Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Read Portland City Council candidates’ answers on street improvement

News Feed
Tuesday, September 17, 2024

All candidates for Portland City Council were asked the following question related to street improvement: Which would you prioritize: Creation of more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes or improved surfacing of existing degraded driving lanes?Here are their responses:District 1Joe Allen: This is a tough one for me, as I love riding my bike throughout the city and support creating more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes to encourage sustainable transit. However, our district’s urgent need is for road repairs and paved roads to ensure safety for drivers and residents.Candace Avalos: East Portland has some of the most dangerous streets in Portland and lacks paved roads, never mind bike lanes, sidewalks or bus lanes. It’s not one or the other — we need to look at our transportation system holistically, and we need to center this community’s needs.Doug Clove: Improving our degrading streets. They are long overdue for maintenance. Especially in East Portland. It’s time for the bike people to share the wealth.Jamie Dunphy: In East Portland, I would prioritize fixing potholes in existing streets, paving new sidewalks and unpaved roads, and installing enough street lights to ensure that my daughter and her classmates can walk to school as safely in Parkrose as their counterparts in Laurelhurst or Irvington.Timur Ender: I would support both. I don’t see it as either/or. In some ways, pairing paving with protected bike lanes on a project can achieve multiple wins as it reduces construction costs, provides smooth surface for residents regardless of transportation mode, and improves safety.Noah Ernst: Improved surfacing of existing degraded driving lanes. That is what I’m hearing voters in District 1 want. I support bike infrastructure but don’t support removing lanes, increasing congestion and making life harder for the vast majority of Portlanders who commute, take their kids to school and go shopping by car.Joe Furi: Did not respondTerrence Hayes: Improved surfacing of existing degraded driving lanes. This would obviously extend to any existing bike lanes, and we all benefit from better roads. Most of the cyclists I speak to want to see increased traffic enforcement, less potholes, and clean, well-marked bike lanes.David Linn: Portlanders deserve more than a false dichotomy between bikes and potholes. We can and must do both. We cannot let important infrastructure be targeted to just one mode of moving around. Many of our families in East Portland use roads, buses, and bike lanes all in a single day.Peggy Sue Owens: Did not respondSteph Routh: Maintaining and repairing existing infrastructure is a basic level of service for all road users, as is improving dangerous intersections. These can happen at the same time, and often do. The question I wish you would have asked is, “How are we going to fund sidewalks in long-forgotten East Portland?”Deian Salazar: We need to improve the surfacing of degrading driving lanes most. East Portland looks like Youngstown, Ohio -- if I wanted to live with U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan, I’d move there! This is not Portland quality. It’s time to make driving lanes clean and safe again. I still like bike infrastructure.Michael (Mike) Sands: I would prioritize fixing degraded driving lanes; poor lanes cause accidents, resulting in death and/or injuries to drivers and passengers, pedestrians and bicyclists.Thomas Shervey: Climate Change is real, and nowhere feels that change more than the east side. The Clean Energy Fund is well intentioned, but got off to a rocky start. I would argue to continue it and for more oversight to stop waste and corruption.Loretta Smith: East Portland deserves improved surfacing of existing driving lanes and improved sidewalks. In some places in East Portland we do not have sidewalks and it is unsafe for families to walk because of all the unsanctioned camping.Cayle Tern: It is more detrimental for families and community members of East Portland to have a public transportation system that can’t get them where they need to be timely. I support protected bus lanes in streets that can accommodate them. The city manager should have flexibility to determine what that looks like.District 2James Armstrong: My priority for transportation is safety. Protected bike lanes reduce collisions and injuries by 30-50%, including for cars. We also need to pair investments in priority bus lanes with improved transit safety measures to get ridership back up. These investments will also reduce wear and tear on existing driving lanes.Reuben Berlin: Neither option alone offers a long-term solution. I suggest preparing for a mass public driverless system to reduce city traffic, enhance mobility and develop local business centers. This approach focuses on decreasing traffic through public driverless transportation, promoting economic growth and improving urban mobility.Michelle DePass: We need to do both; it’s an equity issue. We need to engage stakeholders and businesses in every district to determine the immediate needs of those communities in an equitable way while ensuring lower income, inaccessible neighborhoods, and areas with high traffic accidents are prioritized to ensure people’s safety.Marnie Glickman: This is not an either/or question. We need to do both. I have a strong, savvy vision to make this city safe for cycling, walking and transiting. I will always be a voice for proper public services that serve everyone, especially my constituents in North and Northeast Portland.Mariah Hudson: As chair of the Portland Bureau of Transportation budget committee I’ve led the committee in recommending the city to maintain current assets before establishing new projects without maintenance plans. As a bike commuter and runner, I know that unsafe pavement endangers cyclists and pedestrians the most.Sameer Kanal: We can and must do both. I am a sworn enemy of potholes, and I will prioritize those not only in driving lanes but across the entire width of the right of way. Neither is very expensive if done efficiently, compared to other parts of the city budget.Debbie Kitchin: Safe streets are a top priority for me. There are places where investments in bike and pedestrian infrastructure make the most sense. There are places where degraded driving lanes are a safety and structural hazard for all modes. I prioritize safety and not all or nothing approaches.Michael (Mike) Marshall: Given the threat of climate change we always need to prioritize alternative forms of transportation over automobiles. It’s painful but necessary. At the same time I also support converting the gasoline from a flat tax to a % of sales tax in order to generate more income for transportation needs.Will Mespelt: Depends on the neighborhood and need. I would prefer protected bike lanes and bus lanes. However, as a bike rider potholes are more dangerous if it forces a rider in the street or a car to swerve.Chris Olson: This is a false dichotomy — we can do both by appropriately taxing corporations. I support creating more protected bike and bus lanes while improving degraded driving lanes, ensuring safe, efficient transportation options for all Portlanders.Jennifer Park: In this binary, I would prioritize protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes. We can still address driving infrastructure through small-scale fixes like more aggressive pothole servicing. When we address full resurfacing, we should be looking into new innovations, like permeable pavement.Tiffani Penson: These efforts can take place at the same time. I want to prioritize maintaining an active, diverse multi-modal transportation systems that is safe, efficient and works for us all.Antonio Jamal PettyJohnBlue: I would prioritize creating more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes. Investing in these will promote sustainable transportation and improve public transit efficiency, addressing long-term city growth and environmental goals. Improved surfacing of existing lanes is also important but can be addressed subsequently with available resources.Elana Pirtle-Guiney: We need safe roads for everyone and resurfacing is about safety. But making biking and transit easier takes cars off the road and lowers resurfacing costs well into the future. A short delay in improved driving lanes lowers costs and creates better conditions for all users, including drivers, for decades.Dan Ryan: I would prioritize repaving streets and fixing potholes while enhancing safety for cyclists with extensive greenways. Regardless of bus or bike lanes, our streets must be repaired to ensure efficient movement of people, goods and services across the city. Let’s make our infrastructure work for everyone.Sam Sachs: Candidate did not respond.Bob Simril: My top priority is safe, clean, secure and accessible transportation for bikers, motorist and pedestrians. I will prioritize community infrastructure needs in underserved communities first, then expand as needed.Laura Streib: Ideally, I would do both. If we improve driving surfaces, cars won’t veer into bike spaces. If we create protected bike areas, we can work towards Vision Zero. It’s a both/and situation to build a strong network of safe multi-modal transportation layers, especially around school zones.Jonathan Tasini: Because of the decline in transportation-related revenues (for example, the rise in the number of electric vehicles which, in turn, reduces gas tax revenue), in order to fully fund our transportation needs, we have to be fully engaged in the 2025 debate in Salem over the long-term transportation packages.Liz Taylor: Candidate did not respond.Nat West: Thankfully this binary choice isn’t a part of our process. I’ll work to increase TriMet’s financial participation in PBOT projects for more bus lanes and propose adjustments to our budget process to work down our maintenance backlog citywide. Last year’s DHM community polling indicates that Portlanders favor maintenance first.Nabil Zaghloul: I would prioritize improved surfacing of existing degraded lanes for all users. We need more bike lanes and priority transit lanes, but the potholes are safety hazards for all users as drivers swerve out of their lanes to avoid them or risk damaging their vehicles leading to repair costs.District 3Matthew (Matt) Anderson: Candidate did not respond.Sandeep Bali: We need balance, but Portland’s Transportation Bureau has overly prioritized bike and bus lanes, aiming for a climate utopia without cars. This is misguided, as most commuters, especially the elderly and disabled, rely on driving. With many lanes underused, fixing potholes and degraded driving lanes should now be the priority.Melodie Beirwagen: I would prioritize the improved surfacing of existing degraded driving lanes. The lifeline of Portland’s business and workers involves moving goods and services throughout our City. Portland needs much better transportation infrastructure to thrive for all Portlanders.Christopher Brummer: Candidate did not respond.Rex Burkholder: I think this is a false choice. We can and must do both. I would add that the city should also maintain sidewalks as everyone uses these critical transportation facilities yet we deliberately ignore them.Brian Conley: Portland doesn’t have the luxury to choose between the two. Our climate crisis demands that we reduce traffic and cars on the road, yet we must make public transport of all kinds safer and more reliable. I reject the premise of this question. We can improve Portland transit together.Jesse Cornett: These efforts complement each other and are not in competition. In fact, when the time comes to improve existing lanes, cost savings can be found in prioritizing those streets for protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes.Daniel DeMelo: Bike and bus lanes. We need to focus more on upgrading our existing bike infrastructure to better separate and protect cyclists. That said, I’ve put more than 500 miles on my bike over the course of this campaign – I know firsthand that even small potholes pose significant risks to cyclists!Chris Flanary: I would prioritize bike and bus lanes, and protected pedestrian walkways. We have prioritized cars for too long, resulting in unsafe roads, insufficient bike paths and traffic that interferes with reliable public transit. It is time to prioritize people over cars.Dan Gilk: Increased density requires more scalable transit solutions. To that end, we need to focus more on alternative transit like bus lanes, bike paths and pedestrian walks.Theo Hathaway Saner: I‘d prioritize creating more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes to promote sustainable transportation, reduce congestion, and improve safety for all road users.Clifford Higgins: Candidate did not respond.Patrick Hilton: Candidate did not respond.Kelly Janes (KJ): Road safety is important for everyone. Resurfacing existing degraded driving lanes is good for bicyclists and buses as well as drivers. I fully support more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes in conjunction with improved surfacing of driving lanes.Harrison Kass: As much as I want more bike/bus lanes, the priority is improved surfacing. PDX is already a premier bike/bus city. Our degraded driving lanes, however, are unacceptable; the cost is diffused amongst our citizens in the form of maintenance/repairs – an indirect increase in our already-too-high cost of living. Also unsafe.Philippe Knab: It can’t be one or the other. We need to invest in maintaining our existing infrastructure while supporting multimodal transportation. I support prioritizing the creation of more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes to ensure a balanced, efficient transport system for everyone.Tiffany Koyama Lane: I come from the labor movement and I recognize a false binary when I see one. A functioning city with appropriately funded transportation and road infrastructure does not need to choose between roads and transit; bikes and buses use roads too! I support changing our funding mechanism before insisting on that choice.Kenneth (Kent) R Landgraver III: Candidate did not respond.Angelita Morillo: The creation of priority bus lanes would be my top priority to serve the most people possible. The creation of bike lanes would be my next priority, with surfacing of driving lanes being my lowest priority. Obligate transit users like myself deserve better and safer infrastructure than we currently have.Steve Novick: Respectfully, the question falsely implies that we could repave all the streets – which will cost billions of dollars – by avoiding spending on bus and bike lanes, which are relatively very cheap. A high priority is to keep streets that are in decent shape in good repair, before repairs become prohibitively expensive.David O’Connor: Candidate did not respond.Ahlam K Osman: Candidate did not respond.Cristal Azul Otero: I would prioritize protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes, but I recognize the need for street maintenance, especially where people use wheelchairs and mobility aids. I support creating a dedicated process for residents to request urgent repairs, ensuring timely responses to improve accessibility and safety while advancing sustainable transportation.Terry Parker: Maintaining our roadway surfaces and infrastructure must be the top priority. More congestion, fuel consumption and emissions are being created due to road diets that remove full service traffic lanes and/or have narrowed lanes that can not safely accommodate large trucks and vehicles towing wide trailers.Heart Free Pham: The truth is, biking to work is a privilege of the wealthy; most people that work in Portland don’t even live here! We need to prioritize practicality for the majority over convenience of the few, therefore I’d support the latter in this situation.Jaclyn Smith-Moore: Candidate did not respond.John Sweeney: We have enough bike and bus lanes. It is way past time to fix our streets. Our cars and trucks are taking a real beating, and we are very tired of it.Jonathan (Jon) Walker: I think this is a false choice since when you replace a road you work on the whole project, but I think finally dealing with decades of deferred maintenance which previous city councils have left to only become more expensive needs to be a priority. We need to put our financial house in order.Kezia Wanner: All are vitally important to our city’s health and I support a multi-modal transportation system. But having to choose, it would be improving our streets because they impact people’s lives broadly from bus travel to supporting economic vitality through moving commerce to arterials for emergency vehicles.Luke Zak: We can prioritize expanding multi modal transit while continuing necessary routine maintenance by incorporating infrastructural improvements like traffic separated lanes while existing driving lanes are being resurfaced. It doesn’t need to be a zero-sum game.District 4Joseph (Joe) Alfone: I support bike lanes being converted into pedestrian lanes. Bike lanes are not being used. There are too many cars and too few bikes, in between there are people that walk everywhere like myself that bring life to a city. I propose Tokyo Shibuya Crossing pedestrian changes to the city.Eli Arnold: Bikes and public transit run on roads, and degraded roads are a safety hazard to everyone. Our backlog of Infrastructure maintenance is the largest of these issues and deserves the lion’s share of effort.Bob Callahan: While many of us enjoy riding bikes, there are others of us who, out of choice or necessity, remain vehicle drivers. We all live here together and deserve equal treatment. I favor repair of existing lanes. Delay of road maintenance makes it more costly in the future.Patrick Cashman: Candidate did not respond.Olivia Clark: As a cyclist, I’ve come into direct contact with potholes all over Portland. They are a danger for cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. We must stop the deterioration of our streets before they become further damaged and more expensive to repair. I would prioritize maintaining our streets at this time.Raquel Coyote: Candidate did not respond.Mike DiNapoli: Candidate did not respond.Kelly Doyle: Candidate did not respond.Brandon Farley: Candidate did not respond.Lisa Freeman: When we look at world class cities, they are often walkable, Candidate did not respond. and have efficient transit systems. This infrastructure is good for the climate, makes the city more affordable and attracts visitors who want to explore the city, dine and shop. These investments pay for themselves.John J Goldsmith: Candidate did not respond.Kevin Goldsmith: Candidate did not respond.Mitch Green: Portland should prioritize creation of protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes in order to make it it safe and easy to avoid driving. Doing so will reduce traffic and lower ongoing maintenance costs for driving lanes. This is not an exclusionary tradeoff: prioritizing the former funds the latter.Chris Henry: These go hand-in-hand - we need more bus and bike lanes for our climate goals, but what’s the point if their quality is degraded? Road improvement should also include more eco-friendly methods of repairing degraded lanes, like using biochar in asphalt and concrete.Ben Hufford: Portland needs to redouble our efforts to create quality options to the dominance of the single occupant car by pursuing alternative transportation options. Both systems need attention, and we shouldn’t have to choose, but even as a committed cyclist I believe well-functioning roads must still be the priority.Chad Lykins: My priority is safety and cost-effectiveness. Making it safer for cyclists and transit-users leads to fewer automobiles on the road, which leads to less deterioration of driving lanes, which leads to happier people all around.Chloe Mason: Upgrading our deteriorating driving lanes should be a top priority, as it is a longstanding concern of our constituents. The condition of our roads is causing hundreds of dollars in car damage, placing a financial burden on our community. I have personally experienced this.Tony Morse: Improved surfaces of existing degraded driving lanes. The fact is that driving is the most common form of transportation that Portlanders use. Priority bike and bus lanes play an important part of Portland’s transportation systems, but by prioritizing driving lanes, we deliver critical value to more people in need.Lee Odell: Candidate did not respond.Stanley Penkin: I support bike lanes and priority bus lanes; however, I would prioritize filling potholes and improving degraded streets. It’s imperative that we maintain our infrastructure, or it will continue to deteriorate, and we will never catch up. Our $4 billion backlog on road maintenance is an example of that.L Christopher Regis: Candidate did not respond.Moses Ross: We need to fill the potholes! It’s a fundamental city service and this failing (the deference of street maintenance) is the most obvious failing to residents.Tony Schwartz: We need to fix what we already have. Let’s improve surfacing of existing degraded driving lanes particularly in parts of the City that have roads cratered with enormous potholes. It is shameful to live in Portland – a first world city – and see our communities suffer from terrible roads and sidewalks.Sarah Silkie: I will prioritize all modes of transportation over other expenditures. Roads for buses and small business deliveries, separated bike lanes, sidewalks, and curb-ramps. These are an interconnected system.Ciatta R Thompson: I would prioritize protecting bike lanes and priority bus lanes. If Portland wants to be an environmental leader, we need to expand and strengthen our city’s multimodal transportation.John Toran: We need to prioritize improved surfacing. Our city can’t recover unless we have a functioning transportation network, and surfacing affects everyone. Potholes are a regressive stealth tax that causes significant, avoidable financial burdens for Portland’s working class that the city is responsible for preventing.Michael Trimble: I will prioritize the creation of more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes to further discourage vehicular usage as we fight to protect our environment.Andra Vltavín: I will prioritize more protected bike lanes and priority bus lines. We need to shift away from being a car-dependent culture, especially as Portland grows. The safer and more enjoyable we make biking and public transit, the more people will use those methods of transportation.Bob Weinstein: My priority would be to first address the existing degraded driving lanes to ensure basic safety and functionality for all road users.Eric Zimmerman: I do not support any more specialized bus lanes. They made our city streets more dangerous for drivers, riders and walkers. I think protected bike lanes are great! Every street should achieve a certain level of pavement maintenance before we do any more special projects in the central city.Read answers from other Portland City Council and mayoral candidates

Read the candidate’s responses to a question about street improvement.

All candidates for Portland City Council were asked the following question related to street improvement: Which would you prioritize: Creation of more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes or improved surfacing of existing degraded driving lanes?

Here are their responses:

District 1

Joe Allen: This is a tough one for me, as I love riding my bike throughout the city and support creating more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes to encourage sustainable transit. However, our district’s urgent need is for road repairs and paved roads to ensure safety for drivers and residents.

Candace Avalos: East Portland has some of the most dangerous streets in Portland and lacks paved roads, never mind bike lanes, sidewalks or bus lanes. It’s not one or the other — we need to look at our transportation system holistically, and we need to center this community’s needs.

Doug Clove: Improving our degrading streets. They are long overdue for maintenance. Especially in East Portland. It’s time for the bike people to share the wealth.

Jamie Dunphy: In East Portland, I would prioritize fixing potholes in existing streets, paving new sidewalks and unpaved roads, and installing enough street lights to ensure that my daughter and her classmates can walk to school as safely in Parkrose as their counterparts in Laurelhurst or Irvington.

Timur Ender: I would support both. I don’t see it as either/or. In some ways, pairing paving with protected bike lanes on a project can achieve multiple wins as it reduces construction costs, provides smooth surface for residents regardless of transportation mode, and improves safety.

Noah Ernst: Improved surfacing of existing degraded driving lanes. That is what I’m hearing voters in District 1 want. I support bike infrastructure but don’t support removing lanes, increasing congestion and making life harder for the vast majority of Portlanders who commute, take their kids to school and go shopping by car.

Joe Furi: Did not respond

Terrence Hayes: Improved surfacing of existing degraded driving lanes. This would obviously extend to any existing bike lanes, and we all benefit from better roads. Most of the cyclists I speak to want to see increased traffic enforcement, less potholes, and clean, well-marked bike lanes.

David Linn: Portlanders deserve more than a false dichotomy between bikes and potholes. We can and must do both. We cannot let important infrastructure be targeted to just one mode of moving around. Many of our families in East Portland use roads, buses, and bike lanes all in a single day.

Peggy Sue Owens: Did not respond

Steph Routh: Maintaining and repairing existing infrastructure is a basic level of service for all road users, as is improving dangerous intersections. These can happen at the same time, and often do. The question I wish you would have asked is, “How are we going to fund sidewalks in long-forgotten East Portland?”

Deian Salazar: We need to improve the surfacing of degrading driving lanes most. East Portland looks like Youngstown, Ohio -- if I wanted to live with U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan, I’d move there! This is not Portland quality. It’s time to make driving lanes clean and safe again. I still like bike infrastructure.

Michael (Mike) Sands: I would prioritize fixing degraded driving lanes; poor lanes cause accidents, resulting in death and/or injuries to drivers and passengers, pedestrians and bicyclists.

Thomas Shervey: Climate Change is real, and nowhere feels that change more than the east side. The Clean Energy Fund is well intentioned, but got off to a rocky start. I would argue to continue it and for more oversight to stop waste and corruption.

Loretta Smith: East Portland deserves improved surfacing of existing driving lanes and improved sidewalks. In some places in East Portland we do not have sidewalks and it is unsafe for families to walk because of all the unsanctioned camping.

Cayle Tern: It is more detrimental for families and community members of East Portland to have a public transportation system that can’t get them where they need to be timely. I support protected bus lanes in streets that can accommodate them. The city manager should have flexibility to determine what that looks like.

District 2

James Armstrong: My priority for transportation is safety. Protected bike lanes reduce collisions and injuries by 30-50%, including for cars. We also need to pair investments in priority bus lanes with improved transit safety measures to get ridership back up. These investments will also reduce wear and tear on existing driving lanes.

Reuben Berlin: Neither option alone offers a long-term solution. I suggest preparing for a mass public driverless system to reduce city traffic, enhance mobility and develop local business centers. This approach focuses on decreasing traffic through public driverless transportation, promoting economic growth and improving urban mobility.

Michelle DePass: We need to do both; it’s an equity issue. We need to engage stakeholders and businesses in every district to determine the immediate needs of those communities in an equitable way while ensuring lower income, inaccessible neighborhoods, and areas with high traffic accidents are prioritized to ensure people’s safety.

Marnie Glickman: This is not an either/or question. We need to do both. I have a strong, savvy vision to make this city safe for cycling, walking and transiting. I will always be a voice for proper public services that serve everyone, especially my constituents in North and Northeast Portland.

Mariah Hudson: As chair of the Portland Bureau of Transportation budget committee I’ve led the committee in recommending the city to maintain current assets before establishing new projects without maintenance plans. As a bike commuter and runner, I know that unsafe pavement endangers cyclists and pedestrians the most.

Sameer Kanal: We can and must do both. I am a sworn enemy of potholes, and I will prioritize those not only in driving lanes but across the entire width of the right of way. Neither is very expensive if done efficiently, compared to other parts of the city budget.

Debbie Kitchin: Safe streets are a top priority for me. There are places where investments in bike and pedestrian infrastructure make the most sense. There are places where degraded driving lanes are a safety and structural hazard for all modes. I prioritize safety and not all or nothing approaches.

Michael (Mike) Marshall: Given the threat of climate change we always need to prioritize alternative forms of transportation over automobiles. It’s painful but necessary. At the same time I also support converting the gasoline from a flat tax to a % of sales tax in order to generate more income for transportation needs.

Will Mespelt: Depends on the neighborhood and need. I would prefer protected bike lanes and bus lanes. However, as a bike rider potholes are more dangerous if it forces a rider in the street or a car to swerve.

Chris Olson: This is a false dichotomy — we can do both by appropriately taxing corporations. I support creating more protected bike and bus lanes while improving degraded driving lanes, ensuring safe, efficient transportation options for all Portlanders.

Jennifer Park: In this binary, I would prioritize protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes. We can still address driving infrastructure through small-scale fixes like more aggressive pothole servicing. When we address full resurfacing, we should be looking into new innovations, like permeable pavement.

Tiffani Penson: These efforts can take place at the same time. I want to prioritize maintaining an active, diverse multi-modal transportation systems that is safe, efficient and works for us all.

Antonio Jamal PettyJohnBlue: I would prioritize creating more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes. Investing in these will promote sustainable transportation and improve public transit efficiency, addressing long-term city growth and environmental goals. Improved surfacing of existing lanes is also important but can be addressed subsequently with available resources.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: We need safe roads for everyone and resurfacing is about safety. But making biking and transit easier takes cars off the road and lowers resurfacing costs well into the future. A short delay in improved driving lanes lowers costs and creates better conditions for all users, including drivers, for decades.

Dan Ryan: I would prioritize repaving streets and fixing potholes while enhancing safety for cyclists with extensive greenways. Regardless of bus or bike lanes, our streets must be repaired to ensure efficient movement of people, goods and services across the city. Let’s make our infrastructure work for everyone.

Sam Sachs: Candidate did not respond.

Bob Simril: My top priority is safe, clean, secure and accessible transportation for bikers, motorist and pedestrians. I will prioritize community infrastructure needs in underserved communities first, then expand as needed.

Laura Streib: Ideally, I would do both. If we improve driving surfaces, cars won’t veer into bike spaces. If we create protected bike areas, we can work towards Vision Zero. It’s a both/and situation to build a strong network of safe multi-modal transportation layers, especially around school zones.

Jonathan Tasini: Because of the decline in transportation-related revenues (for example, the rise in the number of electric vehicles which, in turn, reduces gas tax revenue), in order to fully fund our transportation needs, we have to be fully engaged in the 2025 debate in Salem over the long-term transportation packages.

Liz Taylor: Candidate did not respond.

Nat West: Thankfully this binary choice isn’t a part of our process. I’ll work to increase TriMet’s financial participation in PBOT projects for more bus lanes and propose adjustments to our budget process to work down our maintenance backlog citywide. Last year’s DHM community polling indicates that Portlanders favor maintenance first.

Nabil Zaghloul: I would prioritize improved surfacing of existing degraded lanes for all users. We need more bike lanes and priority transit lanes, but the potholes are safety hazards for all users as drivers swerve out of their lanes to avoid them or risk damaging their vehicles leading to repair costs.

District 3

Matthew (Matt) Anderson: Candidate did not respond.

Sandeep Bali: We need balance, but Portland’s Transportation Bureau has overly prioritized bike and bus lanes, aiming for a climate utopia without cars. This is misguided, as most commuters, especially the elderly and disabled, rely on driving. With many lanes underused, fixing potholes and degraded driving lanes should now be the priority.

Melodie Beirwagen: I would prioritize the improved surfacing of existing degraded driving lanes. The lifeline of Portland’s business and workers involves moving goods and services throughout our City. Portland needs much better transportation infrastructure to thrive for all Portlanders.

Christopher Brummer: Candidate did not respond.

Rex Burkholder: I think this is a false choice. We can and must do both. I would add that the city should also maintain sidewalks as everyone uses these critical transportation facilities yet we deliberately ignore them.

Brian Conley: Portland doesn’t have the luxury to choose between the two. Our climate crisis demands that we reduce traffic and cars on the road, yet we must make public transport of all kinds safer and more reliable. I reject the premise of this question. We can improve Portland transit together.

Jesse Cornett: These efforts complement each other and are not in competition. In fact, when the time comes to improve existing lanes, cost savings can be found in prioritizing those streets for protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes.

Daniel DeMelo: Bike and bus lanes. We need to focus more on upgrading our existing bike infrastructure to better separate and protect cyclists. That said, I’ve put more than 500 miles on my bike over the course of this campaign – I know firsthand that even small potholes pose significant risks to cyclists!

Chris Flanary: I would prioritize bike and bus lanes, and protected pedestrian walkways. We have prioritized cars for too long, resulting in unsafe roads, insufficient bike paths and traffic that interferes with reliable public transit. It is time to prioritize people over cars.

Dan Gilk: Increased density requires more scalable transit solutions. To that end, we need to focus more on alternative transit like bus lanes, bike paths and pedestrian walks.

Theo Hathaway Saner: I‘d prioritize creating more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes to promote sustainable transportation, reduce congestion, and improve safety for all road users.

Clifford Higgins: Candidate did not respond.

Patrick Hilton: Candidate did not respond.

Kelly Janes (KJ): Road safety is important for everyone. Resurfacing existing degraded driving lanes is good for bicyclists and buses as well as drivers. I fully support more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes in conjunction with improved surfacing of driving lanes.

Harrison Kass: As much as I want more bike/bus lanes, the priority is improved surfacing. PDX is already a premier bike/bus city. Our degraded driving lanes, however, are unacceptable; the cost is diffused amongst our citizens in the form of maintenance/repairs – an indirect increase in our already-too-high cost of living. Also unsafe.

Philippe Knab: It can’t be one or the other. We need to invest in maintaining our existing infrastructure while supporting multimodal transportation. I support prioritizing the creation of more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes to ensure a balanced, efficient transport system for everyone.

Tiffany Koyama Lane: I come from the labor movement and I recognize a false binary when I see one. A functioning city with appropriately funded transportation and road infrastructure does not need to choose between roads and transit; bikes and buses use roads too! I support changing our funding mechanism before insisting on that choice.

Kenneth (Kent) R Landgraver III: Candidate did not respond.

Angelita Morillo: The creation of priority bus lanes would be my top priority to serve the most people possible. The creation of bike lanes would be my next priority, with surfacing of driving lanes being my lowest priority. Obligate transit users like myself deserve better and safer infrastructure than we currently have.

Steve Novick: Respectfully, the question falsely implies that we could repave all the streets – which will cost billions of dollars – by avoiding spending on bus and bike lanes, which are relatively very cheap. A high priority is to keep streets that are in decent shape in good repair, before repairs become prohibitively expensive.

David O’Connor: Candidate did not respond.

Ahlam K Osman: Candidate did not respond.

Cristal Azul Otero: I would prioritize protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes, but I recognize the need for street maintenance, especially where people use wheelchairs and mobility aids. I support creating a dedicated process for residents to request urgent repairs, ensuring timely responses to improve accessibility and safety while advancing sustainable transportation.

Terry Parker: Maintaining our roadway surfaces and infrastructure must be the top priority. More congestion, fuel consumption and emissions are being created due to road diets that remove full service traffic lanes and/or have narrowed lanes that can not safely accommodate large trucks and vehicles towing wide trailers.

Heart Free Pham: The truth is, biking to work is a privilege of the wealthy; most people that work in Portland don’t even live here! We need to prioritize practicality for the majority over convenience of the few, therefore I’d support the latter in this situation.

Jaclyn Smith-Moore: Candidate did not respond.

John Sweeney: We have enough bike and bus lanes. It is way past time to fix our streets. Our cars and trucks are taking a real beating, and we are very tired of it.

Jonathan (Jon) Walker: I think this is a false choice since when you replace a road you work on the whole project, but I think finally dealing with decades of deferred maintenance which previous city councils have left to only become more expensive needs to be a priority. We need to put our financial house in order.

Kezia Wanner: All are vitally important to our city’s health and I support a multi-modal transportation system. But having to choose, it would be improving our streets because they impact people’s lives broadly from bus travel to supporting economic vitality through moving commerce to arterials for emergency vehicles.

Luke Zak: We can prioritize expanding multi modal transit while continuing necessary routine maintenance by incorporating infrastructural improvements like traffic separated lanes while existing driving lanes are being resurfaced. It doesn’t need to be a zero-sum game.

District 4

Joseph (Joe) Alfone: I support bike lanes being converted into pedestrian lanes. Bike lanes are not being used. There are too many cars and too few bikes, in between there are people that walk everywhere like myself that bring life to a city. I propose Tokyo Shibuya Crossing pedestrian changes to the city.

Eli Arnold: Bikes and public transit run on roads, and degraded roads are a safety hazard to everyone. Our backlog of Infrastructure maintenance is the largest of these issues and deserves the lion’s share of effort.

Bob Callahan: While many of us enjoy riding bikes, there are others of us who, out of choice or necessity, remain vehicle drivers. We all live here together and deserve equal treatment. I favor repair of existing lanes. Delay of road maintenance makes it more costly in the future.

Patrick Cashman: Candidate did not respond.

Olivia Clark: As a cyclist, I’ve come into direct contact with potholes all over Portland. They are a danger for cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. We must stop the deterioration of our streets before they become further damaged and more expensive to repair. I would prioritize maintaining our streets at this time.

Raquel Coyote: Candidate did not respond.

Mike DiNapoli: Candidate did not respond.

Kelly Doyle: Candidate did not respond.

Brandon Farley: Candidate did not respond.

Lisa Freeman: When we look at world class cities, they are often walkable, Candidate did not respond. and have efficient transit systems. This infrastructure is good for the climate, makes the city more affordable and attracts visitors who want to explore the city, dine and shop. These investments pay for themselves.

John J Goldsmith: Candidate did not respond.

Kevin Goldsmith: Candidate did not respond.

Mitch Green: Portland should prioritize creation of protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes in order to make it it safe and easy to avoid driving. Doing so will reduce traffic and lower ongoing maintenance costs for driving lanes. This is not an exclusionary tradeoff: prioritizing the former funds the latter.

Chris Henry: These go hand-in-hand - we need more bus and bike lanes for our climate goals, but what’s the point if their quality is degraded? Road improvement should also include more eco-friendly methods of repairing degraded lanes, like using biochar in asphalt and concrete.

Ben Hufford: Portland needs to redouble our efforts to create quality options to the dominance of the single occupant car by pursuing alternative transportation options. Both systems need attention, and we shouldn’t have to choose, but even as a committed cyclist I believe well-functioning roads must still be the priority.

Chad Lykins: My priority is safety and cost-effectiveness. Making it safer for cyclists and transit-users leads to fewer automobiles on the road, which leads to less deterioration of driving lanes, which leads to happier people all around.

Chloe Mason: Upgrading our deteriorating driving lanes should be a top priority, as it is a longstanding concern of our constituents. The condition of our roads is causing hundreds of dollars in car damage, placing a financial burden on our community. I have personally experienced this.

Tony Morse: Improved surfaces of existing degraded driving lanes. The fact is that driving is the most common form of transportation that Portlanders use. Priority bike and bus lanes play an important part of Portland’s transportation systems, but by prioritizing driving lanes, we deliver critical value to more people in need.

Lee Odell: Candidate did not respond.

Stanley Penkin: I support bike lanes and priority bus lanes; however, I would prioritize filling potholes and improving degraded streets. It’s imperative that we maintain our infrastructure, or it will continue to deteriorate, and we will never catch up. Our $4 billion backlog on road maintenance is an example of that.

L Christopher Regis: Candidate did not respond.

Moses Ross: We need to fill the potholes! It’s a fundamental city service and this failing (the deference of street maintenance) is the most obvious failing to residents.

Tony Schwartz: We need to fix what we already have. Let’s improve surfacing of existing degraded driving lanes particularly in parts of the City that have roads cratered with enormous potholes. It is shameful to live in Portland – a first world city – and see our communities suffer from terrible roads and sidewalks.

Sarah Silkie: I will prioritize all modes of transportation over other expenditures. Roads for buses and small business deliveries, separated bike lanes, sidewalks, and curb-ramps. These are an interconnected system.

Ciatta R Thompson: I would prioritize protecting bike lanes and priority bus lanes. If Portland wants to be an environmental leader, we need to expand and strengthen our city’s multimodal transportation.

John Toran: We need to prioritize improved surfacing. Our city can’t recover unless we have a functioning transportation network, and surfacing affects everyone. Potholes are a regressive stealth tax that causes significant, avoidable financial burdens for Portland’s working class that the city is responsible for preventing.

Michael Trimble: I will prioritize the creation of more protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes to further discourage vehicular usage as we fight to protect our environment.

Andra Vltavín: I will prioritize more protected bike lanes and priority bus lines. We need to shift away from being a car-dependent culture, especially as Portland grows. The safer and more enjoyable we make biking and public transit, the more people will use those methods of transportation.

Bob Weinstein: My priority would be to first address the existing degraded driving lanes to ensure basic safety and functionality for all road users.

Eric Zimmerman: I do not support any more specialized bus lanes. They made our city streets more dangerous for drivers, riders and walkers. I think protected bike lanes are great! Every street should achieve a certain level of pavement maintenance before we do any more special projects in the central city.

Read answers from other Portland City Council and mayoral candidates

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

When Susan Wojcicki Discovered She Had Lung Cancer, She Decided to Find Out Why

After her shocking lung cancer diagnosis, the late Susan Wojcicki dedicated herself to fighting the disease and looking for answers

In 2022 Susan Wojcicki was on top of the world—CEO of YouTube, parent to five kids and running a few miles a day—when she received a shocking diagnosis: metastatic lung cancer. She soon resigned from YouTube and dedicated herself to fighting the disease and looking for answers. Why does the leading cause of cancer deaths receive less funding than some less lethal cancers? How could her lung cancer have progressed so far undetected? And how did she get lung cancer even though she had never smoked? This episode is dedicated to Wojcick, who passed away last year.LISTEN TO THE PODCASTOn supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.TRANSCRIPTElah Feder: One day in late 2022, Susan Wojcicki had plans to meet up with her childhood friend, Joanna Strober. Here's Joanna.Joanna Strober: We were supposed to go for a walk on a Sunday, and she called me and she canceled because she had some hip pain. And you know, I just thought, okay, you probably exercised too much. Susan was a runner. Maybe she pulled something, but she went to her doctor and then she- I guess she got an MRI. And it was cancer, and that was her first indication—hip pain.Elah Feder: Lung cancer, and it had spread, which was shocking. Susan, she was 54 years old and in top shape, running a few miles a day at that point. And on top of everything, Susan had never smoked.Joanna Strober: Susan led the most healthy life. She didn't eat sugar. She was very careful about exercising every day. She was very careful about not eating pesticides. I mean, she was on the extreme of leading a healthy lifestyle. So yes, it's not just the not smoking, but she was doing everything she possibly could to stay healthy.Elah Feder: Susan's experience is not as unusual as you'd think. Lung cancer is the most common kind of cancer in the world. Third most common in the US. Smoking is still the leading cause, but a growing number of people who get lung cancer don't smoke, were never smokers. That's especially true of women who get lung cancer.To be clear, this is a terrible diagnosis to get for anyone, whether they smoked or not, but for those who haven't, there can be an extra layer on top of all the other feelings: confusion. So when Susan got this diagnosis, of course she wanted treatments, but she also wanted answers. Why did this happen to her?Elah Feder: This is Lost Women of Science, and I'm Elah FederKatie Hafner: And I'm Katie Hafner and today the story of Susan Wojcicki, who died last year of lung cancer.Elah, before we get to Susan's lung cancer, I want to acknowledge—some people out there might already be familiar with her name because Susan Wojcicki was one of the most successful and influential people in the world.Elah Feder: Yeah. Susan was the longtime CEO of YouTube, and she got involved in Google very early on, so that by 2022, her estimated net worth was about $800 million.Um, there's a story that gets quoted a lot about her early business acumen. When she was a kid, she and her friend, Joanna Strober—who you heard earlier—they sold what they called spice ropes. Here's Joanna again.Joanna Strober: It's really not that big of a deal. All we did was we made these yellow and orange yarn things and we put cinnamon in them and we called them spice ropes, and we sold them to the neighbors who of course had to buy them because they were neighbors.Elah Feder: The way the story gets told, it's like, look at this Susan kid born entrepreneur, but Joanna says, “no, no, no.” The point is they were just regular kids being kids.Katie Hafner: Right. It was their version of a lemonade stand. Right?Elah Feder: Exactly.Joanna Strober: We were not special. We were normal 10 year olds in a really beautiful environment that was supportive of our endeavors.The environment was the Stanford community. We grew up surrounded by smart people who were doing really interesting research and who, quite honestly, were changing the world in lots of ways. Lots of scientists, physicists, entrepreneurs. It was a wonderful way to grow up because everything felt very possible growing up on the Stanford campus in the seventies.Elah Feder: Susan grew up on the Stanford campus because her dad was a physics professor there, Stanley Wojcicki. Um, her mom—also very impressive—Esther Wojcicki, she's a journalist, educator, writer. She- she wrote a book called How to Raise Successful People, and I mean Esther Wojcicki has the cred to back this up. Uh, a couple of years ago, Mattel decided to honor women in STEM by making Barbies of some of the more notable figures. All three of her kids made the cut.Katie Hafner: Of course they did. Esther: mother of champions.Elah Feder: What you're hearing is a video of Susan, Janet and Anne Wojcicki all unboxing their Barbie likenesses.Janet Wojcicki: Let's do physics, mathematics. Let's show them what the childhood was really like!Elah Feder: You just heard Janet, she's the middle sister. Uh, she's a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at UCSF.Then there's the youngest kid. Anne.Katie Hafner: Yes, Anne Wojcicki: the co-founder of 23andMe. Listeners might recognize her name from all the times we thank the Anne Wojcicki Foundation in the credits—and her foundation funded this episode as well, right?Elah Feder: And then there was Susan, the eldest. I talked to Anne and Janet a few weeks ago. All all three sisters were very close in age, all born in a span of, of just five years. But talking to them, it sounds like Susan had classic first child syndrome. You're gonna hear Anne first.Anne Wojcicki: She was always the responsible one. Janet was not. And- and but-Janet Wojckick: And you were halfway in between.Anne Wojcicki: I was halfway in between, yeah. My friends always liked hanging out with Susan, but they didn't like hanging out with Janet. And then part is that Susan was so kind. Susan was kind. She was responsible, like she would take us out to ice cream. She would pick me up from ice skating. She was like, always on time.Elah Feder: If Susan Wojcicki promised you ice cream, you were gonna get ice cream. This is a quality that surely you'd want in a leader. But Anne says Susan wasn't born to be a mogul or anything.Anne Wojcicki: I'd say Susan was very much almost like the accidental CEO. I never would've looked at her when we were younger and said like, “oh, my sister is going to be a CEO.” You know, like there's definitely other people I look at in high school who have focused on finance and thinking about their careers and stuff.Elah Feder: Susan, on the other hand, was a history and literature major, but in 1998 she got involved in the creation of a new tech company when she rented out her garage to two Guys: Larry Page and Sergey Brin. They were starting a new company, and I think you know the name. Um…Katie Hafner: Google, if I'm not mistaken!Elah Feder: Google!Newscaster: a little engine that could, we're talking about this morning, has nothing to do with the children's story about a brave little locomotive. That's because this engine is a search engine. Google by name, an internet website, partnered with our own CBS news.com.Elah Feder: Susan soon became the company's first marketing manager, and a few years after that she led them in buying another tech company: a company called YouTube. And in 2014 she was appointed YouTube CEO.Newscaster 2: Well, her name is Susan Wojcicki and she's one of the most powerful women in tech. She's also mother of four and more than eight months pregnant with her fifth child. So how did she do it all?Elah Feder: So, in 2022, Susan has been CEO of YouTube for eight years. Somehow she still had time to raise five children and run a few miles a day, which is completely alien to me.You know that Beyonce meme, like Beyonce has as many hours in the day as you do, and it's, like, meant to shame you for being inadequate. Um, that is how I feel hearing about Susan Wojcicki. Point is she's doing really well when she gets this news. And it's a complete shock. Here's Anne again.Anne Wojcicki: I think when you suddenly- like Susan was kind of on top of the world, like she loved her job, YouTube is taking off and she had her five kids and they're all amazing and um, and then suddenly it was like, your life is gonna be over soon. Right away the first priority was treatment.Elah Feder: Very quickly, Susan resigned from YouTube and really gave herself over to fighting this.Joanna Strober: What she really did was started working with scientists…Elah Feder: Joanna, again.Joanna Strober: …doing the in-depth work to understand the science and what treatments were available and what she could do, but it was very scientifically focused.Elah Feder: Susan would go on to learn a lot about lung cancer, and one of the things that she learned that really disturbed her is that doctors were not great at detecting her kind of cancer: lung cancer in non-smokers. Often there are no early signs, or in Susan's case, very few signs even when the cancer has progressed. Here's her sister, Janet.Janet Wojcicki: We went to see her, you know, thoracic oncologist, right? Her lung oncologist. She's sitting on the table and the oncologist is actually examining her and she's listening to her lungs and Susan's basically saying like, you don't hear anything, right? You, you hear nothing like it sounds totally normal, right? And the oncologist is like, yeah. So just from a clinical exam, she was perfect. There was nothing. So she was like, how is it that I have stage four lung cancer? You're an oncologist, you're listening to me, you're looking at me, and like, nothing's awry. So it's- it was that kind of disconnect that was also kind of a call to action.Elah Feder: How could Susan's lung cancer have gone undetected so long that it had spread? And why is it that when lung cancer is detected, survival rates aren't higher? Well, part of the reason might be that we need more funding despite some very effective anti-smoking campaigns, lung cancer is still the leading cause of cancer deaths in the U.S., but it only gets about half the federal research funds that breast cancer does- or it did. The NIH has been slashing research funding, including cancer research. We'll see how this all shakes out in the coming months and years. In any case, lung cancer might not be the only cancer that's in trouble going forward. But historically, part of the reason that lung cancer got proportionately less funding might have to do with attitudes toward lung cancer. It just isn't viewed the same way that breast or prostate or pancreatic cancers are. It's often seen as something you bring on yourself. Here's Anne again.Anne Wojcicki: I think that the stigma has really hurt research- is that people look at it and they say like, oh, well you smoked. And um, and I think that's one of the things that Susan really wanted to change.Elah Feder: It took a long time to get this broad consensus that smoking causes lung cancer. If we go back to the forties and fifties, that's when you first see a bunch of studies coming out that demonstrate this link. And even so, if you asked a doctor in 1960, if the link had been proven, a fifth said they didn't think so. About half of them still smoked, but eventually the other side prevailed. We now have a consensus that smoking does cause lung cancer, but the downside is stigma.Katie Hafner: You know? And the stigma is really, really deeply embedded in our society. The minute you hear that somebody has been diagnosed with lung cancer, the very first thing you ask is, do they smoke? Have they smoked? Have you smoked? Has she smoked? And, so you immediately assign that stigma to the lung cancer even when it quickly gets established that there was no smoking. And that could also have an indirect effect on this lack of funding.Elah Feder: Yeah, that's the suspicion, and of course the stigma and the victim blaming is terrible for people who did smoke too. So, that really bothered Susan and she gave a lot of money for research, but she was also at the same time just investigating her own cancer. You know how, how did she get it?Anne Wojcicki: I think one of the first things we did was we got the houses tested for radon exposure.Elah Feder: Katie, do you know about radon? Are you familiar with radon?Katie Hafner: I mean, I'm familiar, but I have no idea what that has to do with it. Tell me.Elah Feder: I only recently learned about this, so, so radon is a radioactive gas. It- it sounds like one of these scary things you read on the internet, but this is real. It's a radioactive gas that naturally occurs in the ground, but it leaks into basements where it can accumulate to dangerous levels. It has no smell, no- no color. So you really would not know if it's in your home unless you test for it. Um, but it's the leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers.Katie Hafner: You mean before secondhand smoke?Elah Feder: Apparently. In the U.S. radon is the number one cause of lung cancer among non-smokers according to the EPA.Other causes, of course, do include air pollution, asbestos exposure, and secondhand smoke.Katie Hafner: Wow. So, I've always thought secondhand smoke was it? But it sounds like it was, it sounds like it's radon.Elah Feder: Me too. Maybe it used to be when people were smoking more.Katie Hafner: Yeah.Elah Feder: But yeah, radon is unfortunately in the lead. Um, Susan's basement: clear of radon.Katie Hafner: And what about genetics? Last week, you know, we talked about a researcher named Maud Slye who worked to show that heredity explained all cancer.Elah Feder: Wrongly, but yes.Katie Hafner: Turns out not to be true, but that's okay. You go Maud. Um, are there genes linked to lung cancer? I guess that's my question.Elah Feder: There are, um, but lung cancer is still, for the most part, a disease caused by- by either your environment or your lifestyle. Some genes have been linked to increased cancer risk. For example, a certain mutation in the EGFR gene. More genes might be found. It's also possible that it's not just about finding a single gene, but about how mutations in a bunch of genes interact. But yeah, for the most part, lung cancer tends to be about environment and lifestyle more than genetics.Here's a part where there's sometimes confusion. Cancer usually happens when there's a genetic mutation in a cell, actually a series of mutations. And these cause that cell to start acting weird and replicating out of control. So in a sense, genetics is always involved in cancer, but in this case, we're not talking about inherited genetics, we're talking about mutations that you get in some of your cells later in life. They can pop up when you're 10 or 30 or 80 or hopefully never. But then, some people do have preexisting germline mutations. Some mutations that you have had since you were a little zygote that exist in every cell of your body. And, these don't usually directly cause cancer on their own. Um, I think an analogy might be helpful here. So, imagine a mutation as a switch. You usually need a few switches to turn on before a cell becomes cancerous. But some people are born with one of their switches already in the on position. And that makes them more vulnerable. Does that make sense?Katie Hafner: It makes sense. It, I mean, it makes me think about the BRCA gene.Elah Feder: Mm-hmm. Exactly.Katie Hafner: So you might be born with this mutation that puts you at high risk of getting breast cancer, but you might still not get it, but it still seems like a good idea to find out if you're at risk so that you can take some precautions and plan ahead.Elah Feder: Right. Although with lung cancer, genetic screening is tricky. Like I mentioned, heredity is not the driving factor usually for this kind of cancer. Um, but say- say you do find you have a heritable mutation that puts you at risk. You're limited in what you can do. It's not like BRCA where you might consider a double mastectomy. You're- you're gonna keep your lungs. You could take extra care to avoid environmental exposures—something we really should all do. You might even get regular low-dose CT scans—that’s actually something that is recommended for people who have smoked after a certain age to detect any lung cancer early, but those come with risks too: you’re getting a little bit of radiation each time. I’m not saying it's not worth it, it might be if you are very high risk, but it's a consideration. Anyway, that's for people who do not have lung cancer already, but are concerned about a genetic predisposition. For someone who does have lung cancer, yeah, you probably want to know what's going on in your tumor genetically.Katie Hafner: So what about Susan's case? Did she find a genetic cause for her lung cancer that could be really useful for her family to know?Elah Feder: No. Um, Susan did not actually test positive for any hereditary mutation linked to cancer, but there are still genes that may not have been identified. Even before her diagnosis, she and her husband were donating money for cancer research through their foundation. After her diagnosis, they ramped this up. Donating to research about immunotherapies, early detection. But, also funding a new project at her sister's Company 23andMe. It's called the Lung Cancer Genetic Study. So, they are trying to build a massive database of genetic information from people with lung cancer.One of the project's goals is to find heritable genetic risk factors, but they explain it's actually bigger than that. They want to know how heritable mutations, tumor mutations, and lifestyle all interact so that they might figure out, for example, why one person who smokes develops cancer, but another doesn't. It might also help them to develop new therapies. So-Katie Hafner: I just wanna interject with something that strikes me just as we're having this conversation, which is that, um, people who are listening to this probably know that 23andMe had a lot of problems, ended up filing for bankruptcy protection and Anne resigned earlier this year. Um, I'm sure that it's been very challenging for Anne, but it sounds like she is in her very best, um, Wojcicki family-like way: making lemonade out of lemons in this regard. That's my initial reaction to everything you're saying.Elah Feder: Yeah. And as you know, 23andMe—while it filed for bankruptcy—it lives on and created a nonprofit called the TTAM Research Institute. It bought 23andMe in July this year. And so, 23andMe is still going and so is this project. So far about 1200 patients have signed up and the goal is to reach 10,000.Anne Wojcicki: If you think about any one medical center, if it's UCSF or at Stanford or Harvard, getting a thousand patients coming in is- is a lot. And so, that's kind of the beauty of being able to go and find people around the entire country, is to be able to pull all that data together and then make that accessible to the research community.Elah Feder: 23andMe's Lung Cancer Genetics Study was officially announced in July last year. Susan Wojcicki died a few weeks later on August 9th, 2024. She was 56.Katie Hafner: So, Susan never did get an answer. She never found out why she had lung cancer.Elah Feder: No, she did not. And we're still trying to understand a lot about lung cancer in general. Here's Anne.Anne Wojcicki: There's still just like a lot you don't know. Understanding environmental science I think is really important. We live in a very complicated world with a lot of, you know, there's fires and there's pollution and there's what you eat and we just don't know. You don't know what the impact of all of that is, and so, you can't- I mean you can't live your life trying to measure everything and worry about everything. Like in some ways you have to come to terms with that, that you can't- you can't worry about it all the time.Elah Feder: This is a big part of life. It's understanding that so much of it is beyond our control, and we often don't even get answers. We don't find out why bad things happen to us. At the same time, when it comes to lung cancer, there is more that we can do. Here's Janet.Janet Wojcicki: I mean, if there are modifiable risk factors that we can identify—I mean the key word being modifiable, right? Then, ideally we could act on them.Elah Feder: We can fight air pollution, we can stop kids from getting their hands on cigarettes. We can look for more heritable risk factors and invest more money in treatments. As for Susan Wojcicki, despite all of her resources and all of her drive, ultimately she couldn't stop the cancer in her own body, but she left her mark in business in cancer research. She left a bigger mark than most of us ever will, but her sisters and her friend, Joanna- the thing that they really remember is how she never let any of that success go to her head.Anne Wojcicki: It didn't matter if we were like some fancy party or if Oprah wanted to talk to her. She was kind of the same. She was always very unaffected. And, it was, like, really fun going to the Oscars with her because she'd be like, “ah, I'm just gonna buy this dress on clearance at Macy's, and like no one cares what I wear.” And that was kind of the thing that was fun. She'd be like, “it would just be fun with you and like only going so that we can hang out.”Anne Wojcicki I always ride in my flats and my skirts. You're going to- are gonna YouTube? I’m actually really curious. Are you gonna meet YouTube- are you gonna meet Mr. Beast?Elah Feder: This episode of Lost Women of Science was produced by me, Elah Feder, and hosted by our co-executive producer Katie Hafner.Our senior managing producer is Deborah Unger. We had fact-checking help from Danya AbdelHameid. Lily Whear made the episode art. Thanks as always. To our co-executive producer, Amy Scharf, Eowyn Burtner, our program manager, and Jeff DelViscio at our publishing partner, Scientific American. This episode was made with funding from the Anne Wojcicki Foundation.You can find a transcript and a link to the Lung Cancer Genetics Study at www.lostwomenofscience.org.HostKatie HafnerHost and Senior ProducerElah FederGuestsAnne Wojcicki Anne is Susan Wojcicki’s youngest sister and the co-founder of 23andMe.Janet WojcickiJanet is the middle Wojcicki sister. She’s a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).Joanna StroberJoanna is the co-founder of Midi Health and a long-time friend of Susan Wojcicki.Further Reading“From Susan” — Susan Wojcicki’s final post, written a few weeks before she died and published on YouTube’s blog on Nov. 25, 2024.How to Raise Successful People. Esther Wojcicki, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2019The Lung Cancer Genetics Study“Does Lung Cancer Attract Greater Stigma Than Other Cancer Types?” by Laura A. V. Marlow et al., in Lung Cancer, Vol. 88, No. 1; April 2015

The conservative parties can change their leaders – but it won’t stop the NSW Coalition’s death spiral | Anne Davies

The Nationals have a new leader in Gurmesh Singh and Kellie Sloane could soon replace Liberal leader Mark Speakman. But the Coalition is fractured on net zeroThe NSW Nationals have a new leader, Gurmesh Singh, and the Liberals will almost certainly follow suit by early next week.It’s desperation politics. Changing leaders will likely do nothing to stop the apparent death spiral the conservative side of politics has inflicted upon itself – in Canberra and now the states. Continue reading...

The NSW Nationals have a new leader, Gurmesh Singh, and the Liberals will almost certainly follow suit by early next week.It’s desperation politics. Changing leaders will likely do nothing to stop the apparent death spiral the conservative side of politics has inflicted upon itself – in Canberra and now the states.If they needed evidence of what the electorate was thinking, it was shouting at them from internal YouGov research presented to the NSW Liberal party room on Tuesday. The party’s MPs and MLCs were considering whether to dump net zero as their federal counterparts did on the weekend.YouGov found only one-third of Australians would now seriously consider voting for the Coalition, the party room was told.It found 26% of Australians who are former Coalition voters won’t seriously consider the Coalition in the future. That’s approximately 5 million voters the Coalition needs to persuade to consider them again, the pollsters said.“Only one in five (21%) of former Coalition voters see the Coalition as being in touch with modern Australia. Only one in four (25%) see them as aligned with their values,” the YouGov report stated.One in two (52%) of former Coalition voters said they would only consider a party ready to govern if it had credible policies to address climate change and its impacts.Without a coherent position on the most pressing problem of our generation – how to slow climate change – voters, in particular younger cohorts, have fled in droves. They are unable to take seriously a political party that ignores the overwhelming scientific consensus and the economics of renewables.The federal Liberals have chosen to dump any semblance of a coherent plan.The NSW Liberals, however, voted on Tuesday to retain a net zero emissions by 2050 target. They are sticking with the bipartisan energy transition roadmap devised by the state Coalition when in government.But how does that work when their federal counterparts are talking up new coal-fired power stations and their junior state partner has abandoned the net zero target?Singh, the NSW National’s newly minted leader, hopes a compromise might be reached – though it takes a vivid imagination to see it working.As the first Indian-Australian to leader a major party, he’s a break from the white male graziers that the NSW National party usually chooses.Singh has a degree in industrial design, has worked in advertising and was previously a big wheel in the blueberry and macadamia industries. He formerly chaired Oz Group Co-op – the major marketing co-operative in the Coffs region.His family is still a major player in the Coffs Harbour blueberry industry, an industry that has divided the local community over rapid rapid expansion, use of pesticides, environmental standards and use of contract labour.Singh is acutely aware that on the north coast, his own and other seats face an existential political threat from the progressive side of politics, in the form of the Greens and teals, who have made action on climate change central to their platforms.The Greens already hold the state seat of Ballina, just north of Singh’s seat. In the 2025 federal election, teal candidate Caz Heize slashed the National’s margin in the seat of Cowper (which includes Coffs Harbour) to 0.14% on a two-party preferred basis.Singh is no Barnaby Joyce or Matt Canavan, dinosaurs of the National party whose mission includes returning Australia to a coal-fired past. But he is of the same party.Asked at his first press conference how he would reconcile the Nationals’ position with that of the Liberals in NSW, Singh highlighted the cost of power, the plight of pensioners in the regions who can’t afford hot showers, and suggested a better-managed rollout was required. He didn’t diss renewables per se.Meanwhile, the Liberals’ leadership drama is still to unfold, probably on Thursday, or possibly early next week.Moderate Kellie Sloane, a former journalist who has been an MP for less than three years, appears to be the frontrunner to replace Mark Speakman.However, Alister Heskens, from the right faction and the manager of opposition business, is also canvassing the numbers.The difficulty for Sloane will be her lack of history in the party and her inexperience in government. Heskens’ challenge is his low profile and convincing colleagues he offers an improvement on Speakman. He is likely to relish attacking Labor more than Speakman does.The NSW Liberals have, at least, heeded the YouGov polling on attitudes to climate change and have not been infected by the nonsense pedalled by Advance and other climate-denying figures on the right.The party issued a statement on Tuesday that it remained “committed to a target of net zero by 2050”.“It’s been our target since 2016. It’s a target to be achieved alongside a focus on energy reliability, affordability, and industrial competitiveness.”

Federal Cash for Lead Pipe Replacement Isn’t Making It to Illinois Communities

This story, a partnership between Grist, Inside Climate News, and Chicago-area public radio station WBEZ, is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Lead pipes are ubiquitous. At this point, no state has gotten rid of all of its toxic lead service lines, which pipe drinking water to homes and businesses. But some cities like Chicago, New York […]

This story, a partnership between Grist, Inside Climate News, and Chicago-area public radio station WBEZ, is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Lead pipes are ubiquitous. At this point, no state has gotten rid of all of its toxic lead service lines, which pipe drinking water to homes and businesses. But some cities like Chicago, New York City, and Detroit have more lead plumbing than others, and replacing it can cost tens of thousands of dollars. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Biden-era infrastructure law, promised $15 billion for lead pipe replacements across the country to be disbursed over five years.  But in a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency sent earlier this week, a group of Illinois congressional delegates allege that $3 billion appropriated for lead pipe replacements nationwide for the fiscal year that ended in September has not reached communities yet. They warn that the delay is a “dangerous politicization” that puts children and families at risk. “It feels like it’s targeting blue states or blue cities that might require more of this mitigation.” “Federal resources are not partisan tools—they are vital lifelines intended to serve all Americans,” the letter notes. “Using federal funds as leverage against communities based on political considerations represents a dangerous abuse of power that undermines public trust and puts lives at risk.”  The move comes as communities in Illinois, which is among the top five states with the most lead service lines, and across the country are grappling with the overwhelming cost of removing the hazardous metal piping from water systems. The Trump administration has already withheld congressionally appropriated funding for infrastructure and energy projects from Democrat-led states like New York, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, and Massachusetts. Now, lawmakers fear money for lead pipes is stuck in Washington too.  “I think that they’re playing games,” said Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, one of the lawmakers who led the effort to send the letter. “It feels like it’s targeting blue states or blue cities that might require more of this mitigation than other parts of the country.”  Lead is toxic and dangerous to human health. Lead plumbing can flake and dissolve into drinking water, which can lead to brain damage, cardiovascular problems, and reproductive issues. The EPA advises that there is no safe level of lead exposure. A spokesperson for the federal agency said it is “actively working” on allotments for lead service line replacements. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, which is responsible for disbursing the federal funds to local governments, did not respond to a request for comment. The Chicago Department of Water Management said it received $14 million from the Illinois EPA for the 2025 financial year and was approved for $28 million for the next fiscal year.   “The estimated replacement cost for the Chicago region alone is $12 billion or more, and statewide, it could be $14 billion,” Krishnamoorthi said. “Whatever amounts would come to Chicago would not be enough to do the entire job, but the federal component is vital to get the ball rolling.” Chicago has more than 412,000 lead service lines, the most of any city in the country. So far, the city has replaced roughly 14,000 lead pipes at a cost of $400 million over the past five years. That’s due in part to the high cost of replacing lead pipes. In Chicago, a single lead pipe replacement can cost on average $35,000. Federal rules require that Chicago replace all its pipes by 2047, but city officials have cited concerns over the unfunded federal mandate.  “This is impacting people’s health,” said Chakena Sims, a senior policy advocate with Natural Resources Defense Council. “The federal government politicizing access to safe drinking water is an all-time low,” she added. “It’s encouraging to see our Illinois congressional leaders stand up for communities.”  

Best Leaders 2025: John Palfrey

From finding MacArthur ‘geniuses’ to funding transformative change

John Palfrey is used to thinking about the biggest issues confronting society and what we should all do about them. And in these turbulent times, Palfrey, the president of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, has reaffirmed his and the foundation's commitment to supporting democracy, creativity, learning and diversity.“I have a relentlessly positive nature, and I do, for better and for worse, often see what is possible and then have the temerity to think we can go get it,” Palfrey said in an interview with U.S. News & World Report. “I think that form of optimism is very helpful, particularly on the darkest of days.”With $9.2 billion in assets, the MacArthur Foundation is one of the nation’s largest philanthropic organizations. In 2024 alone, the foundation paid out more than $350 million in grants. This year, the foundation announced it would increase its grants for 2025 and 2026 because of the federal government’s cuts to funding – which could be devastating for the arts, environmental protection, public safety and more.Meet America's Best LeadersU.S. News & World Report selected its 2025 Best Leaders in public service, business, healthcare and education.See the Top 25 of '25The foundation makes “Big Bets,” investing in initiatives intended to bring about transformative change. For example, in October, the foundation announced it would participate in Humanity AI, an initiative to help ensure that artificial intelligence is a positive tool for society, funding efforts to safeguard democracy from negative effects of the new technology and to protect artists and other creators from theft of their intellectual property.MacArthur also makes “enduring commitments” to invest in journalism that promotes inclusive news narratives and supports a healthy democracy, and it funds initiatives in Chicago, where it is headquartered, to support racial equity and a more inclusive community.It’s perhaps most famous for the MacArthur Fellowships – referred to as “genius grants” – which award 20 to 30 extraordinary creative people in various fields with $800,000 each over a five-year period.Palfrey, 53, likens the foundation to “sort of a nonprofit venture capital” fund.“We prize creativity and effectiveness. And so we are constantly looking for people and institutions and networks that are creative and have new ideas and different ways of approaching topics,” he says.As an educator and acclaimed legal scholar who previously worked at Harvard University and Phillips Academy, Andover, Palfrey has studied some of the most complex challenges facing a democratic society – such as education’s need to respect both free speech and diversity and the influence of technology on society. He understands the fraught nature of these issues and has written seven books, such as “Safe Spaces, Brave Spaces,” to address them head-on.But Palfrey did not anticipate the recent need to advocate for American democracy itself.“The First Amendment, our freedom of expression, the freedom of the press, the freedom to give, the freedom to invest,” he says. “These are 250-year-old American traditions that are unbroken.” And all of a sudden, he says, “they need advocates in a way that they haven’t before.”In addition to the foundation’s ongoing support of the independent press, Palfrey has spearheaded the creation of Press Forward, a new initiative supported by several foundations to rebuild local news.He’s also been touring the country to speak on the importance of democracy and the First Amendment as well as continuing that dialogue in essays and social media.Watching other institutions, such as universities, agree to substantial changes in policy in light of federal government demands, Palfrey thought of historian Timothy Snyder’s first rule for resisting tyranny: “Do not obey in advance.” So, in April 2025, Palfrey and colleagues at other foundations decided to “unite in advance,” issuing a statement that they must have the freedom to give to the causes they believe in. More than 700 foundations from across the ideological spectrum have since signed on.

‘They’re playing games’: Illinois lawmakers press Trump administration over stalled lead-pipe funding

Congress appropriated $15 billion to replace lead pipes across the country. Is the Trump administration withholding it?

Lead pipes are ubiquitous. At this point, no state has gotten rid of all of its toxic lead service lines, which pipe drinking water to homes and businesses. But some cities like Chicago, New York City, and Detroit, have more lead plumbing than others, and replacing it can cost tens of thousands of dollars. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Biden-era infrastructure law, promised $15 billion for lead pipe replacements across the country to be disbursed over five years.  But in a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency sent earlier this week, a group of Illinois congressional delegates allege that $3 billion appropriated for lead pipe replacements nationwide for the fiscal year that ended in September has not reached communities yet. They warn that the delay is a “dangerous politicization” that puts children and families at risk. “Federal resources are not partisan tools — they are vital lifelines intended to serve all Americans,” the letter notes. “Using federal funds as leverage against communities based on political considerations represents a dangerous abuse of power that undermines public trust and puts lives at risk.”  The move comes as communities in Illinois, which is among the top five states with the most lead service lines, and across the country are grappling with the overwhelming cost of removing the hazardous metal piping from water systems. The Trump administration has already withheld congressionally appropriated funding for infrastructure and energy projects from Democrat-led states like New York, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, and Massachusetts. Now, lawmakers fear money for lead pipes is stuck in Washington too.  “I think that they’re playing games,” said Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, one of the lawmakers who led the effort to send the letter. “It feels like it’s targeting blue states or blue cities that might require more of this mitigation than other parts of the country.”  Lead is toxic and dangerous to human health. Lead plumbing can flake and dissolve into drinking water, which can lead to brain damage, cardiovascular problems, and reproductive issues. The EPA advises that there is no safe level of lead exposure. A spokesperson for the federal agency said it is “actively working” on allotments for lead service line replacements. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, which is responsible for disbursing the federal funds to local governments, did not respond to a request for comment. The Chicago Department of Water Management said it received $14 million from the Illinois EPA for the 2025 financial year and was approved for $28 million for the next fiscal year.   “The estimated replacement cost for the Chicago region alone is $12 billion or more, and statewide, it could be $14 billion,” Krishnamoorthi said. “Whatever amounts would come to Chicago would not be enough to do the entire job, but the federal component is vital to get the ball rolling.” Chicago has more than 412,000 lead service lines, the most of any city in the country. So far, the city has replaced roughly 14,000 lead pipes at a cost of $400 million over the past five years. That’s due in part to the high cost of replacing lead pipes. In Chicago, a single lead pipe replacement can cost on average $35,000. Federal rules require that Chicago replace all its pipes by 2047, but city officials have cited concerns over the unfunded federal mandate.  “This is impacting people’s health,” said Chakena Sims, a senior policy advocate with Natural Resources Defense Council. “The federal government politicizing access to safe drinking water is an all-time low,” she added. “It’s encouraging to see our Illinois congressional leaders stand up for communities.”   This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘They’re playing games’: Illinois lawmakers press Trump administration over stalled lead-pipe funding on Nov 13, 2025.

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.