Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jtet93 t1_j65tt7l wrote

Reply to comment by immoralatheist 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

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