Make it the St. Louis Center for Innovation in Aviation, sponsored by Boeing. Convert half the space to T-Rex style office/event space and attract startups.
I really think the linear concourse replacement plan is the right path forward, Demo and build out to get to a completely new footprint at end of day. Just be done with A, B, C, and D with eventually removal of T2. I also think it is hands down a better approach then say New Orleans plopping a new terminal on the other side even though more painful process in short term.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Sep 08, 2022From what I can gather much of the existing roadway and the train station at T2 will be maintained as is. Probably wouldn’t be super difficult to slide an airline or two back in there should it be necessary. Though of course that depends on how they plan on reusing it.GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑Sep 07, 2022Depending on what T2 is repurposed for it could be a candidate to be un-mothballed in the event of drastic expansion. Just dive under the pavement and back up. Would be a great international terminal. Of course this is all best case scenario for STL but it's fun to dream.
Fun to think about.
However, the plan is truly lacking a vision for metrolink in my opinion. Talk about an opportunity to at least plan for a two or three station westward expansion even if it never gets across the Missouri River. In addition, the bigger item to me is replacing the current station(s) with a single underground station that would not only provide a means to expand westward with approach tunnels but facilitate a short escalator ride directly up to ticket & baggage areas and onto to the single security access... that is what i dream for Lambert.
^ That’s a fun dream. But I’d rather the region put limited transit dollars into N/S. The airport and airlines aren’t going to pay for expansions or new stations around the airport. WE have to pay for that. There are more important needs in that regard. Plus the new terminal plan can easily use the existing station without any real reconfigurations.
I love to dream too…have the fantasy maps to prove it lol. But tunneling MetroLink and building new stations around existing infrastructure at the airport would be a severe detriment to legitimate expansion in parts of the city that actually need it.
I love to dream too…have the fantasy maps to prove it lol. But tunneling MetroLink and building new stations around existing infrastructure at the airport would be a severe detriment to legitimate expansion in parts of the city that actually need it.
Agree on this. I think the metro is fine as it is. It’s pretty close to everything at T1. Much closer than most airports I go to.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Sep 09, 2022^ That’s a fun dream. But I’d rather the region put limited transit dollars into N/S. The airport and airlines aren’t going to pay for expansions or new stations around the airport. WE have to pay for that. There are more important needs in that regard. Plus the new terminal plan can easily use the existing station without any real reconfigurations.
I love to dream too…have the fantasy maps to prove it lol. But tunneling MetroLink and building new stations around existing infrastructure at the airport would be a severe detriment to legitimate expansion in parts of the city that actually need it.
July numbers for STL are out
Passengers
Up 14.2% vs July21
Down 11.4% vs July19
Up 45.4% YTD vs 2021
Passengers last 12 months 12,747,682 (even with 2015)
https://www.flystl.com/uploads/document ... t-July.pdf
Passengers
Up 14.2% vs July21
Down 11.4% vs July19
Up 45.4% YTD vs 2021
Passengers last 12 months 12,747,682 (even with 2015)
https://www.flystl.com/uploads/document ... t-July.pdf
Definitely some fair points but thought is why not both, limited westward expansion from airport and N/S? Their is still 4 of 5 years of airport grant funding under the infrastructure bill in addition to the significant transit funds also added. So I think their is room to build something better and for the future. Who knows and somehow the political winds change in St Charles county seeking a metrolink extension. Maybe truly wishing upon a star but this rebuild gives the opportunity to truly think decades down the road.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Sep 09, 2022^ That’s a fun dream. But I’d rather the region put limited transit dollars into N/S. The airport and airlines aren’t going to pay for expansions or new stations around the airport. WE have to pay for that. There are more important needs in that regard. Plus the new terminal plan can easily use the existing station without any real reconfigurations.
I love to dream too…have the fantasy maps to prove it lol. But tunneling MetroLink and building new stations around existing infrastructure at the airport would be a severe detriment to legitimate expansion in parts of the city that actually need it.
The only other thought I can add after living in St. Louis and years of business travel is to say that Lambert truly represents the region of piecemeal approach seeking to be a lower tier city in my opinion. The current single concourse plan is way over due but it still leaves transit and the region's main transit line as an afterthought. You don't need to expand westward now but taking metrolink underground about a half mile out, adding a cut & cover cavern/vault for the new station and maybe the tunnel on the other side daylighting near I-70 gives you a future.
I guess I’m trying to figure out why it needs to be tunneled? What’s wrong with leaving how it is for now? If you want to expand it now or later how will it change anything?dredger wrote: ↑Sep 09, 2022Definitely some fair points but thought is why not both, limited westward expansion from airport and N/S? Their is still 4 of 5 years of airport grant funding under the infrastructure bill in addition to the significant transit funds also added. So I think their is room to build something better and for the future. Who knows and somehow the political winds change in St Charles county seeking a metrolink extension. Maybe truly wishing upon a star but this rebuild gives the opportunity to truly think decades down the road.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Sep 09, 2022^ That’s a fun dream. But I’d rather the region put limited transit dollars into N/S. The airport and airlines aren’t going to pay for expansions or new stations around the airport. WE have to pay for that. There are more important needs in that regard. Plus the new terminal plan can easily use the existing station without any real reconfigurations.
I love to dream too…have the fantasy maps to prove it lol. But tunneling MetroLink and building new stations around existing infrastructure at the airport would be a severe detriment to legitimate expansion in parts of the city that actually need it.
The only other thought I can add after living in St. Louis and years of business travel is to say that Lambert truly represents the region of piecemeal approach seeking to be a lower tier city in my opinion. The current single concourse plan is way over due but it still leaves transit and the region's main transit line as an afterthought. You don't need to expand westward now but taking metrolink underground about a half mile out, adding a cut & cover cavern/vault for the new station and maybe the tunnel on the other side daylighting near I-70 gives you a future.
I guess I’d like to see a map of where you want to run it, assuming underground is an option around there.
- 6,123
^What JShank said. I've used it to get to the airport more than once. The T1 station is great. The T2 station leaves a bit to be desired: long way to drag your luggage, no escalators, the stairs are even worse than the stairs at Grand, etc. But the T1 station is pretty pleasant. I don't really see how to make it much better. Sure, you could stick it in a tunnel, like O'Hare, but . . . why? Is that any closer to the ticket counters, security, or the gates? I don't really remember even Frankfurt of Tokyo being any easier to use. Sure, they're fancy. (And it's cool that there's these huge train stations in the basement.) But from an actual end-use standpoint, Metrolink works fine. If we had good passenger rail I could see sticking a commuter station, or even a regional rail station in the basement. That could potentially be useful for international arrivals whose final destination wasn't St. Louis. But . . . that only becomes a terribly viable option if our rail system becomes functional again. (At which point the airport will doubtless be much smaller anyway. Because who wants to fly to Chicago when you can take a train that takes a couple of hours that has better food and drinks and much more comfortable seats and puts you directly in the city center with no security line?)
- 1,792
I thought he wanted to expand west. Not sure to where (Earth CIty I guess?). The tunnel is not the point but it would need to be treated as a through station rather than as the terminus which mean at least considering how to reconfigure it relative to the airport. If you are doing a terminal reconfiguration it makes sense to put some thought into this.
Its sad how hard it is to coordinate development between large bureaucracies.
Its sad how hard it is to coordinate development between large bureaucracies.
Last I heard Metro is (or will be) involved when it comes to planning the new terminal around the MetroLink station. Just as MoDot is already involved with reconfiguring vehicle access from I-70. Short of going west, what would change though? The existing terminal building will continue to be used and the T1 stop goes basically right into it. I’d like to see a more significant canopy covering the station…but I wouldn’t move it an inch unless the airport tosses the current terminal proposal completely and starts over (very unlikely as they’ve already vetted a dozen or so terminal configurations).
There’s really no need at all to go west without St. Charles County support. Where do you go without that? Bridgeton’s low density subdivisions and strip malls? The abandoned Carrollton subdivision past that? The landfills and warehouses past that? I mean, maybe you could go to DePaul, but is that worth the expense? It doesn’t make any sense to me to double down on suburban park and ride commuter patterns that aren’t at all the same today as they were pre-pandemic. Plenty of other worthy places for expansion than Earth City…or even St. Chuck.
There’s really no need at all to go west without St. Charles County support. Where do you go without that? Bridgeton’s low density subdivisions and strip malls? The abandoned Carrollton subdivision past that? The landfills and warehouses past that? I mean, maybe you could go to DePaul, but is that worth the expense? It doesn’t make any sense to me to double down on suburban park and ride commuter patterns that aren’t at all the same today as they were pre-pandemic. Plenty of other worthy places for expansion than Earth City…or even St. Chuck.
I agree. The T1 Metro station is great.... But I abhor the T2 connection in the parking garage.
My 2cents on the new terminal for what it is worth:
1) I like the new linear concourse and it think the key here at that price is to make it world class in architecture and style to compliment the modern iconic mid century style. I have been in the new LGA three times this month and the building looks great. It also has taken on the new check-in concept that is being used in most international airports now (open air check-in areas that have the airline counters/baggage/kiosks running perpendicular (or cross cut) of the building - allowing more space for check-in lines and also greater flexibility for change. It eases the passengers experience. This would easily be done in the T1 iconic terminal with the space that is available.
2) I preferred the three-four concourses to be built to the east connecting the iconic T1 terminal - but it looks like that plan has not been well accepted.
3) I also am worried a bit about the length of the new concourse. I would rather see some sort of people mover run the length of the building either under it or above it. Considering that Southwest alone will occupy almost 20 or more gates at opening (most likely to the east).
4) Speaking of Southwest. Southwest was offered to move into T1 in the past few years and they prefer to stay in T2 - why not? They have their entire own terminal and concourse (outside of international flights [which many now are theirs anyway]). They have the best of everything for them in T2. So, in building a new mega terminal, I think Rhonda and the rest of the team need to be most focused on keeping SWA happy and their connections and process easy, accessible and expansion painless. The carrier has been great for STL and has made this airport a lot of money and took over as a "hub" after TWA. I think it is crucial to keep them this way. With BNA building and opening Southwest their new concourse D there - we need to present even a better operation here (like T2 now) for them. When you look at SWA largest network "hubs/focus cities" - they all have one thing in common - connectivity - STL, BWI, DEN, DAL, ATL, BNA, MCO, MDW, HOU, LAS - every one of these airport have consolidated SWA operation concourses for "hub and spoke" operations for SWA. This is a no brainer to keep that in STL - if they change / alter this operation for SWA - they will doom SWA growth here. I think this is crucial in this process 100%!
5) Amenities - we need the new airport to focus on more amenities. More food courts and shopping.
6) New International and Customs gates and facility allowing connections at ease. Going back to SWA - they need to be located near the international gates and connection ease for their passengers. In order for us to remain an international airline player (to Lufthansa and others) we need ease of connection and also a larger state-of-the-art customs center. This is the future for cities to continue to entice new international airline service without a major hub carrier.
7) T2 - what to do ??? I think T2 is a very nice looking modern terminal and could be gutted and reutilized easily. I find the overwhelming need to built a multi-transportation airport terminal here - but could be done re-utilizing T2. Consolidated rental cars (using the garage) and terminal building, Bus port, Rail port (possibly even Charter bus port and hotel shuttles that tend to jam the passenger pick-up areas already) It would be connected using the existing Metro rails with a designated automated train (can be retrofitted). This train would utilize the existing rails departing T1 and going to the Transportation/rental car center. It would be timed between the terminals. Another option would be to free Metro trains between the two buildings with more frequent service (easier way) by timing your trains with an additional and/or designated train between the two buildings OR another way would be to have the train the ends at T1 continue to run back / forth twice or three times between next train intervals for city trains. It could work my friends. It would be an easy fix and coordinated schedule. After hours Metro will continue to run one train back and forth for the connection. T2 would be a beautiful transportation hub for STL and it would also alleviate the cluster F* of T2 transportation operations. The airport could still utilize a portion of the T2 garage for employee parking as well. In the gate area of T2 could be offices, airport operations and even a dining option/convention venue overlooking the runways and new terminal. I really think tearing down that nice building would be disgraceful.
Lastly... If we get anything like the new KC terminal/concourses - I will throw up (sorry friends to the west - but your leadership has failed your city on that thing at a 1B dollar price tag. The building looks hideous IMO (granted it looks better than what they have). Wichita's new terminal is 100x better than that box.) T2 is so much more beautiful and dynamic looking than that as well.
My 2cents on the new terminal for what it is worth:
1) I like the new linear concourse and it think the key here at that price is to make it world class in architecture and style to compliment the modern iconic mid century style. I have been in the new LGA three times this month and the building looks great. It also has taken on the new check-in concept that is being used in most international airports now (open air check-in areas that have the airline counters/baggage/kiosks running perpendicular (or cross cut) of the building - allowing more space for check-in lines and also greater flexibility for change. It eases the passengers experience. This would easily be done in the T1 iconic terminal with the space that is available.
2) I preferred the three-four concourses to be built to the east connecting the iconic T1 terminal - but it looks like that plan has not been well accepted.
3) I also am worried a bit about the length of the new concourse. I would rather see some sort of people mover run the length of the building either under it or above it. Considering that Southwest alone will occupy almost 20 or more gates at opening (most likely to the east).
4) Speaking of Southwest. Southwest was offered to move into T1 in the past few years and they prefer to stay in T2 - why not? They have their entire own terminal and concourse (outside of international flights [which many now are theirs anyway]). They have the best of everything for them in T2. So, in building a new mega terminal, I think Rhonda and the rest of the team need to be most focused on keeping SWA happy and their connections and process easy, accessible and expansion painless. The carrier has been great for STL and has made this airport a lot of money and took over as a "hub" after TWA. I think it is crucial to keep them this way. With BNA building and opening Southwest their new concourse D there - we need to present even a better operation here (like T2 now) for them. When you look at SWA largest network "hubs/focus cities" - they all have one thing in common - connectivity - STL, BWI, DEN, DAL, ATL, BNA, MCO, MDW, HOU, LAS - every one of these airport have consolidated SWA operation concourses for "hub and spoke" operations for SWA. This is a no brainer to keep that in STL - if they change / alter this operation for SWA - they will doom SWA growth here. I think this is crucial in this process 100%!
5) Amenities - we need the new airport to focus on more amenities. More food courts and shopping.
6) New International and Customs gates and facility allowing connections at ease. Going back to SWA - they need to be located near the international gates and connection ease for their passengers. In order for us to remain an international airline player (to Lufthansa and others) we need ease of connection and also a larger state-of-the-art customs center. This is the future for cities to continue to entice new international airline service without a major hub carrier.
7) T2 - what to do ??? I think T2 is a very nice looking modern terminal and could be gutted and reutilized easily. I find the overwhelming need to built a multi-transportation airport terminal here - but could be done re-utilizing T2. Consolidated rental cars (using the garage) and terminal building, Bus port, Rail port (possibly even Charter bus port and hotel shuttles that tend to jam the passenger pick-up areas already) It would be connected using the existing Metro rails with a designated automated train (can be retrofitted). This train would utilize the existing rails departing T1 and going to the Transportation/rental car center. It would be timed between the terminals. Another option would be to free Metro trains between the two buildings with more frequent service (easier way) by timing your trains with an additional and/or designated train between the two buildings OR another way would be to have the train the ends at T1 continue to run back / forth twice or three times between next train intervals for city trains. It could work my friends. It would be an easy fix and coordinated schedule. After hours Metro will continue to run one train back and forth for the connection. T2 would be a beautiful transportation hub for STL and it would also alleviate the cluster F* of T2 transportation operations. The airport could still utilize a portion of the T2 garage for employee parking as well. In the gate area of T2 could be offices, airport operations and even a dining option/convention venue overlooking the runways and new terminal. I really think tearing down that nice building would be disgraceful.
Lastly... If we get anything like the new KC terminal/concourses - I will throw up (sorry friends to the west - but your leadership has failed your city on that thing at a 1B dollar price tag. The building looks hideous IMO (granted it looks better than what they have). Wichita's new terminal is 100x better than that box.) T2 is so much more beautiful and dynamic looking than that as well. - 1,792
So i agree with you. I definitely wouldn't plan on an actual expansion at this point. And the Station stays until there an planned expansion.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Sep 09, 2022Last I heard Metro is (or will be) involved when it comes to planning the new terminal around the MetroLink station. Just as MoDot is already involved with reconfiguring vehicle access from I-70. Short of going west, what would change though? The existing terminal building will continue to be used and the T1 stop goes basically right into it. I’d like to see a more significant canopy covering the station…but I wouldn’t move it an inch unless the airport tosses the current terminal proposal completely and starts over (very unlikely as they’ve already vetted a dozen or so terminal configurations).
There’s really no need at all to go west without St. Charles County support. Where do you go without that? Bridgeton’s low density subdivisions and strip malls? The abandoned Carrollton subdivision past that? The landfills and warehouses past that? I mean, maybe you could go to DePaul, but is that worth the expense? It doesn’t make any sense to me to double down on suburban park and ride commuter patterns that aren’t at all the same today as they were pre-pandemic. Plenty of other worthy places for expansion than Earth City…or even St. Chuck.
I do think it is worth putting some thought into the question about a westward expansion. Especially establishing ROW. The problem is no one is really paid to dream or plan for the possible future. So inevitably we will just have to figure it out when we get there at a higher cost.
Lufthansa load factors from STL for June/July were over 95%.
Hopefully we hear about it going to 5x soon.
Hopefully we hear about it going to 5x soon.
Exactly what I'm trying to get at. Your about to demo and completely rebuild the Terminal into a new single concourse. Your about to spend millions reconfiguring Lambert roadway access to and from I70. Yet no thought that maybe you want to rethink your region's major transit line on how it interacts with airport let alone the idea that someday the region might benefit going further west with metrolink.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Sep 09, 2022I thought he wanted to expand west. Not sure to where (Earth CIty I guess?). The tunnel is not the point but it would need to be treated as a through station rather than as the terminus which mean at least considering how to reconfigure it relative to the airport. If you are doing a terminal reconfiguration it makes sense to put some thought into this.
Its sad how hard it is to coordinate development between large bureaucracies.
Does it have to be tunnel or underground station? No. Should a new station be aligned for linear transition from train to ticket counter if need be to gate or vice versa, gate to baggage if need be to train? Yes. How far west is worth it? who knows as it be just a couple stops on its new terminus in Earth City (one of the more denser cluster of jobs in the St Louis County by the way) or maybe Casino/amphitheater on St. Louis County side or maybe cross the river to access Streets of St. Charles & future mixed use development along river.
- 1,792
^ regarding converting T2 into a consolidated rental car facility. There are some details to work out here but i think that would be amazing.
^ Another thought is that you would demo the existing T1 short term garage and rebuild it as consolidated rental car facility as well as keep metrolink elevated but shift alignment such that you could also add new/relocate the metrolink station into the same structure. Whether metrolink ever goes further west or not is a different question but you would have that option in the future to extend metrolink westward via elevated structure .
You are aware that Metro is involved in this process and that the T1 processor (where the station is located) is not being demolished? With all due respect, you're talking about spending tens of millions of dollars to reconfigure an existing line to potentially serve a low density warehouse district with little to no residential population at all. The casino and amphitheater are separate properties separated by a levy and a 1.5 mile ride by car. St. Charles County is not a realistic possibility so I'm just going to ignore that.dredger wrote: ↑Sep 09, 2022Exactly what I'm trying to get at. Your about to demo and completely rebuild the Terminal into a new single concourse. Your about to spend millions reconfiguring Lambert roadway access to and from I70. Yet no thought that maybe you want to rethink your region's major transit line on how it interacts with airport let alone the idea that someday the region might benefit going further west with metrolink.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Sep 09, 2022I thought he wanted to expand west. Not sure to where (Earth CIty I guess?). The tunnel is not the point but it would need to be treated as a through station rather than as the terminus which mean at least considering how to reconfigure it relative to the airport. If you are doing a terminal reconfiguration it makes sense to put some thought into this.
Its sad how hard it is to coordinate development between large bureaucracies.
Imagining getting off at a station in Earth City and then having to walk several miles to work surrounded by surface parking lots, truck traffic, railroads and Highway 141. The streets there don't even have sidewalks.
Mods...maybe bounce this over to a MetroLink thread?
The dream for me regarding T2 would be to convert it to a CRCC and move all airport operations and offices there so as to fully dedicate the new terminal for gates/food/shopping/customs/etc and not lose out on any space that can be utilized elsewhere. Like others have mentioned above, T2 can even be used not just for offices and rental car counters, but it can also double as an event space or conference center. In many ways, T2 can be another revenue generator for the airport if the space is configured properly.
Not to jump the gun since this can all change, but looking at the T2 space, would the rental car counters be located at the lower level where baggage claim is presently? It seems to make the most sense to me, thus keeping everything within walking distance when picking up and returning a vehicle especially since the garage would be right there. Additionally, it would then free up the upper level of T2 for office or event space with a dedicated upper level parking for employees. I'd imagine there would be shuttles for employees to take them from T2 to the new terminal.
This does bring up another concern: how to get passengers exiting the airport to T2 and the other way around? If the timeline were to stay the way it is, the D/E concourse will be taken down, which would then cut off T2 from the new terminal as a path. I suppose shuttles could be utilized to take passengers to/from the T2 CRCC, but my worry is that it would add on to whatever traffic may happen at the new terminal (think hotel shuttles, off-site parking shuttles along with all the passenger pick up options). An APM would make the most sense, but would balloon the project cost and may not be economically feasible (unless the distance between the two buildings justifies it). The other thought I had was to maybe have some sort of an underground walkway between both buildings with moving walkways and use the space to showcase some cool art installations or light shows like have in DTW or ORD. The obvious issue here would be the sheer amount of walking between both places, plus not to mention the additional walking that'll happen inside the new terminal past security depending on where your gate might be. It could be over two miles of walking between the western end of T2 and the ticketing space in the new terminal.
I'm sure there are smarter minds than myself that can come up with a solution to this but it would be an absolute waste to see T2 go unused.
Not to jump the gun since this can all change, but looking at the T2 space, would the rental car counters be located at the lower level where baggage claim is presently? It seems to make the most sense to me, thus keeping everything within walking distance when picking up and returning a vehicle especially since the garage would be right there. Additionally, it would then free up the upper level of T2 for office or event space with a dedicated upper level parking for employees. I'd imagine there would be shuttles for employees to take them from T2 to the new terminal.
This does bring up another concern: how to get passengers exiting the airport to T2 and the other way around? If the timeline were to stay the way it is, the D/E concourse will be taken down, which would then cut off T2 from the new terminal as a path. I suppose shuttles could be utilized to take passengers to/from the T2 CRCC, but my worry is that it would add on to whatever traffic may happen at the new terminal (think hotel shuttles, off-site parking shuttles along with all the passenger pick up options). An APM would make the most sense, but would balloon the project cost and may not be economically feasible (unless the distance between the two buildings justifies it). The other thought I had was to maybe have some sort of an underground walkway between both buildings with moving walkways and use the space to showcase some cool art installations or light shows like have in DTW or ORD. The obvious issue here would be the sheer amount of walking between both places, plus not to mention the additional walking that'll happen inside the new terminal past security depending on where your gate might be. It could be over two miles of walking between the western end of T2 and the ticketing space in the new terminal.
I'm sure there are smarter minds than myself that can come up with a solution to this but it would be an absolute waste to see T2 go unused.
MetroLink. Create a fare free zone including both airport stations and let passengers and employees ride between the two for no charge.
I also really like the rental car facility idea for T2. Most cities have rental car facilities off the airport requiring a shuttle anyway. A quick MetroLink ride would be comparatively easy. Would probably make sense to introduce an airport only service that would run between the two airport stations on a higher frequency though instead of folks waiting close to 17 minutes or more for the Red Line.
Side note for what it is worth...
Frontier will add Tampa 4 x a week departures in November as regular service.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.market ... -41735005/
Frontier will add Tampa 4 x a week departures in November as regular service.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.market ... -41735005/
- 6,123
I love how folks are assuming outside entities won't be involved when there aren't even any plans yet and it's pretty clear the airport is communicating with quite a lot of people about this. (Local businesses, the airlines, Southwest in particular, the feds, the FAA, the state, and MODoT at a minimum. And probably also the usual boosters and Bi-State Development.)
The plan is specifically attempting to address some of these concerns. They've talked about a consolidated rental car facility, possibly somewhere in the area of D right now. They're discussing what to do with E/T2, they've talked about discussions over the fate of E/T2, though I gather no decisions have been made yet. (And maybe none are needed at this very early stage of the planning.) They're planning to demo the garage. They're planning to reconfigure all the arrivals and departure drives. Some of this stuff absolutely will happen. The better amenities for customers are specifically a part of the reason for this. They want a food court. They want more retail. They want happier travelers. They want all of this to be accessible to everyone. They want to make connections easier for Southwest than they are now. They want connections to flow better. They want to separate arrivals and departures more, if I recall correctly. (Which should be entirely possible with a two level concourse as they seem to be suggesting.) I expect they'll give Southwest one side and everyone else the other. While Southwest won't technically have a terminal all to themselves anymore, it very well might feel like they do. Customs and Immigration will presumably be in the center of the concourse, about where B is now, making it fairly convenient for connections and dead easy to just walk out when you're done. This will be a win all around. In that respect it'll be Detroit, not Chicago or Shanghai. Should be absolutely great. And they're planning to demo D, so I expect there will be at least some changes to the station sitting on top of it. I hope it will end up in about the same place, but . . . it will most likely change. I just don't see it moving dramatically, as it's in a good position and building more railroad bridges or tunnels would make an expensive project even more expensive.
When Metrolink opened there actually was a fare free zone at the airport and another one downtown. (Between about Union Station and the Arch, more or less. Can't recall exactly, but something like that.) I wouldn't mind seeing it back, but it would cut against the current "everything must be gated" trend. I always liked that idea and I honestly miss it, though I seem to recall JShank and others have explained why it didn't work as well as the shuttles.
As to the station, I'm not opposed to reconfiguring it, but I don't see where you move it that's better than it is now. I've actually used it (more than once) with luggage that I checked in both directions. It's really very easy and I can't recall anyplace I've been in the world that was much better, and darned few places as good. The escalator makes it relatively easy to deal with your bags. It could use an elevator. I'm almost forced to think there's one squirreled away there somewhere, but I don't remember it and can't find it on any floor plans, so that's a change that would be nice. But it's honestly a fairly short walk, and the walk is inside an air conditioned building with nice views of the airfield outside. It may not be the absolute best in the world, but it's actually very good indeed.
For what it's worth, I'm not actually against a through station, I just don't see any option that's as good as what's there now. I actually thought about trying to reconfigure it for my own little NIMBY rails fantasy so I could build a line to St. Charles, but in the end, I decided it wasn't worth the trouble, as it would almost certainly involve some undesirable compromise. You could probably put it in the cover of the garage on the baggage level, for instance, but doing that would add grade crossings, which wouldn't be great, and it would necessarily involve some tricky grades and some expensive bridgework. And you still have escalators to get up to the check in desks and the proposed location of the new security check in on the main level. You could put it on a bridge, but then you have more exposed stairs and platforms that would probably have to be even higher up to clear over the top of everything, and probably less sheltered even than they are right now. To get it on the check in level without crossing automobile traffic you'd have to put it at the other side of the garage, which puts you in a T2 sort of situation, which nobody wants. With the new garage maybe there will be some wiggle room, but I'm not sure how much as you'll still want a garage closely adjacent to the terminal and there's really not a whole lot of other places to put it. The space is pretty tight. I expect they'll make it work better, but I'd anticipate it being in a fairly similar location. (Since they want to use the domes. Which makes me happy.)
I won't say it's impossible, but I will say it's not an easy problem, and I'll also say I expect they really ARE thinking about it. There's some very competent people at the airport. They know their business and it feels to me as though they're almost working miracles to make this plan move forward. There will always be compromises, but man, I think they're nailing it.
The plan is specifically attempting to address some of these concerns. They've talked about a consolidated rental car facility, possibly somewhere in the area of D right now. They're discussing what to do with E/T2, they've talked about discussions over the fate of E/T2, though I gather no decisions have been made yet. (And maybe none are needed at this very early stage of the planning.) They're planning to demo the garage. They're planning to reconfigure all the arrivals and departure drives. Some of this stuff absolutely will happen. The better amenities for customers are specifically a part of the reason for this. They want a food court. They want more retail. They want happier travelers. They want all of this to be accessible to everyone. They want to make connections easier for Southwest than they are now. They want connections to flow better. They want to separate arrivals and departures more, if I recall correctly. (Which should be entirely possible with a two level concourse as they seem to be suggesting.) I expect they'll give Southwest one side and everyone else the other. While Southwest won't technically have a terminal all to themselves anymore, it very well might feel like they do. Customs and Immigration will presumably be in the center of the concourse, about where B is now, making it fairly convenient for connections and dead easy to just walk out when you're done. This will be a win all around. In that respect it'll be Detroit, not Chicago or Shanghai. Should be absolutely great. And they're planning to demo D, so I expect there will be at least some changes to the station sitting on top of it. I hope it will end up in about the same place, but . . . it will most likely change. I just don't see it moving dramatically, as it's in a good position and building more railroad bridges or tunnels would make an expensive project even more expensive.
When Metrolink opened there actually was a fare free zone at the airport and another one downtown. (Between about Union Station and the Arch, more or less. Can't recall exactly, but something like that.) I wouldn't mind seeing it back, but it would cut against the current "everything must be gated" trend. I always liked that idea and I honestly miss it, though I seem to recall JShank and others have explained why it didn't work as well as the shuttles.
As to the station, I'm not opposed to reconfiguring it, but I don't see where you move it that's better than it is now. I've actually used it (more than once) with luggage that I checked in both directions. It's really very easy and I can't recall anyplace I've been in the world that was much better, and darned few places as good. The escalator makes it relatively easy to deal with your bags. It could use an elevator. I'm almost forced to think there's one squirreled away there somewhere, but I don't remember it and can't find it on any floor plans, so that's a change that would be nice. But it's honestly a fairly short walk, and the walk is inside an air conditioned building with nice views of the airfield outside. It may not be the absolute best in the world, but it's actually very good indeed.
For what it's worth, I'm not actually against a through station, I just don't see any option that's as good as what's there now. I actually thought about trying to reconfigure it for my own little NIMBY rails fantasy so I could build a line to St. Charles, but in the end, I decided it wasn't worth the trouble, as it would almost certainly involve some undesirable compromise. You could probably put it in the cover of the garage on the baggage level, for instance, but doing that would add grade crossings, which wouldn't be great, and it would necessarily involve some tricky grades and some expensive bridgework. And you still have escalators to get up to the check in desks and the proposed location of the new security check in on the main level. You could put it on a bridge, but then you have more exposed stairs and platforms that would probably have to be even higher up to clear over the top of everything, and probably less sheltered even than they are right now. To get it on the check in level without crossing automobile traffic you'd have to put it at the other side of the garage, which puts you in a T2 sort of situation, which nobody wants. With the new garage maybe there will be some wiggle room, but I'm not sure how much as you'll still want a garage closely adjacent to the terminal and there's really not a whole lot of other places to put it. The space is pretty tight. I expect they'll make it work better, but I'd anticipate it being in a fairly similar location. (Since they want to use the domes. Which makes me happy.)
I won't say it's impossible, but I will say it's not an easy problem, and I'll also say I expect they really ARE thinking about it. There's some very competent people at the airport. They know their business and it feels to me as though they're almost working miracles to make this plan move forward. There will always be compromises, but man, I think they're nailing it.
Breeze has flown:
Bentonville-STL
STL - Houston
Houston - STL
STL - KC
Bentonville-STL
STL - Houston
Houston - STL
STL - KC
^It has flown from and arrived at Spirit of St. Louis Airport a few times over the past few days. Here it is in Kansas City today (caught my eye driving by). I like the blue colors. Would be a nice get for Lambert but I know it was previously discussed for MidAmerica.
![]()
![]()
St. Louis to Houston and back I assume is carrying Lindenwood football.
They fly sports charters besides passenger service
If/when they come they will be at Lambert. I’m 99% sure on that.chriss752 wrote: ↑Sep 12, 2022^It has flown from and arrived at Spirit of St. Louis Airport a few times over the past few days. Here it is in Kansas City today (caught my eye driving by). I like the blue colors. Would be a nice get for Lambert but I know it was previously discussed for MidAmerica.
51F6AE71-B222-4514-B415-6CC55606B34D.jpeg