Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Runway To Nowhere?  
User currently offlineBHMNONREV From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1383 posts, RR: 4
Posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7496 times:

Looks like the new runway in STL will be operational and accept its' first flights this coming Thursday. This may be one of the rare cases where a new runway was sorely needed, houses and businesses bought out, work completed and now that 9,000 ft piece of concrete is no longer needed.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...C90018625714A0059591F?OpenDocument

Leonard's legacy lives on. St. Louis now will have the rare distinction of having two relatively new runways in operation (BLV and STL) that see very little to no traffic..

[Edited 2006-04-09 11:35:27]

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJAXFLL From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7051 times:

I lived around STL when the debate about the new runway and the buyouts in Bridgeton was occuring. I remember them being delayed for years because of lawsuits from environmentalists, homeowners, etc. In the end, all of those legal battles just delayed the final outcome. But back in the early to mid 1990s, how could one have predicted that the aviation world would be what it is today? With the given information, they made the correct decision at STL.

With the poor layout of the airport, I'd love to see a new midfield terminal built to make the three runways more equidistant from the terminal with the other two demolished. I don't see it happening for a variety of reasons, the least of which being money.

The creation of the joint use airport at BLV, that's another story. What a disaster.


User currently offlineBHMNONREV From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1383 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6892 times:

As a youth, I grew up in the city of Bridgeton and personally know many of the families who were affected by the expansion. Carrollton, Carrollton Oaks, and everything on Fee Fee Rd/Gist Rd north of Natural Bridge were pretty much all wiped out.

There is no question that a runway was needed at the time, but the W-1W project was the most expensive option out there, and would not allow STL to maximize operations. I recall seeing a plan for a runway to be placed south of I-70 in the Woodson Terrace, St. John, St. Ann, and Edmundson communities, which would be about a mile south of the current terminal complex. More people would have been displaced by this project, but with the lower property values in those areas it would have been a cheaper option, and with available land for a 4th parallel runway if needed and a midfield terminal complex straddling I-70. The ALPA endorsed this option as well, citing safety concerns about W-1W.

Quoting JAXFLL (Reply 1):
With the poor layout of the airport, I'd love to see a new midfield terminal built to make the three runways more equidistant from the terminal with the other two demolished. I don't see it happening for a variety of reasons, the least of which being money.

I believe you are correct here, the only way to fully utilize runway 11/29 will be to build a midfield terminal between 11/29 and 12R/30L. But as you say, where would Mr. Dolliole come up with the 500 million or so to make this happen? He's having a hard enough time getting the tumbleweeds out of Concourse "D"... Big grin


User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3152 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6776 times:

I was joking with a friend that he should be the first to land on the runway. Former TWA employee in his Katana. Because that's about all that runway is going to see. I'm sitting midfield by the cargo ramp right now and it's amazing to think that the threshold of 29 is two miles from me and the other end is probably about 4. Griggs was a corrupt man, I'm sure he got some fat kickbacks out of W1-W. Anybody who knew about what went on with the grave relocation at the east end of the field knows what I'm talking about. The city was charged $1500 per reloacation in the late 80s and the staff was two guys with shovels and their pickup truck. No joke.

Ah well, guess I'm going to have to make sure my students (and myself) are keeping tabs of where they are on the sectional.

BMH, I played many soccer games at Carrolton Park, and had a few basketball games at St. Lawrence. But I miss the observation lot most. I'm still not used to driving down Lindbergh and Natural Bridge Through there. I can still see the Cambridge Crossing subdivision and the dive shop right down the road from the TW training center.



DMI
User currently offlineBHMNONREV From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1383 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6727 times:

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 3):
I was joking with a friend that he should be the first to land on the runway. Former TWA employee in his Katana. Because that's about all that runway is going to see.

I think you will only see arrivals from and departures to the west. Like you stated the departure end of 11 will be a good 3 to 4 miles from the main terminal, so take-offs to the east will be out, and if the newpaper article is accurate, arrivals from the east will be out also, or at least until/if the AA hangar is torn down.

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 3):
BMH, I played many soccer games at Carrolton Park, and had a few basketball games at St. Lawrence. But I miss the observation lot most. I'm still not used to driving down Lindbergh and Natural Bridge Through there. I can still see the Cambridge Crossing subdivision and the dive shop right down the road from the TW training center.

