New-York tribune., 1903-04-08

of Chicago did In 1902 supply itself at a cost of
S53-51 and supplying omitted items done
in the Boston investigation IL will be found the
real cost to that city would be the sum OF
S119-16 and then. by correcting the same fig
to apply to the conditions existing
in Boston and New York with an underground
system, IL will be found that the true cost, based
upon the Chicago estimate above. is at the
rate of S13SS1, instead of SJ35f.
There be doubt that the cost of sup
plying public lighting to the Municipality of the
City of New York is at least as great. if not
greater. than the city of Boston. The mere
cost of the real estate essential for the of
the plants in the City of New York. as
pared with the cost of land necessary for the
same purposes in the City of Boston, will in it
self considerably increase the cost of produc-
tion. AS an example the land on which the
Boston Electric Station is built cost at the rate
Of 80 cents per square foot: while the land
which the Water Side Station of the New York
Edison Company built cost at the rate of
S5.l5 per square foot
While Chicago is adopted as the main basis
of comparison by Mr.. Monroe he also makes
reference to the cost of the Detroit Municipal
plant. AS Mr.. Monroe refers to criticisms Of
such report in the Electrical World and En-
gineer of February 2S, 1908, it may not be amiss
to quote the Editorial on that article in the
same number:
Again We have the pleasure Of presenting to
our readers searching analysis of the Detroit
municipal lighting report. 1t is a valuable les
son in applied statistics. We have not the
least prejudice against municipal lighting be-
cause it is municipal, but object most stren-
uously to claims made in behalf of municipal
lighting which cannot be substantiated In the
present instance the faults in the report are the
n tn yFh before
attention. They are common faults in central
station bookkeeping, public and private. but
cannot for this reason be used legitimately in
comparison of public and private plants. Our
exposure Of the facts in this case may seem
mercless but it is better for the public that
they should come out without reserve for many
a municipality has been tempted by the ex-
ample of Detroit. We have investigated many
reported successes IN municipal lighting and
have found. rule. the same kind Of statis-
teal lodging and shuf1ing that characterizes
lighting is established success. and it needs
apologies. Nothing permanent is to be
gained in 1t by concealing the facts as to its
real cost by whomsoever produced"
1t may be further stated that less than 10 per
cent Of the Detroit service is underground. the
current is less. and the lighting schedule IS
3, 744 hours, instead of $3.50 hours, required
Dy the NeW-1 Ork contracts, ana over 4,lUO
hours actually delivered
The question of municipal lighting in De-
troit also carefully considered by the Bos-
ton authorities at the time of the making OF
the contract above set forth. and it shown
that the cost stated by the municipal au
thorities. underestimated by leaving out
large number of items in the same manner as
done in the Chicago estimate. 1t is sin
guar fact that the estimated cost per lamp Of
the municipal plant in the City of Detroit for
the year 1897 was the sum of S53 06 per lamp,
while the estimated Chicago cost in 1902 is
S53 81.
The omitted items in the Detroit estimate
for 1897. found in the Boston report, raised
Sill IA, and when compared with the basis of
cost In Boston was increased to the sum of
S134 81, which would be still further increased,
if compared with underground system, to
the sum of S152 40
It is thus apparent that the price bid for
municipal lighting in the City OF New-York Is
at far lower rate than 1t is reasonable to
anticipate the City could obtain by furnishing
its electric supply.
If based upon comparison with the cost to
the Chicago authorities during the entire pc
riod of the existence of their municipal plant
at the rate of S165 90 per lamp. the bids made
for electric lighting in the City of New-York
are $40 So better.
If based upon comparison with the cost in
the year 1897 in the City of Chicago and in
creased in accordance with the difference in
cost by the difference in local conditions as be-
tween Chicago and Boston or New-York the
difference is between the sum of S1TO 40 and
the sum bid in New-York to wit: S146, or
S24 40.
And even when based upon the alleged cost
to Chicago in the last year of S53 81 such cost,
when increased by omitted items and by COM
parisons with the differences in local conditions
as between Chicago and New-York will be the
sum of S13S 81, or 81 10 less than the bid Of the
electric lighting company in New-York.
In considering the question of the cost of
furnishing gas or of furnishing electric lights
in the City of NewYork. there must also be
borne in mind the exceedingly onerous condi-
tions under which the corporations exercise
their franchises in this City. The companies are
not permitted to repair the pavements which
they compelled TO open themselves. but such
repairs are required to be made at the COM
pany's expense by the asphalt companies. and
the cost of these repairs from So 90 TO
S6 % per square yard whereas the could
be reasonably done for the sum of from 81 90 to
So 80 per square yard. For replacing a granite
pavement on concrete the companies are
charged by the City IS for the first square
yard and 81 for the balance. whereas this work
could be reasonably done for the of 50 30
per square yard
The companies are also compelled to employ
inspectors appointed by the Department of
Highways some of whom paid at the rate
of 81 200 per annum. and the rest 81 per day.
The company has also been recently advised
that additional inspectors TO do the same work
must be obtained from the Department of
Water Supply, Gas and Electricity. It is mat