Logan Airport

mass88

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
2,190
Reaction score
208
Does anyone think a new airport needs to be built for Boston?

Just as a hypothetical situation, and really for fun, where would you build a new airport in the metro area?

Does anyone have a guess as a ballpark figure to build the new airport?
 

datadyne007

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
8,894
Reaction score
269
There is a thread somewhere on here about this. The "Logan Jetport" used to be a MAJOR topic of discussion and design on this board.
 

Commuting Boston Student

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
1,168
Reaction score
1
We don't need a new airport, we've already got three - just like New York (JFK, LaGuardia, Newark) and Washington (Reagan, Dulles, BWI).

The difference is, where New York's three airports all more or less suck, and where Washington has actually figured out how to have all three of its airports working together, Boston... has not.

Before any talks of building a new Logan or seriously expanding the Logan we have can commence, we should get the people in charge of Logan, T.F. Green, and Manchester to come together and figure out how to work as a cohesive unit. This will require some investment in fostering strengthened rail and bus/road connections between Boston and Manchester/Warwick, but that shouldn't be nearly as difficult as the alternate zany proposal datadyne makes reference to, namely, build a new airport out in the middle of the Harbor.

That thread, for reference: http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=3720
 

datadyne007

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
8,894
Reaction score
269
^ Nah, there's an older, better thread than that somewhere.
 

novitiate

Active Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
190
Reaction score
0
It seems like the best place for a new airport would have been South Weymouth, you could even pretty easily extend the Red Line there- I suppose with the SouthField development that's an impossibility now, though. (and Hingham would have thrown a fit anyway)
 

dshoost88

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
1,976
Reaction score
1,466
Hello there everyone. I made a google map more than a year ago (I think I shared it on here somewhere) that presents a solution for congestion at Logan. Please ignore my Urban Ring fantasy line on there.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msi...ll=42.352962,-70.994682&spn=0.088675,0.181789

The main gist of the map is to demonstrate that the airport doesn't need to be completely moved somewhere else. One of the benefits of Logan is its proximity to downtown Boston and multi-modal infrastructure. I think the best thing Logan could do is realign its runways so that they are both long enough to handle the largest passenger aircraft (A-380), allow more aircraft to depart/take-off simultaneously, and--best of all--reduce the amount of restricted airspace downtown so that the city has carte blanche to build supertall skyscrapers as necessary.

Comments/feedback always appreciated; thanks.
 

choo

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
1,276
Reaction score
1
Is there any safety reason or anything that would require you to build out both runways? I could imagine one day, probably like 10 years from now, after service to Middle East and Asia has been established and grown that airlines may be looking to bring in A380s and Massport could try this plan. But would you need both?

To be honest, though, I think aircraft like the 787 are much more important component of Logan and Boston's future than the A380, which has had sluggish sales. 2 787 flights a day match (potential) demand and market size then 1 A380.
 

AmericanFolkLegend

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
2,173
Reaction score
158
Dshoot. I like the idea, bu two major problems.
1. You'd need to basically shut down the airport to build the new one. So Boston would need to survive without a major airport for 3-5 years.
2. I HATE the "Grand Terminal" model. Maybe this is just because I spent a summer traveling to Atlanta for work and Hartsfield Jackson would routinely have 90 minute security lines that wrapped chaotically through the grand terminal.
 

Equilibria

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
5,797
Reaction score
4,564
The issue of moving Logan was pretty heavily dealt with by the FAA back in the 1990s and early 2000s. The result was the New England Regional Airport System Plan, or NERASP, which recommended that rather than massively expand Logan or build a replacement, Manchester and Providence (which at that time were booming with the "Southwest Effect"), would fill precisely the "second airport" role some of you have described. The level of cooperation was actually fairly high (and coordination was by a Federal agency, not by Massport or Beacon Hill), and both Manchester and Providence expanded their terminals to accommodate their new roles.

Problem was, the forecast congestion at Logan never materialized, due to a double whammy of 9/11 and the airline consolidation that followed, as well as the opening of the Ted Williams Tunnel. The second was incredibly important - Big Dig construction had seriously constrained traffic and jacked up travel times from the suburbs to Logan for more than a decade. Once it took 15 minutes and not 90 to get from the 128 belt to Logan, there was little desire to drive to an entirely different state for a cheap fare, a dynamic which as ultimately forced Southwest themselves to start flying to Boston.

There are two reasons to build a new airport. The first would be that Logan simply cannot handle projected airline traffic into the city, and it can. The other reason, and the only reason to build one now, is that the land on which the airport sits could be better utilized, and that the positive externalities of removing the airport (higher height limits, lower pollution, less congestion) outweigh the negative ones (convenience for business travelers and convention attendees).

On top of all of this, there's simply nowhere to put a new airport anywhere in Metro Boston. The FAA did a fairly extensive search, and the best they could do for a comparison was Devens, a project which would have involved expansion of Route 2 to superhighway standards from 128 out past 495 to the new airport, possibly with transit in the median. The environmental cost would be enormous, and it would have been politically untenable. Filling in the Harbor or Bay (either as proposed above or as a Kansai-style island airport) would be pretty much a suicide mission with environmental and fishing interests, in addition to a massive price tag.

Logan has problems that need fixing (they should be rebuilding Terminal B instead of renovating/expanding it, for starters), but it has it's advantages. This is a "devil you know" situation to me.
 

wicked

New member
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
53
Reaction score
3
Hingham/Weymouth/Rockland/Braintree/Abington/Hanover/Norwell and a slew of other towns would have pitched a fit if there ever was a serious proposal to build an airport at NAS South Weymouth.
 

tocoto

Active Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
382
Reaction score
79
Security side walkways and one 11,000 foot runway would do wonders for Logan. The first is happening, the second not, but 15R 33L could be lengthened at minimal cost (relative to airport expansions).
 

TallIsGood

Active Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
456
Reaction score
55
Didn't building 14/32 negate the need to extend 15L/33R. 14/32 takes the commuter traffic off a crossing runway. Unfortunately, the built the hotel right in the centerline of the runway so it could only be used for eastbound take offs (once windspeed exceeds 10kts instead of 11.5kts the neighbors wanted).
 

jass

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
5,065
Reaction score
715
If there was a need for more airports, Worcester would have more than one flight a day.
 

dshoost88

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
1,976
Reaction score
1,466
Dshoot. I like the idea, bu two major problems.
1. You'd need to basically shut down the airport to build the new one. So Boston would need to survive without a major airport for 3-5 years.
2. I HATE the "Grand Terminal" model. Maybe this is just because I spent a summer traveling to Atlanta for work and Hartsfield Jackson would routinely have 90 minute security lines that wrapped chaotically through the grand terminal.
1. No; the airport redevelopment compliant to my proposal could be done in such a way to mitigate for current capacity throughout construction and have little negative impact on current operations. Here's how I would phase construction:
A) Shutdown service on runway 15L/33R. Pave cross section of existing 4L/22R runway and future realigned 33L/15R runway (just the part where they will intersect in the future). Once this is completed, the existing 4L/22R runway will remain operable indefinitely.
B) Fill in wetlands north of Logan and relocate/add all cargo/industrial airport uses from south side of airport to north side; construct new international package handling facility for Cathay Pacific/DHL/FedEx/UPS/jetBlue Cargo.
C) Begin landfill and construction of realigned 14/32 runway (the southern 13,000-foot long runway). Siphon earth from existing southern land site into harbor for east end of runway, thereby restoring some of the original harbor.
D) Upon completion of new 14/32 runway and existing service of 4L/22R runway, discontinue service on all other runways. If London Gatwick Airport can operate as a single runway airport and still handle up to 35 million passengers annually, there's no reason Boston can't do the same with 14/32 and the 4L/22R back-up and comparably similar passenger traffic (29.3 million in 2012).
E) Begin construction of Airport Link People Mover/Subway, International Terminal (2), and Terminal 3. Also begin filling in harbor for future phases of terminals 4, 5, and 6. Create temporary Airport Link station entrance between existing Terminals B & C. Create temporary link & security gates from Terminal B to Airport Link.
F) Relocate all JetBlue, Cape Air, American, Virgin America, and other International flights (i.e. B, C, and E airlines) to new International Terminal (2) and Terminal 3. Begin deconstruction of Terminals C and E, and begin constructing NE wing of the grand terminal. Once E is deconstructed, construction of the new 33L/15R runway can begin ( *note that we previously constructed the cross section on the existing 4L/22R runway as not to impede its use this late in the construction process).
G) Relocate all airlines from terminal A to the newly completed NE wing of the grand terminal. Begin demolition of terminal A; commence construction of SW wing of the grand terminal. New 33L/15R runway becomes operable. Begin constructing Terminals 4, 5, and 6 based on demand for passenger traffic at airport; only open these terminals once SW wing of the grand terminal is complete.
H) Reroute airport drop-off roadway to future appropriate alignment. Begin construction of 10-level parking garage SW wing, new air traffic control tower, and 1,000-room hotel atop garage. Build shallow channel and ferry terminal connected to grand terminal via landscaped SW garage walkway.
I) Once SW wing of garage is complete, deconstruct existing garages and build NE wing of 10-level parking garage and additional 1,000-room hotel atop garage (2,000 total hotel rooms).
J) Grand terminal complete; 33L/15R, 14/32, and emergency 4L/22R operable; terminals 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and grand operational; garage, hotel, MBTA service, and ferry up and running. Capacity at Logan Airport doubles from 35 million passengers/year to over 70 million passengers/year, and cargo operations are booming.

