In yesterday’s Letters to the Editor in the London Free Press Bill Deys, who takes exception to comments made by opponents of drive-thrus, wrote the following:
“If you ban drive-throughs, stores will need bigger parking lots.”
I wasn’t sure how Bill was going to support his claim so I decided to ride along for a spell.
He continued:
“Land is at a premium and London is getting bigger all the time. If stores like Tim Hortons and McDonald’s need more space, that is going to mean less green space and less land for agriculture.”
Bill saved his best arguments for his conclusion:
“Drive-throughs keep stores smaller, make parking lots smaller and are a benefit to the environment. Banning drive-throughs makes no sense.”
[Click here to see photo in context]
I’m tempted to close my eyes and compare A - the environmental benefits of driving across town for bland coffee, a double-bacon triple-cheeseburger and a bag of salty fries to B - taking a few minutes to poach a couple of eggs at home while fresh coffee is brewing.
Instead I’ll ask the question:
Is Bill brilliant or up to his eyebrows in mystery meat?
Click here to read another, possibly brilliant, Letter to the Editor
12 comments:
Actually, it's a good argument for urban intensification and the consequent benefits of smaller houses, smaller cars on smaller roads, bicycles and public transit. But I don't think he's thought it through quite that far.
I can think of one example where this is true - the Tim Horton's on Highbury between Cheapside and Highbury has only a couple of accessible parking spaces - 98% (don't quote me) of people use the drivethrough. HOWEVER if they got rid of the drivethrough there WOULD be room to park.
Me - I just go elsewhere where there IS room to park, like the one at Adelaide and Oxford.
Do away with them I say!
good responses from doug and hazel nut.
drive-thrus accommodate cars in one more way in order to maximize our need for convenience.
I thought Bill's arguments were based on that premise.
if we enter an era of restraint, due in part to rising fuel prices, will many modern conveniences be looked at as wasteful and without much green potential?
good responses from doug and hazel nut.
drive-thrus accommodate cars in one more way in order to maximize our need for convenience.
I thought Bill's arguments were based on that premise.
if we enter an era of restraint, due in part to rising fuel prices, will many modern conveniences be looked at as wasteful and without much green potential?
Hey Gord, I love seeing more talk going on! I had cross posted it on my own website and had a few responses there (http://deys.ca/?p=283). I'm not just some idiot sending letters and posting online. I'm actually pretty close to more then a few Tim Hortons store owners, one of whom was involved to the Timbit debacle, and contribute quite a bit to the London business community. From talking to store owners they are concerned with the ban. Over the past few years some of them that have closed their full stores after the success of their very small footprint "double dirve through" stores. I agree our fast paced life style sucks, I'd love to live a slower life where I have time to make coffee and eggs in the morning but I already get up shortly before 6am and am out the door shortly after for what tends to be more then a 12 hour work day. The last thing I'm going to do is get up earlier to make something. It's unfortunate but it's not my generation that created this lifestyle we just grew up in it and have to live it now!
I think you both have points. There would probably be some stores that would have to get bigger parking lots (or close down) if drive throughs were banned. And there would be some people who would stay home for coffee, or just walk to the nearest coffee shop. But I think it's hard to predict what the overall result will be, and whether it will be positive or negative. Unless we have some real data, all we're doing is promoting our preferred guesses.
Gord: Bill is a personal friend and quite luminous when it comes to social media, tech devices, etc. However, I don't buy his drive-thru position. As I've commented in the LFP and elsewhere, the pretension that regulating drive-thru's will necessarily result in more/larger parking lots is so bogus that it smacks of a Tom Gosnell proclamation. The arguement ignores the fact that current drive-thru users do have the option of changing their lifestyles. They are free to adopt more eco-responsible behaviours, such as using public transit and walking. And regardless of who 'created' our fast-paced, irresponsible, consumptive lifestyle, we all have the moral and social responsibility to solve the problem.
Greg: I'd like to save the planet as much as the next guy. In Canada it's just not feasible for the vast number of people to use public transit. I would if it was available to me it just isn't, and yes I drive a large vehicle, but I can afford it and I use the functionality for transporting employees all of SW Ontario as well as large loads on fairly frequent occasion. Would it not be worse for me to own more vehicles for when I don't need it. I remember some time seeing a video online about having a better environmental footprint to drive a less efficient car until it needs replacing then running out and buying a hybrid to "save." My biggest argument is that society needs to change, not have it mandated by any form of government. They have a reason for being and deciding how I get my coffee isn't one of them!
Bill, some statements to what youve said.
"Over the past few years some of them that have closed their full stores after the success of their very small footprint "double dirve through" stores."
- I hope you mean physical footprint and not ecological footprint.
"It's unfortunate but it's not my generation that created this lifestyle we just grew up in it and have to live it now!"
-Who would you place the blame on then Bill? The younger or older generation? Its an ongoing cycle, all throughout history this sort of thing has been happening and you cant just get out of any type of responsibility by saying your generation didnt create it.
"My biggest argument is that society needs to change, not have it mandated by any form of government."
Society is changing and as a result it is dictating what government should do, not the other way around.
kevbo: Yes I meant physical footprint. And it's the older generation, my parents generation, that started the swing this way. They coddled their children and did everything to "keep them safe." What it breed is a generation that can't think for themselves and needs to be told that they can't use their hair dryer IN the shower. The world has been moving towards making everything idiot proof and all that creates if better idiots! I'm not going to try and use that as an excuse to get out of my responsibility, I know my effect and what I can do to change that. You are right that society should dictate how government acts but that's not always the case and besides that they make laws for things we need laws for, how a business operates shouldn't be one of them. That job should be left up to society to decide when they spend their dollars!
Bill, thank you for the clarification, I just wanted to make sure I understood what you meant by those two terms.
But I have to strongly disagree that this law isnt dictating how a business should operate. It would be regulating part of the planning process that has the public interest in mind, it has nothing to do with a direct dictation of business operations. If that happens then its a side effect, but not the main point of cause and effect.
Drivethroughs are great. They save time, money, and are more eco-friendly then the alternative. Not to mention the majority of places open after 10 are drivethrough only.
Post a Comment