It seems to be more of a paid advertisement rather than a balanced article. Very little of relevance to the traveling public who I would assume would be his audience as a travel writer.

He fails to point out terminal B is currently a 1 minute walk to a ride share location that is covered, well light, and with easy pull thru for drivers. Significantly less then his optimistic 6.5 minute test run. Or that deadheading from app rides is no worse than the same deadheading by taxis (that this new policy benefits taxis as they still are permitted curb access). Or why private cars dropping off family and friends are not required to use the central parking area. Aren’t they deadheading?

Is the audience whomever appoints Massport members? Yes, his assessment of my head exploding at the thought of Massport corruption is correct.