A TransportGooru exclusive from Dr. Roadmap: “Where Old Police Cars Go to Die”

April 2, 2009 at 3:07 pm

 Dr. Roadmap Column: April 2, 2009

      For Sale: 1997 Ford Crown Victoria, 110,434 miles, white roof and doors, all else black. See auction details.

           Not your normal classified ad, is it? But then, this is not your normal car; it’s an ex-police car. 

      If you’ve ever wondered what it might be like to own a genuine squad car and tool around town faking out and intimidating other motorists, a few considerations bear keeping in mind before you embark on your NYPD, Real Stories of the CHP, or Police Story fantasy. 

      First of all, perish all thoughts of piloting a look-a-like police car unless you want to get pulled over for impersonating an officer.

      “As ‘storekeeper,’ part of my job is to ensure that all hardware that identifies the car as a police unit is removed,” said Charles Alvarez of the Azusa Police Department in California. “We strip them of all the city decals. About the only thing we leave is the dual batteries, beefed up suspension and the big engine.”

Photo Courstey: Chris Sensenbach @ Flickr

      Most police departments remove and recycle the door-mounted spotlights, the rooftop light bar, the sirens and the mobile data computer (which costs about $4-5,000). Yet, it appears that you could keep the original paint job if you so choose.

      “We do not paint the doors over,” said Sgt. Doug Brown of the South Pasadena (CA) Police Department. “We definitely remove the identifying decals, but I know of no law against driving with the black-and-white paint scheme.”

      Other police departments opt to paint over the doors in the same black color as the rest of the car. But in either case, at least you gain the benefit of a car that has been outfitted for peak performance, don’t you?

      “In a lot of cases, the engine in our police cars is no different that what the average person can special order from the factory,” said Lt. Al Cheatham, of the Chino (CA) Police Department. “Yes, it is a special police package, but anyone can order it. There’s no law against it. On the other hand, most people wouldn’t like the ride; it’s too stiff.”

      Let’s say that you still long for a car driven by the long arm of the law. You actually relish the responsive suspension of a well-built vehicle. As it turns out, so do others. Many departments remain reluctant to relinquish their “rides.”

      “We try not to get rid of any car too soon,” said Rob Pipersky, a technical services officer for the Montclair (CA) Police Department. “What we do now, especially with the Caprices, is rebuild them at 100,000 miles. Some of ours have 180,000 miles on them.”

      Pipersky went on to explain that Chevrolet Caprices represent the pinnacle of police pursuit cars. In fact, so many agencies choose to rebuild their Caprices that used parts are quickly becoming scarce. Even after their second spin through the odometer, Montclair’s finest prefers to recycle their cars.

      “Some of our old cars go on to ‘lesser duty’ such as police assistance and administration,” continues Pipersky. “At peak periods, or during emergencies, we use these lesser-duty cars to augment the regular fleet. In addition, some visit the local schools or drive around the local shopping center. These daytime assignments provide a police presence. This way we get one extra year out of the cars.”

      After the last ounce of utility gets wrung from these trusty steeds, they finally get put to pasture. However, the public can only obtain these past-their-prime cars by bidding on them.

      Three other police agencies confirmed that auction is the preferred method of dumping dilapidated cars. 

      “Most agencies have these cars declared as surplus property once their service life is over, and from there they go directly to auto auctions,” confirmed South Pasadena’s Sgt. Doug Brown. “That’s what we do because these cars are not worth enough to try and sell them privately. Any vehicle coming out of the department is so worn out that I’m not sure anyone would want one.”

      Thus, Sgt. Brown brought up the most important consideration of all when considering buying an ex-squad car.

      “Think about it: You have a car that’s been driven practically 24/7, and that has close to 100,000 of odometer miles on it,” observed Chino’s Sgt. Cheatham. “Everywhere we go, the car is usually left running. Your idle time on top of the mileage is horrendous. That’s a tired engine by the time you get done with it. The suspension is no better. You have jackrabbit starts and hard braking. The car has undoubtedly been in a couple pursuits or more. When you’re going after people, those cars bottom out at the dips in the intersections. Personally, I would not want to buy one after a police agency was done with it.”

      For anyone who remains undeterred in their quest to purchase their own personal patrol car, please don’t feel bad if you missed out on the Crown Vic’ with 110,000 miles (along with eight Caprices and twenty-one other Crown Victorias) that was sold during that particular auction. Auction sites abound on the Internet, where with a little detective work you can still ID an old forgotten workhorse of a municipal PD. 

©2009, Dr. Roadmap®

————————————————————————————————————————————————

David Rizzo, better known as Dr. Roadmap,  a Commute Management expert who writes about issues such as improving gas mileage (mpg), alternate routes, traffic congestion, ridesharing, commuting behavior and intelligent transportation systems on California’s Orange Country Register.  He is well known for his comprehensive guide ever written on off-freeway commuting in Southern California, published in 1990.  Two years later he became the first traffic reporter to offer daily alternate routes in real time over the air on one of the most popular morning radio shows in Los Angeles.  His bi-weekly columns appear exclusively for TransportGooru.  This is copyright-protected content.  Please contact Transportgooru if you like to use this article or portions of this article.  Thank you.

Obama Favors “Cash for Clunkers”

April 1, 2009 at 7:43 pm

(Source: TreeHugger); Video: YouTube)

 Yesterday President Obama told Chrysler and GM that it is time to shape up or ship out. He also said he supports a program that would pay people to trade in older cars for newer, more fuel efficient vehicles. Europe has successfully tried this, but could it work here and would it be good for the planet? 

Speaking about a so called “cash for clunkers” program, Obama said:

“Such fleet modernization programs, which provide a generous credit to consumers who turn in old, less fuel-efficient cars and purchase cleaner cars, have been successful in boosting auto sales in a number of European countries.”

Here is an analysis from a News portal on what it could mean for consumers.

This is especially true in Germany, where new auto sales are said to have risen 20 percent last month. Of course, Europe has much higher gas prices than we do, increasing the desire to go with a greener car. They are also taxing people for their carbon output, again incentivizing people to get rid of heavier, more inefficient cars and trucks., A gas tax and other complimentary taxes that would bring our prices in line with Europe’s is politically unlikely, so a trade-in program may have some political legs given Congress’s new found attention on the climate. 

Another supporter is Ohio Rep. Betty Sutton, who sponsors the CARS Act, which creates vouchers of between $3,000 and $5,000 for people to trade-up. Given the president’s announcement yesterday, it’s suddenly a viable question to ask if there will be any American cars to buy if a cash for clunkers plan was enacted.

Here are some of the related posts from TransportGooru:

Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save (CARS) Act revives “Cash for Clunkers” scrapping plan in U.S

Germany plans to extend Abwrackprämie aka “Environmental Bonus” (in plain english, car scrapping program)

The bickering starts over the implementation of the Cash for Clunkers legislation

Calfornia gas station owners rebel against pollution rules; Half of California gas stations could be forced to close for failing to install new nozzles

April 1, 2009 at 6:43 pm

(Source: Los Angeles Times)

Gas station protest

Operators balk at having to comply with a California requirement to install costly nozzles and hoses to capture fumes. The governor calls on the Legislature to delay enforcement by a year.

James Hosmanek, an ex-Marine, has operated his San Bernardino Chevron station for 21 years, patiently installing equipment to control gasoline emissions, even as the region’s air grew smoggier.
Now he says he can’t, and won’t, obey the latest mandate: a state order to buy sophisticated nozzles and hoses to capture more of the vapors that cause respiratory disease and cancer. “It may be necessary to protect public health,” he says. “But it’s unaffordable.”
Today is the deadline for California’s 11,000 gasoline stations to comply with the nation’s most stringent controls on the fumes that seep from refueling cars. And Hosmanek is among the estimated one of five station owners who have joined an open rebellion against air pollution authorities.
Last week, spurred by a high-decibel campaign by gasoline trade associations, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called on the Legislature to delay enforcement by a year.

“Improving California’s air is of the utmost importance,” he wrote legislators. But “enforcement flexibility is an absolute necessity to ensure against the job and financial losses that could come from stations being shut down or fined for non-compliance.”

If the Legislature agrees, it would be the second time in the last two months that business interests have succeeded in rolling back a major pollution regulation. In February, a measure was added to the state’s budget package allowing construction firms to delay retrofitting diesel bulldozers and other equipment.

A campaign against the measure in recent weeks was laced with misleading information, according to officials with the California Air Resources Board. One alert mailed by the Responsible Clean Air Coalition, a group led by a former John McCain campaign staffer, Tom Kise, charged that, “On April 1st, more than 6,000 gas stations statewide are going to shut their doors because of zealous Sacramento bureaucrats.”

But in a letter to legislative leaders Friday, local air pollution districts charged with enforcing the rule said, “Air districts do not intend to shut down any stations on April 1.” Station owners have known about the deadline for four years, the letter said.

Battered by competition from cheaper chains such as Thrifty and Arco, the 51-year-old businessman said he was refused credit by banks and equipment lenders. Refitting his eight nozzles and hoses would cost more than $60,000, he said. “Even if I could get the funding, I couldn’t make the payments.”

Single-station owners like Hosmanek aren’t the only ones hurting. David Berri, an Irvine businessman whose family owns 22 stations in Orange, San Diego and Los Angeles counties, said he put a 25% deposit on vapor equipment last year. But his bank has since canceled his credit line. His family has put seven stations up for sale, but so far, there are no buyers.

Click here to read the entire article. 

Stimulus needed for boat owners? Boats Too Costly to Keep Are Littering Coastlines

April 1, 2009 at 1:46 pm

(Source: New York Times)

MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C. — Boat owners are abandoning ship.  Gary Santos, a Mount Pleasant, S.C., councilman, checks a state notice on a forsaken sailboat.  They often sandpaper over the names and file off the registry numbers, doing their best to render the boats, and themselves, untraceable. Then they casually ditch the vessels in the middle of busy harbors, beach them at low tide on the banks of creeks or occasionally scuttle them outright.

The bad economy is creating a flotilla of forsaken boats. While there is no national census of abandoned boats, officials in coastal states are worried the problem will only grow worse as unemployment and financial stress continue to rise. Several states are even drafting laws against derelicts and say they are aggressively starting to pursue delinquent owners.

“Our waters have become dumping grounds,” said Maj. Paul R. Ouellette of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. “It’s got to the point where something has to be done.”

Derelict boats are environmental and navigational hazards, leaking toxins and posing obstacles for other craft, especially at night. Thieves plunder them for scrap metal. In a storm, these runabouts and sailboats, cruisers and houseboats can break free or break up, causing havoc.

Some of those disposing of their boats are in the same bind as overstretched homeowners: they face steep payments on an asset that is diminishing in value and decide not to continue. They either default on the debt or take bolder measures.

Marina and maritime officials around the country say they believe, however, that most of the abandoned vessels cluttering their waters are fully paid for. They are expensive-to-maintain toys that have lost their appeal.

 

Lt. David Dipre, who coordinates Florida’s derelict vessel program, said the handful of owners he had managed to track down were guilty more of negligence than fraud. “They say, ‘I had a dream of sailing around the world, I just never got around to it.’ Then they have some bad times and they leave it to someone else to clean up the mess,” Lieutenant Dipre said.

Florida officials say they are moving more aggressively to track down owners and are also starting to unclog the local inlets, harbors, swamps and rivers. The state appropriated funds to remove 118 derelicts this summer, up from only a handful last year.

In South Carolina, four government investigators started canvassing the state’s waterways in January. They quickly identified 150 likely derelicts.

 

Click here to read the entire report on this emerging problem. 

Hyundai Vs Ford Vs GM: What Car Payment Protection Plan’s Best?

March 31, 2009 at 6:22 pm

((Source: Jalopnik)

The Carpocalypse has forced automakers to try and entice nervous buyers by offering to remove the burden of a car payment should consumers lose their jobs or worse. But which plan’s the best?

Hyundai was first on the “car payment protection” scene with their Hyundai Assurance Program, followed today by Ford and GM with their Ford Advantage and GM Total Confidence plans, respectively.

All three plans on their own are pretty confusing. Combined, all three are just a mess of different offerings of help in case you lose your job. Each offers different results for different scenarios. So, in order to make this understandable, we’ve broken down each plan and their specific option sets to allow you an opportunity to determine which will work best for you.

For starters, all three programs offer some combination of two different types of help for people facing a personal economic crisis: negative equity coverage and payment assistance. Let’s define some of these terms:

Equity: The amount of investment in an asset.

Negative Equity:This is when the amount owed on something is greater than the total value of the asset itself. In terms of cars, this means you owe more on the car than the car itself is actually worth. This is the opposite of positive equity. Positive equity would be when you have a car and you owe $2,000 but it is worth $9,000 on the used car market. In this case, you probably shouldn’t try to turn it in. Instead, if you’re smart, you’ll just sell it.

Negative Equity Coverage: This is a form of coverage that depending on the level provided, allows you to be forgiven up to a certain amount of monies still remaining in payments on the car. Each plan is different, ranging from several thousand dollars to zero.

Payment Assistance: Assuming you lose your job, the automaker will either take over payment for a certain period of time or payback the lender.

Click here to read the wonderful analysis from our friends @ Jalopnik.  

For those who are impatient and wait, the winner is Hyundai (there are a lot of caveats to this selection).  You are better advised to read the whole analysis before starting to agree with the result.  For those who are absolutely impatient and can’t wait to read the elaborate analysis here is the summary of comparision.   

Microsoft campus gets new bridge from stimulus dollars; Critics slam government

March 31, 2009 at 9:12 am

REDMOND, Washington — Should a bridge that would connect two campuses at Microsoft’s headquarters be funded with $11 million from the federal stimulus package?

Critics of using stimulus money for the bridge say it would give the software giant a break on a pet project. They also say it serves as a warning sign of how some stimulus money is not being used to finance new projects but is being diverted to public works already under way.

Supporters argue the bridge is an ideal public-private partnership that will benefit an entire community while fulfilling the stimulus package’s goal of getting people back to work.

An artist's rendering shows how the proposed bridge would be constructed over a busy highway.

“It’s going create just under 400 jobs for 18 months constructing the bridge,” says Redmond Mayor John Marchione. “It’s also connecting our technical sector with our retail and commercial sectors so people can cross the freeway to shop and help traffic flow.”

Marchione applied for federal stimulus money after costs jumped on the project from $25 million to $36 million. Marchione says the increase in costs were due to a rise in construction prices and because the bridge will be built on a diagonal in order to connect Microsoft’s original East campus with a newer West campus that are split by a public highway.

Microsoft is hardly getting the bridge for free. The company is contributing $17.5 million or a little less than half the tab of the $36 million bridge, which would be open for public use.

And even though the bridge goes from a parking lot behind Microsoft’s West campus across a highway to an entrance of Microsoft’s East campus, Marchione says, people other than Microsoft employees would use the overpass.

“We’re not a one-company town,” Marchione says. “Our traffic studies show that Microsoft traffic would be about 42 percent of the bridge, yet Microsoft is paying for about 50 percent of the bridge, so we think we are getting fair value.

“The United States taxpayer is leveraging their dollars, and I think everyone is getting a fair deal.”  But a watchdog group monitoring how stimulus money is being spent says the taxpayer in this case is getting ripped off.  Click here to read the entire CNN article.

Another article on Softpedia.com offers the view point from Microsoft’s General counsel, Brad Smith, and Washington’s Governor Chris Gregoire. 

“In recent days, some have questioned whether this project should have been a recipient of federal stimulus funding. We think this is a very positive example of a public-private partnership, and we are pleased to be contributing roughly 50 percent of the funding to help build this public project that will benefit the entire community. The federal stimulus dollars combine with additional state, local and existing federal dollars to fund the remainder,” revealed Brad Smith, Microsoft general counsel. 

Smith underlined that not only was Microsoft participating in the project with half the funding, but that the company had already spent in excess of $50 million to help local authorities build infrastructure projects. At the same time, the overpass will not benefit Microsoft exclusively. Employees from Honeywell, Siemens, Nintendo and Sears will also get to use the bridge and will contribute to reducing the congestion affecting 148th Avenue NE and 156th Avenue NE. 

Washington Governor Chris Gregoire explained that the overpass was not about Microsoft but “about multiple employers. It’s about thousands of employees and residents. It’s about taking people off the congestion we have in that interchange on [State Route] 520 now, where we literally have a problem in that people have to go 2 miles rather than two-tenths of a mile which that bridge would produce…. Almost 50 percent of that project is privately funded. That’s leveraging dollars. That’s what we’re trying to do, is to use private sector dollars with stimulus dollars and get a bigger bang for the buck.”  Here is a video of Gov. Gregoire discussing the issue (courtesy of Softpedia.com)

Understanding Obama’s Auto Warranty Plan

March 30, 2009 at 7:45 pm

 (Source: New York Times – Wheels)The Big (Troubled) Three


On Monday morning, President Obama announced that the Treasury Department would back the warranties of new General Motors and Chrysler vehicles.

“If you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired, just like always,” President Obama said during a speech from the White House. “Your warranty will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it’s ever been, because starting today, the United States government will stand behind your warranty.”

The administration’s plan to stand behind new-car warranties for G.M. and Chrysler is intended to reassure consumers worried about buying domestic vehicles. And to a large extent, the plan should do exactly that. But people who already own a G.M. or Chrysler vehicle are not covered by this program and it also does not cover safety recalls, which can occur years after the warranty expires.

In a nutshell: The Obama warranty commitment program sets up special warranty accounts that will be used only if the automaker runs out of money. If that happens, the government will “appoint a program administrator who, together with the U.S. Government, will identify an auto service provider to supply warranty services.” Those accounts will be funded with 125 percent of the expected warranty cost. The automaker will contribute 15 percent and the government 110 percent. The federal funds will come from the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

That could be a lot of money (except, perhaps, by the government’s current standards). For example, G.M. paid $4.5 billion worldwide in 2007 on warranties and $3.9 billion during the first nine months of last year, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Click here to read more.  For those interested in reading the President’s Warranty Program, here is a PDF file.

Security for G20 summit thrown into chaos as London’s £15m CCTV network ordered out of action

March 30, 2009 at 6:10 pm

(Source: Guardian, UK)

Ahead of G20 summit, council told to switch off illegal £15m CCTV network.  While they are primarily for traffic enforcement, according to the council the cameras are “an essential additional tool” to tackle crime and disorder, and have been fixed to strategic locations across the capital ahead of the summit.

The security operation at this week’s G20 summit was thrown into chaos last night when it emerged that the entire network of central London’s wireless CCTV cameras will have to be turned off because of a legal ruling.

The Department for Transport (DfT) has ruled that Westminster council’s mobile road cameras – a third of the authority’s CCTV network – “do not fully meet the resolution standards required” and must be switched off by midnight tomorrow.

The blackout begins on the eve of the summit, when world leaders arrive in the capital and protesters take to the streets.

The council only discovered last week that images from its newly installed £15m traffic cameras do not meet the quality required under the Traffic Management Act, which comes into force on 1 April.

