That runway was unneeded from the get go. Destroying Bridgeton, shakey airline. Sorry. It was, is and will always be a boondoggle.
I can quote third party airport planners and engineers that say that the runway was justified - shaky primary carrier or not. You have to remember that the runway's primary reason for existence was to eliminate horrendous delays in inclement weather, not just alleviating general congestion at the airport. The runway absolutely is used in its primary capacity to this day.
The Master Plan Supplement generated three traffic forecasts against which to compare possible airport development alternatives. The reality of the world saw traffic dip to levels below even the lowest
predicted outcome of ~26 million passengers by 2015 (an outcome, I might add, that actually factored in the loss of TWA as well as much of the traffic being replaced by another airline eventually - quite accurate in that respect at least, I'd say). Though the planners should have weighted plans more towards the lower outcome, particularly with TWA's warning signs, the primary factor again was delay-driven, not demand-driven. In addition, no one foresaw 9/11 nor the impact it would have on aviation globally, let alone its impact on STL, so in this regard, the traffic forecasts should not be blamed for the runway.
There were 9 options considered for the airport expansion. Two - the CANTED-1 option, which required building 3 new parallel runways while maintaining continuous operations, and X-1, the "no-action" plan - were quickly dismissed due to the issues of cost and complexity in the case of the former, or because it solved nothing in the case of the latter. In the end, it came down to two options - W-1W, and S-1. W-1W, of course, is the plan that was actually carried out (and not in its full form either), while S-1 involved building a 3rd parallel runway south of I-70, as well as a taxiway over the interstate and several of the same options as in W-1W (such as a new midfield terminal and a lengthening of Runway 12R/30L). While S-1 would have achieved somewhat shorter taxi times, its benefits were outweighed by the increase in cost over W-1W, along with the fact that it would have displaced more people and affected more communities, thus making W-1W the ultimate selection. The relevant data seem to back this conclusion.
11/29's being paid off and is seeing more and more use, allows the airport to have much better capacity in all weather going forward, and will be an invaluable asset in the future, so I don't really see it as a boondoggle. Sorry not sorry Bridgeton.
They use 3 gates at BLV, so that eliminates A. With all the room left at the end of C (and in D), I think they would use that before even entertaining bring B back online.
Yeah, I was talking more in general terms in that the airport has no pressing space concerns at all, so accommodating G4 (and plenty of other growth) wouldn't be an issue for the foreseeable future.