KarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2944 posts, RR: 9 Posted (4 years 11 months 9 hours ago) and read 2149 times:
In an effort to look way ahead and plan for the anticipated needs of the future of DTW a plan to add another runway has been put on the back burner. It is not off the table but for now because of concerns expressed from the city of Romulus and its citizens this is the where the project stands now. Details in more depth are in the writeup below.
Courtesy: The Detroit News
Airport Authority Agrees To Postpone Plan For New Runway
FlyNTE From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 39 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (4 years 11 months 8 hours ago) and read 2089 times:
I'm disappointed that the Airport Authority agreed on this compromise. DTW is one of the only positive economic engines of the entire region, and the ability to grow and expand is key. I'm not sympathetic to people who live near DTW - the airport has been in that location since the late 1920s, and expansion should be no surprise to anyone.
PITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (4 years 11 months 6 hours ago) and read 2009 times:
DTW doesn't really need 5 parallel runways in use at the same time. What they really need is 3 independent simultaneous IFR arrival streams during inbound pushes. Right now they have two, because minimum required spacing for this is 4,300' between runways, which is not available between the outer two runways and inner runways.
This begs the question, "Why didn't they plan for this when they built the 4th parallel runway?" It should have been placed further west to be 4,300' from the current inner runway on that side, or it should have been placed where the proposed 5th parallel will go.
KarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2944 posts, RR: 9 Reply 4, posted (4 years 11 months 6 hours ago) and read 1994 times:
Quoting PITrules (Reply 3): It should have been placed further west
I don't know how much further west they can go now after the addition of 4L-22R which as you know was added on the west side. The further west you go now you approach Willow Run Airport (YIP). This may be the factor that prevents going further west. Maybe some of our pilots on A-Net can elaborate on this point.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 6, posted (4 years 11 months 6 hours ago) and read 1943 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting KarlB737 (Reply 4): The further west you go now you approach Willow Run Airport (YIP). This may be the factor that prevents going further west.
They should save money and just build a taxiway between YIP and DTW. Land in Ypsi, deplane in Romulus.
AAH732UAL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (4 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 1928 times:
Good, not really needed I feel. Move 21L/03R over to allow the minimum spacing and build more percision approaches with 21R/03L. Like SOIA, ILS PRM, etc. Maybe not add a ILS, but do something to allow the use of maybe ILS21L and RNAV(GPS)21R in SOIA sorta way, or what have you andf then they may not need to moce any runways.
Or they could take the ILS off 27R and put it on either end of 21R/03L and then stagger the apporaches to allow parallel apporaches w/o haveing to move 21L/03R very much.
There is a TON of stuff the could be done to 21R/03L to make it better used then just takeoffs and visual approaches. Just more money that didn't have to be spent IMHO.
AirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (4 years 11 months 4 hours ago) and read 1874 times:
Quoting FlyNTE (Reply 1): I'm not sympathetic to people who live near DTW - the airport has been in that location since the late 1920s, and expansion should be no surprise to anyone.
Strange, and very limited way of looking at things in my opinion. Sure, it may have been there since the 1920's......does that mean no development should have been allowed to take place within say a 100 mile radius of it since then?
What was acceptable (noise etc.) when people bought houses close by in say the 1960's, does not mean they should be unilaterally uprooted some 40 years later based on 'expansion plans' now. Would you not object in the same scenario?
PSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 6910 posts, RR: 29 Reply 9, posted (4 years 11 months 4 hours ago) and read 1862 times:
Quoting PITrules (Reply 3): This begs the question, "Why didn't they plan for this when they built the 4th parallel runway?" It should have been placed further west to be 4,300' from the current inner runway on that side, or it should have been placed where the proposed 5th parallel will go.
Likely not possible due to the location of the city of Wayne and the proximity of I-275 at the southern end.
FlyNTE From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 39 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (4 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 1814 times:
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 8): Strange, and very limited way of looking at things in my opinion. Sure, it may have been there since the 1920's......does that mean no development should have been allowed to take place within say a 100 mile radius of it since then?
What was acceptable (noise etc.) when people bought houses close by in say the 1960's, does not mean they should be unilaterally uprooted some 40 years later based on 'expansion plans' now. Would you not object in the same scenario?
I did not in any way suggest that a 100-mile non-residential zone be developed around DTW, or any other airport. I'm simply trying to point out that these people chose to live adjacent to an airport, knowing full well that there was great potential for it to expand in the future. For citizen uproar to be the primary reason to slow down DTW's Master Plan process... Well, that's a shame.
Planning for airport runways is a long-term process. In my opinion, current management simply took the easy way out and left the hard work to future airport managers. The problem of runway expansion will remain, and the citizen protests will be there in full force 10 years from now.
GRRTVC From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 272 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (4 years 11 months 1 hour ago) and read 1770 times:
What I find most interesting about this runway project and many others around the country is how it goes from being proposed on the Airport Layout Plan or Master Plan (which are required by the FAA) to a project. Not saying that the DTW Airport Authority wouldn't like to add another runway for the sake of jobs and growth but from the way I read the article they (DTW) are only doing what is essentially required by the FAA...to plan for the future. This in itself does mean a runway has to be built.
I wouldn't be too surprised that NW/DL told DTW that they wouldn't/couldn't support what would be a controversial project at a time when projects (non-runway) are being postponed and/or canceled around the country.
Now if you take the ANC approach to building a runway then yes...you are putting the cart before the horse and developing a Master Plan around a perceived need versus actual...but I digress. The ANC community didn't want it, airlines didn't want it, but management did.
WA707atMSP From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2059 posts, RR: 12 Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1668 times:
I hope Romulus will continue to restrict building on the area where the 5th runway is planned to be built, and works to ensure only "airport-compatible" buildings are built in areas that would be affected by the highest levels of jet noise from the runway.
It would be a real shame if air traffic increased enough over the next ten or fifteen years that the runway became a necessity, but it was politically impossible to build it because the area around the fifth runway became too built up.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1646 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting FlyNTE (Reply 1): DTW is one of the only positive economic engines of the entire region, and the ability to grow and expand is key.
Could you elaborate on this? Based on what I've seen (particularly in the housing market), the economic engine of the Detroit area is anything but positive.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2944 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
