Yet again drive thrus

June 17, 2008

Healthy Environment

One of the goals for this blog is to open up dialogue on issues that the City of Guelph is grappling with and to vet different points of view in a fair, honest and open manner. 

Intuitively, it makes sense that drive thrus contribute to green house gas emissions.  When I was presented with a different perspective, I posted that information for consideration and broaden the dialogue.  I think it is important to challenge yourself to reflect on different points of view.  While I noted that the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association had a vested interest in drive thrus, I felt there was merit in examining their research.

I am very disappointed to see my comments on drive thrus were taken out of context on the web site which is purporting to fight the City of London’s “ban on drive thrus”.  Update: My comment has now been removed from the web site, as I requested, and the organizations who author the web site tell me it was originally put up by mistake.

To clarify, the City Planners in London are only proposing to “formalize” in the Official Plan their current practice of not approving drive-thrus in specific pedestrian-oriented commercial zones (e.g. downtown).  They are not recommending a moratorium on new drive thrus.

I have edited the comments that have been taken out of context on my blog.  I wish the planners and Council in London well in promoting a healthy pedestrian environment in their community.

The challenge to promote fair, honest and open dialogue continues.


About Karen Farbridge

An unwavering change maker seeking a just, democratic and sustainable world.

View all posts by Karen Farbridge

Connect with the City of Guelph

Subscribe to our RSS feed and social profiles to receive updates.

4 Comments on “Yet again drive thrus”

  1. Greg Says:

    Drive thrus? You’re worried about drive thrus?

    As I’ve complained before, I have to drive my recyclables to the wet/dry plant. The last time I was there, I waited behind 10-plus cars, backed onto the road. And I waited for — get this — three-plus minutes.

    Wait. Isn’t it city policy to ask its bus drivers to NOT idle for three minutes or more? Isn’t the city trying to ban drive thrus to curb idling?

    Again, the City of guelph is more concerned about someone or something else other than its own problems — which they have the ability to readily fix without having to pass a law, ban drive thrus, what have you.

  2. Vern Says:

    Greg ,
    The idea of all of this is to protect the envrionment . turning off your motor will help with this . Easy and effictive !

  3. Mario Bourque Says:

    Then the solution is to find a way to stop the idling process at the wet/dry plant. Turning the car off is one way, improving the drop off process is another. Throwing our hands up in the air isn’t a solution. Most often than not, I will go inside an establishment; the line is usually shorter and I get in and out quickly. One could argue that the parking lot called the Hanlon @ peak times pollutes way more than drive throughs or our wet/dry dropoff. There is a significant amount of opposition to making that a controlled access highway, and things won’t change until action is taken. We must keep the dialog going and look for solutions rather than do nothing and accuse people of incompetence – that doesn’t get us anywhere.

  4. Mike Wisniewski Says:

    Now, before we all jump down Greg’s throat here, let’s think about this.

    I’m not big on government regulation BUT if government just HAS TO regulate something, the least they can do is practice what they preach.

    What do you think the local people who own Guelph’s Tim Horton franchises must be thinking when they read a story like the wet/dry plant.

    “You want me to curb idling when you won’t do it yourself?!?!” or something like that. Don’t be surprised if the city gets told what to do and where to go.

%d bloggers like this: