Hey, there! Log in / Register

Massport plans major expansion of international terminal at Logan: New gates, more space for Customs, direct walkway to T stop

Proposed layout of Terminal E international-arrivals expansion at Logan Airport

Proposed layout of Terminal E expansion, to be done in two phases.

With international travel through Logan Airport really taking off, Massport is planning additions to Terminal E that would include new gates, an expanded Customs area and a covered pedestrian walkway to the Airport T station.

In an environmental notification form filed with the state last month, Massport says the expansion will served a growing international travel market that it says will reach 6 million passengers a year in 2022, compared to 4.9 million in 2014.

The proposal includes up to seven new gates - which would include three that were approved before 9/11 but put on hold after that. Terminal E currently has 12 gates.

Massport hopes to begin the expansion in 2017; it estimates construction would take four years.

The proposed expansion would be in addition to current work to add some more space to the building and to equip some gates to handle new Airbus jumbo jets. Even with that work, Massport says, Terminal E will remain overloaded - to the point where arriving planes often have to park in a remote cargo area, from which passengers are bused to the terminal:

Within Terminal E, particularly during peak late afternoon and early evening periods, passengers experience severe congestion and delays at the ticket counters, security screening areas, and there is insufficient space post security for passenger seating, concessions and other support services. Passenger delays of two hours or more are common in the August peak travel period.

Massport says the project will actually help the environment in several ways: Planes that now have to run on their own diesel power while waiting for passengers to leave at the cargo area will be able to plug directly into the airport's cleaner, more efficient electrical system, the building expansion will buffer East Boston from airplane noise and the new pedestrian walkway to Logan will encourage use of public transportation - especially among international visitors used to such direct subway connections:

A key feature of the Project is a direct pedestrian connection between Terminal E and the MBTA Blue Line Airport Station. The connection will be enclosed and weather protected and may include moving sidewalks. Concepts include underground and above ground connections which will be evaluated for constructability and costs. This convenient, direct connection to the MBTA Airport Station will enhance passenger connectivity and facilitate the use of rapid transit high occupancy vehicle (HOV) modes for access to Terminal E and the entire Airport, thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and air emissions compared with the No Build/No Action Alternative. Providing a direct pedestrian transit connection from the terminal will enhance the passenger experience and meet international visitors' expectations.

Terminal E expansion environmental-notification form (37M PDF).

Neighborhoods: 
Free tagging: 

Ad:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

didn't they just redo this terminal a little over 10 years or so? (maybe 2003ish)

Also, there goes the cell phone lot.. makes me wonder what awful place we'll be put next (I'm always picking up people at the airport so I'm there a lot)

And no gas station? Now the only place to get gas is outside of the airport..

And finally... this will do wonders for the air pollution that other communities seem to be complaining about lately to the FAA>

up
Voting closed 0

They could always let in Uber and halve the number of cabs queue up in the lot by the Hyatt, and open that up to folks waiting to pick up passengers. /ducks

Though related to that lot, how did they manage to get a satellite image of it empty? I've never walked by it when it wasn't at least half full (or half empty, depending on your outlook on life).

Also, what's with the empty lot just over the fence beyond the Hyatt? Can they not build there due to needing clearance for planes taking off to the southeast on runway 14?

up
Voting closed 0

Lots of speculation about Logan expanding parking by 5000+ spots. Wonder if they will use this lot for a new garage?

up
Voting closed 0

The landside portion of the terminal was expanded 10 years ago, but the airside portion is still the same cramped windowless (almost) gate area it's always been. Hopefully this expansion will also improve the existing gate area.

Connecting directly to the T is a no-brainer and hope it's done in the early phases. Regarding losing parking spaces and a gas station, well again they are providing a direct connection to the T! The gas station can be relocated, as well as the cell phone lot. But ultimately we need to encourage non car access as much as possible by making transit the easiest and most convenient.

up
Voting closed 0

The proposal calls for it to be built in the first phase. Massport says it still needs to figure out how to have it covered (ground level with a canopy or underground) or whether it's just your basic sidewalk or one of them there fancy moving sidewalks.

up
Voting closed 0

It won't be wide enough for two people with luggage to pass. This is a huge problem at the T-stop and shuttle area.

up
Voting closed 0

If customs delays at Logan are reduced it'll have a positive environmental impact. Some people now would currently rather fly into the States at JFK because it's quicker to go through customs there and catch a shuttle to Logan than it is to go through customs at Logan. More gas, less time.

up
Voting closed 0

would be to screen only every N passengers, instead of all passengers, at times of crowding?

up
Voting closed 0

If Cybah is right, losing the gas station would be a big No-No. A ton of the rentals coming back fill up there. If they can't get gas there, they will have to drive all over to fill up, or pay $8 a gallon to Hertz and Alamo. That station is like an oasis for cabbies and travelers of all types. I hope they keep it.

up
Voting closed 0

Very glad to see the covered walkway to the Blue Line. Nothing sucks more then returning from a flight on a cold, rainy day and needing to wait for the stupid, cramped shuttle. This will be a big improvement.

up
Voting closed 0

Why is there always money in the banana stand for airport expansions but rarely for transit?

