Separate the functions of providing mass transit service and providing mobility for those who can't afford it on their own. There is no need to subsidize mass t

Separate the functions of providing mass transit service and providing mobility for those who can't afford it on their own. There is no need to subsidize mass transit beyond the value of the congestion, pollution, and any other externalities it reduces. Cincinnati does this to an extent through Everybody Rides Metro[1]. A similar concept is facing a lot more resistance in Austin[2]. Another necessary policy shift is ceasing to discourage transit-supportive density. Most American cities have wide swathes of land zoned for single-family housing. If everyone is forced to spread out by their government, it will be harder to provide high quality mass transit. This is even worse when you have neighborhoods full of culs-de-sac, which I think should be outlawed, or at the very least they shouldn't be maintained with public funds as they are effectively private driveways that make the street network function more poorly. Cities also often tax density by requiring large developments to provide a certain amount of funds for affordable housing. Dense developments make housing more affordable in the areas where people want to live by supplying more of it without a commensurate effect on demand. Single-family housing rarely has the same requirements. We shouldn't be taxing the things that make our transit systems work better and provide more affordable housing than the alternatives. Most zoning should be abolished. [1] http://www.everybodyridesmetro.org/ http://www.everybodyridesmetro.org/ [2] http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:940810 http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:...