Service Plazas on non-toll highways

[1995hoo]

We understand HighwayStar's point. We just don't agree with him and, like certain other posters (which I don't find coincidental), he refuses to accept any argument that disagrees with his own. Economic theory isn't everything.

[jeffandnicole]

If the price of gas is more than you can bear at a service plaza, don't buy it there.  Don't buy gas just outside the airport entrance.  (Aside: I am amazed that gas stations, often the same brand, can be 20 or 30 cents different in price just a mile or two apart, when neither place is somewhere exclusive.)

I'm amazed that they aren't.

If you figure each business tries to keep the same profit margin, there are many factors that go into that profit - how much did the land cost to purchase?  How much did it cost to build? Does one location pay their employees more?  Does one location get a larger volume of vehicles? 

All else being equal, a business that has been at a location for 50 years may have their mortgage paid off, while another location built last year has a hefty mortgage.  Selling gas at $3.00 per gallon at the 1st station is netting them a lot more in profit than the gas being sold for at $3.00 at the second location.

People are also a lot more sensitive to pricing at gas stations because of of the signage by the roadway.  If they instead used the signage to advertise a 20 oz bottle of Coke, people would see similar price differences, and wonder how that could be.

[HighwayStar]

We understand HighwayStar's point. We just don't agree with him and, like certain other posters (which I don't find coincidental), he refuses to accept any argument that disagrees with his own. Economic theory isn't everything.

You clearly don't understand the point, once again it is a matter of science, not a matter of opinion. And why should I accept an argument which demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject at hand? You have to convince me, and that cannot be done with poor reasoning.

"Economic theory isn't everything." That is a strawman fallacy, no one said it was. However, the issue at hand has nothing to do with theory and everything to do with economic reality. Nor is another discipline suited to answer the question, however useful or valid those may be. You cannot fix a window with a sledgehammer. The real crux of the issue here is just that some people are mad when they have to pay more, and wish that were not the case, so they come up with some arbitrary line at which prices are "GoUGinG!!!!!!" and complain about it, even if it is obvious that a great many other people have no issue with paying those prices. That is not only an entirely unpersuasive argument, but it does little to address the substance of the issue in the first place.

[sprjus4]

^ Why are you so adamant about proving this point nobody here is seeing, nor personally cares? Move on.

[HighwayStar]

^ Why are you so adamant about proving this point nobody here is seeing, nor personally cares? Move on.

I don't have to prove it, people much smarter than me have long since done that. I simply like to spread the word. 
And I rather doubt no one cares or they would not bother to keep bringing it up.

[Roadgeekteen]

This thread is a disaster

[HighwayStar]

This thread is a disaster

Well, the fact that we have a special interest law that makes service plazas illegal on non-toll roads means that there are simply few examples to name. Once the low hanging fruit have been picked we have to wait aground for someone to bring up one we all missed somehow. In the meantime its natural to consider the policy that created this result and how bad the outcome has been.

But the Control Cities thread says hold my beer 

[sprjus4]

^ The control cities thread is beating at a dead horse, as we wait for them to change the signs to "Baltimore Beltway"  and "Capital Beltway" .

[Rothman]

We understand HighwayStar's point. We just don't agree with him and, like certain other posters (which I don't find coincidental), he refuses to accept any argument that disagrees with his own. Economic theory isn't everything.

You clearly don't understand the point, once again it is a matter of science, not a matter of opinion. And why should I accept an argument which demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject at hand? You have to convince me, and that cannot be done with poor reasoning.

"Economic theory isn't everything." That is a strawman fallacy, no one said it was. However, the issue at hand has nothing to do with theory and everything to do with economic reality. Nor is another discipline suited to answer the question, however useful or valid those may be. You cannot fix a window with a sledgehammer. The real crux of the issue here is just that some people are mad when they have to pay more, and wish that were not the case, so they come up with some arbitrary line at which prices are "GoUGinG!!!!!!" and complain about it, even if it is obvious that a great many other people have no issue with paying those prices. That is not only an entirely unpersuasive argument, but it does little to address the substance of the issue in the first place.

Your loose grasp of science and incorrect perspective ("...a great many other people have no issue...") are "entirely unpersuasive."  You've been presented with enough credible criticism of your position for this to be a matter of your own stubborn blinders, not ours.

