Service Plazas have many problems

[hotdogPi]

Does anyone have any data on whether new businesses popped up at Mass Pike exits within the last few years? The conversion to AET, as a side effect, changed things so that it doesn't cost any more to get off and back on.

Did they change the toll rates when changing to AET?

I understand that cash rates often get rounded to a 5 cent or 10 cent increment while electronic tolling can simply use more exact rates, but it's still possible to change to AET while keeping the rounded toll rates that were used for cash tolls.

The toll rates did change. The reason why the change I mentioned happened is because it's no longer a ticket system; it charges you a small amount for each gantry you pass through instead of calculating it based on your entry and exit point.

[hbelkins]

There's really no reason a turnpike authority couldn't put in a food-court type of service plaza if demand allowed for it.

I guess I kind of view service plazas sort of like I do mall food courts, now that I think about it. Yes, there is a conveniently-placed restaurant there as part of the facility, but if I don't like what's on offer, there's nothing stopping me from eating elsewhere before or after I leave the facility.

Exactly. Every interstate in the country should have service plazas with gasoline, restaurants, and restrooms for travelers. The leases to the restaurant slots can be auctioned and the proceeds used to fund the roadways.

Mind on Baltimore again as that city has one on I-95 north of the Fort McHenry Tunnel.

It would be nice though, but its only going to work in state's like Wyoming, Montana, Eastern Colorado, and possibly West Texas.  The east coast and most everything east of the Mississippi, there are way too many exits and population centers within easy drive of each other to make it happen.

You have it backwards.
Most of the states where this is extant now are the opposite of Wyoming, Montana, Texas, etc. The states that have service plazas are densely populated, relatively wealthy, eastern states with high population densities and traffic volumes.

And that's because they are mostly closed-system toll roads. Geography has nothing to do with it. Offhand, the only open-system toll roads I can think of are I-95 in Maryland and Delaware (the Newark service plaza, Chesapeake House, and Maryland House) and I-44 in Oklahoma. The only place I can think of that has a service plaza that isn't a toll road, other than the one on the WK Parkway here in Kentucky, is on I-395 in Connecticut, and it used to be toll.

There's a difference between self-funding toll roads that were given Interstate numbers and federally-funded Interstate highways, legislatively speaking.

[HighwayStar]

There's really no reason a turnpike authority couldn't put in a food-court type of service plaza if demand allowed for it.

I guess I kind of view service plazas sort of like I do mall food courts, now that I think about it. Yes, there is a conveniently-placed restaurant there as part of the facility, but if I don't like what's on offer, there's nothing stopping me from eating elsewhere before or after I leave the facility.

Exactly. Every interstate in the country should have service plazas with gasoline, restaurants, and restrooms for travelers. The leases to the restaurant slots can be auctioned and the proceeds used to fund the roadways.

Mind on Baltimore again as that city has one on I-95 north of the Fort McHenry Tunnel.

It would be nice though, but its only going to work in state's like Wyoming, Montana, Eastern Colorado, and possibly West Texas.  The east coast and most everything east of the Mississippi, there are way too many exits and population centers within easy drive of each other to make it happen.

You have it backwards.
Most of the states where this is extant now are the opposite of Wyoming, Montana, Texas, etc. The states that have service plazas are densely populated, relatively wealthy, eastern states with high population densities and traffic volumes.

And that's because they are mostly closed-system toll roads. Geography has nothing to do with it. Offhand, the only open-system toll roads I can think of are I-95 in Maryland and Delaware (the Newark service plaza, Chesapeake House, and Maryland House) and I-44 in Oklahoma. The only place I can think of that has a service plaza that isn't a toll road, other than the one on the WK Parkway here in Kentucky, is on I-395 in Connecticut, and it used to be toll.

There's a difference between self-funding toll roads that were given Interstate numbers and federally-funded Interstate highways, legislatively speaking.

No, geography has a great deal to do with it.
The association between closed toll system roads is the result of a legal vestige going back to the sixties, it has nothing to do with what would be feasible outside of that.
Moreover, that is only a prerequisite to their existence, if they were not profitable they would not have survived this long. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition.

[plain]

Service Plazas come in handy when it is either costly to exit and re-enter certain roads or there's few/no services in a certain area. There are Service Plazas on both Closed and Open (the entire Illinois Tollway system for example and formally the CT Tpk) toll roads, as well as on roads that were never tolled (MA outside of Masspike, and ON).

However, Service Plazas obviously costs more to maintain than regular rest areas. The ones not on toll roads will have to depend on taxes (versus toll revenue) to stay afloat during periods when they're not turning a profit. There were times where states had to close regular Rest Areas because they couldn't afford the upkeep. Imagine if these were full blown Service Plazas...

[Rothman]

Service Plazas come in handy when it is either costly to exit and re-enter certain roads or there's few/no services in a certain area. There are Service Plazas on both Closed and Open (the entire Illinois Tollway system for example and formally the CT Tpk) toll roads, as well as on roads that were never tolled (MA outside of Masspike, and ON).

However, Service Plazas obviously costs more to maintain than regular rest areas. The ones not on toll roads will have to depend on taxes (versus toll revenue) to stay afloat during periods when they're not turning a profit. There were times where states had to close regular Rest Areas because they couldn't afford the upkeep. Imagine if these were full blown Service Plazas...

I'd imagine some levy could be made on the vendors to contribute towards the upkeep.

[jeffandnicole]

Service Plazas come in handy when it is either costly to exit and re-enter certain roads or there's few/no services in a certain area. There are Service Plazas on both Closed and Open (the entire Illinois Tollway system for example and formally the CT Tpk) toll roads, as well as on roads that were never tolled (MA outside of Masspike, and ON).

However, Service Plazas obviously costs more to maintain than regular rest areas. The ones not on toll roads will have to depend on taxes (versus toll revenue) to stay afloat during periods when they're not turning a profit. There were times where states had to close regular Rest Areas because they couldn't afford the upkeep. Imagine if these were full blown Service Plazas...

Rest area closing doesn't save a whole lot of money - maybe $250,000 to $500,000 or so. They get a few miles of roadway paving out of that savings.  Most of the savings will be in salaries as they won't have employees attending to the needs of an open rest area, such as cleaning, trash, mowing and some maintenance costs, water and sewer.   

[Rothman]

Service Plazas come in handy when it is either costly to exit and re-enter certain roads or there's few/no services in a certain area. There are Service Plazas on both Closed and Open (the entire Illinois Tollway system for example and formally the CT Tpk) toll roads, as well as on roads that were never tolled (MA outside of Masspike, and ON).

However, Service Plazas obviously costs more to maintain than regular rest areas. The ones not on toll roads will have to depend on taxes (versus toll revenue) to stay afloat during periods when they're not turning a profit. There were times where states had to close regular Rest Areas because they couldn't afford the upkeep. Imagine if these were full blown Service Plazas...

Rest area closing doesn't save a whole lot of money - maybe $250,000 to $500,000 or so. They get a few miles of roadway paving out of that savings.  Most of the savings will be in salaries as they won't have employees attending to the needs of an open rest area, such as cleaning, trash, mowing and some maintenance costs, water and sewer.

It's enough.  NY in particular saw rest areas as money suckers.  There's good reason why you see a significant number of closed ones around the state.  Have to keep in mind that budgets are regional, not statewide in that regard.  So, any money a region could save and spend on the rest of the capital program, the better.

[HighwayStar]

Service Plazas come in handy when it is either costly to exit and re-enter certain roads or there's few/no services in a certain area. There are Service Plazas on both Closed and Open (the entire Illinois Tollway system for example and formally the CT Tpk) toll roads, as well as on roads that were never tolled (MA outside of Masspike, and ON).

However, Service Plazas obviously costs more to maintain than regular rest areas. The ones not on toll roads will have to depend on taxes (versus toll revenue) to stay afloat during periods when they're not turning a profit. There were times where states had to close regular Rest Areas because they couldn't afford the upkeep. Imagine if these were full blown Service Plazas...

The ones on toll roads now are revenue positive, they contribute money to the road, not the other way around.
All that matters at the end of the day is revenue - expenses = profit. For a captive location like that they are always going to be revenue positive to the state.

[hbelkins]

No, geography has a great deal to do with it.

The fact that closed-system toll roads, with their attendant service plazas, are concentrated in the northeastern part of the country is entirely a coincidence. Those states built toll roads before the advent of the interstate system and it was simpler and easier to stick red/white/blue signs on them than to build a parallel free route or leave a gap in the numbered system.

And I forgot about the WV Turnpike being an open-system turnpike with service plazas, but the two old ones there are northbound only, and Tamarack is relatively new and it's the only one that serves both directions.

[HighwayStar]

No, geography has a great deal to do with it.

The fact that closed-system toll roads, with their attendant service plazas, are concentrated in the northeastern part of the country is entirely a coincidence. Those states built toll roads before the advent of the interstate system and it was simpler and easier to stick red/white/blue signs on them than to build a parallel free route or leave a gap in the numbered system.

And I forgot about the WV Turnpike being an open-system turnpike with service plazas, but the two old ones there are northbound only, and Tamarack is relatively new and it's the only one that serves both directions.

Not a coincidence, the same causal factor is at play with both. The reason those regions had roads first is not a coincidence. Those regions had the wealth and population density to justify such roads, whereas the rest of the country did not. And that wealth and population density is the same reason that service plazas thrive there.

[vdeane]

Not a coincidence, the same causal factor is at play with both. The reason those regions had roads first is not a coincidence. Those regions had the wealth and population density to justify such roads, whereas the rest of the country did not. And that wealth and population density is the same reason that service plazas thrive there.

Given that service areas were banned not long after, I don't think we have enough data to truly evaluate such.  We simply don't know what the geographic distribution would have been had they not been banned.  The closest we've got is Florida's Turnpike, which has one exit and two service plazas between Fort Pierce and Kissimmee (said exit also has a truck stop).

However, Service Plazas obviously costs more to maintain than regular rest areas. The ones not on toll roads will have to depend on taxes (versus toll revenue) to stay afloat during periods when they're not turning a profit. There were times where states had to close regular Rest Areas because they couldn't afford the upkeep. Imagine if these were full blown Service Plazas...

Why would they cost more?  The building/bathrooms are there in both.  Heck, they probably cost less, because the group that operates the service plaza and provides the convenience store and "food concepts" (Applegreen, in the case of the rebuilt/renovated Thruway service areas once the first ones reopen) also maintains the building.  There's a separate contract for the gas station.

[Scott5114]

No, geography has a great deal to do with it.

The fact that closed-system toll roads, with their attendant service plazas, are concentrated in the northeastern part of the country is entirely a coincidence. Those states built toll roads before the advent of the interstate system and it was simpler and easier to stick red/white/blue signs on them than to build a parallel free route or leave a gap in the numbered system.

And I forgot about the WV Turnpike being an open-system turnpike with service plazas, but the two old ones there are northbound only, and Tamarack is relatively new and it's the only one that serves both directions.

Not a coincidence, the same causal factor is at play with both. The reason those regions had roads first is not a coincidence. Those regions had the wealth and population density to justify such roads, whereas the rest of the country did not. And that wealth and population density is the same reason that service plazas thrive there.

Ah yes, pre-Interstate turnpikes were only built in bastions of great wealth and population density, like Wichita and Tulsa.

[HighwayStar]

No, geography has a great deal to do with it.

The fact that closed-system toll roads, with their attendant service plazas, are concentrated in the northeastern part of the country is entirely a coincidence. Those states built toll roads before the advent of the interstate system and it was simpler and easier to stick red/white/blue signs on them than to build a parallel free route or leave a gap in the numbered system.

And I forgot about the WV Turnpike being an open-system turnpike with service plazas, but the two old ones there are northbound only, and Tamarack is relatively new and it's the only one that serves both directions.

Not a coincidence, the same causal factor is at play with both. The reason those regions had roads first is not a coincidence. Those regions had the wealth and population density to justify such roads, whereas the rest of the country did not. And that wealth and population density is the same reason that service plazas thrive there.

Ah yes, pre-Interstate turnpikes were only built in bastions of great wealth and population density, like Wichita and Tulsa.

Those states were actually fairly wealthy at the time, mostly thanks to very low population density and significant reserves of petroleum. Oklahoma and Kansas were both major producers and collaborated with the Texas Railroad Commission to regulate prices. Until the discovery of the East Texas Field both went through periods where production per capita would have been significantly higher then Texas.

Montana was another extreme example of that, in the late 40's it had a very high GDP per capita because few people lived there and Anaconda Copper had mines, smelters, and wire plants that produced a large amount of wealth.

[JayhawkCO]

No, geography has a great deal to do with it.

The fact that closed-system toll roads, with their attendant service plazas, are concentrated in the northeastern part of the country is entirely a coincidence. Those states built toll roads before the advent of the interstate system and it was simpler and easier to stick red/white/blue signs on them than to build a parallel free route or leave a gap in the numbered system.

And I forgot about the WV Turnpike being an open-system turnpike with service plazas, but the two old ones there are northbound only, and Tamarack is relatively new and it's the only one that serves both directions.

Not a coincidence, the same causal factor is at play with both. The reason those regions had roads first is not a coincidence. Those regions had the wealth and population density to justify such roads, whereas the rest of the country did not. And that wealth and population density is the same reason that service plazas thrive there.

Ah yes, pre-Interstate turnpikes were only built in bastions of great wealth and population density, like Wichita and Tulsa.

Those states were actually fairly wealthy at the time, mostly thanks to very low population density and significant reserves of petroleum. Oklahoma and Kansas were both major producers and collaborated with the Texas Railroad Commission to regulate prices. Until the discovery of the East Texas Field both went through periods where production per capita would have been significantly higher then Texas.

Montana was another extreme example of that, in the late 40's it had a very high GDP per capita because few people lived there and Anaconda Copper had mines, smelters, and wire plants that produced a large amount of wealth.

But wasn't your argument higher up that wealth AND population density is what led to the amount of highways in the Northeast?

Chris

[HighwayStar]

No, geography has a great deal to do with it.

The fact that closed-system toll roads, with their attendant service plazas, are concentrated in the northeastern part of the country is entirely a coincidence. Those states built toll roads before the advent of the interstate system and it was simpler and easier to stick red/white/blue signs on them than to build a parallel free route or leave a gap in the numbered system.

And I forgot about the WV Turnpike being an open-system turnpike with service plazas, but the two old ones there are northbound only, and Tamarack is relatively new and it's the only one that serves both directions.

Not a coincidence, the same causal factor is at play with both. The reason those regions had roads first is not a coincidence. Those regions had the wealth and population density to justify such roads, whereas the rest of the country did not. And that wealth and population density is the same reason that service plazas thrive there.

Ah yes, pre-Interstate turnpikes were only built in bastions of great wealth and population density, like Wichita and Tulsa.

Those states were actually fairly wealthy at the time, mostly thanks to very low population density and significant reserves of petroleum. Oklahoma and Kansas were both major producers and collaborated with the Texas Railroad Commission to regulate prices. Until the discovery of the East Texas Field both went through periods where production per capita would have been significantly higher then Texas.

Montana was another extreme example of that, in the late 40's it had a very high GDP per capita because few people lived there and Anaconda Copper had mines, smelters, and wire plants that produced a large amount of wealth.

But wasn't your argument higher up that wealth AND population density is what led to the amount of highways in the Northeast?

Chris

Yes, and those states at least had one of those, enough to build a few tollways. They did not have the population density, but were located where significant long haul traffic would help to make up the difference.

And all of this is really a side show, since the vast majority of such roads were in the northeast, with these being more of an exception to the rule.

[Scott5114]

No, geography has a great deal to do with it.

The fact that closed-system toll roads, with their attendant service plazas, are concentrated in the northeastern part of the country is entirely a coincidence. Those states built toll roads before the advent of the interstate system and it was simpler and easier to stick red/white/blue signs on them than to build a parallel free route or leave a gap in the numbered system.

And I forgot about the WV Turnpike being an open-system turnpike with service plazas, but the two old ones there are northbound only, and Tamarack is relatively new and it's the only one that serves both directions.

Not a coincidence, the same causal factor is at play with both. The reason those regions had roads first is not a coincidence. Those regions had the wealth and population density to justify such roads, whereas the rest of the country did not. And that wealth and population density is the same reason that service plazas thrive there.

Ah yes, pre-Interstate turnpikes were only built in bastions of great wealth and population density, like Wichita and Tulsa.

Those states were actually fairly wealthy at the time, mostly thanks to very low population density and significant reserves of petroleum. Oklahoma and Kansas were both major producers and collaborated with the Texas Railroad Commission to regulate prices. Until the discovery of the East Texas Field both went through periods where production per capita would have been significantly higher then Texas.

Despite the oil, at no point was Oklahoma a wealthy state. Rural Oklahoma was already losing population by the 1950s. The Turner Turnpike was all funded through bonds, not oil money.

KTA, meanwhile, had a first-year budget of $25,000, and its first headquarters was in a disused barbershop in Topeka. It, too, got all of its construction financing through bonds.

[HighwayStar]

No, geography has a great deal to do with it.

The fact that closed-system toll roads, with their attendant service plazas, are concentrated in the northeastern part of the country is entirely a coincidence. Those states built toll roads before the advent of the interstate system and it was simpler and easier to stick red/white/blue signs on them than to build a parallel free route or leave a gap in the numbered system.

And I forgot about the WV Turnpike being an open-system turnpike with service plazas, but the two old ones there are northbound only, and Tamarack is relatively new and it's the only one that serves both directions.

