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

Louisiana's Governor Raises Major Doubts About a Stalled $3 Billion Coastal Restoration Project

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry is raising serious objections to a $3 billion project that has long been hailed key to restoring the state’s eroding coastline

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry raised serious objections Thursday to a $3 billion project long hailed as key to restoring the state's eroding coastline, decrying the growing cost and predicting dire harm to a coastal culture dependent on fishing, shrimping and oyster dredging.The Republican governor's remarks to a Senate committee in Baton Rouge were his most extensive — and most decisively negative — on the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion project since he took office in January. They come a month after federal authorities warned that money for the project channeled to the state by the federal government would have to be returned if the state could not provide a clear commitment to the plan.Landry stopped short of calling for an end to the project altogether but said a compromise must be reached with opponents of the project. The chair of the Senate Committee, Republican Sen. Pat Connick, said lawmakers would have to weigh the next move. The project would channel 75,000 cubic feet (2,100 cubic meters) of sediment per second from the Mississippi River into the nearby Barataria Basin in southeast Louisiana’s Plaquemines Parish to create between 20 to 40 square miles (52 to 104 square kilometers) of new land over five decades. It has drawn opposition from some in Plaquemines Parish and now Landry. “This project is going to break our culture,” Landry said, likening the projected damage to shrimp and oyster harvesters to the diminishing of the Cajun French language generations ago when southwest Louisiana school children were forced to speak nothing but English.Ground was broken on the project in August 2023, but state and federal litigation by various interests has stalled it. Landry's remarks added to doubts about its future, despite support from environmental groups.Supporters of the project, which is being funded from a settlement arising from BP's 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, quickly pushed back during and after Landry's committee testimony. “I really think, again, the proper course of action is to remain and build as properly permitted as already funded with BP oil spill dollars ... Every day that we wait and delay we’re costing the state more money," Rep. Joseph Orgeron, a Republican from Cut Off, told Landry. While Landry called the project experimental, Orgeron said other, smaller diversion projects have worked.“As we continue to lose wetlands to open water, that’s just less and less breeding grounds, less and less protection for all of our juvenile shrimp, crab, finfish, you name it,” Corey Miller, community engagement director with the nonprofit Pontchartrain Conservancy, said in an interview. “We have to figure out a way to reestablish that connection between the river and our estuaries in order to rebuild deltas to protect all of our communities.”The project was planned in response to a rapidly vanishing coastline caused by a variety of natural and man-made factors. Those include land subsidence, sea-level rise, the cutting of canals through coastal wetlands by oil and gas companies, and the artificial control of the Mississippi River via levee systems that protect populations from floods but also prevent the natural flow of water that would ordinarily deposit sediment and rebuild land. The conservation group Restore the Mississippi River Delta said Landry's remarks represent a “dramatic shift” in coastal restoration efforts: “Not building this project as designed, permitted and funded will put citizens and businesses at increased risk from future storms.”Landry said delays have pushed the Mid-Barataria project cost over the years from around $1.5 billion to more than $3 billion, and he predicted costs above $2.9 billion will have to be passed on to Louisiana taxpayers. Associated Press reporter Jack Brook in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, contributed to this story.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

9 minutes, $195: We tested a heli-taxi vs. an Uber to the airport

On a Blade helicopter, a one-way trip from Manhattan to John F. Kennedy International Airport runs $195.

On paper, the 16-mile commute between New York City and its biggest airport sounds like a cakewalk. But the reality of getting to John F. Kennedy International Airport is neither short nor sweet.At peak times, a cab from Manhattan can take an hour and costs $70 before surcharges, tip and tolls. With surge pricing, Uber fares can far exceed $100. For under $20, there’s the train, which can take anywhere between a half-hour and 75 minutes, depending on where you hop on.Or, if you really can’t wait, you could take a helicopter.Blade, a New York-based helicopter taxi service, promises to shuttle customers between the city and JFK (or Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey) in five minutes. Its base fare for a one-way trip is $195. No switching trains, no hurried cabbies — just smooth sailing over the gridlock below.Blade takes customers to airports and the Hamptons on Long Island by helicopter (or fancy bus), and it offers private jet charters in the region and beyond. Blade is also the largest dedicated air transporter of human organs in the United States, said CEO Rob Wiesenthal, who founded the company in 2014.While a $900 jaunt to the Hamptons is exponentially out of my price range, Blade’s airport service is less far-fetched.On a recent Sunday, before a late-afternoon flight from JFK to D.C., my cheapest Uber option from the Upper West Side was $146. For a comparable price (with a first-time-rider coupon), I could take back a half-hour of my time and pretend to be a character in “Succession.”To compare experiences, I sent my husband in an Uber while I tried Blade.The booking processLike Uber, booking a ride with Blade can be done quickly through its app or website. Unlike Uber, you can’t hail an affordable ride around-the-clock.Wiesenthal wouldn’t say how many flights Blade offers per day but said that during the week, “you can fly to Newark or Kennedy pretty much 12 hours a day.”The standard window for “by-the-seat” trips (vs. chartering the entire cabin) to JFK generally runs weekdays between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m., and from 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Sundays. There are no such flights on Saturdays.Customers can “crowdsource” flights that aren’t on the schedule. After requesting a specific time, Blade will open slots for the public to book; the more people who join in, the less it costs the original requester. Alternatively, you can book the entire aircraft for yourself and up to seven other guests, starting at $1,875.I booked my seat a couple days in advance — and still had limited options. The best one for my schedule left an hour before my Delta flight boarded and cost $265, which was $70 higher than the advertised base fare. Again, like Uber — or commercial airlines — the company practices dynamic pricing. The same trip during the week of Thanksgiving, for example, was $325.With my first-time-flier coupon registering a $50 discount, the total came to $215.The loungeBlade operates from three heliports across the city. My trip departed from Lounge West, located on the Hudson River near Hudson Yards.It’s a portable building like you’d find at a construction site, but it’s painted matte black (save a few white Blade logos). A black chain-link fence with privacy netting surrounds the tarmac, protecting the identity of the travelers beyond. Wiesenthal told me that 60 percent of customers use the airport shuttle for business travel; leisure travelers account for the rest — not only people who want to get out of Dodge fast, but also tourists who want one last sightseeing adventure.The company recommends arriving at least 15 minutes before takeoff; I got there with 20 to spare to enjoy the perks. A friendly receptionist checked me in, took my luggage and gave me a colored wristband to indicate my flight group. There was no metal detector or TSA staff to flag my liquids. Then I was free to enjoy the 1960s-themed lounge.The place felt designed with Instagram in mind. Andy Warhol prints, neon acrylic tables, mushroom lamps. The furniture — like tulip chairs and leather barstools — looked the part but felt flimsy, more Temu than TWA Hotel.While my husband texted from crawling Brooklyn traffic, I sat at the bar and ordered a glass of complimentary white wine. There was Acqua Panna water and packaged snacks such as a maple blueberry protein bar and “skinny dipped” dark-chocolate-covered almonds.The rideBlade has a reputation for being on time; my chopper-mate told me he’s taken the airport service 50 times and it had never been late before. But that afternoon we ran 15 minutes behind schedule.Air traffic can cause delays. So can weather. Blade will cancel flights if the weather is deemed unsafe or heavy turbulence is expected and will take you to the airport by car instead.It wasn’t clear why we were held up, but the staff apologized for the delay. Soon, a helicopter landed in front of the lounge window and our wristband group was called. We filed into a line by the door, were given instructions on how to board and were escorted to the aircraft. I must have missed dibs on the shotgun seat next to the pilot and was slotted in the main cabin with two other fliers.The ethical dilemmaThe helicopter took off after a quick safety briefing from the pilot, who was wearing a hoodie, and in seconds we were hovering over the city skyline.Every passenger had their phone out at some point to capture the splendor. It felt surreal and a little nauseating — mostly because I’m prone to motion sickness, but also metaphorically. As we descended, and the skyscrapers gave way to houses, I thought about the people living below. The helicopter was incredibly loud; it had to be annoying to hear us screech past.The luxury is controversial. Nonessential helicopter traffic has been increasing for years, and residents living under the flight paths are filing evermore noise complaints. The New York nonprofit Stop the Chop also cites high carbon emissions among its primary reasons for a push to ban nonessential flights over the region.“Taking a helicopter ride is definitely more environmentally damaging than an hour-long Uber ride,” Peter DeCarlo, an associate professor of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins University who studies atmospheric air pollution, told me in an email.Blade says it plans to transition to cleaner, quieter electric vertical aircraft once they’re available in the coming years.There wasn’t much time for my guilt to fester; we were on the ground about nine minutes (not five) after liftoff.In addition to the potential for small delays, travelers should factor in that Blade can’t drop you off at the curb like a taxi. Once we landed on the JFK chopper tarmac, a Blade attendant wheeled our bags on a luggage trolley through a small lobby and out to a parking lot, where chauffeurs were waiting to drive us to our respective airport terminals.I hopped in an SUV but was told I could have paid to upgrade to a Mercedes-Maybach. Depending on airport traffic, the ride can add another five to 10 minutes to your ETA.The takeawayMy driver told me that celebrities, like musicians and National Basketball Association players, are fans of Blade. If it wasn’t for the noise and environmental concerns, I’d be a fan of Blade, too. (Okay, I didn’t love being queasy afterward, either.) Once the company goes electric and I win the lottery, maybe we’ll talk.In the end, my husband got the last laugh. Factoring in the 20 minutes it took me to get to the Blade helipad, my lounge time and the flight, he actually beat me to JFK in his hour-long Uber ride, arriving with enough padding to get some Shake Shack and relax.

‘Business as usual:’ Why the $27B ‘green bank’ could survive Trump

One of the Inflation Reduction Act’s most celebrated programs — a nationwide “green bank” to help fund climate projects that struggle to secure private-sector loans — has also been one of the most reviled by Republican lawmakers. Last October, House Republicans dogged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over…

One of the Inflation Reduction Act’s most celebrated programs — a nationwide ​“green bank” to help fund climate projects that struggle to secure private-sector loans — has also been one of the most reviled by Republican lawmakers. Last October, House Republicans dogged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over its management of the program, known as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), calling it a “$27 billion slush fund of taxpayer money.” In January, they accused the Biden administration of directing the money to ​“favored special interest organizations.” House Republicans have also seized on a report from the EPA’s Office of Inspector General stating that the speed at which the program was moving could lead to ​“waste, fraud, and abuse.” But the green bank program appears to be well positioned to survive the next four years, despite the fact that Republicans won control over Congress and the presidency earlier this month. That’s assuming the Trump administration follows the law and regulations that established the program, however — and in any case, the administration will still have opportunities to slow the program down. “As a Democrat, of course I’m disappointed” in the election results, Reed Hundt, head of the Coalition for Green Capital (CGC), one of the entities in charge of allocating green bank funds, told Canary Media. ​“But as the CEO of CGC, there’s no change at all in what we’re going to do. It’s completely and totally business as usual.” Hundt, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission chair during the Clinton administration, is a longtime champion of a national green bank. More than a decade of work on the concept paid off in 2022 with the inclusion of a green bank program in the landmark IRA climate law. The idea is to create a nationwide version of the government-backed and nonprofit green banks now operating in 17 states, offering low-cost loans for rooftop solar, efficiency retrofits, electric heat pumps, EV charging, and similar carbon-cutting projects. The law gave the EPA $27 billion to grant to states, tribes, nonprofit groups, and public-private consortiums. Those grantees, in turn, can lend or grant funds to projects and initiatives across the country — and bring in other private-sector lenders and financial backers to boost the impact of the money. In April, the EPA picked eight coalitions to receive a collective $20 billion of this green bank capital, including $5 billion for the CGC. That month, the EPA also picked 60 recipients for its $7 billion Solar for All program. And in August, the EPA announced it had ​“obligated the full $27 billion” of its GGRF funds to selected recipients. That means that CGC now has ​“a contract with the government that tells us and our network partners what we must do,” Hundt said. ​“We have the money, and we’re going to fulfill the contract.” Having these funds ​“obligated” is important, said Adam Fischer, vice president at Waxman Strategies, a Washington, D.C.–based policy and lobbying firm founded by Henry Waxman, a former Democratic U.S. House member. Under the statutory language of the IRA, once GGRF funds are obligated, ​“EPA is now under contract with all 68 awardees” across all of its programs, he said. “As such, any attempt by the incoming administration to claw back or otherwise upend disbursement of obligated funds would be a breach of contract,” said Fischer, who led development and drafting of the GGRF while working at the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce. ​“If they do try to meddle with contracts for unjustifiable reasons, they’ll face lawsuits.” That view was echoed by Michael Catanzaro, the CEO of CGCN Group, a Republican lobbying firm, and a former special assistant for domestic energy and environmental policy in the first Trump administration. “It’s going to be difficult, I think, for an EPA to come in and claw that back,” Catanzaro said during a November 14 panel discussion hosted by the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright. ​“I think you’re going to create some serious legal problems if you try to do that. […] EPA worked pretty diligently to get the money out the door, knowing that the election could go south on them.” The future of the green bank under Trump That’s not to say that the GGRF won’t face attacks from the Trump administration or the Republican-controlled Congress, however. The program has ​“been a long-standing target of House Republicans and Republicans generally in the Congress since the IRA was finalized and EPA began work to figure out where that money would go,” Catanzaro said. Though the Trump administration may not be able to outright eliminate the GGRF program, several people who spoke to Canary Media on condition of anonymity said that the EPA under Trump could take actions to disrupt it, such as refusing to approve loans made by recipients. Those actions could be legally challenged, they said — but those disputes would take time to play out, leaving financing from the program in an extended state of limbo. In the face of that risk, the program’s best defense may be its value to communities in Republican-dominated states and congressional districts.

Randy Newman’s Genius for Political Irony

Here’s an uncomfortable truth: Most musicians on the left write songs that lack a decent sense of humor about serious matters, whether past or present. Earnest idealists abound: Think of Woody Guthrie warbling about “Pastures of Plenty” or Pete Seeger musing what he could do “If I Had a Hammer.” The radical movements of the 1960s and ’70s did spawn blunt satirists, such as Malvina Reynolds, who scorned suburbanites who lived in “Little Boxes,” and Phil Ochs, who spitefully pleaded, “Love Me, I’m a Liberal.” Yet even the best of such creations, like Gil Scott-Heron’s “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised,” are hard to appreciate now with any emotion save nostalgia. If a revolution ever occurs in the United States, it will most certainly be seen and heard on billions of screens of every conceivable size.Randy Newman has been a great exception to this unhappy norm. He has never explicitly identified with any ideological tendency, preferring to let his music express his thoughts, he tells Robert Hilburn in the new biography, A Few Words in Defense of Our Country: The Biography of Randy Newman. But for nearly 60 years, Newman has been churning out wise and witty lyrics, set to genres from rock to blues to country, about a stunning variety of topics and individuals, political and historical. Among them are slavery, empire, racism, nuclear destruction, religion, patriotism, apartheid, environmental disaster, homophobia, Karl Marx, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, Ivanka Trump, and the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927. To list them so baldly obscures the imagination behind his best political songs. In many of them, characters talk about and for themselves, voicing odious sentiments that Newman recognizes are vital to making the United States the intolerable yet alluring mess it has always been. He “inhabits his characters so completely,” a New York Times critic once wrote, “that he makes us uneasy, wondering how much self-identification he has invested in their creation. His work achieves its power by that very confusion.”Take “Political Science,” a novel ditty he wrote during the early 1970s, when demonstrators on multiple continents were raging against the carnage the United States was perpetrating in Indochina. The song takes up the voice of the U.S. foreign policy establishment. “No one likes us, I don’t know why, / We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try,” sings Newman with a casualness that quickly segues to a most ghastly of all solutions: “Let’s drop the big one and see what happens.” Think of the glorious result: “There’ll be no one left to blame us.” And “every city the whole world round / Will just be another American town. / Oh, how peaceful it will be, / We’ll set everybody free.” “Political Science” is a hymn to American exceptionalism as imagined by a genocidal innocent: After the nuclear holocaust, no one will be alive except Americans. Well, he would spare Australia: “Don’t wanna hurt no kangaroo / We’ll build an all-American amusement park there / They got surfing, too.”Unlike popular songs by leftists that seek to spark outrage or exultation or urge listeners to get out in the street and march, Randy Newman’s political music nudges you to reflect on the roots of your own beliefs and prejudices, and appreciate the power of characters you despise. “I believe in not hurting anybody,” he has said. That simple line is a version of the motto of PM, a left-wing daily paper published in New York City during the 1940s: “We are against people who push other people around, just for the fun of pushing, whether they flourish in this country or abroad.” Randy Newman has fun getting under such people’s skin.The irony about this virtuoso of political irony is that his best-known works are entirely apolitical. Born in 1943, Newman began his career in the early 1960s writing for such artists as Bobby Darin and Irma Thomas, as well as recording his own pop and rock songs. But since the 1970s, Newman has written music for 29 films, including such animated blockbusters as Toy Story (1, 2, 3, and 4), Monsters, Inc., and A Bug’s Life, as well as The Natural, the dark drama about an ill-fated baseball star, played by Robert Redford. When I ask students if they have heard of Newman, most draw a blank. But nearly all can recite a few lines from “You’ve Got a Friend in Me,” which he wrote for the first Toy Story, a staple of kids’ cinema since Pixar released it in 1995. He has won two Oscars for his music and been nominated for many others.Newman was to the film business born: Three of his uncles wrote acclaimed scores, and his physician father wanted his son to be a musician more than he did. Newman shed that reluctance when he discovered he had a gift for writing songs. Shortly after he graduated from high school, the Fleetwoods, a pop trio with a brace of No. 1 songs to their credit, recorded his ballad, “They Tell Me It’s Summer,” in which a teenager laments, “it just can’t be summer / When I’m not with you.” The banal, if catchy, tune climbed as high as No. 36 on the Billboard chart.Over his long career, Newman has written far better, if similarly painful, songs about longing and depression, covered by the likes of Nina Simone, Ray Charles, Bonnie Raitt, and Neil Diamond. In “Guilty,” recorded back in 1974, he captured with perfect pith the forlorn mood of a man on drugs: You know, I just can’t stand myselfAnd it takes a whole lot of medicineFor me to pretend that I’m somebody elseSuch songs appear on the same albums as do the overtly political creations, and Newman would probably object to the idea that there is a fundamental difference between them. “I’m interested in this country,” he told one interviewer, “geography, weather, the people, the way people look, what they eat, what they call things … maybe American psychology is my big subject.”In his political songs, however, Newman deploys satire in deft and original ways to highlight a horrific aspect of the nation’s past. Perhaps the greatest example is “Sail Away,” recorded in 1972. As the strings of an orchestra swell behind him, a slave trader eager to dispatch people in bondage across “the mighty ocean into Charleston Bay” speaks to a gathering of unwitting Africans. His offers them a P.R. pitch for the American dream, laced with condescending clichés: In America you get food to eatWon’t have to run through the jungleAnd scuff up your feetYou’ll just sing about Jesus and drink wine all dayIt’s great to be an American…In America every man is freeTo take care of his home and his familyYou’ll be as happy as a monkey in a monkey treeYou’re all gonna be an AmericanSail away, sail awayWe will cross the mighty ocean into Charleston BaySail away, sail awayWe will cross the mighty ocean into Charleston BaySo climb aboard that big ship and don’t pay any heed to any chains you may see laying around. For you will soon be on your way to the promised land, like those Europeans who came before and will come after you. The despicable con job underlines a sober truth: To be proud to “be an American,” one should be able to enjoy “the fruits of Americanism,” as Malcolm X put it. “A secret ambivalence of four hundred years” of life in this country “finds a voice