As is well known, and as the above tabulation shows, a considerable saving was made in the lighting bill of the Township, primarily through a readjustment of the candle power rather than by a reduction in the number of lights. Just how this was brought about is shown by the following table:
|Sept. 1930||Dec. 1933||Change|
|Candle Power||No.||Total C. P.||No.||Total C. P.||No.||Candle Power|
|No.||Candle Power||Yearly Cost|
|Change %||-3.2 %||-36.5 %||-25.3%|
It will be noted, first that the total number of street lights now is only 35 (3.2%) less than the total number of lights existing in September, 1930. There were, of course, originally more lights than 35 discontinued, but the difference has again partly been made up by the fact that the Township has, since the original changes, taken over the remainder of the lights previously paid for by Nelson M. Ayers, in the vicinity of State Street and Market Street, and by the fact that about 50 additional lights have been placed in sections of the Township as developments required.
In September, 1930, the Township was burning 268,050 candle power. Three years later it was burning 170,100, or a reduction of 36.5 %. Actually about 100 of the 250 c. p. lamps were changed to 100 c. p. and the 600 c. p. lamps eliminated were replaced in almost equal proportions by 250 c. p. and 400 c. p. lamps. An additional drop of about 3600 c. p. is now being made by substituting 100 c. p. for the 250 c. p. lights and 250 c. p. for the 400 c. p. lights.
Naturally, the cost has not dropped in exact proportions to the candle power, for as with other commodities, the greater the quantity purchased, the less the unit cost. For instance, we are now paying an average of 26.3 cents per year for each candle power used, against 10.3 centers per c. p. used in the 1,000 c. p. units. Putting it another way, if the total candle power at present being used in Teaneck was all billed as 170 lamps of 1,000 c. p. each, the total lighting cost would be about $13,660.00 per year.
It is true that street lighting has a great value from the safety point of view, both for protection against crime and for protection against accidents. Yet in Teaneck's case the reduction of lighting had no effect on the situation one way or another, as far as statistics indicate, the more serious accidents having taken place at illuminated points.
Aside from the reduction in revenue, it cost the Public Service Company a large amount of money to make the required changes. It is only fair that credit be given to the Company for the cooperation it extended and for going along voluntarily in the revision of the street lighting system, without insisting on any rights which it might have under an existing contract with the Township. The last contract for street lighting was signed on October 1, 1929, and expires on October 1, 1934.