Some cities pushing back against drive-thrus

[Praxius]

An employee hands a drive-thru order to a McDonald's customer on Oct. 15, 2007. (AP Photo/M. Spencer Green)

CTV.ca | Some cities pushing back against drive-thrus

It might be tempting to pull up to the drive-thru window to fill up on food and coffee on frosty winter mornings, but some Canadian communities are arguing that traffic safety and concern for the environment should trump convenience.

At some popular fast-food restaurants across the country, lineups are so long they stretch out of parking lots and spill onto public streets, and politicians are eyeing the emissions spewed by all the idling cars, trucks and sport utility vehicles.

In London, Ont., civic leaders are considering restrictions on existing drive-thrus to try to clear the air. A citizens' advisory committee is also recommending a moratorium on new drive-thrus, although the mayor is trying to strike a balance.

"I don't support a ban or a moratorium on drive-thrus ... but if there are ways in which we can improve the air quality in ways that I can't imagine at this point, I'm really open to looking at that and seeing if we can strengthen our bylaws," says Anne-Marie DeCicco-Best.

London council is gathering public input on a range of options, from banning new outlets to tightening zoning bylaws to make more areas of the city drive-thru-free. City staff have floated the idea of restricting the hours of operation for drive-thrus, and a decision is expected in the new year.

In Hamilton, Ont., where Mayor Fred Eisenberger describes himself as "reasonably anti-drive-thru," council is studying an environmental group's call for a moratorium on new drive-thrus.

In Kings County, N.S., one politician has argued that only people with decreased mobility should be entitled to get their food while in their vehicle.

"I think a pregnant mom or a disabled person or a person who couldn't get out of their vehicle or an older person, they could use the drive-thru," says Wayne Atwater. "But these people that are able-bodied men and women, I certainly don't see any reason why they can't get out of their vehicle."

Atwater pushed for a moratorium on new drive-thrus last winter, citing concerns about carbon monoxide and traffic problems, but he couldn't persuade his council colleagues.

Communities from Toronto to St. John's, Nfld., have taken steps to ensure that drive-thrus are far from certain residential streets or big enough to fit a long lineup of cars. But it's the increasing worry over greenhouse gas emissions that's prompting a second look.

Students at the University of Alberta monitored a popular Tim Hortons outlet in Edmonton last year for 54 hours and counted 3,756 vehicles idling for an average of more than five minutes each. The longest idle was more than 12 minutes.

Tim Hortons's drive-thrus tend to generate the most attention because of their popularity. In Winnipeg, cars spill out of Tim's lots onto such major thoroughfares as Portage Ave. and St. Mary's Road as drivers queue up for a java jolt.

"They're victims of their own success," said Winnipeg councillor Mike O'Shaughnessy. "You can see 15, 16 cars in line at three in the afternoon or seven in the evening."

Winnipeg has rejected two proposals for Tim Hortons this year. One was nixed because it would have interfered with a driveway of an adjacent business. The other was axed because nearby residents expressed concerns about traffic.

But O'Shaughnessy says those were individual cases and Winnipeg has no plans to crack down on drive-thrus. "We're not against Tim Hortons. We're not against drive-thrus," said O'Shaughnessy. "They're very popular."

Tim Hortons says it has taken steps to reduce drive-thru lineups, such as allowing motorists to use credit cards that don't require signatures. Many drive-thru work stations now have their own coffee maker and other equipment, so attendants don't have to walk to another part of the shop to fill an order.

The company also says it meets or exceeds space requirements in city bylaws. "We tend to find sites that are a little bit larger so we can accommodate a big parking lot and have a larger than required drive-thru," said Tim Hortons spokesperson Rachel Douglas from the company's headquarters in Oakville, Ont.

"(Drive-thrus) are almost becoming a bit of an essential service. You have parents with young children, you have elderly people with mobility issues. We find that our customers are wanting drive-thrus and are using drive-thrus and that's really what's behind the demand."

So what do you think? Should there be changes in how we use our Drive-Thrus? From my own experience, Drive-Trus are not that bad on a slow day, but in the mornings and evenings before/after work, they're lined up like mad, and I've just parked my car and went inside to get my order and by the time I left, the same cars were still at the drive true, and running.

For those who don't like pollution, there's a lot going on in this topic.

About the elderly using the dirve thrus.... if they can get off their asses and walk to the car to drive it, then I am sure they can get off their asses and walk inside to get their food.

For pregnant women.... should they even be eating at fast food resturants to begin with?

[HelioPrime]

Drive thrus could be better if all cars were diesel's with auto stop functions. Or even better if they had full hybrid drive systems capable of the line crawl with combustion engine off.

We have the technology to add these to the roads. If were going to regulate something, force companies to raise standards so they have to offer cars with the technology.

[Suburbanite]

The convenience is the only good thing about fast food. Of the two words Fast and Food, they only got Fast right, and now you want to take that away? I say, work on Food.

[Milton Bradley]

The bit I don't get is about pollution.


I was under the impression ( from government information ) that the internal combustion engine produces the bulk of it's emmissions upon start up. After the catalitic converter warms up, the emmissions are filtered.


So, how is requiring the driver to start this engine many times in one trip going to reduce pollution?

[Osborn F Enready]

Helio said:
force companies to raise standards....

You sure do like to use force against innocent people Helio.

[Praxius]

You sure do like to use force against innocent people Helio.

There's no such thing as innocence in life, don't make me take off my belt

[Osborn F Enready]

Prax said:
There's no such thing as innocence in life, don't make me take off my belt

LOL....

[HelioPrime]

The bit I don't get is about pollution.


I was under the impression ( from government information ) that the internal combustion engine produces the bulk of it's emmissions upon start up. After the catalitic converter warms up, the emmissions are filtered.


So, how is requiring the driver to start this engine many times in one trip going to reduce pollution?

Idle and startup are the least efficient moments in the use of an internal combustion engine (gasoline that is, diesel is more efficient at idle)


Starting up the car uses 10 seconds worth of idle wasted fuel. Idle itself is wasteful because it is wasting fuel with no gain other than powering the comfort controls inside the car.

[HelioPrime]

You sure do like to use force against innocent people Helio.

Correct that: REQUIRE companies to increase standards. Of course you can always add in an extra tax on consumers who still want to run a wasteful car. An extra yearly operating tax would do nicely for all the people without kids who drive a hummer in LA just for fun.

[Osborn F Enready]

Helio said:
REQUIRE companies to increase standards.

How would you REQUIRE something, without implication of force for non-compliance?

Helio said:
Because trusting the consumer will only hurt the consumer as companies will continue to sell the products that make the most money, which is big SUV's.

Not with adequate education.... something the state hasn't been providing for years, yet the consumer still supports it.... why? Because they are FORCED to support it.

[HelioPrime]

How would you REQUIRE something, without implication of force for non-compliance?

The same way they require following the written law. If automakers fail to meet standards they cannot sell cars to dealers. Then consumers can only choice to spend extra to import the cars. They could also refuse to certify cars for emissions, allowing owners to be arrested.

Not with adequate education.... something the state hasn't been providing for years, yet the consumer still supports it.... why? Because they are FORCED to support it.

Education isn't going to change the ways. Survey's have shown based on responders people would be willing to pay up to 10.00 a gallon for gas before ditching their SUV. While that might not hurt the doctors wife much what about retail workers or teachers? Should they have to suffer just to protect the rights of the wealthy to drive V12 engines?

[Osborn F Enready]

Helio said:
The same way they require following the written law. If automakers fail to meet standards they cannot sell cars to dealers. Then consumers can only choice to spend extra to import the cars. They could also refuse to certify cars for emissions, allowing owners to be arrested.

So you think the government has a clear and explicit right to dictate the market, and to control with force the producers within the market?

Once again, force is your baby.

Helio said:
Education isn't going to change the ways.

Yea, sure, being stupid and/or ignorant will help a lot.

Helio said:
Survey's have shown based on responders people would be willing to pay up to 10.00 a gallon for gas before ditching their SUV.

Some will, surely. Many people actually have a USE for an SUV, so if the value of that use is worth 10.00per gallon, they have to make that choice, not your beloved gubbmint.

Helio said:
While that might not hurt the doctors wife much what about retail workers or teachers? Should they have to suffer just to protect the rights of the wealthy to drive V12 engines?

How are they suffering?

Do you think the pauper has equal use for a helicopter as does a multi-business owner spanning multiple states?