Logan Airport Capital Projects

These environmental regulations are erroneous and hurt the economy. Half of the city of Boston is built on landfill, how did that hurt the environment??
 
tysmith95 said:
These environmental regulations are erroneous and hurt the economy. Half of the city of Boston is built on landfill, how did that hurt the environment??
Click to expand...

Estuaries and tidal marsh lands are the most prolific marine ecosystems, and are critical to the survival of virtually all marine life.

Virtually all of the fill areas around Boston used to be those ecosystems. We made a totally unconscious choice to kill off our marine ecosystem near Boston by filling in all that marsh land. In the process, we also killed off the local fishing industry.

Destroying ecosystems has consequences. I am not saying it wasn't a reasonable tradeoff (it's not like I want Boston to be a quaint fishing village), but we made the trade off without even realizing what was happening. Today we try to be a bit more thoughtful.

It is kind of the same way we learned not to dump all our sewage into the harbor. None of the development in the Seaport or other waterfront locations would be happening if we had not reversed course and cleaned up the harbor. Protecting remaining estuaries also helps this cause.
 
On the upside, I think that 14/32 will be much more useful in the next few years than i than been. The CS100 (new Bombardier plane ) can land on a 4000 ft runway. Delta has ordered 75 of them. Delta may chose to put some in boston to take advantage of the shortest taxi ride ever from 32/14 to terminal A. Shorter taxi ride = slightly higher utilization.
 
stellarfun said:
For the past 45 years, one can no longer fill the navigable waters of the United States without a permit. That doesn't mean an airport couldn't get a permit, but it would require offsets.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sfo-runway-work-helping-wetlands-revival-take-off/
^^^ The article is a bit incorrect, the law does not specify a 2:1.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2013/08/29/massive-new-wetlands-restoration-reshapes-san-francisco-bay/
Click to expand...

Stellarfun -- Here's guessing that when there is a new head of the Corps of Engineers and a new head of the EPA, -- sometime in February or so -- that these kind of projects will get approval a whole lot easier than has been the case for say the last 2+ decades.

The last big fill in Boston Harbor was 90 ACRES circa 1982-85 -- the Bird Island Flats Project -- created new land behind Jeffries Point where Fedex, the Hyatt and the Logan Office Center are located
 
^ Also Spectacle Island got a lot bigger during the big dig, but that's a special case because the smaller version of the island was literally a flaming heap of toxic trash.

And i wonder what would happen if you extended a breakwater or similar structure in a way that caused silt to accumulate 'naturally' over the course of a decade or two - e.g. the beach in winthrop

FWIW you could definitely extend the runway on a pier, especially given that its already limited to lighter planes
 
johhn14 said:
Emirates will be bringing the A380 for a one off service on Jan 26 - it's already in the timetable. EK237/238

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38...one-time-a380-boston-flight-in-late-jan-2017/
Click to expand...

When are the gates supposed to be done? March. Massport has provided zero updates on the progress of this project.

I am wondering if Massport is letting Emirates test the gate setup.

Based on load factors an A380 on a single daily flight is too small, but an A380 daily plus a 77W daily is too big.
 
I haven't seen any dates published. I'll be at Terminal E tomorrow and will share some qualitative obervations from the exterior. I haven't been over there since the end of October and the jetways were just starting to go up then.

Overall I'd agree with your assessment. I take the Emirates flight a few times a year, always in J class, and its been reasonably full each time I've flown which has been a mix of the morning and night flights.
 
whighlander said:
Stellarfun -- Here's guessing that when there is a new head of the Corps of Engineers and a new head of the EPA, -- sometime in February or so -- that these kind of projects will get approval a whole lot easier than has been the case for say the last 2+ decades.

The last big fill in Boston Harbor was 90 ACRES circa 1982-85 -- the Bird Island Flats Project -- created new land behind Jeffries Point where Fedex, the Hyatt and the Logan Office Center are located
Click to expand...

Well, you would be guessing wrong.

The Chief of the Corps of Engineers is an active duty army general, not someone appointed by the President.

The River and Harbor Act of 1890 (26 Stat. 426) and the Clean Water Act of 1972 govern, and these are not vitiated by whimsical tweets in the early hours, or fanciful predictions.

In any event, all /nearly all the development work at Jeffries Point appears to have been done behind an existing revetment, which made it iupland of the navigable waters. If that was the case. the Corps said no permit was required.

https://books.google.com/books?id=v...d Island Flats Boston dredge and fill&f=false

And while you are at it, you might care to become better informed by reading this.

https://books.google.com/books?id=I...Q6AEITDAF#v=onepage&q=clean water act&f=false
 
stellarfun said:
Well, you would be guessing wrong.

The Chief of the Corps of Engineers is an active duty army general, not someone appointed by the President.

The River and Harbor Act of 1890 (26 Stat. 426) and the Clean Water Act of 1972 govern, and these are not vitiated by whimsical tweets in the early hours, or fanciful predictions.

