A False Promise of Safety
The project’s proposed changes for Richmond Street will not improve safety. Instead, it will create new hazards for all El Cerrito residents using Richmond Street. Removing parking forces individuals to cross multiple lanes of traffic, increasing the likelihood of jaywalking and pedestrian injuries. The introduction of bike lanes does not reduce accidents, as intersections and driveways remain high-risk areas for collisions. Moreover, traffic calming measures like chicanes may hinder emergency response times, putting lives at risk throughout the city. True safety solutions should be evidence-based and address all road users fairly.
The Richmond Street Complete Streets Improvement Project
When implemented as proposed
is NOT SAFE!
The current Richmond Street Complete Streets Improvement Project presents an illusion of safety. It claims to create “a safe, comfortable, and convenient transportation network that serves users of all modes and abilities.” In reality, Richmond Street will be less safe with these changes.
The project as proposed:
Increases pedestrian traffic crossing the street and invites jaywalking. If your car must be parked across the street instead of in front of your own house, especially for those who live mid-block, the temptation is to jaywalk. Does the city think most people will detour, using the crosswalk to get between house and car, or will they jaywalk? Older and disabled people may not have the stamina to walk the extra distance to a car on the other side of the street. As a resident of Richmond Street recently commented, seniors walk slower, increasing the danger to them while crossing the street.
Increases the chance of pedestrians being hit. A pedestrian now crosses two lanes of moving traffic. With the plan, a pedestrian will have to cross two lanes of moving car traffic plus two lanes of bicycle traffic. The new design creates a longer and more dangerous traverse for pedestrians, increasing the chances the pedestrian will be hit. Despite the project team’s contention that all users are safer when bike lanes are added, bike lanes do not make pedestrians safer. Pedestrians, whether at crosswalks or mid-block, run the risk of being hit first by cyclists as they cross the bike lanes and then by cars. Bicyclists notoriously do not stop at stop signs or red lights, nor do they give right of way to pedestrians.
Makes streets visibly wider, not narrower, by taking away parking and adding two bike lanes. Currently the two traffic lanes and two parking lanes make the street look narrower. Making the street look wider will invite higher speeds, especially in response to traffic calming measures.
Creates more safety hazards for all traffic. Due to the newly created deficiency in parking spaces, Amazon, Fed-Ex, UPS, the postal service, landscaping crews, plumbers, painters, handy people, elder care, pet care, laundry pick up and delivery drivers, house cleaners, food delivery, meals on wheels, shuttles, friends and family all may have to double park on the car parking side or illegally park in the bike lanes. The new parking plan does not offer them an alternative.
Makes pulling out of a driveway even more hazardous. When exiting a driveway, you often have significantly less visibility of oncoming traffic. The angle of the driveway and potential obstructions like bushes, trees and fences make it more difficult to assess the situation before merging into traffic. Pulling out of a driveway is considered far more dangerous than pulling away from a parallel parking position.
Increases the danger to bicyclists. Driveways are intersections. The National Association of City Traffic Officials (NACTO) considers driveways to be intersections. Intersections are the single largest danger point to cyclists. Richmond Street, with its narrow lots, is all driveways. The plan forces residents to park in their driveways and creates denser parking on Richmond Street. It will lower visibility for drivers and increase, not decrease, danger to cyclists.
Increases the danger to bicyclists due to insufficient parking for cars on Richmond Street. Insufficient parking as mandated in the plan leaves visitors, caregivers and delivery drivers no alternative but to temporarily park in the bike lane on the side of the street where there is no parking, or to double park in the bike lane on the side where parking is allowed. The bicyclist will have to swerve around the vehicle and merge into traffic to pass the obstruction. This creates the possibility that the driver, not realizing the bicyclist is passing, could open their door just at that moment, sending the bicyclist to the hospital—or worse. The city would be culpable because of its decision to install this poorly thought-out plan for bike lanes.
Leads to more collisions. When you make street parking denser by taking away 50% of the existing parking places, you will see more cars trying to park in a tight space, which will prevent other cars from passing by freely, creating a traffic obstruction and significantly slowing traffic behind them. Drivers become impatient and try to maneuver around them, leading to collisions.
Does not serve users of ALL modes and ALL abilities. The plan says it is “a safe, comfortable, convenient transportation network that serves users of all modes and all abilities.” In reality, the plan is a disingenuous way to appease some bicyclists (which make up less than 0.3% of traffic) while creating hazards for all users (the other 99.7%), especially older or disabled residents and young families. The project discriminates against all other modes of transportation and all other abilities, with the exception of bicyclists, and even they are not safe if this project is implemented.
Promotes chicanes and other traffic calming methods as safe, though they are not! Chicanes are serpentine curves in a road, added by design rather than dictated by geography. Chicanes were added to streets by developers who believed they would calm traffic in urban settings. Unexpected, unnatural changes in road configuration can significantly raise the risk of collisions with other vehicles. They can cause sudden stops and slowdowns, increase traffic congestion, and make it difficult for large trucks, including emergency vehicles, to maneuver. Trees, shrubs and telephone poles may obstruct the view of the curved road ahead, making it harder to see potential hazards. By making the road into a complex obstacle course, traffic slows and drivers must navigate the changes with their full attention on the road in addition to not missing bicyclists, pedestrians or another car backing out or crossing the road.
According to CivicWell.org, which promotes Smart Growth streets, “on a Smart Growth street, the driver must slow down and be alert for pedestrians in crosswalks, pedestrians crossing away from crosswalks, bicyclists entering, crossing or riding along the street, cars entering and leaving curbside parking spaces, more frequent intersections and crosswalks, curb bulbs, pedestrian refuges, and other features not found in conventional streets.” Results of studies do not show a consistent reduction in traffic speed.
Negatively impacts emergency response times, as chicanes are difficult to navigate for emergency vehicles. This plan does not allow room for emergency vehicles to turn onto the street or to get past drivers who have limited space to pull out of the way. There seems to be general agreement, even among proponents of slow streets, that “traffic calming measures can restore some balance to non-motorized traffic, but it can be difficult to do without affecting emergency response times” (CivicWell.org).
Americans suffer almost ten times as many sudden cardiac arrests as traffic fatalities. If emergency medical technicians reach someone within four minutes of a sudden cardiac arrest, the chances of survival are better than 60 percent; but if it takes five minutes or more, survival drops below 30 percent.
Studies have found that for every pedestrian whose life might be saved by slowing traffic, anywhere from 35 to 85 people will die from sudden cardiac arrest due to delayed emergency response. This number does not even count other medical emergencies, structure fires, or other emergency service needs.
The proponents of the plans want to believe that a few minutes slower response is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Richmond Street is a major route for emergency responders. A small difference in response time caused by making our emergency response street into a slow street could be the difference between life and death or between a small fire and one that burns the house down. Will emergency providers be able to accept this delay? More importantly, will the residents of El Cerrito affected by the delays think it is no big deal to have their injuries made worse or their homes lost because of slow response?
Turns Richmond Street, a designated evacuation route for the city, into a deadly bottleneck. After the Pacific Palisades fire broke out in January 2025, everyone tried to evacuate. Unfortunately, the Pacific Coast Highway, which could have handled four lanes of traffic—one into and three out of town—had two lanes, plus bike lanes. You may remember what happened:
Obstructing an emergency evacuation route can be deadly.
Conclusion: Creating bike lanes at the cost of on street parking is not a safety improvement for 99.7 % of the community, and improved safety is questionable for the other 0.3%. “Safe” is a marketing term here.
Further reading: