As more and more details about the Mayor's budget plan leak out, cost-cutting and revenue are on the minds of a lot of Philadelphians. And there are of course a gazillion ideas about how we could save money and raise additional revenue.

This got me to thinking about 1992. Now I was like 12 or 13 then, but I do remember newly elected Mayor Rendell tackling the city's bankruptcy and terrible budget mess. And one thing that stuck out was his plan to remove traffic signals and replace them with stop signs. Does anyone else remember this?

As I learn about more about how the city budget works, I am struck by how big it all is. $4 billion a year. Which got me to thinking, how much money could Rendell have possibly saved by getting rid of traffic lights? I mean what is the cost involved in operating a traffic signal? Just electricity? How long do signals and changers last?

I didn't find much about this online, although I did find 2003 testimony from the then Streets Commissioner who said that a new traffic light costs about $40,000. And a recent Inga Saffron column talks about the installation of $12 million worth of digital traffic signals east of Broad in Center City.

But what Rendell did was take down old traffic signals--that presumably were working--and put up stop signs in their place. (I did not get out of the neighborhood as much back then, so the only two I can remember were at 48th and Chester and 46th and Chester, but I presume this happened all over the city). Do you think that saved much--even over the course of five years?

It's a minor point of course--especially when there are such big conversations to have about property and sales taxes and such. But it got me wondering about the small stuff that might come up in the next few months as the budget is debated. Especially the kind of (probably) symbolic shared-pain type of items a la traffic signals.