I'm not sure how "better enforcement" of the rest rules does anything. The problem truckers have is where to park during the mandatory rest periods. If you push them out of the rest areas along the highway (which Virginia does, I believe), then they end up on off ramps, or the street nearest the offramp, or in front of someone's house. I'd rather have them on the highway, thanks.

We can debate how best to move goods, but making that policy through eliminating rest stops seems pretty silly

by ah on Mar 18, 2009 3:43 pm • link • report

Admitting to only skimming this post. However, there are different types of rest stops. There's the NJ Turnpike model with fast food and gas; then there's the model that I think is used in Virginia, which is scrungy restrooms, some vending machines, and maps and tourist trap brochures. That model costs money (maintenance, janitorial, etc.) and brings in only vending machine proceeds...not so much.

by RAK on Mar 18, 2009 3:46 pm • link • report

ah: I agree I'd rather they parked on the highway. They should cover the costs of maintaining parking space for them, not taxpayers. How about a charge of a few dollars a night, or maybe the trucking companies can just buy placards for $1000/yr per truck that they can put on the windshield and get to park in the rest stops as much as they want. There are various models.

It all boils down to a theme we often discuss here: because using the roads creates negative externalities in pollution, noise, and more traffic for other drivers, road users should cover the costs of their activities.

by David Alpert on Mar 18, 2009 3:49 pm • link • report

I'm confused about what sort of "rest stop" you're talking about. I'm used to the type that just allows a place to park and has restrooms (maybe vending). I always call the ones with gas stations and restaurants "service areas." Maybe that's just me. But to clarify what you mean exactly, woud help the debate a lot.

Rest stops seem like a no-brainer thing for the state to pay for just for the safety benefit. I used to drive between DC and Blacksburg often and used them every single trip to catch a bit of a nap. (I'm no long-haul driver.)

by rdhd on Mar 18, 2009 3:57 pm • link • report

Federal regulations require a certain amount of rest.

it took several readings to understand this sentence (although i do think we should give some federal regulations a rest).

charging the trucking companies a certain amount based on truck miles driven/year makes sense to me, as that would link their payments to their business. charging the truckers themselves, not so much. i want to do everything possible to make sure that the people driving the big rigs are awake, alert, and happy.

by AJ on Mar 18, 2009 3:58 pm • link • report

David,

That is true, but if you have a rest stop you are in and out relatively quickly and you don't have to get off the highway creating even more negative externalities by searching for an open establishment with a toilet at 12am; and I hardly doubt Rest Stops induce demand for driving in any fashion. Although I partially blame the States on how they design them. Out here you have a 3000sqft building, with interior bathrooms, a staffed reception desk, landscaped grounds and an onsite janitorial staff. .Out west a rest stop is a toilet, map on the wall and that’s about it for the next 150miles, janitor comes on the even days. For any rest stop all you need is a place to park and a hole in the ground.

by RJ on Mar 18, 2009 4:05 pm • link • report

David--fair enough, but truckers are notoriously cheap. If you charge them $5 to park in the rest stop, they're going to park elsewhere.

And it's not like they don't pay, just as drivers do--we and they pay gas taxes that support highway construction funding. Highway amenities typically include rest stops, which benefit all travelers, not just truckers. What's next, a surcharge if they want pavement in decent shape or good road signs?

by ah on Mar 18, 2009 4:11 pm • link • report

Because they promote safety.

by Tom on Mar 18, 2009 4:12 pm • link • report

In fact, rest areas are an effort to decrease the negative externalities of driving, in the form of safety risks. Resting should be encouraged, and probably subsidized by drivers who DON'T rest and therefore increase the danger to others. So we should raise tolls and gas taxes to a level that at least equals the costs of road construction and maintenance, including rest areas, rather than charging rest area users for reducing the negative impacts of their driving.

by RichardatCourthouse on Mar 18, 2009 4:28 pm • link • report

Maybe it's just me, but I always associated (and used) rest areas on long, cross-country road trips. Having a decent place to take a leak while driving cross-country isn't too much of a luxury, I feel. And in that role, I think they do play a significant public safety role. Charging a fee isn't going to reduce my cross-country traffic.

by Alex B. on Mar 18, 2009 4:45 pm • link • report

I think this is a petty move. I also disagree with with hostile towards the rest-stop model that we currently have. A map and a hole in the ground sounds good to me. They need to find a way to cut cost but not eliminate rest stops to the extent to which they are planning to do.

by Vik on Mar 18, 2009 4:48 pm • link • report

In Virginia, there are no restaurants at rest stops. As another commenter notes, there is a difference between a rest stop, and a 'service plaza.' On a toll road, you have 'service plazas' which provide food and fuel. For through travelers, you would not want to exit off the toll road for gas or food.

On freeways (most of the Interstate system), you simply have vending and restrooms. There is nothing that competes with these rest stops. I've driven across the US a few times, as well as down I-95 and I-81 in Virginia, and I can tell you rest areas are not keeping local business down. There is no alternative to the rest area when you need to use the bathroom while driving. Yes, you can exit the highway and try to find a gas station or restaurant that is open at say, 2 AM, but there won't be a whole lot of those. Especially if the highway is not one that attracts a lot of truck traffic.

The real problem, I believe, is that there may be federal regulations that do not allow states to rent commercial space in rest areas on freeways. So there is no revenue model beyond vending machines.

by Dave on Mar 18, 2009 5:04 pm • link • report

I made a typo, I meant: "I disagree with being hostile towards the rest stop model that we currently have"

And while they're not the same, I still call "service plazas" rest stops, though I myself will probably be more clear in the future in making this distinction.

Anyway, I'd prefer they cut expenditures in another way or make what we have more efficient or raise revenue somehow at these rest stops w/o completely eliminating most of them.

by Vik on Mar 18, 2009 5:24 pm • link • report

As Dave suspected, there are federal rules about rest stops.

Short Answer: Federal law prohibits states from allowing private businesses from operating facilities on Interstate Highways that receive federal money. Hence, we have gas stations and restaurants at rest stops on toll roads, and restrooms only on free roads. Since they do not have substantial revenue potential, and require State expenditures (maintenance and law enforcement at a minimum), they can be seen as a drag on the budget.

Background: Originally, the Interstate Highway System was to be comprised only of free roads. The Pennsylvania Turnpike is a perfect example. It was not designated as an Interstate until 1957 when the federal government allowed their incorporation into the Interstate System, although they were still prohibited from receiving federal funds. Even after toll roads were incorporated into the system, federal dollars could not be used to make direct connections between interstates and toll roads unless the toll authority agreed to remove the tolls once the bonds were paid. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Authority balked, so now we have Breezewood. (Even though the federal government eventually allowed the states to back out of these agreements, Breezewood remains due to political pressure from the Breezewood businesses community.)

Comment: Maryland has an interesting situation, with the Maryland House and Chesapeake House facilities, which include gas stations, restaurants, and convenience stores on what appears to be free parts of I-95. In reality, I-95 from the Baltimore City/Anne Arundel County line to the Delaware line is a toll road, owned and operated by the Maryland Transportation Authority. The toll is collected only northbound just beyond the Tydings Bridge over the Susquehanna.

by Stanton Park on Mar 18, 2009 6:58 pm • link • report

It's a minor gripe, but you only describe widening of I-81 as wasteful because you almost certainly have never traveled it. As a DC based Virginia Tech student (Go Hokies!), I've logged more miles on that road than I ever thought possible. The road is handling much, much more traffic, most of it heavy truck than it was designed for that massive accidents occur far too often, and backups happen with surprising regularity.

Unlike other DC area transit projects, there is no mass transit alternative to the I-81 corridor with the cancellation of Amtrak's *Hilltopper* train in the late 90's. The project to widen I-81 is long overdue, and far from wasteful.

by Ryan on Mar 18, 2009 7:37 pm • link • report

On the I-81 subject, I-81 widening opponents cite to parallel Norfolk Southern tracks and claim that improvements to those tracks (and stretching both up into PA and south into TN) will reduce truck traffic and reduce (if not eliminate) the need to widen I-81. While such rail improvements are worthwhile, the reality is that they will, at best, reduce the increase in truck traffic along I-81. Though not all of I-81 needs to be widened right away, it is as Ryan noted a worthwhile project, with some priority stretches needing widening now (Christiansburg to Roanoke, through Harrisonburg, and through Winchester).

by Froggie on Mar 18, 2009 9:11 pm • link • report

There are also two "service plazas" along a free stretch of Interstate 95 outside Boston. There's one on the northbound side in Lexington, and one on the southbound side in Newton. Unlike the Maryland example, I-95 is not a secret toll road. If there's a federal ban on privately-operated service plazas on Interstates, my guess is that the Massachusetts facilities are grandfathered because they were built prior to the highway's inclusion in the Interstate Highway System (the highway was built in the 1950s as MA Route 128, and received its interstate designation in the 1970s).

by Josh Barro on Mar 18, 2009 10:00 pm • link • report

Why?

by Squalish on Mar 18, 2009 10:01 pm • link • report

Anyone who thinks the trucking companies should be charged to maintain theses skanky rest areas is off their nut. First off 4 wheelers use them as much if not more than truckers. Secondly, the reason they look so bad is usually because a bunch of teenagers vandalized the place while drunk. Third, if you charge the trucking company they will most likely charge the drivers. FYI drivers are paid by the mile, the average starting pay is about 30 cents a mile if they are lucky.

And another thing, all the nice and mundane things we taxpayers have in our homes, we have because a trucker drove them cross country. So before you get all snooty about things like this think about how your Chippendale chairs and dog kibble arrived at your local marketplace.

Virginia needs to man up and get a pair.

by Patsy on Mar 18, 2009 10:42 pm • link • report

@Josh -- you're correct. Service plazas in place before 1960 are exempt from the federal ban on on-interstate retail.

by ah on Mar 18, 2009 11:14 pm • link • report

$12 million is a drop in the bucket - but who's the constituency? Out-of-state folks driving through Virginia. Where's the revenue from that?

by Ethan on Mar 19, 2009 3:57 am • link • report

Ethan: first off, Virginia drivers doing long-distance travel use them as well.

Second, consider the EMS/police cost savings if a traveler stopping at a rest area to rest means he/she doesn't get into an accident later...I admit this isn't easy to quantify, but it IS a tangible benefit to rest areas.

Third, chances are very good that those out-of-state travelers will be stopping at some point in Virginia for gas/meals/etc, especially along the I-81 corridor. Doesn't hurt that Virginia's gas tax is lower than all of its neighbors and only North Carolina has a lower sales tax rate. So there's your "revenue".

by Froggie on Mar 19, 2009 7:14 am • link • report

Froggie @9:11: Other than the fact that we've always met demand by widening highways, why can't we meet it with the rail line instead? A lot of freight moves by rail. If we improve that line, the trucks that need 81 can use rail freight instead. If we improved it more, some of the trucks already using it can shift.

Froggie @7:14: I thought there was no gas at these?

by David Alpert on Mar 19, 2009 8:15 am • link • report

David, those rail improvements will help slow the increasing demand for trucks along I-81, but they aren't going to stop it entirely. Trains are great for long-range movement of goods and okay for medium-range (if origin and destination are along the rail line), but they outright suck for short-hauls. And there's a good mix of all along I-81.

Nevermind that the rails are going to do little for non-truck traffic. While truck traffic garners the lion's share of I-81 discussion, there is no location along the route where they consist of more than 1/3 of traffic.

I'll be the first to agree that not all of the corridor needs to be widened, at least not at the present. But as both Ryan and I noted, there are segments where widening is well-justified.

As for gas, correct that there's no gas at the rest areas, but that doesn't mean out-of-state travelers are not stopping for gas or food or whatnot in Virginia, which was my refuting of Ethan's argument about no revenue from out-of-staters.

by Froggie on Mar 19, 2009 11:46 am • link • report

David,

Improving rail will help mitigate the need for interstate trucking - especially over great distances. But it has serious limitations.

Trucking can take you door to door, and that means enormous scales of economy. Rail works better as an intermodal resource. Transfer from rail to truck for door to door delivery.

The fuel savings of using a train (one ton 423 miles per gallon, yeah, we know) are considerable over long distances, but are to some extent eaten up by the time lost and logistical problems in the transfer to truck.

by Mike Silverstein on Mar 19, 2009 2:04 pm • link • report

"The fuel savings of using a train (one ton 423 miles per gallon, yeah, we know) are considerable over long distances, but are to some extent eaten up by the time lost and logistical problems in the transfer to truck."

This is why the Millenium Institute study looks at electrifying STRACNET for both conventional container freight rail and Rapid Freight rail, since running at 110mph recovers substantial time overheads for long-haul freight, and 50%+ long haul road freight capture involves the Rapid Freight rail scenario. But well over half would be truck to origin railhead and truck from destination railhead, so it would not substantially cut into short-haul trucking by any stretch of the imagination.

by BruceMcF on Mar 20, 2009 12:19 am • link • report

I don't have a problem with the state paying for rest stops. These are basically small state parks, and I'm not one to subscribe to the theory that as soon as times get tough "frivolous" things like parks should get the ax.

What I do have a problem with is truckers parking at rest stops and idling their engines. There are laws against idling for long periods because it creates so much air pollution. They should be enforced. Maybe writing a bunch of idling tickets would be the best way to fund these rest stops.

by Mark on Mar 20, 2009 11:43 am • link • report

Closing urban/suburban locations wouldn't be the end of the world. Ohio, which used to have an incredibly extensive network of these on its "blue highways" as well as interstates, did away with a lot of them long ago. In rural areas, they are an asset, especially late at night.

by Rich on Mar 20, 2009 11:49 pm • link • report

Mark, when you invent a way for truckers to stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer w/o idling then you can get a say. I thought everyone knew that the only way to operate the heat in a rig during the winter or the a/c in the summer is to have the truck idle. Apparent;y common sense isn't that common anymore.

by Patsy on Mar 21, 2009 6:29 am • link • report

Patsy, there is an alternative to idling a truck, called TSE (truck stop electrification) shorepower. These systems provide electric and sometimes heat/AC, cable TV, telephone and internet. New York State has been a pioneer in this, and has demonstrated that offboard TSE shorepower infrastructure will pay for itself in as little as three years. Onboard TSE shorepower has a faster payback period, but requires the trucks to be specially-equipped.

The biggest problem is a lack of spaces where it can be installed. It makes more sense in commercial truck stops with larger economies of scale than smaller state-run rest areas. The I-35 and I-5 corridor states are working on it. It's a far better solution than idling.

by Stanton Park on Mar 21, 2009 2:47 pm • link • report

For those of you unfamiliar with what a trucker goes through, here's a typical day - you can drive for 11 hours, then you are required by law to take a 10 hour break, so you plan your day out - you note down all the truck stops in the area you will be in when you run out of hours to drive. After driving about 10 hours you pull into the first truck stop - they have added IdleAir, which is great because you don't have to idle your truck, but unfortunately it has also cut the number of parking spaces in half and they are all full, so you go on down the road to the next truck stop. This is a little mom-and-pop truckstop with a dirt lot full of potholes, and it's full, too. So you go a little further knowing there's a rest area 10 miles down the road. You get there and it's got barricades up because the state has closed it. Now your last hour of drive time is almost gone, the next truckstop is 40 miles away and you have no choice but to stop on an exit ramp because you're tired and can't legally drive anymore anyway. There was no room at the stop with the TSE, so you will have to idle to keep from freezing to death in your sleep. Of course you won't be sleeping very sound anyway because there are vehicles rushing past you all night and you are worried that someone might hit you because you know you aren't parked in a safe place, but you can't move because you can't drive any further.

As for rail freight - when's the last time you saw a grocery store with railroad tracks leading up to it? or a gas station that could get its gas delivery by rail, or a mall with it's own railroad dock? Most factories and distribution warehouses aren't on the railroad, and even if they do ship their goods by rail it's still a truck that takes the goods to the railhead.

by jinx on Mar 22, 2009 9:46 am • link • report

jinx: Of course we need trucks for local deliveries. The rail vs. truck debate came up over I-81, which is used for long distance shipping between the South and the Northeast.

As for the TSE, it's too bad it's not always available. The best solution would be to encourage more of those. If we internalized the cost of emissions from trucking and other shipping modes, that would create a strong financial incentive for more TSE locations. Orivate operators would find profit in building stops with TSE on major routes. Right now, drivers including truckers (and power plants and others) pollute for free, so there's no real incentive to take any route other than the cheapest, even if it's the most polluting.

by David Alpert on Mar 22, 2009 9:53 am • link • report