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
Other busses to consolidated facilities around the Midwest: KC, Midway, Columbus.
Recent new/renovated Midwest terminal/garage projects that included consolidated facilities in walking distance: Indy, Pittsburgh.
I expect one to be made to handle both the established demand drivers already present plus a reasonable growth rate commensurate with the growth of the region's business & recreational communities - which I expect will take place once we can get a better airport. The East Garage location could be a great spot for one. And I expect conversations are and have been taking place that weren't published in the Biz Journal article, especially noting that the industry being discussed has its largest company HQ'd here; which is a private company not beholden to shareholder interests for quarterly revenue expansion; and is run by one of the wealthiest and most generous families in STL. An answer will come in time.
Best answer would be a public/private partnership wherein both the airport and these businesses would be able to mutually benefit over the long term.
Otherwise, I see a private equity firm stepping in, putting up the cash, builds a less-than-stellar off-site rental car hub, and reaps all the revenues to the airport's detriment, and in the process keeping those stupid shuttle buses going to a non-proximate location.
And beyond all that, it's a GDMF amenity at most every other airport. Not having one makes us less competitive. This should be a given. Until we can teleport, we need cars even if they consume carbon-based fuel and are "death machines". Hyperbole won't answer this issue. If that were the case, it'd be an argument against airplanes as they pollute more than cars do, and that'd be just silly.
I expect one to be made to handle both the established demand drivers already present plus a reasonable growth rate commensurate with the growth of the region's business & recreational communities - which I expect will take place once we can get a better airport. The East Garage location could be a great spot for one. And I expect conversations are and have been taking place that weren't published in the Biz Journal article, especially noting that the industry being discussed has its largest company HQ'd here; which is a private company not beholden to shareholder interests for quarterly revenue expansion; and is run by one of the wealthiest and most generous families in STL. An answer will come in time.
Best answer would be a public/private partnership wherein both the airport and these businesses would be able to mutually benefit over the long term.
Otherwise, I see a private equity firm stepping in, putting up the cash, builds a less-than-stellar off-site rental car hub, and reaps all the revenues to the airport's detriment, and in the process keeping those stupid shuttle buses going to a non-proximate location.
And beyond all that, it's a GDMF amenity at most every other airport. Not having one makes us less competitive. This should be a given. Until we can teleport, we need cars even if they consume carbon-based fuel and are "death machines". Hyperbole won't answer this issue. If that were the case, it'd be an argument against airplanes as they pollute more than cars do, and that'd be just silly.
There's nothing hyperbolic about 40,000 people dying every year due to cars. What is hyperbolic is acting like STL will be at some crazy disadvantage because people can't step off a plane and into a car in less than 5 minutes. It sounds delusional. Just as delusional as highway expansion proponents and the people who demand parking outside their offices' front door.
I expect one to be made to handle both the established demand drivers already present plus a reasonable growth rate commensurate with the growth of the region's business & recreational communities - which I expect will take place once we can get a better airport. The East Garage location could be a great spot for one. And I expect conversations are and have been taking place that weren't published in the Biz Journal article, especially noting that the industry being discussed has its largest company HQ'd here; which is a private company not beholden to shareholder interests for quarterly revenue expansion; and is run by one of the wealthiest and most generous families in STL. An answer will come in time.
Best answer would be a public/private partnership wherein both the airport and these businesses would be able to mutually benefit over the long term.
Otherwise, I see a private equity firm stepping in, putting up the cash, builds a less-than-stellar off-site rental car hub, and reaps all the revenues to the airport's detriment, and in the process keeping those stupid shuttle buses going to a non-proximate location.
And beyond all that, it's a GDMF amenity at most every other airport. Not having one makes us less competitive. This should be a given. Until we can teleport, we need cars even if they consume carbon-based fuel and are "death machines". Hyperbole won't answer this issue. If that were the case, it'd be an argument against airplanes as they pollute more than cars do, and that'd be just silly.
There's nothing hyperbolic about 40,000 people dying every year due to cars. What is hyperbolic is acting like STL will be at some crazy disadvantage because people can't step off a plane and into a car in less than 5 minutes. It sounds delusional. Just as delusional as highway expansion proponents and the people who demand parking outside their offices' front door.
No one said St Louis would be at some crazy disadvantage. It’s just a common sense way logistically to lay out our rental car system so we don’t have a bunch of land around the airport taken up by lots and shuttles clogging the roads. It’s objectively a better experience for car renters to not have to wait as long to get their car. The whole point of this airport project is to position us better vs our competitors.
The car thing is absolutely hyperbole. No one is going to die because we have a more common sense car rental set up at the airport.
I expect one to be made to handle both the established demand drivers already present plus a reasonable growth rate commensurate with the growth of the region's business & recreational communities - which I expect will take place once we can get a better airport. The East Garage location could be a great spot for one. And I expect conversations are and have been taking place that weren't published in the Biz Journal article, especially noting that the industry being discussed has its largest company HQ'd here; which is a private company not beholden to shareholder interests for quarterly revenue expansion; and is run by one of the wealthiest and most generous families in STL. An answer will come in time.
Best answer would be a public/private partnership wherein both the airport and these businesses would be able to mutually benefit over the long term.
Otherwise, I see a private equity firm stepping in, putting up the cash, builds a less-than-stellar off-site rental car hub, and reaps all the revenues to the airport's detriment, and in the process keeping those stupid shuttle buses going to a non-proximate location.
And beyond all that, it's a GDMF amenity at most every other airport. Not having one makes us less competitive. This should be a given. Until we can teleport, we need cars even if they consume carbon-based fuel and are "death machines". Hyperbole won't answer this issue. If that were the case, it'd be an argument against airplanes as they pollute more than cars do, and that'd be just silly.
There's nothing hyperbolic about 40,000 people dying every year due to cars. What is hyperbolic is acting like STL will be at some crazy disadvantage because people can't step off a plane and into a car in less than 5 minutes. It sounds delusional. Just as delusional as highway expansion proponents and the people who demand parking outside their offices' front door.
No one said St Louis would be at some crazy disadvantage. It’s just a common sense way logistically to lay out our rental car system so we don’t have a bunch of land around the airport taken up by lots and shuttles clogging the roads. It’s objectively a better experience for car renters to not have to wait as long to get their car. The whole point of this airport project is to position us better vs our competitors.
The car thing is absolutely hyperbole. No one is going to die because we have a more common sense car rental set up at the airport.
You can make this argument for all the off-site parking. Why waste space on site for a minority using for-profit rental cars when that space could be used for regular parking? I wouldn't be surprised if there was more land used by off-site parking than off-site rental car companies.
And the entire discussion on rental cars is inherently tied to the implicit inefficiencies that come with car centric infrastructure and development. The fact it is seen as "worth it" to spend hundreds of millions to billions to make it easier to rent a car is completely insane. It is a symptom of everything wrong with this country and why the standard of living is in a decline and why populism is in the mainstream. At least in this case, it doesn't actually pencil out.
There's nothing hyperbolic about 40,000 people dying every year due to cars. What is hyperbolic is acting like STL will be at some crazy disadvantage because people can't step off a plane and into a car in less than 5 minutes. It sounds delusional. Just as delusional as highway expansion proponents and the people who demand parking outside their offices' front door.
No one said St Louis would be at some crazy disadvantage. It’s just a common sense way logistically to lay out our rental car system so we don’t have a bunch of land around the airport taken up by lots and shuttles clogging the roads. It’s objectively a better experience for car renters to not have to wait as long to get their car. The whole point of this airport project is to position us better vs our competitors.
The car thing is absolutely hyperbole. No one is going to die because we have a more common sense car rental set up at the airport.
You can make this argument for all the off-site parking. Why waste space on site for a minority using for-profit rental cars when that space could be used for regular parking? I wouldn't be surprised if there was more land used by off-site parking than off-site rental car companies.
Sure, the logic is the same, but I think we would agree the value of using space for a CONRAC is greater than using it for more onsight parking. 1) The CONRAC is beneficial to out of towners traveling to St Louis, whereas more on site parking is beneficial to St Louis already traveling somewhere else. 2) The CONRAC is something that makes us more competitive with other airports. More onsite parking doesn’t really do that.
Context on driving: While more dangerous than passenger airflight, it's safer than most other activities. Such as cycling, which statistically is twice as dangerous.
Source:
Now, should this debate on cars continue, it should be done so only with the following acknowledgements:
1. Air travel pollutes more than cars do.
2. Cycling is statistically more dangerous than driving.
3. No one is seriously favoring doing away with air travel, cycling, or cars unless they're presumably being silly or argumentative.
Back on topic: A CONRAC would certainly be an added value to STL, and I hope we get one, especially via public/private partnership.
There's nothing hyperbolic about 40,000 people dying every year due to cars. What is hyperbolic is acting like STL will be at some crazy disadvantage because people can't step off a plane and into a car in less than 5 minutes. It sounds delusional. Just as delusional as highway expansion proponents and the people who demand parking outside their offices' front door.
No one said St Louis would be at some crazy disadvantage. It’s just a common sense way logistically to lay out our rental car system so we don’t have a bunch of land around the airport taken up by lots and shuttles clogging the roads. It’s objectively a better experience for car renters to not have to wait as long to get their car. The whole point of this airport project is to position us better vs our competitors.
The car thing is absolutely hyperbole. No one is going to die because we have a more common sense car rental set up at the airport.
You can make this argument for all the off-site parking. Why waste space on site for a minority using for-profit rental cars when that space could be used for regular parking? I wouldn't be surprised if there was more land used by off-site parking than off-site rental car companies.
And the entire discussion on rental cars is inherently tied to the implicit inefficiencies that come with car centric infrastructure and development. The fact it is seen as "worth it" to spend hundreds of millions to billions to make it easier to rent a car is completely insane. It is a symptom of everything wrong with this country and why the standard of living is in a decline and why populism is in the mainstream. At least in this case, it doesn't actually pencil out.
Who would be spending the millions of dollars? Again the thing would come from the consumers themselves, right? Why wouldn't you want to cater to consumers who would use them?
And to that, I imagine it's a way to make profit for the airport if say, they charged $5 over the $1 per rental example above.
I'd argue the same reason why the city should have just built a garage at Interco if there was no other path forward and at least make money off of the thing.
All in all it's a common sense thing to incorporate especially when you're going to have a blank slate T2 garage. And I don't believe BJ reports as wholly forthcoming with multiple points of view either. I think we all know that.
I'll echo what another poster put as another item in a list of 'rushed process projects' like the Arch without the highway pulled. Just do the ***** thing right the first time, make it world class, and make some real change. That's the biggest thing I worry about this redo is that enough people say 'it's good enough' and we're stuck with a 75% finished job that could have been 100% with a little more wherewithal and fighting for that extra 25% to make our sh*t world class. I'm tired of poor finish on what should be great public projects that demand more thought and intentionality. Even just some cement already crumbling from road diet improvements downtown.
Do you travel for work at all? In what world does an extra 30 minutes NOT spent on a shuttle, wasting time at a blighted, ugly as sin rental complex not benefit business travelers? Not only that, but just improves first touch point for a ton of visitors, even if not the 'majority'. All of these people arriving to Lambert are here to spend money in our city and to ignore some of their first interaction points with our region is bad business.
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.
We value engineering everything down in order to preserve our lack of civic pride.
Finally read the article. Seemed like a lot of speculation and not a ton of facts. Not that that they got much comment from anyone on it though. I would not be surprised if it doesn't come up at the next airport commission meeting. So that could be interesting.
Also seemed to be very conflicting information.
A 2023 airport master plan indicates such a facility was considered but ultimately deemed low priority because it said car rental companies operating at Lambert hadn't explicitly expressed a need for one.
But in a statement to the Business Journal, Enterprise Mobility, the Clayton-based parent of Enterprise Rent-A-Car and the St. Louis region's largest privately-held company, said that it and its peers would prefer that a better rental car user experience be included in the new terminal project.
