Bike Walk Alameda and Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA) co-hosted a virtual forum for our city council candidates on September 16, 2020. Here’s the recording of the forum:
We also invited the candidates to answer a few transportation-related questions (see below) prior to the event, the responses to which are below.
Here are the candidates running. Two seats are open.
- Amos White
- Jim Oddie
- Malia Vella
- Gig Edward Codiga
- Trish Herrera Spencer
*****
Questionnaire & Responses
Question #1
For over a decade, BWA has been advocating for a bicycle and pedestrian bridge connecting Alameda’s West End to Oakland. The case for bike access, particularly for the under-served West End, is made stronger every day, whether we’re confronting climate change, traffic/housing issues, health, equity, or safety. We believe it’s much-needed infrastructure that will transform Alameda, and we’re happy to see the progress that’s been made over the last couple of years. Are you supportive of the bike and pedestrian bridge? If so, what have you done to support its progress to date? Going forward, what do you see as obstacles, and how will you address them? What should we name the bridge and how can we expedite the ribbon cutting?
Amos White:
I am supportive of a bike and pedestrian bridge connecting the island over the estuary to Oakland. With my involvement on CASA-Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda, our environmental task force, I have been a vocal advocate for increased bike/walk lanes and access across the island.
In helping to get this funded, we’d need to overcome two main barriers: cost and the Coast Guard requirements. I would personally lead the lobbying of our state and federal agencies to fund a bike pedestrian bridge. The cost is projected to be over $110 million dollars, and the Coast Guard requirement for a 600 foot horizontal clearance is a steep demand. As council member, I would meet with Rep. Barbara Lee, the Coast Guard, MTC to see how we can negotiate this requirement down.
Additionally, I would seek funding from One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) and the U.S. Dept. of Transportation’s Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation program.
For naming the bridge span, I would favor an open community process to enable adequate public input on such a vital and important structure that is sure to be a landmark for years to come.
Jim Oddie:
Yes, I continue to support this additional estuary crossing. When I worked for Assemblymember Bonta, I set up a meeting with advocates of the project with the Assemblymember to generate momentum for this project. I voted to approve the Transportation Choices Plan in 2018 that included this item as a transportation priority project. I voted to approve the CARP in 2019, which specifically identified the bike/ped bridge as a key project in moving toward the CARP goal of moving toward net zero GHG emissions. I voted to approve the tentative map for the last phase of Alameda Landing in 2019 – the approved master plan for this project required the developer to provide access for the landing of the proposed bike/ped bridge. I continue to support this project whenever it comes up in a discussion at City Council. The major obstacles are funding and getting the Coast Guard to sign off the project. I’ve voted to include this project in our annual legislative agenda, which sets the priorities of our state and federal lobbyists. These efforts, with the support of our federal representatives, will be critical to obtaining Coast Guard approval. We should continue to pursue grants, as well as state funding, to further this project along the various stages of the project. As for the name, I really haven’t thought much about it, but hope we could follow the lead of Portland, Oregon, which named its automobile-free transit bridge “Tilikum Crossing,” to honor that area’s indigenous peoples. We can expedite the ribbon cutting by working to overcome the obstacles identified here – funding for each phase and Coast Guard approval.
Malia Vella:
Yes. I supported the West End Estuary Crossing/Bike and Pedestrian Bridge since before joining City Council in 2016 and continue to advocate for it. I have voted in support of moving forward while on the City Council including as part of our Transportation Choices Plan (2018) which highlighted the bridge as a priority project. I also voted for our Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP) in 2019. The CARP noted that the Bike/Ped Bridge on the West End was vital in meeting our goal of net zero GHG emissions. In addition to these two key votes, I also voted to approve the tentative map for Alameda Landing (2019). The master plan for Alameda Landing requires the developer to provide access for the landing of this proposed bridge.
The major obstacles for the Bike/Ped Bridge continue to be funding and getting full approval from the Coast Guard. This is why it is critical that we keep the project as part of our legislative priorities for both the state and federal government. We have done well to get funding for the studies and early planning of the project but we will need regional, state and federal financial support to see the Bike/Ped Bridge actually constructed. If we can show broad support we will be better able to get final approval from the Coast Guard as well.
As part of our racial equity and justice analysis of our city policies, I fully expect our naming procedures and policies to change. I look forward to hearing recommendations from the community as to this process and also names to be added to the list and I think we should look to this to inform the name as well as looking for a name that recognizes our diversity. We need to continue to work in coalition together and continue to elevate this project as a priority. We also need to look for support for this project (financial and otherwise) from developers, ACTC and the state as it is critical to meeting our CARP goals while also meeting our housing needs.
