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

As heavy as 100 Eiffel Towers: Monumental L.A. County fire debris removal could finish by June

Almost 8,800 property owners have asked the Army Corps of Engineers to direct the cleanup of burned homes. With more than 100 parcels a day being cleared, the job is almost halfway done, with June a likely date for completion, officials say.

A small army of laborers, heavy-equipment operators, hazmat technicians and truck drivers have cleared more than one-third of the home lots left in charred ruin by January’s firestorms — a frenetic pace that suggests the bulk of the vast government-run cleanup in Los Angeles County could be completed as early as June, officials say.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officers overseeing the effort said the crews of mostly private contractors are working at a record clip for a wildfire recovery, clearing nearly 120 lots a day and operating at close to the capacity that roads — and residents close to the fire zones — can tolerate.The scope of the unfinished work came into clearer focus last week, with the passing of the April 15 deadline for residents of Altadena, Pacific Palisades and Malibu to opt in or out of the cleanup. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times) Some 10,373 property owners completed “right-of-entry” forms, authorizing the Army Corps and government contractors to work on their properties, while 1,698 others opted out of the program, many because they wanted their own crews to perform the work.Army Corps of Engineers commanders reported that 4,153 properties across the Eaton and Palisades burn zones had been cleared by Thursday, though the total declared as “complete” is lower because many of the lots still need finishing touches — including the removal of hazardous trees, installation of fencing around pools and application of “hydro-mulch” sealant to prevent erosion.Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass held a news conference Thursday to mark 100 days since the fires and to tout the speed of the recovery. “The Army Corps of Engineers are heroes in Los Angeles, are heroes in the Palisades,” said Bass, standing alongside Army commanders and Westside Councilmember Traci Park. “It is amazing to come here day after day. … Every time I come, I see more and more properties cleared.”The Army officers commanding the cleanup say it is the biggest their agency has ever conducted in a wildfire zone. With more than 1 million tons of concrete, steel, earth and plants already removed from the burn areas, two colonels overseeing the operation reached for superlatives to describe the scope of the work. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times) The weight of the debris removed equals the weight of 100 Eiffel towers, said Col. Sonny Avichal, the West Point graduate overseeing the Altadena fire cleanup. The weight taken out of the Palisades, alone, is equal to a row of Ford F-150 pickups, lined up end-to-end and stretching from Los Angeles past Salt Lake City, said Col. Brian Sawser, another West Point grad, who has overseen the Palisades fire cleanup.“This has been very similar to a war-fighting approach,” said Sawser, referring to the military’s strategy of bringing together diverse personnel, organizations and processes and unifying them in a common purpose. He later pledged: “Renewal is coming, it’s coming. And we’re bringing it to you as fast as we possibly can.”Avichal said the mission requires brute force but also a soft touch, as when an elderly woman in Altadena recently asked a cleanup crew for a personal treasure buried in her home’s rubble. The workers soon recovered a small safe and the gold coins inside it, delivering the bounty to the beaming homeowner, a moment captured in a Facebook video.“At the end of the day, it’s about the human touch,” Avichal said, recognizing the workers who returned the coins to the owner. “It’s about the compassion we have for the individuals who lost their homes.”The cleanup has ramped up considerably in recent weeks.When Avichal arrived in February from his base in Virginia, there were only 20 crews clearing lots in Altadena. (Each crew consists of, at minimum, a quality assurance official from the Army Corps; a task force leader from the principal contractor, Burlingame-based ECC; a heavy-equipment operator; a crew leader; and several laborers.) Now 129 crews are clearing properties in the San Gabriel Valley community.It takes a little less than two days for workers to finish clearing a property, slightly less than the time needed in the Palisades, where lots tend to be larger, and in Malibu, where some of the work has been complicated because of the precarious perch of more than 300 burned homes along the beach.The fire zones now teem with lines of trucks, earthmovers and workers in yellow-and- orange safety vests. The air thrums with the din of destruction — giant excavators clanking against steel beams, trucks bleating out warning signals as they back into position, green organic material whooshing out of hoses onto finished sites.While the images can appear chaotic, they are the result of hours of planning and preparation.Homeowners typically receive a call two or three days before crews arrive. A staffer from lead contractor ECC asks for important property details: Are there septic tank lids or propane tanks that need to be avoided? Are there pet graves that must be left undisturbed? Do workers need to be on the lookout for squatters?An initial inspection crew, commissioned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, then screens each property in search of paints and other toxic substances. Analysts also probe for asbestos — a job that expanded as the carcinogenic material turned up in many more locations than expected.Workers have found asbestos in more than 60% of homes in Altadena and more than 40% in the extended Palisades fire zone. Cleanup crews in white hazmat suits and respirators typically needed up to three days to scrape away the material and remove it in sealed containers.“At one point we had 95 crews doing nothing but asbestos abatement,” Avichal said. On the Westside, the debris removal has been complicated by the constricted roads in and out of the burn zone. Traffic flow along Pacific Coast Highway has been reduced to one lane in each direction and Temescal Canyon Road remains closed to create what the Army leaders call a TDRS — Temporary Debris Reduction Site.Heavy excavation machines bash giant concrete blocks into more manageable chunks, before grinders pulverize the material into 1- to 3-inch rocks, which can be recycled. Steel and other metals also get compacted in the recycling zone before being trucked away.By doing the reduction work close to the disaster site, debris that initially filled three or four dump trucks can be consolidated into one large semi tractor-trailer load. That means that the total truck traffic leaving the burn areas is reduced substantially. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times) Anthony Marguleas, a real estate agent active in rebuilding efforts in the Palisades, called the debris recycling effort “a clear win for the community,” in that it reduced outbound truck traffic and also appeared to be “efficient and environmentally responsible.”State insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said in January that homeowners have typically spent more than $100,000 when they paid to have private contractors remove debris after recent wildfires.Those who opt in to the government program have no direct out-of-pocket costs, though the Army Corps of Engineers will ask insurance companies that cover debris removal to reimburse the government up to the limits of that specific coverage.The pressure for progress abounds throughout the fire communities, as homeowners plead for access that will allow them to start rebuilding. But the drive to complete the work is particularly high along PCH in Malibu, where 327 homes burned.The extra anxiety has multiple causes: The charred remains of homes continue to wash away, spilling contaminants into Santa Monica Bay. Caltrans crews need access to ensure the ground under PCH does not erode. And the the sooner the work is done, the sooner access might improve along the highway, a lifeline for residents and for businesses that depend on customers coming from Santa Monica and points beyond.Sawser said last week that the Army Corps-led crews would be “tripling their effort” along the coast, with as many as a dozen crews clearing home sites, compared to the three or four that had operated there before.“That highway is the linchpin to everything that we do,” Sawser said, “because we not only have to clear that debris for many reasons, we also need to have the highway to move material out of a lot of other locations.”Though the cleanup crews have drawn wide praise, the work has not been flawless. A homeowner complained at a recent hearing in Malibu that an excavator has mistakenly began to plow up the concrete slab under her ADU. She caught the mistake before the destruction was complete and the contractor later told her by phone that the company would pay to repair the damage.And some health officials and residents have questioned whether the lot clearances have gone far enough. The Federal Emergency Management Agency decided to not follow past practice of testing the soil after disasters for contaminants. Those tests typically had been used to determine whether cleanup crews should remove more than the first 6 inches of topsoil.After the twin L.A. fires, FEMA announced it would not conduct the soil testing on cleared lots, drawing criticism that the cleanups would not be truly complete. Those reservations gained some traction earlier this month when soil testing by Los Angeles County in and around the burn areas found concerning levels of lead.The potential adverse impact of the work has also generated pushback in neighboring Southern California communities, given the more than 2,000 truckloads of earth, concrete, metal and other debris being shipped each day to 16 landfills and recycling centers around the region. The Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center has taken by far the biggest share of the fire detritus, receiving an average of 1,228 truckloads a day last week and a total of 636,000 tons of debris since the cleanup started. The Sunshine Canyon Landfill in Sylmar, the second biggest fire debris repository, has received 126,000 tons. From Malibu to Calabasas, Altadena and Irwindale, residents around the burn zones and the communities where the debris is being deposited have expressed fears that toxic materials could be released into the air and soil. (Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times) Contractors have responded that they are taking considerable care — including frequent watering of home lots and waste consolidation sites — to keep pollutants out of the air. Into mid-April, the protests and a lawsuit by the city of Calabasas had not succeeded in redirecting the debris.On a recent weekday afternoon, debris trucks lined up for several hundred yards outside the weigh station at Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center. Once inside, trucks lumbered up a long, curving road into the hills. Then came another wait to dump their loads — an untold number of incinerated living room sets, teddy bears, running shoes and other detritus, spilling into a final resting place.An enormous cloud of gulls billowed and swooped around the charred waste.“Everything we owned and gathered over 35 years was hauled away in like three trucks,” said Eitan, a Palisades man who declined to give his last name. “It’s almost a biblical kind of conclusion, from ashes to ashes. That’s for humans but, in this case, it’s for all of those objects as well.”

In Colorado, gas for cars could soon come with a warning label

Like labels on cigarettes, opponents say fossil fuel warnings could change attitudes. Others call it gasoline “shaming.”

The Centennial State may become first in the nation to require retailers to warn consumers that burning fossil fuels “releases air pollutants and greenhouse gases, known by the state of Colorado to be linked to significant health impacts and global heating.” The warning is the linchpin of a bill — HB25-1277 — that narrowly passed the state House on April 2 and is scheduled to be heard in the Senate’s Transportation & Energy Committee this week. Its Democratic sponsors say the bill will raise awareness among consumers that combusting gas in their vehicles creates pollutants that harm their health and trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to more intense and extreme weather, wildfires and drought. The groundbreaking measure would require retailers to place warning labels printed in black ink on a white background in English and Spanish in no smaller than 16-point type on fuel pumps and “in a conspicuous location” near displays offering petroleum-based goods for sale.  Proponents compare the stickers to warnings labels on cigarettes that scientific evidence found motivated consumers to reconsider the health impacts of smoking. The labeling bill is backed by environmental groups, including 350 Colorado and the Sierra Club, and opposed by gas stations, chambers of commerce and energy trade associations. About 136 lobbyist registrations were filed with the secretary of state in the position of support, opposition, or monitoring — a benchmark of the measure’s divisiveness. “The bill, as you’ve heard, seeks to drive systemic change and to help us meet our greenhouse gas emission goals,” state Rep. Junie Joseph (D-Boulder), a sponsor, testified at a House Energy & Environment Committee hearing on March 6. “Colorado is actively working to reduce emissions to comply with the Clean Air Act and state climate targets.” Read Next Renewables surged in 2024 — but so did fossil fuels Matt Simon Colorado is on track to meet greenhouse gas emissions reductions of 26 percent by 2025 and 50 percent by 2030, over 2005 levels — albeit a year late for each period mandated under state law, according to a November report compiled by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Colorado Energy Office. Yet the state is woefully behind in its compliance with federal air quality standards. Emissions from energy industry operations and gas-powered vehicles are the main drivers of the nine-county metropolitan Denver region’s failure to clean up its air over the last two decades. The state’s largest cities rank among the 25 worst in the nation for lung-damaging ozone pollution. Several days before the labeling bill passed the House, the state’s health department said it planned to ask the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to downgrade its air quality for the second time in a year. The request is intended to give regulators more time to draw up a plan to reduce pollutants that cause a toxic haze that blurs the Rocky Mountains from May to September. Colorado repeatedly touts its “nation-leading” greenhouse gas emissions reduction laws targeting oil and gas production, as well as requirements that utilities transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Yet to make long-term progress toward a state mandate to cut emissions 100 percent by 2050, officials need residents to drive less and carpool and take public transit more. The bill’s sponsors cited a first-in-the-nation labeling law in the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, as proof such initiatives work. The Cambridge City Council enacted its greenhouse gas label law in 2020. City inspectors affix about 116 bright yellow stickers that read: “Warning. Burning Gasoline, Diesel and Ethanol has major consequences on human health and on the environment including contributing to climate change” in pump bays at 19 gas stations annually, along with inspection stickers, Jeremy Warnick, a city spokesman, wrote in an email. Read Next Efforts were underway to prevent CO2 pipeline leaks. The Trump administration quietly derailed them. Tristan Baurick Early research into the impacts of Cambridge’s labeling law suggest that peer pressure that results from one person seeing a label on a gas pump and telling friends about it at a party can indeed motivate people to reconsider their transportation choices. A measure instituted in Sweden in 2021 that requires labels depicting each fuel grade’s impact on the climate to be installed on gas pumps produced similar results. The warning stickers communicate to people as they’re pumping gas that others in their community acknowledge petroleum products create emissions that are warming the planet, said Gregg Sparkman, an assistant professor of psychology and neuroscience at Boston College. Sparkman’s research found Americans function in a state of “pluralistic ignorance,” essentially “walking around thinking others don’t care about climate change.”  A study he co-authored in Nature in 2022 found that most Americans “underestimate the prevalence of support for climate change mitigation policies.” While 66 percent to 80 percent of people approve of such measures, Americans estimate the prevalence to be between 37 percent and 43 percent, on average, data showed. Warning labels can cut through this apathy, he said.   “These signs chip away at the mirage — they become one of hopefully many signals that an increasing number of Americans regard this as an emergency that requires urgent action out of government, citizens and everybody,” he said.        In Colorado, gas station owners, as well as representatives of retail trade organizations and the American Petroleum Institute, among others, testified against the labeling bill at the three-hour March 6 House energy committee hearing, calling the legislation an “unfunded mandate” that would “shame consumers” and target retailers with “exorbitant fines.” Some warned it would make gas prices rise. Read Next The Hidden Cost of Gasoline Kate Yoder The law would require convenience stores to design, buy and affix the labels and to keep them in good condition. If a consumer reported a defaced decal to the state Attorney General’s Office, a store owner could face a $20,000 penalty per violation — standard for violations under the Consumer Protection Act. An amendment added on the House floor would provide retailers with 45 days to fix a problem with a label.   “The gas pump itself is already cluttered with words, numbers, prices, colors, buttons and payment mechanisms,” Angie Howes, a lobbyist representing Kum & Go, which owns Maverik convenience stores, testified at the committee hearing. “The message will likely be lost in the noise and we question the impact of such a label toward the proponents’ goals.” Republican and Democratic committee members alike expressed concern about the fines, asking bill sponsors to consider reducing them. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, or CDPHE, also opposed the measure, citing the state’s efforts to make it easier and cheaper for Coloradoans to reduce their energy use by taking advantage of electric vehicle and heat pump subsidies, among other voluntary measures. Colorado is already first in the nation in market share of new EVs, Lindsay Ellis, the agency’s director of legislative affairs, testified. “This bill presupposes that awareness alone is an effective strategy for changing behavior and does so at the liability and expense of small businesses like gas stations,” she said. “We should continue to focus on solutions with measurable emissions reductions to improve air quality.” Gov. Jared Polis also appears dubious of the measure’s ability to effect long-term change. When contacted by Capital & Main for comment, spokesperson Eric Maruyama cited legislative and administrative strategies that have “cut hundreds of millions of metric tons of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions since 2010.” “Like CDPHE, Governor Polis is committed to protecting Colorado’s clean air and reducing pollution through proven strategies that are good for the environment, good for consumers, and that empower Colorado businesses and individuals to take meaningful action that improves public health,” Maruyama wrote in an email. “Governor Polis is skeptical of labeling requirements and will review any legislation that reaches his desk.” Doctors and scientists who testified at the House energy committee hearing on March 6 disagreed. “I take care of children living in some of the most polluted zip codes in the country, and I can tell you firsthand that burning fossil fuels is making them sick,” Dr. Clare Burchenal, a Denver pediatrician, told the committee.  “Warning labels can connect the abstract threat of a climate emergency with fossil fuel use in the here and now — my patients and their families have a right to know how the products they’re using are impacting their health.” Copyright 2025 Capital & Main This story was originally published by Grist with the headline In Colorado, gas for cars could soon come with a warning label on Apr 19, 2025.

In Colorado, Gas for Cars Could Soon Come With a Warning Label

Like labels on cigarettes, opponents say fossil fuel warnings could change attitudes. Others call it gasoline “shaming.” The post In Colorado, Gas for Cars Could Soon Come With a Warning Label appeared first on .

The Centennial State may become first in the nation to require retailers to warn consumers that burning fossil fuels “releases air pollutants and greenhouse gases, known by the state of Colorado to be linked to significant health impacts and global heating.” The warning is the linchpin of a bill — HB25-1277 — that narrowly passed the state House on April 2 and is scheduled to be heard in the Senate’s Transportation & Energy Committee this week. Its Democratic sponsors say the bill will raise awareness among consumers that combusting gas in their vehicles creates pollutants that harm their health and trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to more intense and extreme weather, wildfires and drought. The groundbreaking measure would require retailers to place warning labels printed in black ink on a white background in English and Spanish in no smaller than 16-point type on fuel pumps and “in a conspicuous location” near displays offering petroleum-based goods for sale.  Proponents compare the stickers to warnings labels on cigarettes that scientific evidence found motivated consumers to reconsider the health impacts of smoking.   The labeling bill is backed by environmental groups, including 350 Colorado and the Sierra Club, and opposed by gas stations, chambers of commerce and energy trade associations. About 136 lobbyist registrations were filed with the secretary of state in the position of support, opposition, or monitoring — a benchmark of the measure’s divisiveness. “The bill, as you’ve heard, seeks to drive systemic change and to help us meet our greenhouse gas emission goals,” state Rep. Junie Joseph (D-Boulder), a sponsor, testified at a House Energy & Environment Committee hearing on March 6. “Colorado is actively working to reduce emissions to comply with the Clean Air Act and state climate targets.” Colorado is on track to meet greenhouse gas emissions reductions of 26% by 2025 and 50% by 2030, over 2005 levels — albeit a year late for each period mandated under state law, according to a November report compiled by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Colorado Energy Office. Yet the state is woefully behind in its compliance with federal air quality standards. Emissions from energy industry operations and gas-powered vehicles are the main drivers of the nine-county metropolitan Denver region’s failure to clean up its air over the last two decades. The state’s largest cities rank among the 25 worst in the nation for lung-damaging ozone pollution. Several days before the labeling bill passed the House, the state’s health department said it planned to ask the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to downgrade its air quality for the second time in a year. The request is intended to give regulators more time to draw up a plan to reduce pollutants that cause a toxic haze that blurs the Rocky Mountains from May to September. Colorado repeatedly touts its “nation-leading” greenhouse gas emissions reduction laws targeting oil and gas production, as well as requirements that utilities transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Yet to make long-term progress toward a state mandate to cut emissions 100% by 2050, officials need residents to drive less and carpool and take public transit more. The bill’s sponsors cited a first-in-the-nation labeling law in the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, as proof such initiatives work. The Cambridge City Council enacted its greenhouse gas label law in 2020. City inspectors affix about 116 bright yellow stickers that read: “Warning. Burning Gasoline, Diesel and Ethanol has major consequences on human health and on the environment including contributing to climate change” in pump bays at 19 gas stations annually, along with inspection stickers, Jeremy Warnick, a city spokesman, wrote in an email. A bright yellow warning label on a gas pump in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Photo courtesy the city of Cambridge. Early research into the impacts of Cambridge’s labeling law suggest that peer pressure that results from one person seeing a label on a gas pump and telling friends about it at a party can indeed motivate people to reconsider their transportation choices. A measure instituted in Sweden in 2021 that requires labels depicting each fuel grade’s impact on the climate to be installed on gas pumps produced similar results. The warning stickers communicate to people as they’re pumping gas that others in their community acknowledge petroleum products create emissions that are warming the planet, said Gregg Sparkman, an assistant professor of psychology and neuroscience at Boston College. Sparkman’s research found Americans function in a state of “pluralistic ignorance,” essentially “walking around thinking others don’t care about climate change.”  A study he co-authored in Nature in 2022 found that most Americans “underestimate the prevalence of support for climate change mitigation policies.” While 66% to 80% of people approve of such measures, Americans estimate the prevalence to be between 37% and 43%, on average, data showed. Warning labels can cut through this apathy, he said.   “These signs chip away at the mirage — they become one of hopefully many signals that an increasing number of Americans regard this as an emergency that requires urgent action out of government, citizens and everybody,” he said.        In Colorado, gas station owners, as well as representatives of retail trade organizations and the American Petroleum Institute, among others, testified against the labeling bill at the three-hour March 6 House energy committee hearing, calling the legislation an “unfunded mandate” that would “shame consumers” and target retailers with “exorbitant fines.” Some warned it would make gas prices rise. The law would require convenience stores to design, buy and affix the labels and to keep them in good condition. If a consumer reported a defaced decal to the state Attorney General’s Office, a store owner could face a $20,000 penalty per violation — standard for violations under the Consumer Protection Act. An amendment added on the House floor would provide retailers with 45 days to fix a problem with a label.   “The gas pump itself is already cluttered with words, numbers, prices, colors, buttons and payment mechanisms,” Angie Howes, a lobbyist representing Kum & Go, which owns Maverik convenience stores, testified at the committee hearing. “The message will likely be lost in the noise and we question the impact of such a label toward the proponents’ goals.” Republican and Democratic committee members alike expressed concern about the fines, asking bill sponsors to consider reducing them. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, or CDPHE, also opposed the measure, citing the state’s efforts to make it easier and cheaper for Coloradoans to reduce their energy use by taking advantage of electric vehicle and heat pump subsidies, among other voluntary measures. Colorado is already first in the nation in market share of new EVs, Lindsay Ellis, the agency’s director of legislative affairs, testified. “This bill presupposes that awareness alone is an effective strategy for changing behavior and does so at the liability and expense of small businesses like gas stations,” she said. “We should continue to focus on solutions with measurable emissions reductions to improve air quality.” Gov. Jared Polis also appears dubious of the measure’s ability to effect long-term change. When contacted by Capital & Main for comment, spokesperson Eric Maruyama cited legislative and administrative strategies that have “cut hundreds of millions of metric tons of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions since 2010.” “Like CDPHE, Governor Polis is committed to protecting Colorado’s clean air and reducing pollution through proven strategies that are good for the environment, good for consumers, and that empower Colorado businesses and individuals to take meaningful action that improves public health,” Maruyama wrote in an email. “Governor Polis is skeptical of labeling requirements and will review any legislation that reaches his desk.” Doctors and scientists who testified at the House energy committee hearing on March 6 disagreed. “I take care of children living in some of the most polluted zip codes in the country, and I can tell you firsthand that burning fossil fuels is making them sick,” Dr. Clare Burchenal, a Denver pediatrician, told the committee.  “Warning labels can connect the abstract threat of a climate emergency with fossil fuel use in the here and now — my patients and their families have a right to know how the products they’re using are impacting their health.”   Copyright 2025 Capital & Main

Oil company fined record $18 million for defying state orders to stop work on pipeline

The pipeline caused a major oil spill a decade ago, fouling the ocean off Santa Barbara County. The new owners say they don’t need new permits for repairs. The fine is the Coastal Commission's largest.

In summary The pipeline caused a major oil spill a decade ago, fouling the ocean off Santa Barbara County. The new owners say they don’t need new permits for repairs. The fine is the Coastal Commission’s largest. The California Coastal Commission today fined an oil company a record $18 million for repeatedly defying orders to stop work on a corroded pipeline in Santa Barbara County that caused a major oil spill nearly a decade ago. The vote sets the stage for a potentially high-stakes test of the state’s power to police oil development along the coast. The onshore pipeline in Gaviota gushed more than 100,000 gallons of crude oil onto coastal land and ocean waters, shutting down fisheries, closing beaches and harming marine life and coastal habitats in 2015. Sable Offshore Corp., a Houston-based company, purchased the pipeline from the previous owners, Exxon Mobil, last year, and is seeking to restart the Santa Ynez offshore oil operation. The Coastal Commission said Sable has done something no alleged violator has ever done before: ignoring the agency’s multiple cease-and-desist orders and continuing its work. “Our orders were valid and legally issued, and Sable’s refusal to comply is a refusal to follow the law,” said Commissioner Meagan Harmon, who also is a member of the Santa Barbara City Council. “Their refusal, in a very real sense, is a subversion of the will of the people of the state of California.” “I’ve never taken how special this area is for granted. As a kid, I was traumatized by the ’69 oil spill, and in 2015, I had to watch my own kids go through the same trauma.”Carol Millar, Santa Barbara County resident The company argued it can proceed using the pipeline’s original county permit issued in the 1980s. In February, Sable sued the Coastal Commission saying the state is unlawfully halting the company’s repair and maintenance work. At a 5-hour public hearing in Santa Barbara today, more than 100 speakers lined up, many of them urging the commission to penalize Sable and stop its work. Some invoked memories of the 2015 Refugio OIl Spill as well as the massive 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill caused by a blowout on a Union Oil drilling rig. Public outrage over that spill helped shape the environmental movement, led to the first Earth Day and contributed to the enactment of many national environmental laws. “I’ve never taken how special this area is for granted,” said Santa Barbara County resident Carol Millar. “As a kid, I was traumatized by the ‘69 oil spill, and in 2015, I had to watch my own kids go through the same trauma.” Steve Rusch, Sable’s vice president of environmental and governmental affairs, said the commission was overreaching because of the spill caused by the previous owners. “We are proud of our good-paying, skilled jobs that our project has brought to the region,” he told commissioners. “It’s not about the 2015 Refugio oil spill. It’s not about the restart of the pipeline …it’s not about the future of oil production or fossil fuel in California.” “We are proud of our good-paying, skilled jobs that our project has brought to the region. It’s not about the 2015 Refugio oil spill.”Steve Rusch, Sable Offshore corp. In repairing the former, corroded pipelines, the company is seeking to restart production of the Santa Ynez oil operation, which includes three offshore rigs, according to an investor presentation by the company. Operations stopped after the 2015 spill.   Sable had been excavating around the former pipelines and placing cement bags on the seafloor below its oil and water pipelines. The Coastal Commission’s fine levied against Sable is the highest ever levied against a company, according to a commission spokesperson. The commission voted to lower the $18 million fine to potentially just under $15 million if Sable complies with the state’s orders and applies for a coastal development permit. Beginning last year, commission staff charged the company with multiple violations of coastal laws, including unpermitted construction and excavation along a 14-mile oil pipeline on the Gaviota Coast, including areas offshore. The enforcement division of the commission said Sable undertook major work at multiple locations without securing the required coastal development permits. The company dug large pits, cleared vegetation, graded roads, placed concrete offshore among other work, according to a presentation by the staff today. In its presentation, commission staff said these actions went beyond routine maintenance and amounted to a full rebuild of the pipeline. Coastal Commission officials emphasized that the work posed serious risks to the environment, including wetlands and other sensitive habitats, potentially harming protected species, including western pond turtles and steelhead.  “The timing of the implemented development is particularly problematic, as much of this development has been during bird nesting season, as well as red-legged frog breeding season and Southern Steelhead migratory spawning season,” said Stephanie Cook, an attorney with the commission. “This work has a high potential to adversely impact these habitat areas.” The staff said it spent months trying to get Sable to cooperate but the company provided incomplete or misleading information. “The timing…is particularly problematic, as much of this development has been during bird nesting season, as well as red-legged frog breeding season and Southern Steelhead migratory spawning season.”Stephanie Cook, Coastal Commission Attorney Rusch, in a statement issued after the hearing, said the company is conducting routine pipeline repair and maintenance, and said the actions were allowed under old permits issued by Santa Barbara County. The work is taking place in areas already affected by previous construction and use, and the company says the state cannot override the county’s interpretation of its permits.  “Sable is dedicated to restarting project operations in a safe and efficient manner,” Rusch said in the statement. “No California business should be forced to go through a protracted and arbitrary permitting process when it already has valid permits for the work it performed.” However, the validity of the county permit for the pipeline is in dispute. The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in a February vote did not approve transferring the county permit to Sable, the new owner. The vote was 2-2, with one member abstaining because the pipeline runs through her property. County officials are still trying to decide their next step. One concern of county officials is whether Sable has the financial ability and adequate insurance to handle a major oil spill.  The pipeline dispute comes as the Trump administration moves to boost domestic oil and gas production while sidelining efforts to develop wind and solar.  Several workers who said they were affiliated with the company spoke out in support along with others who said the company would boost the local economy.  Evelyn Lynn, director of operations at Aspen Helicopters in Oxnard, said she supported Sable’s efforts because it would give her company a boost.“If they’re not allowed to start their efforts again, this will have huge collateral damage to all of our local businesses, and also to our company in particular, and all of our local people who live here,” Lynn said. “All of our employees are required to live in California. They are all local, and they are all affected.” The Coastal Commission’s permits are not the only step the company has to take to operate the pipeline. Multiple state agencies regulate pipelines, including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Office of Oil Spill and Prevention Response and the Office of the State Fire Marshal. Environmental groups have called for a full environmental review of the pipeline under the California Environmental Quality Act.  National environmental organizations such as the Center for Biological Diversity have weighed in, along with local advocates, to support the Coastal Commission. A group born out of the original Santa Barbara oil spill — the Environmental Defense Center — opposes the project and efforts to restart drilling. The Surfrider Foundation also launched a “Don’t Enable Sable” campaign, and several beachgoers spoke out against the project. Who should pay billions for climate disasters? California and others target Big Oil — will that work? March 3, 2025March 3, 2025 Legislature delays oil well monitoring by more than 3 years, restores funding August 31, 2024August 31, 2024

What happens to the land after people are forced to retreat?

Managed retreat can be traumatic and hard. But with good planning, the land left behind can serve new purposes, and make public what was once private.

Christina Hanna, CC BY-SAOnce floodwaters subside, talk of planned retreat inevitably rises. Within Aotearoa New Zealand, several communities from north to south – including Kumeū, Kawatiri Westport and parts of Ōtepoti Dunedin – are considering future relocations while others are completing property buyouts and categorisations. Planned retreats may reduce exposure to harm, but the social and cultural burdens of dislocation from land and home are complex. Planning, funding and physically relocating or removing homes, taonga or assets – and even entire towns – is challenging. Internationally, research has focused on why, when and how planned retreats occur, as well as who pays. But we explore what happens to the places we retreat from. Our latest research examines 161 international case studies of planned retreat. We analysed what happens beyond retreat, revealing how land use has changed following withdrawal of human activities. We found a wide range of land use following retreat. In some cases, comprehensive planning for future uses of land was part of the retreat process. But in others we found a failure to consider these changing places. Planned retreats have happened in response to various climate and hazard risks, including sea-level rise and coastal erosion, tsunami, cyclones, earthquakes, floods and landslides. The case studies we investigated range from gradual transitions to sudden changes, such as from residential or business activities to conservation or vacant lands. In some cases, “sea change” is evident, where once dry land becomes foreshore and seabed. Through our research, we identified global “retreat legacies”. These themes demonstrate how communities across the world have sought similar outcomes, highlighting primary land-use patterns following retreat. Case studies reveal several themes in what happens to land after people withdraw. Hanna,C, White I,Cretney, R, Wallace, P, CC BY-SA Nature legacies The case studies show significant conversions of private to public land, with new nature and open-space reserves. Sites have been rehabilitated and floodplains and coastal ecosystems restored and reconnected. Open spaces are used for various purposes, including as nature, community, stormwater or passive recreational reserves. Some of these new zones may restrict structures or certain activities, depending on the risk. For example, due to debris flow hazard in Matatā in the Bay of Plenty, only transitory recreation or specific low-risk activities are allowed in the post-retreat environment because of the high risk to human life. Planning and investment in new open-space zones range from basic rehabilitation (grassed sites) to established parks and reserves, such as the Grand Forks riverfront greenway which borders rivers in the twin US cities of Grand Forks, North Dakota, and East Grand Forks, Minnesota. This area now hosts various recreational courses and connected trails as well as major flood protection measures. Project Twin Streams has transformed former residential sites to allow rivers to roam in the floodplain. Wikimedia Commons/Ingolfson, CC BY-SA Nature-based adaptations are a key function in this retreat legacy. For example, Project Twin Streams, a large-scale environmental restoration project in Waitakere, West Auckland, has transformed former residential sites into drainage reserves to make room for rivers in the floodplain. Importantly, not all retreats require significant land-use change. Continued farming, heritage preservation and cultural activities show that planned retreats are not always full and final withdrawals from a place. Instead, they represent an adapted relationship. While sensitive activities are relocated, other practices may remain, such as residents’ continued access to the old village of Vunidogoloa in Fiji for fishing and farming. Social and economic legacies Urban development in a small number of retreated sites has involved comprehensive spatial reorganisation, with planning for new urban esplanades, improved infrastructure and cultural amenities. One example is the comprehensive infrastructure masterplan for the Caño Martín Peña district in San Juan, Puerto Rico, which involves communities living along a tidal channel. The plan applied a community-first approach to retreat. It integrated infrastructure, housing, open space, flood mitigation and ecological planning. Alternatively, the decision to remove stopbanks and return the landscape to a “waterscape” can become a tourism feature, such as in the marshlands of the Biesbosch National Park in the Netherlands. A museum is dedicated to the transformed environment. The Biesbosch marshland nature reserve was created following historic flooding. Shutterstock/Rudmer Zwerver Where there was no post-retreat planning or site rehabilitation, ghost towns such as Missouri’s Pattonsburg leave eerie reminders of the costs of living in danger zones. Vacant and abandoned sites also raise environmental justice and ecological concerns about which retreat spaces are invested in and rehabilitated to avoid urban blight and environmental risks. Retreat sites may include landfills or contaminated land, requiring major site rehabilitation. The 12 case studies from Aotearoa New Zealand demonstrate a range of new land uses. These include new open-space reserves, the restoration of floodplains and coastal environments, risk mitigation and re-development, and protection measures such as stopbanks. Moving beyond retreat Our research highlights how planned retreats can create a transition in landscapes, with potential for a new sense of place, meaning and strategic adaptation. We found planned retreats have impacts beyond the retreat site, which reinforces the value of spatial planning. The definition and practices of “planned or managed retreat” must include early planning to account of the values and uses the land once had. Any reconfigurations of land and seascapes must imagine a future well beyond people’s retreat. Christina Hanna received funding from the national science challenge Resilience to Nature’s Challenges Kia manawaroa – Ngā Ākina o Te Ao Tūroa and from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's Endeavour Fund. Iain White received funding from the national science challenge Resilience to Nature’s Challenges Kia manawaroa – Ngā Ākina o Te Ao Tūroa, from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's Endeavour Fund and from the Natural Hazards Commission Toka Tū Ake. He is New Zealand's national contact point for climate, energy and mobility for the European Union's Horizon Europe research program. Raven Cretney received funding from the national science challenge Resilience to Nature’s Challenges Kia manawaroa – Ngā Ākina o Te Ao Tūroa.Pip Wallace does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

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.