Detroit has the nation's best airport

[iheartthed]

The study, conducted by J.D. Power and Associates, surveyed more than 12,000 people who took a round-trip flight between January and December 2009.

They were asked to grade their departing and arriving airports on categories like accessibility, the check-in experience, the security process, the level of comfort in the terminal, the food choices offered and baggage claim.

Detroit Metropolitan Airport in Michigan received the best grades among large airports -- those servicing 30 million or more passengers per year -- while some of the country's best known airports came in at the bottom.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/02/24...ex.html?hpt=T2

You're on your way Detroit. The only thing truly lacking about the airport is that it's virtually inaccessible by anything other than an automobile.

Sidenote: I just need to gripe about how this article was written. It seemed like they were trying to make a word quota. Of course Detroit Metro is in Michigan, and Los Angeles International is in California, and Miami International is in Florida. Did that need to be said?

[casscorridor]

Great news. I have long thought the South Terminal was the best I've been to. Now that the North Terminal is open, it makes sense why we'd have the best airport.

One thing that makes it not the best is no rail transit connection from the Airport to Downtown. Hopefully this will be fixed soon.

[smogboy]

It really is a nice terminal considering all of the airports I've been to. Detroit Metro is pretty spacious and one of the things that I like is that it is pretty nicely lit. Some other cities' airports are usually big concrete slabs with narrow aisles. Inside the airport it truly is world class; outside there could be some upgrades with shuttle service, access to rapid transit [[another topic altogether!), better parking, green space and a true attachment to the area. There seems to be a detachment from the city and area it serves.

[Det_ard]

Great news. I have long thought the South Terminal was the best I've been to. Now that the North Terminal is open, it makes sense why we'd have the best airport.

One thing that makes it not the best is no rail transit connection from the Airport to Downtown. Hopefully this will be fixed soon.

Transit to/from the airport would be good, but since less than 5% of the MSA's workers work downtown, and the percent of the region living downtown is way lower than that, trips to downtown are less important than making sure there's a regional transit network. If downtown is where you hook into it, great, but the vast majority of flyers aren't going downtown.

[Detroitnerd]

Transit to/from the airport would be good, but since less than 5% of the MSA's workers work downtown, and the percent of the region living downtown is way lower than that, trips to downtown are less important than making sure there's a regional transit network. If downtown is where you hook into it, great, but the vast majority of flyers aren't going downtown.

Generally speaking, train-to-plane systems tend to connect the airport with the transportation hub. Like the subway to JFK in New York goes into Manhattan. Or the way the buses go to Port Authority or Grand Central Terminal or Penn Station. That way, people can have easy access to their secondary destination.

I wonder about the relevance of using where metro Detroiters work as the barometer of where a link to the airport should go. Are people hopping off the plane to go to work?

For a region as sprawled-out as metro Detroit, you could argue there is no fixed-route transit system that will serve a majority of the people who use the airport. But what you CAN do is connect it to the best-transit-served, densest route in the metro.

I think it would make sense, for instance to have a train run from downtown out to the airport, with a few stops in Dearborn, maybe one in Wayne, and a few in Detroit as well. It's possible to swing the route out another way after the proposed downtown station. What are your ideas?

[ghettopalmetto]

Transit to/from the airport would be good, but since less than 5% of the MSA's workers work downtown, and the percent of the region living downtown is way lower than that, trips to downtown are less important than making sure there's a regional transit network. If downtown is where you hook into it, great, but the vast majority of flyers aren't going downtown.

The vast majority of flyers don't arrive with cars, either, yet we make them drive everywhere once they land.

[English]

The commuter train from Ann Arbor to Detroit will eventually have a stop near Metro Airport. Unfortunately, it won't be directly on airport grounds, but will have to be accessed via bus... and I've heard that it's challenging to find even the SMART bus stop there. [[Granted, I've never tried.)

BTW, this is wonderful news for the region.

[Det_ard]

Generally speaking, train-to-plane systems tend to connect the airport with the transportation hub. Like the subway to JFK in New York goes into Manhattan. Or the way the buses go to Port Authority or Grand Central Terminal or Penn Station. That way, people can have easy access to their secondary destination.

I wonder about the relevance of using where metro Detroiters work as the barometer of where a link to the airport should go. Are people hopping off the plane to go to work?

Business people are going to where others work. 95% of that is x-downtown. Pleasure travelers are going to where they or friends/relatives live. 99% of that is x-downtown.

For a region as sprawled-out as metro Detroit, you could argue there is no fixed-route transit system that will serve a majority of the people who use the airport. But what you CAN do is connect it to the best-transit-served, densest route in the metro.

I think it would make sense, for instance to have a train run from downtown out to the airport, with a few stops in Dearborn, maybe one in Wayne, and a few in Detroit as well. It's possible to swing the route out another way after the proposed downtown station. What are your ideas?

My idea is build a comprehensive network and not a train to [[virtually) nowhere. Now, reality intrudes in our economically suffering and spread out region. While I'd love to see a transit system like what I've used in other cities I've lived in, I'm not convinced that we can afford it or that it would make sense given our unusually spread-out working and living patterns.

[ghettopalmetto]

...or that it would make sense given our unusually spread-out working and living patterns.

Which happened completely by accident, you know.

[Detroitnerd]

Business people are going to where others work. 95% of that is x-downtown. Pleasure travelers are going to where they or friends/relatives live. 99% of that is x-downtown.

I see what you're saying. But are rail-airport links built to serve everyone? What is the benefit of linking, say, freeway-fed Troy to the airport compared to, say, a downtown Detroit from which light rail and commuter rail fanned out? And what of the economic impact of linking the city center with the airport?

My idea is build a comprehensive network and not a train to [[virtually) nowhere. Now, reality intrudes in our economically suffering and spread out region. While I'd love to see a transit system like what I've used in other cities I've lived in, I'm not convinced that we can afford it or that it would make sense given our unusually spread-out working and living patterns.

I agree that we need that comprehensive network -- including a hub where light rail, commuter rail, airport-rail links, etc. all converge -- but you need to start somewhere. At some point, this region needs to go through a period of post-20th century retrenchment. Note that I'm not saying Detroit; I mean the region. And the best way to do that is to build a sturdy framework for the kind of growth that makes sense.

Transportation decisions affect what gets built. If the region is too spread out for its own good, we should implement transportation choices that help us keep things a bit tighter.

And if the argument is about affordability, the costs and energy consumption that go with low-density living seem to be higher than the opposite. It costs more to service a population that is spread-out. And we can make some intelligent choices now to mitigate that.

Or we can just run on the way we have, worried about spending money and ending up broke anyway. That's my main concern.

[artds]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/02/24...ex.html?hpt=T2

You're on your way Detroit. The only thing truly lacking about the airport is that it's virtually inaccessible by anything other than an automobile.

Sidenote: I just need to gripe about how this article was written. It seemed like they were trying to make a word quota. Of course Detroit Metro is in Michigan, and Los Angeles International is in California, and Miami International is in Florida. Did that need to be said?

rail accessibility would be nice, but if this survey shows anything, its that rail access is not a major priority among air travelers, or at least not in our metro area where everything is so scattered.

[Onthe405]

There's no question DTW is a vital economic asset and a very passenger-friendly airport. However, no one else has mentioned the fact that "transportation to anywhere around the city" is irrelevant to the majority of passengers. The only reason DTW carries the capacity it does is because Northwest happened to selected it as a regional hub.

The overwhelming majority of passengers at DTW are not visiting or conducting business in Detroit. They are simply transitioning from one gate/terminal to another within the airport on their way to a destination in some other city or country, with little or no interest in visiting [[or need for services) anywhere else in the Detroit area.

[rbdetsport]

DTW's master plan is to move the rental car companies north of I94 and to build a monorail connecting all terminals, the rental cars, and up Merriman Road to the AA-Detroit Commuter Rail Station. Obviously this would not be a necessity until the commuter rail expands service from the pilot program to an actual commuter rail. But in the long run, that is the plan.

[56packman]

What's that word? Monorail!

[gnome]

I gots a fever and the only perscription is more MagLev

[cloud_wall]

1) Airport security is pretty important everywhere. I don't know exactly why Orlando is different, but I don't think it's our cities' respective demographics. And I think you unnecessarily pluralized your acronym.

2) Only the elderly should be looking for entertainment options at an airport at which they have no travel business. If you are dropping someone off, you should go home after that. Orlando has demand for non-travel-related entertainment at the airport, apparently. We do not, happily.

[MoparDan]

What's that word? Monorail!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrjL-...eature=related

[IMG]file:///D:/DOCUME%7E1/danny/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.jpg[/IMG]

[iheartthed]

The drawback to Orlando's airport is that you can't do all that stuff once you pass security without being re-screened. I was in Orlando a couple years ago and my flight was delayed. I wanted to go grab something to eat and shop, so I had to go out and then be re-screened.

People who are transferring flights wouldn't be too keen on that type of hassle, and since Detroit sees a lot of passengers connecting to other flights relative to those for whom Detroit is the destination... the way they designed it makes sense.

[iheartthed]

The overwhelming majority of passengers at DTW are not visiting or conducting business in Detroit. They are simply transitioning from one gate/terminal to another within the airport on their way to a destination in some other city or country, with little or no interest in visiting [[or need for services) anywhere else in the Detroit area.

I'm gonna need you to cite some numbers for your "overwhelming majority" claim. I think it's more like "a significant percentage"... Which is pretty much par for the course of any airport that serves as a major hub such as Atlanta Hartsfield [[metro ATL's rapid growth is actually credited by many to the presence of the airport), Chicago O'Hare, Philadelphia International, etc.

[Onthe405]

I'm gonna need you to cite some numbers for your "overwhelming majority" claim. I think it's more like "a significant percentage"... Which is pretty much par for the course of any airport that serves as a major hub such as Atlanta Hartsfield [[metro ATL's rapid growth is actually credited by many to the presence of the airport), Chicago O'Hare, Philadelphia International, etc.

According to a 2006 study by U of M & Detroit-WC Airport Authority, 67% visit the airport for the purpose of changing planes. Another [[estimated) 5% are bound for destinations in MI outside of Metro Detroit.
Of the 18.2 million passengers DTW handled in 2006, 13.3 million did not require services outside of the immediate airport area. I suppose we could spend several posts parsing words in order to clarify whether those figures constitute a “significant percentage� or an “overwhelming majority�.

http://www.metroairport.com/pdf/DTW_...act_Report.pdf

Again, the net economic benefit of DTW [[in addition to intangible image enhancements) is unquestionably positive. The point is that a high volume airport is not in itself a guarantee of appeal for tourists, create a de facto demand for a localized multi-billion dollar regional mass transit project, or the sole decision senior executives make when considering a corporate headquarters location.

There is Atlanta, but there is also Memphis. Prior to the era of mainstream air travel, it was already established as vital trucking & distribution center. This was later complimented by an expanded regional hub airport for Northwest. However, today it stands as a more racially divided, economically depressed urban center than it was even 20 years ago.

[Meddle]

The 'hub passthrough' angle could be applied to the border too. A significant amount of traffic crossing the US/Canada border is through traffic with no reason to stop in town. One of the main points of I-69 is to help that traffic by-pass the city entirely.

[JBMcB]

Before just running relatively expensive rail around town, how about a couple of shuttle bus stations in strategic locations. Measure the passenger load for a few years, then put rail between the busiest locations. If significantly more people are heading up 275 to the Novi area, maybe a rail line downtown isn't the best idea.

[stasu1213]

I really think that the Detroit City Airport is going to make a tremendous comeback. It will take up most of the eastside of Detroit from Conners to Seymour down Gratioit. It might use that much space to be compatible to Metro. I would not be surprise if that plan is in the making

[charlottepaul]

As I recall, DTW is about 9 square miles and has 6 runways. It would take a lot from DET to get to half that.

[charlottepaul]

Moreover, DET has been trying to acquire homes nearby for the last like 5 years. It wasn't going that well. Give me a few mins to dig up the Detroit Free Press expose on that.