By TASSANEE VEJPONGSA

MONTCLAIR, New Jersey (AP) — On a sunny fall morning, children wearing helmets and backpacks gathered with their parents in Montclair, New Jersey, for a group bicycle ride to two local elementary schools. Volunteers in orange safety vests made sure everyone assembled in a neighborhood shopping area was ready before the riders set off on their 5-mile “bike bus” route.

Related Articles

The U.S. was a leader in cultural heritage investigations. Now those agents are working immigration enforcement.

Pets contribute to greenhouse gases like us. Here’s how to reduce their carbon pawprint

Today in History: November 9, Holocaust begins with looting of Jewish stores, homes

Today in History: November 8, Florida election recount begins

SNAP food aid gets to people in some states while others remain in limbo amid court battles

Every few blocks, more adults and kids on bikes joined in. Eventually, the group grew to over 350 people. Older students chatted with friends, while younger ones focused on pedaling. Cars along the way stopped to let the long line of cyclists pass. Pupils and parents peeled off toward the first school before the remainder reached the group’s final stop.

It’s a familiar Friday scene in Montclair. For the past three years, what began as a handful of parents hoping to encourage their kids to bike to school has grown into a weekly ritual for both the township of about 40,000 residents and many of its families.

“It was so fun,” second grader Gigi Drucker, 7, said upon arriving at Nishuane Elementary School. “The best way to get to school is by bike because it gives you more exercise. It’s healthier for the Earth,” she added.

But traveling to school on two wheels isn’t just for fun, according to organizer Jessica Tillyer, whose are 6 and 8 years old. She believes that biking together each week helps promote healthy habits for the children and strengthens the sense of community among parents.

“And it really started because a small group of us, about five parents, all wanted to ride to school with our kids and just felt like it wasn’t safe. And for me, I felt kind of lonely riding by myself to school. So, bike bus just took off as a small effort. And now we can have up to 400 people riding together to school,” Tillyer said.

The bike bus movement isn’t new. Hundreds of them exist throughout the U.S. and Europe, as well as in Australia, Brazil, India, Indonesia and Israel, according to Bike Bus World, a nonprofit organization that promotes and provides information about bike buses.

Co-founder Sam Balto, who established a bike bus in Portland, Oregon, more than three years ago, said interest has grown so much that he offers free coaching calls to help others launch their own. He estimates there are more than 400 routes worldwide, and the number continues to grow.

“Children and families are craving community and physical activity and being outdoors. And when you present that versus a school car line, people naturally gravitate to something that’s super joyful and community-driven,” Balto said.

Organizers hope the bike bus movement will not only get more children on their bikes but also push elected officials in the United States and abroad to invest in safer biking infrastructure.

While starting a bike bus may not be difficult, keeping it running year-round through different seasons takes more effort. Organizers of successful rides shared advice for parents hoping to create their own.

Plan and communicate

Andrew Hawkins, one of the leaders of Montclair Bike Bus, said that once enough families express interest, the first step is to plan a route carefully. That means identifying streets with low traffic while considering how many students can join at the starting point and along the way.

“It took us a while to come up with a route we were happy with, but we’re still ready to adjust if necessary,” Hawkins said. “Things can change. It could be that new groups of students move into a certain block, or traffic patterns shift, and you have to adapt.”

The Montclair group started via word of mouth and social media posts. As the number of participants grew, the organizers created a chat group to coordinate and share weekly updates. They also reached out to other families through PTAs, school forums and other parent communication channels.

One unexpected benefit, several parents said, is the bike bus motivates children to get up and out the door more quickly on Friday mornings.

In an image taken from video, children ride their bicycles to school during a parent-led bike ride titled “Bike Bus” Oct. 3, 2025, in Montclair, N.J. (AP Photo/Tassanee Vejpongsa)

“He’s more excited to get out of bed for the bike bus than for the regular bus. So actually, I have an easier time getting him ready for school,” said Gene Gykoff, who rides with his son to the boy’s elementary school.

To keep momentum going all year, the Montclair Bike Bus team organizes themed rides on weekends and holidays. These events also allow families who can’t join on weekday mornings to experience what the bike bus is all about before committing to a regular schedule.

Start young and go slow

Montclair Bike Bus consists of multiple adult-led groups and routes that encompass all of the township’s elementary schools and middle schools. Organizers think the primary grades are when children benefit most from cycling with a group. Students in the first few years of school can learn about riding safely and apply those skills when they bike on their own or in small groups as they get older.

The Montclair parents found that most elementary school students can handle a distance of 3-5 miles, and the group travels at a speed of around 6 miles per hour so the younger kids can keep up.

