143
Junior MemberJunior Member
143

PostNov 17, 2025#9301

Biz J article about Lambert's car rental facilities, the lack of a consolidated facility plan in the new terminal plans, and the possibility of a consolidated facility:

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... setup.html

Quoting:

In its most recent plan, completed in 2023, Lambert said that based on industry and planning standards, a site of up to 81 acres may be required to accommodate a CONRAC at Lambert, assuming all operations – including customer counters; ready/return spaces; cleaning and refueling facility; vehicle storage; and employee parking – are located there. Building on multiple levels could reduce that footprint, it said.

The plan suggested at least part of a CONRAC could be located in Lambert's new garage, if the garage totaled 900,000 square feet. A larger garage posed problems, however, as the terrain rises toward Interstate 70, necessitating excavation, it said.

A CONRAC encompassing 30 acres "would be a suitable solution, and would accommodate customer counters and ready/return spaces on site." Other functions would be located off-site.

The plan provided two possible sites for a CONRAC: 9 acres south of the terminal and 22 acres at Natural Bridge and Fee Fee roads near some residential homes in Bridgeton. It wasn't clear from the master plan whether the CONRAC site south of the terminal was envisioned within or separate from the new garage, which is projected to have more than 7,000 parking spaces.

***
But despite the master plan's projections for increased demand, it also cast doubt on the necessity of pursuing a CONRAC, noting that rental car companies "have not expressed the desire to consolidate their operations into a CONRAC facility."

"A business driver that would justify an investment has yet to arise," it added. Because of that, it said that "siting a CONRAC is not a" top priority.

2,260
Life MemberLife Member
2,260

PostNov 17, 2025#9302

NHampton wrote:
Nov 17, 2025
"A business driver that would justify an investment has yet to arise," it added. Because of that, it said that "siting a CONRAC is not a" top priority.
Huh, I remember getting crucified for saying this is probably what's going on.

1,677
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,677

PostNov 17, 2025#9303

I guess digging a hole is very expensive to add a couple levels to a parking garage.

3,957
Life MemberLife Member
3,957

PostNov 18, 2025#9304

NHampton wrote:
Nov 17, 2025
Biz J article about Lambert's car rental facilities, the lack of a consolidated facility plan in the new terminal plans, and the possibility of a consolidated facility:

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... setup.html

Quoting:

In its most recent plan, completed in 2023, Lambert said that based on industry and planning standards, a site of up to 81 acres may be required to accommodate a CONRAC at Lambert, assuming all operations – including customer counters; ready/return spaces; cleaning and refueling facility; vehicle storage; and employee parking – are located there. Building on multiple levels could reduce that footprint, it said.

The plan suggested at least part of a CONRAC could be located in Lambert's new garage, if the garage totaled 900,000 square feet. A larger garage posed problems, however, as the terrain rises toward Interstate 70, necessitating excavation, it said.

A CONRAC encompassing 30 acres "would be a suitable solution, and would accommodate customer counters and ready/return spaces on site." Other functions would be located off-site.

The plan provided two possible sites for a CONRAC: 9 acres south of the terminal and 22 acres at Natural Bridge and Fee Fee roads near some residential homes in Bridgeton. It wasn't clear from the master plan whether the CONRAC site south of the terminal was envisioned within or separate from the new garage, which is projected to have more than 7,000 parking spaces.

***
But despite the master plan's projections for increased demand, it also cast doubt on the necessity of pursuing a CONRAC, noting that rental car companies "have not expressed the desire to consolidate their operations into a CONRAC facility."

"A business driver that would justify an investment has yet to arise," it added. Because of that, it said that "siting a CONRAC is not a" top priority.
Did they say which commissioner is questioning why they aren't doing it. Curious which one it is

9,539
Life MemberLife Member
9,539

PostNov 18, 2025#9305

jshank83 wrote:
Nov 18, 2025
NHampton wrote:
Nov 17, 2025
Biz J article about Lambert's car rental facilities, the lack of a consolidated facility plan in the new terminal plans, and the possibility of a consolidated facility:

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... setup.html

Quoting:

In its most recent plan, completed in 2023, Lambert said that based on industry and planning standards, a site of up to 81 acres may be required to accommodate a CONRAC at Lambert, assuming all operations – including customer counters; ready/return spaces; cleaning and refueling facility; vehicle storage; and employee parking – are located there. Building on multiple levels could reduce that footprint, it said.

The plan suggested at least part of a CONRAC could be located in Lambert's new garage, if the garage totaled 900,000 square feet. A larger garage posed problems, however, as the terrain rises toward Interstate 70, necessitating excavation, it said.

A CONRAC encompassing 30 acres "would be a suitable solution, and would accommodate customer counters and ready/return spaces on site." Other functions would be located off-site.

The plan provided two possible sites for a CONRAC: 9 acres south of the terminal and 22 acres at Natural Bridge and Fee Fee roads near some residential homes in Bridgeton. It wasn't clear from the master plan whether the CONRAC site south of the terminal was envisioned within or separate from the new garage, which is projected to have more than 7,000 parking spaces.

***
But despite the master plan's projections for increased demand, it also cast doubt on the necessity of pursuing a CONRAC, noting that rental car companies "have not expressed the desire to consolidate their operations into a CONRAC facility."

"A business driver that would justify an investment has yet to arise," it added. Because of that, it said that "siting a CONRAC is not a" top priority.
Did they say which commissioner is questioning why they aren't doing it. Curious which one it is
Kevin from stcharles

The article also says that enterprise and its peers have all expressed the need for car rental to be better integrated with the terminal

1,510
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,510

PostNov 18, 2025#9306

I read this as Enterprise saying "No one asked us, but if they had, we would have told them that a consolidated facility is important."

1,794
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,794

PostNov 18, 2025#9307

Why do they need to be asked?

Aren’t they communicating with airport brass about their  needs/desires all the time?

This project has been in the works for like 3 years and now they’ve decided they would like to have some input?

Where tf have they been? Yes, of course we should consider a consolidated facility for rental cars. These are big boy companies. They don’t need the airport to reach out to them for public comment. If they have a comment, they should make it. JFC

3,957
Life MemberLife Member
3,957

PostNov 18, 2025#9308

jeff707 wrote:
Nov 18, 2025
I read this as Enterprise saying "No one asked us, but if they had, we would have told them that a consolidated facility is important."
Enterprise has a person on the airport commission. He is plenty vocal about rental car companies opinions during meetings.

2,260
Life MemberLife Member
2,260

PostNov 18, 2025#9309

Enterprise should front the money then

75
New MemberNew Member
75

PostNov 18, 2025#9310

It would be such a no-brainer for Enterprise to have a state of the art flagship facility at the new terminal to showcase all of their brands and new innovations. Creating the best arrival experience possible and showcasing a company that is HQ’d here would be such a win for the region, and it’s hard to believe a consolidated car rental facility was not even considered for this project.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostNov 18, 2025#9311

STLcommenter wrote:
Nov 18, 2025
It would be such a no-brainer for Enterprise to have a state of the art flagship facility at the new terminal to showcase all of their brands and new innovations. Creating the best arrival experience possible and showcasing a company that is HQ’d here would be such a win for the region, and it’s hard to believe a consolidated car rental facility was not even considered for this project.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But wouldn't that benefit non-Enterprise rental brands equally as much? If Enterprise could only allow Enterprise/Alamo/National it would make more sense for them.

2,675
Life MemberLife Member
2,675

PostNov 18, 2025#9312

It shouldn’t take Enterprise funding the consolidated facility. It just has to be done. Why start over already behind industry standards?

2,260
Life MemberLife Member
2,260

PostNov 18, 2025#9313

The government "just has to" subsidize massive private companies' means of making money to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, if not more.

977
Super MemberSuper Member
977

PostNov 18, 2025#9314

Auggie wrote:
Nov 18, 2025
The government "just has to" subsidize massive private companies' means of making money to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, if not more.
Is this not true with every business associated with an airport? Namely airlines?

2,675
Life MemberLife Member
2,675

PostNov 18, 2025#9315

Debaliviere91 wrote:
Auggie wrote:
Nov 18, 2025
The government "just has to" subsidize massive private companies' means of making money to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, if not more.
Is this not true with every business associated with an airport? Namely airlines?
Passengers pay fees which reimburse airlines to pay down debt taken to pay for airports. Hence why airlines have to sign off on the new airport.

The rental car facility could be structured the same way but it sounds like the airport isn’t even interested in having that conversation.

It would be a miss. You can have the opinion that cars are bad but all this does is leave STL behind. STL not having a rental car facility does nothing meaningful for global sustainability or local public transportation. Just means companies and groups will look elsewhere.

977
Super MemberSuper Member
977

PostNov 18, 2025#9316

addxb2 wrote:
Nov 18, 2025
Debaliviere91 wrote:
Auggie wrote:
Nov 18, 2025
The government "just has to" subsidize massive private companies' means of making money to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, if not more.
Is this not true with every business associated with an airport? Namely airlines?
Passengers pay fees which reimburse airlines to pay for down debt taken to pay for airports. The rental car facility could be structured the same way but it sounds like the airport isn’t even interested in having that conversation.
Right. I believe it’s fairly common to structure rental car facilities in that way.

2,260
Life MemberLife Member
2,260

PostNov 18, 2025#9317

addxb2 wrote:
Nov 18, 2025
Debaliviere91 wrote:
Auggie wrote:
Nov 18, 2025
The government "just has to" subsidize massive private companies' means of making money to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, if not more.
Is this not true with every business associated with an airport? Namely airlines?
Passengers pay fees which reimburse airlines to pay down debt taken to pay for airports. Hence why airlines have to sign off on the new airport.

The rental car facility could be structured the same way but it sounds like the airport isn’t even interested in having that conversation.

It would be a miss. You can have the opinion that cars are bad but all this does is leave STL behind. STL not having a rental car facility does nothing meaningful for global sustainability or local public transportation. Just means companies and groups will look elsewhere.
Except it won't be a miss because there isn't some magical demand for a consolidated rental car facility, otherwise it would be included in the plan. What is so hard for you to grasp?

Yes, it's morally wrong to be spending anywhere near tens of millions to accommodate private rental car companies who already have facilities that work just fine. Yes, it's extremely car brained of everyone on here whining about how they are slightly inconvenienced by having to wait a whole extra half hour to get a private ride in a death machine. Yes, I'm right and you're wrong. But that's not the argument, the argument is that it doesn't make financial sense to make such a large investment. There will be no return, the car rental companies know that, hence why they want it subsidized.

No serious businessperson is making business decisions based on the existence of a rental car facility. Never heard something so stupid in my life. Serious business people are, however, pushing for the government to subsidize their companies.

9,539
Life MemberLife Member
9,539

PostNov 18, 2025#9318

not having a car rental facility next to or within the terminal is dumb.  
Airlines are paying for the terminal, the car rental companies should pay for a car rental facility. 

2,260
Life MemberLife Member
2,260

PostNov 18, 2025#9319

Debaliviere91 wrote:
Nov 18, 2025
Auggie wrote:
Nov 18, 2025
The government "just has to" subsidize massive private companies' means of making money to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, if not more.
Is this not true with every business associated with an airport? Namely airlines?
First, doing one bad thing does not magically justify doing another bad thing.

Second, 100% of passengers through Lambert use airlines, maybe 15% of those at best use rental cars. It makes far more sense to subsidize airlines than it does rental car companies.

977
Super MemberSuper Member
977

PostNov 19, 2025#9320

Auggie wrote:
Nov 18, 2025
addxb2 wrote:
Nov 18, 2025
Debaliviere91 wrote: Is this not true with every business associated with an airport? Namely airlines?
Passengers pay fees which reimburse airlines to pay down debt taken to pay for airports. Hence why airlines have to sign off on the new airport.

The rental car facility could be structured the same way but it sounds like the airport isn’t even interested in having that conversation.

It would be a miss. You can have the opinion that cars are bad but all this does is leave STL behind. STL not having a rental car facility does nothing meaningful for global sustainability or local public transportation. Just means companies and groups will look elsewhere.
Except it won't be a miss because there isn't some magical demand for a consolidated rental car facility, otherwise it would be included in the plan. What is so hard for you to grasp?

Yes, it's morally wrong to be spending anywhere near tens of millions to accommodate private rental car companies who already have facilities that work just fine. Yes, it's extremely car brained of everyone on here whining about how they are slightly inconvenienced by having to wait a whole extra half hour to get a private ride in a death machine. Yes, I'm right and you're wrong. But that's not the argument, the argument is that it doesn't make financial sense to make such a large investment. There will be no return, the car rental companies know that, hence why they want it subsidized.

No serious businessperson is making business decisions based on the existence of a rental car facility. Never heard something so stupid in my life. Serious business people are, however, pushing for the government to subsidize their companies.
What airport experience/convenience does a “serious businessperson” care about, if not a better rental car experience, that is or should be included in this project?

3,428
Life MemberLife Member
3,428

PostNov 19, 2025#9321

I like terminals where you can walk to the car rental garage. Or a short train like Minneapolis. Denver has individual lots and busses like us and it’s pretty bad. You wait a while for a bus to show up. By then it fills up and you have to wait for the next one. I’ve waited as long as an hour there in the evening just for a bus to the car rental lot several miles away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

143
Junior MemberJunior Member
143

PostNov 19, 2025#9322

gary kreie wrote:I like terminals where you can walk to the car rental garage. Or a short train like Minneapolis. Denver has individual lots and busses like us and it’s pretty bad. You wait a while for a bus to show up. By then it fills up and you have to wait for the next one. I’ve waited as long as an hour there in the evening just for a bus to the car rental lot several miles away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Denver is working on a consolidated facility, along with an "electric people mover" to get users there. The airport actually leases the current, scattered surface lots to car rental companies. The consolidated facility and electric people mover will cost about $1.5 billion, "entirely paid for" with "daily fees built into car rental agreements."
Denver's airport handles over five times as many passengers as STL. Using very crude math and assumptions, STL's car rental agreements could finance about $250-300 million in construction costs.
I just talked to a frequent flyer who came to STL for the first time last month and said it was the worst car rental experience of her career.

https://www.9news.com/article/travel/di ... 10b40c191a

2,260
Life MemberLife Member
2,260

PostNov 19, 2025#9323

NHampton wrote:
Nov 19, 2025
gary kreie wrote:I like terminals where you can walk to the car rental garage. Or a short train like Minneapolis. Denver has individual lots and busses like us and it’s pretty bad. You wait a while for a bus to show up. By then it fills up and you have to wait for the next one. I’ve waited as long as an hour there in the evening just for a bus to the car rental lot several miles away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Denver is working on a consolidated facility, along with an "electric people mover" to get users there. The airport actually leases the current, scattered surface lots to car rental companies. The consolidated facility and electric people mover will cost about $1.5 billion, "entirely paid for" with "daily fees built into car rental agreements."
Denver's airport handles over five times as many passengers as STL. Using very crude math and assumptions, STL's car rental agreements could finance about $250-300 million in construction costs.
I just talked to a frequent flyer who came to STL for the first time last month and said it was the worst car rental experience of her career.

https://www.9news.com/article/travel/di ... 10b40c191a
If it could, it would be done. It can't, the investment doesn't make sense, that's why it's not being done. It's extremely straightforward.

2,675
Life MemberLife Member
2,675

PostNov 19, 2025#9324

^^ it’s a pretty ugly experience when compared to peers. Consider in your math that both the airport and shuttle companies are propping up tens of millions of shuttle services annually to make the current poor experience work. Shuttle companies have been known to lobby in projects where they stand to lose significant business. Could very well be at play here.

Also the opportunity cost (specifically for St. Louis County, Woodson Terrace) of development where there is currently car storage.

This conversation is also focusing too much on business travelers. Large families or those with young children are also big customers who consider the rental car experience when booking vacations, family visits, etc.

2,260
Life MemberLife Member
2,260

PostNov 19, 2025#9325

addxb2 wrote:
Nov 19, 2025
^^ it’s a pretty ugly experience when compared to most peers. Consider in your math that both the airport and shuttle companies are propping up tens of millions of shuttle services annually to make the current poor experience work. Shuttle companies have been known to lobby in projects where they stand to lose significant business. Could very well be at play here.

Also the opportunity cost (specifically for St. Louis County, Woodson Terrace) of development where there is currently car storage.

This conversation is also focusing too much on business travelers. Large families or those with young children are also big customers who consider the rental car experience when booking vacations, family visits, etc.
This discussion is focusing way too much on rental cars in general as they are only used by a small fraction of airport passengers. It's just a shiny thing that you people think we need but we actually don't, the airport knows we don't, and the rental car companies know we don't as well.

I mean did we even read the article? Right now (at 16 million passengers), we have 42 acres of off site rental car facilities. And in 15 years, when we are "projected" to have 21 million passengers, we will need 90 acres? Are we even trying to be real? How did we ever accommodate nearly 31 million people in 2000?

Read more posts (377 remaining)