"Stricter Transit Standards to Be Sought"
Bolwerk
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/us/16transit.html?emc=eta1
Another article:
http://new.wsau.com/news/articles/2009/nov/15/government-wants-to-oversee-safety-for-subways-lig/
I don't know if this bodes well. Could they just be replicating the
problems with FRA regulation of commuter rail?
geo
>Another article:
>http://new.wsau.com/news/articles/2009/nov/15/government-wants-to-oversee-safety-for-subways-lig/
Another article appeared in the Washington Post..
Federal oversight of subways proposed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/14/
AR2009111402459_pf.html
--
g
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> "Stricter Transit Standards to Be Sought" -http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/us/16transit.html?emc=eta1
>
>
> I don't know if this bodes well. Could they just be replicating the
> problems with FRA regulation of commuter rail?
Thanks for reporting this.
This stinks.
History has shown it will not make subways any safer. The accidents
that occur on subways are the same as those on railroad lines which
are tightly regulated. This proposal will seriously drive up the
costs of running subways.
Since subways don't connect with each other (unlike railroads which
do), every subway is different. What is appropriate safety for the
Lexington Ave IRT probably is overkill for the Cleveland subway.
Clark F Morris
My opinion exactly. There isn't a major problem that this will
address. WMATA could be put under the FRA as is PATH and PATCO (which
can be a problem in and of itself but at least doesn't add a new
bureaucracy eager to prove it makes a difference.
Joseph D. Korman
Most of the transit authorities are broke now, what happens when the
feds try to make a one size fits all, with all the differences between
the various systems.
Remember the federal light rail car from the late 1960's that Boston and
San Francisco bought.
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> My opinion exactly. There isn't a major problem that this will
> address. WMATA could be put under the FRA as is PATH and PATCO (which
> can be a problem in and of itself but at least doesn't add a new
> bureaucracy eager to prove it makes a difference.
PATCO is not under FRA regulation, nor ever was.
When PATCO was formed, it made sure to get the ICC to define it as an
interurban line, not a railroad line, so as to avoid those regulation
problems.
I'm not sure if PATH or SIRT are still under federal regulation as
they once were. Neither line has railroad trains sharing track as
they once had.
Miles Bader
> Since subways don't connect with each other (unlike railroads which
> do), every subway is different.
A generally valid point for current systems, especially in the U.S., but
of course they _could_ connect, and maybe it's a desirable goal for them
to do so more often than they do now (e.g. via
through-running)... perhaps some well-crafted standards could even help
further such a goal.
-Miles
--
You can hack anything you want, with TECO and DDT.
Bolwerk
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>> Since subways don't connect with each other (unlike railroads which
>> do), every subway is different.
>
> A generally valid point for current systems, especially in the U.S., but
> of course they _could_ connect, and maybe it's a desirable goal for them
> to do so more often than they do now (e.g. via
> through-running)... perhaps some well-crafted standards could even help
> further such a goal.
That might not be so objectionable, but that's also not what this is about.
The thing is, the safety issues they cite as the rationale behind this
problem appear to have more to do with funding issues than anything else.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The thing is, the safety issues they cite as the rationale behind this
> problem appear to have more to do with funding issues than anything else.
Some problems are not easily solved, and federal regulation most
certainly will NOT help.
For instance, a carrier _already_ has a rule on its books and the
employee violates it (eg. being drunk or using a cellphone while in
service).
I am not aware of any accident on US rapid transit which would've been
prevented had federal railroad rules been in effect.
Heck, most rapid transit lines do not run as fast as mainline
passenger trains and have better signalling, speed control, and red
signal enforcement.
For instance, NYC subways max out about 50 mph. I think FRA rules
don't even require signals at that speed, yet NYC subways are fully
equipped. In contrast, lots of mainline passenger trains have no
automatic train stop at all.
Bolwerk
> On Nov 17, 12:17 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The thing is, the safety issues they cite as the rationale behind this
>> problem appear to have more to do with funding issues than anything else.
>
> Some problems are not easily solved, and federal regulation most
> certainly will NOT help.
I was referring to deferred maintenance, which is a major problem in
Chicago and Washington and probably at least a minor one on every major
system in the U.S..
