5 ms·

I've involved myself in local effort to achieve this. 2 main problems we always encounter. 1. This requires planning and change. Tearing up pathways and street

I've involved myself in local effort to achieve this. 2 main problems we always encounter. 1. This requires planning and change. Tearing up pathways and streets is expensive, takes planning on administrative side and execution on the physical one. Cities and towns have limited money and don't want go through the effort and cost of it. You'll also encounter NIMBYs who are against any change whatsoever. 2. Tree roots in cities generally grow more horizontal and close to the surface. Reason for this is water and air access. If the surrounding area is paved over with concrete or other solid materials and doesn't allow for drainage and airflow, like some light cobbled pathways would, trees will come up and crack the concrete. Since a lot of the underlying structure is compacted soil to allow stable roads and buildings, water won't drain into it and provide less water for soil. We wanted to revitalize an open empty market space in our small district. Think 200sqm. Total cost for replacing the old concrete tiles with less compacted cobbles and some wildflower beds and trees was 10m Euros.

networkchad 3y ago
[dead]
shiftpgdn 3y ago
I live in a bedroom suburb that is known for its thick tree cover. It was one of the driving factors for me to move here, as well as the fact our area is significantly cooler than the nearby city. There is a constant battle where retirees who have moved out here want to cut down all the trees because they are “a nuisance.”
- myself248 3y ago
  I'm in a thickly wooded suburb, which has absolutely terrible power reliability. I've been on generator 9 days in the last 7 months: Two four-day outages and a one-day. On the other hand, the trees provide shade and quiet and beauty. I love the trees in front yards and in some other places, but in back yards where they're in the utility easement and never should've been allowed there in the first place, they _are_ a nuisance. It's important to differentiate the two; if we want the benefits of electricity we have to compromise a little on every-tree-everywhere-no-matter-the-cost.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Our little town has been burying power lines for years (because of snow load) and it’s been very nice for the trees. Unfortunately some dumb bug ate all the old trees so many of the roads are nude now, but they’re slowing building them back up with a tree nursery. But it takes 20+ years.
  - TheRealPomax 3y ago
    > if we want the benefits of electricity we have to compromise a little As someone from a country where electricity comes from the ground, not the sky: unless you live in a place that also doesn't have sewers or municipal water, no we do not. Someone at some point made the (at the time perhaps even sensible, but more likely not) choice to run electricity along poles, fully exposed to the environment, instead of using utility pipes buried several feet deep. And you now live with the consequences of that decision.
    - tstrimple 3y ago
      As an example, during the Iowa derecho which tore up much of the state, our neighborhood was only out of power for about three hours thanks to the buried lines. Other parts of town didn't get power back for over two weeks. Buried power lines is going to be on my list of desired features in any new property I buy.
    - myself248 3y ago
      As someone from a country where our population density is probably a tiny fraction of yours, yes that decision is often sensible. The cost of underground installation, especially for things with voltage clearance requirements, is absolutely staggering.
      - TheRealPomax 3y ago
        How about we start with all the places that have huge asphalt and concrete slabs? Because that's what we're talking about. These are not middle-of-nowhere places, these are where people congregate and/or live in high enough density to justify the cost. Plant trees there, and move your utilities underground, geography and climate permitting. And then keep that electricity above ground for all the parts where people don't (or sparsely) live. They're not the areas that are part of this problem.
- kouru225 3y ago
  “A nuisance” ??? Do they have any reason for saying that? Seems like crazy talk to me.
  - shiftpgdn 3y ago
    Cleaning up leaves, roots, etc

networkchad 3y ago

[dead]

shiftpgdn 3y ago

I live in a bedroom suburb that is known for its thick tree cover. It was one of the driving factors for me to move here, as well as the fact our area is significantly cooler than the nearby city. There is a constant battle where retirees who have moved out here want to cut down all the trees because they are “a nuisance.”

myself248 3y ago
I'm in a thickly wooded suburb, which has absolutely terrible power reliability. I've been on generator 9 days in the last 7 months: Two four-day outages and a one-day. On the other hand, the trees provide shade and quiet and beauty. I love the trees in front yards and in some other places, but in back yards where they're in the utility easement and never should've been allowed there in the first place, they _are_ a nuisance. It's important to differentiate the two; if we want the benefits of electricity we have to compromise a little on every-tree-everywhere-no-matter-the-cost.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Our little town has been burying power lines for years (because of snow load) and it’s been very nice for the trees. Unfortunately some dumb bug ate all the old trees so many of the roads are nude now, but they’re slowing building them back up with a tree nursery. But it takes 20+ years.
- TheRealPomax 3y ago
  > if we want the benefits of electricity we have to compromise a little As someone from a country where electricity comes from the ground, not the sky: unless you live in a place that also doesn't have sewers or municipal water, no we do not. Someone at some point made the (at the time perhaps even sensible, but more likely not) choice to run electricity along poles, fully exposed to the environment, instead of using utility pipes buried several feet deep. And you now live with the consequences of that decision.
  - tstrimple 3y ago
    As an example, during the Iowa derecho which tore up much of the state, our neighborhood was only out of power for about three hours thanks to the buried lines. Other parts of town didn't get power back for over two weeks. Buried power lines is going to be on my list of desired features in any new property I buy.
  - myself248 3y ago
    As someone from a country where our population density is probably a tiny fraction of yours, yes that decision is often sensible. The cost of underground installation, especially for things with voltage clearance requirements, is absolutely staggering.
    - TheRealPomax 3y ago
      How about we start with all the places that have huge asphalt and concrete slabs? Because that's what we're talking about. These are not middle-of-nowhere places, these are where people congregate and/or live in high enough density to justify the cost. Plant trees there, and move your utilities underground, geography and climate permitting. And then keep that electricity above ground for all the parts where people don't (or sparsely) live. They're not the areas that are part of this problem.
kouru225 3y ago
“A nuisance” ??? Do they have any reason for saying that? Seems like crazy talk to me.
- shiftpgdn 3y ago
  Cleaning up leaves, roots, etc