News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Should Las Vegas switch to Mountain Time and drop DST?

Started by Pink Jazz, January 09, 2015, 11:52:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Pink Jazz

Las Vegas is on the eastern edge of the Pacific Time Zone.  In the winter, this creates the unfortunate situation of the sun setting around 4:30 PM, which is quite a bit early.  I personally think Las Vegas would be better off moving to Mountain Time and dropping DST.  This would put Las Vegas in sync with Arizona year-round, where the observed time would be in line with the rest of the Mountain Time Zone in the winter, but would be in line with Pacific Daylight Time in the summer.  Just as this seems to work well for much of Arizona's climate, I think Las Vegas would benefit similarly.

What does anyone here think?


corco

http://www.city-data.com/forum/las-vegas/1497773-should-las-vegas-switch-mountain-time.html

Arizona is confusing enough by bucking the DST trend, I don't support expanding that unless we're doing it nationally, in which case I support it. Given that Vegas is closely tied to California, it should remain on Pacific time.

dfwtbear


SP Cook

No, Las Vegas should be in the Pacific time zone as it is today.   


jeffandnicole

Nearly everyone in the eastern part of a time zone experiences winter darkness starting about 430. The alternative is not having sunlight in the morning till 8 or 830. 

02 Park Ave

The State of Utah is considering abandoning DST.

I wish New Jersey would.
C-o-H

1995hoo

Quote from: dfwtbear on January 10, 2015, 12:19:27 AM
I think the whole US should be on DST all year.

Ugh, no thanks. It's hard enough getting up in the morning when the sun rises at 7:25 on standard time. If we were on DST then, the sun would rise closer to 8:30. That's way too late.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

vtk

Wait, it's all Ohio? Always has been.

rschen7754

An awful lot of people come from Southern California to Las Vegas, so it would probably be better to keep them on the same time zone...

Scott5114

#9
Quote from: rschen7754 on January 10, 2015, 01:49:22 PM
An awful lot of people come from Southern California to Las Vegas, so it would probably be better to keep them on the same time zone...

Exactly. Having a time change thrown in there would make things harder on the service workers in Las Vegas who would have to deal with California visitors not taking the time change into account when they schedule things in Vegas. ("What do you mean, I'm an hour late? I said I wanted tickets to the 7pm show! It's 7pm, look at my watch! You're not being very helpful.")

Anyone who doubts this would occur has never worked with the public. (I had someone come up to the counter yesterday and ask me what the name of the casino was. The casino is helpfully named after the town it is in and has several signs with the name in large friendly letters above the main entrances. It is also printed in 16-point font on each ticket printed by the slot machines.)
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

JMoses24

#10
No, it should stay where it is. Unfortunately, the 4:30 PM sunset isn't a unique problem to Vegas. I have a few friends in Massachusetts and Rhode Island and the sunset there is around the same time. In fact, in December, it's often around 4:15!

02 Park Ave

If Nevada switched to Mountain time AND abandoned DST, there would only be a time difference with CA during the winter months.
C-o-H

Pink Jazz

Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 10, 2015, 08:19:06 PM
If Nevada switched to Mountain time AND abandoned DST, there would only be a time difference with CA during the winter months.

That is my whole point.  In the summer Las Vegas is fine where it is in terms of daylight, but in the winter I think the city would benefit if sunsets were an hour later.

kkt

No, having the time be the same as it is in L.A. is more important than whether it's daylight or nighttime outside.

Days are shorter in winter.  DST is a reasonable way to deal with it, so it gets light by 7:30 for the morning commute.

english si

Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 09, 2015, 11:52:14 PMthe sun setting around 4:30 PM, which is quite a bit early.
Currently it's around 4pm here, but the 8am sunrises are not 'quite a bit early' during the week - I'd hate to think of the increased accidents with the sun doing 9-5 in mid-winter. I'm quite far south, Scotland has a good half-hour less (today the sun has been up for 36 minutes, not the 1h12 it has in London and it sets about the same time), if not more.
Quote from: dfwtbear on January 10, 2015, 12:19:27 AMI think the whole US should be on DST all year.
You do realise it doesn't save daylight, don't you? You don't get more light? We get people spouting such nonsense when they want the clocks changed to DST year round (or even CET with DST) assuming that making the evening rush hour light (which it wouldn't do in mid-winter) it won't make the morning rush hour darker (and schools are typically 9-3, so instead of both journeys being in the light, one will be in the dark).

DST is great in summer, in northern latitudes at least, because who needs 4am (and earlier) sunrises? Better to have 8pm sunsets become 9pm ones and outdoors opens up to use after work for longer. It sucks in early spring (the European switchover date is about right) as the mornings don't have enough sun to steal and give the evenings at that point. Late fall (the European switchover is about 4 weeks too late, and whose dumbass idea was it for the 7 months of DST not to be ~3.5 months either side of midsummer. I know that the year isn't symmetrical, but it's no way that lopsided!) is likewise bad, and winter is absurd for trying to shift the time later.

GaryV

Quote from: dfwtbear on January 10, 2015, 12:19:27 AM
I think the whole US should be on DST all year.
Nixon tried that to "save energy".  It didn't work.  The sun came up so late in the winter that everyone had to have the lights on when schools and businesses opened - and then forgot to turn them off.

There was a great editorial cartoon at the time.  Nixon said something like, "Boys and girls, here's how to make a blanket warmer.  We cut a foot off this end, and then sew it onto the other end.  This is called Daylight Saving Time."

Duke87

Quote from: vtk on January 10, 2015, 10:04:03 AM
Everyone should switch to Universal Time

This is a very interesting idea but I feel like there is one critical drawback - this is great for times but horrible for dates. For most people a day ends when we go to sleep and the next one begins when we wake up. Keeping track of dates therefore is usually dependent on the date changing while most people are asleep or at least not conducting business.

The trouble with just using UTC is that for people in the far west and far east, the date would change in the middle of the day. This would then lead to tons of confusion and missed appointments because when someone says "meet me at 01:00 on January 20th" it will have been January 19th when both of those people woke up and either one of them is liable to mistakenly think their meeting is tomorrow. 
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

cary737

Vegas will never change to MT!  The fact is LV is a convention city.  Being on a different time zone from CA, ( a state with 36 million people and probably the #1 state in booking conventions), will lose a ton of business!  Indianapolis used to never change for DST and found they lost a ton of conventions, and in turn, abandoned it!  It would be a big mistake for Vegas to do so now IMHO!


iPad

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 10, 2015, 09:58:17 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 10, 2015, 08:19:06 PM
If Nevada switched to Mountain time AND abandoned DST, there would only be a time difference with CA during the winter months.

That is my whole point.  In the summer Las Vegas is fine where it is in terms of daylight, but in the winter I think the city would benefit if sunsets were an hour later.

In which way?  And how much of Nevada would you want to convert to non-DST? 

You have plenty of people that live in the Vegas area, and as I pointed above, they would suffer in the morning with a much later sunrise.

Scott5114

Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 10, 2015, 09:58:17 PM
That is my whole point.  In the summer Las Vegas is fine where it is in terms of daylight, but in the winter I think the city would benefit if sunsets were an hour later.

How would they benefit? Keep in mind that most casinos are intentionally designed with no windows so that gamblers lose track of time and to remove the temptation to leave to enjoy the daylight.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Pink Jazz

Quote from: kkt on January 11, 2015, 12:50:48 AM
No, having the time be the same as it is in L.A. is more important than whether it's daylight or nighttime outside.


More important to Californians, not to locals.  If I lived in Las Vegas I would much prefer winter sunsets to be an hour later, and I wouldn't be surprised if most Las Vegas locals would as well.

kkt

Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 11, 2015, 07:35:24 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 11, 2015, 12:50:48 AM
No, having the time be the same as it is in L.A. is more important than whether it's daylight or nighttime outside.


More important to Californians, not to locals.  If I lived in Las Vegas I would much prefer winter sunsets to be an hour later, and I wouldn't be surprised if most Las Vegas locals would as well.

Important to locals who have jobs that depend on tourists and convention visitors, i.e. most of them.

Pink Jazz

#22
Quote from: kkt on January 11, 2015, 07:44:21 PM

Important to locals who have jobs that depend on tourists and convention visitors, i.e. most of them.

What about the tourists from Arizona?  Not all Las Vegas tourists are from California.  In fact, the I-11 corridor has long been in the planning and is considered to be a future vital link from Phoenix to Las Vegas.  If the Arizona tourists were not important then I-11 would have never even been thought of.

And without DST, the observed time in Las Vegas would only be different from California for part of the year (the winter).  Most of the year Las Vegas would remain the same time as California.

corco

Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 11, 2015, 07:47:36 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 11, 2015, 07:44:21 PM

Important to locals who have jobs that depend on tourists and convention visitors, i.e. most of them.

What about the tourists from Arizona?  Not all Las Vegas tourists are from California.  In fact, the I-11 corridor has long been in the planning and is considered to be a future vital link from Phoenix to Las Vegas.  If the Arizona tourists were not important then I-11 would have never even been thought of.

And without DST, the observed time in Las Vegas would only be different from California for part of the year (the winter).  Most of the year Las Vegas would remain the same time as California.

Uh...

1) Arizona tourists are important, and they can still be important without overlooking the fact that something like 65% of Las Vegas's tourist revenue comes from California. The Arizona share still matters, but it's nowhere near that, and certainly you wouldn't change from California time to Arizona time just because of that share.

2) I-11 is not just for Las Vegas, the reason the feds want to fund large portions of it is to connect Mexico to Salt Lake and the ports in the Northwest that ship things to Asia. Arizona and Nevada would be footing more of the bill if it was just to connect Phoenix to Las Vegas.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 11, 2015, 07:35:24 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 11, 2015, 12:50:48 AM
No, having the time be the same as it is in L.A. is more important than whether it's daylight or nighttime outside.


More important to Californians, not to locals.  If I lived in Las Vegas I would much prefer winter sunsets to be an hour later, and I wouldn't be surprised if most Las Vegas locals would as well.

This seems to be a very general guess what hundreds of thousands would like to have.  Again - would those same people like the sun rising at 7am or 8am?  Would those locals want their kids walking to school in darkness?  Would golfers want to wait another hour before they can play golf? 



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.