Philip Nasadowski
Bolwerk <bol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was referring to deferred maintenance, which is a major problem in
> Chicago and Washington and probably at least a minor one on every major
> system in the U.S..
Federal oversight won't fix that.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > Some problems are not easily solved, and federal regulation most
> > certainly will NOT help.
>
> I was referring to deferred maintenance, which is a major problem in
> Chicago and Washington and probably at least a minor one on every major
> system in the U.S..
The Penn Central's psgr trains suffered from massive deferred
maintenance, despite the railroad being tightly regulated.
Likewise the LIRR in the 1950s and 1960s.
I suspect this impetus is from the Washington DC accident; which
regulation would not have prevented; it was a fluke of the signal
system. As others pointed out, back in the 1970s when the Feds were
paying for these projects, the Feds encouraged these advanced designs.
Philip Nasadowski
<06871cad-b560-4609...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> As others pointed out, back in the 1970s when the Feds were
> paying for these projects, the Feds encouraged these advanced designs.
The failure wasn't the 'advanced control system', it was a simple track
detection circuit failure. Given a clear signal ahead, the computer did
exactly what it was supposed to - run the train ahead at track speed.
Which is what a human operator would have, too.
Bolwerk
I would guess it might make it worse, if transit agencies suddenly have
to deal with big fines on top of already stretched budgets.
Jishnu Mukerji
by the NTSB boss at her speech at the National Press Club the other day.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The failure wasn't the 'advanced control system', it was a simple track
> detection circuit failure. Given a clear signal ahead, the computer did
> exactly what it was supposed to - run the train ahead at track speed.
> Which is what a human operator would have, too.
As I understand, the track detection circuit was advanced and even
today not used in many places. I must admit I do not understand the
difference between their circuit and conventional track circuits.
Generally speaking conventional track circuits are extremely
failspace; to give a clear block, all components in the chain must be
working; the failure of any one single component will give an occupied
block.
Getting the feds involved, IMHO, will waste a lot of money and not do
a damn thing to make subways and trolleys any safer; indeed, their
meddling may make things worse.
Philip Nasadowski
<3ddbf556-d257-44ce...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> As I understand, the track detection circuit was advanced and even
> today not used in many places.
I think it's an audio-frequency type design.
> I must admit I do not understand the
> difference between their circuit and conventional track circuits.
Neither do I.
> Generally speaking conventional track circuits are extremely
> failspace; to give a clear block, all components in the chain must be
> working; the failure of any one single component will give an occupied
> block.
I'm wondering if this was due to some sort of interference with the
traction power. Such things have been seen before, though very rare. A
Z bond was replaced shortly before the accident.
> Getting the feds involved, IMHO, will waste a lot of money and not do
> a damn thing to make subways and trolleys any safer; indeed, their
> meddling may make things worse.
I don't see the legality of it.
J.R.Guthrie
>I suspect this impetus is from the Washington DC accident; which
>regulation would not have prevented; it was a fluke of the signal
More specifically, the proposal is a direct response to the incompetence of
Mr. Catoe and his management at WMATA.
Throw in the anti-rail-transit crowd from conservative "think tanks" like
Heritage Foundation, funded in no small measure by the highway lobby, and
ridiculously expensive federal regulation on transit is inevitable.
Note that none of the NY newspaper coverage (at least that I've seen) has
bothered to even begin to quantify how many hundreds of millions of dollars
such regulation will cost the NY City Subways system or NJT and the Port of
Authority.
Cheers,
Jim
Larry Sheldon
>> Getting the feds involved, IMHO, will waste a lot of money and not do
>> a damn thing to make subways and trolleys any safer; indeed, their
>> meddling may make things worse.
>
> I don't see the legality of it.
"Legality" is not an issu4 with the current crop of Feds, and waste and
not doing anything are objectives.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
zzyzxroad
>
> "Legality" is not an issu4 with the current crop of Feds, and waste and
> not doing anything are objectives.
> --
yep
and that real idiot gwb was fixed on maintaining "Legality"
you are a fucking idiot
we really won in Iraq
we are really winning in Afghanistan
and that idiot GWB made it all possible
furthermore that idiot gwb had some real objectives in the War on
Terror
that is the reason that idiot GWB had such a successful Presidency
you are a fucking idiot
anyone can see by you continual posts from ultra right wing blogs that
like you are proud of being a fucking idiot
you really ought to "bag and tag" yourself, you fucking idiot
you might use a large plastic bag, make sure it covers your empty
head, and breathe very deep
be sure it is labeled as toxic waste
you are a fucking idiot
representative of fucking idiot truck drivers everywhere
zzyzxroad
you really should consider doing the above
from the way you described you medical history, you would save
Medicare and other ins companies real money
and certainly no one would miss you
David Lesher
>> The failure wasn't the 'advanced control system', it was a simple
>> track detection circuit failure. Given a clear signal ahead, the
>> computer did exactly what it was supposed to - run the train ahead at
>> track speed. Which is what a human operator would have, too.
>As I understand, the track detection circuit was advanced and even
>today not used in many places. I must admit I do not understand the
>difference between their circuit and conventional track circuits.
False. This was a bog-standard AC track circuit. They were invented
BEFORE the Cubbies last won the World Series.
>Generally speaking conventional track circuits are extremely
>failspace; to give a clear block, all components in the chain must be
>working; the failure of any one single component will give an occupied
>block.
Yep, that's how it is SUPPOSED to work, every time. Whe it does not,
it is not good.
>Getting the feds involved, IMHO, will waste a lot of money and not do
>a damn thing to make subways and trolleys any safer; indeed, their
>meddling may make things worse.
Glad you're the expert. Meanwhile, people working in the bizness
may not agree.
The instant issue is not about the track circuit, which I'm hard pressed
to know how WMATA could have predicted. Rather, it's about WMATA's policy
of denying access to their sole oversight, an ad-hock group of employees
of other systems. This blew up when the WashPost started digging into it.
WMATA being spread over 2 states and DC, is effectively immune to state
regulation.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Philip Nasadowski
David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
> The instant issue is not about the track circuit, which I'm hard pressed
> to know how WMATA could have predicted.
There was considerable evidence that prior to the accident, the SCADA
system was in fact picking up a large number of signal 'flips' in the
block - i.e. a standing train would be seen in the block, then
disappear, then be seen, then disappear.
> Rather, it's about WMATA's policy
> of denying access to their sole oversight, an ad-hock group of employees
> of other systems. This blew up when the WashPost started digging into it.
Amazingly, Catoe has not been fired. THough I suspect he's hardly the
sole problem, and the Metro Board isn't 100% innocent, so they're not
fast to dump him as a result.
> WMATA being spread over 2 states and DC, is effectively immune to state
> regulation.
Good - then let the feds regulate the DC Metro. I'm not aware of an
accident like theirs ever happening in NYC, Boston, Chicago, or even on
the ever-evil computer-operated BART (which, IIRC, actually has a
secondary system that tracks train occupancy and sets off alarms when
things don't look right)
Then again, maybe the bigger issue is that track circuits are a shitty
way to do this - Germany's used axle counters very successfully for
decades, and they don't seem to have these issues.
Phil Kane
<nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
>There was considerable evidence that prior to the accident, the SCADA
>system was in fact picking up a large number of signal 'flips' in the
>block - i.e. a standing train would be seen in the block, then
>disappear, then be seen, then disappear.
The original BART system had the inverse - a "False Occupancy"
problem showing a train where none actually was. They claim to have
fixed it somewhere along the way by the rather simple and logical
requirement that the previous block had to have been occupied before a
block could be considered "occupied".
I do hope that the logic design of the Canarsie Line upgrade took
this into consideration.
--
"Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please"
Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Beburg MP 28.0 - OE District
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> >As I understand, the track detection circuit was advanced and even
> >today not used in many places. I must admit I do not understand the
> >difference between their circuit and conventional track circuits.
>
> False. This was a bog-standard AC track circuit. They were invented
> BEFORE the Cubbies last won the World Series.
What is a "bog standard"? You're saying that the WMATA track circuit
is exactly the same technology as used for many years in other subway
systems? Some news reports have suggested otherwise. For example, in
Phila, the fairly Mkt-Fkd line system is supposed to be similar to
that of WMATA and accordingly was being carefully checked. However,
the Broad Street, PATCO, and P&W (NHSL) were of other technology not
subject to that problem.
Could anyone clarify that?
Some reports have said WMATA used "audio frequency"? What is the
difference between that and the circuitry used in other systems? I
thought all subways, since they use DC propulsion, have to use some
sort of ac track circuitry.
> >Getting the feds involved, IMHO, will waste a lot of money and not do
> >a damn thing to make subways and trolleys any safer; indeed, their
> >meddling may make things worse.
>
> Glad you're the expert. Meanwhile, people working in the bizness
> may not agree.
Could you elaborate on the circumstances of which 'those people in the
transit business' do not agree about fed involvement. Why do people
think it would be good to have federal involvement?
> The instant issue is not about the track circuit, which I'm hard pressed
> to know how WMATA could have predicted. Rather, it's about WMATA's policy
> of denying access to their sole oversight, an ad-hock group of employees
> of other systems. This blew up when the WashPost started digging into it.
> WMATA being spread over 2 states and DC, is effectively immune to state
> regulation.
AFAIK, almost all transit carriers are not subject to technical or
safety regulation from the parent state.
Many streetcars, for example, do not have license plates even though
they're operating in a public street.
States, however, can regulate if they so desire, and sometimes get
more involved if an agency get into trouble.
Agencies that serve multiple states can and sometimes are regulated
(or interfered with) by their parent states.
Stephen Sprunk
> On Nov 25, 9:43 pm, David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
>> False. This was a bog-standard AC track circuit. They were invented
>> BEFORE the Cubbies last won the World Series.
>
> What is a "bog standard"?
Wiktionary's definition seems to fit. Have you not discovered Google?
> Some reports have said WMATA used "audio frequency"? What is the
> difference between that and the circuitry used in other systems? I
> thought all subways, since they use DC propulsion, have to use some
> sort of ac track circuitry.
Not necessarily. One can use one running rail as the "return" rail
(grounded) and the other as the "signal" rail (not grounded), with a
small DC voltage across them. Obviously, the system must be designed to
not be blown up by the 600VDC+ traction current on the "return" rail and
to prevent traction return current from flowing through the "signal"
rail. It's more complicated but doable.
Still, it is much more common to use audio-frequency AC signals, e.g.
90-250Hz in older systems. Newer systems use higher frequencies, e.g.
1600-2600Hz or even 5600-8400Hz. Cab signals also tend to use these
same "safe" frequency ranges, which may limit the frequencies available
for track circuits. (OTOH, some systems, e.g. TVM, eliminate conflicts
by combining the two on the same set of frequencies.)
>> The instant issue is not about the track circuit, which I'm hard pressed
>> to know how WMATA could have predicted. Rather, it's about WMATA's policy
>> of denying access to their sole oversight, an ad-hock group of employees
>> of other systems. This blew up when the WashPost started digging into it.
>> WMATA being spread over 2 states and DC, is effectively immune to state
>> regulation.
>
> AFAIK, almost all transit carriers are not subject to technical or
> safety regulation from the parent state.
AFAIK, a rail transit carrier must present evidence of a state entity
that will provide safety oversight to get exemption from FRA oversight.
> Many streetcars, for example, do not have license plates even though
> they're operating in a public street.
And? The definition of "motor vehicle" usually excludes vehicles that
operate on fixed tracks, and only motor vehicles are required to have
license plates. Bicycles and even pedestrians may "operate" in a public
street but don't have to have plates; trains are no different.
> States, however, can regulate if they so desire, and sometimes get
> more involved if an agency get into trouble.
States can only regulate what isn't preempted by federal law.
> Agencies that serve multiple states can and sometimes are regulated
> (or interfered with) by their parent states.
Indeed--but only because the FRA lets them.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 9:43 pm, David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> False. This was a bog-standard AC track circuit. They were invented
> >> BEFORE the Cubbies last won the World Series.
>
> > What is a "bog standard"?
>
> Wiktionary's definition seems to fit. Have you not discovered Google?
The person who posted the term is best able to explain it in the
context of their use.
> > AFAIK, almost all transit carriers are not subject to technical or
> > safety regulation from the parent state.
>
> AFAIK, a rail transit carrier must present evidence of a state entity
> that will provide safety oversight to get exemption from FRA oversight.
What about carriers that have been around long before the FRA existed?
> > Many streetcars, for example, do not have license plates even though
> > they're operating in a public street.
>
> And? The definition of "motor vehicle" usually excludes vehicles that
> operate on fixed tracks, and only motor vehicles are required to have
> license plates. Bicycles and even pedestrians may "operate" in a public
> street but don't have to have plates; trains are no different.
Actually, the reason historically was that streetcars were not subject
to the motor vehicle code being presumed to be private. Very often
the roadway in and near streetcar trackage was the responsibility of
the transit company, not the city, it was sort of a privately owned
ROW with use by others.
> > States, however, can regulate if they so desire, and sometimes get
> > more involved if an agency get into trouble.
>
> States can only regulate what isn't preempted by federal law.
If something clearly is not involved in interstate commerce, it is not
under federal regulation. Now the feds have managed to create an
extremely broad definition of interstate commerce, but still it
applies. Normally street railways and subways didn't cross state
lines (though a few did).
Indeed, many carriers the had some interstate service used certain
vehicles for that; only those vehicles were authorized for interstate
service and had the proper registry and markings. This applied to
buses, too.
> > Agencies that serve multiple states can and sometimes are regulated
> > (or interfered with) by their parent states.
>
> Indeed--but only because the FRA lets them.
Anyway, the other poster claimed "people in the business" wanted
federal regulation. I don't agree. What about that?
Joseph D. Korman
>
>
> Good - then let the feds regulate the DC Metro. I'm not aware of an
> accident like theirs ever happening in NYC, Boston, Chicago, or even on
> the ever-evil computer-operated BART (which, IIRC, actually has a
> secondary system that tracks train occupancy and sets off alarms when
> things don't look right)
>
>
involved a switch and the then relatively new 75' cars. As I remember
the case, a train needed to be turned back to a yard. When the tower
operator heard the train go into emergency, thinking the train operator
did it, he threw the switches for the reverse move.
It turned out that the train went into emergency for some other reason.
In which case the train operator needs to walk around the train looking
for the cause. When he got to the other end of the train he found that
the switch had been thrown under the last car. If he had missed that,
the car would have split the switch.
The investigation found that the longer truck spacing of the 75' cars
allowed the trucks on that car to miss the detector circuit of the
interlocking allowing the switch to throw. Needless to say the TA took
the time to check every interlocking in the system to insure that those
circuits can 'see' a 75' car.
Stephen Sprunk
> On Nov 27, 7:31 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> AFAIK, almost all transit carriers are not subject to technical or
>>> safety regulation from the parent state.
>>
>> AFAIK, a rail transit carrier must present evidence of a state entity
>> that will provide safety oversight to get exemption from FRA oversight.
>
> What about carriers that have been around long before the FRA existed?
Unless the law and/or regulations provide an exemption from them which
I'm not aware of, I don't see how it'd be any different for them.
>>> Many streetcars, for example, do not have license plates even though
>>> they're operating in a public street.
>>
>> And? The definition of "motor vehicle" usually excludes vehicles that
>> operate on fixed tracks, and only motor vehicles are required to have
>> license plates. Bicycles and even pedestrians may "operate" in a public
>> street but don't have to have plates; trains are no different.
>
> Actually, the reason historically was that streetcars were not subject
> to the motor vehicle code being presumed to be private.
Almost all motor vehicles are "private". What matters is that they're
operating on public roads.
> Very often the roadway in and near streetcar trackage was the responsibility of
> the transit company, not the city, it was sort of a privately owned
> ROW with use by others.
The way it was structure here was that the tracks were in an easement on
public property, and the fee for that easement was that they maintain
the road. I'd be surprised if it were significantly different elsewhere.