“The slow speed can be tough for some of our older kids who want to go a little bit faster. We tell them there’s no racing on the bike bus — everyone gets to school at the same time. But there have been occasions where we’ve had to split the ride into two groups so that some of the older kids can go a little bit faster than the younger kids,” Hawkins said.

Be consistent no matter the weather

Keeping a bike bus going year-round requires consistency, which means preparing to pedal when it’s raining or cold outside, Balto and Hawkins said. Leaders monitor weather forecasts and decide whether to cancel a Friday ride due to unsafe conditions or to proceed as planned while reminding families to dress appropriately.

“As it gets colder, we tell everyone to make sure they have the right gear — gloves, neck warmers, warm jackets,” Hawkins said. “The idea is that kids should feel comfortable riding all year.”

The Montclair bike bus secured reflective vests and bike lights from sponsors to increase visibility on dark winter mornings. Leaders also carry basic maintenance tools, such as tire pumps.

Weather is often more of a concern for adults than it is for children, Balto observed. “Kids want to be outside with their friends,” he said. “If you’re going to do this in all weather, just do it consistently. People will get used to it, and they’ll start joining you.”

Just do it

Despite all the planning and coordination involved in running a regular bike bus, experienced organizers say the key is simply to start. It can be as informal as two families riding to school together and sharing a flyer to spread the word, Balto said.

“If you’re consistent — once a week, once a month, once a season — it will grow,” he said.

Tillyer said she gives the same advice to anyone who asks how to begin: just go for it.

“Don’t ask for permission. Don’t worry about what it’s going to take,” she said. “Find a small group of people, get on your bikes and ride to school. Once people experience it and enjoy it, more will want to join.”

Edward Lotterman

The off-year elections are over.

After winning two key governorships and many other races, Democrats are happier than Republicans. And pundits are ascribing a lot of economic meaning to the outcome.

In New York City, Zohran Mamdani, a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist,” will be the new mayor. This led President Donald Trump to say that New Yorkers must “choose between communism and common sense.”

That is more nonsense than common sense. Mamdani is no communist, despite what Trump thinks that means.

But what then exactly is a “democratic socialist” — a mantle also claimed by this year’s Minneapolis mayoral also-ran Omar Fateh, several members of that city’s city council, along with several U.S. senators and members of Congress?

More broadly, what distinguishes a communist from a socialist from a democratic socialist? And with some on the left as willing to sling epithets as some conservatives, are Trump and some of his MAGA followers really “fascists”?

There are so many pitfalls in such categorizing that I, myself, in teaching economics and giving public talks since 1981, have always avoided using such terms by themselves. The problem is that they are loaded with unintended implications, which, taken alone, mean so many different things to different people that they are virtually worthless in discussions of institutions and policies in the public square.

Others, however, continue to use them. If you wish to understand both uses and pitfalls of categorizing such economic and political “isms,” or ideologies, start with brief definitions:

“Communism” is an economic system in which government both owns all productive property and makes all decisions about how resources, including labor, are allocated. Individuals and families may have personal “possessions” but not anything that might be used in a business. Real-world communist regimes often have had a “cult of personality” centered on a general allegiance to a be-all, end-all, know-all charismatic, dictatorial leader like Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro or Kim Il Sung, but there are exceptions. Note that “fascist” regimes, such as in Germany, Italy and Spain during World War II, also operated under much the same personality structure.

“Capitalism” is an economic system characterized by private ownership of productive or business property. Resources are allocated by free markets in which self-interest fosters competition. Government is limited to defense, public order and administration of a legal system setting minimal rules within which markets in goods and services operate.

“Libertarianism” is a political philosophy advocating strict (or extreme) capitalism, with very minimal state intervention in markets or the private lives of citizens, and privatization of common goods regardless of any real economic or market incentive or fairness of allocation.

“Socialism” is an economic system in which government owns and operates all important or large-scale industries and infrastructure — “the commanding heights of the economy.” Key resource allocation decisions are made by central planning. Households may have small businesses involving skilled trades or individual shops limited by regulation.

“Fascism” is more difficult to define economically but generally means mass political movements that emphasize extreme nationalism, militarism, and the supremacy of the nation over the individual. As with communism, they often involve government ownership of key infrastructure or industry, and regulation of markets, but not as a defining characteristic. Fascist regimes often have had key charismatic and autocratic leaders such as Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini or Francisco Franco, as noted above.

Which brings us to “democratic socialism,” as espoused by Mamdani, Fateh and others who still identify as Democrats in the general sense if not for politically pragmatic reasons. Here, we have an economic and political philosophy that supports political democracy as practiced in the U.S., and some form of socially owned and oriented resources. Ownership of industry is not important, but having extensive policies to reduce poverty,  racial, gender or other discrimination, and to redistribute income from richer to poorer households are. In some cases, government involvement in markets is suggested, such as Mamdani’s proposed city-owned grocery stores that would compete with private ones in selected neighborhoods.

