Logan Airport Capital Projects

Anybody know offhand what the final price tag on Terminal E is gonna be? As always, asking for a friend.
 
Mod Note: Misleading number and the verbiage that ensued removed.
 
Last edited:
Apologies Arlington if I was the lighting rod.
I just want stuff. The other kids get nice things. Why can't we have nice things?
 
Old Terminal E..jpg
Look familiar? Yama designed & built both of them. :)
Low-rise buildings of the original WTC..jpg 2.png
 
Nobody owes an apology. It was just a lot of words chasing a moderatable factual error. I shouldn’t even have called it unpleasantness, just verbiage. Enjoy the do-over.
 
THIS WAS FIXED! The electronic wayfinding sign above the airport entry roadway has been updated as suggested upthread on Oct 14.
Thank you, dear reader, if it was you who got the arrow under "Departures" moved to under the "p" instead of centered on the section.
Wish I'd taken a picture as I dropped someone off today, it was so beautiful.
:love:

[Edit] Did I only dream it? Was it the coffee making me see happy things? Maybe check for me the next time you go to the airport. I want so bad for it to be true, but now I'm distrusting myself [/EDIT]
Arlington said:
File under "reasonable wayfinding projects"

Solution: either tilt the "Departures" arrow a little bit, or re-center it under the "p" in Departures.

This sign at Logan drives me NUTS because it essentially clarifies NOTHING about what lane you're supposed to be in. It literally is best read as "crash into the impact absorption barrier" to get to Departures:
View attachment 17793

Also, the right shoulder is so poorly marked it appears to be the exit lane for Harborside Drive, reinforcing the impression that Departures is immediately to its left. Other solution: hash marks on the shoulder to make it clear where the right lane is.

And so you see people at the last minute changing lanes, even in Streetview:
(click the link below and "on the street in front of you" to follow the blue Subaru as it makes the all-too-common path.
Where it looks for a long way like it is perfectly lined up for "Departures" only to find out that the Departures sign is wrongly mostly above and indicating the Harborside Drive lane.)
goo.gl

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
goo.gl goo.gl
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Do we think the infrastructure bill/surplus we keep hearing about in the state coffers from pandemic relief could get the people mover back on track (pardon the pun) and/or accelerate Terminal E expansion part 2/A-to-B connector? (Obviously there is a construction labor component to this puzzle, too)
 
SouthEnder88 said:
Do we think the infrastructure bill/surplus we keep hearing about in the state coffers from pandemic relief could get the people mover back on track (pardon the pun) and/or accelerate Terminal E expansion part 2/A-to-B connector? (Obviously there is a construction labor component to this puzzle, too)
Click to expand...

I thought Massport financed their own projects rather than the state funding them. (Not saying it couldn't or shouldn't happen, just that I thought they didn't usually get money from Beacon Hill.)
 
There’s billions in the infrastructure bill for translating to hundred of millions for LGA and JFK so it isn’t impossible that BOS would get some
 
Arlington said:
There’s billions in the infrastructure bill for translating to hundred of millions for LGA and JFK so it isn’t impossible that BOS would get some
Click to expand...

That's a good point, the feds do hand out money for airport improvements. It'd be nice if Logan could get some of that, especially if it meant getting rid of those horrible shuttle buses.
 
Brattle Loop said:
That's a good point, the feds do hand out money for airport improvements. It'd be nice if Logan could get some of that, especially if it meant getting rid of those horrible shuttle buses.
Click to expand...

Speaking of APMs and people movers, and if you'll all forgive the digression ... As long as MassPort builds it along the lines of its original plan and doesn't VE it to oblivion and do what LAX has done and build a people mover that doesn't actually manage to serve any of the terminals directly. Leaving aside Metro access / private shuttle consolidation, future T9, conrac, etc, which are all worthy causes in their own right, they could have made the APMs interface with the terminals a lot better.

What its actually done is make the pedestrian connections better, as given the distances involved, from Terminal to APM stops, it looks like that interterminal connections at LAX are going to be minimally improved from a paxex perspective compared to buses with generally increased walking distances, and some connections basically requiring the walk - T2 to T6/5, for example or T8 to T1. Not saying that those connections are particularly common in any way, given the airlines tenants, but often it would be faster to walk or golf cart. I would only use it to get to Bradley.
Automated+people+mover.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Cross posting to both Infrastructure Bill and Logan threads:

Apparently there is $244m for Massachusetts airports, per Sen Markey. Let us know if you see further details. Also his press release is good summary of Mass’ allocation

www.markey.senate.gov

Senator Markey Announces More Than $9 Billion for Massachusetts in Bipartisan Infrastructure Package, Advances in Critical Safety and Equity Priorities | U.S. Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts

Investments in transportation, clean water, broadband expansion, resilience, and more are on their...
www.markey.senate.gov www.markey.senate.gov
 
Ugh, commercial airports really shouldn’t be recipients of Federal funding.

