5 ms·

I wonder why they don't put the wires and fibers underground. It is much safer and less prone to strong winds and other natural hazards. Is the cost of having

I wonder why they don't put the wires and fibers underground. It is much safer and less prone to strong winds and other natural hazards. Is the cost of having underground wires that high?

m_eiman 15y ago
Yes. Imagine the cost of getting autorization for and digging a long hole through mile upon mile of in-city streets, and then repairing said hole - all while taking care of all the disruptions you cause to traffic and more. Unless you can find and use existing pipes in the right places with spare capacity (you're not going to, don't worry).
- trafficlight 15y ago
  In a lot of cases you can directional bore underneath the streets. It can really reduce the amount of above ground disruptions.
  - Nrsolis 15y ago
    Uh. Not really. Directional boring is one of the most expensive ways to lay cable. Just going underneath at standard two lane road in a residential neighborhood is something like $50-$100K. Undergrounding utilities (esp in a metro area) runs something like $250K to $1M/mile. There are many, many variables that affect cost. Underground cables are also much more susceptible to failure when compared with aerial cables. When they do fail, it's sometimes more costly to repair them if they are buried as opposed to attached to a pole.
    - ericd 15y ago
      What could cause a cable underground to be more susceptible to failure than an aerial cable. I don't buy it.
      - rosser 15y ago
        Among other things, backhoe fade.
      - 9999 15y ago
        Random speculation: conduit fills with water or mud, sheathing rots.
      - macros 15y ago
        We've had our 60 mile fiber link go down twice. Once when a plane hit one of the towers it is on, the other from a fire in an underground tunnel.
      - Nrsolis 15y ago
        You don't have to take my word for it. The Telcos did their own reliability surveys. Underground utilities have do deal with more intrusions from water, ice, salt, digging, backhoes, insects, rodents and other stuff you find at "ground level." Ask any outside plant engineer and they will tell you that cost goes up and reliability suffers when you place utilities underground. Aerial utilities primarily only have to deal with trees and ice. Oh, and gunshots. In the backwoods, the local yokels will sometimes shoot at transmission towers, taking out the fiber links with them.
        ericd 15y ago
        Hm interesting. Where I come from, the aerial power cables go down pretty regularly due to wind/trees from storms. I haven't heard of similar issues with the underground lines, but I don't know anyone at the utilities. I would have thought that glass fiber would be impervious to all but backhoes, though.
- leot 15y ago
  Really? I had heard that because streets are regularly dug up (well, every 5-15 years or so), and because the cost of doing so is almost always _way_ more than the cost of what goes in there, that for this reason there's already tons of capacity going unused (so-called "dark fiber" -- the Wikipedia article on the topic shows an interesting history of revisions ... ).
count 15y ago
Compared to putting them on poles, the cost of running new fiber underground (in an area without conduits already in place) is astronomical. The time delay is also orders of magnitude larger in getting the fiber down, as you need many, many permits to dig up streets, etc.
madmaze 15y ago
Ive wondered the same thing many of times, especially in times when water/sewer pipes get replaced and the street is already ripped open. We have often joked we should make a website with pictures of the wiremess here vs pictures of the wiremess in some of indias slums
lutorm 15y ago
The problem seems to be that no one thought ahead when they built the streets in the US. Back in Sweden, it's all underground. You won't find anything less than main HV transmission lines above ground. I don't know how they did it, but based on the lack of ever digging up the streets in the neighborhoods I lived in, they must have put in conduits when they build the streets. Why they don't do the same in the US baffles me. It makes absolutely no sense.
- xxpor 15y ago
  When they build new development here (outside of inner cities), they generally do put it underground.
- eik3_de 15y ago
  Same here in Germany. Everything is underground, even in smaller villages. And there are even plans to put new HV lines underground.
- ars 15y ago
  > It makes absolutely no sense. The US was first. Everyone else had the experience in the US to learn from. New areas in the US do use underground conduits, but most cities in the US are pretty old.
  - lutorm 15y ago
    most cities in the US are pretty old. That's a joke, right? Every place I've lived in the U.S. (which granted is not that many) was built much later than most European cities, yet there are still overhead wires strung all over the place.
    - ars 15y ago
      Not the city, the installation of electrical service.
e40 15y ago
Yes. In my town there was an undergrounding project for a certain, high-end neighborhood. The residents voted to pay for the cost themselves. About half way into it, the project hit a snag--unexpected rock, which was difficult to drill through and increased costs quite a lot. The contract with the residents was poorly written and the city, it turns out, was on the hook for the overage. The city canceled the project, because they couldn't afford it and the residents wouldn't pay the extra amount. Lawsuits were flying and it took a couple of years to settle it. The city ended up losing 1/3 of the general fund to this mess. So, yeah, undergrounding is a mess.

