

We accept advertising through Blogads. If you're interested, click the "Advertise here" link above, or go here to place your ad through Blogads. For assistance, e-mail me here; I'd be glad to help. Reach lots of viewers -- we're up to about 3,800 unique visits a day, and more than 61,000 page views a week (as of November 4). Our rates are dirt cheap for the exposure you'll get! If you'd like to advertise without going through the Blogads system, that's do-able, too. Just e-mail us here for more information.
As a lawyer/blogger, I get
to be a member of:
Quinta das Amoras, Vinho Tinto 2009
Mauro Molino, Barbera d'Alba 2009
Garda Chiaretto Rose
Columbia Crest, Two Vines Vineyard 10 White
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Pinot Gris, Columbia Valley 2009
L'Hortus, Rose de Saignee 2010
Maculan, Pino & Toi 2008
McKinley Springs, Bombing Range Red 2008
Trader Joe's Pinot Gris 2009
Montes Alpha, Cabernet 2007
Gran Sasso, Sangiovese, Terre di Chieti 2009
Garda, Classico Chiaretto Rose
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 1999
Picos del Montgo, Tempranillo 2008
Chateau de Montmirail, Vacqueyras 2008
La Granja 360, Syrah 2009
Montgras, Carmenere Reserva 2009
Lange, Pinot Gris 2009
Columbia Crest, Horse Heaven Hills Cabernet 2008
Kirkland, Pinot Grigio 2010
Trader Joe's Coastal Syrah 2009
Columbia Crest, Horse Heaven Hills Merlot 2008
Trader Joe's Coastal Chardonnay 2009
Vieux Papes Red
Domaine de l'Aujardiere, Chardonnay 2009
Santa Rita, Cabernet, Medalla Real 2007
Penfold's, Koonunga Hill Shiraz Cabernet 2008
Guild, Red, Lot #02 2008
Dievole, Dievolino Sangiovese 2008
Laforet, Burgogne Chardonnay 2009
Columbia Winery, Merlot 2007
Bonterra, Cabernet 2008
Elk Cove, Pinot Gris 2009
Maquis Lien 2006
Scott Paul, Pinot Noir, Le Paulee 2007
Cameron, Chardonnay
B.R. Cohn, Cabernet, Silver Label 2006
Graffigna, Cabernet 2005
Palo Alto, Reserve Red 2008
Menguante, Garnacha 2008
Lange, Pinot Gris 2009
Felsina Berardenga, Vin Santo 1997
Anne Amie, Pinot Gris 2009
McKinley Springs, Bombing Ramge Red 2007
Vieux Papes Red
Dionysius Chardonnay 2009
Haden Fig, Pinot Noir 2009
Vega Montan, Mencia 2008
Chateau la Vernede, Coteaux du Languedoc 2007
Mount Defiance, Hellfire (White) 2008
Root: 1, Cabernet 2008
Columbia Crest, Two Vines Pinot Grigio 2009
Columbia Crest, Two Vines, Vineyard 10 White, 2008
Columbia Crest, Two Vines, Vineyard 10 Rose, 2007
Abacela, Grenache Rose 2009
Avia Cabernet 2004
Lemelson Pinot Noir, Thea's Selection 2007
Chateau de la Roulerie, Rose d'Anjou 2009
Casal Garcia, Vinho Verde Rose
La Ferme Julien, Rose 2008
Cana's Feast, Bricco Red, 2006
Hogue, Genesis Merlot, 2008
Owen Roe, Sharecropper's Cabernet, 2008
Kim Crawford, Unoaked Chardonnay 2008
J. Scott, Pinot Noir 2008
Edmunds St. John, White, Heart of Gold 2008
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2006
Stevenot, Cabernet, Sierra Foothills, "Stanford" 2000
Portuga, Vinho Rose 2009
Taylor Fladgate, First Estate Reserve Porto
Franciscan, Cabernet, Napa 2006
Chaparral de Vega Sindoa, Garnacha 2008
Quinta da Aveleda, Vinho Verde 2008
St. Francis, Chardonnay Sonoma 2008
E. Guigal, Cotes du Rhone Blanc, 2007
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly, Gamay Noir 2008
St. Innocent, Pinot Noir 2006
Jigsaw, Pinot Noir 2007
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Merlot, Indian Wells 2007
Charles Shaw, Chardonnay 2008
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly, Gamay Rosé 2009
