National Academies Press: OpenBook

Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure (1984)

Chapter: 1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

« Previous: Introduction
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"1 The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." National Research Council. 1984. Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/561.
×
Page 66

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

The Evolution of the Urban Infias~ucture In the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries doe] A. Tarr INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses the origins and development of the urban capital infrastructure in the United States since 1790. Urban in- frastructure is defined as the "sinews" of the city: its road, bridge, and transit networks; its water and sewer lines and waste disposal facilities; its power systems; its public buildings; and its parks and recreation areas.) In developing an analysis, the chapter draws on history in three ways: to furnish perspectives on the evolution of the urban infrastructure over time; to point to critical stages, par- adigm shifts, and key turning points in history; and to provide analogies between the contemporary so-called crisis of the infra- structure and similar events in the past (see Stearns and Tarr, 19821. The chapter is structured around questions concerning the demand for public works; the factors affecting their supply; the character of the provider (public, public-private, or private); and the relationship of urban infrastructure to financial, political, tech- nological, spatial, public health, social, and demographic consid- erations. ~ There is no comprehensive study of the history of the urban infrastructure, although Armstrong et al. (1976) supply much of the important background. For an annotated bibliography of works in the field, see Hoy and Robinson (1982); see also Moehring (1982) and Aldrich (1980). Throughout the paper, the terms urban public works and capital infrastructure are used interchangeably. 4

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 5 The model of the city used in this chapter views cities and ur- banization as arising from the interaction of technology and society. Cities develop because technology, in coordination with other social, cultural, political, and economic factors, makes possible the pro- duction of surpluses. Surpluses were primarily of two kinds: agri- cultural products that permitter! survival in an urban environment and manufactured goods produced in the city for local consumption and for export. In addition, cities also supplied services, and these often depended on technologies of different forms. Over time, city growth and the evolution of urbanized areas were closely related to a process of technological innovation and implementation that producer! strong multiplier effects throughout the society. Hence, in the United States and Western Europe, a predominantly agri- cultural society was replaced in the nineteenth century by an urban industrial society, which in turn has been recently succeeded by a postindustrial society more dependent on technology, communica- tions, and specialized knowledge than at any time in the past (Berry, 1981). Capital infrastructure played a vital role in these major societal changes. Economic development and urbanization could not have occurred without infrastructure creation (Aldrich, 1980; Dunn, 1980; Pred, 1966:13-851. A rigid technological determinism or a simplistic demand model, however, distorts the pattern of the evolution of infrastructure. While infrastructure construction patterns do relate closely to swings in the development process and to city building cycles, government has also used public works for countercyclical, employment, and political patronage purposes. The preferences and perceptions of different actors such as business leaders, politicians, and professionals in a particular city at a particular time may be more important in the city building process than a generalized set of forces that relate to all cities.2 For purposes of analysis, this chapter uses four historical stages of infrastructure development related to the process of urban charge: 3 · Urban Networks ant! Walking Cities: A Period of Foundations, 1790-1855 2 Cases illustrating the important role of individuals in shaping public works decisions are presented in Caro (1974) and Kahrl (1982). 3 The rationale for the periodization is as follows: 1855 is the date of the construction of the first sewerage system (Brooklyn); 1910 marks (approximately) the beginning of the automobile era; and 1956 is the date of the passage of the Interstate Highway Act.

6 . PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE · Constructing the Core Infrastructure in the Central Cities, 1865- 1910 The Domination of the Automobile and the Enlargement of the Federal Role, 1910-1956 · The Rise of the Outer City and Recent Trends Influencing Ur- ban Infrastructure, 1956-1982 History, of course, does not fall into neat compartments. Any scheme of this type risks oversimplification, for there were often important lags in different sectors with regard to adoption of new technology. This is especially true of infrastructure. Its elements have often been extremely slow to change, imposing restraints on the freedom with which economic forces or public policy can reshape the city (Martin and Willeke, 1978:29-581. Infrastructure has thus served both as a force for development in one period and as a barrier to change in another. URBAN NETWORKS AND WALKING CITIES: A PERIOD OF FOUNDATIONS, 1790-1855 During the years from 1790 to 1860, the urban population of the United States grew from approximately 202,000 to over 6 million. In 1790 there were no cities with a population of more than 50,000; in 1860 there were six, with two having a population of over 500,000 and one over ~ million (Bureau of the Census, 1975:Pt. 1, 11-12~. The first cities were sited on good port locations along the Atlantic Coast, providing key linkages for the transshipment of raw mate- rials from the continental interior to Europe. These cities were primarily commercial and break-of-bulk locations that developed substantial manufacturing functions only in midcentury. The ini- tial urban network consisted of a line of Atlantic Coast cities, but by the IS20s a second urban frontier of interior cities had developed along inland waterways, such as the Ohio and Mississippi rivers and the Great Lakes. This latter network largely focused on internal rather than external markets. In several of these interior cities, such as Cincinnati and Pittsburgh, local industries developed to take advantage of strategic location, access to raw materials, and nearby markets. In addition, a number of more specialized indus- trial mill towns grew along water power sites in the New England and Middle Atlantic regions (Pred, 1966:143-1961. To a large extent, cities during this period were walking cities. That is, even the largest cities had relatively compact spatial areas,

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 7 dense population and land use densities, mixed patterns of land use, and no large separation, if at all, between workplaces and residences. Usually the means of public transportation were min- imal. Horse-drawn buses called omnibuses appeared in a few cities, such as Philadelphia and Baltimore, in the 1820s and 1830s; com- muter railroads first carried passengers in Boston in the 1830s; and the street railway, with horses as the means of motive power, re- ceived its initial systematic development in New York in 1852. Only a relatively small number of urban inhabitants, however, utilized these relatively expensive and often slow forms of transport (Taylor, 1966:Summer, 35-50; Autumn, 31-541. Government on many levels - federal, state, county, and city- constructed parts of the infrastructure in this period, stimulating urbanization and economic development. Federal efforts were rel- atively minor compared with those of states and cities, with the federal government financing the construction of roads, light- houses, and river and harbor improvements and supporting canal and railroad projects through land grants, stock subscriptions, and federal subsidies. One author has estimated that total federal ex- penditures on internal improvements from 1820 to IS40, not count- ing subsidies to state and private projects, probably amounted to about 11 percent of the federal budget (Aldrich, 1980:F.~. The most innovative policies with regard to infrastructure de- velopment took place on the state level. State aid to public works projects increased after the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825, stimulated by trade competition between states and cities and ne- cessitated by private capital shortages. Economic historians have calculated that of the total investment of $188 million in canal construction in six states between 1815 and 1860, approximately 73 percent was financed by state and municipal governments (Bruchey, 1965:128-1331. Most of the sum was raised by the sale of bonds to investors, a high proportion of whom were foreign. The aim of the investment was to use transportation improvements such as canals, roads, and railroads in a developmental mode: to escape the tyranny of topography, to form efficient links between the var- ious urban nodes and regions for the movement of goods and people, and to provide for penetration of the fertile western territories. Many of these projects were directed by private-public "mixed" boards, with government acting as "planner, promoter, investor, and reg- ulator" (Lively, 1955:~-951. Faced by the need for development, state government thus acted to reduce risk, provide investment, and supply an institutional structure for further private activity.

8 PERSPECTIVES ON UItBAN INFRASTRUCTURE State investment in transportation infrastructure contracted sharply after the depression of 1837, with a second wave of con- traction after the depression of 1857. State constitutional restric- tions passed after the depressions forced many states to a pay-as- you-go basis and to severely restrict new projects. Municipalities and counties, however, convinced that they were doomed economically without access to a railroad line or a canal, filled the infrastructure investment gap. State legislatures passed hundreds of laws permitting the granting of local aid. In 1843, municipal debt was approximately $27.5 million and federal and state debt $231 million (Figure 1-1~. By 1860, however, municipal debt had reached over $200 million, almost as large as state debt (HilIhouse, 1936:32-341. Cities such as Baltimore, Cincinnati, Mil- waukee, and Pittsburgh bought railroad stock, purchased railroad bonds, guaranteed the credit of railway companies, and even made outright gifts. By the 1850s, however, many cities were disiTIu- sioned with the policies of the railroads and questioner! the wisdom of public subscription to railroad corporation stocks and bonds. Con ,30 ,20 Rio loo 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 ,8 40 ,850 ,~60 ,870 ,880 - Local ___ State / / - - - 1890 1902 1912 1922 1932 YEAR FIGURE 1-1 Per capita state and municipal debt, 1840-1932. SOURCE: Based on data from A. M. Hillhouse, 1936, Municipal Bonds: A Century of Experience. New York: Prentice-Hall.

E VOL UTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTR UCTURE 9 troversy over the relationship between tax revenues and financial obligations to railroad bonds created political conflict in cities such as Pittsburgh and Milwaukee in the 1850s and 1860s (Booth, 1983:335-363; Holt, 1969:220-262; Olson, 1980:156-1601. In the post- Civi! War period, amidst a severe financial downturn, municipal- ities widely rejected the policy of financial subsidies to private cor- porations. The Development of Urban Infrastructure While states, counties, and municipalities provided capital for the construction of intercity and regional transportation infrastruc- ture, city governments also began to assume many of the service functions that are currently accepted as their chief responsibility. This was a shift from the earlier pattern. While eighteenth-century municipalities provided some infrastructure, such as street paving and lighting, town wells, and docks, their chief concern was with the regulation and protection of commercial activities. In addition, many services that later became a municipal responsibility were handled by volunteer groups or were an individual responsibility (Goldfield and Brownell, 1979:83-86; Lane, 1967:6-~; Teaford, 19751. These patterns changed gradually in the nineteenth century. By the 1840s and 1850s, in the larger municipalities, functions such as fire fighting had become the responsibility of professional fire departments; organizer! police forces had taken the place of the night watch and constables; and urban governments had enlarged their activities in matters involving public health and sanitation (Goldfield and Brownell, 1979:170-~80~. Diffusion of the more mod- ern governmental forms through the urban network, however, took place at a relatively slow pace, with the older and larger cities making innovations first. Structural changes in city government permitted the develop- ment of the service orientation, as states granted municipalities new charters and authorized the revision of old ones. A democratic revolution that erased property qualifications for voting permitted citizens to elect mayors and specialized officials instead of having city councils appoint them. In many cities bicameral legislative bodies and ward systems replaced unicameral councils chosen in at-large elections. Governmental control in the larger cities began to shift from the hands of a commercial/propertied leadership to a new group of professional politicians who relied on appeals to the

10 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE urban masses for election (Gluck and Meister, 1979:43-464. In the smaller and medium-sized cities, however, such as Houston, Texas, and Springfield, Massachusetts, the commercial/propertied groups continued to dominate until close to the end of the century (Frisch 1972:241-246; Platt, 1983:96-103). Accompanying the political changes were governmental altera- tions that related directly to the management of public works. Many cities, for instance, introduced standing committees on their coun- cils rather than operating out of the council as a whole. Pittsburgh, for example, had nine standing committees in IS28 concerned with finance, water, streets, paving, claims and accounts, assessments, wooden buildings, canals, and wharves and public lands (Wade, 1959:2731. City council committees, however, often could not pro- vide the uniform procedures required by growing infrastructure construction. The solution was to create additional executive de- partments, a move often resisted by city aldermen. New York City, for instance, in the 1830s had a desperate need for more executive departments, but the Common Council refused to respond, even though the 1830 city charter called for their creation. The council- men preferred to keep power over public works in their hands rather than making them an executive responsibility (Moehring, 1981:55 56). The forces underlying the changes in city government, especially increased infrastructure construction, were more complex than sim- ple economic models suggest. It is always hazardous to generalize about the causation of large-scale change, especially in a situation involving a host of cities ranging in size and location, but some tentative observations are possible. First, it is clear that much in- frastructure construction and municipal delivery of urban services was related to commerce and development (Goldfield and Brownell, 1979:168-170; Moehring, 19811. In this regard, government was serving the same role as it did in providing support for internal improvements; that is, it acted to aid the private economy, espe- cially business interests and real estate developers. Second, a set of forces driving change stemmed from considerations that related not only to development but also to concerns about the public order and the public health (i.e., preventing the spread of epidemic dis- ease). The actors who reflected this set of views included a number of commercial elites, professionals, and sanitarians (Warner,1968:99- 1601. Third, the 1840s and 1850s saw the rise of a new type of urban political professional who based his career on appeals to the recently

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 11 enlarged electorate. In this context, the delivery of public works improvements and of services was often a response to voting con- stituencies or the needs of specific interest groups (Gluck and Meis- ter, 1979:45-524. The interaction of the various forces driving infrastructure con- struction is clearly illustrated with regard to three areas of impor- tance in the walking city: streets, water supply, and sewers. Because they were sensitive to the constituencies interested in the streets, city council members considered questions involving streets approximately half to two-thirds of their time. These debates revolved around matters of financing, the timing of openings, and whether private companies or the public authorities would do the most effective job of street cleaning and maintenance (GoIcIfield and Brownell, 1979:170-1711. Generally, city councils responded quickly to requests for street openings or improvements that served commerce and related to the flow of business in and out of town and in the principal business section. Downtown streets were usually paved first, while most secondary streets were unpaved. Cobblestone had been utilized ex- tensively for paving since colonial days, but was generally unsat- isfactory because it resulted in noise, collected filth, and broke under heavy traffic. I:n the 1830s, cities began searching for smoother pavements and experimented with wood, stone blocks, bricks, and planks. It was not until the chemical and technological advances of the late nineteenth century that more satisfactory improved as- phalt and concrete materials became widely available (Armstrong et al., 1976:66-67; McShane, 1979:279-2811. Residential neighborhoods had different requirements. Abutters decided when and how streets would be paved by petitioning the municipal government. Normally, whenever residents holding two- thirds of the front footage on a block petitioned the council, the municipality would arrange for paving ant! collect special assess- ments from all abutters. If assessments were not fully paicT, costs had to be covered by the general tax func! (McShane, 1979:2841. Not surprisingly, paving was more common in wealthy neighborhoods and less common in the poorer areas. Since the city government was responsible for maintenance, residents often preferred cheaper forms of paving. Grave] (macadam) was most widely used, followed by cobblestone. According to historian Clay McShane, the limited amount of paving in residential areas reflected not only citizen reluctance to assume the financial costs but also a desire to protect

