San Antonio Daily Light

THE PEOPLE'S FORUM
Space will be given in this column to brief articles on matters of local importance, right being reserved to reject any communication.

Engineer Franklin
Talks Some More About the Proposed
Improvement Scheme in 4th Ward

San Antonio, Tex., Oct. 5, 1903.
To The Daily Light.

A correspondent in Sunday's Express who signs himself M. D. W., who I presume is one of the committee which is engineering the proposed issuance of bonds for the improvement of the streets of the 'Second Improvement District of the Fourth Ward,' as he uses the plural pronoun we, and right here permit me to say that I have never been able to understand why those writing for the press on matters of interest to the public should cover their identity under a 'nom de plume,' use initials, or some other device to cover their real names. I have written many articles for the public press and scientific journals and have invariably signed my name in full, so that the reading public, particularly those interested in the question discussed may know just what weight can be placed in the assertions may be made: I have never written either a word or a line that I was afraid or ashamed to acknowledge as my production. I regard articles so signed, as about the same as anonymous letters, to be treated with silent contempt: true, there are exceptions. I believe the paternity of the Junius letters has never been discovered, but M. D. W. is not a Junius, and is not discussing a question involving the political life of a great nation.

Mr. M. D. W. says 'Mr. Thos. Franklin, an engineer of this city, propounded the question in the September Municipal Engineer as to the effect of reducing the width of streets in resident portions of cities.' In reply said magazine gave the width of resident streets in a great number of cities and showed that 24 to 27 feet was the most popular width adopted, and that the plan of reducing the width of streets was almost 'universally adopted.' Now, I have heard lawyers on opposing sides quote verbatim the same law, and by emphasizing certain words, sometimes repeating them over and over again, by slurring over other words, or sentences convey to the minds of judge and jury very different impressions of the true import of the law, but just how M. D. W. or Junius Junior could read the editorial of Municipal Engineering and get such an impression as he has endeavored to convey in his article, is beyond my comprehension to understand. What the editor did say, is: 'The width of roadway suitable for a given street must be determined for its special conditions. A street car track is a very important factor and may add from 8 to 20 feet to the width otherwise necessary.' 'On resident streets where blocks are short 20 feet may be sufficient width, but where traffic is anything more than occasional, this width will not be sufficient if more can be obtained. Many vehicles can not be turned on a street 20 feet or even 24 feet wide, and if the distance between cross streets is long this consideration may control.' Now, M. D. W. is welcome to all the comfort he can get from this opening of the editorial, and if he will read and carefully weigh what I had to say on the question of narrowing the width of driveways in the article published in Sunday's Light, he will find that I am also in favor of the reduction of width between curbs, provided it is not unreasonable.

M. D. W. says: 'In the same magazine the editor gives four reasons why a 24 to 27 feet is the best in a resident portion of the city.' Now, for these four reasons: First, it reduces the width of streets to be paved, 20 feet may sometimes be sufficient, though 24 to 27 feet will often be more satisfactory. This assertion is as true as holy writ, any school boy knows that a 20-foot roadway of the same material will cost less than one of 40 feet, but as the editor has said where the blocks are long increased width will be necessary: this Second district is just such a case, most of the blocks are over 400 feet, and some double this length, hence the necessity for wider roadways, nothing less than 30 feet will do and the standard width of 32 feet of many cities is better.

Second. 'It reduces the amount of street to be kept clean.' Now this is self-evident, a proposition that admits of no discussion, particularly in view of the fact that in the more than two years I have resided in this Second district, I have never seen a city laborer or other employee making even an attempt to clean the streets, as is sometimes done in other sections of the city.

Third. 'A lawn, even if not very well kept, is more pleasing to the eye than a mud street.' This is another self-evident proposition. But the editor adds: 'Later demand for a wide street can be met by resetting the curb, this may arise with a 20-feet roadway, but is not likely to happen with a 27-feet roadway, unless a street railway is located in the roadway after it has been improved.' Now, we have the assurance of the president of the traction company that a street railway is soon to be constructed along and over a number of streets in this very district. City railway companies invariably extend their tracks in all directions as a city grows, building in this district is going on most rapidly, who knows how long it may be before there will be other tracks laid on many other streets, then who is to bear the expense of setting back the curbs, paving the additional space made, and the destruction of parks and trees along the bogus curb lines, the city, the traction company, or the individual property owner who has already paid his pro rata for curb and driveway made in the wrong place? Is it not the part of wisdom to look a little ahead, provide for the future, place curb and make driveway just as it should be for all time.

The fourth reason given by the writer has no bearing whatever on the question at issue.

THOS. FRANKLIN,
Civil Engineer.