If you're never taken two kids under 8 to Orlando, you'll have no understanding of what sweetness it is to only have to ride the elevator down to the covered rental car pickup when there's a typical Florida late afternoon thunderstorm going full blast.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.
- 75
Great point. In a city with scorching summers and cold winters, one can imagine how miserable it can be getting to our car rental lots. Having a consolidated car rental facility attached to the airport is a very simple way to make St. Louis more welcoming to families and visitors and create a better traveling experience. Not really sure how this is even controversialdweebe wrote:If you're never taken two kids under 8 to Orlando, you'll have no understanding of what sweetness it is to only have to ride the elevator down to the covered rental car pickup when there's a typical Florida late afternoon thunderstorm going full blast.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.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 83
MoDOT is holding an open house tomorrow evening to present alternatives for improvements to I-70 between the Blanchette Bridge and I-170, including the section that runs just south of the airport. Here are the meeting displays — proposed interchange improvements at Cypress, Airflight and Natural Bridge are on pages 19-24: https://www.modot.org/sites/default/fil ... 202025.pdf
As an aside, you know where you could fit a CONRAC easily is the space currently owned and operated by the DoD for the Navy Reserve Center and Marine Corps recruiting center. Seems like you could relocate everything in that area to literally any other place in the county, since it doesn't appear to make use of the airport itself in any way. Now, will that happen? Of course not, but I can dream.
As an aside, you know where you could fit a CONRAC easily is the space currently owned and operated by the DoD for the Navy Reserve Center and Marine Corps recruiting center. Seems like you could relocate everything in that area to literally any other place in the county, since it doesn't appear to make use of the airport itself in any way. Now, will that happen? Of course not, but I can dream.
Costs too much money, not enough demand, 85% of airport users don't even interact with rental cars. It's a shiny novelty item that makes the experience marginally better for a small minority demographic.STLcommenter wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2025Great point. In a city with scorching summers and cold winters, one can imagine how miserable it can be getting to our car rental lots. Having a consolidated car rental facility attached to the airport is a very simple way to make St. Louis more welcoming to families and visitors and create a better traveling experience. Not really sure how this is even controversialdweebe wrote:If you're never taken two kids under 8 to Orlando, you'll have no understanding of what sweetness it is to only have to ride the elevator down to the covered rental car pickup when there's a typical Florida late afternoon thunderstorm going full blast.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.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Your argument is basically you don't like it and want it so that's a valid enough reason. You're cherry picking and gaslighting that 85% stat because the range is 20% usage (Denver) to 3% (New York)Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2025Costs too much money, not enough demand, 85% of airport users don't even interact with rental cars. It's a shiny novelty item that makes the experience marginally better for a small minority demographic.STLcommenter wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2025Great point. In a city with scorching summers and cold winters, one can imagine how miserable it can be getting to our car rental lots. Having a consolidated car rental facility attached to the airport is a very simple way to make St. Louis more welcoming to families and visitors and create a better traveling experience. Not really sure how this is even controversialdweebe wrote: If you're never taken two kids under 8 to Orlando, you'll have no understanding of what sweetness it is to only have to ride the elevator down to the covered rental car pickup when there's a typical Florida late afternoon thunderstorm going full blast.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/ ... apter/9#32
- 75
That’s a silly argument.Auggie wrote:Costs too much money, not enough demand, 85% of airport users don't even interact with rental cars. It's a shiny novelty item that makes the experience marginally better for a small minority demographic.STLcommenter wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2025Great point. In a city with scorching summers and cold winters, one can imagine how miserable it can be getting to our car rental lots. Having a consolidated car rental facility attached to the airport is a very simple way to make St. Louis more welcoming to families and visitors and create a better traveling experience. Not really sure how this is even controversialdweebe wrote: If you're never taken two kids under 8 to Orlando, you'll have no understanding of what sweetness it is to only have to ride the elevator down to the covered rental car pickup when there's a typical Florida late afternoon thunderstorm going full blast.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
By that logic, we shouldn’t be funding public transit in St. Louis anymore than either since 90% of St Louisans don’t use public transit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I see that Denver charges $6/day for rental cars, and will finance its consolidated facility that way. If "only" 15% of STL passengers rent cars, that's over 2.5 million/yr. Charging $5/day, for a 2-day average rental, would generate $25 million/yr. Seems like enough to finance a garage in walking distance.
Another problem here is extracting each of the rental lots from the little fiefdoms around the airport. I'm guessing they are significant revenue generators for those municipalities. Actually curious whether rental fees would be more, less, or the same, if they moved out of those places and were put in a modern facility paying fees to the airport instead of, for example, Edmundson.
Another problem here is extracting each of the rental lots from the little fiefdoms around the airport. I'm guessing they are significant revenue generators for those municipalities. Actually curious whether rental fees would be more, less, or the same, if they moved out of those places and were put in a modern facility paying fees to the airport instead of, for example, Edmundson.
