BOS LCL CTLR EXPRESSED CONCERNS REGARDING VEHICLE OPS ON ARPT WHICH INVOLVED PHRASEOLOGY FAMILIARITY; READBACK FAILURES; AND ARPT PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE.

Narrative

I WAS WORKING LOCAL WITH JURISDICTION OVER 2 RWYS; 22L AND 27; WHICH INTERSECT. ARRS TO BOTH RWYS WITH LAHSO. NUMEROUS VEHICLES WERE CALLING ON THE 2 ACTIVE RWYS; BOTH CROSSING AND TRAVELING ON THEM. ALSO PROCEEDING ON A 3RD CLOSED RWY (15R). SEVERAL TIMES THE VEHICLES FAILED TO READ BACK HOLD SHORT INSTRUCTIONS; EG CAR XX; HOLD SHORT OF RWY 4R AND SAY INTENTIONS. CAR XX WOULD SAY THE INTENTIONS; BUT NOT READ BACK THE HOLD SHORT. ONE VEHICLE REQUESTED TO CROSS RWY 27. WHEN GIVEN A CROSSING CLRNC WITH TFC ON 1 AND 1/2 MILE FINAL; HE DECLINED; SAYING HE NEEDED MORE ROOM AS HE WAS PAINTING. WHEN HE WAS LATER CROSSED BUT TOLD NOT TO PAINT; HE DID NOT CROSS AND NO READBACK AT ALL. AT OTHER TIMES; READBACKS WERE 'WE'LL HOLD SHORT' WITH NO RWY READ BACK; OR NO CALL SIGN USED; EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE SEVERAL VEHICLES. BETWEEN IMPROPER READBACKS; MISSING READBACKS; AND NOT CROSSING WHEN INSTRUCTED TO; IT WAS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO KNOW WHICH VEHICLES WERE DOING WHAT AND ENSURE SEPARATION. THIS VEHICULAR MOVEMENT WAS HAPPENING WHILE ARRS WERE LNDG; CREATING A COMPLEX SIT. POOR RADIO TECHNIQUE BY VEHICLE OPERATORS CREATED CONFUSION AND POTENTIAL SAFETY ISSUES. VEHICLES; EVEN THOSE OPERATED BY THE ARPT OPERATOR; NEED TO USE PHRASEOLOGY. PERHAPS FAMILIARITY LED TO COMPLACENCE. POSSIBILITY OF AN INCURSION WAS HIGH. SUCH VEHICLE OPS SHOULD PERHAPS BE RESTRICTED TO OTHER LESS BUSY TIMES OF DAY; OR RWYS SHOULD BE CLOSED UNTIL THE NEEDED WORK IS COMPLETED.