It seems like what airport wants, airport gets. Didnt they just sped tens of millions on a rental car center? And before the a complete rehab of one of the terminals? And before that new gates? And before that new security areas?

For reference, 6 million international passengers a year is only 16,000 a day. Multiple neglected bus routes serve more people a day.

up
Voting closed 0

You could also be cynical here and say that the 16,000 international passengers bring in a LOT more $$$ into our economy than those on neglected bus routes. Hell, that may not even be a cynical viewpoint...

up
Voting closed 0

They bring a little less into our economy if, after dashing from Customs to the Blue Line, they can't get anywhere because the T isn't working

up
Voting closed 0

They can walk out the North Gate and get to Spinelli's in Day Square , don't need no stinkin Blue Line....

up
Voting closed 0

Or better yet, Rincon Limeno or Taqueria Jalisco.

up
Voting closed 0

 

up
Voting closed 0

the T can't spend "capital" funds on operational needs. By law, Massport is restricted on how they can spend revenue they get from landing fees and the like. This is one of the principal reasons that Massport was not folded into MassDOT when it was created.

As I've stated before, such restrictions on expenditure result in a horribly inefficient system that only encourages waste.

up
Voting closed 0

I must have missed your earlier comments on the "restrictions on expenditure result[ing] in a horribly inefficient system". Could you repeat?

up
Voting closed 0

service cutbacks at the same time you're instaiing needless security cameras systemwide. Or spending money remodeling stations with idiotic glass and steel 'greenhouse' structures.

up
Voting closed 0

The station overhauls are being done on federal $$$ for ADA compliance. I have been taking the T for a long time - the security cameras are a good thing, and not exactly costing tons of money.

That said, the Government Center head house is pretty stupid.

up
Voting closed 0

(deep breath)

The station overhauls are being done on federal $$$ for ADA compliance. I have been taking the T for a long time - the security cameras are a good thing, and not exactly costing tons of money.

The security cameras were installed via a grant from the TSA...

up
Voting closed 0

I suggest you look up what they are, what they say, what they mean, and why they put these restrictions in place.

It has something to do with political corruption and graft, historically.

up
Voting closed 0

what these grant programs are purchasing (and the true necessity of making such purchases), and how they relate to things that the T (for one) really needs to be spending their money on instead in order to provide a service.

The rules in place are grossly outdated and IMO truly idiotic.

up
Voting closed 0

Why is there always money in the banana stand for airport expansions but rarely for transit?

Two different pots of money, my friend.

up
Voting closed 0

Fees.

If the T could raise fares to $5 a trip with a minimum $10 to board the commuter rail without losing a ton of passengers, we'd have the system that everyone dreams of (yet no one would be able to afford a ride.)

If you slap an extra $10 per passenger, that's $160,000 a day or $60 million a year, and that increase no one would notice.

EDIT- I knew there was something off about the math. If a $10 fee was assessed to the 30 million travelers who come through Logan every year, that would be $300 million, or $3 billion in 10 years.

up
Voting closed 0

Slap a $10 toll on every vehicle headed in on the Central Artery, with matching raises on the tunnels and the Tobin and the Pike.

That's a huge amount of money to cover that 40% of roadway costs not covered by drivers.

Plus another $1 a gallon in gas tax.

up
Voting closed 0

People will notice that gas prices went up 50%, to California levels, in addition to the 100, 200, or perhaps infinity percent increase in tolls, all for something the drivers don't use, compared to perhaps a 5% users fee for air travelers in return for a better airport.

My point is, Massport spends money because it can make the money. The T just can't do that.

up
Voting closed 0

Massport is rich. Just look at the salaries:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/databases/payroll?database=3&ye...

Airports, hospitals, and universities are doing very well in today's economy.

up
Voting closed 0

Check it out. You can see all public entity employee salaries.

http://opencheckbook.itd.state.ma.us/analytics/saw.dll?Dashboard

up
Voting closed 0

You are confusing them with the T. Massport makes money because they have an airport. This provides money to pay for their airport. They do not go begging for money from the Legislature.

up
Voting closed 0

Baker just delayed (really probably canceled) the green line extension (as Weld, Cellucci, Romney, Swift did before him) citing costs but his administration is moving forward with expanded the airport AGAIN and adding thousands of extra parking spaces. What a chump. Cant we send him to someplace like NH or Alabama where his 1950s values and blame the immigrants BS would be more welcome?

up
Voting closed 0

Swift was in office for less than 2 years. Patrick had 8 to make progress. How did that work out?

I do wish someday people admit that Deval was little different than the rest.

up
Voting closed 0

He was much worse.

What a bum. I wouldn't vote Republican for dogcatcher but I also hope to never see this phony's name cross my path again.

up
Voting closed 0

They already clusterfluxed things up years ago. The powers that are powers should have seized upon the closure of Naval Air Station South Weymouth to make it an air cargo center and transfer the like out of Logan and have all that space to utilize. Now NAS is also a clusterflux by developers trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.You can't make this stuff up, To paraphrase the great Bronx philosopher Colagero,the saddest thing in life is wasted potential.

up
Voting closed 0

and have jets flying over Hingham and Cohasset for take off and landing?

I'd say this one was carefully thought about by the powers that are powers, i.e. the rich and connected.

up
Voting closed 0

IMAGE(http://www.airfields-freeman.com/MA/SouthWeymouth_MA_07_Shea.jpg)
These made more noise anyway ,
IMAGE(http://www.airfields-freeman.com/MA/SWeymouth_MA_40s_R-4.jpg)

up
Voting closed 0

It's 3/4 mile from Terminal E to the Airport T station.

Even if some of that walk will be indoors in the new part of the terminal, or on moving sidewalks, that's still a heck of a haul, especially with luggage.

up
Voting closed 0

Having the option to walk will be nice too

up
Voting closed 0

You can still walk regardless. The sidewalk does run from Terminal D to the station.

You can also walk from Maverick Street onto airport property and into Terminal A.

(I know because I asked this question before!)

up
Voting closed 0

Lots of curbs to cross plus the sidewalk is pretty narrow at parts. It's doable if you don't have luggage but hardly ideal. The proposed design will make it actually feasible to do with bags.

up
Voting closed 0

This is actually a great secret - once, Google Maps gave me walking directions from the T stop to Terminal E for some reason and I found that (as long as the weather is ok) it is MUCH better than the shuttle bus. Since E is the very last stop on the bus and the bus now stops for some indeterminately long time at the rental car station, walking is easily faster, plus you control your own destiny - much less stress-inducing if you're running late. It is an easy 10 minute walk from the T stop with no waiting, and is not even hard to do with a suitcase. You only have to cross one street and then you are on a continuous sidewalk until the terminal.

I have never seen a single other soul walking on the sidewalk the 5 or 6 times I've done it.

up
Voting closed 0

But if the walkway is in a climate-controlled indoor area, with staged people movers so the speeds are substantial, it's not so bad. Figure 5 mph on the moving sidewalk, plus a brisk pace of 4 mph is a 9 mph travel. 3/4 of a mile at 9 mph is a 5 minute walk. For those who are able bodied with sensible wheeled luggage, a 5 minute walk in air conditioning/heat is way more attractive than taking the Blue Line shuttle bus.

up
Voting closed 0

Moving sidewalks go about 1.5 mph, not 5 mph.

I hate when I have to go to the Terminal A satellite, even though there are moving sidewalks in the underground passageway. And that's a much shorter distance than Terminal E to the Airport T station.

up
Voting closed 0

that nobody is going to be making you walk from the T station and there will still be other options once this is done, correct?

up
Voting closed 0

The ThyssenKrupp Express Walkway (in place since 2007) starts off slow - about 2kph, speeds up to 7kph, and then slows down again at the end. It works well, and it's easy and safe to use.

Here's a video - pretty cool!

up
Voting closed 0

Add your walking speed to its speed and you get 4.5-5 mph.

up
Voting closed 0

Looks like the plans are to move a substantial amount of that terminal closer to the station.

up
Voting closed 0

It'll be really nice to have this and perhaps they'll be able to entice more international carriers to run long/thin routes to Boston via 787s instead of having everything de-facto fly into the NYC area. I just hope they have a good plan for what to do when the global economy goes through another contraction and air travel dries up and international carriers slash routes.

up
Voting closed 0

you temporarily close the areas of the airport that are not being used, and wait until they are needed again. Keeping the pipes from freezing and nature from invading won't cost that much in addition to the operating costs of the airport, and it will be cheaper than bulldozing and rebuilding in the long term.

up
Voting closed 0

I think you can walk indoors from Terminal E to all other terminals, either directly or via Central Parking. Is this correct?

up
Voting closed 0

Rather than walking the perimeter it's often easier to cut through Central Parking (Because it's in the center.)

up
Voting closed 0

Having flown through Zurich, Stockholm, and Dusseldorf airports during that trip, the contrast at our airport was a slap in the face. I got off the plane and walked into a shabby, yellowed basement, was greeted by a giant, but dirty American flag, passed by sad old movie posters, and was treated like cattle by a screaming officer who flipped out on a man who got turned around. Still can't get over the behavior of their staff, several of whom were wearing t-shirts. Not uniforms, not polos. Straight-up sloppy looking t-shirts. The agents at Logan were aggressive, but lacked any impression of authority. Totally different from agents I encountered abroad. They were actually polite, sharply uniformed, and had an air of command about them. Maybe while they're improving their facilities, they might consider bumping up pay, and hiring some better staff. And buying some damn uniforms.

up
Voting closed 0

Planes that now have to run on their own diesel power while waiting for patients to leave at the cargo area

Diesel-powered hospital planes? This isn't Steampunk Terminal E. :-)

up
Voting closed 0

Zeppelins! I've fixed the mistake.

up
Voting closed 0