http://www.csnews.com/top-story-nacs_launches_lobbying_effort_against_rest_area_commercialization-59036.html
Here's an article about legislation that was introduced to allow commercialization of rest areas, and its possible detrimental effect on businesses along the interchanges.
What does everyone think? On one hand, I see more and more states cutting back hours at rest areas or closing them entirely because there is no source of money...people don't pay to use them. Having commercially viable rest areas would hopefully reverse this trend. On the other hand, they do have a point about the phenominon of people not being willing to exit in search of services, therefore not only decreasing business activity at off-interstate facilities and driving more traffic to the on-highway facilities, which in turn drives up the prices because of less competition. It made sense in the era of ticket-system toll roads which required lining up at a toll to pay to exit, and then lining up again to get a ticket on entry, but in this era of electronic toll collection where there is essentially little time penalty for exiting, the service areas on roads like the NJ Turnpike or PA Turnpike seem less appealing. What the study really should have done is look at the trends on roads with both service areas and free ability to exit/enter along with logo signs at interchanges. An example would be I-95 in Connecticut. In NJ, the off-interstate businesses still suffer from an artificial disadvantage since the turnpike does not permit food or gas logo signs, only lodging, whereas there is nothing to suggest that states allowing commercialization of rest areas will pull all of their logo signs for off-interstate food and gas businesses.
I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this. I generally avoid stopping at rest areas after dark because of the lack of visible "official presense" of DOT employees or police. So if a state wants to shut down rest areas at night, I'm all for allowing them to do that, since I'd prefer a truck stop. I might be more willing to stop at a commercialized rest area after dark as there would be actual people working there that would look out for the safety of their customers. However, I typically prefer off-interstate facilities during the day as well when I need food or gas, since they have greater vatriety and better prices than service areas. While I like the idea of a state keeping rest areas open during the day for quick breaks, I'd rather the state not tinker with the availability of off-interstate businesses by giving ones located in a rest area an "advantage" over those not in the rest area.
Thoughts?
Quote from: mtantillo on July 05, 2011, 04:38:01 PMI'm honestly not sure how I feel about this. I generally avoid stopping at rest areas after dark because of the lack of visible "official presense" of DOT employees or police. So if a state wants to shut down rest areas at night, I'm all for allowing them to do that, since I'd prefer a truck stop.
I don't agree with this. I prefer to use on-highway rest areas, regardless of the time of day. I appreciate that there is more of a danger after dark, but in several hundred thousand miles of driving, I have had nighttime problems at only two rest areas, one on I-91 in Vermont near Stowe and the other on US 277 in Texas near Anson, and in both cases the rest areas were not lit at night. In neither case was I at imminent risk of violence against my person. It was simply a question of my sitting in my car with the lights off, generally to grab some shut-eye, seeing another car pull in, and wondering why the other driver didn't get out of his or her car and actually use the facilities. There are plenty of innocent reasons for this--such as the other driver wanting some shut-eye of his own, or being afraid that
I might assault
him--but in both cases I chose to leave immediately, and had my suspicions confirmed when the other driver followed me to the next town, where I managed to elude him.
In my experience, when states have to make cutbacks, they will generally close rest areas through the whole day, not just at night, so it would make more sense to focus on providing lighting at rest areas.
It also costs to close rest areas at night. Someone has to barricade them at dusk and open them again at dawn. Automatically operated gates could be provided instead, but the capital cost involved would be comparable to installing lighting. Operating hours and policies would have to be publicized somehow, not just on the Web but also on maps and signs--in short, ways accessible to someone actually on the road--and this would cost money. Also, in general, the public expects facilities of this type to be available 24 hours a day, and would bitterly resent having to plan rest stops around nocturnal closures.
QuoteThoughts?
Yes. Why is this issue surfacing now? What happened to Interstate Oases, which were supposed to be the great white hope for private-sector augmentation of rest area provision?
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 05, 2011, 05:57:48 PMI have had nighttime problems at only two rest areas, one on I-91 in Vermont near Stowe and the other on US 277 in Texas near Anson, and in both cases the rest areas were not lit at night. In neither case was I at imminent risk of violence against my person. It was simply a question of my sitting in my car with the lights off, generally to grab some shut-eye, seeing another car pull in, and wondering why the other driver didn't get out of his or her car and actually use the facilities. There are plenty of innocent reasons for this--such as the other driver wanting some shut-eye of his own, or being afraid that I might assault him--but in both cases I chose to leave immediately, and had my suspicions confirmed when the other driver followed me to the next town, where I managed to elude him.
Wow. That would be enough to give me the willies...
I don't see what difference it really makes in terms of local economies. Is a job at McDonalds at a service area really any different from a job at McDonalds just off the exit ramp? The logic of "we can't allow services on the highway because we want to support local businesses" hearkens back to another age when there were actually a lot of local businesses around to support. Now it's all just chains, anyway.
Still, prices are almost always higher at service areas because they have a captive audience. So the intelligent motorist will get off the freeway anyway.
Ultimately, though, I support commercialization if it will keep the rest areas open. Simply because it is of value to have places where travelers may use the restroom without having to buy something, where truckers may park for the night, etc.
Why not put a business at the rest area? I like the idea, and it was stupid to disallow making rest areas into service areas (as on toll roads) in the first place. I'd rather have more service areas run by the state/authority and some business than trying to get off the expressway trying to find an open place that has a useable washroom. I've had enough of "Mr. Nogttabathroom" at various roadside establishments.
Interstate Oases only exist in the MUTCD, as far as I know. (I know that's a slight exaggeration) I have no problem with commercialization of rest areas provided that the existing free facilities are retained: information, restrooms, picnic tables, dog areas, etc. If you want to add businesses onto that and have 24/7 operation, and get some money out of the deal, well in this era of states going broke that's just sprinkles on ice cream.
I'm pretty sure to be on the motorist service signs in Florida you have to have a public bathroom available.
Quote from: Steve on July 05, 2011, 08:44:54 PMI have no problem with commercialization of rest areas provided that the existing free facilities are retained: information, restrooms, picnic tables, dog areas, etc.
In principle I don't really have a problem with this, but in practice I can see some states trying to use the private sector to cover a retreat from public-sector rest area provision. It was suggested that the Interstate Oasis program could be used as a vehicle for this purpose, so many of the comments FHWA received during the comment period made the point that Interstate Oases should be required to provide services similar to those available at free roadside rest areas in order to earn Interstate Oasis signing. In the final rule, IIRC, FHWA threw out many of the suggested requirements (I had suggested, for example, that they should be required to provide free wi-fi, as Texas and many other states do at their free rest areas), but the ones that were left were still pretty extensive and I suspect this is one reason the Interstate Oasis idea remains parked in the
MUTCD along with metric plaques and the doomsday signs.
QuoteIf you want to add businesses onto that and have 24/7 operation, and get some money out of the deal, well in this era of states going broke that's just sprinkles on ice cream.
A few troublesome considerations come to mind.
* Many Interstate rest areas are located in rural areas ill-favored for commercial development, partly because they were planned and built under the policy which forbade concessions and other forms of private participation in rest areas on Interstates built with Interstate Construction funds.
* The typical rest area is self-contained, and would require significant redevelopment to accommodate a private business larger than a fruit stand. Who pays for it?
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 05, 2011, 06:24:20 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on July 05, 2011, 05:57:48 PMIt was simply a question of my sitting in my car with the lights off, generally to grab some shut-eye, seeing another car pull in, and wondering why the other driver didn't get out of his or her car and actually use the facilities. There are plenty of innocent reasons for this--such as the other driver wanting some shut-eye of his own, or being afraid that I might assault him--but in both cases I chose to leave immediately, and had my suspicions confirmed when the other driver followed me to the next town, where I managed to elude him.
Wow. That would be enough to give me the willies...
Yup, it was real
Journey into Fear stuff (though in that book the protagonist actually had authority figures coming to him and saying, "So-and-so represents foreign power X and has orders to kill you if necessary"). The best I can suggest, if it ever happens to you, is to drive to the nearest town and find the courthouse square, which tends to be well-lit and a focus of law enforcement attention.
QuoteInterstate Oases only exist in the MUTCD, as far as I know.
There's one on I-15 in Idaho (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2391.0), but beyond that I don't know of any off-tollway.
It seems like it works- they got all that added official signage and in exchange I got to go to a normal Flying J without feeling obligated to spend money to use the bathroom.
But yeah, I'd echo the comments that when I'm looking for a place to pee, nothing tops a government rest area.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 05, 2011, 10:32:26 PM
Yup, it was real Journey into Fear stuff (though in that book the protagonist actually had authority figures coming to him and saying, "So-and-so represents foreign power X and has orders to kill you if necessary"). The best I can suggest, if it ever happens to you, is to drive to the nearest town and find the courthouse square, which tends to be well-lit and a focus of law enforcement attention.
My thought would be to find a staffed, 24-hour convenience store or truck stop, and immediately proceed into the store and inform the clerk what is going on. One would hope that the clerk's presence would be enough of a deterrent to the pursuer, and if necessary summoning the police could be easily done.
...are most states' rest areas open 24/7? If so that's news to me. I'm used to them being only open 9-5 or so (some are better and open 6-10), but I've only been up and down the east coast.
Having 24-hour rest areas would have been nice though when coming down the Eastern Shore with a terribly sick passenger at about 3 AM. You would not believe how much trouble I had finding bathrooms every 30 minutes or so, because after the NJTP, none of the rest areas were open anymore the whole way. All had limited hours in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.
Quote...are most states' rest areas open 24/7? If so that's news to me. I'm used to them being only open 9-5 or so (some are better and open 6-10), but I've only been up and down the east coast.
Definitely west of the Mississippi most if not all are open 24/7, but often have restrictions on how long you can be there at night (almost all prohibit overnight camping, there's usually a 3-8 hour cap on how long you can be there) and theoretically the highway patrol checks on them- I don't know about the eastern US.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 06, 2011, 12:07:12 AM...are most states' rest areas open 24/7? If so that's news to me. I'm used to them being only open 9-5 or so (some are better and open 6-10), but I've only been up and down the east coast.
Yes, rest areas are generally open 24/7, although some of the services offered--such as tourism information, motel reservations, free coffee, etc.--may be available on a more restricted schedule.
QuoteHaving 24-hour rest areas would have been nice though when coming down the Eastern Shore with a terribly sick passenger at about 3 AM. You would not believe how much trouble I had finding bathrooms every 30 minutes or so, because after the NJTP, none of the rest areas were open anymore the whole way. All had limited hours in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.
I find this hard to believe. I know that VDOT has had to close rest areas because of budget problems, but I was not aware they had stopped providing 24/7 availability at the ones that haven't been closed altogether. I haven't been to Virginia in 13 years but, when I worked summers in Greenbelt, Maryland in the late 1990's, I used VDOT rest areas several times in the small hours of the morning.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 06, 2011, 12:07:12 AM
...are most states' rest areas open 24/7? If so that's news to me. I'm used to them being only open 9-5 or so (some are better and open 6-10), but I've only been up and down the east coast.
Having 24-hour rest areas would have been nice though when coming down the Eastern Shore with a terribly sick passenger at about 3 AM. You would not believe how much trouble I had finding bathrooms every 30 minutes or so, because after the NJTP, none of the rest areas were open anymore the whole way. All had limited hours in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.
In Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin, they're open 24/7. The Welcome Center portion of the rest area has its own hours, but the washrooms are always open.
I seldom stop at the service areas for any purpose other than toilet breaks and possibly using the vending machines, so I'm somewhat neutral to the idea of service areas versus rest areas from the standpoint of my own travel choices. But I agree with the sentiment in the OP's last paragraph about preferring off-Interstate facilities for food and gas. One of the things that make me scratch my head about the way many Americans travel is the number of people who will travel somewhere and then go to the same restaurants they can visit at home–that is, the continued commodification of the food scene via the increasing prevalence of chain restaurants. That's not to say that chains are bad. We stopped at an Arby's in Emporia on Saturday night after nine hours on the road and it really hit the spot while being quick enough that we could finish the last 160 miles home without getting too tired. But I like to find (a) the local places when I can, (b) the variety not offered in service areas, and (c) a selection of both fast-food places for when I'm in a hurry and sit-down places with menu service for when I'm not. We used to stop at a local diner in New Castle all the time on trips to New York until we got completely fed up with the I-95 route and started using the I-78 way.
As it is, many Americans tend to gravitate to the chains–they'll drive 850 miles and then go to Outback, same as they would at home–and I think in many places it's had a bit of a detrimental effect when it comes to the availability of non-chain offerings at interchanges. I suppose part of that is inevitable because someone on a long drive is more likely to want fast food, and that's fine. My concern would be that if the service areas became more prevalent, that many more people would stop at those out of convenience. That means in turn that the off-interchange locations get less business. The potential domino effect means that if the off-interchange fast food locations continue to get the majority of the business among the off-interchange restaurants, the full-service places potentially see a decline as well (for example, the Burger King is too crowded so you decide to visit a diner instead; if you now have a Five Guys at the service area, Burger King is less crowded and you have less reason to visit the diner), and potentially you see some of them getting squeezed out.
To me that sort of thing is a negative. I don't think it's a far-fetched scenario, either. The service areas on the toll roads in the Northeast can get extremely crowded even when the offerings are the same as those off the highway. No doubt part of the reason is a potential disincentive not mentioned yet in this thread–on some ticket-system toll roads, you pay a higher toll if you exit and get back on than you do if you stay on the road the whole time, even if you pay electronically. (I looked up the toll for our drive from Pembroke Pines to Viera last Monday via the Sawgrass Expressway, Florida's Turnpike, and untolled I-95. It was $5.90 with SunPass. Had we exited the Turnpike somewhere for lunch and then re-entered, it would have been at least 50¢ more using SunPass, and paying cash it would have been a couple of dollars. I think for many drivers who squawk about paying ANY toll as it is, the added toll is a major disincentive.) But surely the convenience is a huge motivator. I also wonder to what extent some of the other off-interchange businesses might experience a knock-on effect if service areas were more prevalent; the ones that most readily come to mind at this moment are the places in South Carolina that sell firecrackers. If you're already exiting for gas and food, it's often logical enough to stop for other things (like firecrackers) at the same time, but if you're now able to stop at a service area for gas and food, suddenly it becomes a lot more of a nuisance to pull off the highway for a single stop like that unless you're very motivated.
On the other hand, while I seldom buy gas at the service areas (especially in New Jersey because I hate letting someone else pump my gas), I will certainly concede that when you're in an unfamiliar area it can be nice to have the on-highway option rather than being in the position of potentially having to buy crap gas from a no-name local station because you're running low, and I also agree that when it's late at night I have no hesitation about stopping at a service area on the Thruway or the New Jersey Turnpike whereas I might be–indeed was this past Saturday night–reluctant to stop at a less-busy rest area.
BTW, regarding J N Winkler's comment about VDOT closing rest areas, that happened during the previous governor's administration where some rest areas were closed, while several of them that were believed to have more "economic value" via distribution of tourist literature in high-traffic corridors were left open. (Examples: The one on eastbound I-64 between Richmond and Williamsburg was kept open; the one on I-66 near Manassas was closed.) The current governor made re-opening the rest areas a campaign issue and they re-opened all of them during the first several months of his term. As far as I know the toilet facilities are indeed open 24 hours. I've never paid much attention to the tourist info desks because as a Virginia resident I've never needed the tourist info and so just never had reason to pay attention.
I live in Maryland, not too too far from the Maryland House and Chesapeake House rest areas, which are commercialized (and have an exception for existence because I-95 is technically a "toll road").
I don't really frequent the Chesapeake House, but the Maryland House is my unlikely best friend because of the unlimited access to official maps and because the place is chock full of different express chain restaurants that aren't found anywhere else in the area (such as Phillip's Seafood and Roy Rogers!)
Personally, I don't think it's a bad idea to commercialize rest stops. It might not work in all areas, but it could bring some different fast food chains into the mix and would increase usability and safely of the areas at nighttime. I would certainly use them - it would sure beat trying to find a Wawa/Sheetz/24 hour gas station off the highway for resting (which have the added bonus of unofficially usually having a police car present).
ETA: The Maryland House is between the exits for Riverside and Aberdeen, both which are towns/cities that have plenty of chain and original restaurants.
I remember when the Maryland House had a real sit-down restaurant with menu service rather than fast food. :-D
It was always crowded back then too.
Oh man, really? I had no idea that the Maryland House had a sit-down restaurant inside! When did it change?
Almost all rest areas in NH and VT have limited hours. VT I-91 welcome center is 7am to 11pm. I-93 welcome center and I-91 rest area near US 302 are open 7 to 7. NH I-93 rest area in Littleton open 8 - 8 and closed Mon to Wed completely. Maryland has a bunch of ones which operate 9 - 5 only...US 15, US 301. And on I-68, the Sideling Hill area is seasonal.
Really not a big deal to close them...just a few plaques on signs, and the attendant just shuts the gates on the way out as well as turn off the lights.
Interstate Oasis was always a theoretical idea,much like 24 hour pharmacy signs. A specific industry lobbied to have it included in the MUTCD but state DOT officials refuse to acknowledge its existence. Any DOT person I know says the Specific Service Sign program works just fine. If you want a truck stop, look for the Flying J or TA or Pilot logo, not a palm tree in Idaho!!
Quote from: Laura Bianca on July 06, 2011, 09:31:56 AM
Oh man, really? I had no idea that the Maryland House had a sit-down restaurant inside! When did it change?
If memory serves, it was sometime during the 1980s. I remember we used to stop there periodically when I was a little kid and it had a sit-down restaurant, but by the time I got my driver's license it had switched over to fast food. I'll see if I can find anything online about it. I remember my brother losing a stuffed animal in the car park there at some point during the 1970s.
Based on the notation in your profile about your age, it's no surprise that you wouldn't remember it (no offense intended!).
Edited to add: A Google search for "Maryland House rest area history" turned up a Yelp page of reviews of the Maryland House, one of which contains this: "It has gone through many changes over the years (a restaurant with fine china and white-linen tablecloths is long gone) ...." I'll check out other search results later–need to get something done for an actual paying client. :-D
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 06, 2011, 09:42:12 AM
Based on the notation in your profile about your age, it's no surprise that you wouldn't remember it (no offense intended!).
Edited to add: A Google search for "Maryland House rest area history" turned up a Yelp page of reviews of the Maryland House, one of which contains this: "It has gone through many changes over the years (a restaurant with fine china and white-linen tablecloths is long gone) ...." I'll check out other search results later–need to get something done for an actual paying client. :-D
Haha, no offense taken!
Very interesting - I found the Yelp site you referenced (http://www.yelp.com/biz/maryland-house-travel-plaza-aberdeen) as well as some other cool sites:
Maryland House's wikipedia page: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_House)
"Overview: Maryland House was opened in 1963 and was renovated in 1987. Wing additions to the Maryland House facility were added in 1989 and 1990. The Maryland House services 2.8 million customers annually.[2] Today, Maryland House is run by the HMSHost Corporation. U.S. Federal law prescribes that rest areas on public (toll-free) interstate highways be maintained by the state, however Maryland was able to obtain an exemption, allowing them to commercialize the Maryland House and Chesapeake House service areas.[6] This exemption was granted due to the fact that the service areas were constructed when the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway was a toll road. Now, Maryland is responsible for the grounds, while the commercial operators absorb the costs of operation. WTOP-FM says that the two commercialized rest-stops bring in $40 million per annum.[7]
Previously, Maryland House had a Bob's Big Boy restaurant, a Mrs. Fields shop, and a cafeteria."
And another fantastic read: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/traffic/2009/08/toll_authority_plodding_ahead.html
"When the Maryland House opened, with an estimated construction cost of $660,000, the pace of American life was so leisurely that the plaza included a restaurant with fine china and white-linen tablecloths. But the debut of the facility, which at the time was the only dining spot on a 100-mile stretch of highway between New Jersey and Washington, was followed by controversy over its monopolistic food prices - as much as $2.65 for a steak sandwich.
The company that ran the restaurant backed off its high prices, cutting the price of a hamburger from 50 cents to 40 cents under pressure from state officials.
Over the years, the building has undergone retrofit after retrofit and now includes a lineup of name-brand fast-food providers as well as Internet access and Wi-Fi capability. With cell phones now ubiquitous, what was once a second-floor bank of pay phones has been turned into a conference room. Two wings have been added to the original building, including one that provided a much-needed second entrance."
Quote from: mtantillo on July 06, 2011, 09:41:13 AM
Almost all rest areas in NH and VT have limited hours. VT I-91 welcome center is 7am to 11pm.
I have to admit that I was genuinely surprised that the I-91 Welcome Center was open until 11pm when I visited back in November. Are there other examples around the country of Welcome Centers that stay open very late?
Quote from: mtantillo on July 06, 2011, 09:41:13 AMAlmost all rest areas in NH and VT have limited hours. VT I-91 welcome center is 7am to 11pm. I-93 welcome center and I-91 rest area near US 302 are open 7 to 7. NH I-93 rest area in Littleton open 8 - 8 and closed Mon to Wed completely.
They close the toilets too? That swamp Yankee stuff would never fly out here.
QuoteMaryland has a bunch of ones which operate 9 - 5 only...US 15, US 301.
Those are off-Interstate rest areas. In Kansas there are a number of rest areas on non-freeway heavy trucking corridors (e.g. US 54) and some of these were closed early in Kathleen Sebelius' first term as governor. To my knowledge, however, KDOT has not attempted to close any Interstate rest areas.
QuoteReally not a big deal to close them...just a few plaques on signs, and the attendant just shuts the gates on the way out as well as turn off the lights.
It is still a big deal. First, you have to have an attendant, and that attendant has to be there at least twice a day at specific times of day. When a rest area operates 24/7, the janitor can show up anytime as long as the facilities get cleaned to a specific standard at the designated frequency.
The Virginia ones in question were, as previously stated, off-interstate (but still on a major highway that really ought to be an interstate), while most interstate rest areas at least have the parking lot open 24/7. Maryland on the other hand is different. I know the rest area on I-270 closes at either dusk or some time like 5 or 6 PM.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 06, 2011, 11:35:20 AM
Quote from: mtantillo on July 06, 2011, 09:41:13 AMAlmost all rest areas in NH and VT have limited hours. VT I-91 welcome center is 7am to 11pm. I-93 welcome center and I-91 rest area near US 302 are open 7 to 7. NH I-93 rest area in Littleton open 8 - 8 and closed Mon to Wed completely.
They close the toilets too? That swamp Yankee stuff would never fly out here.
Yes, it is one building, with one entrance, either everything is open, or everything is closed. Not sure if they barricade the parking or not.
Honestly, I don't blame them, those roads are not heavily traveled corridors and the usage statistics would likely be very low for the overnight hours. Not worth the cost of the lights and staffing during the overnight periods based on a cost benefit analysis.
QuoteMaryland has a bunch of ones which operate 9 - 5 only...US 15, US 301.
Those are off-Interstate rest areas. In Kansas there are a number of rest areas on non-freeway heavy trucking corridors (e.g. US 54) and some of these were closed early in Kathleen Sebelius' first term as governor. To my knowledge, however, KDOT has not attempted to close any Interstate rest areas.
I think the I-68 welcome center also has limited hours. Interstate or non-interstate doesn't really matter though, the cost/benefit analysis is going to be based on real numbers of people using the rest areas, and it is very well possible that some off-interstate ones may be more utilized than some on-interstate ones. Traffic volumes on US 15 and US 301 are probably pretty close to that of I-68, and the off-interstate ones have the benefit of serving two directions of travel.
QuoteReally not a big deal to close them...just a few plaques on signs, and the attendant just shuts the gates on the way out as well as turn off the lights.
It is still a big deal. First, you have to have an attendant, and that attendant has to be there at least twice a day at specific times of day. When a rest area operates 24/7, the janitor can show up anytime as long as the facilities get cleaned to a specific standard at the designated frequency.
Maryland rest areas, as well as the ones in other states I am familiar with have to have an attendant on duty when the rest area is open, minus short meal breaks, I assume. That was part of the justification for closing the Maryland rest areas overnight...only need one or two shifts instead of three, and that is a bona-fide cost savings. The attendant, when he/she arrives for work in the morning, opens the gates/turns on light/unlocks the doors on the way in, and whomever is on duty in the off hours shuts it down at the end of the shift. Virginia has all of their rest areas open 24/7 to the best of my knowledge, but they still have attendants on duty in the office all the time. Not a very visible official presense, as they are not necessarily out serving customers like you would see in a service area, but they are there.
Vermont's have always closed overnight, while NH's and MD's limited hours are new as a result of budget considerations.
Quote from: mtantillo on July 06, 2011, 02:00:53 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on July 06, 2011, 11:35:20 AMThey close the toilets too? That swamp Yankee stuff would never fly out here.
Yes, it is one building, with one entrance, either everything is open, or everything is closed. Not sure if they barricade the parking or not.
Honestly, I don't blame them, those roads are not heavily traveled corridors and the usage statistics would likely be very low for the overnight hours. Not worth the cost of the lights and staffing during the overnight periods based on a cost benefit analysis.
I would agree on the staffing but not the lighting. I do not think states should, in general, have any policies requiring staffing of rest areas while they are open (see below). In any case, cost-benefit analysis of rest area provision is tricky because many of the features counted as benefits, such as the opportunity to go to the bathroom, are either not traded on the open market or, if traded, are available only jointly with other goods or services.
QuoteMaryland rest areas, as well as the ones in other states I am familiar with have to have an attendant on duty when the rest area is open, minus short meal breaks, I assume.
That is not how it works in Kansas. It is the norm for rest areas to be open 24/7 with no staffing and no systematic surveillance or other form of official attention except occasional visits from the Highway Patrol and a janitor. It is not uncommon to pull off the freeway and find that your car is the only one in the parking area.
This said, the fittings in Kansas rest areas tend to have more in common with prisons than homes and commercial establishments. Toilet bowls are stainless steel without seats. Toilet stalls have either no doors, or heavy substantial doors designed to resist forcible intrusion. Mirrors are available but are polished sheet metal with no glass. Sinks either have concealed drain openings or screens over the plughole to frustrate attempts at blockage. Floors and walls are either tile or impervious paving. Urinals are stainless steel rather than porcelain (in general, nothing is used that can be easily broken and creates a cutting edge when broken).
QuoteThat was part of the justification for closing the Maryland rest areas overnight...only need one or two shifts instead of three, and that is a bona-fide cost savings. The attendant, when he/she arrives for work in the morning, opens the gates/turns on light/unlocks the doors on the way in, and whomever is on duty in the off hours shuts it down at the end of the shift. Virginia has all of their rest areas open 24/7 to the best of my knowledge, but they still have attendants on duty in the office all the time. Not a very visible official presense, as they are not necessarily out serving customers like you would see in a service area, but they are there.
With such a cost-intensive model of rest area provision, it is hardly surprising that the mid-Atlantic states (as well as Vermont and New Hampshire) view rest areas as an easy cut. But I don't view commercialization of rest areas as a good solution to this problem (at least for the majority of existing free rest areas which are not part of service areas) because commercialization would require significant site redevelopment to work. Such redevelopment is a capital cost which the private sector would expect the public sector to pay as compensation for the uncertain profitability of the existing locations. Subventions from the public purse would be better spent abolishing the need for continuous staffing and reducing other running costs.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 06, 2011, 08:55:42 AM
As it is, many Americans tend to gravitate to the chains
Never underestimate the power of brand name recognition. I know what to expect when I go into an IHOP, a Denny's, a McDonalds, etc., no matter where I am. I don't know what to expect when I walk into Joe's coffee shop in Podunkton.
I don't think its just Americans. Every place has their national brands. Just not on the same scale as the USA, since we are such a big country. If you are in Europe and you travel 1000 miles from home, you are likely several countries away from your origin, which means the language and brands are likely different. Here in the USA, we have the luxury of being able to travel thousands of miles and getting the same familiar brands.
In Canada I noticed quite a few chains represented on their logo signs at interchanges, and many of those chains are on a somewhat national scale.
When I travel, at my destination, I'll have researched the best places to eat so I know where to go. Along the way, I have no idea where i'll end up being hungry, which precludes research in advance. Since I don't know what local places are good and what ones are bad, I settle for the predictable chains. On routes I travel often enough, I have some favorite places that I've discovered. For example, traveling on I-84 in CT, I'll typically stop at either Rein's Deli in Vernon or Blue Colony Diner in Bethel. On unfamiliar routes, I don't have that advance knowledge though.
You can't drive long in Canada without passing a few dozen Tim Hortons. That's for sure.
Quote from: mtantillo on July 05, 2011, 04:38:01 PM
http://www.csnews.com/top-story-nacs_launches_lobbying_effort_against_rest_area_commercialization-59036.html
Here's an article about legislation that was introduced to allow commercialization of rest areas, and its possible detrimental effect on businesses along the interchanges.
QuoteWhat the study really should have done is look at the trends on roads with both service areas and free ability to exit/enter along with logo signs at interchanges. An example would be I-95 in Connecticut. In NJ, the off-interstate businesses still suffer from an artificial disadvantage since the turnpike does not permit food or gas logo signs, only lodging, whereas there is nothing to suggest that states allowing commercialization of rest areas will pull all of their logo signs for off-interstate food and gas businesses.
I agree that the study would need to look at areas that already have commercialized service areas, in order to determine their effects on local economies. As for exit service signs, I think the New Jersey Turnpike's practice of only using signs for lodging is standard for toll roads that have service areas with gas stations and food service. I know that the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the Kansas Turnpike both follow this same practice.
QuoteThoughts?
I have a hard time believing that this is as bad of an idea as the article makes it out to be. At worst, it seems like it would take business from one place and transfer it to another. At the state or national level, I don't see how this would cause a net loss of business. Didn't a similar process already happen to businesses on state and U.S. highways when Interstates were created, and businesses moved to more convenient locations adjacent to Interstate interchanges? Furthermore, this wouldn't affect local economies' basic industries; it would only affect the service sector.
I think this would provide a reasonable source of revenue for roads. The only other ways to raise funds for roads are to raise taxes or implement tolls, and commercializing rest areas could relieve some of the pressure, although I'm not sure how much. I think this would generally benefit motorists, as it would provide services and facilities that are more convenient, although I do hope that commercialized rest areas would be open 24 hours a day. This could also relieve congestion at commercialized interchanges, since fewer people would use those exits for services they can access directly from the freeway mainline.
I'm kind of surprised we haven't done this already. We've had food and retail concessions at airports and major train stations for so long that I don't think many people could imagine such places without them.
Quote from: stridentweasel on July 08, 2011, 04:36:08 PMI'm kind of surprised we haven't done this already. We've had food and retail concessions at airports and major train stations for so long that I don't think many people could imagine such places without them.
The difference is that trains and airports are designed specifically to accommodate these commercial businesses. Shopfronts of defined width are already provided and supplied with utility hookups, etc. Existing free rest areas do have utility hookups (with the possible exception of gas), but some might have capacity issues, and in any case site redevelopment would be necessary to provide permanent, all-weather, all-seasons shelter for the private businesses.
In the US full-service areas work well on toll roads because they were planned from the beginning--land was set aside, standard forms for concession agreements were defined, etc. Similarly, in Britain MSAs work well because early objections to municipal trading were successfully overcome and sites prepared to defined dimensions were set aside at regular intervals. For historical reasons this did not happen on untolled Interstates and it would be costly to implement a change in policy as a retrofit.
There is also a good free-market argument against commercializing rest areas. If there is so much demand for roadside goods and services at a given rest area, why don't the private businesses build at a nearby exit? In rural areas access is typically very easy to arrange, site development costs are lower on greenfield than on the brownfield within existing rest areas, concession fees do not need to be paid, and although many states now require hundreds of feet of access control on either side of ramp termini, on-premise signs are still unregulated.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 08, 2011, 05:06:05 PM
The difference is that trains and airports are designed specifically to accommodate these commercial businesses. Shopfronts of defined width are already provided and supplied with utility hookups, etc. Existing free rest areas do have utility hookups (with the possible exception of gas), but some might have capacity issues, and in any case site redevelopment would be necessary to provide permanent, all-weather, all-seasons shelter for the private businesses.
In the US full-service areas work well on toll roads because they were planned from the beginning--land was set aside, standard forms for concession agreements were defined, etc. Similarly, in Britain MSAs work well because early objections to municipal trading were successfully overcome and sites prepared to defined dimensions were set aside at regular intervals. For historical reasons this did not happen on untolled Interstates and it would be costly to implement a change in policy as a retrofit.
There is also a good free-market argument against commercializing rest areas. If there is so much demand for roadside goods and services at a given rest area, why don't the private businesses build at a nearby exit? In rural areas access is typically very easy to arrange, site development costs are lower on greenfield than on the brownfield within existing rest areas, concession fees do not need to be paid, and although many states now require hundreds of feet of access control on either side of ramp termini, on-premise signs are still unregulated.
I realize the initial costs would be substantial. I imagine commercialized rest areas would be phased in over time, with perhaps not every rest area being converted, since some locations are certainly more advantageous than others. I doubt such an idea would even be considered if it wasn't expected to pay for itself. Current rest areas are often remodeled and sometimes even rebuilt or relocated. So instead of rebuilding a non-commercialized rest area, it might make sense to invest more and build a commercialized rest area, which would generate revenue from concessions over time. I do think it would be unwise to convert every rest area immediately, since the model would need time to prove itself.
Quote from: stridentweasel on July 09, 2011, 03:30:23 PMI realize the initial costs would be substantial. I imagine commercialized rest areas would be phased in over time, with perhaps not every rest area being converted, since some locations are certainly more advantageous than others. I doubt such an idea would even be considered if it wasn't expected to pay for itself. Current rest areas are often remodeled and sometimes even rebuilt or relocated. So instead of rebuilding a non-commercialized rest area, it might make sense to invest more and build a commercialized rest area, which would generate revenue from concessions over time. I do think it would be unwise to convert every rest area immediately, since the model would need time to prove itself.
Yes, gradual development (in conjunction with a program of rest area refurbishment, and focused on commercializing the rest areas that have actual commercial potential) makes the most sense. My concern however is that this may not be the idea that is actually on the table. Commercializing rest areas is often spoken of as an alternative to closing them altogether, but my contention is that because of the need for site redevelopment, and the empirical fact that rest-area closures are typically the result of short-term budgetary pressures, the choice between the two is a false one. Saying "We would have to close this rest area because we don't have the money to keep it open, except we won't because we will be opening it to private businesses" does not cause the money to keep it open to appear by magic. It doesn't even guarantee anyone (either the state or the private businesses) a steady revenue stream once the necessary investments in site redevelopment are made.
Put another way: because money spent building a rest area is a sunk cost, rest area closures are typically motivated by the need to cut running costs within a given budgetary cycle, whereas rest area commercialization has a strong element of infrastructure provision, so the associated costs and benefits (and the parallel accounting of revenues and expenditures to the owning agency) have to be considered over the useful lifetimes of the durable assets involved.
The hospitality businesses have a vested interest in encouraging conflation of these two issues, whether they actually do so or not. (Remember, they may not necessarily be just looking for new commercial opportunities--ideological opposition to free rest areas is one possible motivation.) The underlying question is which course of action best serves the public interest, taking time preference rates of discount into consideration. My suspicion is that commercialization of rest areas might work well for untolled rural Interstates with AADTs of 50,000 or higher, but for Interstates with sub-20,000 AADT--a significant proportion if not the majority of the centerline mileage on the system--it makes better financial sense for states to reduce their recurrent costs by "hardening" fittings in rest areas.
Maybe they should just make a contract with the businesses to build the rest area. Giant McDonalds with a huge restroom paid for by McD.
I like the full-service service areas on the northeastern toll roads, and I wish they existed on the untolled interstates as well. Even in Connecticut, where I-95 is no longer a toll-road the state has wisely continued the service-areas. There is a wealth of advantage in having them. 24-hour availability of food/fuel/rest-room/ convenience store, etc. in a safe, lighted, staffed location. Yes, the prices are a little higher, but you are paying for convenience and safety. And the facility does create jobs for local residents.
That beats the heck out of driving a strange route, and having to locate off-highway 24-hour facilities such as on I-84 in Connecticut, or I-78 in New Jersey/Pennsylvania. Sometimes the signage is inadequate and directs you off at an exit, then doesn't tell you which way to turn at the end of the ramp. This is a problem if the gas station/convenience store/fast-food restaurant is a half-mile down the road, and can't be seen from the exit-ramp.
I would encourage all states to have more 24-hr. service areas run by commercial chains on their interstates. Everyone benefits.
I'm not sure if this is along the same vein, but Utah has closed a majority of its rest areas along I-15 (only two exist in each direction from Salt Lake City to St. George now). To supplant the gone-by-the-wayside rest areas, UDOT has posted signs like these along several interchanges of I-15.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5120%2F5916340070_d3506d85ec_z.jpg&hash=6181ce2f1929191cec5cbca7a951da27b12eb9c6)
There are accompanying signs right by the exit, and then at the off-ramp directing folks to - get ready - a gas station. That's all it is. Usually a Chevron or a Texaco. As the sign says, it's a "public/private partnership" between UDOT and the gas station. This isn't like putting a gas station on a freeway off-ramp (like they do in Europe), but it does encourage people to avoid whatever other gas station might be located at that exit (there are usually two or three, if not more).
Well, this just reaffirms my belief that we put more stock in our freeways forty years ago than we do now.
This reminded me of a good point–isn't the idea of commercial rest areas EXACTLY what Road Chef/Moto/etc. are doing in England? How well does it work over there?
There are two nice rest stops on either side of Tom Green County, the county San Angelo is in, on US 87. They are both lit, on the one near Eden, has vending machines. The ones on the Interstates in Texas (at least on I-10, and I-37, and I-35) usually have Wi-Fi, vending machines, restrooms, and are lit. And usually have big parking lots for trucks.
BigMatt
Quote from: texaskdog on July 09, 2011, 05:09:35 PM
Maybe they should just make a contract with the businesses to build the rest area. Giant McDonalds with a huge restroom paid for by McD.
That's effectively what tollway oases/service areas are. We don't need to "prove" the model, we have the model. Look no further than the Illinois Tollway, Indiana Toll Road, Ohio Turnpike, Pennsylvania Turnpike, etc, etc. They work and it is proven.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 09, 2011, 10:47:05 PMThis reminded me of a good point–isn't the idea of commercial rest areas EXACTLY what Road Chef/Moto/etc. are doing in England?
Yes and no. Motorway service areas are functionally the same as service areas on American public-authority turnpikes:
* Land is set aside for them in advance (the usual rule was so much land on either side of the motorway centerline every 50 miles). Not all sites have been developed, and some that have been developed have been abandoned, giving rise to "ghost MSAs." Historically there have been MSA deserts as well--itineraries of several hundred miles, all on the motorway network, without the possibility of pulling off into a MSA.
* They are developed under concession agreements which guarantee a certain minimum level of free provision: 2 hours parking and access to water and restrooms. Generally you can access the free goods and services without being subjected to psychological pressure to buy.
* On-premise signing is more stringently regulated in the UK than pretty much anywhere in the US with the possible exception of Vermont. There is also more of an expectation that motorways will be screened from adjacent development. There is no equivalent to the LOGO signing program in the UK (they get a lot of attention on SABRE because they are such a novelty to British tourists returning from the US). There is not even bare-bones text-only gas-food-lodging signing leading to junctions with surface roads. All services signing is strictly for the MSAs. As a result, MSAs are insulated from surface-road competition to an extent known in the US only on public-authority turnpikes.
Off the motorway network, it is a complete hodgepodge. There are some service areas on important dual carriageways, for which standard services signing (separate from the standard signing provided for MSAs) is available. However, little to nothing is guaranteed in terms of free provision, and you can't, e.g., go to the bathroom without passing cash registers and a salesclerk who asks you if he or she can help you, would you like to buy anything, etc. The best way to visualize one of these service areas is to imagine pulling off a 70 MPH road into an ordinary McDonald's. This example on the A34 north of Oxford is fairly typical:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Oxford,+UK&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Oxford,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.850539,-1.22806&spn=0.00176,0.004823&t=h&z=18
There are also isolated examples of American-style pee-and-dash free rest areas, but in comparison to the typical Interstate rest area, or even most rest areas on surface highways, they are small, cramped, and unpleasant to use. This example is also near Oxford, but on the A40 between Headington roundabout and the M40 spur:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Oxford,+UK&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Oxford,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.760393,-1.159632&spn=0.001763,0.004823&t=h&z=18
QuoteHow well does it work over there?
It really depends on your criterion. Fans of American turnpike service areas will like MSAs. Forton, for example, has a sightseeing bridge over the M6 which was considered a huge novelty when it opened in the 1960's, and still offers a good vantage point for photos of the M6 mainline; however, the tower which was built to give visitors a view of the Lake District is now considered derelict and is closed to the public. People who want just the basics at rest areas and are content to use services signing for the rest will feel a little claustrophobic on the motorways because it is so difficult to locate services outside the MSAs. (To be fair, however, a similar problem arises on urban freeways in the US where services signing is not provided for reasons of message loading--I-5 in San Diego comes to mind.) In my experience, MSA food is acceptable but priced at a premium, and menu choices are strictly lowest-common-denominator (chips, beans, eggs, sausages, fried tomatoes, fried fish, etc.). Egon Ronay has made a fortune telling the British public how awful MSA food is.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 09, 2011, 11:45:03 PM(To be fair, however, a similar problem arises on urban freeways in the US where services signing is not provided for reasons of message loading--I-5 in San Diego comes to mind.)
not just San Diego. Los Angeles is also a notoriously difficult place in which to find a gas station directly off the freeway, without poking around some. San Francisco is a bit better because ... oh, right, no freeways.
