texas rural strategic advisory group (rural...
TRANSCRIPT
Texas Rural Strategic Advisory Group (Rural SAG) Texas FirstNet State Consultation Cynthia Wenzel Cole, Presenter February 12, 2015 V22 APPROVED FINAL
Rural SAG Topics
• Rural SAG Membership & Overview
• Rural Coverage Challenges
• Texas County Population Density – Rural Areas Definition Basis
• Coverage Prioritization Tool – Introduction
– Weighting Matrix
– Assessing Counties by Attribute Examples
• Rural SAG 2015 Roadmap
• Next Steps
2
v12
RURAL SAG OVERVIEW
3
Palo Duro Canyon
Rural SAG Overview
• City, Tribal, County, State, Emergency Management and Council of Governments (COGs) members
• Initiated from SLIGP Governance – Via recruitment and a statewide
solicitation for volunteers
• Stood up in August 2014
• First deliverables NTIA RFC & FN RFI papers on “rural areas” definitions, 4Q2014
4
v6 Campbell, 1/29
MEXICO
NEW MEXICO
OKLAHOMA
LO
UISIA
NA
GULF OF MEXICO
San Angelo
Texas Parks & Wildlife Texas DPS
Other Rural SAG Members (state agencies)
COG Boundaries
Paris
Ingleside Robstown
Morgan’s Point Resort
Rural SAG Members
5
Tx DPS
Greg Green Potter - Randall County 911
v9
Lt Tom Randall Brazos County
Jimmy Wilson City of Robstown
Stephanie Heffner East Texas COG
Casey Ritchie Permian Basin RPC Reg 18 ESC
John Kiehl Panhandle Regional Planning Commission
Clinton Thetford Lubbock County
Tommy Murillo South Plains Association of Govts
Ray Fletcher Cooke County/Texoma COG
Janna Owen West Central Texas COG
Asst. Chief Gary Teeler Texas Parks & Wildlife
Mike Simpson Palo Pinto County
RJ Thomas Coastal Bend COG/Ingleside Volunteer Fire
Steve Mild City of San Angelo, Tom Green Co, Concho Valley COG
Willo Sylestine Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas
Steve Esquivel Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas
Chief Bob Hundley City of Paris
County Judge Santiago Flores Terrell County
Freddy Hernandez Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas
Josh Garcia Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo Tribe
Gene Chapline Live Oak County
Tim Jeske Bosque County
Registered to Attend FN State Consultation
Chief Fred Churchill Morgan’s Point Resort PD, Bell County
Todd Early, SWIC Karla Jurrens, Asst SWIC Eddie Wilson Mike Barney
Rural SAG Coordinator: Cynthia Wenzel Cole Assisted by Rita Mooney, Carol Sutherland
Sheriff Chris Kirk
Sheriff Joel Richardson
RURAL COVERAGE CHALLENGES
7
Mentone, Loving County
Outline: Brewster County Red Area: Connecticut
Rural PSAP Needs & Challenges
• Affordable wireline broadband connectivity for PSAPs
• Focus on needs of Rural PSAPs
• Need regional sponsors, leaders to help guide, support and coordinate
Rural Coverage Challenges
8
v10
Lack of IT Infrastructure & Support
• General lagging of rural areas in deployment of PS data applications
• Lack of IT expertise & personnel • Lack of backend infrastructure
• Many lack government email addresses
• Lack of broadband backhaul
Loving
• Loving County, Texas • Population: 95 • Lowest County Pop Density in US
Vast Territories, Wide Diversity…
to two of nation’s MOST populated.
Lack of commercial broadband across large swaths of the state.
“….I can see for miles and miles in Texas…”
DALLAS
HARRIS • Dallas County • Harris County
from nation’s least populated county…
• Brewster County covers 6,208 mi2
• 90 TIMES size of Washington DC • Population: 9,232
Brewster County
Texas County Population Density A Texas “Rural County” is defined as a county in Texas with a population density of less than 160 persons per square mile.