Gig Edward Codiga:
Conceptually improving pedestrian and bicycle transportation in a safe manner throughout Alameda, as well as providing alternative commuting options, is forward thinking and worthwhile. The question is largely as to priorities, what are the priorities for Alameda and Alamedans, where is the best effective spend? Is spending $75m plus (with high annual operating and maintenance costs) more important than protection from sea level rise, or parks or Affordable Housing or supporting Alameda Hospital or existing needs for social services or essential city infrastructure? Where does the funding come from? Can the budget handle funding, after meeting our long term funding obligations and providing essential services for the community at large? What will be the utilization of the bicycle pedestrian bridge? Though the project is innovative, is it yet feasible? Thus, perhaps the best way to achieve the goals would be scheduled and on-demand ferries and van services from several ports of call to and from Alameda and Oakland, acknowledging bicycles and people already use ferries for bay crossings.
Trish Herrera Spencer:
In 2009, eleven years ago, the City of Alameda studied how best to improve bike and pedestrian crossing across the Oakland Estuary, and an Estuary Crossing Study: Feasibility Study (Sept., 2009) was funded by the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA), Caltrans, City of Alameda, and City of Oakland. The purpose was to “create an easy-to-use, safe and enjoyable crossing to enhance the Bay Area’s regional bicycle, pedestrian and transit networks.” The Study discussed short, medium and long-term alternatives:
- “Minor Modifications to Posey Tube – A short-term solution to better accommodate existing bicyclist and pedestrian demand. Potential improvements to the existing path include replacing existing plate covers, filling in grooves on the concrete path, and establishing a regular maintenance program.
- New Water Crossing: Water Shuttle/Taxi – An intermediate solution that will meet the project objectives with consideration of the planned developments on both sides of the estuary. The water shuttle/taxi was determined to be the high-priority alternative for bicyclist and pedestrian crossings.
- Bridge, Tunnel or Other Elevated Structure (Potential Long-Term Alternative) Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge (Moveable, Low Level Option) –The bridge could be a long-term viable alternative if the following constraints are addressed: Note: Emphasis included in report.
-
- The US Coast Guard allows the bridge to remain closed during peak times;
- The moveable span of the bridge, which is currently at 600 feet, is reduced to a more manageable horizontal clearance;
- The height of the bridge is reduced to a level that does not require significant closing and opening times; and
- The cost of construction could be justified for regional funding support.”
Table 1 of the Report, at page 5, has estimated costs of each.
- Posey Tube Construction $2.5 Million; annual maintenance $50,000 by Caltrans
- Water Shuttle / Taxi Construction $3 million $2.5 million; $2.5 million for 24/7 annual maintenance; $1.25 million for 12 hour, and $625,000 for 6 hours.
- Movable Bridge Construction $60 million and $1.5 million 24/7 operations.
Thus, in Sept. 2016, the City of Alameda recommended grant application submittals to City Transportation Board for an “Estuary Water Shuttle Feasibility Study for potential ferry service between Alameda and Oakland, which would improve access to transit, jobs and shopping for both cities and for the residents and employees who will be living and working in the redeveloping areas along the estuary in Alameda and Oakland. The study would recommend an alignment, type of vehicles, frequency, stop locations, and schedule and estimated capital and operations costs for implementation. A key aspect will be guiding and developing public/private partnership opportunities. The bounds of the area to be explored for service would be between the Main Street ferry terminal area and the Park Street Bridge. This study would build on the extensive work done in the City’s 2009 Estuary Crossing Study, which determined that a water shuttle/taxi was one of the preferred alternatives for bicyclist and pedestrian crossings. The cost of the study is estimated at $100,000.”
In February, 2017, Jennifer Ott, Alameda’s former Transportation Planning Director, was quoted explaining the City’s decision to recommend against nominating the bike/ped bridge proposal for a $250,000 grant from the ACTC—monies that would have been used to evaluate the engineering feasibility of the bridge, “The Coast Guard criteria make the proposed bridge practically infeasible,” Ott said. ‘And there’s no way to get federal funding for a bridge that would open and close unpredictably, cost $75 million, and be the tallest drawbridge in the world, thanks to Coast Guard requirements. So, my advice was, let’s not spend $250,000 studying more technical solutions, when the problem is the Coast Guard criteria. Instead, can we change those criteria? Can we interpret them creatively?” The article further explained, “That’s because the creation of Coast Guard Island in 1913—and the ensuing need for cutters to be able to access the estuary between the bay and the Park Street drawbridge—led to the eventual demolition of Alameda’s first swing bridge over the estuary and its replacement, first with the Posey Tube, and then the Webster Tube.”
http://www.alamedamagazine.com/January-February-2017/A-Bike-Bridge-Too-Far/
As Mayor, I served as Alameda’s representative on the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC). Working with City Staff, and collaborating with other mayors, and elected officials, under my leadership, the City of Alameda was extremely successful at receiving funding for transportation projects that included improving bicycle and pedestrian access. In fact, on April 27, 2017, ACTC approved, as part of its 5-year $405 million comprehensive investment plan (CIP) which was unanimously approved (including me), funding for six City of Alameda projects totaling $34,927,000. This was the most any Alameda County city received except Oakland. The, Alameda projects funded included:
1) New Ferry Terminal at Seaplane Lagoon – $8.2 Million in FY 2019-20 for construction phase;
2) Central Avenue Complete Street (Main/Pacific to Sherman/Encinal) – $3.5 million (federal monies) in FY 2019-20;
3) Clement Avenue Complete Street (Broadway to Grand) – $5 million (federal monies) in FYs 2017-19 for environmental/ design phase and FY 2019-20 for construction phase;
4) Appezzato Parkway Dedicated Bus Lanes – $9 million in FYs 2017-19 for planning/environmental/design phase and FY 2019-20 for construction phase;
5) Clement Avenue East Extension and Tilden Way including Right-of-way Purchase – $8.4 million in FYs 2017-19 for planning/environmental/design/ROW phases and FY 2019-20 for construction phase; and
6) City-wide Street Resurfacing: Pavement Management – $827,000 (federal monies) in FY 2019-20 for construction phase.
Subsequently, the City Council approved the 2017-2019 Capital Budget on June 6, 2017, which included all of the above projects.
Also, while I was Mayor, in August, 2018, City Staff put out these FAQs.
https://www.alamedaca.gov/files/sharedassets/public/alameda/transportation/transpofaqs_aug2018.pdf
In March 2019, the MTC, as part of Plan Bay Area 2050, the Bay Area’s next Regional Transportation Plan, requested projects for consideration and the City of Alameda included 10 projects, totaling $499 Million. Some are projects from earlier and some are new. The West End Bike/Ped Crossing is now added at $222 Million, after the Water Shuttle Operations at $47 Million:
#35 New Alameda Point Ferry Terminal $22 Million
#36 Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway Dedicated Bus Lanes or Bus Queue Jump Lanes $15 Million
#37 Central Avenue Safety Improvements $15 Million
#38 Clement Ave and Tilden Way Complete Streets $15 Million
#39 Lincoln Avenue Safety Improvements $3 Million
#40 Otis Drive Safety Improvements $1 Million
#41 Stargell Complete Street $5 Million
#42 Water Shuttle Operations $47 Million
#43 West End Bike/Ped Crossing $222 Million
#44 Waterfront and Bay Trails in City of Alameda $154 Million
https://www.alamedactc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/5.3_ACTAC_PBA_2050_ProjectsList_20190606.pdf
Then, just right before Shelter in Place (SIP), on March 10, 2020, there was a meeting with Andrew Thomas, now the City’s Director of Planning, Building and Transportation. “Planners at the city of Alameda, Alameda County, and the city of Oakland are in the earliest phases of looking at design options for a pedestrian and bicycle-only crossing of the 800-foot-wide estuary that separates Jack London Square from Webster Street and the western end of Alameda Island…Unfortunately, the Coast Guard maintains cutters farther up the estuary and has final say over the project. They have refused to post the cutters to a different location and are demanding a 600-foot horizontal clearance for the lifting part of the bridge… The bridge also has to be high enough even in the down position to clear nearly all sailboats, at about 70 feet… The bridge will take years to get funded, designed, and constructed. In the shorter term, Thomas said developers in Oakland and Alameda are coming together with plans to run a water shuttle in the next few years (which would take bicycles).” [Emphasis added.]
So, based on the most recent report of March 10, 2020 to the public by the City, there doesn’t appear to have been any movement from the Coast Guard and the feasibility of a bike/ped bridge across the Oakland Estuary since the 2009 study. I personally would love to say that this can happen anytime and that it’s moving right along, as someone who would enjoy using it, however, that doesn’t appear to be so and I am always straightforward in my comments. While Mayor, I was very effective at collaborating with the Coast Guard and even received the highest civilian recognition from the Coast Guard for my collaborative work with them during my tenure as Mayor. We discussed this issue and my understanding at that time and still today is that they continue to require certain specifications that make this project design and fiscally challenging. I have also heard some proponents’ suggestions that Alameda should “encourage” the Coast Guard to leave Coast Guard Island and possibly put housing there to offset their costs of moving, however, in all candor, I have not heard any suggestion that Coast Guard is planning to leave Coast Guard Island.
