Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    VERMONT
    Posts
    105

    Default Traffic Pre-Emption Equipment

    Any Grant Experts out there?

    Got a new question for you folks. Does Traffic Pre Emption Equipment for Traffic Light fit anywhere in the Firefighting Equipment group???
    GB


  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber ameryfd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    598

    Default

    From the PG

    Traffic signal preemption systems are eligible.

  3. #3
    Forum Member RES81CUE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NW ARKANSAS
    Posts
    342

    Default

    This is just my opinion.... I think the fire grant services should not be used for the traffic Pre-Emption equipment. These grants are for firefighting equipment. These traffic devices should be purchased with city money only. I would hope a grant for such devices would not make it past peer review.

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber ameryfd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    598

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RES81CUE
    This is just my opinion.... I think the fire grant services should not be used for the traffic Pre-Emption equipment. These grants are for firefighting equipment. These traffic devices should be purchased with city money only. I would hope a grant for such devices would not make it past peer review.
    Just to discuss the point. In many places, the dangers of traveling through the city streets is extreme. With the goal of protecting lives and property, traffic preemption equipment can go a long way in doing both. IMO

  5. #5
    Forum Member RES81CUE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NW ARKANSAS
    Posts
    342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ameryfd
    Just to discuss the point. In many places, the dangers of traveling through the city streets is extreme. With the goal of protecting lives and property, traffic preemption equipment can go a long way in doing both. IMO
    Good point, But, I would have to stay with my original point. Since we are talking cities there has to be enough city money to deal with the traffic problems. Most cities in this area have the system It is paid for by city tax money or state highway funds. I dont think you should take away from departments needing basic equipment so city departments can figure ways to get grants to fill there shopping carts.IMO

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    6

    Default

    I personally think that the number of firefighter, police, and EMS who are killed annually each year, should be reason enough to make some traffic control devices a fairly high priority. If you take time to check into the the federal DOT standards include how tomproperly set up a safe work zone for vehicle fires and motor vehicle accidents. DOT requires 24" high minimum cones be placed every fifteen feet for a total of 8 times the posted speed limit in a slowly tapered pattern. Cones must have two reflective stripes. This is advanced warning preior to setting up apparatus blocking. There is a lot to this. If you want some good information I suggest contacting a fire chief named Douglas Atchinson of Madison, NJ. There are a lot of good items that are not that expensive that have a very positive impact on firefighter safety on the highways.

    I'm not saying that traffic control devices should be the number One priority, but I would not hesitate to apply for funding for it. That is as long as SCBA and turn-out gear are in compliant and adequate in number for your department.

    I doesn't matter how afirefighter looses his life, he or she still passes on. Eternity is Eternity.

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber ameryfd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    598

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RES81CUE
    Good point, But, I would have to stay with my original point. Since we are talking cities there has to be enough city money to deal with the traffic problems. Most cities in this area have the system It is paid for by city tax money or state highway funds. I dont think you should take away from departments needing basic equipment so city departments can figure ways to get grants to fill there shopping carts.IMO
    I have to disagree. Different fire departments have different needs. To say that a city deptartment doesn't have a financial need for opticoms is as wrong as someone from a city fire department saying that a smaller dept shouldn't get a grant for a water tender. Both are viable items because they increase the protection of property and firefighters. Just because it is a priority for a more urban dept, doesn't mean it's any less important to those firefighters than a water tender for a rural dept... The life and health of a FF, whether rural or urban is still something you cannot put a price on.

    Now, regarding the argument that just because it's a city, they should have more money to spend on an opticom doesn't hold water. City depts are just as cash strapped as rurals. Even though some cities fire depts may have million dollar budgets, they also have million dollar expenses with more stations, more salaries, more insurance, more fuel, more apparatus ect....

    Taxpayers in cities are dishing out at least the same, and in most cases dare I say more? per capita/property taxes than their rural counterparts for fire protection and don't want to see a tax increase any more than the folks in the country.

    This is the Assistance to Firefighters grant, not the Assistance to small rural fire departments grant, so cities should have the right to determine thier safety priorities the same as those of us in smaller areas.

    Also, just because it's a city, doesn't mean it's an urban area. I live in a city with 3000 people, ....we have stoplights and used funds to purchase opticoms. 9 opticoms at $3000 is a stiff price for my city is a pretty stiff price that is pretty hard to afford.....I can only imagine a city that wants to install 60 or 70.

    Not being crabby...just contributing to the discussion

  8. #8
    Forum Member RES81CUE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NW ARKANSAS
    Posts
    342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ameryfd
    I have to disagree. Different fire departments have different needs. To say that a city deptartment doesn't have a financial need for opticoms is as wrong as someone from a city fire department saying that a smaller dept shouldn't get a grant for a water tender. Both are viable items because they increase the protection of property and firefighters. Just because it is a priority for a more urban dept, doesn't mean it's any less important to those firefighters than a water tender for a rural dept... The life and health of a FF, whether rural or urban is still something you cannot put a price on.

    Now, regarding the argument that just because it's a city, they should have more money to spend on an opticom doesn't hold water. City depts are just as cash strapped as rurals. Even though some cities fire depts may have million dollar budgets, they also have million dollar expenses with more stations, more salaries, more insurance, more fuel, more apparatus ect....

    Taxpayers in cities are dishing out at least the same, and in most cases dare I say more? per capita/property taxes than their rural counterparts for fire protection and don't want to see a tax increase any more than the folks in the country.

    This is the Assistance to Firefighters grant, not the Assistance to small rural fire departments grant, so cities should have the right to determine thier safety priorities the same as those of us in smaller areas.

    Also, just because it's a city, doesn't mean it's an urban area. I live in a city with 3000 people, ....we have stoplights and used funds to purchase opticoms. 9 opticoms at $3000 is a stiff price for my city is a pretty stiff price that is pretty hard to afford.....I can only imagine a city that wants to install 60 or 70.

    Not being crabby...just contributing to the discussion
    The best part of living in America is the right to have an opinion!!

    One of my points was that I thought the basic firefighting equipment should be purchased first. If anyone wants to argue that you must be nuts.

    Another way to look at the need for the traffic pre emption devises is all of the studies that have been performed arguing if running code is really that much faster then normal response. Who is right?? I dont know.

    And I didnt see any part of my post that said little department was better then bigger department. But, I did say bigger departments "I think" submit grants with a " I want to fill my shopping cart attitude."

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ameryfd
    I have to disagree. Different fire departments have different needs. To say that a city deptartment doesn't have a financial need for opticoms is as wrong as someone from a city fire department saying that a smaller dept shouldn't get a grant for a water tender. Both are viable items because they increase the protection of property and firefighters. ....


    Also, just because it's a city, doesn't mean it's an urban area. I live in a city with 3000 people, ....we have stoplights and used funds to purchase opticoms. 9 opticoms at $3000 is a stiff price for my city is a pretty stiff price that is pretty hard to afford.....I can only imagine a city that wants to install 60 or 70.

    Not being crabby...just contributing to the discussion
    Can't argue with the logic of the need. But the point of use of limited AFG $ is valid.

    Traffic lights are a road use/traffic device not a FD device. Every state collects a tax/gallon of fuel (+fed road use tax/gallon). These $ are for road improvements and equipment. The $ are distributed to every state/local highway/road departments for this purpose. Go see your state/local road depts to pay for the accessory items which their toys (the traffic lights) should have installed and which are appropriate and needed for FF safety. The road guys are going to spend every $ they get (and in nearly all cases a LOT more $ than your FD has). They can spend some of it getting their traffic lights up to standard.

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber ameryfd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    598

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neiowa
    Can't argue with the logic of the need. But the point of use of limited AFG $ is valid.

    Traffic lights are a road use/traffic device not a FD device. Every state collects a tax/gallon of fuel (+fed road use tax/gallon). These $ are for road improvements and equipment. The $ are distributed to every state/local highway/road departments for this purpose. Go see your state/local road depts to pay for the accessory items which their toys (the traffic lights) should have installed and which are appropriate and needed for FF safety. The road guys are going to spend every $ they get (and in nearly all cases a LOT more $ than your FD has). They can spend some of it getting their traffic lights up to standard.
    Doesn't work that way here. If it's a state highway, you need thier permission, but the opticom is a local expenditure. Also, the transmitting devices for trucks are also not paid for by anyone except the municipality....

    I still disagree on the need. I understand that it's not "basic firefighting equipment"......but neither is an exhaust extractor, wellness program or extrication equipment ect...yet each of those go a long way in protecting the lives of firefighters and the community, or property, as do opticoms in areas that have to deal with multitudes of traffic lights.

    I agree with the statement about running code vs. response times, but the opticom is not near as much about increasing response time as it is about giving another tool to firefighters to help prevent a collision, injury or fatality at an intersection. It is obviously not a fail safe prevention, but it really does help prevent accident/injury. The risk of a collision at an intersection because someone ran a RED light is much less than if thier light was green.

    Like I said....it's fun to have a thoughtful discussion...thanks!

  11. #11
    Forum Member nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    Traffic pre-emption in my opinion is much more valid use of grant money than exhaust systems.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  12. #12
    Forum Member RES81CUE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NW ARKANSAS
    Posts
    342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ameryfd

    I agree with the statement about running code vs. response times, but the opticom is not near as much about increasing response time as it is about giving another tool to firefighters to help prevent a collision, injury or fatality at an intersection. It is obviously not a fail safe prevention, but it really does help prevent accident/injury. The risk of a collision at an intersection because someone ran a RED light is much less than if thier light was green.

    Like I said....it's fun to have a thoughtful discussion...thanks!
    If your not running code then why would you need the traffic pre-emption devices installed? Just wandering.

    Don't get me wrong I like to get to the emergency just as fast as the other guys do but, I just have a problem with using these funds for the traffic devises. And I agree about the exhaust system statement also!! (You know I just started another argument with that statement.)

    I guess I just want to say the departments (notice I didnt say citys) need to buck up and buy the toys (tools) the guys need to do there job. Lets not depend on the grants.

    And I too like the spirited discussion!!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. ISO Company Personnel
    By FIRE549 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-16-2007, 06:15 PM
  2. Radiation Detection Equipment
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-25-2006, 05:27 PM
  3. Lockout/Tagout SOG's
    By Maness in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-28-2005, 02:41 PM
  4. traffic control to keep from getting hit
    By mtnfyre21 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-20-2002, 11:00 PM
  5. NY Fire Company looking to replace lost equipment
    By Portable8 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-16-2001, 01:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts