Interstate Rest Area Commercialization

[Duke87]

As it is, many Americans tend to gravitate to the chains

Never underestimate the power of brand name recognition. I know what to expect when I go into an IHOP, a Denny's, a McDonalds, etc., no matter where I am. I don't know what to expect when I walk into Joe's coffee shop in Podunkton.

[mtantillo]

I don't think its just Americans.  Every place has their national brands.  Just not on the same scale as the USA, since we are such a big country.  If you are in Europe and you travel 1000 miles from home, you are likely several countries away from your origin, which means the language and brands are likely different.  Here in the USA, we have the luxury of being able to travel thousands of miles and getting the same familiar brands. 

In Canada I noticed quite a few chains represented on their logo signs at interchanges, and many of those chains are on a somewhat national scale. 

When I travel, at my destination, I'll have researched the best places to eat so I know where to go.  Along the way, I have no idea where i'll end up being hungry, which precludes research in advance.  Since I don't know what local places are good and what ones are bad, I settle for the predictable chains.  On routes I travel often enough, I have some favorite places that I've discovered.  For example, traveling on I-84 in CT, I'll typically stop at either Rein's Deli in Vernon or Blue Colony Diner in Bethel.  On unfamiliar routes, I don't have that advance knowledge though. 

[Sykotyk]

You can't drive long in Canada without passing a few dozen Tim Hortons. That's for sure.

[Ned Weasel]

http://www.csnews.com/top-story-nacs_launches_lobbying_effort_against_rest_area_commercialization-59036.html

Here's an article about legislation that was introduced to allow commercialization of rest areas, and its possible detrimental effect on businesses along the interchanges.

What the study really should have done is look at the trends on roads with both service areas and free ability to exit/enter along with logo signs at interchanges.  An example would be I-95 in Connecticut.  In NJ, the off-interstate businesses still suffer from an artificial disadvantage since the turnpike does not permit food or gas logo signs, only lodging, whereas there is nothing to suggest that states allowing commercialization of rest areas will pull all of their logo signs for off-interstate food and gas businesses.

I agree that the study would need to look at areas that already have commercialized service areas, in order to determine their effects on local economies.  As for exit service signs, I think the New Jersey Turnpike's practice of only using signs for lodging is standard for toll roads that have service areas with gas stations and food service.  I know that the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the Kansas Turnpike both follow this same practice.

Thoughts?

I have a hard time believing that this is as bad of an idea as the article makes it out to be.  At worst, it seems like it would take business from one place and transfer it to another.  At the state or national level, I don't see how this would cause a net loss of business.  Didn't a similar process already happen to businesses on state and U.S. highways when Interstates were created, and businesses moved to more convenient locations adjacent to Interstate interchanges?  Furthermore, this wouldn't affect local economies' basic industries; it would only affect the service sector.

I think this would provide a reasonable source of revenue for roads.  The only other ways to raise funds for roads are to raise taxes or implement tolls, and commercializing rest areas could relieve some of the pressure, although I'm not sure how much.  I think this would generally benefit motorists, as it would provide services and facilities that are more convenient, although I do hope that commercialized rest areas would be open 24 hours a day.  This could also relieve congestion at commercialized interchanges, since fewer people would use those exits for services they can access directly from the freeway mainline.

I'm kind of surprised we haven't done this already.  We've had food and retail concessions at airports and major train stations for so long that I don't think many people could imagine such places without them.

[J N Winkler]

I'm kind of surprised we haven't done this already.  We've had food and retail concessions at airports and major train stations for so long that I don't think many people could imagine such places without them.

The difference is that trains and airports are designed specifically to accommodate these commercial businesses.  Shopfronts of defined width are already provided and supplied with utility hookups, etc.  Existing free rest areas do have utility hookups (with the possible exception of gas), but some might have capacity issues, and in any case site redevelopment would be necessary to provide permanent, all-weather, all-seasons shelter for the private businesses.

In the US full-service areas work well on toll roads because they were planned from the beginning--land was set aside, standard forms for concession agreements were defined, etc.  Similarly, in Britain MSAs work well because early objections to municipal trading were successfully overcome and sites prepared to defined dimensions were set aside at regular intervals.  For historical reasons this did not happen on untolled Interstates and it would be costly to implement a change in policy as a retrofit.

There is also a good free-market argument against commercializing rest areas.  If there is so much demand for roadside goods and services at a given rest area, why don't the private businesses build at a nearby exit?  In rural areas access is typically very easy to arrange, site development costs are lower on greenfield than on the brownfield within existing rest areas, concession fees do not need to be paid, and although many states now require hundreds of feet of access control on either side of ramp termini, on-premise signs are still unregulated.

[Ned Weasel]

The difference is that trains and airports are designed specifically to accommodate these commercial businesses.  Shopfronts of defined width are already provided and supplied with utility hookups, etc.  Existing free rest areas do have utility hookups (with the possible exception of gas), but some might have capacity issues, and in any case site redevelopment would be necessary to provide permanent, all-weather, all-seasons shelter for the private businesses.

In the US full-service areas work well on toll roads because they were planned from the beginning--land was set aside, standard forms for concession agreements were defined, etc.  Similarly, in Britain MSAs work well because early objections to municipal trading were successfully overcome and sites prepared to defined dimensions were set aside at regular intervals.  For historical reasons this did not happen on untolled Interstates and it would be costly to implement a change in policy as a retrofit.

There is also a good free-market argument against commercializing rest areas.  If there is so much demand for roadside goods and services at a given rest area, why don't the private businesses build at a nearby exit?  In rural areas access is typically very easy to arrange, site development costs are lower on greenfield than on the brownfield within existing rest areas, concession fees do not need to be paid, and although many states now require hundreds of feet of access control on either side of ramp termini, on-premise signs are still unregulated.

I realize the initial costs would be substantial.  I imagine commercialized rest areas would be phased in over time, with perhaps not every rest area being converted, since some locations are certainly more advantageous than others.  I doubt such an idea would even be considered if it wasn't expected to pay for itself.  Current rest areas are often remodeled and sometimes even rebuilt or relocated.  So instead of rebuilding a non-commercialized rest area, it might make sense to invest more and build a commercialized rest area, which would generate revenue from concessions over time.  I do think it would be unwise to convert every rest area immediately, since the model would need time to prove itself.

[J N Winkler]

I realize the initial costs would be substantial.  I imagine commercialized rest areas would be phased in over time, with perhaps not every rest area being converted, since some locations are certainly more advantageous than others.  I doubt such an idea would even be considered if it wasn't expected to pay for itself.  Current rest areas are often remodeled and sometimes even rebuilt or relocated.  So instead of rebuilding a non-commercialized rest area, it might make sense to invest more and build a commercialized rest area, which would generate revenue from concessions over time.  I do think it would be unwise to convert every rest area immediately, since the model would need time to prove itself.

Yes, gradual development (in conjunction with a program of rest area refurbishment, and focused on commercializing the rest areas that have actual commercial potential) makes the most sense.  My concern however is that this may not be the idea that is actually on the table.  Commercializing rest areas is often spoken of as an alternative to closing them altogether, but my contention is that because of the need for site redevelopment, and the empirical fact that rest-area closures are typically the result of short-term budgetary pressures, the choice between the two is a false one.  Saying "We would have to close this rest area because we don't have the money to keep it open, except we won't because we will be opening it to private businesses" does not cause the money to keep it open to appear by magic.  It doesn't even guarantee anyone (either the state or the private businesses) a steady revenue stream once the necessary investments in site redevelopment are made.

Put another way:  because money spent building a rest area is a sunk cost, rest area closures are typically motivated by the need to cut running costs within a given budgetary cycle, whereas rest area commercialization has a strong element of infrastructure provision, so the associated costs and benefits (and the parallel accounting of revenues and expenditures to the owning agency) have to be considered over the useful lifetimes of the durable assets involved.

The hospitality businesses have a vested interest in encouraging conflation of these two issues, whether they actually do so or not.  (Remember, they may not necessarily be just looking for new commercial opportunities--ideological opposition to free rest areas is one possible motivation.)  The underlying question is which course of action best serves the public interest, taking time preference rates of discount into consideration.  My suspicion is that commercialization of rest areas might work well for untolled rural Interstates with AADTs of 50,000 or higher, but for Interstates with sub-20,000 AADT--a significant proportion if not the majority of the centerline mileage on the system--it makes better financial sense for states to reduce their recurrent costs by "hardening" fittings in rest areas.

[texaskdog]

Maybe they should just make a contract with the businesses to build the rest area.  Giant McDonalds with a huge restroom paid for by McD.

[SignBridge]

I like the full-service service areas on the northeastern toll roads, and I wish they existed on the untolled interstates as well. Even in Connecticut, where I-95 is no longer a toll-road the state has wisely continued the service-areas. There is a wealth of advantage in having them. 24-hour availability of food/fuel/rest-room/ convenience store, etc. in a safe, lighted, staffed location. Yes, the prices are a little higher, but you are paying for convenience and safety. And the facility does create jobs for local residents.

That beats the heck out of driving a strange route, and having to locate off-highway 24-hour facilities such as on I-84 in Connecticut, or I-78 in New Jersey/Pennsylvania. Sometimes the signage is inadequate and directs you off at an exit, then doesn't tell you which way to turn at the end of the ramp. This is a problem if the gas station/convenience store/fast-food restaurant is a half-mile down the road, and can't be seen from the exit-ramp.

I would encourage all states to have more 24-hr. service areas run by commercial chains on their interstates. Everyone benefits. 

[CL]

I'm not sure if this is along the same vein, but Utah has closed a majority of its rest areas along I-15 (only two exist in each direction from Salt Lake City to St. George now). To supplant the gone-by-the-wayside rest areas, UDOT has posted signs like these along several interchanges of I-15.



There are accompanying signs right by the exit, and then at the off-ramp directing folks to - get ready - a gas station. That's all it is. Usually a Chevron or a Texaco. As the sign says, it's a "public/private partnership" between UDOT and the gas station. This isn't like putting a gas station on a freeway off-ramp (like they do in Europe), but it does encourage people to avoid whatever other gas station might be located at that exit (there are usually two or three, if not more).

Well, this just reaffirms my belief that we put more stock in our freeways forty years ago than we do now.

[Scott5114]

This reminded me of a good point–isn't the idea of commercial rest areas EXACTLY what Road Chef/Moto/etc. are doing in England? How well does it work over there?

[BigMattFromTexas]

There are two nice rest stops on either side of Tom Green County, the county San Angelo is in, on US 87. They are both lit, on the one near Eden, has vending machines. The ones on the Interstates in Texas (at least on I-10, and I-37, and I-35) usually have Wi-Fi, vending machines, restrooms, and are lit. And usually have big parking lots for trucks.
BigMatt

[Brandon]

Maybe they should just make a contract with the businesses to build the rest area.  Giant McDonalds with a huge restroom paid for by McD.

That's effectively what tollway oases/service areas are.  We don't need to "prove" the model, we have the model.  Look no further than the Illinois Tollway, Indiana Toll Road, Ohio Turnpike, Pennsylvania Turnpike, etc, etc.  They work and it is proven.

[J N Winkler]

This reminded me of a good point–isn't the idea of commercial rest areas EXACTLY what Road Chef/Moto/etc. are doing in England?

Yes and no.  Motorway service areas are functionally the same as service areas on American public-authority turnpikes:

*  Land is set aside for them in advance (the usual rule was so much land on either side of the motorway centerline every 50 miles).  Not all sites have been developed, and some that have been developed have been abandoned, giving rise to "ghost MSAs."  Historically there have been MSA deserts as well--itineraries of several hundred miles, all on the motorway network, without the possibility of pulling off into a MSA.

*  They are developed under concession agreements which guarantee a certain minimum level of free provision:  2 hours parking and access to water and restrooms.  Generally you can access the free goods and services without being subjected to psychological pressure to buy.

*  On-premise signing is more stringently regulated in the UK than pretty much anywhere in the US with the possible exception of Vermont.  There is also more of an expectation that motorways will be screened from adjacent development.  There is no equivalent to the LOGO signing program in the UK (they get a lot of attention on SABRE because they are such a novelty to British tourists returning from the US).  There is not even bare-bones text-only gas-food-lodging signing leading to junctions with surface roads.  All services signing is strictly for the MSAs.  As a result, MSAs are insulated from surface-road competition to an extent known in the US only on public-authority turnpikes.

Off the motorway network, it is a complete hodgepodge.  There are some service areas on important dual carriageways, for which standard services signing (separate from the standard signing provided for MSAs) is available.  However, little to nothing is guaranteed in terms of free provision, and you can't, e.g., go to the bathroom without passing cash registers and a salesclerk who asks you if he or she can help you, would you like to buy anything, etc.  The best way to visualize one of these service areas is to imagine pulling off a 70 MPH road into an ordinary McDonald's.  This example on the A34 north of Oxford is fairly typical:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Oxford,+UK&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Oxford,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.850539,-1.22806&spn=0.00176,0.004823&t=h&z=18

There are also isolated examples of American-style pee-and-dash free rest areas, but in comparison to the typical Interstate rest area, or even most rest areas on surface highways, they are small, cramped, and unpleasant to use.  This example is also near Oxford, but on the A40 between Headington roundabout and the M40 spur:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Oxford,+UK&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Oxford,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.760393,-1.159632&spn=0.001763,0.004823&t=h&z=18

How well does it work over there?

It really depends on your criterion.  Fans of American turnpike service areas will like MSAs.  Forton, for example, has a sightseeing bridge over the M6 which was considered a huge novelty when it opened in the 1960's, and still offers a good vantage point for photos of the M6 mainline; however, the tower which was built to give visitors a view of the Lake District is now considered derelict and is closed to the public.  People who want just the basics at rest areas and are content to use services signing for the rest will feel a little claustrophobic on the motorways because it is so difficult to locate services outside the MSAs.  (To be fair, however, a similar problem arises on urban freeways in the US where services signing is not provided for reasons of message loading--I-5 in San Diego comes to mind.)  In my experience, MSA food is acceptable but priced at a premium, and menu choices are strictly lowest-common-denominator (chips, beans, eggs, sausages, fried tomatoes, fried fish, etc.).  Egon Ronay has made a fortune telling the British public how awful MSA food is.

[agentsteel53]

(To be fair, however, a similar problem arises on urban freeways in the US where services signing is not provided for reasons of message loading--I-5 in San Diego comes to mind.)

not just San Diego.  Los Angeles is also a notoriously difficult place in which to find a gas station directly off the freeway, without poking around some.  San Francisco is a bit better because ... oh, right, no freeways.

[texaskdog]

They don't seem as necessary as they did back in the 70s.  Now you can stop at a gas station on almost every exit anyway.  May as well just commercialize it, since these companies have the money and will make them really nice, and you can eat too instead of just going to a vending machine.

[US71]

Rest Areas are fine as long as they are well lit and have some semblance of security.  Ask AHTD about that one (or not).

[Ned Weasel]

Yes, gradual development (in conjunction with a program of rest area refurbishment, and focused on commercializing the rest areas that have actual commercial potential) makes the most sense.  My concern however is that this may not be the idea that is actually on the table.  Commercializing rest areas is often spoken of as an alternative to closing them altogether, but my contention is that because of the need for site redevelopment, and the empirical fact that rest-area closures are typically the result of short-term budgetary pressures, the choice between the two is a false one.  Saying "We would have to close this rest area because we don't have the money to keep it open, except we won't because we will be opening it to private businesses" does not cause the money to keep it open to appear by magic.  It doesn't even guarantee anyone (either the state or the private businesses) a steady revenue stream once the necessary investments in site redevelopment are made.

Put another way:  because money spent building a rest area is a sunk cost, rest area closures are typically motivated by the need to cut running costs within a given budgetary cycle, whereas rest area commercialization has a strong element of infrastructure provision, so the associated costs and benefits (and the parallel accounting of revenues and expenditures to the owning agency) have to be considered over the useful lifetimes of the durable assets involved.

The hospitality businesses have a vested interest in encouraging conflation of these two issues, whether they actually do so or not.  (Remember, they may not necessarily be just looking for new commercial opportunities--ideological opposition to free rest areas is one possible motivation.)  The underlying question is which course of action best serves the public interest, taking time preference rates of discount into consideration.  My suspicion is that commercialization of rest areas might work well for untolled rural Interstates with AADTs of 50,000 or higher, but for Interstates with sub-20,000 AADT--a significant proportion if not the majority of the centerline mileage on the system--it makes better financial sense for states to reduce their recurrent costs by "hardening" fittings in rest areas.

Those are some good points.  I agree that the traffic volumes of different Interstates would make a difference in how effective service areas would be.  This is especially evident when one observes the difference between the amount of business in the service areas on I-95 in Maryland and Delaware and in those on the Kansas Turnpike, although the sizes of the service areas themselves are also different.  I'm curious to see what becomes of this idea, anyway.

[mtantillo]

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5466

Here's some news from Virginia.  Apparently they are starting their privitization/sponsorship with "glorified vending machines".  The article digs into the specifics of the ban on privitization. 

I'll reiterate my point from before...The Feds really have some nerve recommending provision of rest areas and forcing states into a money-losing model.  Some states are better than others (Kansas and their "hardened" facilities vs. Pennsylvania's always attended facilities), but there is still zero provision for any way to recoup some of the cost associated with providing the facility, even though many drivers would be more than willing to pay for something if it were offered.  I think in this day and age, it would be nice if the Feds would relax the restrictions to allow a more economically viable rest area model to be used. 

[pctech]

I think that if we allow commercial operators at rest areas, they should have to meet a minimum standard of service. (security, food and beverage above vending machine quality, etc.) They should also be required to provide certain amenities at no cost. (access to bathrooms, water, a minimum parking time, picnic area) It could work as a public/private agreement like airports, train stations. Here in Louisiana only about 10 interstate rest areas remain, including the welcome centers.

Mark

[hbelkins]

Too lazy to look upthread or research farther at this time, but do the feds require that proceeds from the vending machines at interstate rest areas go to the blind? That's where the profits from the machines at Kentucky's rest areas go -- even the rest area on the non-interstate Mountain Parkway.

I know I have seen signs at other states' rest areas that the machines are operated for the benefit of that state's agency for the blind.

[Scott5114]

That seems like a very random place for the money to go. You'd think if the money were earmarked for anything it would be for maintenance of the rest stops.

Is there some connection between blind people and vending machines I'm not aware of?

[oscar]

I think that if we allow commercial operators at rest areas, they should have to meet a minimum standard of service. (security, food and beverage above vending machine quality, etc.) They should also be required to provide certain amenities at no cost. (access to bathrooms, water, a minimum parking time, picnic area) It could work as a public/private agreement like airports, train stations.

Some of the rest areas along I-15 in Utah are "public/private partnerships," where an existing gas station or truck stop gets a "rest area" designation, in hopes of drawing additional paying customers from its competitors and not just people using the facilities for free.  UDOT also has traditional rest areas, especially on the remote 106-mile stretch of I-70 between Salina and Green River which has no gas stations or other commercial traveler services.

[oscar]

That seems like a very random place for the money to go. You'd think if the money were earmarked for anything it would be for maintenance of the rest stops.

Is there some connection between blind people and vending machines I'm not aware of?

It's not just rest areas.  At least one of the Federal office buildings I worked in had vending machines and other concessions operated by or for the blind.  That may be only for Federally-owned buildings -- where I worked in leased space, the blind didn't get a cut of the vending revenues.

[agentsteel53]

It's not just rest areas.  At least one of the Federal office buildings I worked in had vending machines and other concessions operated by or for the blind.  That may be only for Federally-owned buildings -- where I worked in leased space, the blind didn't get a cut of the vending revenues.

in some Tom Clancy novel, the Pentagon cafeteria is run by the blind, for obvious reasons.