Logan Airport Capital Projects

dshoost88 said:
A below-ground people mover that's about 2,000 feet + elevators/escalators could probably reasonably passengers post-security between Terminals A & E. Logan's already got the post-security underground infrastructure at Terminal A for the access to the satellite terminal--you could house a board station at/near the bottom of escalator cavern there in Terminal A. Terminal E escalator/elevator well could rise near the new TSA security checkpoint and Duty Free area in the expanded terminal. It would obviously be the biggest boon to Delta and Sky Alliance partners, especially for domestic to international departure transfers.

FWIW, I did the walk once for fun from Gate B12 to E12 and it took about 25 minutes at a brisk pace. A future post-security walk from Gates A22/A13 to E19 would most certainly be an hour walk for most using forecast/existing infrastructure.
View attachment 49742
Click to expand...
Given that Delta probably knows exactly what the demand would be for such a people-mover from how many bus riders they get, I can't imagine it's enough if they aren't lobbying for one.

The landside people mover, which would eliminate the need for the vast majority of Massport shuttle buses, should be a much higher priority.

Building on my earlier question about why the A-B connector will be so limited, I'm just not sure what benefit that provides to Massport if they can't have gate areas on it. The B-C and C-E connectors (and the B-B endcap) all allowed for airlines (Jetblue and American) to spread into neighboring terminals if they outgrew their space. In this case, Delta may run out of gates, but would they really use the Air Canada part of B if getting there required crossing the connector to another terminal (not to mention the confusion from checking in at A to leave from B, as was noted when we discussed B-C connector gate numbers upthread). It's not a smooth transition, particularly with A being such a self-contained unit.
 
Last edited:
Is there a universe where Massport contemplates building a unified terminal, rather than applying more baling wire to the multiple terminal layout?
 
RandomWalk said:
Is there a universe where Massport contemplates building a unified terminal, rather than applying more baling wire to the multiple terminal layout?
Click to expand...
You would be looking at a rebuild on the same order of magnitude as LaGuardia. LaGuardia's rebuild is costing $8 Billion. I don't think anyone is suggesting throwing that amount of money at Massport.
 
TheRatmeister said:
Probably not.
Click to expand...
Thinking about it now, the hub-and-spoke terminal design (which is similar to a lot of US airports) is purely a SOV-centric design, with the parking garage in the center. It's designed so that people parking can reach the entire airport in a reasonable walk. Imagine we replace that with a transit hub (i.e. rail and bus station) as the epicenter and instead have the car drop-off on the outskirts (where transit users have a short walk and drivers have to take a shuttle to the terminals).
 
JeffDowntown said:
You would be looking at a rebuild on the same order of magnitude as LaGuardia. LaGuardia's rebuild is costing $8 Billion. I don't think anyone is suggesting throwing that amount of money at Massport.
Click to expand...
Even that project is keeping a lot of the terminal facilities in the same location and just renovating them. A full rebuild for Logan would almost certainly be even more costly.
 
TheRatmeister said:
Even that I don't think is changing any of the terminal locations, just extensively renovating them all.
Click to expand...
No the LaGuardia project is a total rebuild. All new terminals built between/above the existing terminals while the existing terminals stayed in use. Pretty amazing engineering and construction coordination -- and wicked expensive. Also B, C, D terminals collapsed to two that are pretty connected land-side, so some consolidation.
 
JeffDowntown said:
You would be looking at a rebuild on the same order of magnitude as LaGuardia. LaGuardia's rebuild is costing $8 Billion. I don't think anyone is suggesting throwing that amount of money at Massport.
Click to expand...
If Massachusetts had $8 billion for transportation infrastructure, the NSRL would be a far better way to spend it.
 
HenryAlan said:
If Massachusetts had $8 billion for transportation infrastructure, the NSRL would be a far better way to spend it.
Click to expand...
To be clear, the Current Massachusetts Capital Investments Plan for 2024-2028 represents nearly $16 billion of infrastructure investment. The art of transportation planning for these big bucks boils down to identifying project need(s); scoping and advancing design of projects consistent with regional/statewide planning goals; project readiness to deliver for construction; funding availability (specifically by funding colors--i.e. certain available state/federal funds can only be spent on certain project types); and then fitting that all into a fiscally constrained program. Decision makers can only plan for projects in the near term that subscribe to all of that criteria.

That said, if you feel that strongly about NSRL, Massport infrastructure, or any other surface transportation investments, keep your eyes peeled for when the 2025-2029 CIP goes out for public comment next month and weigh in. MassDOT not only listens, but is required to provide a response to all comments received on the CIP. More info on CIP here.
 
sneijder said:
I wish we had more LEX's within 128 as the MBTA connections are underwhelming. At least they seem to be prioritizing bus travel and it needs some sort of queue jump to get into the Ted Williams during the upcoming tunnel closure. I could see LEX getting good ridership from Harvard Square, Kendall Square, Newton Corner, Brookline Village, Forest Hills, etc. Since they cannot build a direct rail connection to the terminals, an express bus will always be faster.
Click to expand...

I agree!

Forest Hills, Alewife, and Riverside jump out at me as the most logical additions.
 
Equilibria said:
Building on my earlier question about why the A-B connector will be so limited, I'm just not sure what benefit that provides to Massport if they can't have gate areas on it. The B-C and C-E connectors (and the B-B endcap) all allowed for airlines (Jetblue and American) to spread into neighboring terminals if they outgrew their space. In this case, Delta may run out of gates, but would they really use the Air Canada part of B if getting there required crossing the connector to another terminal (not to mention the confusion from checking in at A to leave from B, as was noted when we discussed B-C connector gate numbers upthread). It's not a smooth transition, particularly with A being such a self-contained unit.
Click to expand...
It provides benefit to passengers. No one likes disconnected terminals, and it limits the amenities passengers can access.

Terminal A in particular has pretty mediocre amenities. No lounges and the fewest food/beverage options. Getting access to B is a pretty good improvement for someone with a long layover or the like.
 
millerm277 said:
and the fewest food/beverage options
Click to expand...
Terminal E is somehow worse in this category, actually. If I'm ever hungry in Terminal E I'll usually walk the 10-15 mins to the Potbelly in Terminal C.

Terminal E is however tied for the most Legal Sea Foods with Terminal B, so there's that I guess.
 
millerm277 said:
It provides benefit to passengers. No one likes disconnected terminals, and it limits the amenities passengers can access.

Terminal A in particular has pretty mediocre amenities. No lounges and the fewest food/beverage options. Getting access to B is a pretty good improvement for someone with a long layover or the like.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to airline lounges? If so, Delta has 2 in terminal A.

Also, Fox & Flight finally opened in the Satellite in A. I felt like it was being built out for a decade. I did a double take the other day when I saw it was open.
 
RandomWalk said:
Is there a universe where Massport contemplates building a unified terminal, rather than applying more baling wire to the multiple terminal layout?
Click to expand...

That ship has sailed. Massport would need to fill in modest portions of Boston Harbor (that's a moonshot) and they've already spent billions on making upgrades to Logan over the last 10-12 years. Would it be nice? Of course. But given the amount of money they've pumped into Logan and the sheer cost, it won't happen for decades, if ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top