While those who counter your argument actually agree with one of its tenets (e.g., gouging not being an economic term), you, on the other hand, have not considered what has been said and have just dismissed it out of hand.  You have not presented anything to contradict what others have said, just repeating the points you already have already made.  It is demonstrating a lack of reasonableness, rather than being the expertise-backed fact you claim.

[vdeane]

"Economic theory isn't everything." That is a strawman fallacy, no one said it was.

You are.  Your entire argument rests on a belief that economic theory is everything.  As was mentioned, nobody is disputing that gouging isn't an economic term, just arguing that there are factors beyond economics that need to be considered.  YOU are the one arguing that any argument or consideration not rooted entirely in economic theory is invalid.

[HighwayStar]

"Economic theory isn't everything." That is a strawman fallacy, no one said it was.

You are.  Your entire argument rests on a belief that economic theory is everything.  As was mentioned, nobody is disputing that gouging isn't an economic term, just arguing that there are factors beyond economics that need to be considered.  YOU are the one arguing that any argument or consideration not rooted entirely in economic theory is invalid.

Nope, sorry, swing and a miss again. No one has put forth any kind of coherent argument that proves why "gOUuginG" is bad, or how we can draw a clear distinction at which point prices become so. If you want to talk about things other than economics that is fine, but quit pretending like your non-economic values can save face on the gouging issue. Either we have a moral obligation to provide people with gasoline for free, or we don't. There is no morality about pricing, which is the claim that is repeatedly being used here.

[hotdogPi]

About the Orlando Airport stations: They intentionally hide their prices, and all the reviews say "I wasn't expecting it to cost this much; this place is a scam."

[Scott5114]

What tastes better, an overpriced burger from a highway rest area or corporate boot leather? Cause I think there's some folks in this thread that have some experience tasting both...

[vdeane]

"Economic theory isn't everything." That is a strawman fallacy, no one said it was.

You are.  Your entire argument rests on a belief that economic theory is everything.  As was mentioned, nobody is disputing that gouging isn't an economic term, just arguing that there are factors beyond economics that need to be considered.  YOU are the one arguing that any argument or consideration not rooted entirely in economic theory is invalid.

Nope, sorry, swing and a miss again. No one has put forth any kind of coherent argument that proves why "gOUuginG" is bad, or how we can draw a clear distinction at which point prices become so. If you want to talk about things other than economics that is fine, but quit pretending like your non-economic values can save face on the gouging issue. Either we have a moral obligation to provide people with gasoline for free, or we don't. There is no morality about pricing, which is the claim that is repeatedly being used here.

If there was really no morality about pricing, we would not have seen the gas shortages we did last month, because the gas stations wouldn't have been blocked by law from jacking up their prices when the pipeline was hacked.

I fail to see any reason why we, on a hobby forum, should have to draw some kind of clear distinction using economic theory to discuss the issue of pricing at rest areas and airport gas stations.  Clearly nobody other than you has any issues thinking about this issue without numbers attached.  An the whole idea that either no price is too high or we need to provide gas for free, with no moral in-between, is so ridiculous that you are clearly a troll.

To draw a subjective distinction: the fact that prices tend to be a bit higher at service plazas is common knowledge.  People accept that and go there anyways for the convenience.  That gas station prices their gas well beyond any expectation of what the markup for being right next to the airport would be, and deliberately makes it had to find out what the price is until you get to the pump, hoping you'll see the gas station on your way out and decide to fill up the car there on the way back, only realizing the price when it's likely too late to find a gas station elsewhere.  It stands to reason that, had they advertised their price on the road and people saw it, they would have figured out a different place to get gas and wouldn't be stuck paying up at that station when they find out the price right before their flight.

Homo economicus may have perfect knowledge of who's charging what and always make decisions based on cold logic, but homo sapiens doesn't.

[sprjus4]

   

This guy is a true internet warrior and a troll at the same time.

[Brandon]

Service areas are more convenient than getting off the highway, particularly so for some toll roads.  But you pay for that convenience with higher prices.

Just like you pay for the convenience of stopping at a 7-11 instead of going to the big-box grocery store.

Some have higher prices, some don't.  I find the Illinois Tollway oases to be comparable for fuel to off-tollway gas stations.  In the south suburbs, the Lincoln Oasis can be cheaper than some of the stations in South Holland (but more expensive than either waiting until Joliet or Indiana - that's the cost of being in Cook County).  The Ohio Turnpike service plazas can be marginally higher than off-turnpike options, but not crazy (more like a few pennies).  On the other hand, the Indiana Toll Road travel plazas are more expensive than off-toll road options, and I choose to use the Meijer in Sturgis, Michigan instead as I can get a lower gas price and a discount (and even mperks coupons if offered at the time).

[Rothman]

"Economic theory isn't everything." That is a strawman fallacy, no one said it was.

You are.  Your entire argument rests on a belief that economic theory is everything.  As was mentioned, nobody is disputing that gouging isn't an economic term, just arguing that there are factors beyond economics that need to be considered.  YOU are the one arguing that any argument or consideration not rooted entirely in economic theory is invalid.

Nope, sorry, swing and a miss again. No one has put forth any kind of coherent argument that proves why "gOUuginG" is bad, or how we can draw a clear distinction at which point prices become so. If you want to talk about things other than economics that is fine, but quit pretending like your non-economic values can save face on the gouging issue. Either we have a moral obligation to provide people with gasoline for free, or we don't. There is no morality about pricing, which is the claim that is repeatedly being used here.

For one making accusations about flinging strawmen around, you seem to have a neverending supply.

[HighwayStar]

"Economic theory isn't everything." That is a strawman fallacy, no one said it was.

You are.  Your entire argument rests on a belief that economic theory is everything.  As was mentioned, nobody is disputing that gouging isn't an economic term, just arguing that there are factors beyond economics that need to be considered.  YOU are the one arguing that any argument or consideration not rooted entirely in economic theory is invalid.

Nope, sorry, swing and a miss again. No one has put forth any kind of coherent argument that proves why "gOUuginG" is bad, or how we can draw a clear distinction at which point prices become so. If you want to talk about things other than economics that is fine, but quit pretending like your non-economic values can save face on the gouging issue. Either we have a moral obligation to provide people with gasoline for free, or we don't. There is no morality about pricing, which is the claim that is repeatedly being used here.

For one making accusations about flinging strawmen around, you seem to have a neverending supply.

Its only a strawman if I misrepresent the argument, which I did not. Importantly, it is not a strawman to point out why the argument does not address the issue at hand or is otherwise faulty, big difference.

[hbelkins]

"Price gouging" is a lot like that time-honored description of obscenity: one may not be able to define it, but one knows it when one sees it.

What do you call charging an inflated price to a captive audience? Or sharply increasing prices prior to, or in the wake of, some sort of random event? (Like marking up plywood or generators in advance of a hurricane, or on kerosene heaters during a prolonged power outage in winter?)

Most states have legal definitions of price gouging and prohibit it in certain situations.

Perhaps a more fitting term might be collusion. It happens frequently in communities concerning gas prices. It was even news a few years ago when one gas station in Clay County, Ky., was significantly undercutting the other stations on prices and they were complaining and putting pressure on that station to increase its prices to match everyone else in town.

Suppose there was a Wendy's in Vail or Frisco (or whatever ski resort town in Colorado) that charged regular menu prices on its items while the McDonald's and Burger King continued to mark up prices beyond franchise norms?

My point is that service plazas, especially those on closed turnpike systems, charge inflated prices because they more or less have a captive audience. That, to me, is gouging, whether or not economists (or pseudo or amateur Highway Star economists) have a definition of it as such.

It's been years since I drove on a closed turnpike system, but my rule was always to make sure I had a full tank of gas before I entered one for a trip of any distance, so I wouldn't have to buy gas and pay the inflated prices. I think I had to get gas one time on the NY Thruway and was a bit surprised it wasn't significantly higher than off-turnpike stations, but I'm the type who will skip one station for another if the price is one cent cheaper. I have no brand loyalty for gas.

[HighwayStar]

"Price gouging" is a lot like that time-honored description of obscenity: one may not be able to define it, but one knows it when one sees it.

What do you call charging an inflated price to a captive audience? Or sharply increasing prices prior to, or in the wake of, some sort of random event? (Like marking up plywood or generators in advance of a hurricane, or on kerosene heaters during a prolonged power outage in winter?)

Most states have legal definitions of price gouging and prohibit it in certain situations.

Perhaps a more fitting term might be collusion. It happens frequently in communities concerning gas prices. It was even news a few years ago when one gas station in Clay County, Ky., was significantly undercutting the other stations on prices and they were complaining and putting pressure on that station to increase its prices to match everyone else in town.

