STH 145 Roundabout Presentation

1. STH 145 Roundabout Presentation Bloom Companies, LLC July 3, 2012

2. Our Team

4. Bloom Companies, LLC Bloom is a multi-disciplinary architecture/engineering/construction firm specializing in providing innovative and sustainable solutions for the built environment.  Our engineering services include:  Structural Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Land Surveying Services, Site/Civil Engineering, Bridge Engineering, Transportation Engineering, Traffic Engineering, Water Resources Engineering, Value Engineering, Construction Engineering and Architecture. Our Construction services encompass:  Buildings, Bridges, Infrastructure, Pile Foundations, Sheet Piling, Concrete, Carpentry, Site Work and Construction Management.

5. Project History • TIA in Aug. 2009 • intersection needs improvements • March 31, 2011 – Selected for Master Contract project • Mid June 2011 work order is approved • Late June 2011 survey completed • OPM held Sept. 27, 2011 • 30% plans completed Dec. 12, 2011 • 1 Signalized design • 1 Roundabout design • PIM No. 1 on Feb. 8, 2012 • ICE approval on June 6, 2012 • Roundabout recommended

6. Design process • Original thought presented at OPM: • Center the Roundabout, show historic school house impact (basis for design) • Was told any design involving historic properties must be feasible and leave historic property intact. • Slide center of intersection NE within both options • Multiple iterations and discussions with Ourston on Roundabout design • October thru early December 2011 • 1 Signalized design and 1 Roundabout design submitted to Department and Village for comments (seen in agenda package)

7. 1 Signalized Intersection

8. 2 Roundabout Intersection

9. 3 PIM No. 1, Feb. 8, 2012 42 attendees signed in

10. 4 PIM No. 1 comments / themes • 12 comment forms turned in; comments include: • 1) Concern for speed on 145, mentioned roundabout could help this • 2) One misunderstood roundabout to be 2 lane with need to switch lanes • 3) 3 liked the roundabout idea, 1 liked safety of Roundabout • 4) 7 said no roundabout, multiple mentioning lower cost of signal option • (incorrect assumption) • Signal = $1.9 million • Roundabout = $1.4 million • 5) Concerns about utility lines, trees and ability to make left out of driveway • 6) Waste Mgmt – desires signal or 50% larger Roundabout • 7) 1 thought – signal easier on semi’s and garbage trucks • 8) 2 concerned about space required for roundabout • 9) 1 said go with signal due to cost (see above #’s) • Shared with stakeholders on Feb. 9, 2012 via synopsis / overview doc.

11. 4 ICE Review • 9 different areas within chart, operational analysis shown below.

12. 4 ICE Review, continued • Signal LOS = C Roundabout LOS = B • Signal Delay = 34 seconds Roundabout Delay = 14 seconds

13. 5

14. 6 Project initiation

15. 7 Some items initiating project

16. 8 TIA recommendations

17. 9 Roundabouts VS Signals

18. 1 Present design (Roundabout) • Safety • Speed reduction through use of Chicane

19. 1 Present design (Roundabout) • Right-of-way impacts • Similar for both options

20. 1 Present design (Roundabout) • Access – lost with signal but not with Rdbt.

21. 1 Village comments desired • Can help better design • Now or later, form provided

22. Thank You!! Any Questions? Jeremy Hinds, PE Bloom Project Manager 414-292-4552 Emmanuel Yartey, PE WisDOT Project Manager 262-548-6429