Left In Lowell

Friday Open Thread

10 Responses to “Friday Open Thread”

1. lovable liberal Says:
   September 21st, 2007 at 8:52 am

   Lynne, just heard the end of your BUR segment. Before I knew it was you, whom I previously knew only from Blue Mass Group, I thought, “I like her - intelligent, sensible, well-spoken, frank.” So, good going! And I’m pretty firmly on the fence about casinos…

2. Tim Little Says:
   September 21st, 2007 at 12:46 pm

   Great job, Lynne!

3. Jim Giddings Says:
   September 21st, 2007 at 12:47 pm

   The organization CBA Members for Justice has issued a brochure containing its platform and slate of candidates for the September 29 CBA (Coalition for a Better Acre) elections, which will be held on Saturday, September 29 at 4:00 p.m. at Lowell High School Auditorium. Please get informed and vote strategically to put control of the CBA back into the hands of grassroots activists and community members! The brochure can be seen at http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=109989787&blogID=311691088

4. Mimi Says:
   September 21st, 2007 at 1:24 pm

   I have not been able to listen to Lynne; I cannot open up the file. But here is the link:

   http://www.wbur.org/news/2007/70646_20070921.asp.

5. Mr. Lynne Says:
   September 21st, 2007 at 1:46 pm

   Funny, for me it is usually the opposite problem… trying to get her to listen to me.

6. Lynne Says:
   September 21st, 2007 at 2:15 pm

   Oh, just cute, hon, just cute. ;P

   I think I talk too fast (when I’m nervous especially). I gotta work on that…

7. Mr. Lynne Says:
   September 21st, 2007 at 2:20 pm

   Actually, you were fine, at least at Massachusetts talking speeds.

8. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   September 21st, 2007 at 6:04 pm

   Sorry if this goes twice, I was writing and hit the wrong key.

   First up I will be checking out the WBUR podcast of Morning Edition to hear Lynne’s major league debut!

   Now for something completely different!

   I was driving past the West Sixth St firehouse today and noticed a Nashau Engine and Ladder were manning it. First, thanks to Nashua for staffing the firestations during the funeral.

   When I drove past, the Nashua engine was responding to a call without the ladder truck. The Nashua ladder truck DID NOT FIT INTO THE FIRE STATON! It was hanging out big time.

   It’s been a long time since I have thought about what Lowell uses for fire houses, but when I saw that I realized at how much of a disadvantage/danger we are. I thought back and I recall decades ago Lowell considered buying a tower, but we couldn’t because NO FIRE HOUSE WAS BIG ENOUGH TO HOUSE IT!

   It’s time the chief take a look at the existing fire houses, their physical limitations and locations, and submit a capital plan to replace them.

   Just my $.02 on a Friday afternoon.

   PS. Jason, don’t get excited, you and I will still disagree on many many items, just not this one!

9. caveblogem Says:
   September 21st, 2007 at 6:11 pm

   Heckuvajob, Lynne!

10. Jason Says:
    September 29th, 2007 at 12:11 pm

    I’m posting this in two threads because it applies to ER’s posts about the LFD.

    ER,

    You are jumping to conclusions here. Because one of Nashua’s three ladder trucks didn’t fit into one of Lowell’s eight active stations, hardly means we are using antiquated equipment unfit for the city. In fact Lowell’s fire apparatus fleet is probably better than it has been at any time in the city’s history. All the front line trucks are 15 years old or less. While some (including both the spare engine and ladder) are beyond the recommended NFPA (#1911) replacement time by a few years, it is still not bad. All Lowell’s fire apparatus are suitable for duty and perfectly capable of performing the tasks required of them.

    We do in fact have a Tower Ladder very similar to Nashua’s which fits just fine at Headquarters on Moody Street. No changes were made to accommodate its size. Tower Ladders are both longer and heavier than standard ladder trucks and not necessary for most fire suppression applications. Most similar sized communities have one and usually only one. While an excellent apparatus design with some nice safety features, they are not essential by any means. The drawback with this type of apparatus is that it can not fit everywhere. Sometimes smaller trucks with shorter wheelbases and a better turning radius are needed in certain neighborhoods. Fire apparatus designs are almost always custom, based on the neighborhood they serve in instead of where they park. For example; Boston had to custom design trucks for the North End to fit the narrow streets and alleys. The ladder truck at West Sixth Street #4, though the oldest in the city (built 1994) normally in front line use, is well suited for the neighborhood it serves. It is nearly identical to the truck that serves at Branch Street #2 (two years newer) in the Highlands. In fact Ladder 4 served in that station before being reassigned. Bottom line is, what works for Nashua doesn’t mean it’s required in Lowell.

