Economic Assessment of Public Rest
Areas and Traveler Information Centers
on Limited-Access Freeways
Timothy J. Gates, Peter T. Savolainen, Tapan K. Datta, and Ryan G. Todd
Public rest areas along limited-access freeways throughout the United
States allow quick access and free 24-h availability to basic amenities
such as parking and restrooms. The recent economic downturn has made
it increasingly difficult for state agencies to maintain rest areas and has
forced many states to consider downsizing services or closing facilities.
Although rest areas provide many benefits to motorists, the safety and
economic impacts associated with rest areas and traveler information
centers have proved difficult to quantify. A benefit–cost (B-C) analysis
methodology was developed for public rest areas and traveler informa-
tion centers on limited-access freeways. This methodology considered
a broad range of benefits associated with public rest areas, including
travel diversion savings, comfort and convenience benefits, and crash
reductions. Increased tourism spending was also considered for traveler
information centers. The costs were almost exclusively related to those
incurred by the agency, which included construction, rehabilitation,
operation, and routine maintenance. The methodology was demonstrated
with data provided by the Michigan Department of Transportation.
Because the estimated benefits were strongly correlated with annual
use of the facility, the facilities with the highest B-C ratios included
heavily used facilities located on the primary freeway routes. Those with
the lowest B-C ratios were underused facilities with high operation or
maintenance costs.
Public rest areas along limited-access freeways throughout the
United States allow quick access and free 24-h availability to basic
amenities, such as parking and restrooms. Public rest areas are
typically designed to serve the needs of a broad range of travelers,
including vacationers, recreational travelers, commercial vehicle
operators, commuters, motorcyclists, and others. A majority of
travelers stop at rest areas to use the restroom or simply take a
short break. Others stop to picnic, use the vending machines, relieve
children or pets, check the vehicle, change drivers, obtain travel
information, or sleep. Many of these stops are unplanned and the
quick access from the highway makes rest areas convenient to
motorists. Although off-network commercial facilities generally
provide the same basic services, they typically do not provide the
level of convenient access and around-the-clock availability afforded
by most rest areas. Furthermore, the ease of access and availability
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Wayne State University,
5050 Anthony Wayne Drive, Detroit, MI 48202. Corresponding author: T. J. Gates,
tjgates@wayne.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2346, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2013, pp. 63–71.
DOI: 10.3141/2346-08
63
of truck parking make rest areas convenient for commercial vehicle
operators.
In an economic climate of declining revenue, it has become
increasingly challenging for states to maintain a network of rest areas.
Recent economic challenges have led to closure of select public rest
areas in at least 14 states nationwide (1, 2–6). Several other states
have considered rest area closures, have significantly downgraded
the services provided, or have canceled plans to build new or reha-
bilitate existing facilities (5). Rest area closures result in agency
cost savings between $165,000 and $475,000 per facility per year
(2, 6, 7). However, large-scale closure of public rest areas is typi-
cally met with considerable public opposition (6, 7), in some cases
prompting reopening of the closed facilities (8).
Various forms of rest area commercialization have been investi-
gated by several states as a means of offsetting the maintenance
and operating costs (1, 9–12). However, federal law prohibits the
use of right-of-way for commercial purposes on Interstate high-
ways that went into operation after the 1956 Interstate Highway Act
(Title 23, Section 111, United States Code). Nevertheless, various
nonpublic funding strategies or public–private partnerships have been
pursued and, in some cases, implemented by agencies as a means to
offset the costs associated with rest areas (12, 13–17).
Although it is generally acknowledged that public rest areas on
the limited-access freeway system provide many intrinsic benefits
to motorists beyond those at alternative off-network commercial
facilities, the safety and economic impacts associated with public rest
areas and traveler information centers have proved difficult to quantify.
Prior research has suggested that the benefits provided by public rest
areas include comfort and convenience to motorists, reduction in
excess travel necessary for navigation to alternative services, and
reduction in targeted crashes (18, 19). Tourism-related revenue is also
typically considered for facilities that include a traveler information
center (18, 20).
Previous economic analyses of public rest areas have produced
widely variable results. A nationwide study in the late 1980s esti-
mated the benefit–cost (B-C) ratio of rest areas between 3.2 and 7.4
(19), with benefits including reduction in excess travel, reduction in
shoulder crashes, and self-reported willingness to pay. A more recent
evaluation found that the B-C ratio for rest areas and traveler informa-
tion centers along several Texas corridors ranged from 8.7 to 29.5,
with a majority of the benefits derived from crash reductions and
tourism (18).
This research presents a comprehensive methodology for perform-
ing B-C analyses for public rest areas and traveler information centers
on limited-access freeways. A broad range of benefits and costs were
considered, including those related to the road user, agency, safety,
64
and tourism. The methodology allows for determination of a system-
wide or facility-specific B-C ratio, thereby providing a means by
which to prioritize the relative value of each facility within the system.
A demonstration of the methodology is provided by using data for
the public rest area system maintained by the Michigan Department
of Transportation (DOT).
Economic Benefits of Rest Areas
The most challenging aspect of development of a B-C methodology
for rest areas lies in determination of the economic benefits associ-
ated with the particular facility. King (19) and Carson et al. (18)
suggested that quantifiable economic benefits related to rest areas
typically include the following:
• Comfort and convenience. Many of the benefits provided by rest
areas to motorists in convenience or comfort are difficult to quantify,
but may be assessed on a proxy basis by using self-reported estimates,
including willingness to pay (18, 19) or value of services utilized (21)
obtained in surveys of rest area patrons.
• Reduction in excess travel. Reduction in excess travel may be
quantified on the basis of the excess vehicle operating costs and travel
time that would otherwise be necessary to obtain similar services from
commercial facilities located off the limited-access freeway system.
• Crash reductions. Evidence that rest areas contribute to the pre-
vention of fatigue-related crashes also serves as a benefit. The appro-
priate monetary value is assigned accordingly based on the associated
crash-related cost savings.
• Tourism. Rest areas also serve as a marketing or advertising
outlet to promote tourism and provide public service information,
although these benefits are only quantifiable as they relate to traveler
information centers because of the limited information and lack of
dedicated staff at standard rest areas (18–20). Increased tourism
revenue would benefit local communities through wages and profits
and would benefit governments through tax revenue.
Comfort and Convenience
Although the true value of a rest area to a motorist depends on several
factors, it may be proxied by the dollar value that travelers place on
services used while stopped at a facility. This value is often obtained
by surveying patrons to assess their willingness to pay to use a rest area
(19, 22). However, the responses to such surveys may underestimate
patrons’ actual willingness to pay if fees are imposed. In NCHRP
Report 324, King reported that a sample of surveyed rest area users
were willing to pay between $0.40 and $1.00 per stop to use the
facility (1989 dollars) (19). This amount represents a range of $0.72 to
$1.81 per stop when converted from 1989 to 2011 dollars according
to the consumer price index (23).
To obtain current data of the value of services provided by a rest
area and to avoid understated responses to the willingness-to-pay
question, an alternative question, “What value do you place on the
service utilized during your stop today?” was asked to patrons during a
series of surveys performed during 2011 at 15 Michigan rest areas and
traveler information centers. Further details pertaining to these sur-
veys are provided elsewhere (21). Analysis of the 2,556 responses
to these surveys showed a median value of $1.68 for services used
at standard rest areas (21), which fell within the range of the 2011
indexed willingness-to-pay values for rest areas reported in NCHRP
Transportation Research Record 2346
Report 324 (19). As expected, patrons at traveler information centers
placed a higher value on the services used, with a median value of
$2.21 (21).
Reduction in Excess Travel
Public rest areas along limited-access freeways also benefit travelers
by reducing the excess travel costs that would otherwise be required
if alternate services were sought off the freeway network. Two pri-
mary benefits typically associated with reductions in excess travel are
vehicle operating cost savings and travel time savings. Other benefits
related to reductions in excess travel, including environmental ben-
efits, are difficult to quantify monetarily and were thus excluded from
the economic analysis.
In the context of public rest areas on the limited-access freeway
system, excess travel is defined as the arithmetic difference between
the net distance (or time) traveled to access the next closest com-
mercial service facility (fast food restaurant, gas station, or truck stop)
and the net distance (or time) traveled to access the rest area. Only
a certain percentage of rest area patrons will divert to an alternate
commercial facility off the limited-access freeway system if the rest
area is not available. Other users will stop on the shoulder, continue
to the next rest area, or continue nonstop to the destination. Using a
series of traveler surveys, King (19) estimated that 40% of people
would divert off the limited-access freeway system in search of
alternate commercial services if the rest area were not available.
However, these data were collected in the late 1980s before the
extensive use of logo signs on freeways, in-vehicle navigation sys-
tems, and smartphones. To provide an updated estimate of traveler
diversion, the survey of Michigan rest area patrons included the
following question: “If this rest area was closed, where would you
have stopped instead?” (21).
The responses to this survey question showed that 61.7% of the
762 surveyed patrons would have diverted to a nearby commercial
service facility if the rest area had not been available. This response
is a considerable increase over the late 1980s response found by
King (19), which likely is at least partially because of service-related
information being more readily available to motorists. Travelers in
passenger vehicles were significantly more likely to divert off the
freeway to a commercial service facility than truck drivers. Although
patrons traveling in passenger vehicles were far more likely to seek
alternate services off the freeway (65.9%) than to travel to the next
rest area (25.2%), truck drivers were equally likely to select either
alternative (38.3% and 39.1%, respectively). Other factors, such
as the number of nearby commercial services within a 20-mi radius,
the distance to the next rest area, or the type of facility (rest area or
traveler information center), did not significantly affect the diversion
rates. The diversion response rates are shown in Table 1 according
to vehicle type. The methods, supporting data, and assumptions used
to estimate excess travel benefits attributable to public rest areas are
described in the following sections.
Vehicle Operating Benefits
Because the overall distance traveled during entry to and exit from
a rest area is typically less than that of an alternate off-freeway pri-
vate facility, most rest areas provide a reduced net travel distance
and subsequent reduction in vehicle operating costs. Research has
suggested that vehicle operating benefits associated with roadway
Gates, Savolainen, Datta, and Todd 65

TABLE 1   Action Taken If Rest Area Unavailable

Passenger Vehicle Commercial Truck All

Percentage Percentage Percentage

Action Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total

Divert to nearest exit with services 418 65.9 44 38.3 470 61.7
Divert to next rest area 160 25.2 45 39.1 208 27.3
Divert to side of road  17 2.7 16 13.9  34 4.5
Continue to destination  39 6.2 10 8.7  50 6.6
Total 634 100.0 115 100.0 762 100.0

Note: Self-reported from patron surveys.

improvements should consider only the marginal operating costs per
mile of travel, which include the following cost components (24):
• Fuel consumption,
• Routine maintenance,
• Nonscheduled repairs,
• Tires, and
• Depreciation.
Other fixed costs incurred by motorists, including insurance and
financing, do not vary by mileage and should not be considered in a per
mile operating cost rate (24). Because vehicle operating costs typically
vary by vehicle type, separate operating cost rates were developed
for passenger vehicles and commercial trucks. The operating costs for
commercial trucks do not include driver wages or other delay-related
expenses not directly related to the vehicle itself. Wage-related costs
are included in the calculation of travel time benefits.
The vehicle operating cost rates were estimated from the values
calculated by Barnes and Langworthy for the Minnesota DOT (24)
and assumed normal city driving situations. Because the Barnes and
Langworthy study used 2003 costs, it was necessary to make appro-
priate modifications to these values to account for rising fuel costs
(25, 26), in addition to inflation of maintenance, repair, and deprecia-
tion costs (24) and changes in vehicle fuel economy (27). The item-
ized vehicle operating costs for city driving conditions (2011 dollars)
are shown in Table 2 along with the original values (2003 dollars)
developed by Barnes and Langworthy (24).
personal purposes (28). All commercial vehicles were assumed to be
heavy trucks, because it was determined that heavy trucks constitute
a large proportion of the annual average daily traffic (AADT) data for
commercial vehicles in Michigan. The resulting value-of-time unit
estimates are displayed by vehicle type and trip purpose in Table 3.
It was also necessary to determine the net increase (or decrease)
in excess travel time that would be accumulated while travelers were
seeking alternate services off the limited-access freeway system.
Because it is typically not possible to take actual measurements for
the excess travel time for each rest area, such values may be estimated
from the excess travel distance calculated for each pair of rest area
and nearest alternate service facility on the limited-access freeway
system. It was assumed that any excess travel distance would be
encountered on surface roadways (as opposed to exit and entry ramps).
It was subsequently assumed that the additional travel distance would
occur at an average speed of 30 mph, as recommended by Carson et al.
(18). Thus, the excess travel time savings were computed for each rest
area by dividing the excess travel distance by 30 mph.
Crash Reductions
A critical function of public rest areas is to provide an opportunity
for fatigued motorists to stop and rest rather than continue driving and
TABLE 2   Vehicle Operating Cost Rates per Mile of City Driving
2003a 2011b

Travel Time Benefits Automobile Commercial Passenger Commercial

Component ($) Truck ($) Vehicle ($) Truck ($)
A typical rest area on a limited-access freeway also provides an
overall travel time savings to patrons compared with an off-network Fuel 0.070 0.280 0.155 0.711
commercial facility. To estimate these travel time benefits, it was Maintenance 0.038 0.121 0.047 0.148
first necessary to determine average hourly value-of-time estimates   or repair
for typical rest area users. The U.S. DOT’s The Value of Travel Tires 0.009 0.035 0.011 0.043
Time Savings: Departmental Guidance for Conducting Economic Depreciation 0.074 0.092 0.091 0.113
Evaluations, Revision 2, recommends computing separate values Total 0.191 0.529 0.304 1.015
of time for truck drivers, other business travelers, and personal a
(i.e., nonwork) travelers (28). This document also recommends esti- Values represent 2003 dollars, as reported directly by Barnes and Langworthy
(24). Fuel costs were calculated by assuming $1.50 per gallon of fuel.
mating values of time for truck drivers and other business travelers b
Values represent 2011 dollars, indexed from the 2003 values reported by
on the basis of nationwide average total compensation rates for each Barnes and Langworthy (24). Fuel costs were based on the statewide average
fuel costs in Michigan in January 2012 of $3.55 per gallon of gasoline (25)
traveler, including both wages and fringe benefits. Personal travel and $3.81 per gallon of diesel (26). Maintenance, repair, and depreciation
time is to be valued on the basis of the equivalent median household costs were indexed on the basis of the 22.62% increase in the consumer price
wage, excluding fringe benefits, applied to the entire vehicle rather index between October 2003 and October 2011 (23). A 7.2% increased fuel
efficiency was assumed for the passenger vehicle fleet from 2003 to 2011 (27).
than per traveler. Furthermore, personal travel time values should No changes in fuel economy were observed for commercial vehicles between
be reduced by 30% to represent the devaluation of time spent for 2003 and 2011 (27).
66 Transportation Research Record 2346

TABLE 3   Value-of-Time Estimates by Vehicle Type and Trip Purpose

Commercial
Passenger Vehicle Vehicle

Work Personal or Work

Component Travela Vacation Travelb Travelc

Base wage ($ per person per hour) 30.11 NA 28.43

Average occupancy (persons per vehicle)d 1.42 NA 1.25
Total wage ($ per vehicle per hour) 42.76 25.67 35.54
Personal time devaluation (%) 0 30 0
Value of time ($ per vehicle per hour) 42.76 17.97 35.54
Proportion of tripsd 0.1 0.9 NA
Weighted value of time ($ per vehicle per hour) 20.45 35.54

Note: All values indexed to September 2011 dollars on the basis of the consumer price index (23).
NA = not available.
a
Base wage value based on the national average total hourly compensation for the civilian work force in
September 2011 obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (29). Includes wages and fringe benefits.
b
Base wage value based on the national median household hourly income in 2010 obtained from the
Census Bureau (30). Includes wages only.
c
Base wage value based on the national average total hourly compensation for heavy and tractor-trailer truck
drivers in May 2010 obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (31). Includes wages and fringe benefits.
d
Values estimated from self-reported data obtained from surveys (performed in 2011) of Michigan rest
area patrons (21).

