Logan Airport Capital Projects

atlantaden said:
I have to jump in here and compliment MassPort on it's landscaping. They do a wonderful job, having planted a great variety of evergreens and deciduous trees, annuals, and, surprisingly, for a government agency, they actually maintain the landscaping beautifully! Granted, the illustration that Jass posted is awful as far as landscaping, but, as far as the whole airport landside, kudos to MassPort.
Click to expand...

Atlantden -- The memorial is only 10 years old --landscapes with trees planted as saplings take many years to fully develop -- and then the landscape you are commenting on is a winter season view -- in New England this is often bleak looking unless you have a nice snowy scene

try this one
6bba95_090211logansecuritytf22.jpg
 
atlantaden said:
I have to jump in here and compliment MassPort on it's landscaping. They do a wonderful job, having planted a great variety of evergreens and deciduous trees, annuals, and, surprisingly, for a government agency, they actually maintain the landscaping beautifully! Granted, the illustration that Jass posted is awful as far as landscaping, but, as far as the whole airport landside, kudos to MassPort.
Click to expand...

It's interesting the extent to which this and so much more about Logan has changed. When I first came to Boston, 31 years ago, Logan was a collection of sad and dreary buildings and wholy unsuited as a point of entry to a major city. It is now very attractive, bigger, and much more efficiently laid out. Considering the footprint is so small and hasn't changed during that time period, it's rather astonishing what MassPort has been able to accomplish.
 
whighlander said:
Atlantden -- The memorial is only 10 years old --landscapes with trees planted as saplings take many years to fully develop -- and then the landscape you are commenting on is a winter season view -- in New England this is often bleak looking unless you have a nice snowy scene

try this one
6bba95_090211logansecuritytf22.jpg
Click to expand...

He wasn't commenting on that at all. He was commenting on jass' roadway image which he literally references in his comment.

roadways2-copy$large.jpg
 
datadyne007 said:
He wasn't commenting on that at all. He was commenting on jass' roadway image which he literally references in his comment.

roadways2-copy$large.jpg
Click to expand...

But Data, c'mon, there's already green elsewhere at Logan...see, see...we checked that box already.
- - - - -

It is really amazing how much people talk past each other on this site, and how much people turn things into rigid this-vs-that dichotomies when there's ample room for middle ground discussion.

Yes, massport has done a decent job with greenscaping elsewhere.
Yes, there are also LITERALLY LARGE BLANK SWATHS OF CONCRETE in the 'dystopian' roadway rendering that at least deserve a conversation about being green-ified.
Yes, we get that massports' job is to help accommodate growth & functionality while encouraging a shift to transit.
No, it doesn't have to be "growth" VERSUS "green"...as many have pointed out, many of Logan's growth-oriented renovations have COINCIDED with advances in sustainability and eco-friendliness (e.g., transition to eco-friendly busses, eliminating curbside rental car busses and the consolidated rental car center, plans for the APM / better connection to the Blue Line).


"cars cars cars cars" is not the grownup way to say: can we get some more green in there (or whatever else s/he might have been trying to say -- we'll never know with that level of dialogue).
"see see, here's some existing green they did 10 yrs ago" is not the constructive way to say green and growth can coincide.

I thought 5th grade ended decades ago for me, but I guess not.
 
whighlander said:
Atlantden -- The memorial is only 10 years old --landscapes with trees planted as saplings take many years to fully develop -- and then the landscape you are commenting on is a winter season view -- in New England this is often bleak looking unless you have a nice snowy scene
Click to expand...

Haha, Westy, I know all that, I grew up here in New England, but I was not commenting on your winter season view. Actually I was commenting on all the other Logan landscaping scenes you posted, along with those from my own memories of my entering and exiting Logan multiple times per year for years. Frankly, every time I'm at Logan I comment on the landscaping, and have written MassPort, complimenting them on the landscaping. Lame, but sometimes people need to hear positive stuff. And Data, yes, I was commenting on Jass's pic as well, and I sure hope the final roadway project will have some landscaping where none are shown now. I'm not a landscape architect or roadway person, maybe there are reasons why there's so much hardscape and no greenscape at this particular site. Hope they can figure out a way to include some.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps Massport needs an area for push snow to during the winter? Those flat cement areas could be used for an area to put some snow during plowing?
 
bigpicture7 said:
But Data, c'mon, there's already green elsewhere at Logan...see, see...we checked that box already.
- - - - -

It is really amazing how much people talk past each other on this site, and how much people turn things into rigid this-vs-that dichotomies when there's ample room for middle ground discussion.

Yes, massport has done a decent job with greenscaping elsewhere.
Yes, there are also LITERALLY LARGE BLANK SWATHS OF CONCRETE in the 'dystopian' roadway rendering that at least deserve a conversation about being green-ified.
Yes, we get that massports' job is to help accommodate growth & functionality while encouraging a shift to transit.
No, it doesn't have to be "growth" VERSUS "green"...as many have pointed out, many of Logan's growth-oriented renovations have COINCIDED with advances in sustainability and eco-friendliness (e.g., transition to eco-friendly busses, eliminating curbside rental car busses and the consolidated rental car center, plans for the APM / better connection to the Blue Line).


"cars cars cars cars" is not the grownup way to say: can we get some more green in there (or whatever else s/he might have been trying to say -- we'll never know with that level of dialogue).
"see see, here's some existing green they did 10 yrs ago" is not the constructive way to say green and growth can coincide.

I thought 5th grade ended decades ago for me, but I guess not.
Click to expand...

BigPicture -- Well said!
 
atlantaden said:
Haha, Westy, ....And Data, yes, I was commenting on Jass's pic as well, and I sure hope the final roadway project will have some landscaping where none are shown now. I'm not a landscape architect or roadway person, maybe there are reasons why there's so much hardscape and no greenscape at this particular site. Hope they can figure out a way to include some.
Click to expand...

Atlantaden -- in a tight traffic merging configuration you have to be careful as to what you introduce into the driver's view and which is not required for the driver's decision process.

I would think that in a busy area such as the split between ramps to the various terminals-- where there is very limited time and distance to make a decision as to which way to go -- and no time or distance to rely aids such as GPS and possibly with other distractions in the car -- You just want the driver to see road and signs. Think the "Hitter's Background" which most Major League Baseball ballparks now provide especially during day games.

My wife who volunteers for the Lexington Field and Garden Club and participates in their project to beautify intersections is Lexington is constantly in the middle of the discussion between the road safety people and the aesthetics first people. The road safety people would prefer barren islands with maybe some ground cover. The beautifiers would like to see trees and shrubs with colorful foliage and seasonal flowers just as many Lexington front and backyards are carefully landscaped.
 
Like I said in my reply, let's just let the professionals sort it out.
 
Has anyone seen any signs of work happening on the terminal E expansion yet?
 
Massport just posted on Facebook that as of Thursday 8/29, all Southwest flights are departing from terminal B. So it looks like the move is finally happening and their work over there is nearing completion.
 
How long (how much growth can be accommodated) at BOS before it needs a new runway?
Seems like it'd raise issues of
1) How much harbor would need filling
2) Being one-sided ("only over the harbor" similar to 14-32)
3) Whether it is needed for a particular weather condition or just throughput, generally
 
Last edited:
Arlington said:
How long (how much growth) can be accommodated at BOS before it needs a new runway?
Seems like it'd raise issues of
1) How much harbor would need filling
2) Being one-sided ("only over the harbor" similar to 14-32)
3) Whether it is needed for a particular weather condition or just throughput, generally
Click to expand...
Operationally, what Logan really needs is better separation of runways 22L 4R; 22R 4L. These runways are too close together to allow parallel operation under high wind speeds and adverse weather conditions, things that happen at Logan a lot. Because of the dominant wind directions at Logan, being able to run both of these runways together more consistently would really improve throughput.

Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that a new 22R 4L runway further out into the harbor is possible. It would appear that a long enough runway to be helpful would end up blocking shipping lanes (or running directly into Winthrop, which is a non-starter).
 
Arlington said:
How long (how much growth can be accommodated) at BOS before it needs a new runway?
Seems like it'd raise issues of
1) How much harbor would need filling
2) Being one-sided ("only over the harbor" similar to 14-32)
3) Whether it is needed for a particular weather condition or just throughput, generally
Click to expand...

Not really an issue
Airside capacity is adequate -- its gates and passenger amenities that need to be enhanced

Logan is well below its peak number of flight operations achieved a number of years ago before the One-Way Runway became operational in
yr ops passengers cargo
1998 507,449 26,526,708 803,841,263
1999 494,816 27,052,078 824,167,999
2000 487,996 27,726,833 852,347,154
2001 463,125 24,474,930 744,797,296
2002 392,079 22,696,141 789,610,008
2003 373,304 22,791,169 744,838,287
2004 405,258 26,142,516 759,274,990
2005 409,066 27,087,905 741,517,308
2006*1 406,119 27,725,443 679,068,089
2007 399,537 28,102,455 632,449,775
2008 371,604 26,102,651 587,772,302
2009 345,306 25,512,086 517,557,182
2010 352,643 27,428,962 546,379,403
2011 368,987 28,907,938 529,212,783
2012 354,869 29,325,617 525,392,642
2013 361,339 30,218,631 538,192,790
2014 363,797 31,634,445 585,459,955
2015 372,928 33,449,580 575,781,601
2016 391,222 36,288,042 616,933,699
2017 401,371 38,412,419 679,407,977
2018 424,024 40,941,925 704,200,557

2018 [0-4]*2 125,788 11,887,401 220,170,141
2019 [0-4]*3 129,623 12,531,398 220,235,356


*1 -- One-Ray Runway 14/32 becomes operational Nov 2006
*2 -- January through April 2018 for comparison
*3 -- January through April 2019 [latest available data]
 
That all flights got out during the course of the year isn't the issue. It is how many get out in an hour (every hour, regardless)
Weren't the bad old days of high movements also the bad old days of crushing delays?

I recall aviation analyst Henry Harteveldt dubbing Boston "the East Coast Airport of the Devil" during those 1998 "500k per year" days
 
With minimal fill they could easily make 15L/33R a viable runway without blocking any boat traffic. They should do that and get rid of 9/27. Not just to allow taller buildings, but its reaaaally not such a great idea sending massive jets directly at your downtown or trying to land by flying right past downtown. Its a single run way as well. 15/33 already has another runway pointing in that direction so youre not creating a new route. Jets fly up the mystic to keep noise down as well. I think this should be seriously considered not only is 9/27 unnecessarily dangerous, but jet noise is also going directly over downtown, the common, back bay, south end, roxbury, dorchester...etc. With 2 run ways in one direction and 2 in another it would be simpler from an operations perspective as well.

We already know people would bitch... same ppl who refused the red line because of “undesirables”... A runway already is going in that direction so tough shit. Safety issue, done. This plus a people mover and the new terminal would bring Logan into position to reach its potential of the 21st century without it being a total clusterf**.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top