Logan Airport Capital Projects

atlantaden said:
Wow! So surprising coming from an architect. A waste of cash?? So, why have niceties like lighting on public buildings, on bridges, having artwork in public buildings and airports, why bother with anything interesting and fun for the public? Thankfully the Board of Directors of the Boston Public Library didn't take that same view when they redid the main library at Copley. And yes, I do care for the 75 seconds I might see the Zakim lit up in all it's purple as I drive over it at night, or see City Hall and the new government center T station all lit up. And yes, I do enjoy walking through a glass jetway, or the glass-enclosed moving sidewalks connecting Terminal E to Terminal A, seeing the sea creatures imbedded in the flooring of those walkways, and I love the new little fluttering thingies attached to the new parking garage at Logan, or any other number of places for the small amount of time I might find myself in them. It makes, for me anyway, a much more pleasant experience which I consider a very nice return on investment.
Click to expand...

Consider how long you spend in a jetway vs how long you spend walking through the moving walkway system or better yet, in the terminal itself in the gate hold areas. Where would you want the money spent? Where you spend a minute or two (jetway) or where you spend hours (gate hold areas)? Gate hold obviously, that's where you get the best ROI.

You're comparing apples & oranges when you start listing all of these incredible public projects like the BPL & GC and comparing them to glass jetways that are only experienced by the people inside them. You spend much longer in GC than you do in a jetway and not only people using GC experience its features, but also people on the plaza. I wouldn't say a single one of those projects that you listed is wasted ROI. Glass jetways though? Absolutely.

#Priorities
 
I'll side with Atlantaden on this one. I don't believe that the cost increase from having a glass Jetway is anywhere near as high as the other improvements that you stated.
 
Data, according to the article, the glass jetways cost 2-5% more than the steel ones, so if you have to spend the money on a new jetway anyway, it's not that a big deal...and frankly, many times I've stood in a jetway for many many minutes waiting board a plane but my point being, if you have to spend the money anyway and the cost is minimal, why not go for it. Massport didn't have to put down beautiful decorative terrazzo flooring, (which probably cost a bit more) for people to just walk on, but they did, knowing that someone (not everyone) will look down and get some enjoyment out of it and, happily, I could name a hundred other examples of the same type of thing! That's all I'm saying...
 
Searched on google and found this:

FAA rules specifically state jet bridges should have no windows. This was a measure previously to ensure that passengers would have five minutes to de-board a plane if there was a fuel fire. While fireproof glass jet bridges exist, regulation hasn't changed to allow for them to be added to US airports.
 
JeffDowntown said:
OK, I like glass jetways. But really, if they are a source of "civic pride" one really needs to work on one's civic priorities.
Click to expand...

Well, they did build a brand new terminal and, for Wichita, KS, I imagine that's a big source of civic pride. Frankly, not every project has to be huge to be the source of civic pride, Boston has thousands of things that I take great pride in, many quite large, others pretty damn small. It's all a matter of how one looks at things.
 
Last edited:
JeffDowntown said:
Try boarding on the tarmac in mid-winter in any northern city, and your opinion will change.

I've done it in Moscow in February, and trust me it is not a fun or fast experience.
Click to expand...

JeffDowntown -- I've done it in Toronto in February -- Moscow might have been colder but we were being pelted by enough snow and freezing rain mixed with just enough cold real rain to make everyone who assumed there would be a jetway and dressed accordingly wet and cold

That was one really Krappy week in 1996 --I had trouble getting up there, had to stay over an extra night and then caught the last flight out before the airport closed again

And when I landed at Logan -- i was really thankful of the Jetway -- as the same stuff had started to fall in East Boston that I'd left in Toronto
 
Some thoughts from a recent trip to Logan:

I flew jetblue for the first time in forever, and in my mind Jetblue had the NICE terminal, while United and AA had the garbage one.

Woops.

Why the hell is the Jetblue terminal such a steaming dump?

Not enough seating, few retail choices, TINY bathrooms, and everything is far.

AND NO OUTLETS ANYWHERE (even though posters on the wall advertised power charging area)

Ew. Also, their bag drop took forever.

Anyway, I took the opportunity to visit the lounge (with priority pass), and eh.

Like the terminal, small and cramped. Chairs bunched together, one small table for every 8 chairs.

AND VERY LIMITED POWER OUTLETS.

Seriously folks, its 2016. Power outlets are a thing.

The food was alright. Chowder was good. Sandwiches were edible, but tiny. Alcohol was limited to a few beers and wines.

I wouldnt pay to get in, but if you can for free, why not.

However, I find that many areas of the airport offered superior seating, for free.

Such as this area:

20161123_102645 by James Sinclair, on Flickr

Anyway, I left the lounge to walk around, and thats when I remembered two things: I could walk to E, and I could access the other lounge there!

Well holy shit that thing is HIDDEN.

20161128_181042 by James Sinclair, on Flickr

20161128_180918 by James Sinclair, on Flickr

20161128_180720 by James Sinclair, on Flickr

20161128_180733 by James Sinclair, on Flickr

I felt so classy

20161128_180713 by James Sinclair, on Flickr

Anyway, the lounge itself was much larger, but also cramped and nothing special. Almost identical food spread, but free hard liquors available for self-service.

Bonus:

20161128_175501 by James Sinclair, on Flickr

20161128_180830 by James Sinclair, on Flickr

20161128_160812 by James Sinclair, on Flickr
 
^ JetBlue's Terminal C concourses are very old, original configuration Logan, from a very different era of airport design. Unlike other terminals they have never really been rebuilt, which they desperately need. Low ceilings, cramped space, were par for the course. Amenities basically match the age of the terminal.

It is not clear how you pull off the total rebuild needed with the traffic volume there, but it really is needed.
 
Great photos. The check-in area of Terminal C is nice, but once you get through security and out onto the piers things go downhill fast. I've said before that eventually JetBlue and Massport need to completely demolish and rebuild the piers. JetBlue is the Logan/s largest carrier and they have the worst terminal by far, imo.
 
mass88 said:
Great photos. The check-in area of Terminal C is nice, but once you get through security and out onto the piers things go downhill fast. I've said before that eventually JetBlue and Massport need to completely demolish and rebuild the piers. JetBlue is the Logan/s largest carrier and they have the worst terminal by far, imo.
Click to expand...

Mass -- there is no surprise on this one

When Terminal C opened circa 1967 there was an airline flying from it called United, one called TWA, and another one called Northeast [with the yellow birds] and the control tower was the squat black thing -- the world's tallest tower was still 7 years away

Since that time everything public and common in Terminal C has been renovated several times [not all of it each time 1987, 2002, 2005, 2011[common security checkpoint] and this year the C-E connector]

However, once you pass through the relatively recently renovated area for shops and food after the new security complex -- nothing has changed except the names of the airlines and posters for the various venues and the corridor ads for the two piers
 
mass88 said:
Great photos. The check-in area of Terminal C is nice, but once you get through security and out onto the piers things go downhill fast. I've said before that eventually JetBlue and Massport need to completely demolish and rebuild the piers. JetBlue is the Logan/s largest carrier and they have the worst terminal by far, imo.
Click to expand...

I think my issue is that I had seen the landside area many times, which is quite lovely, and in my head associated the air-side with where United and AA are.

Conversely, the terminal B landside is absolutely horrendous.

Also, am I mistaken or did they move Virgin for the isolated gates in B...to the isolated gates in C?

Those little orphans are best suited for commuter routes, not cross country routes.
 
Apologies for bumping the thread with no news other than a question -

Why doesnt logan expand 32/14 to be 1.1 mi, otherwise known as the minimum landing area of the 737-8 and 737-7? With the minimum landing areas shrinking a little with the Max, I think it would make sense to expand it by about .1-.2 mi behind fedex, AA cargo, and delta cargo.

On google maps, it is coming up as some paved surface, but it isnt stripped as a runway. Would it be possible to repave this area and bring it up to runway standards? Are there minimums at the end of runways? I think there would be a benefit to having a runway that isn't intertwined with everything else.
 
The Hyatt was deliberately positioned to prevent 14/32 from being viable as a major runway.
 
While the hyatt is royally inconvenient, I'm more talking about the 500-600ft between the end of the runway and just before the airport wall. If it could be extended by that much, I think that it could become pretty heavily used for landing a319s, a320s, 737-7, 737-8, cs100, e170, e175, and e190s. It would be for landings only and would primarily service terminal A and B.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3575943,-71.0248963,2244a,20y,304.25h/data=!3m1!1e3
 
Last edited:
Given the experience of the Southwest 737 overrunning the runway at Midway, I highly doubt the FAA would allow such tight margins.
 
tysmith95 said:
Why is landfill not an option?
Click to expand...

Gonna take a wild guess and say current environmental regulations make that prohibitively expensive.

Kind of like how making new drydocks beyond currently existing ones is also considered prohibitively expensive due to environmental regulations and most US shipbuilders opt for floating drydocks now. (Among other reasons)

btw that one big operational drydock in Boston is irreplaceable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top