Amazing with all that was affected by the runway and Berry Hill golf course survived. I spent many day of my youth hacking away there, while watching arrivals on 12 (there was no 12L then). Golf and Airplanes, total bliss.....


User currently offlineFlyBoy84 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 384 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6464 times:

Quoting BHMNONREV (Reply 2):
There is no question that a runway was needed at the time, but the W-1W project was the most expensive option out there, and would not allow STL to maximize operations. I recall seeing a plan for a runway to be placed south of I-70 in the Woodson Terrace, St. John, St. Ann, and Edmundson communities, which would be about a mile south of the current terminal complex. More people would have been displaced by this project, but with the lower property values in those areas it would have been a cheaper option, and with available land for a 4th parallel runway if needed and a midfield terminal complex straddling I-70. The ALPA endorsed this option as well, citing safety concerns about W-1W.

The idea that STL merely needed a third parallel runway was over-simplifying the situation.

What St. Louis needed was an airport with a better configuration. W-1W obviously does not fulfill that directive and never will. S-1 was the plan endorsed by ALPA that would have added a runway to the south, but would have required disruption of the Metrolink light rail and traffic on I-70. In order to have a proper midfield terminal (like ATL, IAD, or even PIT), I-70 would've needed to be re-routed around the new runway.

The point is that any plan to expand STL would've involved displacing people and interrupting local traffic. S-1 would've been better operationally, but would've had more of an disruptive impact.

Quoting JAXFLL (Reply 1):
With the poor layout of the airport, I'd love to see a new midfield terminal built to make the three runways more equidistant from the terminal with the other two demolished. I don't see it happening for a variety of reasons, the least of which being money.

STL (the airport) needed to invest in its passenger facilities - another objective that W-1W will not fulfill. There is some kind of report produced by (or on behalf of) the airport that details future passenger facility concepts (midfield). But instead of being for replacement of the existing complex, it was for additional gates which STL definitely DOESN'T need. It even had five widebody gates (I'm supposing for the many flights to EUROPE and ASIA that will be staged from STL on A380s)!

Quoting JAXFLL (Reply 1):
The creation of the joint use airport at BLV, that's another story. What a disaster.

BLV is the only option that would have given us the proper airfield configuration of three parallel runways separated by 7000' and 4400', respectively on over 7000 acres of land with room for more land to be bought.

It is also the only option that would've given us a chance to invest in better passenger facilities with a midfield terminal that would allow planes to taxi to either side of the field without having to go around the airside - simplifying taxiing patterns. And I'm not talking about 150 gates with 20 widebody positions either. Just something right-sized to the needs of our area at a larger airfield.

The city promised "world-class", but all we get is warmed-over, band-aid solutions. W-1W is just an example of St. Louis clinging mercilessly to its past and also being silly about the airport being in Illinois.

Maybe I'll get flamed for posting this, but it's the TRUTH!


User currently offlineBHMNONREV From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1383 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6306 times:

Quoting FlyBoy84 (Reply 5):
BLV is the only option that would have given us the proper airfield configuration of three parallel runways separated by 7000' and 4400', respectively on over 7000 acres of land with room for more land to be bought.

It is also the only option that would've given us a chance to invest in better passenger facilities with a midfield terminal that would allow planes to taxi to either side of the field without having to go around the airside - simplifying taxiing patterns. And I'm not talking about 150 gates with 20 widebody positions either. Just something right-sized to the needs of our area at a larger airfield.

And I read somewhere this could all have been done for considerably cheaper than W-1W ultimately cost. Same thing happened back in the early 70's, when Columbia/Waterloo was chosen as the replacement site for Lambert. The City of St. Louis and St. Louis County fought tooth and nail to keep the airport in Missouri, and ultimately hired a puppet named Griggs to be the airport director. Instead of doing what was best for the region and move the airport to Illinois, they decided serve their own interests and keep Lambert intact and expand the existing facility, which at the time was hemmed in on three sides by residential neighborhoods, and by commercial deveolpment on the fourth. It's too bad that they did not take a look a few hundred miles to the east, to the city of Cincinnati to see how civic leaders got together and decided to do what was best for everyone, not just themselves and place their airport across the Ohio River in Kentucky...

Quoting FlyBoy84 (Reply 5):
W-1W is just an example of St. Louis clinging mercilessly to its past and also being silly about the airport being in Illinois.

Amen brother...


User currently offlineMrSTL From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 468 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6244 times:

Quoting FlyBoy84 (Reply 5):
BLV is the only option that would have given us the proper airfield configuration of three parallel runways separated by 7000' and 4400', respectively on over 7000 acres of land with room for more land to be bought.

Seriously, a majority of STL traffic comes from west of the airport, while BLV might have been the perfect set up, no one wanted to travel 45 minute to an hour and a half through the city to Illinois. Airlines are free to move to BLV at any time and they don't because a majority of the traffic is not coming from that area. I don't think it is St Louis holding on to their past as much as it did not make sense.. Much like moving SAN out into the desert or down to TJ. Plus it is all moot right now because there is no TWA coming back. I feel for the people who lost their homes, it really it too bad, although I think they made the right decision to expand when they did, maybe not the best configuration, but time will tell what STL can really support/construct. Looks like they are going to have to fill both concourses B and D soon. IMHO BLV is/was a waste of taxpayer dollars.


User currently offlineFlyBoy84 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 384 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6179 times:

Quoting BHMNONREV (Reply 6):
It's too bad that they did not take a look a few hundred miles to the east, to the city of Cincinnati to see how civic leaders got together and decided to do what was best for everyone, not just themselves and place their airport across the Ohio River in Kentucky...

I mentioned that several years ago to an airport official or some such. the response was that comparing St. Louis to Cincinnati was like comparing apple and oranges because blah, blah, blah...yada, yada, yada. Anything to avoid the TRUTH!

At some point, though, I believe that city officials will be forced to look at BLV as a solution one day - hub or no hub. With the new Mississippi River bridge and the possibility of the Gateway Connector from Columbia, Illinois past BLV to Troy, the argument of access for Missourians goes out the window. Not to mention the fact that Metrolink already goes as far as the Scott AFB side of the field.

I remember the Columbia-Waterloo debacle hoping that Illinois would win. From what I've read, one of two facilities was going to be funded: Columbia-Waterloo or DFW. You see what happened.


User currently offlineFlyBoy84 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 384 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6146 times:

Quoting MrSTL (Reply 7):
I feel for the people who lost their homes, it really it too bad, although I think they made the right decision to expand when they did, maybe not the best configuration, but time will tell what STL can really support/construct. Looks like they are going to have to fill both concourses B and D soon. IMHO BLV is/was a waste of taxpayer dollars.

So it was RIGHT to spend A BILLION DOLLARS on a RUNWAY that DIDN'T provide the BEST possible configuration without ANY consideration for the passenger facility and its RELATIONSHIP to said runway?

You think it's RIGHT to spend A BILLION DOLLARS on a runway at an airport that is soon to have TWO empty concourses?

AND you think it's RIGHT to spend A BILLION DOLLARS on a runway that can't even be used for landings in both directions because there is an obstruction in the runway protection zone that won't be removed for two years or more?

And you believe that SIMPLY because the majority of people who use the airport live in Missouri.

Quoting MrSTL (Reply 7):
Airlines are free to move to BLV at any time and they don't because a majority of the traffic is not coming from that area.

The city can also decide to close down an anachronistic facility and move operations elsewhere. The airlines have no choice but to move then - as was the case with DIA. Again, St. Louis, as a whole, is too closed-minded and provincial for that.

For the record, I've stated before that I live under 10 minutes away from STL, but I did fly from BLV once when the opportunity presented itself. It ain't that bad of a trip. The mentality of so many Missourians is to look down their noses at THAT side of the river as if it's some sort of nuisance instead of it being a part of the metropolitan area. With city officials, it seems that it's always time to think regionally when it benefits Missouri. When the benefit is to Illinois, then it's time to snuff THAT proposal OUT.

[Edited 2006-04-10 22:56:17]

User currently offlineMrSTL From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 468 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6037 times:

Quoting FlyBoy84 (Reply 9):
So it was RIGHT to spend A BILLION DOLLARS on a RUNWAY that DIDN'T provide the BEST possible configuration without ANY consideration for the passenger facility and its RELATIONSHIP to said runway

No, I said it was not the best configuration, but it beats the hell out of driving to Mascutah.

Quoting FlyBoy84 (Reply 9):
You think it's RIGHT to spend A BILLION DOLLARS on a runway at an airport that is soon to have TWO empty concourses?

No, but the project was well underway before 09/11, American pulldown and TWA's demise. No one could have predicted the events that took place. (Ok maybe the guy who hedged fuel at WN did.) Too much money was already spent to pull out or change. We would still have the same empty gates in BLV as we do now at STL.

Quoting FlyBoy84 (Reply 9):
AND you think it's RIGHT to spend A BILLION DOLLARS on a runway that can't even be used for landings in both directions because there is an obstruction in the runway protection zone that won't be removed for two years or more

Would you rather see American pull their maintenance faciltiy out of St. Louis and watch more people lose their jobs than already have. At current traffic volumes this decision to hold off demolition effects less than 2% of flights

Quoting FlyBoy84 (Reply 9):
And you believe that SIMPLY because the majority of people who use the airport live in Missouri

Yes, absolutely! airports are meant to service a given community and the people who use it. STL is closer to that popluation center not BLV! They did not want to move to BLV for the same reasons they aren't moving the airport out to Warrenton, MO, Monroe County or some western county in Missouri.

Quoting FlyBoy84 (Reply 9):
The mentality of so many Missourians is to look down their noses at THAT side of the river as if it's some sort of nuisance instead of it being a part of the metropolitan area

I am not turning down my nose at the people of Illinois, and I think those living in Illinois are vital to St. Louis. However, I do not blame the city for not wanting to move the airport. Again - it is all history as the passenger volumes of STL (the airport) at the time of TWA will not be achieved again in 20 + years. I hope this is wrong for both the people of Illinois and the people of Missouri. Yes, in hindsight we do not need the runway, but someday hopefully we will and hopefully BLV will someday support more than a handfull of flights for those people in Illinois.

[Edited 2006-04-11 00:19:05]

User currently offlineFlyBoy84 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 384 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5749 times:

Quoting MrSTL (Reply 10):
No, but the project was well underway before 09/11, American pulldown and TWA's demise. No one could have predicted the events that took place. (Ok maybe the guy who hedged fuel at WN did.) Too much money was already spent to pull out or change. We would still have the same empty gates in BLV as we do now at STL.

Funny, I remember the same thing happening at RDU and BNA. AA went in with lots of fanfare talking about how they were going to build hubs at those locations only to pull out after a period of time - and it had nothing to do with a war or the economy. When they came HERE with that crap, I knew it was only a matter of time before they'd pull out citing one circumstance or another as the reason. Now, if the average Joe like me knew that, why didn't Griggs? He WAS a member of the aviation industry, and as an airport director, he should have known the trends and habits of the various carriers.

Quoting MrSTL (Reply 10):
Would you rather see American pull their maintenance facility out of St. Louis and watch more people lose their jobs than already have. At current traffic volumes this decision to hold off demolition effects less than 2% of flights

For A BILLION DOLLARS, what I expect is for the city to GET IT RIGHT! They were supposed to MOVE the hangar as part of the W-1W package so that there would be no obstructions!

Quoting MrSTL (Reply 10):
Yes, absolutely! airports are meant to service a given community and the people who use it. STL is closer to that popluation center not BLV! They did not want to move to BLV for the same reasons they aren't moving the airport out to Warrenton, MO, Monroe County or some western county in Missouri.

In the records for the old Columbia-Waterloo proposal, the reason a Missouri location was not selected was because there was no place in MISSOURI considered suitable for building such a facility (18000 acres) - whether it was because the land was a flood plain or was considered too hilly or whatever. Illinois was considered the prime location for a new airport. You can check that out for yourself! Moreover, the city officials back then felt that the move would help in affecting an eastward shift in the center of population stemming the tide of the westward flight.

On top of that, the Illinois location was cheaper to build - just as BLV would've been cheaper to build VIRTUALLY FROM SCRATCH! The runway and small terminal cost $320 million vs. A BILLION DOLLARS for a runway ALONE at STL.

