BART, Americans, and Attitudes, vs The East which has maps of land use around the BART Stations
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
For Concord never been there but looking at google maps it is surrounded by parking lots which could better connect it to downtown if it becomes gentrified in the future. Walnut Creek is on the less desirable less walkable Northern end of Downtown but that area will also likely change in the future. Pleaston's is near the massive Stoneridge Galleria Parking lot which could be redeveloped, Orinda has a very small downtown but is close to BART.
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.
I don't really think that is necessarily the case and has more to do with geography. The Hwy 24 corridor is a narrow corridor so there isn't anywhere else for a BART to really go. It follows a path that maximizes ridership. Between Walnut Creek and Concord it actually veers pretty far from the freeway, the Concord station is not located close to the freeway. For the Dublin/Pleasanton line there really is no other way for BART to get into the Tri-Valley without following the freeway either.
Also I don't think going into an existing, built out downtown automatically would maximize density. Many times its much easier to build dense developments on empty land around stations but the Bay Area hasn't done a very good job of that so far.
The land around PH BART used to full of large-lot single family homes but the entire area was cleared and continued to be after the station was built so I do think they were thinking about maximizing land use around the stations even back then. And that area does have a lot of apartments but the design of them is still suburban in nature but the density is there.
I don't really think that is necessarily the case and has more to do with geography. The Hwy 24 corridor is a narrow corridor so there isn't anywhere else for a BART to really go. It follows a path that maximizes ridership. Between Walnut Creek and Concord it actually veers pretty far from the freeway, the Concord station is not located close to the freeway. For the Dublin/Pleasanton line there really is no other way for BART to get into the Tri-Valley without following the freeway either.
Also I don't think going into an existing, built out downtown automatically would maximize density. Many times its much easier to build dense developments on empty land around stations but the Bay Area hasn't done a very good job of that so far.
The land around PH BART used to full of large-lot single family homes but the entire area was cleared and continued to be after the station was built so I do think they were thinking about maximizing land use around the stations even back then. And that area does have a lot of apartments but the design of them is still suburban in nature but the density is there.
I'm not saying it shouldn't have been built the way it was. It likely was the best solution given all the circumstances (geographical and economic concerns). I've personally never been a fan of metro lines built along roadways, but I know why they're built that way.
It's debatable whether a BART line off of 580, for instance, would have been more/less successful. The Richmond/Fremont line, for instance, follows a different kind of route - would it have been more/less successful along 880 by comparison? Not that any of this matters - the system exists as it is.
You're focusing on the placement of the line too much, when the issue is more about how the stations are built and how the land is used around them (something you mention in your posts, too). Although, even some of the stations built near mature cities aren't ideal from a walkability/cycling/natural density perspective - see, for instance, the requisite enormous parking structures/lots surrounding them.
The biggest issues to me are the poor pedestrian/cyclist access points/infrastructure immediately around them. It's clear that they are intending their stations to be car-centric first, and the other concerns are secondary (see: monolith parking structures). And I get why they built it that way (people in suburban areas WANT to drive their cars to these stations)...but I feel like it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You get those kind of lifestyle behaviors because that's what you build for (i.e. many people wouldn't drive if they had better ways to get there, or could live closer).
There is no way it couldn't be built in other ways (well, no technical reason). There are tons of great examples of TOD in suburban environment, as you mention. My personal opinion is that every single BART and major Caltrain stop in the region should have some sort of dense development around it - full of apartments (at least multi-story apartment complexes, if not medium rise housing) and hopefully places of employment (a mixture of both is ideal). We are incredibly under-utilizing these spaces, and it's really unfortunate.
Being next to a freeway doesn't help them in any way to start, though (in case you're wondering why placement was even brought up - it was merely a side point).
This is a reason the future Livermore BART frustrates me. There is lots of opposition to putting it downtown next to the ACE station. Nit only is that the smart solution based on our growth and development plans, it also opens up an opportunity for the Central Valley commuters to easily access BART, instead of driving to Dublin.
But the opposition wants a car-first freeway alignment.
I'm not saying it shouldn't have been built the way it was. It likely was the best solution given all the circumstances (geographical and economic concerns). I've personally never been a fan of metro lines built along roadways, but I know why they're built that way.
It's debatable whether a BART line off of 580, for instance, would have been more/less successful. The Richmond/Fremont line, for instance, follows a different kind of route - would it have been more/less successful along 880 by comparison? Not that any of this matters - the system exists as it is.
You're focusing on the placement of the line too much, when the issue is more about how the stations are built and how the land is used around them (something you mention in your posts, too). Although, even some of the stations built near mature cities aren't ideal from a walkability/cycling/natural density perspective - see, for instance, the requisite enormous parking structures/lots surrounding them.
The biggest issues to me are the poor pedestrian/cyclist access points/infrastructure immediately around them. It's clear that they are intending their stations to be car-centric first, and the other concerns are secondary (see: monolith parking structures). And I get why they built it that way (people in suburban areas WANT to drive their cars to these stations)...but I feel like it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You get those kind of lifestyle behaviors because that's what you build for (i.e. many people wouldn't drive if they had better ways to get there, or could live closer).
There is no way it couldn't be built in other ways (well, no technical reason). There are tons of great examples of TOD in suburban environment, as you mention. My personal opinion is that every single BART and major Caltrain stop in the region should have some sort of dense development around it - full of apartments (at least multi-story apartment complexes, if not medium rise housing) and hopefully places of employment (a mixture of both is ideal). We are incredibly under-utilizing these spaces, and it's really unfortunate.
Being next to a freeway doesn't help them in any way to start, though (in case you're wondering why placement was even brought up - it was merely a side point).
Well you were claiming they were built along freeways to keep costs down and I don't think that is necessarily true. You can't get into the Tri-Valley without building alongside or in the median of 580 so I don't think there were any other options.
BART has switched its focus to more pedestrian and bike friendly designs and standards. They are currently updating with a new Multimodal Access Design Guidelines that address many of these issues. Several of the stations are being renovated/upgraded to provide better connections with the surrounding area, Concord for example which has terrible pedestrian connectivity to its downtown.
You're going to need large parking structures no matter what at a lot of these stations but they can be designed better. For example when they expanded the PH BART structure they build apartments on one side of the structure so it masks a huge, empty street wall that might otherwise be there: https://goo.gl/maps/Dow5ypRixJU2
I really think it's the cities and local communities fault more so than BART why land around the stations is so underutilized. BART has been pro-TOD for a long time now but local community groups/activists usually screw it up like they do everything else development related.
This is a reason the future Livermore BART frustrates me. There is lots of opposition to putting it downtown next to the ACE station. Nit only is that the smart solution based on our growth and development plans, it also opens up an opportunity for the Central Valley commuters to easily access BART, instead of driving to Dublin.
But the opposition wants a car-first freeway alignment.
But is there more potential growth and development opportunities with a Downtown Livermore station? You face less opposition building in an area where they are proposing a freeway-median station at Isabel Ave than you would in an established area like DT Livermore. And there may be opportunity for denser and more development than downtown Livermore too.
The ACE connection is a big selling point though. I get the appeal of a DT Livermore station but I'm not really sold on it yet. If they ever open up that area north of 580 to development too the Isabel Ave location makes even more sense.
Well you were claiming they were built along freeways to keep costs down and I don't think that is necessarily true. You can't get into the Tri-Valley without building alongside or in the median of 580 so I don't think there were any other options.
You're likely correct. I'm more talking about alignment AFTER entering the Tri-Valley region, though. Either way, this is kind of a distraction from the main discussion point. My apologies for taking us off track.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
BART has switched its focus to more pedestrian and bike friendly designs and standards. They are currently updating with a new Multimodal Access Design Guidelines that address many of these issues. Several of the stations are being renovated/upgraded to provide better connections with the surrounding area, Concord for example which has terrible pedestrian connectivity to its downtown.
This is cool - I wasn't fully aware of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
You're going to need large parking structures no matter what at a lot of these stations but they can be designed better. For example when they expanded the PH BART structure they build apartments on one side of the structure so it masks a huge, empty street wall that might otherwise be there: https://goo.gl/maps/Dow5ypRixJU2
I agree - I'm not saying "no parking structures" - I'm really talking about how those parking structures are placed at the stations and how they integrate with the station and the surrounding area. I also think underground parking should be considered more for these stations, although I realize that would make stations much more expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
I really think it's the cities and local communities fault more so than BART why land around the stations is so underutilized. BART has been pro-TOD for a long time now but local community groups/activists usually screw it up like they do everything else development related.
Agreed - this isn't a BART issue, per se. We need buy in from all communities. I don't live in the East Bay, but I have personally been attending my local planning sessions on the redevelopment of the Hillsdale station in San Mateo (something I see as an important piece of that area's future).
Also, many communities are doing better jobs at this than others along BART lines - we should give credit where it is due.
But is there more potential growth and development opportunities with a Downtown Livermore station? You face less opposition building in an area where they are proposing a freeway-median station at Isabel Ave than you would in an established area like DT Livermore. And there may be opportunity for denser and more development than downtown Livermore too.
The ACE connection is a big selling point though. I get the appeal of a DT Livermore station but I'm not really sold on it yet. If they ever open up that area north of 580 to development too the Isabel Ave location makes even more sense.
For me, ACE connection trumps a lot of things. Because the other locations still encourage car travel from the east. And we do not have road capacity for that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