in this song,” wrote the critic Greil Marcus. “It is like a vision of heaven superimposed on hell.”Newman’s best-known commentary on white supremacy in America was also his most controversial song. “Rednecks,” the lead track on the 1974 album Good Old Boys, scores white liberals’ hypocrisy about racism. The song’s protagonist is a white dude from Dixie who freely admits to “keepin’ the n—s down.” He defends Lester Maddox—the one-term governor of Georgia and unabashed segregationist who threatened to attack any Black people who tried to eat in his fried chicken restaurant—as one of his own (“he may be a fool but he’s our fool”) while sneering at “some smart-ass New York Jew” who ridiculed Maddox in a TV interview show. Newman’s “redneck” embraces a slew of stereotypes about uncouth figures like himself: “We talk real funny down here / We drink too much and we laugh too loud”; “We don’t know our ass from a hole in the ground.” Up to this point in the song, one might scoff at the benighted fellow’s easy acknowledgment of his racism and his other faults, too.Then the lyric takes a sharp turn away from mocking such not-so-good old boys. Up North, the redneck points out, white folks claim they “set the n— free” and call him a “Negro.” But oppression reigns there too. Black people are “free to be put in a cage / In Harlem in New York City” and “in the South Side of Chicago / And the West Side” and in Hough in Cleveland, in East St. Louis, in San Francisco and in Roxbury in Boston, the song goes on. To accuse one’s adversary of committing the same sins, without realizing it, is one of the oldest moves in ideological combat. It should have stung liberals who didn’t take responsibility for their own share of injustice. But the song may have been too clever for some. Newman stopped performing it in public when white audiences in the South began singing right along to it, n-word and all.For Newman, the meaning of Americanism always swings between elegiac hope and justifiable rage. He loves his countrywomen and men, but it’s the affection of a brutal realist. In the 2006 song Robert Hilburn chose as the title of his biography, “A Few Words in Defense of Our Country,” Newman contrasted President George W. Bush’s misgoverning of the nation with the muddled decency of its citizens:I’d like to say a few wordsIn defense of our countryWhose people aren’t badNor are they meanNow, the leaders we haveWhile they’re the worst that we’ve hadAre hardly the worstThis poor world has seenNewman then ticked off the regimes of bloodthirsty tyrants, like King Leopold of Belgium, whose minions caused the deaths of millions of Congolese, and the Spanish monarchs who oversaw the Inquisition that lasted for centuries. He wasn’t apologizing for the debacle of the invasion of Iraq, motivated by lies, but warning that the United States could be rushing toward the same fate that befell such once mighty domains:The end of an empire is messy at bestAnd this empire is endingLike all the restLike the Spanish Armada adrift on the seaWe’re adrift in the land of the braveAnd the home of the freeThe New York Times published an abridged version of this casual message of terminal decline as an op-ed. Yet, in cold type and pixels, it fails to capture the power of a satirist whose laid-back vocals assail the myopia and cruelties of U.S. history.Newman always conveys that critique with the affection of an artist who will never abandon the place that, in another song, he embraces: “This is my country / These are my people / And I know ’em like the back of my own hand.” I think Newman would nod in agreement with the American protagonist of Rachel Kushner’s new novel, Creation Lake, an undercover spy in France, who remarks, “I miss being at home in a culture.… Our words, our expanse of idioms, are expressive and creative and precise, like our music and … our passion for violence, stupidity, and freedom.”Hilburn’s biography does not explain how this rather shy fellow from a well-to-do Jewish family managed to create such provocative music about a cornucopia of subjects and the characters who embody them. He dispenses a surfeit of details about Newman’s personal life, but few bear on the content of his works, political and otherwise. Having conducted many hours of interviews with his subject, Hilburn can dwell at length on the highs and lows of Newman’s prolific career and two marriages. But to learn which of his albums made lots of money and which flopped or why he split from his first wife but is happily married to the second reveals almost nothing about what inspired his songs. Hilburn even fails to make clear why Newman has always sung with a gentle Southern drawl—although he spent just two infant years in New Orleans and has long lived in the leafy comfort of West L.A. The result is a biography seemingly intended for readers who already adore Newman’s music but might enjoy having a chronological reference book around as they listen to it.To his credit, Hilburn reprints all the words to a remarkable Newman song from 1999 that fans of classics like “Sail Away” may have missed. “The Great Nations of Europe” is something quite rare in popular music: a witty critique of empire inspired by a book written by a distinguished historian. In Ecological Imperialism, published in 1986, Alfred Crosby argued that adventurers from the Old World were able to subjugate the inhabitants of the New because they not just had plenty of “guns for conquest” but, without being aware of it, also carried in their cargo and bodies “infectious diseases for decimating indigenous populations.” Newman lifted a few shocking details from Crosby’s influential book and tied them together with a catchy chorus:The great nations of EuropeHad gathered on the shoreThey’d conquered what was behind themAnd now they wanted moreSo they looked to the mighty oceanAnd took to the western seaThe great nations of Europe in the sixteenth centuryHide your wives and daughtersHide the groceries, tooGreat nations of Europe coming throughThe Grand Canary IslandsFirst land to which they cameThey slaughtered all the canariesWhich gave the land its nameThere were natives there called GuanchesGuanches by the scoreBullets, disease, the Portuguese, and they weren’t there anymoreNewman offers no hope for collective liberation in this or any other song. They could never serve as the soundtrack for a left-wing gathering as “Solidarity Forever” or “This Land Is Your Land” once did. But the skeptical humor of his best creations may be more valuable to the left than the romantic uplift in such radical standards. Just as Mr. Burns in The Simpsons has probably taught more Americans to ridicule corporate moguls than have reams of Marxian essays, so “Sail Away” debunks the ideal of American exceptionalism with a panache no leftist scholar has equaled. “The common discovery of America,” Norman Mailer once wrote, “was probably that Americans were the first people on earth to live for their humor; nothing was so important to Americans as humor.”Now in his eighties, Newman has not performed in recent years and may never mount a stage again. But I will never forget the times I saw this small, froggish man sit down at a piano and drawl out doses of grim reality that made me grin and think about this land that’s our land—for better and for worse.

