Logan Airport Capital Projects

[Joel N. Weber II]

Would an hour of free Central Parking work any better? (It turns out that for 1 hour, Central Parking currently costs the same $7 that economy does; I started thinking about it in terms of trying to make the cheapest possible parking cheaper, but perhaps the better way of thinking about it is that keeping the short term usage closer to the terminals in parking that might be walkable would probably reduce the number of people the shuttle buses or APM would need to move and thus be better and more cost effective. Having desirable parking spaces have short time limits so that more people end up being able to use them is probably generally a good practice.)

I'm curious what the folks who oppose a congestion charge for curbside pickup at the terminals think about the ~$225 fee http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/boston reports for small planes that want to stop at Logan for an hour. Most other New England airports don't charge any fees for similar usage by small planes. Do passengers of commercial flights think it is unfair to general aviation that general aviation isn't allowed to delay the scheduled commercial flights for free?

 

[Arlington]

I would like to spend the vehicle entrance fee on a gold line (or just the on-premises part of a Gold Line).

The airport is not made a better economic engine by allowing the lanfside to get clogged up with private vehicles.

A congestion charge would clearly solve congestion, but ideally you'd spend it on offsetting the private vehicle disincentives with transit incentives.

Who pays today for the Logan Expresses? They should run more times an hour. But I also think that just as Back Bay needed a Logan Express, NS/Haymarket need one. If airside fees can't pay for that (really?) Landside fees should.

 

[tysmith95]

Would an hour of free Central Parking work any better? (It turns out that for 1 hour, Central Parking currently costs the same $7 that economy does; I started thinking about it in terms of trying to make the cheapest possible parking cheaper, but perhaps the better way of thinking about it is that keeping the short term usage closer to the terminals in parking that might be walkable would probably reduce the number of people the shuttle buses or APM would need to move and thus be better and more cost effective. Having desirable parking spaces have short time limits so that more people end up being able to use them is probably generally a good practice.)

I'm curious what the folks who oppose a congestion charge for curbside pickup at the terminals think about the ~$225 fee http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/boston reports for small planes that want to stop at Logan for an hour. Most other New England airports don't charge any fees for similar usage by small planes. Do passengers of commercial flights think it is unfair to general aviation that general aviation isn't allowed to delay the scheduled commercial flights for free?

First of all I don't really think that Logan should be a place for small planes, it's a large commercial airport for jets. I think the large landing fees are there to discourage small aviation to Logan.

 

[Arlington]

^ yes, a congestion fee worked on the airside and now we need one for the landside.

It almost doesn't matter what it gets spent on, but ideally it'd be spent on further congestion relief--APM and access buses.

 

[Equilibria]

I would like to spend the vehicle entrance fee on a gold line (or just the on-premises part of a Gold Line).

The airport is not made a better economic engine by allowing the lanfside to get clogged up with private vehicles.

A congestion charge would clearly solve congestion, but ideally you'd spend it on offsetting the private vehicle disincentives with transit incentives.

Who pays today for the Logan Expresses? They should run more times an hour. But I also think that just as Back Bay needed a Logan Express, NS/Haymarket need one. If airside fees can't pay for that (really?) Landside fees should.

Congestion fees don't solve congestion until the alternatives get fast and reliable enough. Until then, they either piss people off or slow them down (or send the message that only the privileged get to use the airport curb). Either way, lives get worse.

It's the curse of Jane Jacobs: "hey look! The cars just disappeared!" No, they didn't. They're taking a slower route through someone else's favorite neighborhood.

 

[jass]

Congestion fees don't solve congestion until the alternatives get fast and reliable enough. Until then, they either piss people off or slow them down (or send the message that only the privileged get to use the airport curb). Either way, lives get worse.

You realize the blue line exists right?

How about this. Charge a congestion fee. Use funds to increase frequency + operating hours of Blue Line and Silver Line.

The APM plan sends the message that only the privileged get to use the airport curb. Dirty transit riders? Throw in another transfer for those scrubs. Only Uber riders get door to door service.

 

[Equilibria]

You realize the blue line exists right?

How about this. Charge a congestion fee. Use funds to increase frequency + operating hours of Blue Line and Silver Line.

The APM plan sends the message that only the privileged get to use the airport curb. Dirty transit riders? Throw in another transfer for those scrubs. Only Uber riders get door to door service.

I'm fine with a congestion fee if it funds the APM or other airport transit. I'm not okay with it if the only purpose is to stop people from driving in the hope that they'll patronize transit services that are already overcrowded and may be inconvenient to their home or work.

 

[fattony]

Logan transport is organized around buses already. We should leverage that instead of scraping it. A congestion charge that funds more buses and reduces car congestion thus improving the operations of those buses could be just the right recipe.

I don't hate the idea of an APM, but it seems like there is lower hanging fruit here. The Silver Line has known deficiencies with known solutions (D St, the Ramp). Blue Line Shuttles are pretty good already and could benefit from more frequency. There could be greater Logan Expresses frequency and maybe more locations.

