Talk:Logan Express

DYK nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Massport is expanding its Logan Express service, expecting to eliminate up to 3 million vehicle trips off the roads in and around Boston Logan International Airport?
  • ALT1:... that Massport's Logan Express helps to reduce both traffic congestion and vehicle emissions in Boston?

• Comment: a new article taking place of a redirect, so technically it's recently expanded

5x expanded by Mike gigs (talk). Self-nominated at 20:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC).

• @Mike gigs: This article replaces a redirect and is new enough and long enough. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright or plagiarism issues. No QPQ is needed. I do not see the proposed hook facts in the article, perhaps you can add a short paragraph that explains the benefits of the new service. Incidentally, your expansion took place on 9th October so this should have been listed for that day, rather than for the 2nd October. I will move the nomination template. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Cwmhiraeth:! I added information relating to the hook to the "Future Plans" section, along with a reference. ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 11:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, this is good to go with the original hook. (Striking ALT1 because, although it obviously will reduce emissions, it does not state this in the article.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Logan Express/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 06:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Dreamyshade (talk · contribs) 23:27, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Just starting to draft. Seems like a feasible/well-scoped topic for my first attempt at a GA review. I've never been to Massachusetts, so I'll learn something new. User:Dreamyshade 23:27, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dreamyshade: Thanks for a very detailed review! (It's hard to believe it's your first.) I've made some changes (comments below) and am working on a few others.

I definitely sympathize with your desire to have more high-level / "why" information. I find this is often tricky for transit articles - unless there happens to be a history that focuses on the system/line/station/etc, the articles are usually assembled from sources about individual aspects of the topic. This article is partially tricky in that regard - while there's clearly enough coverage for GNG, it doesn't attract as much attention as other transit operations, either from mainstream press or transit historians. Part of that is probably because unlike most Boston transit, it's not operated by the relatively-well-documented MBTA, so it doesn't usually get covered in those sources. (Massport also tends to be stingier than the MBTA as far as what public documentation they put out.) It's also not subject to the perennial funding issues of the MBTA, and the suburban terminals are mostly in nondescript industrial parks and mall fringes that don't attract much attention, so there's also not much to attract news stories other than "Massport is making this change." Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dreamyshade: I think I've added about as much as I can, but happy to hear any further suggestions. Thoughts? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Great additions, I'd call this a good article! Dreamyshade (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Suggest splitting the "COVID-19 changes and further expansion" subsection into two subsections, because they seem like sufficiently different topics: Y "COVID-19 changes" (starting with "Peabody service was suspended on March 18, 2020" and ending with "The terminal moved from Peabody to Liberty Tree Mall in Danvers on August 6, 2024.") "Parking expansion and remote terminal" (make statement of rebound in ridership the first sentence of the first paragraph, to help show why they wanted to expand parking, then continue to 2025-2026 info)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Suggestions for lead section: A brief summary of ridership numbers could help to give a sense of scale for the shuttle network. Y Suggest revisiting the lead after considering the coverage items below - with a bit more material in the body, the lead could tell a stronger story about why this shuttle network matters. Y
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Spot-check in table below with a couple questions and suggestions, but overall looks good. Y Appreciate the citations to page numbers for the long PDFs. Consider using Template:Cite report for the government reports.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This article covers "what", "when", and "where" well, but it would benefit from covering a bit more of the "why", "how", and "who". These aspects seem useful to cover a bit more: What motivated Massport to establish and expand this system? What obligations, agreements, or goals are they fulfilling through this system? Looks like mainly traffic congestion issues? For example, I found this brief bit and it makes me curious what was being mitigated and who that agreement was with: "The first Logan Express facility opened in Braintree in 1986 as part of a mitigation agreement to increase high-occupancy vehicle ridership to the airport." Also seeing some good context in the cited bond document. To what degree are air quality and sustainability motivating factors? (Little bit of interesting material in this GAO report from 2000, page 90.) Looks like there are some interesting academic papers on this topic! Doing... I'll see what I can add from these sources, and what else I can find. The GAO claim about funding from the airlines, and the mitigation agreement, are not things I've seen in any other sources. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC)  Done I've added what I can. I included the GAO claim since there's nothing that contradicts it, but I've not included the mitigation agreement claim because it's not mentioned in other sources that I would expect to discuss it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Makes sense. The bit about funding from the airlines is interesting, and GAO is generally reliable, but I also haven't seen anything else that confirms it. Up to your judgment about whether to keep it. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Suggest slightly expanding the material about the planned remote terminal (including explaining what that means) and summarizing it a little more in the lead, since that's interesting and seems to have been covered a fair bit in local news (for example, looking at this article). What else would you suggest? I think the one-sentence description in the prose covers everything that's important. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC) Y Added a brief definition to the lead so that the meaning is more clear to a casual reader. Probably more interesting to expand the body material after the remote terminals kick into action. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Additional suggestions to consider, although I don't think all of these need to be covered extensively: Does it make a profit? How has it been funded? Has Massport considered this project successful - does ridership meet expectations? Doing... Funding and financials are, uh, rather opaque. I'll see if I can find anything. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC) Y Valid. Thanks for looking. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Any other kinds of conflicts, disputes, tensions, or controversies? Not that I've seen, other than the 1990s Framingham location issue that's covered already. Y Reasonable. Much more chill than the Oakland Airport Connector and LAX FlyAway services that I'm more familiar with. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC) Are average daily ridership numbers available? I find those numbers helpful on Oakland Airport Connector. Frustratingly, no. I don't think it would be inappropriate to divide the 2024 counts by 366 to get an average daily count, because it's not a traditional service with heaviest ridership M-F, but there's still probably significant day-of-week variation. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC) Y Agree with not trying to synthesize the daily numbers. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2026 (UTC) There are no named people in the article, which is reasonable for a government project, but I'm curious whether there have been any notable people in the story, such as leaders who advocated for or against something. Not that I've seen. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC) Y Also reasonable. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2026 (UTC) I find it interesting that a third of the riders in 2024 were employees, so in practice it functions as a commuter shuttle as well as an air passenger shuttle! Curious whether there's any material available about that - is that an intended goal of the system? Not that I've seen so far, but I'll see if there's anything in the sources noted above. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC) Readers may be interested in a bit of practical information about accessibility, room for baggage, onboard bathrooms, terminal amenities, how to buy a ticket, availability of real-time arrival information, etc. Not a how-to guide, but seems reasonable to briefly cover significant aspects of passenger experience. I tend to deliberately shy away from this kind of travel information unless it's noted in secondary sources. I did add a cite for accessibility. Some surprisingly basic information, like what types of buses are used, sin't actually covered in any sources that I've found. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC) Y OK with me. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The current material is presented neutrally. The article has a bunch of citations to Massport publications and press releases, which are reliable but not independent, and that may contribute to the article seeming a bit zoomed-in on operations. I think fleshing out the "why" will bring the article into better balance.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Looks good: Logo is marked PD-MAGov, which makes sense to me Infobox photo is CC-BY from an experienced Commons contributor Terminal photo is CC-BY-SA from author Framingham bus is CC-BY-SA from author Back Bay bus is CC-BY-SA from author
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Photos: Logo is helpful and relevant Infobox photo appropriately shows a bus in context at an airport terminal. The photo of a closed former terminal is relevant but slightly gloomy. Do you think you could find a relevant image for that section from the era - maybe a records request could turn up an early publicity photo? Might be something fun in Northeastern special collections (although hard to access)? The old sign from the parking lot in Braintree is appealing - would be great to find a photo of it. (I'm charmed that apparently people have painted the sign and made drawings of it. Something like that post's photo of the interior of the terminal would also work. Maybe this person could relicense a photo if asked (this page has contact info)? Doing... I'll see what I can do as far as images, either that sign or one of the other photos from Miles, but I can't promise it'll be within the GA review timeline. (If no luck, I'll get some myself on my next visit to Boston.) Massport is extremely unresponsive to public records requests, unfortunately. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC) Great! The existing photos do already meet/exceed GA criteria, just meant as a suggestion for improvement. The terminal photo is also slightly awkward because it's most relevant to the third paragraph of the "Initial services" section, but if I try sticking the photo next to that paragraph (on the right), the photo flows into the next section somewhat, which looks a little odd, even if I move the Framingham bus down one paragraph (so that it's next to the paragraph about the Framingham route). Not sure whether it's better to prioritize relevance or layout; I tried reading through relevant guidance (like MOS:IMAGELOC) but didn't find clear direction, so this seems up to your judgment. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC) I've reached out to both, fingers crossed. I've played with the image locations a bit, though I reserve the right to mess with them more :) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Y Parking garage photo is a good addition for an article that is essentially all about parking. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Photo of the Framingham Logan Express bus is relevant - helpful to show one on the road. Photo of the Back Bay Logan Express bus is fine, although I'd move it to the "Further expansion" section, since it's not really relevant to COVID-19 changes. Also the background is kind of generic, so if there's an alternative that shows something informative about some part of the system (like a terminal or parking lot), that could be nice. Moved the image for now. I'll see what I can get for possible terminal images. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	Good article!

This table lists 12 random passages from throughout the article (19.4% of 62 total passages). These passages contain 17 inline citations (20.7% of 82 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
The suburban routes use motorcoach-style buses with striping colored by route, while the Back Bay route uses Massport-owned transit buses.
4	a	massport.com	web.archive.org	Fixed via removal	Source doesn't seem to talk about motorcoach-style buses or colors for the suburban routes, unless I'm missing something. Also a bit confusing that the linked press release doesn't have a visible date on it.
Massport began full-time service on the Quincy Adams route, with fare required, on September 29, 1986.
7		newspapers.com			Citation doesn't say fare required, but it's reasonably implied.
Massport purchased the Braintree terminal site for $47.1 million in 2014.
11	a	massport.com
The initial terminal in the mall's parking lot had limited parking spots and a ten-year lease. In 1990, Massport proposed to move the terminal to a former Trailways bus station off Speen Street in Natick to the east.
17		newspapers.com		Fixed via clarifying the citations	Assuming this citation is meant to support both sentences, the Boston Globe article doesn't seem to mention the length of the lease for the mall parking lot. It does say "The move is designed to increase parking from 180 spaces to more than 300 spaces and guarantee a long-term home for Logan Express.", which implies limited parking in the mall lot, but overall seems more accurate to the source to say something like "In 1990, Massport proposed to move the terminal to a new location with more parking spots, the former Trailways bus station off Speen Street in Natick to the east."
That became the permanent site; a terminal building opened in February 1997.
23		newspapers.com
It was slow to gain ridership due to the post-September 11 drop in air travel and frequency was halved on November 3, 2001.
28	b	newspapers.com			Appreciate this strategy for linking the second half of an article on Newspapers.com.
The MBTA began daily Silver Line bus service between South Station and the airport in June 2005.
34		newspapers.com
By 2001, the 350-space lot at Framingham was insufficient; Massport leased additional overflow parking spots in nearby commercial lots to meet demand. In early 2001, Massport received approval to build a four-level, 1,081-space parking garage, but it was not built after the September 11 attacks.
35		newspapers.com			I went ahead and reused the Boston Globe citation for the first sentence, which it supports.
36	a	massport.com			Second sentence is supported by the second citation, although "it was not built after the September 11 attacks" is a bit confusing to read. Could replace that with "did not proceed with the plan following the September 11 attacks".  Done Reworded. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
By 2019, Massport planned to add a route to North Station and an additional suburban route.
41	a	boston.curbed.com	web.archive.org	Fixed	Less strong than the Boston Magazine source, doesn't hurt but could be cut: "Massport is now mulling over Logan Express locations, including near North Station"  Done Cut that usage of the source. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
42		bostonmagazine.com	web.archive.org		Good: "Buses have run for free between the airport and Back Bay since June, and the service will soon be expanded to include North Station and an undisclosed suburban location within the next five years."
12	c	massport.com	web.archive.org		This is fine in addition to the Boston Magazine source: "By next year, a LEX curbside service will be available for commuters at North Station with connections to the MBTA’s Green and Orange lines and the Commuter Rail...Other LEX locations are also being considered."
Woburn service was suspended on January 1, 2021.
46		massport.com	web.archive.org
Suburban ridership reached a record 2.58 million passengers – 1.66 million air passengers and 0.92 million employees – in 2024. Back Bay ridership was 233,750, slightly lower than in 2019.
53		massport.com	web.archive.org		Partially supports the statement: "The Logan Express (LEX) also saw record numbers this year, with over 2.5 million passengers utilizing the service."
1	d	massport.com		Fixed enough	It looks the 2.58 million number is for "Total System Ridership", including both suburban and urban service. There's a weirder issue though, in that I can't figure out how Massport added up their numbers to make a total of 2,583,440. Am I missing something? If I add up the 2024 air passenger totals for Framingham, Braintree, Woburn, and Peabody/Danvers, plus the Back Bay total ridership (which isn't split by passenger/employee), I get 1,664,913, which matches the "Total System Ridership" number for air passengers. That's fine. If I add up the 2024 employee totals for Framingham, Braintree, Woburn, and Peabody/Danvers, I get 464,832. But the "Total System Ridership" number for employees is listed as 918,527. Where did the additional 453,695 employee riders come from? Doing... Sigh, that is very weird. I may send an email asking for clarification, though I'm not optimistic about getting a response. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC) Yeah, only so much we can do about the numbers not adding up. I'm also wondering also if it's more accurate to say "employee trips" rather than "employees" - presumably Massport is counting trips per year, rather than unique individuals on the system per year - but the source says "employees", so I suppose we have to go with that. Updated the article to make the numbers match the sources, which seems like enough for GA purposes. Y I'd be curious what they say if they do respond. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Several further expansions of parking facilities are planned. As of 2025[update], parking lot reconfiguration and a permanent building in Danvers are expected to be completed later in the 2020s at a cost of $17 million.
5	b	massport.com			"The proposed Danvers Logan Express facility will replace the temporary North Shore Logan Express facility at the Liberty Tree Mall. The project proposes to reconfigure existing parking lots in Danvers and construct a new, approximately 5,400 square-foot building...Construction of the surface lots was completed, with the building's construction anticipated to be completed by 2027." "The Peabody Logan Express was relocated to Danvers in 2023 and a new Danvers Logan Express facility is scheduled for completion by 2028, providing more parking for both passengers and employees."
57		massport.com		Fixed	"The construction cost is currently estimated by Massport at approximately 17 MILLION DOLLARS (10 MILLION DOLLARS SITE; 7 MILLION DOLLARS BUILDING)." I know "expected" is already hedging somewhat, but the source is just a RFQ, which is not the most reliable source for what the actual cost will be, so I'd say an estimated cost of $17 million. (I'd be curious what the winning bid amount was, if that's public.)  Done Added "estimated" to both projected costs. Haven't found anything further. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Framingham LEX no longer operated by Fox Bus

Source: it is quite plainly written on the side of every Framingham LEX bus as required by federal law. Presumably there is some Massport press release you can find for when the contract was awarded to the new operator. 121a0012 (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done Found a source. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2026 (UTC)