First, let us address Massport's main argument. Their commercials and their literature assert that adding a runway would decrease airport delays and congestion, at the same time alleviating some of the problems that locals have with Logan: noise, pollution, and traffic.Runway 14/32 was eventually built and became active in November of 2006. Today there is a report in the news that says Logan Airport (and the smaller regional airport in Manchester, NH) "ranked 78th out of 89 metropolitan areas in the nation" in on-time flights and, "This year’s performance is a 2 percent improvement from the same time period in 2008, but 4 percent worse than five years ago."
The fact is that the FAA's own web site indicates that most airport delays -- 75% of those in February, for example -- are due to poor weather conditions. An additional runway would mean additional flights delayed or canceled when the weather is bad. Therefore, building Runway 14/32 would have the opposite effect outlined in Massport's propaganda.
Massport, as usual, played fast and loose with the facts. I know virtually nothing about the logistics of air travel, yet I was able to deduce that their arguments didn't make sense. Then, as now, Massport cannot be trusted.