The current, untenable rental car situation was well-documented by a professional film crew in the 1980s.
- 1,794
The polite way of saying displace the black people that live, shop and recreate in the area adjacent to the airport.
Don’t worry, they’ll make sure to keep black folks around to work the low paying jobs they want to create.
Again, why isn't the T2 garage 'walkable'? You don't even have to build anything but RAC huts inside.NHampton wrote: ↑Dec 12, 2025He was hired by GSTL: https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... l-car.htmlrbb wrote:https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jasonvan ... kgsmoAU180NHampton wrote: ↑Dec 06, 2025I came across a LinkedIn post from a consultant/former Southwest exec (Jason Van Eaton) who wrote that he has accepted a role as an "Executive Advisor representing the St Louis business community" on the Lambert redevelopment. Regarding the recent conversation here, he lists five priorities, including "assist in planning a new consolidated rental car facility."
Besides the rental car facility, I'm curious who hired him. He didn't mention GSTL.
-RBB
Hate to toot my own horn, but *hello* to the STL business journal, which partially relies on his LinkedIn post for this story.
"Hamm-Niebruegge said rental car companies have long wanted a CONRAC that's walkable from airport terminals, but not one that would require a shuttle, since they already use shuttles under the current setup. "There's never been a spot that's walkable, that's what the issue has been," she said. Hamm-Niebruegge said rental car companies may now be examining CONRAC sites that would require shuttles.
One site that's walkable from the new terminal layout would be south of Lambert International Boulevard. It's currently occupied by U.S. Marine Corps and Navy recruiting stations, among other Department of Defense tenants. The property would have to become available, she said, adding there isn't other Lambert property that would be walkable to a new terminal that could host a CONRAC.
Hamm-Niebruegge declined to comment when asked whether talks had begun with the federal government regarding the site, which is to be near Lambert's new garage."
I feel like they already displaced the black people, there's almost nothing left of Kinloch.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Dec 12, 2025The polite way of saying displace the black people that live, shop and recreate in the area adjacent to the airport.jshank83 wrote: ↑Dec 12, 2025This is the line that interested me most.
The business community is also focused on making the area around the airport "more inviting," Hamm-Niebruegge said, as well as increasing cargo and non-commercial, general aviation traffic.
Don’t worry, they’ll make sure to keep black folks around to work the low paying jobs they want to create.
Honestly, I think the area around the airport along I-70 is very ugly, like a sea of concrete. But I'm not sure much effort should be expended in making it look better, just let it be industrial/commercial, no need for mixed use apartments bc no one should have to live directly next to an airport/interstate.
- 9,539
I think this is the same guy that one a candidate for the GSL CEO job
him, the CEO of Sacramento chamber and the guy that got hired from Wichita Falls
him, the CEO of Sacramento chamber and the guy that got hired from Wichita Falls
- 83
Not to go too far afield, so to speak, but I noticed something on page 23 of the MoDOT presentation about the I-70 plans from I-170 to MO 141: https://www.modot.org/sites/default/fil ... 2025_0.pdf
Alternative A extends Woodson Road across Natural Bridge and under I-70 to provide a connection between the city and the current Terminal 2 MetroLink station, but Alternative B does not. I thought Woodson Terrace has been planning some sort of connection to bridge the gap between the city and the station for several years now. Is it a situation where it's just a wish on the city's part and MoDOT will just do whatever it wants? It seems like it would be a huge waste to reconstruct I-70 and not account for some sort of connection between the station and the cities to the south of it, particularly since Terminal 2 will close down after the new terminal complex opens.
Alternative A extends Woodson Road across Natural Bridge and under I-70 to provide a connection between the city and the current Terminal 2 MetroLink station, but Alternative B does not. I thought Woodson Terrace has been planning some sort of connection to bridge the gap between the city and the station for several years now. Is it a situation where it's just a wish on the city's part and MoDOT will just do whatever it wants? It seems like it would be a huge waste to reconstruct I-70 and not account for some sort of connection between the station and the cities to the south of it, particularly since Terminal 2 will close down after the new terminal complex opens.
Major airports are never in nice areas.PeterXCV wrote: ↑Dec 12, 2025I feel like they already displaced the black people, there's almost nothing left of Kinloch.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Dec 12, 2025The polite way of saying displace the black people that live, shop and recreate in the area adjacent to the airport.jshank83 wrote: ↑Dec 12, 2025This is the line that interested me most.
The business community is also focused on making the area around the airport "more inviting," Hamm-Niebruegge said, as well as increasing cargo and non-commercial, general aviation traffic.
Don’t worry, they’ll make sure to keep black folks around to work the low paying jobs they want to create.
Honestly, I think the area around the airport along I-70 is very ugly, like a sea of concrete. But I'm not sure much effort should be expended in making it look better, just let it be industrial/commercial, no need for mixed use apartments bc no one should have to live directly next to an airport/interstate.
Page 22jonkleinow wrote: ↑Dec 12, 2025Not to go too far afield, so to speak, but I noticed something on page 23 of the MoDOT presentation about the I-70 plans from I-170 to MO 141: https://www.modot.org/sites/default/fil ... 2025_0.pdf
Alternative A extends Woodson Road across Natural Bridge and under I-70 to provide a connection between the city and the current Terminal 2 MetroLink station, but Alternative B does not. I thought Woodson Terrace has been planning some sort of connection to bridge the gap between the city and the station for several years now. Is it a situation where it's just a wish on the city's part and MoDOT will just do whatever it wants? It seems like it would be a huge waste to reconstruct I-70 and not account for some sort of connection between the station and the cities to the south of it, particularly since Terminal 2 will close down after the new terminal complex opens.
"Pedestrian access across I-70" gave me a good belly laugh.
It is a huge waste not to add some type of connection but MODOT's not into innovation.jonkleinow wrote: ↑Dec 12, 2025Not to go too far afield, so to speak, but I noticed something on page 23 of the MoDOT presentation about the I-70 plans from I-170 to MO 141: https://www.modot.org/sites/default/fil ... 2025_0.pdf
Alternative A extends Woodson Road across Natural Bridge and under I-70 to provide a connection between the city and the current Terminal 2 MetroLink station, but Alternative B does not. I thought Woodson Terrace has been planning some sort of connection to bridge the gap between the city and the station for several years now. Is it a situation where it's just a wish on the city's part and MoDOT will just do whatever it wants? It seems like it would be a huge waste to reconstruct I-70 and not account for some sort of connection between the station and the cities to the south of it, particularly since Terminal 2 will close down after the new terminal complex opens.
I actually have a bit of random intel about this, basically a Woodson Terrace official (the mayor, I think) got this idea studied but it's very unlikely to happen. Which is a real shame that North County residents get almost no use out of the airport metrolink stations.
- 2,623
There are also four hotels right across the highway with guests who might like a one seat metrolink ride to downtown. It would absolutely boost station ridership by a measurable amount
So are we going to get some renderings before the construction starts or are we just going to be surprised when they cut the ribbon at the grand opening?
Best guess based on things I’ve heard, you will see something March-ish. I think it would have been sooner but there have been issues with ballooning costs that they need to find a way to cut back.
I missed the October commission meeting (I also missed this weeks) and they just posted the minutes from the October one.
It was mentioned in it- While Southwest thinks STL needs a new terminal, STL shouldn’t over design and overspend.
This is something I’ve been hearing a lot lately and I know they have had to pull the design back due to cost overruns. So just prepare yourself to be underwhelmed. At this point I am pretty sure it is going to be function over fancy.
I haven’t heard this mentioned by anyone but I am staring to wonder if we may see it built with less gates than originally planned to save on costs. They could probably get away with starting with less and expanding later.
https://www.flystl.com/wp-content/uploa ... r-2025.pdf
It was mentioned in it- While Southwest thinks STL needs a new terminal, STL shouldn’t over design and overspend.
This is something I’ve been hearing a lot lately and I know they have had to pull the design back due to cost overruns. So just prepare yourself to be underwhelmed. At this point I am pretty sure it is going to be function over fancy.
I haven’t heard this mentioned by anyone but I am staring to wonder if we may see it built with less gates than originally planned to save on costs. They could probably get away with starting with less and expanding later.
https://www.flystl.com/wp-content/uploa ... r-2025.pdf
How many gatesjshank83 wrote: ↑6:25 AM - Jan 10I missed the October commission meeting (I also missed this weeks) and they just posted the minutes from the October one.
It was mentioned in it- While Southwest thinks STL needs a new terminal, STL shouldn’t over design and overspend.
This is something I’ve been hearing a lot lately and I know they have had to pull the design back due to cost overruns. So just prepare yourself to be underwhelmed. At this point I am pretty sure it is going to be function over fancy.
I haven’t heard this mentioned by anyone but I am staring to wonder if we may see it built with less gates than originally planned to save on costs. They could probably get away with starting with less and expanding later.
https://www.flystl.com/wp-content/uploa ... r-2025.pdf
- does Lambert currently utilize?
- are they proposing?
- do you think is the correct number?
- 9,539
54
62
54-70
What you have to consider is that what’s more worth it, building extra gates for future growth at today’s prices or 2035 prices
62
54-70
What you have to consider is that what’s more worth it, building extra gates for future growth at today’s prices or 2035 prices
I think 62 isn’t a bad estimate for what they wanted when this started. As DB says better to build in today’s money than 2035 money. But I keep hearing costs are way over. Really it comes down to what Southwest wants.dweebe wrote: ↑2:22 PM - Jan 10How many gatesjshank83 wrote: ↑6:25 AM - Jan 10I missed the October commission meeting (I also missed this weeks) and they just posted the minutes from the October one.
It was mentioned in it- While Southwest thinks STL needs a new terminal, STL shouldn’t over design and overspend.
This is something I’ve been hearing a lot lately and I know they have had to pull the design back due to cost overruns. So just prepare yourself to be underwhelmed. At this point I am pretty sure it is going to be function over fancy.
I haven’t heard this mentioned by anyone but I am staring to wonder if we may see it built with less gates than originally planned to save on costs. They could probably get away with starting with less and expanding later.
https://www.flystl.com/wp-content/uploa ... r-2025.pdf
- does Lambert currently utilize?
- are they proposing?
- do you think is the correct number?
Current
Southwest 19 - assuming they still pick up 2 more when D opens.
Lufthansa 1
American 7
Delta 6
United 5
Frontier 2
Alaska 1
Air Canada 1
Southern 1
Leased 43
Common use 9 - some of these get used daily some don’t.
Total 51 - might have miscounted somewhere since my number differs with DB but you get the idea.
I do think Delta, United and Southwest would likely add some gates in the new terminal but I think they could go down to 55 and have open space still. Southern probably will be gone by then.
A lot of this will be up to Southwest and how many gates they want.
So all these beautiful airports we've seen open the last few years and when it's St. Louis turn we're going to get a off-brand terminal with no local flare of nod to the city? Can't make this up. First Metrolink expansion is killed now we're getting a 3rd rate airport. St. Louis can't win for nothing.jshank83 wrote: ↑6:25 AM - Jan 10I missed the October commission meeting (I also missed this weeks) and they just posted the minutes from the October one.
It was mentioned in it- While Southwest thinks STL needs a new terminal, STL shouldn’t over design and overspend.
This is something I’ve been hearing a lot lately and I know they have had to pull the design back due to cost overruns. So just prepare yourself to be underwhelmed. At this point I am pretty sure it is going to be function over fancy.
I haven’t heard this mentioned by anyone but I am staring to wonder if we may see it built with less gates than originally planned to save on costs. They could probably get away with starting with less and expanding later.
https://www.flystl.com/wp-content/uploa ... r-2025.pdf
I think there will be plenty of local flair. Flair is cheap. Huge ceilings, etc is not cheap.goat314 wrote: ↑3:13 PM - Jan 10So all these beautiful airports we've seen open the last few years and when it's St. Louis turn we're going to get a off-brand terminal with no local flare of nod to the city? Can't make this up. First Metrolink expansion is killed now we're getting a 3rd rate airport. St. Louis can't win for nothing.jshank83 wrote: ↑6:25 AM - Jan 10I missed the October commission meeting (I also missed this weeks) and they just posted the minutes from the October one.
It was mentioned in it- While Southwest thinks STL needs a new terminal, STL shouldn’t over design and overspend.
This is something I’ve been hearing a lot lately and I know they have had to pull the design back due to cost overruns. So just prepare yourself to be underwhelmed. At this point I am pretty sure it is going to be function over fancy.
I haven’t heard this mentioned by anyone but I am staring to wonder if we may see it built with less gates than originally planned to save on costs. They could probably get away with starting with less and expanding later.
https://www.flystl.com/wp-content/uploa ... r-2025.pdf
My "optimistic" guess for gates needed
Southwest - 25
American - 8
Delta -8
United - 6
Frontier - 3
Air Canada -1
Alaska - 1
International/common use - 6 (convertible to 3 widebody)
Total 58
So adding 4 to get to 62 makes sense to leave room for other airlines
Southwest - 25
American - 8
Delta -8
United - 6
Frontier - 3
Air Canada -1
Alaska - 1
International/common use - 6 (convertible to 3 widebody)
Total 58
So adding 4 to get to 62 makes sense to leave room for other airlines
That made it sound like they're going cheap on materials too. I'm sure whatever is built will look better than Lamberts current state, but when I look at airports like Portland I'm really impressed. It sounds like St. Louis will get something very generic and tacky. Will it even be as nice as Indy or KC airports?jshank83 wrote: ↑3:15 PM - Jan 10I think there will be plenty of local flair. Flair is cheap. Huge ceilings, etc is not cheap.goat314 wrote: ↑3:13 PM - Jan 10So all these beautiful airports we've seen open the last few years and when it's St. Louis turn we're going to get a off-brand terminal with no local flare of nod to the city? Can't make this up. First Metrolink expansion is killed now we're getting a 3rd rate airport. St. Louis can't win for nothing.jshank83 wrote: ↑6:25 AM - Jan 10I missed the October commission meeting (I also missed this weeks) and they just posted the minutes from the October one.
It was mentioned in it- While Southwest thinks STL needs a new terminal, STL shouldn’t over design and overspend.
This is something I’ve been hearing a lot lately and I know they have had to pull the design back due to cost overruns. So just prepare yourself to be underwhelmed. At this point I am pretty sure it is going to be function over fancy.
I haven’t heard this mentioned by anyone but I am staring to wonder if we may see it built with less gates than originally planned to save on costs. They could probably get away with starting with less and expanding later.
https://www.flystl.com/wp-content/uploa ... r-2025.pdf
If only the state cared as much about airports as is does sb6stadiumsgoat314 wrote: ↑3:13 PM - Jan 10So all these beautiful airports we've seen open the last few years and when it's St. Louis turn we're going to get a off-brand terminal with no local flare of nod to the city? Can't make this up. First Metrolink expansion is killed now we're getting a 3rd rate airport. St. Louis can't win for nothing.jshank83 wrote: ↑6:25 AM - Jan 10I missed the October commission meeting (I also missed this weeks) and they just posted the minutes from the October one.
It was mentioned in it- While Southwest thinks STL needs a new terminal, STL shouldn’t over design and overspend.
This is something I’ve been hearing a lot lately and I know they have had to pull the design back due to cost overruns. So just prepare yourself to be underwhelmed. At this point I am pretty sure it is going to be function over fancy.
I haven’t heard this mentioned by anyone but I am staring to wonder if we may see it built with less gates than originally planned to save on costs. They could probably get away with starting with less and expanding later.
https://www.flystl.com/wp-content/uploa ... r-2025.pdf
goat314 wrote: ↑3:13 PM - Jan 10So all these beautiful airports we've seen open the last few years and when it's St. Louis turn we're going to get a off-brand terminal with no local flare of nod to the city? Can't make this up. First Metrolink expansion is killed now we're getting a 3rd rate airport. St. Louis can't win for nothing.
I've never understood the whole "St. Louis must accept less" mindset.
I don't think anyone is demanding Lambert 3.0 be something like Doha, Singapore or Incheon. But apparently we are.
I don't think that as much as I don't think we should be expecting what the new LGA is with big opens spaces. Probably it will be more like what KC or Dallas-Love is.goat314 wrote: ↑3:19 PM - Jan 10That made it sound like they're going cheap on materials too. I'm sure whatever is built will look better than Lamberts current state, but when I look at airports like Portland I'm really impressed. It sounds like St. Louis will get something very generic and tacky. Will it even be as nice as Indy or KC airports?jshank83 wrote: ↑3:15 PM - Jan 10I think there will be plenty of local flair. Flair is cheap. Huge ceilings, etc is not cheap.goat314 wrote: ↑3:13 PM - Jan 10
So all these beautiful airports we've seen open the last few years and when it's St. Louis turn we're going to get a off-brand terminal with no local flare of nod to the city? Can't make this up. First Metrolink expansion is killed now we're getting a 3rd rate airport. St. Louis can't win for nothing.
I dont understand it either. Even with the Metrolink. It's like our region has just accepted that we will never have a comprehensive rail system. Everything St. Louis does now is just half assed and mediocre. I dont see how we expect to compete going into the future with so many other cities doing amazing things with their infrastructure. Some of these cities are even smaller and less economically productive than St. Louis. Who is making these decisions?dweebe wrote: ↑3:26 PM - Jan 10goat314 wrote: ↑3:13 PM - Jan 10So all these beautiful airports we've seen open the last few years and when it's St. Louis turn we're going to get a off-brand terminal with no local flare of nod to the city? Can't make this up. First Metrolink expansion is killed now we're getting a 3rd rate airport. St. Louis can't win for nothing.
I've never understood the whole "St. Louis must accept less" mindset.
I don't think anyone is demanding Lambert 3.0 be something like Doha, Singapore or Incheon. But apparently we are.