I (and others) certainly hope your thinking is correct - on the other hand, I'd be really surprised if the vendor did that kind of compromise - which potentially translates into a compromise on public safety.
I see a trend going on here -- between what's happening in PG County and now BCity with the really weak transmissions that most likely are intentional to keep the signal within the expected areas they are for.
If this turns out to be true, I wonder what will happen with the new BCounty system when it comes on line next year....
I don't think this is what's happening in Baltimore City, honestly. The upgraded system was electronics only; no antennas were re-hung, no sites were added, no directionality was added into transmission patterns, just straight one-for-one upgrading of RF equipment for P25 compliance and rebanding preparation.
In PG, the system is DESIGNED to keep RF in it's designated service area from the get-go.
Baltimore County is doubling their transmission sites, with voice RF antennas hung FAR LOWER than the original 1986 design. They are also using directional antennas at some sites. So I would imagine that you're right -- this system will have significantly less out-of-area reception.
In York County, because of the nature of the T-band exceptions needed to use the 500mhz frequencies, the system was over-engineered with regards to number of RF sites, but RF sites are low, and in many cases directional, again, in a design to keep the signal from splashing too far and interfering with T-band signals being used for TV in nearby towns.
Baltimore City, on the other hand, must still rely in the existing system engineering to provide the coverage. The same RF sites, same antennas, etc. But time will tell.
I'm still curious (even after monitoring for a few hours last night) how fire is using the new system and police are using the old system, when both systems are using the same frequency pairs.