Submission to the London Environmental and Transportation Committee June 16,2008

Doug Bethune Automotive Consulting LR. East Chezzetcook Halifax, Nova Scotia

tunebethune@eastlink.ca

I have been asked by the Ontario Restaurant & Hotel Motel Association to provide input and comment on emissions from idling vehicles and the environmental impact of emissions from vehicles overall. I was also asked to review 3 reports that speak to these issues. Below is my professional position regarding idling vehicles versus shut down. This is based on scientific engine operational norms.

I have reviewed:

902-827-2169

1, The Region Of Waterloo’s Report, PH-08-023 2. London’s Environmental Statement On The Need To Reduce Idling In

London (Dated May 2008) 3. ML Middlesex-London Health Unit. Mr.James Reffle‘s letter to

Mr.Barrett dated May 12, 2008.

Within these documents there are some statements that are inaccurate and not scientifically substantiated with empirical evidence. Assumptions are made in Mr. Reffle’s letter that are simply not finite. Within the letter there is a summary of health issues from inhalation of vehicular emissions. Although these facts are true they do not apply to modern vehicles with OBD Emission Controls and Catalytic Converters. These vehicles have been in production for quite a long period of time now. Mr. Reffle’s statements are misleading with regard to today’s technology. Older vehicles are still in the fleet but as they drop off and new technologies are introduced, conditions will improve. There are references made to the formation of Ground Level Ozone caused by NOx emissions and VOC’s. NOx emissions are prevented in all vehicles by an Exhaust Recirculation Valve, (EGR) and by perchance if any NOx emissions are formed, they are trapped and converted by the rhodium in three way catalytic converters.

It should be noted that “at idle”, only miniscule amounts of NOx is produced from vehicles compared to other driving modes. ie). on the highway at high speed and during heavy load conditions.

Within London's Environmental Statement they refer to Canada's Natural Resources website regarding Idle Free Zones. Many of these statements are based on previous technology, carburetor equipped vehicles and vehicles with throttle body fuel injection, and pre OBD II. These statements are somewhat out of date and don't necessarily apply to the majority of vehicles driven by Canadians today.

There also seems to be some confusion regarding references to greenhouse gases and Vehicle Exhaust Pollutants. These two areas are distinctly different and must be defined as such for a clear understanding of the issues. Although C02 is a greenhouse gas, other pollutants produced during combustion are considerably more dangerous to human health if they are not reduced.

I would not say that drive through use is environmentally insignificant, but, there are more significant areas of operation that deserve more attention before the idle issue if we are serious about solving these problems. For example, cold start with remote car starters, allowing driveway warm up, should be prohibited. Vehicles exceeding the speed of 100 kmslhr consumes fuel at a exponential rate as speed increases above that threshold. These two modes of vehicle operation are where MOST of the unnecessary fuel consumption takes place in Canada, NOT at idle .

Again, let me note that the amount of NOx emissions produced at all at idle are miniscule compared to NOx emissions produced when combustion chamber temperatures rise above 2000 degrees F or 1370 C . Typically this happens at wide open throttle, on the highway passing cars or uphill with heavy loads, not at idle. Our primary concern over NOx production should be targeted on our highways rather than at drive throughs.

I also want to point out that the 10 second rule cannot be taken finite. Computerized Controlled Engine Management Systems run much leaner with more monitoring and adjustment to reduce emissions than ever before. During a restart from "Closed Loop" the computer typically takes two to three minutes to reestablish itself back to processing mode. The engine runs richer than it normally would during this period of time. To compound the problem of shut down using the 10 second rule, the engine's Idle Air Speed Control Motor backs out all the way even/ time the engine is shut off. This is the same as pushing the throttle down for a fast idle. During restart (every time), the idle speed is above base idle and eventually settles back down in approximately 5 to 15 seconds depending on conditions. This could consume more fuel than if the vehicle was left idling! This matter requires more study which hopefully was addressed on May 12th-14th at the SAE 2008 Government / Industry meeting in Washington. More consumption of fuel equals to more C02 emissions and contributes to green house gases.

