The Aesthetics, Economics, and Politics of Infrastructure Modernization

For most Americans, the power lines crisscrossing their neighborhoods are an afterthought—noticed only when they fail or when a particularly dense web of wires spoils the sunset. But the infrastructure we take for granted shapes our daily lives, our economy, and our resilience to the ever-growing threats of climate change and extreme weather. It’s time for suburban communities to rethink the outdated tangle of poles and wires above our streets and move toward a more elegant, efficient, and resilient alternative: underground utilities.

Of course, the upfront costs of undergrounding utilities are substantial. That fact alone has long been enough to deter broad-scale adoption. But what if we’re asking the wrong question? Instead of fixating on short-term capital expenditures, we should be considering the long-term benefits—economic, aesthetic, and environmental—of replacing century-old infrastructure with a system better suited to the 21st century.

The Tyranny of the Overhead Wire

The most obvious argument for burying utility lines is visual. Power lines and utility poles are relics of a bygone era, cluttering suburban landscapes that could otherwise be home to tree-lined streets and unobstructed views. In an age where community appeal drives property values and economic vitality, aesthetics matter.

The typical suburban resident, paying a premium to escape the density of the city, finds little charm in a tangle of wires snaking through their backyard. A 2011 study by the Journal of Urban Economics found that homes in neighborhoods with underground utilities saw an increase in property values compared to those with overhead lines. Developers and planners eager to cultivate attractive, competitive suburban communities should take note.

Safety and Reliability: The Costs of Inertia

But this is not just a matter of appearances; it is a matter of public safety and economic resilience. Overhead power lines are, quite literally, disasters waiting to happen. Every winter storm, every hurricane, every high wind advisory reminds us of their fragility. Fallen trees and snapped poles are routine disruptions, and when disaster strikes—whether in the form of wildfires sparked by electrical malfunctions or ice storms that leave thousands without power for weeks—the consequences can be catastrophic.

A town whose power grid is underground is a town that does not spend millions on emergency repairs and disaster response. Consider Florida: after Hurricane Irma in 2017, utilities spent billions restoring power to millions of residents. Undergrounding key portions of the grid could have prevented much of that damage, saving both lives and dollars. Meanwhile, in California, above-ground power lines have been the cause of multiple wildfires, leading to devastating loss of life and billions in damages.

Moreover, utility poles themselves are hazards. Each year, thousands of vehicle crashes involve collisions with utility poles, often with fatal consequences. In a country that prides itself on advancing infrastructure, why do we still accept utility poles as immutable fixtures of suburban life?

The Economics of Undergrounding: An Investment, Not a Cost

The standard retort to these arguments is cost. Undergrounding utilities is expensive—roughly $1 million per mile, compared to $250,000 per mile for overhead lines. But sticker shock alone is a poor metric for decision-making. Over time, underground utilities cost less to maintain, require fewer emergency repairs, and suffer far fewer disruptions. Utility companies pass storm-related repair costs onto consumers through rate hikes, meaning that the savings from undergrounding would ultimately be realized by homeowners.

Then there’s the issue of lifespan. Overhead power lines must be repaired and replaced more frequently due to weather exposure. Underground lines last significantly longer, meaning municipalities and utility companies see a return on their investment over time. In many cases, the cost of undergrounding can be offset by strategic public-private partnerships, grants, and infrastructure funding.

Environmental and Urban Planning Benefits

Beyond cost and safety, undergrounding utilities allows for smarter urban planning. With no poles obstructing sidewalks and roadways, cities and towns can design more pedestrian-friendly streetscapes. Bike lanes, public parks, and mixed-use developments all become more viable when not constrained by the limitations of overhead wiring. Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also becomes easier when sidewalks are unobstructed by poles.

The environmental benefits are equally compelling. Undergrounding eliminates the need for aggressive tree trimming, allowing communities to preserve urban canopies and the cooling effects they provide. A greener, more resilient suburban environment is the logical next step for communities looking to balance modernization with sustainability.

The Politics of Infrastructure: A Challenge Worth Undertaking

No one denies that the political and logistical challenges of undergrounding utilities are significant. Coordination between municipalities, utility companies, and residents requires deliberate planning and community buy-in. But as other nations, and even some forward-thinking American cities, have shown, it is not only possible but preferable.

At a time when infrastructure investment is at the forefront of national policy debates, suburban communities have an opportunity to take the lead. The question should not be whether undergrounding is too expensive—it should be whether maintaining an antiquated, failure-prone, and aesthetically disruptive system is worth the long-term costs.

The answer, increasingly, is no.