Narragansett council hears divided public on ad hoc recommendation to extend bike trail to shore
November 11, 2025 | Narragansett, Washington County, Rhode Island
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Narragansett — The town council heard more than an hour of public comment on a recommendation by a citizen ad hoc committee to extend the South County Bike Trail and connect it to existing lanes on Boston Neck Road.
The committee’s majority recommended Narragansett Avenue as the preferred route, described in the 2024 engineering report as a direct 3,100-foot alignment with fewer conflict points and a terminus at the shoreline. "This route will best serve the interest of Narragansett businesses and visitors as well as cause the least disruption to Narragansett residents," said Anne Newquist, a resident and proponent of the Narragansett Avenue option.
Why it matters: Council members said they must balance multiple concerns — safety, environmental protection, parking and property agreements — while also considering the risk of losing approximately $3,000,000 in grant funds if the town does not commit before the funding deadline. Council member Jim said he will add the item to the agenda for the next or a December 1 meeting so the full council can vote.
Public commenters split along familiar lines. Supporters argued the extension would eliminate dangerous on-street conflicts between the end of the existing trail and the beach, expand safe family and accessible routes and boost local businesses. "Once built, those fears do not materialize," said a retired transportation planner who reviewed the proposals and urged the council to finish the trail.
Opponents focused on site-specific safety, privacy and environmental impacts. "No one should have to choose between staying active and staying safe," said Erin Clarity, who lives on Conchaouac, citing the isolation of parts of Anne Hoxie Lane and the killing of a local woman while jogging. Clarity and other residents warned that installing a paved path through wetland-adjacent areas would disturb habitat and increase runoff.
Property-rights advocates asked the council to honor historic agreements and easements tied to local subdivisions and to have the town solicitor review town-clerk records before advancing options that might rely on roads or rights the town does not control. One commenter said a 1995 county decision memorialized that a section of Strathmore Street is not a public road.
Data and process disputes emerged. Tara Clarity told the council the ad hoc committee’s secretary declined to deliver a majority summary supporting Narragansett Avenue and criticized a four-page survey produced by an ad hoc member as lacking methodological rigor. She also challenged a 100,000-user figure cited in grant materials, saying reducing or omitting that number in applications could amount to misleading grantors.
Parking and access featured repeatedly. The engineering report’s estimate of an approximate 32-space parking deficit for the preferred route was flagged as solvable by proponents who noted underused nonresident parking on weekends; opponents warned losing street parking on narrow residential streets would harm neighbors.
Council questions focused on three items staff said they would clarify before the next meeting: (1) whether specific streets in the disputed subdivision are public or private, (2) how much parking would be removed and where replacements might be found, and (3) the precise grant deadline (council members said it appears to be end of year). Council member Jim described the funding as "$3,000,000 worth of grant money" the town should not forfeit without further review.
The meeting concluded without a final vote on a route. A motion to adjourn was made and approved. Council members said they expect further discussion at the next meeting when the full council — including members who were absent for the work session — can weigh in.
Votes at a glance: Motion to adjourn — moved by a council member, seconded; the motion passed (voice vote recorded as 'Aye').
What’s next: The council will request legal review of property and road status, ask staff to clarify parking impacts and confirm the grant timetable before taking a formal vote on whether to accept the ad hoc committee’s recommendation and pursue the state funding.
Sources: Town council meeting transcript; statements and submissions provided by public commenters and ad hoc committee members.
The committee’s majority recommended Narragansett Avenue as the preferred route, described in the 2024 engineering report as a direct 3,100-foot alignment with fewer conflict points and a terminus at the shoreline. "This route will best serve the interest of Narragansett businesses and visitors as well as cause the least disruption to Narragansett residents," said Anne Newquist, a resident and proponent of the Narragansett Avenue option.
Why it matters: Council members said they must balance multiple concerns — safety, environmental protection, parking and property agreements — while also considering the risk of losing approximately $3,000,000 in grant funds if the town does not commit before the funding deadline. Council member Jim said he will add the item to the agenda for the next or a December 1 meeting so the full council can vote.
Public commenters split along familiar lines. Supporters argued the extension would eliminate dangerous on-street conflicts between the end of the existing trail and the beach, expand safe family and accessible routes and boost local businesses. "Once built, those fears do not materialize," said a retired transportation planner who reviewed the proposals and urged the council to finish the trail.
Opponents focused on site-specific safety, privacy and environmental impacts. "No one should have to choose between staying active and staying safe," said Erin Clarity, who lives on Conchaouac, citing the isolation of parts of Anne Hoxie Lane and the killing of a local woman while jogging. Clarity and other residents warned that installing a paved path through wetland-adjacent areas would disturb habitat and increase runoff.
Property-rights advocates asked the council to honor historic agreements and easements tied to local subdivisions and to have the town solicitor review town-clerk records before advancing options that might rely on roads or rights the town does not control. One commenter said a 1995 county decision memorialized that a section of Strathmore Street is not a public road.
Data and process disputes emerged. Tara Clarity told the council the ad hoc committee’s secretary declined to deliver a majority summary supporting Narragansett Avenue and criticized a four-page survey produced by an ad hoc member as lacking methodological rigor. She also challenged a 100,000-user figure cited in grant materials, saying reducing or omitting that number in applications could amount to misleading grantors.
Parking and access featured repeatedly. The engineering report’s estimate of an approximate 32-space parking deficit for the preferred route was flagged as solvable by proponents who noted underused nonresident parking on weekends; opponents warned losing street parking on narrow residential streets would harm neighbors.
Council questions focused on three items staff said they would clarify before the next meeting: (1) whether specific streets in the disputed subdivision are public or private, (2) how much parking would be removed and where replacements might be found, and (3) the precise grant deadline (council members said it appears to be end of year). Council member Jim described the funding as "$3,000,000 worth of grant money" the town should not forfeit without further review.
The meeting concluded without a final vote on a route. A motion to adjourn was made and approved. Council members said they expect further discussion at the next meeting when the full council — including members who were absent for the work session — can weigh in.
Votes at a glance: Motion to adjourn — moved by a council member, seconded; the motion passed (voice vote recorded as 'Aye').
What’s next: The council will request legal review of property and road status, ask staff to clarify parking impacts and confirm the grant timetable before taking a formal vote on whether to accept the ad hoc committee’s recommendation and pursue the state funding.
Sources: Town council meeting transcript; statements and submissions provided by public commenters and ad hoc committee members.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting