Current stage
Benson I-10 × SR-90 Logistics-Land
Control the land. Build the rear-yard demand. Two ways out.
This is a worked example at the I-10 × SR-90 node near Benson. On a ~20-acre site, a controlled truck-and-trailer yard prices at roughly $12–$15/night; at ~70% occupancy that is about $386K–$483K of stabilized NOI — a 14–17% yield on cost that clears a 12% return floor on the yard alone. There are two exits: sell the whole stabilized parking-and-storage asset, or split the highway frontage to a fuel/operator and sell the parking separately. The first move is validating the market; once the parcel is controlled, the held land earns as trailer/IOS parking until a buyer commits.
Deal economics at a glance
Where the money is — two exits
The yard is built owner-direct and stabilized as a controlled truck-and-trailer operation. Once it cash-flows, there are two ways to exit, and the market picks the better one at the time, on the broker’s recommendation:
| Exit | What you sell | Why it works |
|---|---|---|
| 1 — Sell the whole asset | The entire stabilized parking-and-storage operation as a single income property | A fully-leased IOS asset is what an institutional or 1031 buyer wants; cleanest story, and as one asset it can price a little stronger |
| 2 — Split the frontage | The ~5-acre highway frontage to a fuel/operator, and the parking separately | Captures an operator-pad premium on the frontage on top of the yard’s income value |
Illustrative planning figures from the validation model, not a projection of return. Values rest on achieving the rate and occupancy below; the exit cap is the market’s call. A point estimate would be false precision — the output is a range.
The whole thing turns on the nightly rate, which is the variable you can actually validate. At a $12–$15/night band and ~70% occupancy, the yard clears a 12% return floor on its own — across the entire band, not just at the top:
| Rate | Stabilized NOI | Yield on cost | 12% floor | Yard gain @ 9% cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $12 / night (floor) | ~$386K | 13.7% | clears | ~$1.31M |
| $14 / night (mid) | ~$451K | 16.0% | clears | ~$2.00M |
| $15 / night (top) | ~$483K | 17.2% | clears | ~$2.34M |
Revenue math (base $14/night): 180 spaces × $14/night × 365 nights × 70% occupancy = ~$644K gross; less 30% operating expense = ~$451K NOI. Sale values are net of a 4% cost of sale.
The demand bar is lower than it looks. At the $14 mid-case the yard clears the 12% floor at ~52% occupancy and breaks even on a 9% sale at ~41%; even at the $12 floor of the band those thresholds are ~61% and ~48%. So the 70% assumption carries meaningful cushion across the band, subject to validating actual demand, surface cost, access, and operating expense. And while the frontage waits for an operator, it runs as trailer/IOS parking: the held land earns, it does not just carry.
| Metric | Figure | Read |
|---|---|---|
| Direct total development cost (yard incl. land) | ~$2.81M | Owner-direct — preferred path |
| GC retail cost | ~$4.85M | Stress / reference case; weakens economics |
| Stabilized NOI ($12–$15/night, 70% occ) | ~$386–483K | Controlled yard only |
| Yield on cost | ~14–17% | Clears the 12% floor without any land credit |
| Yard income value @ 9% cap | ~$4.1–5.2M | Exit 1 — NOI ÷ 9% (~$4.3–5.4M) less 4% cost of sale |
| Yard sale gain | ~$1.3–2.3M | Value less ~$2.81M cost |
| Frontage out-parcel (5 ac) | ~$0.5M gain | Exit 2 — ~$0.6M value less ~$0.15M basis |
| Two-year gross gain | ~$1.8–2.8M | Yard + frontage, before carry |
Both exits above are income-based. They sit under a potential higher one: a full travel-center operator buying the site and pricing it on the operating business — captured fuel gallons, inside sales, showers, food — not on a cap rate. That is a structurally higher ceiling. I-10 at this interchange carries several thousand trucks/day past the existing Love’s — to be confirmed against current ADOT counts — enough for a second operator to split. The 180 trucks parked nightly add a captive fueling base on top of highway capture. That operator value is set by the volume case, not quantified here, so it sits as upside rather than in the gross-gain range above. Operators want about 25 acres for the full format and will take about 20. So the broker target is a ~25-acre site or assemblage, which also enlarges the yard and operator economics beyond the ~20-acre example modeled here.
Known validation items
These are diligence items, not unknowns being glossed — each is a normal validation step behind site control, before material spend:
| Item | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Access / driveway approval | Truck-yard viability depends on ingress/egress to the frontage road and ADOT coordination |
| Turning geometry on the selected parcel | A long-narrow parcel can lose usable acreage to circulation; shape drives the stall count |
| Zoning / permitted use | Yard, IOS, fuel, repair, and septic/restroom uses may be treated differently |
| Water / sewer / septic | Relevant once restroom, repair, or operator/fuel use is in play |
| Drainage / retention | Geotech and percolation; caliche may require drywells or controlled-release outfall |
| Dust, lighting, security | Standard paid-yard scope; gravel-yard dust control can carry permitting/neighbor conditions |
| Operator interest | The operator-exit case strengthens materially with 3–5 real operator calls or LOI targets |
| Demand (rate × occupancy) | The single highest-leverage item: confirm ~$12–$15/night at ~70% at this node |
What is being asked
A staged ask — market first, parcel second, capital third
This is a pre-validation package. The current ask funds the market screen and the right broker and operator conversations — not construction, and not site control. Site-control and diligence capital is a later, separate step, sized to the parcel once it is selected.
Market validation
Operator and broker calls, rate and occupancy validation, a parcel screen, and a proforma refresh — desk work and field checks, not third-party reports.
Site control + diligence
Once the parcel and ownership path are set: option or PSA, title and legal, survey, geotech, civil ROM, and zoning, access, and utility confirmation. Sized to the selected parcel.
No build capital
Not construction capital, not final engineering, and not a final operator commitment at this stage.
Advance only if it survives
Each phase advances only if access, soils, grading, rate, occupancy, operator interest, and cost survive validation.
Order of work
Market first, then site control
The first commercial question is not construction and not full diligence spending. It is whether the Benson I-10 × SR-90 node supports a paid truck-parking, IOS, and operator-pad opportunity at all. If the market screen survives, the next step is selecting the preferred parcel and ownership path and sizing the site-control and diligence budget around that parcel — for example 12311001U, shown here as a worked example. Control becomes worth funding only once the node, the parcel, and the terms line up.
| Step | Decision |
|---|---|
| 1 | Confirm the market screen — node demand, rate, occupancy, and operator interest support a paid truck-parking / IOS / operator-pad use. |
| 2 | Select the preferred parcel and ownership path; size the site-control and diligence budget around that parcel. |
| 3 | Secure property control — option, purchase contract with due-diligence period, ground lease, or phased takedown. |
| 4 | Confirm civil / geotech scope and validate site layout once a control path is realistic. |
| 5 | Update budget and proforma; decide whether to exercise, assign, ground lease, JV, or hold for operator pad. |
| 6 | Bring in construction capital only after market, site control, and validation survive. |
Representative conceptual site plan
A phased truck-service platform
| Zone | Acres | Function |
|---|---|---|
| Frontage operator pad | ~5.0 | Sold or ground-leased out-parcel — fuel, diesel, convenience, truck-service, repair, or operator use (Exit 2) |
| Controlled truck-and-trailer yard | ~10.0 | Initial use: truck parking, trailer drop / IOS staging, fleet parking, detention, and demand generation |
| Support / utility / IOS overflow | ~4.94 | Utilities, generator, restroom/septic service, overflow detention, and IOS expansion — usable functional land, not a separate sale |
On the example parcel, a ~20-acre site is treated as a phased truck-service platform. The frontage along the parcel’s primary road — the Tucson-Benson Highway on this example, ~0.8 mi from the I-10 × SR-90 interchange — is reserved for the higher-value operator use. The rear area runs first as a controlled truck-and-trailer yard, which creates cash flow and manufactures demand evidence for the frontage operator. Drainage is folded into the yard, and the support land stays usable as IOS and overflow rather than sitting idle. Acreage and frontage vary by the parcel the developer selects.
Profit Model
Underwrite the yard first
The first underwriting case is a controlled truck-and-trailer yard because it is the simplest cash-flow use to validate. The project is not yet presented as a final truck plaza or fuel development. The purpose of the initial yard is to test parking, staging, fleet, and IOS demand while preserving the frontage for a future operator pad.
These cases assume a control path on the parcel is in hand or in reach; the spending that confirms them is staged behind site control (see Market first, then site control).
| Case | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Initial yard-only case | Tests whether controlled parking / staging can carry the initial project |
| Seeded operator-pad case | Tests whether the yard increases the value and attractiveness of the frontage pad |
The budget model compares two delivery paths: conventional GC retail and owner-direct procurement with construction management. Direct procurement assumes the sponsor buys major components directly where practical: aggregate/base, fencing, lighting, gate systems, generator, restroom/septic service, security, and site components. The purpose is to show whether the project remains inside the required NOI-to-cost screen after real civil and operating costs are validated.
The opportunity
The model runs two procurement cases: owner-direct as the preferred case and conventional GC retail as the stress case. In the preferred case, owner-direct reduces modeled development cost by roughly 40–45% (about $2.0M) versus the GC-retail stress case, and at a $12–$15/night rate the yard clears the 12% return floor on its own — with the frontage operator pad as additional upside on top. Illustrative planning figures from the validation workbook; not a projection of return. Open the workbook to see the build.
Frontage optionality
The frontage is the upside — and it earns while it waits
Under Exit 2, the ~5-acre highway frontage sells separately as an operator out-parcel. The rear yard creates a busy truck base on the property, which de-risks that frontage for a truck-plaza, fuel, diesel, service, convenience, or operator partner — an operator buys proven demand, not raw dirt. Critically, the frontage and the support land are not idle carry: until a buyer commits, they run as trailer drop and IOS staging, so the held land generates income rather than just sitting on the cost line. The remaining support land is functional — utilities, detention, and IOS overflow folded into the operation — not a separate third sale.
| Scenario | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Low bulk-land value | Conservative land-credit case |
| Mid operator-pad value | Frontage pad has value because of location and yard-generated demand |
| High frontage / utility-ready value | Stronger case if access, utilities, zoning, and operator demand support a commercial pad |
Signals
Why this node
Drivers already stop here
I-10 carries 34,308 vehicles/day past this interchange; Love’s + motels already show truck-service and overnight-stop behavior at the node.
Constraint = opportunity
Only 155 public truck-parking spaces across 9 sites within ~100 miles — a thin public supply for a corridor of this volume. Love’s occupancy is a validation item.
19.94 acres, clean screen
Example parcel 12311001U: ~19.94 ac, about 0.8 miles from the interchange, clean mapped flood screen, no mapped hydric soil. The broker presents the candidates; the developer selects the final site.
Validate the market first
Confirm the node’s demand, rate, and operator interest first; then select a parcel, secure a control path, and fund the validation that confirms soil, grading, cost, zoning, and access.
Development thesis
The yard is the first use, not the only use
Benson is not an abstract map opportunity. It is an existing I-10 truck-service node with a visible constraint and a nearby demand anchor.
The Love’s and motel cluster confirm that drivers already stop at this interchange. I-10 and SR-90 create the corridor movement. Tucson, roughly 35–40 miles west, is the larger distribution, freight, load-unload, repair, and service market. Benson can function as the lower-friction staging and overnight point before or after Tucson.
The working thesis is not merely “truck parking.” The first phase is a controlled truck-and-trailer yard because that is the simplest use to validate and monetize. But the yard is also a demand generator. By placing controlled parking and fleet/trailer staging behind the frontage pad, the project can create visible truck activity, repeat users, operating data, and demand evidence before a fuel, truck-service, convenience, repair, or operator partner commits to the front of the site.
Demand evidence
The rate is observed, not assumed
The nightly rate is the deal’s key variable, so it should rest on data, not a guess. Three figures back it — corridor volume, thin supply, and live in-corridor pricing — which makes the $12–$15/night case the conclusion of a demand argument, not an input to it.
| # | Fact | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Corridor volume. I-10 at this interchange carries 34,308 vehicles/day (average daily traffic, 2024); SR-90 carries 10,827. I-10 is a primary national freight corridor linking Southern California to Texas and the Southeast. | ADOT traffic counts |
| 2 | Supply is documented-thin. Only 155 public truck-parking spaces across 9 sites within ~100 miles. That is a strong undersupply signal for a corridor of this volume, and the existing Love’s at the interchange runs constrained. | FHWA Jason’s Law survey / BTS national inventory |
| 3 | Rate is observed in-corridor. Paid truck-and-trailer parking already lists in this I-10 corridor at $12–$20/night, clustering at $12–$15, with live availability and active bookings. The model sits in the middle of what the corridor charges today — one lot is already at $20. | Truck Parking Club marketplace |
Live corridor rate comps
Actual paid listings in the I-10 Tucson–Benson corridor, pulled from the Truck Parking Club marketplace:
| Listing | Nightly | Monthly | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| I-10 lot — Truck + Trailer | $14 | $150 | 5.0★, 10 reviews |
| I-10 lot — Truck + Trailer | $15 | $200 | 4.7★ |
| I-10 lot — Truck | $12 | $140 | live availability |
| Tucson — Truck + Trailer | $20 | — | 5.0★, 10+ bookings |
Live listing screenshots from the Truck Parking Club marketplace in the I-10 Tucson–Benson corridor. Tap any listing to enlarge.
Occupancy — observed at the node
Rate is backed; occupancy is the other half of the case. Trucker Path’s driver reports and fill predictions for the lots at and around this interchange give a direct read. These are crowd-reported bands (Full / Many / Some) and an app prediction rather than a metered count — but they are the live behavior at the node, not an assumption about it.
At the interchange, Love’s #460 (AZ-90) predicts Usually Full at its overnight peak — Monday and Tuesday nights run full from roughly 8pm past midnight — while driver reports tighten to “Some” overnight and ease to “Many” by mid-morning. Its parking scores 2.6/5 across 500+ reviews: an overcrowded free lot drivers use because the alternative is no spot at all.
Trucker Path reads at and around the interchange — driver reports and logged history. Tap any shot to enlarge.
The lots around it read the same way, and add the part that sets the price — drivers here already pay to park:
| Corridor stop | Spaces | Live read |
|---|---|---|
| Love’s #460 — Benson (SR-90 / Exit 302) | ~85 free | Predicts Usually Full overnight |
| Vail Steakhouse — I-10 Exit 279 | small | Full recent, then Many |
| Triple T — Tucson, I-10 Exit 268 | 300 | Many → paid-only after 4pm |
| Pilot #1178 — Tucson, I-10 Exit 273 | 9 | Full |
| Pilot #593 — Tucson | 15 | Full, paid-only |
| Pilot #609 — Eloy, I-10 Exit 208A | 228 | Many, paid-only |
Two reads in that table carry the weight: the small free lots show Full, and the branded stops flip to paid-only overnight. A corridor that has already trained drivers to pay for a place to park is the willingness-to-pay assumption under the $12–$15/night — observed, not asserted. And because the fill concentrates in the evening and overnight windows, the 70% stabilized figure sits as an average beneath peaks that already reach capacity.
Driver behavior favors this kind of site. A Class 8 driver near an hours-of-service limit will not thread a 70-foot rig through city streets — the preference is to pull off the interstate, park, and roll. That favors an interstate-adjacent rural yard at this node over in-town lots. It speaks to product type and access fit, not to an occupancy figure.
The capture needed is small. The yard needs about 126 paid trucks a night (180 spaces at 70%) to clear its return floor — a small capture against 34,308 vehicles/day on I-10 and a 100-mile public inventory of just 155 spaces.
Where this still needs work: Trucker Path reports bands and a prediction, not a metered occupancy count, and the reads cluster on free lots — a reservable interstate-frontage yard is a cleaner product than any of them. A metered occupancy figure and the truck-specific share of the 34,308-vehicle/day count remain validation items. What has moved is the direction: the node fills at night, and the corridor already pays to park.
Example parcel
An example — the broker presents, the developer selects
iVerify surfaces several suitable parcels at this node; the one below is a worked example, not a committed site. The broker presents and recommends candidates on frontage, shape, size, utilities, and ownership terms, and the developer selects the actual parcel and assemblage — for instance 12311001U (~19.94 ac, long and narrow) versus 12311001W (~29.18 ac, closer to the interchange and more rectangular, which lays out a yard more efficiently).
| Item | Example screen (12311001U) |
|---|---|
| Owner | Carillion Realty Corp |
| Total area | 19.94 acres |
| Approx. dimensions | 540′ × 1,722′ (long and narrow) |
| Location | North side of I-10, Tucson-Benson Hwy corridor; ~0.8 mi to I-10 × SR-90 (Exit 302) |
| Mapped floodway | 0% |
| Mapped AE / AH floodplain | 0% / 0% |
| Mapped hydric soil | 0% |
| Dominant soils | Sasabe 74.2% / Bodecker 25.8% |
| Parcel relief | 28.8 ft |
| To be verified | Road frontage, utilities, zoning, flood depth (BFE) |
This parcel is not being presented as fully engineered. It is being presented as a strong candidate parcel. The preliminary screen is favorable: adequate gross acreage, close interchange proximity, clean mapped floodway and AE/AH screen, no mapped hydric soil, and parcel-level relief that appears manageable for a developer-grade grading review. The next work is normal validation: geotech, grading ROM, zoning, owner terms, access/driveway confirmation, utility confirmation, and operator/rate validation.
Soils and grading
A desert-alluvial grading question, not a blasting question
The central engineering question is not whether trucks can reach the interchange. The central question is whether Sasabe / Bodecker soils and the parcel grade can support an economical truck-yard surface section.
| Soil | Parcel share | Plain-English read |
|---|---|---|
| Sasabe | 74.2% | Very deep, well-drained fan-alluvium soil; validate clay content, compaction, plasticity, and surface performance |
| Bodecker | 25.8% | Very deep, excessively drained sandy/gravelly alluvial soil; validate gradation, compaction, drainage, and base design |
Validation tests
| Test | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Test pits / borings | Confirm actual soil, caliche, rock, clay lenses, loose alluvium |
| Proctor density | Confirm compaction behavior |
| Plasticity index | Identify clay / shrink-swell / pumping risk |
| R-value or CBR | Support pavement / aggregate-base design |
| Gradation | Determine reuse of on-site material |
| Soluble salts / sulfate | Relevant if cement treatment or concrete is used |
| Cut/fill estimate | Confirm whether grading can balance on site |
| Surface-section ROM | Compare gravel, aggregate base, millings, cement-treated base, asphalt-at-throat, or hybrid section |
This does not read as a rock/blasting thesis from the mapped soil names. It reads as a desert alluvial grading and surface-section question. The validation package converts that question into geotech, civil ROM, and local contractor pricing.
Phase 2 · site control + diligence
After the market screen: control the parcel, then buy the evidence
This is Phase 2 work. After the market screen survives and a preferred parcel and ownership path are identified, validation spending follows an acceptable option / PSA / ground-lease path. Once the site can be tied up, this budget buys the evidence needed before construction equity is exposed.
| Item | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Developer site sketch | Establish phased site logic |
| Civil ROM | Grade, drainage, entrance, detention, surface section |
| Geotech allowance | Confirm soil performance and base design |
| Rate comps | Validate the $12–$15/night rate band against local demand |
| Operator calls | Test yard, fleet, trailer, IOS, fuel, and service demand |
| Zoning confirmation | Confirm permitted-use path |
| Owner contact | Option, PSA, ground lease, phased takedown, or pad structure |
| Utility check | Power, water, septic/restroom service, generator, lighting, telecom |
| Updated proforma | Confirm whether the project still clears the return screen |
The candidate advances only if site control, validation, and economics all remain inside the screen.
Powered by iVerify Patent Pending
Benson is the example. iVerify is the system.
iVerify converts corridor, parcel, freight, carrier, flood, soil, elevation, traffic, lodging, and logistics data into developer-grade site-origination packets. The value is not the public data alone. The value is the integration, scoring, interpretation, and action path from corridor screen to parcel shortlist to validation budget.
| Raw data | iVerify output |
|---|---|
| Traffic counts | Corridor demand signal |
| FMCSA carrier records | Local carrier / trailer / power-unit demand |
| Public truck-parking inventory | Supply constraint signal |
| Parcels | Owner / size / value / geometry review |
| FEMA flood | Buildable-footprint screen |
| NRCS soils | Soil / grading risk screen |
| USGS elevation | Relief and civil-cost signal |
| Lodging / truck services | Overnight-stop and service-node signal |
| Logistics / warehouse layers | Market context |
| Broker tool | Parcel shortlist and action list |
The site shows outputs, report samples, screenshots, parcel facts, and method summary. Raw database tables, full carrier exports, scoring weights, schema, and repeatable extraction logic are not exposed. iVerify is presented as a patent-pending developer-led corridor screening and site-origination system.
Backup Documents
Backup, on request
iVerify Report 23
Full technical screen: traffic, parcels, flood, soils, topo, carriers, lodging, truck-service context, broker tools.
Investor Brochure
Investor / validation packet — current model, nightly-rate and two-exit story.
Excel Validation Budget
Direct procurement vs. GC retail, land optionality, economics, validation budget.
Conceptual Master Site Plan
Phased plan with frontage operator pad, rear controlled yard, support / utility / drainage reserve.
North Star Group / iVerify
Developer-led method
North Star Group is a developer-led systems and real estate platform focused on practical site origination, development strategy, infrastructure, and applied AI tools. iVerify is North Star’s corridor-screening and parcel-origination system for freight, IOS, truck-service, and logistics-land opportunities.
Michael Hoffman is the principal of North Star Group, Inc. His background includes real estate development, systems integration, and invention work, with issued patents and pending housing / site-screening concepts. The Benson package reflects a developer-led method: screen the corridor, isolate candidate parcels, identify the demand signal, prepare a validation budget, and advance only if the economics survive real-world checks.
Contact
Michael Hoffman
North Star Group, Inc.
Fairhope, Alabama
701-770-9118
michaelh@nsgia.com
www.nsgia.com
This is a pre-validation screening package. Construction capital, final site control, final engineering, and final operator structure are not being requested at this stage.