News -> INDReporter MON, APR 30 11:00AM by Leslie Turk

Ouch! $26.7 m per mile to bury Johnston power lines

For all of us who have waited far too long to see our fair city’s biggest eyesore cleaned up, the news is disappointing. A study commissioned by Lafayette Utilities System finds that burying all of the power lines on Johnston Street would cost $26.7 million per mile. According to a story on the study published this weekend by The Advocate, it would cost $3,045 per foot of road, or $16 million a mile, just to bury the electric distribution lines and leave the larger transmission lines on poles.

That one mile is the stretch of Johnston Street between College Drive and Roselawn Boulevard. The study’s estimated costs are three to five times what some had hoped for.

Oh, the high cost of dumb growth.

“It was like a sinking feeling,” City-Parish President Joey Durel told The Advocate Friday when describing his reaction to the cost analysis.
Durel has maintained an interest in redeveloping Johnston Street since taking office in 2004, and burying the power lines was being considered along with a range of other improvements to transform the road into a more aesthetically pleasing and pedestrian-friendly corridor.

But he said the prospect of underground utilities now seems “impossible,” considering the cost and complications such as the need of some businesses to relocate because of the additional right-of-way needed to bury the power lines.
“When you start having to retrofit things, it gets pretty expensive,” LUS Director Terry Huval told the paper.

johnston_street
An animated feature on the home page of commercial real estate developer Reed Andrus' www.improvejohnston.org starts with the existing view of Johnston Street and South College looking south (Image 1). In image 2, Andrus’ graphics team removes overhead power lines. In image 3, the team substitutes monument signage for existing business signs, and landscaping is added in the final image. The new estimated price tag for burying the power lines makes it unlikely Andrus' vision and the community's hope of cleaning up this eyesore will happen any time soon.

 

Let’s keep Huval's comment in mind the next time we have an opportunity to do it right the first time. At the very least we should be burying empty electrical conduit while we’re laying water and sewer lines during road construction. That means no ongoing maintenance of lines, no contracts with tree trimmers, fewer outages in storms.

And that says nothing of the aesthetics.

Somebody please tell me why that won’t work on every new street project.



Comments (12)add
feedSubscribe to this comment's feed
...
written by Patrick Logan , April 30, 2012 - 06:18 pm
In my 30+ year career with local government I have learned that there are three (3) major reasons why Lafayette's roadway network has been continually lagging behind the growth of the urban area: 1. NIMYBism (not in my back yard). 2. Lack of an inflation-indexed recurring source of revenue for road and traffic improvements- dedicated solely for that purpose. The 2006 LCG Sales Tax referendum would have done that- but voters opted for the status quo- which in a growth community is actually going backward. With the current sales tax, road and traffic improvement must compete with other vital needs- such as police protection, fire protection, etc. for funding. Meanwhile, construction costs escallate at a rate higher than overall inflation. 3. Expenditure of time and resources on projects that are intitutively not cost feasible. while the Johnston St. underground utility proposal would be desirable, it is just not economically feasible. Nor is the Expressway Loop, which would only minimally impact traffic on the exsting urban network and would cost upward of $1 Billion. We need to direct our limited State, Local and whatever crumbs of Federal highway resources are thrown our way upon completing the I-49 connector thru Lafayette and other local projects of major impact, such as Kaliste Saloom Rd., Verot School Road, Apollo Road Extension, S. College Road, N. Universty widening and the South College Road Extension. The sad news is that, even exclding I-49, it will take at least 10 years to fund these improvements with the existing local tax base.
...
written by Dudley E. LaBauve, III , April 30, 2012 - 06:42 pm
Sell the existing telephone poles for $1,000/ft. to some other municipality. There are so many damn telephone poles, we might actually make money on this project! Problem solved! ;)
...
written by Robert Guercio , April 30, 2012 - 06:51 pm
A worthwhile endeavor to be sure. Perhaps instead of spending money for burying power lines the city could consider using the funds to incentivize the addition of rooftop solar power panels along Johnston? Perhaps offer a local sales tax break/credit for every business that converts to installing enough solar to make sure they are producing their own power? We can also look at locating small solar "substations" along the johnston street corridor. These power producing stations can be set back and supplement rooftop power. While it may not solve the problem the study hoped to address it will begin to move us in the right direction while stimulating local small business, creating jobs and reducing long term maintenance issues for the city. The southern sun exposure along Johnston is very good in most locations. Then add some trees and greenery and bike lanes and do what we can on a smaller scale but let the little solutions add up to major change. Takes more time and more volunteerism and community involvement but the end result will approximate the currently desired goal. If it is planned well we could even consider using (say 50%) of funds required for burying power lines to finance the purchase of rooftop solar and have LUS finance this and install it... We have options. Just need to broaden our gaze and be creative.
...
written by Ryan Pecot , April 30, 2012 - 06:52 pm
Well stated Pat. As progressive & optimistic this community is; it sure seems to buckle down when the costs associated with smarter growth & development are put out to vote. Sure, there may have been some reckless spending in the past; but are we as a community going to stunt the capacity to raise the funds necessary to grow into perpetuity? Quality of life in a public sense costs money, and our thriving economy needs to step up to the plate and fund what needs to upgraded & developed to keep up with ourselves. If we’re not moving forward, we’re getting left behind.
...
written by Dudley E. LaBauve, III , April 30, 2012 - 07:07 pm
Just bury one mile's worth and see if it actually costs $26.7 million, and publish the actual expense info. so we can see what we are paying for.
...
written by Simon Mahan , April 30, 2012 - 08:43 pm
From my understanding, the $26.7 million is just for that single mile - not all of Johnston.

