Logan Airport Capital Projects

BeeLine

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
10,515
Reaction score
2,209
An active pile driver on site next to Terminal EView attachment 580
I can confirm that prep work on the expansion of Terminal E has begun. I was on the SL3 the other day and saw field offices, a lot of earth movers and several places where the tall Jersey barrier fences have been removed and more flexible fencing in it's place both over where the Gulf station was located and between the Delta hanger and the UPS warehouse.

Speaking of gas stations the new one has been completed and the market/Starbucks are open.

IMG_3065 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

IMG_3066 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

IMG_3067 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

IMG_3070 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

IMG_3071 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

IMG_3072 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
 

CSTH

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
1,799
Reaction score
5
I don't know about you guys, but 40,000 people live in Jeffries Point and I'm way, way more worried about them in a flood than I am Logan which would still have at least one unblocked runway taking flights in worst-case flood. People > things and all that.
Jeff point is mostly a big hill.

The 'real' risk to eastie and the airport is inundation of the summer, Callahan, Ted, and Blue tunnels, plus also maybe the fuel tanks on Chelsea Creek...
 

Equilibria

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
4,046
Reaction score
285
Logan Airport, 1% annual coastal flood risk 2070s (powder blue)
Logan Airport, long term stormwater flooding risk (teal blue)
Source: http://boston.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=7a599ab2ebad43d68adabc9a9ebea0e6&extent=-71.1583,42.2897,-70.9309,42.4060

San Francisco's new barrier is intended to protect the airport through 2080.
Indeed, not worth spending billions on a sea wall. The hundred year flood beginning 50 years from now, which would only last for days at most.
 

whighlander

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
6,979
Reaction score
156
View attachment 584

Logan Airport, 1% annual coastal flood risk 2070s (powder blue)
Logan Airport, long term stormwater flooding risk (teal blue)
Source: http://boston.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=7a599ab2ebad43d68adabc9a9ebea0e6&extent=-71.1583,42.2897,-70.9309,42.4060

San Francisco's new barrier is intended to protect the airport through 2080.
Stellar -- the problem with these kinds of predictions is that they are not worth the bits used to print the map on my screen

There are so many hidden assumptions and unknowns that making one of these maps is classic "Garbage In ==> Garbage Out"

Once again for about the 100th time -- with a 10 foot Tidal Range unless you have a "plug" blocking the tide from receding [i.e. an active storm producing a storm surge up the harbor] -- just wait a couple of hours and gravity will quickly drain any excess water -- all you need is good drainage
 

HelloBostonHi

Active Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
476
Reaction score
161
Last edited:

dshoost88

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
1,606
Reaction score
59

Lyft confirms that the TNC changes take effect October 28th, moving TNCs to central garage and implementing the ability to take shared rides from the airport. The map looks like some fresh hell for drivers and passengers who can barely follow the simplest of signs. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w5te0ogtIPw4IYfjRqa3MSQUmTc2wGjB/view
I was at Universal Hollywood over the weekend and they implemented something very similar for their TNC drop-off and pickup. It was the first time I used a readapted garage space in practice for both drop-off and pickup, and as a rider I felt like it made a lot of sense. To your point, HelloBostonHi, I worry about the drivers’ ability to follow simple directions when the change begins in two weeks.
 

guitarguynboston

New member
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
58
Reaction score
55
Coming back to Logan yesterday I never really realized the hold up times for getting passengers on the buses. We sat at terminal for a good wait time to get people on and off with their luggage. I took the shuttle but can only imagine that the SL must have a major issue on keeping on a schedule.

Edit: In comparison taking the Metro in DC to Reagon was alot easier and quicker.

Between easier commuting patterns and the fact that having less buses and the SL schedules being all crazy, I just don't get why Logan is taking so long and why it doesn't already have an APM when the BL was never built close enough distance wise to handle the flow of incoming and outgoing of passengers. They complain about traffic from ride sharing Uber/Lyft where more birds can be hit by 1 stone.
 
Last edited:

JumboBuc

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
2,042
Reaction score
95
Coming back to Logan yesterday I never really realized the hold up times for getting passengers on the buses. We sat at terminal for a good wait time to get people on and off with their luggage. I took the shuttle but can only imagine that the SL must have a major issue on keeping on a schedule.
This is why I like the idea of the SL running a "drop-off loop" followed by a "pick-up loop" at Logan. Everybody gets off at all terminals, then everybody gets on at all terminals.
 

Balerion

Active Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
139
Reaction score
4
Coming back to Logan yesterday I never really realized the hold up times for getting passengers on the buses. We sat at terminal for a good wait time to get people on and off with their luggage. I took the shuttle but can only imagine that the SL must have a major issue on keeping on a schedule.

Edit: In comparison taking the Metro in DC to Reagon was alot easier and quicker.