Cameron, Willamette Valley Chardonnay
Il Valore, Sangiovese, Giovane, Puglia 2008
Duck Pond, Chardonnay, Wahluke Slope 2007
Kim Crawford, Marlborough Pinot Noir 2008
Domaine du Pesquier, Cotes du Rhone 2005
Cantina Zaccagnini, Montepulciano d'Abruzzo 2006
Domaine Matrot, Chardonnay, Bourgogne 2007
David Hill, Oregon Sparkling Wine, Brut
Chandler Reach, Monte Regalo 2006
Elk Cove, Pinot Gris 2008
Kirkland, Columbia Valley Merlot 2008
D'Aragon, Old Vine Garnacha 2008
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2005
Pavin & Riley, Merlot 2006
David Hill, Estate Pinot Noir, Barrel Select 2006
Castle Rock, Paso Robles Cabernet 2006
Magnificent, Cabernet, Steak House 2008
Conundrum 2008
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 1998
Saint Cosme, Cotes-du-Rhone 2007
La Granja, Tempranillo 360, 2008
Santa Rita, Mendalla Real Cabernet 2006
Columbia Crest, Grand Estates Merlot 2006
Andezon, Cotes-du-Rhone 2007
Collegiata, Montepulciano d'Abruzzo
Troon, Druid's Fluid 2008
La Granja, Tempranillo 2008
Monte Antico, Toscana 2006
Vieux Papes, Blanc de Blancs
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt
Miles run year to date: 54
At this date last year: 50
Total run in 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269
Comments (23)
From the Flash show...
There are 376 take-offs and 377 landings at PDX daily. Where does the extra plane go?
Posted by Chris Snethen | December 28, 2006 4:54 PM
The baggage handlers steal it.
Posted by Jack Bog | December 28, 2006 5:02 PM
Maybe that extra plane fell in a sinkhole. They'll use that as another reason to shut down the runway...
That Flash presentation is not exactly clear in its information. At first, it sounds like they'll shut down the runway for no more than a few months for joint repairs. Elsewhere, it sounds like repairs will be far more extensive and will take anywhere from seven months to four years to complete.
It doesn't discuss the potential impact on air traffic and travelers while one runway is under construction. And, as Jack noted, it doesn't reveal any sort of information on noise impact, even though it appears that those studies have already been completed and "informal community outreaches" have occurred. Also, it's not clear if they're studying the noise from construction, or the noise from the shift in air traffic.
Posted by Ken | December 28, 2006 5:25 PM
As long as the appearance of public involvement is maintained, the Port does whatever it dang well pleases, unless a court tells it otherwise. If you don't like it, go smoke your charrette.
Posted by Jack Bog | December 28, 2006 5:27 PM
I suppose the timing could be seen as suspicious because of the holidays, but it isn't necessarily so. To many people (myself included) this is just another workin' Thursday. I'm not convinced anything devious was going on.
Also, it looks to me like they can't possibly "rehabilitate" the middle part of the south runway at all without closing it entirely. If that's true, the north runway is going to be in heavy use in the summers of 2012 and 2013 whether or not it gets extended. An extension will apparently mean more profitable (or less unprofitable) operations for some airlines and routes during that time, and will probably have some impact on which routes continue to be served from PDX over those years. An extension seems like a good idea to me.
(I'd say it's a better investment than the tram, but what isn't?)
