Just wondered how other states are cutting corners to save on expenses when it comes to highway maintenance.
In Kentucky, I can think of a couple of ways.
One is highway striping. Used to be that stripes were painted at least once a year, sometimes twice. Now, sometimes roads will go two or even three years before having stripes re-painted.
Another is centerline reflectors. Years ago Kentucky installed them on a lot of state primary and state secondary roads, especially those linking county seats. Reflectors that were damaged or plowed up by snowplows or patched over were replaced regularly. Now, the reflectors are pretty much limited to interstates, parkways and other major routes.
My highway district has also started removing a lot of signs. For instance, an assembly that might look like this:
89 82
^ ----->
l
l
l
Now just has
82
----->
(No before and after pics yet, but I'm sure you get the idea.)
I think all three of these actions are detrimental to the traveling public.
What are other states doing?
It's sometimes hard to tell in Oklahoma what is a conscious cost-saving measure and what is Oklahoma just being Oklahoma, but some cheap-out's I've noticed will be to stick what should be several assemblies on one pole like
[74]
<-->
[END]
[74B]
Or worse
[END]
[74B]
[74]
<-->
...which makes it look like 74B and 74 are both ending to the left and the right.
Reflectors are most gone from all freeways. I think in most cases they were taken up when a repaving occurred and have simply never been replaced.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 07, 2012, 09:55:32 PM
Just wondered how other states are cutting corners to save on expenses when it comes to highway maintenance.
On its "free" network, Maryland has been "saving money" by not maintaining highway lighting for many years.
In some cases, lighting (especially high-mast lighting) has been removed. In other cases, the lighting has not been maintained (including replacing burned-out bulbs and not repairing underground electric cables).
On the toll-maintained network, lighting almost always seems to be well-maintained by MdTA, though I wish the roadway decks on the Gov. William Preston Lane, Jr. (Chesapeake Bay); Gov. Harry Nice (Potomac River) and Hatem (U.S. 40/Susquehanna River) Bridges had lighting installed.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 07, 2012, 09:55:32 PM
Just wondered how other states are cutting corners to save on expenses when it comes to highway maintenance.
In Kentucky, I can think of a couple of ways.
One is highway striping. Used to be that stripes were painted at least once a year, sometimes twice. Now, sometimes roads will go two or even three years before having stripes re-painted.
Another is centerline reflectors. Years ago Kentucky installed them on a lot of state primary and state secondary roads, especially those linking county seats. Reflectors that were damaged or plowed up by snowplows or patched over were replaced regularly. Now, the reflectors are pretty much limited to interstates, parkways and other major routes.
My highway district has also started removing a lot of signs. For instance, an assembly that might look like this:
89 82
^ ----->
l
l
l
Now just has
82
----->
(No before and after pics yet, but I'm sure you get the idea.)
I think all three of these actions are detrimental to the traveling public.
What are other states doing?
Arkansas has been doing that for several years. Plus not posting multiplexes (such as I-540/US 71/US 62... only 540 is posted)
Virginia has been doing the "posting one shield with a double banner" thing for primary routes (they always did it for secondary routes) for the past year or so now. They did the same thing in the cutout days, so I find it retro more than anything. I guess the use of white rectangles instead of shields could be considered cost cutting, but the tendency of a few counties (Chesterfield, York) to put the route number on street blades instead of either a shield or rectangle definitely is.
The Thruway Authority is very stingy about sign replacements, unlike NYSDOT which does periodic sign rehabs. Simply driving from Rochester to Syracuse and back, and you can see every style of guide sign NYSTA has used within the past 20-30 years. I swear there's even a NYSDOT sign on that stretch too!
Actually... kind of the opposite here in Louisiana. LaDOTD has added rumble strips to the center lines of two lane highways, added reflectors to all state highways that I can think of, and posted full assemblies at interchanges, where the current road is marked as going straight while side roads are marked. Our Interstates have been restriped for concrete (white center line with black border), and the signs have actually been placed in a concrete pad instead of just stuck in the ground. Maybe LaDOTD has realized that increased costs now, with black-and-white shields and cemented signs, we can reduce the amount of signs that are either stolen, or reduce the maintenance costs when budgets get cut even more.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 07, 2012, 09:55:32 PM
One is highway striping. Used to be that stripes were painted at least once a year, sometimes twice. Now, sometimes roads will go two or even three years before having stripes re-painted.
I would think that painting stripes twice a year is a huge waste of money. Even once a year is too much. If the lines are wearing down that quickly, then they're using a poor quality paint.
Driving through Charlotte a few years ago I notice many long sections of freeway with unfunctional lighting.
Up here, before Pawlenty's Mn/DOT stooge got fired by the legislature in the political fallout from the bridge collapse, there was a proposal to close all the off-interstate rest areas (and a couple on the interstates) and reduce the frequency of painting stripes.
Quote from: Mdcastle on October 10, 2012, 08:54:10 AM
Driving through Charlotte a few years ago I notice many long sections of freeway with unfunctional lighting.
I
really dislike broken overhead lighting on any road (and similarly, dark lighting on overhead signs).
Quote from: Mdcastle on October 10, 2012, 08:54:10 AM
Up here, before Pawlenty's Mn/DOT stooge got fired by the legislature in the political fallout from the bridge collapse, there was a proposal to close all the off-interstate rest areas (and a couple on the interstates) and reduce the frequency of painting stripes.
Virginia closed its rest areas for a while under the previous governor (IMO, a bad move, because the savings are so small), and they were re-opened under the current governor (without an increase in the Commonwealth's motor fuel tax rate).
Congress could really do every state a favor by repealing the federal prohibition against providing food and fuel at Interstate rest areas (many toll roads in the U.S. and many "free" roads outside the U.S. (Ontario and Quebec, Canada; Finland; Germany; Sweden and the UK, among others allow service areas on freeway-class roads) have
true service plazas offering fuel, minor repairs and food).
This would reduce the burden on state taxpayers by allowing long-term concessions to run the rest areas.
Mn/DOT has only a handful of lit signs anymore, and I'm sure those are ones they just missed turning off, but they are very receptive to fixing roadway lighting. If I report a problem if it's just bulbs they'll normally fix it in a couple of days, and if it's an electrical problem they'll email me back letting me know they're working on it. Even if a single tower is dark they'll go out and fix it.
In Jacksonville, Florida the city/county will cut down the number of times grass is mowed.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 10, 2012, 09:23:03 AM
Congress could really do every state a favor by repealing the federal prohibition against providing food and fuel at Interstate rest areas
what was the rationale for this law? protection for businesses/towns getting bypassed by freeways?
if so, it is truly an archaic law...
that said, there are plenty of gas stations
near the freeway; it wasn't long after the development of the freeway system that the "easy off, easy on" service plaza was invented. in practice, it isn't much different from the European/Canadian/etc model.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 10, 2012, 05:05:53 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 10, 2012, 09:23:03 AM
Congress could really do every state a favor by repealing the federal prohibition against providing food and fuel at Interstate rest areas
what was the rationale for this law? protection for businesses/towns getting bypassed by freeways?
if so, it is truly an archaic law...
that said, there are plenty of gas stations near the freeway; it wasn't long after the development of the freeway system that the "easy off, easy on" service plaza was invented. in practice, it isn't much different from the European/Canadian/etc model.
I think it was put in place to protect owners of real estate at or near Interstate interchanges.
Note that I don't think that states should be allowed to discriminate against owners and operators of fuel and food establishments at off-Interstate locations (the New Jersey Turnpike used to have signs approaching each interchange, especially in South Jersey, reading "FOOD and FUEL - STAY ON TURNPIKE," which I regarded as wrong (even though I personally have preferred services on the Pike instead of off)).
Nor should the federal government require the states to turn rest areas over to concession operators. Each state should decide by itself.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 10, 2012, 09:23:03 AM
Congress could really do every state a favor by repealing the federal prohibition against providing food and fuel at Interstate rest areas (many toll roads in the U.S. and many "free" roads outside the U.S. (Ontario and Quebec, Canada; Finland; Germany; Sweden and the UK, among others allow service areas on freeway-class roads) have true service plazas offering fuel, minor repairs and food).
This would reduce the burden on state taxpayers by allowing long-term concessions to run the rest areas.
That would help in very few cases, as the land area of Interstate rest areas typically is much smaller than that of the turnpike rest areas which were built to support restaurants, fuel and service stations, and commensurate amounts of parking to support that.
The typical Interstate rest area could not support what you are proposing, and in most areas the needed right-of-way would be difficult or impossible to obtain, and in many cases the needed sewerage capacity would not be available.
NJ cuts corners by simply not mowing the grass more then once all summer. Its really fun pulling out of an on-ramp and onto the highway and not being able to see anything because 5 feet high grass is in the way!
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2012, 05:48:16 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 10, 2012, 09:23:03 AM
Congress could really do every state a favor by repealing the federal prohibition against providing food and fuel at Interstate rest areas (many toll roads in the U.S. and many "free" roads outside the U.S. (Ontario and Quebec, Canada; Finland; Germany; Sweden and the UK, among others allow service areas on freeway-class roads) have true service plazas offering fuel, minor repairs and food).
This would reduce the burden on state taxpayers by allowing long-term concessions to run the rest areas.
That would help in very few cases, as the land area of Interstate rest areas typically is much smaller than that of the turnpike rest areas which were built to support restaurants, fuel and service stations, and commensurate amounts of parking to support that.
I've heard that argument before, and I have just one response - let's allow the state highway agencies to decide that. I think that the state DOT's and the boards of appointed officials (like Virginia's Commonwealth Transportation Board) and state legislatures are very well-equipped to make such decisions without help from the Congress in Washington.
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2012, 05:48:16 PM
The typical Interstate rest area could not support what you are proposing, and in most areas the needed right-of-way would be difficult or impossible to obtain, and in many cases the needed sewerage capacity would not be available.
That may well be true.
Regarding land, that's a decision that the states can very well make without help from Congress. Consider also that a state may
not wish to have a service plaza the size of the (pretty massive) Delaware Welcome Center on the Delaware Turnpike section of I-95.
Consider the modestly-sized service areas on the Garden State Parkway in Woodbridge Township (northbound here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=woodbridge+township+nj&hl=en&ll=40.591348,-74.323636&spn=0.004587,0.009645&sll=40.58505,-74.328475&sspn=0.009175,0.01929&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Woodbridge+Township,+Middlesex,+New+Jersey&z=17), southbound here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=woodbridge+township+nj&hl=en&ll=40.5814,-74.331715&spn=0.004588,0.009645&sll=40.58505,-74.328475&sspn=0.009175,0.01929&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Woodbridge+Township,+Middlesex,+New+Jersey&z=17)), probably smaller than some Interstate rest areas. Many rest areas are in rural areas, where land may be less-expensive, thus making it quite possible to purchase more real estate if needed.
Regarding sewer capacity, there's more than one way to properly dispose of sewage - the concession holder can be required to construct a small dedicated sewage treatment plant, or sewers can be extended to a nearby area with sewer service (and consider that sewers do not have to be gravity (even though those are the cheapest and most trouble-free)) - force mains can be used if the sewage has to "flow uphill". I have seen turnpike service plazas in decidedly rural places, too, in states as varied as Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois (the
plaza (whoops,
Oasis) on I-88 (East-West Tollway) near Dekalb (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=dekalb,+il&hl=en&ll=41.901351,-88.740649&spn=0.017855,0.038581&hnear=DeKalb,+Illinois&gl=us&t=h&z=15) is not in the middle of development like the two on the Garden State Parkway, though it almost certainly uses Dekalb's sewage treatment system).
Most areas in the CSRA cut corners by moving signs knowing that they do not comply with all of the provisions of the current MUTCD.
The Manual dictates that if non-compliant devices (which includes signs) are being moved for any reason - even if it is to make them right - then they shall be replaced with a compliant device, unless the schedule for replacement of the whole series of non-compliant devices will result in achieving timely compliance with the MUTCD.
I've noticed Bamberg County do this twice in regards to the post that two of their uppercase-only Street Name signs are installed on near Tuten's Chicken (I believe the wind blew the signs both times). They never did change the signs as the manual implied.
Quote from: mjb2002 on October 10, 2012, 08:18:47 PM
I believe the wind blew the signs both times
:banghead:
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 10, 2012, 07:30:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2012, 05:48:16 PM
That would help in very few cases, as the land area of Interstate rest areas typically is much smaller than that of the turnpike rest areas which were built to support restaurants, fuel and service stations, and commensurate amounts of parking to support that.
I've heard that argument before, and I have just one response - let's allow the state highway agencies to decide that. I think that the state DOT's and the boards of appointed officials (like Virginia's Commonwealth Transportation Board) and state legislatures are very well-equipped to make such decisions without help from the Congress in Washington.
Given that the rest areas were built with 90% FHWA funding, and in most cases current improvments receive 80% FHWA funding, the federal standard that has existed since 1956 should stand, IMHO. The Safety Rest Areas (official name) are on public right-of-way and are for brief REST, not for major retail businesses, which can be accessed in private sector businesses on private land, by the more frequent interchange spacing that toll-free Interstates have (compared to turnpikes).
Quote
Quote
The typical Interstate rest area could not support what you are proposing, and in most areas the needed right-of-way would be difficult or impossible to obtain, and in many cases the needed sewerage capacity would not be available.
That may well be true.
Regarding land, that's a decision that the states can very well make without help from Congress. Consider also that a state may not wish to have a service plaza the size of the (pretty massive) Delaware Welcome Center on the Delaware Turnpike section of I-95.
See above ... they received high levels of FHWA funding.
Quote
Regarding sewer capacity, there's more than one way to properly dispose of sewage - the concession holder can be required to construct a small dedicated sewage treatment plant,
Common early in the Interstate system, but widely abandoned due to the poor performance of such "package" plants.
Quote
or sewers can be extended to a nearby area with sewer service (and consider that sewers do not have to be gravity (even though those are the cheapest and most trouble-free)) - force mains can be used if the sewage has to "flow uphill".
In many places there are no nearby municipal sewer systems.
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2012, 10:03:29 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 10, 2012, 07:30:26 PM
or sewers can be extended to a nearby area with sewer service (and consider that sewers do not have to be gravity (even though those are the cheapest and most trouble-free)) - force mains can be used if the sewage has to "flow uphill".
In many places there are no nearby municipal sewer systems.
And that is what septic systems are for.
Seriously. No sewers? No problem.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 10, 2012, 10:21:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2012, 10:03:29 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 10, 2012, 07:30:26 PM
or sewers can be extended to a nearby area with sewer service (and consider that sewers do not have to be gravity (even though those are the cheapest and most trouble-free)) - force mains can be used if the sewage has to "flow uphill".
In many places there are no nearby municipal sewer systems.
And that is what septic systems are for.
Seriously. No sewers? No problem.
Septic systems don't work on the scale of sewage produced by a rest area. Like 500+ times the sewage produced by a house, and especially high peaks at peak travel times.
I remember around 6-8 years ago an interesting paving job on NY 77 on my way to Darien Lake Theme Park Resort (Six Flags Darien Lake at the time). Just the tire tracks were repaved, and nothing else. The best example I could find was this picture from Washington State DOT's Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/7461518448/):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7122%2F7461518448_74071d07c8_z.jpg&hash=9d754c89249acd0c4c272569370135c69e3d32b4)
I can remember wondering how a motorcycle could drive on pavement like that, especially if they couldn't stay on one of the the repaved strips.
Those conditions often result from utility work or patched improvements prior to a more major project.
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2012, 10:03:29 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 10, 2012, 07:30:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2012, 05:48:16 PM
That would help in very few cases, as the land area of Interstate rest areas typically is much smaller than that of the turnpike rest areas which were built to support restaurants, fuel and service stations, and commensurate amounts of parking to support that.
I've heard that argument before, and I have just one response - let's allow the state highway agencies to decide that. I think that the state DOT's and the boards of appointed officials (like Virginia's Commonwealth Transportation Board) and state legislatures are very well-equipped to make such decisions without help from the Congress in Washington.
Given that the rest areas were built with 90% FHWA funding, and in most cases current improvments receive 80% FHWA funding, the federal standard that has existed since 1956 should stand, IMHO. The Safety Rest Areas (official name) are on public right-of-way and are for brief REST, not for major retail businesses, which can be accessed in private sector businesses on private land, by the more frequent interchange spacing that toll-free Interstates have (compared to turnpikes).
So? Your point is? Just because the state got dollars from BPR and FHWA means little. Elected officials at the federal level make those rules, and can change them, and IMO in this instance they should.
Using your line of reasoning, 80,000 gross pound tractor-trailer combinations, 53 foot semi trailers and "double" trailers would be illegal in most states, because federal taxes helped to build the highway network, and they were illegal in 1956.
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2012, 10:03:29 PM
Quote
Quote
The typical Interstate rest area could not support what you are proposing, and in most areas the needed right-of-way would be difficult or impossible to obtain, and in many cases the needed sewerage capacity would not be available.
That may well be true.
Regarding land, that's a decision that the states can very well make without help from Congress. Consider also that a state may not wish to have a service plaza the size of the (pretty massive) Delaware Welcome Center on the Delaware Turnpike section of I-95.
See above ... they received high levels of FHWA funding.
Congress can (and should) change the rules and let states decide.
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2012, 10:03:29 PM
Quote
Regarding sewer capacity, there's more than one way to properly dispose of sewage - the concession holder can be required to construct a small dedicated sewage treatment plant,
Common early in the Interstate system, but widely abandoned due to the poor performance of such "package" plants.
Wonder how sewage from the massive Sideling Hill service plaza (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Waterfall,+PA+16689&hl=en&ll=40.058547,-78.081937&spn=0.009181,0.01605&sll=40.055903,-78.079705&sspn=0.018362,0.032101&t=h&hnear=Waterfall,+Fulton,+Pennsylvania&z=16) on I-76 (Pennsylvania Turnpike) is treated? It's certainly "in the middle of nowhere."
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2012, 10:03:29 PM
Quote
or sewers can be extended to a nearby area with sewer service (and consider that sewers do not have to be gravity (even though those are the cheapest and most trouble-free)) - force mains can be used if the sewage has to "flow uphill".
In many places there are no nearby municipal sewer systems.
See above. I don't think the PTC allows the sewage generated at its Sideling Hill plaza to flow to some nearby creek untreated.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 11, 2012, 04:41:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2012, 10:03:29 PM
Given that the rest areas were built with 90% FHWA funding, and in most cases current improvments receive 80% FHWA funding, the federal standard that has existed since 1956 should stand, IMHO. The Safety Rest Areas (official name) are on public right-of-way and are for brief REST, not for major retail businesses, which can be accessed in private sector businesses on private land, by the more frequent interchange spacing that toll-free Interstates have (compared to turnpikes).
So? Your point is? Just because the state got dollars from BPR and FHWA means little. Elected officials at the federal level make those rules, and can change them, and IMO in this instance they should.
No, it is like deciding whether to delegate full tolling decisions over to the states on the toll-free Interstate highways that were built with 90% federal funding.
I think that decision should be under federal control, and that it needs much debate before any change. ISRRPP under MAP-21 still has only 3 pilot projects for tolling rural toll-free Interstate highways.
The original toll-free Interstate highways have interchange spacing averaging about 4 miles in rural areas, and nearly every corridor has frequent service stations and restaurants already existing and easily accessible (unlike having to leave a toll-ticketed turnpike with very long rural interchange spacing like with IN, OH, PA, NJ, NY).
Quote
Wonder how sewage from the massive Sideling Hill service plaza (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Waterfall,+PA+16689&hl=en&ll=40.058547,-78.081937&spn=0.009181,0.01605&sll=40.055903,-78.079705&sspn=0.018362,0.032101&t=h&hnear=Waterfall,+Fulton,+Pennsylvania&z=16) on I-76 (Pennsylvania Turnpike) is treated? It's certainly "in the middle of nowhere."
I can see that it has a sewage treatment plant on the north across the street from the plaza.
One example doesn't really prove anything, as that plant may have been built over 40 years ago (that plaza was there when I first drove by, and that was 1972) and may have been grandfathered in as far as environmental standards, and it may or may not be able to handle peak loads, and overflows may indeed wind up in a creek (not a joke, happens more often than some might think).
It is a FAct that it is difficult to find sites for truck stops along rural Interstate highways, due to local opposition, and due to sewage disposal issues. Proposing new turnpike-type service plazas would have the same issues.
That "average interchange spacing" figure is going to be a lot higher in Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, etc...
Quote from: Beltway on October 11, 2012, 06:01:48 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 11, 2012, 04:41:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2012, 10:03:29 PM
Given that the rest areas were built with 90% FHWA funding, and in most cases current improvments receive 80% FHWA funding, the federal standard that has existed since 1956 should stand, IMHO. The Safety Rest Areas (official name) are on public right-of-way and are for brief REST, not for major retail businesses, which can be accessed in private sector businesses on private land, by the more frequent interchange spacing that toll-free Interstates have (compared to turnpikes).
So? Your point is? Just because the state got dollars from BPR and FHWA means little. Elected officials at the federal level make those rules, and can change them, and IMO in this instance they should.
No, it is like deciding whether to delegate full tolling decisions over to the states on the toll-free Interstate highways that were built with 90% federal funding.
I think that decision should be under federal control, and that it needs much debate before any change. ISRRPP under MAP-21 still has only 3 pilot projects for tolling rural toll-free Interstate highways.
The original toll-free Interstate highways have interchange spacing averaging about 4 miles in rural areas, and nearly every corridor has frequent service stations and restaurants already existing and easily accessible (unlike having to leave a toll-ticketed turnpike with very long rural interchange spacing like with IN, OH, PA, NJ, NY).
Congress and the President, as long as they operate within the bounds of the Constitution, can make whatever changes they wish to federal statutes.
That "free" Interstates have relatively closely-spaced interchanges is (to me) irrelevant.
This is about allowing the private sector to assume the costs of maintaining rest areas (if states wish to do that). The Delaware Turnpike/JFK Highway segments of I-95 have interchanges that are relatively close together (with plenty of services available off of the toll road), yet these are some of the busiest toll road service plazas in the United States.
Quote from: Beltway on October 11, 2012, 06:01:48 PM
Quote
Wonder how sewage from the massive Sideling Hill service plaza (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Waterfall,+PA+16689&hl=en&ll=40.058547,-78.081937&spn=0.009181,0.01605&sll=40.055903,-78.079705&sspn=0.018362,0.032101&t=h&hnear=Waterfall,+Fulton,+Pennsylvania&z=16) on I-76 (Pennsylvania Turnpike) is treated? It's certainly "in the middle of nowhere."
I can see that it has a sewage treatment plant on the north across the street from the plaza.
And those cannot be built elsewhere?
Quote from: Beltway on October 11, 2012, 06:01:48 PM
One example doesn't really prove anything, as that plant may have been built over 40 years ago (that plaza was there when I first drove by, and that was 1972) and may have been grandfathered in as far as environmental standards, and it may or may not be able to handle peak loads, and overflows may indeed wind up in a creek (not a joke, happens more often than some might think).
I think that untreated sewage from any highway facility, be it a rest area or a service plaza, would quickly come to the attention of state and federal environmental regulators.
Quote from: Beltway on October 11, 2012, 06:01:48 PM
It is a FAct that it is difficult to find sites for truck stops along rural Interstate highways, due to local opposition, and due to sewage disposal issues. Proposing new turnpike-type service plazas would have the same issues.
There are plenty of truck stops along I-95 and I-70 and I-81, once one gets away from NIMBY-prone metropolitan areas. That may be why there are so many truck-oriented businesses clustered around I-95 (Virginia) Exit 104 near Carmel Church/Ruther Glen in Caroline County (and there's not much else there, I presume that the county provided those parcels with water and sewer somehow).
Quote from: Beltway on October 11, 2012, 06:01:48 PM
No, it is like deciding whether to delegate full tolling decisions over to the states on the toll-free Interstate highways that were built with 90% federal funding.
I think that decision should be under federal control, and that it needs much debate before any change. ISRRPP under MAP-21 still has only 3 pilot projects for tolling rural toll-free Interstate highways.
The original toll-free Interstate highways have interchange spacing averaging about 4 miles in rural areas, and nearly every corridor has frequent service stations and restaurants already existing and easily accessible (unlike having to leave a toll-ticketed turnpike with very long rural interchange spacing like with IN, OH, PA, NJ, NY).
We're not talking about turing interstates into toll roads so they can get service plazas. We're talking about changing rest areas to service plazas on FREE interstates and having the interstates remain FREE. You know, like the service plazas on ON 401.
Quote from: deanej on October 12, 2012, 01:58:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 11, 2012, 06:01:48 PM
No, it is like deciding whether to delegate full tolling decisions over to the states on the toll-free Interstate highways that were built with 90% federal funding.
I think that decision should be under federal control, and that it needs much debate before any change. ISRRPP under MAP-21 still has only 3 pilot projects for tolling rural toll-free Interstate highways.
The original toll-free Interstate highways have interchange spacing averaging about 4 miles in rural areas, and nearly every corridor has frequent service stations and restaurants already existing and easily accessible (unlike having to leave a toll-ticketed turnpike with very long rural interchange spacing like with IN, OH, PA, NJ, NY).
We're not talking about turing interstates into toll roads so they can get service plazas. We're talking about changing rest areas to service plazas on FREE interstates and having the interstates remain FREE. You know, like the service plazas on ON 401.
deanej, you hit the nail on the head.
Ontario has quite a few Freeway Service Centres on its 400-series network. Below is an image of a
Statoil (http://www.statoil.se/FrontServlet) gas station and C-store on [free] motorway E4/E20 south of Stockholm, Sweden.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2F010_7a.jpg&hash=b27bbd95f1b4787aabce24c8255b62147ef53d88)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 12, 2012, 01:49:23 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 11, 2012, 06:01:48 PM
The original toll-free Interstate highways have interchange spacing averaging about 4 miles in rural areas, and nearly every corridor has frequent service stations and restaurants already existing and easily accessible (unlike having to leave a toll-ticketed turnpike with very long rural interchange spacing like with IN, OH, PA, NJ, NY).
Congress and the President, as long as they operate within the bounds of the Constitution, can make whatever changes they wish to federal statutes.
Can, but in this case shouldn't, IMO.
Quote
That "free" Interstates have relatively closely-spaced interchanges is (to me) irrelevant.
Very relevant, as it allows frequent service and food near the highway.
Quote
This is about allowing the private sector to assume the costs of maintaining rest areas (if states wish to do that).
No, you are proposing far more than that, allowing them to build private businesses on tax-funded Interstate right-of-way.
Quote
I think that untreated sewage from any highway facility, be it a rest area or a service plaza, would quickly come to the attention of state and federal environmental regulators.
Yet Baltimore's city sewer system regularly has that problem after heavy rains, overflowing untreated sewage into the harbor. Lot's of other cities do as well.
Quote
There are plenty of truck stops along I-95 and I-70 and I-81, once one gets away from NIMBY-prone metropolitan areas. That
Try polling those food and service station businesses, to see if they want a select few to build on tax-funded Interstate highway right-of-way. Very few would want that brand of "competition".
ISRRPP's 3 pilots will allow commercial rest areas to be built, along with the tolling of the highway for capacity increases. That is appropriate, IMO. Doing it on toll-free Interstate highways is not.
Quote from: Beltway on October 12, 2012, 04:09:47 PM
Very relevant, as it allows frequent service and food near the highway.
Who wants to get off? When I'm traveling on the interstate, I prefer to minimize the number of times I get off; call it OCD, because I really don't have a much better reason. Getting off for services can be a hassle though, depending on how well they're signed on the ramp and the configuration of the interchange. Whenever I get services in unfamiliar areas I make sure to plan everything out before I leave to avoid such situations (plus I can be picky, at least with food).
Quote
No, you are proposing far more than that, allowing them to build private businesses on tax-funded Interstate right-of-way.
The way it works in the northeast is, the state builds the plaza and facilities then leases the space to the highest bidder. It's nothing more than allowing the state to not operate rest areas at a loss while providing additional services to travelers.
Quote
Try polling those food and service station businesses, to see if they want a select few to build on tax-funded Interstate highway right-of-way. Very few would want that brand of "competition".
Since when are businesses given priority over individuals? (note: don't answer, I don't want this thread to turn into a corporate personhood debate) Businesses are supposed to adapt to changing conditions - in fact, that is one of the hallmarks of free market capitalism. Passing laws to protect the status quo so some businesses can have a better bottom line is the opposite. I'm not sure if businesses would really suffer though. While fast food places on interchanges would likely see less business, people who currently go to non-fast food places wouldn't suddenly change their habits because of service plazas, and service plaza gas is well known for being expensive,.
Quote
ISRRPP's 3 pilots will allow commercial rest areas to be built, along with the tolling of the highway for capacity increases. That is appropriate, IMO. Doing it on toll-free Interstate highways is not.
I don't see the need to make the distinction between toll roads and free roads, especially since they're becoming more alike every decade. Soon, the ONLY difference will be how much you pay on newer toll roads thanks to ORT and pushes to go all-electronic.
Quote from: deanej on October 12, 2012, 10:42:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway
No, you are proposing far more than that, allowing them to build private businesses on tax-funded Interstate right-of-way.
The way it works in the northeast is, the state builds the plaza and facilities then leases the space to the highest bidder. It's nothing more than allowing the state to not operate rest areas at a loss while providing additional services to travelers.
Again, those service plazas were built over 40 years ago, mainly on toll-ticketed turnpikes with very long rural interchange spacing.
That is not relevant to current proposals to build such new facilities on toll-free Interstate highways.
The rest areas are part of what we pay road use taxes and license fees to support.
When Congress created the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s, community leaders feared that local businesses, jobs and tax bases would shrink as truck drivers and motorists bypassed their cities and towns. As a result, Congress prohibited states from offering commercial services, such as food and fuel, at commercial rest areas on the toll-free Interstate highway right-of-way built after Jan. 1, 1960. Since then, businesses such as restaurants, fuel stations and truckstops have clustered near the interstates at the interchanges along the IHS to provide services to interstate travelers.
Here is what an industry advocate says --
http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/Government/Other/Pages/RestAreaCommercialization.aspx
Quote --
Rest Area Commercialization
Posted: September 12, 2012
Intro to the Issue
In an effort to raise revenues, a handful of states have suggested that the federal government overturn a law that prohibits commercial development at highway rest areas. Repealing the law would allow state governments to get into the business of selling food and fuel from an advantageous location on the highway shoulder, or receive contract payments from commercial interests to do the same.
While at first glance rest area commercialization seems like an easy way for states to generate revenue, the fact is this will jeopardize private businesses that for the last 50-plus years have operated under the current law and established locations at the highway exits. Due to their advantageous locations, state-owned commercial rest areas establish virtual monopolies on the sale of services to highway travelers.
Virginia Tech researchers predict that commercializing rest areas nationwide would mean a loss of more than $55 billion in annual sales for existing businesses at highway exits – translating to a 46% decrease in Interstate-serving gas station sales, a 44% decrease in sales at Interstate-serving restaurants, and a 35% decrease in truck service sales at Interstate-serving truck service businesses.
Why You Should Care
Businesses located off the highway cannot compete with commercialized rest areas. These rest areas are opportunely located on the highway right-of-way and would create a de facto monopoly in favor of businesses operated out of rest areas.
What NACS Is Doing
NACS believes it is imperative that Congress maintains the current prohibition on rest area commercialization. Congress must reject any attempt to weaken existing law during the next surface transportation bill, or any other legislation. NACS is part of a broad coalition of organizations that oppose rest area commercialization. Rest area commercialization will not increase the number of hamburgers or gasoline gallons sold, but simply transfer the point of sale away from the current competitive environment at highway exits to the sole business contractor that pays the largest amount to rent the location on the shoulder of the highway.
Latest Developments
NACS and other coalition organizations have been working with lawmakers in the House and Senate involved with drafting the new surface transportation law to educate them regarding the implications of commercialization of rest areas.
The House and Senate were not able to negotiate a 5-year extension of the surface transportation bill. On July 6th, President Obama signed a two-year transportation funding bill. This bill did not include any language authorizing states to commercialize rest areas.
Negotiations on a long-term highway bill will continue through the next Congress and NACS will remain vigilant against new commercialization proposals.
[end quote]
Quote from: Beltway on October 12, 2012, 11:07:50 PM
Businesses located off the highway cannot compete with commercialized rest areas. These rest areas are opportunely located on the highway right-of-way and would create a de facto monopoly in favor of businesses operated out of rest areas.
Utterly false. On-highway businesses have an advantage, of course, but there are several good reasons to pass up on-highway services in favor of off-highway services–on-highway fuel prices are usually higher due to a "captive audience" effect, you may not like the brand(s) of food offered, or the service area has bad service/is slow/is dirty. The existence of the on-highway McDonalds in Vinita, OK doesn't mean I stop there every time–in fact, due to bad experiences with it, I make it a point to stop at Tulsa or Joplin for food. Sounds like competition is working fine to me.
Another thing is that we cannot really take into account toll roads as a representative scenario. People are often reluctant to exit a toll road because then you often have to go through the added hassle of stopping and paying and having to get a new ticket as you get back on. That barrier doesn't exist on a free road.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 12, 2012, 11:56:36 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 12, 2012, 11:07:50 PM
Businesses located off the highway cannot compete with commercialized rest areas. These rest areas are opportunely located on the highway right-of-way and would create a de facto monopoly in favor of businesses operated out of rest areas.
Utterly false.
Your opinion. Do an internet search, and you will see that there are plenty of industry sources and studies that agree with the one I posted. There is massive opposition to the commercialization of toll-free Interstate highway rest areas.
Quote from: Beltway on October 12, 2012, 11:07:50 PM
Again, those service plazas were built over 40 years ago, mainly on toll-ticketed turnpikes with very long rural interchange spacing.
I'd hardly consider the New Jersey Turnpike or the Connecticut Turnpike to have very long rural interchange spacing. In fact, if someone said that about the Connecticut Turnpike, I would look at them like they had three heads.
Quote from: Beltway on October 13, 2012, 12:00:24 AM
Your opinion. Do an internet search, and you will see that there are plenty of industry sources and studies that agree with the one I posted. There is massive opposition to the commercialization of toll-free Interstate highway rest areas.
I'd hardly consider industry sources unbiased. Plus the reasons for not allowing service areas was to protect small business, not chain fast food joints. In fact, by encouraging sprawl at interchanges, not allowing service areas probably did more to harm the small businesses than to help them.
The last time we had a pointed discussion on this issue--a year ago, I think--I suggested that there might prove to be considerably less interest from developers in building for-profit businesses at rest areas than is anticipated by the state DOTs that have been aggressively promoting rest-area commercialization, because of the considerable costs of reconstructing and expanding an already-developed and, in many cases, quite constrained site. If a policy of commercializing rest areas is established anyway, this could lead to a situation where state DOTs sign financially unfavorable site redevelopment agreements with retail operators just to get a commercialization program off the ground. Put simply, what the state DOTs think is a cash bonanza could very well turn out to be a money pit. Why is so little thought given to this particular downside?
Quote from: deanej on October 13, 2012, 12:43:34 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 12, 2012, 11:07:50 PM
Again, those service plazas were built over 40 years ago, mainly on toll-ticketed turnpikes with very long rural interchange spacing.
I'd hardly consider the New Jersey Turnpike or the Connecticut Turnpike to have very long rural interchange spacing. In fact, if someone said that about the Connecticut Turnpike, I would look at them like they had three heads.
The rural southern half of the NJTP does have very long interchange spacing. CT and NJ are short in mileage compared to the vast rural lenghts of the turnpikes I was referring to, NY, PA, OH and IN.
Quote
Quote from: Beltway on October 13, 2012, 12:00:24 AM
Your opinion. Do an internet search, and you will see that there are plenty of industry sources and studies that agree with the one I posted. There is massive opposition to the commercialization of toll-free Interstate highway rest areas.
I'd hardly consider industry sources unbiased. Plus the reasons for not allowing service areas was to protect small business, not chain fast food joints. In fact, by encouraging sprawl at interchanges, not allowing service areas probably did more to harm the small businesses than to help them.
You're stating you ad hoc opinions and feelings again. Of course industry sources are not unbiased. The fact that I see, is that that those sources have done lots of research, that they claim that there would be a massive negative effect to the about 97,000 small businesses that have built near the interchanges, and benefits to a small number of large corporations.
Another source --
"According to the group, and a coalition called the Partnership to Save Highway Communities, about 110 businesses are along the Ohio Turnpike, which has commercialized rest stops. More than 1,000 businesses, though, are along the state's Interstate 75, where rest stops are not commercialized."
And how many of those 1,000 businesses are generic chains? The fact is, people who want to eat fast food will eat fast food, and the people who want a diner will go to the diner. The diner won't be setting up shop at a service plaza... the era where they would has been gone for over 60 years now. And while I may feel sympathy for a mom and pop diner, I feel NO sympathy for the chains.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 07, 2012, 09:55:32 PMJust wondered how other states are cutting corners to save on expenses when it comes to highway maintenance.
Oregon moans and complains about not having money, but ODOT was able to scrape up $40 million bucks to buy two brand new passenger trains to hand over to Washington State (literally - ODOT will "own" the trains, but they will spend most of their time north of Portland, including being maintained in Seattle) to support a Portland-Eugene rail service that barely manages 85 riders per train per day (out of nearly 300 seats onboard).
Oregon also makes sure to replace signs on a very regular basis.
If there's one thing Oregon cuts back on, it in recent years has used cheaper asphalt and does more cheaper overlays than actual reconstruction jobs. Although they are getting better about scraping off the old wear layer of asphalt. And some major projects (Interstate Bridge replacement, Newberg-Dundee Bypass) have been politically hijacked so a lot of money saved up has gone elsewhere.
Quote from: Beltway on October 12, 2012, 11:07:50 PM
Quote from: deanej on October 12, 2012, 10:42:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway
No, you are proposing far more than that, allowing them to build private businesses on tax-funded Interstate right-of-way.
The way it works in the northeast is, the state builds the plaza and facilities then leases the space to the highest bidder. It's nothing more than allowing the state to not operate rest areas at a loss while providing additional services to travelers.
Again, those service plazas were built over 40 years ago, mainly on toll-ticketed turnpikes with very long rural interchange spacing.
Ever heard of the Delaware Turnpike? JFK Highway? Garden State Parkway? Connecticut Turnpike? Illinois Tollway (an entire
system of non-ticket toll roads)? Oklahoma Turnpike (ditto)?
Quote from: Beltway on October 12, 2012, 11:07:50 PM
That is not relevant to current proposals to build such new facilities on toll-free Interstate highways.
The rest areas are part of what we pay road use taxes and license fees to support.
We're not paying enough, regardless of what a certain political party wants you to think.
Quote from: Beltway on October 12, 2012, 11:07:50 PM
When Congress created the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s, community leaders feared that local businesses, jobs and tax bases would shrink as truck drivers and motorists bypassed their cities and towns. As a result, Congress prohibited states from offering commercial services, such as food and fuel, at commercial rest areas on the toll-free Interstate highway right-of-way built after Jan. 1, 1960. Since then, businesses such as restaurants, fuel stations and truckstops have clustered near the interstates at the interchanges along the IHS to provide services to interstate travelers.
Now you know very well that the Interstates bypassed many cities and towns and individual businesses, and more than a few of those businesses died as a result. Take a ride on I-95 between Emporia, Va. and Petersburg, Va. sometime and look at the
many (dead) businesses along U.S. 301 that runs hard by the freeway on its west side.
Quote from: Beltway on October 12, 2012, 11:07:50 PM
Here is what an industry advocate says --
Let's call that group what it really is - a
lobbying operation, no different from the Sierra Club, APTA or any of the rest of them.
Quote from: deanej on October 13, 2012, 09:02:11 AM
And how many of those 1,000 businesses are generic chains? The fact is, people who want to eat fast food will eat fast food, and the people who want a diner will go to the diner. The diner won't be setting up shop at a service plaza... the era where they would has been gone for over 60 years now. And while I may feel sympathy for a mom and pop diner, I feel NO sympathy for the chains.
Agreed.
And I think at least some of the diners and similar businesses that had a "following" probably were survive the construction of the "free" Interstates just fine.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 13, 2012, 12:09:27 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 12, 2012, 11:07:50 PM
Again, those service plazas were built over 40 years ago, mainly on toll-ticketed turnpikes with very long rural interchange spacing.
Ever heard of the Delaware Turnpike? JFK Highway? Garden State Parkway? Connecticut Turnpike? Illinois Tollway (an entire system of non-ticket toll roads)? Oklahoma Turnpike (ditto)?
What about them? They were grandfathered in as tollroads not built as 90% federally-funded Interstate highways.
Not relevant to the topic of commercializing rest areas today on toll-free Interstate highways.
Quote
Quote from: Beltway on October 12, 2012, 11:07:50 PM
Here is what an industry advocate says --
Let's call that group what it really is - a lobbying operation, no different from the Sierra Club, APTA or any of the rest of them.
Your handwaving is completely missing my point. Argue about bias or lack of bias as much as you want ... that is not my point.
The cogent point is that a number of national small business associations are strongly opposed to commercializing rest areas today on toll-free Interstate highways. They believe that they have research that shows that it would be hugely detrimental to the tens of thousands of businesses that were established under the rules set out in 1960, and that a small number of large corportations would benefit.
This level of national opposition makes it highly unlikely that Congress will change the rules.
Quote from: deanej on October 13, 2012, 09:02:11 AM
And how many of those 1,000 businesses are generic chains? The fact is, people who want to eat fast food will eat fast food, and the people who want a diner will go to the diner. The diner won't be setting up shop at a service plaza... the era where they would has been gone for over 60 years now. And while I may feel sympathy for a mom and pop diner, I feel NO sympathy for the chains.
You seemed to have missed the point that OH I-75 has 10 times the number of nearby businesses as compared to the ones near the similar length Ohio Turnpike.
Quote from: Beltway on October 13, 2012, 01:58:53 PM
You seemed to have missed the point that OH I-75 has 10 times the number of nearby businesses as compared to the ones near the similar length Ohio Turnpike.
There are many reasons for this. Certainly service areas will play a part, but so do other facts:
*I-75 was built next to or directly over old US 25, while the Ohio Turnpike follows new terrain, straying far from surface roads
*I-75 has many more interchanges
*I-75 is not a toll road
Except for the last point, you'd do much better to compare the Ohio Turnpike to I-71 in Ohio.
Quote from: NE2 on October 13, 2012, 03:41:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 13, 2012, 01:58:53 PM
You seemed to have missed the point that OH I-75 has 10 times the number of nearby businesses as compared to the ones near the similar length Ohio Turnpike.
There are many reasons for this. Certainly service areas will play a part, but so do other facts:
*I-75 was built next to or directly over old US 25, while the Ohio Turnpike follows new terrain, straying far from surface roads
*I-75 has many more interchanges
*I-75 is not a toll road
Except for the last point, you'd do much better to compare the Ohio Turnpike to I-71 in Ohio.
Another study --
I-95 in Maryland
2 commercial rest areas within 20 miles of each other (MMs83& MM 98)
Over 109 miles, I-95 Maryland has only 201 interstate-based businesses
- 39 Gas Stations
- 6 Fuel Stops
- 6 Truckstops (providing 1,255 truck parking spaces)
- 3 Truck Service Facilities
- 41 Hotel/Motels
- 106 Restaurants
.........
I-95 in Virginia
No Commercial Rest Areas...
Over 178 Miles of I-95
858 Interstate businesses including:
- 129 Gas Stations
- 19 Fuel Stops
- 11 Truckstops
- 12 Truck Service facilities
- 516 Restaurants
- 171 hotels/motels
I somehow doubt that Maryland House and Chesapeake House are responsible for the loss of 320 businesses each.
A significant percentage of I-95 in MD has to pass through the Washington and Baltimore metropolitan areas. These businesses are going to have to compete with more non-"Interstate-based" businesses. If I am hungry in a rural area and my only options are McDonalds or keep going, I might stop at McDonalds even if it's not my first choice because it's what's there. But in a city, I might have the option to pass up the McDonald's at the interchange and drive a couple miles into the city and eat elsewhere.
Where are you getting these statistics, anyhow? What is the criteria used for "interstate-based business"?
While you're at it, why don't you look at two highways that are more similar to each other, such as I-87 and I-95 in Westchester county? They're both of similar length, similar number of exits, both toll roads operated by NYSTA; the big differences between them is the additional tolling on I-87 (New Rochelle is nothbound only, while Yonkers is both directions and Tappan Zee is southbound after the bridge with the same name) and the Ardsley Travel Plaza. By your logic, I-87 should be a barren wasteland with no businesses on it ruined by the commies at NYSTA who built the travel plaza.
Why should tolls be a differentiating factor? You persist in claiming that toll roads have "very long" interchange spacing compared to free roads, which we've proven again and again is false (while some do, most don't). You fail to differentiate between small businesses and multi-national chains that use the interstates the same way a parasite uses your internal organs.
In fact, as stated above, I'd expect ticket-system toll roads to have fewer businesses on them regardless of whether they have service plazas, simply because the added inconvenience of paying the toll upon exiting (and perhaps the possibility of having to pay more for doing so if the toll structure is calculated in such a way) is often enough of a deterrent to exiting.
Quote from: deanej on October 14, 2012, 12:24:06 PM
While you're at it, why don't you look at two highways that are more similar to each other, such as I-87 and I-95 in Westchester county? They're both of similar length, similar number of exits, both toll roads operated by NYSTA; the big differences between them is the additional tolling on I-87 (New Rochelle is nothbound only, while Yonkers is both directions and Tappan Zee is southbound after the bridge with the same name) and the Ardsley Travel Plaza. By your logic, I-87 should be a barren wasteland with no businesses on it ruined by the commies at NYSTA who built the travel plaza.
Because Westchester County NY is a heavily populated suburban county of greater New York City.
Quote
Why should tolls be a differentiating factor? You persist in claiming that toll roads have "very long" interchange spacing compared to free roads, which we've proven again and again is false (while some do, most don't).
You continually misread what I said, I used the qualifier words MAINLY and RURAL.
'Rural' does not include Westchester Co. NY.
'Mainly', as in the bulk of the rural lengths (specifically mentioned IN, OH, PA, NJ and NY, the lion's mileage share of the turnpikes built before 1960), which is indeed true.
Quote
You fail to differentiate between small businesses and multi-national chains that use the interstates the same way a parasite uses your internal organs.
Many of the chains are operated on a franchise basis, in that the stores operate according to chain standards, while the individual stores are owned and managed by the proprietor of that store. So many of those chain stores are in effect individually small businesses.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 14, 2012, 10:13:20 AM
I somehow doubt that Maryland House and Chesapeake House are responsible for the loss of 320 businesses each.
Strawman claim.
Quote
A significant percentage of I-95 in MD has to pass through the Washington and Baltimore metropolitan areas. These businesses are going to have to compete with more non-"Interstate-based" businesses. If I am hungry in a rural area and my only options are McDonalds or keep going, I might stop at McDonalds even if it's not my first choice because it's what's there. But in a city, I might have the option to pass up the McDonald's at the interchange and drive a couple miles into the city and eat elsewhere.
Same is true in Virginia, with the Washington area and the Richmond-Petersburg area.
Quote from: Beltway on October 14, 2012, 04:04:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 14, 2012, 10:13:20 AM
I somehow doubt that Maryland House and Chesapeake House are responsible for the loss of 320 businesses each.
Strawman claim.
I don't see how. Your premise is that VA I-95 has 858 roadside businesses, while MD I-95 has only 109. You also point out that MD has two service plazas, in the context of a discussion wherein you assert that service plazas inhibit the growth of roadside businesses. If you weren't intending to support your argument by implying that the service plazas are the chief cause of this difference, then I don't understand why you even bothered to post those statistics.
And I'm still not seeing your source for them. Where are the statistics from?
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 15, 2012, 12:49:12 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 14, 2012, 04:04:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 14, 2012, 10:13:20 AM
I somehow doubt that Maryland House and Chesapeake House are responsible for the loss of 320 businesses each.
Strawman claim.
I don't see how. Your premise is that VA I-95 has 858 roadside businesses, while MD I-95 has only 109. You also point out that MD has two service plazas, in the context of a discussion wherein you assert that service plazas inhibit the growth of roadside businesses. If you weren't intending to support your argument by implying that the service plazas are the chief cause of this difference, then I don't understand why you even bothered to post those statistics.
And I'm still not seeing your source for them. Where are the statistics from?
"The loss of 320 businesses each" implies that businesses were established and then disappeared. Strawman...
As I have said, I am not trying to prove the claims of the small business associations, just that they have reasonable arguments on their side of the issue.
.......
http://www.ncsl.org/documents/transportation/HAlfano1210.pdf
320 potential businesses then. I scarcely believe there's much of a difference. The point is, the argument is made that the 657-business difference is a result of one state having commercialized rest areas on their stretch of I-95 and the other not having them.
I am not seeing anywhere in the source what their criteria is for counting a particular business in their chart, unfortunately.
Quote from: Beltway on October 14, 2012, 03:55:19 PM
'Rural' does not include Westchester Co. NY.
And yet it has a service plaza.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 15, 2012, 09:36:12 AM
320 potential businesses then. I scarcely believe there's much of a difference. The point is, the argument is made that the 657-business difference is a result of one state having commercialized rest areas on their stretch of I-95 and the other not having them.
I don't see that being the exact argument, as obviously there are multiple factors. The commercialized rest areas would seem to be a major correlator. The data shows that the state without them has vastly more of those small businesses, and you can interpret that data however you want.
I don't think that Maryland's way is "bad" or "good", it's just the system that they have followed on I-95 since the 1960s.
However, I think it is reasonable to conclude from this data that if a state without commercialized rest areas were to introduce them on the scale of Maryland House and Chesapeake House, that the local businesses near the interchanges would experience a major net loss of business volume. At least I can understand why the national small business associations are so opposed to it, and why they don't what to see the system changed.
Quote
I am not seeing anywhere in the source what their criteria is for counting a particular business in their chart, unfortunately.
It's a summary. I would think that it means vehicle service and food businesses near the interchanges..
The Federal Government has complete authority in the area of commercialization of rest areas on free interstates. The Commerce Clause gives them this authority. That being said, we need to come up with new ways to pay for our highway infrastructure, and this may be an answer. At this point, any and all ideas should be on the table, including commercialization of rest areas.
Quote from: rarnold on October 15, 2012, 10:17:36 PM
The Federal Government has complete authority in the area of commercialization of rest areas on free interstates. The Commerce Clause gives them this authority. That being said, we need to come up with new ways to pay for our highway infrastructure, and this may be an answer. At this point, any and all ideas should be on the table, including commercialization of rest areas.
The Safety Rest Areas are an integral part of the highway facility, and they should be funded the same way as the rest of the highway.
FHWA studies have estimated on average a 6-8% decrease in crashes, injuries and fatalities, due to having Safety Rest Areas on an Interstate highway corridor, as opposed to not having them.
Just like guardrail, shoulders, and medians are needed safety features, Safety Rest Areas are needed safety features as well, in addition to being very convenient places to stop and rest for a few hours.
Safety Rest Areas need to be modernized in many cases, but they should be kept as Safety Rest Areas, and not commercialized, IMHO.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 15, 2012, 09:36:12 AM
320 potential businesses then. I scarcely believe there's much of a difference. The point is, the argument is made that the 657-business difference is a result of one state having commercialized rest areas on their stretch of I-95 and the other not having them.
I am not seeing anywhere in the source what their criteria is for counting a particular business in their chart, unfortunately.
When compared to Virginia, land use controls in Maryland counties are (
in general) much stricter, and county governments in Maryland, which decide most land use issues (some municipalities in the state have zoning and land use powers, but most of the state (and most of the route followed by I-95) are in unincorporated areas (the only large Maryland municipality through which I-95 passes is Baltimore City)).
That means that opposition to "lulus" (locally undesirable
lane land uses) is probably more likely to result in a project being delayed or cancelled by local elected officials when compared to other states. The
only truck stop along I-95 between the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and Baltimore City (about 50 miles) is the T/A Truck Stop in Jessup, Howard County on Md. 175 (I-95 Exit 41), and that's there in part because it is in an area dominated by warehouses and state corrections facilities.
Aside from that one truck stop in Jessup, the rest are along the (nominally) tolled JFK Highway segment of I-95 in Cecil County (going north, this is the last county before Delaware where the Chesapeake House service plaza is located). The Maryland House [currently closed for reconstruction] service plaza is in Harford County.
Quote from: Beltway on October 15, 2012, 05:46:18 PM
However, I think it is reasonable to conclude from this data that if a state without commercialized rest areas were to introduce them on the scale of Maryland House and Chesapeake House, that the local businesses near the interchanges would experience a major net loss of business volume. At least I can understand why the national small business associations are so opposed to it, and why they don't what to see the system changed.
Quote
I am not seeing anywhere in the source what their criteria is for counting a particular business in their chart, unfortunately.
It's a summary. I would think that it means vehicle service and food businesses near the interchanges..
Oh, it's certainly expected that they will oppose it. Businesses and business associations will oppose anything that they might see as bad for business. That doesn't mean we have to value their desire to be in business over the potential benefits of having service plazas.
Businesses can't win on the convenience offered by service plazas. A clever business owner, however, can still make the best of the situation by competing on something like price, quality, or something along those lines. Especially if plaza businesses are weak on one of those in some way (more expensive gas at the plaza, dirty bathrooms, bad service, lower-quality food). Then it simply a matter of marketing to get people thinking "Hey, if I just go to Exit 238 instead of the plaza, I can get better food and service."
The reason why I was questioning the methodology was because you could get very different results depending on things like the distance cutoff for "close to the interstate", the types of businesses included in the list, etc. Without the methodology being disclosed we have no way of knowing if it was just some guy doing it looking at Google Maps counting stuff according to his whims.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 16, 2012, 01:07:07 AM
Oh, it's certainly expected that they will oppose it. Businesses and business associations will oppose anything that they might see as bad for business. That doesn't mean we have to value their desire to be in business over the potential benefits of having service plazas.
I don't see what the benefits would be, other than to a few large corporations. Personally to the motorist I would see a lot fewer choices and an unpredictable outcome. Not a transition chance that I would want to see in my state (VA).
Quote
Businesses can't win on the convenience offered by service plazas. A clever business owner, however, can still make the best of the situation by competing on something like price, quality, or something along those lines. Especially if plaza businesses are weak on one of those in some way (more expensive gas at the plaza, dirty bathrooms, bad service, lower-quality food). Then it simply a matter of marketing to get people thinking "Hey, if I just go to Exit 238 instead of the plaza, I can get better food and service."
Small food and service businesses on highways are not good candidates for niche specialization.
Due to their advantageous locations, state-owned commercial rest areas establish virtual monopolies on the sale of services to highway travelers. National small business associations don't see that as a situation where they can compete successfully.
Quote
The reason why I was questioning the methodology was because you could get very different results depending on things like the distance cutoff for "close to the interstate", the types of businesses included in the list, etc. Without the methodology being disclosed we have no way of knowing if it was just some guy doing it looking at Google Maps counting stuff according to his whims.
So because they won't spoonfeed every detail to you, you want to handwave.
The I-95 MD/VA example is quite obvious, my own experience on the corridor over the years is that VA has vastly more of those stores at interchanges as compared to MD.
There are a bunch of links from various small business associations that take the opposing stance.
Allowing states to set up shop along the interstates threatens more than 97,000 businesses nationwide and jeopardizes 2.2 million jobs.
But regardless of how many off-Interstate businesses would be hurt by the commercialization of rest areas, almost all of them would be national chains anyway (as I think was previously mentioned). People like me always stop at chains for food because we know what to expect at them. And now that almost everyone has a smartphone or GPS that can guide them straight to the nearest fast food location of their choosing, it's easier than ever to get off the Interstate to get food. Previously people stuck to on-Interstate services (where available) because they knew what was there, yet they could get off an exit and be unable to find anything good, wasting time. And what does it matter whether or not we stop at a national chain off an exit or a national chain in a service plaza? Gas we make a point of never buying at a service plaza because it's always more expensive. I always get gas off-interstate in Connecticut, and make sure I get it before getting on the MassPike (same goes for the NJTP, but it's really the entire state of NJ and it's because I refuse to let someone else pump my gas). I myself have never filled up my tank at a service plaza, and I don't see that changing.
Now you could argue that even if they're national chains it would hurt the franchise owners, but franchises come and go all the time. They go in and out of business just like everyone else. And guess what, if you commercialize rest areas, that's a new franchise opportunity! What's to stop a franchise owner from closing his off-Interstate location and reopening in the service plaza? So long as the state made it an open process and let companies bid on the service plaza franchises rather than just awarding them to friends of politicians, it all remains free enterprise. I don't see why the businesses in the service plaza can't operate just like businesses off the interstate.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 16, 2012, 02:33:52 PM
But regardless of how many off-Interstate businesses would be hurt by the commercialization of rest areas, almost all of them would be national chains anyway (as I think was previously mentioned).
This was previously mentioned --
Many of the chains are operated on a franchise basis, in that the stores operate according to chain standards, while the individual stores are owned and managed by the proprietor of that store. So many of those chain stores are in effect individually small businesses.
Quote
What's to stop a franchise owner from closing his off-Interstate location and reopening in the service plaza?
Because of the scale, one plaza could provide the volume of 30 or more small businesses. Large corporations would control who operates at the plaza, and it wouldn't be the ones now at the interchanges.
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2012, 02:58:11 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 16, 2012, 02:33:52 PM
But regardless of how many off-Interstate businesses would be hurt by the commercialization of rest areas, almost all of them would be national chains anyway (as I think was previously mentioned).
This was previously mentioned --
Many of the chains are operated on a franchise basis, in that the stores operate according to chain standards, while the individual stores are owned and managed by the proprietor of that store. So many of those chain stores are in effect individually small businesses.
Yes but you didn't address the rest of my post where I explained that franchises are constantly going in and out of business anyway, that many people would still get off the interstate, and that those same franchises could open up in a service plaza.
This is, after all, a free market economy. As long as any business that could afford to and wanted to was allowed to open in the service plaza, there's nothing unfair about it. It's not a monopoly if people can still get off the interstate.
QuoteQuote
What's to stop a franchise owner from closing his off-Interstate location and reopening in the service plaza?
Because of the scale, one plaza could provide the volume of 30 or more small businesses. Large corporations would control who operates at the plaza, and it wouldn't be the ones now at the interchanges.
Why wouldn't it be? If there's currently a McDonald's franchise at the nearest interchange, why couldn't there now be a McDonald's at the service plaza?
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 16, 2012, 03:55:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2012, 02:58:11 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 16, 2012, 02:33:52 PM
What's to stop a franchise owner from closing his off-Interstate location and reopening in the service plaza?
Because of the scale, one plaza could provide the volume of 30 or more small businesses. Large corporations would control who operates at the plaza, and it wouldn't be the ones now at the interchanges.
Why wouldn't it be? If there's currently a McDonald's franchise at the nearest interchange, why couldn't there now be a McDonald's at the service plaza?
Because one large plaza would have the sales volume of what is currently at the 5 to 10 nearest interchanges. Those 30+ small businesses would not relocate to the plaza, at the plaza there would be one massive service station and one massive restaurant; that is the way that they operate. Most of those small businesses would go out of business, and the large corporation running the plaza would not care.
I like how this thread has become "Rest area Privatization argument" :pan:... It's Related, but come on people, lets stay on topic here, please. :bigass:
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2012, 05:37:03 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 16, 2012, 03:55:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2012, 02:58:11 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 16, 2012, 02:33:52 PM
What's to stop a franchise owner from closing his off-Interstate location and reopening in the service plaza?
Because of the scale, one plaza could provide the volume of 30 or more small businesses. Large corporations would control who operates at the plaza, and it wouldn't be the ones now at the interchanges.
Why wouldn't it be? If there's currently a McDonald's franchise at the nearest interchange, why couldn't there now be a McDonald's at the service plaza?
Because one large plaza would have the sales volume of what is currently at the 5 to 10 nearest interchanges. Those 30+ small businesses would not relocate to the plaza, at the plaza there would be one massive service station and one massive restaurant; that is the way that they operate. Most of those small businesses would go out of business, and the large corporation running the plaza would not care.
I don't know about the really big plazas seen in places like NJ and MD, but here in NY our plaza businesses are about the same size as the regular franchises. IMO those are oversized, probably because the plazas themselves have become tourist traps.
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2012, 02:58:11 PM
Because of the scale, one plaza could provide the volume of 30 or more small businesses. Large corporations would control who operates at the plaza, and it wouldn't be the ones now at the interchanges.
Thirty???
Sounds more like a mall than a highway service plaza....
Also....
ON TOPIC,
Around here, a lot of people really hate how the use of oil-and-chips has increased pretty dramatically (over just repaving) as a way of saving scarce money when it comes to road preservation.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on October 17, 2012, 01:32:08 PM
Thirty???
Sounds more like a mall than a highway service plaza....
I was wondering what sort of town has 30 cheap restaurants at one exit.
Quote from: kphoger on October 17, 2012, 01:43:41 PM
Quote from: Mr_Northside on October 17, 2012, 01:32:08 PM
Thirty???
Sounds more like a mall than a highway service plaza....
I was wondering what sort of town has 30 cheap restaurants at one exit.
I don't know if they have thirty places, but the largest collection I have seen with my own eyes is probably on I-95 in the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia at Exit 130 (Va. 3, Plank Road) - Google Maps here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=fredericksburg+va&hl=en&ll=38.299132,-77.506871&spn=0.018827,0.038581&safe=off&hnear=Fredericksburg,+Virginia&gl=us&t=h&z=15). Note especially the Carl D. Silver Parkway, to the immediate northwest of the interchange. That's where the Central Park shopping center is located. There are at least a dozen eating establishments (many of them "cheap" in nature) in the Central Park center, and there are more along Va. 3 on the east and west sides of I-95.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 16, 2012, 02:33:52 PM
Gas we make a point of never buying at a service plaza because it's always more expensive. I always get gas off-interstate in Connecticut, and make sure I get it before getting on the MassPike (same goes for the NJTP, but it's really the entire state of NJ and it's because I refuse to let someone else pump my gas). I myself have never filled up my tank at a service plaza, and I don't see that changing.
Curiously, for those of us that drive vehicles that use
Diesel fuel (my pickup is Diesel), some of the
cheapest per-gallon prices to be found anywhere in the East were at the full-service pumps at the Sunoco stations on the New Jersey Turnpike (though I don't think this is the case any longer).
I understand that the New Jersey Turnpike Authority arranged to have lower Diesel prices as a way to encourage at least some truckers to use the Turnpike instead of parallel local roads like U.S. 1 and U.S. 130 (and maybe I-295). Not sure that the Turnpike's Sunoco stations still have cut-rate Diesel (it's been a few years since I have driven my truck on the Pike).
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 16, 2012, 03:55:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2012, 02:58:11 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 16, 2012, 02:33:52 PM
But regardless of how many off-Interstate businesses would be hurt by the commercialization of rest areas, almost all of them would be national chains anyway (as I think was previously mentioned).
This was previously mentioned --
Many of the chains are operated on a franchise basis, in that the stores operate according to chain standards, while the individual stores are owned and managed by the proprietor of that store. So many of those chain stores are in effect individually small businesses.
Yes but you didn't address the rest of my post where I explained that franchises are constantly going in and out of business anyway, that many people would still get off the interstate, and that those same franchises could open up in a service plaza.
This is, after all, a free market economy. As long as any business that could afford to and wanted to was allowed to open in the service plaza, there's nothing unfair about it. It's not a monopoly if people can still get off the interstate.
QuoteQuote
What's to stop a franchise owner from closing his off-Interstate location and reopening in the service plaza?
Because of the scale, one plaza could provide the volume of 30 or more small businesses. Large corporations would control who operates at the plaza, and it wouldn't be the ones now at the interchanges.
Why wouldn't it be? If there's currently a McDonald's franchise at the nearest interchange, why couldn't there now be a McDonald's at the service plaza?
Restaurants and franchisees also own rights to the area around their location. Using McDonalds as an example, if a McDonalds is opened in a specific location, then no other McDonalds can be opened within a 3 mile area. So if that area included a proposed service plaza, another franchisee or even a corporate-owned McDonalds would not be permitted to open a restaurant there, unless the franchisee gave up that right.
Of course, there are plenty of McDonalds near each other. Many times - they are corporate owned, or the same franchisee owns them.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 17, 2012, 02:20:01 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 16, 2012, 02:33:52 PM
Gas we make a point of never buying at a service plaza because it's always more expensive. I always get gas off-interstate in Connecticut, and make sure I get it before getting on the MassPike (same goes for the NJTP, but it's really the entire state of NJ and it's because I refuse to let someone else pump my gas). I myself have never filled up my tank at a service plaza, and I don't see that changing.
Curiously, for those of us that drive vehicles that use Diesel fuel (my pickup is Diesel), some of the cheapest per-gallon prices to be found anywhere in the East were at the full-service pumps at the Sunoco stations on the New Jersey Turnpike (though I don't think this is the case any longer).
I understand that the New Jersey Turnpike Authority arranged to have lower Diesel prices as a way to encourage at least some truckers to use the Turnpike instead of parallel local roads like U.S. 1 and U.S. 130 (and maybe I-295). Not sure that the Turnpike's Sunoco stations still have cut-rate Diesel (it's been a few years since I have driven my truck on the Pike).
Which is why I singled out the NJTP as the one road I
don't avoid due to high prices, but rather my desire to pump my own gas.
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2012, 05:37:03 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 16, 2012, 03:55:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2012, 02:58:11 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 16, 2012, 02:33:52 PM
What's to stop a franchise owner from closing his off-Interstate location and reopening in the service plaza?
Because of the scale, one plaza could provide the volume of 30 or more small businesses. Large corporations would control who operates at the plaza, and it wouldn't be the ones now at the interchanges.
Why wouldn't it be? If there's currently a McDonald's franchise at the nearest interchange, why couldn't there now be a McDonald's at the service plaza?
Because one large plaza would have the sales volume of what is currently at the 5 to 10 nearest interchanges. Those 30+ small businesses would not relocate to the plaza, at the plaza there would be one massive service station and one massive restaurant; that is the way that they operate. Most of those small businesses would go out of business, and the large corporation running the plaza would not care.
I have never seen a service plaza with only one massive restaurant. All the toll road service plazas I've ever stopped at have had a selection of restaurants in them (this holds true along the MassPike, the Maine Turnpike, the New Jersey Turnpike, the JFK Hwy plazas) plus often times convenience stores too. The only exception is smaller ones crammed into roads in NYC/CT.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 17, 2012, 02:29:11 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 16, 2012, 03:55:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2012, 02:58:11 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 16, 2012, 02:33:52 PM
But regardless of how many off-Interstate businesses would be hurt by the commercialization of rest areas, almost all of them would be national chains anyway (as I think was previously mentioned).
This was previously mentioned --
Many of the chains are operated on a franchise basis, in that the stores operate according to chain standards, while the individual stores are owned and managed by the proprietor of that store. So many of those chain stores are in effect individually small businesses.
Yes but you didn't address the rest of my post where I explained that franchises are constantly going in and out of business anyway, that many people would still get off the interstate, and that those same franchises could open up in a service plaza.
This is, after all, a free market economy. As long as any business that could afford to and wanted to was allowed to open in the service plaza, there's nothing unfair about it. It's not a monopoly if people can still get off the interstate.
QuoteQuote
What's to stop a franchise owner from closing his off-Interstate location and reopening in the service plaza?
Because of the scale, one plaza could provide the volume of 30 or more small businesses. Large corporations would control who operates at the plaza, and it wouldn't be the ones now at the interchanges.
Why wouldn't it be? If there's currently a McDonald's franchise at the nearest interchange, why couldn't there now be a McDonald's at the service plaza?
Restaurants and franchisees also own rights to the area around their location. Using McDonalds as an example, if a McDonalds is opened in a specific location, then no other McDonalds can be opened within a 3 mile area. So if that area included a proposed service plaza, another franchisee or even a corporate-owned McDonalds would not be permitted to open a restaurant there, unless the franchisee gave up that right.
Of course, there are plenty of McDonalds near each other. Many times - they are corporate owned, or the same franchisee owns them.
Which is why I said that businesses could probably just move into the service plaza. If they can't open another location, just move an existing one. If the service plaza would draw as much traffic as "30 off-Interstate locations" I'm sure a franchise owner would happily relocate to it!
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 17, 2012, 02:10:10 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 17, 2012, 01:43:41 PM
Quote from: Mr_Northside on October 17, 2012, 01:32:08 PM
Thirty???
Sounds more like a mall than a highway service plaza....
I was wondering what sort of town has 30 cheap restaurants at one exit.
I don't know if they have thirty places, but the largest collection I have seen with my own eyes is probably on I-95 in the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia at Exit 130 (Va. 3, Plank Road) - Google Maps here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=fredericksburg+va&hl=en&ll=38.299132,-77.506871&spn=0.018827,0.038581&safe=off&hnear=Fredericksburg,+Virginia&gl=us&t=h&z=15). Note especially the Carl D. Silver Parkway, to the immediate northwest of the interchange. That's where the Central Park shopping center is located. There are at least a dozen eating establishments (many of them "cheap" in nature) in the Central Park center, and there are more along Va. 3 on the east and west sides of I-95.
I said OVER 5 TO 10 INTERCHANGES.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 17, 2012, 05:38:49 PM
I have never seen a service plaza with only one massive restaurant. All the toll road service plazas I've ever stopped at have had a selection of restaurants in them (this holds true along the MassPike, the Maine Turnpike, the New Jersey Turnpike, the JFK Hwy plazas) plus often times convenience stores too. The only exception is smaller ones crammed into roads in NYC/CT.
I've never seen one with more than two service brands and two restaurants.
Quote
Which is why I said that businesses could probably just move into the service plaza. If they can't open another location, just move an existing one. If the service plaza would draw as much traffic as "30 off-Interstate locations" I'm sure a franchise owner would happily relocate to it!
That's absurd. A service plaza won't have 30 businesses. Nor will the half dozen major service brands and the dozen or so restaurant brands, move to the service plaza.
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2012, 05:46:16 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 17, 2012, 05:38:49 PM
I have never seen a service plaza with only one massive restaurant. All the toll road service plazas I've ever stopped at have had a selection of restaurants in them (this holds true along the MassPike, the Maine Turnpike, the New Jersey Turnpike, the JFK Hwy plazas) plus often times convenience stores too. The only exception is smaller ones crammed into roads in NYC/CT.
I've never seen one with more than two service brands and two restaurants.
Here's a picture of the sign for the first northbound service plaza on the NJTP:
https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey999/nj_tpk_nb_exit_002_10.jpg
There's a Burger King, a Starbucks, a Nathan's, a TCBY, and a convenience store.
Here's a picture of the sign for a northbound service plaza on the Maine Turnpike:
https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/maine050/i-095_nb_exit_025_05.jpg
There's a Burger King, and two other restaurants I can't make out (one of which looks like a Cinnabun).
Here's a picture of the sign for a service plaza on the Massachusetts Turnpike:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5081/5378318347_101f9283cc_z.jpg
There's a McDonald's, a Papa Gino's, a d'Angelo, a Ben & Jerry's, an Auntie Anne's, and two other ones I'm not sure what are.
If you've never seen a service plaza with more than two restaurants, you clearly haven't driven on a toll road in a very long time.
Quote
Quote
Which is why I said that businesses could probably just move into the service plaza. If they can't open another location, just move an existing one. If the service plaza would draw as much traffic as "30 off-Interstate locations" I'm sure a franchise owner would happily relocate to it!
That's absurd. A service plaza won't have 30 businesses. Nor will the half dozen major service brands and the dozen or so restaurant brands, move to the service plaza.
I never said a service plaza would have 30 businesses. I said that if they got the
traffic of 30 businesses, which you yourself said they would get, restaurant owners would happily relocate into one. And I'm sure the ones that are unable to relocate might have their business take a bit of a hit, but they won't disappear completely because I'm sure they'd survive off of the people with GPSes and smartphones who don't want to eat at the restaurant in the service plaza and can see that there is some place they DO want to eat at right off the interstate.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 17, 2012, 05:57:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2012, 05:46:16 PM
A service plaza won't have 30 businesses. Nor will the half dozen major service brands and the dozen or so restaurant brands, move to the service plaza.
I never said a service plaza would have 30 businesses. I said that if they got the traffic of 30 businesses, which you yourself said they would get, restaurant owners would happily relocate into one. And I'm sure the ones that are unable to relocate might have their business take a bit of a hit, but they won't disappear completely because I'm sure they'd survive off of the people with GPSes and smartphones who don't want to eat at the restaurant in the service plaza and can see that there is some place they DO want to eat at right off the interstate.
At least 6 national small business associations have posted articles about the issue, and they claim the opposite -- that they will receive very little opportunities at the Interstate plazas, and that the interchange small businesses will take a massive hit.
I'm not an expert on the issue, but I will accept the analysis of groups professional businesspersons over the ad hoc assertions of an Internet poster.
QuoteI'm not an expert on the issue, but I will accept the analysis of groups professional businesspersons over the ad hoc assertions of an Internet poster.
Just keep in mind that
you are also just some Internet poster. I don't seem to recall you being a professional businessperson either.
Also, you should note that I have said several times that states should, if commercializing rest areas, ensure that the process of selecting businesses should be a fair and open process. These associations you reference probably assume the worst, as lobbyists tend to do about ideas they oppose.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 18, 2012, 12:28:56 AM
QuoteI'm not an expert on the issue, but I will accept the analysis of groups professional businesspersons over the ad hoc assertions of an Internet poster.
Just keep in mind that you are also just some Internet poster. I don't seem to recall you being a professional businessperson either.
I've posted links (and there are more) to what professional businesspersons and associations are saying about the issue.
All you've done is post from your gut.
As far as I'm concerned, lobbyists are liars who are up to no good, so using them actually hurts your case in my eyes.
Quote from: deanej on October 18, 2012, 11:05:53 AM
As far as I'm concerned, lobbyists are liars who are up to no good, so using them actually hurts your case in my eyes.
And you are nothing more than an Internet poster that bellows and attacks the messenger when you have no cogent rebuttal.
BTW, groups like the National Association of Convenience Stores are not "lobbyists".
Quote from: Beltway on October 18, 2012, 12:15:42 PM
Quote from: deanej on October 18, 2012, 11:05:53 AM
As far as I'm concerned, lobbyists are liars who are up to no good, so using them actually hurts your case in my eyes.
BTW, groups like the National Association of Convenience Stores are not "lobbyists".
...Yes they are.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_association_of_convenience_storesNACS is the industry's voice in the federal government – to the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Its issues are as varied as the industry it represents, from motor fuels to credit card fees to labor to taxes.
Quote from: Beltway on October 18, 2012, 06:25:09 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 18, 2012, 12:28:56 AM
QuoteI'm not an expert on the issue, but I will accept the analysis of groups professional businesspersons over the ad hoc assertions of an Internet poster.
Just keep in mind that you are also just some Internet poster. I don't seem to recall you being a professional businessperson either.
I've posted links (and there are more) to what professional businesspersons and associations are saying about the issue.
All you've done is post from your gut.
