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.
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.
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.
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.