Come on, Don, the VHF system is 40 or 50 years old. CHPERS replaced all the old fixed hardware in the last 5 years but did not replace the mobiles [CPVE is a different program] or add sites so coverage did not improve. Adding new sites is what improves coverage. Going to trunking at 700/800 MHz would only require tripling or quadrupling the number of sites, at a minimum. You remember how well Caltrans and P&R did with that?
Bruce...
The Caltrans 800 MHz system in District 9 in Inyo, Mono, eastern Kern and a portion of San Bernardino Counties works well. There are three vexing exceptions due to significant topographical features, with two of those being relatively small areas. They didn't need to add many sites when they converted from their old 47 MHz system and in one case, just had to move to a higher and previously developed electronic site.
The Sierra District of State Parks did not have to add sites. The only reason they did was to tie the 800 MHz system to the state's microwave backbone. Previously the remote bases on VHF Low were only local and sheriff's department dispatch centers provided limited service to the parks. From Tahoe south all they had to do was put in three sites, two of which were on previously developed sites. One covers all the west shore of Lake Tahoe, one covers eastern Alpine County and a new site was placed to cover both Bodie State Park and the Mono Lake Tufa State Reserve. The existing remote base location, that ties the new repeater into the state's microwave system was used.
I think you may be referring to the problems both State Parks and Caltrans experienced in the northwest portion of the state. In dense tree cover pine needles attenuate short wavelength RF, which would require far more than a mere tripling or quadrupling of sites. The 800 MHz conversion there could be considered a failure, but I would not generalize that situation to include the entire state, where in some areas a doubling of sites was required. Of those areas in Caltrans District 9 something short of a doubling was required, however, coverage that VHF Low did not provide was provided by 800 MHz when those sites were added. Not only that, but 800 MHz provided repeater coverage and handhelds that could actually be carried on a persons body.
This was one of the reasons State Parks converted to 800 MHz. I knew some rangers at Bodie State Park well and my wife worked there as a park aid. The VHF Low handhelds were terrible. When they were worn on the belt the antenna extended above the shoulders of shorter people and right up to the shoulder on a 6 foot individual. Their range was dismal and could not access the old remote base to call the sheriff's department in Bridgeport in spite of a remote base on Conway Summit, closer to the park.
On the flip side, the CHP should not be criticized for staying on low band. Their extenders solve the handheld problem and have done so for nearly 30 years now. A feasibility study done in San Diego showed that an 800 MHz system in that county alone would have required more than a quadrupling of sites. San Diego has topography, but it pales in comparison to other areas in California. The ability to add new sites is not a guarantee either. Many mountain tops can't be developed due to a whole host of reasons, not the least of which are environmental issues having to do with scenery, wildlife habitat and migration, highly erodible soils, as well as access issues and land ownership of the top of the peak. Some road access to the sites would require extensive engineering and expensive construction and maintenance. Then there is the issue of providing commercial electricity at the site. Another issue is how to get fuel for a backup power source to the site. If its propane, can a propane truck make it to the site or, if diesel is involved, can a fuel tank truck get there?
Another issue is statewide frequency availability. In a state of 36 million people frequency availability is complex and difficult. California has the most special district, municipal, county and state jurisdictions west of the Mississippi and perhaps even further east. The topography of the eastern states is mild when compared to the western U.S. and a comparison of what has been done east of Denver with 700/800 MHz systems is invalid for locations west of there.
I think that the communications people in California made the correct decisions when considering the needs of the CHP. They are going to have handhelds and mobiles that will be fully interoperable with nearly every system in the state, with the exception, I believe, of being able to have each handheld operate on most of the trunked systems in the state, given all the proprietorial systems in existence. I would have loved to be able to talk directly with CHP officers when I worked for the Forest Service on large and small incidents. That can be done with the new mobile, extender radios.
With all due respect, given the constraints, the sum of which are unique to California, I think criticizing the CHPERS program sounds a bit like Monday morning, arm chair quarterbacking to me.