Here’s an uncomfortable truth: Most musicians on the left write songs that lack a decent sense of humor about serious matters, whether past or present. Earnest idealists abound: Think of Woody Guthrie warbling about “Pastures of Plenty” or Pete Seeger musing what he could do “If I Had a Hammer.” The radical movements of the 1960s and ’70s did spawn blunt satirists, such as Malvina Reynolds, who scorned suburbanites who lived in “Little Boxes,” and Phil Ochs, who spitefully pleaded, “Love Me, I’m a Liberal.” Yet even the best of such creations, like Gil Scott-Heron’s “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised,” are hard to appreciate now with any emotion save nostalgia. If a revolution ever occurs in the United States, it will most certainly be seen and heard on billions of screens of every conceivable size.Randy Newman has been a great exception to this unhappy norm. He has never explicitly identified with any ideological tendency, preferring to let his music express his thoughts, he tells Robert Hilburn in the new biography, A Few Words in Defense of Our Country: The Biography of Randy Newman. But for nearly 60 years, Newman has been churning out wise and witty lyrics, set to genres from rock to blues to country, about a stunning variety of topics and individuals, political and historical. Among them are slavery, empire, racism, nuclear destruction, religion, patriotism, apartheid, environmental disaster, homophobia, Karl Marx, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, Ivanka Trump, and the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927. To list them so baldly obscures the imagination behind his best political songs. In many of them, characters talk about and for themselves, voicing odious sentiments that Newman recognizes are vital to making the United States the intolerable yet alluring mess it has always been. He “inhabits his characters so completely,” a New York Times critic once wrote, “that he makes us uneasy, wondering how much self-identification he has invested in their creation. His work achieves its power by that very confusion.”Take “Political Science,” a novel ditty he wrote during the early 1970s, when demonstrators on multiple continents were raging against the carnage the United States was perpetrating in Indochina. The song takes up the voice of the U.S. foreign policy establishment. “No one likes us, I don’t know why, / We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try,” sings Newman with a casualness that quickly segues to a most ghastly of all solutions: “Let’s drop the big one and see what happens.” Think of the glorious result: “There’ll be no one left to blame us.” And “every city the whole world round / Will just be another American town. / Oh, how peaceful it will be, / We’ll set everybody free.” “Political Science” is a hymn to American exceptionalism as imagined by a genocidal innocent: After the nuclear holocaust, no one will be alive except Americans. Well, he would spare Australia: “Don’t wanna hurt no kangaroo / We’ll build an all-American amusement park there / They got surfing, too.”Unlike popular songs by leftists that seek to spark outrage or exultation or urge listeners to get out in the street and march, Randy Newman’s political music nudges you to reflect on the roots of your own beliefs and prejudices, and appreciate the power of characters you despise. “I believe in not hurting anybody,” he has said. That simple line is a version of the motto of PM, a left-wing daily paper published in New York City during the 1940s: “We are against people who push other people around, just for the fun of pushing, whether they flourish in this country or abroad.” Randy Newman has fun getting under such people’s skin.The irony about this virtuoso of political irony is that his best-known works are entirely apolitical. Born in 1943, Newman began his career in the early 1960s writing for such artists as Bobby Darin and Irma Thomas, as well as recording his own pop and rock songs. But since the 1970s, Newman has written music for 29 films, including such animated blockbusters as Toy Story (1, 2, 3, and 4), Monsters, Inc., and A Bug’s Life, as well as The Natural, the dark drama about an ill-fated baseball star, played by Robert Redford. When I ask students if they have heard of Newman, most draw a blank. But nearly all can recite a few lines from “You’ve Got a Friend in Me,” which he wrote for the first Toy Story, a staple of kids’ cinema since Pixar released it in 1995. He has won two Oscars for his music and been nominated for many others.Newman was to the film business born: Three of his uncles wrote acclaimed scores, and his physician father wanted his son to be a musician more than he did. Newman shed that reluctance when he discovered he had a gift for writing songs. Shortly after he graduated from high school, the Fleetwoods, a pop trio with a brace of No. 1 songs to their credit, recorded his ballad, “They Tell Me It’s Summer,” in which a teenager laments, “it just can’t be summer / When I’m not with you.” The banal, if catchy, tune climbed as high as No. 36 on the Billboard chart.Over his long career, Newman has written far better, if similarly painful, songs about longing and depression, covered by the likes of Nina Simone, Ray Charles, Bonnie Raitt, and Neil Diamond. In “Guilty,” recorded back in 1974, he captured with perfect pith the forlorn mood of a man on drugs: You know, I just can’t stand myselfAnd it takes a whole lot of medicineFor me to pretend that I’m somebody elseSuch songs appear on the same albums as do the overtly political creations, and Newman would probably object to the idea that there is a fundamental difference between them. “I’m interested in this country,” he told one interviewer, “geography, weather, the people, the way people look, what they eat, what they call things … maybe American psychology is my big subject.”In his political songs, however, Newman deploys satire in deft and original ways to highlight a horrific aspect of the nation’s past. Perhaps the greatest example is “Sail Away,” recorded in 1972. As the strings of an orchestra swell behind him, a slave trader eager to dispatch people in bondage across “the mighty ocean into Charleston Bay” speaks to a gathering of unwitting Africans. His offers them a P.R. pitch for the American dream, laced with condescending clichés: In America you get food to eatWon’t have to run through the jungleAnd scuff up your feetYou’ll just sing about Jesus and drink wine all dayIt’s great to be an American…In America every man is freeTo take care of his home and his familyYou’ll be as happy as a monkey in a monkey treeYou’re all gonna be an AmericanSail away, sail awayWe will cross the mighty ocean into Charleston BaySail away, sail awayWe will cross the mighty ocean into Charleston BaySo climb aboard that big ship and don’t pay any heed to any chains you may see laying around. For you will soon be on your way to the promised land, like those Europeans who came before and will come after you. The despicable con job underlines a sober truth: To be proud to “be an American,” one should be able to enjoy “the fruits of Americanism,” as Malcolm X put it. “A secret ambivalence of four hundred years” of life in this country “finds a voice in this song,” wrote the critic Greil Marcus. “It is like a vision of heaven superimposed on hell.”Newman’s best-known commentary on white supremacy in America was also his most controversial song. “Rednecks,” the lead track on the 1974 album Good Old Boys, scores white liberals’ hypocrisy about racism. The song’s protagonist is a white dude from Dixie who freely admits to “keepin’ the n—s down.” He defends Lester Maddox—the one-term governor of Georgia and unabashed segregationist who threatened to attack any Black people who tried to eat in his fried chicken restaurant—as one of his own (“he may be a fool but he’s our fool”) while sneering at “some smart-ass New York Jew” who ridiculed Maddox in a TV interview show. Newman’s “redneck” embraces a slew of stereotypes about uncouth figures like himself: “We talk real funny down here / We drink too much and we laugh too loud”; “We don’t know our ass from a hole in the ground.” Up to this point in the song, one might scoff at the benighted fellow’s easy acknowledgment of his racism and his other faults, too.Then the lyric takes a sharp turn away from mocking such not-so-good old boys. Up North, the redneck points out, white folks claim they “set the n— free” and call him a “Negro.” But oppression reigns there too. Black people are “free to be put in a cage / In Harlem in New York City” and “in the South Side of Chicago / And the West Side” and in Hough in Cleveland, in East St. Louis, in San Francisco and in Roxbury in Boston, the song goes on. To accuse one’s adversary of committing the same sins, without realizing it, is one of the oldest moves in ideological combat. It should have stung liberals who didn’t take responsibility for their own share of injustice. But the song may have been too clever for some. Newman stopped performing it in public when white audiences in the South began singing right along to it, n-word and all.For Newman, the meaning of Americanism always swings between elegiac hope and justifiable rage. He loves his countrywomen and men, but it’s the affection of a brutal realist. In the 2006 song Robert Hilburn chose as the title of his biography, “A Few Words in Defense of Our Country,” Newman contrasted President George W. Bush’s misgoverning of the nation with the muddled decency of its citizens:I’d like to say a few wordsIn defense of our countryWhose people aren’t badNor are they meanNow, the leaders we haveWhile they’re the worst that we’ve hadAre hardly the worstThis poor world has seenNewman then ticked off the regimes of bloodthirsty tyrants, like King Leopold of Belgium, whose minions caused the deaths of millions of Congolese, and the Spanish monarchs who oversaw the Inquisition that lasted for centuries. He wasn’t apologizing for the debacle of the invasion of Iraq, motivated by lies, but warning that the United States could be rushing toward the same fate that befell such once mighty domains:The end of an empire is messy at bestAnd this empire is endingLike all the restLike the Spanish Armada adrift on the seaWe’re adrift in the land of the braveAnd the home of the freeThe New York Times published an abridged version of this casual message of terminal decline as an op-ed. Yet, in cold type and pixels, it fails to capture the power of a satirist whose laid-back vocals assail the myopia and cruelties of U.S. history.Newman always conveys that critique with the affection of an artist who will never abandon the place that, in another song, he embraces: “This is my country / These are my people / And I know ’em like the back of my own hand.” I think Newman would nod in agreement with the American protagonist of Rachel Kushner’s new novel, Creation Lake, an undercover spy in France, who remarks, “I miss being at home in a culture.… Our words, our expanse of idioms, are expressive and creative and precise, like our music and … our passion for violence, stupidity, and freedom.”Hilburn’s biography does not explain how this rather shy fellow from a well-to-do Jewish family managed to create such provocative music about a cornucopia of subjects and the characters who embody them. He dispenses a surfeit of details about Newman’s personal life, but few bear on the content of his works, political and otherwise. Having conducted many hours of interviews with his subject, Hilburn can dwell at length on the highs and lows of Newman’s prolific career and two marriages. But to learn which of his albums made lots of money and which flopped or why he split from his first wife but is happily married to the second reveals almost nothing about what inspired his songs. Hilburn even fails to make clear why Newman has always sung with a gentle Southern drawl—although he spent just two infant years in New Orleans and has long lived in the leafy comfort of West L.A. The result is a biography seemingly intended for readers who already adore Newman’s music but might enjoy having a chronological reference book around as they listen to it.To his credit, Hilburn reprints all the words to a remarkable Newman song from 1999 that fans of classics like “Sail Away” may have missed. “The Great Nations of Europe” is something quite rare in popular music: a witty critique of empire inspired by a book written by a distinguished historian. In Ecological Imperialism, published in 1986, Alfred Crosby argued that adventurers from the Old World were able to subjugate the inhabitants of the New because they not just had plenty of “guns for conquest” but, without being aware of it, also carried in their cargo and bodies “infectious diseases for decimating indigenous populations.” Newman lifted a few shocking details from Crosby’s influential book and tied them together with a catchy chorus:The great nations of EuropeHad gathered on the shoreThey’d conquered what was behind themAnd now they wanted moreSo they looked to the mighty oceanAnd took to the western seaThe great nations of Europe in the sixteenth centuryHide your wives and daughtersHide the groceries, tooGreat nations of Europe coming throughThe Grand Canary IslandsFirst land to which they cameThey slaughtered all the canariesWhich gave the land its nameThere were natives there called GuanchesGuanches by the scoreBullets, disease, the Portuguese, and they weren’t there anymoreNewman offers no hope for collective liberation in this or any other song. They could never serve as the soundtrack for a left-wing gathering as “Solidarity Forever” or “This Land Is Your Land” once did. But the skeptical humor of his best creations may be more valuable to the left than the romantic uplift in such radical standards. Just as Mr. Burns in The Simpsons has probably taught more Americans to ridicule corporate moguls than have reams of Marxian essays, so “Sail Away” debunks the ideal of American exceptionalism with a panache no leftist scholar has equaled. “The common discovery of America,” Norman Mailer once wrote, “was probably that Americans were the first people on earth to live for their humor; nothing was so important to Americans as humor.”Now in his eighties, Newman has not performed in recent years and may never mount a stage again. But I will never forget the times I saw this small, froggish man sit down at a piano and drawl out doses of grim reality that made me grin and think about this land that’s our land—for better and for worse.

This seaside town will power thousands of homes with waves

A test site off the Oregon coast could be key to unlocking wave power in the United States. Surprisingly, residents aren’t opposed.

NEWPORT, Ore. — At a moment when large offshore wind projects are encountering public resistance, a nascent ocean industry is showing promise: wave energy.It’s coming to life in Newport, a rainy coastal town of nearly 10,500 people located a couple of hours south of Portland. Home to fishing operators and researchers, Newport attracts tourists and retirees with its famous aquarium, sprawling beaches and noisy sea lions. If you ask anyone at the lively bayfront about a wave energy project, they probably don’t know much about it.And yet right off the coast, a $100 million effort with funding from the Energy Department aims to convert the power of waves into energy, and help catch up to Europe in developing this new technology. The buoy-like contraptions, located several miles offshore, will deliver up to 20 megawatts of energy — enough to power thousands of homes and businesses.As federal officials look to shift America’s electricity grid away from fossil fuels, they are seeking alternatives to solar and wind, which can only deliver energy when the sun shines or the wind blows. Waves — constant and full of untapped energy — have emerged as a promising option. And because wave energy projects are relatively unobtrusive, they’re far less controversial than offshore wind, which has generated fierce opposition on both U.S. coasts. In September, the Biden administration announced up to $112.5 million would go toward the development of wave energy converters, the largest federal investment in marine energy.There’s enough energy in the waves off America’s coasts to power one third of all the nation’s homes, said Matthew Grosso, the Energy Department’s director of the water power technologies office.Spanning 2.65 square miles and located seven miles out from shore, the PacWave test site is expected to be a “game changer for marine energy,” he said in an interview.Under the water, subsea connectors are waiting to be plugged in like extension cords to wave energy converters developed by teams around the world. With deep-sea offshore testing, companies will see how much power these energy converters can produce, whether they can hold up in rough ocean conditions, what environmental impacts they might have and how the devices will interact with each other.PacWave, a project of Oregon State University (OSU), represents a necessary step for commercializing wave energy, experts said.“The research that’s been done in the past 15 years is reaching the point of what we can do just in labs or in theory,” Grosso said. “We’ve got to start testing some of this stuff out and see what works and what doesn’t.”How wave energy worksUnlike other forms of renewable energy, engineers have not yet settled on a single model of wave energy converters. While wind turbines have converged into the three-blade turbine shape, there’s many types of wave energy converters in development, turning the motion of the wave into electrical energy in different ways.You can feel the energy in the waves, when it laps at the shore or when it rocks your boat. Created by wind over the sea, it’s one part of the ecosystem of renewable energy that’s available to us. But since waves don’t move in a linear motion, they’re harder to capture energy from than the flow of wind over a turbine, for example.One wave energy converter may not work in all environments, either — models can vary based on the depth of water and conditions the converter will operate in. Some use rotating cylinders; some are buoys that move up and down with the waves; others look like snakes with joints that move when waves roll through.But all of these devices use the oscillating or orbital motion of a wave to generate an electrical current, explained PacWave Chief Scientist Burke Hales, in the same way that turbines use rotations to generate a current.With four different berths, the site can host devices by multiple developers at once. The cables carrying the electricity are buried under the seafloor, running 12 miles diagonal to the shoreline to avoid a rocky reef. On land, an operating site measures the energy output and sends the energy to the Central Lincoln power utility.Because there’s no wave energy converters plugged in yet, there’s still a clear view of the horizon from Newport’s beaches. But even the larger devices are unlikely to be visible to the naked eye once they’re there in the new year.Coexisting with fisheriesThe PacWave site sits where crabbers set out their pots to catch Dungeness crab, one of the West Coast’s most important seafood species. And yet, unlike an offshore wind project a hundred miles down the coast that sparked strong opposition, most residents are either unaware of the wave energy project or support it. The fact that the project is limited, and unlikely to spur commercial activity offshore that could damage the town’s fishing economy, has helped its cause.When deciding where to locate the project, Newport won out for its proximity to OSU’s main campus in Corvallis and the local fishing fleet’s openness to the idea. The town also hosts the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Marine Operations Center for the Pacific, which has its own research fleet.PacWave also brought the promise of jobs, said Belinda Batten, who conducted outreach for PacWave when she directed the Energy Department’s Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center. Many here remember how NOAA’s move to Newport in 2011 created employment opportunities.Perhaps most importantly, OSU already had a strong relationship with the community given the marine center in town, according to Charlie Plybon, who lives in Newport and is the Oregon senior policy manager for the nonprofit Surfrider Foundation.It took years of outreach and many town hall meetings for Batten, who now serves as a senior adviser to the OSU provost, and Kaety Jacobson, Lincoln County commissioner and a fisherman’s daughter, to cement their trust with the community. When they assembled some fleet members to decide the site, it took all of 10 minutes for the crabbers to draw a plot on a map of the ocean for a location that could work for everyone involved.That area was important fishing grounds for the fleet, said crabber Bob Eder. In his button-down shirt and sneakers, Eder knows he doesn’t look like a stereotypical fisherman, but he’s one of the most well-respected crabbers in the fleet and still goes out in the waters every season at the age of 73. The PacWave site could represent a loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars for the fleet every crabbing season, he said. On the navigation system in his boat, he pointed to a map that showed he had previously crabbed in the area that was now off limits.But the operators agreed to give it up for the sake of the experiment.Eder, a representative of the fishing community during the process, said that the agreement with Oregon State was a show of goodwill from the fishing community, whose members care about the environment and want to preserve their livelihood.“[Climate change] definitely affects those of us whose work is directly involved with the environment,” he said. “And so every fishery is at an environmental risk.”Where wave energy could thriveIn states like Oregon, where an abundance of renewable energy has lowered the price of electricity to around 3½ cents per kilowatt hour, wave energy isn’t a competitive option. The first large-scale commercial wave energy project, by contrast, is expected to produce electricity costing 12 to 47 cents per kilowatt hour.But in small, remote communities that depend on more expensive diesel fuel, wave power could ease energy woes.“There’s remote communities in Alaska where everyone is running on diesel generators, they’re not on the grid, they have no electrical system,” said PacWave Director Dan Hellin.The wave industry first has to overcome several challenges. The consensus in the industry is that wave energy’s development is 20 years behind that of wind. But Tim Ramsey, the Energy Department’s marine energy program manager, pointed out that wind began to take off at that point, in the early 2000s.In addition, putting something into offshore waters usually requires extensive federal permitting, which can take years. That’s why this test site is important for developers — PacWave’s operation offers a site that has already earned the necessary approvals.In order for wave energy to be economically viable, developers need to lower its cost. Technological advancements can help, and just as solar and wind energy have received government subsidies, federal support could help get wave energy off the ground.Members of the Newport fishing fleet — even those who aren’t fans of the project — have hope that this renewable energy offers possibilities.Crabber Bob Kemp, 75, said he isn’t thrilled that he won’t be able to fish for crab in that part of the ocean anymore, but he’s counting on the researchers to make good use of the space they’ve taken.“I want to make sure the project has some kind of pressure on it to keep going and not just [move on] like a contractor moves on to a new house,” Kemp said. “I want them to stay on that.”

Suggested Viewing

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.