"Enterprise Mobility is in full support of a world class terminal that includes a great experience for our rental car customers at the St. Louis Lambert International Airport," it said. "Along with the broader industry, we would support the inclusion of a walkable car rental facility as part of the new terminal plan, making access for customers more convenient."
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."
So do they rental car companies want it or not? And if they do maybe they should make it more known, especially since there is an enterprise person on the board. It is hard to me to believe if Enterprise REALLY wanted something done they couldn't get it done.
__________
My thoughts after reading it and all the comments on here.
I personally want it to happen so we can get rid of all the rental car shuttles and only have one, or none if they do the Hanley idea. The less shuttles zipping around the better in my opinion. It makes it easier on everyone, streamlines the process, saves curb space, and makes it just that many less shuttles that could have an accident. The current situation they just add to the clogging up of the roads to have to many.
I don't have an issue with it not being included in the redesign, I think they needed to focus on the terminal and the rental car center can be worked out later on in the process or after it. Ideally it would have been included but I am not sure it matters in the long run if they end up doing it after the fact
Finally read the article. Seemed like a lot of speculation and not a ton of facts. Not that that they got much comment from anyone on it though. I would not be surprised if it doesn't come up at the next airport commission meeting. So that could be interesting.
Also seemed to be very conflicting information.
A 2023 airport master plan indicates such a facility was considered but ultimately deemed low priority because it said car rental companies operating at Lambert hadn't explicitly expressed a need for one.
But in a statement to the Business Journal, Enterprise Mobility, the Clayton-based parent of Enterprise Rent-A-Car and the St. Louis region's largest privately-held company, said that it and its peers would prefer that a better rental car user experience be included in the new terminal project.
"Enterprise Mobility is in full support of a world class terminal that includes a great experience for our rental car customers at the St. Louis Lambert International Airport," it said. "Along with the broader industry, we would support the inclusion of a walkable car rental facility as part of the new terminal plan, making access for customers more convenient."
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."
So do they rental car companies want it or not? And if they do maybe they should make it more known, especially since there is an enterprise person on the board. It is hard to me to believe if Enterprise REALLY wanted something done they couldn't get it done.
__________
My thoughts after reading it and all the comments on here.
I personally want it to happen so we can get rid of all the rental car shuttles and only have one, or none if they do the Hanley idea. The less shuttles zipping around the better in my opinion. It makes it easier on everyone, streamlines the process, saves curb space, and makes it just that many less shuttles that could have an accident. The current situation they just add to the clogging up of the roads to have to many.
I don't have an issue with it not being included in the redesign, I think they needed to focus on the terminal and the rental car center can be worked out later on in the process or after it. Ideally it would have been included but I am not sure it matters in the long run if they end up doing it after the fact
A completely reasonable summary. We have lots of reasons to do it, but we're hitting the immediate easy button when it could be thought of as part of the complete flow of a reimagined airport.
That said, the new terminal won't be a failure if not included. It's a nice to have, and if we can find a way to have it self-fund, or even profit the airport, I think it's a good thing to have, and a positive touch point for folks interacting with St. Louis. Do we want the full polish or 75%? This is where speaking together as a region is an easy place to discuss investment and where to put money where our mouth is. We say we want to impress visitors.. what's impressive about taking a rickety shuttle across the highway to one of the more blighted uninspired RAC experiences I've ever encountered.
^ & ^^ Have to agree with both.. My recent biz trips to FL either involve flights into Orlando and Jacksonville and having the a walkable CONRAC is great. At same time someone is paying no doubt and eventually the consumer will be.
I think the issue with current design is not really the new concourse and or lack of CONRAC but terminal ingress/egress. Really think the missed opportunity is in keeping metrolink as is. I think a long term vision is rerouting metrolink and incorporating a new terminal 1 metrolink station as part of the new garage structure. The reason for doing that is you literally create the opportunity or the ability for a future westward metrolink expansion. In turn, a reroute of metrolink leaves a footprint for automated people mover between between terminal 1 and say a new vision for the terminal 2 footprint whether that future is CONRAC, more parking, hotel, conference space, you name it Talk about an opportunity. Please don't tell me that metrolink can act as a people mover within the airport footrpint. it is a terrible idea that I can only back up with my decades of business travel and countless hours in airports.
