Logan Airport Capital Projects

stellarfun said:
They have started doing excavation work near B-15. I assume this is a first step leading to consolidation of American on the west side of B.
Click to expand...

Yes. Vertical construction begins in the fall and the building opens late next year.
 
mass88 said:
Are there any renders of what that side of B will look like once all of this work is done?
Click to expand...

http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=273222&postcount=7

datadyne007 said:
Terminal B Airline Consolidation

https://www.massport.com/capitalpro...-C1/L1375-C1 CM at Risk Supplemental Info.pdf

u7vpBZgh.png

xl9EKHQh.png

V045FXhh.png

kd4Damsh.png

XtRbpGuh.png

4gX5vPwh.png

wz8whVVh.png
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for posting Data. Any renders of what the exterior will look like?
 
As the article notes, the Federal Government explicitly bans this, precisely because if local governments could access parking fees and other aviation revenue nothing would ever get built at airports...

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...nnel-upkeep/CfNWB1ggwmo9QJdkFOyFnJ/story.html

Also, does the CLF really think that jacking up parking fees even higher will drive people to take transit? The transit at Logan is pretty saturated as it is - more likely it would drive people to take Uber. If you want to improve transit usage at Logan, you need an APM to the Blue Line or a station under the Central Parking Garage.

FWIW, Massport has already made the Silver Line free. Asking them to do more approaches vindictiveness.
 
datadyne007 said:
Jim Aloisi (who established the Metropolitan Highway System & MassDOT) wrote a rebuttal for Commonwealth:

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/politics/rep-strauss-idea-really-bad-one/
Click to expand...

A nice column, and strongly worded, but I would want to add one thing: Massport still needs to improve the freaking airport! It's not like they take $140M per year in parking revenue and use it to fund a white elephant - Logan's improvements over the past decade (and the coming decade) are a significant economic driver for Boston and for Massachusetts (see Electric, General).

I want to see Terminal B and Terminal E improvements on-schedule, and as Aloisi says, the revenue to fund the MHS (which isn't running out of money, btw, so I'm not sure where this is coming from in the first place) should come from the MHS users through tolls or gas taxes.

Also, is the argument that Massport owes money because their new SBWTC is putting MORE pressure on the Ted Williams Tunnel? Isn't it the opposite? The point of it is to take lots of individual cars out of the tunnel and replace them with more space efficient shuttle buses.
 
I'm skeptical of the 'federal law prohibits' angle. Money is fungible, and Massport revenue already supports a network of public parks, and it has historically owned transportation infrastructure like the Tobin. It owns streets in Southie and Eastie.

Aloisi's argument is that massport's surplus should in part be used to expand / improve transit access to the airport.

Massport is an artificial entity. Ultimately, all the money - including the money from developing land in Southie - belongs to the commonwealth. Its just happens that Massport revenues an easily-accessible pot that money that is separate from the general fund, so it makes it easy for polticians and advocates to frame artificial trade-offs between a constrained set of ivnestment options.
 
CSTH said:
I'm skeptical of the 'federal law prohibits' angle. Money is fungible, and Massport revenue already supports a network of public parks, and it has historically owned transportation infrastructure like the Tobin. It owns streets in Southie and Eastie.

Aloisi's argument is that massport's surplus should in part be used to expand / improve transit access to the airport.

Massport is an artificial entity. Ultimately, all the money - including the money from developing land in Southie - belongs to the commonwealth. Its just happens that Massport revenues an easily-accessible pot that money that is separate from the general fund, so it makes it easy for polticians and advocates to frame artificial trade-offs between a constrained set of ivnestment options.
Click to expand...

Not quite accurate, IMO. It's not about artificial or real entities. Federal law prohibits the use of more than a set percentage of aviation revenue on non-aviation projects. Full stop. It doesn't matter whether a non-airport-specific entity (like a city) directly owns and runs the airport - it's about where the money is from.

Now, Massport has been required to spend money on non-aviation assets, but I assume that money either fell into the allowable percentage or came from other sources. Remember, Massport runs a port and makes money from its real estate. Revenue from those sources is not limited. That's part of why Massport fought so hard to keep Tobin Bridge tolls, as Aloisi describes in his piece.

It's not about artificial trade-offs - it's about real ones. Massport doesn't just sit on its revenue, it spends it. Logan parking money pays for Logan, Hanscom, and Worcester Airports, as well as the Port of Boston (which Aloisi says is a loss on its own). These are pretty critical public functions (with the possible exception of Worcester).

My question is: what's this legislator's angle here? AFAIK, the MHS is not bankrupt, so this new revenue stream would free up cash for something else. What is it? The fact that he's from Mattapoisett is something of a clue (cough-SCR-cough).
 
Equilibria said:
Not quite accurate, IMO. It's not about artificial or real entities. Federal law prohibits the use of more than a set percentage of aviation revenue on non-aviation projects. Full stop. It doesn't matter whether a non-airport-specific entity (like a city) directly owns and runs the airport - it's about where the money is from.

Now, Massport has been required to spend money on non-aviation assets, but I assume that money either fell into the allowable percentage or came from other sources. R
Click to expand...

Thanks...so does parking revenue count as aviation revenue?
 
mass88 said:
https://ny.curbed.com/2017/8/8/16115348/laguardia-airport-delta-interior-renderings

How is it that LaGuardia will be essentially completely rebuilt in less time than the modest Terminal E expansion?
Click to expand...

Because they're spending billions and are already U/C, where Terminal E is just entering construction documents?

CSTH said:
Thanks...so does parking revenue count as aviation revenue?
Click to expand...

Yes.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-02-16/pdf/99-3529.pdf

See p. 7716 if you're interested.
 
Another project - full rehab of Terminal C curb areas and B/C roadways to coincide with the optimization and B/C connector.

https://www.massport.com/capitalpro...8-D1/L1548-D1 Consultant Briefing 8-10-17.ppt

A new canopy should do wonders for Terminal C. They've done nice work recognizing that the ticketing hall is an attractive space that should be preserved and working to enhance it.

Now if only they'd do the stupid piers...
 
They need to expand the drop off area for terminal C. It's a cluster fuck during busy times.
 
Equilibria said:
Another project - full rehab of Terminal C curb areas and B/C roadways to coincide with the optimization and B/C connector.

https://www.massport.com/capitalpro...8-D1/L1548-D1 Consultant Briefing 8-10-17.ppt

A new canopy should do wonders for Terminal C. They've done nice work recognizing that the ticketing hall is an attractive space that should be preserved and working to enhance it.

Now if only they'd do the stupid piers...
Click to expand...

They need to demolish and completely rebuild both piers in Terminal C and the old AA side of Terminal B.
 
mass88 said:
They need to demolish and completely rebuild both piers in Terminal C and the old AA side of Terminal B.
Click to expand...

And the challenge is how do you keep JetBlue operational (largest carrier at Logan) while you do a total demo on either Terminal C pier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top