-
Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!
XING the River to Downtown STL - Part 1
- Thread starter Xing500
- Start date
ummmm, not to try an be the instigator or anything again, but Xing-the Metrolink is so clean because no one uses it. All the stops are in the wrong places... I think it's popular on the 4th of July, but that's about it.
It was a ploy for some politician to get elected, and he had to follow through.
It was a ploy for some politician to get elected, and he had to follow through.
JivecitySTL
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 115
- Points
- 6
bet on me, you have lost any credibility you ever had with that last statement. MetroLink is one of THE MOST SUCCESSFUL light-rail systems in the country, that is a FACT:
FACT: MetroLink is one of the most successful light-rail systems in the nation.
MetroLink transports as many as 60,000 riders per day-125,000 for Fair St. Louis.
The Cross County MetroLink Extension will add at least 18,000 riders per day to the system-a low estimate given the history of ridership.
Citizens for Modern Transit
Ridership has CONSISTENTLY exceeded initial projections ever since the system was introduced in 1993. You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
MetroLink Ridership Hits All-Time High
Do you really think anyone would spend the millions and millions of dollars it takes to expand the system if "no one uses it"??? Use your brain, genius. MetroLink is aggressively expanding as we speak, and it will continue to be a shining example of one of the most progressive projects ever undertaken in the St. Louis metro area. I can't stand ignorant statements like yours, you sound so incredibly uneducated.
btw, I take the train EVERY SINGLE DAY, along with tens of thousands of other people.
FACT: MetroLink is one of the most successful light-rail systems in the nation.
MetroLink transports as many as 60,000 riders per day-125,000 for Fair St. Louis.
The Cross County MetroLink Extension will add at least 18,000 riders per day to the system-a low estimate given the history of ridership.
Citizens for Modern Transit
Ridership has CONSISTENTLY exceeded initial projections ever since the system was introduced in 1993. You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
MetroLink Ridership Hits All-Time High
Do you really think anyone would spend the millions and millions of dollars it takes to expand the system if "no one uses it"??? Use your brain, genius. MetroLink is aggressively expanding as we speak, and it will continue to be a shining example of one of the most progressive projects ever undertaken in the St. Louis metro area. I can't stand ignorant statements like yours, you sound so incredibly uneducated.
btw, I take the train EVERY SINGLE DAY, along with tens of thousands of other people.
I paid each person 50$ to get on the train and get off. You know, just to make the metrolink look busy?
"I've only ridden the MetroLink a couple of times, what station is that at?" A quote you made in another thread. Did you do research, or are you telling us that from those couple of times you can prove to us that few people ride the metrolink. What time did you go? Where did you go?
jordanb said:
yeah, ack. I need to show a picture from a work day. I think its good to see the rural people coming to the city and thats exactly who those people are, and they're from Illinois not Missouri. The "liberal", "understanding" Northern Illinoisans should be more "liberal" and "understanding" about it's neighbors to the south.
JivecitySTL
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 115
- Points
- 6
Hey jordanb-- I have seen a million people in Chicago who wear wife-beaters just like that. For some reason, a lot of you people in Chicago think you're holier-than-thou when it comes to the Midwest. **NEWSFLASH** CHICAGO IS AS MIDWESTERN AS BREAD & BUTTER. While you have your glitzy Michigan Avenue and Near North glamour, underneath it all, Chicago is still a blue-collar, beer-guzzling, baseball-loving city, not unlike St. Louis, Cleveland and Detroit. In fact, there's probably more white trash in Chicago than in St. Louis simply because there are more people there. Get off your high horse, Chicago is not New York. You're really not that different from people in other major Midwest cities.
jordanb
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 3,225
- Points
- 25
Well, I think I should apologize, I meant that to be tongue-in-cheek, that's why I called it a stereotype. Actually, I'm from Central Illinois, my sister lives in Carbondale, and I have friends and extended family scattered all over downstate Illinois, Missouri, and Indiania. So I'm a card carrying midwesterner and proud to be so. 
That said, there is a lot of difference between between Chicago and most of the midwest¹. I notice the differences every time I go back to my hometown (Which is Springfield, by the way). Case in point, when I went home a few months ago, there were these white "Support our troops" signs everywhere. According to my parents, some local print shop printed them off and distributed them. I've not seen one such sign in Chicago, but I've seen a lot of stuff like this The "No War" buttons were as popular here as the American flag buttons were down there for a few months.
A few more things:
Since when has bread and butter been midwestern? More to the point, what is "midwestern," exactly? Is Ann Arbor midwestern? I get a sense that there is a "midwestern" culture but now I wonder if that's just because I grew up believing in it, as I can't think of anything that you can really associate with it.
Those places are for tourists and suburbanites. I spend very little time in ether of them. Next time you're in town, go out into the neighborhoods, I've not spent as much time as I'd like in St. Louis, my mother is a Cardinal fan so I've been to that concrete donut you pass off as a baseball stadium and around town a bit with suburban family members, but not through the neighborhoods so I can't comment on it. I do know, however, average every day people in Chicago live significantly different lives and have a different outlook on things than average downstaters do. I can say that becuase I've spent a good deal time in both places. I prefer to live in the city for various reasons, most of them have to do with sprawl.
