Planning Commission Opposing Drive Thrus

Last Friday, the Saint Paul Planning Commission held a public hearing on proposed amendments regarding the operation of drive thrus in the City of Saint Paul. The amendments would eliminate drive thrus as a permitted use in the B4 central business district and prohibit future restaurant drive thrus in the T2 traditional neighborhood zoning district, along with increasing requirements for stacking spaces and distance from transit stations. For context: sample T2 zones include significant portions of University Avenue and up Snelling, Rice St, Maryland/Phalen Blvd area, Arcade, Suburban Ave/White Bear Ave, Cesar Chavez, and West 7th.

First off, I'm disappointed that the first time the Chamber heard of this proposal was when the agenda came out. The Planning Commission stated they’d done significant outreach. Somehow we missed it.

That said, the issue itself certainly is not unique to Saint Paul. I just see the fundamental disconnect: the public demand for drive thrus is higher than ever. City planners (again, not just Saint Paul) want to remove them.

Simply put, drive thrus play a valuable role. They allow restaurants the flexibility to continue to serve customers while dealing with both workforce shortages and public safety issues. And if you read anything about consumer use, you’ll find that the vast majority of adults frequent drive thrus on a very regular basis – bringing that business into the city itself. Think about the convenience for those with mobility issues, small children, or those needing to maintain distance from others due to illness. In fact, post-Covid, consumer habits have shifted to drive thrus and takeout for dining preferences.

Purely from an economic growth perspective, from my season at the Port Authority I experienced several companies that walked away from Saint Paul because they simply couldn’t find locations for drive thru service. Each of these companies wanted to bring jobs, tax base, and expanded services to Saint Paul. They went elsewhere.

Now, certainly, some locations are not a good fit for a drive thru operation due to infrastructure design or maybe traffic patterns. We don't need a sweeping policy change to analyze specific projects. The more we legislate to the least common denominator, the more we invite in “unintended consequences” that actually drive future business opportunity away.

Much of the basis for the amendments currently being proposed is centered around achieving climate goals, but I’m not sure these amendments will have the desired effects of reducing vehicle miles travelled and encouraging pedestrian travel. Forcing customers to rely on curbside pickup will require additional parking spaces in the restaurant footprint and still will lead to idling vehicles as customers wait for their food. Perhaps some consumers will shift to food delivery through the apps which, again, promotes vehicle travel to the restaurant. Again, those with mobility issues and small children in tow will not opt for a pedestrian walk up, they’ll just not be able to dine out.

To use a transportation cliché, I’d ask the City to pump the brakes on these proposed amendments. Rather than taking these amendments to committee for discussion, then back to the Planning Commission, and onto the City Council, the City can use existing processes to achieve desired outcomes. Just take a more targeted look at the locations where drive thrus don’t make sense from traffic safety standpoint, rather than negatively affecting diners and economic growth across the city.
 
See you in the trenches,

​B