Will the CHP ever go to the trunked system?

[tomasG]

That was the hard part working on my term paper for college. I could go on and on about the technology but I couldn't get many answers on the state budget and its impact on the project.

With that said, 700MHz repeater sites could negate the need for extenders.

 

[avtarsingh]

mjc maybe if you spent 3 seconds and went to the chp page from the database you could have read about the upgrades and frequency migrations

but its easier to blame the guy -wayne - thats helping you instead of straight up telling you what should be told

1-dont be a lazy ass and expect us to do your work for you
2-dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out
3-dont go away mad just go away

tomas the 700 channels will be nice because it will allow wider control remotely of their channels

but ultimately about 60% of upgrades are because the salesmen impress suits who usually dont know any better and dazzle them with useless bs facts and notions aka visteon

 

[ssd]

Well if fish & game and cdf where to put there systems as 1 and add where they need it they wood have what is needed to make a good vhf p25 state wide system I think.

 

[Hooligan]

Well if fish & game and cdf where to put there systems as 1 and add where they need it they wood have what is needed to make a good vhf p25 state wide system I think.

It might make a 'good' system for them, but that doesn't mean it "wood" be a good system for CHP, based on traffic load & coverage (urban penetration).

 

[ssd]

Well it would be a start

 

[KMA367]

And the answer IS... "maybe around 2020 or so"

To the OP's question/subject line "Will the CHP ever go to the trunked system?", here are some possible clues culled from the recently released 2010 "California Public Safety Radio Communications Strategic Plan" (ellipses and emphasis are mine)

Objective 1—Develop a 700–800 MHz Shared Infrastructure Plan

"...oth CHP and Caltrans have extensive systems that cover almost all the State’s
highways and roadways. The overlapping coverage of these two agencies, and the recent
availability of additional frequencies in the 700 MHz band, create an opportunity for the State
to leverage CHP and Caltrans’ existing site infrastructures to deploy a shared 700–800 MHz
digital trunked system. This shared system will increase the coverage for both CHP and
Caltrans...

"...The experience of other large states, including Pennsylvania, Florida, New York and others, also
indicates that successful shared systems generally require seven to 10 years of planning in
advance of a successful deployment. Given the amount of planning required, the consolidation
of these infrastructures is not imminent, but the timing for the planning of this consolidation
aligns with efforts that CHP and Caltrans already have planned for in the next decade:

• Caltrans needs to upgrade its aging 800 MHz system and plans to begin the refresh of
  this system during the next decade
  .
• CHP will complete its CHPERS project and begin exploring opportunities for transitioning
  from its VHF low‐band system due to decreasing manufacturer support of VHF low‐band
  equipment, and other issues.

"Over the next decade, PSCD must work with Caltrans and CHP executive leadership to develop a
700–800 MHz Shared Infrastructure Plan that determines the feasibility, business case and
strategy to begin moving both departments to a common public safety radio communications
system by the end of 2020."​

Other tidbits include

"KEY SUCCESS FACTORS
The realization of this strategy is dependent on the following key success factors:

• Active, consistent executive‐level support from the State CIO, the Governor’s Office and
  key agency executives
• Support for the System of Systems (SoS) and consolidation from the leadership at the
  four largest public safety communications agencies (CHP, Caltrans, CAL FIRE and CDCR)
• Willingness and ability of the Legislature and Governor’s Office to make sufficient
  funding available..."

"The deployment of a shared 700–800 MHz shared system will begin at the conclusion of
Task U ("develop the detailed design and conduct the procurement") and will most likely
begin approximately 10 years from now."

"Current State of Radio System

CHP is currently in the midst of implementing a $500M+ upgrade to its main radio system
(i.e., the CHPERS project), which is intended to provide patrol officers with a highly interoperable
solution along with mobile data access capabilities in most areas

• The next major strategic initiative following the completion of the CHPERS rollout (in five to
seven years) will be planning for the probable eventual replacement of the VHF
low‐band infrastructure, because limited vendor support for VHF low‐band and the age of the
components may expose CHP to higher support costs, reliability problems and unacceptable
failure risks..."

 

[Mike_G_D]

Very interesting, KMA367!!

Well, for what it's worth, I propose a future VHF-Low Wake and/or 700/800MHz Birth celebration (at a time to be determined based on the likely conclusion of the proposed planned future possible CHP move to a possible 700MHz/800MHz statewide infrastructure) by all interested parties still alive and mentally cognizant and still living within the state at such time as said proposed potentially planned changes are finalized and verified by all relevant scanner listeners as being fully operational.

Planning for said wake (or celebration, the exact nature of which is to be determined over the course of the next decade to roughly correspond to the probable planning and implementation phase of said statewide radio infrastructure) should begin approximately within the next five years or so, the exact time frame being dependent on the noted verifiable progress of said project implementation.

-Mike

 

[K6CDO]

It is interesting how things go in cycles. In the 2004-2005 time frame (while CHP was developing the proposal for CHPERS), FIVE State agencies with VHF - Hiband systems were willing to discuss the concept of trunking the five systems (creating a 5-7 channel truly statewide network, with room for additional trunked channels in the urban areas as loading dictated). The then-management of CHP wouldn't hear of it, citing the need to cover ALL of the state's road system (and ignoring that CalFIRE, Fish & Game, Department of Justice, and OES _also_ had needs to cover _all_ of the state [not just the roads]). The result was $500M spent on a five year project (now getting funding for the sixth and possibly the seventh years) to simulcast all low band channels along with adding radios in all CHP cars to cover the very channels they didn't want to partner with to operate their dispatch systems on...

Fortunately, the team that rammed that decision through the CHP and the Legislature has retired, and the current incumbents have a better approach to things for the future.

 

[KMA367]

The result was $500M spent on a five year project (now getting funding for the sixth and possibly the seventh years) to simulcast all low band channels along with adding radios in all CHP cars to cover the very channels they didn't want to partner with to operate their dispatch systems on.

And silly me, here I thought the document contained a typo where it says, "CHP is implementing a sophisticated next‐generation multiradio, multi‐band solution. This solution places five different radios (Low Band, VHF, UHF, 700–800 Band and Data) in the trunk of each patrol vehicle, along with a head‐end device and a laptop computer which can integrate and bridge between the different radio units. This solution allows officers to communicate on every public safety frequency used within the State"

:roll:

 

[Hooligan]

And silly me, here I thought the document contained a typo where it says, "CHP is implementing a sophisticated next‐generation multiradio, multi‐band solution. This solution places five different radios (Low Band, VHF, UHF, 700–800 Band and Data) in the trunk of each patrol vehicle,
:roll:

Just another example how 'diversity' is bankrupting the state!

I'm glad my tax $$ mostly goes elsewhere now.

 

[SCPD]

It seems like most of the discussion of the CHP building a 700 MHz system relates to urban areas. An example is:

With that said, 700MHz repeater sites could negate the need for extenders.

In rural, mountainous, and heavily forested areas of the state the number of 700 MHz repeater sites that would have to be added to the existing low band sites is staggering. Due to constraints such as lack of road access, power and other environmental issues such as wildlife, soil erosion and scenic values. Due to these issues road access and commercial/on site power cannot be provided. In some cases these issues cannot be mitigated and the site could not be built now or in the future.

I can't put my finger on it right now, but a study was done in San Diego County that determined how many additional repeater sites would be needed to replace a low band system with a 700/800 MHz system. The results were quite eye opening. Statewide trunked systems may work well in states like Indiana and Florida, but comparing them with California is an apples and walnuts situation.

The biggest problem with both the CHP and Caltrans in rural counties is the lack of interoperability with local agencies, which are predominately on VHF-High. I don't see that changing either. Wildland fire and natural resource agencies such as DFG don't have interoperability with these agencies either. This is a problem during large incidents such as fires and floods. Scanner cross talk can and is used but cannot be relied upon.

700/800 MHz systems may be good for cities, but in rural areas, especially those that are not flat, they are not. I suppose those of us in rural counties and small towns should be used to this as almost every product and service available is designed for and works better in urban areas. "When it absolutely, positively has to get there overnight, it arrives here in 2-3 days!"

With that in mind I would much rather live in remote areas!

 

[RolnCode3]

I don't understand how the LAO, Dept. of Finance, or somebody else hasn't come along and screamed bloody murder about this. Does CHP just run over staff opposition, or is nobody paying attention to a strategic plan with a huge cost and questionable goals?

 

[K6CDO]

I don't understand how the LAO, Dept. of Finance, or somebody else hasn't come along and screamed bloody murder about this. Does CHP just run over staff opposition, or is nobody paying attention to a strategic plan with a huge cost and questionable goals?

Well, look at the makeup of the Legislature and the CHP Executive Staff in early 2006 when it was "sold" by the CHP staff to the politicians. The Dept. of Finance insisted on a peer review of the proposal; staff's report on the results of the peer review by other system operators was 'creatively written' to support the project.

 

[gmclam]

Several aspects of this document related to the CHP bother me ... including the issue that we have not even completed the current $500M+ project of low band upgrades.

Another is the statement that radio manufacturers no longer want to support low band; I think that is either out of context, a load of crock, or at the very least an opportunity for another company to step in and take over. I mean when they talk out of one side of their mouth they indicate the CURRENT upgrade to their low band system and then when they talk out of the other side they state how the CHP will need to migrate to "UHF" because of the lack of low band support.

 

[tomasG]

Thank you for the document link. It supports my position that CHP is not buying 700/800MHz portables for extender use. They are, as I suggested, intending to share a system with CALTrans. They may still use them for extender use, sure. I agree with you that their position on low band is contradictory. The vast majority of CHP coverage requirements are in the mountains and desert. Only Los Angeles, San Diego and Oakland would really benefit from a trunked system.

 

[DPD1]

Several aspects of this document related to the CHP bother me ... including the issue that we have not even completed the current $500M+ project of low band upgrades.

Half that thing sounds like it came out of a Motorola brochure. Every time I read stuff like this, I keep thinking there must be some OTHER "California" that they're referring to... One that actually has money and stuff.

I wonder how much money it took just to do their fancy "plan".

 

[K6CDO]

<...>

Another is the statement that radio manufacturers no longer want to support low band; I think that is either out of context, a load of crock, or at the very least an opportunity for another company to step in and take over. I mean when they talk out of one side of their mouth they indicate the CURRENT upgrade to their low band system and then when they talk out of the other side they state how the CHP will need to migrate to "UHF" because of the lack of low band support.

Well, where there used to be four firms* out there making high-end low band base station equipment (and three of them making high-end mobile equipment), none of those firms are in the low band fixed station marketplace today.

There are two firms in the marketplace today that make public safety fixed station equipment for VHF Low Band that are suitable for crowded communications sites; the state is using one of them (Midland), who entered the PS marketplace in response to the CHP's solicitation.

*Aerotron, General Electric, Motorola, RCA

 

[WayneH]

It supports my position that CHP is not buying 700/800MHz portables for extender use.

They are and they have. There are already areas using them. Check out the CHP 700 thread in the Sac forum.

 

[tomasG]

Please re-read my reply. It didn't say that the portables won't be used for extender purposes. It says that the document supports my position that CHP intends to share the CALTrans system. It also anticipates migrating into a trunked environment -- without any money to fund it. They already do here in Los Angeles in the mountain areas using mobiles only. I'll restate my opinion that doing so takes away CLEMARS, CALCORD, and NALMARS. I can monitor San Bernardino County System 8 just fine from here and CHP uses CALCORD extensively to coordinate with CDF, County Fire, and Mercy Air. Mercy Air and Fire have 800 but CDF does not.

My comments aren't about the viability of 800MHz portables to extenders, but on the lack of sense migrating away from what works. CHP liaisons more with on-scene first responders using VHF than they do chasing bad guys into buildings miles from a freeway.

The document further states that CHP needs to think of itself first and before interoperability. Well, the Motorola sales brochure - I mean the document - does just that. It intends to move CHP up and away from the vast majority of police and fire agencies up north that utilize VHF and UHF. Down here most police are on UHF and intend to stay there. Both LAPD and LASD have attended large blocks of frequencies for growth. Many times I've heard a chase go on forever because CHP had the spike strips and LAPD couldn't tell them where to put them (no pun intended.)

Although this may seem like a step forward towards interoperability, doesn't it really seem like steps backward in the sense that the problem with interoperability is already agencies on disparate bands and equipment?

 

[code3cowboy]

I'll restate my opinion that doing so takes away CLEMARS, CALCORD, and NALMARS. I can monitor San Bernardino County System 8 just fine from here and CHP uses CALCORD extensively to coordinate with CDF, County Fire, and Mercy Air. Mercy Air and Fire have 800 but CDF does not.

Realize the aircraft radios (Wulfsberg, Technisonic, NAT) are frequently multiband AND analog/P25, and several support various forms of trunking. Fire and Mercy Air both have the same VHF capabilities that CDF has.