There is no one that is more concerned about over consumption than I am in this country. Cognitively, I am very aware that the prevailing winds in this nation blow from West to East, most pollutants are imported into this region by the wind. This contributes to the acid rain and many other undesirable elements of pollution we get subjected to. Having said that, I am quite concerned what happens west of here as it affects address these issues anwhere in this country we must get it right. We must act on science and fact and not be swayed by emotion ... no matter how good the intentions may be.

a n d m children. I am also concerned that if we are to

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND QUESTIONS WE MUST ASK:

1, What efforts are being done globally to address these issues? Is Canada at the table?

2. My primary concern is that we really do solve the Global Warming problem. It used to be that you had to be a scientist in order to realize how serious the climate problem was becoming. Now anyone who can read a book on Global Warming or watch a documentary film can gain much of that formerly rarified view.

In years to come this issue will dwarf all the other issues combined. It in fact, it will become the Only issue.

Politicians understand actions are needed on this issue and I can reassure them that starting a major makeover won’t result in budget conscious voters throwing them out of office at the next opportunity.

Having said that, we all must insure any efforts made are productive and outcomes are the most effective.

Continuing on this theme it is imperative we have everyone on side, especially the public. There is nothing more non productive than legislating change on a non motivated public. At best it results in poor outcomes from a calculated public where non compliance becomes the norm. Outcomes can only become a reality with a motivated public. It is imperative then, whatever we do, the public has to have ownership in the process. Whatever efforts we make must address primary concerns first to reduce consumption and lower C02 emissions. We must get this right. Banning drive-throughs will only serve to infuriate and inconvenience the public. It will result in little or no outcomes; it may in fact exacerbate the problem. If the public are subjected to this scenario it will only serve to cause resistance to any further staues in solving this very serious issue. An anti-idle law then, truly will be the “Law Of Unintended Conseauences!”

3) A view from the top of the Pyramid

We need to look at the whole situation and put our efforts into what will achieve the best outcomes. It doesn't make much sense to put pennies on a track to slow down a run away train. Conversely, it doesn't make any sense to derail the train and cause destruction.

From the top of the Pyramid there are many areas I can see that need to be addressed first.

1. Slow down -Truckers have

2.

3. No more remote starting.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Reduce Unneeded load - 5% - 10% fuel savings.

Maintain proper tire pressure - use nitrogen in tires, not air

1 - 2 psi loss of pressure = 1 - 3 mp gallon loss!

No more jackrabbit starts, drive like you have no brakes!

Every time you put the brakes on you are absorbing energy from fuel you just burned and dumping that energy into the air through brake heat.

Change coolant thermostat annually keep the engines hot and lean = $ saved in fuel.

8.

9. Use P.V.I. Platinum Vapor Injection. Save anywhere from 5 - 26%!

I O . Use synthetic lubricants. They reduce friction, save fuel and last two to four time as long as conventional oils and provide better protection = Less waste oil!

4. Who Consumes The Most? I Who Contributes the Most C02?

In Canada, the largest polluters only second to the Alberta Tar Sands, are the producers of electricity production!

In total, contribution to C02 emissions in the United States as well as Canada, representing 39% of C02 emissions from all C02 emission sources. Electricity generation also accounted for the largest share of C02 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, approximately 41% in 2006.

Electricity is consumed primarily in the residential, commercial, and industrial end use sectors for lighting, heating, electric motors, appliances, electronics air conditioning and heating of domestic hot water.

It is interesting to note C02 emission annual changes from fossil fuel combustion. When looking at selected fuels and sectors, (tons of C02 and percent), for 2005-2006, C02 Emissions were down - 0.8% for the transportation sector. (Energy & Administration Annual 2005 Report)

HOT ROCK

5. Turnina thinqs around should involve reduction of electrical demand.

Just yearof ... huge another smelt sgire g& none to

1. Less production and consumption of electricity involves less consumption of fossil fuels. We should also stop consuming automobiles at the present rate.

2. Less demand for hot water, eg) showers and hot water.

3. Dry clothes via nature - X out clothes dryers

4. Lights - reduce lighting.

6. Alternate ADproaches Carbon Tree Candidates Chart

NUCLEAR

SOLAR

lox &utlon . many

night. mulii MmO . . few CIouds use I019 OK

COAL%UT CAPTURE mE co,

87%

-1 large caulton s:$ge steady more huge no

NEW AIR CARS - India

This is the same company who, a few months back, came out with a car that costs only $2,500 new (but it's not available in the US, why does that not surprise me?). A non polluting vehicle that eliminates the reason to buy gasoline from off shore companies.

The Compressed Air Car developed by Motor Development International (MDI) Founder Guy Negre might be the best thing to have happened to the motor engine in years.

The $12,700 CityCAT, one of the planned Air Car models, can hit 68 mph and has a range of 125 miles. It will take only a few minutes for the CityCAT to refuel at gas stations equipped with custom air compressor units. MDI says it should cost only around $2 to fill the car up with 340 liters of air!

The Air Car will be starting production relatively soon, thanks to India's TATA Motors. Forget corn! There's fuel, there's renewable fuel, and then there's user- renewable fuel! What can be better than air?

For us in North America for the moment. we have the DoDular Tovota Prius and

PRESENTATION NOTES CITY OF LONDON ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING, JUNE 16,

2008 Michael Lepage, Principal

RWDI AIR Inc.

CONSULnNG ENGINEERS &SCIENTISTS

RWDl AIR inc. 650 Woodlawn Road Wen

Guetph. OW

CaMda NlKlR8

1. In 1997, a group in Sacramento, California called Sierra Research studied emissions from vehicles using convenience restaurants in the Lake Tahoe region. They concluded that, for an average trip to a convenience store, banning drive- throughs increases the exhaust emissions by up to 20%.

2. In 2003, my company, RWDI, conducted a similar study based on Tim Horton’s stores in Ontario. We concluded that “vehicle exhaust emissions from a quick- service facility are not significantly different from any other restaurant or other facility that does not have a drive-through, but has a similar volume of traffic accessing the site. If anything, the drive-through component leads to slightly lower emissions”.

3. These findings were based on the fact that, when a vehicle is parked, the catalytic converter begins to cool down. When the customer restarts the vehicle, even after being inside for only 4 or 5 minutes, the emissions are relatively high until the catalytic converter warms up again. This extra “start-up” emission combined with the emissions from moving through the site to and from the parking space, are enough to produce comparable or even higher emissions than for an average vehicle using the drive-through.

4. The above findings apply to the smog pollutants emitted in the tailpipe. Smog pollutants come from many different sources besides motor vehicles and, together, are linked with increased respiratory illnesses, increased asthma and so on. Another gas emitted in the vehicle exhaust is carbon dioxide. It is not a toxic substance and is not linked with respiratory ailments, but is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases are linked with climate change.

5 . Carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas, is not affected by the catalytic converter on start-up, but it is generated when moving through the parking lot, and the emission rate for this activity is higher than for idling. There is also emission associated with pulling in and out and waiting for parking spaces.

6 . In our most recent study for the TDL Group, carehl traflic surveys were conducted using video surveillance. A Tim Horton’s store with no drive-through was included. This store had a small parking lot, similar to that of a typical store with a drive-through. The traffic survey’s revealed that, in the absence of a drive-through, the parking lot becomes heavily congested during busy periods, causing the average vehicle to wait between 1 and 2.5 minutes for a parking space (see Attachment 1). The vehicle engines are left running during this wait. Some of the vehicles spend significant additional time waiting on the street before even getting into the

.: *?. ..** ,, PX.

*,A c *..i nl rmw..l,

Reputation Resources Results Tel: (519) 823-131 1 Fax: (519) 823-1316 E-mat info@rwdiair.com Web: www.rwdiair.com

Mike Lepage Presentation Notes: City of London Environment Committee Meeting, June 16,2008 Page 2

parking lot, which we did not even count in our analysis. The on-site wait time is sufficient for the average vehicle at the non-drive-through store to have a higher emission of both smog pollutants and greenhouse gases than the average vehicle at a store that has a combination of a drive-through and parking.

7. At another non-drive through store, we documented a significant number of customers who leave their engine running while inside the store (see Attachment 2). Our analysis accounted for this effect as well.

8. Without a drive-through, a Tim Horton’s store must have a larger parking lot to accommodate the same amount of business in the peak hour. Based on the traffic data fiom the non-drive through store, a doubled parking lot would be sufficient hut would still be heavily congested. We compared the total on-site emissions for this case to a conventional store with both drive- through and parking. We also looked at a case with a tripled parking lot and postulated that it might still have some congestion, although less. These comparisons are shown in Attachment 3, for smog pollutants, and Attachment 4 for greenhouse gases.

9. Some people have commented on the fact that our studies have focused on the busy morning hour and have not looked at off peak hours. It is a standard practice in air quality studies to focus on the time period when emissions will be highest. At off-peak hours, the emissions associated with both the drive- through and the parking lot are substantially lower and of even less concern than tbe peak hour, While the emissions from both the drive-through and parking are reduced reduced in off-peak hours, we expect the relative relationship between the two to remains about the same as the peak hour.

10. Some people have also suggested the congestion we observed at one no-drive-through store is not representative of Tim Horton’s stores with no drive-throughs in general. We looked into this by conducting video surveillance at another non-drive-through stare that had a much larger parking lot. It is located at a strip mall in Kitchener. We found that, at this store, there was still some congestion in the parking lot, although it was greatly reduced compared to the other store we surveyed. However, travel distances to parking spaces were considerably longer and we continued to observe significant numbers of vehicles with engine left running while the customer was inside. We expect the calculated emission per vehicle at this store to be at least comparable to that of a store with a drive-through and, in the case of smog pollutants, it is still be higher than a store with a drive-through.

11. The second part of our findings is that the total emissions from vehicles using Tim Horton’s drive-throughs are relatively small compared to other passenger vehicle emissions and other common emission sources. Based on the data in our study, we have calculated that all of Tim Horton’s 1700 drive-throughs across Canada contribute only about 1 fifth of 1 percent of Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions kom light duty cars and trucks (see Attachment 5). We showed that a stop at a drive-through store represents a small part of the emissions from a typical 30-minute trip, such as a morning commute. We also showed that all of the on-site emissions at a store with drive-through and parking during the busiest hour are small compared to the idling emissions during a busy hour at typical urban intersection. And so on

Reputation Resources Results XI: (519) 823-1311 Fax: (519) 823-1316 E-mal[: info@fwdiair.com Wcb:wrwdiair.com

Mike Lepage Presentation Notes: City of London Environment Committee Meeting, June 16,2008 Page 3

12. In summary, we conclude from our studies that Tim Horton’s drive-throughs constitute a very small vehicle emission source, and the average emission per vehicle at a store with no drive-through is predicted to be actually somewhat higher than that for a store with a drive- through and parking.

Reputation Resources Results RI. (519) 823-131 1 Fax: (519) 823-1316 E-mail: infoOrwdiaic.com Wcb ww.rwdiair.com

CANAD4 UNITED KildGtiOM

LlNlT!i) SATES

. . . ..... ~

Mike Lepage Presentation Notes: City of London Environment Committee Meeting, June 16,2008 Page 4

ATTACHMENT 1

Reputation Resources Results Tel; (519) 823-131 1 Fax: (519) 823-1316 E-mail: info@rwdiair.com Web ww.rwdiair.wm

Mike Lepage Presentation Notes: City of London Environment Committee Meeting, June 16,2008 Page 5

ATTACHMENT 2

Reputation Resources Results

Tel: (519) 823-131 1 Fax: I5191 823-1316 E-mail: irtfo@rwdiair.com Web:w.rwdiair.com

Mike Lepage Presentation Notes: City of London Environment Committee Meeting, June 16,2008 Page 6

ATTACHMENT 3

Reputation Resources Results Tel. (519) 823-t31 1 Far (5191 823-1316 E-mail: info@rvdiair.com Wcb:www.wdiair.com

Mike Lepage Presentation Notes: City of London Environment Committee Meeting, June 16,2008 Page 7

ATTACHMENT 4

Reputation Resources Results Tel; (519) 823-131 1 Fax: (5191 823-1316 E-mail: infoOrwdiair.com Web: www.rwdiair.com

. . . . _-

Mike Lepage Presentation Notes: City of London Environment Committee Meeting, June 16,2008 Page 8

Tim Horton’s Drive-Through Emissions: Canada-wide

CONIUUNG ENGINBRS & SClEMlm

i

ATTACHMENT 5

Reputation Resources Results Tel. (519) 823-131 1 Fax- (519) 823-1316 E-rnaif: info@rwdiair.com Web: w.wudiair.con1

Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association Deputation to City of London Environment and Transportation Committee

The Environmental Impact of Drive-Throughs Monday June 16,2008

Good afternoon, my name is Michelle Saunders and I am the Manager of Government Relations with the Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association. The ORHMA represents over 11,000 business establishments across Ontario and is the largest provincial hospitality industry association in Canada. The ORHMA is working with and as agents for our member brands: A&W, Burger King, McDonald's, Tim Hortons and Wendy's. I'm pleased to be joined this afternoon by several of our local franchise operators and other representatives of our member brands.

We greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon to discuss the important issue of drive-thoughs. I understand we have 20 - 30 minutes for our deputation, and I will be joined today by my fellow presenters Mike Lepage (Principal of RWDI), Doug Bethune (an auto forensics expert) and Nick Javor (Senior Vice President, Corporate Affairs, Tim Hortons).

It is important to remember that drive-throughs do have a place in our society today. Unquestionably there is an ever increasing demand from society for affordable and convenient meal choices. Drive-throughs allow us to respond to that demand by serving customers in an efficient manner. Equally as important is the fact that drive-throughs provide a valuable service for certain segments of society, in particular, the elderly, those with mobility challenges, and those travelling with young children in car seats. Furthermore, they provide an invaluable degree of safety for those travelling alone, at night, or in unfamiliar areas who wish to remain in their cars.

But let me be specific: we are here because of London's proposal to regulate drive-throughs.

For nearly a year now one of the themes we have been hearing from a small handful of London residents, some councillors and staff is the suggestion that drive-throughs are bad for the environment. By extension the specious argument is that if you close drive-throughs you will save a significant amount of harmful vehicle emissions. We simply can't let such accusations stand.

Our members live in the communities in which they operate -they want to be as good a neighbour as anyone else. In fact, our operators are not only members of the community in which they live and work, they are leaders, making significant investments in local sports programs, charitable causes and environmental initiatives. Like all citizens of London, our operators wanted to understand the

impact of drive-throughs. So we set about examining whether drive-through?, pose an environmental threat from vehicle emissions.

So one of our member corporations got one of Canada’s leading air quality engineering firms, RWDI, to analyze the impact of vehicle emissions. And knowing that opponents will always claim that the research is biased because it was paid for by a corporation, we asked RWDI, the engineering firm, to have their work peer-reviewed by one of Canada’s leading academic experts in air emissions and the environment. Dr. Deniz Karmen, Professor of Environmental Engineering at Carleton University, reviewed the scientific analysis and approved the study’s methodology and findings.

We gathered the evidence and we had that study subjected to the review of a leading independent academic. We believe this is the gold standard in how to determine issues of fact and something that London Council can rely on when making decisions.

The science is clear. The study undertaken by RWDl finds that restaurants with no drive-throughs have somewhat higher emissions per vehicle than a store that has a drive-through; that restaurants with drive-throughs meet provincial air quality standards; that due to auto technology advancements and fuel efficiency regulations auto emissions will result in reduced impacts from smog pollutants and carbon monoxide in the future and in conclusion, finds that there is no air quality benefit to the public from eliminating drive-throughs. Mike Lepage, the principal of RWDI will discuss this further in a few moments.

A prohibition of drive-throughs could lead to larger lot sizes, larger parking lots, more asphalt heating, more storm water management issues, more on-site congestion and more emissions. In other cases it may mean the loss of jobs and investment in London. Surely none of these meet Council’s objectives.

Although it may seem counterintuitive, the science shows that a ban on drive- throughs would not only NOT decrease auto emissions it would in fact result in slightly higher levels of auto emissions. We must remember that parking lots are not themselves zero emissions scenarios. We must also remember that drive- throughs, by and large are not final destinations, simply a stop along the way elsewhere - so the elimination of a drive-through won’t remove cars from the road.

Over the past year those who have claimed drive-throughs as a detriment to the environment have failed to present any evidence to support their claims. They have provided commentary regarding climate change and general vehicle use, but no evidence whatsoever related to drive-throughs. City staff have rejected the notion of a moratorium. Good public policy must be based on fact and, where possible, scientific evidence, not rhetoric or symbolic gestures. The fact is

there is a body of scientific evidence indicating that there is no environmental benefit to banning drive-throughs.

We have presented our scientific findings to City of London staff. The Planning Committee is currently considering a report titled "The Regulation of Drive- Throughs" which proposes 4 types of planning tools to regulate drive-throughs. To be clear, the ORHMA opposes proposed amendments to the Official Plan, which would essentially ban drive-throughs in approximately 60% of the city. However, the staff report further recommends that environmental issues be referred to this committee for consideration. We therefore thought it imperative to meet with the Environment and Transportation Committee to immediately address these concerns and present the facts.

We are here today to present you with our science, to suggest that this research meets the standards that the scientific community would set on such research, to argue that no environmental information has been presented by opponents of drive-throughs, to ask you that important issues that affect people's livelihoods and jobs need to be based on a reasonable standard of evidence and that in light of the facts today there is not reason why, given the Planning Committee report, the Environment and Transportation Committee should undertake any further review of drive-throughs as an environmental threat. We would appreciate you sending that message to full council.

We, of course, will continue to work with the Planning Committee and Planning staff to address additional planning issues related to drive-throughs.

I will let the scientists speak to the science, but it is important to note that there does exist a body of science-based research on the issue, dating back a number of years, which all support the conclusion that there is no environmental benefit to eliminating drive-throughs.

The ORHMA has a solid track record of working collaboratively with municipalities throughout the province to reach mutually satisfactory policy and planning decisions that respond to the goals of local councils while allowing the industry to run their operations and continue to contribute to their local communities. We have worked or are working with Toronto, Ottawa, Mississauga, Windsor, Sarnia, Belleville, Ajax, Kitchener, Peterborough, which has recently exempted drive-throughs from their idling by-law, and the Region of Waterloo, to name but a few municipalities. We hope to reach a mutually acceptable local solution with the City of London.

Our members take environmental initiatives very seriously and incorporate various environmental programs as part of their business models. But our members aren't scientists -they serve food, safely, quickly and conveniently to thousands of Londoners each and every day, and they would like to just concentrate on doing that better and better rather than having to become

scientific experts for no fundamentally sound reason. Assess our presentations, assess the facts, and assess the absence of any real evidence to the contrary and please lets try to bring the drive-through issue to a close over the next few days.

I would be happy to take any questions you may have, or if it is the will of the committee we are happy to suspend questions until after all presentations.

Deputation to Environment & Transportation Committee

City of London, June 16,2008

Madame Chair and Councillors thanks for the opportunity to address

the Environment and Transportation Committee. My name is Nick

Javor, Sr. vice president of Corporate Affairs at Tim Hortons. I live in

Etobicoke Ontario. I am responsible for the environmental affairs

portfolio, as part of our overall Corporate Social Responsibility

framework.

Today I also represent the franchisees, many of whom are in

attendance today. They 100% own and operate all the stores here in

London. Tim Hortons has been in this market for over 35 years, with

our first store at 11 9 Oxford St., #35 in the chain. It opened in July of

1973, and is still operating. In case you are wondering, the store has

been renovated since. Today, we have approx 65 locations of which

half are equipped with drive thrus. We employ approx 1900 people in

London and 50% of our business is in the drive thrus.

I am here to update you on the environmental plans and programs

that Tim Hortons has underway. Some of these programs have been

in place for many years, others are new, within the past few years.

As well I want to convey to you the sense of importance we

corporately place, as do our franchisees, on the drive through portion

of our business.

Based on the science that you heard Mike Lepage talk about,

supported as well by Doug Bethune’s expert advice, our position

clearly is that drive thrus are not a significant impact on the

environment, and thus do not require a prohibition.

Over the years we have built many drivethrus. Presenting our site

plans and working within the planning rules that were set out for us by

city staff, not only here in London but across Canada. I would say

that TODAY, both planners at city hall and at Tim Hortons, know

much more about the proper design that makes a good drivethru

layout. One that can service our customers in the most efficient way

as well as be an effective use of land.

We have made mistakes in the past for sure. We had stacks that

were too short and layouts not configured to be optimal. These sites

caused problems which were compounded as our chain began to

grow, as our brand became more popular and as density grew

around us. We recognize that today we need a minl2 car stack,

proper setbacks and layouts that push the drivethru lane to the back

of the property. We know that to be a good neighbour, we may need

noise attenuation walls and ongoing lot and sideyard litter patrol, to

name a few mitigating measures. We have sophisticated “order

speaker” sound systems now that we did not have before . . . I wanted to recap these points for you, so as to demonstrate that we

recognized that we have to work with the folks at city hall and design

good sites that everyone can live with. We share the same goal.

Being a good neighbour is part of our brand’s history, its part of our

culture and it‘s how we behave in the communities we operate in.

Last week in the London Free Press we took out a large ad and

thanked our customers in the City of London. Together with our

franchisees, over $21 7,000 was raised for the Tim Horton Children’s

Foundation, so that more deserving children could go to camp and

start their quest for a brighter future. Our Smile Cookie program last

year raised $47,000 for the Children’s Hospital at London Health

Sciences.

We are Leaders in many areas, but with respect to environmental

best practices, there is much more to do. Our environmental focus

has historically been on anti-litter awareness campaigns. I refer you

to this brochure if I may, that recaps our key programs. HAND OUT

BROCHURES.

As you can see, we provide support to many community cleanup

events across Canada. Here in London, we are partnering again

with Communities in Bloom this year. We are major supporters of

their new recycling program called Our Heritagelour Future. In

conjunction with the “Greening of Festivals”, special bins will feature

pictures of artifacts from the Museum of London.

These recycling bins will be used at all of the events held at Victoria

Park this summer and when summer is over, they will be moved to

community centres and sports facilities across the city.

This past year and last year, Tim Hortons has supported Clean &

Green Community Cleanup Day. We advertise in-store and provided

travel mugs. T-shirts were given to the first 2000 volunteers.

