Study says drive-thrus are cleaner than park and walk

[tasdrouille]

Every motorist knows that drive-thru windows are convenient, but did you know they also are responsible for all kinds of social and civic good? Drive-thrus are valuable to the elderly, the immobile, parents with small children and, believe it or not, are actually better for the environment than cars in parking lots — or so says TDL, the parent company of Tim Hortons.

The study results are here. Coincidentally, this study was commissioned by Tim Hortons, the company with the most drive-thrus in Canada. I call BS on this study. Cars do not cool down so fast but very few days a year...

FYI, this company is also advertising bringing your own mug to get it filled, and how green that is. Yet, they often fill their standard paper cup, which they empty in your own mug before throwing the paper cup in the trash...

[cfg83]

tasdrouille -

Originally Posted by tasdrouille

The study results are here. Coincidentally, this study was commissioned by Tim Hortons, the company with the most drive-thrus in Canada. I call BS on this study. Cars do not cool down so fast but very few days a year...

FYI, this company is also advertising bringing your own mug to get it filled, and how green that is. Yet, they often fill their standard paper cup, which they empty in your own mug before throwing the paper cup in the trash...

That part sounds like a health requirement. I fill my thermo with soda mixes (yeah, soda's bad) at the standard-issue Quick-E-Mart. Some places won't allow that because technically, you are "contaminating" the soda machine with your cooties.

I have no problem with drive-thru for elderly/handicapped. That's a "good" excuse. I can see the PITA aspect of a parent buckling in their offspring and not wanting to repeat the process over and over again. However, once the kiddies don't need a safety seat, it's a different matter. I did use a drive-thru once in the last 6 months, but it was a strategic thing.

I would like to see the results of an In-N-Out burger study. Those lines are humongous, so the waste in fuel must be as bad if not worse.

CarloSW2

[tasdrouille]

I understand the sanitary aspect, but I really despise the green spin the company is throwing around.

Oh and BTW, I often use drive-thrus, maybe once every three weeks, but I shut my engine down whenever I can, and I don't pretend it's green.

[cfg83]

tasdrouille -

Originally Posted by tasdrouille

I understand the sanitary aspect, but I really despise the green spin the company is throwing around.

Oh and BTW, I often use drive-thrus, maybe once every three weeks, but I shut my engine down whenever I can, and I don't pretend it's green.

Agreed.

If I were king of one of these companies, I'd pay the extra $$ (because you need more real-estate) to build one experimental "low-slope" drive-thru. Perfectly straight so that drivers can use their brakes to "coast" thru the drive-thru with little physical effort.

CarloSW2

[tasdrouille]

That idea has a lot of merit! If one was to be serious about green drive-thrus, that's something that would need to be implemented.

[orange4boy]

Couple of points of criticism:

"calculated" emissions from heated up cars idling compared to cold start cars, probably.

Also not fair to compare non drive thru to drive thru at different restaurants. Apples and oranges comparison.

Comparison should be for individual cars driving through and not. There is technology to test this. Why didn't they use it?

[orange4boy]

a lot of times, several studies are comissioned but only the favourable ones are published. Would be interesting to see other studies on this.

I like how they compare it to a chainsaw and an intersection in terms of quantity of pollution.

http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/environ...drive-through/

Some numbers there about idling. If someone could do the math and compare these numbers to a warm start I bet you'd still find stopping uses less and emits less.

[orange4boy]

Apparently it's not been published in a peer reviewed journal.

The sample size is also very small

Lots of marks against this study but it's all over the media so it will take a lot to convince all those people who have heard of this that it's BS.

Ths public relations industry is evil.

[aerohead]

In the US the EPA recommends that you not let an engine idle for more than 30-seconds.
I've sat inside a Taco Bueno with a stopwatch and timed the drive-thru patrons idling cycle at an average of 7-minutes per vehicle,or 15-EPA pollution cycles per vehicle,and zero-mpg for each.
The North Texas Council of Governments claims that it's one of the filthiest things a motorist can do and recommends against their use.
They also have their offices in an un-insulated glass office building,in a city with zero-synchronized traffic lights,and approved the construction of the new Cowboy Stadium,which causes so much grid-lock on game days that the sky turns black from carbon emissions.
Okay,I made that last part up.

[shovel]

This is an enormously unpopular thing to say, I know, but that doesn't make it any less realistic:

If we all are to decide that man's contributions to the planet are inherently bad - the stuff we put in landfills, the stuff we put in the air by driving around and manufacturing things, the trees we cut down to make room for raising livestock, the rubbish we dump in rivers, all the stuff we're asked to feel guilty about on a daily basis..

If we decide in quantity all the stuff humans do is at some level bad, then the obvious solution is fewer humans.

Until we're mature enough as a society to accept that, any other gestures toward "going green" is going to be like shoveling sand against the tide with a teaspoon.

What does that have to do with this thread? I'm just saying the topic of this discussion is nothing to be concerned about one way or another. It's like deciding whether or not the emblems on the side of your Hummer are contributing to its aero drag.