ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Friday, March 28, 1997 TAG: 9703280040
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ROY D. CHAMBERS
THE DISPUTE over the "Quint" fire trucks appears to be more than a debate about job security and the effectiveness of a firefighting tool. Perhaps this is an issue to camouflage previous mistakes (made within the past 10 years) by inadequate officials (both appointed and elected) who oversee the city of Roanoke's fire and EMS operations.
Who should know more about this vehicle's effectiveness than those firefighters who have worked the city's fires and maneuvered the city's streets for so many years? There should be no debate in this area - just an open mind on the part of city officials to listen to their experienced Roanoke firefighters.
Chief Jim Grigsby states that `` ... additional flexibility is needed because fire engines make thousands of emergency medical runs each year ... '' Why should a fire engine carrying four firefighters be dispatched to emergency medical calls, leaving "only a ladder truck in a station to respond to fires," when an ambulance with a two-person crew is adequate to handle most emergency medical calls?
Does not an ambulance respond to emergency medical calls as well as a fire truck? When questioning maneuverability, since when is a fire truck more maneuverable than an ambulance? How much more fuel-efficient is a fire truck than an ambulance?
Perhaps these questions (as well as others) should have been answered prior to a decision as to whether to purchase such a controversial piece of equipment.
Common sense tells anyone that paying four fire personnel to respond to emergency medical calls and leaving the fire station inadequately staffed is not very smart, when a two-person crew on an ambulance would be more effective and cost-efficient.
Taxpaying citizens should not have to pay for the the four fire personnel to respond on emergency calls, then have to pay for two EMS personnel in an ambulance, plus the cost of the ambulance transport to the hospital.
A fire engine can use twice the amount of fuel an ambulance does, and an ambulance is much easier to maneuver.
City Council should make the decision to buy firefighting equipment based on the suggestions and needs of the firefighters as a group - not the recommendation of one individual who has less experience in Roanoke than firefighters who have lived and worked in the city for many years.
Consideration by City Council should be given to EMS personnel as well. Funds should be allocated to buy enough ambulances, and payroll for enough personnel to man the ambulances, providing adequate coverage 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, allowing fire equipment to remain in service for fire calls. This would save taxpayers much more money and save more lives - another issue City Council seems less concerned about.
Perhaps City Council should give thought to allowing Roanoke fire and EMS to again become separate entities. Leave the fighting of fires to the firefighters, and the emergency calls to the EMS personnel.
If City Council feels it cannot afford this solution, perhaps it should implement an annual EMS fee to the city's residences and businesses - $50 to $100. This would generate approximately $4.5 million to $10 million a year for EMS operations. The city's volunteer life-saving crews operated for 50-plus years on a lot less. Their operational fund was composed only of donations from the citizens of each locale.
Maybe the debate should not be whether to buy the "Quints," and possibly lose jobs, but whether the money City Council and Chief Grigsby think they would save is worth more than the lives of its citizens.
ROY D. CHAMBERS was an emergency medical technician with the Williamson Road Life Saving Crew.
LENGTH: Medium: 71 linesby CNB