Posts about Drive-thrus

Retail

Drive-thru solution?

by David Alpert   •   January 22, 2009 11:50 am

Perhaps this solves the drive-thru dilemma of food establishments whose drive-thrus stay open much later than their dining rooms, forcing pedestrians to get in a taxi to buy a late-night snack?

Tip: Steven.

Retail

24-hour service that isn't: the drive-thru dilemma

by Joey Katzen   •   December 31, 2008 11:01 am

To expats from Western Europe, one of the most visible and convenient displays of American capitalism is the array of services available every day of every week, late into the evening, and in select cases, absolutely whenever one's heart fancies (like a pair of tube socks from a Super Wal-Mart at three in the morning).

Indeed, many other western nations sharply regulate business hours on a national level. Most stores must to close by a set time, such as six or seven in the evening, with no Sunday shopping. European lawmakers justify this in two ways. First, they argue that no employee should be forced (or, perhaps, allowed) to work at "undesirable" hours. And second, they say that smaller mom-and-pop stores can't afford to stay open late or on weekends; permitting superstores to do so would put those independent haberdashers and bodegas out of business.

America generally knows no such boundaries, and so we have at our overnight disposal, variously, 10 pm treadmill runs at the gym, 2 am iPods at Apple on 5th Avenue, and 4 am Caramellos at the corner 7-Eleven.

A casual walk down a commercial street in virtually any local neighborhood will reveal numerous fast food restaurants seemingly open "late-nite" or "24-hours". But on closer inspection, in virtually every case outside of DC's French Quarter, Adams Morgan, only the drive-thrus serve late night patrons, and then only those in motorized vehicles (sorry cyclists).

For whatever reason, whether it's a desire to keep the dining rooms tidy or to protect cashiers from those would-be lawbreakers who are seemingly more dangerous on foot than in a car, late-night food seekers are forced to get behind the wheel, even if they live directly adjacent to such a restaurant.

Without going into the community merits (or lack thereof) of the availability of the 3 am Chalupa, sampling such a tantalizing offering requires residents to drive, rather than walk. That's often when they're in their least effective, and even possibly intoxicated, states, posing considerable risk to their and others' lives.

I propose we require parity in the treatment of pedestrians and drivers, where such service would not serve as an unreasonable burden on the business. I suggested such to an Arlington County Supervisor, who found the concept novel and worth an investigation.

Unfortunately, in Virginia at least, except for liquor laws, most localities may regulate operating hours only through zoning. As a result, once an establishment has opened for business, the municipality can't impose any new operating-hour regulation. The business is "grandfathered" into its use under the original zoning regulations, even if they are later amended. It might be easier in Washington or Maryland.

Arlington changed their zoning laws in 1998 to prohibit new drive-thrus, except by a "special exception" at the discretion of the governing body. In the future, if any new establishment wanted to open a drive-thru, the negotiation over the necessary permission would let the County to include conditions of pedestrian parity for approval.

Until then, I guess I'll have to take a taxi 200 feet for my late-night fix. Or not.

Retail

From drive-thru to walk-up: Van Ness Walgreens

by David Alpert   •   November 3, 2008 3:22 pm

When we last looked at the proposed Van Ness Walgreens at Connecticut and Veazey, it was a suburban store plunked down in an urban lot next to a Metro station. The building was set far back from Connecticut Avenue, with parking in front, curb cuts on both Connecticut and Veazey, a big free-standing sign at the corner, and a seven-car drive-thru.

DDOT and community members opposed the plan as inappropriate to the city, especially a site right near Metro. In response, Walgreens completely reworked the proposal into something that belongs on an urban street corner. Instead of siting the building at the very rear of the lot, it now comes right up to the property line along Connecticut Avenue. A few parking spaces are in the rear, off the alley, and the rest underground. There are now only three above-ground spaces instead of seven in the original plan.

The above diagrams show the original proposal (left) and the current plans (right). Areas shaded in red are part of the building, yellow are areas used by vehicles, and green are pedestrian-only walkways. As you can see, on the old plan pedestrians had to cross the parking area and potentially conflict with parking and turning vehicles. Now, pedestrians can enter the store directly from the sidewalk.

Instead of a drive-thru, the plans show a "possible walk-up window" in the rear. That would let drivers pull in from the alley, get prescriptions, and drive away. If the store is intent on building infrastructure for drivers to avoid parking underground and entering the store, that's a much better way. (They still might end up better off if they force people to actually enter the store and potentially see other items to buy, but that should be their own business decision.)

This design is a huge improvement over the original, but it's never going to become a paragon of great urbanism. As with many drugstores, it has few windows—just near the escalators, the front door, and the possible walk-up window. And unlike drugstores like CVS that have windows but the store covers them up, the building won't have them from the start. That means it'll be more expensive for another store to reuse this space for a more window-oriented storefront retail in the future. (Depending how the building is designed, it may not even be possible without structural reinforcement.)

At the moment, the design doesn't contain any bicycle parking. That's one of many concerns raised by the local ANC, as reported in last week's Current (article, continuation). The ANC's resolution also raises concerns about traffic, delivery trucks, noise from mechanical equipment, lack of vegetation, and one particular tree that screens the gas station currently on the site from a nearby apartment building.

The developer's traffic study should answer questions about the traffic impact, though I can't see it being worse than a gas station. Neighbors want Walgreens to save the existing tree, add more vegetation on the site, and enclose the mechanical equipment to cut down on noise. According to the Current, the ANC wants further concessions on these issues before it will support the variances Walgreens needs to build this more urban-friendly design.

The new design is about 1/3 bigger (20,188 square feet of retail space versus 15,071 in the original) and, if I'm counting right, has 4 more parking spaces (31 versus 27). With the larger project they're getting if granted the variance from lot coverage requirements, this project should be better for Walgreens as well as the community. It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask Walgreens to include some bike parking, landscaping, and address mechanical noise in exchange.

Parking

Van Ness Walgreens' drive-thru isn't even the worst part

by David Alpert   •   July 9, 2008 11:04 am

As I reported last week, Walgreens is proposing a new store with a drive-thru and 27 parking spaces on the former site of a gas station at Veazey and Connecticut, right by the Van Ness Metro.

The drive-thru, while a bad idea, isn't even the worst part of this proposal. It is a cookie-cutter suburban design plunked down in the city right next to a Metro station. Instead of siting the building against the sidewalk to draw in pedestrians, they place it near the back of the lot, with only the narrow drive-thru lane separating the building from its neighbor. In front, they propose a row of parking along Connecticut Avenue and run the ramp down to an underground parking level along the Veazey Terrace frontage. There's even a free-standing sign at the corner to complete the suburban feel.

The building is colored red in the above picture, and the yellow shows land devoted to driving or parking inside the lot. Here are the complete original plans: ground level, basement parking level, and upper level.

Instead, they should put the building right at the corner of Connecticut and Veazey, extending all the way across that edge of the lot. There should be only a single car entrance, off Veazey or the alley, accessing parking (if necessary) behind, with the ramp to the lower level also located behind.

Fortunately, good-DDOT is coming to the rescue, strongly opposing the parking in front. Apparently the Walgreens planned to go before the BZA, but withdrew when they found out DDOT would oppose the drive-thru. They are now pursuing their options for matter-of-right development. That's too bad, because not only is the drive-thru a bad idea, but the reduced parking and greater density they were seeking could have generated a better and more urban project.

The latest parking zoning draft would, among other changes, forbid development like this which places parking between the building and the street. The commercial working groups haven't yet met, but there's a good chance drive-thru development may also be disallowed, or at least require BZA hearings and public participation to approve one.

Parking

Breakfast links: thanks for emailing tips edition

by David Alpert   •   July 1, 2008 8:33 am

Sausage makers talk trains: Northern Virginia's Congressman Jim Moran is holding a town hall on called "From Roads to Rail" on Monday evening, July 7th in Tysons. House Transportation Chairman James Oberstar will speak too. Thanks bfox!

Next, Manhattan? Urban farming has transformed people's diets from imported canned goods to fresh local vegetables in Cuba. Cuba's big agribusiness may be inefficient, but look for more of this in the developed world as energy prices go up and up. From the International Herald Tribune. Thanks Bianchi!

Not another drive-thru: Walgreens is planning to build on a former gas station at Veazey and Connecticut, right by the Van Ness stop, reports reader Steve. The somewhat-good news: they're seeking a variance to build only 27 parking spaces instead of 40 (it should be even fewer). The less-good news: Walgreens gets to keep all the curb cuts the gas station had, and so they're building a drive-through. We should not be building drive-throughs in urban areas, especially not next to Metro stations.

Cardin on transit: Ben Cardin, Delaware's slightly less well known Senator Maryland's newest Senator and a great advocate for transit, gets interviewed by Grist. He talks about the transit component of the Climate Security Act, which he authored (and which failed to pass a Republican filibuster this year). Oops, I confused Carper and Cardin. We have a wealth of pro-transit Senators whose names start with 'Car'.