Posted by Alan DeWitt | December 28, 2006 5:54 PM
I think the extension will help the noise problem, since the north runway is closer to the river, where noise bothers fewer people. Personally, I would not like it if non-stop flights to Tokyo and Frankfurt couldn't operate for lack of a long enough runway, nor would I feel good about pushing the safety margins using the shorter runway for those heavy flights. Still, to the point of this post, I wouldn't mind having public input to the process.
Posted by Allan L. | December 28, 2006 6:10 PM
There are 376 take-offs and 377 landings at PDX daily. Where does the extra plane go?
At last an explanation of what happened to those planes that were never actually flown into the Twin Towers. Those poor bastards aboard were brought to PDX, murdered by Cheney's Secret Service detail, and buried. Not Cleveland, folks: Portland.
Posted by lin qiao | December 28, 2006 7:15 PM
Where does the extra plane go?
Well, if the numbers are to be believed, it doesn't go anywhere. It stays here.
Posted by Allan L. | December 28, 2006 7:46 PM
So the other option is to either land planes on a runway that's too short, or stop commerce?
I guess I'm clueless... why is it bad they're going to improve the airport infrastructure?
Posted by Aaron B. Hockley | December 28, 2006 8:25 PM
Are these people still getting property tax dollars?
The Nickle
Posted by The Plugged Nickle | December 28, 2006 8:25 PM
Planes are sometimes towed out near the weather station and left overnight as they are cleaned and maintained for the next day.
I actually knew someone who used to work on the ground crew at PDX. Several times I was allowed to go into areas that were off limits to non-airport personal. One evening I rode in the cockpit of an American plane while it was being towed out to the weather station. It was kind of cool sitting in the co-pilots seat of a 747.
Posted by Anon | December 28, 2006 9:01 PM
Well, if the numbers are to be believed, it doesn't go anywhere. It stays here.
Right, but every day there's a surplus of one plane. That means in an average year there are 365 more landings than take-offs. That means 365 more planes on the ground at PDX. Where do they all go? The slough? Long term parking? Are they gonna sell them at the new Ikea?
Posted by Chris Snethen | December 28, 2006 10:39 PM
.... That means 365 more planes on the ground at PDX. Where do they all go?
They've been in the queue waiting to be repaired at the PDC-funded aircraft maintanance facility.
Posted by john rettig | December 28, 2006 11:42 PM
"They've been in the queue waiting to be repaired at the PDC-funded aircraft maintanance facility."
You mean the Oregon Investment Council funded aircraft facility?
Posted by PMG | December 29, 2006 8:54 AM
What's so bad about extending the runway?
Posted by Skinny City Girl | December 29, 2006 9:19 AM
Chris, there need not be an excess of one plane per day. First, the numbers given are averages so who knows how the actual tally goes. Second, there could be rounding. You could get 376 and 377 by rounding the numbers 376.49 and 376.51. That means you could be "gaining" 7 planes per year. That would be pretty easy to do if 7 cargo planes took off on December 31st of one year and didn't come back until at least January 1st. The second year would automatically gain 7 airplanes for rounding purposes, even if the planes originally started at the Portland Airport.
Posted by Jud | December 29, 2006 10:58 AM
So I looked at the flash presentation but don't understand your grievance, Jack. Traffic will be sent slightly north and concentrated on the north runway, but the planes will be making the same east-west approaches and takeoffs as they do for the south runway. What's the problem -- or, perhaps more precisely, what's the difference? The traffic is pushed slightly to the north. Is your gripe the fact of the traffic at all?
Posted by Auggie | December 29, 2006 11:12 AM
No -- my gripe is that no one's being told what is going to happen with the traffic patterns, and probably won't be until the "decision" is "made." And actually, it doesn't take a genius to see that the decision has already been made.
Read the post. It's about public involvement, or fake public involvement, to be more precise. Typical Portland.
Posted by Jack Bog | December 29, 2006 12:02 PM
Jack,
I wonder if the concerns you have might come out in the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) review. You haven't said explicitly what would bother you about the traffic patterns, but I'd guess it is the noise. If I'm not mistaken, noise pollution of that type would be covered in the environmental review.