In any event, all /nearly all the development work at Jeffries Point appears to have been done behind an existing revetment, which made it iupland of the navigable waters. If that was the case. the Corps said no permit was required.
Click to expand...

Stellarfun - -- Thanks for the Book list and the point about the boundary of the navigable part of Boston Harbor

To further our discussion you might want to review Article 2 of the US Constitution

some highlights which are relevant follow:

  • SECTION 1
    The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
  • SECTION 2
    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

    he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices,

    he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ...all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law

  • SECTION 3
    He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary... and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

In other words the General in charge of the Corps of Engineers serves at the pleasure of the President, as does everyone in the Corps of Engineers and the EPA except the members of the Civil Service

That was why President Obama said -- "Elections Have Consequences"

So once again -- Many rules [especially those introduced by President Obama through Executive Orders] are likely to change -- and they are more likely to be more lenient than less lenient with respect to things such as filling parts of Boston Harbor which are not involved in shipping
 
whighlander,
I will suggest that you stick to whatever subjects you took at MIT, and not verge into interpreting Federal law.

The Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers is a career military officer.
http://www.usace.army.mil/About/Lea...le/776561/lieutenant-general-todd-t-semonite/

The rules, of which you are so dismissive, are not the 'whole cloth' creation of Obama, or his predecessors. These are requirements set out in law by Congress. If you want to exclude whatever part of Boston harbor you wish to exclude from the legal requirements established in any number of laws establishing Federal jurisdiction over the navigable waters of the United States, have Congress (at the initiative of the entirely Democratic delegation to Congress) change the law.

As it was, the Clean Water Act of 1972 became law over President Nixon's veto. (He veto'ed it for reasons unrelated to dredge and fill permits.)
 
Look way up there in the upper right corner of the page... Do you see the link to the private messages? Please take this derailment there.
 
Working for the military I can say who happens to be president has very little influence on how we operate, however we feel the impact of every stupid tantrum congress has.
 
RandomWalk said:
Look way up there in the upper right corner of the page... Do you see the link to the private messages? Please take this derailment there.
Click to expand...

I actually welcome the fact-based rebuttals to Whigh's drivel. All talk for his own agenda & no facts.

Thank you Stellar for standing up for facts.
 
So......anyone have recent photos of the project?
 
I was by there earlier today and not much to report. Exterior looks largely complete although still some equipment outside and looks like tarmac work is in progress. From the exterior I could see lights on inside that looked like they were of the construction variety
 
Can't reveal further specifics, but interior fit out of the gate hold areas & lounges are on-going. Opening late Jan or Feb. Lounges will probably finish after the gate hold areas.
 
Last edited:
stellarfun said:
whighlander,
I will suggest that you stick to whatever subjects you took at MIT, and not verge into interpreting Federal law.

The Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers is a career military officer.
http://www.usace.army.mil/About/Lea...le/776561/lieutenant-general-todd-t-semonite/

The rules, of which you are so dismissive, are not the 'whole cloth' creation of Obama, or his predecessors. These are requirements set out in law by Congress. If you want to exclude whatever part of Boston harbor you wish to exclude from the legal requirements established in any number of laws establishing Federal jurisdiction over the navigable waters of the United States, have Congress (at the initiative of the entirely Democratic delegation to Congress) change the law.

As it was, the Clean Water Act of 1972 became law over President Nixon's veto. (He veto'ed it for reasons unrelated to dredge and fill permits.)
Click to expand...

Stellarfun -- The Chief of the Corps or whatever in the Army -- as a military officer he still serves at the pleasure of the President

The President can ask for his resignation, promote him, or if the President so desires he can have the Head of the ACE reassigned to managing the trash collection at Fort Greely [fairly remote base in central alaska where we keep some strategic missile interceptors].

Only a promotion to a higher rank needs congressional action -- all the rest are purely the prerogative of the President transmitted through the Sec. Dev, the Sec of the Army and the Army Chief of Staff and on down the chain of command as required depending on whether the logistical or combatant matters are involved

see the following diagram
Organization_of_the_Department_of_the_Army_Headquarters.png


The same is basically true of anyone at the EPA who doesn't chose to follow the President's direction -- unless they are career civil servants they can be fired or asked to resign. Even the career civil servants can be reassigned or transferred. Thus the recalcitrant EPA official could be asked to change his/her yea/nea on some project and if they then refuse to act and refuse to resign -- well there is always the opportunity to be reassigned to the the task of monitoring the effluent from Fort Greely.
 
datadyne007 said:
Can't reveal further specifics, but interior fit out of the gate hold areas & lounges are on-going. Opening late Jan or Feb. Lounges will probably finish after the gate hold areas.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update. It will be nice to see photos of everything once it's done. I have no plans to fly internationally in the next 9 months so I will have to rely on you guys that do to give thoughts and opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top