line clearing vs esthetic trimming

[Gord]

Nevertheless any newly developed area around here is all underground wiring. I'm sure that underground wiring would fault less often than above ground, and most faults would happen at sites that would be fairly easy to spot ie dig sites et al. I would think that they've got some sheathing for the lines that would protect them pretty well. Neighborhoods are certainly cleaner looking with no lines in the air.

 

[njarbor]

yeah the underground thing is nice but it is way too costly in most situations and when and if it does fail its alot harder to access

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

I heard somewhere that underground lines only last about fifteen years, so for the tree's sake, the above ground wires are much better, IMO.

 

[NeTree]

I still think underground utilities would be less of a headache, and cheaper in the long run.

As for the aesthetics of line clearance? People want their power on. The line clearance guys' job is to make sure the the foliage doesn't keep the meter from turning. Pure and simple. If he can keep it fairly pretty while still producing, that's fine, but production comes first.

I don't fault the trimmer, but the penny-pinchers at the light company for that. Been there, done that, and I know what the pressure is like.


JM2C

 

[kurtztree]

I have a freind that does underground just to bury the lines they get $100 a foot. Around here the new subdivisions all have underground.

 

[topnotchtree]

In our area pretty much all new subdivisions are put underground as they are built. It is not cost effective to bury old lines. We are butchers and hackers when we are trimming to maintain lines, but when the power is out and we are there to fix that we are heros!

 

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by topnotchtree
We are butchers and hackers when we are trimming to maintain lines, but when the power is out and we are there to fix that we are heros!

Ain't that the truth?

 

[Dobber]

we are heros

wait, I never got no stinken cape