But I get it, city sees no incentive for metrolink looking westward and the county doesn't like metrolink. So why would airport look beyond its own footprint
A short run but Frontier is adding nonstop flights to Fort Lauderdale on Mon/Fri for two weeks in March starting March 13th. This will be the 10th destination for Frontier from STL
I came across a LinkedIn post from a consultant/former Southwest exec (Jason Van Eaton) who wrote that he has accepted a role as an "Executive Advisor representing the St Louis business community" on the Lambert redevelopment. Regarding the recent conversation here, he lists five priorities, including "assist in planning a new consolidated rental car facility."
Besides the rental car facility, I'm curious who hired him. He didn't mention GSTL.
I came across a LinkedIn post from a consultant/former Southwest exec (Jason Van Eaton) who wrote that he has accepted a role as an "Executive Advisor representing the St Louis business community" on the Lambert redevelopment. Regarding the recent conversation here, he lists five priorities, including "assist in planning a new consolidated rental car facility."
Besides the rental car facility, I'm curious who hired him. He didn't mention GSTL.
I came across a LinkedIn post from a consultant/former Southwest exec (Jason Van Eaton) who wrote that he has accepted a role as an "Executive Advisor representing the St Louis business community" on the Lambert redevelopment. Regarding the recent conversation here, he lists five priorities, including "assist in planning a new consolidated rental car facility."
Besides the rental car facility, I'm curious who hired him. He didn't mention GSTL.
Hate to toot my own horn, but *hello* to the STL business journal, which partially relies on his LinkedIn post for this story.
"Hamm-Niebruegge said rental car companies have long wanted a CONRAC that's walkable from airport terminals, but not one that would require a shuttle, since they already use shuttles under the current setup. "There's never been a spot that's walkable, that's what the issue has been," she said. Hamm-Niebruegge said rental car companies may now be examining CONRAC sites that would require shuttles.
One site that's walkable from the new terminal layout would be south of Lambert International Boulevard. It's currently occupied by U.S. Marine Corps and Navy recruiting stations, among other Department of Defense tenants. The property would have to become available, she said, adding there isn't other Lambert property that would be walkable to a new terminal that could host a CONRAC.
Hamm-Niebruegge declined to comment when asked whether talks had begun with the federal government regarding the site, which is to be near Lambert's new garage."
The business community is also focused on making the area around the airport "more inviting," Hamm-Niebruegge said, as well as increasing cargo and non-commercial, general aviation traffic.
I came across a LinkedIn post from a consultant/former Southwest exec (Jason Van Eaton) who wrote that he has accepted a role as an "Executive Advisor representing the St Louis business community" on the Lambert redevelopment. Regarding the recent conversation here, he lists five priorities, including "assist in planning a new consolidated rental car facility."
Besides the rental car facility, I'm curious who hired him. He didn't mention GSTL.
Hate to toot my own horn, but *hello* to the STL business journal, which partially relies on his LinkedIn post for this story.
"Hamm-Niebruegge said rental car companies have long wanted a CONRAC that's walkable from airport terminals, but not one that would require a shuttle, since they already use shuttles under the current setup. "There's never been a spot that's walkable, that's what the issue has been," she said. Hamm-Niebruegge said rental car companies may now be examining CONRAC sites that would require shuttles.
One site that's walkable from the new terminal layout would be south of Lambert International Boulevard. It's currently occupied by U.S. Marine Corps and Navy recruiting stations, among other Department of Defense tenants. The property would have to become available, she said, adding there isn't other Lambert property that would be walkable to a new terminal that could host a CONRAC.
Hamm-Niebruegge declined to comment when asked whether talks had begun with the federal government regarding the site, which is to be near Lambert's new garage."
I'm assuming the talks with the government will involve our two republicans US senators (at least I hope)?
