While most bike infrastructure is planned, designed, and implemented by our local governments, funding and critical policy that affects how and where people ride is set by the state. Our legislators in Sacramento author and vote on critical bills for bicycle safety every year. With traffic violence on the rise, California needs leaders who will push for safer streets.
As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, Marin County Bicycle Coalition cannot endorse candidates for public office, but we are able to conduct questionnaires so that you can arrive at your own conclusion. Below are the 2026 Assembly District 12 candidates’ responses to our questionnaire on bicycling in Marin. These are the candidates seeking to replace Marin’s current assemblymember, Damon Connolly, as he gives up his seat to run for the State Senate. We have made no content changes. We thank the candidates for their time and thoughtful answers.
Candidates’ campaign websites may be accessed by clicking on those with a highlighted name.
Here are the candidates on the June ballot for the California State Assembly District 12:
CANDIDATE Responded to Questionnaire
CANDIDATE DID NOT Respond to Questionnaire
Personal Travel
1. Do you ride a bicycle? If so, for what purposes and how often? If you don’t ride regularly, when was the last time you rode a bike (on vacation, for example)?
Eli Beckman: I do! I bike primarily as a form of transportation for errands and meetings around Corte Madera and Larkspur—for example, getting to the library for some quiet work time earlier today!
Jackie Elward: Like many families in our region, I rely on a car for most day-to-day trips, especially commuting and school pickups. I do bike recreationally from time to time, including using Redwood Bikeshare on the SMART pathway from Rohnert Park to Santa Rosa, and riding my own bike locally to the Rohnert Park Community Center and back. When our kids were younger, we also spent time riding together as a family.
Our family enjoys walking in neighborhoods and along local pathways throughout Marin and Sonoma counties. I also use transit when it works for the trip, including taking the SMART train to Marin and the Larkspur ferry into San Francisco. Those experiences reinforce something simple, when options are safe, connected, and convenient, people use them. When they are not, people default to driving. That is what we need to fix.
Eric Lucan: Yes, I ride for recreation, with the family, and for short trips. I used to ride to work too, but that has become more challenging with young kids and school drop-offs.
I also worked in the bike industry for 8 years as the Chief Marketing Officer for Mike’s Bikes. I consciously chose Mike’s Bikes as a place to build a career because it reflected my values and it provided me the opportunity to market and promote the most efficient form of transportation ever created–the bicycle. I remained in that role until my election to Marin County Supervisor.
Holli Thier: Yes, I ride a bicycle at least a few times a month. My family and I walk and bicycle for both pleasure and transportation.
Vision
2. In your own words, describe your vision for the future of transportation for Assembly District 12 and California as a whole. Concrete examples of laws or policies you would like to propose or amend are encouraged.
Eli Beckman: Active transportation sits at the heart of my top three priority issues: the climate crisis, the cost of living, and public health. Over eight years on the Corte Madera Town Council and two terms as Mayor, I’ve worked hand-in-hand with partners like MCBC and WTB-TAM to invest aggressively in the infrastructure that makes walking and biking real, everyday options for everyone in our community, and I’m running for Assembly to bring that same urgency to Sacramento. In the legislature, I’ll fight to significantly increase California’s active transportation funding through the Active Transportation Program, push to close critical gaps in our regional greenway network (including the long-delayed N-S Greenway gap closure), and strengthen the integration of Safe Routes to Schools into state transportation planning so every child, parent, and teacher in Assembly District 12 and across California can safely walk or bike to school. I’ll also champion transit-oriented development, so that active transportation becomes the path of least resistance, not an afterthought. The data is clear: getting more Californians out of their cars and onto bikes and sidewalks is one of the most cost-effective, health-promoting, and climate-friendly investments we can make, and I intend to govern like it.
Jackie Elward: My vision is a transportation system where people have real, practical alternatives to driving for everyday trips.
At the state level, that means shifting funding away from highway expansion and toward transit, walking, and biking, while maintaining and modernizing the infrastructure we already have. We should be investing in complete streets, protected bike networks, safer routes to schools, and reliable transit service that connects communities across the North Bay.
In Assembly District 12, we have a clear opportunity to build a more connected system. That includes continuing to build out and complete the SMART pathway, improving bike and pedestrian access to stations, strengthening connections to the Larkspur ferry, and closing gaps in local networks so people can safely move between communities without needing a car.
We are already seeing progress through regional coordination efforts, such as the Marin-Sonoma Coordinated Transit Service plan, which is improving connections and reliability across systems. I also support renewing long-term funding for SMART so we can expand service, close gaps, and provide a real alternative to driving.
At the state level, I would support increasing funding for active transportation, strengthening safety standards in street design, and requiring better coordination among agencies so that transit, biking, and walking function as a connected system.
Eric Lucan: California, for all of its leadership on climate change, must do more! In addition to increasing the Active Transportation Program, we also need more requirements for multimodal projects in the first place. Too many times, reducing travel times for cars takes precedence over safety, and separated bike and pedestrian pathways get slated as phase II projects for another day.
We should apply more resources to supporting programs that promote non-fossil transportation options. Nearly 40% of trips in the Netherlands are by bike and that didn’t just happen by accident. There was a concerted effort starting in the 1960’s to prioritize active transportation and it changed a way of life.
50% of greenhouse gas emissions come from the transportation sector. At the same time, many car trips in our communities are 3 miles or less. We must invest in infrastructure to make biking safer and more accessible.
The research is pretty consistent. Not only does expanding highways not fix the problem, but expansion often increases the number of cars on the road! We need to be exploring and funding alternatives to highway expansion and proactively pursuing feasible alternative solutions. But these must also be paired with publicly supported transportation alternatives (buses, trains, locally-focused ride share services, and dedicated pathways). If a highway capacity project increases VMT, then those increases need to be mitigated.
Holli Thier: California’s transportation budget is out of sync with the future we want. With more than 80% of our transportation dollars going toward projects that expand or reinforce dependence on private cars, it’s no surprise that we are falling short on our climate, safety, and mobility goals. To me, this isn’t just a policy mismatch—it’s a missed opportunity. I believe we need to shift our investments toward walking, biking, transit, and land use strategies that actually reduce the number of miles we drive. That’s how we build a transportation system that supports healthier communities and a healthier planet.
My commitment to alternate forms of transportation is proven in the real accomplishments I have made as a two-term Mayor, three-term Councilmember, Parks Open Space and Trails Commissioner, Golden Gate Bridge Board Director, and Marin Clean Energy Director. As Mayor of Tiburon, I supported the Complete Streets program including bike lanes along Highway 131, and also have proposed Tiburon Trolley, an open-air electric trolley to reduce the number of cars traveling on our main road. I have served for many years on our congestion management authority, and promoted the school bus program to reduce traffic. As Parks Open Space and Trails Commissioner, I spent a year writing a bicycle, pedestrian, and transportation safety plan to ensure our roads were safe for cyclists and pedestrians. As a Golden Gate Bridge Board Director and Member of the Transportation Committee, I have helped ensure our roads are safer for cyclists, and secured funding to make it happen.
In the Assembly, I will work hard to close the gap between our values and our spending. The Legislature has the power to realign the budget, and I want to use that authority to rewrite our priorities. That means limiting funding for highway expansion, requiring state transportation dollars to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and strengthening frameworks like the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure so that its principles—like Complete Streets and reducing vehicle miles traveled—aren’t just suggestions but real requirements. We can and should make sure every state agency is prioritizing biking, walking and complete streets.
I also want to dramatically expand and stabilize funding for active transportation. Programs like the Active Transportation Program are consistently oversubscribed, even though cities and counties have shovel-ready projects that would make streets safer for people who walk, bike, and roll. I support creating new, dedicated revenue streams for these projects, requiring Caltrans to include Complete Streets elements in all of its work, and redirecting federal dollars—currently used mostly for car infrastructure—toward sustainable mobility. With the right resources and clear direction, local governments can finally build the connected, safe networks that our communities have been asking for.
Beyond the budget itself, elected officials can encourage a cultural shift in how we define success in transportation. Instead of measuring progress by how fast cars move or how many vehicles a highway can carry, we should be looking at safety, emissions, equitable access, and whether our communities are becoming more bikeable, walkable and vibrant. California needs to reallocate transportation funding to active forms of transportation. By redirecting the billions already in the system toward active transportation, transit, and community centered mobility, we can make real progress on climate and safety. I’m committed to championing a “people first mobility budget” that aligns our spending with the California we all deserve.
The Bay Area is also desperately in need of an integrated region-wide transit system to increase convenience for both daily commuters, occasional day-trippers, and low-income residents who rely on public transit services and may not be able to afford a car. Nearly everyone in AD 12 wants to reduce their carbon footprint, but they often do not understand how to plan alternatives to car travel. Investment in technology with comprehensive information (app, website, AI telephone directories) and a region-wide fare system for one price to travel across jurisdictions will provide a good start in the short term.
We must also ensure that subsidized fares and pre-paid cards are available to low-income workers and seniors in need. Mobile apps for route planning must be integrated with subsidized pass systems for low-income riders, and we must also provide accessible information for seniors and others who are not digital natives.
As your next Assemblymember, I will push for a statewide framework that finally makes our transit system feel like one connected network rather than 27 separate ones. That means advancing legislation that standardizes fares, coordinates schedules, ensures space for bicycles, and aligns service planning across agencies so riders can move through the region without navigating a maze of rules and transfers. It also means investing in the technology and governance structures needed for integrated wayfinding, real-time information, and seamless payment. By setting clear state expectations, providing stable funding, and empowering regional coordination, we can build a high ridership system that puts the rider experience at the center and delivers the simplicity, reliability, and ease of use that the public overwhelmingly supports.
E-bikes
One of the biggest topics of discussion in recent years, in both Marin and California, has been that of e-bikes and other electric vehicles marketed as e-bikes but capable of greater power and speed.
3. Do you believe that Marin has an e-bike problem? If so, how would you characterize that problem and what do you believe should be done at the state level to address it?
Eli Beckman: We do have an e-bike safety challenge, but I think it’s important to be precise about what the problem actually is—because getting the diagnosis wrong leads to bad policy. The real issue isn’t Class 1 or Class 2 e-bikes ridden responsibly; it’s two overlapping problems: younger riders under 15 are involved in serious accidents at dramatically disproportionate rates, and a flood of out-of-class devices—electric motorcycles falsely marketed and sold as e-bikes—are being operated illegally on our streets and pathways and muddying the data we rely on to make good decisions. To address both issues, I will author legislation cracking down on the sale and misclassification of out-of-class vehicles: we should require point-of-sale disclosure of speed capabilities, strengthen enforcement mechanisms against retailers who misrepresent these devices as street-legal e-bikes, and fund the Mineta Transportation Institute study’s follow-through so our policymaking is grounded in statewide data, not just Marin’s—which, as researchers have noted, may not be fully representative. The goal is to protect kids and trail users without undermining the genuine transportation and climate benefits that legal e-bikes deliver, and we won’t get there by treating all e-bikes as the problem.
Jackie Elward: I would not describe Marin as having an “e-bike problem” so much as a need to manage rapid growth in a new and evolving form of transportation.
E-bikes are helping more people ride, especially in places like Marin, where topography can be a real barrier. They are making it easier for older adults, commuters, and newer riders to get around, and they are attracting more young people to biking. That is a positive shift. At the same time, there are real concerns around safety, speed, and devices being marketed as e-bikes that exceed legal classifications.
There has already been work at the state and local levels to address these concerns, including legislation led by Assemblymember Damon Connolly, informed by local data and stakeholder input, including the Marin County Bicycle Coalition. At the same time, there have been different perspectives on how best to implement these policies, including concerns about a patchwork of local rules and about balancing safety with access.
I support building on that approach by moving toward clearer and more consistent statewide standards, stronger consumer education, and rules that are easy to understand and enforce. We also need to invest in infrastructure that reduces conflicts, including protected bike lanes and off-street pathways, so faster and slower users are not competing for the same limited space. This is about integrating e-bikes safely into the system while continuing to support a mode that can reduce car trips.
Eric Lucan: No, we don’t have an e-bike problem, we have an illegal electric motorcycle problem.
I believe the best way to address this issue is to put the manufacturers and online retailers of these illegal electric motorcycles on notice and restrict them from shipping their products into California.
You cannot have a shower head that puts out more than 1.8 gallons per minute shipped to California and you can’t have an incandescent light bulb shipped to California. You shouldn’t be able to have an illegal electric motorcycle shipped here either.
Holli Thier: Thank you for raising this, because the Marin County Bicycle Coalition has been such a thoughtful voice in helping our community navigate the rapid rise of e-bikes. I don’t think Marin has an “e-bike problem” so much as an e-bike transition — a moment where the technology is moving faster than our policies and infrastructure. E-bikes are helping students get to school without adding to traffic, helping older adults stay active, and giving families a real alternative to car trips. But we’re also seeing devices marketed as e-bikes that behave more like mopeds, and that’s creating confusion and safety concerns for riders, parents, and local jurisdictions.
To me, the primary issue is clarity and consistency. When a Class 2 e-bike and a throttle powered vehicle capable of 35 mph are sold side by side under the same label, we’re setting everyone up for frustration. The state can help by tightening product definitions, requiring accurate labeling, and ensuring that vehicles operating like mopeds are regulated accordingly. That gives counties like Marin a clearer foundation to work from.
I was the first to bring legislation in Marin County, and passed an ordinance that prohibits youths under 16 from riding throttled electric bicycles, and mandates helmets for all riders.
Assembly Bill 1778, authored by Assemblymember Damon Connolly, created a pilot program in Marin County to review safety improvements (and prohibiting youths under 16 from riding class 2, throttled e-bikes). The law also required class 2 riders of all ages to wear helmets. We must make sure riders are safe and that the rules are consistent rules across all jurisdictions.
We also need a statewide approach to youth safety. Right now, every city and county is trying to figure out age rules, training expectations, and helmet requirements on their own. The state can set a consistent baseline that keeps kids safe without criminalizing them, and it can support the kind of rider education programs that groups like MCBC already excel at delivering.
Finally, if we want people to choose bikes and e-bikes over cars, we need infrastructure that reflects that reality. Protected lanes, safe routes to school, and trail management strategies for mixed speed travel all require state partnership and funding. With thoughtful statewide guidance, Marin County can continue leading the way in showing how e-bikes can be integrated safely, joyfully, and sustainably into our transportation future.
Automated Enforcement
One tool to improve traffic safety not widely used in California at present is that of automated, camera-based enforcement, where drivers speeding, running red lights, blocking bus lanes, or driving in bike lanes may be photographed and issued citations in the mail without being stopped by law enforcement.
4. Do you support automating traffic enforcement in principle? If so, what do you see as the key benefits? If not, or you are undecided, what concerns do you have?
Eli Beckman: Yes; we set traffic laws to protect public safety, and they should be enforced effectively. Speeding is the leading known cause of fatal crashes, and we have clear data showing that camera enforcement works. Critically, these tools protect the most vulnerable road users—cyclists and pedestrians—in exactly the places where they are most exposed: school zones, high-injury corridors, and bike lanes. Beyond speed, I’m particularly interested in expanding automated enforcement to bus lanes and bike lanes specifically, which would meaningfully improve both transit reliability and cyclist safety with minimal additional infrastructure cost.
Of course, getting implementation right matters enormously. The first priority is equity: a $200 citation hits a working family far harder than a wealthy commuter, which is why any expansion of automated enforcement in the Assembly should include income-scaled fines. The second is surveillance creep: camera systems must have strict statutory limits on data retention and secondary use, and I’d oppose any framework that allowed traffic enforcement infrastructure to be repurposed for immigration enforcement or unrelated surveillance. With those guardrails in place, automated enforcement is one of the most cost-effective, bias-reducing, and life-saving tools available to us.
Jackie Elward: In principle, I support automated enforcement as one tool to improve traffic safety, especially in high-risk areas.
It can help address dangerous behaviors like speeding, running red lights, and blocking bike lanes in a consistent way that is not dependent on limited enforcement resources. It also reduces some of the risks associated with traffic stops.
At the same time, it needs to be implemented carefully. Strong protections around privacy, transparency, and equity are essential, along with clear standards for where and how it is used. These programs should be focused on improving safety outcomes, not generating revenue, and should be paired with street design changes that prevent dangerous behavior in the first place.
Eric Lucan: I am supportive of certain automated traffic enforcements, but with a goal of changing behavior, not generating revenue. With the advent of red light cameras several years ago, there were examples of local jurisdictions and private companies profiting from the technology. Automatic enforcement needs to be rooted in safety and changing behavior. I look forward to further conversations.
Holli Thier: Automated enforcement is one of those tools that can make our streets safer without adding tension to everyday interactions between drivers, cyclists, and law enforcement. In principle, I do support the idea. When it’s done thoughtfully, with strong privacy protections and clear public communication, automated enforcement can help us address dangerous behavior in a way that feels fair, consistent, and focused on safety rather than punishment.
One of the biggest benefits is simple predictability. A camera doesn’t decide whom to stop — it applies the same standard to everyone, every time. That consistency can reduce the kinds of disparities that have historically shown up in traffic stops, while still holding people accountable for speeding, running red lights, or blocking bike lanes. It also frees up law enforcement to focus on the kinds of safety issues that truly require human judgment.
And importantly, automated enforcement can be paired with street design that encourages safer behavior in the first place. When drivers know that speeding through a school zone or drifting into a bike lane will reliably result in a citation, it changes habits. It creates a calmer, more respectful environment for people walking and biking, and it does so without escalating roadside encounters. Used carefully and transparently, it’s a tool that can help us move toward the safer, more welcoming streets we all want to see.
Transportation Funding
The California Active Transportation Program (ATP) is the premier statewide grant program for funding projects to make biking and walking safer. Despite a huge demand from local jurisdictions, the lack of resources allocated toward the program leads to its being incredibly selective – in the 2024 grant cycle only 13 of 283 local applications were funded, an acceptance rate equivalent to that of Harvard University. The program received only $170M for a two-year cycle, compared to the $30B allocated to Caltrans.
5. Do you commit to pushing for an increase in ATP funding at the state level? In a time when the needs are so great for multimodal solutions, do you think resources currently used for expanding highways might be better spent completing our walking and biking networks?
Eli Beckman: Absolutely. The ATP is California’s single most effective tool for building the walking and biking networks that our climate, mobility, and public health goals require, and what happened in the 2024 budget cycle was a disgrace: the governor proposed eliminating the program entirely, and even after legislative intervention restored a fraction of the funding, Cycle 7 was left with only $168 million. I’ve seen firsthand as Mayor and as a TAM board member how transformative ATP funding is for communities like ours, and how demoralizing it is for local agencies to invest enormous staff time in strong applications for great projects, only to lose out simply because the pot ran dry—and in Sacramento I will be aggressive in advocating that ATP receive at least 5% of CalTrans’ funding level per cycle. On highway spending: yes, I believe California’s transportation investment priorities are badly out of alignment with our needs and values, and we cannot credibly call ourselves a climate leader while continuing to pour billions into lane expansions that induce more driving, generate more emissions, and undermine the active transportation networks we claim to be building. New highway capacity expansion should face a much higher bar—one that includes honest accounting of induced demand and lifecycle greenhouse gas impacts—and the ATP deserves a funding level that reflects the outsized return it delivers for public health, safety, equity, and climate compared to the cost of a single highway interchange.
Jackie Elward: Yes. I strongly support increasing funding for the Active Transportation Program and making it a more reliable source of funding for communities.
The current level of investment does not match the demand. When only a small fraction of projects are funded, we are leaving critical safety improvements on the table. We should be moving toward a funding structure that reflects how people actually travel, especially for short trips and connections to transit.
I also believe we need to take a hard look at how transportation dollars are currently allocated. In many cases, funds used to expand highway capacity would be better spent on completing walking and biking networks, improving safety, and strengthening transit. These investments reduce emissions, improve public health, and give people real alternatives to driving.
Eric Lucan: Yes. Walking and biking accounts for roughly 18% of trips, but the Active Transportation Program is only 1.6% of California’s transportation budget.
Counties like Marin and Sonoma have been very successful as self-help counties in getting project shovel ready with local dollars and then competing for state grants like the Active Transportation Program.
Holli Thier: Yes, I commit to pushing for an increase in ATP funding at the state level, and support a dramatic increase in California’s investment in active transportation. Walking and biking make up 18% of the trips people take every day. Right now, the Active Transportation Program gets just 1.6% of the budget, even though it’s one of the most oversubscribed and cost effective state programs we have. That mismatch tells me we’re not placing our money where our values are. If we’re serious about safety, climate action, and giving people real choices in how they get around, then our funding needs to reflect the reality of how Californians travel—not just how our system has historically been built.
Cities and counties have shovel-ready projects that would make streets safer for people who walk, bike, and roll. I support creating new, dedicated revenue streams for these projects, requiring Caltrans to include Complete Streets elements in all of its work, and redirecting federal dollars—currently used mostly for car infrastructure—toward sustainable mobility. With the right resources and clear direction, local governments can finally build the connected, safe networks that our communities have been asking for.
Beyond the budget itself, elected officials can encourage a cultural shift in how we define success in transportation. Instead of measuring progress by how fast cars move or how many vehicles a highway can carry, we should be looking at safety, emissions, equitable access, and whether our communities are becoming more walkable, bikeable, and vibrant. I agree wholeheartedly that California doesn’t have a transportation funding shortage—we have a misallocation problem. By redirecting the billions already in the system toward active transportation, transit, and community-centered mobility, we can make real progress on climate and safety. I’m committed to championing a “people first mobility budget” that aligns our spending with the California we all deserve.
Alto Tunnel
MCBC’s single biggest priority project in Marin is the reopening and rehabilitation of the Alto Tunnel, which would join together nearly 10 miles of off-street multiuse pathway between Sausalito and Terra Linda, with future expansions to Novato via the SMART pathway.
6. If elected to the Assembly, would you support Marin County allocating several million dollars in local funding to conduct environmental review and initial design in order to set the project up to receive large state and federal grants, potentially bringing tens of millions of tax dollars back to the community?
Eli Beckman: Over 8 years, I have been clear and consistent that the reopening of Alto Tunnel would be a fantastic piece of transportation infrastructure and a world-class public amenity. I will be proud to carry that support to the Assembly, where I will be a champion and partner to the County in taking the steps necessary to bring critical funding to Alto Tunnel and similar transportation priorities.
Jackie Elward: Yes. I support Marin County taking the necessary steps to move the Alto Tunnel project forward, including allocating local funding for environmental review and initial design.
Projects like this are how we create a connected, safe, and practical network for everyday travel. Reopening the tunnel would provide a direct, off-street connection between Mill Valley and Corte Madera, giving people a safe alternative to driving for short trips and helping reduce pressure on local roads.
It would also close a major gap in the regional pathway network and connect to the broader SMART corridor, making it easier for people to combine biking, walking, and transit.
Investing locally to position the project for state and federal funding is a smart approach. It allows Marin to compete for larger grants and bring significant resources back to the community, while advancing a project that improves mobility, safety, and climate outcomes.
This is the kind of long-term investment that makes it easier for people to choose biking and walking as part of their daily lives.
Eric Lucan: Yes. There are some key stakeholders and property owners that need to come together and I would be willing to help facilitate. We know that Marin has a great track record in leveraging local funding so advancing the environmental and initial design would be worthwhile if agreement can be reached among the various stakeholders and property interests.
Holli Thier: I strongly support allocating local funding for environmental review and initial design. These early steps are essential for unlocking the major state and federal grants that can bring substantial tax dollars back into Marin. In my view, this is how responsible public investment works: we put in the groundwork locally so we can leverage far larger resources, reduce long term congestion, cut emissions, and expand access to healthy, car free mobility. The Alto Tunnel has the potential to become a backbone of active transportation in the North Bay, with an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 walking and biking trips a day and nearly 10 miles of off-street multi-use pathway between Sausalito and Terra Linda, with future expansions to Novato via the SMART pathway. Environmental review will help us work to address the concerns and any potential impact to affected neighbors.
The vision behind reopening and rehabilitating the Alto Tunnel represents exactly the kind of forward-looking investment that strengthens communities for generations. Creating a continuous, safe, off-street pathway connecting Sausalito, Mill Valley, Corte Madera, Larkspur, San Rafael, and eventually Novato isn’t just a transportation upgrade — it’s a statement about the kind of future we want: one where people of all ages can move easily, sustainably, and joyfully through their communities.
More than anything, I see this project as an opportunity to knit our communities together. Families, commuters, students, seniors — everyone benefits when we create safe, connected routes that make it easier to choose a bike or a walk over a car trip. The Alto Tunnel is a rare chance to deliver a transformative regional asset, and I’m committed to helping move it from aspiration to reality.
We’re fighting for a more bike-friendly future in Marin. Are you with us? Join Marin County Bicycle Coalition today.