This list was compiled from a poll with over 10,000 votes, and out of the winning 15 cities, St. Louis snagged 10th place! Granted, the narrator says that the Arch is the main reason why, but he also mentions some other unique features of STL’s skyline.
"After searching high and low I discovered that there was one confirmed way that you could watch Fuel-Less. You had to physically travel to the Illinois Oil Field Museum in Oblong Illinois, conveniently located inside the devil's a$$h073 between Louisville, St. Louis, and Indianapolis."
Mind you, this has jack all to do with St. Louis, really. Just an amusing mention. I kind of like living near the devil's beep beep. (Though I confess, it'd be better if our summers weren't getting worse. For some reason.)
City Nerd - St. Louis makes list after list. For this one, it’s most prime opportunity for interstate removal. He goes with I-64 for its damage to Forest Park, CWE, Midtown and Downtown. Mentions how 44 and 64 may be the most redundant interstates possible.
I’m hopefully StL and MODOT make good decisions in the future and figure out a solution for 44 in front of the arch/Wash Ave, 55 between Soulard and Benton Park and 64 between CWE/Grove and through Forest Park. Those are the worst atrocities in my opinion. I could name many more (64 right on top of Busch Stadium, 44 cutting soulard from downtown, 55 through Carondelet, list goes on). we have the most mind boggling routes for interstates in the country, its like they couldn’t decide what to destroy
44 would be a better option, maybe that could be a Metro line one day. The problem we run into is demand. For St. Louis to expand transit, the city has to not only cut off population loss but increase.
^By expand transit I assume you mean expand demand, right? I am inclined to think a few simple changes could help even without population growth. I think our transportation choices boil down to a combination of cost, comfort, and convenience. At present, automotive transportation is relatively convenient, but average people do use transit when outside factors make it easier, as say on game days when there's more demand for parking than availability, or when traffic would increase enough to make congestion unpleasant. And of course we don't think much about the cost of cars, since it's regarded as a necessity, not an option, so we internalize those costs no matter what. But if parking were less available, or if lane miles or routes were less convenient then people might move to transit. And we could absolutely make lanes bus only right now, limiting lane miles for cars. We need to narrow our roads for safety reasons anyway, and we all know that. We could pass laws making subsidized parking less appealing. And we could at the same time move revenue generated from changes to our land tax structures to transit, making it more convenient and more comfortable. And that might even help to increase population density. We do need to reverse our population trends. But I don't think we need to wait for that to improve transit, or make traffic planning and land use more sensible. Quite the reverse. I think now is the time to move on transit and to use that as a tool to make our city better, and thus more desirable.
A YouTuber posted a video looking up from under the Arch and made it look like they were sitting on it, and a bunch of people in the comments are freaking out! Fortunately, some noble viewers have come to the rescue explaining where it is. Got over 8M views, too!