Making such definitions and categorizing real world governments and economies is difficult. Many readers will find something lacking in one or the other of the definitions above. Many will find them incorrect in some way, but elaborating creates increasingly numerous exceptions to definitions. Are Social Security, SNAP and Medicare forms of socialism? What about the federal government taking ownership stakes in U.S. Steel and Intel? Is MAGA a cult of personality? And so on.

Note that differences inherently appear on more than one axis. How resources are allocated is key, but so is political governance. One school of communist thought argues that cultural and social factors — rather than just control of capital — must be included. Some economists, including myself, who generally favor letting market forces determine resource-use decisions, also think that differences in institutions and culture play roles in determining why some economies meet the needs and wants of their human members more efficiently than others. One can go on in finding such apparent anomalies.

These “ism” terms are often used as epithets. Using them frequently clouds rather than clarifies policy discussions. That is why, in teaching and giving talks, I have never used them alone. Using them invites poor argumentation. Someone will argue, “Socialism means A, B, C, D and E. Candidate One advocates B. Therefore that candidate is a socialist and necessarily wants to introduce A, C, D and E. This is the failure that Trump makes in demagoguing Mamdani’s social positions.

It gets even worse. Capitalism means A, L, M, N, O and Z. Candidate Two advocates M and N and therefore also wants extreme fringe positions A and Z. No!

Money-making private enterprises can, do and should exist with some form of public incentivization. Thinking that government should act to ensure broad access to health care for all does not mean one wants complete abolition of all private practice of medicine. Advocating use of emissions taxes or tradeable permits rather than mandating specific pollution control technologies does not mean that one wants to rape the earth. Establishment of government-fostered systems for health, disability and old age benefits does not mean one wants to abolish private property.

Moreover, there are no hard and fast rules linking particular categories of governance to economic systems. Yes, real world communist and fascist regimes had brutal dictators. But Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea had vibrant market economies under one-person rule even though decades passed before they became democracies.

Socialist Norway essentially outlawed private medical care. The post-war socialist government of the Netherlands nationalized the “commanding height” of public transportation down to the level of an inter-village transit system owned by the father of a friend of mine, even though it was only seven small buses. Yet no one can argue that either nation was not a democracy. Ditto for socialist Sweden and the United Kingdom under Labour governments that nationalized railroads, steel, mining, shipbuilding and electricity generation without becoming anti-democratic.

The military government of Brazil, from 1964-1981, was a brutal dictatorship for many years. It also oversaw an economic miracle expansion in iron ore, steel, petroleum, petrochemicals and hydroelectric power, all under government ownership and stemming from central planning. Yet private-sector auto, truck and tractor manufacturing, housing construction and soybean farming burgeoned.

Yes, there was government-directed and subsidized credit for offices and low-income residential construction even as political prisoners were being tortured with repeated rape and with electrical shocks to genitals. The government was military and authoritarian, but there was no cult of personality. Six charisma-free, largely faceless generals succeeded each other quietly with nary one speech to an enthralled crowd.

China under Mao was as complete a communist economy and dictatorship as one could imagine. The state controlled all aspects of people’s public and private lives leading to the near complete neutralization of the individual. Now, contemporary China bursts with private, profit-seeking businesses producing on a prodigious scale and developing world-class new technology at a breakneck pace. Yet governance in China remains firmly in the grip of the Chinese Communist Party with even less of a pro-democracy movement than in the early years of Vladimir Putin’s regime in Russia.

Many Republicans raged at Franklin Roosevelt’s socialistic ventures like Social Security or hydroelectric dams coupled with government-directed economic development on the Tennessee and Columbia rivers and elsewhere. Legislation establishing the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate practices in financial markets or the National Labor Relations Act that legitimized the organizing of labor unions were deemed socialistic even as democracy was strong.

Many in the Trump administration and some on the Supreme Court now would dial back some government economic roles. Trump Is demanding stakes in private companies like Intel and decreeing all sorts of economic measures. ICE is practicing Soviet-style roundups of immigrants and dissidents. Yet, so far at least, we live in a democracy with a mixed-market economy.

Related Articles

Real World Economics: Senators wake up and smell the tariffs

Real World Economics: Argentina bailout is a new level of corruption

Real World Economics: ‘Creative destruction’ and Argentina’s debt crisis

Real World Economics: How farm payouts violate basic principles

Real World Economics: Ignorance of Social Security’s problems is not bliss

Two socio-political thinkers, Max Weber and Frances Fukuyama, both now discredited by many, have authored insights on political and economic issues that may be worth revisiting. But that is the subject of another column.

