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

Tag Archives: railroads

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

Self-interest represents the seeds that blossom into economic growth.

I have confessed before that I admire the entrepreneurs who have been called the robber barons.

Carnegie and steel, Rockefeller and oil, J.J. Hill and railroads, Morgan and money. These men and others from their 19th century world competed lethally. On the production side they sought to reduce costs. They battled for customers, they trampled competition and they manipulated prices. Still though, asked to choose between condemnation and admiration, I choose the latter.

Each fueled our economy. We got a capital goods sector, a transportation infrastructure. We got the foundation that let us build from consumer goods to services to our technological revolution. We got bigger homes, longer lives, refrigerators and cars and TVs and an educated populace. We had a rising economic tide that raised all boats.

And that takes me to an article in the New Yorker Magazine. Focusing on hedge fund billionaire Leon Cooperman, the article spotlights a response to President Obama’s message to the affluent about giving more to US society. In a letter to President Obama, Mr. Cooperman asks instead that the President focus on the unifying power of initiative and achievement that has inspired generations and propelled economic growth.

Mr. Cooperman’s comments took me to Adam Smith.  Rather than a benevolent government, Smith focused on how wealth is spread by self-interested business people.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” (Wealth of Nations, Book 1 Chapter 2)

More specifically, Professor Smith explained how self-interest leads to voluntary exchange through which all benefit:

But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of.” (Wealth of Nations, Book 1 Chapter 2)

And that returns us to the most affluent slice of our society. As with Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan and their brethren, might we support self-interest (and accept its opportunity cost) in order to fuel the economic growth from which rich, poor, the middle class and government benefit?

Sources and Resources: I do suggest a firsthand look at The New Yorker article on Mr. Cooperman and his letter to the President. As for Adam Smith, do read some here and here so that you can decide how you feel about his ideas. Finally, Stanley Lebergott’s Pursuing Happiness provides a brief and readable picture of our 20th century material progress.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (2) Add a Comment

16580_7.12_000014562280XSmall

Have you ever thought about the difference that a clock makes? Described in The Geography of Time, a pre-clock world meant you could not say, “I will meet you at 12:30 for lunch” or “Your workday is 9-5.”

By the 1820s, though, technology had progressed enough that many places in the U.S. had clocks. The next problem though, was deciding the right time. How to measure? Where to measure? And why?

The reason was the economy.

During the 1860s, the 70 or so different time zones in the U.S. needed coordinating. Seeing an opportunity to profit, Alexander Langley sold what he called the “right time” to people in the Pittsburgh area. Using Western Union, for an annual fee of $1000, he sent the time to the Pennsylvania Railroad so that they could standardize train schedules. By 1883, the railroads had declared there were 4 time zones in the U.S. And, in 1918, the Congress agreed.

You might want to read Keeping Watch A History of American Time for some good stories about time conflicts. Also, a previous post about The Geography of Time is here.

The Economic Lesson

Railroads facilitated a national market, regional specialization, and maximum productivity because each area of the U.S. could do what it did best. As our national market grew, the need to standardize train schedules became increasingly necessary.

An Economic Question: Using the concept of a national market, how might you explain why the euro zone was created?

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