If there’s a way to design such a bridge that meets the Coast Guard requirements (which are for Coast Guard and other vessels), I believe that it’s most likely to be built with regional public monies and private funds, for instance from developers on both sides of the Oakland Estuary. Many projects are funded today with public and private partnerships. As we see more development on both sides, it’s more likely to happen. And, as noted above, in the 2009 Estuary Crossing Study, the annual operating expenses were estimated to be significantly less for the bridge than the water shuttle. However, the estimated construction costs appear to have increased significantly to $222 Million in Alameda’s 2019 proposal from the $75 Million in 2009. Also, with COVID-19, fewer people are taking public transportation and bike riding is seen as more safe by many, so that could improve chances for this project being funded. However, we are also seeing significant reductions in revenues as fewer are taking public transportation and anticipating reduced new monies from taxes with so many being hurt financially at this time.
Thinking positively, let’s say the project gets funded and built in the next 10 years! In which case, it would probably happen with the assistance of significant private funding. My guess is they would want naming rights. However, if asked, I’d probably suggest something like, “Oakland-Alameda Estuary Crossing,” to signify our partnership of working together for the betterment of both cities.
*****
Question #2
The public comment period for the Draft Active Transportation Plan recently closed. In line with our city’s Vision Zero Policy and Safe and Livable Streets Resolution, “low stress” options for our high-injury commercial districts were presented, specifically for Park St. and Webster St.. Clear favorites for us were the options that best reflected the intentions of Vision Zero and Safe and Livable Streets: the ones that proposed *protected* bike lanes. They are the safest, most inviting for users of every age and ability, and can’t be blocked by illegally parked cars. We believe improving bike and pedestrian access to (and within) our business districts is about more than just safety and equity, though. Business districts designed around people rather than cars will make better, more vibrant *destinations* in and of themselves, benefitting our local businesses, especially in a future where online shopping is so competitive.
Of the reconfiguration options presented in the Draft Active Transportation Plan, which will you support for our business districts, and why?
Amos White:
Improving access to our small business shops, stores and restaurants is the key to our economic survival and a thriving local economy. Though, we must assure that they are fair and equitable at the outset and in implementation prioritization.
For our business districts, I am in favor of supporting:
- Improved safety for people who are walking: updating our Pedestrian Master Plan and Design Guidelines Update and Vision Zero Safety Policy/Plan will provide for a better, safer business district experience for our community.
- Leave the car at home: start the Alameda Shuttle Service and ensure low headways of 10 minutes to encourage more to leave their cars and be more walk friendly.
- Support our small businesses with more transportation partnerships with existing businesses and residences.
- More community education and outreach programs to continue the work of assuring our neighbors that bike and walk and micromobility mobility options are accessible, safe and benefit the planet with decreased carbon emissions.
- Expanding the transportation options for seniors and people with disabilities should also take priority to ensure equity to our most vulnerable.
- Safety of our residents must come first. Increasing bicycle and pedestrian options is key. I would support the Bicycle and pedestrian Corridor Improvements with an eye on expanding our Citywide Safe Routes to School to assure our children’s and cyclists safety.
Jim Oddie:
I support Option A (separated bike lanes) for Park Street and Option A (separated bike lanes) for Webster Street as well. As noted in the question, these are the safest, most inviting, and logistically sensible options. On the council I have been a leader in supporting lane closures on both commercial main streets during COVID-19 as well as encouraging the city and business associations to temporarily/occasionally closing these streets during the COVID pandemic to activate these areas for bicycles and pedestrians. I co-authored the referral to direct grant funding for the construction of safe parklets, which will further activate parts of the street once used for automobiles.
Malia Vella:
Having participated in the public outreach and comment on the Draft Active Transportation Plan, I think it is clear that many people, including myself support Option A – the separated/protected bike lanes for both Webster and Park Streets because these are the safest, most logistical, and most inviting option and are thus in line with the intent of Vision Zero Policy and Safe and Livable Streets Resolution. Additionally, during the COVID19 pandemic I have advocated for closing Park and Webster streets to vehicles to allow for more safe access and outdoor spaces for our businesses as they open up parklets and explore alternatives.
Gig Edward Codiga:
Safety for pedestrians and bicycles and board-riders throughout Alameda is important. People during COVID seem to be adapting to alternative transportation modes. Each strategic location will require special configurations. However, we should acknowledge that cars are not going away, and reconfigurations that increase traffic congestion add to our carbon foot print, people still need to get around in cars, as a society we may be approaching but not yet resolve our method of travel to assume elimination or even significant reduction in cars in the near future. Many people are unable to walk, to ride a bicycle to ride boards, scooters – disable persons, senior citizens. If we use a configuration in a business district that ultimately discourages travel, consumers will avoid those pathways; one of the key criteria for locating a retail operation is the number of passersby. I have always thought during weekends that closing down Central between Park and Oak would make a great gathering and sharing space. I experienced the public “patio” at Alameda Avenue and Park, and that works. So, let’s identify those opportunities. Bottom line, design a low impact configuration that works without impacting safety (fire and police), access, neighbors, and businesses.