Quoting MrSTL (Reply 10):
Yes, absolutely! airports are meant to service a given community and the people who use it. STL is closer to that popluation center not BLV! They did not want to move to BLV for the same reasons they aren't moving the airport out to Warrenton, MO, Monroe County or some western county in Missouri.



Quoting MrSTL (Reply 10):
I am not turning down my nose at the people of Illinois, and I think those living in Illinois are vital to St. Louis. However, I do not blame the city for not wanting to move the airport. Again - it is all history as the passenger volumes of STL (the airport) at the time of TWA will not be achieved again in 20 + years. I hope this is wrong for both the people of Illinois and the people of Missouri. Yes, in hindsight we do not need the runway, but someday hopefully we will and hopefully BLV will someday support more than a handfull of flights for those people in Illinois.

If THAT was the case, people from Maryland would NEVER go to DCA to catch a flight - because the airport is in VIRGINIA. People from Cincinnati wouldn't go to KENTUCKY for their flights because the airport is not in their state.

THIS is the provincialism and closed-mindedness I'm talking about. It's not "regional thinking" if it's not benefitting MISSOURI. The airport cannot successfully serve the REGION because too many people are closed-minded.


User currently offlineBHMNONREV From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1383 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5644 times:

Quoting FlyBoy84 (Reply 11):
In the records for the old Columbia-Waterloo proposal, the reason a Missouri location was not selected was because there was no place in MISSOURI considered suitable for building such a facility (18000 acres) - whether it was because the land was a flood plain or was considered too hilly or whatever. Illinois was considered the prime location for a new airport. You can check that out for yourself!

Columbia/Waterloo is probably still on file at the St. Louis County Library main branch. It was a very ambitious project to say the least, and as you said the site was the only one in the region suitable for the project and any long-term expansion that would occur.

You can probably find some designs for Lambert there as well. Back in the late 60's-early 70's there were some plans drawn up which had a 90 gate L-shaped terminal sitting at the intersection of Brown Rd and McDonnell Blvd, smack dab where the MDD Hq building sits, with a 12/30 parallel runway in the vicinity of Lindbergh and McDonnell Blvd. Looking back, that option was still considerably better than the W-1W project...


User currently offlineFlyBoy84 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 384 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5572 times:

For those who haven't seen it, here's a report that shows concepts for new passenger facilities at Lambert. Note the widebody gates located near today's Concourse A. Note also that the parking and roadways sit dangerously close to the runway protection zone (RPZ).

Still, it would be viable if the PTB would stop waxing so nostalgic over the current four dome building that they can't bear to part with it. It might not be world-class, but at least it would help the runway configuration work better  sarcastic 

www.tisp.org/files/isbe2004/panel_2b/griggs.pdf


User currently offlineJAXFLL From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5431 times:

Quoting FlyBoy84 (Reply 9):
So it was RIGHT to spend A BILLION DOLLARS on a RUNWAY that DIDN'T provide the BEST possible configuration without ANY consideration for the passenger facility and its RELATIONSHIP to said runway?

You think it's RIGHT to spend A BILLION DOLLARS on a runway at an airport that is soon to have TWO empty concourses?

AND you think it's RIGHT to spend A BILLION DOLLARS on a runway that can't even be used for landings in both directions because there is an obstruction in the runway protection zone that won't be removed for two years or more?

And you believe that SIMPLY because the majority of people who use the airport live in Missouri.

A majority of the people, a majority of the businesses, etc. The population difference is 1.9 million in MO to 600,000 in Illinois. The fastest growing counties in the region are St. Charles, Warren, and Lincoln, all in Missouri.

A billion dollars was planned to be spent during a different economic time. Did you want them to stop building after 9/11 when they had already purchased the land and started laying concrete? Did you want them to build the houses back? Hind sight is always 20/20.


User currently offlineBHMNONREV From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1383 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5315 times:

Quoting JAXFLL (Reply 14):
A billion dollars was planned to be spent during a different economic time. Did you want them to stop building after 9/11 when they had already purchased the land and started laying concrete? Did you want them to build the houses back? Hind sight is always 20/20.

I don't think he is questioning the fact that a billion dollars was spent on the project, because at the time it had to be done, and once it started, there was no turning back.