What if the lines were just consolidated? Higher voltage lines would reduce the number of lines needed, so instead of looking like a heaping mess of spaghetti running down Johnston, it'd be more like a small portion of fettuccine.
...
written by John St. Julien , May 01, 2012 - 03:24 pm
The scenario that is being judged too expensive is one that assumes that everything has to be done for at once, in a rush, and paid for by new funding. That need not be the case. It's easy to imagine using zoning regulations, maintenance "upgrades." and the passage of time to fix most of this at a vastly lower cost.

The Independent notes correctly that we shouldn't continue to make this mistake going forward—that all new thoroughfares should have buried utiliies and that all extensive road repairs should include the installation of the necessary infrastructure during roadwork when the cost of burying the additional conduit is very small.

This principle can and should be applied to Johnston St. as well. There will be plenty of repair work on Johnston in the coming years. Building the necessary conduit whenever and wherever it is possible during repair work would dramatically lower costs. Couple the with new zoning regulations that widen the right of ways without requiring immediate changes but require that renovation of signage and buildings meet the new standards. Once the principles are in place and are consistently followed over a decade I can't help but believe that the costs of fixing Johnston street would be easily borne.

Fixing our problems can be done piecemeal. It does not have to be done in one huge and expensive shot whose trumpeted costs are intended to convince us all that nothing can be done.
...
written by Terry Huval , May 02, 2012 - 02:05 pm
I appreciate the continued interest on this issue, as it has been previously come up for debate a number of times over the past several decades.

There are a number of lines on these poles: electric transmission, electric distribution, telephone lines, cable TV lines and fiber optic lines. While placing lines underground tends to make the presence of these facilities not immediately visible, the real estate necessary to do so is a significant factor – making such a conversion for more costly and complicated than one might casually consider. Trying to do this in a piecemeal fashion is not practical. There is far more involved in such an effort then just placing conduit in the ground. The purchase of adequate easements itself with so many property owners involved will be an expensive and time consuming task.

I have been told that since the 1960's the City of Lafayette has required that all new developments be served through the use of underground power lines. That forward-thinking policy led to nearly half the power lines in Lafayette now being underground lines. It may well be that, because of this policy, Lafayette has a greater percentage of underground power lines than any other city in the state. The extra cost for underground lines is paid for by the developer and, ultimately, the purchaser of the lots in the development.

One of the biggest questions related to the Johnston Street project, is “Who pays for placing the power lines underground?” Should it be paid for by LUS, which would translate into higher electric rates for all LUS customers? Or, should it be paid for by homes and businesses along Johnston Street whose property values may be enhanced due to the more aesthetically pleasing appearance of the street? What happens if some property owners along Johnston Street refuse to participate in the cost? There is no law in place that can force every property owner along the street to participate in the cost of such a project.

LUS will continue to make improvements on its system to meet the electrical demands of our customers. We will continue to use overhead line construction where it makes sense to do so, because the costs for such systems are so much less than underground. The steel pole construction used along Ambassador Caffery is an example of a corridor where the overhead lines have proven to be more aesthetically pleasing than the lines on Johnston Street are.

LUS is investigating the use of steel pole construction to replace the wood poles on Johnston Street, but that replacement will also come with at a cost – and the resulting debate on who should pay that cost.


...
written by Krista Fontenot , May 02, 2012 - 07:37 pm
Can't the lftpa pay for some of that? I thought their mission was to help with city projects.
...
written by Leslie Turk , May 03, 2012 - 12:21 pm
Terry, please clarify this for me. You are telling me that the city requires private developers to do something, meaning install underground power lines, that it does not do itself? So that "forward-thinking" policy does not apply to the city itself? Why is it that LUS cannot make this investment and then let those who purchase the lots for commercial development reimburse the costs just as is done for developers in residential subdivisions?

Yes, we all realize there are added costs to doing this right the first time, but we also know the cost of not doing it is much greater. After all, we are planning for the FUTURE of our city, right?
...
written by Terry Huval , May 03, 2012 - 02:25 pm
Leslie,

LUS does install its lines underground when it makes good sense to do so, but it does not make good sense for LUS to spend the extra money to place its lines underground when there will still be plenty of utility poles remaining. For example, if the existing telephone and cable TV system will still be located on poles, or if there will be poles remaining to continue providing service to customers who are already receiving services from overhead lines, then it would be hard to justify why LUS should pay for the additional cost of underground power lines in that circumstance.

While the concept of LUS passing on those higher costs to future development on that property is an interesting concept, in the case of Johnston Street most of that development is already in place.

If, however, there are no existing utility poles on a large tract of vacant land and if the property is being developed (which means only underground lines will be on that property) and if LUS must install a major trunk distribution feeder line through that property, then LUS would consider installing that line underground.

Any cost LUS incurs is a matter that will ultimately impact electric rates to LUS customers. The fundamental question is who should pay for converting these lines to underground lines? The current LUS policy is that the developer pays the cost, and passes on that cost to the purchaser of the lots. Otherwise, LUS must pass on those increased costs, in the form of higher electric utility rates, to the majority citizens and businesses which will not directly benefit from those underground power lines.

In the end, if the citizens of Lafayette want to increase their electric utility rates in order to support the cost of LUS and other utility companies to convert their respective overhead lines on Johnston Street to underground lines, LUS will propose a project to do so.


You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in using your Facebook account or register if you do not have an account yet.

busy 
LA LA Land
Advertisement
Most Read
Advertisement
Advertisement
in case you missed it