Drive-through debate rages Tue, February 20, 2007 Council seeks options on how to restrict their growth in city. By JONATHAN SHER, SUN MEDIA

Al Gore may win an Oscar for his film on climate change, but he'd take a back seat to last night's drama at city hall where debate raged whether drive-throughs are good or bad for the environment.

The rhetoric was heated even though London council is far from making a decision on whether to do anything about a growing fact of suburban life -- drive-through services.

By a 10-9 margin, council voted to ask city staff to report back with options on how to restrict future growth of drive-throughs. The request came with no strings attached -- council can accept or reject the options.

While debate at the earlier council committee level had focused on neighbourhood issues such as noise and traffic, Coun. David Winninger last night argued more is at stake -- something of a global nature, the subject of the former U.S. vice-president's film, An Inconvenient Truth.

If Canada is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet the targets of the Kyoto treaty, Londoners could help by limiting the time drivers idle while waiting for a take-out coffee or a burger, Winninger said.

"This is perhaps a luxury we can no longer afford . . . It's really a matter of a lifestyle choice. It's not a necessity," he said, his remarks setting off a debate

"The public wants drive-throughs. They're using drive-throughs. They're being built," Deputy Mayor Tom Gosnell said.

Some of his colleagues, who oppose new restrictions on drive-throughs, went one step further, arguing they may actually help the environment.

Coun. Paul Van Meerbergen argued it's better for the environment for a driver to idle for a couple of minutes than to stop and re-start the engine.

"This really is a slippery slope to bigger . . . more intrusive government," said Van Meerbergen, a frequent opponent of what he'd describe as activist government run amuck.

Coun. Cheryl Miller said if drive-throughs are restricted, that would result in larger parking lots and more storm water runoff, a condition that can tax sewer treatment and lead to less-treated sewage going into the Thames River.

Miller also said restrictions would hurt the elderly and the disabled who can't get out of their vehicles.

"Many seniors can't go in."

Others argued the proliferation of drive-throughs is hurting the environment.

"Are we going to do the right thing and show leadership," Coun. Bill Armstrong said.

"This kind of development is the antithesis of a creative city," Coun. Judy Bryant said. "I can walk from my house to five drive-throughs."

The debate led each side to accuse the other of false claims.

"It never came up that people wanted to ban (drive-throughs). That's nonsense. It's not complicated and it shouldn't be political," Coun. Nancy Branscombe said.

Council needs a policy that sets out parameters, not a ban, she said.

That led Gosnell to respond: "To suggest we don't have a policy is simply ridiculous."

Staff said they'd quickly seek public opinion on the issue.

The issue arose recently when the planning committee started to consider proposals for two Tim Hortons drive-throughs, one at Adelaide Street and Sunningdale Road, another on Hyde Park Road. The east-end one was approved but committee members balked at putting one on Hyde Park, where the city is trying to encourage pedestrian traffic and a village atmosphere, Baechler said.