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

‘It’s not just our houses’: can a Scottish village save Queen Elizabeth’s coastal path from the waves?

The people of Johnshaven have watched the sea edge closer and closer. Preserving the path is key to protecting their communityPhotographs by Murdo MacLeodWhen Charis Duthie moved to Johnshaven with her husband in 1984, she could cycle along the coastal path out of the village. Now, she meets a dead end where the sea has snatched the land and is instead greeted with a big red warning sign of what is to come: Danger Coastal Erosion.“You can see gardens that were there and now they’re gone,” she says.Johnshaven, on Scotland’s North Sea coast, will attract more visitors if it has a well maintained coastal path Continue reading...

When Charis Duthie moved to Johnshaven with her husband in 1984, she could cycle along the coastal path out of the village. Now, she meets a dead end where the sea has snatched the land and is instead greeted with a big red warning sign of what is to come: Danger Coastal Erosion.“You can see gardens that were there and now they’re gone,” she says.The north-east coast of Scotland is experiencing a rapidly worsening erosion problem that will only be exacerbated by recurrent patterns of extreme weather and rising sea levels.Johnshaven, a small village with a close-knit community of 640 people about 30 miles (48km) south of Aberdeen, is particularly exposed.The village’s paths bear the scars of coastal erosion in the form of craters in the well-trodden rock, while some, such as the one Duthie points to, have disappeared altogether. The latest was taken from the village in 2023 during one of the many extreme storms that winter.Finding a solution to the problem has taken on an urgency like never before. Three years ago came the announcement of the Platinum Jubilee Path, named in honour of Queen Elizabeth II’s 70 years on the throne. The aim is for it to start in St Cyrus, four miles south of Johnshaven, and end about 90 miles further north in Cullen, a village with close associations to Robert the Bruce.With the markets that have traditionally fuelled its economy – fishing and oil and gas – dwindling, Johnshaven wants to attract more visitors through the coastal path plans. The aim is to be part of Scotland’s Great Trails, which offers a map of named, walkable trails around Scotland. Currently, there is a gap in the map along the north-east coast between Aberdeen and Dundee, and Johnshaven sits in the middle of it.For Duthie, 71, helping to fill this gap is an increasingly daunting task. She is part of a small team called the Mearns Coastal Heritage Trail (Merchat) who work to restore and create coastal paths in Aberdeenshire. But as they work in one area, the sea snatches land away in another.“A lot of what we are trying to do is to prevent erosion with rock armour, which is really the only secure method,” she says.Rock armour, sometimes known as riprap, is made up of big boulders and rocks placed along the coastline to protect against the waves.To complete areas of the trail, Merchat has had to gain funding through grant applications. The food ingredients firm Macphie has donated £30,000, and a further £40,000 has come from Aberdeenshire council’s allocation of crown estate Scotland cash from the Coastal Communities Fund, money allocated by the government to help coastal communities “flourish and strengthen their appeal as places to live, work and visit”.Caspar Lampkin, project officer for the Aberdeenshire coastal paths on Benholm and Johnshaven community council, says further help from Aberdeenshire council is likely to be minimal. “They’ve told us that they don’t have the resources to do anything,” he says.“If small villages want anything like this to happen, it has got to be locally led, because we’re not going to get much help from the government or the local council.”Since April, Duthie, Lampkin and the Merchat team have been working to establish a way to apply for designated funding. “We have now started a charity called the North East Scotland Coastal Trust [Nescat] and we are paddling very fast to get the whole thing established and get going with it,” says Duthie.Meanwhile, another issue beyond access to the beautiful scenery is becoming increasingly urgent, says Lampkin. The community council has identified 100 houses in the village at risk of flooding from the sea in the coming years if no action is taken on erosion.If it’s a high tide, it’s stormy and there’s wind, those elements blow water in the houseWhile the focus of the team’s work is meant to be on restoring the paths, he says that any funding they get will probably need to be used on rock armour in areas that could protect housing along the path.Angie Dunsire, 74, walks no more than 10 steps from her doorstep before reaching the eroding coast.She has lived in Johnshaven for 32 years on the aptly named Beach Road. She says she gets a call from the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency every time there is a risk of flooding.As Storm Floris approached in August, they called. “You have to be careful and listen,” she says. “We had a little bit [of water] in [the house] the other day because if it’s a high tide, it’s stormy and there’s wind, those elements blow it in.”Dunsire is scared of what the North Sea is capable of. In the distance there is a reminder. Sitting only three miles from Johnshaven is Miltonhaven – or what is left of it.It is reported by Duncan Fraser, in the book Portrait of a Parish, written in the 1970s about the parish of St Cyrus, that Miltonhaven was taken by the North Sea after Robert Scott of Dunninald arrived in the village in the 1700s.“What first drew his attention was the limestone rock that stretched in a reef across the bay, like a natural breakwater guarding the little village from the angry sea,” writes Fraser.Scott was from a family that built lime kilns to produce fertiliser for fields. From about 1750 Scott removed most of this limestone rock for his business, so the story goes, leaving the village exposed.By the 1790s, Fraser wrote, the waves had taken the “entire village”, which now lies underwater 100 yards from the shore.In an effort to right some of those so easily visible wrongs from the past, the stretch of path along Johnshaven’s Beach Road will be the first focus for rock armour with any funding the community can muster. But rock armour is expensive – about £1,000 for a small truckload – so it’s likely there won’t be much left over for path building.“People say, well it’s just your houses why go to all this expense?” says Dunsire. “Well it’s not just our houses it’s the road that goes right through the village to the park and further on.“We’re supposed to be using the coastal path and extending that. What is the point if this [the land and road along the coast] goes?”A Scottish government spokesperson says it has provided local authorities with £11.7m to support coastal change adaptation, while Aberdeenshire council says its overall budget for coast protection is £75,000 and there are no plans for any new protection works in Johnshaven. It says support and advice has been given in the setting up of Nescat and that it is not aware of any issues with the part of Beach Road that is council owned.

State-Funded Gun Range in South Dakota Nearly Finished, Expected to Open in November

The South Dakota Game, Fish & Parks Department hopes to have a mostly state-funded gun range near Rapid City ready for public use in early November

PIEDMONT, S.D. (AP) — Dust plumes rose frequently along a gravel section of Elk Vale Road on the open prairie of Meade County, South Dakota in early September where workers are vigorously trying to finish a gun range that will be among the nation’s largest.Plumbers, landscapers, equipment operators and construction crews were all busy working or driving to or from the 400-acre site. The goal, according to the South Dakota Game, Fish & Parks Department, is to have the range, located about 12 miles north of Rapid City, ready for public use on Saturday, Nov. 8.Construction on the range – now known as the Pete Lien & Sons Shooting Sports Complex – has happened quickly and is going along smoothly, far different from the long, up-and-down path the project went through in the planning and funding processes.The range proposal was raised by the GFP in 2021 with strong support from former Gov. Kristi Noem. Despite opposition by some lawmakers and neighbors, it is close to completion and is creating a buzz among shooting enthusiasts across the state and region, said John Kanta, a GFP section chief.“There’s a tremendous amount of excitement among folks who want to start using it,” he said. “Some weeks we’re hearing from people daily who are super excited to get out there and start shooting or get their events scheduled.”The $20 million range will include 160 rifle, handgun and shotgun shooting bays, a tactical shooting range for shooting and moving, and a 10,000 square-foot main building that can house events, law enforcement training and firearm education, Kanta said. Some lawmakers opposed funding mechanism Almost immediately after the range proposal was announced, both support and opposition arose within the South Dakota Legislature.While some lawmakers have supported construction as a way to serve the public and potentially generate millions of dollars in annual tourism revenue, others have been bothered by the way the project has been funded.Rep. Liz May, a Republican from Kyle, opposed the use of taxpayer money to build the range. May, who serves on the Joint Committee on Appropriations, said lawmakers defeated six separate bills or funding mechanisms brought forward by range supporters.“We kept killing it, and they kept bringing it back and bringing it back,” May told News Watch. “I’ve got nothing against guns or gun ranges. But that’s just not an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars.”May was particularly bothered when Noem allocated $13.5 million in Future Fund dollars toward construction of the range in 2024.The Future Fund consists of money collected from most South Dakota businesses as part of unemployment compensation fees. The money is required to be used for “workforce development and technical assistance programs” for workers, including those who have been laid off. Grants are made by the Governor’s Office of Economic Development and do not require legislative approval.“There was opposition from landowners and lawmakers, and they basically just ignored all that and went around the process by using those Future Funds,” May said. “With the whole thing — they really stepped outside the boundaries.” Donors step in to complete project GFP officials promised that donations would help fund the construction of the gun range, and their plan has succeeded, with more than $6.3 million either donated or pledged for the project so far.According to a GFP budget document, obtained by News Watch through a public records request, more than $3 million has been donated and another $3.3 million has been pledged over the next five years by corporations, individuals and groups that support the project.About a third of the donations have come from firearm industry businesses or groups that support shooting. The top donation of $800,000 with a commitment to give another $1.2 million in the next three years came from Pete Lien & Sons, a Rapid City concrete company that is now the namesake of the range.The next largest donation of $600,000 came from South Dakota Youth Hunting Adventures, a charity group, followed by $200,000 from Scull Construction of Rapid City and $150,000 each from firearm manufacturers Smith & Wesson and Glock.Annual ongoing expenses at the range will be about $400,000 and include three full-time employees and some seasonal workers as well as upkeep, Kanta said. Those costs will be covered by permit fees paid by some users, support from government agencies that use the range for training and possibly from some federal grant funds, he said.“No general fund money will be used,” Kanta said. Some neighbor opposition remains Joe Norman and his wife, Diane, own a home and a 7,600-acre cattle ranch in Meade County with borders that extend to within close proximity of the gun range site.Norman, 69, is one of several ranchers and landowners in the area who oppose the location of the gun range. After testifying before the Legislature and opposing the range in public meetings, he is resigned to the fact the range is about to become reality.Yet Norman remains concerned about heavy traffic on gravel roads in the area, disruption of his cattle, and the noise from the repeated firing of handguns and rifles.“If they’ve got 175 shooting bays and it’s full, that’s potentially 175 shots every minute. And if they do that for 10 to 12 hours a day, I think the noise is going to be unbelievable,” Norman told News Watch. “The roads have also gone to heck with all the construction traffic.”Initially, the range was expected to have 175 shooting bays, though that number has been reduced to 160, Kanta said.Norman said he’s already heard some shooting at the site, even though the formal opening is not until November. He’s concerned that promises to keep the noise level under 64 decibels will be difficult or impossible to monitor and enforce.Noise from the range will be reduced by the natural topography of the land and by berms and baffling that will help stifle sound, Kanta said. Shooters will aim to the east and northeast where there are no structures for miles, and lead bullets will be captured and contained within federal environmental guidelines, he said.As part of an agreement with Meade County, a 3-mile section of Elk Vale Road leading to the range will also be paved in the coming months to reduce dust from vehicles.Norman said he’s disappointed that, in his opinion, the concerns of neighbors were largely ignored by the GFP, state officials and lawmakers who supported the range and were determined to find a way to get it funded and built.“We were fighting the governor, the lieutenant governor and legislators,” he said. “It feels like the GFP responses have all been smoke and mirrors.” Excitement building for new shooting option Despite its strong firearm culture, South Dakota has a fairly limited number of gun ranges. And one argument from range supporters was that more controlled shooting sites were needed to prevent gun owners from leaving messes and creating nuisances at unofficial shooting sites in the Black Hills.The GFP operates 20 public shooting sites, though most are for archery and only seven allow firearm discharges. Those that allow firearms include North Point in Lake Andes, Oahe Downstream in Fort Pierre, Louis Smith near Mobridge, Brule Bottom north of Chamberlain and South Shore in Codington County.This interactive map on the GFP website includes location and consumer information for 67 public and private shooting range sites in the state, though many have limited access or are for archery only.A few ranges are outdoors and allow easy public access, such as the Fall River Gun Club near Hot Springs and the Watertown Area Shooting Complex. A few ranges are indoors, including at Gary’s Gun Shop in Sioux Falls.The large size, wide range of shooting options and quality of amenities at the new state range will make it a destination for shooting enthusiasts across the state and nation and possibly even internationally, said Mark Blote, a co-owner of First Stop Gun & Coin in Rapid City.Blote visited the range site in early September and was impressed with the progress. Excitement over the range’s opening is palpable in the firearms community and in the local tourism industry, he said.“I think it’s going to be great for the gun folks in our area. But it’s truly a world-class facility, so it will do a lot for the economy,” Blote said. “It’s going to bring in a lot of competitions, which will help the hotels and restaurants.”This story was originally published by South Dakota News Watch and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

Montgomery Hills’ leafy neighborhoods contrast with busy Georgia Ave.

Where We Live | Five communities share the benefits and challenges of suburban life near an urban thoroughfare.

Cars stream off the Beltway onto Georgia Avenue in Silver Spring, Maryland, where traffic is inching past stoplights and attempting to turn from shopping centers, gas stations and churches. Sidewalks have no buffer with the road, but there are few pedestrians and even fewer trees or plants. Horns blare when confused drivers travel the wrong way in reversible lanes.Subscribe for unlimited access to The PostYou can cancel anytime.SubscribeBut the five leafy neighborhoods that abut either side of this mile-long stretch of Georgia Avenue belie the cacophony of traffic noise and endless concrete. And while residents prize the peaceful communities on their streets once they leave Georgia Avenue, they find it difficult to traverse the retail hub they center on.“There’s no relief from the traffic, no median, no trees. There are utility poles popping up in the middle of the sidewalk. It’s extremely inconvenient and ugly,” said Gus Bauman, who has lived in a Dutch Colonial house a few blocks to the west of Georgia Avenue for 48 years. Bauman was head of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission from 1989 to 1993 and is an attorney focusing on land use and related environmental issues.The commercial area of Georgia Avenue from the Beltway south to Spring Street just north of downtown Silver Spring is known as Montgomery Hills. Most of the neighborhoods that border it all start with Woodside: Woodside Forest, Woodside Park, North Woodside and Woodside itself. Linden, itself the name of a tree, is the fifth community. At one point they all carried the name Montgomery Hills as well, but as resident Geoff Gerhardt notes, “it just became too much of a mouthful to say North Woodside Montgomery Hills.” Gerhardt has lived in a 1928 Craftsman bungalow in the neighborhood since 2011. The neighborhoods were established from the 1920s through the 1950s and have a diverse range of single-family houses and some newer townhouses.“I think the heart of the issue is Montgomery Hills really being ignored for years and years. It’s that when you look at the civic associations in the residential neighborhoods surrounding it, nobody really claims that as their own,” said Michelle Foster, who lives in Woodside Park and founded the group Friends of Montgomery Hills about a decade ago.Foster, who had been an urban planner in New York City, first moved to Reston, Virginia, but felt more at home in Silver Spring, moving into her center-hall Colonial house in 1994.“The opportunity to have a single-family home but be able to be in downtown Silver Spring really easily, to be able to walk and have community resources super close by, was important,” she said. “It was really diverse, and I mean that from all perspectives, from income and race and housing styles, it kind of had it all. So I’ve always said I think this is the absolute perfect place, and I just can’t imagine living anywhere else.”However, that doesn’t mean the perfection doesn’t have problems. Foster discovered that the neighborhood elementary school, Woodlin, is across Georgia Avenue, meaning it wasn’t really walkable for her son, and inconvenient for friends he made just across the road.In addition to an Aldi grocery store and CVS, mainly small, independently owned restaurants and businesses line both sides of Georgia, including Lime & Cilantro, which opened last year and quickly claimed a spot on Post restaurant critic Tom Sietsema’s 40 best area restaurants list. But even though some businesses are just a few blocks away, many people end up driving. “And when you’re already in your car, you often decide to just leave the neighborhood altogether,” Foster notes.At the same time, transportation options in the community are a bonus, said RLAH real estate agent Cari Jordan, who lives in another Silver Spring neighborhood. “It’s a commuter’s dream, with the Beltway right there as well as the Forest Glen Metro station,” she said. The Purple Line train under construction will have a station at the far edge of the North Woodside neighborhood.But help for Georgia Avenue is in the works. Friends of Montgomery Hills primarily focuses on working with the Maryland State Highway Administration for improvements. The state’s Georgia Avenue Safety and Accessibility Project has been planned for years but has moved slowly. In fact, Bauman remembers holding meetings in his living room back in the 1970s to help sketch out ideas.The project focuses on the road from just a block north of the Beltway by the Forest Glen Metro station down to 16th Street, a stretch of about three-quarters of a mile that carries about 71,500 vehicles a day. Improvements now in the works call for removing the center reversible lane, replacing it with a landscaped median and new left turn lanes. A two-way bike lane will be added to the west side of Georgia, continuing onto 16th Street to the end of the neighborhood at Second Avenue. The Beltway exit and entrance areas on Georgia Avenue will be improved, and new or upgraded sidewalks on both sides of Georgia will be added, as well as a pedestrian crossing with a signal.As a first step, the State Highway Administration is now working on relocating utility poles. A Shell gas station was demolished, and the Montgomery Hills car wash, which operated for 51 years, was closed in March and will be removed to make way for planned improvements. Actual road construction is expected to begin in 2028.“The partnership with the community has been critical to moving this project forward, and we look forward to coming back to celebrate its completion,” State Highway Administrator Will Pines said during a Sept. 4 event held on Georgia Avene to announce full funding of the project. The draft fiscal year 2026-2031 transportation budget allocates $50.8 million for the project.While having the project move ahead is a win, coalescing the community is also an accomplishment, said Gerhardt. He is also vice president of Friends of Montgomery Hills and helps coordinate the community’s Street Fest every one to two years, which draws more than 1,000 residents. The event includes tables for community organizations, food from local restaurants, and remarks by area elected officials. The next Street Fest will take place in spring 2026.“It’s a fun event. It’s placemaking, but for us it’s also an important advocacy function,” he said.For Bauman, Snider’s, the independent grocery store that has been in Montgomery Hills since 1946, proximity to the Metro and tree-lined streets with diverse housing are all important attributes to the community.“I have found over the half-century I’ve been here, people say to me, ‘Aren’t you going to move to Bethesda or Potomac?’ I say: ‘Why would I do that? It’s so easy living here.’ What people do here, they don’t move. They just build additions.”Home sales: From Sept. 1, 2024, to Sept. 1, 2025, 60 houses sold, ranging from a three-bedroom, three-bathroom home that needed extensive renovation for $465,000 to a five-bedroom, four-bathroom Colonial built in 1900 on nearly one acre for $1.65 million. Four houses are now on the market, ranging from a three-bedroom, two-bathroom rambler for $711,000 to a five-bedroom, three-bath split level for $1.115 million.Schools: Woodlin Elementary, Sligo Middle, Einstein High School (part of the Downcounty Consortium)Parks: Montgomery Hills Neighborhood Park with basketball and tennis courts and a playground; Woodside Urban Park with a playground, skateboard area and indoor handball and volleyball courts; Sligo Creek Park, which forms the eastern border of the community.

120 Land and Environmental Defenders Killed or Disappeared in Latin America Last Year, Report Finds

A report by Global Witness reveals that at least 146 land and environmental defenders have been killed or gone missing worldwide in 2024

BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — At least 146 land and environmental defenders were killed or have gone missing around the world in 2024, with more than 80% of those cases in Latin America, according to a report released Wednesday by watchdog group Global Witness.The London-based organization said the region once again ranked as the most dangerous for people protecting their homes, communities and natural resources, recording 120 of the total cases. Colombia remained the deadliest country, with 48 killings — nearly a third of cases worldwide — followed by Guatemala with 20 and Mexico with 18. The number of killings in Guatemala jumped fivefold from four in 2023, making it the country with the highest per capita rate of defender deaths in the world. Brazil registered 12 killings, while Honduras, Chile and Mexico each recorded one disappearance.“There are many factors that contribute to the persistent high levels of violence in Latin American countries, particularly Colombia,” Laura Furones, lead researcher of the report, told The Associated Press. “These countries are rich in natural resources and have vast areas of land under pressure for food and feed production. Conflict over the extraction of such resources and over the use of such land often leads to violence against defenders trying to uphold their rights.”Since 2012, Global Witness has documented more than 2,250 killings and disappearances of land and environmental defenders worldwide. Nearly three-quarters occurred in Latin America, including close to 1,000 cases since 2018, when the region adopted the Escazu Agreement — a treaty designed to protect environmental defenders. The pact requires governments to guarantee access to environmental information, ensure public participation in environmental decision-making and take timely measures to prevent and punish attacks against those who defend the environment.“The Escazu Agreement provides a crucial tool for Latin America and the Caribbean,” said Furones. “But some countries have still not ratified it, and others that have are proving slow to implement and resource it properly. Stopping violence against defenders will not happen overnight, but governments must ramp up their efforts toward full implementation.”The report noted that Indigenous peoples bore a disproportionate share of the violence. They accounted for around one-third of all lethal attacks worldwide last year despite making up only about 6% of the global population. Ninety-four percent of all attacks on Indigenous defenders documented in the report occurred in Latin America. In Colombia’s southwestern Cauca region, Indigenous youth are working to ensure they will not be the next generation of victims. Through community “semilleros,” or seedbeds, children and teenagers train in environmental care, cultural traditions and territorial defense — preparing to take on leadership roles in protecting land that has come under pressure from armed groups and extractive industries. “We are defenders because our lives and territories are under threat,” said Yeing Aníbal Secué, a 17-year-old Indigenous youth leader from Toribio, Cauca, who spoke to AP in July. These initiatives show how communities are organizing at the grassroots to resist violence, even as Colombia remains the deadliest country for defenders.Small-scale farmers were also heavily targeted, making up 35% of the victims in the region. Most killings were tied to land disputes, and many were linked to industries such as mining, logging and agribusiness. Organized crime groups were suspected of being behind at least 42 cases, followed by private security forces and hired hitmen. Colombia one of the worst hit The Amazonian department of Putumayo in southern Colombia illustrates many of the risks faced by defenders. With its strategic location bridging the Andes and the Amazon, the region is rich in forests, rivers and cultural knowledge. But it also sits at the crossroads of armed conflict, extractive projects and illicit economies. Armed groups have long used the Putumayo River as a trafficking route toward Brazil and Ecuador, where weak controls make it easier to move cocaine, minerals and laundered money.An environmental defender there, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of reprisals, told AP this has created one of the most hostile climates in the country.“Defending rights here means living under permanent threat,” the source said. “We face pressure from illegal mining, oil projects tied to armed groups, deforestation and coca cultivation. Speaking out often makes you a military target.”Andrew Miller of the nonprofit Amazon Watch said transnational criminal networks involved in drug, gold and timber trafficking have become a major force behind threats — and often deadly attacks — against environmental defenders.“The security situation for defenders across the Amazon is increasingly precarious,” Miller said.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

Contributor: Truck makers breaking emissions deal are hurting themselves — and all Californians

This is no longer just about truck emissions. It's about who gets to write the rules that govern our economy and who gets to decide how polluted our state will be.

California’s air is under attack — by the very companies that promised to clean it up.In 2023, truck manufacturers struck a deal with the California Air Resources Board to drastically reduce emissions and invest in electric trucks. This summer, however, several of the companies — Daimler Truck, Volvo Group, Paccar and Traton — backed out of the partnership and sued California, with support from the Trump administration. Now fossil-fuel-aligned corporations are leveraging political connections to weaken oversight, erode environmental protections and entrench their dominance.This is no longer just about truck emissions. It’s about who gets to write the rules that govern our economy and who gets to decide how polluted our state will be. It’s about defending democracy from corporate overreach.Likely seeing an opportunity to profit from diesel under new federal leadership, the major truck manufacturers doing business in California are injecting instability into the very market they once sought to stabilize. This is political opportunism, plain and simple.The 2023 deal, known as the Clean Truck Partnership, was rooted in trust and a shared interest in predictable, stable rules during the transition away from fossil fuels. It wasn’t a regulation or a law; it was a collaboration — an experiment in handshake agreements that now looks like a cautionary tale for regulators and communities everywhere: Corporations can walk away from deals like this the moment political winds shift or the quarterly earnings dip.The manufacturers’ gratuitous lawsuit comes alongside a proposed rollback of the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas standards and a surprise Federal Trade Commission move to condemn the partnership. The commission issued a statement closing an investigation it never publicly announced, after the companies sent letters playing victim. Is it any surprise that Trump’s federal lawyers jumped in days later to sue California along with the truck makers?The consequences of breaking the agreement are real and devastating. Diesel freight pollution has long hit hardest in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color near ports, warehouses and freight corridors, causing higher rates of asthma, heart disease and cancer. Rolling back the Clean Truck Partnership means more diesel trucks on California roads, more hospital visits and more lives cut short. It’s an assault on environmental justice that tells Californians their health is expendable.And everyone pays. Delaying clean truck adoption locks fleets into high and volatile diesel prices and undermines U.S. competitiveness. The manufacturers themselves are maintaining that crisis by discouraging the shift to electric trucks: California has documented a $94,000 markup on some electric trucks in the U.S. compared with Europe.When a handful of corporations can derail public policy this way, states must push back. California tried a compromise; now it must defend its right to set stronger standards, invest in clean infrastructure and refuse to subsidize companies that break their commitments.California’s leadership on clean transportation has helped it become the world’s fourth-largest economy. Its authority to set its own standards has driven innovation, created jobs and put more zero-emission vehicles on the road than in any other state. The public wants clean air and modern infrastructure. The choice is clear: double down on clean truck commitments or cede leadership to China and watch our industries and economy fall behind.A predictable market is essential for corporate investment in the energy transition. California brokered this partnership to give manufacturers the certainty they said they needed and say they still need. Now some of those same manufacturers are adding uncertainty by trying to revert to older standards and delay the transition. But it must come, and the sooner the better — for manufacturers, Californians and the nation.There’s still time to do the right thing. The truck makers who broke their word can still step up to electrify trucks. And the manufacturers who have not joined the lawsuit against California — Cummins, Ford, General Motors and Stellantis — should publicly reaffirm the goals of the Clean Truck Partnership, follow through on their commitments and reap the rewards. If these companies choose to stand with California now, they won’t just be honoring a promise; they’ll be helping build an economy that creates good jobs, drives innovation and secures a competitive future for American freight.Guillermo Ortiz is a senior clean vehicles advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Craig Segall is a former deputy executive officer and assistant chief counsel of the California Air Resources Board. The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content. Ideas expressed in the pieceTruck manufacturers who signed the 2023 Clean Truck Partnership are engaging in political opportunism by backing out of their commitments, taking advantage of the Trump administration’s support to weaken environmental protections and maintain their dominance in the diesel market.The lawsuit represents corporate overreach that undermines democracy, as these companies are leveraging political connections to write the rules governing California’s economy and determine pollution levels in the state.Breaking the partnership agreement will have devastating consequences for environmental justice, particularly harming low-income neighborhoods and communities of color near ports and freight corridors who face higher rates of asthma, heart disease, and cancer from diesel pollution.The manufacturers’ decision to abandon the deal creates market instability and undermines U.S. competitiveness in clean transportation technology, while maintaining artificially high prices for electric trucks compared to European markets.California must defend its authority to set stronger emissions standards and refuse to subsidize companies that break their commitments, as the state’s leadership on clean transportation has helped it become the world’s fourth-largest economy.Companies that have not joined the lawsuit should publicly reaffirm their commitments to the Clean Truck Partnership goals and help build an economy that creates jobs, drives innovation, and secures America’s competitive future in freight transportation.Different views on the topicTruck manufacturers argue they are “caught in the crossfire” between conflicting directives, with California requiring adherence to emissions rules while the U.S. Department of Justice instructs them to stop following the same standards that Congress recently preempted under the federal Clean Air Act[1].The manufacturers contend that the Clean Truck Partnership is being applied to enforce regulations that no longer have federal waivers, following Congress’s passage of resolutions under the Congressional Review Act in June 2025 that nullified EPA’s earlier waivers allowing California to implement key programs including the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation[1].Industry representatives maintain that the agreement includes provisions that limit manufacturers’ ability to contest CARB regulations, creating legal constraints that may no longer be valid given the changed federal regulatory landscape[1].Some manufacturers are adopting a “wait and see” approach, with companies like Isuzu anticipating “a good faith discussion with CARB and other regulated signatories to determine the agreement’s current scope and relevance” rather than immediately abandoning all commitments[2].Legal experts and former CARB officials argue that the partnership remains binding regardless of federal changes, pointing to language in the agreement that commits manufacturers to meet CARB regulations “irrespective of the outcome of any litigation challenging the waivers or authorizations for those regulations”[2].Manufacturers express concerns about the lack of clarity in how to proceed with truck sales in California, with some companies like Volvo Group choosing to keep their current sales policies “as they are for now” while the regulatory situation remains uncertain[2].

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.