OF THE ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING SOCIETIES Vol. I OF ST. LOUIS A Monthly Periodical Devoted to the Interests of the Engineering Profession in St. Louis ST. LOUIS, MO., DECEMBER, 1922 WHY ISSUE BONDS? By EDMUND R. KINSEY President of the Board of Public Service, City of St. Louis. No. 12 I hope I may be pardoned for presenting to engineers an argument in favor of the bond issue in general-an argument which, to engineers, is doubtless wholly unnecessary, and yet one which I find from much contact with the average citizen, is quite necessary for the proper understanding of the subject. However, I do it because the engineers as a body should constitute the most potent selling force in the Bond Issue campaign, and the argument, elemental as it is, may be found useful. The taxpayers, in this city at least, are prone to feel that a bond issue for any considerable sum is an unusual and risky venture and seem disposed to refrain from a proper use of the magnificent credit which this municipality possesses. In that attitude they are unmindful of common business practice as exemplified in ordinary business operations, and as exemplified frequently in their own dealings. I think it is safe to say that not a single building devoted to business uses, be it factory building or office building, has ever been constructed without the use of borrowed funds, with the possible exception of buildings erected by the creation of the "Tin Lizzie." Every such structure is financed and erected on the theory that it is good business to borrow capital and put it to work; it being understood, of course, that it must be so employed as to yield reasonable returns on the investment. In the case of the private individual, and this applies to almost every home owner in the City of St. Louis, it is reasonably certain that not one of them has now a home he calls his own which was paid for in full when it was constructed. Every prudent home owner has learned for himself that it is good business for him to utilize his credit, borrow the funds necessary to construct his home and then occupy and enjoy the use of that home Entered as second-class matter. February 11, 1916, at the post-office at St. Louis, Mo., under the Act of August 24. 1912. Acceptance for mailing at the special rate of postage provided for in Section 1103, Act of October 3, 1917, authorized August 23, 1918. during the period in which he is saving money to wipe out the debt incurred. This procedure on the part of the individual home owner is precisely what is proposed on the part of the citizens of St. Louis collectively. It is as true in respect to the city at large as it is in respect to the individual home owner, that it is good business to utilize the borrowing power of the community and to judiciously invest in public improvements and then to enjoy the use of the improvements so constructed, during the long term of years in which funds are accumulated to wipe out the indebtedness. The term "bond issue" has a somewhat mysterious sound to the smaller property owner who does not deal in finance, but he should be made to realize that when he builds his house and signs his notes for the deferred payments, he is doing nothing more nor less than issuing bonds for the payments deferred. He is doing precisely what is being proposed by the City of St. Louis, in order that we may have at once and enjoy the use of from now on, public improvements absolutely necessary for the advancement of the city. The "going concern" which finds its quarters no longer adequate to accommodate its growing business does not hesitate to borrow money to expand its facilities. The small home owner, of whom there are so many in St. Louis, courageously faces the future in buying his home on time payments. He signs his notes, or "issues bonds" with the confidence or at least the hope that his future income will enable him to meet the future payments. In so doing he assumes far greater risk than does the City of St. Louis whose income is absolutely assured. Why cannot we, collectively, apply to public improvements the same good judgment we use in our personal affairs. EDITORIAL. The Joint Council of the Associated Engineering Societies has decided to continue the Journal in its present form and under the existing management and editorial supervision, for another year. Last month we declared an open season on the Journal, asking the hammer throwers and bouquet tossers to get busy. "Advice to the Editor," printed this month in the Table column and the decision of the Council to continue the publication, are the leading contributions from the two schools of thought. It's 50-50. So for next year let's all recite with M. Coué, "Day by day, in every way, we are getting better and better." And don't forget the advertising. Co-operate with the Secretary. There's no reason why the Journal cannot be published next year without a cent of expense to the Societies. Suggest some prospects and then help to land the contracts. MEETINGS IN PROSPECT. The Annual Business Meeting of the Engineers' Club will be held on January 10th. On January 17th, the Associated Societies will get together for Biggest ANNUAL DINNER Ever January Seventeenth, Twenty Three CITY CLUB Someone will get in touch with you soon, in reference to the Feed. When he does, treat him kindly, pat him on the back and encourage him by giving him your check for two dollars. This will not only make him happy, but will insure you a good seat and a good dinner. We'll have a bang-up program, too, but we don't charge for that. An Admiral of the Navy is coming on from Washington especially to talk to us. By all means, act promptly. The attendance will be limited to the capacity of the banquet room and no crowding will be permitted in the aisles. And don't think the attendance won't be there, either, because we're going to have ten teams of five hustlers each, gathering in the