Figure 1 – Sawmill Creek Road Looking Westbound

   

   

Sawmill Creek Road 

Transportation 

Corridor Assessment 

     AK NPS SITK 2015(2)

2018
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT

SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT SEPTEMBER 2018 | PAGE II 

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................... IV

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................................... IV

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Project Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 7

1.2 Background ................................................................................................................................................... 8

1.3 Corridor Assessment Process .................................................................................................................... 9

2. STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION ...................................................................................................................... 11

2.1 Stakeholder Kick-Off Meeting .................................................................................................................... 11

2.2 Stakeholder Close-Out Meeting ................................................................................................................ 11

3. EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Existing Sawmill Creek Road .................................................................................................................... 12

4. FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 20

4.1 Sawmill Creek Road at Sisters Lane ......................................................................................................... 20

4.2 Sawmill Creek Road at Indian River Road ................................................................................................ 21

4.3 Sawmill Creek Road at and Approaching Indian River Bridge ............................................................... 24

4.4 Sawmill Creek Road at Raptor Way .......................................................................................................... 26

4.5 Sawmill Creek Road at Sitka National Historical Park Parking Lot ........................................................ 27

4.6 Sawmill Creek Road at Jarvis Street and East End of Park .................................................................... 28

5. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................................................................................... 32

5.0 Partnership and Funding Opportunity: .................................................................................................... 32

5.1 DOT & PF Sawmill Creek Resurfacing Project ......................................................................................... 32

5.2 Recommended Actions – Short-Term ...................................................................................................... 33

5.2.1 Sawmill Creek Road at Sisters Lane ....................................................................................................... 33

5.2.2 Sawmill Creek Road at Indian River Road .............................................................................................. 33

5.2.3 Sawmill Creek Road at and Approaching Indian River Bridge ................................................................ 38

5.2.4 Sawmill Creek Road at Raptor Way ........................................................................................................ 38

5.2.5 Sawmill Creek Road at Sitka NHP Parking Lot ....................................................................................... 39

5.2.6 Sawmill Creek Road at Jarvis Street and East End of Park .................................................................... 41

5.2.7 Traffic and Pedestrian Data Collection .................................................................................................... 42

5.2.8 Roadway Lighting .................................................................................................................................... 42

5.3 Recommended Actions – Long-Term ............................................................................................................. 44

5.3.1 Sawmill Creek Road at Sitka National Park Parking Lot ......................................................................... 44

5.3.2 Sawmill Creek Road – Shared-Use Path Reconstruction, Curb and Gutter and Storm Sewer ............... 44

5.3.3 Sawmill Creek Road – Other Improvements and Recommendations ...................................................... 47

6. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 49

6.1 Total Cost of Short-Term Improvements .................................................................................................. 49
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT

SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT SEPTEMBER 2018 | PAGE III 

6.2 Total Cost of Long-Term Improvements................................................................................................... 50

7. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 51

APPENDIX A – COST ESTIMATE DETAIL ............................................................................................................. 52

APPENDIX B – SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY INFORMATION .................................................................................. 57

 
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT

SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT SEPTEMBER 2018 | PAGE IV 

List of Tables 

Table 1 - RSA Meetings and Field Review Participants ........................................................... 11

Table 2 – Average Annual Daily Traffic. Data provided by DOT&PF................................. 13 

Table 3 – Short-Term Improvements Cost Range......................................................... 50 

List of Figures 

Figure 1 – Sawmill Creek Road Looking Westbound .................................................................. I

Figure 2 - Study Corridor ............................................................................................................ 9

Figure 3 - Road Safety Audit Process ...................................................................................... 10

Figure 4 - (L) Sawmill Creek Road looking South from Indian River Road. Figure 5 - (C) Multiuse path looking south. Figure 6 - (R) Multi-use path where it abuts the roadway. .................. 13

Figure 7 - A lighted sign hangs above a crosswalk at the intersection of Indian River Road and 

Sawmill Creek Road. ................................................................................................................ 14

Figure 10 - (L) Trail connection in 2014. Water started to wear channels into the soil. Figure 11 

- (R) Trail connection in 2018. Trail surface has continued to deteriorate and large rocks are 

starting to show through. The surface is very loose with uneven footing. ................................ 15

Figure 8 - (L) Intended walking route to Raptor Center. Figure 9 - (R) Path worn into ditch 

across from Raptor Center entrance. ....................................................................................... 16

Figure 12 - A wheelchair user can be seen crossing Jarvis Street. The sidewalk on Jarvis 

Street includes ramps. The crossing on Sawmill Creek Road connects to a gravel and dirt 

connection. ............................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 13 – A pedestrian crossing Sawmill Creek Road at the entrance to the national park 

SMC parking lot. ....................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 14 - Unmarked Crossing at Convenience Store (Approximate Location Marked in Red)

 .................................................................................................................................................. 18

Figure 15 - (L) Crossing area worn into the grass. A culvert in this location facilitates the 

crossing. Figure 16 - (R) Picture of the path worn into the woods leading to the park trail 

network. .................................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 17 - EB SMC Road approaching Sisters Lane .............................................................. 20

Figure 18 - EB Sawmill Creek Road approaching Indian River Road ...................................... 21
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT

SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT SEPTEMBER 2018 | PAGE V 

Figure 19 & 20 - EB Sawmill Creek Road facing Indian River Road intersection ..................... 21

Figure 21 - WB Sawmill Creek Road approaching Indian River Road ..................................... 22

Figure 22 - WB Sawmill Creek Road at Indian River Road ...................................................... 23

Figure 23 & 24 - EB Sawmill Creek Road approaching Indian River bridge ............................. 24

Figure 25 - EB Sawmill Creek Road approaching Indian River Bridge ..................................... 25

Figure 26 - EB multi-use path at Indian River bridge ................................................................ 25

Figure 27 & 28 - WB Sawmill Creek Road at Raptor Way ........................................................ 26

Figure 29 - Sawmill Creek Road at Sitka National Park Lot ..................................................... 27

Figure 30 - Sawmill Creek Road EB approaching Jarvis Street ............................................... 28

Figure 31 - EB Sawmill Creek path at Jarvis Street.................................................................. 29

Figure 32 & 33 - EB Sawmill Creek Path Beyond Jarvis Street near East End of Park ........... 30

Figure 34 – Jarvis Street facing Sawmill Creek Road pedestrian crossing .............................. 30

Figure 35 - Planned ADOT&PF resurfacing project.................................................................. 32

Figure 36 - Advance Yield Control Signs and Pavement Markings (Ped Bike Safe) ................ 35

Figure 37 - MUTCD W11-15 and W11-15P .............................................................................. 40

Figure 38 - Existing Shared-Use Path Along SMC Road East of Study Area, Approx. 10’ Wide

 .................................................................................................................................................. 45

Figure 39 - Example of a Bioswale in Portland, OR ................................................................. 46

Figure 40 – Speed Cushion ...................................................................................................... 58

Figure 41 – Traditional Speed Table ........................................................................................ 59

Figure 42 – Speed Table with Offset Design ............................................................................ 60

 
LIST OF ACRONYMS 

SAWMILL CREEK ROAD 

SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT SEPTEMBER 2018 | PAGE VI 

ADA 

ADOT&PF 

Americans with Disabilities Act 

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 

CBS 

DOT 

EB 

FLAP 

FLTP 

City and Borough of Sitka 

Department of Transportation 

East Bound 

Federal Lands Access Program 

Federal Lands Transportation Program 

NPS National Park Service 

PS&E 

ROW 

RSA 

Plan Specifications and Estimates 

Right of Way 

Road Safety Audit 

SMC Sawmill Creek 

Sitka NHP Sitka National Historical Park 

USFWS 

WB 

WFLHD 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

West Bound 

Western Federal Lands Highway Division 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 7 

1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Project Overview

The National Park Service (NPS) and City and Borough of Sitka (CBS) requested a review of 

potential actions to improve the safety performance of Sawmill Creek (SMC) Road. The request 

is in response to concerns for the safety of visitors and residents who frequently cross SMC Road 

to access tourist sites and residences. SMC Road is a heavily trafficked corridor with pedestrian, 

bicycle, motorist, bus and industrial truck traffic competing for space and often coming into close 

conflict with one another. The safety components of SMC Road have been under discussion for 

many years, with city and Park officials seeking the implementation of additional safety measures. 

SMC Road is a state-owned and maintained roadway located within the municipal jurisdiction of 

the CBS and bordering Sitka National Historical Park (Sitka NHP). It is the only road connection 

between downtown Sitka and the Jarvis Street/Price Street Industrial area, Allen Marine Ways, 

and the Sawmill Creek Business Complex, as well as the Blue and Green Lake Hydroelectric 

dams and power stations. A substantial percentage of Sitka residents live along this portion of 

Sawmill Creek Road. As a state-owned roadway, the state must approve modifications to the 

roadway, and current crash data may not support pedestrian improvements in the corridor.

Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) has performed a planning corridor study, 

analogous to a Road Safety Audit (RSA), to evaluate the safety performance of SMC Road. The 

RSA will provide important information regarding existing infrastructure, safety concerns, 

operational conditions and suggest short-term, low-cost and long-term, higher cost 

improvements. The overall focus is to review existing traffic and safety information, identify 

improvements and suggest additions to incorporate into a future project. This RSA complements 

the Sitka National Historical Park Transportation Study, completed by WFLHD and Volpe staff in 

partnership with the NPS. 

December, 2021 Update – this report and the Sitka National Historical Park Transportation Study 

have been reviewed due to the gap in time from the field work and initial reports. WFLHD has 

made minor updates to this report and to note that some changes in the existing conditions have 

occurred (i.e. the 2020 DOT&PF paving project made some modifications affecting the conditions 

and recommendations contained herein). Any updates are noted in italics. The DOT&PF project 

was 0933046/SFHWY00064 and plans were accessed here: 

https://www.bidx.com/ak/proposal?contid=SFHWY00064. 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 8 

There are no other planned projects in the study limits according to DOT&PF staff. Outside of the 

project limits, one project is included in the DOT&PF STIP between Jeff Davis St. and the 

roundabout to the north along SMC Road. This project includes pavement reconstruction, ADA 

upgrades, bicycle facility upgrades (bike lanes), intersection improvements at SMC Road/DeGroff 

St. and drainage improvements. It is scheduled to be constructed in 2022. 

1.2 Background 

Sitka National Historical Park is the top visitor attraction in Sitka and is located adjacent to Sawmill 

Creek Road for the extent of the study corridor. The only access to Sitka NHP from SMC Road is 

a small parking lot serving Sitka Historical Park close to Jarvis Street, but not in alignment with 

the intersection. Another of the top visitor attractions in Sitka is the Raptor Center, which is located 

at approximately the halfway point of the study corridor and is entered from a gravel approach 

road. Each year thousands of visitors travel through Sitka National Historical Park, walk through 

the NPS parking lot and cross Sawmill Creek Road to get to the Raptor Center. Based on on-site 

observation and stakeholder reporting, almost all visitors cross Sawmill Creek Road at the 

approach road (Raptor Way) to the Raptor Center, without the assistance of a crosswalk or 

pedestrian safety enhancements. 

In 2013, the Park Superintendent coordinated with the City of Sitka to request assistance from 

Western Federal Lands Highway Division in performing a safety review of Sawmill Creek Road. 

WFLHD staff visited Sitka, Alaska September 25-27, 2018 in coordination with staff from Alaska 

Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), CBS and NPS. The site visit was 

utilized to survey the corridor, record the existing conditions and observe the behaviors of corridor 

users. 

There are several photo examples provided in the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) 

application of hazardous conflicts between the various users of the roadway including pedestrians 

running in front of traffic, motorists not stopping or yielding for pedestrians, and bicyclists riding 

contraflow on both sides of the roadway. The WFLHD team witnessed similar examples of 

behavior during a site visit, and documented such situations in photos used throughout the report.

There is concern for vehicle-pedestrian crashes with vehicles reportedly travelling at speeds along 

the corridor from 30-45 mph, according to the FLAP application. Posted speed limits for SMC 

Road range from 25-35 mph. 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 9 

It is believed that a significant number of pedestrians not going to the Raptor Center cross at the 

Jarvis Street Crosswalk or at an unmarked crossing to access the convenience store. 

The State of Alaska recognizes that SMC Road is in need of repairs, and is focusing efforts on 

rehabilitation of the existing roadway. A repaving project is scheduled for 2020 and will include 

select pedestrian safety enhancement measures. 

December, 2021 Update – the referenced DOT&PF project was constructed in 2020. There were 

improvements made to ADA crossings, the trail, warning signage and drainage noted throughout 

the report. 

1.3 Corridor Assessment Process 

Start of corridor

End of corridor

Figure 2 - Study Corridor 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 10 

The Sawmill Creek Road assessment is similar in scope to a road safety audit, and follows the 

same basic steps. The first two steps in 

the RSA process represent the planning 

stages of the audit that take place prior to 

the site visit. Steps 3 to 6 are normally 

conducted on site. For the Sawmill Creek 

Road study, steps 3-5 were completed 

over the course of 3 days. Due to 

availability of stakeholders, step 6 was not 

completed on site. This report completes 

step 6 with a formal report that 

documents the data gathered for the site, observations and findings during the field visit, and 

suggested improvements. 

Road Safety Audits are a collection of the thoughts, findings, observations, opinions and 

recommendations from the RSA team at the time of the study and field work. As conditions 

inevitably change after the audit, the findings, observations and recommendations may change 

as well. Any cost estimates associated with proposed recommendations are intended to be a 

rough estimate, or relative cost. The preliminary cost estimates for suggested improvements could 

be considered at a planning and programming level, but should not be taken as true Plans, 

Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) level accuracy. Proposed recommendations of a higher 

order, such as geometric improvements, should take into consideration the appropriate 

topographical survey, environmental processes, preliminary engineering and other necessary 

processes in order to determine a more accurate cost estimate for implementation. In no way 

does the RSA imply that the locations under study are unsafe for the various modes of 

transportation in their current configuration, nor does the RSA imply fault or that action should 

immediately be taken by the governing agencies of each location. 

Figure 3 - Road Safety Audit Process 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 11 

2. STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION 

2.1 Stakeholder Kick-Off Meeting 

The Sawmill Creek Road assessment team worked in close coordination with the NPS and others 

for data gathering and discussion of issues. The field review was performed September 25-27, 

2018. The team conducted a kickoff meeting on the morning of September 25 in the Sitka National 

Historical Park offices with CBS, NPS and DOT&PF staff. At this meeting, the team provided input 

and voiced safety concerns. Following the kickoff meeting, WFLHD, DOT&PF, and NPS 

stakeholders conducted a field review of the SMC Road location. WFLHD staff initiated field work 

prior to initial discussions and concluded evaluation post-kickoff by evaluating driver and 

pedestrian behavior along the corridor. The team documented the existing conditions, assessing 

possible recommendations to present as suggested improvements to the location. Participants in 

the meeting and field review are identified in Table 1. 

2.2 Stakeholder Close-Out Meeting 

WFLHD did not conduct a formal close-out meeting on-site. The team’s findings and initial options 

for improvement were discussed with the assembled team during the field meeting and are 

presented in Chapter 4. The final suggested improvements are presented in Chapter 5 as both 

short-term and long-term recommendations. 

Table 1 - RSA Meetings and Field Review Participants 

Participants Title 

Informational 

Conference 

Call 

09/21/18 

Field Review 

09/25/18 

NPS 

Brinnen Carter Chief of Resources X X 

FHWA – WFLHD 

Shaneka Owens Highway Safety Engineer X X 

Quinn Newton Senior Transportation Planner X X 

Alaska Department of 

Transportation & Public Facilities 

 

David Epstein 

Loren Gehring 

Regional Traffic and Safety 

Engineer 

Project Manager 

X 

X 

X 

City and Borough of Sitka 

Cliff Richter 

David Longtin 

Municipal Engineer 

Senior Engineer 

X 

X 

X 

Sitka Tribe of Alaska 

Gerry Hope Transportation Director X 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 12 

3. EXISTING CONDITIONS 

3.1 Existing Sawmill Creek Road 

Sawmill Creek Road originates near the center of town at the intersection of Lake Street and 

Halibut Point Road and extends primarily in an east-west direction. SMC Road is the only road 

connection between downtown and all activity east of Jeff Davis Street. A significant percentage 

of Sitka residents live along this extent of Sawmill Creek Road, and numerous commercial 

activities have operations here. Access is provided to Allen Marine Ways, Sawmill Creek Business 

Complex, the United States Post Office and the Blue and Green Lake Hydroelectric dams and 

power stations. 

The subject roadway has a posted speed of 35 mph, though it is reported by NPS in the FLAP 

application that average speeds are often closer to 45 mph. Average daily traffic on this section 

of roadway averages 8,740 vehicles per day based on data between 2012-2017. Traffic has been 

consistent over that time with a slight upward trend. Population growth and visitor trends suggest 

that overall AADT will continue to increase at a consistent but conservative pace (Table 2). It is 

unlikely there will be a significant spike in residential traffic, as land available for housing 

development is limited by the boundary of Tongass National Forest and dramatic topography. 

Commercial vehicle traffic is common on the route and with a review of aerial photos dating back 

to 2003 it is evident there has been significant infill within the industrial/business park. Additional 

infill is still possible, and it may still be possible to increase intensity of operations. 

Table 2 - Average Annual Daily Traffic. Data provided by DOT&PF. 

8100

8300

8500

8700

8900

9100

9300

9500

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

AADT
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 13 

Throughout the summer, buses delivering tourists to the various sites travel Sawmill Creek Road 

extensively. There is also a bus route operated by The Ride, a transportation agency managed 

by the Sitka Tribe of Alaska, and operated on behalf of the City and Borough of Sitka. The Ride 

buses use the Park parking lot as the eastbound stop on the route, and the westbound stop is 

located outside the eastern edge of the study corridor in the US Post Office parking lot. 

The section of road under evaluation extends from Indian River Road (MP 0.4) to just south of 

Jarvis Street (MP 0.95, including an area of mid-block pedestrian crossing near the convenience 

store), and consists of a two-lane roadway with left turn lanes at intersections. A 5’ bike lane, curb 

and gutter, and a concrete sidewalk extend the length of the corridor on the westbound side of 

Sawmill Creek Road. On the eastbound side, there is a 5’ bike lane, no curb, a ditch and a 

separated variable width, but 6’ typical, shared-use asphalt path. The shared-use path is detached 

from the roadway, except where it crosses Indian River (Figure 42). 

There are many points along the corridor where pedestrians cross Sawmill Creek Road. Many of 

them are not official crossings and a few of these locations have been identified in the FLAP 

application as points of concern along the corridor. Where marked crosswalks exist, concerns for 

pedestrian safety remain, and two marked crossings have been identified in the application as 

additional points of concern. The marked crosswalks at the intersection of Jarvis Street and 

Sawmill Creek Road (for crossings across SMC Road and Jarvis Street) are highlighted in the 

application. 

Figure 4 - (L) Sawmill Creek Road looking South from Indian River Road. Figure 5 - (C) Multi-use path looking south. 

Figure 6 - (R) Multi-use path where it abuts the roadway. 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 14 

The project team identified an additional conflict point, and extended the study corridor to include 

in this evaluation. The marked crossing at Indian River Road is equipped with an overhead 

pedestrian crossing pendent light. The light is activated at all times, and hangs above the crossing. 

The striping in this location is of the high-visibility continental style. This crossing appears to be 

ADA accessible, and provides a connection to the multi-use trail and the sidewalk on either side 

of Sawmill Creek Road. The crossing is near the apex of a horizontal curve. 

