Ban the Drive Thru in North Vancouver
January 22, 2008 · By Shane Edwards
You’re kidding right?
You’ve got a problem with idling cars causing pollution, build bigger roads and bridges. 100 times the pollution for 4 hours each morning and 6 hours each evening as the Second Narrows and the Lion’s Gate back up for miles.
The average person idles in a drive thru for less than 5 minutes. He idles on the bridge deck for an hour at least during rush hours. What about public health? Why do we force people to sit in traffic breathing carbon monoxide? You can’t have it both ways - you either build the transit to move people or you build roads to accommodate cars. You can’t not build transit then whine that nobody rides it.
Still, for every drive thru with 14 people waiting in line, there’s an empty line inside the Tim Hortons. I once looked at a guy about 25th in line as I went into the Timmys, came out within a minute, and gave him a wave as I drove away with him moving up to about 23rd place in 38 degree heat.
And anyone who has passed by Squamish on the way to Whistler has seen the lineup of idlers out to Highway 99. Drive thrus are for lazy, stupid people with lazy, stupid thinking. Pointing out the gridlock on the Lions Gate and Second Narrows does little to detract from that fact.
Passing a law or bylaw that bans drive throughs is easy. Building wider bridges and roads is costly. The ban lets them say they are at least doing something while not tacking the much larger contributor to smog — poor road network design.
Of course, hybrid cars that shut down the gas engine when the car is at a stop could also help. If people wanted to help, they could just buy these cars. The better these cars sell, the more will be made and the more vehicles that will get this technology.
But now we are down to personal responsibility again. Get a hybrid, park and walk in, wait in line, or go to a less busy establishment — if you can’t bring your own coffee.
John M Reynolds
Oh, puleeze. I’ve been in Tim’s many times and stood there like a doorknob in line for a coffee wondering why the hell I didn’t just stay in my warm vehicle and go through the drive thru. It’ much slower service inside.
Hybrid cars, oh yeah. Can’t wait. Go hug a frickin’ tree.
Like I said, lazy thinking…
Speaking of lazy: building wider roads?!?!
Yeah, like the people who walk or ride bicycles should subsidize the people who pollute!
Ban drive-thrus?
Buy hybrids?
I have never heard so much nonsense in my life. Here is a suggestion: how about we focus on the real problem??
The problem is auto emissions and they should be reduced. Point final.
Ultimately, it does not matter whether a person is idling in a drive-thru or driving around in circles. The effect [I am assuming that there actually is an effect] on the environment is the same.
The government should not be playing favorites — in my opinion.
Since you guys have the power of the state as a tool at your disposal, I would suggest you use it by taxing — yes, I said taxing — gasoline at the pump because it is the most direct way of influencing behavior changes.
——
I actually do not think there is a valid justification to do anything. The gradual rise of the market price for oil will do eventually lead to changes in consumer behavior.
“Since you guys have the power of the state as a tool at your disposal, I would suggest you use it by taxing — yes, I said taxing — gasoline at the pump because it is the most direct way of influencing behavior changes. ”
Yes…taxes are always the answer…not. That reminds me of an old adage:
“If it moves…tax it. If it is still moving, tax it some more. When it stops moving, subsidize it”
In my view that really rings true in this case. The people who are advocating higher fuel taxes seem to forget that for many people, public transportation is not an option. People still need to get to work. If they get their way, people will have to make the choice taking a lower paying job to be closer to home, trying to find accomodations closer to work, which may be too costly or not working and going on welfare.
Brett,
The fact of the matter is that people who walk or ride bicycles should not pay for people who live in suburbia.
People who live in suburbia should pay for the pollution they create.
“The fact of the matter is that people who walk or ride bicycles should not pay for people who live in suburbia.
People who live in suburbia should pay for the pollution they create.”
They already do, they buy fuel for their vehicles. People who ride bicycles or walk do not pay the fuel taxes that are already on them. Furthermore, most people buy housing where they can afford it; not everyone can live and work downtown. Judging by your comments ia assume that you live in Vancouver or Victoria where you can walk or ride your bicycle year round. Here on the prairies (-23C this morning) that is not possible. Besides, most people already walk or ride their bike when it is practical to do so.
My point is, there will be next to zero net effect with regards to reducing pollution with any of the so-called green taxes. Only governments will get richer; people still have to get to work.
And another thing that pisses me off about this whole GHG debate is that CO2 is NOT the same as pollution. If the enviro-nazis put as much effort into forcing the government to actually reduce smog and bonafide pollutants (like they did with acid rain), then they would most likely get more people on board. I for one, would gladly support such a cause. But I will not willigly sacrifice my families standard of living for some pie in the sky theory, supported by dubous statistics, in which there IS NO real consensus within the scientific community. The more this plays out, and with the demands to impose taxes and so-called carbon trading schemes to make everyone feel good, it looks more and more like a socialists, money grabbing, tramsfer of wealth scheme.
Oh and by the way, if these so-called carbon taxes get imposed, they will be on all forms of fuel and the only people that will be paying are consumers. Just look at the situation in La Belle Province, where the government imposed a carbon tax on energy producers, who promptly passed the cost onto consumers.
H/T to Chuckercanuck http://chuckercanuck.blogspot......thout.html
The cost of everything will go up and they people that will be most affected will be those with lower, or on fixed incomes. I could go on, but I will stop for now as I feel my blood pressure starting to rise.
Gee, can you be a little more smug Charles Anthony?
The roads to suburbia are funded by the taxes paid by people who ride bicycles or walk too. That is unfair.
Demanding wider or more roads is forcing cyclists and walkers to subsidize polluters.
Whether carbon dioxide is the problem or whether smog is the problem is irrelevant. Wknow it comes from the pump.