Trish Herrera Spencer:
The Draft Active Transportation Plan includes variations of proposed bikeway types, pedestrian infrastructure recommendations, and in depth proposals for Park and Webster Streets and Lincoln Avenue. In regards to the business districts, as a result of COVID-19, Park and Webster have been modified to accommodate eating tables along the curbs in the streets, where parking had been, parking has mostly been reduced to 15 minute for pickup only, and lanes have been reduced to one each way with a left hand turning lane at intersections. Car traffic has been reduced because of more working from home (WFH). As we move through this pandemic and the aftermath, it will be important to continue to work closely with our business districts for their input. Obviously, many, if not all, are struggling. Currently, tables are where the bike paths would be under some proposals. As more return to work, we have seen traffic increasing. We will also need to closely study the impact on adjacent and other arteries from Webster to the Posey Tube to Oakland, from Oakland through the Webster Tube to Alameda, and to and from Park Street across the Park Street Bridge to ensure that we don’t just shift problems to other streets.
*****
Question #3
“Bike Boulevards” were introduced in the Active Transportation Plan. To make these select streets truly safe for people of all ages to enjoy while biking, car traffic must be reduced and forced to slow. While the proposed bike boulevards are only a subset of streets, there are bound to be detractors who believe all streets should be optimized for car travel, or worry about a shift of traffic to other streets, or don’t want improvements that force drivers to slow down (like speed humps),or to select a different route (like diverters). Are you in favor of bike boulevards, and if so, will you support deprioritizing the car-centric road grid? Which traffic calming tools do you support or oppose? How will you address drivers’ push-back against deprioritizing their convenience?
Amos White:
Bike boulevards are a smart, safe and fun way to get around and build a healthy community. A car-centric road grid needs to be revisited if we are to achieve greater bike/walk mobility and reduced vehicle trips and carbon emissions.
Assuring that we prioritize public safety in implementing a Vision Zero policy is a winner. I favor separated bikeways and walkways, and reduced vehicle travel lanes to reinforce walking, biking and shuttle options to leave the car at home. Improved education and outreach coupled with providing more transportation options (shuttle, etc.) will increase local adoption and reduce driver “push-back”.
Jim Oddie:
Yes. You may recall that staff presented options for the Webster Street intersection on the Central Avenue Complete Street project, I made sure the Bike Walk Alameda proposal was one that stayed in the mix of possible options – it was later adopted. I was disappointed to learn after the fact, that bicycle safety projects were slow walked by staff under the previous mayor and am pleased that we have moved forward both Central Avenue and Clement Street in the last two years, as well as the western portion of Otis Drive. We also resolved the issue of the “Atlantic Gap” on the cross-Alameda trail and opened substantial portions of it in the last few years (and we are working on the Tilden Avenue portion of the trail now). I support the slow streets initiative that we implemented earlier this year, although as a residence of one of those streets, I had to recuse myself from voting on it. I support traffic calming/safety efforts such as roundabouts, flashing beacons, road diets, bulb-outs, daylighting, BRT lanes, etc. One item I was proud to vote for was adopting Vision Zero. Pre-COVID there was a rash of pedestrian/automobile incidents, most of them involving children. I was proud to be a leader with our council, and especially our Vice Mayor, and the community in developing the council response to these accidents (including a community town hall and listening sessions). To me, preventing the death of even one pedestrian, adult or child, is worth more than shaving a few seconds off your commute or a random parking space – these are my values, and I’m proud that these values prevailed in the discussion about the Central/Webster intersection. Also, our TCP and CARP call for mode shifting and reduction of single vehicle occupancy trips – we can’t make those as policy objectives while simultaneously prioritizing drivers’ convenience if these policy objectives are to mean anything. I believe speed humps can be effective, but also acknowledge that these can impede fire department responses. There are many “short cut” streets that drivers use to avoid traffic signals, etc. that need additional speed reduction efforts. More also needs to be done around schools, especially on Lincoln.
Malia Vella:
Yes. I have been supportive of the progress we have made on Otis Drive, Central Avenue and Clement Street in the last two years, as well as the Cross Alameda Trail (including fixing the Atlantic Gap and opening substantial portions on Appezzato Parkway). During the pandemic, I have supported and voted for the use and expansion of “slow streets” to provide safe spaces for people to be outside and walk/bike near their homes. I have also supported a number of traffic calming measures and policies – including daylighting, road diets, roundabouts, bulb outs, changing our pedestrian lights (from on demand to timed), lowering speeds near schools, and voting for the Vision Zero Policy which will inform our future traffic planning measures and design as we continue to focus on mode shifting as called for in our CARP and TCP. After a number of collisions occurred on Lincoln, I made a point to meet with concerned parents and residents and to personally watch the school drop off. While we have taken some steps, including reducing one lane of traffic, more needs to be done to ensure better safety on Lincoln near Love Elementary.
Gig Edward Codiga:
Well, I guess you identified me as a “detractor” vs a person with a different point of view. I am concerned that streets should accommodate cars, provide adequate space for people to get in and out of their parked cars, be safe for all modes of transportation. Have you seen how cautiously people get out of their cars along Shoreline? I don’t worry about shifting traffic to other streets, but that will and already does happen. People / cars act like water, they flow according to the pathway of least resistance. I have personally avoided Park Street as each time I have thought of taking that route, cars and trucks are backed up, hence I take Oak or Park Avenue and work my way around. Since we have established temporary boulevards, I have travelled streets that I seldom traveled prior to COVID. Traffic calming devises locations and design should be utilizing where we can optimize safety. Again, there may be wonderful pathways that a boulevard works, but how is it equitable to the neighbors that are now experiencing higher traffic levels? Are the residents and business owners aligned with the programs? Where do people park, other than in nearby neighborhoods? Should we plan distributed parking lots/structures where people can park and walk/ride/scoot to their destination or wonderings? Are these boulevards private roadway due the restrictions? Perhaps we have disability transportation on-demand in these neighborhoods and business areas that are impacted by the loss of parking? What are the unintended consequences? I am for safe pathways that are equitable.
Trish Herrera Spencer:
I’m more likely to support the concept that not all of Alameda’s streets, as we’re an older community with narrow streets, are able to accommodate all uses (e.g., bicycles, cars, buses, and delivery vehicles) and that it’s best to pull back and figure out what can go where most effectively to meet all of our diverse needs. When I used to ride my bike across town (I am not currently able to since a serious bike accident during Bike for the Parks in September, 2018), I tried to utilize existing bike paths, which are alongside vehicles on some roads and are sharrows on others. I rarely used the bike path along South Shore, as I’ve had really bad luck there with some bicyclists going very fast, others going very slow, and some wanting to be traveling in groups across all lanes, as well as pedestrians stepping abruptly out onto the bike lane. I have and will continue to advocate for diverse solutions across town to balance all of the competing needs. As a mother of four children, who attended multiple public schools in Alameda, my children would walk and ride their bikes everywhere from Bay Farm to Encinal High. I was also a strong supporter of Safe Routes to School and Alameda Rock and Roll to School Days, starting my volunteer efforts back in 2007! So, students and children being able to get to and from school and other places on their bikes and walking safely are other long term priorities of mine.
*****
Question #4
Recent events in our city have underscored some of the drawbacks of police enforcement as a tool for traffic safety. We believe that safe street infrastructure can reduce traffic conflicts and injuries, and that a commitment to preventative solutions that are engineered to encourage and self-enforce safe behaviors, without discretion or bias, will be key to creating streets that are truly safe for everyone in Alameda. Please share your thoughts on prioritizing infrastructure as traffic safety. How will you address infrastructure changes that face roadblocks at the state level?
Amos White:
I, too, am an advocate of preventative solutions. As I stated above, the more we can engineer our street infrastructure equitably for safety and to encourage safe pedestrian, cyclist and vehicular behaviors the better. We can expect some state level roadblocks. Though I would advocate with city staff and Assemblymember Bonta’s office to the appropriate state agencies in order to alleviate hurdles to any proposed changes.
Jim Oddie:
When we discussed the pedestrian/automobile accidents earlier this year, we focused on the “4 E’s” –enforcement, engineering, education, and enactment. I agree that we can’t enforce our way into traffic safety – there’s not enough police officers to do that, it’s not a long-term solution, and we are evaluating the role of policing in Alameda as we speak. I do favor traffic safety enforcement, especially around schools, over pulling people over for tinted windows, broken taillights, expired registrations, etc., as those types of stops can often be pretextual. Educating our residents is important and the work of people like Heather Little and Alameda Peeps has helped raise awareness of bike/pedestrian safety. But as the question suggests, we need more work on infrastructure/engineering. I mentioned many of my thoughts in the previous question but want to point again to Lincoln – long stretches of the street are 4 lanes, with no infrastructure to slow traffic. Thankfully this summer we reduced a lane of traffic on Lincoln, but there’s more work to be done. The fourth “E,” enactment, means we need the Legislature to enact laws that give us more control over our ability to improve road safety. This year, we added an objective to our legislative agenda to support efforts to do so, including changing laws regarding speed limit setting, stop sign warranting process, and speed enforcement cameras. Like all legislative efforts, we will succeed by finding regional and statewide partners and build a coalition of cities that prioritizes these efforts, or by seeking state permission for Alameda to be a pilot city for some of these changes – one thing I learned working for the Assembly is that the Legislature loves pilot programs!
Malia Vella:
My concern around police enforcement related to traffic stops is the opportunity for pretextual stops to occur. That said, we know that effective traffic safety requires more than just enforcement – it also requires engineering, education, and enactment. While it is not efficient or possible to simply enforce our way into better traffic safety, I think that we can have our police work in connection with our schools when they do reopen to help with enforcement and education especially around school drop off and pick up. What we need to do is implement (enact) the safer engineering recommendations throughout the city. While we are slowly doing this, and continue to make progress – especially on Lincoln and Otis, we need to move up the timing of some of these projects and get more funding from the state and ACTC to do so. We also need to lobby the state to allow for more enforceable lower speed limits near schools and for funding for mode shifting measures that will allow for things like protected bike lanes and road diets.
Gig Edward Codiga:
A combination of police enforcement with authority to ticket and arrest and infrastructure designed to make drivers of cars, bicycles, scooters aware can be doubly effective. However, police enforcement and infrastructure calming devises alone is less effective. How does a calming device recognize a DUI situation? Or reckless driving? I will prioritize educating, policing and infrastructure for pedestrian, bicycle, board-ride, scooters, and car safety.
Trish Herrera Spencer:
In regards to police enforcement of traffic safety and bias, I have supported since 2017 (when I did a referral to Council which wasn’t supported by any other council members) and continue to support a Citizen Police Oversight Committee (with public meetings, not behind closed doors) to review concerns of bias by our police. I think it’s critical that Alameda Council lead public discussions with our community, working together with our police, fire, social workers and community members from all backgrounds in regards to creating a Citizen Police Oversight Committee, what that could look like, and what authority it would have.
Infrastructure should be safe for everyone. I prioritize safety in my analysis and have expressed concerns for project proposals that I believe do not sufficiently address safety.
*****
Question #5
Have you used a bikeshare service (like Ford or Lime) or ridden a rental e-scooter (Lime, Lyft, Bird)? What are your thoughts on implementing a micromobility program in Alameda?
Amos White:
Micromobility is a special mode of transportation that has arrived with mixed reviews in our community. I think this mode will have to be thought out further before fully implementing on the island. I personally used bikeshare and scooters, though only once each. There needs to be more attention to rider’s concerns about personal hygiene safety and cleanliness with regards to using such highly used devices. Especially so during COVID. We will also have to better address the fact that many people carelessly leave micro vehicles in public right of ways without respect for doorways, sidewalks and driveways. Many Limebikes were outright abused, abandoned and even dumped in the bay or estuary. We must rethink how these companies can address these concerns before more fully implementing.
Jim Oddie:
I used Lime Bike when it was here. I brought the council referral regarding bringing bike sharing to Alameda, and while it’s unfortunate that Lime Bike up and left on a day’s notice, bike sharing proved to be very popular and critical to providing a non-automobile option for the “last mile” of many Alamedans’ commute. When it comes back, I prefer the Lime model of bicycles being available throughout the city vs. the Bay Wheels (Lyft) model of predominantly locked and docked bicycles in a few locations.
Malia Vella:
Yes. When we had Lime bike in Alameda I used it many times when taking the Ferry to SF. I have also tried Bird and Lime e-scooters when at conventions in Long Beach and San Diego. I really miss having Lime bike and was sad to see them go. I think we need to look into this, but as we look at these options we also need to make sure that we continue to construct protected bike lanes so that people can travel safely.
Gig Edward Codiga:
Yes, I have used the bicycling options, but felt the e-scooter was risky after a couple of tries. BTW I am fairly coordinated, healthy and good condition, and not fearful of trying new experiences. When bike / scooter sharing was in Alameda, it was amazing the number of people utilized those services. One of the issues when I used them were the condition and usability – hard to pedal, difficulty in steering. We need to enforce good and responsible behavior to address bad intentions – vandalism, destruction of equipment, along with making sure people are trained and wearing the proper gear.
