Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jtet93 t1_j65kdzx wrote

Reply to comment by thebochman 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

I’ve had this thought too. Isn’t hanscom already owned by massport?

5

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.

6

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.

6

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

2

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.

3

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.

2

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!

1