To unlock the true value of these systems the BA needs to be forced to increase density of their cities though. We need SF proper to look more like Manhattan.
It also needs a much bigger emphasis on transit oriented development. In Japan the best place to eat in town is often in the train station or within a few feet of it. In the US the stops are often some of the worst places like parking lots or run down parts of town. Rarely have I seen good shopping/dining/living integrated into BA, or even US in general, transit systems.
Agreed. Caltrain stops are… definitely not that. The SF stations are somewhat out of the way (although the planned extension would bring it all the way to the transit center). I do see a lot more residential units coming up near transit nodes, although its not nearly enough! The San Jose Caltrain is a prime exhibition of what you said: surrounded by parking lots and it feels quite deserted and creepy instead of being a bustling, thriving commercial area (although a few blocks near there is a nice commercial area with a brewery and many eateries, including a whole foods).
My office in Cambridge, Massachusetts is directly in a 12 story tower with ground floor retail directly on top of a transit station. TOD does exist, it’s just rare for whatever reason in NA.
That said, there are lots of other stops in the area that are either overrun with parking, like you said, or are one story business districts with no housing. Lots left to do.
I suspect the problem might be mismatched incentives. ISTR reading that some East Asian transit companies own and develop the parcels on and around their stations, which provides funding and drives ridership.
> My office in Cambridge, Massachusetts is directly in a 12 story tower with ground floor retail directly on top of a transit station
That station (the Google Office MIT/Kendall one I'm assuming) was part of the larger redevelopment that happened in Kendall Square over the last 40 years which displaced a significant portion of Cambridge residents due to eh flawed 1949 Urban Redevelopment Act (the same one James Baldwin historically opposed).
Just go one stop inbound (MGH) or outbound (Central) and that level of synergy goes away.
A lot of this is because the T is just straight up old. Most of the stations are at least a century old if not older and it would take an inordinate amount of money to rebuild stations in a more modern manner.
> I suspect the problem might be mismatched incentives
The Asian as well as the more recent North American metro systems like BART or DC Metro are much newer (built or rebuilt in the last 50-70 years) and were thus able to include that public-private mixture.
It doesn't have to look like Manhattan. Even medium density (5-10 stories) will be enough in terms of housing provided, and is cheaper to build, and doesn't risk making the street level inhospitable (if nothing is human scale and there's no sunlight on the street, there will be less people there, making it feel or become dangerous).
Totally agree, though SF is closer to overall NYC density than you'd expect (NYC 29k, SF 18k ppl/sq mi; Manhattan is 73k).
I think the Bay Area suburbs are also egregious - e.g. North Berkeley BART station is surrounded by single family homes, even though it's 25min from downtown SF by train.
