Public safety emergency communications systems

Communication systems during disasters save lives. East Bay city and county systems need to effectively and efficiently communicate with each other so that emergency personnel can coordinate their efforts across the region. The Globe presents a multi-part series on the East Bay regional communication system.

Part four of four: Interoperability and JPA alternatives

By Globe Staff

Everyone agrees that public safety first responders should be able to cross-communicate in emergencies. Aplan is being considered to bring together Alameda and Contra Costa counties and all of their cities under a single radio communications system that adheres to P25 standards — a universal standard that assures interoperability no matter the manufacturer of a communications system. A number of questions regarding the East Bay Regional Communications System (EBRCS) effort have been raised.
   As local county supervisors and city councils have debated the issue, the wisdom and advantages of signing a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to build a Motorola-designed regional communications system was promoted by high-level system users — police and fire chiefs and city managers. Their standard mantra was that this system is greatly needed. However, high level technical experts have been notably absent from the dialogue and cost information has been vague. Depending on the source, the costs range from $60 million to $150 million, and it’s not clear that these projections include all of the eventual charges to JPAmembers.
    In 1998, the city of Richmond invested $1.7 million in a radio system that additionally serves San Pablo, El Cerrito and Kensington. At a recent meeting discussing the JPA, a member of the Richmond City Council expressed concern with conflicting cost information and asked about the upgradeability of Richmond’s radios. When the council member challenged as inconsistent the answer that current radios cannot be P25 compliant, the discussion was shifted to the system backbone, which reportedly would end its useful life in approximately five years. Replacement cost was projected at approximately $3.3 million.
    In a later conversation, another council member expressed concern about the life of the city’s current system and said that joining the JPA would be more cost effective than building a new Richmond system. The council member also expressed potential support of an alternative that delivered P25 capability at a lower cost.
    Some technical experts dispute JPA promoters’ allegations about Richmond’s radios and system, which are manufactured by M/A Com. Several say that Richmond’s newer radios can be made P25 compliant, that its current system can be upgraded at less cost and that building a new system would not be necessary to attain P25 compatibility. They further observed that a notable difference exists between Motorola’s typical system model, which has built-in obsolescence, and that of M/A Com, which is designed to be upgradeable. Yet, information that does not support the EBRCS design direction seems to be absent from county supervisor and city council deliberations on the JPA.
    So, why the contradictions and missing information? One source suggested that the EBRCS JPAis being pushed solely with a political strategy that recognizes “If electeds see substantial public safety uniforms in front of them, they can’t say no. They don’t know what to ask about costs and coverage, and they are being railroaded.” Challenging questions are emerging such as whether the current EBRCS design is known by some to just be a “starter” system and whether full radio communications coverage problems due to the East Bay’s hills and canyons will result in much higher assessments of locked-in JPA members well into the future, as has been the experience of other cities such as Philadelphia and Phoenix.
    Other approaches to East Bay interoperability have been suggested. One, based on Contra Costa County’s independent consultant, is that Contra Costa build its own P25-compliant system. Supposedly this could connect with any other P25-compliant system, including one built by Alameda County. Another suggestion is that the Oakland/ BART/Richmond system be evaluated as a possible backbone for an East Bay system.
    There is no question that interoperability is needed. However, questions exist about how it is being promoted in the East Bay and what is in the best interests of all involved.
   Specifically:
• How will any one communication system work within a specific region and with neighboring systems, and what are its limitations?
• How does each system compare to those used by surrounding cities and counties?
• What are the complete, long-term costs of a proposed system?
• What kind of upgrades will the chosen technology require in the future?
• Who are the stakeholders in each proposed agreement?
• What is the role of each entity in the JPA?
• What lessons can be learned from the experiences of other cities in the U.S.?