In LA, it is exactly the opposite: mass transit is incredibly difficult, slow, and in some cases more expensive than driving. How can you "make people of all socioeconomic classes take transit" in that scenario?
Or, actually, just tear up the parking lots. You can do it by taxing under-utilized land.
It's obviously never going to happen, so people will keep spending ~$3-5,000/year on vehicles, and ~$1,000-2000/year on parking, for the dubious privilege of spending up to two hours a day in traffic. On the bright side, if you live that far from work, your housing is probably cheap.
And that's exactly why things are the way they are. Shockingly, given the choice, most people would happily trade a long commute for the ability to spread out and not pay through the nose for the privilege of being crammed on top of other people.
Surburban sprawl is unsustainable, but is paid for by new development, parking is free, or cheap, highways aren't tolled, costs of pollution aren't factored into your bill at the pump... When you live in the city, you still pay these costs, but you don't get to reap any of the benefits.
Yeah, your house probably cost ONLY 500k-1mil!
It doesn't work that well. NYC subways are disgusting, especially in the summer. And you can't prevent citizens from utilizing public resources just because they smell bad or are uncouth.
> Until politically wealthy people have to deal with the problem, they won't support any solutions.
We just passed a proposal allocating over $1 billion to house the homeless. I think that qualifies as a solution.
One of the ways to improve the public transit, as a whole, is to make people of all socioeconomic classes take transit. Consider New York, for instance, where millionaires are shoulder-to-shoulder with waiters, and homeless people on their commute... And it works surprisingly well.
Until politically wealthy people have to deal with the problem, they won't support any solutions.