My argument is basically: It doesn't make financial sense, eveyone agrees, that's why it's not happening.dweebe wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2025Your argument is basically you don't like it and want it so that's a valid enough reason. You're cherry picking and gaslighting that 85% stat because the range is 20% usage (Denver) to 3% (New York)Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2025Costs too much money, not enough demand, 85% of airport users don't even interact with rental cars. It's a shiny novelty item that makes the experience marginally better for a small minority demographic.STLcommenter wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2025Great point. In a city with scorching summers and cold winters, one can imagine how miserable it can be getting to our car rental lots. Having a consolidated car rental facility attached to the airport is a very simple way to make St. Louis more welcoming to families and visitors and create a better traveling experience. Not really sure how this is even controversial
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/ ... apter/9#32
And how is that gaslighting?? Nowhere have they posted anywhere what mode share rental car facilities have.....probably because it's small. I think 15% is a generous balance between 3% and 20%. Do you even know what gaslighting means?
Public transit is owned and operated by a quaisi governmental entity that relies on voter approved taxation and federal grants. Rental cars are owned and operated by private for-profit companies that need a return on investments.STLcommenter wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2025That’s a silly argument.Auggie wrote:Costs too much money, not enough demand, 85% of airport users don't even interact with rental cars. It's a shiny novelty item that makes the experience marginally better for a small minority demographic.STLcommenter wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2025Great point. In a city with scorching summers and cold winters, one can imagine how miserable it can be getting to our car rental lots. Having a consolidated car rental facility attached to the airport is a very simple way to make St. Louis more welcoming to families and visitors and create a better traveling experience. Not really sure how this is even controversial
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
By that logic, we shouldn’t be funding public transit in St. Louis anymore than either since 90% of St Louisans don’t use public transit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's not a silly argument, it is the legitimate reason a consolidated facility hasn't been in the plans over the last couple of years. As soon as they have data that shows a consolidated facility is worth the money, it will be added.
Rental cars are paying for the terminal also.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Nov 18, 2025not 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.
But it shouldn't be a big deal to add a few dollars in fees to every rental to pay for a new facility. I still think the North Hanley station is where it should go personally, if they cant get a garage big enough next to the terminal.
I don't 100% hate the bus, maybe like 70%, if it is one bus to all of them. The current setup with X amount of shuttles because everyone has their own lot is dumb and they take up way too much curb space.gary kreie wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2025I 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
Because a very high percentage were people connecting and never leaving the terminal.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2025This 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.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.
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?
There are more people leaving or coming to STL now than there were when it was 31 million so that just shows the massive amount of connectors there were back then
- 3,757
I've been to MANY other (SMALLER) cities that have consolidated rental car facilities. Regardless of the data, it should happen. Our set-up is awful. Not to mention all of the added traffic all of those shuttles create. I fully support a consolidated facility. All of those surface lots can be redeveloped & the munis can still generate tax revenue.
I think the logic of the argument that, "[Insert Amenity Here] is too expensive and there's not enough demand. Therefore it's probably a bad idea." applies to a TON of regional efforts that all turn out disappointing, pared down, and not competitive with peer regions.
See, most recently, the Convention Center expansion and the removal of the plaza element. Or the Archgrounds overhaul preserving the depressed highway. The list goes on.
Airports are a first impression, and even when they're not, are a lasting one regardless that convey a message about a region's openness and accommodation to visitors. We should have a consolidated rental car facility to the extent possible as a part of this rebuild, period.
See, most recently, the Convention Center expansion and the removal of the plaza element. Or the Archgrounds overhaul preserving the depressed highway. The list goes on.
Airports are a first impression, and even when they're not, are a lasting one regardless that convey a message about a region's openness and accommodation to visitors. We should have a consolidated rental car facility to the extent possible as a part of this rebuild, period.
- 2,623
I get pissy whenever I fly into Detroit and have to take a shuttle to the rental car lot. Seems like way too big of a city to be doing that. At least we have metro to downtown, Detroit doesn't have that either.
This right here.DogtownBnR wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2025I've been to MANY other (SMALLER) cities that have consolidated rental car facilities. Regardless of the data, it should happen. Our set-up is awful. Not to mention all of the added traffic all of those shuttles create. I fully support a consolidated facility. All of those surface lots can be redeveloped & the munis can still generate tax revenue.
I too wish we could live in a world where money was no barrier.stldotage wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2025I think the logic of the argument that, "[Insert Amenity Here] is too expensive and there's not enough demand. Therefore it's probably a bad idea." applies to a TON of regional efforts that all turn out disappointing, pared down, and not competitive with peer regions.
See, most recently, the Convention Center expansion and the removal of the plaza element. Or the Archgrounds overhaul preserving the depressed highway. The list goes on.
Airports are a first impression, and even when they're not, are a lasting one regardless that convey a message about a region's openness and accommodation to visitors. We should have a consolidated rental car facility to the extent possible as a part of this rebuild, period.
- 977
You are just speculating that money is a barrier right? You don’t actually know that?Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2025I too wish we could live in a world where money was no barrier.stldotage wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2025I think the logic of the argument that, "[Insert Amenity Here] is too expensive and there's not enough demand. Therefore it's probably a bad idea." applies to a TON of regional efforts that all turn out disappointing, pared down, and not competitive with peer regions.
See, most recently, the Convention Center expansion and the removal of the plaza element. Or the Archgrounds overhaul preserving the depressed highway. The list goes on.
Airports are a first impression, and even when they're not, are a lasting one regardless that convey a message about a region's openness and accommodation to visitors. We should have a consolidated rental car facility to the extent possible as a part of this rebuild, period.
At least LAX now has a unified facility. The old setup at Los Angeles was even more embarrassing than our janky one. IIRC Budget's facility used to be across the street from a strip club.GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2025I get pissy whenever I fly into Detroit and have to take a shuttle to the rental car lot. Seems like way too big of a city to be doing that. At least we have metro to downtown, Detroit doesn't have that either.
The difference here is that a major rehaul is occurring--it's not speculative, conceptual, or contingent on external funding sources (like, say, MetroLink expansion). Why not ensure that it has maximally competitive amenities during this once-in-50-years full scale rebuild? I have sincere doubts that these facilities are that cost prohibitive given the scope and scale of the terminal consolidation and, as noted above, that even small-city airports of the contemporary era have them.Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2025I too wish we could live in a world where money was no barrier.stldotage wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2025I think the logic of the argument that, "[Insert Amenity Here] is too expensive and there's not enough demand. Therefore it's probably a bad idea." applies to a TON of regional efforts that all turn out disappointing, pared down, and not competitive with peer regions.
See, most recently, the Convention Center expansion and the removal of the plaza element. Or the Archgrounds overhaul preserving the depressed highway. The list goes on.
Airports are a first impression, and even when they're not, are a lasting one regardless that convey a message about a region's openness and accommodation to visitors. We should have a consolidated rental car facility to the extent possible as a part of this rebuild, period.
1) I do actually know money is a barrier because money is always a barrier to everything all the time. Especially when you require private financing.Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2025You are just speculating that money is a barrier right? You don’t actually know that?Auggie wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2025I too wish we could live in a world where money was no barrier.stldotage wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2025I think the logic of the argument that, "[Insert Amenity Here] is too expensive and there's not enough demand. Therefore it's probably a bad idea." applies to a TON of regional efforts that all turn out disappointing, pared down, and not competitive with peer regions.
See, most recently, the Convention Center expansion and the removal of the plaza element. Or the Archgrounds overhaul preserving the depressed highway. The list goes on.
Airports are a first impression, and even when they're not, are a lasting one regardless that convey a message about a region's openness and accommodation to visitors. We should have a consolidated rental car facility to the extent possible as a part of this rebuild, period.
2) In the BJ article, it is specifically said that they cannot justify the investment (of hundreds of millions) and that the car rental companies have not even expressed great interest. While I have made my moral views on death machines known, that has never been my central point. Since the beginning of this discussion, I have said that the investment probably doesn't make as much sense as people on here think it does, and comments made to the BJ have largely appeared to prove that I was and am right. I have always said that if it made sense, it would have been included from the beginning.
From the BJ article:
"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.
- 1,607
I always thought these were paid for by that "facility charge" that you see on your receipt.
If every rental has a $1.00 a day facility charge should pay for itself. And there is no reason we can't build a suitable garage to handle this. SAN has 5400 car garage at their con-rac, and I imagine our load should be similar. Tear down the T2 garage and make it N stories.
I also like the idea of putting it down the line on METRO if we can't find a suitable location on premises.
If every rental has a $1.00 a day facility charge should pay for itself. And there is no reason we can't build a suitable garage to handle this. SAN has 5400 car garage at their con-rac, and I imagine our load should be similar. Tear down the T2 garage and make it N stories.
I also like the idea of putting it down the line on METRO if we can't find a suitable location on premises.
^ If we can't get it within walking distance to the new terminal then this would be my choice as well. The setup would be very similar to TPA and that airport always receives high marks.
Jshank - make it happen! UrbanSTL has spoken, we want a CONRAC and smooth floors!
Jshank - make it happen! UrbanSTL has spoken, we want a CONRAC and smooth floors!
Will UrbanSTL pay for it is the question
For all the going back and forth on it, I think there will end up being a consolidated facility. It may not come when the terminal comes but I think it will be in the cards shortly after. I cant get into the biz journal article at the moment so I don't know what exactly is said but I just don't think they have prioritized it at this time. The only thing I have heard them say is they might be able to put in a small one where the T2 garage is. But they seem to want to worry about that after the get the terminal done or at least close to done.
As others said busses aren't the most fun but I feel like they are pretty common at this point, as in one bus to a consolidated facility. Airports I remember having them at recently. Cleveland, Oakland, LAX, Boston, Vegas, Sacramento
LGA and DC-Dulles, I think is different shuttles for different rentals but I can't 100% remember
As others said busses aren't the most fun but I feel like they are pretty common at this point, as in one bus to a consolidated facility. Airports I remember having them at recently. Cleveland, Oakland, LAX, Boston, Vegas, Sacramento
LGA and DC-Dulles, I think is different shuttles for different rentals but I can't 100% remember