Editor:
Re: 'Springs' requires drive-thru to attract high-end coffee house, Feb. 1
I would like to weigh in on the idling debate. As an architect often practicing in the commercial sector, I have had several drive-thrus rejected in various jurisdictions, always on the basis that they encourage idling.
Maybe they do on a very small scale, but the advantages to the elderly, the physically handicapped, persons using wheelchairs and even parents with small children should not be ignored.
Getting your coffee or doing your routine banking without exiting your vehicle is a huge bonus to these people.
Now if you really want to cut down on idling, my suggestion is to start eliminating traffic lights and replace them with traffic circles (roundabouts).
As a frequent visitor and driver in Europe, I really appreciate the role of roundabouts in moving traffic, calming traffic and relieving frustration.
When I am here, sitting in my car fuming at a red light, with few other cars around, I imagine how much sooner I would be at my destination if roundabouts were common.
Roundabouts are sized to carry the anticipated volume. For example, a roundabout at highways 17 and 10, or 56th Street and Highway 17, would be significantly larger than one at Arthur Drive and Ladner Trunk Road.
Sometimes, in Europe, only at peak periods at busy intersections, traffic lights pulse the flow of traffic so the roundabout does not clog.
I have noticed a few roundabouts in South Surrey and elsewhere. Keep them coming, please.
Idling would be dramatically reduced with the installation of roundabouts. The elimination of drive-thrus would pale by comparison.
A further significant statistical benefit to roundabouts is the severity of accidents is diminished. Sideswipes are more prevalent and less onerous than T-bones.
Selwyn Dodd