The additional 5 areas of concern identified in the project application along the corridor are listed 

in a west to east direction of travel starting from the Indian River Road intersection at the western 

edge of the study corridor. 

Figure 7 - A lighted sign hangs above a crosswalk at the intersection of Indian River Road and Sawmill Creek Road. 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 15 

1. Connection to multi-use 

trail at Indian River Bridge – 

An existing walking trail 

borders the Indian River and 

provides a connection 

between the Sitka National 

Historical Park visitor center 

and the base of the Indian 

River bridge. A formal access 

connection, such as stairs or 

other hardscaped 

improvements, between 

Sawmill Creek Road and the 

trail below has not been 

established. The trail 

connecting to the visitor 

center is visible at the bottom 

of the slope adjacent to 

Sawmill Creek Road, and is even shown on many of the National Park Service maps for the 

historical park. There are currently erosion concerns with this connection as well. The Park is 

interested in creating a formal connection, but wants to ensure that the access is as safe and 

accessible as possible and is supported by the right-of-way owner, Alaska DOT&PF. WFLHD 

believes that the connection and current access point is not acceptable for the intended use of 

the trail and should be improved. The agencies should consider stairs and handrails or potentially 

a rerouted graded trail connection, taking into account the topography and any cultural or 

environmental impacts. 

Figure 8 - (L) Trail connection in 2014. Water started to wear channels into the soil.

Figure 9 - (R) Trail connection in 2018. Trail surface has continued to deteriorate 

and large rocks are starting to show through. The surface is very loose with 

uneven footing. 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 16 

2. Unmarked crossing at Raptor Center – 

Evidence suggests that many people travelling to the Raptor Center by foot traverse the roadway 

in the middle of the block rather than use the crosswalk at Jarvis Street. The intended route for 

access to the Raptor Center from the national park parking lot consists of turning right on the 

multi-use path, crossing SMC Road near Jarvis Street, then turning left and following the sidewalk 

on the north side of the road to the Raptor Center entrance. Raptor Way is the vehicle entrance 

to the Raptor Center, and is a gravel road without a designated pedestrian path. Instead of taking 

the desired route, most people are observed turning left out of the parking lot, walking along the 

multi-use path, and crossing Sawmill Creek Road at the point they can see the entrance. 

Pedestrians use an informal path worn into the ditch for crossing Sawmill Creek Road from the 

multi-use path. When visiting the site, many tourists asked our team for directions to the Raptor 

Center, and were very reluctant to use the Jarvis Street crossing, knowing the Raptor Center was 

located in the opposing direction. The shortest distance to the destination is certainly the desired 

option. 

Figure 10 - (L) Intended walking route to Raptor Center. Figure 11 - (R) Path worn into ditch across from Raptor Center entrance. 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 17 

3. Entrance to national park parking lot along SMC Road – The entry driveway to the national 

park lot is offset from the Jarvis Street intersection by approximately 150’. The paved portion of 

the driveway is approximately 30’ in width, but the current driveway opening including gravel 

shoulder is approximately 60’ wide. The driveway opening has been widened inadvertently by 

traffic entering and exiting the parking and not utilizing the pavement. There are no curbs at the 

limits of the driveway which may allow faster turns into the parking lot than desired. The ditches 

on either side of the driveway are not very deep, and the culvert extends well beyond the edges 

of the pavement. There is a possibility that the culvert has sustained some damage from the 

vehicle activity as well. 

Figure 13 – A pedestrian crossing Sawmill Creek Road at the entrance to the national park SMC parking lot.

Figure 12 - A wheelchair user can be seen crossing Jarvis Street. The sidewalk on Jarvis Street includes ramps. 

The crossing on Sawmill Creek Road connects to a gravel and dirt connection. 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 18 

4. Marked crossings at Jarvis Street – Pedestrians who use the crosswalk on SMC Road must 

connect to the road by a gravel connection worn into the grass. There is no paved connection 

between the multi-use path and the roadway. The crosswalk is marked with white pavement 

markings and is located at the intersection. The crosswalk is in the form of continental stripes and 

the existing markings are in good condition. The crosswalk on Jarvis Street is a simple design of 

two parallel white markings. There are ramps on the sidewalk on either side of the intersection. 

5. Unmarked crossing to convenience store – The SMC Road crossing at the convenience store 

is another situation of an unmarked crossing located at the midblock instead of at an intersection. 

The convenience store is located about 600 feet from the Jarvis Street intersection and marked 

crosswalk. 

Figure 14 - Unmarked Crossing at Convenience Store (Approximate Location Marked in Red) 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 19 

An informal path has been worn into 

the ditch between the multi-use path 

and SMC Road immediately adjacent 

to the convenience store. On the 

opposing side of the multi-use path, a 

trail is worn into the woods where 

people familiar with the area take a 

shortcut through the national park. It is 

thought that this occurs because 

passing through the park is a more 

enjoyable walk than if near a roadway. 

The informal path provides the shortest 

connection between the trail in the park 

and the convenience store across the 

road. The connector trail crosses the 

multi-use path, takes advantage of a 

culvert in the ditch, and crosses the 

road in a location with no crosswalk. 

The culvert at this location facilitates 

the crossing of the ditch during the 

often wet conditions. It is not known 

exactly why the culvert exists in this 

location, other than to help with 

crossing of the ditch. 

Figure 15 - (L) Crossing area worn into the grass. A culvert in this location 

facilitates the crossing. Figure 16 - (R) Picture of the path worn into the woods 

leading to the park trail network. 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 20 

4. FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS 

The team reviewed the Sawmill Creek Road corridor in the field, made observations related to 

the safety performance and identified preliminary options for improvement at each location. The 

team focused on both short- and longer-term countermeasures that can improve the safety 

performance throughout the corridor. The options for improvement and ultimate 

recommendations are discussed further in section 5. S. 

4.1 Sawmill Creek Road at Sisters Lane 

Observations: - Pedestrian signs in both directions approaching the crosswalk 

appear to be outdated and are not optionally a fluorescent color; 

- Signs do not include supplemental “AHEAD” plates. 

Improvement 

Options: 

- Replace signs with updated fluorescent yellow signs; 

o December, 2021 Update – 2020 project replaced these, 

unknown if fluorescent or standard yellow.

- Add supplemental “AHEAD” plates.

o December, 2021 Update – 2020 project added this for the 

eastbound approach but not westbound.

Figure 17 - EB SMC Road approaching Sisters Lane 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 21 

4.2 Sawmill Creek Road at Indian River Road 

EB Observations: - Overhead pedestrian warning sign is outdated and is not visible 

enough to be effective; 

- Existing “NO STUDDED TIRES” sign is deteriorated; 

- Shared use path has vegetation overgrowth along outer parameter; 

- Lighting is present near the sign and crosswalk 

Improvement 

Options: 

- Reevaluate the overhead sign with recommendations from Table 1 

of the FHWA Federal Lands Highway Action Plan for Implementing 

Pedestrian Crossing Countermeasures at Uncontrolled Locations. 

Options could include one or several of the following: 

o High-visibility crosswalk markings and signing 

o Advance Yield Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrian sign and 

yield (stop) line (depending on state law) 

o Pedestrian refuge island 

o Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB) or Pedestrian 

Hybrid Beacon (PHB) 

Figure 18 - EB Sawmill Creek Road approaching Indian River Road 

Figure 19 & 20 - EB Sawmill Creek Road facing Indian River Road intersection 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 22 

o December, 2021 Update – pedestrian warning signs, with 

push-button activated LED border lights, and down arrows 

were added for the crosswalk to replace the overhead signs.

- Replace fading “NO STUDDED TIRES” sign; 

o December, 2021 Update – sign was replaced.

- Perform basic maintenance along the path to better delineate the 

path. 

Crosswalk 

Observations: 

- Crosswalk is highly visible and centerline markings are visible even 

when pavement is wet; 

- Appear to be drainage issues where crosswalk ties into shared use 

path; 

- Not able to visibly determine if overhead lighting is operational. 

Improvement 

Options: 

- For ADA compliance, install a clear separation between crosswalk 

and shared use path; 

o December, 2021 Update – ADA crossing added on each side 

of crosswalk.

- Address the drainage issue along path to prevent pooling water. 

o December, 2021 Update – may have addressed some 

drainage issues with new ADA ramp.

WB Observations: - Curve warning sign visibly old and not retroreflective on initial inspection; 

- Pavement in poor condition near centerline and roadway edges; 

- Centerline striping was faded in some locations. 

Improvement 

Options: 

- Evaluate the need for the curve warning sign. Even near the upper range 

of the assumed prevailing speed (35-45 mph), this sign may not be 

warranted per the 2009 Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

(MUTCD). Removing this sign can improve motorist adherence to more 

critical traffic control devices such as pedestrian warning signs; 

o December, 2021 Update – sign was replaced in-kind.

- Resurface roadway and replace all pavement markings. 

o December, 2021 Update – the resurfacing was completed. It is 

assumed that all pavement markings were reinstalled in their 

Figure 21 - WB Sawmill Creek Road approaching Indian River Road 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 23 

existing configuration. Durable MMA markings used at 

crosswalks; painted markings for others. 

Westbound 

Observations 

closer to 

intersection: 

- Overhead pedestrian warning light is ineffective. The sign is lit at all 

times, but is difficult to see during the daytime, and is quite small; 

- “HEADLIGHTS ON” with supplemental sign was visible and was visibly 

in good condition. 

- Center line pavement marking were somewhat worn. 

Improvement 

Options: 

- Upgrade overhead pedestrian warning traffic control device; 

o Pedestrian hybrid beacon; 

o Rectangular rapid flashing beacon; 

o Pedestrian activated signal. 

o December, 2021 Update – pedestrian warning signs, with pushbutton activated LED border lights, and down arrows were added 

for the crosswalk to replace the overhead signs.

- Repaint pavement markings 

o December, 2021 Update – pavement markings were reinstalled.

Figure 22 - WB Sawmill Creek Road at Indian River Road 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 24 

4.3 Sawmill Creek Road at and Approaching Indian River Bridge 

Observations 

Approaching 

Indian River 

Bridge: 

- Roadway runoff drains directly onto the shared use path; 

- No separation between pedestrian and roadway; 

- Pavement was visibly in poor condition; 

- Ponding on path causing debris deposits. 

- Handrail provides delineation and some protection for bicyclists and 

pedestrians along steep drop-off. 

Improvement 

Options: 

- Add curb and gutter to Sawmill Creek Road to alleviate the drainage 

issues on shared use path; 

- Resurface roadway and replace all pavement markings; 

- Provide a clear separation between roadway and shared use path by 

constructing curb and gutter along SMC Road. 

o December, 2021 Update – a recently crash-tested aluminum 42” 

pedestrian rail/fence may be a good option for shared use path 

delineation and pedestrian fall accommodations along any steep 

areas. The existing handrail may or may not be considered 

crashworthy. For reference, see pg. 181: 

https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec220.pdf

o The 2020 project replaced this handrail with a galvanized steel 42” 

rail. Unlikely to be cost effective to replace this with the new crashtested Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) Test Level2 barrier.

Observations: - No clear separation between the shared use path and shoulder; 

- Hand railing is damaged and not secure; 

- Water was observed pooling along the shared use path. 

Improvement Options: - Evaluate and replace railing to meet current standards; 

- Evaluate and address cross slope with shared use path and roadway shoulder to 

improve drainage. 

Figure 23 & 24 - EB Sawmill Creek Road approaching Indian River bridge 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 25 

 

Bridge Rail and 

Guardrail 

Observations: 

- The purpose of the guardrail appears to be to shield the river hazard and 

provide a transition to the interior bridge rail along the path; 

- The purpose of the interior bridge rail appears to be to shield pedestrians 

and trail-users along the bridge. However, the opposite side does not 

have a similar treatment and much of the shared-use trail is similarly 

exposed to vehicular traffic. 

Improvement 

Options: 

- Evaluate guardrail and bridge railing to determine if the existing 

treatment is appropriate for the location. 

o December, 2021 Update – guardrail height of 28” was 

maintained. The downstream/opposite side transition rail was 

modified to match the downstream guardrail height. The terminal 

grading may have been improved. 

Figure 26 - EB multi-use path at Indian River bridge 

Figure 25 - EB Sawmill Creek Road approaching Indian River Bridge 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 26 

4.4 Sawmill Creek Road at Raptor Way 

Observations: - Pedestrians were observed crossing midblock to access the Raptor 

Center; there is an informal path indicating that this is a high crossing 

location for pedestrians; 

- The gravel roadway along Raptor Way is visibly in poor condition; 

- Gravel is tracked out by vehicles onto the SMC roadway, including the 

SMC Rd. bike lane 

- Water observed flowing from the informal path onto the shared use path. 

Improvement 

Options: 

- Surface roadway along Raptor Way; 

- Evaluate the uncontrolled crossing on SMC Rd. with Table 1 of the 

FHWA Federal Lands Highway Action Plan for Implementing Pedestrian 

Crossing Countermeasures at Uncontrolled Locations. Options could 

include one or several of the following: 

o High-visibility crosswalk markings and signing 

o Advance Yield Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrian sign and yield 

(stop) line (check state law) 

o Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB) or Pedestrian 

Hybrid Beacon (PHB) 

o December, 2021 Update – Pedestrian warning signs with “300 

FT AHEAD” plaques were installed in advance of Raptor Way.

- Instead, provide delineation such as guardrail to prevent pedestrians 

from crossing at this location; 

o December, 2021 Update – consider the crash-tested aluminum 

pedestrian rail/fence. Note, this is considered a channelizer and 

not a redirective barrier like guardrail, though guardrail also 

deflects and may not prevent vehicle-pedestrian crashes.

- Provide guide signage that directs pedestrians to marked crosswalks in 

order to access Raptor Way. 

- Provide SMC Road MUTCD highway guide signage for road users to 

guide them to the Raptor Center (currently no wayfinding signage on 

SMC Road for the Raptor Center). 

Figure 27 & 28 - WB Sawmill Creek Road at Raptor Way 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 27 

4.5 Sawmill Creek Road at Sitka National Historical Park Parking Lot 

Observations at 

Parking Lot: 

- Driveway apron into Sitka National Historical Park has drainage issues 

(ponding and erosion); 

- The shared use path asphalt is visibly in poor condition; 

- Water observed pooling in various sections of the path and parking lot; 

- The parking lot driveway is not delineated with curb, allowing vehicles 

entering the parking lot to carry higher speeds when making the turn, and 

endangering pedestrians in the area; 

- The Ride uses the driveway as a stop on the city bus route; 

- During the field visit pedestrians were observed walking west along this 

path to reach the Raptor Center; 

- Pedestrians were observed crossing midblock without a designated 

crossing; 

- The preferred crossing maneuver is to walk east to Jarvis Street, cross 

at the marked crosswalk, then walk west to reach the Raptor Center; 

- There is no visible signage directing pedestrians to the preferred route 

to the Raptor Center. This may contribute to the safety issues as noted 

by the City of Sitka and NPS Staff; 

- The pooling water can cause additional safety issues during extreme 

weather conditions especially freezing rain/snow events; 

- Several vehicles were observed spinning gravel in an effort to accelerate 

quickly into traffic. 

Improvement 

Options: 

- As discussed in 4.4, install wayfinding guide signage near the parking lot 

giving pedestrians safety directions to access the Raptor Center; 

- Construct designated bus stop; 

- Redesign entrance to guide pedestrians to the marked crosswalk at 

Jarvis Street; 

Figure 29 - Sawmill Creek Road at Sitka National 

Park Lot 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 28 

- Install midblock crossing at Raptor Way; 

- Correct the drainage issue with shared use path and driveway; 

- Install curb and gutter to delineate the entrance and construct tighter radii 

to slow speeds of entering vehicles. 

- Alternatively, or in addition to improvements at and near this small 

parking lot, which is infeasible to expand at this location, the Park would 

like to work with the DOT&PF and City of Sitka to consider the creation 

of a transportation hub just southeast of the Park boundary and across 

SMC Road from the convenience store. There may be an opportunity to 

create a transportation hub that includes public transit, additional parking 

capacity, concessions and other amenities in order to create a holistic 

solution for the City. This would include a significant acquisition of private 

property. 

4.6 Sawmill Creek Road at Jarvis Street and East End of Park 

Observations 

Approaching 

Jarvis Street 

Crossing: 

- Pavement markings approaching intersection are visibly faded; 

- Pedestrian crossing signing seems old and is not very reflective. 

Improvement 

Options: 

- Restripe pavement markings; 

o December, 2021 Update – Pavement markings were 

reinstalled with the paving project.

- Check retroreflectivity of existing signs and replace if needed. 

o December, 2021 Update – the pedestrian warning signs 

were replaced in advance of the crosswalk with “AHEAD” 

plaques for each direction. The pedestrian warning signs at 

the crosswalk were replaced, however, the required down 

arrow plaques may have not been reinstalled. They were 

not called out specifically in the plans.

Figure 30 - Sawmill Creek Road EB approaching Jarvis Street 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 29 

Observations 

Along Path Near 

Jarvis Street: 

- Shared used path is in poor condition; 

- Pooling water observed along path; 

- Pavement rutting present along shared use path; 

- Vegetation along path overgrown; 

- Drainage issues along ditch line. 

- No ADA facilities on west side (from path) 

Improvement 

Options: 

- Repave shared use path; 

o December, 2021 Update – a portion of this path was repaved, 

likely to facilitate the ADA crossing.

- Evaluate existing drainage issues along the road edge and shared use 

path; 

o December, 2021 Update – some improvements to this condition 

may have been made.

- Address issues with vegetation and evaluate the condition of asphalt in 

shared use path. 

o December, 2021 Update – some improvements to this condition 

may have been made.

Figure 31 - EB Sawmill Creek path at Jarvis Street 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 30 

Observations near 

east end of Park: 

- Pedestrians were observed using a path from Sitka National Park as a 

quick access to the convenience store on Sawmill Creek Road (as shown 

in Figure 32); 

- Pedestrian were observed crossing midblock as indicated by the informal 

path above in Figure 32. 

Improvement 

Options: 

- Provide better delineation and/or wayfinding signage to promote crossing 

at the marked crosswalk at Jarvis Street; 

- Improve the ditch line and evaluate condition of shared use path. 

o December, 2021 Update – the culvert and gravel path from the 

shared use path were removed with the 2020 project, likely to 

discourage crossing at this uncontrolled location. The Park plans 

to restore the informal path within the Park boundary as well.

- Install curb and gutter along SMC Road 

Observations from 

Jarvis Street 

- Crosswalk pavement markings in poor condition; 

- Pavement markings are not consistent with one another; 

Figure 32 & 33 - EB Sawmill Creek Path Beyond Jarvis Street near East End of Park 

Figure 34 – Jarvis Street facing Sawmill Creek Road pedestrian crossing 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 31 

Looking toward 

SMC Rd.: 

- Pavement visibly in poor condition; 

- Existing curb ramps were not perpendicular to the crosswalks at Jarvis 

Street and Sawmill Creek Road. 

Improvement 

Options: 

- Resurface roadway; 

o December, 2021 Update – the resurfacing was completed 

along SMC and through the return along Jarvis St. 

- Restripe pavement markings, and ensure markings are consistent with 

pavement marking plans; 

o December, 2021 Update – pavement markings were 

reinstalled with the project. The same crosswalk types were 

used and are likely adequate. 