• Texas County Population Density Factors defined across all categories – Data Source for Population by County: 2010 US Census Data
– Data Source for Area by County: Texas Association of Counties
9
v14
RURAL Texas covers more than 235,000 square miles, which is 7.6% of Continental US (CONUS).
v18.3
Number of
Counties%Counties
Area
(Sq. Miles)% Area Population %Pop
Urban >1000 pp/mi2 5 2% 5,668 2% 11,008,671 44%
Suburban >160 pp/mi2< 1000 25 10% 20,179 8% 8,277,349 33%
Rural <160 pp/mi2 224 88% 235,386 90% 5,859,541 23%
254 100% 261,233 100% 25,145,561 100%
COVERAGE PRIORITIZATION
10
10-person fatality in Ector County Mass Casualty Incident, Jan 14, 2015. Crash involved prison transport bus and a train.
Coverage Prioritization Tool - Intro • Deciding Public Safety needs for geographical
NPSBN/FirstNet Network Coverage in Texas • Purpose – Develop a fair and objective decision making tool
for situations or aspects, such as “Public Safety Need” which requires analytics – Proven methodology, commonly used for complex decision making in
complex environments – Delivers fair, durable decisions – Process creates detailed documentation, withstands detailed scrutiny
• Methodology captures the decisions, priorities and directives from specifically appointed Public Safety decision makers, the Texas Rural SAG – Law requires Rural and Tribal involvement
• Process requires many iterations and ongoing refinements • Tool has multiple process elements
11
v7
Coverage Prioritization Tool
12
County
A
County
B
County
C
County
D
696 595 512 213
Critical Infrastructure
Data Analytics
Population Density
Natural Risk
PS Risk
Borders & Ports
2 RANK candidates against precise, objective County metrics
v7
WEIGHTED Attributes, decided by consensus
1
Consensus-Driven Decisions
DRIVEN BY PS QUORUM
• Each Attribute • Weighted by IMPORTANCE • Represented by a %
WEIGHTING MATRIX
% Importance by
Attribute
Data Metrics Driven PUBLIC, VERIFIABLE SOURCES
• Each County Scores by Attribute recorded
• Using actual data • Represented by a %
COUNTY RANKINGS
County Rankings
by Attribute
13
County
A
County
B
County
C
County
D
696 595 512 213
Critical Infrastructure
Data Analytics
Population Density
Natural Risk
PS Risk
Borders & Ports
2 RANK candidates against precise, objective County metrics
WEIGHTED Attributes, decided by consensus
1
Consensus-Driven Decisions
DRIVEN BY PS QUORUM
• Each Attribute • Weighted by IMPORTANCE • Represented by a %
WEIGHTING MATRIX
% Importance by
Attribute
Data Metrics Driven PUBLIC, VERIFIABLE SOURCES
• Each County Scores by Attribute recorded
• Using actual data • Represented by a %
COUNTY RANKINGS
County Rankings
by Attribute
Methodology produces COUNTY SCORES representing precisely relative values and a highly defendable baseline.
Stakeholder engagement in front-end decision making
Combined with objective assessments
based upon metrics and calculated
rankings
Produces result with strong stakeholder buy-in
v6
Coverage Prioritization Tool
“Front End” Weighting Matrix
• Step 1 – Decide Weightings by Category
• Step 2 – Decide Weightings by Sub-category
14
v5
The group creates percentages by high level category, as example shows here.
STEP 1 - CHOOSE WEIGHTINGS BY CATEGORY
change
these
Public Safety Needs by County WEIGHT
County Population Density 10%Borders & Ports 30%Critical Infrastructure 30%Natural Risk Areas 10%Public Safety Risk Areas 20%
100%
Next, the group examines a single “sub-category”, repeating the same process at step 1. This process continues until all relevant attributes are weighted.
30% Borders & Ports
International Border Mexican border (all but Risk Area)l, - linear mi, add
coastline 20%
Ports of Entry (Land) Number of border crossing (count by county) 20%
Ports of Entry (Sea Ports) Number of ports 30%
Border Risk Areas High vol, LE add'l, high activity 30%100%
Who Wants to Help Solve a Billion Dollar Challenge?
• PS Practitioners on the call who can pay full attention and not have to drop off, are assigned as CONTRIBUTORS – Date, Section/Topic and Names recorded
• In round robin sequence, each Contributor provides a prompt input into the spreadsheet: • Edit Attribute, OR • Insert a first ranking % OR • Change a entered ranking% OR • Change all the rankings OR • ADD Metric info, how to measure • ACCEPT
• The section of the category is complete when entire group “ACCEPTS” – reaching consensus – Minimum Quorum = 3
• Record Scores in Master, move on to next category
15
v6
Managed Group Consensus Activity
RULES
Current Weighted Matrix
16
V12.3 Current Rural SAG Consensus
CAT WEIGHTWeighting Matrix, Public Safety NEED BY COUNTY
Subfactor
WEIGHT
Sub -
Subfactor
WEIGHT
CALCULATED
Attribute
Weight
10% County Population Density
Dense Urban More than 2500 persons/square mile 16% 1.6%
Urban More than 1000, less than 2500 persons/square mile 16% 1.6%
Suburban More than 300 less than 1000 persons/square mile 16% 1.6%
Rural Suburban More than 160 less than 300 persons/square mile 16% 1.6%
Rural More than 7 less than 160 persons/square mile 20% 2.0%
Frontier Less than 7 persons/square mile 16% 1.6%100%
30% Borders & Ports
International Border Mexican border (all but Risk Area)l, - linear mi, add
coastline 20% 6.0%
Ports of Entry (Land) Number of border crossing (count by county) 20% 6.0%
Ports of Entry (Sea Ports) Number of ports 30% 9.0%
Border Risk Areas High vol, LE add'l, high activity 30% 9.0%100%
30% Critical Infrastructure
Military Infrastructure bases, facilities, MOVED MILITARY AIR TO AVIATION 5% 1.5%
SPACE Infrastructure space centers, surveillance and launch facilities 5% 1.5%
Water InfrastructureDams, bridges, levees, wells, pipelines, sewage treatment
plants 10% 3.0%Critical Government Infrastruture
(non-PS) Courthouses, other government facilities 5% 1.5%
Energy Infrastructure - ALL 15%
Energy Infrastructure 16% 0.7%
Producing Oil Wells Producing Oil Wells by County 17% 0.8%
Energy Producing Areas Wind farms, solar plants, oil/natural gas fields, coal mines 16% 0.7%
Natural Gas Pipelines & Infrastructure 17% 0.8%
Oil Pipelines, Refineries 17% 0.8%
Nuclear Power PlantsSomervell County (Comanche Peak)
Matagorda County (South Texas) 17% 0.8%100%
PS Infrastructure 35%
PSAPs and PS Facilities police & fire stations 15% 1.6%
PS Aircraft Operations 15% 1.6%
PS Ground Transportation Hubs 14% 1.5%
PS Network Infrastruture microwave, fiber, remote sites, aggr pts 14% 1.5%
Evacuation Centers 14% 1.5%
PS training facilities 14% 1.5%
Prisons, Jails & Detention Centers 14% 1.5%100%
Critical Ground Transportation Routes 15%
Critical Highways Miles of highway 20% 0.9%
Railroad Right of Way Miles of railroad right of way 20% 0.9%
DOD Convoy Routes Miles of convoy route 20% 0.9%
Trucking Routes Miles of trunking routes 20% 0.9%
Evacuation Routes Miles of evacuation routes 20% 0.9%100%
Non-Public Safety Aviation 10%
Commercial Aviation Infrastructure Top 25 Airports, No. Enplanements Per Year (FAA) 25% 0.8%
C130 capable, Military Air Bases 25% 0.8%
Air Freight 25% 0.8%
100% Aviation Communications Infrastructure 25% 0.8%100% 100%
10% Natural Risk Areas
Ocean Coastlines Miles of coastline 13% 1.3%
Intercoastal Waterway Coastline Miles of coastline 13% 1.3%
Major Rivers Miles of River not in flood plain 12% 1.2%
Tornado Risk Areas Square Miles by County 12% 1.2%
Flood Plains Square Miles by County 12% 1.2%
Wildfire Risk Area Square Miles by County 13% 1.3%
Earthquake Risk Area Square Miles by County 12% 1.2%
Hurricane Risk Area Square Miles by County 13% 1.3%100%
20% Public Safety Risk Areas
Crime Rate Crime Rate by County 12% 2.4%
Recreation Areas ALL parks, campgrounds, caves, natural attractions 11% 2.2%Population Changes due to Seasonal
Shifts & Tourism San Padre Island 11% 2.2%
Special Medical Response (i.e., Ebola containment, Major Trauma Centers, ) 11% 2.2%Nuclear Weapons or Storage Facilities
(CBRN) 11% 2.2%HAZMAT Volatile Chemical Storage
Facilities fertilizer plants 11% 2.2%
Large College Campuses 11% 2.2%
Cattle, Beef, Livestock areas 11% 2.2%
Large Regular Public Events 11% 2.2%100% checksum TOTAL 100.0% 100.0%
Ranking an Attribute: Airports • General attributes (draft):
• A simple internet search reveals data for “Top 25 Airports” – Using Metric: Number of Commercial Enplanements per Year per Airport
– Map Airports to Counties
– This allows this element to be scored with a simple metric: “Top 25 Airport
Enplanement %”, simplifying the scoring process
• Document source, process, calculations and assumptions
18
International Airports 50%
Regional Airports 25%
Aviation Communications Infrastructure 25%
100%
v4
Top 25 AIRPORTS ASSESSED SIZE ENPL % ENPL Score COUNTY
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport P-L 27,100,656 40.044% 40.044 Tarrant
George Bush Intercontinental Airport P-L 19,528,631 28.855% 28.855 Harris
William P. Hobby Airport P-M 4,357,835 6.439% 6.439 Harris
Austin-Bergstrom International Airport P-M 4,201,136 6.208% 6.208 Travis
San Antonio International Airport P-M 3,916,320 5.787% 5.787 Bexar
Dallas Love Field P-M 3,783,407 5.590% 5.590 Dallas
El Paso International Airport P-S 1,509,093 2.230% 2.230 El Paso
Lubbock Preston Smith International Airport P-S 508,858 0.752% 0.752 Lubbock
Midland International Airport P-S 445,043 0.658% 0.658 Midland
Multiple Factors Involved
19
We realize getting to a Final (“shovel ready”) System Design requires highly skilled designers and a highly iterative process across a variety of complex considerations.
Readiness, Eagerness
• Level of Enthusiasm
• Site Readiness
• LTE App Readiness
• B14 Device readiness
• Incremental Funding
• Amount of advanced planning
System Design Considerations
• Hardening
• Capacity
• Deployment Phasing
• Proximity to Backhaul, Fiber
• Hub, Aggregation Locations
• LTE equipment location
• Type of Coverage Solution
v7
Economics, Cost, Existing Infra.
• Overall Cost to Deploy
• Business Case, Revenue
Existing Wireless
• Existing LMR/P25
• Commercial LTE
Final System
Design
“Site Lat/Longs” Optimizing for Topography &
Terrain
2015 Focus Here
Public Safety Need • Public Safety Risk
• Critical Infrastructure Protection
• Borders & Ports Protection
• Disaster Risk Areas
• Population Density factors
Customer Requirements
FirstNet FEDERAL USER Requirements
RURAL SAG ROADMAP & NEXT STEPS
20
West Texas Highway
Rural SAG 2015 Roadmap
• Develop Coverage Prioritization Tool Weighted Matrix [MARCH]
• Best Practices Papers (2) – Texas Rural Definitions Document, Intro to Coverage Priority Tool (Paper 1) [Q1]
– Texas Coverage Priority Prototype Tool (Paper 2) [Q4]
• Develop preliminary list of Counties Prioritized by Public Safety Need for NPSBN Coverage [AUG]
• Develop into Preliminary View of Phased Rollout by County or Priority Areas [Q4]
21 Approved by Formal Vote Jan 20
v6
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct
Rural Defns
for RFI,
RFC
Rural SAG
FN
Consultation
Final Due
to 1/29
Rural Definitions,
Intro to Tool Concept
Best Practices Paper I
Weighted
Matrix Tool
Metrics
Tool Ready
to Test
Prototype -
Initial Version
Coverage Prioritization Tool
DONE
testing
IN PROGRESS
SOLID DRAFT (REUSE RFI)
PRELIM
List of Counties
Prioritized by
PS NEED
Rural Coverage
Prioritization
Best Practices
Paper II
Nov
Rural Coverage
FAQs
Apply TOOL PRELIM Phased
View
Next Steps
• The Rural SAG team plans to implement the “Coverage Prioritization Tool”
• The Group will work to implement transparent processes which establish data-driven and consensus-driven decision making – Creates stable, defendable and durable baselines – Texas is committed to completing the labor-intensive analysis, noting
“it’s not easy but well worth the effort!”
• The output of this activity is intended to establish customer-driven phasing – enabling the more labor intensive Phase 2 data county-level gathering efforts to be more fruitful and effective
• Rural SAG will continue outreach efforts, training and engagement to achieve necessary statewide buy-in
22
v5
QUESTIONS?
23
24
Thank You!