Logan Airport Capital Projects

BeyondRevenue

Active Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
144
Reaction score
222
Anybody know offhand what the final price tag on Terminal E is gonna be? As always, asking for a friend.
 

Arlington

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
5,145
Reaction score
1,523
Mod Note: Misleading number and the verbiage that ensued removed.
 
Last edited:

BeyondRevenue

Active Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
144
Reaction score
222
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?
 

Arlington

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
5,145
Reaction score
1,523
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.
 

Arlington

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
5,145
Reaction score
1,523
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]
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.)
 
Last edited:

SouthEnder88

New member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
89
Reaction score
4
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)
 

Brattle Loop

Active Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
376
Reaction score
536
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)
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.)
 

Arlington

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
5,145
Reaction score
1,523
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
 

Brattle Loop

Active Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
376
Reaction score
536
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
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.
 

Stlin

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
281
Reaction score
311
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.
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:

Arlington

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
5,145
Reaction score
1,523
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

 

JumboBuc

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
1,103
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.
 

Brattle Loop

Active Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
376
Reaction score
536
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.
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.
 

RandomWalk

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
1,442
Reaction score
868
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:

JumboBuc

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
1,103
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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

Top