Which I don't really see a problem with. We're having a theoretical discussion here, not writing a research paper. Also, none of your linked sources have really stood up to the scrutiny I've seen other members here subject them to before I entered the discussion, and many of them are from undeniably biased sources, like lobbying organizations.
Without trying to quote any of the previous posts, there is a huge difference between service plazas on toll roads and service plazas on free interstates, simply because of the "captive audience" nature of toll roads.
I would guess that in general, it costs less to drive straight through from Point A to Point C on one of the major toll roads than it does to drive from Point A to Point B, exit at Point B, then re-enter the toll road and drive to Point C. If the cost to drive from Point A to Point C is $10 and the cost to drive to Point B is $5, then $5 more to re-enter and drive to Point C, then it's a wash. But if the Point A to Point C trip is only $7.50, it costs you money to exit and thus you'd be more likely to use a service plaza.
But if the road is free and there is no cost differential, then there is no benefit gained by staying on the road and using a service plaza. If the service plaza has McDonald's and you prefer Wendy's, and there's a Wendy's at the first exit past the service, then you'll eat at Wendy's. But if an exit to Wendy's is going to cost you an additional $2.50 on your trip, you might settle for McDonald's.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 18, 2012, 02:28:15 PM
But if the road is free and there is no cost differential, then there is no benefit gained by staying on the road and using a service plaza. If the service plaza has McDonald's and you prefer Wendy's, and there's a Wendy's at the first exit past the service, then you'll eat at Wendy's. But if an exit to Wendy's is going to cost you an additional $2.50 on your trip, you might settle for McDonald's.
it might go even further than what you are saying.
psychologically, a driver might feel an added component of "I've gotta get off and get on and fumble with toll tickets and change" which, even when the dollar cost difference is less than or equal to 0, might be viewed as an unfavorable opportunity cost difference.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 18, 2012, 12:27:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 18, 2012, 12:15:42 PM
I've posted links (and there are more) to what professional businesspersons and associations are saying about the issue.
All you've done is post from your gut.
Which I don't really see a problem with. We're having a theoretical discussion here, not writing a research paper. Also, none of your linked sources have really stood up to the scrutiny I've seen other members here subject them to before I entered the discussion, and many of them are from undeniably biased sources, like lobbying organizations.
They are not "lobbying organizations". You're handwaving.
Neither have any of you posted links from business organizations that take the opposite position. Hint: other than possibly a few large corporations, none of them appear to take the opposite position.
They most certainly are lobbying organizations. You read my quote, right?
Quote from: hbelkinsWithout trying to quote any of the previous posts, there is a huge difference between service plazas on toll roads and service plazas on free interstates, simply because of the "captive audience" nature of toll roads.
...
But if the road is free and there is no cost differential, then there is no benefit gained by staying on the road and using a service plaza. If the service plaza has McDonald's and you prefer Wendy's, and there's a Wendy's at the first exit past the service, then you'll eat at Wendy's. But if an exit to Wendy's is going to cost you an additional $2.50 on your trip, you might settle for McDonald's.
Exactly, which is why I'm saying commercializing rest areas won't drive surrounding off-Interstate businesses completely out of business because people who don't want what's at the service plaza will exit instead.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 18, 2012, 03:05:00 PM
They most certainly are lobbying organizations. You read my quote, right?
You cited -one- link. -One- does not equal -many-.
And so what if an organization lobbies? They are speaking for a group of like entities. They are entitled to an opinion. They are entitled to assess the impact of a proposal. Calling them "liars" for doing that is pure demagoguery.
Why are no small business organizations speaking in favor of commercializing rest areas? It's because none of them see any benefit in it.
Quote from: Beltway on October 18, 2012, 03:47:32 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 18, 2012, 03:05:00 PM
They most certainly are lobbying organizations. You read my quote, right?
You cited -one- link. -One- does not equal -many-.
And so what if an organization lobbies? They are speaking for a group of like entities. They are entitled to an opinion.
Why are no small business organizations speaking in favor of commercializing rest areas? It's because none of them see any benefit in it.
I never said many. And I never said that I said many. And I provided that one link because it concerned the example you used.
And yes, they are entitled to an opinion, just like you and me. I just said, like past contributors to this discussion, that their opinion is probably going to be biased as a lobbying organization. Just like if I were a small business owner my opinion would probably biased (and for the record, my family does own a convenience store).
Yo, Mods. :poke: Can you split the argument about Interstate plazas into a separate topic? :confused: I'm interested in maintenance, but not really about the plazas. Thanks :happy:
Quote from: hbelkins on October 18, 2012, 02:28:15 PM
But if the road is free and there is no cost differential, then there is no benefit gained by staying on the road and using a service plaza. If the service plaza has McDonald's and you prefer Wendy's, and there's a Wendy's at the first exit past the service, then you'll eat at Wendy's. But if an exit to Wendy's is going to cost you an additional $2.50 on your trip, you might settle for McDonald's.
The MD I-95 experience seems to indicate the opposite. There is no cost to leave and re-enter the interchanges (ramp tolls were removed over 20 years ago), the interchanges are frequent, and they still have far fewer interchange businesses than VA I-95. Many more small businesses could have built at many of the rural interchanges (MD land use policies would have allowed it), if they thought it would be profitable. The MD I-95 JFK Highway service plazas have impacted the whole MD I-95 109-mile-long corridor. That is not "bad" for MD, it's just the procedure that they have had for 50 years. But it is a harbinger of what would happen on VA I-95 and other Interstate highways, if they were to allow commercialized rest areas.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 18, 2012, 03:52:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 18, 2012, 03:47:32 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 18, 2012, 03:05:00 PM
They most certainly are lobbying organizations. You read my quote, right?
You cited -one- link. -One- does not equal -many-.
And so what if an organization lobbies? They are speaking for a group of like entities. They are entitled to an opinion.
Why are no small business organizations speaking in favor of commercializing rest areas? It's because none of them see any benefit in it.
I never said many. And I never said that I said many. And I provided that one link because it concerned the example you used.
And yes, they are entitled to an opinion, just like you and me. I just said, like past contributors to this discussion, that their opinion is probably going to be biased as a lobbying organization. Just like if I were a small business owner my opinion would probably biased (and for the record, my family does own a convenience store).
Why are no small business organizations speaking in favor of commercializing rest areas?
If they thought it would be profitable for their members, they would.
I don't know and I don't really care. I'm not writing a research paper on the matter, I'm just hypothesizing and speculating on a forum. Maybe they haven't even looked into it because they don't think it would ever happen.
Just because certain people can make more money off of something being a certain way doesn't mean that it's unquestionably the best course of action.
Small businesses could make more money if we didn't have a minimum wage or child labor laws, but...
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 18, 2012, 06:09:08 PM
I don't know and I don't really care. I'm not writing a research paper on the matter, I'm just hypothesizing and speculating on a forum. Maybe they haven't even looked into it because they don't think it would ever happen.
It's quite obvious that they have "looked into it".
Post Merge: October 18, 2012, 08:32:33 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 18, 2012, 06:10:05 PM
Just because certain people can make more money off of something being a certain way doesn't mean that it's unquestionably the best course of action.
They are concerned about possibly 1/3 to 1/2 of them being put out of business. You need to get the business community on board if you want the federal law changed on this matter.
Quote from: Beltway on October 18, 2012, 05:42:57 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 18, 2012, 02:28:15 PM
But if the road is free and there is no cost differential, then there is no benefit gained by staying on the road and using a service plaza. If the service plaza has McDonald's and you prefer Wendy's, and there's a Wendy's at the first exit past the service, then you'll eat at Wendy's. But if an exit to Wendy's is going to cost you an additional $2.50 on your trip, you might settle for McDonald's.
The MD I-95 experience seems to indicate the opposite. There is no cost to leave and re-enter the interchanges (ramp tolls were removed over 20 years ago), the interchanges are frequent, and they still have far fewer interchange businesses than VA I-95. Many more small businesses could have built at many of the rural interchanges (MD land use policies would have allowed it), if they thought it would be profitable.
What do you know about land use policy in Maryland, which is normally implemented by county governments?
Quote from: Beltway on October 18, 2012, 05:42:57 PM
The MD I-95 JFK Highway service plazas have impacted the whole MD I-95 109-mile-long corridor.
Please tell me how you determined that.
Do you know the trip length distribution of all I-95 travel to, through and in Maryland?
Do you know the origins and destinations? Presumably you do, making statements like the above.
Quote from: Beltway on October 18, 2012, 05:42:57 PM
That is not "bad" for MD, it's just the procedure that they have had for 50 years. But it is a harbinger of what would happen on VA I-95 and other Interstate highways, if they were to allow commercialized rest areas.
It is only the 42-or-so northernmost miles of I-95 in Maryland that would have had impact by the two service plazas (and presumably the one in Delaware, too). Yet that is precisely where several of the large truck stop chains have decided to locate their businesses. Why might that be?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 18, 2012, 10:46:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 18, 2012, 05:42:57 PM
The MD I-95 JFK Highway service plazas have impacted the whole MD I-95 109-mile-long corridor.
Please tell me how you determined that.
Do you know the trip length distribution of all I-95 travel to, through and in Maryland?
Do you know the origins and destinations? Presumably you do, making statements like the above.
It is a short enough segment that motorists thinking of stopping south of Baltimore, could skip that in favor of stopping on the JFK.
Maryland toll-free Interstate highways 68, 70, 81, and 83, seem to have ample service businesses at interchanges.
Quote
Quote from: Beltway on October 18, 2012, 05:42:57 PM
That is not "bad" for MD, it's just the procedure that they have had for 50 years. But it is a harbinger of what would happen on VA I-95 and other Interstate highways, if they were to allow commercialized rest areas.
It is only the 42-or-so northernmost miles of I-95 in Maryland that would have had impact by the two service plazas (and presumably the one in Delaware, too). Yet that is precisely where several of the large truck stop chains have decided to locate their businesses. Why might that be?
Those two service plazas don't come anywhere close to providing all the truck services that a large truck stop can provide -- things such as major repairs, tires, large amounts of overnight and longer-term parking with IdleAir (*), motels in some cases, etc.
(*) "IdleAir provides America's hard-working long-haul truck drivers an alternative to idling their engines during rest periods. IdleAir service allows truck drivers to turn off their diesel engines and APU's and still enjoy heating, cooling, standard electric inside and outside the cab, Satellite TV, internet, and many of the comforts of home – all while saving money and getting better sleep without the noise, vibration, and exhaust fumes from idling."
Daddy, what's a small business?
Quote from: NE2 on October 19, 2012, 01:02:43 AM
Daddy, what's a small business?
The Small Business Administration generally considers a small business one with less than 500 employees if in manufacturing, and in any other industry, one with receipts of less than $7 million per year. But there are more specific guidelines for individual industries. Some people use other definitions, though. And it is tough to classify a franchise; is a McDonalds franchisee still a "small business" if they have only ten employees and do $1 million in sales per year, even though they are a part of the multi-billion dollar McDonalds brand?
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 19, 2012, 06:15:25 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 19, 2012, 01:02:43 AM
Daddy, what's a small business?
The Small Business Administration generally considers a small business one with less than 500 employees if in manufacturing, and in any other industry, one with receipts of less than $7 million per year. But there are more specific guidelines for individual industries. Some people use other definitions, though. And it is tough to classify a franchise; is a McDonalds franchisee still a "small business" if they have only ten employees and do $1 million in sales per year, even though they are a part of the multi-billion dollar McDonalds brand?
Selling a major brand doesn't automatically make someone part of that company.
Many of the chains are operated on a franchise basis, in that the stores operate according to chain standards, while the individual stores are owned and managed by the proprietor of that store. So many of those chain stores are in effect individually small businesses.
Absolutely–on paper, at least, it is a small business. But when you buy into a brand like McDonalds you also buy into the marketing mechanism of that brand. If I run Scott's Diner, I have no brand name recognition or loyalty at time of startup. As a small business I probably won't be able to afford much in the way of marketing at first. My limited budget will probably restrict me to ads in local papers. Maybe eventually I can move up to local TV. But a franchise like McDonalds has advertisements in the media markets of nearly every city in the United States. That gives you a huge leg up over every other small business.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 19, 2012, 06:29:09 AM
Absolutely–on paper, at least, it is a small business. But when you buy into a brand like McDonalds you also buy into the marketing mechanism of that brand. If I run Scott's Diner, I have no brand name recognition or loyalty at time of startup. As a small business I probably won't be able to afford much in the way of marketing at first. My limited budget will probably restrict me to ads in local papers. Maybe eventually I can move up to local TV. But a franchise like McDonalds has advertisements in the media markets of nearly every city in the United States. That gives you a huge leg up over every other small business.
There are dozens of fast food restaurant chains in the U.S. (look it up). And most of them have the individual propriater system.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 17, 2012, 05:57:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2012, 05:46:16 PM
I've never seen one with more than two service brands and two restaurants.
[ list ]
If you've never seen a service plaza with more than two restaurants, you clearly haven't driven on a toll road in a very long time.
Great. Super. How many service plazas have you seen with more than one
gas station? Now how many exits have you seen with more than one
gas station?
Quote from: kphoger on October 19, 2012, 02:39:33 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 17, 2012, 05:57:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2012, 05:46:16 PM
I've never seen one with more than two service brands and two restaurants.
[ list ]
If you've never seen a service plaza with more than two restaurants, you clearly haven't driven on a toll road in a very long time.
Great. Super. How many service plazas have you seen with more than one gas station? Now how many exits have you seen with more than one gas station?
Who buys gas at service plazas unless they have to? Only stupid people who don't realize that they're paying a premium.
Quote from: Beltway on October 19, 2012, 09:43:48 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 19, 2012, 06:29:09 AM
Absolutely–on paper, at least, it is a small business. But when you buy into a brand like McDonalds you also buy into the marketing mechanism of that brand. If I run Scott's Diner, I have no brand name recognition or loyalty at time of startup. As a small business I probably won't be able to afford much in the way of marketing at first. My limited budget will probably restrict me to ads in local papers. Maybe eventually I can move up to local TV. But a franchise like McDonalds has advertisements in the media markets of nearly every city in the United States. That gives you a huge leg up over every other small business.
There are dozens of fast food restaurant chains in the U.S. (look it up). And most of them have the individual propriater system.
Great. Don't care. Doesn't change the fact that a store operating in such a franchise has a brand advantage over one that doens't. While they may technically be small businesses, they have much more in common with multinational corporations than the REAL small businesses that come to mind when people think "small business" (read: mom and pop "Joe's corner store").
The government does not exist to serve businesses. It exists to serve people. In fact, if you take a sociological approach rather than an economical one, businesses do too. Profit is supposed to be a reward for contributing to society, nothing more. Sadly, it has become an end in and of itself.
Also, you and the lobbyists (who seem to have you in their pockets) have done nothing to compensate for other differences that can cause businesses pattern changes. Using your logic, ice cream sales cause murders (more ice cream is sold in summer, and there are more murders in summer; look, a correlation, so obviously one must cause the other! :spin:).
Quote from: deanej on October 19, 2012, 03:19:20 PM
Who buys gas at service plazas unless they have to? Only stupid people who don't realize that they're paying a premium.
The gas at service plazas is not
invariably more expensive; I've seen it be the cheaper option. Plus, as has been noted, toll road exits are often farther spaced. This makes filling up at service plazas alluring at times–not to mention you're pretty much guaranteed not to hit any red lights or get stuck in traffic at your exit.
The point is that, even if there could be the same level of competition among restaurants at a service plaza as there is a local exit, there would very unlikely be the same level of competition among gas stations–so that business sector would suffer even if the restaurant sector would not.
Quote from: deanej on October 19, 2012, 03:19:20 PMUsing your logic, ice cream sales cause murders (more ice cream is sold in summer, and there are more murders in summer; look, a correlation, so obviously one must cause the other! :spin:).
incorrect. murders cause ice cream. everyone is filled with delicious ice cream: stab someone today, and find out for yourself!
Quote from: deanej on October 19, 2012, 03:19:20 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 19, 2012, 09:43:48 AM
There are dozens of fast food restaurant chains in the U.S. (look it up). And most of them have the individual propriater system.
Great. Don't care. Doesn't change the fact that a store operating in such a franchise has a brand advantage over one that doens't. While they may technically be small businesses, they have much more in common with multinational corporations than the REAL small businesses that come to mind when people think "small business" (read: mom and pop "Joe's corner store").
Nonsense. Self-proprieter chain businesses have nothing to do with "multinational corporations".
Besides, nearly every business near the interchangs anchor a major brand of fuel or food, in any case.
Quote
Also, you and the lobbyists (who seem to have you in their pockets)
Seems like your "multinational corporations" have YOU in their pockets.
Quote
have done nothing to compensate for other differences that can cause businesses pattern changes. Using your logic, ice cream sales cause murders (more ice cream is sold in summer, and there are more murders in summer; look, a correlation, so obviously one must cause the other! :spin:).
To the moderators --- you may want to step in and stop this thread.
Because I am at the point where I am going to start heaping ridicule on this jerk and others like him if they keep posting the crap that they have been posting.
The assumption that anyone on the Interstate wants a small business is laughable.
I don't think you can outright say small business franchisees have "nothing to do" with multinational corporations. I used to work for a local Burger King franchisee with locations throughout Oklahoma and Arkansas, headquartered in Broken Arrow. While Burger King Corporation itself was a separate company and never was in our direct chain of command, we would occasionally have BKC reps order food from the drive-thru to ensure the food met their quality standards, that we got the order correct, that we didn't take forever to get it out, etc. If we failed to keep BKC happy the franchise owner would hear about it, and shit rolls downhill, as they say. If a franchisee is tarnishing the brand image, they can get their franchise revoked (i.e. lose the right to use the brand name).
But BKC had our back on a lot of things. BKC handled product development; we didn't come up with new sandwiches, they did in Miami and the ingredients and instructions would be sent in on our next truck. We didn't have to contract with a distributor; BKC did that. All we had to do was say how much product we needed and pay for it, and trucks showed up at our store. Same with packaging: we didn't have to have it designed and printed, we just had ordered the packaging and it showed up on the truck. We spent zero on marketing, again, BKC did that, they paid (at the time) Crispin Porter + Bogusky to develop ads and air them nationwide. We also spent nothing on our menu boards; we would get a big box of signs from Miami for us to put up and that was that.
If we were a truly independent small business we would have had to have gone it alone on all of this. We would have had to have contracted a print shop to print our packaging and menu advertising. We would have had to have found a distributor (and probably not gotten as good a deal as BKC could have since they could leverage the fact that they have something like 10,000 restaurants to deliver to and we only had like 25 or so). If we had to develop our marketing ourselves there was no way we could have afforded CPB as our ad agency, and couldn't have justified the cost to run ads outside of Oklahoma and Arkansas (thus someone from Maryland traveling in Oklahoma would have no idea who we are or what our products were). Someone would have had to been hired to invent new products. But since we had bought into the Burger King brand, we had all that back-end stuff covered for us, and could focus on the business of just running the restaurant.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 19, 2012, 06:05:43 PMIf a franchisee is tarnishing the brand image, they can get their franchise revoked (i.e. lose the right to use the brand name).
That probably happens with great frequency with hotels and motels. You'll see a location change brand names a few times and then all of a sudden it'll become "Joe's Motel."
Well, whatever. You'll rarely if ever see a non-chain service or food business at a turnpike service plaza, while you will see some off of Interstate interchanges. So your argument is if anything hurting the concept of commercializing rest areas, and not helping it.
The problem is that a lot of people simply don't trust independent brands. Taking H.B.'s example above–if you have a choice between Motel 6 and Joe's Motel, which do you think most people will pick? At least at Motel 6 if you have a cruddy stay you can raise hell with corporate and get a refund or a free stay (which is actually usable since Motel 6 has so many locations). At Joe's your recourse is probably going to be much more limited (even if you can get Joe to give you a comped stay, when are you ever going to be in Bucksnort, TN again to use it?)
I used to prefer independents, but the last 4-5 years I've been staying at franchised hotels. Too many independents are simply being allowed to rot because the land is more valuable than the property (partly because the owners are lining their pockets rather than maintaining things)
Ramada Inn in Fayetteville, AR went independent 15-20 years ago. The owners didn't maintain the property and it was eventually sold to a developer for a strip mall. The old owner took the money and ran, leaving the new owner to dispose of everything.
Yet, franchised hotels are a crap shoot as well. I recently stayed in an America's Best Value that was a former Hampton Inn. I could see where it was being allowed to crumble. And this was supposed to be one of the best of the franchise? I don't think so.
I've stayed in bad Super 8's and bad EconoLodges. Also bad HoJos. I have never understood how these places stay in business.
I'll say this: Hilton is tough! They have very high standards from what I've seen and you don't want them mad at you.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 19, 2012, 10:47:14 PM
Taking H.B.'s example aboveif you have a choice between Motel 6 and Joe's Motel, which do you think most people will pick?
Assuming comparable prices, I'll base my choice on online reviews, weighted by date of post, type of issue, and apparent pickiness of the poster. I've stayed at enough excellent mom-and-pops and dumpy brand-names over the years to not base my decision on brand recognition. While I understand most people prefer to stick to brand recognition, I can't help but think that more and more people will take advice on TripAdvisor et alii into consideration as time goes on.
But that's as may be. Very few service plazas have motels (I can't think of any here in the Midwestern U.S., but I can think of a few in México). The businesses that are really in question are gas stations and restaurants. People generally don't plan meal stops or fuel stops in advance, the way they do motel stays; so these businesses are more vulnerable.
Quote from: kphoger on October 20, 2012, 11:24:21 AM
People generally don't plan meal stops or fuel stops in advance, the way they do motel stays;
Bear with me here, but in a way I think they do - people might not deliberately plan to go through a certain city because it has a certain restaurant, but they may well see on their GPS where the nearest location of their fast food chain of choice is and take an alternate route so they go by it. Like say they're getting hungry when approaching a big city, and they see that the nearest Burger King is a couple exits down the beltway. They may then decide to take the beltway even though they originally planned to go through downtown, because it's the easiest way to go by the Burger King.
And there are people out there who do plan trips so that they go by a specific place. I've done it before. I've decided that I really like food stops at a specific place, so I look at their locations and specifically plan to swing by one.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 20, 2012, 11:32:50 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 20, 2012, 11:24:21 AM
People generally don't plan meal stops or fuel stops in advance, the way they do motel stays;
Bear with me here, but in a way I think they do - people might not deliberately plan to go through a certain city because it has a certain restaurant, but they may well see on their GPS where the nearest location of their fast food chain of choice is and take an alternate route so they go by it. Like say they're getting hungry when approaching a big city, and they see that the nearest Burger King is a couple exits down the beltway. They may then decide to take the beltway even though they originally planned to go through downtown, because it's the easiest way to go by the Burger King.
And there are people out there who do plan trips so that they go by a specific place. I've done it before. I've decided that I really like food stops at a specific place, so I look at their locations and specifically plan to swing by one.
I plan my meal and gas stops ahead as well, but I suspect there are very few people who do this as a general practice–unless they drive the route regularly, in which case they already know where everything is and would be less likely to jump ship were a new service plaza to open.
While some may look up services on the fly on their GPS device, it's been my (limited) experience that few people will stray from their intended route for anything except a motel. Most people I've travelled with simply scan along their intended route to see what restaurants there are, then pick their favorite one–not scan a wider area for one choice, then pick the closest one. Then, of course, most people at large simply wait until they see the blue sign or the actual property itself before deciding anyway.
At any rate, I find it likely that
some people plan ahead for gas and food just as they do for lodging (I myself am proof of that), but I would wager the percentage would be far lower.
Quote from: Beltway on October 19, 2012, 05:42:18 PM
Nonsense. Self-proprieter chain businesses have nothing to do with "multinational corporations".
Did you even read any of the stuff that has been posted on this thread?
Quote
Seems like your "multinational corporations" have YOU in their pockets.
WTF? You clearly haven't read any posts of mine outside this thread. Not being against rest area commercialization = being pro multi-national corps? WOW. For the record, I'm pro consumer, and don't care one iota about businesses as long as their policies are favorable to consumers and workers. As far as I'm concerned, the only reason businesses exist is to provider services and employ people. Profit for the owners is merely a reward for doing a good job IMO. Anyone who goes into business for the money, and not because they are passionate about providing whatever service their business provides, should be thrown out.
Quote
Because I am at the point where I am going to start heaping ridicule on this jerk and others like him if they keep posting the crap that they have been posting.
So anyone who points out the flaws in your logic is automatically a jerk. If that's how you feel, maybe you be done with this thread; nobody has been coming out to support your full argument, though we have had reasoned discussions about some specific points.
Guys, let's just chill out here for a little bit. Obviously there's a disagreement that we're not resolving about the impacts of service area services on similar local services. Let's see if we can get back to the main issue of improving maintenance.
Quote from: deanej on October 20, 2012, 01:10:02 PMAs far as I'm concerned, the only reason businesses exist is to provider services and employ people. Profit for the owners is merely a reward for doing a good job IMO. Anyone who goes into business for the money, and not because they are passionate about providing whatever service their business provides, should be thrown out.
That statement is so foreign to the fundamental tenets of capitalism that I don't even know how to begin to respond to it.
You can begin by excommunicating him from the kool kids' klub.
We've strayed too far, and people are unwilling to come back on topic. Thread locked.