In 2006, our London Franchisees introduced recycling at our

locations. We offer recycling not only inside our stores but outside at

the entrance and at the drive thru. We offer source separation of

packaging, so as to reduce what goes to landfill. This includes #I

plastic pet bottles, glass and aluminum cans. We used to sell our

juice in glass bottles, but changed to #I plastic which is a more

desired commodity for the recyclers.

In March of this year, our National Waste Diversion Program

Manager and I met with Jay Stanford and Anne Boyd, from the City.

We discussed our future plans for organics collection and our paper

fibre recovery, focusing on our paper cup. Some of our locations now

do have organics collection for coffee grinds and limited food throws.

We asked the City if our coffee cup could join the residential blue box

program. However, with the RFP process for a new recycling facility

underway, the timing was not good. The City said they would review

our request in the fall of 2008 as the RFP closes.

The closest recycler that we could find for our paper fibre stream

would be in either Toronto or Windsor and decided not to transport

our paper cups and other fibre material that distance. We did meet

with the folks at Try Recycling (Jim Graham) but they could not

accommodate our needs at this time.

We are committed to expanding our waste diversion program once

we are able to secure the proper waste management partners.

In the meantime, as you can see under the second and third panels,

we will continue to focus on recycling and waste reduction. To

reduce paper and potential litter, we offer china mugs for in-store use.

Our Customers have had the choice of china mugs, since the chain

began in 1964.

Our travel mug users receive a 10 cent discount on any fill, with any

travel mug ...

Where markets are able to provide the infrastructure, we collect our

cups for paper recycling (as is done in Owen Sound and Windsor)

OR for composting (as can be done in Hamilton’s green bin program)

A lot of people don’t know this but our coffee cup CAN be recycled

and composted, where facilities exist.

We have a 30 store test in the Kitchener area where we are

transporting in bulk, our coffee grinds to a processor, thus avoiding

landfill. We designed a special bin to do that as you can see in the

brochure, so that industry’s existing front end loader trucks can be

used. It has a heating element so that the grinds don’t freeze.

And as the last panel shows, our litter awareness commitment

continues. Customers have told us that they know the Tim Hortons

company does not litter, but it‘s the customers who do . . .

But they do want us to help with the situation. So we have focused

on consumer messaging in our stores, on our digital menu boards

and at the drive thru exit, a sign that used to say thank you, but now

reads “be a good neighbour, don’t litter. Supporting neighbourhood

clean up programs continues to be a very effective way in working

with community volunteers, and reinforcing the anti-litter message.

There are other environmental initiatives that are underway at Tim

Hortons. A few examples include:

9 we are looking at how we can have our stores LEEDS

certified; we are reviewing a carbon footprint analysis

k all plastic shrink wrap is returned from our stores; last year it

was 100 tonnes; our cardboard at the DCs are bailed and

recycled: over 160 tonnes in 2007

9 all of our restaurants use Energy Star certified equipment

k all of our hot water tanks are 92-94 efficiency rated

9 we use highly efficient HVAC systems;

k all new restaurants use LED lighting for our exterior signs

Let me conclude by saying that Tim Hortons continues to be

committed to the City of London. We want to be the first name that

comes to mind if you are asked to name a “premier” corporate citizen.

Drive throughs are vew, verv important to our customers, our staff

and our Operators. Tim Hortons has provided sound science and

supporting evidence to confirm that “there is no air quality benefit to

the public from eliminating drive throughs”. We have provided other

studies to city officials and staff that have indicated the same.

I am asking that this Committee convey to Council that there is no

scientific basis to prohibit drive thrus, based on environmental

grounds. No other studies have come forward from staff or the public

that states otherwise. Those who are against drive thrus have not

provided any science that I am aware of. This decision is a very

serious one and we need the highest standard of due diligence by the

decision makers.

Tim Hortons will continue to work with the city of London’s planning

process to make sure that planning issues with respect to drive

throughs can be resolved in a win-win manner.

Thankyou.