They don't seem as necessary as they did back in the 70s. Now you can stop at a gas station on almost every exit anyway. May as well just commercialize it, since these companies have the money and will make them really nice, and you can eat too instead of just going to a vending machine.
Rest Areas are fine as long as they are well lit and have some semblance of security. Ask AHTD about that one (or not).
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 09, 2011, 05:05:09 PM
Yes, gradual development (in conjunction with a program of rest area refurbishment, and focused on commercializing the rest areas that have actual commercial potential) makes the most sense. My concern however is that this may not be the idea that is actually on the table. Commercializing rest areas is often spoken of as an alternative to closing them altogether, but my contention is that because of the need for site redevelopment, and the empirical fact that rest-area closures are typically the result of short-term budgetary pressures, the choice between the two is a false one. Saying "We would have to close this rest area because we don't have the money to keep it open, except we won't because we will be opening it to private businesses" does not cause the money to keep it open to appear by magic. It doesn't even guarantee anyone (either the state or the private businesses) a steady revenue stream once the necessary investments in site redevelopment are made.
Put another way: because money spent building a rest area is a sunk cost, rest area closures are typically motivated by the need to cut running costs within a given budgetary cycle, whereas rest area commercialization has a strong element of infrastructure provision, so the associated costs and benefits (and the parallel accounting of revenues and expenditures to the owning agency) have to be considered over the useful lifetimes of the durable assets involved.
The hospitality businesses have a vested interest in encouraging conflation of these two issues, whether they actually do so or not. (Remember, they may not necessarily be just looking for new commercial opportunities--ideological opposition to free rest areas is one possible motivation.) The underlying question is which course of action best serves the public interest, taking time preference rates of discount into consideration. My suspicion is that commercialization of rest areas might work well for untolled rural Interstates with AADTs of 50,000 or higher, but for Interstates with sub-20,000 AADT--a significant proportion if not the majority of the centerline mileage on the system--it makes better financial sense for states to reduce their recurrent costs by "hardening" fittings in rest areas.
Those are some good points. I agree that the traffic volumes of different Interstates would make a difference in how effective service areas would be. This is especially evident when one observes the difference between the amount of business in the service areas on I-95 in Maryland and Delaware and in those on the Kansas Turnpike, although the sizes of the service areas themselves are also different. I'm curious to see what becomes of this idea, anyway.
http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5466
Here's some news from Virginia. Apparently they are starting their privitization/sponsorship with "glorified vending machines". The article digs into the specifics of the ban on privitization.
I'll reiterate my point from before...The Feds really have some nerve recommending provision of rest areas and forcing states into a money-losing model. Some states are better than others (Kansas and their "hardened" facilities vs. Pennsylvania's always attended facilities), but there is still zero provision for any way to recoup some of the cost associated with providing the facility, even though many drivers would be more than willing to pay for something if it were offered. I think in this day and age, it would be nice if the Feds would relax the restrictions to allow a more economically viable rest area model to be used.
I think that if we allow commercial operators at rest areas, they should have to meet a minimum standard of service. (security, food and beverage above vending machine quality, etc.) They should also be required to provide certain amenities at no cost. (access to bathrooms, water, a minimum parking time, picnic area) It could work as a public/private agreement like airports, train stations. Here in Louisiana only about 10 interstate rest areas remain, including the welcome centers.
Mark
Too lazy to look upthread or research farther at this time, but do the feds require that proceeds from the vending machines at interstate rest areas go to the blind? That's where the profits from the machines at Kentucky's rest areas go -- even the rest area on the non-interstate Mountain Parkway.
I know I have seen signs at other states' rest areas that the machines are operated for the benefit of that state's agency for the blind.
That seems like a very random place for the money to go. You'd think if the money were earmarked for anything it would be for maintenance of the rest stops.
Is there some connection between blind people and vending machines I'm not aware of?
Quote from: pctech on May 16, 2012, 09:57:22 AM
I think that if we allow commercial operators at rest areas, they should have to meet a minimum standard of service. (security, food and beverage above vending machine quality, etc.) They should also be required to provide certain amenities at no cost. (access to bathrooms, water, a minimum parking time, picnic area) It could work as a public/private agreement like airports, train stations.
Some of the rest areas along I-15 in Utah are "public/private partnerships," where an existing gas station or truck stop gets a "rest area" designation, in hopes of drawing additional paying customers from its competitors and not just people using the facilities for free. UDOT also has traditional rest areas, especially on the remote 106-mile stretch of I-70 between Salina and Green River which has no gas stations or other commercial traveler services.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 16, 2012, 10:10:16 AM
That seems like a very random place for the money to go. You'd think if the money were earmarked for anything it would be for maintenance of the rest stops.
Is there some connection between blind people and vending machines I'm not aware of?
It's not just rest areas. At least one of the Federal office buildings I worked in had vending machines and other concessions operated by or for the blind. That may be only for Federally-owned buildings -- where I worked in leased space, the blind didn't get a cut of the vending revenues.
Quote from: oscar on May 16, 2012, 11:18:34 AM
It's not just rest areas. At least one of the Federal office buildings I worked in had vending machines and other concessions operated by or for the blind. That may be only for Federally-owned buildings -- where I worked in leased space, the blind didn't get a cut of the vending revenues.
in some Tom Clancy novel, the Pentagon cafeteria is run by the blind, for obvious reasons.
Quote from: pctech on May 16, 2012, 09:57:22 AM
I think that if we allow commercial operators at rest areas, they should have to meet a minimum standard of service. (security, food and beverage above vending machine quality, etc.) They should also be required to provide certain amenities at no cost. (access to bathrooms, water, a minimum parking time, picnic area) It could work as a public/private agreement like airports, train stations. Here in Louisiana only about 10 interstate rest areas remain, including the welcome centers.
Mark
In other words, little different than what we already do for toll road service areas. They have a minimum standard for service, security is provided by the state police troop patrolling the toll road, and food/beverage is usually a well-known brand (i.e. McDonald's, Burger King, etc). Picnic areas, washrooms, etc, are provided as a no-cost area of the service area.
As I said before, we already have a model for commercializing the rest areas, it's not a big leap to use it.
I have always wanted a post like this, and this is what I have been thinking about for years. I lived in New Jersey for most of my young life and always traveled I-78 for commuting and because its in the area to travel. If you are not familiar with it, you will know that Eastbound from its western terminus to its eastern terminus there is no full service rest areas whatsoever! You have only a parking area near Bloomsbury, NJ and who knows if PennDOT will ever build the rest area near Straustown, PA in Berks County, PA that has had stubs for it east of PA 183 added when that particular highway was brought to interstate standards.
Another thing is the fact in New Jersey there are few interchanges on I-78 with full services at them. I do not even think there are any McDonald's at any interchange either. Only four interchanges with hotels and one of them is around Newark Airport that charges $80 and up for a bed. US 22 is no help except for the Red Bull Inn at Somerville, that I think now is closed! Plus most of the family friendly motels have been torn down to be strip malls or if they are still standing are Indian owned roach motels!
I think that something like the MDSHA has done in Baltimore north of the Fort McHenry and Harbor Tunnels on I-95 and I-895 SB with a full service travel plaza would work well on many interstates, especially in the Mid Atlantic and New England regions. Even, on I-80 in New Jersey one rest area near Dover was closed to automobiles recently and one time I needed to go to the restroom having great difficulty finding an off interstate facility. Even the Howard Johnson in Rockaway, where you would figure that hotel lobbies have restrooms open to anyone, had its bathrooms closed to non guests and a motel type lobby spite the chain name. Then the gas stations are all manned cause of New Jersey and Oregon not having self serve stations cause the needed attendants at the stations I stopped at to be idiots about non employees wanting to use their rest rooms not even available for paying customers.
Commercializing is definetely fine by me. Putting up Logo signs on the GSP is even something that should be done as well! The NJ Turnpike Authority is not tourist friendly on the Parkway at all!
Quote from: pctech on May 16, 2012, 09:57:22 AM
I think that if we allow commercial operators at rest areas, they should have to meet a minimum standard of service. (security, food and beverage above vending machine quality, etc.) They should also be required to provide certain amenities at no cost. (access to bathrooms, water, a minimum parking time, picnic area) It could work as a public/private agreement like airports, train stations. Here in Louisiana only about 10 interstate rest areas remain, including the welcome centers.
Mark
I feel that, in a state like Louisiana, leaving rest areas open should be a requirement. It's a place for truckers to pull over and sleep instead of along exit ramps, and it gives mom and pop a place to stretch their legs. Commercialize it if you want, but the stretch of Interstate between Natchitoches and Alexandria (49) is dead, and two rest areas were planned, but scrapped.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 16, 2012, 10:05:08 AM
Too lazy to look upthread or research farther at this time, but do the feds require that proceeds from the vending machines at interstate rest areas go to the blind?
No matter how lazy, the forum has a convenient search function at the upper right. Type "blind" while you're reading this thread and it will return any posts containing the word. No excuse.
Quote from: Steve on May 16, 2012, 07:11:37 PMNo matter how lazy, the forum has a convenient search function at the upper right. Type "blind" while you're reading this thread and it will return any posts containing the word. No excuse.
No, it won't. There might be no excuse if that were actually true, but I just tried {Fomento} and it returned no hits, although a Google search for {AARoads forum Fomento} returns multiple hits, the first and most relevant of which is a thread I started in July 2011 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4902.0).
In short, search on this forum is borked.
I have no experience with SMF, but my recollection (from peripheral involvement in configuring search for a phpBB forum) is that a search table has to be compiled in the first instance and then updated periodically in order for search to be effective.
If you search from within this thread, it only finds matches in the thread. You have to go to the main forum page to search all topics.
Quote from: Steve on May 16, 2012, 07:11:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 16, 2012, 10:05:08 AM
Too lazy to look upthread or research farther at this time, but do the feds require that proceeds from the vending machines at interstate rest areas go to the blind?
No matter how lazy, the forum has a convenient search function at the upper right. Type "blind" while you're reading this thread and it will return any posts containing the word. No excuse.
I was thinking more of doing a Google search, rather than searching the forum.
How would a blind person search this forum, anyway? Sorry, but I had to ask... :sombrero:
Quote from: hbelkins on May 17, 2012, 12:00:59 PM
How would a blind person search this forum, anyway? Sorry, but I had to ask... :sombrero:
screen reader. this isn't a particularly graphics-intensive forum, so I can imagine a blind person using it quite well.
though, the topic of discussion may be closed to that person, alas!
Quote from: mtantillo on July 05, 2011, 04:38:01 PM
http://www.csnews.com/top-story-nacs_launches_lobbying_effort_against_rest_area_commercialization-59036.html
Here's an article about legislation that was introduced to allow commercialization of rest areas, and its possible detrimental effect on businesses along the interchanges.
I don't see much detrimental impact on businesses at the interchanges. Motorists will still be free to stop at those if they so choose. Consider that even along old-line toll roads with service plazas, there's usually some amount of motorist-oriented commercial activity at the interchanges.
QuoteWhat does everyone think? On one hand, I see more and more states cutting back hours at rest areas or closing them entirely because there is no source of money...people don't pay to use them. Having commercially viable rest areas would hopefully reverse this trend. On the other hand, they do have a point about the phenominon of people not being willing to exit in search of services, therefore not only decreasing business activity at off-interstate facilities and driving more traffic to the on-highway facilities, which in turn drives up the prices because of less competition. It made sense in the era of ticket-system toll roads which required lining up at a toll to pay to exit, and then lining up again to get a ticket on entry, but in this era of electronic toll collection where there is essentially little time penalty for exiting, the service areas on roads like the NJ Turnpike or PA Turnpike seem less appealing. What the study really should have done is look at the trends on roads with both service areas and free ability to exit/enter along with logo signs at interchanges. An example would be I-95 in Connecticut. In NJ, the off-interstate businesses still suffer from an artificial disadvantage since the turnpike does not permit food or gas logo signs, only lodging, whereas there is nothing to suggest that states allowing commercialization of rest areas will pull all of their logo signs for off-interstate food and gas businesses.
I have no problem with Interstate rest areas being converted to turnpike-style service plazas. Service plazas are pretty common in Canada (in particular, along the "free" Highway 401 in Ontario) and in many EU nations along their "free" motorways.
QuoteI'm honestly not sure how I feel about this. I generally avoid stopping at rest areas after dark because of the lack of visible "official presense" of DOT employees or police. So if a state wants to shut down rest areas at night, I'm all for allowing them to do that, since I'd prefer a truck stop. I might be more willing to stop at a commercialized rest area after dark as there would be actual people working there that would look out for the safety of their customers.
I have stopped at rest areas on "free" roads even late at night, and (fortunately) never had a problem, though I pay attention to my surroundings.
There would certainly be a financial incentive for a private entity holding a service plaza lease to keep it clean and free of criminal activity.
QuoteHowever, I typically prefer off-interstate facilities during the day as well when I need food or gas, since they have greater vatriety and better prices than service areas. While I like the idea of a state keeping rest areas open during the day for quick breaks, I'd rather the state not tinker with the availability of off-interstate businesses by giving ones located in a rest area an "advantage" over those not in the rest area. Thoughts?
I don't think this will lead to the demise of off-road dining and fueling opportunities.
To resurrect this topic...
NH is in the process of turning the Rest Areas on I-93/Everett Turnpike in Hooksett into full Service Plazas. These had rest rooms, vending, and state liquor stores since they were first built in the 70s. The new facility will have a gas, a full food court and tourist gift shop/info center, and a new larger liquor store. The work is being paid for by the developer that got the contract, and in a unique move, the contract was awarded to a local NH company that will have only local NH-based food options instead of national chain places. Work started last summer and the new facilities are scheduled to be ready to open by summer 2015.
Always liked the irony in the side by side placement of "Safety Rest Area" and "State Liquor Store" at those NH Hooksett plazas.
Perhaps naming rights to rest areas might not be too far behind? (They've already done this at sports venues and concert pavilions, so why not those service areas off the Interstate?)