STH 145 Roundabout Presentation

Bloom Companies, LLCJuly 3, 2012

Our Team

Bloom Companies, LLCBloom 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.

•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

•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)

Signalized Intersection1

Roundabout Intersection2

PIM No. 1, Feb. 8, 20123

42 attendees signed in

PIM No. 1 comments / themes4

12 comment forms turned in; comments include:

1) Concern for speed on 145, mentioned roundabout could help this2) One misunderstood roundabout to be 2 lane with need to switch lanes3) 3 liked the roundabout idea, 1 liked safety of Roundabout4) 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 driveway6) Waste Mgmt – desires signal or 50% larger Roundabout7) 1 thought – signal easier on semi’s and garbage trucks8) 2 concerned about space required for roundabout9) 1 said go with signal due to cost (see above #’s)

Shared with stakeholders on Feb. 9, 2012 via synopsis / overview doc.

ICE Review4

9 different areas within chart, operational analysis shown below.

ICE Review, continued

4

Signal LOS = C Roundabout LOS = BSignal Delay = 34 seconds Roundabout Delay = 14 seconds

5

Project initiation6

Some items initiating project

7

TIA recommendations8

Roundabouts VS Signals9

Present design (Roundabout)

•Safety▫Speed reduction through use of Chicane

1

Present design (Roundabout) •Right-of-way impacts

▫Similar for both options

1

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

1

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

1

Thank You!!

Any Questions?Emmanuel Yartey, PEWisDOT Project Manager262-548-6429

Jeremy Hinds, PEBloom Project Manager414-292-4552