Minneapolis moves to ban new drive-throughs

[JManc]

Getting rid of the drive-through will simply get rid of the drive-through; future Wendy's in the city will still look like the one above but without a drive-though window and parking extended to that wall of the building.

[Chef]

A fast food restaurant without a drive-through makes less money, which makes them less likely to be built in the first place. It also means you might get something like this which is on the same street a few blocks away:

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9627...7i13312!8i6656

[plutonicpanda]

Awful move and hopefully not replicated elsewhere. What will this accomplish? So new parking spaces with curbside pick up will replace the drive thru? Then another makeshift solution will be had? If you want to make your city less dependent on cars spend the money to build proper transit the right way and bike infrastructure but don't restrict businesses.

[cityscapes]

Originally Posted by Nomad9

Edit: increased parking is a concern, but I assume that’s something planners have studied.

As a planner who has seen many cities zoning codes, most calculate parking based on internal square footage. The addition or removal of a drive through would not have an impact on the overall parking requirement.

[Nomad9]

Originally Posted by cityscapes

As a planner who has seen many cities zoning codes, most calculate parking based on internal square footage. The addition or removal of a drive through would not have an impact on the overall parking requirement.

I get that, I’m just assuming (hoping) the Minneapolis planners have looked at whether the elimination of drive throughs will lead businesses to build more parking than what they would with a drive through.

[Sun Belt]

Minneapolis moves to ban new drive-throughs...

So what you're saying is: In n Out is not in your future? BIG mistake Minneapolis, big mistake.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by lio45

This is a ridiculous idea considering that there's a very simple means of achieving this much more directly: higher gas taxes. (With the proceeds reinvested exactly the ways you describe).

Your idea penalizes someone who would use the drive thru in an EV while letting someone who arrives in a V8 4x4 Suburban and parks and walks in avoid the tax.

If what we want to discourage is the burning of fuel, then let's tax that, not try to do it indirectly targeting only one of the myriad of cases out there.

People react to things they can see easily. Adding 3 cents on every gallon or whatever won't keep people from a drive-thru. Hell, 3 cents for a meal probably won't keep them from it either, but they know exactly why they are paying 3% more and that they could save that by walking in while also saving gas from not idling. And lets be real, adding to the gas tax would never create a seperate environmental fund. It never works that way.

Also, electric cars are a tiny minority of cars and nothing is encouraging to me to say this will radically change in even 10 years.

[edale]

Originally Posted by cityscapes

As a planner who has seen many cities zoning codes, most calculate parking based on internal square footage. The addition or removal of a drive through would not have an impact on the overall parking requirement.

If the city has a system of parking maximums, then yes, the concerns over more parking resulting from eliminating drive-thrus is moot. If they don't, it's reasonable to think that developers would want to add more parking to these projects, since all customers would have to enter the restaurant to order.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by The North One

I don't understand what this accomplishes? So instead of a drive throughs they'll just have more parking spaces...

Drive-throughs by necessity need to have two curb cuts - one for entering, and one for exiting - which is bad from a pedestrian perspective. Although quite frankly, they wouldn't survive in a high-density expensive area anyway, so I'm not sure what this would accomplish.

A much better thing to attempt would be to design a more pedestrian-friendly layout for gas stations, since they often occupy prominent corner lots in otherwise fairly dense business districts, and stay around much longer due to there being a demand for gas stations. Some sort of curbside pump system would be ideal. I've seen them in Europe, but I dunno if they'd run afoul of national regulations.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

As most people on here probably know about me, I don't like the Feds getting involved with most things. However, I've been thinking that a 3% tax on drive-thru sales could be a small but smart step to becoming more environmental while not making huge waves. Going into the store wouldn't be taxed.

The split would be:
33% to the Feds
33% to the state
33% to the local city or town

I figure the federal government would funnel it into the EPA or National Park System or add solar panels, etc. to their buildings.
The state could fund state parks or adding solar panels on state buildings etc. etc.
The city could use the money to plant trees, build reservoir ponds etc..

Or they could do whatever they all see fit with the money that helps the environment.

This is a really dumb idea. Yeah let's just nickel and dime fast food patrons while we give away the farm to billionaires and corporations. Brilliant.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by badrunner

This is a really dumb idea. Yeah let's just nickel and dime fast food patrons while we give away the farm to billionaires and corporations. Brilliant.

Why does it have to be one or the other?

[10023]

Originally Posted by The North One

I don't understand what this accomplishes? So instead of a drive throughs they'll just have more parking spaces...

I'm getting kind of tired of Minneapolis's PR team promoting every planning decision as if it's this great revolutionary change nobody ever thought of before.

Aesthetics. Drive-throughs are fucking ugly.

They also reduce walkability, not because people choose to drive instead of walk, but because they mean curb cuts, danger of car/pedestrian collisions, and break up the street wall.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Minneapolis moves to ban new drive-throughs...

So what you're saying is: In n Out is not in your future? BIG mistake Minneapolis, big mistake.

In-n-Out is the most overrated crap in history. Barely edible burgers similar to Five Guys (‘barely edible’ places them both a notch above McD’s/BK/Wendy’s).

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

Awful move and hopefully not replicated elsewhere. What will this accomplish? So new parking spaces with curbside pick up will replace the drive thru? Then another makeshift solution will be had? If you want to make your city less dependent on cars spend the money to build proper transit the right way and bike infrastructure but don't restrict businesses.

Drive-throughs have been banned in Toronto (and several other Canadian cities) for years, and we haven't exactly seen a deluge of surface parking lots in response.

In a fast-growing city like Minneapolis it probably already makes more sense economically to build higher-density mixed-use structures than single-use drive-throughs anyway, but this will just help a little bit to push that ever so slightly further.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Drive-throughs have been banned in Toronto (and several other Canadian cities) for years, and we haven't exactly seen a deluge of surface parking lots in response.

In a fast-growing city like Minneapolis it probably already makes more sense economically to build higher-density mixed-use structures than single-use drive-throughs anyway, but this will just help a little bit to push that ever so slightly further.

I just think this could be bypassed with an increase in mobile ordering where you go park at a designated spot and await your food to be brought out to you. I've tried it a few times and I could adjust to doing that but it would be a pain in the ass downloading 50 different restaurant apps. On occasion if I eat McDonalds I will usually order via mobile app.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Drive-throughs by necessity need to have two curb cuts - one for entering, and one for exiting - which is bad from a pedestrian perspective. Although quite frankly, they wouldn't survive in a high-density expensive area anyway, so I'm not sure what this would accomplish.

A much better thing to attempt would be to design a more pedestrian-friendly layout for gas stations, since they often occupy prominent corner lots in otherwise fairly dense business districts, and stay around much longer due to there being a demand for gas stations. Some sort of curbside pump system would be ideal. I've seen them in Europe, but I dunno if they'd run afoul of national regulations.

These used to be common in the US, but eventually cars became too popular for the curbside pumps to handle and led to lines at the pump causing traffic jams. After that, they were banned by many cities. I don't think those explicit bans survived up to the present day, but other state/local regulations have the effect of forcing all gas to besold in large off-street filling stations.

Not sure national regulations come into play... typically this kind of stuff is done at the state level by fire marshals, who share regulations via the NFPA and other organizations so there is a lot of consistency, state to state. In this case, the applicable reg is NFPA 30A, which does not specifically ban fuel pumps in the public way but places some restrictions on the location of pumps relative to property lines and buildings.

Practically, this kind of setup only works if car drivers are a distinct minority and there is limited demand for fuel... maybe in parts of NYC this could be the case, but in every other US city, the demand for fuel is just too high for curbside pumps to address. In high-demand areas, it would likely create traffic. Potentially you could counteract this with a stiff tax on curbside fuel sales, such that drivers are incentivized to drive out to traditional gas stations in fringe areas.

However, I think curbside charging for electric vehicles will become commonplace. There are fewer safety concerns with electricity vs. gasoline, and developers of new buildings may actually want to put charging devices on the sidewalk outside as a feature. The problem there is the sheer timeframe required to charge an electric car; really the technology has to improve for electric cars to truly work in urban environments. The long charge times right now favor those who have a garage, so either suburbanites or the wealthiest city-dwellers.

[Six Corners]

Some things to keep in mind I think are that if the people of Minneapolis simply MUST have their McDonald's and Taco Bell, implementing 15-minute, flashers-on parking zones in front of fast food places is a solid alternative to drive-thrus. You DON'T want to encourage people to drive in the city and by eliminating drive thrus you incrementally accomplish this while at the same time eliminating some curb cuts, which are bad for walkability, and inefficiently used asphalt space, which is bad for, well, you name it.

But this will be bad for business you say! Will it though? Will people stop eating if they have to get out of their cars to get a Big Mac? If you want a Big Mac you want a Big Mac. Urban Jimmy Johns, Shake Shacks, and Subways seem to get along fine without a drive-thru. The City of Minneapolis offers proper alternative modes to driving for people to get places. It's a great biking city, despite its winters, and has both solid transit and walkability.

If In-n-Out Burger ever decides to come to the Twin Cities, they can set up shop in one of the many, many suburbs or even St. Paul. Suburbia seems to be their preference anyway judging from their other locations. Or they can always implement a walk-up concept.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by 10023

They also reduce walkability, not because people choose to drive instead of walk, but because they mean curb cuts, danger of car/pedestrian collisions, and break up the street wall.

None of this changes by getting rid of drive thrus. Having parking alone will already lead to this

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by 10023

Barely edible.

^ To you, nothing is edible. You should just stop eating

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

Awful move and hopefully not replicated elsewhere. What will this accomplish? So new parking spaces with curbside pick up will replace the drive thru? Then another makeshift solution will be had? If you want to make your city less dependent on cars spend the money to build proper transit the right way and bike infrastructure but don't restrict businesses.

While true, I also think that cities can use zoning to discourage such uses in denser, more transit served areas. But generally, the free market will already orient towards density if given enough time (and there are no density restrictions).