12 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE the social functions of streets, common in the walking city, from disruptive traffic (McShane, 1979:285-2904. Changes in values as well as technology in the late nineteenth and early twentieth cen- turies altered these preferences. Once constructed, streets required maintenance and cleaning if they were to serve as proper circulatory mechanisms for commerce, people, and the removal of wastes. These functions were largely a municipal responsibility, and their proper delivery was contingent on funding availability and adequate administrative procedures. In a period of municipal change, the result was a seesaw between the demand for service and the demand for economy and between the private contract system and the municipal scavenging corps. In small cities especially, fiscally conservative governments resisted the public assumption of service responsibilities longer than did large cities. In all communities, however, the normal pattern was clear priorities were largely determined by commercial needs, by wealth, and by status. Few streets in the cities of this period, how- ever, were ever clear of horse manure and other forms of filth. Street networks served not only for the supply and circulation of the various goods required for urban life but also played an im- portant role with regard to other vital elements of the city's me- tabolism the supply of water and the removal of human wastes, contaminated water, and garbage. Theoretically, all these materials could be transported to places of disposal along street surfaces, but only at very high financial and nuisance costs. The two most critical elements relating to the urban metabolism were water supply and human waste removal. It was in these two areas that the greatest technological advances both using the subsurface r'ather than the surface of streets were made during the period of the walking city. Water came first. Until the last quarter of the nineteenth century, most American urbanites depended on local sources for water sup- ply. Householders usually dug their own private wells or used water from neighborhood ponds, streams, and springs. In cities such as New OrIeans, where poor groundwater quality restricted the use of wells, cisterns caught and preserved rainwater. Vendors also carried casks of water from private streams and peddled water on the streets. As early as the eighteenth century, there were both private and public water suppliers. In Philadelphia, for instance, entrepreneurs who built wells on public property to sell water to the public paid a rental fee for the site. In the mid-1750s, the city purchased private pumps and assessed nearby residents for their

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 13 use; by 1771, Philadelphia owned 120 of a town total of 498 pumps. In New York City in the late 1780s and 1790s, the town encourages} new well construction with subsidies and provided funds for repair, cleaning, and construction from a statewide tax (Blake, 1956:3-171. In spite of municipal involvement, local supplies were inadequate to provide for the needs of growing cities. Wells ant} ponds became visibly polluter} and groundwater levels receded. The desire of ur- banites for more copious and cleaner water supplies, concern over threats to the public health from polluted local sources and inad- equate water to flush filthy streets, and the insufficiency of water supplies to control the fires that frequently raged through ante- bellum cities led to a search for nonlocal sources of supply. As cities became more industrialized, industrialists joined to demand a pure and abundant supply of water for their various processes (Moehring, 1981:32-374. Water supply, therefore, represents a situation in which a number of interests- business and industries, homeowners, fire insurance companies, and those concerned with the public health- joined to demand the construction of large public works in order to secure more adequate supplies. City boosters considered water- works as crucial in the competition between municipalities for pop- ulation, trade, and industry and emphasizer} their possession in touting their cities. The first large city to construct a municipal water supply system was Philadelphia, which acted in 1798 because of a yellow fever epidemic. Cincinnati installed a water system in the 1820s, New York opened the Croton Aqueduct in 1841, and Boston the Cochit- uate Aqueduct in 1848. By 1860, the nation's 16 largest cities had waterworks, with a total of 136 systems 57 public, 79 private (Armstrong et al., 1976:217-2221. The larger cities were more likely to have publicly owned waterworks and the smaller cities to have privately owned, many with relatively few users. The large capital requirements of the systems and frequent inadequacies of the pri- vate companies necessitated public ownership. Cities that began with private water supply companies, such as New York and Chi- cago, shifted to public ownership because the private companies refused to provide adequate water for civic purposes such as street flushing and fire hydrants, to eliminate pollution, to enlarge their works in anticipation of population growth, or to service distant districts (Anderson,.1980:119-124; Galishoff, 1980:361. In some large cities, however, such as Denver and Kansas City, water systems remained private until the twentieth century.

14 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE The provision of water supply, therefore, especially in large cities, presents a triumph of technology and administration in the con- struction of large public works for a needed service. A capital-in- tensive and centralized technological system replaced a decentral- ized and labor-intensive method of delivery. Progress, however, was far from uniform, and municipalities encountered many problems in the process of development and construction. In Baltimore and New York, for example, vested interests in the existing privately owned systems and the high costs of purchase caused city councils to resist assuming the water supply functions for a number of years (Moehring, 1981:23-32; Olson, 1980:~. In addition to these delays, city councils debated endlessly over property rights and the rec- ommendations of various engineering reports before they could agree on the source of water or the character and technology of the dis- tribution system. Cities often functioned with inadequate supplies at a high cost in fire damage and disease long after the technological capability for improved water systems existed (Blake, 1956:100- 247). Other difficulties arose from the uneven distribution of water supplies. In cities with private companies, such as Baltimore until 1854, water supply was class structured. The affluent residential districts and the central business district received the piped water of a private corporation for an annual fee, while the working class districts continued to depend on shallow polluted wells supplied by city pumps (Olson, 1980:132-1331. In New York City, after con- struction of the Croton Aqueduct, the picture was more varied, and all of the city's lower wards, rich and poor, American and foreign, enjoyed Croton water. City councilmen responded to petitions from residents unable to afford household connections by providing hundreds of free hydrants. In uptown Mahattan, however, the mains only extended to clusters of middle-class or upper-class homes. Ac- cording to the leading historian of nineteenth-century New York public works, a range of elements, including economic, class, and political factors, as well as the influence of the real estate devel- opers, affected the distribution of water mains (Moehring, 1981:37- 51). Until 1860, water systems diffused through the urban network at a relatively slow rate. This pattern suggests that local supplies remained adequate for most needs in small- and medium-sized cit- ies, making private entrepreneurs reluctant to invest; that infor- mation and skills concerning waterworks technology were rela

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 15 lively scarce commodities; and that municipalities would not or could not secure the capital necessary for these large public works. In cities with well-developed systems, like Boston, Chicago, and New York, individual consumption usually increased at a rapid rate (Anderson, 1980:86-1251. Consumption figures must be re- garcled with caution, however. An absence of meters, the use of annual flat charges, and the presence of free hydrants as well as technological factors such as leaky pipes, faulty pumps, and bad connections, led to tremendous waste. Although urbanites would clearly consume more water if it was available at a reasonable price, many city dwellers continued to depend on wells for their water supplies throughout the nineteenth century. A supply of potable water was only part of the city's metabolic system. Human wastes and used water, as well as solid wastes, also had to be disposed of. Ideally, they should have been removed from the settled areas, but, in most locales in this period, human wastes and wastewater were disposed of in cesspools and privy vaults lo- cated close by residences or even in cellars. When these receptacles were full, they were covered over with dirt and new ones dug. By the 1820s and 1830s, most large cities tried to institute periodic vault emptying by private scavengers under city contract or by city employees, but again the experience was similar to that of street cleaningWissatisfaction with performance under whatever system was in effect and a seesaw between service by municipal employees and the private contract system (Tarr and McMichael, 1977:166- 167). While both private and public underground sewers existed in the larger cities such as New York, Baltimore, and Boston, they were intended for stormwater drainage from streets rather than for hu- man waste removal. The majority of nineteenth-century cities, how- ever, had no underground drains. Street gutters of wood or stone, either on the side or in the middle of the roadway, provided for stormwater and occasionally for human wastes. Private household- ers often constructed drains to the street gutter to remove rainwater from cellars. Municipal governments focused on the removal of stormwater from streets because of the need to keep roadways clean for commerce, the problems of flooded basements, and the belief that standing water gave rise to "miasmas" that endangered the public health. The cesspool/privy vault method of human waste and wastewater disposal had certain characteristics that sharply differentiated it

16 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE from the system that replaced it. Maintenance of the waste disposal sites was primarily an individual responsibility; waste removal was labor- rather than capital-intensive; and, even though many municipalities had ordinances requiring the periodic cleaning of privies, the regulations were not enforced on a regular basis, but only when overflows created a nuisance or when an epidemic threat- enecI. A combination of demographic and technolgical factors combined to overload the cesspool/privy vault system and to cause its eventual collapse and replacement. City population growth also gave rise to higher densities, especially in the original central cores. Transpor- tation limitations restricted the distance that population growth could spread from places of employment and essential urban insti- tutions. With the growth of urban densities and an explosion of building construction, the existing land-intensive waste collection system became increasingly inadequate. Overflowing privies and cesspools filled alleys and yards with stagnant water ant! fecal wastes, and wells in close proximity to the overloaded waste receptacles became badly polluted (Tarr et al., 1980:59-641. Construction of water systems in cities increased the stress placed by population growth on the cesspool/privy vault system. The avail- ability of a constant unmetered source of water in households and in hydrants caused a rapid expansion in usage, as demand inter- acted with supply. Households installed a range of water-using appliances and ran the user} water into existing cesspools because of a lack of sewers for household water wastes. The most serious problems were caused by the water closet. In cities with waterworks, affluent families installed closets to take advantage of their con- venient in-house location and comparative cleanliness. The capac- ities of their cesspools were quickly overwhelmed; yards and alleys were overrun with focally polluted wastewater. Householders were offended by the nuisance, and physicians and sanitarians who be- lieved that disease was caused by miasmas generated by filth and decaying organic matter ("anti-contagionists") were concerned about possible epidemics (Tarr et al., 1980:61-641. The adoption of new technologies, therefore, combined with higher urban densities to cause the breakdown of the cesspool/privy vault system of waste disposal and the generation of excessive nuisances. Different solutions were tried, but eventually most sanitarians, engineers, and business leaders agreed that the water carriage tech- nology of waste removal was the most elective one available. This

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 17 technology had the advantage of solving the problems of collection and transportation simultaneously. A number of private sewers had been built in cities to serve single streets or groups of houses, but it was not until the 1850s that the first planned municipal systems were constructed (Peterson, 1979:84-891. Municipalities made the decision to build these capital-intensive elements of the infrastruc- ture only after extensive debate about technological alternatives, the validity of different hypotheses of disease etiology, and the possibility of modifying existing systems of stormwater sewers to carry household wastes (Tarr, 1979:308-3131. The construction of the initial sewerage systems signified a move- ment away from the "piecemeal, decentralized approach of city- building characteristic of the 19th century" (Peterson, 1979:84-891. This unplanned approach was illustrated by the New York sewer system before 1860. Most New York sewers had originally been built for rainwater drainage, although from 1845 on the city coun- cils permitted connections with household drains. Some sewers were circular, while others were elliptical; some were constructed of stone and others of brick. A number of streets had private sewers that made their own path to the river. A lack of maps or records pre- vented maintenance, even if municipal authorities had been so in- clined (Moehring, 1981:87-951. Thus, adoption of planned sewerage systems substituted a systematic, sanitary, and self-acting tech- nological system for a haphazard, inefficient, and unhealthful man- ner of dealing with human wastes, wastewater, and stormwater disposal. Beginning in the IS50s, therefore, planned sewerage sys- tems became part of the infrastructure of urban America, although it was not until the last decades of the century that the great wave of municipal sewer building took place. Financing Infrastructure in the Walking City Large-scale municipal involvement in the construction of urban infrastructure, such as streets or capital-intensive water supply ant! sewerage systems, required a resort to new forms of financial in- struments. Projects such as street improvements were often fi- nanced by assessments on abutters because of a municipal reluc- tance to become involved in debt. When abutters did not or would not pay, recourse to general tax revenues was necessary. During the 1800-~860 period, property tax rates more than doubled (Hill- house, 1936:361. Many capital-intensive infrastructure projects, such as street

18 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE lighting, schools, water and sewer systems, and various public buildings, were financed with municipal bonds; city tax revenues were usually insufficient to cover capital costs. Large-scale debt financing was new to American cities. When the building of the Croton Aqueduct increased New York City's debt from $500,000 to over $9 million, many citizens anticipated financial disaster (Stu- denski and Krooss, 1952:134~. Municipal infrastructure creation plus involvement in various railroad funding schemes increased municipal debt from $27 million in 1843 to $200 million in 1860. At the same time, operating expenses for debt service and for func- tions such as police and fire protection, education, and street main- tenance also rose rapidly. From 1800 to 1860, total municipal per capita expenditures rose from about $2 to $12 in current dollars (HilIhouse, 1936:36) (see Figure i-11. Engineers and Urban Technology While it is customary today to assume that the construction and maintenance of urban infrastructure involves the talents of trained engineers, this was not necessarily true with regard to the period from 1790 through the 1850s. There were a limited number of per- sons who identified themselves as engineers in the United States in the first decades of the century; one historian has identified about 30 individuals in 1816 who were active or available as "something like engineers" (Calhoun, 1960:22~. One of the few traits they had in common was their involvement with public works. The group included men who were surveyors, contractors, builders, and law- yers. Some were trained in Europe; others had been eclucated in the few American institutions that offered engineering education, while many had secured on-thejob training. Economic historian Nathan Rosenberg has observed that tech- nological change in nineteenth-century America depended on the borrowing of the major components-machinery, power, and new materials-from a stock of innovations that had already been de- veloped and employed in Great Britain (Rosenberg, 1972:59-861. The basic factor behind the transfer process and its internal dif- fusion was economic. Rosenberg further comments that transfer and diffusion were selective, based on an economic calculation of prof- itability in the new environment. Technology transfer was vital to the construction of the nineteenth-century urban infrastructure. According to one student of nineteenth-century American technol

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 19 ogy, the basic agents of technology transfer in the antebellum period were individuals-Europeans who learned the technology abroad and carried the knowledge to the United States and Americans who went to Europe to learn about technology (Genson, 1975:71. Both exchange processes were at work with regard to the transfer of urban technology. Benjamin Henry Latrobe is often pointed to as the prime example of a trained European who brought his skills and knowledge about advanced English technology to the United States. Latrobe was trained in England and Germany, acquiring a classical education and knowledge of mathematics and science as well as studying and working with famous British architects and engineers. He con- structed a number of urban public works, including the Philadel- phia Waterworks (1799-1801), a (1rainage system for Washington, D.C. (1815-1816), public buildings including the United States Cap- ito} and the President's house, and parks and educational facilities (Carter, 1976:141. Perhaps Latrobe's most outstanding technologi- cal enterprise was the Philadelphia Waterworks. This project re- quired heavy capital investment for its two steam engines and its basins, canals, tunnels, and distribution system. The most advanced engineering project of its time, it attracted national attention and "created technological momentum" in waterworks construction (Carter, 1975:241. While there were other European-trained engineers who made substantial contributions in America, the supply of engineers was increasingly homegrown. Many American civil engineers secured their training on the great state public works endeavors of the period, such as the Erie Canal, the Pennsylvania Main Line Canal, and the numerous railroad projects. In addition to the practically trained engineers, West Point and engineering schools such as Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Stevens Institute produced a growing contingent of graduates. Engineers worked as directors of large internal works projects (engineer-managers), as contracting engineers, and as consulting engineers, especially in situations in which local talent was inferior. By the 1840s, civil engineers formed a definite occupational group (Calhoun, 1960:1821. Many of these engineers moved freely between the large state public works projects and the major urban infrastructure devel- opments. John B. dervis, for example, secured his engineering train- ing in eight years of work on the Erie Canal as an axeman, rodman, stone-weigher, and surveyor. He later served as chief engineer of

20 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE New York's Croton and Boston's Cochituate aqueducts. Ellis S. Chesbrough was trained on the transportation projects of-the 1820s and 1830s, then worked with John B. dervis on the Boston Water Works in the 1840s. Chesbrough became the first Boston city en- gineer in 1851, then chief engineer of the Chicago Sewage Com- mission in 1855. Julius W. Adams, who studied at West Point, gained extensive experience on various railroad projects before planning the Brooklyn Sewerage System in 1857 (American Society of Civil Engineers, 1972; Calhoun, 1960:47-531. Engineers such as Adams, Chesbrough, and dervis drew on Eu- ropean concepts but modified them to fit American conditions. In- creasingly, as Rosenberg notes, American engineers acted as ini- tiators in technological innovation, rather than as borrowers. Many basic developments came in areas in which the nation was rich farm machinery and woodworking machinery, for example (Rosen- berg, 1972:87-1161. For cities in these years a critical development was the streetcar, initially powered by horses and later by cable and electricity. This innovation first appeared in New York City in 1852, and fixed rail systems became a vital part of the urban infrastructure in many cities. Streetcars became the instrument for a radical change in urban spatial patterns, and the subsequent urban growth generated a huge demand for other forms of infra- structure, such as streets, water systems, and sewers (Ward,1971:125- 146; Warner, 19621. In addition to streetcars, other important native innovations oc- curred in building and construction methods and materials (e.g., the balloon frame and cast iron framing); wooden and iron truss bridges; and wire cables for bridges and inclines. The telegraph was an important American invention that was adapted to urban service delivery systems; municipalities widely adopted it beginning in the IS50s for fire and police alarm systems. These developments com- bined with other European and British imports, such as street pav- ing, gas lighting, sewers, and omnibuses, to make the technology of the American urban infrastructure a blend of European ideas and adaptations and homegrown inventions and innovations (Arm- strong et al., 1976; Merritt, 1969~. Conclusion The critical infrastructure developments that occurred during this period of foundations were two: the construction of a trans

E VOL UTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTR UCTURE 21 portation network connecting the various urban nodes primarily through state investment and the assumption by municipal gov- ernment of a responsibility for various service functions. Driving these changes was a thrust toward economic development, a concern for the public safety and the public order, and a new responsiveness on the part of the political structure to the demands of various groups in the urban population. Facilitating the changes were ex- periments on the state level with private-public partnerships, changes in the structure of urban government, a willingness on the part of municipalities to assume debt obligations in order to provide in- frastructure, and an increase in the supply of trained civil engineers capable of constructing and operating urban technologies. In the larger cities such as Boston, New York, Chicago, and Phil- adelphia, these new patterns produced a movement away from a piecemeal, decentralized approach to urban infrastructure to one characterized by system, planning, and expertise. These changes, however, even in the larger cities, occurred slowly. It would take a number of decades before the advances made in the largest urban centers would spread throughout the urban network. CONSTRUCTING THE CORE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE CENTRAL CITIES, 1855-1910 Introduction The period between the IS50s and 1910 was one of continued rapid city growth due to natural increase, farm-to-city movement, and foreign immigration. Urban population increased from about 6 million in 1860 to 25 million in 1900, then to 42 million in 1910. By the latter date, approximately 46 percent of the nation's popu- lation was living in urban areas, and large cities (of more than 100,000 population) had become relatively numerous. The urban network, which had been largely confined to the area east of the Mississippi River in tS60, extended from coast to coast by 1910, with the nodes connected by railroad, telegraph, and telephone lines. While all regions experienced increased urbanization, the propor- tionate share of urbanized population shifted, with the North Cen- tral region and the West increasing their share. while the Northeast declined (Ward, 1971:11-501. Cities grew in area as well as in population. Transportation in- novation facilitated the process of urbanization and the growth of -D

22 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE metropolitan aggregates characterized by central cities surrounded by contiguous suburbs. Cities grew spatially by annexing territory as well as by population spread. Spatial expansion resulted in al- tered population densities, with high peripheral growth rates ap- parent for many municipalities as early as 1850 (Jackson, 1975:110- 1421. The process of Reconcentration caused the gradual replace- ment of the compact and congested walking city with cities that had lower densities spread over larger distances. Infrastructure was critical in this process of urban change. De- velopments in infrastructure fall into two periods during this span of years: the 1850s through the 1880s, and the 1890s through ap- proximately 1910. The first period was marked by a continuation of the movement from a piecemeal and fragmented provision of infrastructure to more of an emphasis on centralized systems, while the second witnessed the most sustained thrust toward infrastruc- ture provision in the nation's history. In these years, as in the first period discussed, there was often overlap between private and pub- lic with regard to infrastructure construction and service provision. For purposes of clarity, however, in the following discussion differ- ent elements of the infrastructure have been classified as either public or private. In the first period, the key developments with regard to publicly owned systems were improvements in water pumping and distri- bution systems; the resolution of key questions in sewerage system design; achievements in bridge construction that resulted in out- standing structures such as the E ads Bridge in St. Louis (1868- 1874) and the Brooklyn Bridge (1869-18831; major land-fi~ling proj- ects, such as Boston's Back Bay; and the building of extensive urban park systems, following the lead set by Frederick Law Olmstead's Central Park in New York City in the i850s. On the private side, the critical innovations were the building of streetcar systems pow- ered by horses; the construction of steam-powered elevated railroads in New York City; the extension of gas distribution systems and the development of improved methods of lighting; innovations in the area of electrical power and lighting systems, including the dynamo, the central station, and the arc and incandescent lamps; and the development of telephone systems and the extension of the telegraph network. In the second period, the critical public infrastructure develop- ments include the rapid diffusion of water and sewerage systems throughout the urban network; the development and construction

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 23 of water filtration and sewage treatment facilities; the beautifica- tion of city centers; and the planner} rebuilding and improvement of streets, roads, parkways, and bridges in order to improve traffic circulation. Among the important largely private accomplishments were the substitution of electricity for horsepower on the streetcars; the building of subways and elevated lines; and the rapid extension of electrical power and telephone systems. Municipal Provision of Infrastructure The infrastructure built in the growing cities ant! suburbs was almost entirely provided at the municipal level (see Figure 1-21. Federal spending for urban public works was relatively minor and consisted largely of river and harbor improvements, lighthouse con- struction, and public buildings such as post offices and custom houses. Federal expenditures for developmental transportation improve- ments declined sharply after the 1870s (Aldrich, l980:F.28-F.321. Although state government expenditures generally increased dur- ing the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, spending for 100 90 80 70 ~ 60 hi: By ~ 50 C: a: 40 30 20 10 .' ~ . '\rJ I ,W Federal Local State ,~ -~1 '/ \l :J \' ~ , . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O ~ 1902 1934 1944 1953 1958 1963 1968 YEAR FIGURE 1-2 Public outlays for construction: local, state, and federal, 1902-1970. SOURCE: Based on data from Bureau of the Census (1975:1, 123; 1, 130; 1, 132).

24 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE urban public works was relatively minor until highway expendi- tures accelerated after 1910. More important than direct state spending was the rise of state regulatory functions in the late nine- teenth and early twentieth centuries in the areas of public utilities, transportation, and public health (Wiebe, 1967:164-1951. In general, from the 1850s through the 1880s, infrastructure pro- vision was very uneven. The quality of the infrastructure in the larger cities, especially in the East and the MicIdle West, consid- erably exceeded that of smaller cities and southern cities such as Atlanta, Houston, and New Orleans. In these latter locations, dif- ficult environmental conditions combined with inexperienced man- agers, inadequate technology, and financial limitations to restrict the supply of public works to a minimum until after the turn of the century. Similar patterns of poor infrastructure provision were typ- ical of most southern cities, where development was hampered by the legacy and debts of the Civil War and Reconstruction, and the West, where newness and a weak financial base restricted infra- structure investment (Jackson, 1969:145-203; Platt, 1983:3-741. In the 1890s and after, urban infrastructure grew rapidly, and technologies diffused down the urban hierarchy to smaller cities and to other regions, although the South continued to lag. From 1890 to 1907, for instance, streetcar mileage (almost all privately supplied) increased from 5,783 to 34,404 miles, most of it electric- powered, and annual rides per urban inhabitant jumped from 111 to 250. With regard to largely publicly supplied technologies, the number of waterworks increased from 1,878 to 9,850 (1890-1920), the population served by filtered water from 310,000 to 17,291,000 (1890-1914), and the miles of sewers from 6,005 to 24,972 (1890- 1909) (Tarr, 1973:202-212; Tarr et al., 1980:74-761. Institutional and Political Changes in Infrastructure Supply and Distribution In many cities, first priority was given to the provision of im- proved services to the central business districts. This reflected the concern of the downtown business interests with enhancing prop- erty values and remaining competitive with other towns as well as the technological requirements of the new office structures. The widening of streets, the planting of trees and shrubs, the planning of parks, and the building of new public buildings and monuments were also part of the so-called City Beautiful movement and helped

E VOL UTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTR UCTURE 25 blend city boosterism with a reform thrust. Large-scale public im- provements, including the design and broadening of streets and parking facilities, the provision of parks, and the construction of elaborate public buildings, took place in cities like Chicago, Har- risburg, and Kansas City (Fitch, 1966:168-213; Peterson, 1976:4301. Infrastructure was also important to residential development, and here patterns varied by function and by income class. In cities in which municipal resources were especially limited, such as in Birmingham, Alabama, priorities dictated the provision of first- cIass services for the downtown, while residential areas of the city remained deprived. In new middle- and upper-cIass areas of other cities, builders usually provided services before dwellings were con- structed. In Milwaukee, for instance, the developers assumed the cost of installing services in the expectation of recouping the cost in the purchase price (Harris, 1977:149-153; Simon, 1978:401. In contrast, in the Boston suburban towns, the city (or new metro- politan authorities) provided water and sewer lines after specula- tors had furnished rough grader} streets. Once the utilities were laid, the city would pave and maintain the streets. Such services were provided below cost as a subsidy to the development process and paid for out of general taxes (Warner, 1962:154-1551. The pattern differed somewhat in areas in which builders did not provide the services. In the more affluent neighborhoods, home- owners petitioned the municipality for services immediately after homes were purchased. In the poorer areas, new homeowners de- layed the acquisition of sewers, pipecI-in water, and paved streets in order to keep housing expenses Tow; in these situations, savings in housing costs were often replaced by health expenses, as house- holders exposed themselves and their families to infectious disease stemming from inadequate water and sewage services (Simon, 1978:40-411. Another variation came in cities with strong ward- based political machines, in which politics could affect the distri- bution and provision of services. In some cities, such as Baltimore and Cincinnati, "neighborhood associations" at the turn of the cen- tury were successful in ensuring equality of service delivery (Ar- nold, 1979:3-30~. In many late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century suburbs, the provision of urban infrastructure was beyond the financial ca- pabilities of the towns. In 1890, for instance, only 29 percent of the outlying municipalities of Cook County, Illinois, had piped-in water and 34 percent of those of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Many

26 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE suburbs were also without sewers, paved streets, or efficient fire- fighting services. The absence of these services resulted not only in inconvenience but also in public health and fire risks and higher fire insurance rates. Faced by these deprivations, inhabitants of outlying communities throughout the nation voted to merge with the central city in order to acquire superior services at a lower cost. City boosters concerned with the growth of their municipalities encouraged these mergers, and in many cases the cities offered services to the newly annexed areas at low cost in order to ensure a positive suburban voter response (Teaford, 1979:32-631. The rapid development of infrastructure in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was based on a number of society- wide changes. Extremely important during this period was an or- ganizational revolution that involved the development of large- scaTe systems affecting the corporate, associational, and technical environment. The growth of investment banking, for instance, made supplies of liquid capital more accessible for municipal borrowers by providing a national bond market. National industry associa- tions shared technical data and coordinated industry policy, accel- erating the diffusion of innovations among cities. And various professional organizations such as the American Public Health As- sociation (1872), the American Water Works Association (1881), and the American Society of Civil Engineers (1852, 1868), used their conferences and their journals to agitate for the creation of local and state boards of health, the improvement of water supplies, the construction of sewers, the control of pollution, and the paving of streets (Wiebe, 1967:111-1631. On the local level, there were also significant organizational and institutional changes. Business leaders, for instance, created large numbers of voluntary associations to represent their interests. Boards of tracle, chambers of commerce, commercial clubs, and other urban booster-type organizations pushed for downtown improvements in order to outdo rival communities. They often joined with sanitarians and civil engineers to push for water and sewerage systems in order to improve the public health. Again, the motivation was booster- ism a healthy city was more attractive to people and industry than one plagued by epidemics (Baker, 1896; Ellis, 1970:354, 3581. On the political side, in the larger cities, machines and bosses replaced the commercial and upper-cIass groups who had run mu- nicipal government in the first half of the century. Conceptually, the machine is best understood as having a localized and patronage

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 27 spoils-equity orientation. The power of the machines rested largely on immigrant and working-cIass votes, obtained in return for serv- ices of various kinds. Questions of patronage and spoils became interwoven with the process of infrastructure construction. Machine politicians often owned the construction companies that built the infrastructure and delivered municipal services. In addition, large numbers of the party faithful secured employment on the city pay- roll, helping to construct and maintain infrastructure projects (Tarr, 1971:62-741. In many cities in the late nineteenth and early twentieth cen- turies, whether or not dominated by political machines, politics centered around questions of infrastructure investment. This pat- tern largely resulted from the fact that cities were in a stage of transition from the older compact, commercial walking city to the new industrial metropolis, with its strong core orientation, spread characteristics, and ring of residential suburbs (Harris, 1977:146- 269~. Within this context of change, important decisions regarding the quantity, type, and location of infrastructure had to be made. Urban politics, therefore, was often a struggle over both the answers to these questions and the identity of the decision makers. These political struggles producer! waves of reform in the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century American city. Reformers wanted to change both the character of urban leadership and the nature of the decisions that were made. in the 1880s and 1890s, reformers mainly sought limiter! changes, such as civil service re- form and lower taxes. After the 1890s, however, more sophisticated change-makers attempted to incorporate into urban government the values of efficiency, economy, expertise, and bureaucratic administration that derived from the modern business corporations. Concepts of administrative efficiency developed in Germany were also quite influential (Hays, 1974:6-38; SchiesI, 19771. The reform thrust produced a number of institutional changes in municipal government between 1900 and 1914. Many cities adopted new charters providing for centralization, strong mayors, and at- large rather than ward-elected councils. In the smaller cities, com- mission and city manager forms of government were popular. These new structures initially developed because of the inability of ex- isting governments to cope with crisis situations, but their advan- tages in routine governmental matters causer} them to be adopted by hundreds of small- and medium-sized cities. Reformers argued that they would improve the efficiency of infrastructure ant! service

28 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE provision and eliminate political interference. Because city engi- neers appeared to best represent the values of efficiency, profes- sionalism, and economy that reformers desired, municipalities drew on them extensively as city managers (SchiesI, 1977:181-188; Schultz and McShane, 1978:389-4111. The special district government was another institutional clevel- opment of this period with strong implications for the provision of infrastructure. These were state creations that had fiscal and ad- ministrative independence for special functions. Early special clis- tricts were primarily in the areas of water and sewerage, such as the Chicago Sanitary District (~89), the Boston Metropolitan Sew- erage Commission and Metropolitan Water Board (~895), and the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission (1902~. The motivation for their formation included the need for a functional structure inde- pendent of political boundaries, a desire to escape existing munic- ipal tax and debt limits, and a wish to be free of political control. In addition, special districts were also a means for suburbs to secure central city services without submitting to annexation (Hawkins, 1976a:25; Studenski, 1930:256-2621. A critical issue involving infrastructure that occupied municipal political agendas in the late nineteenth and early twentieth cen- turies was the question of the private or public ownership of util- ities. During the late nineteenth century, electric light and power, gas, and transit became integrated into the urban fabric and became nearly as important to urban functioning as water supplies. Just as piped-in water supplies had earlier shifted from a luxury to a necessity, so now other utility services made the Same transfor- mation. Since the majority of waterworks were publicly owned, this suggested to some that the same course should be followed for the other utilities. Many of the most heated political battles of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries occurred over the question of the political influence of public utilities, the terms of franchises, and the wisdom of municipal ownership as a means to improve service delivery and provide income for the city (Kirkland, 1961:247- 253). The municipal ownership movement had only limited success. The trend toward public ownership of waterworks continued and rose to 70 percent by World War I, while sewers remained virtually wholly publicly owned. Fierce battles over the municipal takeover of transit companies occurred in many cities, but most companies remained private. In New York and Boston, however, where private

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 29 entrepreneurs could not meet the demand for rapid transit, a coa- lition of leading business leaders, professionals, and reformers se- cured state approval for a city-financed and -owned but privately operated subway system (Cheape,1980:152-153~. For other utilities, such as electricity and power, municipal ownership was usually confined to small cities (about 1,500 systems by 1912, generating only about 4 percent of electrical power), although again there were exceptions (Cleveland, Kansas City, Los Angeles, and Seattle had municipal light and power plants). Municipally owned telephone companies were found only in small cities ant} towns, suggesting a lack of entrepreneurial interest in providing service in these lo- calities (Kirkland, 1961:252-2531. There were no clear statistics on the advantages of municipal over private ownership, and disputes usually centered around ide- ological questions. In order to resolve the controversy, pragmatic reformers shifted toward regulation by state commissioners as a means to ensure service delivery at reasonable rates. Many utilities themselves supported this course. The result of this move toward state regulation of private monopoly enterprise was an actual de- crease in the proportionate amount of urban infrastructure provided and maintained by the city itself compared with the private share. Private capitalization of utility enterprises grew at a rapid rate and soon outdistanced municipal debt, even though the latter increased considerably in this period (Platt, 1975~. Financing Infrastructure Like any long period of history, the years 1855-1910 were char- acterized by patterns of expansion and recession. Because of the extremely rapid growth of the economy and its relatively uncon- trolled nature, adjustments in these years were relatively sharp. Municipal expenditures for infrastructure usually followed these economic swings, but on occasion city governments also attempted to use spending for public works as a means to reduce unemploy- ment and moderate the extremes of the business cycles. Some of these cycles produced institutional changes and modi- fications that affected infrastructure construction for many years after the economic downturn had passed. In the period 1866-1873, for instance, postwar economic prosperity and delayed demand re- sulted in a large expansion of public works building in a number of cities. These projects included infrastructure such as paved streets,

30 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE waterworks, and sewers as well as extensive spending for railroad subsidies and investments. Per capita municipal debt increased from $6.36 in 1860 to $13.38 in 1870, at a time when state debt increased from $~.17 to $9.15 (current dollars). A sharp economic downturn in the early 1870s, however, resulted in many municipal failures; at the peak of the depression in 1873, nearly one-fifth of municipal debt was in default (Griffith, 1974:16; Hilihouse, 1935; Studenski and Krooss, 1952:1971. The states responded to municipal financial distress by estab- lishing limitations on municipal debt based on a percentage of as- sessed valuation, inserting debt limitations in city charters granted in the decade and requiring devices such as sinking funds and voter approval of bonds. By ISS0, more than half the states had consti- tutional limitations on city debt, usually a set proportion of the tax base. Many cities suspended public works improvements and sharply curtailed municipal services. At least one city, New OrIeans, sought to relieve itself of its debt burden by leasing out its waterworks (Griffith, 1974:21; Jackson, 1975:147-148~. The widespread urban financial problems in the early 1870s led to what one scholar calls "the first national urban crisis" (Fox, 1977:21-221. This crisis produced not only financial limitations on municipal borrowing but also major attempts to restructure and control urban government. The constitutional doctrines of Judge John F. Dillon heavily influenced the scope of financial limitations and the direction of structural reform. In essence, his doctrines affirmed that the municipal corporation was a mere creature of state government without independent or implied powers. The Dil- lon rule, as applied, had both political and economic implications. On one hand was the extension of state legislative control (usually Republican) over municipal functions prompted by a distrust of boss and machine politics (usually Democratic); on the other was the assertion of the need for governmental protection of private prop- erty rights (Gere, 1982:271-2981. In the remainder of the tS70s and 1880s, financial restrictions limited the actions of municipal governments with regard to infra- structure. In the period IS70-~890, for instance, per capita munic- ipal debt only rose from $13.38 to $14.79 (current dollars) with an actual decrease in the deflationary IS80-1890 decade. In the face of continued high demand for services from growing urban popu- lations, there was a shift from the public provision of capital-in- tensive infrastructure, such as waterworks, to their private pro

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 31 vision. In the period 1875-1890, for instance, the percent of privately owned waterworks actually increased from 46.5 to 57.1 percent, the only period in our history when the ownership curve moved in that direction. Rather than embarking on large infrastructure projects that required extensive borrowing, cities throughout the country followed the philosophy of pay-as-you-go, and cries of retrenchment, honesty, and efficiency resounded in public buildings everywhere (Anderson, 1980:1 1 1; Platt, 1983: 13; Studenski and Krooss, 1952: 196- 198). In the l890s, however, and especially after the depression of 1893, municipal spending for infrastructure again accelerated. Driving investment were city boosters, urban reformers, and various profes- sionals who held visions of a new, modern, and sanitary metropolis. The refinement of capital markets and the development of nation- wide investment banking provided outlets for municipal bonds, while state legislatures facilitated expansion by granting cities the power to spend on explicit projects, a permissible interpretation of the Dillon rule. In the lS90s, according to one economic historian, the growth of American cities became "the new generative factor" in the American economy (Kirkland, 1961:2371. This pattern of heavy municipal expenditure on capital improvements continued through 1914, and by this date spending for infrastructure constituted a much larger share of municipal budgets than it had a half century earlier (Studenski and Krooss, 1952:1961. Engineering ant! Science Development Students of innovation generally agree that the factors that bear on the diffusion of new technologies throughout a system are the presence of a body of technically sophisticated people who can understand and implement a new process, the clear advantages of the new process over the old, the reduction of uncertainty and the dissemination of information about a technology, cost advantages of adoption, and the existence of organizations that provide infor- mation and assistance regarding a technology, thus speeding its acceptance. Important developments with regard to these factors took place in the late nineteenth century, and by the lS90s they began to generate the diffusion of technologies throughout the ur- ban network and down the urban hierarchy. Critical to this diffusion was the supply and quality of engineering. A number of urban public works earlier in the century had failed

32 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE or operated poorly due to a lack of engineering expertise. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, however, American engineering education developed rapidly and the supply of civil engineers greatly increased. By 1880 there were 85 schools in which engineering was taught, with more than 3,800 graduates in the lSSOs. Growth brought professionalization ant! the creation of a national engineering association, the American Society of Civil En- gineers (1852, iS681. Municipalities employed a growing number of civil engineers as city engineers and as consultants, and in 1894 they and other urban officials formed the American Society of Mu- nicipal Improvements (ASMI). The ASMI was primarily concerned with technical problems of design ant} construction ant} the adoption of specifications for various materials (Armstrong et al., 1976:670- 6744. An important component of the supply of engineers was the pri- vate consulting engineer, used by municipalities on projects that required specialized skills not available in-house or projects for which time was restricted. While consulting engineers existed in the first half of the nineteenth century, the consulting firm was a product of the second half. Many of the nation's leading sanitary engineers, for example, Rudolph Hering, Allen Hazen, George Whipple, and George H. Waring, formed consulting firms and ad- vised on hundreds of projects throughout the country (Armstrong et al., 1976:684-6861. At the turn of the century the city was the center of economic activity, and the construction of urban infra- structure, both public and private, often attracted the nation's best engineering talent. On the technological supply side, important advances were macle in both new and old infrastructure areas. The field of water supply is a good example. Early distribution systems had suffered from pipe deterioration, but by 1860 the development of improved meth- ods of manufacturing cast-iron pipe and of coating their interiors had solved the problem. In addition, after the Civil War, improve- ments in steam engine design and in pump standarclization pro- vided for steady pressure maintenance. Facilitating the distribution of these improved methods throughout the urban network were the marketing practices of the two largest pump manufactures (Holly and Worthington), who offered municipalities an entire water pack- age including source recommendations, engineering and construc- tion plans, and pumps. These two corporations secured franchises for their systems in thousands of towns and cities (Anderson, 1980:12- 23).

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 33 Similar improvements in materials, technological design, and industrial organization occurred in other areas related to urban public works, such as street paving and construction materials, sewer design and pipe material, and energy and communications systems. As the urban network expanded in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, demand and supply interacted to diffuse urban technologies through the system. Improved public works technologies spread to regions such as the South, where ur- banization and improvement had previously lagged, and to smaller cities that had just begun to adopt more capital-intensive systems (Armstrong et al., 1976; Fogelson, 1967:85-163; Platt, 1983:75-1184. The U.S. Bureau of the Census attempted to stimulate this dif- fusion by presenting, beginning in 1902, comparative per capita statistics on the annual operating expenditures for five major mu- nicipal functions of cities with more than 30,000 population. These statistics provided estimates of the costs of municipal services that could be used by cities contemplating their adoption or by those that intended to measure their outlays on a comparative basis. The Census Bureau administrators hoped to use the comparative sta- tistics to force cities to improve the quality of municipal service delivery and to eliminate graft and confusion in municipal book- keeping (Fox, 1977:63-891. Also aiding in the diffusion of admin- istrative improvements was the New York Bureau of Municipal Research (founded in 1906), an investigatory reform group that was emulated in a number of other cities (SchiesI, 1977:111-1321. As technologies spread throughout the urban network, they often created unforeseen problems. Most municipalities that constructed sewerage systems discharged their sewage into adjacent streams, thereby polluting the water supply of downstream cities. This was a striking example of how a technology adopted for beneficial pur- poses in one locality could cause severe health problems in another location. This problem was linked to the belief that running water purified itself and the absence of state authority that could con- strain cities from contaminating each other's metabolic systems. The development of water filtration and sewage treatment tech- nologies and of chlorination eventually mitigated the public health hazards and nuisances created by municipal sewage disposal prac- tices, thereby reflecting the importance of science-based inputs in controlling infrastructure-produced externalities. These new tech- nologies were a result of experimentation by biologists, chemists, and sanitary engineers at laboratories such as the Massachusetts State Lawrence Experiment Station. Thus, after the lS90s, water

34 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE filtration and sewage treatment plants became important compo- nents of the urban infrastructure, although diffusion of sewage treatment systems was much slower than that of water filtration systems (Tarr et al., 1980:69-781. Throughout the nation, cities took note of the importance of sci- entific investigation and technical expertise to both the public health and the quality of the infrastructure. In the late lSSOs and lS90s, public health authorities secured the establishment of bacterial laboratories at Ann Arbor, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, New York City, and Providence. In the early twentieth century, city testing labo- ratories were created in Cincinnati, Rochester, and Pittsburgh to analyze the quality of the materials sold the municipality ant! to establish uniformity of standards.4 The majority of cities, however, had neither laboratories nor testing facilities and depended on their city engineers or consulting engineers for technical and scientific information. Bringing engineering talent to the city was a clifficult task. Many engineers avoided municipal employment because of a concern over corrupt politics, low status, and higher private-sector salaries. In a few cities such as Cleveland and Philadelphia, the local engi- neering societies attempted to influence decisions concerning in- frastructure and pollution control by establishing committees on subjects such as streets, sewers, and smoke control (Layton, 1971:115- 1161. In many cities, however, local engineering societies would not involve themselves in public-sector questions because they viewed such activity as a violation of their professionalism. Little is known about the recruitment of municipal engineers and how they com- pared with their private-sector colleagues. Some city engineers ob- viously faced uncertain tenure and were subject to political inter- ference, but others held office throughout many political changes and managed their systems effectively. In many smaller and mid- dIe-sized cities, they regularly assumed managerial positions (Arm- strong et al., 1976:686; Teaford, 1982:137-1394. THE DOMINATION OF THE AUTOMOBILE AND THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE FEDERAL ROLE, 1910-1956 Two factors, one technological and the other governmental, pri 4 For discussions of the establishment of bacterial laboratories, see Duffy (1974:91- 111) and Leavitt (1982:177); for materials testing labs, see Fisher (1933:168-169).

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 35 marily affected urban infrastructure developments from 1910 to 1956. The critical technological innovation was the internal com- bustion engine, used most importantly in the automobile, the motor truck, and the motor bus. This innovation generated a host of social, spatial, and administrative developments that sharply altered the pattern of urban life. With regard to governmental developments, the crucial shift involved an enlarged role for the federal govern- ment, beginning in the 1930s in the New Deal and continuing in the postwar period at a reduced level of investment (see Figure I- 24. Although there were numerous other technological and admin- istrative innovations that affected urban infrastructure during these years, the explosion of automobile usage and the altered role of the federal government are the most critical factors. The Automobile Revolution, 1910-1930 During the years from 1910-1930, the nation's auto registrations rose from 458,000 to nearly 22 million, or from one car to every 201 persons to one car to every 5.3 persons. The development of the motor vehicle occurrec! at a time of rapid urbanization, and auto- mobiles, trucks, and buses became largely concentrated in cities in the 1920s, although rural areas were also substantially affected. The automobile had a dramatic impact on the urban fabric and infrastructure. It greatly accelerated the process of Reconcentration initiated by the streetcar, caused a vast increase in the flow of commuter traffic between the downtown and suburban residential areas, and sharply increased congestion in the downtown cores. This radical innovation promoted massive alterations in the urban in- frastructure, primarily the construction and improvement of roads and highways, the development of traffic systems, the building of bridges and tunnels, and the wiclening ant} reconstruction of down- town streets (Rae, 1971:40-591. As automobile usage grew in the 1920s, traffic problems within the core of cities greatly increased. In Pittsburgh, for instance, between 1917 and 1929, the number of automobiles in the central business district increased 587 percent, the number of motor trucks 251 percent, and the number of streetcars 81 percent. Downtown business groups throughout the nation called for planning to al- leviate traffic congestion and for new road networks to facilitate entry into downtown areas and to permit the bypass of through

36 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE traffic. These same interests often also called for rapid transit con- struction to facilitate the transport of people in and out of the core (Foster, 1981:65-115; Tarr, 1978:26-281. Planners and members of the new engineering subdiscipline of traffic engineering, developed primarily in response to the auto- mobile, viewed downtown congestion as an engineering problem, requiring both planning and public works construction. Automo- bile-induced changes in the central business district included the widening and double-decking of streets, the elimination of grade crossings, and the development of a variety of traffic controls. In addition, street surfacing with smooth pavements (mostly asphalt) took place throughout urban areas; Chicago alone spent $450 mil- lion on street improvements between 1913 and 1937. Cities and counties also built hundreds of bridges and tunnels to facilitate cross-river transportation, while Chicago, New York, Pittsburgh, and Los Angeles constructed limited access roadways into the down- town area (Condit, 1973:249-252; Tarr, 1978:25-31; Weingold, 19801. The outlying areas of cities and their suburbs were the other major areas strongly impacted by the automobile. Urban growth along streetcar lines radiating from the central business district often left large tracts of land undeveloped near the periphery. The flexibility of the automobile facilitated development of these areas. In addition, the automobile stimulated extensive development of the urban fringe. The 1920s witnessed the emergence of the modern automobile-dependent residential suburb, with numerous new towns and villages appearing outside large cities and older suburbs undergoing increased growth. In the newer spread cities that lacked strong downtown business districts, such as Los Angeles and Den- ver, the automobile became the primary shaping element, and the dense patterns of development characteristic of the older eastern cities never materialized (Anderson, 1977:87-104; Muller, 1981:19- 60; Tarr, 1978:31-34~. The needs of the automobile, motor truck, and bus for improved roads and highways, expressed by automobile clubs, business or- ganizations, and engineering associations, resulted in extensive construction. While total highway mileage increased only slightly in the 1920s, from 235,000 to 250,000 and total national mileage from 3.16 to 3.25 million, the mileage of surfaced roads increased 157 percent and high-grade surfaced roads 776 percent between 1914 and 1929 (Rae, 1971:3541. The Bureau of Public Roads, aided by the American Road Builders' Association, the American Society

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 37 for Municipal Improvements, and tlie American Society of Civil Engineers, developed standards and specifications that were often used in designing new roadways and the rebuilding and resurfacing of highways and streets. Except for a few cases, however, such as Westchester County's Bronx River Expressway, Chicago's Outer Drive, and the New York parkways developed by Robert Moses, most highways had a conventional two-lane pattern without limited access (Rae, 1971:60-83; Seely, 19821. In order to cope with the massive needs of the automobile, gov- ernment required new financial instruments. From 1920 to 1930, the value of highway, road, and street construction increased from $738 million to $3.0 billion (expressed in constant 1957-1959 dol- iLars). Two innovations were important: an increase in federal aid and massive state involvement in road builcling. Beginning in 1916, Congress began authorizing expenditures for road construction (up to $76 million for 5 years) provided that the states match federal dollar expenditures on a dolIar-for-dolIar basis and administer fed- eral grants through a highway department. By 1917, each state had created a road agency, usually staffed by civil engineers. In addition, in order to receive federal aid, states had to designate 7 percent of their rural mileage for inclusion in a federal network. State road agencies and the Federal Bureau of Public Roads also cooperated to produce uniform route marking (Rose, 1979:~-91. State adoption ofthe gasoline tax, beginning with Oregon in 1919, was of much larger importance than federal aid in the 1920s. By 1929, all states had enacted the tax, which became the principal source of highway revenues. These user fees provided 60 percent of the increase in highway expenditures between 1913 and 1930, with other funds provided from bond issues and general taxes. By 1930, state gasoline taxes and motor vehicle and operators' licenses pro- vided over 40 percent of state revenues (Aldrich, 1980:F.46; Rae, 1971:69-701. Municipal expenditures for streets and highways also rose, al- though cities depended largely on conventional means of financing such as bonds, the property tax, or special assessments to provide improvements. In the 1920s, municipal operating and capital ex- penditures for streets and highways were only exceeded by spending for education (Aldrich, 1980:107~. Cities, counties, and other gov- ernmental authorities cooperated to improve transportation infra- structure. In New York's Westchester County, for example, the city authorities joined with the Bronx Parkway Commission to build a

38 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE limited access parkway and sewer system along the Bronx River. In Pittsburgh, the county embarked on a large bridge-building pro- gram and coordinated it with city construction of a limited access roadway connecting the suburbs and downtown (Tarr, 1978:28-31; Weingold, 19801. Infrastructure construction in a number of other areas accom- panied the road-building boom of the decade. School-building con- struction accelerated in order to accommodate a 41 percent increase in school-age population. Funds committed to sewers and water- works tripled, while public health and water quality considerations caused the population served by treated water and sewage treat- ment to more than double. While taxation largely paid for highway construction, a large fraction of other infrastructure development was debt-financed. From 1922 to 1932, per capita municipal debt increased from about $71 to $123, while per capita state debt in- creased from $~.64 to $9.17 (current dollars). But while state and local expenditures for infrastructure advanced rapidly, federal in- vestment reached its lowest point since the Civil War, with the federal share of the cost of total government construction amount- ing to only 11.2 percent (Aldrich, 1980:F.47; HilIhouse, 1936:361. The demand for the construction of public works in the 1920s came largely from a renewed burst of city boosterism, reflected in the activities of downtown business interests, chambers of com- merce, and other business organizations. In addition, real estate developers on the urban periphery pushed for roads and services. Various professional associations, such as the American Society for Municipal Improvements, the American Water Works Association, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the International Association of Public Works Officials, were also influential in ar- guing for infrastructure development in areas of their professional interest. Even though such concepts as the "city efficient" and "func- tional" government were in vogue in the 1920s, political machines persisted in the larger cities and were responsible for considerable infrastructure construction. As Car! Condit notes, "even Chicago's 'Big Bill' Thompson had his name on the bronze plaques that iden- tify some of the greatest works of civic art in America" (Brownell, 1975; Condit, 1973:206; Glaab, 1968:399-438~. In order to improve efficiency of operation and service delivery, many cities adopted governmental changes proposed originally in the reform period before World War I. These new forms, such as the commission and city-manager governments and at-large and

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 39 nonpartisan elections, promised that government would be run by professionally trained administrators, who used objective, busi- nesslike criteria such as economy and efficiency to make public decisions. These governmental innovations were widely adopted in the newer western cities and in suburban communities. Even the older eastern cities adopted reforms such as improvements in ac- counting and budgetary procedures. One student of municipal gov- ernment observes that the statistics on city services suggest that cities made significant improvements in the effectiveness of their administrative practices between 1912 and 1930, years of large structural changes (Fox, 1977:106; Gluck and Meister, 1979:971. - During the 1920s, urban territorial growth slackened, and the combined areas of the nation's 20 most populous cities increased only 10 percent. This compares with increases of at least 18 percent per decade from 1870 to 1900 for the top 20 cities. While cities continued to grow in population, the percentage of the metropolitan population living in the central city declined. Central cities found it increasingly difficult to absorb towns on their periphery, and suburbs no longer sought annexation or consolidation with central cities because of a desire for superior municipal services (Teaford, 1979:771. Many of the larger and older suburbs developed their own services in the decade of the 1920s, aided by strengthened municipal bond markets, improved technology, and relaxed state restrictions on borrowing. Throughout the country, suburbs developed their own infrastructure. In 1915, for instance, only 45 percent of the Cook County cities and towns had a public water supply, but, by 1934, 85 percent of the municipalities within a 50-mile radius of Chicago had such service. Other services, such as electric lights, sewers, and fire and police departments, also became commonplace in the sub- urbs (Teaford, 1979:78-79; Rose and Clark, 1979:340-3641. Adoptions of special district government expanded in this period as a means of infrastructure development and service delivery. These structures further undermined the competitive advantage of the central city with regard to services. While metropolitan cooperation reduced the financial burden of infrastructure on the central city by spreading costs, it also removed an incentive for suburbs to consolidate with central cities. Legislation permitting intergovern- mental contractual relationships for such projects as joint sewage and water systems provided for more efficient services and fur- nished a further disincentive for annexation.

40 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE The 1920s also witnessed an increased role by county government with regard to infrastructure. Counties throughout the nation con- structed highways, bridges, and tunnels. In Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, for instance, the county constructed six major bridges, many minor bridges, and the nation's longest land automobile tun- ne! and sponsored a Major Highway Plan. Urban and suburban counties created extensive park systems and recreational facilities, constructed sewers, and even in a few cases provided water supplies for suburban residents. From 1913 to 1932, county government spending in 96 metropolitan areas increased from 16 to 21 percent of combined county-municipal expenditures (Teaford, 1979:79-834. The New Deal The New Deal evolved as a governmental response to the eco- nomic hardships caused by the Great Depression. Cities were es- pecially hard hit by the sharp contraction after 1929, and a number of cities either defaulted or were close to bankruptcy. As a result of the policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the federal gov- ernment assumed for the first time a predominant role in the con- struction of urban infrastructure. The rationale for such intervention included federal acceptance of the obligation to relieve mass employment; the use of public works to provide a yardstick by which to measure the performance of private enterprise; and the use of public construction to "prime the pump" (Aldrich, l980:F.491. None of these ideas was completely new. That is, public works had been used to soften the effect of unemployment in cities during earlier depressions; the yardstick idea had been applied in the past, especially with regard to mu- nicipal utilities; and public construction had been used to stimulate enterprise. What differed in the 1930s was the massive scale of federal involvement, amounting to 60 to 65 percent of all public construction from 1933 to 1938 and nearly a third of total construc- tion (Aldrich, 1980:F.50; Gelfand, 1975:23-1051. The federal government constructed a huge range of projects, including roads, sewers, waterworks, multiple-purpose dams, bridges, parks, docks, airports, hospitals, and other public buildings and "prevented what would have been near eclipse of an entire gener- ation of public construction projects" (Aldrich, l980:F.55; Daniels, 1975:2-11~. It is instructive to look at the Public Works A~ninistration (PWA)

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 41 sewer and water supply projects. PWA funds accounted for 35 to 50 percent of all new sewer and water supply construction during the 1930s. These projects generated a variety of benefits to local communities. New water supply systems, for instance, produced sharply reduced fire insurance premiums in addition to water sup- plies. Sewer construction supplied unemployment relief and also addressed the problems of water pollution control. President Roo- sevelt accelerated investment for sewage treatment facilities by refusing to approve PWA sewer projects that did not include treat- ment. Similarly, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) was not permitted to construct sanitary sewers unless they were de- signed to be compatible with treatment works. By 193S, federal financing had aided in the construction of i,165 of the 1,310 new municipal sewage treatment plants built in the decade. The pop- ulation served by sewage treatment increased from 21.5 million in 1932 to more than 39 million by 1939, substantially improving the quality of the waterways used for municipal waste disposal (Tarr, 1978:Ch. B:12-19~. On the whole, federal public works spending was oriented toward the Mountain, Pacific, and Southern states. The Mid-AtIantic and East North Central states, all of which had per capita incomes above the national average, received less than the national average of public works employment. These statistics, however, are an artifact of the existence of large conservation projects, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and Bonneville and Hoover dams, in the West and the South. PWA projects involving hospitals, sewers, educa- tional buildings, and water supply were more concentrated in the urbanized areas of the Mid-AtIantic and East North Central states (Daniels, 1975:12-171. The shift of infrastructure funding from the local to the national level in the 1930s did not eliminate politics in its allocation and utilization. In Chicago, Kansas City, and Pittsburgh, for example, the New Deal stimulated a Democratic voting revolution that helped put Democratic political machines into power. The machines uti- lized the patronage and projects of the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the WPA, and the PWA to entrench themselves. In Kansas City, for instance, the Pendergast machine directed the hiring of thousands of workers under the CWA and the WPA. The WPA produced a number of new municipal buildings in Kansas City, most of which included cement from Boss Pendergast's cement com- pany. Chicago received more public monies than any other city,

42 PERSPECTIVES ON URBANINFRASTRUCTURE benefiting from the fact that it had both a comprehensive devel- opment plan and a huge Democratic majority. The machine directed by Mayor Edward d. Kelley received substantial patronage, and the city acquired large additions to its infrastructure, such as bou- levards, bridges, public transport, and water and sewage improve- ments (Dorsett, 19771. Professional Developments The 1920s and lD3()s saw the continuation of the trend for mu- nicipal engineers to become city managers, especially in smaller cities. Large-city managers were less likely to be engineers because of a requirement for administrative training on a broader scale, but engineers usually served as public works administrators, even though engineering knowledge was only a part of the qualifications re- quired of large-city public works directors. The depression affected engineers more than other professionals, and it is likely that the qualifications of engineers working on public infrastructure con- struction and maintenance improved because of the scarcity of pri- vate-sector postions. A 1962 survey shower! that "security" and the unavailability of other jobs were the prime reasons why many in- dividuals accepted government employment during the depression (Armstrong et al., 1976:681-6841. The two decades between the wars also saw important develop- ments with regard to various professional and public interest or- ganizations most concerned with the urban infrastructure. The American Society of Municipal Engineers (AME), for instance, joined with the International Association of Public Works Officials (lAPWO) in 1925 (it was originally the International Association of Street and Sanitation Officials, founded in 19191. In 1931 the {APWO began cooperating with the International City Managers Associa- tion to design a national cost accounting and reporting system to facilitate the planning, programming, and budgeting of public works. The outgrowth of this collaboration was a number of demonstration projects and the publication of a text entitled Municipal Public Works Management. In 1937 the AME and lAPWO joined to form the American Public Works Association (APWA) under the leacI- ership of Donald C. Stone. This association was located at the same Chicago address with many other professional and public interest associations, and this public administration center became the focus for the circulation of information on new administrative procedures.

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 43 Such associations worked for the enactment of standards with re- gard to the infrastructure as well as for more government spending on infrastructure in general (Armstrong et al., 1976:679-6811. The Postwar Period The postwar decades witnessed increased suburbanization and the beginnings of central city decline. The effects of this trend were masked for a time by a backlog of war-induced infrastructure needs that produced a period of vigorous growth. During the war itself, federal public works investment was almost entirely for factory plant and equipment, and municipal spending for construction and maintenance was sharply reduced. By 1945, public construction for infrastructure had a total shortfall of 3.3 years of building at 1940 levels. Public investment for infrastructure resumed after the war, expanding from $2.9 billion in 1946 to $~.6 billion in 1950, to $13.6 billion in 1960 (1957-1959 constant dollars). Construction of sewers ant! waterworks, school buildings, and roads proceeded at a rapid pace, reflecting the impacts of suburbanization, the automobile, and the baby boom (Aldrich, l980:F.59-711. Central city decline and suburban proliferation created different sorts of infrastructure pressures. Suburbanization producer! an in- crease in the formation of municipalities in many metropolitan areas. In suburban Saint Louis County, for instance, the number of municipalities grew from 21 in 1930 to 83 in 1950; in Los Angeles County the number went from 45 to 68 in the 1950s. In meclium- sized cities of the West and the South after 1945, annexation of adjacent suburbs often occurred, but this route was politically im- possible for the older urban centers. The loss of population, industry, and commercial activities by these centers caused a severe weak- ening of their tax bases. Except in a few cities, attempts to deal with these problems by forming metropolitan governments also failed (Teaford, 1979:171-1761. Policy makers often tried to cope with fragmentation by expancI- ing old and creating new special-purpose metropolitan districts. Of the 79 metropolitan special-purpose districts existing in 1956, 51 were formed after 1930. Such districts dealt with sewage disposal, transportation, water, parks, and recreation and brought scale ef- ficiencies ant} improved services to many metropolitan areas. The special districts also created a new governmental layer, often out- side the control of the citizens who depended on their services. As

44 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE separate organizational bureaucracies, frequently possessing fi- nancial independence through user fees, they occasionally acted in arbitrary and insensitive fashion in expanding their operations and providing services. In cases in which central cities still supplied services to suburbs, friction resulted! over questions of rates and quality of service delivery. Special district governments were not always the panacea for solving infrastructure problems they were promised to be (Hawkins, 1 976b: 1 7 1 - 1 861. In response to metropolitan fragmentation, the functions of county government also expanded in the postwar period. In 1964, for ex- ample, Los Angeles County contracted to provide all administrative services to the suburban city of Lakewood, and a score of other suburban cities in metropolitan Los Angeles followed the example. By 1972, of the 150 major urban counties, more than half provided public libraries and recreational facilities, over a third sewage clis- posal, and about a fifth solid waste collection and water supply. Such county activities were advanced by state legislation that per- mittec! the county to act in place of the municipality (Teaford, 1979:174-1751. Faced by rapid suburbanization and central city decline, down- town business interests and urban politicians joined to attempt to revitalize the central business districts. These developments began in the older cities of the East and the Midwest but spread to the so-called Sunbelt in the 1960s and 1970s. In a number of cities, such as Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Atlanta, Dallas, Minneapolis, and Chicago, the renewal efforts involved significant interaction be- tween private-sector voluntary business organizations and the pub- lic sector. In some cases, such as Chicago and Pittsburgh, urban government was controlled by a Democratic political machine, while the business establishment was strongly Republican. A common interest in development, however, overwhelmed partisan preju- dices. In several Sunbelt cities, such as San Antonio and Norfolk, political "reformers" joined with business leaders to promote re- newal (Abbott, 1981:120-166; Foster and Berger, 19821. These city "booster" coalitions hoped to revive the central busi- ness districts, stimulate the return of the middle classes, and im- prove the economic climate of the central city. Their programs largely involved a combination of private-sector investment in office struc- tures with public-sector investment in supporting infrastructure. Attempts were also made to improve environmental conditions.

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 45 Thus, in Pittsburgh, whose redevelopment efforts became a mode! for a number of other cites, the Allegheny County Conference on Community Development, composed of the city's business elite led by Richard King Mellon, cooperated with the Democratic political organization under Mayor David Lawrence to bring about the so- called Renaissance. Essentially this involved cooperation to elim- inate smoke pollution of the air and sewage pollution of the rivers, to control flooding, to renew the central business district as a cor- porate headquarters center, and to improve the highway network. Some projects, such as sewage treatment, involved suburban towns as well as the central city. Special authorities, created by state legislation and directed by a mix of public- and private-sector rep- resentatives, were the predominant government mode used to bring about the Pittsburgh Renaissance (Stewman and Tarr, 1982:69-781. The immediate postwar renewal efforts did not involve large numbers of federal dollars. In those years there was a reaction against the spending of the New Deal, although federal involvement in the cities and in infrastructure never completely stopped. A num- ber of downtown renewal projects, for instance, rested on the au- thority and funds provided by the 1949 Housing Act and subsequent amendments in 1954 and 1959. While most of the funds in these acts were for land assembly and clearance, site preparation, in- cluding infrastructure, was also inclucled (Gelfand, 1975:205-2161. In the area of water quality, federal involvement came haltingly, especially compared with the heavy investment of the 1930s. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 provided funds for research and planning, and for low-interest loans, while the 1956 amendment enlarged federal participation by providing grants to stimulate the construction of municipal sewage treatment facilities. The dollars available for subsidy remained limited, however, due to a belief that federal grants actually retarded the pace of munic- ipal investments. Total spending on new construction for sewer and water systems did not actually reach the 1930 level in constant dollars until 1951. From 1950 to 1960, at a time when fecleral aid was relatively nominal and municipalities provided most invest- ment, spending increased about one-third, from $~.1 billion to $1.4 billion (1957-1959 constant dollars) (Bureau of the Census, 1975:621; Tarr et al., 1978:Ch. 7:22-261. The pattern of rapid suburbanization caused spending for high- way construction to expand dramatically. Federal clolIars were

46 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE available in limiter! amounts uncler the Fecleral-Aic} Highway Act of 1944, which allocated funds on a 50-50 matching basis, but high- way needs, both in terms of new roacis ant! repair of old, were immense. A number of states, for example, Illinois, Ohio, and Penn- sylvania, constructec! toll roacis (3,338 miles by 1963) to solve the problem of financing intercity transportation. Leaders of renewal coalitions in cities such as Pittsburgh, New Haven, ant! St. Paul regarclec! urban expressways as critical to reclevelopment ant} funcled them through state or municipal bone! issues. In 1955, urban gov- ernments soIc} $310 million in bonds for highway construction (Rose, 1979:651. Given the scope of urban ant} national highway needs, however, some sort of fecleral involvement was necessary. Urban spokesmen observer! that fecleral financial responsibility for new interstate highways wouIc! have the aciclitional benefit of freeing up local ant! state funds for maintenance and for the construction of secondary ant! urban road networks. Throughout the 1950s, truckers, automobile clubs, highway con- tractors, the automobile industry, engineering associations, ant! business groups lobbied Congress to provide fecleral funding for new highway construction. The Advisory Committee on a National Highway Program, heaclec! by retiree! General Lucius D. Clay, rec- ommendeci that both national security and the health of the econ- omy were clepenclent on rapic! construction of the highway network, ant! Congress finally approver! the bill in 1956. The final legislation proviclec! for fecleral assumption of 90 percent of the costs, with gasoline tax revenues placed in a Highway Trust Func! to prevent . ~ c .lverslon. The 41,000-mile network created by the Interstate Highway Act was the largest single item of infrastructure ever projected. Con- gress gave little consideration, however, to the effects of its con- struction on urban areas. The Clay Committee hac! soIc} the inter- state system to Congress as a carrier of long-hau! traffic, but municipal leaclers visualized the highways as a means to solve traffic congestion problems. Because highway construction through congestec! urban areas was exceeclingly expensive, cities eventually receiver} a large percentage of the total allocations. The interstates, however, although they speeclec} commuter traffic in some urban areas, also accelerated central city decline by making it easier for residents to move to the suburban fringe ant! still commute to cen- tral city workplaces (Gelfand, 1975:222-229; Rose, 1979:70-841.

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE THE RISE OF THE OUTER CITY AND RECENT TRENDS INFLUENCING URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE, 1956-1982 47 Several interrelated demographic, fiscal, and social trends have severely affected urban infrastructure in the 1960s and 1970s. Cen- tral city population loss and the movement to the suburbs has con- tinued at a rapid rate. In some cases this migration has produced metropolitan as well as central city decline. While processes of change, such as gentrification ant! renewal of central business dis- tricts as well as rising gasoline prices, have resulted in some return migration to the city, the numbers are still relatively small. Ac- companying central city losses has been a massive regional popu- lation shift from the older cities of the Northeast and the Midwest toward the cities of the Sunbelt (Abbott, 1981:34-56; Muller,1981:119- 1821. The most important consequence for the urban infrastructure of these population trends has been a decline in tax revenues to support maintenance and renewal. While what is now called the inner city has been experiencing often dramatic population declines, the so-called outer city is undergoing a continuing boom. Traditional suburbia as well as exurbia have attracted a mass of urban activities that were formerly a central city monopoly. Most prominent in the outer city are the new multiple-purpose centers (or mini-cities) that provide concen- trations of retailing, entertainment, and other employment activ- ities. These are located on or close to the beltways and freeways constructed since the 1956 Interstate Highway Act and are sur- rounded by residential areas (Muller,1981:~19-~821. In many cases, infrastructure is provided by special-purpose authorities who levy user taxes and are better able to absorb the costs of maintenance and construction. But while some of the outer city infrastructure fits the decentralized nature of the low-density, outer city habitat, much of the technology was originally developed to fit the needs of a more concentrated environment. The expense of utilizing these technologies in a dispersed environment raises important questions of economies of scale and of the compatibility of technical systems. Changing Fiscal Trends Changing fiscal trends have also been critical in the 1960s and 1970s. In these decades the federal government returned to the pattern of heavy involvement with the infrastructure that it had

48 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE followed in the middle of the nineteenth century and during the Great Depression (see Figure 1-21. From 1957 to 1977, federal grants to state and local governments for capital projects increased from about 10 percent of public works investment to about 40 percent. Highways, sewers, and spending for mass transit absorbed the larg- est amount of federal funds (CONSAD, 1980:~.80-T.1254. This reli- ance on federal dollars, claim some urban authorities, has produced a sharp change in the nature of federalism and a skewing of local priorities toward projects for which federal funds have been avail- able. Perhaps most critical for the health of infrastructure has been a bias in the legislation in favor of new construction rather than maintenance of existing capital stock (CONSAD, 1980:~.1251. Be- ginning in 1979, federal funding for infrastructure began to decline in response to pressure on the federal budget from inflation. Ini- tially, the Reagan administration sharply curtailed the supply of federal funds for infrastructure, forcing municipalities and other institutions to depend more heavily on their own resources. In 1982, however, it acquiesced to an increase in the gasoline tax for trans- portation facilities. While federal funding has fallen since 1979, local governments have experienced revenue shortfalls since the early 1970s that have severely restricted their ability to under- take infrastructure funding (American Public Works Association, 19811. The Environmental Movement The environmental movement is the third major factor that af- fected urban infrastructure in the 1960s and 1970s. The environ- mental movement is a political action movement led by upper- and middIe-cIass professionals and activists that aims to improve en- vironmental conditions largely through government action. Under various acts, such as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-500), federal dollars poured into sewer and sewage treatment projects. Between 1967 and 1977, federal expenditures for sewer systems increased from $150 million to $4.1 billion, with the heaviest expenditures after 1973. By 1977, transfers to localities for wastewater treatment composed 30 percent of federal aid to cities and more than half of the total combined local and federal new investment in sewer systems. Simultaneously, localities them- seIves increased their sewer investments, from about 11 percent of capital infrastructure expenditures in 1959-1972 to 21 percent in

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 49 1977 (Choate and Walter, 1981:40-47; CONSAD, 1980:T.85-~.1044. The National Environmental Protection Act, which required the preparation of environmental impact statements for projects in- volving federal money, was another environmentally related fed- eral act that affected urban infrastructure. While its provisions may have improved environmental quality by requiring the alteration or halting of construction projects, they also lengthened the time (and hence increased the cost) required for project completion. Mass Transit The involvement of the federal government in the provision of funds for urban mass transit is another critical infrastructure de- velopment in the 1970s. Between 1973 and 1977, federal funds to localities for urban mass transit grew from $275 million to $~.3 billion. This development relates to a long-term historical change that began early in the century and accelerated in the 1950s from private to public provision of transit services. By 1965, more than half of the nation's urban transit systems were publicly owned. The transit industry as a whole developed an operating deficit for the first time in 1963, although a number of transit companies had had severe financial problems early in the century (McShane, 1974:34- 391. Some advocates of public ownership of transit lines argued that cost savings and better service would result-an argument that had originally been used at the turn of the century in the drive for municipal ownership. Government involvement in public trans- portation, however, has generally appeared to accelerate, not di- minish, spending. Transit subsidy levels were relatively low until the mid-1970s, but then rose sharply (Altshuler et al., 1979:31-491. Alternative Systems A fifth characteristic of the 1970s with regard to infrastructure has been an emphasis on innovation and alternative systems, stim- ulated by the sharply rising costs of municipal services. Also con- tributing, however, have been increased research activities and a recognition of the diseconomies that often accompany large-scale systems. Ideas stemming from the environmental movement had much to do with these developments. Several examples of innova- tion are experiments with land disposal of sewage (Corps of Engi- neers), on-site alternatives to conventional sewerage systems (En

50 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE vironmental Protection Agency), and paratransit systems (Urban Mass Transportation Administration). The Environmental Protec- tion Agency began a technology transfer program in the early 1970s, and some federal legislation actually mandated consideration of alternative systems (Office of Technology Assessment, 1981~. CONCLUSION It is clear from an examination of the historical record that in- frastructure has played a critical role in urban development in each of the periods surveyed. It is also apparent that infrastructure pro- vision has been affected by a number of different demand and supply factors. Important on the demand side have been the activities of city boosters and the downtown business establishments, real estate developers, urban politicians, contractors, suppliers of materials, and various professional groups. The motivation of each group often varied. City boosters wanted to enhance the image of their cities in order to attract population and industry. Real estate developers wanted to increase the value of their property through improve- ments. Politicians wanted to secure contracts for themselves and jobs and benefits for their constituents. Professionals, such as en- gineers and physicians at the turn of the century, pushed technol- ogies relating to public health in order to improve urban health and vitality for professional and employment reasons. On the supply side, the important factors have included finances, the supply of engineers, the flow of innovations, and the adminis- trative delivery structures. The financial pattern was cyclical and usually related to the building cycle and to longer cycles of about 15-20 years (Gottlieb, 19761. Over time, there were also important shifts in the funding sources, as state and federal governments joined with municipalities in infrastructure provision for purposes of stimulating development, employing the out-of-work, improving the public health and the environment, and satisfying various po- litical and voting groups. The supply of engineers increased over time, making possible larger and more complex projects, but it is probable that in recent decades the private sector and other newer branches of engineering have become more attractive to talented engineers than public-sector employment. Forms of delivery sys- tems have also shifted, from a reliance on volunteer and labor- intensive services in the early nineteenth century to more struc- tured and often capital-intensive systems beginning in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Turn-of-the-century urban reform

