Monroe Project Summary

David Schoenberger.net
• Home • Cellular Interference • Monroe Project • Scanning • Search • E-mail •

Monroe Project Summary

The Monroe Project “Technology, Money, and Public Safety Radio Systems in East Coast Cities” compared the public safety radio systems of major East Coast cities and analyzed how well cities made use of technology and public monies. The ultimate question was whether the public is served adequately with the radio systems in place.

Thirteen major East Coast cities were chosen for analysis. Some are large and have complicated communications needs, and some are smaller with simpler communications needs. The cities chosen also represent a good cross-section of radio communications technology, with some using older conventional systems, and others using new “trunked” radio systems. The cities also rely on different manufacturers for their radio equipment and service. The thirteen cities are Boston, Providence, Hartford, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Raleigh, Atlanta, Orlando, and Miami-Dade.

Because the radio communications manager from each city works with the system every day and is familiar with it, the communications manager from each city was interviewed. Each manager was asked a battery of questions about five areas of each system: structure, performance, cost, upgrades, and politics. The answers to these questions formed the heart of the data.

The results were surprising in some areas, expected in others. Given the fair amount of press that the failures of new high-tech radio systems have received, most communications managers reported that they were satisfied with their radio system and that it performed well. The details varied considerably among the cities, however. For example, some managers said that police officers sometimes had problems getting access to the system when it is busy, and others said there were no problems at all. The same was true when they were asked about “dead spots” (places in the city where the radio will not function). Some said they are a problem; others said they are not. Most cities reported that several layers of redundancy are built into the radio system should part or all of it fail. Most of the cities also said that officers, dispatchers, and the managers themselves are satisfied with the performance of the system. Answers were inconsistent when the managers were asked how well the cities could communicate with neighboring jurisdictions. Of course, answers also varied considerably when asked about the cost of the system and maintenance costs. And the managers had good and bad things to say about the two manufacturers of the radio systems, Motorola and Comnet. One thing was overwhelmingly clear: most of the radio systems have not been in the local media much, and most managers stated that the public does not know much, if anything, about the radio systems.

The results clearly indicate large variations in the structures of the radio systems. Based on what the communications managers said, most cities seem to be getting good value for their money. Those that have implemented high-tech trunked systems (which cost millions of dollars to install) have been pleased with the results and have realized efficiency and capacity gains. Those cities that continue to use conventional systems find that paying to upgrade to a trunked system is not worth the money, and they remain as they are, because operating costs for the conventional system are not exorbitant. Technology also seems to be working effectively and increasing efficiency, when the city carefully plans the technology and realizes its benefits as well as its limitations. Because the public is receiving good value for their tax dollars, and technology is increasing efficiency, it is fair to say that the public is being served well by the radio systems in place. The generally favorable results that these cities have experienced with their technology should not be taken to mean that all cities have had good results. Indeed, many cities (and counties and states) have had legitimate problems with their technology, and have voiced understandable concerns about the radio technology.