CELPIP Listening Part 6 Practice Test: Limiting Drive-Throughs

NARRATOR: Few sights are as familiar in Canadian suburbs as the drive-through lane: a ribbon of idling cars curling around a coffee shop or burger outlet, often spilling onto the street during the morning rush. Several municipalities have now stopped approving new ones, at least in certain neighbourhoods, and others are considering following suit. Opinions, predictably, are sharply divided. The question is whether such restrictions represent overdue planning reform or an unwarranted intrusion on everyday convenience.

NARRATOR: Urban planner Margaret Osei is among the most outspoken proponents of a moratorium. She contends that drive-throughs are fundamentally at odds with the walkable communities cities claim to want. Every lane, she notes, requires a driveway that forces pedestrians to cross a stream of turning vehicles, and queues routinely block sidewalks and bike lanes. She also points to emissions: a car idling for ten minutes, multiplied across thousands of daily visits, adds up to a considerable and entirely avoidable source of pollution. In her view, cities that approve new drive-throughs while spending millions on cycling infrastructure are working at cross purposes.

NARRATOR: Disability advocate Raymond Kowal sees things rather differently. For people with limited mobility, he argues, a drive-through is not a luxury but one of the few genuinely accessible ways to buy a meal or pick up a prescription without assistance. Parents with sleeping infants and shift workers heading home at three in the morning rely on them too. Kowal is exasperated that such residents are rarely consulted when bans are drafted, and he warns that well-meaning environmental policies can quietly shift the burden onto those least able to bear it.

NARRATOR: Osei acknowledges the concern but maintains that alternatives exist. Curbside pickup, short-term parking spots and delivery services, she argues, can meet the same needs without permanent car lanes. Kowal counters that these options often cost extra or depend on a smartphone, which many older customers simply do not own, and that a promise of accommodation is not the same as a working one.

NARRATOR: Both make compelling points. Osei is surely right that cities cannot keep designing for cars while claiming to discourage them. But a ban that leaves vulnerable residents to fend for themselves would merely trade one exclusion for another. Perhaps the wiser course is not a blanket prohibition but firmer conditions: new drive-throughs approved only where pedestrians are barely affected, and only once dependable alternatives are actually in place.