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 51 ers pushed for new governmental forms oriented toward efficiency and economy, and administrative systems improved in many cities. Reform systems, however, had more success in small and medium- sized rather than large cities. Perhaps the governmental organi- zation that best reflected the administrative ideal was the special district authority, free from the political and financial constraints of older cities. This form of management proliferated in the outer city settlements that have developed in recent decades. Today's so-called infrastructure crisis has produced a variety of innovations and experiments with regard to financing, public-pri- vate cooperation, and various types of lease-back, sell-back, and private-sector options. Many of these experiments, however, had been tried at different times in the past, usually in response to financial stringency. The fact that some of these options have been used before does not vitiate their effectiveness but reaffirms the cyclical nature of the urban infrastructure experience. The history clearly affirms that a variety of forms and approaches have been used over time in order to supply urban needs. Public provision, private provision, and public-private cooperation have all been at- tempted and have been both successful and unsuccessful, depending on the particular time, place, and circumstances. This brief examination of the evolution of the urban infrastruc- ture has indicated the extent to which the integrity of the infra- structure as a working system is dependent on a wide range of political, technical, financial, and demographic factors. The built environment, including both private and public elements, is very slow to change, and the largely public urban infrastructure is even slower. The more radical systemic changes, such as the shift from the privy vault/cesspool system to sewerage, from wells and pumps to waterworks, and from a fragmented system of national highways to the interstate highway system, depended on interest group co- alitions on the demand side and the existence of technical expertise and financial resources on the supply side. These major systemic shifts, of course, took several decades to occur. History suggests that if major renovations and alterations in today's infrastructure are to occur, a powerful coalition of interest groups, sensitized to the need for innovation, will be required. AFTERWORD While the literature on urban infrastructure is relatively large, it is extremely uneven and focuses on isolated episodes in the history

52 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE of specific cities. Seldom does it provide a comparative framework. There are a number of specific infrastructure topics that should be investigated, but even more important is the need to focus on the relationship of infrastructure to the processes of urban change and development. The following list discusses some areas that are in need of investigation, but in no particular order of importance. · The relationship between infrastructure construction and de- velopment: History suggests that there is a strong correlation be- tween the construction of infrastructure and economic development. We still lack studies, however, especially with regard to cities, that support this hypothesis in a systematic way. · The operation of urban real estate markets in relationship to infrastructure development: We are badly in need of micro-studies that relate changes in real estate development and values to de- velopment of infrastructure over time. We have information on two or three cities that suggests a great variation over cities and social classes, but more is needed. · Infrastructure maintenance: "Spending money unstintedly for construction, often under the supervision of the best engineers the country affords, and then being niggardly in maintenance and op- eration appropriations and leaving costly and perhaps complicated works to run themselves except for political heelers or lame clucks is the rule rather than the exception in many if not most American cities" (Engineering News, February IS, 19174. We possess very little information about the processes and procedures of urban maintenance, aside from a belief, as the quotation illustrates, that it was done badly. There is a folklore that political machines did a very poor job in maintenance while reform governments did a su- perior job. This hypothesis, while possibly true, has never been fully tested. · The influence of neighborhoods on infrastructure development: There is some evidence that the "revolt of the neighborhoods" is not just a phenomenon of the 1970s and that neighborhoods exer- cised influence over infrastructure decisions in their areas as early as the nineteenth century. We need to develop more information concerning how neighborhood groups as opposed to politicians or real estate developers shaped the process of infrastructure devel- opment, and what forms of governments appeared more sensitive to their preferences. · Comparisons between types of cities with regard to infrastruc- ture development: We are just beginning to study the development

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 53 of public works in specific cities over time. While these examina- tions are useful, we are in need of comparative studies that isolate such variables as the timing of innovation, the age of a city, political forms, economic development, and demographic characteristics. The one study that attempts this, while useful, is limited to smaller cities in a specific region (Hollingsworth and Hollingsworth, 19791. · The diffusion process: Aside from nineteenth-century water supply systems, we know little about the process by which urban technologies and innovations were diffused among the network of cities over time. We need more information on the relationship of diffusion to factors such as the employment of individuals, engi- neering and consulting firms, professional associations, industrial marketing activities, and communications networks. · The development of standards and codes: Standards and codes appear to have played a large role in shaping the development of the infrastructure and the process of innovation, but we know very little about the influences involved in their development and how they affected the process of change. We need studies to show where adherence to codes and standards has blocked innovation and also about the process by which, if at all, they were altered or changed. · The development and experience of different funding mecha- nisms for urban infrastructure. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A number of colleagues and friends offered helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. ~ would especially like to thank Brian d. L. Berry, Edward Constant ill, David Goldfield, Suellen Hoy, Patrick D. Larkey, Harold L. Platt, Mark Rose, Howard Rosen, and Heywood Sanders. -BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbott, Carl 1981 The New Urban America: Growth and Politics in Sunbelt Cities. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Aldrich, Mark 1980 A history of public works in the United States, 1790-1970. In CONSAD, A Study of Public Works Investment in the United States. Available from the U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Com merce. Altshuler, Alan, with James P. Womack and John R. Pucher 1979 The Urban Transportation System: Politics and Policy Innovation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

54 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE American Public Works Association 1981 Revenue Shortfall: The Public Works Challenge of the 1980's. Chicago: Amer- ican Public Works Association. American Society of Civil Engineers 1972 A Biographical Dictionary of American Civil Engineers. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers Historical Publication. Anderson, Alan 1977 The Origin and Resolution of an Urban Crisis: Baltimore, 1890-1930. Balti- more: Johns Hopkins University Press. Anderson, Letty Donaldson 1980 The Diffusion of Technology in the Nineteenth Century American City: Mu- nicipal Water Supply Investments. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, North- western University. Armstrong, Ellis L., Robinson, Michael C., and Hoy, Suellen M., eds. 1976 History of Public Works in the United States 1776-1976. Chicago: American Public Works Association. Arnold, Joseph 1979 The neighborhood and City Hall: the origin of the neighborhood associations in Baltimore, 1880-1911. Journal of Urban History 6(Nov.):3-30. Baker, M. N. 1896 Sewerage and Sewage Purification. New York: Engineering News Publishing Co. Berry, Brian J. L. 1981 Comparative Urbanization: Divergent Paths in the Twentieth Century. New York: St. Martin's Press. Blake, Nelson Manfred 1956 Water for the Cities: A History of the Urban Water Supply Problem in the United States. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. Booth, Douglas E. 1983 Transportation, city building, and financial crisis: Milwaukee, 1852-1868. Journal of Urban History 9(3):335-363. Brownell, Blaine A. 1975 The Urban Ethos in the South 1920-1930. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Uni- versity Press. Bruchey, Stuart 1965 The Roots of American Economic Growth, 1607-1861. New York: Harper & Row. Bureau of the Census 1975 Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970. Available from the U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart- ment of Commerce. Calhoun, Daniel Hovey 1960 The American Civil Engineer: Origins and Conflict. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Caro, Robert 1974 The PowerBroker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York. New York: Vintage Books. Carter, Edward, C., II 1975 The engineer as agent of technological transfer: the American career of Ben- jamin Henry Latrobe. In Barbara Genson, ea., Benjamin Henry Latrobe and Moncure Robinson: The Engineer as Agent of Technological Transfer.

E VOL UTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTR UCTURE 55 1976 Benjamin Henry Latrobe and Public Works: Professionalism, Private Interest, and Public Policy in the Age of Jefferson. Essays in Public Works History No. 3. Washington, D.C.: Public Works Historical Society. Cheape, Charles 1980 Moving the Masses: Urban Public Transit in New York, Boston, and Phila- delphia, 1880-1912. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Choate, Pat, and Walter, Susan 1981 America in Ruins: Beyond the Public Works Pork Barrel. Washington, D.C.: Council of State Planning Agencies. Condit, Carl W. 1973 Chicago 1910-1929: Building, Planning and Urban Technology. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press. CONSAD 1980 A Study of Public Works Investment in the United States, Vol. 1: Historical Analysis of PHI Trends and Financing Mechanisms. Available from the U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Com- merce. Daniels, Roger 1975 The Relevancy of Public Works History: The 1930's-A Case Study. Washing- ton, D.C.: Public Works Historical Society. Dorsett, Lyle W. 1977 Franklin D. Roosevelt and the City Bosses. Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press. Duffy, John 1974 A History of Public Health in New York City 1866-1966. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Dunn, Edgar S., Jr. 1980 The Development of the U.S. Urban System. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Uni- versity Press. Ellis, John H. 1970 Businessmen and public health in the urban South during the nineteenth century: New Orleans, Memphis, and Atlanta. Bulletin of the History of Med - icine 44(May/June, July/Aug.):197-212, 346-371. Fisher, Edwin A. 1933 Engineering and public works in the city of Rochester. In Edward R. Foreman, ea., Centennial History of Rochester, New York. Vol. III.: Expansion. Rochester, N.Y.: Rochester Public Library. Fitch, James Marston 1966 American BuildingI: The Historical Forces That Shaped It. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Fogelson, Robert M. 1967 The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angeles 1850-1930. Cambridge, Mass.: Har- vard University Press. Foster, R. Scott, and Berger, Renee A., eds. 1982 Public-PrivatePartnership in American Cities: Seven Case Studies. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books. Foster, Mark S. 1981 From Streetcar to Superhighway: American City Planners and Urban Trans- portation 1900-1940. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Fox, Kenneth 1977 Better City Government: Innovation in American Urban Politics, 1850-1937. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

56 PERSPECTIVES ON URBANINFRASTRUCTURE Frisch, Michael H. 1972 Town Into City: Springfield, Massachusetts and the Meaning of Community, 1840-1880. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Galishoff, Stuart 1980 Triumph and failures: the American response to the urban water supply prob- lem, 1860-1923. In Martin V. Melosi, ea., Pollution and Reform in American Cities, 1870-1930. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. Gelfand, Mark I. 1975 A Nation of Cities: The Federal Government and Urban America 1933-1965. New York: Oxford. Genson, Barbara E., ed. 1975 Benjamin Henry Latrobe and Moncure Robinson: The Engineer as Agent of Technological Transfer. Wilmington, Del.: Eleutherian Mills Historical Li- brary. Gere, Edwin A., Jr. 1982 Dillon's rule and the Cooley doctrine: reflections of the political culture. Jour- nal of Urban History 8(May):271-298. Glaab, Charles N. 1968 Metropolis and suburb: the changing American city. In John Braeman et al., eds., Change and Continuity in Twentieth-Century America: The 1920's. Co- lumbus: Ohio State University Press. Gluck, Peter R., and Meister, Richard J. 1979 Cities in Transition: Social Changes and Institutional Responses in Urban Development. New York: New Viewpoints. Goldfield, David R., and Brownell, Blaine A. 1979 Urban America: From Downtown to No Town. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Gottlieb, Manuel 1976 Long Swings in Urban Development. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research. (Distributed by Columbia University Press.) Griffith, Ernest S. 1974 The Conspicuous Failure: A History of American City Government 1870-1900. New York: Praeger. Harris, Carl V. 1977 Political Power in Birmingham, 1871-1921. Knoxville: The University of Ten- nessee Press. Hawkins, Robert B., Jr. 1976a Self-Government by District: Myth orReality. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institute Press. 1976b Special districts and urban services. In Elinor Ostrom, ea., The Delivery of Urban Services. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Hays, Samuel P. 1974 The changing political structure of the city in industrial America. Journal of Urban History l(Nov.):6-38. Hillhouse, Albert M. 1935 Lessons from previous eras of defaults. In A. Chatters, ea., Municipal Defaults: Their Prevention and Adjustment. Publication No. 33. Chicago: Municipal Finance Officers Association. 1936 Municipal Bonds: A Century of Experience. New York: Prentice-Hall. Hollingsworth, J. Rogers, and Hollingsworth, Ellen Jane 1979 Dimensions in Urban History. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

E VOL UTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTR UCTURE 57 Holt, Michael Fitzgibbon 1969 Forging a Majority: The Formation of the Republican Party in Pittsburgh, 1848-1860. New Haven: Yale University Press. Hoy, Suellen M., and Robinson, Michael C., comps. 1982 Public Works History in the United States: A Guide to theLiterature. Nashville, Tenn.: American Association for State and Local History. Jackson, Joy J. 1969 New Orleans in the Gilded Age: Politics and Urban Progress 1880-1896. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Jackson, Kenneth T. 1975 Urban Reconcentration in the nineteenth century: a statistical inquiry. In Leo F. Schnore, ea., The New Urban History: Quantitative Explorations by Amer- ican Historians. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Kahrl, William L. 1982 Water and Power. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kirkland, Edward C. 1961 Industry Comes of Age: Business, Labor, and Public Policy 1860-1897. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Lane, Roger 1967 Policing the City: Boston 1822-1885. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Layton, Edward 1971 The Revolt of the Engineers: Social Responsibility and the American Engi- neering Profession. Cleveland, Ohio: Case Western Reserve University Press. Leavitt, Judith Walzer 1982 The Healthiest City: Milwaukee and the Politics of Health Reform. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Lively, Robert A. 1955 The American system: a review article. Business History Review 24(Summer):81- 95. Martin, Richard J. L., and Willeke, Gene E. 1978 The House That Jack Built: An Agenda for the Assessment of the Technologies of the Built Environment. Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Architecture. McShane, Clay 1974 Technology and Reform. Madison: The State Historical Society of Wisconsin. 1979 Transforming the use of urban space: a look at the revolution in street pave- ments, 1880-1924. Journal of Urban History 5(May):279-307. Merritt, Raymond H. 1969 Engineering in American Society. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Moehring, Eugene P. 1981 Public Works and the Patterns of Urban Real Estate Growth in Manhattan. 1835-1894. New York: Arno Press. 1982 Public Works and Urban History: Recent Trends and New Directions, Essays in Public History. No. 13. Chicago: Public Works Historical Society. Moore, Peter W. 1983 Public services and residential development in a Toronto neighborhood 1880- 1915. Journal of Urban History 9(Aug.):445-471. Muller, Peter O. 1981 Contemporary Suburban America. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. ..