I wonder why they don't put the wires and fibers underground. It is much safer and less prone to strong winds and other natural hazards. Is the cost of having underground wires that high?

m_eiman 15y ago

Yes. Imagine the cost of getting autorization for and digging a long hole through mile upon mile of in-city streets, and then repairing said hole - all while taking care of all the disruptions you cause to traffic and more. Unless you can find and use existing pipes in the right places with spare capacity (you're not going to, don't worry).

trafficlight 15y ago
In a lot of cases you can directional bore underneath the streets. It can really reduce the amount of above ground disruptions.
- Nrsolis 15y ago
  Uh. Not really. Directional boring is one of the most expensive ways to lay cable. Just going underneath at standard two lane road in a residential neighborhood is something like $50-$100K. Undergrounding utilities (esp in a metro area) runs something like $250K to $1M/mile. There are many, many variables that affect cost. Underground cables are also much more susceptible to failure when compared with aerial cables. When they do fail, it's sometimes more costly to repair them if they are buried as opposed to attached to a pole.
  - ericd 15y ago
    What could cause a cable underground to be more susceptible to failure than an aerial cable. I don't buy it.
    - rosser 15y ago
      Among other things, backhoe fade.
    - 9999 15y ago
      Random speculation: conduit fills with water or mud, sheathing rots.
    - macros 15y ago
      We've had our 60 mile fiber link go down twice. Once when a plane hit one of the towers it is on, the other from a fire in an underground tunnel.
    - Nrsolis 15y ago
      You don't have to take my word for it. The Telcos did their own reliability surveys. Underground utilities have do deal with more intrusions from water, ice, salt, digging, backhoes, insects, rodents and other stuff you find at "ground level." Ask any outside plant engineer and they will tell you that cost goes up and reliability suffers when you place utilities underground. Aerial utilities primarily only have to deal with trees and ice. Oh, and gunshots. In the backwoods, the local yokels will sometimes shoot at transmission towers, taking out the fiber links with them.
      - ericd 15y ago
        Hm interesting. Where I come from, the aerial power cables go down pretty regularly due to wind/trees from storms. I haven't heard of similar issues with the underground lines, but I don't know anyone at the utilities. I would have thought that glass fiber would be impervious to all but backhoes, though.
leot 15y ago
Really? I had heard that because streets are regularly dug up (well, every 5-15 years or so), and because the cost of doing so is almost always _way_ more than the cost of what goes in there, that for this reason there's already tons of capacity going unused (so-called "dark fiber" -- the Wikipedia article on the topic shows an interesting history of revisions ... ).

count 15y ago

Compared to putting them on poles, the cost of running new fiber underground (in an area without conduits already in place) is astronomical. The time delay is also orders of magnitude larger in getting the fiber down, as you need many, many permits to dig up streets, etc.

madmaze 15y ago

Ive wondered the same thing many of times, especially in times when water/sewer pipes get replaced and the street is already ripped open. We have often joked we should make a website with pictures of the wiremess here vs pictures of the wiremess in some of indias slums

lutorm 15y ago

The problem seems to be that no one thought ahead when they built the streets in the US. Back in Sweden, it's all underground. You won't find anything less than main HV transmission lines above ground. I don't know how they did it, but based on the lack of ever digging up the streets in the neighborhoods I lived in, they must have put in conduits when they build the streets. Why they don't do the same in the US baffles me. It makes absolutely no sense.

xxpor 15y ago
When they build new development here (outside of inner cities), they generally do put it underground.
eik3_de 15y ago
Same here in Germany. Everything is underground, even in smaller villages. And there are even plans to put new HV lines underground.
ars 15y ago
> It makes absolutely no sense. The US was first. Everyone else had the experience in the US to learn from. New areas in the US do use underground conduits, but most cities in the US are pretty old.
- lutorm 15y ago
  most cities in the US are pretty old. That's a joke, right? Every place I've lived in the U.S. (which granted is not that many) was built much later than most European cities, yet there are still overhead wires strung all over the place.
  - ars 15y ago
    Not the city, the installation of electrical service.

e40 15y ago

Yes. In my town there was an undergrounding project for a certain, high-end neighborhood. The residents voted to pay for the cost themselves. About half way into it, the project hit a snag--unexpected rock, which was difficult to drill through and increased costs quite a lot. The contract with the residents was poorly written and the city, it turns out, was on the hook for the overage. The city canceled the project, because they couldn't afford it and the residents wouldn't pay the extra amount. Lawsuits were flying and it took a couple of years to settle it. The city ended up losing 1/3 of the general fund to this mess. So, yeah, undergrounding is a mess.