There has been considerable discussion about the future of Hazard Road, including claims that the City Council and Energy & Environment Commission are working toward “reimagining” or closing the road to vehicles. I think it is important to clarify what the joint workshop was actually intended to accomplish.
The August 25 joint workshop between the City Council and Energy & Environment Commission was not held to decide whether Hazard Road should be closed. There was no Council vote to close the road, nor was the purpose of the meeting to arrive at a predetermined solution.
The purpose was to listen.
Hazard Road was selected for study because of concerns surrounding recurring flooding, climate resiliency and the environmentally sensitive Gooseneck Cove area. The City received a $50,000 Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank grant to study long-term resilience in the area. The workshop provided an opportunity to explain the study and, importantly, hear directly from residents about what they are experiencing.
That resident feedback matters.
People who live near Hazard Road or regularly use it can tell us things that reports and engineering studies cannot: when and where flooding occurs, how frequently it happens, whether vehicles can safely pass, how traffic affects the neighborhood, and what other problems they observe.
Residents at the workshop raised issues beyond flooding, including commercial traffic, vehicles being directed onto the road by navigation apps, littering, dumping and nighttime safety.
Those experiences should help define the problem before anyone begins prescribing the solution.
That distinction is important to me because good government should not begin with a predetermined outcome and then work backward to justify it. We should identify the problem, collect data, listen to the people directly affected, examine alternatives and then determine what makes sense.
Closing Hazard Road may be an idea that some individuals support. Others strongly oppose it. Those opinions are part of the public conversation, but they should not be confused with a decision by the City Council.
I believe we also need better data. If flooding is the primary concern, we should understand its frequency, depth, duration and impact before determining what infrastructure improvements or other measures may be appropriate.
The goal should be preserving this unique area while addressing legitimate flooding, environmental, access and public-safety concerns.
Public engagement is not simply asking residents to comment on a decision that has already been made. It means involving residents before decisions are made.
That was how I viewed the Hazard Road workshop: an opportunity to listen, gather information and better understand the problem.
We should not start by asking, “How do we reimagine Hazard Road?”
We should start by asking residents, “What is happening on Hazard Road, how is it affecting you, and what information do we need before deciding what comes next?”
Steph Smyth
Newport City Councilor, At-Large