Fred,
As relates to the Big Dig, I, too found Brewer's comment in large part a misplaced taking advantage of an opportunity to make a point, but it wasn't entirely wasted on me. To a degree, I believe it was only irrelevant as far as the antenna sitings were concerned for the particular type of network being discussed. In the larger scope of things, many other future initiatives would be served, perhaps, probably unrelated to the citywide WiFi network of the moment. However, hearing her comment spoken for the first time sparked my recollections of a time when the largest and most capacious fiber networks in NY City were not those installed by NYNEX and / or Time Warner, but the massive builds that were placed by the NY City Transit Authority's subway division by private contractors.
Far beneath street level there existed more fiber miles passing more neighborhoods than all of the remainder of incumbent fiber cables in the city, combined. In addition to being ripe for leasing to schools, enterprises and CLECs (which those fibers were, but only under the most onerous of terms, to the point that I can't recall any lease negotiations ever coming to fruition), it could easily have supplied backhaul transit, just like conduits in the Big Dig could, for wireless networks, as well. OK, I can see how you might rightfully say I'm stretching it a bit. Butt he point remains valid. In NY City, working the elevated track runs of the subway system project likewise could easily have been leveraged for WiFi antennas, too (or for point-to-point systems for many schools and libraries, which were entirely held hostage by Bell at the time), except for the fact that WiFi at that time wasn't even heard of, yet.
And while one might have thought that all if those fibers placed along a couple hundred miles of subway track could have been leveraged for traffic control and surveillance, environmental testing and vehicular highway intelligent systems, all of which were also being put in new over their own fiber optic cables -- simultaneously and along many of the same routes -- they weren't.
Another avenue for leveraging deep tunnel passages through the NY area was explored during the Seventies and Eighties: Drinking Water Tunnel No. 3, which goes down to 900 feet below sea level in some parts, and is wide enough to support a manned submarine. But it, too, was not leveraged. The project began during the 1970s and insn't slated for completion until 2020.
This week the WTC re-building activities are once again reaching a decision stage. I can recall many an arm-wrestling exercise with the NY/NJ Port Authority, the landlord in this case, trying to get competitively run fiber up through the tower riser systems, only to face a set of standards compliance issues that would have made both the NIST and NSA blush and ask to go home.
For the longest time, if it weren't already installed by Bell or by the PA's own Teleport Communications Group (the PA was a part owner of TCG, along with Merrill Lynch, NY City and Western Union, when it first launched), it wasn't going to be installed at all, except under terms that were akin to extortion. And the paucity of hollow conduits wasn't limited to the riser systems. The limitations extended to the street and roof levels, as well. All of which, and inspired partially by this forum discussion, now has me wondering whether there are adequate spaces, pathways and rights of way in the PA's infrastructure planning today for the new WTC towers, as we await their construction.
As I typed this message I listened to Jamal Saghir, Director, Energy and Water for the World Bank. He was speaking on CNBC World about some parallel issues concerning the building of regional water supply and waste tunnels in underserved regions of Asia and the Middle East. He cites the lack of coordination that historically existed in earlier projects, furthering that while implementation projects have largely been disjointed, their longer-term provisions for maintenance soon fell apart after only a few years, as well.
FAC |
