Based on Distorted Data
The City of El Cerrito is basing its decisions on faulty data and misleading conclusions. Despite claims of heavy bicycle traffic on Richmond Street, actual usage data does not support this assertion. The surveys and studies used to justify this project have selectively interpreted data to fit a predetermined narrative, ignoring real-world conditions. Furthermore, the lack of transparency and genuine resident input raises concerns about research integrity. If the City does not reevaluate its methodology, it risks implementing a policy that does not address actual transportation needs but rather serves as a misguided attempt at urban redesign.
The Richmond Street Complete Streets Improvement Project
When implemented as proposed is based upon
FLAWED RESEARCH
Using falsification and, at times, fabrication of data.
Consultants can interpret your input, clarify your goals, assess risk, visualize your end goal and then attempt to connect your plans with your outcomes. But above all, they like to be paid.
Hence, consultants may be in favor of producing desired results—predetermined outcomes their client wants to hear. In doing so, they can resort to manipulating, changing or omitting data so that the research is not accurately displayed. There can be dishonesty. The City’s consultant CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group openly exhibits these shortcomings on the City’s website.
The entire website is misleading, bordering on propaganda. Please find a small sampling below.
“The purpose of the Richmond Street Complete Streets Improvement project is to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and establish a complete Richmond Street between Elm Street and Fairmount Avenue.”
A double-direct question is basically a trick question. It is when respondents are asked for feedback on two different issues within one question. Since they can only respond with a single answer, the results will end up skewed—never a good thing when it comes to survey data. There was a double question on the questionnaire asking residents if they wanted safer places to walk and bike. Ask: “Do you want a safer space to walk?” and you will get 99.9% of positive answers. Now ask whether residents want safer spaces to bike and you will get a 99.5% “no” or “undecided,” as hardly anyone cycles. This was a deliberately manipulative question to achieve positive results. However, the results are fake: the “yes” is for walking, not biking. We see research misconduct here.
“Half of El Cerrito’s greenhouse gas emissions are from driving, underscoring the need to create infrastructure that serves all modes and enables less driving.”
The Richmond Street project as proposed is NOT green. In fact, the city is creating more greenhouse gasses with their plan, not less. In addition, it carelessly—or conveniently—does not distinguish between driving an electric car and driving a gasoline car. As part of the Advanced Clean Cars II regulations, all new passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs sold in California will be zero-emission vehicles by 2035. This is in 10 years.
“The project reflects input received from the community.”
The City claims there was significant outreach to Richmond Street residents about this project since the summer of 2024. As Richmond Street residents who have followed this project and provided survey feedback about improving street safety, we did not hear anything about the proposed removal of street parking until early December 2024, and neither did most of our neighbors.
No proper community input was allowed during the research phase. No dialogue with City representatives was possible during workshops. The City’s website is a distortion of reality, showcasing a deceptive and manipulative narrative that was deliberately designed to influence public opinion under false pretenses.
Residents have been shut down at council meetings, both in speaker time as well as in speaker numbers, while proponents of the plan, mostly bicyclists from elsewhere, were allowed to speak. These are violations of the Brown Act.
The project clearly does not reflect input from the 90% of the members of the community, who are against the project. This is corruption of the facts.
“On December 7th, the City hosted a workshop at the Richmond Community Center specifically for Richmond Street residents. This workshop shared how the proposed design presented in Workshop #2 could be applied to the project corridor. Residents were invited to identify their home and discuss ideas and concerns with the project team”.
The purpose of a workshop is to create a space in which a group of people can meet to discuss questions, brainstorm ideas, identify problems, make decisions and develop solutions. They are supposed to be interactive and collaborative. Unfortunately, the City’s meetings and workshops were a far cry from that. No discussion was possible. Every resident present was greatly upset. The Richmond Street Neighbors Association was birthed during this “workshop,” when outraged residents, formerly unknown to each other, exchanged emails.
None of our written concerns with the plans made it into the website. Keep in mind that 90% of residents are against the plans! This is falsification of data.
“Along these blocks, Richmond Street is the only continuous north-south street that’s relatively flat.”
This is a statement that is invented and not true. Richmond Street goes up and down and is not flat at all! This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. Richmond Street is NOT a bicyclist favorite. Ohlone Greenway is flat and a bicyclist favorite.
“As a result, this section of Richmond Street is a designated bikeway in the City’s Active Transportation Plan. The Ohlone Greenway, while a great asset, is too far from destinations like Korematsu Middle School and the El Cerrito Swim and Community Center to serve local residents.”
Another manufactured statement to create a false need for bike lanes. We are talking about abled bodies here if we are talking about bicyclists. People who commute by bicycle generally avoid Richmond Street because it is too busy and too hilly. We only discovered five bicyclists among the 205 households on Richmond Street—two households each sported two bicyclists, one household had one bicyclist. One household was for the bike lanes, two households were against. Exactly which local residents are we talking about? We see research misconduct here.
“Current engineering guidance generally advises separating bicycles and vehicles on roads with more than 6,000 vehicles per day. During a typical weekday, approximately 8,400 drivers use Richmond Street north of Moeser Lane, indicating that bicycle lanes are the appropriate type of facility to address bicyclist safety and comfort.”
Curiously, the original research showed 6,800 cars south of Moeser and 6,000 cars north of Moeser. This has now been changed to 8,400 cars. Based on what data?
And how many bicyclists? Bicycle usage was conveniently not researched, recorded or properly mentioned. We see research misconduct here.
“Bicycle lanes have also been shown to improve safety of all modes by up to 30%.”
Based on what study? Certainly the 0.3% of bicyclists who unwisely use Richmond Street may be lured into the illusion that they are somewhat safer while the rest of the residents, including pedestrians, are a lot more unsafe. We see research misconduct here.
According to the City’s research, parking occupancy is typically not higher than 46%. Let’s say this is true. If we now take away over 60% of parking (50% by the project plus an additional 10% to 13% due to CA AB 413), we are left with a 6-9% parking deficit.
But these numbers are not even true! The justification for parking removal was based upon flawed and minimal research that surveyed street parking when Richmond Street residents, most of whom need to drive their cars to work, were not at home.
In addition, the 1100 block of Richmond Street is an anomaly and does not represent the rest of the street. On the east side of this very long block is the Rose Park Condo Complex. Since Rose Park residents have their own internal “streets” within the complex as well as two-car garages, you will hardly see a car parked on that side of the street. (Not that Rose Park residents are in favor of the project. They are not.) On the West side of the 1100 block of Richmond Street there are only six houses, three of which have large front driveways which can hold two cars. This arrangement is an aberration of the average Richmond Street house that has a driveway for one car at best. In the middle of that same block is Glenwood way, a small court, packed with cars.
The 1000 block of Richmond Street is another block lightly scattered with parked cars. This is mainly due to an older demographic, which relies on volunteer and professional visitors and caretakers who need street parking. Once these older folks move away (or are pestered away by their city due to projects like this), the parking will change drastically from light to cramped.
These two blocks can offset the overall percentage of parking as a whole, but they do not represent Richmond Street in general. As for the rest of the blocks, parking is pretty dense.
The surveys that concluded a very small percentage of respondents care whether parking is preserved on Richmond Street asked people who do not live on Richmond Street, whose destination when they travel is not a location on Richmond Street. No wonder they do not care about Richmond Street parking! We see research misconduct here all around.
Conclusion: Fraudulent misrepresentation is the gravest type of misrepresentation and is taken very seriously by the courts. It arises when someone (or a City) relies on false information presented to them and as a result enters into a contract.