Who would have thought...

2008-02-29 09:39:36

#1

Mitch: 16 more years; +877|7006|South Florida

Who, the fuck, thought it was a better idea to cut down millions of trees, cut them into poles, dig holes every 30 feet, and put power/phone lines on them, rather than run them underground.

I mean seriously, someone had to have a vote asking "Should we develope an underground wiring system, or develope an aboveground system.

If you actually stop and think about it, power/phone lines look really dumb and are always falling, having those support wires, and it must have cost billions in labor and time.

With the time it took to do that they should've just studied how we could do it underground, like we do now days in new neighborhoods.

Agree?

Last edited by Mitch (2008-02-29 09:40:35)

15 more years! 15 more years!

2008-02-29 09:40:42

#2

Mr Caek: You will be baked, and then there will be cake.; +12|6480|Lincoln, UK

Yes.

2008-02-29 09:41:03

#3

..teddy..jimmy: Member; +1,393|7130

we love squirrels

2008-02-29 09:41:21

#4

Simon: basically; +838|7139|UK

love you mitch <3

Last edited by Simon (2008-02-29 09:41:37)

2008-02-29 09:41:42

#5

[FUB] kuspis.kAzZutin: Member; +1|6391|.........?

Whatever.....i don't live in America btw

2008-02-29 09:43:39

#6

{uscm}Jyden: You likey leaky?; +433|7159|In You Endo- Stoke

Surely it would cost alot to be digging up the line everytime something goes wrong?
Plus cause alot of roadworks and the like.

2008-02-29 09:44:39

#7

StormEye: Sniper; +50|7126|Malibu

Lines above ground just means that the infrastructure is old.

Cities around the world, which had its infrastructure reorganized within recent decades, have lines running underground. This includes cities like Hong Kong, for example. Digging up ground and placing wires will disturb the lives of people who already lives there, since it takes longer to bury the lines underground rather than just sticking them up in poles.

2008-02-29 09:46:41

#8

Mitch: 16 more years; +877|7006|South Florida

StormEye wrote:
Lines above ground just means that the infrastructure is old.

Cities around the world, which had its infrastructure reorganized within recent decades, have lines running underground. This includes cities like Hong Kong, for example. Digging up ground and placing wires will disturb the lives of people who already lives there, since it takes longer to bury the lines underground rather than just sticking them up in poles.

I wouldn't think so if you think of the whole process of making the poles.

Plus, FiOS installed fiber optic cable so fast, and didnt disturb anybody around my neighborhood. Im saying they should've spent a little more time figuring out how to do it like they do nowdays instead of being so rushed :-P

Last edited by Mitch (2008-02-29 09:47:44)

15 more years! 15 more years!

2008-02-29 09:48:29

#9

StormEye: Sniper; +50|7126|Malibu

Mitch wrote:
StormEye wrote:
Lines above ground just means that the infrastructure is old.

Cities around the world, which had its infrastructure reorganized within recent decades, have lines running underground. This includes cities like Hong Kong, for example. Digging up ground and placing wires will disturb the lives of people who already lives there, since it takes longer to bury the lines underground rather than just sticking them up in poles.
I wouldn't think so if you think of the whole process of making the poles.

Poles can be pre-manufactured.

2008-02-29 09:49:47

#10

cablecopulate: Member; +449|7219|Massachusetts.

Whatever it cost to build above ground, it would cost more to put it below ground. It would be a pain in the ass to make a new connection. We have the benefit of machines now, but when they started wiring things back in the day, they couldn't just whip out an excavator and go to work. Now to make a new connection, you have to find out where the existing wires are (we have digsafe here, don't know if you have something similar oversees), then from there you can dig but then you have to bust out the shovels to not hit the existing stuff. Plus what if something went wrong? They could have sensors to tell them the proximity of the problem, but it would be a lot of work to find the exact problem.

2008-02-29 09:50:11

#11

liquidat0r: wtf.; +2,223|7108|UK

Because digging requires more effort.
Because underground cables are harder to repair/service.
Because digging requires more money.
Because digging requires more work force.

I presume.

2008-02-29 09:50:59

#12

Mitch: 16 more years; +877|7006|South Florida

StormEye wrote:
Mitch wrote:
StormEye wrote:
Lines above ground just means that the infrastructure is old.

Cities around the world, which had its infrastructure reorganized within recent decades, have lines running underground. This includes cities like Hong Kong, for example. Digging up ground and placing wires will disturb the lives of people who already lives there, since it takes longer to bury the lines underground rather than just sticking them up in poles.
I wouldn't think so if you think of the whole process of making the poles.
Poles can be pre-manufactured.

still. the lumber could've been used elsewhere. and there would be no lumber used for the underground system. so theres like billions of roads with wood poles that could've been used somewhere else. couldve saved many-a-forest.

15 more years! 15 more years!

2008-02-29 09:52:27

#13

Mitch: 16 more years; +877|7006|South Florida

cablecopulate wrote:
Whatever it cost to build above ground, it would cost more to put it below ground. It would be a pain in the ass to make a new connection. We have the benefit of machines now, but when they started wiring things back in the day, they couldn't just whip out an excavator and go to work. Now to make a new connection, you have to find out where the existing wires are (we have digsafe here, don't know if you have something similar oversees), then from there you can dig but then you have to bust out the shovels to not hit the existing stuff. Plus what if something went wrong? They could have sensors to tell them the proximity of the problem, but it would be a lot of work to find the exact problem.

but think, they're would be no wind/animal/falling polls damage in the wires. so that would cut down majorly on the need for repairs.

and less downtime would lead to more customer satisfaction

Last edited by Mitch (2008-02-29 09:53:25)

15 more years! 15 more years!

2008-02-29 09:56:39

#14

cablecopulate: Member; +449|7219|Massachusetts.

So underground there's no vermin to fuck with wires? Underground cables need to be maintained just like above ground.

What if there's an earthquake? A flood?

2008-02-29 10:19:12

#15

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6480|...

Mitch wrote:
Who, the fuck, thought it was a better idea to cut down millions of trees, cut them into poles, dig holes every 30 feet, and put power/phone lines on them, rather than run them underground.

I mean seriously, someone had to have a vote asking "Should we develope an underground wiring system, or develope an aboveground system.

If you actually stop and think about it, power/phone lines look really dumb and are always falling, having those support wires, and it must have cost billions in labor and time.

With the time it took to do that they should've just studied how we could do it underground, like we do now days in new neighborhoods.

Agree?

if you think about it more it isn´t as dumb as you might think.

some areas under the ground contain far too much hard rock, very costly / long to drill through. It all depends on what kind of surface you put them, those poles on areas which have hard soil underneath is pretty logic imo. (also applies to swampy areas etc.)

Last edited by dayarath (2008-02-29 10:19:46)

inane little opines

2008-02-29 10:41:48

#16

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6611|North Tonawanda, NY

It isn't cost effective. Utility poles make perfect sense. Underground cabling is ideal for certain situations, but it just costs too much. Then if there is a break, good luck finding it easily.

2008-02-29 13:09:57

#17

HurricaИe: Banned; +877|6442|Washington DC

It's a pain isn't it? Damn tree branch hits a wire, the whole system shuts off

2008-02-29 16:02:15

#18

StormEye: Sniper; +50|7126|Malibu

Mitch wrote:
StormEye wrote:
Mitch wrote:

I wouldn't think so if you think of the whole process of making the poles.
Poles can be pre-manufactured.
still. the lumber could've been used elsewhere. and there would be no lumber used for the underground system. so theres like billions of roads with wood poles that could've been used somewhere else. couldve saved many-a-forest.

Unfortunately, many governments are driven by the sign of $$$.
Building underground infrastructure is quite more expensive than above ground infrastructure.

Tax payers are often the same. Small raise in Tax, everyone starts panicing or whining.

Its not that I like those trees to disappear, but its just reality.

2008-02-29 16:03:10

#19

Kurazoo: Pheasant Plucker; +440|7165|West Yorkshire, U.K

liquidat0r wrote:
Because digging requires more effort.
Because underground cables are harder to repair/service.
Because digging requires more money.
Because digging requires more work force.

I presume.

Hit the nail on the head

close

2008-02-29 16:13:56

#20

bennisboy: Member; +829|7127|Poundland

Cos its cheaper

BF2S Forums Who would have thought...

StormEye wrote:

Mitch wrote:

StormEye wrote:

StormEye wrote:

Mitch wrote:

StormEye wrote:

cablecopulate wrote:

Mitch wrote:

Mitch wrote:

StormEye wrote:

Mitch wrote:

liquidat0r wrote:

Board footer