Between easier commuting patterns and the fact that having less buses and the SL schedules being all crazy, I just don't get why Logan is taking so long and why it doesn't already have an APM when the BL was never built close enough distance wise to handle the flow of incoming and outgoing of passengers. They complain about traffic from ride sharing Uber/Lyft where more birds can be hit by 1 stone.
I don't fly all that often, but I've noticed something with the SL drop-off. The buses sit in each terminal for several minutes before departing. It wasn't typical dwell time problems with boarding/alighting, the bus was relatively empty and just sitting there. I suppose it was trying to adhere to a schedule, but why not take out the wasteful padding and just run the buses faster. You'd probably get more daily trips out of it that way. Traveling to the last terminal was particularly irritating given all the wasted time at each stop.
 

whighlander

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
6,979
Reaction score
156
Coming back to Logan yesterday I never really realized the hold up times for getting passengers on the buses. We sat at terminal for a good wait time to get people on and off with their luggage. I took the shuttle but can only imagine that the SL must have a major issue on keeping on a schedule.

Edit: In comparison taking the Metro in DC to Reagon was alot easier and quicker.

Between easier commuting patterns and the fact that having less buses and the SL schedules being all crazy, I just don't get why Logan is taking so long and why it doesn't already have an APM when the BL was never built close enough distance wise to handle the flow of incoming and outgoing of passengers. They complain about traffic from ride sharing Uber/Lyft where more birds can be hit by 1 stone.
Original plan for Logan was for a Central Check-in -- in the midst of Central Parking with the Blue Line Station at the same location. There was also going to be a DFW-style Automated People Mover connecting the Terminals which would be essentially gates and hold rooms

BUT -- the folks building Highways, the Folks building Subways and the Folks Building Airports -- while ostensibly all part of the Commonwealth of MA Department of Transportation -- were in fact never in the same room let alone on the same page

As result everybody did what they wanted with perhaps a nod to what they thought the others wanted them to do ]note no one asked] -- so Massport Built the "New Logan", Turnpike Authority built the TWT and MBTA built the "New Airport T Station"

Of Course they could have coordinated and the TWT could have added another 2 lane Tube carying the Silver Line to Logan from South Station without intersecting with the surface streets
with Massport building a Central Check-in with moving walkways to each of the Terminals which would just hold gates and baggage claim + travelers amenities Later the T could build a branch of the Red Line to Logan [adding redundancy to the overall System]

Now -- Massport is trying to clean-things-up by using the Terminal E Project to connect a moving walkway from the Airport T on the Blue Line to at least the fastest growing segment International Flights. Later the APM may arrive to replace all the circulating buses [except for the Silver Line]
 

sneijder

New member
Joined
Jul 25, 2018
Messages
70
Reaction score
7
I don't fly all that often, but I've noticed something with the SL drop-off. The buses sit in each terminal for several minutes before departing. It wasn't typical dwell time problems with boarding/alighting, the bus was relatively empty and just sitting there. I suppose it was trying to adhere to a schedule, but why not take out the wasteful padding and just run the buses faster. You'd probably get more daily trips out of it that way. Traveling to the last terminal was particularly irritating given all the wasted time at each stop.
Same thing with the blue massport buses. Spends 5m at each stop to wait to fill up the bus, while the bus could've done an entire lap in that time.
 

HelloBostonHi

Active Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
476
Reaction score
161
Same thing with the blue massport buses. Spends 5m at each stop to wait to fill up the bus, while the bus could've done an entire lap in that time.
I've always wondered this about the Massport buses. I sat at terminal B doing passenger counts for a Massport study and couldn't help but notice that the Massport shuttles (for BL) seem to wait until the following bus arrives to leave the stop. That means there is basically always a bus waiting at the stop, but means the dwell times are stupid long. But like, I've watched the drivers and they wait until they see the next bus in their mirrors before pulling away. I can only assume it's an intentional operation decision but I'm not sure I quite understand it.
 

jass

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
4,531
Reaction score
33
This is why I like the idea of the SL running a "drop-off loop" followed by a "pick-up loop" at Logan. Everybody gets off at all terminals, then everybody gets on at all terminals.
This would work much better.

They also need buses with a 4th door (standard on 60-foot buses in Europe) and less seats.
 

Smartiro

Active Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
408
Reaction score
10
They also need buses with a 4th door (standard on 60-foot buses in Europe) and less seats.
I was wondering about that. Silver line is multiple stops outside of Logan and takes a while. But for Blue line shuttle and terminal shuttles - do they really need seats at all?
Wouldn't it be simpler and faster if they were more like those shuttles you get from planes on apron?
 

sneijder

New member
Joined
Jul 25, 2018
Messages
70
Reaction score
7
This is why I like the idea of the SL running a "drop-off loop" followed by a "pick-up loop" at Logan. Everybody gets off at all terminals, then everybody gets on at all terminals.
Is there any logistical problem with having the SL run first to the departure level for dropoffs, then arrival level for pickups (rather than doing both at the arrival level as it stands now)? Seems extremely logical to do this, other than needing maybe one or two more buses in the fleet to cover the longer trip time.
 

HelloBostonHi

Active Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
476
Reaction score
161
Is there any logistical problem with having the SL run first to the departure level for dropoffs, then arrival level for pickups (rather than doing both at the arrival level as it stands now)? Seems extremely logical to do this, other than needing maybe one or two more buses in the fleet to cover the longer trip time.
From the people I've spoken to, the sole issue is having enough operators and buses to cover that. If you implemented it as is, it would result in a drop in service because even with the boarding friction at the combined stops, it still takes less time than two full loops of traffic filled Logan.
 

Top