COMMENTS

Kannan has done his homework and says underground cabling is quite feasible. “It has been done in Chennai, and it is quite doable here,”

 This only means there is gimbla@work here. Consequential benefits of this kind of investment is there for all to see. Yet we ignore the basics of infrastructure. I dont know if an RTI will help to find out why this has not been taken up yet.

• thumb_up 38 Likes
• · login or register to post comments

I'm sceptical because it will add to the number of UG utilities running below surface on our narrow roads - drainage & water supply lines are very poorly managed as it is with optical fibre & telephone lines. Now, if we add electric cables (that are sensitive to moisture) & knowing how our agencies co-ordinate, it might actually lead to many more hardships since quick access for maintenance is also cut out.

Though all utilities must eventually go below surface, I'm not sure if the basket of various agencies can handle this as of now, unless a lot of effort is put in - & this is where the problem lies - the signature campaign is just only a start!

• thumb_up 45 Likes
• · login or register to post comments

 Last time i checked the cost of underground cables was atleast 5-6 times the cost of over head cables. Add to that cost of shifting the lines underground, road digging, reconnection, new equipment, maintenance, etc., it's a complete waste of money and resources (i wouldnt be surprised if BESCOM takes this up - they will make more gimbla implementing this).

I fail to understand how shifting to underground cables will reduce wastage or help in road widening!! and its not like we have a track record of people being injured because of overhead cables (there have been incidents which might happen when the cable go underground too).

Such articles are generally pushed into the papers by vested interests "Paid news" - will be interesting to check Kannan's business interests (cable manufacture?).

• thumb_up 41 Likes
• · login or register to post comments

I fail to understand how shifting to underground cables will reduce wastage or help in road widening!!

I do not know about wastage or road widening but the benefits of underground lines has to be measured against walkability and footpath availability on a case to case basis. This is why I named this thread walkability & electricity not overhead vs underground. This should be a ward wise decision based on the total walking/footpath space available and the preference of the community.

Example: I prefer underground cabling in certain main roads of Ward 19 (same ward youre in mate). I want to see ploes on Rajagopal road and the main roads leading to it go underground while those on chawla road & inner streets can remain overhead. What is the criteria? Where the foot path space is less than 6 feet of clear walking space the poles need to go. Now its a toss up between BBMP & BESCOM. If its cheaper to increase footpath, clear encroachments, remove face scratching overhanging shrubbery lets do it. Else, the poles need to go.

BTW, It is definitely easier to hook up an electricity stealing device to the nearest pole than get a road cutting permit to steal power.

• thumb_up 48 Likes
• · login or register to post comments

As far as I know, UG cabling is superior to overhead & KPTCL has been wanting to do it from a long time, as per press reports that I had been following. The cost is much higher as cables have to be insulated to certain standards for protection as also the labor involved with digging trenches & covering up.

Advantages are many - lesser maintenance, protection from power theft, no ugly poles or hanging cables, lesser possibility for electrocution, no obstructions on footpaths - so, clearly, there are benefits.

Cable sellers may be lobbying for it, but that's another matter.

• thumb_up 56 Likes
• · login or register to post comments