Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: congestion

19th Century Urban Transport Was An Environmental Problem

When we worry about the impact of autos on the environment, perhaps we should remember the horse.

In 1880, the horse population in Manhattan and Brooklyn was somewhere between 150,000-175,000 and growing. A basic part of city life, horsecar rides totalled close to 297 per person in 1890 (see below).

Happily, the size of the horse population was a barometer of economic growth. As national affluence grew with the production of goods and services, so too did the need to transport the freight. Yes, we needed the railroad but also, horses took the goods to the train and then delivered them to their final destination. As a result, railroads owned large “fleets” of horses.

Imagine, though, what it took to sustain several hundred thousand horses in one urban area. Just one horse consumed close to 1.4 tons of oats and 2.4 tons of hay annually. One estimate suggests that 15 million acres of farmland, the size of West Virginia, fed the urban horse population. And, from that total we can only start to calculate the environmental impact on local ecosystems.

In 1898, an international urban planning conference that met in NYC focused primarily on the horse manure crisis.  Horse manure accumulation was estimated at 15 to 30 pounds per day per horse; for the city, that added up to 3 to 4 million pounds a day. Add to that 40,000 gallons of urine a day and you have a lot of pollution! People also coped with the muck that rainy weather created, the dust when it was dry and the noise from the clatter of iron horseshoes on cobblestones.

Surprisingly, on a per capita basis, horse transport was more deadly than autos. In 1900, in NY, 200 were people killed by horses and horse drawn vehicles while in NY in 2003, there were 344 auto-connected deaths. Why? Horses kick, stampede, fall, bite, could be spooked, and they pulled vehicles that were tough to brake.

Our bottom line: Pollution has always been a negative externality–an uninvolved 3rd party experiencing a cost–of urban transport.

A final fact: With the onset of the auto, cross sweepers who, for a fee, opened a path for pedestrians on manure laden city streets, experienced Joseph Schumpeter’s (1883-1950) creative destruction.

From the Library of Congress:

An Environmental Challenge: 19th Century Horse Pollution

Sources and Resources: All of my facts are from a wonderful article by Eric Morris from the University of California Transportation Center. Also, it was so interesting looking through the Library of Congress’s pictures of horse drawn carriages and trolleys with a NYC backdrop.

 

http://www.uctc.net/access/30/Access%2030%20-%2002%20-%20Horse%20Power.pdf

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

15826_8.16_000013447082XSmall

Parking expert Professor Donald Shoup has identified a traffic problem with implicatons far beyond city streets. Essentially he says that cheap city parking is really rather expensive.  Throughout parts of NYC, for example, drivers can select meters that might require $1.50 an hour or a free side street. With so low a price, demand is considerable and there are few empty spaces. Consequently, drivers create pollution, exacerbate congestion, and generate pedestrian challenges while searching for spots. Also, land used for parking might have a better alternative function. Explained economically, while “parkers” pay little, the cost (sacrifice) for everyone else is high.

One way to solve the problem of underpriced public commodities is to charge more. San Francisco has begun to experiment with variably priced meters and parking lots. Spaces with higher demand will become more expensive. The result? Fewer people will demand them and negatively impact the neighborhood. Correspondingly, as suggested by George Mason economics professor Tyler Cowen, “…if we are ging to wean ourselves away from excess use of fossil fuels, we need to remove current subsidies to energy-unfriendly ways of life.”

One concern: Should we care that more expensive parking is regressive? Other costs?

The Economic Lesson

An externality is the impact of a behavior or contract that is experienced by a third uninvolved party. When the impact on third parties is undesirable, as with cheap parking, we call the result a negative externality. A benevolent impact on an uninvolved third party is called a positive externality. A community experiences the positive externality of flu vaccinations.

How to diminish a negative externality? Increase its source’s cost. How to encourage a positive externality? Make it cheaper to create.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment