General Infrastructure

I moved my top 2 posts to the logan relocation pitches thread.
 
That's fantastic Stick. A modern international airport should have been built decades ago outside of the city. Would have allowed a lot more space for expansion of the airport.

High speed rail to Boston. High speed rail to Plymouth. High speed rail to Worcester.

The junction of 93 and 95 in Norwood and Canton would have been a perfect place to put it.
 
I like it. Biggest problem is that nimbys would throw a hissy fit.
 
Can we get faster/more frequent Purple Line service to T.F. Green, any train service to Manchester Int'l, and those 10 Amtrak round-trips between Boston and Bradley first at a few hundred mil collectively before benchmarking demand for whether we're still in such dire need of mounting a fiercely uphill climb for a Route 128 pax airport requiring several billion individually?
 
I agree those are great but thats a whole other issue and a bandaid for a flawed system. This is a comprehensive solution to many issues plaguing Boston, that will for the forseeable future.

Those dont have much to do with the ENORMOUS amount of revenue that developable land the size of downtown, close to downtown, would have on solving housing, the budget, paying for infrastructure, getting rid of height caps, traffic, and allowing our airport to be accessible by every major highway in the state. Then the outer-outer loop would connect all of the commuter rail/Amtrak lines with eachother and all subways but blue assuming we bring green out to 95.

The value of that land would be in the trillions of dollars and would give downtown, waterfront, developable land bigger than downtown, to essentially solve housing and give an influx of cash that would allow us to do every single transit project we could possibly imagine. The benefits would be out of this world. Plus all the major airports are building new terminals costing billions so instead of tearing down and building one here, we could start from scratch there. I think when the time comes to rebuild at Logan would be a greattime to decide if building the new terminal in a new location would be better. This is not just an airport project this would fundamentally change almost everything about Boston for the better, forever.

Wed have plenty of room for that soccer stadium over there too plus a Revolution place type of development around the stadium. Maybe build a parking garage at the T stop that can also be used for the stadium and tailgating could still go down on the top floor just to a smaller degree. Putting it on the old Logan side of the station means the stadium + suffolk downs development are both accessible from that T stop. I think those would be some cool ways to kill every bird with 1 stone because I know people like tailgating but a parking lot in the city is a no go so a dual use garage for the station, stadium, suffolk down dev for commuters could be cool. The blue line is right there so people within the city would take transit + red-blue would exist from the enormous amount of money the city has.
 
Last edited:
Is the need for a second airport a transportation issue to be solved or an elite real estate empire-building scheme to be force-fed on the region?

You're being completely incoherent on this question, stick. One reflects a need, one reflects a resource power grab. They're not the same.
 
Its not a second airport... Im saying replace Logan. Replacing Logan and moving it to an area away from storm surge, rising seas, to the 1 viable area we have with commuter rail, Amtrak, and like 7 of the most important highways to commuters in the metro is not a real estate scheme. Its a future proof the city scheme. Moving Logan away from a choke point, where you have to go through a city to get to, under a harbor with limited roads to get there, and on the outer edge of the metro region, is why it would make sense for the future of the city. Boston is a couple hundred years old this is a vision to secure its place for the next 100,200 years, because its in a bad location and were going to run out of room eventually to move it.

I think all of that was about as thorough as it could be without making it an e-book. Its not a resource power grab, the land leftover is a massive benefit of moving something large, away from downtown.
 
Last edited:
stick n move said:
Its not a second airport... Im saying replace Logan. Replacing Logan and moving it to an area with the commuter rail, Amtrak, and like 7 of the most important highways to commuters in the metro is not a real estate scheme. I think all of that was about as thorough as it could be without making it an e-book. Its not a resource power grab, the land leftover is a massive benefit of moving something large, away from downtown.
Click to expand...


Then that's not an infrastructure proposal. It's not a transportation proposal, because we've still got a literal 4-5 transit projects left to enhance access to existing airports (Logan and otherwise). It expressedly serves zero of those needs.

It's an authoritarian real estate empire-building project to enrich a few on the backs of others. That's exactly how you're describing it. Please stop pretending there's a more noble cause motivating a megaproject of no identified public service need.
 
Nope. The real estate comes second. Moving the airport away from sea level rise and choke points is #1. Go back to the beginning asshole the initial question was “why is the airport so close again?” Its right up there to read genius. Thats what got me thinking why is it so close and what are the options to move it...

Your free to think whatever you want though, I personally could care less. Your not going to tell me what my motivations are though. Im not “pretending theres a noble cause” lol excuse my french but who the fuck are you to tell me what my motivations are? I dont like your attitude... bro, and to top it off your wrong. Its a freaking forum and Im just saying hey maybe itd be cool if _____ you need to chill out its not that serious.... at all.
 
stick n move said:
Nope. The real estate comes second. Moving the airport away from sea level rise and choke points is #1. Go back to the beginning asshole the initial question was “why is the airport so close again?” Its right up there to read genius. Thats what got me thinking why is it so close and what are the options to move it...

Your free to think whatever you want though, I personally could care less. Your not going to tell me what my motivations are though. Im not “pretending theres a noble cause” lol excuse my french but who the fuck are you to tell me what my motivations are? I dont like your attitude... bro, and to top it off your wrong. Its a freaking forum and Im just saying hey maybe itd be cool if _____ you need to chill out its not that serious.... at all.
Click to expand...

It is all well and good that you have some decent rationales for your location choice, but it is totally a political non-starter.

No one gets to build a major international airport in that close to a major city in an established suburb with decent density, even if you are replacing an existing general aviation airport. Won't happen in Norwood, won't happen in Lexington, won't happen in Beverly. Total political non-starter. (And I realize Norwood is better connected via rail, hence your choice.) Even Fort Deven was politically toxic.

New international airports get built in greenfield locations that minimize the NIMBY effect, which would be huge in Norwood. They are far away from city centers. That is just the political reality.

Also, concerning the issue of climate change and sea level rise, Logan is hardly the only real estate at risk. There must be billions in real estate value in central Boston that is at risk from sea level rise and storm surge. Moving the airport is a drop in the bucket. Solutions are needed that protect the entire city core. (Or are you proposing just abandoning all of central Boston?)
 
Yea I realize that its just something interesting to look at and break down. I posted under my posts before these responses that I moved it, its in crazy airport pitches..

Kentxie posted “Why is the airport so close again” when it takes just as long to get there as Seatac which is much further. So I had posted “because if it were as far as those other airports itd take twice as long”. Then I thought hmm I know Hanscom Field had a proposal to replace Logan before, let me see what Norwood has to work with- as opposed to F-Line feeling the need to call me a liar today. What a great guy... Anyways then it expanded into that novel written above the more I looked into it so I moved it to crazy airport pitches (because thats what it became) and here we are...
 
Last edited:
FWIW...I looked up the NHDOT Capitol Corridor rail study. North Station to Manchester Int'l clocks in at 1:09 on the proposed schedule, which runs local to Concord on the NH side of the border and express in MA stopping only at Anderson and Lowell (Concord envisioned as a separate service layer from Lowell/Nashua locals to filet travel times).

At bad traffic times that is time-competitive with Logan Express using Anderson as point of origin. And travel times could shrink to 60 mins or slightly less if the Lowell Line's track class were increased to support 90 MPH max speeds in MA for the Downeaster and NHDOT expresses.


Yes...there are readily available bolts to tighten that are cost-effective to mount. Multiple bolts, because speedier T.F. Green transit is a work-in-progress unto itself.
 
Nope. The real estate comes second. Moving the airport away from sea level rise and choke points is #1. Go back to the beginning asshole the initial question was “why is the airport so close again?” Its right up there to read genius. Thats what got me thinking why is it so close and what are the options to move it...

Your free to think whatever you want though, I personally could care less. Your not going to tell me what my motivations are though. Im not “pretending theres a noble cause” lol excuse my french but who the fuck are you to tell me what my motivations are? I dont like your attitude... bro, and to top it off your wrong. Its a freaking forum and Im just saying hey maybe itd be cool if _____ you need to chill out its not that serious.... at all.
Click to expand...


This is why I’ve lost my appetite for this website - the ABC gang, the ArchBoston Caustics. When I first happened upon viewing this website, I initially thought it would be populated with opinions by professionals in the architectural field. How silly of me!
It’s been hijacked by hackneyed purveyors of venom who think their opinions are absolutely 100% correct and should be followed through. It also seems as though at least one of these people have a poker in the fire concerning the Harbor Garage development.

A need for profanity in architectural discussions?

I’m too proud to allow myself to be addressed as some others who have been talked down to.
 
JeffDowntown said:
It is all well and good that you have some decent rationales for your location choice, but it is totally a political non-starter.

No one gets to build a major international airport in that close to a major city in an established suburb with decent density, even if you are replacing an existing general aviation airport. Won't happen in Norwood, won't happen in Lexington, won't happen in Beverly. Total political non-starter. (And I realize Norwood is better connected via rail, hence your choice.) Even Fort Deven was politically toxic.

New international airports get built in greenfield locations that minimize the NIMBY effect, which would be huge in Norwood. They are far away from city centers. That is just the political reality.

Also, concerning the issue of climate change and sea level rise, Logan is hardly the only real estate at risk. There must be billions in real estate value in central Boston that is at risk from sea level rise and storm surge. Moving the airport is a drop in the bucket. Solutions are needed that protect the entire city core. (Or are you proposing just abandoning all of central Boston?)
Click to expand...

Yeah based of the climate ready maps, Logan is relatively low risk compared to places like the rest of East Boston around maverick, the Waterfront, Seaport, even the South End.
 
EdMc said:
This is why I’ve lost my appetite for this website - the ABC gang, the ArchBoston Caustics. When I first happened upon viewing this website, I initially thought it would be populated with opinions by professionals in the architectural field. How silly of me!
It’s been hijacked by hackneyed purveyors of venom who think their opinions are absolutely 100% correct and should be followed through. It also seems as though at least one of these people have a poker in the fire concerning the Harbor Garage development.

A need for profanity in architectural discussions?

I’m too proud to allow myself to be addressed as some others who have been talked down to.
Click to expand...


I never get angry or use profanity, Im essentially ALWAYS level headed here, but F- Line feeling the need to go out of his way to call me a liar for no reason, then double down on it, really really REALLY pissed me off. Sorry bro but Im not just gonna let that slide... There was no reason for him to attack me the way he did, and the tone he uses towards pretty much everyone in the transit forum rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Sorry if it offended you, but the way in which he was going out of his way to call me a liar for literally no reason was bullshit... so were even.

Its just a forum, were having a friendly discussion here, I had not attacked anyone in this thread. In fact I was taking time out of my day to just have a friendly discussion about the airport. When he came after me is where it went left, sorry but Im not going to be called a liar... by anyone, especially online. He came at me and I responded... shit happens. Its whatever though... I posted a question in the general forum on how the blocking system works and if it works the way I hope it does hell be blocked and it wont happen again. We all have our opinions, but most people treat people with a mutual respect here... because nothing in here is that big a deal. So whatever...
 
Last edited:
DAVE said:
Yeah based of the climate ready maps, Logan is relatively low risk compared to places like the rest of East Boston around maverick, the Waterfront, Seaport, even the South End.
Click to expand...


Logan is basically a cluster of old Harbor Islands that had the space between them landfilled. The majority of it that's ex-island has good drainage. The "bonding" landfill less so, but being out in the Harbor it still drains faster than the landfilled bays which have very constrained outflow.
 
So, there's definitely a disconnect here between multiple types of posters. You have real architects, amateur architectural critics, urbanists, curious residents, transit advocates, hobbyists, etc., all interacting on the same playing field.

For people with a deep professional, legal, or personal understanding of these matters (be it architecture, public policy, transportation, etc.) the hobbyists can get damn tiresome. Or when you're an advocate who *lives* in these issues day-to-day, a thought-experiment becomes a wrong-headed priority that needs to be squashed.

Everyone needs to respond to each other's posts in good faith. Unless someone is obviously trolling and has a track record of trolling, assume their motivations are what they claim them to be. Some folks are just here to bounce ideas around. Some folks are here to cook up legitimate, actionable reforms. Others are here because they like pretty pictures.

Communication doesn't need to be hard. Listen (or read). Ask clarifying questions instead of making assumptions. Avoid setting people off with provocations, but address the substance of an argument rather than the style.

This reads as condescending, but when people fly in simply to post that they don't like this place because people are childish, churlish, and disrespectful, I think it needs to be pointed out.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
So, there's definitely a disconnect here between multiple types of posters. You have real architects, amateur architectural critics, urbanists, curious residents, transit advocates, hobbyists, etc., all interacting on the same playing field.

For people with a deep professional, legal, or personal understanding of these matters (be it architecture, public policy, transportation, etc.) the hobbyists can get damn tiresome. Or when you're an advocate who *lives* in these issues day-to-day, a thought-experiment becomes a wrong-headed priority that needs to be squashed.

Everyone needs to respond to each other's posts in good faith. Unless someone is obviously trolling and has a track record of trolling, assume their motivations are what they claim them to be. Some folks are just here to bounce ideas around. Some folks are here to cook up legitimate, actionable reforms. Others are here because they like pretty pictures.

Communication doesn't need to be hard. Listen (or read). Ask clarifying questions instead of making assumptions. Avoid setting people off with provocations, but address the substance of an argument rather than the style.

This reads as condescending, but when people fly in simply to post that they don't like this place because people are childish, churlish, and disrespectful, I think it needs to be pointed out.
Click to expand...

Precisely... it was a what if... a thought experiment, what have you, which I made CLEAR to say I had moved to crazy airport pitches.

The needs to be squashed part is where it goes left. Im just having a discussion about the future of the city, what is a 100 year plan for the airport with storm surge, rising sea levels, lack of land.. etc. I dont need to be shit on. Again.. it started out as a 1 lined response and grew pretty huge... so I moved it to crazy airport pitches...........
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Is the need for a second airport a transportation issue to be solved or an elite real estate empire-building scheme to be force-fed on the region?
Click to expand...

Why can't it be both? I think Kentxie raised an interesting point about Logan's accessibility being not as good as we tend to claim. Maybe that means it would work better for addressing the region's transportation needs if it were elsewhere. However, I get your overall point, that we can significantly improve regional transit without something so drastic and expensive. So I guess were the question addressed to me, I'd say that it's more about land use. And rather than seeing it as a land grab for fat cats, I am picturing Logan flats or whatever the neighborhood would be called as the Vancouver section of Boston.
 
Relocating Logan Airport out towards the west could be a great option and help Boston out of its Gridlock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top