Since when has New York not been blue-collar, beer-guzzling and baseball-loving? I think Chicago and New York have a lot in common, and I think Jane Jacobs suggests why, increased population density and more outside contact breeds more diversity. Granted, it's on a much smaller scale in Chicago, but I think that has more to do with Chicago being less than half New York's size than it being midwestern.
At any rate, yeah, I have no misconceptions about people from Missouri or downstate. I think both the city and country have their charms, I wish the country weren't so ravaged by sprawl and Wal-Mart though, and I wish my father would learn how to conjugate the word "come".
¹ Note: I mean the City of Chicago, not the suburbs, but I've met a lot of suburbanites while downstate who act very pretentious, and I think are instrumental in giving the city a bad name among our neighbors.
That said, there is a lot of difference between between Chicago and most of the midwest¹. I notice the differences every time I go back to my hometown (Which is Springfield, by the way). Case in point, when I went home a few months ago, there were these white "Support our troops" signs everywhere. According to my parents, some local print shop printed them off and distributed them. I've not seen one such sign in Chicago, but I've seen a lot of stuff like this The "No War" buttons were as popular here as the American flag buttons were down there for a few months.
A few more things:
Since when has bread and butter been midwestern?
More to the point, what is "midwestern," exactly? Is Ann Arbor midwestern? I get a sense that there is a "midwestern" culture but now I wonder if that's just because I grew up believing in it, as I can't think of anything that you can really associate with it.Those places are for tourists and suburbanites. I spend very little time in ether of them. Next time you're in town, go out into the neighborhoods, I've not spent as much time as I'd like in St. Louis, my mother is a Cardinal fan so I've been to that concrete donut you pass off as a baseball stadium
and around town a bit with suburban family members, but not through the neighborhoods so I can't comment on it. I do know, however, average every day people in Chicago live significantly different lives and have a different outlook on things than average downstaters do. I can say that becuase I've spent a good deal time in both places. I prefer to live in the city for various reasons, most of them have to do with sprawl. Since when has New York not been blue-collar, beer-guzzling and baseball-loving? I think Chicago and New York have a lot in common, and I think Jane Jacobs suggests why, increased population density and more outside contact breeds more diversity. Granted, it's on a much smaller scale in Chicago, but I think that has more to do with Chicago being less than half New York's size than it being midwestern.
At any rate, yeah, I have no misconceptions about people from Missouri or downstate. I think both the city and country have their charms, I wish the country weren't so ravaged by sprawl and Wal-Mart though, and I wish my father would learn how to conjugate the word "come".
¹ Note: I mean the City of Chicago, not the suburbs, but I've met a lot of suburbanites while downstate who act very pretentious, and I think are instrumental in giving the city a bad name among our neighbors.
Well I live downstate (Illinois burb of St. Louis) and in Chicago for school, and I understand what you're saying. Where I live there are people against the war and there are people for it. In Chicago I had many friends for the war and many against it. People do have a somewhat different mindset, but when I come back home thinking I'm all macho because I live in the "BIG CITY" I look at myself in the mirror and realize how stupid that is. We have to understand that in the United States and in some other countries there is an "urban culture" , "suburban cultural" and "rural culture", and then there's cultures based on regions. Often the more dominant culture, usually the bigger cities, assume that their culture is the correct one and if you do not follow their culture then you're an ignorant person. That mindset annoys me, and I think people need to eat it up and shit it out. I'm not attacking you or anything, I've just been hearing this type of stuff over and over again. I had to let it out.
jordanb
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 3,225
- Points
- 25
Of course it is, but it's also "stupid" to assume there's no functional or ideological difference between the city and country. I am fully aware of the economic interdependency between the two, and I can appreciate why people would want to live in the country rather than the city. They both have advantages and disadvantages.
I've found it to go both ways, the city considers the country to be rustic, and the country considers the city to ether slumy or monied. Those beliefs are as old as the differentiation between the places. It's human nature to believe that the place where one lives is superior.
Firstly, how many of your friends are seasonal college students like yourself? Secondly, it's absurd to suggest that there's no ideological difference between Chicago and O'Fallon. Do you thing O'Fallon's city council would condemn the attack on Iraq? The sprawl tends to be libertarian because people who've decided to live in a community-less development to get away from the bothers of community don't tend to want to be responsable for one, but the country has always been socially conservitive, and the city has always been socially liberal.
The fact that cities tend to be more liberal and the country more conservitive should not be in dispute at all. Just look at voting patterns. To me, it's frusterating to think about all of those union tradesmen voting for a party that's going to try to screw them every chance it gets, but it's a fact of life in many cases.
I think the problem is that this started out with my tasteless dig at Missouri. Now you're operating with the assumption that I have something against Missouri and rural people. I meant the statement to be interperted in much the same way my sister's insistance that Missourians can't drive is interperted by her friends from Missouri, as good-natured regionalisim. I think the use of the term 'wifebeater' was my biggest mistake, that word has such a strong connotation that it makes people emotional.
JivecitySTL
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 115
- Points
- 6
jordanb-- i don't think anyone's disputing your city/country assessments. The thing is, you made it sound as if St. Louis has more in common with country ways than city ways. I can guarantee you that STL has much much much more in common with Chicago socially, economically, politically, developmentally, demographically, etc. than it does with rural areas of Missouri or Illinois. I hope you can at least agree with that. When talking about city vs. country, St. Louis is very much in the city category, it's urban as all hell.