checks. If you receive a letter indicating that you are one of the chosen fifty, get out and get the checks; if you don't, pass your check to one of those who do. Prizes will be awarded to the team bringing in the largest number of checks. THE ENTERTAINMENT COMMITTEE. their Annual Dinner. The past year has been an active one and a good crowd and a good time may be confidently expected. We expect to have Mr. B. H. Piepmeier, Chief Engineer of the Missouri State Highway Department, with us on January 24th. The evenings of January 31st and February 7th will be given over to a discussion of the St. Louis Bond Issue, to be voted on at a special election February 9th. Dean W. E. McCourt of Washington University, is planning to have the Associated Societies out to a Valentine Party at the University on February 14th. There will be a conclusion of the series of discussions of the Engineers' Report on the St. Louis-East St. Louis Terminal Situation on February 21st. A STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR ST. LOUIS-AN ITEM IN THE PROPOSED BOND ISSUE. By RALF TOENSFELDT, Electrical Engineer, Department of Public Utilities, City of St. Louis. "Necessity is the mother of invention." She is also the mother of many other things, including fiscal economy, as exemplified in the case of the St. Louis street lighting system. Necessity forced the city to install a new lighting system two years ago in all of its parks and on some of its streets. This necessity came about through the rise in the price of gasoline. For ten years prior to 1920, St Louis was supplied with gas street lighting by the Welsbach Street Lighting Co. of America, the contract making no distinction between gas and gasoline lamps. The average annual cost was $22.87. In 1910, gasoline was six cents a gallon. In 1920, it was twentytwo cents, and the Welsbach Company had been for some time operating its gasoline lamps at an enormous loss. Inquiry as to the probable future cost of gasoline lighting resulted in an estimate of $65 per lamp per year-an untenable proposition-and plans were begun at once for the elimination of this form of lighting for streets and parks. A new six-year contract, made in 1920, contains no provision for gasoline lighting. The installation of gas lighting was impracticable, even if it had been desirable. There were no gas mains in the streets or parks to be served and their installation for street lighting exclusively, would have been a highly undesirable investment. In many places it would have been doubly undesirable because of the lack of finished grades. The alternative of electric lighting was adopted. The first cost of installation was lower; it could be installed without respect to street grades because of the ease with which it could be moved; and automatic control made operation more economical. The design of the system was determined by the distribution of the lamps and the number in each group. The smaller parks are in multiple and the larger parks and streets in straight series. Because of the excessive cost of metal posts and exorbitant bids for the manufacture of concrete posts at the time the installation was made, the city undertook to make its own concrete standards. The result has proved eminently satisfactory as to design, and economical in respect to cost of construction and installation. The standards were cast on the side in wooden forms. The mix was four parts of 3/4-inch red granite to one of Portland cement with about 20 per cent of fines. They were treated with acid and wire brushed within three days of casting, in order to bring out the aggregate. Reinforcing consisted of four 5-inch deformed bars made into a cage by tying with binding wire. A 14-inch iron pipe through the center served as a race way for the wire. The base was cast integral with the standard instead of setting in concrete on the job; a plan which has proved successful, as the base yields under a blow to which the post may be subjected. A year's experience with the system shows the following result in cost of operation of 3,616 lamps with an average candlepower of 106: Total Cost Cost per Lamp The investment charge is based on a cost of installation of $561,382.82, with interest at 5 per cent and 3.024 per cent for sinking fund. It is anticipated that these figures will be modified somewhat and the following is accepted as the estimated basis for future operation: Total Cost Cost per Lamp A comparison of the estimated operating cost for different lamps, with prices paid under the present contract, follows: It will be seen that a marked saving is indicated if the present illumination is considered satisfactory, with the alternative of greatly increased illumination for the same money. With these figures as a basis the Department of Public Utilities has prepared a comprehensive plan for a municipal lighting system to cover the entire city. The minimum illumination used as a basis for design is twice full moonlight, or a horizontal intensity of 0.04 foot candles; this minimum to be used on outlying residential streets only. Increased illumination will be used in other sections, with a maximum of eight foot candles normal, or 1.0 foot candle on a horizontal plane, on the downtown streets. In all residential streets a mounting height of 15 feet will be maintained. The standards will be equipped with either 1000 lumen (100 CP) or 1500 lumen lamps. The spacing on these streets will be maintained as nearly as possible at 8 times the mounting height, which, with the equipment available at the present time is as wide a spacing as is consistent with good uniformity. This means an average spacing of 120 feet on alternate sides of the streets. The boulevards and major thoroughfares will be equipped with twice this number of standards or an average spacing of 120 feet on both sides of the streets. On these streets 2500 lumen (250 CP) lamps will be used. On secondary busi |