In article ,
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Upgrading the system turns into a fight over NIMBY or
front yard for that matter. Generally means taller poles and another
substation that no
one wants in their designer neighborhood. Up the road, the locals
fought
an expansion so
long that federals rules on reliablity changed so now the system they
didn't want has
become even bigger.

Do what San Diego did - put it all underground.

That is very expensive though.

Yeah but so is fixing above ground systems all the time.

The old rule of thumb is that underground costs five times as much as on
poles.

For installation, and these systems aren't funded the way generation is.



Columbia, MD has all underground utilities. Rouse (sp?), the developer,
did it that way from the beginning, which cut the initial cost a lot,
and pretty well eliminated maintenance costs (compared to above-ground).

Above ground makes sense in limited cases but underground systems make sense
fo everyone except developers interested in keeping their up front costs as
low as possible.

I'm confused: Rouse *is* a developer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Rouse.

Specifically, the developer of Columbia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia,_Maryland.

Joe Gwinn


A big upgrade to the delivery and transmission infrastructure in the
immediate future is a good idea from any point of view.
Diong it underground and converting existing systems would insure maximum
return of whatever investment was made. I don't have any data but it
wouldn't surprise me to learn that the pay back period is fairly short.

--

JC