But even besides that, it seems like in a diversion of traffic to the north runway, it's Vancouver which is more likley to take it in the shorts. People in (especially) western Vancouver are already pretty crabby about the flight patterns for the north runway, so I can only imagine they'll be even more upset about the bigger planes using those flight patterns. And somehow I don't think the Port of Portland will be all that open to listening to the complaints of Vancouver residents.
Actually, you can see the flight patterns for both East and West approaches at these two websites:
http://www.portofportland.com/Noise_Mgmt_West_Flow.aspx
http://www.portofportland.com/Noise_Mgmt_East_Flow.aspx
Noting how the flights get up and down, I can't imagine that switching from one runway to another will make much of a difference, given the scale difference between the distance separating the two runways and their relation to the metro area. The flight patterns for the two runways are basically identical, since they merge shortly after takeoff and diverge slightly before landing; there's not a radical difference between the flight paths for the two runways and, if anything, Vancouver will get it worse than Portland.
Posted by Jud | December 29, 2006 1:49 PM
Plugged Nickle, Bill Wyatt mentioned at a talk this summer that the Port doesn't receive any public funds for its operations. He also discussed the regional economic implications of being forced to change or limit flight patterns due to noise complaints--the Port has been very involved in discouraging residential development in places (read Vancouver & Linnton) where it could eventually corrode the Port's functions. He convinced me, at least, of the economic importance.
I feel for people who are negatively affected by a change in the flight path, but it gets harder to sympathize when more and more homes are built direclty in an established flight path--and people who buy them complain. It's a bit like the Pearl neighbors complaining about the train whistle.
Posted by Skinny City Girl | December 29, 2006 3:10 PM
the Port doesn't receive any public funds for its operations
Please. What, the airlines donate all that money to the Port voluntarily? Look it up -- when the government requires someone to pay money, that's called a tax, and taxes are public funds.
BTW, be careful if Wyatt offers you a cup of Kool-Aid.
the Port has been very involved in discouraging residential development in places (read Vancouver
And the folks in Vancouver give a rat's... what the Port of Portland thinks?
Posted by Jack Bog | December 29, 2006 7:20 PM
Thanks, Jack, for helping to spread the word about our project Web site for the North Runway extension. The project has been a focus of several public meetings over the past year, and the subject of Columbian and Oregonian articles, but we’re always looking for ways to reach new audiences.
The suggestion to include more detailed information about noise impacts is a good one: the project Web site went live in September, but preliminary noise studies won’t be complete until later in January. These preliminary studies will be shared at public meetings in January and February, and we’re asking to attend neighborhood or other small-group meetings with people who are interested in the project.
In the meantime, we’re trying to inform and talk to as many people as possible. And we’ve received some pretty good suggestions so far: public comments and concerns helped shape our preliminary noise study. Later this spring, we’ll begin a formal environmental review -- either an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement -- that will have its own public involvement component.
If you or your readers have questions or would like to learn more about the project, we’re always available. You can contact us at 503-460-4073 or rachel.wray@portofportland.com.
And thanks to everyone for their comments. A few things, however: noise closer to the river does impact people in Vancouver, and our preliminary noise studies have attempted to quantify if the extension would have any noticeable effect on neighborhoods across the Columbia. Auggie is correct that aircraft will follow the same departure procedure no matter which runway is used at take-off. And Jud captures why there are uneven numbers in the plane counts. But you, Jack, will still have to answer to the baggage handlers.
The Citizen Noise Advisory Committee will continue discussing the proposed extension at its next meeting Thursday, January 9, from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at PDX. Everyone is invited.
Posted by Rachel Wray, Port of Portland | January 2, 2007 3:57 PM
Typo in my last post: the CNAC meeting is on Thursday, January 11, from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m., at PDX.
Posted by Rachel Wray, Port of Portland | January 3, 2007 10:58 AM