WWW.POLLHOST.COM:

    Will the year 2007
    be a great year?
    Yes
    Maybe
    No
      
-->

Archives:

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Highway Service Centres:

This is a post that I have always forgotten to post up. This random thought of mine popped up one day when I was driving on the I-90 interstate of New York State, but I am sure this thought can apply to any American interstate or Canadian highway.

How many of you ever wished the service centre you stopped at for gas or a quick meal does not have the food service you want, but the one located across the highway has the food service you want?

This happened to me several times, especially when I prefer Mr. Sub over Wendy's and it has made me wonder why the most logical solution has not ever been proposed. I remember a while ago, there was a pedestrian bridge from the east bound service center crossing the I-90 to the west bound service center, but that idea is not what I had in mind.

I think service centres should be built between the east bound and west bound section of the highway. Now this would actually make a service centre centred. I like this idea, why? Use up less land for commercial development, greater profit margin due to potential for double revenue than having two service centres located on the opposite sides serving the same purpose.

Hope this post was not too pointless for you...

7 comments:

Buzzair said...

eh? there's no room. You have to build an off ramp so the highway doesn't get backed up, large parking spaces, room for the buildings and gas pumps...and so on.

The amount of room between the east bound and west bound highways are just wide enough to fit a cop car waiting to bust ya.

Now the pedestrian idea is a good one.

mplaing said...

Yes, there is no room now that no one came up with that idea.

If they built areas where parts of the median was wide enough to accmodate service centres, that would have been no problem.
--
oneninefive

Buzzair said...

Just thought of this...the State owns the highways. The state wants more resturants so they can charge more tax.

The state would want two resturants on each side paying taxes instead of just one in the middle paying.

Brandon said...

I'm sure if theres some kind of tax, it should be linked to some form of revenue or profit, or if its property tax, it should be linked to the size of property or the location of the establishment. In this case, larger property in more strategical location should be levied with heftier tax than single restauratnt on both sides... either way the state won't lose out...

bg0ur3

Buzzair said...

If we're talking about single resturants, then corporations like McDonalds would not build if they are forced to have to build a bigger place and pay more taxes just so that the State won't lose out after Laing becomes the State highway engineer

natech said...

I'm sure there is a good reason why they didn't build one in the middle. Otherwise, they'd build it a long ago. I believe you cannot have an exit ramp on the left side, only on the right, so this is probably why they can't build something in the middle. Just my guess.

Brandon said...

I've seen several exit ramps in USA and Canada that exits on the left side...

this should be an interesting research... laing, you started this so get going and invesigate why your idea has not happened yet :)...

bg0ur3