Ordie100 t1_j64x56u wrote
Reply to comment by spedmunki in I took a 2 1/2 hour flight from Chicago to Boston. It took me 2 1/2 hours to get from Logan to Watertown Square by jenkneefur28
For those of us who live in Eastie we would prefer not having to walk into the depths of the airport to take the train to work... It's a classic transit planning debate, do you screw over the people who live near the airport by diverting the line to the center of the airport or do you have shuttle buses
thebochman t1_j65jgbv wrote
Just need to move the airport at this point honestly, it’s great having it close to the city but with how fucked the city is on housing might as well use the space differently and build a new airport north
jtet93 t1_j65kdzx wrote
I’ve had this thought too. Isn’t hanscom already owned by massport?
immoralatheist t1_j65t6yl wrote
It is, but Hanscom is not remotely equipped to be any sort of replacement for Logan in so many ways. No train access, no highway access, only two runways, and both are too short for anything bigger than a 757 (maybe a lightly loaded 767), no real terminals, etc. Trying to make the necessary changes to use it to replace Logan would need to be more extensive and expensive than it would be to just make the various upgrades at Logan.
DaWolf85 t1_j664fdn wrote
Also half the airport is an active military base with access restrictions. And then the other sides of the airport are a national historical park and two conservation areas. It can't expand.
Plus, its only current transit connection is the 76 bus, which is, to put it mildly, a fucking embarrassment of a bus route.
jtet93 t1_j65tt7l wrote
Right, I mean, obviously this would be a massive, major project. But the one improvement you can’t make at Logan is reclaiming all that land. It would also have a big impact on height restrictions in the city. Just thinking out loud, I really only have a layman’s understanding of the benefits of each scenario. I like having Logan so close but I do think there would be benefits to moving it as well. Hanscom seems like the most realistic alternative because where the fuck else are you gonna put a whole airport in the GBA lol
immoralatheist t1_j65wb2g wrote
IMO the cost of building new runways and more taxiways, a whole new set of terminals, buying out neighboring properties, building a highway connection to the airport, building a train connection, and everything else involved would not be even close to worth it to get the land “back” (we never really had that land, the airport is all infill, it was just ocean before.)
I think just building a train to the airport terminals is the best thing to do, and would be a fraction of the cost of relocating the airport. Even just beholding an automated people mover to the terminals and train station wouldn’t be a bad option, and would probably cost less.
As for height restrictions, they really aren’t that significant anywhere other than the seaport. Besides, personally I don’t want Boston to be New York skyscraper dense, I want it to be Paris dense, with more 4-6 story apartments, which are not affected by flight paths at all.
commentsOnPizza t1_j676xup wrote
They were looking to do a small (but greater) amount of commercial flights out of Hanscom, but residents hate the idea and throw up enough opposition to kill most things. There was interest in using Hanscom for some flights like to NYC - things that don't warrant a 757 or anything large. It wouldn't replace Logan, but it could handle some flights except that residents are hugely opposed to it.
rickb112358 t1_j68gi9s wrote
I think some of those small NYC flights ended up heading out to Worcester. I wish there were more flights out there actually, it's a great little airport!
drowsylacuna t1_j65tv48 wrote
Do we want more housing on low lying fill though? Eastie and Chelsea are some of the most vulnerable areas already iirc.
commentsOnPizza t1_j67hdw3 wrote
It's possible that it could have done both. The Blue line already curves toward the airport before curving away to the Airport stop. If they put a stop at Santarpio's, had it go under the East Boston Memorial Park to the airport, and loop back to stop either at the current Airport stop or a new stop just east between Putnam and Prescott, that would give really good neighborhood coverage while also hitting the airport.
There are definitely ways where it could serve both.
Even if you don't like the detour to Logan, the Elizabeth Line in London has some trains go to Heathrow and some not. If we could rewind time, maybe instead of building the Silver Line and the Ted Williams Tunnel, it would make more sense to have the Blue Line have two different terminuses. One leg terminates at Logan and one leg goes to Wonderland.
Burying I-93 was really important, but maybe public transit could have gotten more love and we could have put a bit less into the highways.
clauclauclaudia t1_j69sth8 wrote
The GLX was supposed to have been part of the Big Dig remediation. It just finally opened.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments