Airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6891 posts, RR: 7 Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3073 times:
The Superior Court judge who gave Massport the green light to go ahead with the project attached several conditions, including an ongoing noise study and higher fees for airlines that don't reduce departures during high-traffic times.
This just seems silly and totally counter productive to me. If I lived near an airport I would much rather have a couple of hours per day or really busy traffic, rather than constant noise spread throughout the entire day. Silly.
BOS2LAF From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 354 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3052 times:
its about f%$#ing time. i don't get how all the NIMBY's didnt understand the concept of UNIDIRECTIONAL OVERWATER meaning less planes over their houses. but thats Boston bureaucracy for you. just look at the big dig.
Airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6891 posts, RR: 7 Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2950 times:
My guess is because in the end, the people who are affected by Logan airport are really unimportant. This is just the result of a political tug or war more than anything else. The residents around Logan just think their concerns are being addresses but really, no one really gives a hoot about what they want. It's all about "how can we screw the other guy so we can get more votes."
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10483 posts, RR: 20 Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2930 times:
Here is a longer version of the boston.com article.
''Logan is on a relentless expansion course and has been since its founding," said Ralph Dormitzer, a Cohasset selectman and co-chairman of the community advisory committee studying ways to reduce noise from the airport.
This politician has a good grasp of the obvious.
Massport officials revived the Runway 14/32 proposal, saying it would provide a dramatic boost in efficiency during periods of high winds that sometimes force the closing of four of the five existing runways. Massport has predicted that 14/32 could reduce annual delays by up to 30 percent.
"Up to 30 percent" should be read as "Between 0 and 30 percent"
But runway opponents have always suspected that 14/32's real purpose is to allow Logan to expand landings and takeoffs.
You don't say?
Under the pact approved by Botsford, Massport agreed to use Runway 14/32 only when winds out of the northwest or southeast exceed 10 knots per hour.
So they will place fans next to the airspeed meter to make sure the wind is above 10 knots from the proper quadrant whenever they want to open the runway
It sounds like I'm against the proposal, but I'm not. I'm against all the posturing of all the politicians (both Massport and local government) with regard to this project.
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6365 posts, RR: 34 Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2736 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 4): So they will place fans next to the airspeed meter to make sure the wind is above 10 knots from the proper quadrant whenever they want to open the runway
Actually, there's really little need for the runway aside from the times when the wind from the northwest or southeast puts the other runways out of crosswind limits, so it's not like this is a huge concession. It's more efficient to just use the 4/22's and 9/27 if they can. As busy as BOS is, though, it's a disaster then they're down to just 15R/33L.