Logan Airport Capital Projects

[Equilibria]

I would first like to see Logan address "getting stuck behind cars" (at curbs) by imposing a vehicle-entry fee at the airport. This could shift a lot of personal vehicle trips from "Ill pick you up at the airport" to "I'll pick you up at the T"

Then I'd like to see a BRT Gold Line from NS/Haymarket to the terminals.

*then* do the APM.

So your solution to people being slightly inconvenienced is to make them REALLY inconvenienced or to charge them out the nose? I'm sure they'll thank you.

In any case, I'm not sure that MBTA service at the airport can support this. The Silver Line works only outside of rush hour, and while there are some ways to speed that up - the State Police ramp and T under D - That still doesn't fix traffic in the tunnel itself. Shifting riders to the Silver Line also crams more buses full in the SBW, further compromising transit to that neighborhood. The Blue Line has excess capacity, but getting there is such a pain in the neck that not a lot of people do it, which is the whole problem that the APM is meant to address.

And again, if this is aviation revenue, Massport CANNOT DO ANYTHING ELSE WITH THIS MONEY. They cannot fund a Gold Line. They cannot build Red/Blue. They cannot do T under D. We also don't know how this would be funded or what the tradeoffs would be. It's possible that they'd raise fees, but they haven't said anything about that yet.

Most likely, the funding for this comes from parking revenue, which means that Massport would be taking money from drivers and using it to fund improved transit connections. The exact thing you all want them to do.

So what's the issue here, besides a Paul Ryan-esque need to never do expensive things?

 

[JumboBuc]

And again, if this is aviation revenue, Massport CANNOT DO ANYTHING ELSE WITH THIS MONEY. They cannot fund a Gold Line. They cannot build Red/Blue. They cannot do T under D. We also don't know how this would be funded or what the tradeoffs would be. It's possible that they'd raise fees, but they haven't said anything about that yet.

I always find this line of reasoning highly suspect. Is it truly the case that 100% of all Logan operations are funded by "aviation revenue"? If not, then this money can be put to other uses.

If there is some division of Logan operations that are funded by non-"aviation revenue" funds (say, the $200k+ per year that Staties make to shoo cars away curbside, or the billions that subsidize TSA every year), then these non-aviation funds sponsoring aviation operations can be replaced with "aviation revenue." The non-aviation funds can then be put towards something else. It's a simple accounting exercise.

For example, airline and passenger fees only cover about 30% of TSA's budget; the rest is covered by the taxpayer. If "aviation revenue" is used to pay for TSA, that'll free up taxpayer funds for other causes.

The only way this wouldn't be possible is if 100% of aviation expenses are covered 100% by dedicated "aviation revenue." If you define your scope of "aviation expenses" appropriately broadly then there's no way that this is the case.

 

[Equilibria]

I always find this line of reasoning highly suspect. Is it truly the case that 100% of all Logan operations are funded by "aviation revenue"? If not, then this money can be put to other uses.

If there is some division of Logan operations that are funded by non-"aviation revenue" funds (say, the $200k+ per year that Staties make to shoo cars away curbside, or the billions that subsidize TSA every year), then these non-aviation funds sponsoring aviation operations can be replaced with "aviation revenue." The non-aviation funds can then be put towards something else. It's a simple accounting exercise.

For example, airline and passenger fees only cover about 30% of TSA's budget; the rest is covered by the taxpayer. If "aviation revenue" is used to pay for TSA, that'll free up taxpayer funds for other causes.

The only way this wouldn't be possible is if 100% of aviation expenses are covered 100% by dedicated "aviation revenue." If you define your scope of "aviation expenses" appropriately broadly then there's no way that this is the case.

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

"Airport revenue may be used for: 1. The capital or operating costs of the airport, the local airport system, or other local facilities owned or operated by the airport owner or operator and directly and substantially related to the air transportation of passengers or property. Such costs may include reimbursements to a state or local agency for the costs of services actually received and documented, subject to the terms of this policy statement. Operating costs for an airport may be both direct and indirect may include all of the expenses and costs that are recognized under the generally accepted accounting principles and practices that apply to the airport enterprise funds of state and local government entities.

It's possible that a Gold Line could meet this designation, but that's it. I don't know exactly how Logan funds every part of its operations, but I suspect that the APM would be paid off with the new parking revenue from the 5,000 new spaces agreed upon with the CLF (the APM itself was a concession to CLF in that agreement).

 

[FenwayResident]

In the grand scheme of things $1B is not that much money for a project like this. For some context there were about 38 million passengers going through BOS in 2017 - that comes out to $26.31 per passenger. This entire project could be paid by charging an extra $26.31 per passenger for a single year - the equivalent of a cab ride to Back Bay.

Of course in reality the cost of this project would be spread out over decades. If we assume a 30-year lifetime of the APM then the per-passenger cost is less than a dollar. If you asked someone "would you pay less than a dollar to improve the traffic and connectivity to the MBTA?" it would take either stupidity or greed to say no.

 

[JumboBuc]

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



It's possible that a Gold Line could meet this designation, but that's it. I don't know exactly how Logan funds every part of its operations, but I suspect that the APM would be paid off with the new parking revenue from the 5,000 new spaces agreed upon with the CLF (the APM itself was a concession to CLF in that agreement).

We put up this firewall preventing "aviation funds" from paying for anything other than airport-related expenses, but then we allow billions in non-aviation funds to also pay for airport-related expenses. The restriction on funding sources only works in one direction. That makes no sense.

If airports (rather than the Federal Government) had to pay for the services of (for example) the TSA, then that would 100% be considered an "operating cost of the airport." Instead, Federal tax dollars pay for the TSA to the tune of billions of dollars per year and agencies like Massport end up with an "aviation fund" surplus.

The word "Federal" should be added to the "Such costs may include reimbursements to a state or local agency for the costs of services actually received and documented" clause. Then, Massport could pay the Feds for "services actually received and documented" and the State could receive a reciprocal grant to spend as they see fit.

 

[Equilibria]

We put up this firewall preventing "aviation funds" from paying for anything other than airport-related expenses, but then we allow billions in non-aviation funds to also pay for airport-related expenses. The restriction on funding sources only works in one direction. That makes no sense.

If airports (rather than the Federal Government) had to pay for the services of (for example) the TSA, then that would 100% be considered an "operating cost of the airport." Instead, Federal tax dollars pay for the TSA to the tune of billions of dollars per year and agencies like Massport end up with an "aviation fund" surplus.

The word "Federal" should be added to the "Such costs may include reimbursements to a state or local agency for the costs of services actually received and documented" clause. Then, Massport could pay the Feds for "services actually received and documented" and the State could receive a reciprocal grant to spend as they see fit.

Okay, but changing the law is a different issue than whether or not to build an APM.

 

[cden4]

Question about the SL1: Currently, it only loops around the arrivals level, and people get off AND on the bus at each stop, correct? What if the SL1 looped around the departures level to drop passengers off and then looped around the arrivals level to pick passengers up? Would that be more efficient from a bus loading/unloading situation, or would the additional travel time in distance and traffic eliminate those savings? It would mean that the bus emptied out on the first loop and then filled back up on the second loop, which I think would be much more comfortable and more efficient for riders.

 

[Smartiro]

I do not disagree that 1bn dollars can be put to better use than APM - we can pay for free higher education for a lot of kids for example(this hits close to home for me .
I do disagree however that there's a better Logan airport transit related project than this.

As for questions about making SL1 more efficient - yes perhaps entrance fee to the airport is a solution, but perhaps not. If you put 2$ charge per car I doubt it will change anything at all except piss off a lot of people who have no credible alternative to driving to the airport. If you put 20$ charge per vehicle it might make a dent in the problem, but will REALLY make a lot of people angry - political non-starter.
As for making SL1 driving around airport 2 level - I am not sure you've ever seen Logan at peek times. You can have line of cars waiting to enter terminal C start BEFORE entrance to terminal B. Perhaps does not happen every morning, but this is a problem that can't be solved by driving around more.

As far as better buses etc. - that's MBTA domain. If we could take that 1Bn and payoff some of MBTA debt or help with operational costs I'd be all for it. However, political and legal realities are such that it's not going to happen. But if APM essentially replaces SL1 (or significantly reduces its route) - that would be help for MBTA which can then redirect these resources to Chelsea line, for example.

 

[Smartiro]

I thought a little more about Massport and MBTA relationship and have a question.
Apparently, Masssport pays State police for services. I am assuming they are paying for overtime services only, but maybe paying base as well - don't know. Question - does Massport pay MBTA for all the free rides it gives from airport on SL1?

 

[millerm277]

I thought a little more about Massport and MBTA relationship and have a question.
Apparently, Masssport pays State police for services. I am assuming they are paying for overtime services only, but maybe paying base as well - don't know. Question - does Massport pay MBTA for all the free rides it gives from airport on SL1?

Yes. As well as paying for a portion of the physical buses used for the Silver Line.

In fact, Massport/MBTA collaborations were the subject of a FMCB presentation this week, and can be seen here: https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/...8-04-23-fmcb-massport-mbta-collaborations.pdf

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

As for questions about making SL1 more efficient - yes perhaps entrance fee to the airport is a solution, but perhaps not. If you put 2$ charge per car I doubt it will change anything at all except piss off a lot of people who have no credible alternative to driving to the airport. If you put 20$ charge per vehicle it might make a dent in the problem, but will REALLY make a lot of people angry - political non-starter.

I suspect the key to making this work is to provide a free shuttle bus or APM from the terminals to the cell phone waiting lot, make it free to pick someone up at the cell phone waiting lot if they take the shuttle bus or APM, and charge the fee for driving directly to the terminal. (If you do this this way, you solve Logan terminal congestion but don't address regional traffic congestion.)

Also, the fee for driving directly to the terminal should vary by time of day and day of week, but ideally be announced well in advance, with the goal as making it as small as possible while still convincing enough people to take mass transit or the shuttle bus to the cell phone waiting lot or the shuttle bus to the rental car facility.

(And we might not call it the cell phone waiting lot anymore, and it might need to be located somewhere other than where the current cell phone waiting lot is.)

As far as better buses etc. - that's MBTA domain. If we could take that 1Bn and payoff some of MBTA debt or help with operational costs I'd be all for it. However, political and legal realities are such that it's not going to happen. But if APM essentially replaces SL1 (or significantly reduces its route) - that would be help for MBTA which can then redirect these resources to Chelsea line, for example.

It sounds like if the APM means that SL1 doesn't go to the terminals anymore, MassPort would just pay the T less as a result of the reduced SL1 operating costs and it really wouldn't help other T services any.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The Silver Line works only outside of rush hour, and while there are some ways to speed that up - the State Police ramp and T under D - That still doesn't fix traffic in the tunnel itself.

If the Ted Williams Tunnel is congested at rush hour, we should have a congestion toll. The question there is what transit improvements would help to get some of the single occupancy vehicle users there to switch to transit.

 

[mass88]

If the Ted Williams Tunnel is congested at rush hour, we should have a congestion toll. The question there is what transit improvements would help to get some of the single occupancy vehicle users there to switch to transit.

I disagree. Logan Airport already is a massive economic engine for the city of Boston and the state of Massachusetts. Why should passengers pay additional money for using the airport? You might as well throw congestion tolling on the SE Expressway, Pike and Storrow Drive while you're at it.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Then I'd like to see a BRT Gold Line from NS/Haymarket to the terminals.

People seem to be saying that MassPort couldn't pay for a NS/Haymarket shuttle bus under current federal law but somehow MassPort is allowed to pay fares for boarding SL1 at the airport? Also, do people here think federal law should prohibit Logan Airport fees from paying for a free shuttle from Logan Airport to North Station?

If we can get bus lanes on Congress St from Haymarket to South Station and bus lanes on Summer St from Fort Point Channel to Reserved Channel, I'm wondering if Logan Airport terminal loop -> Sumner Tunnel -> Haymarket -> Congress St -> South Station -> Summer St -> Convention Center -> more Summer St -> Pumphouse Rd -> The Ramp -> Ted Williams Tunnel -> Logan Airport terminal loop would be just as fast as the current SL1 South Station <-> Logan Airport terminals route while serving more destinations.

Also, I seem to recall that at peak travel times the Blue Line shuttle buses split into one route for some terminals (probably A and B?) and another route for other terminals (probably C and E?). Would a similar split for SL1 make sense at peak airport travel times?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I disagree. Logan Airport already is a massive economic engine for the city of Boston and the state of Massachusetts. Why should passengers pay additional money for using the airport? You might as well throw congestion tolling on the SE Expressway, Pike and Storrow Drive while you're at it.

People who refuse to use scarce resources efficiently by adding single occupancy vehicles to roads which are shared with transit vehicles and are over their vehicles per hour capacity limit should absolutely not be entitled to waste the time of people riding mass transit who are using those same scarce resources efficiently.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

You might as well throw congestion tolling on the SE Expressway, Pike and Storrow Drive while you're at it.

I think we should entirely eliminate the part of Storrow Drive / Soldiers Field Road from the Allston Interchange to Charlesgate, and then I'm not convinced that tolling the Charlesgate to Leverett Circle section is worth the trouble, but I certainly think I-93 and I-90 inside 128 ought to have congestion tolls.

 

[FenwayResident]

I do not disagree that 1bn dollars can be put to better use than APM - we can pay for free higher education for a lot of kids for example(this hits close to home for me .
I do disagree however that there's a better Logan airport transit related project than this.

As for questions about making SL1 more efficient - yes perhaps entrance fee to the airport is a solution, but perhaps not. If you put 2$ charge per car I doubt it will change anything at all except piss off a lot of people who have no credible alternative to driving to the airport. If you put 20$ charge per vehicle it might make a dent in the problem, but will REALLY make a lot of people angry - political non-starter.
As for making SL1 driving around airport 2 level - I am not sure you've ever seen Logan at peek times. You can have line of cars waiting to enter terminal C start BEFORE entrance to terminal B. Perhaps does not happen every morning, but this is a problem that can't be solved by driving around more.

As far as better buses etc. - that's MBTA domain. If we could take that 1Bn and payoff some of MBTA debt or help with operational costs I'd be all for it. However, political and legal realities are such that it's not going to happen. But if APM essentially replaces SL1 (or significantly reduces its route) - that would be help for MBTA which can then redirect these resources to Chelsea line, for example.

Again - $1B is not that much money for a large-scale project like this. It sounds like a big number but it's really not when you think of the amount of people it would impact. The LAX APM for reference will cost almost $5B.

Take your higher education suggestion for example. If we assume $200k total cost for a four-year degree, that only gets a college education for 5,000 kids. Even if we lower that to in-state tuition with no room and board at UMass, it's still only $60k for ~17,000 kids.

Of course it'd be a great thing for those kids who receive the free tuition, but it would have a very marginal impact for everyone else in MA. The APM on the other hand would impact millions of travelers per year for decades into the future.

 

[Smartiro]

I suspect the key to making this work is to provide a free shuttle bus or APM from the terminals to the cell phone waiting lot, make it free to pick someone up at the cell phone waiting lot if they take the shuttle bus or APM, and charge the fee for driving directly to the terminal. (If you do this this way, you solve Logan terminal congestion but don't address regional traffic congestion.)

While I like this idea in principle - I suspect it's difficult to implement currently:
1. You'll need a pretty large parking lot to accommodate pickups - much larger than current cell phone lot (which by the way fills up regularly). And space in Logan is at a premium.
2. Introducing terminal entry charge is tricky as I mentioned before - even variable one which can be free outside of peak times. Finding that threshold to force behavior change is hard (including politically)
3. At the moment this solution would still rely on shuttle buses - which share road with everyone else. This often goes into vicious cycle of people not wanting to take a bus because it's slow and instead driving/ubering in thus contributing to bus becoming slower.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

While I like this idea in principle - I suspect it's difficult to implement currently:
1. You'll need a pretty large parking lot to accommodate pickups - much larger than current cell phone lot (which by the way fills up regularly). And space in Logan is at a premium.
2. Introducing terminal entry charge is tricky as I mentioned before - even variable one which can be free outside of peak times. Finding that threshold to force behavior change is hard (including politically)
3. At the moment this solution would still rely on shuttle buses - which share road with everyone else. This often goes into vicious cycle of people not wanting to take a bus because it's slow and instead driving/ubering in thus contributing to bus becoming slower.

It seems like the answer might be that we should encourage people to use economy parking, which already exists and already has a shuttle bus, to meet people they want to pick up. Except that $7 for the first hour at economy parking and $0 to clog the terminals doesn't exactly provide the right incentives. Is there any good reason why the first hour at economy parking couldn't be made free?

And the key to making sure that the shuttle buses stay fast is simply to provide sufficient financial incentives that enough people stay away from the terminals, and to make sure that there's sufficient shuttle bus service being run.

 

[TallIsGood]

I for one would not take a bus to economy parking only to be picked up or dropped off. That adds 20 minutes each way. I fly in and out of Logan almost weekly and I would not add that much time to my commute. In some cases that is almost doubling the trip time. Plus there is no way that economy area can handle the amount of traffic that is distributed among the terminals now.