Trish Herrera Spencer:
I was Mayor when City Staff introduced Lime Bikes. Council and Staff test drove them. As we all know, there were many concerns and reports of Lime Bikes being discarded everywhere and eventually their company stopped the dockless bicycles, probably as a result of being too costly for them. Also, as Mayor, I attended an event along with our Chamber of Commerce in Oakland to test rental e-scooters. Unfortunately, a member of the Chamber was test trying one and lost control, crashing into me and an e-scooter on display and barely missing others observing the demonstration, while I was observing a demonstration of how to use the e-scooter. So, at this time it appears that bikes with docks have a future, whereas dockless do not, and I think they’re a viable option to encourage bicycling and for those who don’t have their own bike, for multiple reasons including, sadly, having their bike stolen. I am less likely to support e-scooters as I’m concerned about safety. An ongoing concern for both is helmets, which I support.
*****
Question #6
What transportation choices do you personally make in order to reduce your carbon footprint?
Amos White:
I am an avid cyclist who commutes about town and also prefer AC Transit and ferry over the car for local trips to the city. Prior to COVID, I held a monthly Clipper Card to ride AC Transit buses and the ferry. I still bike often to destinations both on the island and Alameda Point. I decrease local car trips when going to the store or taking longer trips by using electric car share as a AAA member with GIG. I select the all electric Prius for optimal impact.
Jim Oddie:
In early 2019, I accepted a job where I work remotely (even before COVID), so my commute is now from the front bedroom to the back bedroom/office. My spouse was a regular user of AC Transit (line 19) and BART pre-COVID, but now is also a permanent remote employee.
Malia Vella:
When traveling to SF I usually take BART or the ferry. I also usually bike or walk when attending meetings or events in Alameda if at all possible.
Gig Edward Codiga:
Walk, Bike, share ride, public transportation (for 20+ years to the bus mostly; and 10+ years of BART; and 4 years of the ferry to South San Francisco). I initiated the coordination of major landlords, large employers, along with the City of South San Francisco an E of 101 group to establish a single shared transportation system to minimize redundancies, improve efficiencies and up the service levels amongst competitors. We have a great bus system with AC Transit, though unfortunately with COVID their service levels have dropped due to lack of ridership.
Trish Herrera Spencer:
Personally, my husband and I both drive Prius hybrids. They are not electric vehicles, and they’re older, 2010 and 2012, but still good, reliable, economical cars. We also walk to nearby shopping. During shelter-in-place, I have taken BART twice, once in June and once in August. In June, about 20% of the riders did not properly wear face coverings and I was concerned about that even though each car only had about 10 riders. When I tried again in August, about 80% of the riders did not wear their face coverings properly. Thus, at this time, I am not recommending BART to those concerned about COVID-19 and I will wait again awhile before trying again.
*****
Question #7
Please list your tenure on any public boards and commissions. Please list any other relevant projects that you’ve worked on.
| Board or Commission | Dates (from/to) | Relevant Projects | |
| Amos White (no response) | |||
| Jim Oddie | |||
| Alameda City Council | Since 2014 | Many! Transportation Choices Plan, CARP, Bike Boulevards, Bike/Ped bridge | |
| StopWaste.Org | Since 2015 | Plastic bag ban, county compostable container pilot, carbon sequestration, reducing food waste | |
| Alameda Hospital Finance Committee | 2010-2012 | ||
| Open Government Commission | 2011 | Chair | |
| Village of Tinley Park Bicycle Safety Commission | 1980s | My first community involvement (in Illinois during high school) | |
| Malia Vella | |||
| Commissioner, City of Alameda Historic Advisory Board | 2013-2016 | ||
| Boardmember, Spectrum Community Services | 2016-present | We provide meals at Mastick Senior Center and run the Fall Prevention Program at Mastick. | |
| Boardmember, Alameda Family Services | 2014-2017 | AFS provides Head Start/Early Head Start programs, school based health centers, and case management & family support services. I also co-chaired the Holiday Home Tour Tea with my mom every year from 2012-present. The Home Tour is the major fundraiser for AFS. | |
| Gig Edward Codiga | |||
| Alameda Unified School Board 2 terms | ’83 to ‘91 | ||
| Trish Herrera Spencer (see below) |
Trish Herrera Spencer:
I was elected twice to the AUSD Board of Education and served from 2008-1014, and then was elected Mayor and served from 2014-2018. I also was active in PTAs and Athletic Boosters beginning in the late 90s, then served as Alameda PTA Council President overseeing all of the AUSD PTAs for two years, 2007 and 2008, before being elected to the Board of Education in 2008. As noted above, I was a strong supporter of Safe Routes to School and Rock & Roll to School both as part of PTA and as a School Board Member.
As Mayor, I supported many transportation projects supporting bicyclists and pedestrians safely, including those, as discussed above, in the ACTC CIP, totaling funding of almost $35 Million in projects to the City of Alameda, the most of any Alameda County city, other than Oakland, in the CIP, a 5-year $405 Million comprehensive plan for Alameda County.