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.


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.


immoralatheist t1_j5v109i wrote

Does VT not even have a statute requiring anything on the vehicle be secured? MA doesn’t have a snow-specific law either, but they will cite for an unsecured load if you don’t clear the snow off, since the snow and ice comes off and hits other cars.