Highway rest areas play a vital, if often overlooked, role in the US transport system. Designed to offer comfort, safety, and fatigue relief to road users, especially long-haul truck drivers, rest areas are scattered across the highway network, providing facilities such as toilets, parking, picnic tables, and tourist information. In total, over 2,000 rest areas are operated by state departments of transportation, or DOTs, in the US, often at considerable cost. There are also several thousands of rest areas in Europe, depending on the definition used for rest areas.

To keep these facilities running, agencies typically rely on one of three operational strategies. The first is to use an in-house workforce, where the state employs its own staff and resources to maintain and operate each site. Alternatively, DOTs/agencies can outsource the work through one of two contracting approaches: method-based contracting, MBC, or performance-based contracting, PBC.

Each of these strategies has its advantages. In-house operations give states full control over their facilities and are often ideal for urgent or small-scale tasks, such as snow removal. MBC allows the state to direct the contractor on how and when to perform specific tasks, while PBC shifts the focus toward end results, giving contractors more flexibility in exchange for greater responsibility.

However, operating costs can vary widely between these approaches, and in recent years, budget pressures have made those differences harder to ignore. Faced with financial constraints, many states have closed large numbers of rest areas, citing unsustainable costs.

Today, closures have occurred in at least 19 states in the US, often leaving commercial drivers with fewer safe places to stop and rest – ultimately increasing the risk of accidents on the road. While some DOTs have turned to commercialisation or alternative funding strategies, others have focused on finding the most cost-effective operating model. Until now, however, there has been little data offering a direct comparison between all three strategies.

Through his research, Kishor Shrestha has carried out the most comprehensive cost comparison to date across the three primary operating strategies for rest areas. Out of the three, his analysis reveals that method-based contracting consistently delivers the lowest average annual cost. These findings not only clarify which approach offers the best value but also provide transportation officials with the evidence they need to make more financially sustainable decisions.

In method-based contracting in the US, state DOTs retain control over how work is carried out: issuing detailed instructions on what tasks need to be done, when they should be performed, and the specific standards and materials to be used. Contractors are selected through competitive bidding, typically with the lowest qualified bidder securing the contract.

Through his analysis. Shrestha shows how this approach can provide a clear framework for accountability and quality assurance, while avoiding the higher administrative costs and risk premiums associated with performance-based models.

In contrast, performance-based contracting focuses more broadly on outcomes than the procedures required to achieve them. While it can promote innovation and potentially higher service quality, it also shifts financial and operational risks from the DOT to the contractor, and often involves more complex oversight. According to Shrestha, this added flexibility and responsibility comes at a higher cost, making it less attractive for routine operations at regular rest areas.

In-house workforce approaches, meanwhile, remain a viable option for many DOTs – especially for short-term or urgent maintenance work. However, these operations can carry higher fixed costs, including salaries and pensions for workers, and higher equipment investments. Outsourcing through MBC can reduce these overheads, making it easier for states to maintain services even when budgets tighten.

Importantly, Shrestha’s study doesn’t only look at individual rest area costs – it also groups cost data into ‘samples’ that represent typical operating patterns within a given state and year. By comparing both individual and sample-level data, the study ensures that conclusions aren’t skewed by outlier rest areas with unique or unusual characteristics, offering a more robust basis for decision-making.

While the evidence for MBC’s cost-effectiveness is clear, Shrestha cautions against applying the findings indiscriminately. His study focused exclusively on regular rest areas, the most common type, with consistent features such as similar square footage, staffing levels, and visitor numbers. Two other facility types, welcome centres and seasonal rest areas, were not included, as their operational characteristics can differ significantly.

However, if DOTs have sufficient data to normalise those differences, such as adjusting for square footage, staffing, and annual usage, then the cost comparisons may still hold. Even so, applying these findings to non-standard facilities should be performed with care. These considerations are particularly important when planning long-term contracts or assessing whether to shift from in-house to outsourced operations.

Shrestha’s research comes at a crucial time for state transportation agencies, many of which are still struggling to balance rising maintenance costs with public service demands. The study’s findings offer a practical, evidence-based strategy for reducing expenditures, without compromising service: to adopt method-based contracting as the default for regular rest areas.

By grounding his analysis in real-world data from 29 states in the US, Shrestha provides transportation engineers and policymakers with a compelling case for rethinking how rest areas are operated. With budget constraints unlikely to ease any time soon, these insights could prove instrumental in shaping more sustainable, cost-conscious practices across the US and European highway system.

In turn, DOTs could be better placed to avoid facility closures and extending the lifespan of existing infrastructure. By keeping more rest areas open for truck drivers and other motorists, the guidance offered by Shrestha’s could ultimately ensure that the US highway network remains safer and more comfortable to use.

Looking ahead, this research opens the door for broader international collaborations, particularly with researchers and transportation agencies across Europe, the United States, and beyond, where rest area operations also present ongoing challenges. By engaging in global partnerships and tapping into future research funding opportunities, these studies can be expanded to address diverse operational models and regional needs. Such efforts will not only enrich the scientific community but also help transportation agencies worldwide make smarter, data-driven decisions. Ultimately, this collaborative approach can lead to more efficient spending of taxpayer funds, improve service delivery, and minimize costly highway rest area closures, ensuring that rest area facilities remain safe, accessible, and efficient for the traveling public everywhere.