Monroe Project Conclusion

One overall conclusion can be drawn from the interview reports.  The communications managers are happy with the radio systems currently in place.  Whether the city is extremely large or relatively small, whether the city uses a conventional system or a trunked system, or whether the city uses Motorola or Comnet for its equipment and maintenance, the managers expressed general satisfaction with their respective systems.  This is not to say that the managers did not bring to light several problems and issues they are experiencing with the systems.

What broad conclusions can be drawn from the responses of the communications managers?  For most of the questions, the responses varied widely.  The first question about the structure of the system simply asked how many users are on the system.  Larger cities typically had more users on their system; smaller cities had fewer users.  This response even varied, depending on whether the system included all city users, or just the police department.  The next question asked whether there are problems with users not being able to access the system.  Responses varied widely to this question.  Trunked systems were developed to solve this problem, so most cities with trunked systems reported no access problems.  In fact, one city with a trunked system reported that the system is only operating at about 30% capacity—plenty of room for future expansion.  The last question in the system structure category asked whether the tower locations provide adequate coverage of the city.  There have been many complaints about this from cities that use trunked systems.  (The nature of trunked systems is that they use 800 MHz frequencies, which do not travel as far as lower frequencies.)  Cities that used conventional systems reported good coverage.  Cities that use trunked systems reported some problems, as would be expected.

All of the communications managers detailed the layers of redundancy in place should the primary radio system fail.  Many of the cities have multiple redundancies in place, so several systems would have to fail before the city faced a major catastrophe.  Another common trend among the cities was user satisfaction with the systems.  Dispatchers, officers, and communications managers themselves report being satisfied with the systems.  The level of satisfaction was usually high, and problems that users encountered with the systems were usually minor or involved training issues.

Interoperability, the ability of a radio system to communicate with users from other departments in the city or in neighboring communities, is always a major issue with radio systems.  Some managers reported almost flawless interoperability, and some cities seemed to have major deficiencies in interoperability.  Trunked systems usually provide excellent interoperability within a city, since all the users in a city are typically on the trunked system.  Trunked systems usually do not solve an existing problem with interoperability between communities, however.  Many of the managers said that mutual aid channels (common radio channels of neighboring jurisdictions) were set up to deal with the problem of interoperability.

There was only an obvious correlation between cost of the system and size of the city.  Larger cities tended to have more costly radio systems, which is to be expected.  But if one compared a large city to another large city, the variation in system cost and maintenance cost could be dramatic.  Maintenance costs vary greatly depending on how old the system is.  Some equipment is so old that it is no longer manufactured, which obviously drives maintenance costs up tremendously.

Some communications managers reported productive relations with the local government, and others seemed to indicate some antagonism, or at least some misunderstanding.  While some managers said the local government honors all requests for funding, one manager said that the local government bureaucrats do not understand the needs of his department sometimes because the bureaucrats are not “out in the field.”  There were similar answers to a question about the relations with the radio manufacturers, Motorola and Comnet.  Some managers reported excellent service and support, and some said there was much to be desired from the manufacturers.  Growing pains seemed to be a problem for these two companies—as more and more clients demand radio communications, resources are strained.

The last two questions asked how much media coverage the radio system has received, and how satisfied the public is with the system.  The vast majority of the managers stated that their system was hardly ever in the news and that the public did not know too much about the radio system.  Some of the managers guessed that the public was satisfied with the system, because they did not receive complaints from the public.  Media and public ignorance of the radio systems seemed to be a common occurrence.

By and large, the thirteen cities examined have invested well in their respective radio systems.  They have achieved good value for their money, and tax dollars have been spent well, for the most part.  Due to effective and extensive planning, even multi-million dollar trunked radio sys­tems can pass a stringent cost-benefit analysis.  The cities that have trunked systems have been relatively successful with them, achieving efficiency and capacity gains.  The older conventional systems in place had escalating costs and declining benefits.  Older equipment is more expensive to replace, and as more users enter a system, the older systems are bulging at the seams.  Necessity dictated that the cities invest in new radio systems.  Having said that, what about the cities that have remained on conventional systems?  Has their spending not been as effective or practical?  Not necessarily.  For example, Providence is probably too small a city to truly require a trunked system, at least for now.  New York does not have a trunked system, but for the opposite reason.  It is simply too big.  Trunked systems are basically still in their developmental stages, and it is too early to convert the primary radio systems of New York to trunked radio, even though New York would gain radio capacity (which it desperately needs).  The city, however, is switching some departments over to trunked radio, so they seem to be slowly migrating to the technology.  It is not always wise to invest tax dollars in the latest high-tech system; the individual situation of a city must be examined carefully to determine whether it is necessary.

The communications managers also seem to be satisfied with the technology in place.  Conventional radio systems continue to work fine for some cities; others have decided that a trunked system is necessary for their needs.  Unlike many other cities, counties, and states across the United States, the cities with trunked systems in this project are generally satisfied with their systems.  The reason their experiences have been positive while so many other experiences with trunked systems have been negative is that they worked with consultants, manufacturers, and communications managers to properly design, test, and implement the trunked system.  They invested the time and money to create a trunked system that met their needs.  They realized the power of a trunked system, but also the unique attributes and limitations of a trunked system.  As with many choices, there are trade-offs.  A trunked system cannot do everything a conventional system can do, but it can also do much more, if properly designed.

The final question is whether the public is being adequately served by the radio systems in place.  Because the radio systems seem to meet the individual needs of each city, this question can be answered affirmatively.  Cities that have done fine with conventional systems have chosen to keep them for the foreseeable future, and will continue to do fine with them, unless and until the city grows out of the conventional system.  Likewise, cities that have trunked systems have chosen to adapt to changing needs and have responded appropriately.  In short, cities have different communications needs and must respond in different ways.

Contents © 2008 by David Schoenberger