Suppose there was a Wendy's in Vail or Frisco (or whatever ski resort town in Colorado) that charged regular menu prices on its items while the McDonald's and Burger King continued to mark up prices beyond franchise norms?

My point is that service plazas, especially those on closed turnpike systems, charge inflated prices because they more or less have a captive audience. That, to me, is gouging, whether or not economists (or pseudo or amateur Highway Star economists) have a definition of it as such.

It's been years since I drove on a closed turnpike system, but my rule was always to make sure I had a full tank of gas before I entered one for a trip of any distance, so I wouldn't have to buy gas and pay the inflated prices. I think I had to get gas one time on the NY Thruway and was a bit surprised it wasn't significantly higher than off-turnpike stations, but I'm the type who will skip one station for another if the price is one cent cheaper. I have no brand loyalty for gas.

"one knows it when one sees it"

Yes because that approach is famous for its fairness, accuracy, and conformity to the rule of law.
What it really means is "its gOUginG when its more than I think is fair", which is entirely personal and arbitrary. It has no relation to the science.
Prices are set by what a buyer will pay, it does not matter if it is a "captive audience" if buyers are not willing to pay the price.

[hotdogPi]

Prices are set by what a buyer will pay, it does not matter if it is a "captive audience" if buyers are not willing to pay the price.

They're not willing to pay $5-6 per gallon of gas, and then they're shocked when they realize that's what the price was. The prices at those stations aren't posted, and most airport stations (at other airports) only charge up to 50¢ more than most stations, not several dollars.

[SEWIGuy]

"Economic theory isn't everything." That is a strawman fallacy, no one said it was.

You are.  Your entire argument rests on a belief that economic theory is everything.  As was mentioned, nobody is disputing that gouging isn't an economic term, just arguing that there are factors beyond economics that need to be considered.  YOU are the one arguing that any argument or consideration not rooted entirely in economic theory is invalid.

Nope, sorry, swing and a miss again. No one has put forth any kind of coherent argument that proves why "gOUuginG" is bad, or how we can draw a clear distinction at which point prices become so. If you want to talk about things other than economics that is fine, but quit pretending like your non-economic values can save face on the gouging issue. Either we have a moral obligation to provide people with gasoline for free, or we don't. There is no morality about pricing, which is the claim that is repeatedly being used here.

"There is no morality about pricing" is completely an opinion.

[1995hoo]

What tastes better, an overpriced burger from a highway rest area or corporate boot leather? Cause I think there's some folks in this thread that have some experience tasting both...

I'm beginning to think a certain someone in this thread cuts his ground meat from a particular part of the anatomy.



Meanwhile, economic theory does not prove anything as to whether it is or is not convenient to exit the highway for services, despite what the troll thinks. He flat-out refused to engage with my comment about how it can be quite preferable to have a choice of gas stations or restaurants spread over a small area with shorter lines, and fewer parked cars/people driving every which way, at each of them. Instead, I was told I was wrong because some people prefer to use the service areas and pay more, which is a complete non-sequitur.

[Rothman]

"Economic theory isn't everything." That is a strawman fallacy, no one said it was.

You are.  Your entire argument rests on a belief that economic theory is everything.  As was mentioned, nobody is disputing that gouging isn't an economic term, just arguing that there are factors beyond economics that need to be considered.  YOU are the one arguing that any argument or consideration not rooted entirely in economic theory is invalid.

Nope, sorry, swing and a miss again. No one has put forth any kind of coherent argument that proves why "gOUuginG" is bad, or how we can draw a clear distinction at which point prices become so. If you want to talk about things other than economics that is fine, but quit pretending like your non-economic values can save face on the gouging issue. Either we have a moral obligation to provide people with gasoline for free, or we don't. There is no morality about pricing, which is the claim that is repeatedly being used here.

For one making accusations about flinging strawmen around, you seem to have a neverending supply.

Its only a strawman if I misrepresent the argument, which I did not. Importantly, it is not a strawman to point out why the argument does not address the issue at hand or is otherwise faulty, big difference.

And now you show your misunderstanding of what a strawman is.

[andrepoiy]

I don't quite understand why everyone here puts in the time and effort to argue with somebody who time and time again has shown to provoke such arguments.