St. Paul economist and writer Edward Lotterman can be reached at stpaul@edlotterman.com.

Pioneer Press staffers who cover the Vikings take a stab at predicting Sunday’s outcome against the Baltimore Ravens at the Bank:

DANE MIZUTANI

Ravens 27, Vikings 24: Lamar Jackson almost never loses to the NFC. He boasts an incredible 24-3 record against the conference in his career. His singular skill set will be a little bit too much for the Vikings this weekend.

JACE FREDERICK

Ravens 24, Vikings 17: Which of these two teams do you truly believe is “back” after a rough start? Probably safer to side with the MVP quarterback.

JOHN SHIPLEY

Vikings 31, Ravens 30: There is a narrative out there that says Lamar Jackson and the Ravens are still an AFC power. They’re 3-5. The Vikings are chuffed after a solid win at Detroit, but both teams are fighting for relevance, and reality is about to set in for one.

CHARLEY WALTERS

Vikings 24, Ravens 21: The Vikings were supposed to lose in Detroit last week, and they won. They’re supposed to lose in Minneapolis this week, too, but J.J. McCarthy shows what heart can do.

Related Articles

The Loop Fantasy Football Update Week 10: Last-minute moves

How the Vikings are preparing for Lamar Jackson and his singular skill set

Max Brosmer is helping J.J. McCarthy be at his best for Minnesota

Vikings vs. Ravens: What to know ahead of Week 10 matchup

The Loop NFL Picks: Week 10

The best thing about the Canadians’ use of a Ronald Reagan video to taunt President Donald Trump’s trade policies is that it exposes the 54% of today’s Americans who weren’t alive during the Reagan presidency to what a real conservative sounds like.

I was in another room when I first heard the commercial featuring Reagan’s voice coming from the television. I rushed to answer the siren’s song, pulling me back to a better time and place.

Listening to President Reagan make the case for free trade evoked a wave of warm nostalgia. I don’t care if his words were rearranged by the Canadians or even if Reagan’s record on trade didn’t always match his rhetoric. It was still wistful to hear a president espouse policy grounded in the clear principles of free markets, free minds and free men that once defined the conservative movement.

Reagan spoke of those convictions with reason and the confidence that sticking to them would benefit all Americans. Hearing Reagan’s voice and seeing him sitting at his desk in an everyman’s flannel shirt reminded me of how much we’re missing that sort of steadiness and strength in politics.

It prompted me to search the Internet for more of his speeches and think about how base our political discourse has become in the years since he left the White House.

Reagan employed self-deprecation over self-aggrandizement to endear himself to his listeners. His jabs at his opponents were wrapped in humor, rather than crude insults and name-calling. He let his accomplishments speak for themselves, rather than engaging in incessant braggadocio. There was no meanness about him.

In 1980, when Reagan became the first president to campaign on the promise to “Make America Great Again,” it was taken as a rallying cry for Americans to unite to pull the nation out of its malaise. Today, those same words are a battle cry to separate Americans.

Reagan didn’t spend his eight years in office blaming his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, for the mess he inherited. During the campaign, the harshest words he leveled at Carter were, “There you go again.” Reagan understood that to be respected, a president must behave respectfully. He exuded decency and dignity, even when under attack.

The anti-tariffs ad from the Canadians was designed to push Trump’s button. And he went off as expected, announcing a new round of tariffs on our neighbor and, in the process, giving lie to his claim that his levies are a response to an economic and fentanyl emergency. They aren’t. They’re a cudgel to punish his enemies and reward those who grovel at his feet.

Vindictiveness is not a conservative virtue. Neither is building monuments to your own ego. Real conservatives have accepted the mantle of conserving the nation’s founding principles and institutions. Today’s conservatives-in-name-only tear them down to enable their shortcuts around the rulebook.

The lineage of Ronald Reagan’s conservative philosophy, with its firm belief in constrained government, stretches back to James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. They wouldn’t recognize the brand of conservatism being practiced today.

A YouGov poll from earlier this year found 57% of Americans believe the Reagan era was the country’s best in terms of quality of life.

Related Articles

David Brooks: The season of wolves

Abby McCloskey: Democrats, curb your enthusiasm

Lisa Jarvis: What if the COVID vaccine could save cancer patients too?

Erin Nicholson: Parents, it’s time to get mad about online child sexual abuse

Noah Feldman: The Supreme Court’s conservatives may be the end of tariffs

That’s what happens when a nation chooses principled leaders instead of bullies and buffoons.

Nolan Finley is editorial page editor of the Detroit News.