spending on Medicare and national defense. But it’s so engrained in our motoring behavior that it’s practically invisible, at least until it’s used up:Somewhere around 99 percent of auto trips in the United States to shopping, work, church, recreation or whatever make use of 9 by 19 foot chunks of real estate for which motorists pay nothing directly. Air Jordan 4s That doesn’t mean the spaces are actually free; the costs of acquisition, paving and maintenance are spread among drivers and nondrivers alike in taxes, store prices and other economic mechanisms that emit no price signals to curtail demand for parking.

Not surprisingly, then, there’s a whole lot of that demand. City planners even stoke it with requirements that new commercial developments provide enough parking to meet peak use. As one economist has put it, that’s like defining the demand for food as the most ever consumed at free buffets.

Estimates of the annual capital and operating costs of “free” parking have ranged into the hundreds of billions of dollars, hardly an exaggeration when you consider that parking spaces in the United States probably cover more area than the state of Connecticut. No one knows for sure, but a recent Purdue University survey of just four states Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan and Indiana counted 43 million parking spaces covering up to 673 square miles, not including curbside, residential driveways or more than one level of multistory ramps. That’s 1.8 parking spots for every adult resident.

Annual projection for Twin Cities area: over $1 billion

A dozen years ago, the University of Minnesota’s Center for Transportation Studies estimated the annual costs of parking in the Twin Cities region at $1.1 billion to $3.9 billion. It projected the costs in 2020 at $1.7 billion to $6.1 billion. Of those totals, paid parking comprised no more than 6.4 percent. roads or, alternately, all the cars on them.

Of course, all our cars wouldn’t be worth much if we had no place to park them at our destinations. That’s because, as Jordan Pro Strong UCLA economist Donald Shoup has pointed out in his book, “The High Cost of Free Parking,” every transportation system requires three things: vehicles, right of way and terminal capacity. For rail transit, that’s passenger cars, tracks and stations. For air travel, it’s planes, FAA regulated airspace and airports.

In these cases, passenger fares pay for at least part of all three elements. For motorists, the cost equation is much more complex. Drivers pay the full price of private vehicles, about half the costs of right of way (according to a recent Pew SubsidyScope report) and next to nothing for terminal capacity, AKA parking, even though it’s practically everywhere and greatly valuable as a result.

Economists tell us this price imbalance leads to inefficiency, inequity and the environmental ravages of unchecked car culture. For example, if your employer lets you park free at the office or factory, you receive a subsidy that commuters who walk to work don’t enjoy. And guess what? “Employer paid parking encourages solo driving,” Shoup says.

Subsidies make a difference

Research over more than two decades in seven urban areas showed that 60 percent more employees drive solo to work if the employer picks up the parking than when workers pay. Employer paid parking also increases by 36 percent the number of cars driven to work. But Shoup found that when employers gave equal cash subsidies to motorists and pedestrians alike, the number of cars driven to work declined by 11 percent, employees drove 652 fewer miles a year on average and burned 26 fewer gallons of fuel.

Shoup also recommends that cities increase meter rates for curb parking to levels that will produce 15 percent vacancy, enough to eliminate the needless congestion plus wasted time and fuel resulting from drivers cruising for bargain priced parking. Studies in many cities have attributed an average of 30 percent of all downtown traffic to such cruising.

“Because motorists pay nothing for parking, they own and use cars as if parking costs nothing, and traffic congestion results,” Shoup writes. He adds: “Minimum parking requirements are a hidden tax on development to Jordan Winterized 6 Rings subsidize cars. If urban planners want to encourage housing and reduce traffic, why tax housing to subsidize cars?”

Little has changed in decades

The invisible subsidy for parking was noted by scholars as early as the 1920s. But over the decades little has changed to reduce drivers’ sense of entitlement to free parking. If government and businesses act to get all the prices and incentives for driving and parking right, there’ll be lots of angry motorists.

But eventually, once we’re weaned of the dole of “free” parking, we’ll have a multimodal transportation network that’s more efficient, equitable and able to meet the economic challenges of the 21st century.

Conrad deFiebre is a fellow at Minnesota 2020, a nonpartisan, progressive think tank based in St. Paul. He spent 34 years as an editor and reporter at the Star Tribune, the last 11 plus years covering Minnesota politics and government from the State Capitol. This article originally appeared on Minnesota 2020’s website.

Related: Video by Julian Spindell

First, the problem with automobile use is not just externalized costs (of which free parking is a small contributor), it’s also fixed costs. Both features contribute substantially to the market failure surrounding our transportation system and settlement patterns. Second, some of the external costs of automobile use are reflected in our taxes (including, predominantly, federal taxes for the military, energy and national security budgets), but a huge proportion is in the form of social, environmental and other nonquantifiable forms (Gulf oil gusher, Air Jordan 19s anyone?). If fossil fuels were priced to internalize external costs and convert fixed costs to variable, our world would look very different indeed. Some fairly comprehensive studies have pegged the actual cost of a gallon of gas in the range of $12 15 (and even that excludes some of the costs that are most difficult to quantify, but also potentially the most substantial).

In Japan, parking is scarce and expensive, and Tokyo residents are not even allowed to buy a car unless they can prove that they have off street parking for it.

Some Tokyo residents do buy cars, but I can’t imagine why. The transit system in Tokyo and indeed, throughout Japan, is so good, so complete and well timed, that I have never felt the need for a car. In fact, it is a LIBERATING experience to live a whole year without ever needing a car.

I know a family who spent a year in Japan. At the end of the year, the children, ages 10 and 12, didn’t want to come back to the States, because in Japan, they could run around with their friends freely and go anywhere in town, instead of having to be chauffeured to “play dates” and organized sports.

Portland, Oregon is another place where a person can live comfortably without a car. I did so for ten Air Jordan 17s years, and it was not only liberating but kind to my budget. A $58 monthly system pass met all my transportation needs on the extensive, well planned, well timed system of trains and buses.

When I moved here and had to start driving again, I suddenly felt poor, even though my income hadn’t changed and there is little difference between Portland and Minneapolis in terms of cost of living. It wasn’t until income tax time, when I was going over my list of expenses, that I realized the reason. Simply by owning a car, I had lost $3000 a year in disposable income.

Yes, the Twin Cities have a bus system, but it is chaotically unplanned, doesn’t go everywhere, doesn’t run often enough, and doesn’t allow easy and reliable transfers.

I’d say the difference is sufficiently explained by the prior existence of a government built and maintained road system allowing for heavily subsidized auto transport. How can private industry compete with publicly funded infrastructure? Add to this a slight existing prejudice against mass transit aside from air travel (much higher for buses but I have seen some aversion to trains as well), regulatory hurdles, the possibility of right of way problems requiring eminent domain, and extremely high upfront costs and it is not hard to see why rail may be an overall good idea that doesn’t happen to meet the specific requirements of investors due to external factors.