New Search
Table 8. Unserved Area Alternatives <br />Alternative A: <br />Alternative B. <br />Alternative C: <br />Alternative D: <br />Twisted Pair Copper Cable <br />Fiber Optic Cab le <br />Wireless <br />Leased Services <br />(on trunk line 1 or 2) <br />(on trunk line <br />on trunk line 1 or 2) <br />(on trunk line 1 or 2) <br />Feasibility <br />• Install new conduit or <br />Install new conduit or <br />Install antennas and <br />Install interface between <br />aerial feed with 12 -pair <br />aerial feed with fiber optic <br />transceivers at unserved <br />leased services and traffic <br />twisted copper cable to <br />cable to unserved areas. <br />traffic signals and at a <br />signal server. <br />unserved areas. <br />Install Ethernet edge <br />nearby interconnected <br />• Install Ethernet over <br />switches on unserved <br />traffic signal or at RIS. <br />copper devices in each <br />corridors. <br />device controller cabinet <br />Advantages <br />• Infrastructure owned by <br />Infrastructure owned by <br />Infrastructure owned by <br />No costly conduit or aerial <br />the City <br />the City <br />the City <br />feed installation to <br />• Higher bandwidth (1 Gbps) <br />No costly conduit or aerial <br />unserved signals <br />• Extra capacity for future <br />feed installation to <br />system expansion <br />unserved signals <br />• Robust reliability when <br />multiple fiber optic <br />corridors are linked <br />• Sharing opportunities with <br />ISD to support City <br />facilities on non -trunk line <br />corridors <br />Disadvantages <br />• Higher capital cost than <br />Higher capital cost than <br />Physical interference (e.g. <br />• Infrastructure not owned <br />Alternatives C and D <br />Alternatives C and D <br />trees, buildings) impacts <br />by City <br />• Lower bandwidth (80 <br />reliability and feasibility <br />• Potential security issues <br />Mbps) for video <br />Low bandwidth for spread <br />with leased services <br />transmission than fiber <br />spectrum options (1 Mbps <br />• Difficult to obtain annual <br />optic cable <br />or less) <br />funding for the leasing <br />• Limited capacity for <br />fees <br />cameras or other ITS <br />devices in the future <br />Notes <br />• The cost for Alternatives A and B is comparable. The largest cost component for both alternatives is the installation of new <br />conduit or aerial feed. <br />