I believe the issue was the W-1W project, which really did not do much to maximize air operations. With the runway being placed where it is, you are only able to see a significant increase in bad weather conditions when arrivals are from the west. The fact is, it appears as though Griggs and co did not take this into consideration when selecting options for the project, and if I had time I would do some digging, because somewhere out there you will find all of the expansion alternatives which were presented before all of this got started.

Bottom line, STL did not get the bang for their buck and the passengers will be the ones ultimately paying for it, thru the increased PFC's...


User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3152 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5225 times:

Quoting FlyBoy84 (Reply 9):
The city can also decide to close down an anachronistic facility and move operations elsewhere. The airlines have no choice but to move then - as was the case with DIA. Again, St. Louis, as a whole, is too closed-minded and provincial for that.

Lambert was built on farmland. By the time air travel boomed in the 1960s it was landlocked. It's happening to DIA right now too. The tumbleweeds are being replaced by subdivisions.

What W1-W comes down to is simple: the city enjoyed buying up Bridgeton because they were getting rid of noise complaints and higher-income homes. The lower-tier areas like Edmunson, Woodson Terrace, St. John, Bel-Ridge (where I grew up), and Kinloch were either bought out, or not as appealing.

PS: WN wanted to fly out of Downtown Airport (CPS) when they started ops here back in the 80s but the city of Cahokia wouldn't put a firestation on airport property. They elected to keep it a mile away where it still stands.



DMI
User currently offlineFlyBoy84 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 384 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5086 times:

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 16):
Lambert was built on farmland. By the time air travel boomed in the 1960s it was landlocked. It's happening to DIA right now too. The tumbleweeds are being replaced by subdivisions.

True...SO true. But then again, DIA is 53 square miles of space. They can build within it and not have to worry about encroachment.

Quoting JAXFLL (Reply 14):
A majority of the people, a majority of the businesses, etc. The population difference is 1.9 million in MO to 600,000 in Illinois. The fastest growing counties in the region are St. Charles, Warren, and Lincoln, all in Missouri.

Just as the majority of people who use CVG live in Ohio vs. Kentucky. I would even say that the majority of people who use DCA and IAD live in DC and Maryland.

Quoting JAXFLL (Reply 14):
A billion dollars was planned to be spent during a different economic time. Did you want them to stop building after 9/11 when they had already purchased the land and started laying concrete? Did you want them to build the houses back? Hind sight is always 20/20.

Actually, I wanted them to stop BEFORE they had purchased the land. The city knew FULL WELL that W-1W was CRAP. Before THIS they were going to tear up the existing parallels and overlay new concrete at a different heading - 14/32 vs. the current 12/30. They knew full well that THAT would interrupt operations, but tried to jam THAT down our figurative throats.

So much for SANE, RATIONAL thinking. Pilotpip had it RIGHT:

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 16):
What W1-W comes down to is simple: the city enjoyed buying up Bridgeton because they were getting rid of noise complaints and higher-income homes.

If the city REALLY wanted to invest in the airport, they would've invested in the passenger facility more than just expanding the East Terminal. I just read something on STLtoday.com pertaining to the new airport director trying to pretty up the main terminal, and people were allowed to respond to it. Out of ALL the responses, only about TWO were in favor of leaving things as they are. The rest of the posts trashed the airport as a filthy, dark, dank, depressing, old, 50s-era dowager. One even went so far as to say, "START OVER"; another said , "Bulldoze it."

If the city couldn't afford to do a total package at STL, then it should've focused on other priorities. Runway and passenger facilities go hand-in-hand. The future passenger facilities were NOT a part of the billion dollar package - that was Phases 2 (new airside plus east landside) and 3 (west landside to replace the east one). Still wouldn't have been "WORLD-CLASS" but would've made W-1W work better.

Sure it's too late at this point, but if a cheaper, well-configured, total package is what the area needed then BLV certainly WAS the answer.

What SO MANY people here REFUSE to acknowledge is that the prevailing attitude is one of provincialism, selfishness, and backward thinking when it comes to the airport. If you look at places like DC (IAD), DTW, IAH, and other big acreage airports, there is quite a bit of driving involved. At least here we have Metrolink going to within shouting distance of BLV. And there are other local roadway enhancements on the drawing boards.