- Provide separated curb ramps that are perpendicular to the crosswalk 

for ADA compliance. 

o December, 2021 Update – new ADA facilities were constructed 

at Jarvis St. for the crossing across Jarvis St. as well as the 

crossing across SMC Rd. 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 32 

5. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS 

This section presents the site-specific recommendations for the various sites audited during the 

field visits. Preliminary cost estimates are provided along with the improvements. Suggested 

improvements were identified by the RSA team and preliminarily discussed during the closeout 

meeting. 

5.0 Partnership and Funding Opportunity: 

In order to complete some or all of the work needed to implement the suggested improvements 

described below, it is advisable to partner with Alaska DOT&PF, WFLHD, and CBS to determine 

whether it’s feasible to move forward with the proposed suggestions in this report. It is known that 

a DOT&PF roadway resurfacing project is currently in design and planned for execution in 2020. 

Some recommendations may be possible to incorporate into that project, but future projects may 

be planned as well. 

5.1 DOT & PF Sawmill Creek Resurfacing Project 

The roadway will get resurfaced from Jeff Davis Street to Smith Street. In conjunction with the 

repaving project, some of the signage will be updated and the pavement markings on the roadway 

Figure 35 - Planned ADOT&PF resurfacing project.
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 33 

will be reapplied. It is anticipated that many of the retroreflectivity recommendations from the 

report will or should be incorporated into the resurfacing project. The project intends to repair and 

improve curb ramps as needed and address drainage and other roadway related needs. 

December, 2021 Update – the resurfacing was completed in 2020. It is assumed that all pavement 

markings were reinstalled in their existing configuration. As noted in Section 4, this project 

completed several improvements to signage, ADA ramps and localized trail reconstruction. The 

project also added additional corridor lighting. The crosswalk location at Jarvis St. was not 

modified. 

Note – cost data for remaining recommendations has not been updated since the 2018 estimates.

5.2 Recommended Actions – Short-Term 

The RSA team offers the following discussion and improvements with the assumption that the 

proposed DOT&PF project is going forward. The cost estimate breakout is included in Appendix 

A and includes contingencies for all estimates due to inflation and unforeseen additional 

expenses. 

5.2.1 Sawmill Creek Road at Sisters Lane 

Discussion: 

High-visibility pedestrian warning signing is desired throughout the SMC corridor. It appears that 

the existing signs may not meet current retroreflectivity requirements. 

Recommendations: 

1. Replace the eastbound pedestrian warning sign with a new fluorescent sign and “AHEAD” 

supplemental plaque or “NEXT 1⁄2 MILE” (MUTCD W11-2 with W16-9P or W16-4P). 

Replace the westbound pedestrian warning sign as well with an “AHEAD” plaque. 

December, 2021 Update – completed for eastbound but not westbound. Consider 

fluorescent yellow for higher visibility against grey skies for future updates.

Cost estimate for this option: $4,000 (5.2.1.1) 

5.2.2 Sawmill Creek Road at Indian River Road 

Discussion: 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 34 

Currently, the existing overhead pedestrian warning sign does not appear to be effective and 

visible to motorists. According to Table 1 of the FHWA Federal Lands Highway Action Plan for 

Implementing Pedestrian Crossing Countermeasures at Uncontrolled Locations, there are several 

options for improvement. The current AADT is close to 9,000 vpd, so the middle category is used 

with a 35 mph posted speed. The location has 3 lanes without a raised median. According to the 

table, the options for consideration are: 

1. Install Advance Yield Here to (Stop Here For) Pedestrians signs and yield (stop) line only 

or 

2. Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) with signs and markings from Number 

1. Or 

3. Install a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) with signs and markings from Number 1. 

With any of the above options, a pedestrian refuge island could be constructed as well to further 

delineate the crossing location. With the hatched area opposing the left-turn lane, this presents a 

viable location for the refuge island. Curb extensions are not feasible due to the existing bicycle 

lanes. With all options, high-visibility crosswalk markings and crossing warning signs are 

recommended to supplement safety features. 

Installing Advance Yield Here to (Stop Here For) Pedestrians signs and yield (stop) lines have 

been shown to result in crash reduction factors (CRFs) of 11-25% for various crash types and all 

severities in urban areas. This option shows a MUTCD reference number R1-5 or R1-5a 

(depending on state law) with a R1-6 or R1-6a accompanying sign mounted in the roadway at the 

crossing. An overhead warning sign could also be used but could be reserved for later if the other 

signs do not give the desired safety performance. The installation could look like Figure 1Figure 

36. 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 35 

Figure 36 - Advance Yield Control Signs and Pavement Markings (Ped Bike Safe) 

Installing a PHB has been shown to result in CRFs of 15-69% for various crash types and 

severities in urban areas. Installing a PHB with Advanced Yield or Stop signs and markings 

(essentially including Option 1) has been shown to result in CRFs of 12-56% for various crash 

types and severities in urban areas. The “Safety Effectiveness of Pedestrian Crossing 

Enhancements” describes PHB research: 

“Studies of PHBs looked at pedestrian crosswalk compliance, pedestrian-vehicle 

compliance and driver yielding behavior, and results suggest very high levels of driver 

yielding rates which are comparable to other red signal and beacon treatments (Fitzpatrick 

et al., 2006). Most studies were typically completed on arterials with high levels of traffic 

and high speeds. Statistically significant reductions in total crashes were observed, with 

even greater reductions in pedestrian crashes (Fitzpatrick et al., 2010). Furthermore, the 

proportion of trapped pedestrians was statistically significantly reduced following the 

installation of a PHB (Pulugurtha et al., 2014).” 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 36 

One study showed that installing a RRFB can reduce vehicle/pedestrian crashes by 47% and 

another study showed that rear-end vehicle crashes were reduced by 7%. The “Safety 

Effectiveness of Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements” describes RRFB research: 

“Many research studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of RRFBs in statistically 

significant increases in driver yielding behavior (Van Houtenet al., 2008; Pecheux et al., 

2009; Hua et al., 2009; Hunter et al., 2009; Shurbutt et al., 2010; Ross et al., 2011; 

Domarad et al., 2013; and Foster et al., 2014). All these studies reported a statistically 

significant decrease in the number of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts and trapped 

pedestrians. One study also reported that enhanced crosswalks with RRFBs attracted 

more pedestrians even though other crossing options were present nearby (Foster et al., 

2014). Many studies have recommended that RRFBs should be considered as a “highly 

effective” countermeasure due to their proven safety benefits (yielding),but crash 

performance has not yet been measured.” 

It is likely that both RRFBs and PHBs would have a similar benefit to safety performance at this 

location, so the main considerations should be cost, operations and maintenance in order to 

choose between these. Due to significant portions of the “daytime” hours being dark in Alaska, it 

is possible that RRFBs and PHBs may be even more effective than the above research, since the 

lighting components will be more prominent for those dark “daytime” hours. 

A complete PHB system may cost $58,000 on average, with a low of $21,000 and high of 

$129,000 found.1 A complete RRFB system may cost $22,000 on average, with a low of $4,500 

and high of $52,000 found.2 With utilities in the area, the RRFB would not need a solar panel 

system for power, therefore the cost may come in towards the lower end of the range. These 

costs for the RRFB and PHB systems includes supplemental signing that may satisfy some or all 

of Option 1. Based on the latest research, for both RRFBs and PHBs, the additional advanced 

stop or yield and associated pavement markings shown in Figure 36 are highly recommended to 

be included as well to gain the most safety benefit with the RRFB or PHB system. 

Furthermore, the MUTCD gives guidelines for the use of PHBs, with Figure 4F-1 giving guidelines 

for speeds of 35 mph and less. With no pedestrian counts available, and limited traffic data (no 

1 http://pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=53 2 http://pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=54 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 37 

hourly traffic is believed to be available throughout SMC Road), it is difficult to fully recommend a 

PHB. It is recommended to gather more specific traffic data if considering a PHB. 

Recommendations: 

WFLHD recommends the installation of either Option 1 or Option 2. If more traffic data is collected, 

Option 3 may become viable as well, but is likely to be more expensive than RRFBs, without much 

difference in safety performance. Furthermore, the City of Sitka has installed some RRFBs, so 

motorists and pedestrians may be familiar with these systems already. 

Cost Estimates: 

 Option 1.: the approximate cost to install this system and high durable crosswalk 

pavement markings is $20,000 (Option 5.2.2.1) 

 Option 2: the approximate cost of a complete RRFB system, associated pavement 

markings and curb ramps on the south/west landing is $69,000 (Option 5.2.2.2) 

 Option 3: the approximate cost of a complete PHB system, associated pavement markings 

and curb ramps on the south/west landing is $95,000 (Option 5.2.2.2) 

 Raised pedestrian refuge island to accompany all above options (Option 5.2.2.4): $3,500 

For the westbound direction, it is recommended to remove the advanced curve warning sign. The 

curve radius is approximately 1,000 ft and there is superelevation on the roadway. Assuming the 

roadway is superelevated at 3.0%, and using the AASHTO minimum radii table for an max 

superelevation rate of 4.0% (for urban areas), the curve design speed meets the posted speed of 

35 mph and therefore does not need a curve warning sign per the MUTCD. Furthermore, given 

the more urban context, the sign is not as effective as a rural setting. 

December, 2021 Update – the 2020 project installed a push-button sign with flashing LED border 

around the pedestrian sign. The safety performance of this new treatment can be evaluated in 

the short-term to see if any other modifications are needed in the future. 

The curve warning sign was replaced in-kind.

The upcoming DOT&PF project should address other roadway and pavement marking 

deficiencies noted near this area. 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 38 

December, 2021 Update – the resurfacing was completed. It is assumed that all pavement 

markings were reinstalled in their existing configuration. Durable markings were used for 

crosswalks.

5.2.3 Sawmill Creek Road at and Approaching Indian River Bridge 

WFLHD has no specific short-term improvement recommendations at this location at this time. It 

is recommended to evaluate the interior bridge rail and guardrail to verify that this is the desired 

treatment here, given that the opposite side has no interior bridge rail or guardrail. 

Longer-term recommendations applicable here are listed in 5.3.2. 

5.2.4 Sawmill Creek Road at Raptor Way 

Discussion: Similar to the crossing at Indian River Road, this uncontrolled crossing should be 

evaluated for a crossing improvement. 

Additional traffic and pedestrian counts would be beneficial in order to form a solid 

recommendation here. Relative to the corridor, since Indian River Road currently contains a 

“higher-level” traffic control device, it is assumed that the uncontrolled crossing at Raptor Way is 

used less than the crossing at Indian River Road. However, based on the evidence presented in 

the existing conditions, input from partner agencies, etc., this assumption may not be accurate, 

and a new enhanced crossing at Raptor Way may greatly benefit the safety performance of SMC 

Road. 

Recommendations: 

Therefore, WFLHD recommends a similar treatment at Raptor Way if the revised crossing in the 

DOT&PF project (relocated from Jarvis to just west of the NPS parking lot) does not have the 

intended effect of encouraging pedestrians to cross within the crosswalk rather than the 

uncontrolled crossing at Raptor Way. Either Option 1 or Option 2 from 5.2.2. 

December, 2021 Update – the pedestrian warning signs with “300 FT AHEAD” plaques were 

added with the 2020 project and may improve safety performance in this area. The situation 

should be monitored, with additional observation and pedestrian counts, to help assess further 

actions. The traffic and pedestrian counts and overall transportation pattern observations should 

extend along SMC Road from the Raptor Way approach road through Jarvis Street and just 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 39 

beyond in order to capture the midblock crossing concerns at those locations as well so that 

holistic solutions can be determined. 

The crosswalk was not relocated from its existing location at Jarvis St. Both the existing crosswalk 

and an additional crosswalk at Raptor Way (plus appropriate uncontrolled mid-block crossing 

treatments) may be necessary. Providing separation of modes/delineation with the MASH TL-2 

fence may also benefit the safety performance along the roadway. 

Additionally, WFLHD and NPS discussed a desire to include wayfinding/MUTCD guide signage 

along SMC Road to direct road users to the Raptor Center (i.e. brown or green guide signs). Both 

advance signage and a wayfinding sign right at Raptor Way could be included. These, along with 

the pedestrian guide signage discussed in 4.4, 4.5 and 5.2.5 for users near the parking lot, should 

be considered to improve wayfinding for all modes. No additional costs are included in the cost 

estimates for the SMC Road MUTCD guide signage but costs should be very low and similar to 

other option cost estimates for signage. 

Costs: same as 5.2.2 but no pedestrian refuge island due to only two-lanes here. 

5.2.5 Sawmill Creek Road at Sitka NHP Parking Lot 

If speeds turning into the parking lot continue to be higher than desired, it is recommended to 

install curb from the edge of pavement along mainline near the entrance around the turn to the 

sidewalk. The ends could be tapered down to eliminate an abrupt edge facing SMC traffic. The 

radii should be kept smaller (15-20’) to help reduce motorists’ speeds when making the turn into 

the parking lot. A slotted drain can be installed to help drain the low, ponding areas to the ditch. 

In the long term, storm sewer could be installed. 

If additional guide signing does not help increase compliance with pedestrians crossing at the 

crosswalk at Jarvis Street or the relocated crossing just west of the lot, rather than crossing at 

uncontrolled points to the west, then adding an additional crosswalk near Raptor Way should be 

considered (see 5.2.4). The DOT&PF project indicates that the Jarvis Street crosswalk will be 

eliminated and moved to a new location just west of the Park parking lot. This may solve the issue 

of pedestrians crossing at an uncontrolled location even without additional guide signing. If the 

new crosswalk contains signs and pavement markings only, an RRFB or PHB could also be 

considered, with similar discussion as recommended in 5.2.2. Further evaluation is likely 

necessary. 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 40 

Lastly, shared-use paths parallel to roadways that have two-way riding or walking (contraflow) 

can be a safety concern for motorists exiting parking lots and driveways and making a right-turn. 

Often, a motorist is used to only looking to the left when making a right turn onto the roadway. A 

bicyclist riding from right to left with respect to the motorist’s field of vision may not be noticed by 

the motorist. A sign posted facing the parking lot near the trail crossing can alleviate this concern. 

Similarly, signs can be posted along the share-use path at intersections with parking lots and 

approach roads throughout the extent of the shared-use path. 

Figure 37 - MUTCD W11-15 and W11-15P 

Recommendations: 

Depending on the effects of the proposed DOT&PF project on moving the Jarvis St. crosswalk, 

follow the recommendations for 5.2.2 for either Option 1 or Option 2. Even if the relocated 

crosswalk is successful with pedestrians using the crossing, enhancements in Option 1 and 

Option 2 are believed to be viable based on the understood use by pedestrians accessing the 

Raptor Way. Again, more traffic, bicycle and pedestrian data would be beneficial. 

Cost: same as 5.2.2 

Install the informational signing and trail crossing warning signs at the parking lot. 

Cost: $7,300 

Continue to evaluate speeds of vehicles entering the parking lot. If speeds remain higher than 

desired, install curb with a slotted drain to control speeds. 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 41 

Cost: $17,800 

December, 2021 Update – continue to monitor the location and consider these recommendations. 

Additionally, consider the creation of a transportation hub as mentioned in 4.5. As mentioned in 

5.2.1, study the best location of bus stop(s) along this corridor, including here at the existing 

parking lot. A more formal bus stop infrastructure improvement (with pullout, shelter, signing 

improvements) may be desired. 

Similar to 5.2.4, the Park may desire to relocate the NPS sign from SMC Road to the trail entrance 

as highway guide signage is added along SMC Road to indicate the Park entrance, Raptor Center, 

etc. 

5.2.6 Sawmill Creek Road at Jarvis Street and East End of Park 

Discussion: 

The DOT&PF project plans to eliminate the crosswalk at Jarvis Street, but if it remains, it is a 

candidate for restriping and sign replacement based on conditions present at field review. 

Additional treatments should be considered here, similar to the recommendations in 5.2.2, 5.2.4 

and 5.2.5 (advanced stop/yield signing and markings, RRFBs and PHBs). However, if the 

crosswalk is moved to just west of the parking lot for Sitka National Park, then these crosswalk 

enhancements should be considered at the new location. 

Similar to the uncontrolled crossing at Raptor Way, the uncontrolled crossing from the path near 

the east end of the Park to the convenience store could be enhanced with Option 1 or Option 2 

from 5.2.2, along with a pedestrian refuge island. Or, the culvert could be removed, the ditch 

regraded and seeded to remove the ease of access here and discourage crossings. However, 

pedestrians typically take the shortest path possible to reach their destination, regardless of safety 

concerns. Therefore, simply removing the ease of access here is unlikely to fully remove the 

concern. Moving the Jarvis Street crosswalk to the west side of the Park parking lot may increase 

the use of this uncontrolled crossing at the convenience store. 

Recommendations: 

Observe and collect data to verify next steps at these locations. Utilize Option 1 or Option 2 with 

pedestrian refuge islands at these locations as needed. 

Cost: same as Option 5.2.2 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 42 

December, 2021 Update – The culvert was removed and the ditch regraded likely to discourage 

crossings at this location. As mentioned in 5.2.4, continue to monitor this and the nearby crossings 

to determine the best long-term solutions. Pedestrians may not be as visible as desired when 

attempting to make crossings at various locations along SMC Road.

5.2.7 Traffic and Pedestrian Data Collection 

With all recommendations, it is desired to obtain additional traffic data and pedestrian data at a 

minimum throughout the corridor. It may also be desired to obtain bicycle counts along the trail. 

A study of pedestrian directional movements overall and counts can help validate the short- and 

long-term plans for the corridor. 

There is newer technology available to help automatically continually count bicyclists and 

pedestrians. Counters can be set up at key locations throughout the corridor. For vehicular counts, 

similar technology is available, however, some manual counts at representative times would likely 

suffice. It would be useful to obtain peak hour traffic data to assist with PHB guidance. 

5.2.8 Roadway Lighting 

The team did not evaluate the existing lighting with an illuminance meter during the field visit. 

Therefore, no objective conclusions can be drawn regarding the effectiveness of the existing 

lighting in the SMC Rd. corridor. Effective lighting can be a very important countermeasure for all 

crash types and severities, with CRFs ranging from 18-69%, according to the Crash Modification 

Factors Clearinghouse. Furthermore, adequate lighting gives drivers a sense of comfort and 

improves pedestrians’ senses of safety and security. Light sources with “whiter” light, compared 

to high pressure sodium lighting, were found to be associated as safer by drivers and 

pedestrians.3 

The owner agencies are encouraged to consult the FHWA Lighting Handbook, AASHTO 

Roadway Lighting Design Guide and online training4 to evaluate the existing lighting and 

determine if additional or upgraded lighting is a practical improvement. Depending on the extent 

of the upgrade or improvement that may be recommended, the improvement timeline could be in 

the short- or long-term. 

3

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/roadway_lighting_workshop/Module_1_Final/Module_1_Fin

al.htm 4 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/roadway_lighting_workshop/ 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 43 

Several guidelines for lighting design are published by the American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI), Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) and AASHTO. These are referenced in the FHWA 

web-based training noted in Footnote 4. 

December, 2021 Update – the 2020 project installed additional lighting in the corridor from Jeff 

Davis St to the Indian Creek Bridge. This is an excellent countermeasure and may complete the 

lighting recommendation for the corridor. 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 44 

5.3 Recommended Actions – Long-Term 

In the long term, the RSA team offers the following discussion and improvements. The cost 

estimate breakout is included in Appendix A and includes contingencies for all estimates due to 

unforeseen additional expenses. 

5.3.1 Sawmill Creek Road at Sitka National Park Parking Lot 

Discussion: 

A more formal bus stop could be considered along Sawmill Creek Road, though it is tight with the 

current location of the shared-use path. In the long term, if the shared-use path was reconstructed 

and widened away from SMC Road, it could provide more room for the bus stop. The agencies 

should study the best long-term solution for the bus stop(s) along this corridor in conjunction with 

pedestrian/traffic counts and other improvements. 

