THE LIGHTS OF OXFORD STREET.

Levin Daily Chronicle, 12 June 1917, Page 3

THE LIGHTS OF OXFORD STREET.

(To the Editor). Sir,—ln your paper of Thursday, the Bth instant, you have an article headed as above, in which you have imade a very poor attempt to prove to your readers that the lighting committee, and the other members of the (Levin Borough Council who voted with them on the question of the lighting system for Oxford street made a wholesale blunder in advocating the change of syssteim firom the present central one, to the side-lighting on. each side of the street.

NW, sir, a man oP your reputed ability and experience is surety not afraid to place all the facts of the two propositions before your readers, so that they can be in a (position to be better able to judge which of the two systems will he the best.

First, from a better lighting point of view; second, from a more uniform system of putting on and turning off the lights point of view; third, from a financial point of view; fourth, from a safety point of view. These were the -main headings used at both of tho meetings of the oouncil when the question was undierr dliscusdion; and you cannot say otherwise. There was no pulling in of side-issues by the lighting committee. This has all been done by the deputation that waited on the council at its last meeting, and yourself; and the main bogey you have adopted to defeat the lighting committeee's proposal is the danger of the' future existence of the trees. This at once puts you out of action as a fair critic, as the trees already block the 'light from the footpath under the central system of lighting, and the lighting committee's opinion is that the correct place to throw the light is on to the footpaths, which are made for pedestrians, and not on to tho centre of the road, or the trees.

Now, sir, for the facts in regards to the two propositions. First, from a better lighting point of view. The central system only, throws a good light on to a part of the road aronnd the pedestal, and a short distance up the road towards the next pedestal; and a poor light on to the most important part, the footpaths. The side lighting on each side of the street throws a more even light on to the whole of the road, and a better light on to the footpaths.

Second. From a more uniform putting on and turning off point of view. The. central system means that the lights in. -Oxford street have to be pulled on at (say on an average) at 6 p.m. each night, and one light on each pedestal has to be put out at 10 p.m. each night, and the remaining light that bias been left iburning through the night to safeguard the council against an action for damages in the event of- a collision with the pedestals has to be put out next morning by someone engaged for this special work. Under the side lighting system' the turning on and putting off of the whole of the lights in the borough can be done from the gasworks ; and the lights in Oxford street, that can be left burning to say eleven or twelve o'clock each night can be operated with the cloek apparatus that the council already possess

Third. From a financial point of view—central .system. New lamps (which have to be purchased on account of the old ones being worn out), and .on a fire-year basis, which is recognised as being the active life of the "Humphrey" lamp, which is the only lamp procurable for the pedestals, we get an expense of £36 to start with; to which is to he added cost of turning on and off at £10 per annum, £30 For the five years; cosk of lighting the pedestal throughout the night (at £25 per annum) £125 total, £211—and at the end of this term the lamps are done. Cost of t'iside lanterns, erection and removal of Pedestals, £80; and at the end of fiv.» sparsspars they are ns good as new; and in the event of the Government electrical scl cme being am accomplished f*- f. and the council then in power to light Oxford street with electricity, the lanterns can be taken down and used to replace worn-out lamps in other parts of the borough at a very small cost.

Fourth. From a safety point of view: while the pedestals are in the centre of the road there is always a big chance of a serioUß accident, which in all probability would mean damage to or loss of life, and a nice bill for the council to foot, though I must admit the pedestals have been up a long time and no serious collision has occurred ; font, on the other hand, we have no guarantee against such a thing not happening, whereas with the sidelights that danger is completely removed.

In regard to your complaint that the councillors did not express their opinions .in public prior to the matter being dealt with by the council, my reply is that until the night of the lighting committee's meeting they had' no idea that the lamps required renewing or that the present style of lamp was unprocurable; and I aek you sir, to state why you did not publish the gas manager's report on the quesg tion, before commenting on the counS cil's action? you can hardly claim your action on this point to be fair. In regards to your being awaTe that councillors or others state differently: I know nothing of it, and if it is correct, as you state, why do you not state straight out who fe responsible for the assertion.

Thanking you for the amount of space my remarks will take up—but I am .sure-you will not object, as ire will run about dead heat in this direction— Yours j etc., D.W. MATHESON, Chairman of the Lighting Committee.