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. Signalized Intersection 1

8. Roundabout Intersection 2

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

10. PIM No. 1 comments / themes 4 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. ICE Review 4 9 different areas within chart, operational analysis shown below.

12. ICE Review, continued 4 Signal LOS = CRoundabout LOS = B Signal Delay = 34 secondsRoundabout Delay = 14 seconds

13. 5

14. Project initiation 6

15. Some items initiating project 7

16. TIA recommendations 8

17. Roundabouts VS Signals 9

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

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

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

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

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