Cost: $76,500 (Option 5.3.1.1) 

5.3.2 Sawmill Creek Road – Shared-Use Path Reconstruction, Curb and Gutter and Storm 

Sewer 

Discussion: 

In the long term, if it is desired to make the shared-use path width consistent and wide enough 

for true sharing (at least 10’ wide per AASHTO guidance), then the trail could be reconstructed to 

also alleviate pavement unevenness and some drainage issues. It appears that the shared-use 

path east of the study area is approximately 10’ wide. 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 45 

Curb and gutter can be added to better separate and delineate motorist traffic from the path when 

the path needs to be close to SMC Road. The gutter could be added to the existing edge of 

pavement so that the bike lane/shoulders can remain without alteration for additional width due 

to a gutter and curb adjacent to the lane. Storm sewer can be installed to control drainage. 

Improving drainage can help with the shared-used path maintenance and ponding concerns found 

in several observations in the corridor. The trail could be reconstructed slightly higher to improve 

drainage concerns as well. Eliminating the ditch may fit in better with the surrounding urban 

corridor, however, some significant costs could likely be saved by using biofiltration and other 

stormwater techniques to drain runoff to the existing ditches. 

Figure 38 - Existing Shared-Use Path Along SMC Road East of Study Area, Approx. 10’ Wide
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 46 

Figure 39 - Example of a Bioswale in Portland, OR 

Curbs may begin to have some redirectional capabilities at vehicle speeds of 25 mph and less. 

Since most vehicle speeds in the corridor are going to be closer to 35 mph, using curbs cannot 

objectively improve the safety performance of a runoff the road type collision by a motorist, 

however, there is likely some safety improvement for trail users in the event of a lane departure 

with a vehicle striking the curb. Furthermore, curbs can help delineate the roadway and may 

improve the chances of keeping vehicles on the roadway. 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 47 

The recommended clear zone, the lateral distance used by vehicles to recover during a runoff the 

road event, is approximately 12-14’ from the existing traveled way (white edge line), per the FLH 

Barrier Guide For Low Volume and Low Speed Roads. SMC Road is not a low-volume road, but 

applicable clear zone values are only given for roads with 45 mph speeds and above in the 

AASHTO Roadside Design Guide. Therefore, much of the existing shared-use path is contained 

within the area preferred to be available for vehicle clear zone. The use of a curb will not shorten 

the clear zone distance guideline, as vehicles can mount curbs and still encroach beyond the 

curb, but there is some safety benefit to including a curb. 

The drop-off near the approach of the Indian River Bridge along the shared-use trail would need 

to be evaluated for improvement options if the trail needed to be widened here to reach a 10’ 

width. It appears that the existing trail width is less than 10’. Improvement options may include a 

geotechnical wall such as a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall with a similar handrail meant 

to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians (generally at least 42” in height). 

Additionally, the connection from the sidewalk at the bridge to the trail along Indian River as 

discussed in 3.1 is included in this recommendation. 

Costs for installing curb and gutter, storm sewer, shared-use path reconstruction, wall 

construction: $1,305,000 (Option 5.3.2.1) 

December, 2021 Update – For the short sections of trail reconstruction in the 2020 project, an 8’-

wide paved trail with 1’ gravel shoulders was constructed. Consider wider facilities for shared use 

applications in the future. Consider crashworthy handrail/fence treatments to help control 

pedestrian and bicyclist movements in the corridor as well as provide drop-off mitigation. 

5.3.3 Sawmill Creek Road – Other Improvements and Recommendations 

If the existing lane widths are 11’ or 12’ along Sawmill Creek Road, it can be shown that reducing 

the lane width by 1-2’, to a width of 10’ or 11’, while increasing the shoulder (or bike lane) width 

by 1-2’ and maintaining the overall roadway width, will result in no change to vehicular safety 

performance, while improving bicyclist safety and possibly pedestrian safety as well. Furthermore, 

a narrowing of the lane widths may have a subtle effect on improving (lowering) speeds by 

motorists in the corridor. This is recommended to be included with the DOT&PF project and future 

maintenance. With the urban context, it lends even more credence to narrower lanes. If speeding 

continues to be an issue, temporary or permanent digital speed feedback signs could be utilized 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 48 

to display motorists’ speeds and gain compliance. These signs are known to have temporary or 

short-lived effects, however, similar to motorists slowing down in areas of enforcement presence. 

Costs: $0 to minimal. 

December, 2021 Update – the 2020 project is assumed to have reinstalled pavement markings 

at their existing locations, maintaining the existing widths. 

Speed humps, speed cushions or speed tables are possible options for the Sawmill Creek corridor 

but are unlikely to be favored by a high ADT, higher speeds at 35 mph and significant transit 

traffic. However, they can be designed to accommodate transit and emergency vehicles with 

speed cushions. If they were used, they could be used at crosswalk locations (as a raised 

crosswalk) to add even more visibility to pedestrians and encourage lower speeds. 

An enforcement presence can help keep speeds lower during peak tourist times and improve 

safety. Enforcement, emergency management and education strategies make up the other 3 E’s 

in the 4 E’s approach to highway safety, where engineering is the 4th approach. The public 

agencies in Sitka are encouraged to keep emergency management plans coordinated for best 

response times to crashes. Education strategies can include important safety information in NPS 

visitor brochures, bulletin boards, social media sites, etc. This information could direct visitors to 

use the appropriate crosswalks as intended. 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 49 

6. CONCLUSIONS 

The overall range of short-term and long-term improvements are presented in 6.1 and 6.2. Cost 

estimates are included in Appendix A. The DOT&PF, NPS and CBS are encouraged to discuss 

the suggested safety improvements and determine next steps in proceeding with improvements. 

The agencies are commended for their proactive approach to pedestrian, bicyclist and motorist 

safety to help prevent future crashes from occurring. 

December, 2021 Update – since this study, the transportation safety community has stressed the 

importance of Complete Streets and the Safe System Approach concepts. Many of the 

recommendations in this study are the types included in those design approaches and will help 

facilitate a safer multimodal experience in the corridor. 

No updates to cost estimates have been made. WFLHD can provide updated recommendations 

and costs as needed during further studies. 

6.1 Total Cost of Short-Term Improvements 

The recommendations in the short-term will be dependent on what is included in the DOT&PF 

project and its effects on pedestrian patterns and use. The DOT&PF is encouraged to consider 

incorporating the recommendations from this report and use crosswalk enhancements as 

identified. 

The range of costs for the short-term are shown below. Each location is grouped and the 

corresponding total of low and high cost options are listed. Several options reference the options 

discussed in 5.2.2, and depend on the factors discussed above. 
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 50 

Table 3 - Short-Term Improvements Cost Range 

The overall range is $75,000 to $425,000. If RRFBs are used, significant savings can be realized 

from the high end, as the above high costs assume the use of PHBs at all crossings, which is not 

desirable from an operational or cost perspective. 

6.2 Total Cost of Long-Term Improvements 

The long-term improvements identified above result in a cost range of $76,500 to $1,305,000. 

The costs for any lighting improvements are not included in these estimates. 

Low Cost Corresponding

Options Cost

High Cost Corresponding

Options Cost

5.2.1.1 $3,968 5.2.1.1 $3,968

5.2.2.1 $19,849 5.2.2.3 $95,044

5.2.2.5 $3,608 5.2.2.4 $3,467

5.2.2.5 $3,608

5.2.2.1 $19,849 5.2.2.3 $95,044

5.2.5.1 $7,335 5.2.2.3 $95,044

5.2.2.4 $3,467

5.2.5.1 $7,335

5.2.5.2 $17,810

5.2.2.1 $19,849 5.2.2.3 $95,044

5.2.2.4 $3,467

Totals = $74,458 $423,299

5.2.1 High Cost

5.2.2 High Cost

5.2.4 High Cost

5.2.5 High Cost

5.2.6 High Cost

5.2.1 Low Cost

5.2.2 Low Cost

5.2.4 Low Cost

5.2.5 Low Cost

5.2.6 Low Cost
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 51 

7. REFERENCES 

1. Monsere, Figliozzi, Kothuri, Razmpa and Hazel. Safety Effectiveness of Pedestrian 

Crossing Enhancements. December, 2016. Portland State University, PDXScholar: 

https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&

httpsredir=1&article=1353&context=cengin_fac

2. Action Plan for Implementing Pedestrian Crossing Countermeasures at Uncontrolled 

Locations. FHWA, Federal Lands Highway. August, 2019 
 SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 52 

APPENDIX A – COST ESTIMATE DETAIL 

Option 5.2.1.1FLH Pay Item Pay Item Description Supplemental Description Quantity Unit Price Line Item B

63302‐0000 SIGN SYSTEM (2 Signs) W11‐2, PED, 30" x 30", fluorescent 12.5 SQFT $185 $2,313 A

63302‐0000 SIGN SYSTEM (2 Signs)

W16‐9P, AHEAD/NEXT 1/2 MILE, 24" x

12", fluorescent 4 SQFT $185 $740 A

$3,053

ContingentQuantities15101‐0000 MOBILIZATION 5% of construction items 1 LPSM $153

63501‐0000 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL Devices, 5% of construction items 1 LPSM $153

Contingency, 20% 1 LPSM $611

Recommendation Total = $3,968

Option 5.2.2.1FLH Pay Item Pay Item Description Supplemental Description Quantity Unit Price Line Item B

63302‐0000 SIGN SYSTEM (2 Signs) R1‐5a or R1‐5b, 36" x 36" 18 SQFT $185 $3,330 A

63302‐0000 SIGN SYSTEM (2 Signs) R1‐6 or R1‐6a, 36" x 36" 6 SQFT $185 $1,110 A

63302‐0000 SIGN SYSTEM (2 Signs) W11‐2, PED, 30" x 30", fluorescent 12.5 SQFT $185 $2,313 A

63302‐0000 SIGN SYSTEM (2 Signs) W16‐9P, AHEAD, 24" x 12", fluorescent 4 SQFT $185 $740 A

63401‐1500 PAVEMENT MARKINGS, TYPE H, SOLID Thermoplastic for better durability 648 LNFT $12 $7,776

$15,269

ContingentQuantities15101‐0000 MOBILIZATION 5% of construction items 1 LPSM $763

63501‐0000 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL Devices, 5% of construction items 1 LPSM $763

Contingency, 20% 1 LPSM $3,054

Recommendation Total = $19,849
 SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 53 

Option 5.2.2.2FLH Pay Item Pay Item Description Supplemental Description Quantity Unit Price Line Item B

63302‐0000 SIGN SYSTEM(3 Sign systems total)

Complete RRFB system (assuming 3

assemblies for refuge curb island),

includes supplemental signing and

pavement markings 1 EACH $50,000 $50,000

A

p

a

$

61501‐0100 SIDEWALK

Rebuild south/west landing/ramp to

meet ADA 15.6 SQYD $200 $3,111 A

$53,111

ContingentQuantities15101‐0000 MOBILIZATION 5% of construction items 1 LPSM $2,65663501‐0000 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL Devices, 5% of construction items 1 LPSM $2,656

Contingency, 20% 1 LPSM $10,622

Recommendation Total = $69,044

Option 5.2.2.3FLH Pay Item Pay Item Description Supplemental Description Quantity Unit Price Line Item B

63302‐0000 SIGN SYSTEM (2 Sign systems)

PHB, includes supplemental signing

and pavement markings 1 EACH $70,000 $70,000

Awm

s

61501‐0100 SIDEWALK

Rebuild south/west landing/ramp tomeet ADA 15.6 SQYD $200 $3,111 A

$73,111

ContingentQuantities15101‐0000 MOBILIZATION 5% of construction items 1 LPSM $3,656

63501‐0000 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL Devices, 5% of construction items 1 LPSM $3,656

Contingency, 20% 1 LPSM $14,622

Recommendation Total = $95,044
 SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 54 

Option 5.2.2.4FLH Pay Item Pay Item Description Supplemental Description Quantity Unit Price Line Item 

61501‐0100 SIDEWALK

Raised pedestrian refuge island, 12'

long by 10' wide total. 13.3 SQYD $200 $2,667 

$2,667

ContingentQuantities15101‐0000 MOBILIZATION 5% of construction items 1 LPSM $13363501‐0000 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL Devices, 5% of construction items 1 LPSM $133

Contingency, 20% 1 LPSM $533

Recommendation Total = $3,467

Option 5.2.2.5FLH Pay Item Pay Item Description Supplemental Description Quantity Unit Price Line Item 

63302‐0000 SIGN SYSTEM

No studded tires (regulatory sign),

assumed dimension of 5' x 3'. 15 SQFT $185 $2,775 

$2,775

ContingentQuantities15101‐0000 MOBILIZATION 5% of construction items 1 LPSM $13963501‐0000 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL Devices, 5% of construction items 1 LPSM $139

Contingency, 20% 1 LPSM $555

Recommendation Total = $3,608

Option 5.2.5.1FLH Pay Item Pay Item Description Supplemental Description Quantity Unit Price Line Item B

63302‐0000 SIGN SYSTEM (1 Signs)

Pedestrian guide sign to direct Raptor

Center visitors to nearby crosswalk. 16 SQFT $185 $2,960 A

63302‐0000 SIGN SYSTEM (2 Signs)

W11‐15 and W11‐15P on parking lot and

W2‐1 and W11‐15P along trail for

bicyclists. 14.5 SQFT $185 $2,683 A

$5,643

ContingentQuantities15101‐0000 MOBILIZATION 5% of construction items 1 LPSM $282

63501‐0000 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL Devices, 5% of construction items 1 LPSM $282

Contingency, 20% 1 LPSM $1,129

Recommendation Total = $7,335
 SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 55 

Option 5.2.5.2FLH Pay Item Pay Item Description Supplemental Description Quantity Unit Price Line Item 

60901‐1000 CURB, CONCRETE, 12‐INCH DEPTH Curb to delineate entrance. 60 SQFT $45 $2,700 

60203‐0600 18‐INCH SLOTTED DRAIN PIPE 12‐18" slotted drain pipe. 40 LNFT $275 $11,000 

$13,700

ContingentQuantities15101‐0000 MOBILIZATION 5% of construction items 1 LPSM $685

63501‐0000 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL Devices, 5% of construction items 1 LPSM $685

Contingency, 20% 1 LPSM $2,740

Recommendation Total = $17,810

Option 5.3.1.1FLH Pay Item Pay Item Description Supplemental Description Quantity Unit Price Line Item 

60901‐1000 CURB, CONCRETE, 12‐INCH DEPTH Curb to delineate entrance. 100 SQFT $45 $4,500 

60203‐0600 18‐INCH SLOTTED DRAIN PIPE 12‐18" slotted drain pipe. 40 LNFT $275 $11,000 

50101‐0800

MINOR CONCRETE PAVEMENT,REINFORCED, 8‐INCH DEPTH Concrete pavement for bus stop. 133 SQYD $325 $43,333 

$58,833

ContingentQuantities15101‐0000 MOBILIZATION 5% of construction items 1 LPSM $2,942

63501‐0000 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL Devices, 5% of construction items 1 LPSM $2,942

Contingency, 20% 1 LPSM $11,767

Recommendation Total = $76,483
 SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 56 

Option 5.3.2.1FLH Pay Item Pay Item Description Supplemental Description Quantity Unit Price Line Item B

60901‐1000 CURB, CONCRETE, 12‐INCH DEPTH Curb to delineate entrance. 3225 SQFT $35 $112,875 A

60203‐0600 18‐INCH SLOTTED DRAIN PIPE 12‐18" slotted drain pipe. 40 LNFT $275 $11,000 A

50101‐0800

MINOR CONCRETE PAVEMENT,

REINFORCED, 8‐INCH DEPTH Concrete pavement for bus stop. 133 SQYD $325 $43,333 A

60201‐0800 24‐INCH PIPE CULVERT Storm sewer, may be able to be 18". 3225 LNFT $175 $564,375 A

60403‐0000 INLET Storm sewer inlets. 6 EACH $5,500 $33,000 A

40301‐0000 ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT

Trail reconstruction. Assume base is

obtained from existing trail. 470 TON $360 $169,313 A

25501‐0000

MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH

WALL Assumed 50' long, 10' tall wall. 500 SQFT $140 $70,000 A

$1,003,896

ContingentQuantities15101‐0000 MOBILIZATION 5% of construction items 1 LPSM $50,195

63501‐0000 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL Devices, 5% of construction items 1 LPSM $50,195

Contingency & minor grading. 20% of construction items. 1 LPSM $200,779

Recommendation Total = $1,305,065
 SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 57 

APPENDIX B – SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY INFORMATION 

Crash Modification Factors used in this report, from the Crash Modification Factors clearinghouse: 

CMF 

ID Study Title Countermeasure CRF CMF Crash Type 

9017 

Development of Crash Modification Factors 

for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing 

Treatments 

Install advanced yield or stop markings and 

signs 25 0.75 Vehicle/pedestrian 

9018 

Development of Crash Modification Factors 

for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing 

Treatments 

Install advanced yield or stop markings and 

signs 11.4 0.886 All 

9019 

Development of Crash Modification Factors 

for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing 

Treatments 

Install advanced yield or stop markings and 

signs 20 0.8 

Rear 

end,Sideswipe 

2911 

Safety Effectiveness of the HAWK 

Pedestrian Crossing Treatment 

Install a pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB or 

HAWK) 29 0.712 All 

2917 

Safety Effectiveness of the HAWK 

Pedestrian Crossing Treatment 

Install a pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB or 

HAWK) 15 0.849 All 

2922 

Safety Effectiveness of the HAWK 

Pedestrian Crossing Treatment 

Install a pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB or 

HAWK) 69 0.309 Vehicle/pedestrian 

9020 

Development of Crash Modification Factors 

for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing 

Treatments 

Install a pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB or 

HAWK) 54.7 0.453 Vehicle/pedestrian 

9021 

Development of Crash Modification Factors 

for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing 

Treatments 

Install pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB or 

HAWK) with advanced yield or stop markings 

and signs 56.8 0.432 Vehicle/pedestrian 

9022 

Development of Crash Modification Factors 

for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing 

Treatments 

Install pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB or 

HAWK) with advanced yield or stop markings 

and signs 18 0.82 All 

9023 

Development of Crash Modification Factors 

for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing 

Treatments 

Install pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB or 

HAWK) with advanced yield or stop markings 

and signs 12.4 0.876 

Rear 

end,Sideswipe 
 SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 58 

Speed cushions and tables – 

Speed cushions are similar to speed humps but have “cutouts” within the bump to allow easier passage of emergency 

and transit vehicles, as well as some trucks to pass without any vertical deflection5. 

Figure 40 – Speed Cushion 

Two field studies found a 5 to 7mph difference in the 85th percentile speed with the installation of crash cushions6. 

Speed tables are a further, similar treatment to encourage traffic calming. Speed tables may not have quite the same 

calming effect as speed humps or cushions, as the wheelbase on passenger cars can typically extend across the flat 

top, reducing the impact to the vehicle. 

5 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ePrimer_modules/module3pt2.cfm 6 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/eng_count/2014/reducing_speed.cfm
 SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 59 

Figure 41 – Traditional Speed Table 

They are harder for emergency and transit vehicles to navigate, however, an offset design can mitigate the impacts on 

emergency vehicles. 
 SAWMILL CREEK ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 | PAGE 60 

Figure 42 – Speed Table with Offset Design