2. I agree that the grand terminal concept failed at some airports, but it works amazingly at the places that got it right. If you get a chance to ever fly into Hong Kong, Bangkok, Denver, or Dulles (among others), you'll see what I'm talking about.

Sorry for the excessively long post. I'm just trying to prove that the idea can work. There's gotta be an industrial engineer or something reading this that can assess and back me up on this. It would be wonderful for the city if this ever happened.
 

stellarfun

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
5,344
Reaction score
781
dshoost, you just can't simply fill wetlands these days. San Francisco airport is filling 3.7 acres of the Bay for a runway. As mitigation the airport has to create/restore 7.4 acres of wetland elsewhere (in this case, at the Presidio).

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/03/sfo-runway-work-helping-wetlands-revival-take

Boston cannot operate a uni-direction runway(s) because crosswind constraints would seriously limit operations. Boston is the windiest major city in the United States, average wind speed is two mph higher than Chicago, which is ranked 12th.

Annual wind statistics Logan
http://www.windfinder.com/windstats/windstatistic_boston_logan_airport.htm

Wind statistics for Gatwick
http://www.windfinder.com/windstats/windstatistic_gatwick_airport.htm

Compare the wind roses for Logan and Gatwick, and the average velocities, and one will understand why Logan requires multi-directional, intersecting runways.

See the wind rose for SFO, relatively high winds, but uni-directional.
http://www.windfinder.com/windstats/windstatistic_san_francisco.htm
 

Shepard

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
3,518
Reaction score
62
Indisputably, Logan's best asset is its location relative to the city. Why would anyone want to move it? I wouldn't consider "because that land could be put to better use" until the Eastie waterfront is built out, the Pike decked over, Beacon Yards, Innerbelt and the Pappas seaport parcels are developed, and the South Bay shopping center goes vertical. When all that happens, then we can talk.

I think from the experience side there's a lot of room to improve what we have. Expand the enclosed terminal-to-terminal connections, for a start - and is there any way that these can be constructed to also connect among secure areas? It'd also be great to physically tie in the Blue Line stop - preferably by relocating it, or through a long walkway or skytrain.
 

stellarfun

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
5,344
Reaction score
781
The nearest available land to build a new Logan is Pease Air Force Base, which has 3x the current land area of Logan. Getting to Pease from the South shore would be hell though.

And which is why any discussion about moving Logan is the type of thread that typically appears during winter's dreariest doldrums, when there is little else to discuss.
 

MBTAddict

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
474
Reaction score
0
Indisputably, Logan's best asset is its location relative to the city. Why would anyone want to move it? I wouldn't consider "because that land could be put to better use" until the Eastie waterfront is built out, the Pike decked over, Beacon Yards, Innerbelt and the Pappas seaport parcels are developed, and the South Bay shopping center goes vertical. When all that happens, then we can talk.
Yeah, there's a ton of places that can and should be built up before we need to worry about Logan taking up too much space.
 

bosdevelopment

Active Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
727
Reaction score
0
this is not worth conversation. logan will not be moved, at least in our lifetime. why move it anyway? it's literally 5 minutes from downtown boston.
 

Top