In an urgently drafted letter seen by the Guardian and hand-delivered to the transport secretary, Geoff Hoon, on Friday, the council warns its entire network of wireless cameras will need to be shut down unless the minister finds a way to give special dispensation. “This would have a serious impact on our ability to manage our road network safely, as well as impeding our community protection efforts,” the letter states.

It adds: “We are seeking authorisation from DfT as a matter of urgency to enable Westminster to continue using its digital CCTV network.”

The 60 cameras in question use the latest digital technology and transmit images using Wi-Fi. While they are primarily for traffic enforcement, according to the council the cameras are “an essential additional tool” to tackle crime and disorder, and have been fixed to strategic locations across the capital ahead of the summit.

The 24-hour live footage from the cameras, which monitor roads around the West End, Belgravia, Trafalgar Square, Knightsbridge, Oxford Street and London’s main bridges, is also accessible to police and the intelligence services.

Click here to read more. 

A Parallel Universe called NYC – You can be drive a vehicle and hurt someone; NYPD will file no charges against you!

March 30, 2009 at 5:26 pm

(Source: Streetsblog)

Police Say No Criminality Involved In Case of Cabbie Who Plowed Into Restaurant Injuring Seven – “the cab was competing with another car to make a turn when it careened, skidded and hit a pole, then veered into the pizzeria”

The horrific death of a young mother in Midtownwasn’t the only instance of curb-jumping mayhem on Friday. Shortly before Ysemny Ramos was pinned against a building by an allegedly drunk driver on E. 37th Street, a yellow cab lurched off Amsterdam at W. 106th, plowing onto the sidewalk and into a pizzeria.Though seven people were hurt, with one in critical condition as of Friday, and though witnesses told the Post “the cab was competing with another car to make a turn when it careened, skidded and hit a pole, then veered into the pizzeria,” Gothamist reports that “The police told us no charges were filed because there was no criminality involved.”

Click here to read more. 

The United States takes key step towards dramatically reducing air pollution from ships with Emission Control Area proposal.

March 30, 2009 at 4:09 pm

(Source: AP)

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency wants to limit emissions along the nation’s coastline and within its seaports, just as the agency does along highways, with tougher pollution standards on large commercial ships.

 EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said Monday that the United States and Canada have applied to the International Maritime Organization to create a 230-mile emissions control area around much of their coastline.

The move is intended to ensure the shipping industry does its part to improve the air quality of major seaport communities. Ships moving through the zone would be subject to the tougher emissions standards.

“This is an important and long overdue step to protect the air and water along our shores,” Jackson said, speaking in front of a row of cranes at a press conference in Port Newark.

Jackson estimated that 40 of the 100 largest U.S. ports are located in metropolitan areas that fail to meet federal air quality standards. One of them is the Port Newark facility, which is part of the Port of New York and New Jersey — the East Coast’s largest port complex.

The EPA estimates that 90 percent of the ships carrying cargo in and out of U.S. coastal ports are based in other countries.

Ships operating in the proposed zone would face stricter limits on the sulfur content of their fuel beginning in 2015, and new ships would be required to incorporate advanced emission-control technologies beginning in 2016, Jackson said. Sulfur content is directly related to the soot, or pollution, emitted after fuel is burned.

Image Courtesy: EPA - OGVs Are a Big Problem: US Ports and Nonattainment Areas

Jackson made the announcement at a news conference with the Coast Guard and other federal and state officials.   EPA estimates the new emission-control technology will cost shipping companies $3.2 billion. Jackson said that translates into an increased cost of about 3 cents for each pair of sneakers shipped into the United States.

Gov. Jon Corzine welcomed the proposal and recalled sending Jackson to Washington, D.C., to lobby for it when she headed New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection.

Click here to read the entire article.  Also, here is the PDF version of EPA’s Frequently Asked Questions document on this Emission Control Area Application Process.