BART, Americans, and Attitudes, vs The East which has maps of land use around the BART Stations (Fremont: apartment complexes, credit)

[sav858]

Originally Posted by likealady

I agree they need more mixed use, but considering the station isn't walkable for most iliving in the area and is near shopping, where exactly you expect people to park?

I don't understand why BART didn't design new cars with bench seating. Not only does it create more center space, it makes it easier for people to get up and easier for those luggage. It's really annoying having to ask people to move so you can get in and out, especially when the trains are crowded.

BART is a mostly suburban commuter rail system with passengers that travel long distances, bench style seating removes A LOT of seats that could otherwise fit in a car. They added a third door so there is more standing space as it is. Airport riders make up a small % of overall ridership too.

[WizardOfRadical]

For heavy rail, the majority of bart stations are very low density areas.

Even LA heavy rail (small as it is), seems to have more density around it's stations.

Just go to the Castro Valley, Bayfair, San Leandro stations. Boomburbia, LoL.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by WizardOfRadical

For heavy rail, the majority of bart stations are very low density areas.

Even LA heavy rail (small as it is), seems to have more density around it's stations.

Just go to the Castro Valley, Bayfair, San Leandro stations. Boomburbia, LoL.

Well considering it goes through the most "urban", densest parts of the entire LA metro area I would certainly hope it would have more density than Castro Valley. Really showcasing LA's urbanity with that comparison there lol.

[Dave Coe]

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...rties-bxp.html

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by likealady

I agree they need more mixed use, but considering the station isn't walkable for most iliving in the area and is near shopping, where exactly you expect people to park?

I don't understand why BART didn't design new cars with bench seating. Not only does it create more center space, it makes it easier for people to get up and easier for those luggage. It's really annoying having to ask people to move so you can get in and out, especially when the trains are crowded.

The concept of driving to the train station is kind of the issue at the heart of all of this, I think. It illustrates the fundamental difference in lifestyle of our country compared to the rest of the world.

Sure, there should be dedicated parking for the stations (ideally underground), but you shouldn't have stations isolated from everything with only enormous parking structures surrounding them.

The point is you don't want everyone driving to the station. You build walkable/bikeable communities around these stations, and do your best to link them to other parts of the region with other modes transit.

Not to bring the Caltrain vs. BART debate into this - but I think one thing Caltrain gets right is its great integration into the various Peninsula downtowns. Where I live in downtown San Mateo, I can walk to the station in 5 minutes. And there are many jobs and people that live within walking distance of this station.

There is some of that with some of the BART stations - but too many of them are isolated stations next to a freeway.


There's a chicken and egg situation here, of course...do you build the BART stations first, and hope that development naturally (or non-naturally) grows around it? Or do you start with a mature downtown/walkable area, and build BART to that?

Either way - it's pretty obvious that our land use around our public transit infrastructure is not the best it could be. While HK is a super extreme example, there's a lot of room between where we are now and HK. We could certainly have regional mini-downtowns around all major transit stations.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Not to bring the Caltrain vs. BART debate into this - but I think one thing Caltrain gets right is its great integration into the various Peninsula downtowns. Where I live in downtown San Mateo, I can walk to the station in 5 minutes. And there are many jobs and people that live within walking distance of this station.

There is some of that with some of the BART stations - but too many of them are isolated stations next to a freeway.


There's a chicken and egg situation here, of course...do you build the BART stations first, and hope that development naturally (or non-naturally) grows around it? Or do you start with a mature downtown/walkable area, and build BART to that?

Either way - it's pretty obvious that our land use around our public transit infrastructure is not the best it could be. While HK is a super extreme example, there's a lot of room between where we are now and HK. We could certainly have regional mini-downtowns around all major transit stations.

Not really a fair comparison, Caltrain is a legacy system that spurred development before mass suburbanization. Passenger service has been operating along that corridor since the 1860/70's.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by sav858

Not really a fair comparison, Caltrain is a legacy system that spurred development before mass suburbanization. Passenger service has been operating along that corridor since the 1860/70's.

I'm aware. As I said, it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing.

But those downtowns do exist in our region outside of the peninsula.

We could build rail to them. We chose, instead, to build along freeways in the outer lines. While cheaper to build that way, rarely do walkable areas or downtowns exist immediately next to a freeway. So we have to "force it" - which isn't an easy thing to accomplish.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

I'm aware. As I said, it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing.

But those downtowns do exist in our region outside of the peninsula.

We could build rail to them. We chose, instead, to build along freeways in the outer lines. While cheaper to build that way, rarely do walkable areas or downtowns exist immediately next to a freeway. So we have to "force it" - which isn't an easy thing to accomplish.

Not quite true. Concord and Walnut Creek BART stations are adjacent to their downtown's. So is Orinda despite being in the middle of 24. The Dublin/Pleasanton line is like that but Castro Valley never had a downtown and neither did Dublin. Pleasanton's is pretty far out of the way and you probably capture more ridership where it is now. DC Metro has done an amazing job at TOD's by it's stations so it can more easily be done but NIMBY's and local cities have too much power and prevent a lot of it.

[drewjube]

Lafayette's station is walkable from much of its downtown and some residential areas as well.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by sav858

Not quite true. Concord and Walnut Creek BART stations are adjacent to their downtown's. So is Orinda despite being in the middle of 24. The Dublin/Pleasanton line is like that but Castro Valley never had a downtown and neither did Dublin. Pleasanton's is pretty far out of the way and you probably capture more ridership where it is now. DC Metro has done an amazing job at TOD's by it's stations so it can more easily be done but NIMBY's and local cities have too much power and prevent a lot of it.

Perhaps my wording was a little exaggerated, sorry about that (I'm aware of the stations you mention) - but my general point is that the line was built the way it was because that was the cheapest way to do so. Not because it would maximize walkability/dense development/etc. (which frankly weren't really considerations when these lines were built out).

Some walkable areas do happen to be next to these freeways, but many stations are kind of "dead zones" for pedestrians or cyclists. The signal being sent when you walk up to many BART stations is "drive here and park here". Even Milbrae's Caltrain/BART station has that vibe - despite it being near a walkable downtown.


I agree with your points (I think we're agreeing on most things here) - and I think DC can be a great model on TOD. There are many other models around the world to look at, too.