Innocent bystander wrote on Mar 11
th, 2013 at 1:19pm:
I never realised there were so many fire stations around, sh#t no wonder he's getting rid of some, thats ridiculous, so many firemen, so few fires, I bet the firemen wish they wren't at the forefront of introducing so many fire prevention policies now
Fire station locations aren't so much about the number of fires, as the time it would take to reach a given location. The official objective is to attend 90% of fire calls within 10 minutes of the time of call.
When you close stations you extend response times, because the next nearest station must cover that area. More dangerously, if the next nearest station is already committed, then the response time to an area could easily blow out to 20 minutes or more, because stations are generally placed about 6-7 minutes drive time apart.
For example, looking at the map above, let's say there was a Automatic Fire Alarm (AFA) activate in Parramatta (that's station 27). That would typically happen 3 or 4 times each day, and requires a 2-station response. So that would take 27 and 57 off line. But, the nearby stations of 65, 66, 67 and 72 were already offline. I don't know if you're familiar with Sydney, but that leaves a gap all the way from Seven Hills (43) through to Silverwater (19). Should there have been another firecall in North Parramatta at that time, it would have taken the nearest fire engine a good 20-25 minutes to arrive. Can you imagine the potential consequences of such a delay?
Thanks for explaining NBNMyths. This definitely sounds like nothing more than cost cutting that puts further stress on firemen and additional raises the risks to communities.
Forum
Pages: 
