You can replace shoddy equipment and you can renovate a building, but there's no remedy for a bad location. Your self-service wash will always suffer in an inferior location.

Many self serves are developed by "gut feeling," and some of these have been successful. But by considering a few closely connected geographical and economic elements, you can lower the risk of failure and increase the likelihood the wash will be successful.

There is a difference between a location and a site. A location is the area in which a wash will be located; the site is the land on which it will be built.

Location and site analysis are both key to determining the feasibility of a self-serve operation. Think of location ratings as macro analysis and site ratings as micro analysis.

Among the physical and geographical elements of a location that need to be studied are its boundaries, arterials, inventory of land and land usage, regulatory issues and growth vectors. You also need to consider the patterns and linkages impacting the location -the road system, transportation network, employment centers, retail centers, customer bases, utilities, neighboring uses and competing uses.

The economic elements to rate include population, employment, income, real estate prices, value of housing, growth trends, demand potential and neighborhood.

Specific site analysis includes the following elements:

 Customer access - curb cuts, median or divider, side of street, corner location

 Land - size of site, frontage, utilities available, depth, topography

 Regulatory issues - zoning, signs, setbacks, building codes, other restrictions.

A proper site analysis is thorough and methodical. You measure the potential success of a site and compare it to alternative sites.

This method involves assigning a measure of priority to each of the elements considered, setting up a qualitative measure for each item, and deriving a rating for each one.

After all the elements have been rated, the total can be used to evaluate the merits of a single location and site or to compare alternative locations and sites.

This system involves a degree of flexibility, since the qualitative ranking and evaluation of the results can be highly subjective.

To use the system, assume that each element can have a maximum weighting of 10, and that the highest level of quality for each element is 10.

From your assessment of the importance of an element, assign each a weighting between 1 and 10. Next, assign a number between 1 and 10 to the quality of each element, based upon your judgment of what the optimal level of that element would be. Multiply the two to get a rating.

You determine the weight to be assigned to each element, and you can add other elements if appropriate.

What's the norm for each of the elements? You can use the "Ideal location ratings" chart as a guide to the ideal standard.

The following chart illustrates a sample rating system for a potential self-serve location.

Linkages
Road system 10 x 5 = 50
Retail 5 x 7 = 35
Utilities 10 x 10 = 100
Neighboring uses 7 x 3 = 21

Linkage total = 206

Patterns/trends
Land Usage 8 x 4 = 32
Regulatory 5 x 5 = 25
Growth vectors 5 x 7 = 35

Pattern total = 92

Demand/supply
Population 10 x 9 = 90
Competition 10 x 3 = 30
Housing 10 x 6 = 60

Demand/supply total = 180

Location total = 478

This location achieved an overall score of 478, or 59.7 percent of the perfect score of 800. A good score ("passing," if you will) would be about 75 percent or higher. Remember, however, that this is a somewhat subjective analysis, so be sure to consider your ratings carefully before rejecting or choosing a location.

The site analysis, a detailed look at the actual piece of ground upon which the self-serve might be built, follows the same structure as the location analysis.

An "Ideal site ratings" chart can help you decide on what's "normal." The following chart illustrates a sample rating for a potential self-serve site.

Access
Curb cuts 10 x 10 = 100
Median/divider 10 x 8 = 80
Corner location 10 x 5 = 50
Side of street 7 x 7 = 49

Access total = 279

Land
Size of site 8 x 8 = 64
Frontage 9 x 9 = 81
Utilities 10 x 10 = 100
Configuration 5 x 8 = 40
Depth 8 x 8 = 64
Drainage 6 x 7 = 42

Land total = 391

Regulatory
Zoning factors 5 x 5 = 25
Building codes 4 x 10 = 40
Signage 10 x 9 = 90
Stacking requirements 8 x 10 = 80
Reclaim system req'd 4 x 9 = 36

Regulatory total = 271

Site total = 941

A perfect score would be 1,140. This site posted an overall score of 941 out of a possible 1,140, or 82.5 percent. That's a higher rating than most sites would achieve and indicates a site that's probably be worth pursuing.

This rating system will not always make for clear-cut choices. A location may score low while a site within that location scores high.

The ultimate decision could be influenced by other factors that have not been addressed in these charts:

 How far is the site from your home?

 How is the local labor market?

 Is the land cost reasonable?

A matrix of performance standards can be developed to reduce the amount of subjectivity in the analysis. For example, looking at linkages, access and land, you can assign a numerical value in the form of a quality rating comparing the relationship of the actual to the ideal.

The following chart is an example of what might be expected of eight of the elements:

Linkages
Road system
Speed limits 30 mph 45 mph worse 3
Traffic volume 25,000 19,000 worse 6
Number of lanes 4 2 worse 6

Retail
Fast food 2+ (1,000') 3 better 10

Utilities to the site Yes equal 10

Access
Corner
Mid-block worse 7

Median/divider None None equal 10

Land
Size of site 150' x 200'
175' x 250' better 10

Following a similar procedure with each item will lead to a comprehensive and detailed analysis. Your final decision may still be subjective, but it will be based on many careful assessments rather than on a single, sweeping "gut" reaction.

You're committed to building a self-service carwash and have narrowed your search to two possible sites in two separate locations. You've studied our location-and-site-rating system. Which will you choose?

Site A, at Main Street and 1^st Avenue, is located on the southeast corner of the lighted intersection. It will have three curb cuts into the site - one from Main Street, one from 1^st Avenue and a cut from the newly opened convenience store located adjacent to the site. This is the only retail near the site.

There are two new apartment complexes within one mile of the site, one having 250 units, the other 300. Other residential neighborhoods are just beginning to appear.

Growth of the area is moving toward the site. Population within three miles is 17,000.

Main Street has a 45 mph speed limit. The traffic count is 18,000 cars per day and there are four lanes with a middle turn lane.

Central sewer and water is 500 feet away and must be extended to the site. A reclaim system is required to treat 50 percent of the wash water.

The site has 200 feet of frontage along Main Street and is 150 feet deep. An eight-year-old self serve is located 3-1/2 miles from the site. The closest fast food, a McDonaldís, is 1-1/2 miles away.

Building codes are very restrictive in this part of the county. The property will need to be rezoned - a six-month ordeal.

Site B is in the middle of the block of a highly developed retail thoroughfare, US Highway 41. Traffic count is 40,000 with four lanes of traffic on a major arterial. Speed limit is 30 mph.

There is a median in front of the site, but a median cut almost in front of the site allows cars to cross over and enter the site. However, there is no stacking lane for this turning maneuver.

A large, new mini-storage facility is adjacent to the site. A large sign can be positioned at the entrance. Fast food locations are within 600 feet, as is the closest signalized intersection. A remodeled C-store is also within 600 feet.

There are many other compatible retail uses, all within 1,000 feet of the site on both sides of the arterial. Competition is also close by: a 10-year-old self serve within a half-mile, a C-store rollover within a half-mile and a new full serve 1-1/2 miles away.

Central sewer and water is at the site and no reclaim is necessary.

The population within two miles is 50,000. Four apartment complexes are less than a mile from the site, with an average of 300 units in each. Other well-established residential neighborhoods are within one mile of the site.

Site size is 150 feet of frontage by 250 feet deep. Two large curb cuts from the main arterial can be positioned at each end of the site.

Which did you pick?

For a comprehensive analysis, compare the two sites using the location and site rating matrices. The results of this analysis are illustrated in the comparison charts.

From the chart it seems both these sites may have merit for development of a new self-serve wash. However, after going through the comparison of the ratings you can see that Site B would be the favored one.

If there are other elements you feel are important, you can add them when doing your ratings.

Remember - these ratings should be used as a flexible methodology in the analysis of site investigations.

For more information, please go to www.carwash.com, click on the "archives" icon and use the following keyword in an article search: self-serve.