User currently offlineJAXFLL From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4897 times:

Quoting FlyBoy84 (Reply 17):
Just as the majority of people who use CVG live in Ohio vs. Kentucky. I would even say that the majority of people who use DCA and IAD live in DC and Maryland.

Do you know why CVG is where it is? Because the old Cincinnati airport (Lunken) flooded in 1937! CVG is not in Kentucky because of another airport that was overcrowded.

DCA opened in 1941 to be Washington, DC's airport. I'm not exactly sure where you would put an airport within Washington DC. BWI opened in 1947 (30 miles from DC) because the previous Baltimore airport (Logan Field) was takend over by the government during WWII and closed at the end of the war. IAD was started in 1958. DTW was built in 1927. STL was started in 1920. As with most major airports in the country, they were started at the beginning of aviation. The major exceptions are DCA and IAD from this list, but Baltimore had been open since . IAH (opened in 1969) was a replacement for Hobby (1937) which was closed for 2 years after IAH opened to commercial traffic. I would assume that what is today the area north of I-610 in Houston was open land in the 1960s, since The Woodlands was founded in 1964.

As with most airports in this country, STL sits at a site that has been there for decades - most basically since the start of aviation. If you close STL, the NIMBYs no matter where you are are going to put the airport will come out in force. Plus, it's much easier to expand an existing site politically than open a new site.

As for the fact that the airport has stayed in Missouri, as a previous Missouri resident I am glad it's in Missouri. Airports are economic engines that bring jobs and money into the area. As a Missouri taxpayer, I would be mad if that money disappeared and went to Illinois. If I lived in Illinois, I would be fighting tooth and nail to get STL to close and move to Illinois. It's the same fight that happened with the stadium. Egos do get in the way of what seems to be the most economic choice, but as we all know, not everything is done just because of the dollar cost.


User currently offlineIrobertson From Canada, joined Apr 2006, 601 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4760 times:

Amidst all this banter, I offer a solution!

BRING BACK TWA!  Smile

Make St. Louis its hub and start picking up the pieces from where Delta may make a mess... Just a fun thought.

Although, this is hardly the first airport to fund a massive project just to barely use it. I can think of two airports right now in Canada that have lost their usefulness: Gander in Newfoundland, though that's due to the increased range of modern aircraft and lack of need for a refuelling stop across the atlantic, and the really big disappointment, Mirabel in Montreal. Now I know that Mirabel gets used by Bombardier and that does give it some use overall, but it was highly expensive and supposed to be the international gateway to Quebec and Montreal. Turns out Trudeau/Dorval is still good enough on its own.

By the way, speaking of Mirabel, anyone know if the ex-Transat L1011s are still parked there?


User currently offlineFlyBoy84 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 384 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4544 times:

More great news about the airport related to the new runway:

The radar system that tracks traffic on the ground doesn't work, and the fact that the far end of 11/29 is 2-1/2 miles away from the control tower.

One AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER stated that this whole situation makes him VERY UNCOMFORTABLE about landing on that runway because this could lead to some type of incursion.

YEAH...yeah  sarcastic ...I may get  flamed  for saying that, but for a cool billion I expect BETTER than negative stories in the news.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Does It Make Sense To Add A Runway To EWR? posted Thu Aug 3 2006 01:29:01 by JEdward
TGU Runway To Be Extended posted Wed Jul 13 2005 22:32:42 by HR001
FLL Opens South Runway To RJs posted Wed Jun 15 2005 14:47:43 by Lowecur
The New BOS Runway To Be Completed In 2006! posted Mon Apr 18 2005 17:28:31 by BoeingBus
When Is The 5th ATL Runway To Open? posted Wed Apr 6 2005 06:37:34 by Lightsaber
"Flight 93: Newark To Nowhere" Animation posted Fri Aug 29 2003 04:09:41 by Beefmoney
New DEN Runway To Aleviate Problems? posted Thu Mar 13 2003 20:39:41 by FLY777UAL
737-200 Uses Entire Runway To Stop? posted Mon Jan 6 2003 18:59:13 by Slashd0t
Best Airport/Runway To Be Underneath An Airplane posted Tue Nov 12 2002 04:13:59 by Trickijedi
Fly To Nowhere? posted Wed Jun 12 2002 09:46:03 by Flyboy36y