Hey, there! Log in / Register

Massport looks to new fees on ride-share users - and banishing them to a single drop-off and pick-up area in the central garage

CommonWealth reports Massport thinks the answer to growing auto congestion at Logan is to do something about the estimated 15 million rides Uber and Lyft riders now take to the airport - including increasing the ride-share surcharge from $3.25 for pick ups to $5 for both pick ups and drop offs. Massport also wants to eliminate 1,000 parking spaces on the first floor of the central garage to make way for a new centralized area for ride-share drivers to go when they're hailed or dropping off.

Topics: 
Free tagging: 
Ad:

Comments

What would be more fair would be to have a toll booth (ie, ezpass) at the airport entrance. Every car who drives in pays depending on how long theyre on property. Remove the individual toll booths at each garage.

This is done at multiple airports around the world

up
Voting closed 48

that'd likely be met with a lot of push back. Airport workers who drive to work, folks picking up other folks from the airport...yikes!

up
Voting closed 5

They are also causing congestion

up
Voting closed 22

For the folks picking people up: That's no different than using any other car service and I see no problem with the extra toll.

For the people working at the airport: It would be pretty easy to issue employee transponders that charge a reduced to free rate, a la what we get as Eastie residents. That said, I don't get to drive to work for free either but sometimes make the decision to drive in anyway, that is what it is.

up
Voting closed 25

it could be argued that such airport taxes/fines would disproportionately affect those with mobility impairments/disabilities.

up
Voting closed 7

I would be open to a reduced electronic toll for people with placards.

up
Voting closed 12

App Drivers would just exit airport, kill time on local streets, cause congestion, then come back for a hail.

up
Voting closed 4

If the goal is to alleviate congestion, does it matter how long they stayed there?

up
Voting closed 4

It would encourage public transportation.

up
Voting closed 4

Asking for a friend (interested in institutional corruption).

up
Voting closed 41

Why do people always think the city or state favors the taxi industry?! They do not! We got screwed big time by everyone and now the Pandora's Box has been opened. Crime, traffic, poverty wages, and reduced public transit usage are just a few of the symptoms of the disease of the Uber scourge.

Uber and Lyft spend record amounts lobbying for bad legislation to legalize their gypsy cab services. They are the ones adding to the corruption in the system, not cabbies who invested in their futures, and the future of Boston, only for billions in equity (for their retirements) to be wiped out by an app.

God forbid working class (especially immigrants and PoC) people try to secure a spot in the middle class!

If Massport allows cabs to pick up and drop off directly at terminals, customers will still choose Uber and Lyft because they've bought into the narrative of "innovation and technology," when it's really just a big "screw you" to working people.

up
Voting closed 18

I have had gypsy cab drivers attempt to scam me — and I've had actual official cab drivers do it *for sure*, by driving definitely sub-optimal routes and with the classic "credit card reader isn't working I need cash" routine.

There are plenty of things awful about Lyft and Uber, but I've never once had these things happen.

I'm sure it's a tiny majority of drivers, but it's happened to me enough that when I'm traveling home from a long trip, I just want to be taken to my door and not have to worry.

up
Voting closed 35

sub optimal routes? what did it cost, an extra $5? And the last time a cab said, my card reader is broken, I said take me back to the stand then. He found an old fashion ditto slip, and rubbed my card with the side of his pen. I signed it and it worked fine. don't bash a whole industry because you can't stick up for yourself.

I don't sympathize with medallion as a commodity damage. The value was artificially created by scarcity and barred many qualified drivers from getting full value for their work. The real money was leasing out the medallion car 24/7, not driving it yourself. The industry didn't have the foresight to fix that, and they deserve to lose.

But the current problem is similar. These apps make very little investment compared to the people that do all the work. The bonuses and over payments to the drivers seem generous but they won't share their billions when the companies go public. The amount of cars on the street increase and we have to do something to protect ourselves.

up
Voting closed 13

So nice that you never got screamed at, threatened with the cops and dumped from a cab over it.

up
Voting closed 16

It's illegal to refuse credit cards.

up
Voting closed 6

that's not a fight most want to have at 2 AM at the end of a long trip. Which is why we switched to the service that doesn't try to pull that shit and require you to "stick up for yourself" just to pay for the services you want.

up
Voting closed 24

Look, I am not saying this is ok, but it is not why the taxi industry failed. Overall, your anecdotes are just self reinforcing bs. There are plenty of uber and lyft drivers acting like assholes. You choose rideshares because they are cheaper, and more plentiful. It takes an hour to get a cab to my house in Dorchester. I was taking a bus to the airport before rideshares.

But these low prices and abundant amount of drivers are a stock scam that is harming our city.

up
Voting closed 9

your anecdotes are just self reinforcing bs

"You only hate taxis because you had bad experiences with them!" - well, duh? Are you trying to argue that it's something in my behavior that caused taxi drivers to try to refuse to drive me to specific locations they didn't want to go to (within their service area), try to add additional riders without my consent, or pretend that their credit card machines were broken?

Honestly, I choose rideshares because they're easier and more convenient, and the drivers don't try to scam me. I'd still take them even if they cost far more than a taxi ride for those reasons alone.

In the rare case that a Uber/Lyft driver is an asshole, I have their name, picture, and license saved on my phone automatically and it takes a couple minutes to submit a report to Uber and get a refund for my trip. Good luck trying that with a taxi service.

I agree there's a lot of issues with Uber/Lyft/etc, but acting like people are only choosing them because of cost and ignoring the many issues people had with taxi services seems pretty myopic. They're definitely competing on price (and we'll see how long that lasts) but there's also a pretty big difference in service as well.

up
Voting closed 16

Honestly, I choose rideshares because they're easier and more convenient, and the drivers don't try to scam me. I'd still take them even if they cost far more than a taxi ride for those reasons alone.

More available = cheaper

And when have they ever cost more? If it has never happened, you can't honestly make that assertion.

This fake morality makes you look very insecure. How much do you have to justify this choice? Why isn't cheaper enough of a good reason? Why do you have to exaggerate? Would it be fair to point out that less cab drivers are convicted of rape than uber and lyft drivers?

I use both uber and lyft, because I have abstract thought. I understand that ride shares services are causing problems that need to be addressed through policy and law. I also value my self worth enough to know that to decide that i don't need to pay more or wait longer because the city won't control the situation. I don't blame drivers for these problems. And I realize that this cheap and easy ride is ending soon.

up
Voting closed 6

How about being easily able to order a ride to pick you up where you are and bring you to where you want to go, without having to argue with the driver about the destination? How about knowing that you'll be able to pay with a credit card? How about knowing that you have the driver's info saved and stored should you need to make a report? These are all conveniences that have nothing to do with price or availability, and they're all things the taxi industry could do today but still doesn't bother with.

And when have they ever cost more? If it has never happened, you can't honestly make that assertion.

Wow, you must be fun to make long-term plans with. "I can't tell you if I'd still live in this apartment if the landlord raises the rent - after all, it hasn't happened yet!" It's pretty easy to recognize when you value a good or service at more than it costs you.

up
Voting closed 7

Because Uber and Lyft were allowed to illegally steal their business.
The flaunted the law and were allowed to and crashed the cab industry.
now Uber and Lyft can do as they please squeezing driver. in effect those driving for Uber and Lyft has the same issues as can drivers have always had.
add in that the ride share traffic and driving habits have multiplied the traffic problems.
Great deal for no one really
And if you have a bad taxi ride, sorry but you can cal the hackney division and they will do something.

up
Voting closed 7

They put the HACK in HACKNEY honey.

They are a BIG REASON that people ditched cabs - they didn't do jack fucking shit for bad service and loved to find ways to demean and harass complainants who were trying to file complaints.

Sounds like you may have been one of them - your apologism for the bullshit people went through just trying to get home and get around is legion on this site.

So is your denial of the SEVERE problems many had with our lovely collapsing, stinky, unsafe, illegally operating cab system.

up
Voting closed 11

Actually, when I started using Uber they were all black cars, and they were actually *more* expensive than taxis.

But they showed up when called. It was possible to get one in a reasonable amount of time. The cars were clean, and didn't leave me feeling like I was taking my life in my hands by riding in it because of the clear lack of maintenance. The driver never hit on me. I never had to argue with them about using a credit card.

Sure, the fact that they are also NOW generally cheaper than taxis (but not always, remember that ride shares due fairly often surge price) is nice, but it low on my list of why they are *vastly* better than taxis.

The taxi industry is failing because of corruption and crappy service.

up
Voting closed 10

So you're arguing we should still use cabs because we'll only have to pay a little extra if they go a longer way/we sit in traffic longer than expected, and if they try to force us to pay in cash we can refuse until a solution is found, and if something goes wrong we can just call the cops for help?

No, thanks. I can just take a Lyft instead, where it's a guaranteed rate, has electronic payment guaranteed, and I know the person's name and car make/model/license plate up front and can share my route with friends/family for safety.

I'm not saying there aren't issues with ride shares, but I don't understand why people defend cabs. They're worse in basically every way.

up
Voting closed 21

I am saying that rideshares are the same as cabs, just cheaper. And that too many cars on the street is a problem that we are paying for at the expanse of pump and dump stock scam that is lyft and uber.

up
Voting closed 10

and lemme preface this by noting that these are my ****personal experiences/views on cabs****

PROS of Cabs

1.) Licensed cabs in Boston are governed by the Boston Police Hackney Carriage Units
2) There are vouchers available to use in for Boston licensed cabs
3) Boston cabs who have experience driving/navigating in the area, especially weird-ass-one-way-cow-path streets in Boston

BONUS POINTS FOR GYPSY CABS: They're willing to do shorter trips (especially helpful for parents shopping with younger children and hella bags of groceries) from South Bay Shopping Center and Purity Supreme (RIP)

CONS of Cabs

1) The drivers often act like creeps, asking if female passengers about their dating life/marital status, being really awkward and creeping about noting where the passenger lives upon drop-off. Consequently, when I'm riding in a cab or using a ride share service: I note right away that I'm "going to my boyfriend's house" (usually squashes any uncomfortable conversation).

2) Some of them won't go to Dorchester, claiming that it's "too far" (um, that's literally your fucking job tho?). By "too far" they mean "too scary."

3) Drivers take circular-ass routes in Boston to drive up the fair. I don't drive but I grew up in Boston. Quoth Judge Judy: don't spit on my cupcake and tell me it's raining!

PROS of Ride Shares

1) Very easy to use. Even without having the app on a phone, I can share Lyfts and Ubers with friends by reimbursing my friends in cash.

2) Often cheaper than cabs; they offer promo codes and discounts (Uber has giftcards that can be purchased)

3) The interior of the ride share vehicles often smell really, really good.

CONS of Ride Shares

1) Some drivers are too thirsty for "5 stars" and try too hard to chat up the passenger, ask invasive questions, fiddling with the radio. DRIVE THE DAMN CAR. KEEP YOUR FRIGGIN EYES ON THE ROAD. I'm more likely to give 5 stars to a driver who (in the sage words of Rihanna) shuts up and drives.

2) Uber at least uses some dubious screening for their drivers. For as sluggish and frustrating as the MBTA is: I've never had to worry about a T operator assaulting me or, you know, going on a shooting spree while picking up Uber fares.

3) Ride share companies are able to weasel out of providing worker protections for their drivers by claiming that the companies are "tech companies."

BONUS: Ride shares are very hit-or-miss when transporting disabled passengers. Senior citizens sometimes have a difficult time understanding how to use the Uber/Lyft apps.

Another CON of both ride shares and cabs is that sometimes the driver-passenger language barrier results in the driver getting lost, going the wrong way, etc.

Being a non-driver has helped me stay in shape and use more green-friendly forms of transportation (riding a bike, skateboarding, walking) sooo like Be Your Own Pet says:

Have fun, and be safe with it
Just kidding, FUCK SHIT UP
We ride bikes, cars are for idiots
All because, all because

up
Voting closed 8

The feeling that you're not going to get scammed is worth much more than getting taken for a ride for an extra $5... or getting a crazy cabbie who gives no [email protected] because there's no retribution. I'll take an app-enabled service any day, even if it's a few bucks more expensive.

up
Voting closed 7

Not gonna have this conversation without talking about people having a monopoly on medallions.

up
Voting closed 6

Not because they bought into "innovation and technology", but because they're generally cleaner, easier, more pleasant rides than taxis.

up
Voting closed 30

So make people using ride share make even further than they have to now? But taxis are at the terminal?

And the article admits that cell service is bad in the garage so that will make TNC harder.

Reducing the cost on AirLogan makes so much sense but penalizing TNC is tricky.

Maybe have cabs in the same location--if I see a 15 minute wait for TNC but there is an available cab maybe I'll try one.

up
Voting closed 16

That's No Cab?

up
Voting closed 15

Transportation Network Company (TNC) TNC is a new term being used by government entities to refer to rideshare companies such as Uber and Lyft.

up
Voting closed 2

Uber and Lyft are not ride "sharing" services, they are livery dispatch services. Each does offer a share the ride option, but that is not their primary business.

AirBnB is not a "sharing" service, it is short term housing rental service.

up
Voting closed 12

Obviously they can set a single pick up location but how do they plan on enforcing the drop off location?

up
Voting closed 23

Via the TNC companies who track where people get off.

If they penalize the drivers for dropping people off elsewhere then they will follow the rules.

up
Voting closed 2

I can understand moving pickups, since they always involve some waiting around by one or both parties, and searching for the right car.

But dropoffs? Why? It takes just a second of curb time, and is a major convenience to be delivered to the door when you're carrying luggage.

Also, I'll point out once again that the easiest thing Massport can do to boost non-car travel to the airport is FIX THE DAMN BLUE LINE SHUTTLES! They're just HORRIBLE now that they divert to the Rental Car Center. As long as it's not the middle of the night, there's enough passenger traffic for separate routes, so Blue Line passengers don't have to waste 10-15 minutes riding out of their way to a really slow stop at the RCC.

up
Voting closed 61

The hack right now is to take the 88 bus from the Airport Station, especially for Terminals A and B since it skips the airport station.

If they were to up the frequency on the 88 to every 4-5 minutes (from every 8) and then advertise it as the shuttle from the T direct to the terminals, it would be even better and wouldn't cost them much. There's more to it than this, but really not that much more.

up
Voting closed 19

The 88 bus I know goes from Lechmere to Arlington Center via Davis.

up
Voting closed 2

http://massport.com/logan-airport/to-from-logan/transportation-options/o...

However, that page says the 88 doesn't serve the T station.

up
Voting closed 3

I have the same complaint everytime the MBTA runs shuttles across the Longfellow for Red Line work, or for under the harbor for Blue Line work.

On the Red Line, MBTA could easily run half the shuttles to Government Center, with a U-turn on Cambridge Street, and go back and forth to Kendall, skipping Park Street and the long loop around the Public Garden.

On the Blue Line, MBTA could easily run half the shuttles directly between State Street and Airport, skipping Aquarium and Maverick and the slow crawl through the streets of East Boston.

I have no idea why they never try to coordinate it that way.

up
Voting closed 10

Also, I'll point out once again that the easiest thing Massport can do to boost non-car travel to the airport is FIX THE DAMN BLUE LINE SHUTTLES!

RECLAIM THE RAMP. Silver Line detour is ABSURD waste of time.

Also, I take a lot of early flights - first flights out - there's literally no public transportation option! Granted, at 4-5 am there's not much congestion, but Uber and Lyft have exploded because there's a need. The state needs to start thinking with a "Build it and they will come" mindset, not just punishing people into using methods that don't functionally solve their problems.

Also, if you're flying with several large suitcases, transit is a N I G H T M A R E. Nothing like struggling to get my trade show luggage up and down from a silver line bus packed to the gills with those narrow ass aisles.

up
Voting closed 15

If all of those rides are being picked up in the same location, that's just going to back traffic up all at one spot instead of it being spread throughout all the terminals. Tolls and fees, yes. All this nonsense around limited pickup and drop off locations... whether at Logan or elsewhere in Boston... is nonsense and counter to the entire reason these services exist and are used so heavily: door-to-door.

up
Voting closed 25

Are they going to have a crew standing by in the parking garage with wheelchairs?

Somehow I doubt it.

up
Voting closed 38

No transit? NO SURCHARGE

Ditto for anything that lands after 11pm (since luggage takes time, too).

The answer is NOT surcharges. The answer is 24 HOUR TRANSIT

up
Voting closed 57

But another solution: 24 hour Massport shuttle from Logan to South Station and Back Bay. Take the current Back Bay shuttle and run it every 20-30 minutes all night from Logan to Boston. From there it's a lot cheaper to get a cab/ridehail, and also easier to get a bicycle and ride it without having to go amphibious. Wouldn't cost more than they're already planning.

up
Voting closed 38

The answer is 24-hour transit

We have that.

"Your sign says "Open 24 Hours.""
"Well, not in a row."

Jeff Foxworthy

up
Voting closed 7

Oh dear, I can't wait THAT long....

up
Voting closed 4

So we can expect these fees to be funneled into the MBTA for transit improvements?

Nah.. they'll go into Massport's coffers... *eye roll* like MP needs any more money..

up
Voting closed 43

Guess it will be us...

up
Voting closed 22

Once again someone has no clue how this is funded. *smh*

Just stop with this nonsense until you're ready to tell me your salary so I can make fun of it too and say you "make too much"

up
Voting closed 23

That's from a scarcity mindset.

Most people want to be able to retired nicely.

up
Voting closed 5

Massport fees involving the airport have to stay with airport opertations, per federal regulations. That's part of the issue with their subsidy of the Silver Line route to the airport. There are better versed commenters here that will correct me, and they will probably be right, but the glitch does not reside with Massport entirely.

up
Voting closed 7

the Maverick gates are broken pretty much every other week, they clearly need the extra funds to keep up!

/snark

up
Voting closed 3

Why not fees for all vehicles yat enter the airport? Does having a friend with a car who can drive you to the airport take up less space than a person who pays for uber/lyft? They both add to congestion. It's unfair for Baker/massport to select only some people to pay congestion fees to enter the airport but not others.

up
Voting closed 12

and has zero chance of just causing Uber/Lyft drivers to say "fuck it" and use the lanes meant for regular passenger pickup at the terminals, because no one's walking to Central Parking to pick up the ride they just hailed 1/3 mile away in Terminal E.

Which is to say, how exactly is MassPort planning to tell ride-sharing cars apart from me picking up grandma at the airport in my own car? Right now they self-identify because it's worth it to gain access to the taxi/bus lanes at terminals. What's their motivation under the new rules?

up
Voting closed 9

Uber is illegal in a lot of places and they enforce it. Easiest way is if the passenger gets off from the back seat and the front is empty. Obviously the driver is being paid.

They also look for the phone on the windshield and of course the stickers and such

up
Voting closed 9

I don't drive for uber but have a mount on my dashboard for when I need to use my phone for GPS. Additionally, any attempts to enforce the drop off portion of the trip at the terminals is only going to cause more congestion.

up
Voting closed 13

Yes thats how people get around it, but it causes additional friction. I was recently in Jordan and our Uber driver asked me to sit and front and also if I could act like his friend when he helped me take the bags out because Uber is illegal there

up
Voting closed 7

What did you do to act like his friend?

up
Voting closed 7

As of now uber drivers can’t get ride pick ups from the airport unless they are in the uber lot located next to the rental car center. There is a electronic fence that allows the app to know if they are in the lot and from there they receive ride notifications. That’s why there is so much traffic going into the rental car center lot at times. Massport is a bunch of dummies making dummer decisions to constantly fix their dumb ideas.

up
Voting closed 11

You re in Terminal E just arrived from Frankfort?

You hail your Uber -- it goes to the ground floor of the Central Parking right by the Elevators -- how much walking do you have to do?

The posting says 1/3 mile -- let's look at the route:

  1. walk from Customs clearance to the Elevator
  2. enter elevator ascend to Moving walkway
  3. continue on Moving Walkway to Central Parking
  4. depart Moving Walkway for Elevator
  5. Elevator to Ground Floor
  6. exit through doors to your Uber

The same works for Delta Terminal A except from the other side

From Terminal C you either

  1. Term E + Route
    1. >walk to Terminal E outside [needs to be fixed]
    2. and then follow the Term E route
  2. Central Parking Route
    1. you take the Elevator to the walkway to Central Parking
    2. take moving walkway to Central Parking
    3. take Elevator to a covered walking level
    4. then you would have to walk the width/length of Central Parking to the Elevators
    5. where after descending your Uber / Lyft is waiting

Terminal B does require some walking as you need to get to Terminal A via moving walkways but then you need to walk the length of Terminal A to the elevators

However, by setting up a 2nd Uber / Lyft pick-up point inside Central Parking located on the side facing terminal C halfway between the elevators for the walkway to C and the walkways to B all of the connections would be under a roof with moving walkways and elevators doing most of the moving

up
Voting closed 5

Smells like its more about appropriating more revenue for Massport than doing a damn thing about traffic.

Its also fresh after they plopped down that behemoth "transportation hub" in the seaport which is just a giant parking garage housing thousands of spots for cars.

up
Voting closed 23

That Seaport "transportation hub" is a slap in the face to taxpayers. Call it what it is: more welfare for car drivers. More money taken from non drivers and given to drivers. It is also a huge waste of very valuable land. What could have been affordable housing, a school or a park is instead used as storage for suburbanites who don't feel like taking public transit or walking.

up
Voting closed 33

Try to see past your own myopic, closed minded hysterics on this issue. Many people can not use public transit to commute to their jobs from outside the city. Their geographic location, or maybe the the times they have to be at work, can preclude that. But the fact is that they have to earn a living. I'm guessing you'd rather them be unemployed and starve to death so that you can fulfill whatever fantasies you have about living in a fictional utopia where no cars exist, and we all live a quick, leisurely stroll away from our places of employment. But then you'd complain about that, too. All those "transplants" invading whatever insufferable hipster commune you live in would surely stick in your craw. And let's also take a minute to address how ridiculous your last sentence is: people who live outside the city can't just walk to work. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for finding strategies to calm traffic congestion and make our urban streets safer and more pedestrian friendly. I'm just not on board with your throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water vision.

up
Voting closed 3

And Logan Airport has direct transportation from the whole state. Uber and Lyft are filling the cell phone lot. They should pay for a separate staging area just like cabs. The cell phone lot is for people picking people up from the airport, not free parking for your online ride hail service.

up
Voting closed 2

What is the policy objective that is met by charging one price to my friend whom I've asked to meet me at the airport, and a different price to the ride service driver whom I've asked to meet me at the airport?

up
Voting closed 2

what is the policy objective met by charging cabs one price and ride hail services another price?

up
Voting closed 1

what is the policy objective met by charging cabs one price and ride hail services another price?

They use the airport infrastructure differently. A ride hail service car (or a friend of the passenger) enters the airport and then needs to wait until a rendezvous can be arranged with the specific passenger that specific car is picking up. A taxi, on the other hand, enters a queue and, when it reaches the head of the queue, takes the next available passenger.

up
Voting closed 0

That isn't what is happening. Lyft and Uber drivers are going to the cell phone lot without a fare. They are waiting there until they get picked, and using spaces that are supposed to prevent people from circling the airport until their friend gets their luggage.
Basically the ride - hail services are doing the same thing that the cabs are doing, it is just an online queue.

up
Voting closed 4

How about fines for ride-share drivers who obstruct MBTA service by abruptly stopping in front of buses?

up
Voting closed 20

the MBTA does a good enough job obstructing service on its own, it doesn't need any help.

up
Voting closed 13

Lay off the T's absurd delays turf, ya ride share trick ass marks!

up
Voting closed 5

Magoo knew. Magoo.

up
Voting closed 4

Mister Magoo, oh snap, was that you?!

Doing that St. Patrick's Day parkour in Southie, too?

https://www.universalhub.com/2019/some-st-patricks-day-parkour#comments

Confirm or deny... is it false or true?

That TD Bank ad was copy-written by you!

https://www.universalhub.com/comment/720607#comment-720607

up
Voting closed 4

Worcester's airport is underutilized and is not that far away, especially for people already living west of the city who would otherwise get to Logan by car.

up
Voting closed 7

Building a second (expletive) airport. Hey, let's have all the traffic go to a single place! Hey, let's open only two weed stores for the entire state at the outset! Hey, let's open only one casino in Boston!

It's exhausting being governed by people who are too stupid to grasp that people respond to incentives.

up
Voting closed 4

but, EWW, New Hampshire!

up
Voting closed 5

So I go to Logan. But if I lived in Wilmington or something, Manchester would merit consideration if the price were right. And the price would really have to be right for me to abide an inevitable stop on the way to where I want to go.

I fly to London annually, I'm not going to play regional grabass for that one. But I would (expletive) with NH if I lived close enough and they could get me to Tampa nonstop.

up
Voting closed 3

I like airplanes

up
Voting closed 3

.

up
Voting closed 5

COUNTERPOINT: New Hampshire is sales tax free though.

Even if the price were right for the Manchester-Boston Regional Airport...getting back to Boston seems like it'd be a whole ordeal.

I'm flying out on a trip in a few days and my return flight to Logan will allow me to take the T back home.

(I hope I see one of my favorite new Silver Line drivers, the really sweet fellow with the Irish brogue!).

up
Voting closed 3

Manchester is a much smaller airport and the prices and availability of nonstop flights reflects that. An extra 5 dollars on your uber is a small price to pay compared to spending 3 hours in a layover because a lot of the manchester flights are regional hops. same with TF green, although a lot of times their flights are cheaper for some reason (it's also got a commuter rail stop, which is what Logan should REALLY do if they want to encourage people to use transit, make it a door to door convenience without shuttles and transfers and etc etc)

up
Voting closed 4

For starters, they were early airports when Southwest expanded, and that meant the flights were cheaper.

Then there was the parking - I had no problem just ditching the damn car for the amount that it cost to park. I forget how much exactly - it was less than a cab fare to Logan, let alone two at the time! Even with the fuel for the car added in it was a lot cheaper.

On top of that, Logan Armpit in the late 90s/early 00s was a completely hateful messed up shithole of a badly run developing world craptastic airport. Not at all a good place to drag toddlers through, let alone put up with the stenchful nonsense they doled out at every turn. All this AND security was an arbitrary joke. I was more than happy to drive an hour to escape the utter incompetence of the place.

Then 9/11 hit and people woke up to the reality that was the shithole that was Logan. Fares and parking went up coming out of Manchester and Providence. The secret was out.

Meanwhile, the role that Massport Corruption and Incompetence played in 9/11 resulted in giant spotlights shining into the shithole and sending the rats scurrying. Logan improved massively on all fronts by the late '00s. Fares dropped after the big economic downturns, too.

up
Voting closed 4

Where do you propose buliding a second (expletive) airport closer to Boston than Manchester/Providence/Worcester? The weed rollout has certainly been a disgrace but we’ll get there eventually. Why does the Boston area need multiple casinos without first seeing how the Encore does and where would you propose realistically opening one in Boston proper?

up
Voting closed 8

Expand the runways and bring the Concorde back!
I'm sure the neighbors won't mind ...

up
Voting closed 11

There were commercial flights from Hanscom to Trenton that we used to fly all the time for my husband's job and to see his family in NJ. Traffic was non-existent and it was quick to get through security to the tiny planes.

up
Voting closed 6

I don't think the quaint New England roads around Hanscom (aside from maybe 2A) could handle the traffic

up
Voting closed 3

Do you realize how much traffic the base used to generate?

Rt. 2 to 2A to GIANT Entry Road or I 95 to 2A to GIANT entry road.

What's so hard about that?

up
Voting closed 4

It's an air force base that doesn't really see air force traffic. The concorde once landed there. I'm sure that would work.

up
Voting closed 4

Hanscom...just off Route 128.

up
Voting closed 2

What is to keep people from heading over to the car rental center or the Airport T station to pick up their Uber or Lyft?

This sometimes works well when there is a crowd ... why wouldn't it work when there is a surcharge?

up
Voting closed 6

If you're bothering to get on shuttles and stuff at that point you might as well take the silver in to South and get a much cheaper uber from there.

up
Voting closed 6

Elsewhere, of interest...

Technology and social justice. Looking for more Friday LibrePlanet 2019 activities... before the official Saturday opening https://libreplanet.org/2019/program/

up
Voting closed 3

central pick up point and fees? Just like cabs do now. Oh so now they will make it a fare playing field.

up
Voting closed 7

Obviously not. Rideshares already pay those fees.

up
Voting closed 3

This story goes to show how far WBZ1030 has fallen in quality/ability of local coverage.

I heard them run an item about this this morning. They did a couple of "person on the street" reactions with travelers out at Logan.
One expressed his strong opinion of the need for Uber/Lyft by observing that the "subway service is a disaster" (fair enough) and that "Metro-North and NJTransit" are terrible for getting to/from Logan.

Metro-North... and NJTransit...

They got trolled.

The spot reporter didn't catch it. Whatever editor/producer back in the studio didn't catch it. The anchor didn't catch it.

Sad.

up
Voting closed 7

Metro North is horrible for getting to Logan.

NJTransit, on the other hand, will take you to Newark Airport, which has flights to Logan. They don't have the best reputation as far as commuter rail operations go, but as we know, they are not the worst (at least this year.)

up
Voting closed 6

Yeah, it hurts to read about NJT these days. In MY day, grumble grumble, you could set your watch by them. They are starting to climb out of their pit, though.

The pit in question is tar, probably filled with fossils of dinosaurs like me as my commuting days there recede farther and farther into the past.

Yes, NJT (two lines, anyway) will get you to Newark Airport. NEC station across the street from the airport, anyway. Go up from the platforms and cross to the monorail - only a couple of minutes' ride to the terminals. It's a shame the airport never extended the monorail to Shelbyville.

Metro-North - I haven't been on that in an age. Doesn't one of the lines connect to the not-exactly-new-anymore JFK Air Train at, umm... Jamaica? I haven't been to JFK in a long time, either. Last time I did it must have been 20-25 years ago. I think the primary transit option then was the subway - A-train to Rockaway has a Howard Beach stop which also borders the long-term parking at the far west end of the airport. From there you still had to take an on-airport bus.

up
Voting closed 2

Silly me. They said "Metro-North", I transposed that to "LIRR"

Of course M-N doesn't do anything for getting to/from JFK. Or Newark. Or LaGuardia (other than getting off at 125th St and catching the M60 bus)

up
Voting closed 2

It seems that vehicles entering the airport could be categorized approximately as follows:

  1. Dropping off a passenger
  2. Headed to parking
  3. Pre-arranged passenger pickup where the vehicle needs to meet a specific individual passenger
  4. Taxi, where the vehicle will enter a queue and take the next passenger in line

It also seems that, for each category, it makes engineering and policy sense to treat all vehicles in that category the same way. If you're meeting a specific individual passenger, it shouldn't really matter whether you are a lyft, uber, pre-arranged taxi, limo, friend, or relative... your pattern of facility use and your impact on traffic are the same.

up
Voting closed 1

If what we want to do is reduce the number of private cars driven onto the airport's property we should be treating *all* private cars equally, regardless if they are ride shares, taxis, or individual cars. Want to drive onto the airport property? Pay a toll. Maybe base the toll on the number of people in the car: 1-5 people, $5, 6-10, $3, 10+ no toll.

This will drive the cost-conscious travelers towards public transportation, and will still allow those who have a need to pull up to the curb to do so with a minor cost. I'm already willing to take the extra fiscal hit if I'm going on a long-term trip and don't to drag my large suitcase on an MBTA bus for this access. Or to get my mobility-impaired mother to the curb where I can quickly find her a wheelchair. If I'm doing a short trip alone, I can opt for the MBTA and save myself a few bucks.

Unless, of course, Massport has decided to lobby on behalf of the taxi industry, such as it is. In which case this is all about punishing the ride share companies for being successful.

up
Voting closed 3