Federal law restricts how much airports can charge passengers / carriers, then the Feds provide funding to airports out of the Treasury. It makes no sense. Airports should be able to charge passengers / carriers whatever they want (or at least more than they do now) and should have their hands slapped away when they reach out for government money. The current structure just amounts to a Federal subsidy of the most elite form of transportation.
 
JumboBuc said:
Ugh, commercial airports really shouldn’t be recipients of Federal funding.

Federal law restricts how much airports can charge passengers / carriers, then the Feds provide funding to airports out of the Treasury. It makes no sense. Airports should be able to charge passengers / carriers whatever they want (or at least more than they do now) and should have their hands slapped away when they reach out for government money. The current structure just amounts to a Federal subsidy of the most elite form of transportation.
Click to expand...

So, the solution should be to make air transportation even more elitist?

I'm curious to know what the airport/aviation landscape would look like in the US if airports were all funded by deregulated user fees without any government money. I feel like airport operators would have lots of incentives to build and run their facilities on the cheap to keep fees down, because high fees would lead to carriers either not serving the airport, or higher fares from the fees being passed on. Less competition and/or higher fares aren't good things for passengers.
 
Air travel as Fung Wah bus. In a fully de-regulated world it’s not too surprising to see that endpoint.

Airlines, given their way, would prefer to strip passengers naked, dope them up on Xanax, and pack them in like cargo.
 
Last edited:
Airports are only allowed to charge $4.50 per enplaned passenger, a limit that has not increased in over 20 years. At current rates the average ticket nationally is $300, but of that only $4.50 (about 1.5%) is allowed, Federally, to go directly to the airport. This (plus parking, concessions, and what airlines pay for space) isn't enough to meet the capital and maintenance and operations expenses of airports, so Federal dollars help to make up the difference. How does this make sense?

Also, remember that this cap on the passenger facility charge isn't a tax; it goes to the airport, not the government. So allowing airports to charge more wouldn't be a tax increase, it would just be letting the market take care of itself better.

(Also, the actual services that the Government does provide to aviation, like air traffic control and security, aren't even close to paid for by associated fees, so those too are greatly subsidized by general Federal dollars. The "September 11 Security Fee" you pay on every ticket only covers about 40% of the cost of TSA, for example, so the government is kicking in over $8 to pay for TSA on every flight you take.)
Brattle Loop said:
So, the solution should be to make air transportation even more elitist?

I'm curious to know what the airport/aviation landscape would look like in the US if airports were all funded by deregulated user fees without any government money. I feel like airport operators would have lots of incentives to build and run their facilities on the cheap to keep fees down, because high fees would lead to carriers either not serving the airport, or higher fares from the fees being passed on. Less competition and/or higher fares aren't good things for passengers.
Click to expand...
In your first paragraph you imply that lifting the limit would make flying more expensive, but in your second you say that you'd expect prices to go down and airport conditions to degrade. Which one is it? Airports are free today to charge an amount below the $4.50 per passenger cap, but practically none do. That's because airports need money to build and maintain and operate themselves, and to stay competitive. And they've been limited as to how much they can charge, with inflation adjustment, for over 20 years.

Of all the transportation modes, flying is the one that should be getting the least subsidy. Name a government priority and, chances are, airplane subsidies actively work against it. And this is coming from somebody who really likes to fly.
RandomWalk said:
Air travel as Fung Wah bus. In a fully de-regulated world it’s not too surprising to see that endpoint.

Airlines, given their way, would prefer to strip passengers naked, dope them up on Xanax, and pack them in like cargo.
Click to expand...
There's a HUGE difference between "a fully de-regulated world" with respect to flying and one in which airports are allowed to charge more than $4.50 per enplaned passenger to meet their capital and maintenance and operations needs. Everything doesn't have to viewed exclusively through a lens of ideology and absolutes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W-4
JumboBuc said:
In your first paragraph you imply that lifting the limit would make flying more expensive, but in your second you say that you'd expect prices to go down and airport conditions to degrade. Which one is it? Airports are free today to charge an amount below the $4.50 per passenger cap, but practically none do. That's because airports need money to build and maintain and operate themselves, and to stay competitive. And they've been limited as to how much they can charge, with inflation adjustment, for over 20 years.
Click to expand...

I said that airport operators would have incentives to run their facilities on the cheap to keep the fees down, not that prices would go down. Theoretically they could (as facilities declined in quality; you get what you pay for) but I was not assuming that customers would see lower prices from reduced facility fees, only that they would see lower quality facilities. I think it more likely that the airlines would simply pocket the difference (unless this change were accompanied by regulation fostering greater competition among carriers) or that they would not serve subpar facilities, requiring the airport operators to invest in better facilities on the back of higher fees which the airlines would then happily pass on to their customers. Either way, I think it'd be the passengers who got screwed (because that's usually how these things go).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top