Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Con Ed talks stray voltage with concerned residents


[Stray voltage possibility on East 9th Street from Monday via Bobby Williams]

After a winter of numerous stray voltage reports in the neighborhood, Con Ed officials attended last night's CB3 Public Safety/Transportation meeting to hear concerns/answer questions, etc.

BoweryBoogie was there for the presentation. Read their account of it here.

As readers here have pointed out, Con Ed's new warning signs are just a little too small. And low.


[EVG file photo]

Per BB:

For one thing, the little flyers are affixed too low to the ground and with illegible print. Not to mention, the message is not stern enough. Chair David Crane posited alternative wording to the effect of, “Warning: possible electrical shock hazard.” Other suggestions included making the signage at eye level, introducing red lights, or getting pet owner warnings in the advanced weather advisories before storms.

One EVG reader who attended the meeting said Con Ed had plenty of graphs and charts, but too few concrete answers about the stray voltage problems.

Per BB: "Con Edison will take the feedback and allegedly make some improvements. When that will happen is anyone’s guess."

Previously on EV Grieve:
Con Ed unveils new signage to warn pedestrians and their pets of stray voltage

Resident shocked about ConEd's nonchalance over stray voltage

10 comments:

  1. Ya ok, let's TALK it over.

    NO TALK

    ACTION

    FUCK YOU

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've lived in a number of medium and large cities throughout the world - some of which can way more snow, salt, and moisture than NYC. But I have NEVER heard of this issue anywhere else. When the woman and her dog died a few blocks from where I live I thought it was a tragic and freak occurrence, but it seems like it happens most winters.

    Why on earth can't ConEd communicate with their peers in every other city in the developed world and figure out how to stop killing and injuring their customers and their pets? This is crazily unacceptable. Is there something about NYC infrastructure that is completely unique and causes this issue (and doesn't happen in Toronto, Montreal, Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, London, Manchester, Wellington, Sydney, or Melbourne)? Or is it just laziness, complacence and a lack of investment in infrastructure?

    ReplyDelete
  3. People and pets getting electrocuted. Buildings blowing up days after complaints of a gas leak. And nobody goes to jail?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ken from Ken's KitchenMarch 12, 2014 at 6:37 PM

    Con Ed and the city will probably only respond when they get hit with enough lawsuits. That's why God invented lawsuits.

    ReplyDelete
  5. On top of all this ConEd has charged very high rates the last two months, citing the cold weather. I remember colder winters when the bills didn't triple from Nov. or Dec. to Jan. and Feb.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous at 4:23 PM: I totally agree. Been in many places. Apparently, we're not as well developed as the other 70 % of the industrialized world.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Curiously cryptic. What in God's name is the set up in the first photo supposed to indicate? Stay away from the TLC car? Beware of the boogie man in the TLC car? Dangerous tree? How 'bout some contextual clues Con Ed? Both the cones and the tape should be signed CON ED SHOCK HAZARD along with the universal graphic for shock hazard.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There have been cones, papers and an open manhole in front of my building for the past 3 weeks. Why would anyone start to even take these cryptic warnings seriously when they look like some cheap movie prop? The Hells Angels have already appropriated them to insure that they get their proper parking on my street as well and at this point I don't blame them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm no fan of ConEd but I think most cities have overhead electrical lines so stray voltage isn't an issue... of course downed power lines in storms is a big one!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am the stray voltage survivor whose statements at this CB3 meeting were described by Bowery Boogie as "aggressive and impassioned"..Anyone can search the Internet and find documentation, from as far back as 1999, of my historic electrocution-by-payphone caused by Con Edison's proven negligence. Evidence can also be found there of my longstanding and ongoing advocacy for public safety, reforms of electrical utilities, better service by our public servants, and brain injury awareness. I clearly have a most unique comprehensive point of view about the deadly threats posed by stray voltage and any negligence that may cause them. I don't filibuster; I strive only to reestablish and advance very significant substance that the general public has forgotten or overlooked. Due to the curious limitations of public servants like CB3, I'm usually not allowed to publicly provide as much help as I'd like in a manner I'd prefer. Any citizen concerned for the well-being of themselves, their dear ones, and good strangers should read my more detailed statement about this meeting and the many facets of this issue at www.StreetZaps.com/testimonies.htm. Click the link "testimonies" there, then select "2014". You could also read my 2008 testimony there. If this catastrophic life-altering devastation could happen to me as it did in August 1997, it could happen to anyone and at any time of the year. It could even really truly happen to you. Take good care of yourself and others. Good citizens need to be "on it" when utility behemoths and public servants aren't.

    ReplyDelete

Your remarks and lively debates are welcome, whether supportive or critical of the views herein. Your articulate, well-informed remarks that are relevant to an article are welcome.

However, commentary that is intended to "flame" or attack, that contains violence, racist comments and potential libel will not be published. Facts are helpful.

If you'd like to make personal attacks and libelous claims against people and businesses, then you may do so on your own social media accounts. Also, comments predicting when a new business will close ("I give it six weeks") will not be approved.