Logan Airport Capital Projects

In 2022 per the ESPR it was between 11.5% and 18.5% depending on what you count as a "private bus." Limo/van services accounted for 4.3% and courtesy shuttles were 2.5%, I'm not sure if they should be included or excluded. If you really wanted to fudge the numbers you could argue that people arriving by rental car and then using Massport buses counted, in which case the scheduled transit modeshare for 2022 was over 25%. Given that they're touting 22% as a new record I don't think they're doing that at least.
 
737900er said:
"22% of Logan Airport passengers used MBTA, Logan Express or private bus – a new record"

Does this seem higher than other metrics I've seen quoted on this forum?
Click to expand...
I would have expected that to be much higher percentage. Personally, I can't even recall the last time I actually drove into Logan. Typically it's bus service.
 
GreenLineEnthusiast said:
A lot of talk about ground transportation improvements but no mention of the shelved blue line people mover :(
I shall remain hopeful for one day!
Click to expand...

Hopefully in the next 6-8 years, Massport builds a APM to connect all terminals, the CONRAC and the blue line station. If the Blue-Red connector gets built, that will hopefully lead to more people opting to red-blue-APM to get to Logan. I get the feeling some are turned off by the thought of having to take the red to SS, then get on the silver line.
 
A couple of new renders of the proposed terminal E garage, now the North Garage to go with The extant Central & West garages from the contracting documents. 10 stories, 4-5000 spaces, 900k sqft. Contracts envision a 2030 completion.
1000038327.jpg

1000038329.jpg

Also new renders of permanent Danvers Logan Express building, replacing the current collection of trailers:
1000038321.jpg
1000038323.jpg
 
Last edited:
Justbuildit said:
I get it, it’s a transit hub, we need parking, but man that spot would’ve been perfect for a new airport hotel with direct bridge into Terminal E. Logan could absolutely support another (and nicer) hotel on the premises.
Click to expand...
I have mixed feelings about the parking expansion, but I feel like I have equally mixed feelings about terminal-adjacent "Airport Hotels" when we're talking space-constrained airports close in to metro areas, in terms of being the best long-term planning either.

Some disconnected thoughts, though:

- They're both big, expensive things that are hard to rearrange in the future, and the hotel may have a longer planned lifespan (or at least more complications to tearing down, with leases to outside operators/contracts) than the parking deck has.

- Many "peers" seem to have none or 1 as well - LGA, DCA have none. EWR, JFK, SFO have 1. (And JFK's is kind of a special case of repurposing a disused, protected structure rather than necessarily being desired).

- I don't know this answer but I do wonder if a building of that height in that location would have issues with aircraft noise on those top floors that rise above the terminal height. You're talking being what, barely 300ft from the engines of whatever's parked at E12 or the like?

- I'm not sure encouraging more "airport hotel" stays is really in the interest of the host city.
 
millerm277 said:
- I'm not sure encouraging more "airport hotel" stays is really in the interest of the host city.
Click to expand...
Boston is desperately short on hotel rooms, I have to imagine at least some demand from flight crews is spilling out into Seaport and downtown. Parking space can be distributed across the state as part of a Logan Express expansion, hotel space cannot.
millerm277 said:
- I don't know this answer but I do wonder if a building of that height in that location would have issues with aircraft noise on those top floors that rise above the terminal height. You're talking being what, barely 300ft from the engines of whatever's parked at E12 or the like?
Click to expand...
I mean since plane noise isn't really a problem inside the terminals, it's clearly a solvable problem, presumably with lots of sound deadening in the walls. (Obviously you wouldn't want to camp on the roof but I don't think that's a super popular place to sleep generally.)
millerm277 said:
- Many "peers" seem to have none or 1 as well - LGA, DCA have none. EWR, JFK, SFO have 1. (And JFK's is kind of a special case of repurposing a disused, protected structure rather than necessarily being desired).
Click to expand...
Okay but let's compare not just hotels on the airport itself, but hotels within ~1.5-2 miles (or on the Airtrain in the case of JFK). The only difference between an on-property hotel and an off-property one is that Massport or whatever airport authority doesn't get a cut from the off-property ones. Frankly I think it paints the opposite picture and shows a clear need for more hotels, despite the... lackluster methodology.
Airport# of Nearby Hotels
BOS~10, depends on how you count Seaport
LGA9
JFK~15, depending on how you count it
EWR~20
PHL~20
DCA14
BWI~15
IAD~26
SFO~20
 
Last edited:
TheRatmeister said:
Boston is desperately short on hotel rooms, I have to imagine at least some demand from flight crews is spilling out into Seaport and downtown. Parking space can be distributed across the state as part of a Logan Express expansion, hotel space cannot.

I mean since plane noise isn't really a problem inside the terminals, it's clearly a solvable problem, presumably with lots of sound deadening in the walls. (Obviously you wouldn't want to camp on the roof but I don't think that's a super popular place to sleep generally.)

Okay but let's compare not just hotels on the airport itself, but hotels within ~1.5-2 miles (or on the Airtrain in the case of JFK). The only difference between an on-property hotel and an off-property one is that Massport or whatever airport authority doesn't get a cut from the off-property ones. Frankly I think it paints the opposite picture and shows a clear need for more hotels, despite the... lackluster methodology.
Airport# of Nearby Hotels
BOS6
LGA9
JFK~15, depending on how you count it
EWR~20
PHL~20
DCA14
BWI~15
IAD~26
SFO~20
Click to expand...
So I have a friend who's a captain at one of the legacy carriers - it's less overflow, more contractually required. Their union contracts tend to specify that for an overnight exceeding a certain length (I seem to recall 14 hours), they were to be booked in a hotel in the CBD of the major city that airport serves. The 4-14 hour range could be booked in airport proximate hotels, but at a place like JFK, that means if they have a short turn they might be in Queens, for an actual overnight they're in Manhattan. In my friends case, their BOS hotel is the Copley Marriott. Same thing applies to most of the international carries flying into Boston, where their crews might be on 48hr layovers for rest.
 
Stlin said:
So I have a friend who's a captain at one of the legacy carriers - it's less overflow, more contractually required. Their union contracts tend to specify that for an overnight exceeding a certain length (I seem to recall 14 hours), they were to be booked in a hotel in the CBD of the major city that airport serves. The 4-14 hour range could be booked in airport proximate hotels, but at a place like JFK, that means if they have a short turn they might be in Queens, for an actual overnight they're in Manhattan. In my friends case, their BOS hotel is the Copley Marriott. Same thing applies to most of the international carries flying into Boston, where their crews might be on 48hr layovers for rest.
Click to expand...
Interesting, that's useful information about flight crews. Ultimately though, I don't think it really changes the conclusion. Boston is short on hotel space, and Logan has fewer hotels than most of its peers. Hotels need to be built near where people want to go, while parking (provided a shuttle is provided) does not. Therefore, it would be better to use the space at Logan for a hotel, and build the parking further out and connect it to Logan with new or existing Logan Express routes.
 
TheRatmeister said:
Airport# of Nearby Hotels
BOS~10, depends on how you count Seaport
LGA9
JFK~15, depending on how you count it
EWR~20
PHL~20
DCA14
BWI~15
IAD~26
SFO~20
Click to expand...

The number of total rooms would be the more accurate metric but you still can’t make much of a comparison without exploring other factors that might make the area around one particular airport a more robust hotel market than another like business activity, local population density and demographics, proximity to CBD, etc.
 
BosDevelop said:
I thought construction was supposed to start in 2026. If that is still correct, 4 years to build a garage?
Click to expand...
4 years to build a nearly million-square-foot garage... at an active airport that handles ~44,000,000 passengers annually... and likely requires utility relocation... and requires construction staging and mitigation for throughput of passengers... and anything else I'm missing. Four years is at least a realistic timeframe.
 
That is a gigantic parking garage. While I am torn on providing additional parking, I view it as a larger subsidy that can go to improving Logan Express service and possibly other services within the terminal. Parking at airports is essentially a money game and Logan is playing that game. As for the airport adjacent Hotel, I also don't disagree with the sentiments, but I do wonder if the operator for the Logan Airport Hilton has anything in their ground lease / any agreement with Massport about right of first refusal on bringing another airport adjacent hotel to the property. Those types of development deals can be quite involved and who knows what language was built into that agreement back in the early 2000's. One interesting tidbit to the parking versus hotel discussion is who parks their car at the airport when travelling internationally? I understand there is alot of money amongst the 44 to 54 million passengers, but paying to park while travelling internationally seems like quite the extravagant expense. Obviously Logan has minimal land to make improvements, so not all travelers using this garage would be utilizing Terminal E, but it is definitely a hike to get to any other terminal from this new garage.

On a different note, it appears the renderings are showing a large solar array across the top floor which appears to act as a canopy above cars parked up there. That is a big energy plus for the airport. I'm also intrigued by the façade material that is being represented. I wonder if it is another installation of a kinetic facade that was installed on previous parking garage project.

Also, forgive me for not knowing Terminal E as well, but is the canopy above the arrivals/departure car lanes part of the garage project? I presume yes based on Google Maps.
1743534183551.png


dshoost88 said:
4 years to build a nearly million-square-foot garage... at an active airport that handles ~44,000,000 passengers annually... and likely requires utility relocation... and requires construction staging and mitigation for throughput of passengers... and anything else I'm missing. Four years is at least a realistic timeframe.
Click to expand...
I think you're being quite fair. I'll be curious about the construction sequencing for building this structure while maintaining access from Central Parking garage. I would think there would be a disruption at some point, but maybe that is why we are seeing multiple skybridges to connect the garage to the terminal in order to provide connection during the sequence. I think access to the utility plant should be relatively straight forward, but who knows where those underground lines are in reality and could be quite a headache.
1743534292798.png

1743534530206.png
 
JeffDowntown said:
Close the airport, and you can have it in 6 months.
Click to expand...
I wasn't asking for it in 6 months or to close the airport for any construction. But 4 years seems a little long to me for an above ground parking garage even in the middle of an operating airport.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top