    As for a study on where firehouses are needed, let me save the city a few thousand dollars. A study was commissioned in 1990, I believe during the Johnson Administration. It was done by the MMA Consulting Group in Boston. Notable among its 30 recommendations and conclusions were:

    1. The city should continue to operate with the existing number of fire companies (16) and personnel, based on the significant hazards and potential for high loss fires. Among 25 cities at the time with populations of 100,000 to 300,000 “Lowell is classified among those with the highest negative potential for fire and life loss, and with the most difficult street and construction environment for fire suppression purposes.”

    2. Long range consolidation of stations #1 and #11 and #5 and #6 could be accomplished IF existing personnel were sent to supplement busier stations.

    3. Immediately replace as many as 6 apparatus and have 2 reserve engines.

    Since that time we have cut the department approximately 50 jobs and permanently closed three stations, only one of which was among those even considered for consolidation. The Johnson and Martin Administrations ignored much of the consultant’s report they paid for and went completely in the other direction. Since that time the number of calls for service has roughly doubled. Though fires have declined slightly, that is attributed to the active inspection program and more stringent code enforcement. On top of that, most of the pull boxes on corners have been removed, thus eliminating a majority of false alarms during the same time period. The fire department has assumed responsibility for hazardous materials, being the city’s medical first responder agency and quite a few other things. What has happened in the city? We have gone on to add a lot of high density housing, where fire deaths occur most (noted in the study). The added residents also increase the need for other calls and congestion on our roads.

    A regular plan to replace apparatus yearly was never enacted. A good portion of the city’s current fleet (6 vehicles) was bought with CDBG money, not city money, in the mid 1990’s. It took 7 more years to replace the apparatus needing to be retired immediately, according to the consultant and we still only have 1 reserve engine, but every front line truck in this city has been replaced since 1994. Apparatus purchases generally have tended to come in irregular patterns, not a yearly capital plan. The reason is because receipts change so much year to year we can’t count on the funds to be there. Whenever revenue falls and expenses rise, capital expenditures are the first cuts. The only other option is service cuts (already stretched too thin) since more than 85 percent (ballpark figure) is salary and wages.

    Other notable comments from the study were:

    “Closing one or more stations, of course, increases an already high risk relative to rescue and quick initial attack because of response route difficulties, plus minimal crew size.”

    “The department has a minimally adequate number of personnel for an urbanized city”

    And

    “Most often lives are saved and property loss held to a minimum during the first 10 to 15 minutes of the fire…As a result, communities need to provide their own reasonable sized initial attack crew. This concept of the fastest possible initial attack by crew of sufficient size is probably the most important argument for on-duty crews.”

    These statements were made before all the cuts. We’re still closing stations on top of the permanent station cuts that were opposed by the study. While some of the bridge issues present at the time of the study have been solved, we still have quite a few unsafe bridges for our trucks, extending responses further. Crew sizes of 3 are still below NFPA (#1710) specified minimums of 4.

    It’s been 15 years this has been going on. People put out fires and pull people out of burning building, not trucks, not fire stations. If anything, the study is more relevant now that it was then. We need to have the right amount of firefighters available to do the work, and protect every neighborhood at all times. Not randomly pick and choose. While I would very much like to have a modern group of stations that are energy efficient, with roofs that don’t leak, insulation that isn’t asbestos (we don’t’ know currently), safe electrical wiring, I know the major capital expenditures are not forthcoming. I’d settle for some basic repairs and having enough people to do our jobs and protect the public. Without the firefighters on duty the rest means nothing.

    You aren’t in danger because of the equipment, you are in danger because the stations aren’t always open and staffed. What else do we have to do to get anyone to listen?

Leave a Reply