risk involvement in a crash because of fatigue. Several studies have
found a positive relationship between rest area spacing and targeted
crash types. Single vehicle truck crashes in Michigan (32) and
Minnesota (33) were found to increase at distances greater than 30 mi
beyond a rest area, as were fatigue-related crashes in California (34).
To estimate the impacts of rest areas on fatigue-related crashes
on limited-access freeways, the 5-year frequency of fatigue-related
crashes was obtained for 40 1-mi freeway segments extending 20 mi
upstream and downstream of Michigan rest area facilities. The 20-mi
upstream and downstream limits were specified to fully capture
the safety effects of each rest area while minimizing the overlap
between the segments for adjacent rest areas along a route. Using
the 5-year crash frequencies, a negative binomial regression model
was developed to predict the annual crash frequency for each 1-mi
segment as a function of the mainline AADT and the distance of the
segment from the rest area. Negative binomial regression is well
suited to modeling data for which the variance exceeds the mean
(overdispersion), and as a result, this method is commonly applied
for crash prediction modeling purposes (35, 36). Further details
pertaining to the model development are provided elsewhere (37).
The final model for prediction of fatigue-related crashes occurring
annually within each 1-mi segment took the following form:
E (Y )i = AADTi0.654 × exp ( −7.715 + 0.018 × DISTi )
where
E(Y)i = predicted annual target crashes for ith 1-mi segment
along limited-access freeway,
AADTi = annual average daily mainline directional traffic on ith
1-mi segment, and
DISTi = distance (mi) of ith 1-mi segment from nearest rest area.
The annual reduction in fatigue-related crashes near each rest
area is calculated on the basis of the difference between the predicted
annual target crash frequency occurring within a 20-mi radius of
each rest area facility and the predicted crash frequency over the
same distance, assuming that the rest area did not exist at the location.
Without the refuge provided by the rest area, it was assumed that the
safety performance would deteriorate across the entire 40-mi stretch
to that observed at the 20-mi limit. Thus, assuming that the rest area
did not exist, E(Y) for each 1-mi segment from the upstream boundary
to the downstream boundary was uniformly assumed to be equal to
that predicted at the 20-mi limit.
Tourism
Traveler information centers are often associated with positive
impacts on tourism as a result of travelers using information from
the centers to decide to extend their stay, make future trips, or visit
additional attractions (18–22). Although it is generally acknowledged
that standard rest areas serve to promote tourism, quantification of
tourism-related economic benefits is typically limited to traveler
information centers because of the level of staffing and informational
materials provided (18, 20, 21).
Vogt and Holecek suggested that tourism-related benefits are
derived from an estimation of the number of traveler information
center patrons who increased their spending as a result of information
received at the traveler information center (20). A recent study of
patrons at Michigan traveler information centers found that approx-
(1) imately 60% of entering passenger vehicles had one or more occu-
pants enter the information service area (20). Post-trip follow-up
surveys of patrons who entered the information service area found
that 12.5% increased their travel spending as a result of information
received during the particular stop at the traveler information center.
The average increase in spending per party was estimated at $147
(inclusive of tax revenue) in 2011 dollars (20). The benefits associated
with tourism spending are represented by the portion of the increased
tourism expenditures that are either retained locally as wages and prof-
its or retained as tax revenue. Prior research has suggested that 40%
of tourist expenditures (exclusive of taxes) are retained locally (38),
and an additional 7% is retained as state and local tax revenue, based
on the Michigan sales tax rate (20).
Gates, Savolainen, Datta, and Todd
Economic Costs of Rest Areas
The life-cycle costs associated with a public rest area are primarily
associated with the costs incurred by the agency, which include
• Construction and rehabilitation and
• Operations and maintenance.
Construction and Rehabilitation
Included in this category are the costs associated with construc-
tion and rehabilitation during the life cycle of the rest area facility.
This includes costs associated with construction of the facility,
rehabilitation of various components, right-of-way acquisition, site
design, and site development. A review of construction and major
rehabilitation cost data for facilities maintained by the Michigan
DOT found that facility construction costs were readily available
in electronic format for facilities built since the late 1990s (21),
which was consistent with findings reported elsewhere (18). Data
for older facilities, although sometimes available, may exist only
in hard copy or archived format. Thus, for older facilities, various
assumptions based on the type and size of the building and period
of construction may be necessary to estimate the construction and
rehabilitation costs.
Rehabilitation costs are often difficult to obtain. However, it
was determined through a review of Michigan data that the primary
components of most recently constructed rest area facilities, includ-
ing the building, sanitary sewer system, water supply system, and
parking lot, often possess similar design lives. For such facilities, all
primary facility components are reconstructed at the same time under
the same contract, thereby limiting intermittent major rehabilitation
costs during the life cycle of the facility. In other cases, only a single
primary component, such as the rest area building, is reconstructed
and other major components are repaired or replaced periodically
throughout the life cycle. Depending on the nature of the work, minor
rehabilitation may be performed within a routine maintenance contract
or by agency forces, but is typically performed under an independent
contract.
All construction and rehabilitation costs must be converted to
an annualized present cost to be consistent with the calculation of
the other costs and benefits. In doing so, it is relatively common
for agencies to assume straight-line depreciation over the entire
design life for rest area facilities, typically between 30 and 50 years,
because regular facility serviceability ratings are typically not
performed (18, 21).
Operations and Maintenance
The operations and maintenance category includes the costs associ-
ated with annual operations and routine maintenance of the facil-
ity. Annual operational costs typically include wages and benefits,
equipment, utilities, and building leases (where applicable); annual
routine maintenance costs typically include cleaning and servicing,
yard maintenance, snow removal, and other duties. These costs may
be incurred either by agency forces or by private contract. Agencies
typically maintain current records for annual rest area operational and
maintenance costs (18, 21). A review of data for facilities maintained
by the Michigan DOT showed that, as expected, routine maintenance
costs are typically higher for older or larger facilities. Operational
costs are typically much higher for traveler information centers than
67
standard rest areas, because of the regular staffing of the information
centers. Traveler information centers in Michigan are typically staffed
8.5 h per day, 5 days per week by one or more paid Michigan DOT
employees.
B-C Analysis
The following subsections present the computational methods for
estimating the monetary value of the benefits and costs associated
with rest areas and traveler information centers. Included in each
description are the mathematical formulae used to obtain these
estimates, as well as the basis for all coefficients, input values, and
assumptions. The analysis assumed a 40-year life cycle, which is
the typical design life for all primary infrastructure components of a
modern rest area in Michigan. Salvage value at the end of the 40-year
life cycle was considered negligible because most of the primary
infrastructure components are typically razed and reconstructed at
the end of the service life. All monetary values used in the B-C
analysis were computed as equivalent annualized values, indexed
to 2011 dollars. Future values were estimated over the life cycle on
the basis of assumed annual inflation rates and were subsequently
discounted to 2011 values. A sensitivity analysis was conducted
assuming FHWA-recommended discount rates of 3% and 7%, the
latter of which is the standard rate (39, p. 30476). Where applicable,
an assumed 1% annual traffic growth rate was applied over the 40-year
life cycle; this rate was selected on the basis of historical traffic growth
patterns in Michigan.
Comfort and Convenience Benefits
The comfort and convenience benefits were computed annually for
each facility according to the procedure that follows:
comfort–convenience benefits = median value of services utilized
× average annual daily rest area vehicle traffic × 365 (2)
where median value of services utilized is $1.68 for standard rest
areas and $2.21 for traveler information centers, from self-reported
survey data collected from Michigan rest area and traveler informa-
tion center patrons in 2011 (21) [an annual monetary inflation rate
of 2.82% was applied over the 40-year life cycle, on the basis of
the average annual consumer price index increase between Octo-
ber 2003 and October 2011 (23)]; and average annual daily rest area
vehicle traffic is the estimated average annual daily count of vehicles
entering the facility, with traffic volumes assumed to increase by 1%
annually over the 40-year life cycle.
Vehicle Operating Benefits
The vehicle operating benefits were computed annually for each
facility according to the procedure that follows. Passenger vehicles
and commercial vehicles were considered separately.
vehicle operating benefits = average annual daily rest area
vehicle traffic × diversion rate × excess travel mileage
× vehicle operating unit costs × 365 (3)
68
where
diversion rate = proportion of rest area users who would travel
to nearest alternate private facility services
if rest area facility unavailable [this value
assumed to be 0.659 for passenger vehicles
and 0.383 for commercial vehicles on basis of
surveys performed in 2011 of rest area users
in Michigan (21)],
excess travel = arithmetic difference between net distance
mileage  traveled from mainline to access nearest
alternate private service facility and net dis-
tance traveled from mainline to access the
rest area, and
vehicle operating = $0.304/mi for passenger vehicles, $1.015/mi
unit costs for commercial vehicles, estimated in 2011
dollars from methodology developed by
Barnes and Langworthy in 2003 (24) [refer
to Table 2 for additional details; annual mon-
etary inflation rate of 2.82% was applied
over 40-year life cycle of rest area, on basis
of average annual consumer price index
increase between October 2003 and October
2011 (23)].
Travel Time Benefits
The travel time benefits are computed annually for each facility
according to the procedure that follows. Passenger vehicles and
commercial vehicle were considered separately.
travel time benefits = average annual daily rest area vehicle traffic
× diversion rate × excess travel mileage × weighted
value-of-time ÷ assumed average operating speed × 365 ( 4)
where weighted value-of-time is $20.45 per passenger vehicle per
hour and $35.54 per commercial vehicle per hour, calculated on the
basis of the procedure presented in Table 3 [an annual value-of-time
inflation rate of 1.6% was applied over the 40-year life cycle of
the rest area (28)]; and assumed average operating speed is 30 mph,
as recommended by Carson et al. (18) on the basis of the assumption
that the excess travel incurred while navigating to an off-freeway
service facility would mostly take place on surface roadways.
Tourism Benefits
The tourism benefits associated with traveler information centers
are computed annually for each facility according to the following
procedure. It was conservatively assumed that standard rest areas
do not generate any additional tourism related revenue because of
the lack of staffing and printed tourism materials. Only passenger
vehicle traffic volumes were considered in the calculation. An annual
growth rate was not applied to these traffic volumes because it
was assumed that traffic increases were inherently included in the
statewide annual tourism spending increase.
tourism benefits = average annual daily passenger vehicle traffic
× proportion of parties increasing spending × net additional
spending per party × 0.60 × 365 × 0.47 (5)
Transportation Research Record 2346
where
proportion of parties = 0.125 (12.5%),
increasing spending
net additional spending = $147 (2011 dollars) [tourism spending
per party increased by 3.4% annually, based on
average annual increase in nonresident
tourism spending in Michigan between
2001 and 2010 (40)],
0.60 = fraction of entering vehicles that had
one or more occupants entering infor-
mation service area, and
0.47 = fraction of total tourism expenditures
that are retained locally as wages, prof-
its, and tax revenue.
Crash Reduction Benefits
The annual economic benefits from reductions in fatigue-related
crashes near each rest area are computed annually for each facility
according to the procedure that follows:
crash reduction benefits = [ E (Y )rest area – E (Y )no rest area ] × $110,672
(6)
where
E(Y)rest area = predicted annual frequency of target crashes from
Equation 1, sum totaled for 40 1-mi segments from
20 mi upstream to 20 mi downstream of rest area;
E(Y)no rest area = predicted annual frequency of target crashes from
Equation 1, sum totaled for the entire 40-mi dis-
tance, assuming that rest area did not exist at loca-
tion; and
$110,672 = assumed weighted average cost per lane departure
crash (most common fatigue-related crash type) in
2011 dollars (41) [crash costs inflated by 0.877%
annually (42)].
Costs
The total annualized costs associated with each facility are computed
according to the procedure that follows.
total annualized costs = amortized construction and rehabilitation
costs + annual operating costs + annual maintenance costs (7)
where
amortized construction = construction and rehabilitation costs
and rehabilitation costs incurred over life cycle of rest area
facility, including infrastructure,
right-of-way, site design, and site
dev­elopment, converted to 2011 dol-
lars and amortized over 40-year
design life of the facility (actual
costs used where possible, although
estimates from similar facilities were
made for several facilities);
annual operating costs =  actual or estimated annual operat-
ing costs, including labor, utilities,
Gates, Savolainen, Datta, and Todd
equipment, and building leases
(where applicable) (operating costs
were inflated by 1.14% annually,
based on average increase in operat-
ing and maintenance costs for Michi-
gan rest areas between 2008 and
2010); and
annual maintenance costs = 
actual or estimated annual rou-
tine maintenance, including costs
incurred for agency labor forces,
contracted labor, or both (mainte-
nance costs inflated by 1.14% annu-
ally, on basis of average increase in
operating and maintenance costs
for Michigan rest areas between
2008 and 2010).
B-C Ratio
The B-C ratio is computed as follows:
comfort and convenience benefits + vehicle operating
benefits + travel time benefits + tourism benefits
B + crash reduction benefits
= (8)
C amortized construction and rehab costs + annual
operating costs + annual maintenance costs
Demonstration of Method
The aforementioned computational procedures for the itemized
benefits and costs were used to compute the B-C ratio for each of the
58 year-round public rest areas and nine traveler information centers
maintained by the Michigan DOT and located on the limited-access
freeway system. Before the B-C ratio was calculated for each facility,
it was first necessary to obtain data specific to each facility, including
• AADT volumes (facility and adjacent mainline),
• Excess travel mileage to the closest off-network alternative
commercial facility,
• Construction and rehabilitation costs, and
• Operation and maintenance costs.
Because all benefits are calculated on the basis of AADT volumes,
it was first necessary to determine accurate AADT volumes for each
rest area and adjacent mainline freeway. The Michigan DOT gener-
ally performs rest area traffic counts on a triennial basis for a 1-week
period between April and October. The most recent weekly rest area
traffic volume counts were obtained from the Michigan DOT, and
the appropriate Michigan DOT seasonal adjustment factors were
applied to the daily traffic volumes for each facility to account for
seasonal variability in traffic patterns based on roadway type, day
of week, and month. The AADT volume was computed separately
for passenger vehicles and commercial vehicles for each of the 67
facilities by averaging the seasonally adjusted daily traffic counts
across the period for which data were collected. The facility AADT
volumes ranged between 108 and 1,288 passenger vehicles per day
(average of 518) and 31 and 677 commercial vehicles per day (aver-
age of 180). The most recently available AADT volumes for the
adjacent mainline freeway segments were obtained directly from
69
the Michigan DOT. As previously stated, an assumed 1% annual
traffic growth rate was applied over the 40-year life cycle during
calculation of selected benefits and costs.
The excess travel mileage was calculated for each rest area facility
as the difference between the net distance traveled to access the
nearest off-network commercial service facility and the net distance
traveled to access the rest area. This value is conservative because only
the nearest off-network commercial facility was considered, although
additional facilities may be available for motorists to use. A negative
distance and subsequent negative benefit was computed for the small
number of cases in which the rest area facility resulted in greater travel
distances compared with the alternate commercial facility. The excess
travel mileage for the 67 Michigan facilities ranged from −0.76 mi to
1.33 mi with an average of 0.35 mi. Accordingly, the excess travel
times ranged from −91.0 s to 159.1 s with an average of 42.1 s.
Available construction and rehabilitation data were obtained
from the Michigan DOT for 28 rest area and traveler information
center facilities that were constructed or reconstructed between
1971 and 2011. The estimated life-cycle construction and rehabili-
tation costs (2011 dollars), including infrastructure, right-of-way
acquisition, site design, and site development, ranged between
approximately $3.69 million and $3.87 million for standard rest
areas and between $4.12 million and $4.99 million for traveler
information centers. The costs related specifically to building con-
struction ranged from $250 per ft2 to $350 per ft2 and accounted
for approximately 15% to 25% of the total construction and reha-
bilitation life-cycle cost for buildings ranging in size from approx-
imately 1,500 ft2 to 3,300 ft2.
Amortized over the 40-year life cycle of a modern Michigan rest
area facility, the annualized construction and rehabilitation costs
were estimated between approximately $92,000 and $97,000 per rest
area and between approximately $103,000 and $125,000 per traveler
information center. The annualized construction and rehabilitation
costs were applied to each of the 67 facilities on the basis of facility
type, size, and period of construction.
Annual operations and maintenance costs for each rest area and
traveler information center were readily available from the Michigan
DOT, and such data were obtained for all 67 Michigan DOT facili-
ties for 2008 through 2010 and converted to 2011 dollars. The 3-year
average for each facility was used in the annual cost calculation. These
values were then inflated over the 40-year design life on the basis of
a 1.14% annual increase and discounted to 2011 by using both a 3%
and 7% discount rate. Table 4 displays the average itemized benefit
and cost values and B-C ratios aggregated by facility type.
By considering the FHWA standard discount rate of 7%, the aver-
age annual benefits in 2011 dollars were estimated for standard rest
areas at $380,628 per facility, compared with average total costs of
approximately $139,604, representing a systemwide average B-C
ratio of 2.73. As expected, the alternative 3% discount rate produced
a larger B-C ratio of 4.06. This value is within the range of expected
rest area B-C ratios of 3.2 to 7.4 reported in NCHRP Report 324 (19),
but is lower than values found in the recent Texas study (18). The 2011
B-C ratio for standard Michigan public rest areas on limited-access
freeways ranged between 0.92 and 4.78 assuming a discount rate of
7% and between 1.41 and 7.02 assuming a discount rate of 3%.
Traveler information centers had much higher benefits and costs
compared with standard rest areas, resulting in large part from the
tourism benefits and operational costs, respectively. Assuming a 7%
discount rate, the benefits for traveler information centers averaged
$1,173,259 per facility, compared with $277,655 in total costs,
giving a systemwide average B-C ratio of 4.23. The average B-C ratio
70 Transportation Research Record 2346

TABLE 4   Aggregated Benefit and Cost Data for Michigan Public Rest Areas and Traveler Information Centers

Discount Rate = 3% Discount Rate = 7%

Rest Area Avg. Traveler Info. Center Rest Area Avg. Traveler Info. Center
Category Subcategory (N = 58) Avg. (N = 9) (N = 58) Avg. (N = 9)

Benefits Comfort and convenience $488,939 $801,402 $257,975 $422,838

Vehicle operating $18,527 $23,303 $9,774 $12,294
Travel time $27,041 $30,575 $15,098 $17,072
Tourism NA $1,150,000 NA $590,172
Crash reduction $169,482 $226,858 $97,781 $130,883
Overall $703,989 $2,232,137 $380,628 $1,173,259
Costs Construction and rehabilitation $94,943 $107,437 $94,943 $107,437
Operations and maintenance $78,335 $298,577 $44,661 $170,228
Overall $173,278 $406,013 $139,604 $277,665
B-C ratio 4.06 5.50 2.73 4.23

Note: Costs are given in discounted 2011 dollars. Avg. = average; N = number; info. = information.

improved considerably for the 3% discount rate, increasing to 5.50. with the lowest utilization rates, especially those with high opera-
The B-C ratio for traveler information centers ranged from 1.07 to tions and maintenance costs.
7.75 assuming a discount rate of 7% and 1.43 to 9.78 assuming a
discount rate of 3%.
Transferability

Discussion of Results and Conclusions
It was concluded that nearly all rest area and traveler information
center facilities on the limited-access freeway system in Michigan
are economically viable. All but one facility exhibited B-C ratios
that exceed 1.0, and the systemwide average B-C ratio for standard
rest areas ranged from 2.73 to 4.06 assuming 7% and 3% discount
rates, respectively. Traveler information centers experienced greater
average B-C ratios that ranged from 4.23 to 5.50 based on 7% and
3% discount rates, respectively.
The economic benefits associated with standard Michigan rest area
facilities were largely based on a combination of the value to patrons
and a reduction of fatigue-related crashes, which were estimated to be
reduced by an average of 2.34 crashes per facility annually over the
40-year life cycle. The estimated annual benefits from crash reduc-
tions alone were nearly enough to offset the annual operation and
maintenance costs for the facilities. Tourism benefits constituted a
major portion of the benefits generated by traveler information cen-
ters. Assuming 40% of the annual tourism expenditures per traveler
information center stay within local communities as wages and prof-
its, annual local benefits of $236,068 and $460,000 are generated per
facility, assuming a 7% and 3% discount rate, respectively. Further,
assuming an overall sales tax recovery rate of 7% on the total increased
tourism spending along with a 7% discount rate, the annual tax rev-
enues on the $590,172 in tourism expenditures per facility were esti-
mated at $41,312. The return on investment for the state of Michigan
is $0.242 per dollar for the $170,228 in annual operation and mainte-
nance costs for each traveler information center. Reductions in excess
travel diversion costs associated with rest areas accounted for only a
small portion of the overall benefits for both types of facilities.
Many economic benefits associated with a facility were calculated
largely on the basis of traffic volumes, and the subsequent B-C ratios
were strongly correlated with facility use. Accordingly, the facili-
ties with the highest economic value included the large, heavily
used facilities. The least economically viable facilities were those
This methodology is transferable to public rest areas outside of
Michigan provided the following assumptions are met:
• The facility is located on the limited-access freeway system.
Rest areas located on non-limited-access roadways were not included
in this methodology.
• The facility includes parking for large vehicles, such as trucks
and recreational vehicles, in addition to passenger vehicle parking.
• Standard rest area facilities include 24-h access to parking and
modern restrooms.
• Traveler information centers are staffed daily during normal
business hours and include printed tourism materials that are free
to the public.
• Although seasonal facilities may be included, the AADT volumes
must be adjusted accordingly to account for the closure period.
• Leased facilities may be included as long as the annual lease
payment is included in the operational cost.
All models and assumptions should be revised on the basis of
local data, if available.
Acknowledgment
Funding for this research was provided by the Michigan Department
of Transportation.
References
  1. Eaves, A. As Some States Close Highway Rest Stops, Others See Roadside
Revenue. Stateline: State Policy and Politics. http://www.stateline.org/
live/details/story?contentId=501568. Accessed Jan. 2011.
  2. Bello, M. States Close Rest Areas to Save Money. USA Today, July
20, 2009. http://www.usatoday.com/travel/2009-07-16-reststop_N.htm.
Accessed Jan. 2011.
Gates, Savolainen, Datta, and Todd
  3. Family Motor Coach Association for Motorhome Owners. http://fmca.
com/motorhome/motorhome-news/2933-rest-areas-falling-to-budget-cuts.
Accessed Jan. 2011.
  4. South Carolina Department of Transportation. http://www.scdot.org/
artman/publish/article_954.shtml. Accessed Jan. 2011.
  5. Restareahistory.org. Rest Areas in the News. http://www.restareahistory.
org/Current.html. Accessed Jan. 2011.
  6. State Closes Rest Stops Despite Protests. Times Union NY, Nov. 1, 2010.
http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/State-closes-rest-stops-despite-
protest-778836.php.
  7. Virginia Department of Transportation. http://www.virginiadot.org/
newsroom/statewide/2009/vdot_finalizes_service_area40566.asp.
Accessed Dec. 2010.
  8. Virginia Department of Transportation. VDOT Reopens First Four Rest
Areas. http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2010/vdot_
reopens_first_four45199.asp. Accessed Dec. 2010.
  9. Euritt, M. A., R. Harrison, and S. Grant. Feasibility of Safety Rest Area
Commercialization in Texas: Final Report. Center for Transportation
Research, University of Texas at Austin; Texas Department of Trans-
portation; FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1992.
10. Kress, E. N., and D. M. Dornbusch. Commercialization of Rest Areas
in California. In Transportation Research Record 1326, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1991, pp. 1–5.
11. Phillips, A. W. M., and M. A. Perfater. Opportunities for the Privatization
of Virginia’s Rest Areas and Traveler Information Centers: Final Report.
Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, 1991.
12. Fitch, G. M., A. Moruza, and M. Perfater. Review of Nonpublic Funding
Options to the Virginia Department of Transportation for the Opera-
tion and Maintenance of Its Safety Rest Areas and Traveler Information
Centers. VCTIR 11-R22. Virginia Transportation Research Council,
Charlottesville, April 2011.
13. Interstate Oasis Program. FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2006-23550. Federal
Register, Vol. 71, No. 201, Oct. 18, 2006. wais.access.gpo.gov. Accessed
Aug. 2011.
14. Dornbusch, D., and J. Ramey. Partnership Strategies for Safety Roadside
Rest Areas. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, Jan.
2009.
15. VDOT Safety Rest Area and Traveler Information Center Sponsorship,
Advertising and Vending Enhancement Program. Request for Proposals
123-ABJ (Revised). Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond,
March 21, 2011.
16. VDOT Announces Public–Private Partnership to Maintain Rest Areas.
Land Line Magazine. http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_news/Daily/
2011/Aug11/082911/083111-06.shtml. Accessed Sept. 2011.
17. Dornbusch Associates. Final Task 5 Report: Strategic Recommendation-
Safety Roadside Rest Area Master Plan. California Department of
Transportation, Sacramento, April 2011.
18. Carson, J., V. Pezoldt, N. Koncz, and K. Obeng-Boampong. Benefits of
Public Roadside Safety Rest Areas in Texas: Technical Report. Texas
Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University System, College Station,
May 2011.
19. King, G. F. NCHRP Report 324: Evaluation of Safety Roadside Rest
Areas. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1989.
20. Vogt, C., and D. Holecek. A Survey of Travel Michigan Traveler Infor-
mation Center Visitors. Michigan Economic Development Corporation,
Lansing, 2010.
21. Gates, T. J., P. T. Savolainen, T. K. Datta, and R. G. Todd. Evaluating
the Appropriate Level of Service for Michigan Rest Areas and Welcome
Centers Considering Safety and Economic Factors. OR10-045. Michigan
Department of Transportation, Lansing, 2012.
22. Blomquist, D., and J. Carson. Rest Area User Survey. Western Transpor-
tation Institute, Bozeman, Mont.; Montana Department of Transportation,
Helena, Dec. 1998.
23. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. Consumer Price
Index, All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), U.S. City Average by Month and
71
Year. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt. Accessed
Jan. 2012.
24. Barnes, G., and P. Langworthy. The Per-Mile Costs of Operating Auto-
mobiles and Trucks. Final report. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis;
Minnesota Department of Transportation, Saint Paul, June 2003.
25. Average Cost for a Gallon of Gasoline in Michigan in January 2012.
http://www.gasbuddy.com. Accessed Jan. 2012.
26. Average Cost for a Gallon of Diesel in Michigan in January 2012. http://
www.truckmiles.com/FuelPrices.asp. Accessed Jan. 2012.
27. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles. http://www.bts.gov/
publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html.
Accessed Jan. 2012.
28. The Value of Travel Time Savings: Departmental Guidance for Conducting
Economic Evaluations, Revision 2. U.S. Department of Transportation,
Sept. 2011.
29. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—September 2011. http://
www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm. Accessed Jan. 2012.
30. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Historical Income
Tables: Households. Table H-6. Regions—by Median and Mean Income.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/.
Accessed Feb. 2012.
31. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. May 2010 National
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. http://www.bls.gov/
oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000. Accessed Jan. 2012.
32. Taylor, W. C., N. Sung, K. Kolody, and A. Jawad. A Study of Highway
Rest Area Characteristics and Fatigue Related Truck Crashes. Michigan
State University, East Lansing, July 1999.
33. SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Interstate Highway Safety Study: Analy-
sis of Vehicle Crashes Related to Safety Rest Area Spacing. Minnesota
Department of Transportation, Saint Paul, July 2007.
34. Banerjee, I., J. Lee, K. Jang, S. Pande, and D. Ragland. Rest Areas:
Reducing Accidents Involving Driver Fatigue. Traffic Safety Center,
University of California, Berkeley; California Department of Transpor-
tation, Sacramento, May 2009.
35. Highway Safety Manual, 1st ed., Vol. 1. AASHTO, Washington, D.C.,
2010.
36. Lord, D., and F. Mannering. The Statistical Analysis of Crash-Frequency
Data: A Review and Assessment of Methodological Alternatives. Trans-
portation Research Part A, Vol. 44, No. 5, 2010, pp. 291–305.
37. McArthur, A., J. Kay, P. T. Savolainen, and T. J. Gates. Effects of Pub-
lic Rest Areas on Fatigue-Related Crashes. In Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2386,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washing-
ton, D.C., 2013, pp. 16–25.
38. Goldman, G., A. Nakazawa, and D. Taylor. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Local
Tourism Development. Western Rural Development Center, Oregon
State University, Corvallis, 1994.
39. Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 104, June 1, 2010.
40. Walsh, T. State Tourism Spending Soars. Detroit Free Press, May 25,
2011. http://www.freep.com/article/20110525/COL06/105250406/
Tom-Walsh-State-tourism-spending-soars.
41. TechBrief: Safety Evaluation of Improved Curve Delineation. FHWA-
HRT-09-046. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2009.
42. Revised Departmental Guidance: Treatment of the Value of Preventing
Fatalities and Injuries in Preparing Economic Analyses—2011 Revision.
U.S. Department of Transportation, July 2011.
The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of
the authors and not necessarily those of the Michigan State Transportation Com-
mission, the Michigan DOT, or FHWA.
The Transportation Economics Committee peer-reviewed this paper.