58 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE Office of Technology Assessment 1981 Technology forLocalDevelopment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrint- ing Office. Olson, Sherry H. 1980 Baltimore: The Building of an American City. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Uni- versity Press. Peterson, Jon A. 1976 The City Beautiful movement: forgotten origins and lost meaning. Journal of Urban History 2(Aug.):415-434. 1979 The impact of sanitary reform upon American urban planning, 1840-1890. Journal of Social History 13(Fall):83-104. Platt, Harold L. 1975 Urban Public Services, 1873-1914: A Reconsideration of Social and Structural Reform. Unpublished paper, Loyola University of Chicago. 1983 City Building in the New South: The Growth of Public Services in Houston, Texas, 1830-1915. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Pred, Allan R. 1966 The Spatial Dynamics of U.S. Urban-Industrial Growth, 1800-1914. Cam- bridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Rae, John B. 1971 The Road and the Car in American Life. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Rose, Mark H. 1979 Interstate: Express Highway Politics, 1941-1956. Lawrence, Kansas: Regents Press. Rose, Mark H., and Clark, John G. 1979 Light, heat, and power: energy choices in Kansas City, Wichita, and Denver, 1900-1935. Journal of Urban History 5(May):340-364. Rosenberg, Nathan 1972 Technology and American Economic Growth. White Plains, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe. Schiesl, Martin J. 1977 The Politics of Efficiency: Municipal Administration and Reform in America: 1880-1920. Berkeley: University of California Press. Schultz, Stanley K., and McShane, Clay 1978 To engineer the metropolis: sewers, sanitation and city planning in late-nine- teenth century America. Journal of American History 65(Sept.):389-411. Seely, Bruce E. 1982 Engineers and Government-Business Cooperation: Highway Standards and the Bureau of Public Roads, 1900-1940. Unpublished manuscript, Texas A&M University. Simon, Roger D. 1978 The City-Building Process: Housing and Services in New Milwaukee Neigh- borhoods 1880-1910. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Stearns, Peter N., and Tarr, Joel A. 1982 Applied history: new/old frontier for the historical discipline. Institute News 3(0ct.). Stewman, Shelby, and Tarr, Joel A. 1982 Four decades of public-private partnerships in Pittsburgh. In R. Scott Foster and Renee A. Berger, eds., Public-Private Partnership in American Cities: Seven Case Studies. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE Studenski, Paul 59 1930 The Government of Metropolitan Areas in the United States. New York: Na- tional Municipal League. Studenski, Paul, and Krooss, Herman E. 1952 Financial History of the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tarr, Joel A. 1971 The urban politician as entrepreneur. In Bruce Stave, ea., Urban Bosses, Machines, and Progressive Reformers. Boston. 1973 From city to suburb: the moral implications of transportation technology. In Alexander Callow, ea., American Urban History. Rev. ed. New York: Oxford. 1978 Transportation Innovation and Changing Spatial Patterns in Pittsburgh, 1850 1934. Essays in Public Works History, No.6. Chicago: Public Works Historical Society. 1979 The separate vs. combined sewer problem: a case study in urban technology design choice. Journal of Urban History 5(May):308-339. Tarr, Joel A., and McMichael, Francis C. 1977 The evolution of wastewater technology and the development of state regu- lation: a retrospective analysis. In Joel A. Tarr, ea., Retrospective Technology Assessment. San Francisco: San Francisco Press. Tarr, Joel A., McCurley, James, and Yosie, Terry F. 1980 The development and impact of urban wastewater technology: changing con- cepts of water quality control, 1850-1930. In Martin V. Melosi, ea., Pollution and Reform in American Cities. Austin: Texas University Press. Tarr, Joel A., et al. 1978 Retrospective Assessment of Wastewater Technology in the U.S., 1850-1972. Report to the National Science Foundation. Available from the National Tech- nical Information Service, Springfield, Va. Taylor, George Rogers 1966 The beginnings of mass transportation in urban America. The Smithsonian Journal of History (Summer, Autumn):35-50; 31-54. Teaford, Jon C. 1975 The Municipal Revolution in America: Origins of Modern Urban Government, 1650-1825. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1979 City and Suburb: The Political Fragmentation of Metropolitan America, 1850 1970. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1982 Finis for Tweed and Steffens: rewriting the history of urban rule. Reviews in American History (December):137-139. Wade, Richard C. 1959 The Urban Frontier: The Rise of Western Cities, 1790-1830. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Ward, David 1971 Cities and Immigrants: A Geography of Change in Nineteenth Century Amer- ica. New York: Oxford. Warner, Sam Bass, Jr. 1962 Streetcar Suburbs: The Process of Growth in Boston, 1870-1900. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press and MIT Press. 1968 The Private City: Philadelphia in Three Periods of Its Growth. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

60 Weingold, Marilyn PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 1980 Pioneering in Parks and Parkways: Westchester County, New York, 1895-1945. Essays in Public Works History, No. 9. Chicago: Public Works Historical Society. Wiebe, Robert H. 1967 The Search for Order, 1877-1920. New York: Hill and Wang. DISCUSSION Randy Hamilton A historical view of urban public facilities should focus on tools, skills, materials, and sources of power. These themes allow cohesion · ~ in ana .ysls. In discussing the financing of infrastructure, we should perhaps say that cities invested rather than spent; the returns on this in- vestment have been great. Compared with private investments, defaults have been rare. This is a remarkably good performance. In analyzing the financing of urban facilities, it would also be help- ful to place some of the numbers in perspective, comparing them with total city budgets. Having looked at the walking city, the transit city, and the au- tomobile city, we now need to speculate on the next kind of city, perhaps the "wired" city, and the changes in infrastructure it will require. Finally, we should give some attention to how we train public works professionals. Wilfred Owen Tarr's analysis suggests ways in which history repeats itself. It also identifies some things we should not allow history to repeat. The major issue raised by tracing urban evolution is the kind of o.it.v t.h~t. oomph next the snace-a~e city the city concerned with ~ i, ~ _ . ~ ~ ~ ,, both inner and outer space. We have moved in a short time from cesspools and cisterns to microcomputers, lasers, and fiber optics as important elements of urban infrastructure. These new technologies will make vast dif- ferences in the character and functions of urban America and pro- duce, in turn, revolutionary changes in supporting infrastructure.

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE Two principal conclusions can be drawn: 61 1. We should be alert to history to anticipate but not simply to accept changes, to understand and influence them in the na- tional interest. 2. Just as history can be a guide, so can geography. We frequently ignore both. One impressive fact in our public works history is how much we learned from Europe in the early days. Its experts were welcomed to our cities. Any current research program should emphasize tech- nology transfer, combining our awareness of history with more care- fu} analysis of infrastructure solutions in other parts of the world. There is too little comparative analysis. This is important in several respects, particularly in the (levelopment of large cities and in the organization of the suburbs. Large urban areas are the culmination of complex approaches to urban development. Some countries are beginning to use large transportation systems to organize such large- scale development. Japan, for instance, connects major urban con- centrations by high-speed rail lines. Singapore has redeveloped it- self and a series of major satellites and in the process has achieved a high standard of living. We need a much better understancling of how these places have developed and the role of their public works systems in how they took shape and how they function as cities. Tarr's paper reminds us that our legacy of public works stays with us. The depression-era facilities and those of more recent years remain a most important part of today's infrastructure. They pro- vide some important lessons for us, such as the need to include in the design the people for whom they are built. Concerning the pitfalls and possibilities of borrowing, some of the most exciting projects in the world are being financed by de- velopment banks, such as the World Bank and the Inter American Development Bank. These banks guarantee loans made by private bankers. We should have an internal U.S. development bank to undertake needed projects at home. Another lesson from history concerns pricing. Our rates for using facilities have often been too low, whether for transit, commuter railroads, or water systems. We have consistently underpriced the highway system. It is now clear that we must not only pay to build these systems, but we must also have an assured means of sup

62 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE porting their operation. Some financial trade-offs are necessary and are being made. Of the 21 cents a mile it costs to drive a compact car, for instance, only 1 cent supports the highway system. We need to ask how we can make more energy-efficient vehicles and use the savings in design and operating costs to pay for the facilities they must use. Both pricing and regulations can reduce costs and de- mand. The restriction of the extension of Route I-66, in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, to high-occupancy vehicles during rush hours is an illustration of the use of regulation to influence demand. History and geography suggest a strategy for future research and action that combines technology, large systems, jobs, and new meth- ods of finance to determine the need for a national city-building effort. City-building corporations using modern technology and en- gineering might be created for both new development and rede- velopment involving a joint public and private effort. This approach would be better for the country, producing more efficient and sat- isfying cities instead of stagnation and decay. This of course depends on careful analysis of situations and what might be done better. Abe! Wolman Tarr provides us with a comprehensive clinical diagnosis of the evolution of public works service to U.S. society. The record is a rehearsal of ad hoc responsiveness to the demands of people, often incoherent, for protection against fire, dirt, disease, and immobility. His detailed account of these efforts makes clear that the evo- Jution of infrastructure to provide service is "more complex than simple economic models suggest." The progress was cyclical in na- ture, reflecting economic depressions and recovery, the rise and fall of"bossism," temporary reformism, and political ideology. Physical obstacles to trade demanded correctives, which are described by Tarr in colorful designations of the transition from the walking city, to the streetcar city, to the automobile city, and, ~ might add without plagiarizing, to the subway city. For two centuries, contests and changes were marked by the forces of public and private groups and governmental and voluntary pressures. If there is a common thread of deliberate reasoning and plan throughout these years of true progress and failures, it is that the movement was essentially forward. The search for the moti- vating grand plan was and still is elusive. What are the implications for the present and the future of this

EVOLUTIONOFTHEURBANINFRASTRUCTURE 63 past record of human endeavor? Tarr suggests five or six areas for future research. All of them are significant markers to aid the future worker in this field of high social impact. But they are too limited. ~ venture to suggest some additional therapies, largely reflective of a lifetime of participation in and observation of the functions here discussed. ~ am startled by the fact that my own span of life covers almost half the period Tarr has so vividly traversed. My view is colored by activities as a public official at all three levels of government, as an educator, and as a consultant. Some preliminary observations provide a setting. Accomplish- ments by reformers have been episodic and of short duration. One of their lauded gifts was in civil service protection, a device ~ have found less than helpful. Too often, it too has succumbed to corruption and has resulted in constraint of personnel change and in protection of mediocrity. As to "bossism," one of our most progressive and efficient mayors once nostalgically remarked that the old-time boss provided more effective municipal service than modern checks and balances have produced! The suggestion has much relevance to our view of present policy making. We live now in a stressful and exciting arena, reminiscent of a few earlier situations. The compound of an economic recession, cou- pled with a new set of ideologies regarding government interven- tion, drives us toward new orientations in public works develop- ment. While we rush toward correctives of the so-called welfare state objectives of the 1930s Roosevelt programs, we are engaged in again battling over work programs characteristic of those same bygone days. The New Federalism is a revival of the proposals of Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. Simultaneously, environmental groups press toward negativism. Public participation engenders multiple pressure groups at all levels of governmental decision making. On this stage, old and new solutions press for prompt study, evaluation, and implementation, and ~ add a few here. What are the potentialities for survival of the weakened cities? Will they continue to lose people and viability? May cities be joint beneficiaries of wider-area taxes and cor- responding services? 3. Increasing private corporate responsibility for many public works is illustrated in water supply, sewerage, solid wastes,

64 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE bridges, and even schools. What protective measures are in- dicated for the revival of these old contests? 4. New institutional structures, transcending political bounda- ries, would be helpful. Political scientists have advocated these for more than half a century. Can their delayed use be expe- dited? 5. Are municipalities really bankrupt? Or do we mean their rev ernments are, as distinct from their constituents? 6. Municinal it him" ~ 1 nr~ ~ ^ ~~r 1 1 · J - Do, ~rC4ll~l=;~ love ~ 1ung- and successful history of local au- tonomy and responsibility. These have been seriously eroded by federal largesse and consequent transfer of decision making to federal agencies. How best may responsibility be recaptured in a disappearing long-time flood of federal and state money? 7. Financing local public works has likewise a long record of success. In a period of economic disability, orthodox formulas appear less available. What innovations in local fiscal policy are discernible or developable? Fortunately, serious ap- proaches to new potentials of financing are being explored. S. Delayed maintenance and operation have resulted in the wide- spread deterioration of systems. The reasons for the imminent collapse are not hard to find. More glamorous objectives have held the stage over the past decades, and it has been easy to cut budgets in less conspicuous, but life-supporting, necessi- ties. Must one wait to avoid r~t~c!tr~r~h~ {~ I-:ll: a_ _r l is from nonexistent sources? Some public works directors have already moved forward in determining priorities, planning correctives, and engaging in the "doable." What feasible im- plementations are discernible, while waiting for a new mil- lennium of federal largesse? 9. The advent of public participation is not new. Its extent and militancy today are greater. What devices may be developed to provide an early shift from adversarial to mediated reso- Jution of highly important public issues? No formula is readily at hand. Underlying all I: have said is an issue of far broader implications than for infrastructure alone. The participation of the public has undoubtedly always been essential. In recent years its eDaboration has been stimulated in no small degree by officialdom. The flow- ering of pressure groups, including many of our own professions, has resulted in some input of value. On the debit side, the phenom

EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE 65 enon has eroded the democratic process, wherein decision making was once assigned to elected officials. Aided and abetted by public polls, not distinguished by clear neutrality, the elected official keeps an eye on the polls and on television. Pressure groups provide an important source of information and ideas. They are often in conflict and only infrequently do their desires result in sound public interest decisions. More important, they are not responsible for the socio- economic results of their implemented demands. This broader ques- tion of public policy making deserves a place on our agenda for research. ~ do not pretend that these opportunities for research exhaust the list. They are illustrative of present challenges in public works development. Inherent in them is an assumption that the day of new works and rehabilitation of the old is not over. People multiply, and their demands are rarely reduced. Tens of millions wait for water supply, sewerage, solid wastes handling, transport, safety, and health. The desires are not new. While we search for innovation, the record is clear that the past discloses many markers for the future. For this disclosure, ~ am forever indebted to the diligence of Joe! Tarr. SUMMARY In theory perhaps some cities shouic3 be allowed to die, but there is a human factor involved. The important question is: What options are available for a city? We know from history that it is hard to establish a rigid framework for such analysis. Politics, value changes, and the rise of professionalism have all altered the course of events. We know that cities will become more communications-intensive, but people will still expect water from the tap. We will still need streets and sewers. Thus, while some demands on facilities will change and there may be new types of facilities, some traditional parts of the infrastructure will remain important. The distinctions between the use of public works for immediate job creation and long-term investments were much clearer during the New Deal period than they are today. Our dilemma is that our cities are in a state of flux. It is not clear what will happen to older cities. Incidentally, some of those thought to be dying in the 1930s are back on the table for observation today. Their original reasons for existence have disappeared; the question is whether they can find a new reason. In this sense it is hard to approach spending for

66 PERSPECTIVES ON URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE public works by arguing that all that is needed is to take old plans off the shelf and start building. Those plans often do not lend them- seIves to current needs. We really have not wrestled with the decision-making process. We need to look hard at bosses versus professionals versus public participation in public works decisions. This issue should be ex- amined in terms of how we should set priorities and who should be involved. We need to look at the contradictory benefits of each system. The federal decision to put the interstate system through cities instead of stopping at the beltways, for instance, was a critical one that preempted other local choices. Federal mandates may cause more problems than they are worth. One federal official argued that local politicians will not focus on the size and scope of infrastructure problems because of their re- sponsiveness to political pressure. He suggested that government could not be trusted to solve the problem and that the problem of conflicting pressures could be resolved only if the private sector takes more responsibility. This view was strongly contested; an- other participant argued that the private sector would simply make decisions that were in its own interest. The point was also made that the political system was indeed responsive to its constituents, in contrast with dealing with an abstract, normative mode] of what "should" be done.

Next: 2 Assessing Infrastructure Needs: The State of the Art »
Perspectives on Urban Infrastructure Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $55.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

In this provocative volume, distinguished authorities on urban policy expose the myths surrounding today's "infrastructure crisis" in urban public works. Five in-depth papers examine the evolution of the public works system, the limitations of urban needs studies, the financing of public works projects, the impact of politics, and how technology is affecting the types of infrastructures needed for tomorrow's cities.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!