A congestion fee and bus improvements could make a a difference in a couple years time. APM you are talking a decade - years of waiting followed by years of disruption.

 

[Arlington]

I'm fine with a congestion fee if it funds the APM or other airport transit. I'm not okay with it if the only purpose is to stop people from driving in the hope that they'll patronize transit services that are already overcrowded and may be inconvenient to their home or work.

OK so we're in 100% agreement because no congestion charge EVER has had an "only purpose is to stop people from driving" And as far as I know, every congestion charge ever (since the term was invented c.1990) has involved the direct re-investment of the charge revenue into congestion-beating transit options (either into or through the congestion zone)

And let's not forget that a BIG part of congestion charges is delivering a BETTER driving experience to people who pay the charge...giving them access to an uncongested roadway, that, today, cannot be had by any mode at any price--Business travelers are generally thrilled to pay $1/minute-saved and unpriced roads do NOT give them that option.

So what bone-headed reason did Massport give for rejecting a charge?

 

[Equilibria]

OK so we're in 100% agreement because no congestion charge EVER has had an "only purpose is to stop people from driving" And as far as I know, every congestion charge ever (since the term was invented c.1990) has involved the direct re-investment of the charge revenue into congestion-beating transit options (either into or through the congestion zone)

I'm not so sure we're in 100% agreement. In this particular case, restrictions on the use of the revenue mean that congestion tax revenue would be invested directly in making options better for those specific individuals being taxed. Most congestion tolling defenses that I've heard push using the revenue for other people - taxing people for driving from Worcester to Boston then using the revenue to fund buses in Dorchester (not that those aren't worth investing in). In this case, the Blue Line provides excellent transit to the airport as long is there's an APM and RBX. Those things need to happen first, or the revenue from a congestion toll needs to go directly to them. I have far more confidence in a captive agency like Massport doing that than the Commonwealth generally. If you want evidence of that, witness all the random stuff people want to use the congestion toll money for.

And let's not forget that a BIG part of congestion charges is delivering a BETTER driving experience to people who pay the charge...giving them access to an uncongested roadway, that, today, cannot be had by any mode at any price--Business travelers are generally thrilled to pay $1/minute-saved and unpriced roads do NOT give them that option.

So in other words... you're making highways a luxury item. I can enjoy a congestion-free experience on the airplane too if I hire a private jet. The whole purpose of pricing something to the point of exclusivity is to make it more enjoyable for those with the means to pay. I don't see how that makes it worth denying the resource to the less-privileged.

Also, there's a big difference between giving someone the option of paying (HOT lanes) and forcing them to pay by taxing every lane (congestion fee). Saying that people can choose not to go downtown or at rush hour assumes that people have options. Not everyone is privileged enough to have options.

 

[mass88]

Most people who drive from Logan already pay a toll charge. If they were to enact a congestion charge (which will never happen), how much should cars be charged?

 

[tysmith95]

Most people who drive from Logan already pay a toll charge. If they were to enact a congestion charge (which will never happen), how much should cars be charged?

Keep the low toll from 10 AM to 2 PM, and 7PM to 6AM. Enact a higher toll of 4 dollars from 6-7 AM, 9-10 AM, 2-3PM, and 6-7PM. Raise that toll to 6 dollars from 7-9 AM and 3-6PM.

Something along those lines. Though to be honest the Callahan and Sumner do not really get that congested. Congestion tolling on I93 would work best.

 

[Arlington]

So in other words... you're making highways a luxury item.

Uncongested anything is rare and valuable. Today the only 100% sure way to avoid BOS curbside congestion is to fly a private jet out of Hanscom.

Congestion charges:
- The rich may pay them every time and get fast car trips
- The middle has access to a fast car trip when they're running late, on an expense account, or on a tight schedule. It puts fast connections within people's reach who'd never been able to drive-fly Hanscom
- The poor & thrifty...faster runs on existing buses (on less-congested roads) deliver a lot of that promise even if you never ALSO spent the charges on making the buses more frequent. Reinvesting the charges into transit doubles the win that simply began with uncongesting the roads the buses use.

 

[tysmith95]

Driving your car into the core of Boston should be a luxury item. Boston is well served by transit, if you want to save money take the train.

 

[Smartiro]

Driving your car into the core of Boston should be a luxury item. Boston is well served by transit, if you want to save money take the train.

This makes sense for daily commuters for work, who can (to a degree) make a decision about where to work. It also makes sense for tourists who can make a decision on what to visit and where to stay.
This does not make sense for the only large and international airport in New England that happens to be located in the middle of Boston.

Most people who drive to Logan will continue to drive with 4$ toll as they have no reasonable alternative to driving. It already costs me 50$ if I cab to Logan. So it will be 54. Not a game changer.

In my mind APM's goal is not to decrease congestion on the airport roads - it's to make lives of people who already take public transit easier. It is not going to make a difference in lives of people who drive by removing few buses from the road, but it will make a big difference to people who don't have to be in a bus anymore and can take a nice and quick train ride instead.

 

[jass]

This makes sense for daily commuters for work, who can (to a degree) make a decision about where to work. It also makes sense for tourists who can make a decision on what to visit and where to stay.
This does not make sense for the only large and international airport in New England that happens to be located in the middle of Boston.

Most people who drive to Logan will continue to drive with 4$ toll as they have no reasonable alternative to driving. It already costs me 50$ if I cab to Logan. So it will be 54. Not a game changer.

The whole point of decongestion pricing is to change SOME behavior.

Not all behavior.

Just enough to get from congested as fuck, to moving ok.

It already costs me 50$ if I cab to Logan. So it will be 54. Not a game changer.

Great. But there will be a few people that will see the extra cost and say fuck it, Ill take the train.

And you know what? Now those people arent in the way.

Im always fascinated by people who live their entire life in a capitalist society where everything we do and buy is priced according to supply and demand think that magically it wont work when we use it on transportation.

And the irony on top of it is that nobody does demand pricing better than the airlines.

In my mind APM's goal is not to decrease congestion on the airport roads - it's to make lives of people who already take public transit easier. It is not going to make a difference in lives of people who drive by removing few buses from the road, but it will make a big difference to people who don't have to be in a bus anymore and can take a nice and quick train ride instead.

Sure buddy, nothing is more fun for transit riders than taking away their direct terminal access on the SL and forcing them to make a transfer at some off-site APM station.

 

[Smartiro]

Sure buddy, nothing is more fun for transit riders than taking away their direct terminal access on the SL and forcing them to make a transfer at some off-site APM station.

Yeah, that's a good point. I was assuming that SL1 is just a standard MBTA service, but since Massport is paying for it (as I learned here) they have every incentive to try to stop paying for it when APM is up and running. Then South Station to terminals becomes 2 hops - South Station to Airport Station, then APM. For people going to terminals A or B this is a downgrade pretty much always. For people going to C or E - it's probably a wash to an improvement during peak hours, downgrade at other times. For people getting to airport on a Blue line though - it's an improvement to all terminals at all times.
So maybe we have both? Replace Airport shuttle, Terminals shuttle, Economy shuttle and Rental cars shuttle with APM, but keep SL1 and keep it free one way.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Right now, if you want to drop a friend off at the airport, you can either pay $0 to clog up the curbside space or $7 for an hour of short term parking. I strongly suspect there are drivers who would prefer to use short term parking and help carry their friend's checked bag to the check in counter, but find the $7 incentive to clog the curbside space instead to be compelling. As a first step towards encouraging those drivers to use short term parking, it doesn't matter whether we make the first hour of short term parking $0 or charge a $7 fee for curbside access.

If Logan Express ran 15 minute headways, that would be roughly 72 round trips per day if it runs 18 hours. If there are 20 vehicles parked in the parking lot per trip (on a bus that can hold 40+ people including those who were dropped off at the outer Logan Express location and those who carpooled to the parking lot) and those stay there an average of 7 days, that requires roughly 10,000 parking spaces at each location. And there are probably few examples of such large parking facilities. This might hint at why Logan Express headways are likely to remain mediocre.

Logan Express seems to be largely point to point without making intermediate stops, which is a rather jet airline way of thinking. (Having a jet climb several miles takes a lot of fuel, as does operating at low altitudes; jet airplanes are probably the worst mode of transportation for energy efficiency and time efficiency of intermediate stops.) Could Logan Express be made better with some intermediate stops without being slowed down too much?

If we can unclog the airport terminal loop, can we extend the MBTA's route 116 from Maverick around the terminal loop?

 

[Smartiro]

It is already often hard to find a parking spot in Central, B garage or E lots. If first hour is free and more people try to park there - it would be nearly impossible.
7$ curbside fee might be enough to push some people to think twice about doing it but would be a pretty hard sell politically - it's more than any toll in the state as far as I know.
There's a reason Massport board rejected curbside fee idea recently - it's hard to come up with amount that both works as incentive and does not stir up a storm. Actually, I am not sure this was their reason, but it would be mine

 

[jass]

Right now, if you want to drop a friend off at the airport, you can either pay $0 to clog up the curbside space or $7 for an hour of short term parking. I strongly suspect there are drivers who would prefer to use short term parking and help carry their friend's checked bag to the check in counter, but find the $7 incentive to clog the curbside space instead to be compelling. As a first step towards encouraging those drivers to use short term parking, it doesn't matter whether we make the first hour of short term parking $0 or charge a $7 fee for curbside access.

Good point. On the arrivals side, plenty of people are more than happy to circle around for another lap while the person theyre waiting for gets their bags. Or drive very, very slowly, making multiple stops along the way....

I wonder if they have any data on how many vehicles go around more than once?

I would charge $2 for 30 minute parking, and $5 for an hour.

Then also charge $5 for drop-off access.