California lawmakers will soon hold a hearing on state Sen. Scott Wiener’s Senate Bill 827, which would set significant limits on local land-use regulation near transit routes. It would override city zoning laws to allow mid-rise apartment buildings near major transit stations and bus routes that offer service at least every 15 minutes during rush hour.

Allowing more people to live near public transit is a win-win: It makes it possible for more of them to commute by rail or bus, while at the same time making transit less expensive for taxpayers to build and maintain.

California taxpayers fund billions in transit subsidies each year. In 2015, local governments spent more than $3.5 billion on transit on top of more than $350 million in state funding.

Some specific local zoning rules can prevent people from living near — and thus using — these costly transit centers. And without enough riders living nearby, trains and buses require expensive subsidies to operate. In contrast, when more riders live within walking distance of transit projects, transit fares can cover a much-larger percentage of operating costs.

California cities are home to several expensive, low-ridership rail lines. Los Angeles’ latest expansion of the Expo Line, for example, was built in relatively low-density neighborhoods that don’t lend themselves to much public transit use. It would make financial sense for real estate developers to take advantage of the new rail connection by building taller buildings that can hold more residents near the new stops—but current zoning prevents this. Partly for this reason, the Expo Line as a whole covers less than a quarter of its operating expenses with ticket sales.

Related Articles Letter: Till cities OK multifamily housing, SB 827 is key

Letter: SB 827 likely to push tenants from homes

Letter: Don’t let developers hijack city planning via SB 827

Letter: SB 827 threatens cities’ rights, livability, future It doesn’t have to stay this way. The Caltrain corridor from San Jose to San Francisco was able to lower its per-passenger operating subsidy from $3.80 per ride to $1.00 since 2010. Not coincidentally, San Francisco, Redwood City, and Sunnyvale permitted new, denser housing during this time period. Allowing more development near transit could allow for further transit ridership growth to the benefit of all taxpayers—even those who never set foot on a train.

California has a clear fiscal interest in making the most out of the transit investments it already supports. Furthermore, the state is legally justified in setting limits on the extent to which local governments can restrict property owners’ rights to determine the best use of their land.

Importantly, allowing for more high-density housing wouldn’t force anyone to live there or change their commutes. It would just give more people the option. Under current zoning rules, transit imposes substantial costs on all state residents, whether they take advantage of it or not.

Why not fund a larger portion of transit costs with the fares of people who actually use it? Much like drivers should shoulder more highway costs through well-designed fuel taxes and tolls, public transit users can shoulder more of their costs through fares. Best of all, it doesn’t require raising those fares — it just means clearing the path for more riders.

California’s high housing costs and long commute times can make living in a wonderful state very difficult. Situating more housing where people can get to and from work easily — in a manner that also reduces their tax burdens — could make a world of difference.

Tom Means is a professor of economics at San Jose State University. Emily Hamilton is a research fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.