers are snobs, or thoughtless to not use the bus, let remind you that it’s not always feasible.  And, not everyone can commute buy bike.Driving safely downhill is possible.  But, remember, we occasionally have ice and snow.  It’s nearly impossible to drive at ANY speed under those conditions.

    • bill March 6, 2026 (1:36 pm)

      No one has EVER suggested that “everyone can commute buy [sic] bike.” Stop it with the strawman arguments.

  • WS resident March 6, 2026 (12:24 pm)

    The 41 accidents in 4 years, does this number include accident at the intersections at the top and bottom of the hill, or on the hill itself? I’m opposed to the road diet also but not the traffic coming.

    • Little One March 6, 2026 (1:08 pm)

      Very good question. They should clarify where the incidents occurred. Perhaps also if there was an increase during the two years when the WS bridge was closed (because there were higher volumes than usual on this road and potentially less familiar drivers with the route).

      • SteveO March 6, 2026 (1:54 pm)

        Careful what you ask for. If that’s true, and I bet you’re right, SDOT will have to change their story again.

  • question March 6, 2026 (1:13 pm)

    Questions: When will SDOT start work to decrease lanes on Admiral Way from California to bridge, Avalon, Spokane at the bottom of the hill?

    • Alkistu March 6, 2026 (9:24 pm)

      That’s a good question. The now protected bike lane has 2 problems. How do you get on and how do you get off? Bike /Bus lanes with more frequent transit service would keep those right hand lane sneaking in at Avalon PL. From taking cuts. No wait! Those kind of drivers speed down the bus lanes too.

  • Alkistu March 6, 2026 (7:03 pm)

    As a driver I feel that a short distance of one lane downhill from SW Holden makes a better transition from multiple one lane entry roads expanding into two lanes. Every time I turn left from Holden into the nearest lane going downhill on Highland Park Way I use my turn signal immediately to merge to the right lane and out of the way of the speeders. Almost every time as I am merging right a car driver from behind will jump directly into that lane without signaling and so often have come close to rear ending me. If I stay any longer in the left lane to be sure I am not getting into someone else’s way, I nearly get rear ended in that lane too. If there was a single lane transition I could safely merge right when the road expands to two lanes. I wonder how many of you who promote design for speeding know that I pull up right beside you at the light at bottom of the hill every time without speeding.

  • Philip March 7, 2026 (10:06 am)

    Seattle has  a 140 million dollar deficit, one of the highest number of unhoused in the country, we pay the most for gas, there is trash and graffiti everywhere you look, no matter how much money we put into the school system it is NEVER enough, it is getting harder everyday to navigate our congested neighborhoods but you want to spend millions on a boondoggle ā€œsafetyā€ project and protect the nearly nonexistent bike and pedestrian traffic. This is bureaucracy at its best. SDOT is looking for ways to spend their allocated funds so they can cry for more money next year. 

  • WS resident March 7, 2026 (1:01 pm)

    I wonder how safe other hills that have a 11% downhill grades with corners are, hwy 18 in Kent and at I90 comes to mind as very unsafe.

Leave a Reply to Jort Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.