October 9, 2008
Drive-Thrus R.I.P.
Follow
the logic:
- The vast majority of fast food restaurant patrons pick up their
orders at drive-thrus. - The time spent waiting in line with engines idling
puts pollutants in the air that contribute to climate change. - Changes are
needed in the way consumers shop at fast food restaurants to reduce greenhouse
gases and protect the environment. - All of the above could mean that drive-thrus
have to go.
That logic, according to an article on the QSR Magazine website, is making its way into the thinking of municipal officials across North America who are looking to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases making their way into the atmosphere.
According to a study at the University of Alberta in Canada, cars idling at 135 fast food restaurant drive-thrus in Edmonton put 9,000 tons of greenhouse gases into the air over the course of a year. That figure represents 0.05 percent of that city’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions.
Peter Boxall, a University of Alberta environmental economics professor, called the emission levels “significant” while pointing out the numbers do not factor “in the cost of congestion or other traffic-related issues” related to the operation of drive-thrus.
Toronto’s Public Health department (the city has an anti-idling law on the books) estimates that there were 440 premature deaths and 1,700 hospitalizations in that city as a result of air pollution in 2007. The city has put a $2.2 billion annual price tag on the health costs connected to air pollution.
In London, Ontario, a group of citizens unsuccessfully pushed for a moratorium on construction of new drive-thrus. The Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association (ORHMA) collected 60,000 signatures in support of drive-thrus.
Michelle Saunders, director of government affairs for the ORHMA, told QSR that the group welcomes reasonable regulations for drive-thrus but opposes attempts to ban them. She questioned assumptions that drive-thrus are worse for the environment than stores without them. Ms. Saunders referenced a study conducted on behalf of Tim Hortons, which found that the amount of pollution created as consumers waited at drive-thrus was actually less than at restaurants without drive-thrus.
“If we didn’t have the drive-thrus, we would end up with the same amount of customers, but they would be congested in the parking lot,” Ms. Saunders said. “We would still have cars idling and shutting off and turning back on their engines, which creates more emissions. We’d have a greater [parking] lot size, more asphalt, more water runoff, more environmental consequences.”
Joyce Reynolds, executive vice president of government affairs for the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association (CRFA), told QSR, “When you look at idling, it contributes less than 0.2 percent of all greenhouse-gas emission in Canada, and drive-thrus are a very small percentage of that.”
The city of San Luis Obispo in California placed a moratorium on drive-thrus back in the 1980s.
Doug Davidson, deputy director of the San Luis Obispo community development department, said, “There hasn’t been a lot of opposition to it. We’re kind of used to it, and some people are proud of it.”
Discussion Questions: Will we see increased regulation of cars in drive-thrus? Will we begin to see towns and cities outlawing drive-thrus?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
The drive-thru is a necessity, not a luxury, for many people: moms with kids in car seats, folks with disabilities (permanent or temporary) and people with dogs in the car. The time it takes to unseat the kids to go inside and then re-buckle up the children kind of takes the “fast” out of fast food. And, one cannot safely leave an animal in the car for even a few minutes in many climates.
Sure, go ahead and remind people that going inside if they can do so may help cut down on greenhouse gasses, but to outlaw drive thus–ridiculous!
Sounds kind of silly to me. We waste fuel waiting at traffic lights, railroad crossings and other areas of idling. Eventually we will probably be driving hybrid cars that use minimal fuel when idling.
Public opinion on almost everything having to do with energy and green house gasses these days comes down to two basic schools of thought. One side says we must “conserve our way out of the problem” while the other says we must “invent our way out of the problem.” As business people, we know our own corollaries all too well. One side says we must “save our way to glory” while the other shouts that “sales cures all ills!”
Drive-thru is simply an extension of our mobile way of life in America. We value convenience and mobility very highly. So while a few community leaders may impose sanctions on drive-thru as a way of making a social statement, the vast majority of the American public is rooting for CNG/Hydrogen fuel cells/biofuels/electric/hybrid/flex fueled cars (and no, we really don’t care which one wins) so that we can cleanly, cheaply–but above all else freely–move through the drive-thru lane.
My first impression is that somebody has way too much time on their hands. On a list of how to control air pollution this would have to be pretty far down the list in terms of importance. As John Stossel would say, “Give me a break!”
I don’t see people giving up drive-thru. They may turn their car engine off, but give it up? Never! Most will prefer waiting in line while seated in their cars than standing in line.
However, from a political point of view, this could be a hot topic. This is something local politicians can support and get a lot of visibility. As strange as it sounds, I believe that those who are not getting out of their cars will support local legislation to ban drive-thrus. No matter what the proof, no politician could take a stand against something that seems so GREEN. If San Luis Obispo is first, there will be many more.
I get it how consumers in the U.S. will be asked to give up every possible luxury that is unfriendly to the environment, however, I’m not sure I understand how we will affect changes in the 96% of the planet in which we have no control.
So San Luis Obispo beat San Francisco to the punch! Amazing. While I’m sure it’s a good thing, regulation such as this is somewhat akin to taking a deer rifle to an ant. There must be lower-hanging fruit than this, where the same amount of effort would produce much bigger results.
By the way, I’m old enough to remember car hops. You’d pull into the fast food restaurant, shut off the engine, and order your food on a little radio. Soon, a pretty young woman in a short skirt would come out with your order, make change and put up with obnoxious flirtation by us teenagers. But I suppose those days are gone forever….
You know, this is the first I’ve heard of this. But, it makes perfect sense. Plus, people will actually have to get out of their cars and park…then walk…healthier still! This kind of initiative is good on many levels and should be embraced by all. Retailers will need to work with local planning/zoning groups to ensure any changes made happen evenly across the board…being the first retailer to do this might hurt sales.
How about the branding possibilities? It might be responsible if not brilliant for a fast-food brand to encourage customers to “come inside” instead of polluting the air. I think branding and customer experience await an innovative approach here. It’s better to “come inside” for the customer as well as the restaurant.
More definitive research on drive-thru emissions would make this a lot easier. Barring that, it seems this train has already left the station. Today’s consumers are increasingly concerned about their personal health and the health of the environment, and that’s not likely to lessen going forward–especially among younger consumers. Also consider that discussion, debate and research on this topic is already well underway.
For merchants, the question is how to get in front of this issue. And it goes beyond fast feeders to impact other drive-thrus, like drug stores, beverage distributors and banks. Industry advocates will and should lobby for their members. But the path ahead isn’t as clear for individual merchants who have already made a commitment to being green via corporate initiatives, green products, green buildings, etc. Failing to take action only puts such merchants in danger of accusations of greenwashing, customer anger and lost sales.
Drive-thru retailers do have options. While a carbon tax on purchases would prove unpalatable to consumers, green merchants may want to consider carbon offsets to mitigate the impact of drive-thrus. Allowing customers to order via phone/web ahead of arrival so they can decrease idle time in the drive-thru is another option. And for really green retailers, they could announce that all new sites will not be built with drive-thrus, while also using carbon offsets for the older sites.
SHOULD we see: no (or, perhaps, NO!!!)
WILL we see: perhaps…unneeded regulation is, alas, something of which the world seems to have an infinite supply.
This is really a no brainer. If people are that concerned about the environment, they would stop using drive-thrus on their own, without the need for legislation banning them.
The fact is that as much as a small group (relative to the population) are against drive-thrus, the vast majority not only use them, but would complain if they were to go.
Regretfully, we still live in a world where consumer demands for convenience still exceed responsible actions towards the environment. Do I use the drive-thru? No way. I park the car and walk in. If I were to open a fast food restaurant, would I install a drive through? Regretfully, yes.
I can see the logic behind targeting drive-thrus, but as the article points out, the reality of the impact will be pretty minimal–and may very well be offset by the idling while waiting for a parking space and the engine restart after going inside.
Frankly, municipalities have much better opportunities to impact health in other areas–restaurant calorie labeling being one example. Or, if pollution and carbon footprint are what inspire you, then devote your time and energy to getting rid of the combustion engine–the source of the issue in the first place. Drive-thrus are just a distraction that would rapidly become a non-issue if, say, all cars were electric.
Absurd – no further comment necessary.
Yes, removing drive-thrus may reduce QSR business. And the reduction in greenhouse gases may be minimal. We have to decide, as a society, which option is more valuable to us. Are we more interested in doing as much as we can to heal the damage we have done to the environment or are we more concerned with the convenience of drive-thrus and the contribution of QSRs to the economy?
We have a tragedy of the commons problem happening. Our shared environmental resource is in danger. As Americans, we do more to damage that resource than most people worldwide. To me, that means we have a greater responsibility about how we use that resource. 96% of the planet may not be paying as much attention to the issue. That doesn’t excuse us from doing what we can.
Warren, you can get the nostalgic experience you miss at your local Sonic.
Personal choice should be the deciding factor as to whether a patron decides to use a drive thru, not some bit of authoritative legislation pushed upon the greater public by a small minority. Such nugatory laws only give government another reason to generate ill gotten revenue through fines. Coerced behavior modification does not justify a theoretical 3% reduction in air pollution.
Huh? Idling cars cause climate change? And all this time I thought it was solar flares and other natural cyclical factors. Yes we should reduce the things we do that do not help our air quality over time and and with intelligent purpose. But first we should pour the Kool Aid down the sink and stop futile gestures which only destroy the economy. The majority of our efforts have little effect and do more harm than good. It is called unintended consequences, like let’s lower lending standards so everyone can own a home. That worked really well.
I was born in San Luis Obispo but I live in Detroit. My bet? My adopted city is more representative of how Americans act and think than the city of my birth.
Okay, if these cities are so concerned, how does this compare with cars stopped at traffic lights and caught in rush hour traffic? When we stop at a light, will we be forced to turn off our engines?
The customer said to the regulators, “Do away with drive-thru and I’ll drive away.” The air might get clearer but the economy might become more stagnant.
This may be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. Drive-thrus are so far down on the list of things that are hurting our environment that it’s insulting to even think it matters. How about car pooling? Manufacturer waste regulations? Alternative energies? Train, airplane pollution? I hope QSR didn’t pay a lot of money for this study just so they can look so silly.
It’ll never happen.
Some Giant Eagle drive up pharmacy locations in Ohio are even giving flu shots that way this weekend.
A lot of talk, but it’s never going to happen.
Interesting insight as to how idling contributes to greenhouse gases, though drive-thrus won’t be going anywhere, given that over half of a quick-serve restaurant’s sales come through the drive-thru lane. The key to greenhouse carbon reduction will be in transitioning to clean energy fuels and alternative energy vehicles.
Initial knee jerk reaction? How much difference will it really make? Is it worth antagonising people for relatively minor savings?
More thoughtful reaction? We have to start somewhere and every little bit counts. We all need to stop and think and if it takes legislation to make some people do the obvious (not send text messages while driving either a car or a train???!!!) then so be it. Something has got to clobber us over our collective heads to get us more voluntarily “doing the right thing.”
They sell carbon offsets. Maybe they should sell drive-through offsets. Restaurants with drive thrus would pay double the sales tax, for example. Or change the zoning law to require drive-thrus to be closed several days a week, but dine-in places could be open every day.
Note that closing or banning drive-thrus will probably raise the hold-up rate. Many fast food locations are “drive-thru only” after 10 PM.
More Discussions
As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…Is Supply Chain Volatility Here To Stay?
Can we expect an ongoing volatility to remain in terms of retail supply chain?Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?
The drive-thru is a necessity, not a luxury, for many people: moms with kids in car seats, folks with disabilities (permanent or temporary) and people with dogs in the car. The time it takes to unseat the kids to go inside and then re-buckle up the children kind of takes the “fast” out of fast food. And, one cannot safely leave an animal in the car for even a few minutes in many climates.
Sure, go ahead and remind people that going inside if they can do so may help cut down on greenhouse gasses, but to outlaw drive thus–ridiculous!
Sounds kind of silly to me. We waste fuel waiting at traffic lights, railroad crossings and other areas of idling. Eventually we will probably be driving hybrid cars that use minimal fuel when idling.
Public opinion on almost everything having to do with energy and green house gasses these days comes down to two basic schools of thought. One side says we must “conserve our way out of the problem” while the other says we must “invent our way out of the problem.” As business people, we know our own corollaries all too well. One side says we must “save our way to glory” while the other shouts that “sales cures all ills!”
Drive-thru is simply an extension of our mobile way of life in America. We value convenience and mobility very highly. So while a few community leaders may impose sanctions on drive-thru as a way of making a social statement, the vast majority of the American public is rooting for CNG/Hydrogen fuel cells/biofuels/electric/hybrid/flex fueled cars (and no, we really don’t care which one wins) so that we can cleanly, cheaply–but above all else freely–move through the drive-thru lane.
My first impression is that somebody has way too much time on their hands. On a list of how to control air pollution this would have to be pretty far down the list in terms of importance. As John Stossel would say, “Give me a break!”
I don’t see people giving up drive-thru. They may turn their car engine off, but give it up? Never! Most will prefer waiting in line while seated in their cars than standing in line.
However, from a political point of view, this could be a hot topic. This is something local politicians can support and get a lot of visibility. As strange as it sounds, I believe that those who are not getting out of their cars will support local legislation to ban drive-thrus. No matter what the proof, no politician could take a stand against something that seems so GREEN. If San Luis Obispo is first, there will be many more.
I get it how consumers in the U.S. will be asked to give up every possible luxury that is unfriendly to the environment, however, I’m not sure I understand how we will affect changes in the 96% of the planet in which we have no control.
So San Luis Obispo beat San Francisco to the punch! Amazing. While I’m sure it’s a good thing, regulation such as this is somewhat akin to taking a deer rifle to an ant. There must be lower-hanging fruit than this, where the same amount of effort would produce much bigger results.
By the way, I’m old enough to remember car hops. You’d pull into the fast food restaurant, shut off the engine, and order your food on a little radio. Soon, a pretty young woman in a short skirt would come out with your order, make change and put up with obnoxious flirtation by us teenagers. But I suppose those days are gone forever….
You know, this is the first I’ve heard of this. But, it makes perfect sense. Plus, people will actually have to get out of their cars and park…then walk…healthier still! This kind of initiative is good on many levels and should be embraced by all. Retailers will need to work with local planning/zoning groups to ensure any changes made happen evenly across the board…being the first retailer to do this might hurt sales.
How about the branding possibilities? It might be responsible if not brilliant for a fast-food brand to encourage customers to “come inside” instead of polluting the air. I think branding and customer experience await an innovative approach here. It’s better to “come inside” for the customer as well as the restaurant.
More definitive research on drive-thru emissions would make this a lot easier. Barring that, it seems this train has already left the station. Today’s consumers are increasingly concerned about their personal health and the health of the environment, and that’s not likely to lessen going forward–especially among younger consumers. Also consider that discussion, debate and research on this topic is already well underway.
For merchants, the question is how to get in front of this issue. And it goes beyond fast feeders to impact other drive-thrus, like drug stores, beverage distributors and banks. Industry advocates will and should lobby for their members. But the path ahead isn’t as clear for individual merchants who have already made a commitment to being green via corporate initiatives, green products, green buildings, etc. Failing to take action only puts such merchants in danger of accusations of greenwashing, customer anger and lost sales.
Drive-thru retailers do have options. While a carbon tax on purchases would prove unpalatable to consumers, green merchants may want to consider carbon offsets to mitigate the impact of drive-thrus. Allowing customers to order via phone/web ahead of arrival so they can decrease idle time in the drive-thru is another option. And for really green retailers, they could announce that all new sites will not be built with drive-thrus, while also using carbon offsets for the older sites.
SHOULD we see: no (or, perhaps, NO!!!)
WILL we see: perhaps…unneeded regulation is, alas, something of which the world seems to have an infinite supply.
This is really a no brainer. If people are that concerned about the environment, they would stop using drive-thrus on their own, without the need for legislation banning them.
The fact is that as much as a small group (relative to the population) are against drive-thrus, the vast majority not only use them, but would complain if they were to go.
Regretfully, we still live in a world where consumer demands for convenience still exceed responsible actions towards the environment. Do I use the drive-thru? No way. I park the car and walk in. If I were to open a fast food restaurant, would I install a drive through? Regretfully, yes.
I can see the logic behind targeting drive-thrus, but as the article points out, the reality of the impact will be pretty minimal–and may very well be offset by the idling while waiting for a parking space and the engine restart after going inside.
Frankly, municipalities have much better opportunities to impact health in other areas–restaurant calorie labeling being one example. Or, if pollution and carbon footprint are what inspire you, then devote your time and energy to getting rid of the combustion engine–the source of the issue in the first place. Drive-thrus are just a distraction that would rapidly become a non-issue if, say, all cars were electric.
Absurd – no further comment necessary.
Yes, removing drive-thrus may reduce QSR business. And the reduction in greenhouse gases may be minimal. We have to decide, as a society, which option is more valuable to us. Are we more interested in doing as much as we can to heal the damage we have done to the environment or are we more concerned with the convenience of drive-thrus and the contribution of QSRs to the economy?
We have a tragedy of the commons problem happening. Our shared environmental resource is in danger. As Americans, we do more to damage that resource than most people worldwide. To me, that means we have a greater responsibility about how we use that resource. 96% of the planet may not be paying as much attention to the issue. That doesn’t excuse us from doing what we can.
Warren, you can get the nostalgic experience you miss at your local Sonic.
Personal choice should be the deciding factor as to whether a patron decides to use a drive thru, not some bit of authoritative legislation pushed upon the greater public by a small minority. Such nugatory laws only give government another reason to generate ill gotten revenue through fines. Coerced behavior modification does not justify a theoretical 3% reduction in air pollution.
Huh? Idling cars cause climate change? And all this time I thought it was solar flares and other natural cyclical factors. Yes we should reduce the things we do that do not help our air quality over time and and with intelligent purpose. But first we should pour the Kool Aid down the sink and stop futile gestures which only destroy the economy. The majority of our efforts have little effect and do more harm than good. It is called unintended consequences, like let’s lower lending standards so everyone can own a home. That worked really well.
I was born in San Luis Obispo but I live in Detroit. My bet? My adopted city is more representative of how Americans act and think than the city of my birth.
Okay, if these cities are so concerned, how does this compare with cars stopped at traffic lights and caught in rush hour traffic? When we stop at a light, will we be forced to turn off our engines?
The customer said to the regulators, “Do away with drive-thru and I’ll drive away.” The air might get clearer but the economy might become more stagnant.
This may be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. Drive-thrus are so far down on the list of things that are hurting our environment that it’s insulting to even think it matters. How about car pooling? Manufacturer waste regulations? Alternative energies? Train, airplane pollution? I hope QSR didn’t pay a lot of money for this study just so they can look so silly.
It’ll never happen.
Some Giant Eagle drive up pharmacy locations in Ohio are even giving flu shots that way this weekend.
A lot of talk, but it’s never going to happen.
Interesting insight as to how idling contributes to greenhouse gases, though drive-thrus won’t be going anywhere, given that over half of a quick-serve restaurant’s sales come through the drive-thru lane. The key to greenhouse carbon reduction will be in transitioning to clean energy fuels and alternative energy vehicles.
Initial knee jerk reaction? How much difference will it really make? Is it worth antagonising people for relatively minor savings?
More thoughtful reaction? We have to start somewhere and every little bit counts. We all need to stop and think and if it takes legislation to make some people do the obvious (not send text messages while driving either a car or a train???!!!) then so be it. Something has got to clobber us over our collective heads to get us more voluntarily “doing the right thing.”
They sell carbon offsets. Maybe they should sell drive-through offsets. Restaurants with drive thrus would pay double the sales tax, for example. Or change the zoning law to require drive-thrus to be closed several days a week, but dine-in places could be open every day.
Note that closing or banning drive-thrus will probably raise the hold-up rate. Many fast food locations are “drive-thru only” after 10 PM.