Not a coincidence, the same causal factor is at play with both. The reason those regions had roads first is not a coincidence. Those regions had the wealth and population density to justify such roads, whereas the rest of the country did not. And that wealth and population density is the same reason that service plazas thrive there.

Ah yes, pre-Interstate turnpikes were only built in bastions of great wealth and population density, like Wichita and Tulsa.

Those states were actually fairly wealthy at the time, mostly thanks to very low population density and significant reserves of petroleum. Oklahoma and Kansas were both major producers and collaborated with the Texas Railroad Commission to regulate prices. Until the discovery of the East Texas Field both went through periods where production per capita would have been significantly higher then Texas.

Despite the oil, at no point was Oklahoma a wealthy state. Rural Oklahoma was already losing population by the 1950s. The Turner Turnpike was all funded through bonds, not oil money.

KTA, meanwhile, had a first-year budget of $25,000, and its first headquarters was in a disused barbershop in Topeka. It, too, got all of its construction financing through bonds.

That's not how it works. No one said it was funded with oil money. Nor is loosing population make it a poor state, most of the northeast is loosing population too.
However, having the oil money makes bond funding more feasible. Who do you think buys the bonds?

[hbelkins]

My point about closed-system toll roads being prevalent in the northeast (and northern midwest if you want to extend that territory to Illinois, Ohio, and Indiana) seems to be flying over certain heads.

Open-system toll roads have been employed in other areas. Kansas is a notable exception. Yet as I said, service plazas are more prevalent on closed-system toll roads than open-system roads. Kentucky had two plazas on the old Kentucky Turnpike, and I don't know why because it's not that far between E-town and Louisville.

It's more feasible to put service plazas on these closed-system routes because of convenience, but with the advent of electronic tolling,that becomes less of a consideration.

[Rothman]

No, geography has a great deal to do with it.

The fact that closed-system toll roads, with their attendant service plazas, are concentrated in the northeastern part of the country is entirely a coincidence. Those states built toll roads before the advent of the interstate system and it was simpler and easier to stick red/white/blue signs on them than to build a parallel free route or leave a gap in the numbered system.

And I forgot about the WV Turnpike being an open-system turnpike with service plazas, but the two old ones there are northbound only, and Tamarack is relatively new and it's the only one that serves both directions.

Not a coincidence, the same causal factor is at play with both. The reason those regions had roads first is not a coincidence. Those regions had the wealth and population density to justify such roads, whereas the rest of the country did not. And that wealth and population density is the same reason that service plazas thrive there.

Ah yes, pre-Interstate turnpikes were only built in bastions of great wealth and population density, like Wichita and Tulsa.

Those states were actually fairly wealthy at the time, mostly thanks to very low population density and significant reserves of petroleum. Oklahoma and Kansas were both major producers and collaborated with the Texas Railroad Commission to regulate prices. Until the discovery of the East Texas Field both went through periods where production per capita would have been significantly higher then Texas.

Despite the oil, at no point was Oklahoma a wealthy state. Rural Oklahoma was already losing population by the 1950s. The Turner Turnpike was all funded through bonds, not oil money.

KTA, meanwhile, had a first-year budget of $25,000, and its first headquarters was in a disused barbershop in Topeka. It, too, got all of its construction financing through bonds.

That's not how it works. No one said it was funded with oil money. Nor is loosing population make it a poor state, most of the northeast is loosing population too.
However, having the oil money makes bond funding more feasible. Who do you think buys the bonds?

NY, MA, CT, RI, NH and ME gained from 2010 to 2020.  VT stayed about the same.

[Scott5114]

No, geography has a great deal to do with it.

The fact that closed-system toll roads, with their attendant service plazas, are concentrated in the northeastern part of the country is entirely a coincidence. Those states built toll roads before the advent of the interstate system and it was simpler and easier to stick red/white/blue signs on them than to build a parallel free route or leave a gap in the numbered system.

And I forgot about the WV Turnpike being an open-system turnpike with service plazas, but the two old ones there are northbound only, and Tamarack is relatively new and it's the only one that serves both directions.

Not a coincidence, the same causal factor is at play with both. The reason those regions had roads first is not a coincidence. Those regions had the wealth and population density to justify such roads, whereas the rest of the country did not. And that wealth and population density is the same reason that service plazas thrive there.

Ah yes, pre-Interstate turnpikes were only built in bastions of great wealth and population density, like Wichita and Tulsa.

Those states were actually fairly wealthy at the time, mostly thanks to very low population density and significant reserves of petroleum. Oklahoma and Kansas were both major producers and collaborated with the Texas Railroad Commission to regulate prices. Until the discovery of the East Texas Field both went through periods where production per capita would have been significantly higher then Texas.

Despite the oil, at no point was Oklahoma a wealthy state. Rural Oklahoma was already losing population by the 1950s. The Turner Turnpike was all funded through bonds, not oil money.

KTA, meanwhile, had a first-year budget of $25,000, and its first headquarters was in a disused barbershop in Topeka. It, too, got all of its construction financing through bonds.

That's not how it works. No one said it was funded with oil money. Nor is loosing population make it a poor state, most of the northeast is loosing population too.
However, having the oil money makes bond funding more feasible. Who do you think buys the bonds?

You haven't a clue what you're talking about. All of Oklahoma's bonds are sold on the open bond market. You don't have to be an Oklahoman to buy OTA bonds and they can end up being held by mutual funds or in investment portfolios like any other bond. And given that the bonds are paid back with toll revenue, Oklahoma's relative wealth or lack thereof has little bearing at all on the turnpike system (especially since the whole system is funded by I-44, which carries a large amount of pass-thru traffic).

[HighwayStar]

No, geography has a great deal to do with it.

The fact that closed-system toll roads, with their attendant service plazas, are concentrated in the northeastern part of the country is entirely a coincidence. Those states built toll roads before the advent of the interstate system and it was simpler and easier to stick red/white/blue signs on them than to build a parallel free route or leave a gap in the numbered system.

And I forgot about the WV Turnpike being an open-system turnpike with service plazas, but the two old ones there are northbound only, and Tamarack is relatively new and it's the only one that serves both directions.

Not a coincidence, the same causal factor is at play with both. The reason those regions had roads first is not a coincidence. Those regions had the wealth and population density to justify such roads, whereas the rest of the country did not. And that wealth and population density is the same reason that service plazas thrive there.

Ah yes, pre-Interstate turnpikes were only built in bastions of great wealth and population density, like Wichita and Tulsa.

Those states were actually fairly wealthy at the time, mostly thanks to very low population density and significant reserves of petroleum. Oklahoma and Kansas were both major producers and collaborated with the Texas Railroad Commission to regulate prices. Until the discovery of the East Texas Field both went through periods where production per capita would have been significantly higher then Texas.

Despite the oil, at no point was Oklahoma a wealthy state. Rural Oklahoma was already losing population by the 1950s. The Turner Turnpike was all funded through bonds, not oil money.

KTA, meanwhile, had a first-year budget of $25,000, and its first headquarters was in a disused barbershop in Topeka. It, too, got all of its construction financing through bonds.

That's not how it works. No one said it was funded with oil money. Nor is loosing population make it a poor state, most of the northeast is loosing population too.
However, having the oil money makes bond funding more feasible. Who do you think buys the bonds?

You haven't a clue what you're talking about. All of Oklahoma's bonds are sold on the open bond market. You don't have to be an Oklahoman to buy OTA bonds and they can end up being held by mutual funds or in investment portfolios like any other bond. And given that the bonds are paid back with toll revenue, Oklahoma's relative wealth or lack thereof has little bearing at all on the turnpike system (especially since the whole system is funded by I-44, which carries a large amount of pass-thru traffic).

As an economist I do know exactly what I am talking about. And I know you don't have to be from Oklahoma to buy the bonds, nor was any such point made.
However, especially in that day, any bond issue from an entity in that state would be helped along greatly by some locals having money to invest in them. Markets were far less liquid, and no one is interested in putting money in a road that no one can afford the tolls for to pay for the interest on your coupons.
Second, every bond is supposed to be "paid back with x revenue", but if that were entirely true then there would be no risk in the bond market. In reality, there is risk in the bond market precisely because not all bond issues end up paying the coupons, or for that matter even the principal. Indeed, some toll roads have gone bankrupt, meaning that equity holders would have been the first to go followed by the bondholders.

Bonds are not magic. If I claim an uninhabited island in the middle of nowhere and start my own country and issue bonds to build an airport, guess what? No one will buy them. A bond issue can only be floated if investors are willing to take the risk at that price. And going into that is the revenue model of the business, which in this case is dependent on tolls that have to be collected from someone. People in NYC are not going to pay those tolls, people in Oklahoma will have to pay a large portion, along with passing traffic.

[HighwayStar]

No, geography has a great deal to do with it.

The fact that closed-system toll roads, with their attendant service plazas, are concentrated in the northeastern part of the country is entirely a coincidence. Those states built toll roads before the advent of the interstate system and it was simpler and easier to stick red/white/blue signs on them than to build a parallel free route or leave a gap in the numbered system.

And I forgot about the WV Turnpike being an open-system turnpike with service plazas, but the two old ones there are northbound only, and Tamarack is relatively new and it's the only one that serves both directions.

Not a coincidence, the same causal factor is at play with both. The reason those regions had roads first is not a coincidence. Those regions had the wealth and population density to justify such roads, whereas the rest of the country did not. And that wealth and population density is the same reason that service plazas thrive there.

Ah yes, pre-Interstate turnpikes were only built in bastions of great wealth and population density, like Wichita and Tulsa.

Those states were actually fairly wealthy at the time, mostly thanks to very low population density and significant reserves of petroleum. Oklahoma and Kansas were both major producers and collaborated with the Texas Railroad Commission to regulate prices. Until the discovery of the East Texas Field both went through periods where production per capita would have been significantly higher then Texas.

Despite the oil, at no point was Oklahoma a wealthy state. Rural Oklahoma was already losing population by the 1950s. The Turner Turnpike was all funded through bonds, not oil money.

KTA, meanwhile, had a first-year budget of $25,000, and its first headquarters was in a disused barbershop in Topeka. It, too, got all of its construction financing through bonds.

That's not how it works. No one said it was funded with oil money. Nor is loosing population make it a poor state, most of the northeast is loosing population too.
However, having the oil money makes bond funding more feasible. Who do you think buys the bonds?

NY, MA, CT, RI, NH and ME gained from 2010 to 2020.  VT stayed about the same.

Yes, but when you compare that region over the last 100 years it is obvious there has been a massive reduction of share, if not always absolute numbers.
Furthermore, in many cases those represent distributions that are not relevant from a road standpoint. Rochester NY for example has lost 20k people in the last 30 years. Albany 10k. These might be made up by people moving into NYC, but from a road standpoint distribution matters.
The general expansion of the population tends to mask these trends, but on any kind of a corrected basis the northeast has lost a considerable number of people to other parts of the US, but that is not indicative of those being poor states.

[Scott5114]

No, geography has a great deal to do with it.

The fact that closed-system toll roads, with their attendant service plazas, are concentrated in the northeastern part of the country is entirely a coincidence. Those states built toll roads before the advent of the interstate system and it was simpler and easier to stick red/white/blue signs on them than to build a parallel free route or leave a gap in the numbered system.

And I forgot about the WV Turnpike being an open-system turnpike with service plazas, but the two old ones there are northbound only, and Tamarack is relatively new and it's the only one that serves both directions.

Not a coincidence, the same causal factor is at play with both. The reason those regions had roads first is not a coincidence. Those regions had the wealth and population density to justify such roads, whereas the rest of the country did not. And that wealth and population density is the same reason that service plazas thrive there.

Ah yes, pre-Interstate turnpikes were only built in bastions of great wealth and population density, like Wichita and Tulsa.

Those states were actually fairly wealthy at the time, mostly thanks to very low population density and significant reserves of petroleum. Oklahoma and Kansas were both major producers and collaborated with the Texas Railroad Commission to regulate prices. Until the discovery of the East Texas Field both went through periods where production per capita would have been significantly higher then Texas.

Despite the oil, at no point was Oklahoma a wealthy state. Rural Oklahoma was already losing population by the 1950s. The Turner Turnpike was all funded through bonds, not oil money.

KTA, meanwhile, had a first-year budget of $25,000, and its first headquarters was in a disused barbershop in Topeka. It, too, got all of its construction financing through bonds.

That's not how it works. No one said it was funded with oil money. Nor is loosing population make it a poor state, most of the northeast is loosing population too.
However, having the oil money makes bond funding more feasible. Who do you think buys the bonds?

You haven't a clue what you're talking about. All of Oklahoma's bonds are sold on the open bond market. You don't have to be an Oklahoman to buy OTA bonds and they can end up being held by mutual funds or in investment portfolios like any other bond. And given that the bonds are paid back with toll revenue, Oklahoma's relative wealth or lack thereof has little bearing at all on the turnpike system (especially since the whole system is funded by I-44, which carries a large amount of pass-thru traffic).

As an economist I do know exactly what I am talking about. And I know you don't have to be from Oklahoma to buy the bonds, nor was any such point made.
However, especially in that day, any bond issue from an entity in that state would be helped along greatly by some locals having money to invest in them. Markets were far less liquid, and no one is interested in putting money in a road that no one can afford the tolls for to pay for the interest on your coupons.
Second, every bond is supposed to be "paid back with x revenue", but if that were entirely true then there would be no risk in the bond market. In reality, there is risk in the bond market precisely because not all bond issues end up paying the coupons, or for that matter even the principal. Indeed, some toll roads have gone bankrupt, meaning that equity holders would have been the first to go followed by the bondholders.

Bonds are not magic. If I claim an uninhabited island in the middle of nowhere and start my own country and issue bonds to build an airport, guess what? No one will buy them. A bond issue can only be floated if investors are willing to take the risk at that price. And going into that is the revenue model of the business, which in this case is dependent on tolls that have to be collected from someone. People in NYC are not going to pay those tolls, people in Oklahoma will have to pay a large portion, along with passing traffic.

I don't think anyone in 1950 seriously thought there was much risk attached to funding a US-66 bypass. The traffic was there for sure to support it. And there was already a big existing market for turnpike bonds, as Oklahoma only floated their bonds after they saw what a success the NJTP bond issue had been.

[HighwayStar]

No, geography has a great deal to do with it.

The fact that closed-system toll roads, with their attendant service plazas, are concentrated in the northeastern part of the country is entirely a coincidence. Those states built toll roads before the advent of the interstate system and it was simpler and easier to stick red/white/blue signs on them than to build a parallel free route or leave a gap in the numbered system.

And I forgot about the WV Turnpike being an open-system turnpike with service plazas, but the two old ones there are northbound only, and Tamarack is relatively new and it's the only one that serves both directions.

Not a coincidence, the same causal factor is at play with both. The reason those regions had roads first is not a coincidence. Those regions had the wealth and population density to justify such roads, whereas the rest of the country did not. And that wealth and population density is the same reason that service plazas thrive there.

Ah yes, pre-Interstate turnpikes were only built in bastions of great wealth and population density, like Wichita and Tulsa.

Those states were actually fairly wealthy at the time, mostly thanks to very low population density and significant reserves of petroleum. Oklahoma and Kansas were both major producers and collaborated with the Texas Railroad Commission to regulate prices. Until the discovery of the East Texas Field both went through periods where production per capita would have been significantly higher then Texas.

Despite the oil, at no point was Oklahoma a wealthy state. Rural Oklahoma was already losing population by the 1950s. The Turner Turnpike was all funded through bonds, not oil money.

KTA, meanwhile, had a first-year budget of $25,000, and its first headquarters was in a disused barbershop in Topeka. It, too, got all of its construction financing through bonds.

That's not how it works. No one said it was funded with oil money. Nor is loosing population make it a poor state, most of the northeast is loosing population too.
However, having the oil money makes bond funding more feasible. Who do you think buys the bonds?

You haven't a clue what you're talking about. All of Oklahoma's bonds are sold on the open bond market. You don't have to be an Oklahoman to buy OTA bonds and they can end up being held by mutual funds or in investment portfolios like any other bond. And given that the bonds are paid back with toll revenue, Oklahoma's relative wealth or lack thereof has little bearing at all on the turnpike system (especially since the whole system is funded by I-44, which carries a large amount of pass-thru traffic).

As an economist I do know exactly what I am talking about. And I know you don't have to be from Oklahoma to buy the bonds, nor was any such point made.
However, especially in that day, any bond issue from an entity in that state would be helped along greatly by some locals having money to invest in them. Markets were far less liquid, and no one is interested in putting money in a road that no one can afford the tolls for to pay for the interest on your coupons.
Second, every bond is supposed to be "paid back with x revenue", but if that were entirely true then there would be no risk in the bond market. In reality, there is risk in the bond market precisely because not all bond issues end up paying the coupons, or for that matter even the principal. Indeed, some toll roads have gone bankrupt, meaning that equity holders would have been the first to go followed by the bondholders.

Bonds are not magic. If I claim an uninhabited island in the middle of nowhere and start my own country and issue bonds to build an airport, guess what? No one will buy them. A bond issue can only be floated if investors are willing to take the risk at that price. And going into that is the revenue model of the business, which in this case is dependent on tolls that have to be collected from someone. People in NYC are not going to pay those tolls, people in Oklahoma will have to pay a large portion, along with passing traffic.

I don't think anyone in 1950 seriously thought there was much risk attached to funding a US-66 bypass. The traffic was there for sure to support it. And there was already a big existing market for turnpike bonds, as Oklahoma only floated their bonds after they saw what a success the NJTP bond issue had been.

All investments carry risk. Apparent demand is not enough for a successful business. If it were, there would not be so many bankrupt companies around us.