The above exemption for fixed-track vehicles was written into our laws
around a century ago, when motor vehicle regulations were first enacted;
prior to that, there were no requirements at all, and the new
regulations deliberately exempted streetcars because doing otherwise
simply wouldn't make sense.
>>> States, however, can regulate if they so desire, and sometimes get
>>> more involved if an agency get into trouble.
>>
>> States can only regulate what isn't preempted by federal law.
>
> If something clearly is not involved in interstate commerce, it is not
> under federal regulation. Now the feds have managed to create an
> extremely broad definition of interstate commerce, but still it
> applies. Normally street railways and subways didn't cross state
> lines (though a few did).
Various federal laws and federal court rulings have combined to define
_all_ commerce within the US as interstate commerce. Heck, the feds can
lock you up for growing and smoking pot in your own home, even though
_no_ commerce is involved, because that pot _might_ have been sold to
someone in another state.
> Indeed, many carriers the had some interstate service used certain
> vehicles for that; only those vehicles were authorized for interstate
> service and had the proper registry and markings. This applied to
> buses, too.
If so, that is because there were exemptions in the federal laws or
regulations for intrastate services, not because the feds lacked
jurisdiction.
>>> Agencies that serve multiple states can and sometimes are regulated
>>> (or interfered with) by their parent states.
>>
>> Indeed--but only because the FRA lets them.
>
> Anyway, the other poster claimed "people in the business" wanted
> federal regulation. I don't agree. What about that?
I'm not aware of anyone who does, but I suspect it might only apply in
areas where you have interstate transit service, and there's nothing of
the sort around here. Those in the northeastern are generally far more
likely to seek federal involvement in local matters because their states
are so tiny and can't agree on even simple matters that would be
intra-state problems elsewhere in the country.
Phil Kane
<ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>And? The definition of "motor vehicle" usually excludes vehicles that
>operate on fixed tracks, and only motor vehicles are required to have
>license plates. Bicycles and even pedestrians may "operate" in a public
>street but don't have to have plates; trains are no different.
>
And each state has different regulations about "license plates". For
example, in New York public safety vehicles (police cars, fire
engines, etc) are not issued license plates by DMV while in California
and Oregon they are (from a series labeled "Exempt").
Stephen Sprunk
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:31:21 -0600, Stephen Sprunk
> <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> And? The definition of "motor vehicle" usually excludes vehicles that
>> operate on fixed tracks, and only motor vehicles are required to have
>> license plates. Bicycles and even pedestrians may "operate" in a public
>> street but don't have to have plates; trains are no different.
>>
> And each state has different regulations about "license plates". For
> example, in New York public safety vehicles (police cars, fire
> engines, etc) are not issued license plates by DMV
Then why does every image of a NYPD or FDNY vehicle I find with Google
show a license plate? Are they self-issued rather than from the DMV?
That doesn't make much of a difference.
> while in California and Oregon they are (from a series labeled "Exempt").
Ditto in Texas and I suspect most western states. The "exempt" series
is for all government-owned vehicles, which are statutorily exempt from
registration taxes/fees and expiration.
rsh...@gmail.com
For
> example, in New York public safety vehicles (police cars, fire
> engines, etc) are not issued license plates by DMV while in
I believe they are
same as TA busses "official"
Jimmy
Nope, police cars in NYS, including NYC, don't have NYS official
license plates. They have a plate issued by the police department
itself, that just shows the 3- or 4-digit ID number for the car. Many
police departments' plates include no other text whatsoever, not even
"New York".
Jimmy
Phil Kane
<ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>Then why does every image of a NYPD or FDNY vehicle I find with Google
>show a license plate? Are they self-issued rather than from the DMV?
IIRC the NYS Vehicle Law exempts them so they are self-issued and show
only the agency inventory vehicle number and do not look like a
DMV-issued license plate with the state name, etc. Have they changed
recently?
>That doesn't make much of a difference.
To me it does. I'm a nit-picker on those things. I, too, would like
to make my own license plates but I would rather not do it at the
Folsom State License Plate Manufactory or the NY State equivalent
(Ossning ? Elmira?)
Phil Kane
If so, I stand corrected. They weren't when I lived there years ago
and the NY Vehicle Law specifically exempted them.