Topsham committee reviews quick‑build street safety demos for Elm, Mallet and Foreside

Topsham’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee on June 8 reviewed draft “quick‑build” designs and cost estimates for four demonstration projects intended to slow traffic and improve crossings on Elm Street, Monument Place, Mallet Drive and Foreside Road.

“The four locations we discussed — Mallet Drive, Foreside Road, and two locations on Main Street — are rendered in a standardized packet so the DOT regional engineer will recognize it,” said Jim, the committee’s designer, who presented the plans and ballparked quantities and costs. “I’ve created some quantities and cost estimates, uh kind of ballpark it.”

The packet Jim described includes site maps, crash and speed metrics, maintenance notes and a signature box for a town official; he said the materials are formatted to the preferences DOT typically requests so review should be straightforward once the select board signs off. He estimated flex‑post materials for the Main Street locations at about $1,620 and said the full set of projects as drafted is “just shy” of $9,200, with options to reduce quantities to lower costs.

Committee members pressed on implementation details. Jim said DOT review is required only for state roads; town‑managed streets can be installed by the municipality without state approval. “Mallet is a townway,” he said when asked whether Mallet Drive is state aid, indicating the town could proceed unilaterally on that corridor.

The presentation emphasized safety data. Jim said he reviewed crashes from 2015–2025 and noted a cluster of collisions at the Elm Street intersection. The packet also includes a short speed‑study summary: one field study showed a substantial share of drivers exceeding the limit at the playing‑field corridor.

Sarah, who led the plan and policy review, outlined a proposed intake and review process for quick‑build ideas that reuses the town’s traffic complaint form with an additional field linking to a quick‑build menu. Submissions would receive a staff preliminary review by police and public works, then go to the bike/ped committee and, if recommended, to the select board for final authorization and town manager/public works implementation.

Committee members discussed community outreach and messaging for demo projects — yard signs, QR codes linking to surveys, letters to affected residents — and emphasized the temporary, data‑driven nature of quick builds. Tim pointed to other cities’ experiences, saying Portland and Burlington use processes that let citizens and neighborhood groups request or pilot temporary treatments while collecting before/after data.

The committee did not vote to authorize construction at the meeting; members agreed to review the full draft plan and Jim’s appendices, provide comments, and reconvene for further discussion. A working meeting was tentatively set for June 29, with the regular meeting on July 13 to consider consolidated comments and potential action.

What happens next: Jim will finalize design packets and share PDFs for committee comment; staff will confirm which streets are state aid versus townways before any DOT submittal. If the board approves, DOT regional review would follow for any state roads, after which implementation and materials procurement would proceed.