urbanSTL

You really need to move to Boston, NYC, DC, Chicago or SF quickly. It will save you all this endless energy you place being pro-mass transit/anti-car.

Auggie wrote: ↑

Oct 10, 2025

It's so fascinating to see how much of the discussions on here about the new airport have to do with rental cars. We are just so cucked by cars.

We don't need to make using a mode of transit so destructive and deadly as easy as possible. If it's a little harder for some businessman to rent a death machine, good.

I mean as someone who has to carry a ton of heavy checked baggage, I appreciate an easy and accessible rental experience.  I have to rent a vehicle to transport my baggage.  I'm not bringing $50k+ worth of equipment on Metro (or any light rail line), not that it's even feasible with the number of bags I check.  I'm even blue collar for the most part and accept the sweat as part of the job, but I'm sure the sentiment resonates for people who just need to get to a business meeting.  Metro is a great asset but not always lock in reliable, and to get place to place would require ubers or buses anyways and time matters.  And it just isn't easy when you have bags.  There's a lot of nuance to the conversation I do not think you're taking into account.  

Ultimately, yeah, we do need it and it's a blunder if we don't build it properly.  It's not like other cities don't have great transit options too and have terminal side rentals.  It just makes sense, and like I said the rental experience across the highway is absolute sh*t.  It looks like ass and gives a terrible first impression, coupled with the I-70 entry into Downtown as the usual quickest route for tourists.  Just makes us look like a dump.

Ideally a deal can be made with the giant "Super Park" lot across the street from T1. It's definitely big enough to build a massive combined rental garage and close enough to connect it via skybridge. MSP has a great system at both terminals, so easy.

Also was in T2 a couple weeks ago and saw workers going in and out of those double doors into D, does anybody know if they have begun their renovations?

dweebe wrote: ↑

Oct 10, 2025

Auggie wrote: ↑

Oct 10, 2025

It's so fascinating to see how much of the discussions on here about the new airport have to do with rental cars. We are just so cucked by cars.

We don't need to make using a mode of transit so destructive and deadly as easy as possible. If it's a little harder for some businessman to rent a death machine, good.

Now you're just trolling and farming for engagement.

Kind of yes, but my greater point is still that we talk about it too much. There are people who die everyday because a car hit them or they chose to drive a car. To bwcrow1's point, how heavy or expensive his baggage is won't matter when you become a statistic that MoDOT references in some safe streets campaign or get involved in some of the crashes that frequently shuts down I-170. But I do understand why someone would need to rent a car, I don't doubt that. I just also don't think it's morally just to be catering to it when inevitably someone who rents that easy car will die in that car at some point down the line.

I would love to see numbers on how many people rent cars vs drive themselves or get picked up. I'm not anti-car rental, I just think it's talked about too much. No one is moving their business away from STL because it was slightly harder to rent a car.

As a general rule, I try to avoid interacting w whitherstl's various racist, idiotic or bad faith commentary. He thrives off of getting a rise out of us like any pathetic bully does, I'd encourage everyone to put him on your ignore list, the posts don't even load.

dweebe wrote: ↑

Oct 10, 2025

Auggie wrote: ↑

Oct 10, 2025

dweebe wrote: ↑

Oct 10, 2025

Now you're just trolling and farming for engagement.

Kind of yes, but my greater point is still that we talk about it too much. There are people who die everyday because a car hit them or they chose to drive a car. To bwcrow1's point, how heavy or expensive his baggage is won't matter when you become a statistic that MoDOT references in some safe streets campaign or get involved in some of the crashes that frequently shuts down I-170. But I do understand why someone would need to rent a car, I don't doubt that. I just also don't think it's morally just to be catering to it when inevitably someone who rents that easy car will die in that car at some point down the line.

I would love to see numbers on how many people rent cars vs drive themselves or get picked up. I'm not anti-car rental, I just think it's talked about too much. No one is moving their business away from STL because it was slightly harder to rent a car.

So there airports are dumb because they have consolidated rental facilities?

• LAX
• Cincinnati
• Portland 
• Tampa
• O'Hare and Midway
• San Diego
• Salt Lake City
• Austin
• Charlotte
• Boston
• Newark
• Memphis
• Seattle
• Nashville
• Miami
• Atlanta
• Las Vegas
• Kansas City
• BWI
• Houston 
• DFW
• Minneapolis

So I'll just shut up because you're right and St. Louis will be so cool if we don't have one.

I clearly didn't call you dumb and I attempted to engage with you reasonably. All I'm saying is that it's not as big of a deal as you and others seem to think it is.

Even as a transit advocate I don’t take the local public transportation after I get off a plane unless I’m in NYC or DC. Even there, I’ll taxi if work is paying for it. I don’t know a single colleague that would take transit in my corner of corporate unless in Europe.

gone corporate wrote: ↑

Oct 10, 2025

^I'll just throw out that it's a big enough deal to be competitively disadvantageous to STL Lambert International to not have it. Therefore, to be better competitive with everyone else, we really, really should make it happen... Cars are, and have been, a major thing for the US throughout the mid-20th Century into today. Not everyone likes them, but nobody likes every single thing. They're here to stay. Let's just acknowledge that and accommodate to that popular demand. 

St. Louis is not being competitively disadvantaged by it being marginally less easy to rent a car. Hence why it's not a major issue beyond some fringe areas, such as this forum. If it was, then it would have been done decades ago or would be a guaranteed part of the reconstruction. The fact that it isn't and possibly won't be shows that there isn't some overwhelming data that says it would be a worthy investment for marginal convenience improvements.

Bob Clark’s investment in Spencer paid off in 6 months

dweebe wrote: ↑

Oct 10, 2025

gone corporate wrote: ↑

Oct 10, 2025

^I'll just throw out that it's a big enough deal to be competitively disadvantageous to STL Lambert International to not have it. Therefore, to be better competitive with everyone else, we really, really should make it happen... Cars are, and have been, a major thing for the US throughout the mid-20th Century into today. Not everyone likes them, but nobody likes every single thing. They're here to stay. Let's just acknowledge that and accommodate to that popular demand. 

addxb2 wrote:Even as a transit advocate I don’t take the local public transportation after I get off a plane unless I’m in NYC or DC. Even there, I’ll taxi if work is paying for it. I don’t know a single colleague that would take transit in my corner of corporate unless in Europe.

Lambert 2.0 DOES NOT need a consolidated rental facility because we're bad people for thinking it would be good to have. 


Auggie ordered us to stop talking about it so we need to drop the subject.

I don't get why you feel the need to be so disingenuous. Is there a good argument as to why the airlines and feds should spend tens of millions of dollars minimum to marginally improve ease of rental car access? Maybe there is, but maybe there isn't. This forum seems to think tens of millions of dollars to incentivize cars even more is a worthy investment, and I just don't think so. And now I've popped the bubble, so you're upset.

That's not even the moral argument that cars are death machines that should not be incentivesed.

And I concede to bwcrow1's point that there's nuance and some people have either too much baggage or are carrying some expensive luggage that renting a car is the logically better option. Which is why I am not opposed at all to car rental facilities existing.

We should invest in it because it's a modern amenity and would make it on par with modern airports with superior user experience.

I just had a round trip to Las Vegas and taking a shuttle 5 miles off site and back just to pick up coworkers with our large luggage loadout is stupid, especially when you still have to get through baggage.  The same could be said of the Lambert setup.  At least Las Vegas has an attractive consolidated rental facility.  What we have, if we don't pursue terminal side consolidated rentals is another grimy lackluster front door step for the business community and tourists.

Look, it might not be the #1 priority, but to see it not even considered or talked about in the master plan is a nod to apathy and not going all in on a once in a lifetime opportunity to build a signature airport.

dweebe wrote: ↑

Oct 10, 2025

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Oct 10, 2025

Bob Clark’s investment in Spencer paid off in 6 months

I have no doubt Clayco got the gig because palms got greased. But at the same time it was either going to be Clayco or McCarthy. Do you think they were going pick an out-of-town firm or someone smaller?

I don’t care who it went to, city should release the scoring sheets that 5 members that BPS appointed to select a winner. If this was just lowest qualified bid, I wouldn’t care but it wasn’t just cost, it was 40% other things and cost 60% and 5 people scored it

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Oct 11, 2025

dweebe wrote: ↑

Oct 10, 2025

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Oct 10, 2025

Bob Clark’s investment in Spencer paid off in 6 months

I have no doubt Clayco got the gig because palms got greased. But at the same time it was either going to be Clayco or McCarthy. Do you think they were going pick an out-of-town firm or someone smaller?

I don’t care who it went to, city should release the scoring sheets that 5 members that BPS appointed to select a winner. If this was just lowest qualified bid, I wouldn’t care but it wasn’t just cost, it was 40% other things and cost 60% and 5 people scored it

Have to wonder if the 40% was just so they could throw out anyone who bid low and they didn’t trust with a project of this magnitude.

dweebe wrote: ↑

Oct 12, 2025

I know we don't have the demand and footprint like Orlando or Tampa where the rental car facility is on the ground floor and all you need to do is take the elevator down. 

Can't speak to MCO but TPA moved their rental cars to a consolidated facility about a mile south of the main terminal back in 2018. You have to jump on a tram to get over there. It used to be so easy when it was on the ground floor and it's a PITA when the airport is really crowded or when there's an issue with the tram.

If they do decide to build a consolidated facility here, I hope it's within walking distance to the gates for that very reason.

I remember when MSY (New Orleans) you could walk to the rental car center. Now with the new terminal you have to take shuttle buses there. Though lately when I go to New Orleans I'd just take RTA's 202 Airport Express as its a straight shot to downtown. I don't have to deal with overpriced hotel valet parking and days when I pay for a car I don't use. 

Maybe it’s time for a small investment in the international arrival waiting area

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Oct 12, 2025

Maybe it’s time for a small investment in the international arrival waiting area

They used to have a lot more seating in there. Wonder why they removed it

While we are going over our wish list items for the new terminal, can we get a smooth terrazzo tile floor? The grout-lined ceramic tiles are noisy and look like crap.