I was glad to see Florida beaches reopen last weekend. Agree with me or not, though, this part seems crazy: “The beaches will be open from 6 to 11 a.m. and 5 to 8 p.m local time.” When you reduce hours of operation, you obviously increase congestion, which in turn obviously impedes social distancing. Upshot: If you’re going to reopen, you should reopen completely.
Is that really so obvious, though? You could demur, “If beaches are less congested, the total number of beach-goers will increase. A larger number of people exposed to a smaller per-person risk is more dangerous than a smaller number exposed to a higher per-person risk.” Or as Yogi Berra put it, “Nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded.” But this rationale is hard to believe, especially because would-be beach-goers can engage in other outdoor activities instead. Picture a bunch of would-be beach-goers taking ocean-view walks and bike rides instead.
I guess the rationale of the restricted hours is that 11 AM – 5 PM will be congested no matter what. Only self-starters, in contrast, will get to the beach before 11 AM. How, though, would you defend the evening hours? You don’t have to be highly motivated to hit the beach at 5 or 6 in the evening. In the medium-run, moreover, won’t even slackers adjust their behavior to get their beach time in?
To get a little conspiratorial, perhaps the real goal of the restricted hours is to deliberately make going to the beach inconvenient. Imagine if beaches were open from 4:04 AM to 4:05 AM. As a practical matter, that would be the same as keeping them closed. Current policies, in contrast, are loose enough to draw large crowds.
What’s really going on? It’s probably another absurd political compromise. Some leaders wanted to open the beaches. Others wanted to keep them closed. So they struck a misguided deal that combines human frustration with viral contagion. Alas.
READER COMMENTS
Thomas Hutcheson
Apr 27 2020 at 10:59am
Good guess about the outcome. What is alternative when people disagree about how to regulate an externality?
robc
Apr 27 2020 at 11:25am
Coasean bargaining.
Mark Brady
Apr 27 2020 at 3:17pm
I’m puzzled by your response. So-called Coasean bargaining would occur between the two parties to an externality, and not between two putative regulators of that externality, or are you assuming that the would-be regulators do represent the interests of the parties involved?
robc
Apr 28 2020 at 7:55am
I would create a property right in the beach so that regulators were not necessary and the two parties could negotiate the terms.
These type of problems have 4 possible solutions that should be tried in the following order:
1. Coasean bargaining
2. Do nothing
3. Pigovian tax
4. Regulation
Most problems need never get to 3. #2 doesnt doesnt necessarily solve the problem, but the harm of #2 is often less than #3 or #4.
There are a handful of commenters here who want to skip to #3 right off. And most politicians go straight to #4.
Phil H
Apr 27 2020 at 11:04am
“When you reduce hours of operation, you obviously increase congestion”
Er, no. You would increase congestion if and only if some people who wished to use the beach during the closed period chose to shift their hours of usage. A restaurant can’t ameliorate its evening rush by opening earlier in the afternoon.
In this case, it seems like a reasonable assumption that some people will change from a middle of the day beach session to a morning/evening session… but I definitely wouldn’t go so far as to say “obvious”. Data required.
Mike
Apr 27 2020 at 11:49am
We see something similar in the Cleveland Metroparks where parking areas near popular walking trails are closed off… which results in adjacent parking lots being absolutely overflowing.
Steve
Apr 27 2020 at 2:32pm
Beaches in the evening and morning are not perfect substitutes for beaches in the middle of the day. It’s a fundamentally different experience.
Chad
Apr 27 2020 at 3:18pm
I live in a touristy beach community in Florida. The only reason for a tourist to come to my town is for the beaches.
I don’t know why they did it. But I see the benefit being that this will reduce tourism and therefore reduce exposure to the virus on or off the beach. It will allow locals to go to the beach again though.
I agree with your assessment of the beach strictly speaking, but it is the secondary effects where this policy may be beneficial.
Yaakov
Apr 27 2020 at 3:50pm
I assume they are saying since so many people are dying from COVID-19 lets reduce the risk of skin cancer.
Fred_in_PA
Apr 28 2020 at 3:58pm
Even more perverse. “If sunlight has any purifying effect, let’s keep people from going out during the peak hours of sunlight.” Huh?!?
Mark Z
Apr 28 2020 at 12:35am
I had a similar thought with respect to the reduction in frequency of subway and bus lines and ferries. To the extent that this reduces absolute usage it probably reduces transmission rates, but to the extent that it condenses remaining usage into fewer trips, it probably increases transmission rate. Which effect dominates depends not just on how many people just shift their behavior to the different times available but also the relationship between density and transmission rate.
Edwar
Apr 30 2020 at 2:34am
I’m curious if this explains some poor results in some other countries trying to contain the spread. Peru, for instance, started one of the most aggressive and earliest lockdowns. Unfortunately, it seems to be that the lower hours and days available for people to go out congested the few open places. Resulting in higher contagious rates at least compared to countries with similar amount of tests.
Comments are closed.