Comment 17905

By Trey (registered) | Posted February 01, 2008 at 10:41:05

False. This is picked up from the Tim Hortons' commissioned study by RWDI presented to London City Council for fear that this will impact their business model.

They are not smaller. Pre-existing non-drive thru restaurants were retro-fitted with a drive-thru window. OR the building may be smaller but the footprint is the same. They need extra space to accommodate the drive-thru lanes and windows. In fact a drive thru restaurant needs to be a pad-site so that all four sides of the building can be wrapped with idling vehicles. A drive-thru can't be put on a resataurant in an existing streetwall or urban area, so the reastaurants are not more efficient. Also it is the drivers choice to drive around waiting for a close spot. I take the parking spaces at the back and walk and extra 20 steps, those parking spaces are ALWAYS available. If they're too lazy to walk 20 steps and choose to idle/waiting for one of the spots right in front of the store that is moronic behaviour and can't be considered an arguement in favour of drive-thrus.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds