"Oil prices good news for PDX neighborhors: no third runway"....

What the hell is a neighborhors? Something we can borrow to ride to work?

btw I heard this story on the radio a month ago, from a Port briefing before the City Council...

That project isn't dead; it's just sleeping . . . .

I'd rather have the golf course than one more runway.

Good.

Now lets hope the CRC goes away too.

I rather have a golf course or a park as well ;)

Great news! Now let’s also scrap the new interstate boondoggle multi billion dollar bridge too. No way is this region going to grow by another million in the next 20 years. That is as big of a lie as the city telling us that 6% of our traffic is composed of bicycles.

We ought to just dismantle the interstate and I-205 bridges and tell Vancouver commuters to swim or move closer to work.

And all those big nasty trucks can just drive around Oregon: Idaho needs the business and we don't

Then we can close the Port of Portland and shut down the railyard and our air quality will improve.

Capitalism is dying: let's be the first major city in the country to admit the carbon economy is doomed and start living in mud huts.

Weird, huh?

This is the right outcome, for the wrong reason.

The PoP is obligated to provide a public service to everyone they supposedly serve. Yet nowhere in the Trib article is there evidence that the Port views anyone beyond their lease-paying customers (airlines) as their customer.

They will be back with this issue.

I wish the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) replacement bridge project were dropped. By the time PDX cityhall is appeased in re-making the bridge with eloquence and elaborate design we'll be lucky if the thing doesn't end up costing $8 billion, and not just $4.2 billion.

Isn't an airport expanding a good idea?

If you buy property near an airport, shouldn't noise be an expectation?

I like wise development. Not PDC, but what bad things can happen with a third runway. I see only benefits, where an airport is already located.

Where should the Port expand when the opportunity arises? If they need more air travel -- where should they plan their expansion?

It seems to me airport ought to have priortity near the airport.

Maybe container shipping would return to POrtland if our facilities were better... Or are these two items not even part of the same discussion.

My rabbit ears tell me that Allan is correct.

Speaking of airports and air travel, just what is the world coming to when even cool kids in their early 20s with really great jobs (a blogger! and a barista!) can't afford to consume vast quantities of fossil fuels and spew tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in a perpetual quest for diversion and amusement? A sad, sad world for one thing ....

Should we take up a collection for them?
==================================

Among those who have decided to forgo vacations entirely are Winona Dimeo-Ediger, 23, a blogger in Portland, Ore., and her boyfriend, Nick Castro, 22, a barista at Starbucks. Only a few months ago, they were
planning for 2008 to be an “epic” summer of travel. They were going to set out on a Kerouac-esque journey to traverse the country: flying to Boston, then to Chicago, and also taking a road trip to Montana, to
revel in “the wide open spaces” of the West.

Then reality intruded. The couple checked prices for airline tickets to Boston, and found they started at $500, Ms. Dimeo-Ediger recalled. They waited a week, hoping fares would settle back toward earth. Instead, they skyrocketed. So much for Boston. On to Chicago.

“Then the Chicago tickets jumped a couple of hundred dollars,” she said. “Forget Chicago.”

Still, they clung to their Montana road trip. They began to invite “more and more people, to split the cost,” she said. “But then, to make it affordable, it would have been like one of those clown cars — 50 people in a Honda. It wouldn’t have worked.” They ended up just splitting the cost of a dinner date at a pasta place near their home.

=============
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/fashion/20bummer.html?scp=3&sq=travel%20costs&st=cse

Has anybody else noticed the change in flight paths over the last year? There is supposed to be a public process before any changes in flight path are approved, yet they happened anyway.

This followed a cryptic comment from Sam Adams at a community forum about he believes everybody should share the noise from air traffic.

The FAA official flight path for large jets taking off to the west is supposed to be straight over industrial N. PDX out to Kelly Point. That keeps the noise away from residential areas. Over the last year, smaller planes have begun taking off, hitting I5, and ascending from there over Kenton and Arbor Lodge. Large jets alternately go out to Kelly Point as they should, or get about half way and bank south and around eastward.

Why the airport would do this is obvious. It clears the flight path and allows more take-offs, but it also shifts the noise impact to residential areas. The problem is, this change seems to have been conveniently made with no public input process, as they are required by law to do.

Might have something to do with why they are backing away from the runway project.

I live in Parkrose and have had more planes flying directly over the neighborhood instead of in the distance over the Columbia as before...makes me wonder.

i live near 42nd & Prescott. we have regular/daily early morning air traffic.

small prop type planes fly right over my house starting weekday mornings at about 6:30am, i've heard they are doing business, they're not joy riders.

they fly quite low too. i've seen some really low flying small planes flying over my house and also over parts of concordia neighborhood.