DST (2018)

[tradephoric]

^Marco Rubio already introduced the Sunshine Protection Act of 2018 to Congress on March 12, 2018.  The bill would repeal the temporary period for daylight saving time found in Section 3 of the Uniform Time Act of 1966.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s2537/text/is

[tradephoric]

Here's a list of 11 states and my rational to why year-round DST would be beneficial to them.  Keep in mind that state legislators in many of these states have already shown support for year-round DST. 

Increases in winter tourism dollars:
Florida
California
South Carolina

Later afternoon sun during the winter:
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Vermont
Maine

Be in SYNC with the rest of the country
Arizona
Hawaii

Do you agree with this list?  Are there any other states that would benefit from year-round DST?  On the flip side, what states would most negatively be impacted by year-round DST?  I would love to hear everyone's thoughts.

[kalvado]

Here's a list of 11 states and my rational to why year-round DST would be beneficial to them.
[...]
Be in SYNC with the rest of the country
Arizona
Hawaii

Can you decipher that?

[NWI_Irish96]

^Marco Rubio already introduced the Sunshine Protection Act of 2018 to Congress on March 12, 2018.  The bill would repeal the temporary period for daylight saving time found in Section 3 of the Uniform Time Act of 1966.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s2537/text/is

Except that year-round DST would be awful for the northern tier of states and also for states that are at the far western edges of their time zone.  It would push winter sunrises obscenely late in the morning.

The better solution is for areas that want year-round DST to get the DOT to move them east one time zone and then stop observing DST.

[vdeane]

Oddly enough, I think it's the northern states that would be most negatively impacted by year-round DST, because we have enough variation in daylight where winter mornings are unacceptably dark on daylight time but summer sunrise is very early with standard time.  Quite frankly, I don't understand why there's suddenly this big push to end changing the clocks.  Did this somehow get harder in recent years?  I don't see how.  I'd hardly call it obsolete, either; while the original energy-saving argument no longer applies, I'd assert that the other benefits the clock changes bring with respect to daylight optimization are worth it.  Plus the idea of it being light out past 5:30 (I consider civil twilight to still be light out) in winter is just plain wrong, and quite frankly, in the northern areas where you're inside all winter unless you like to ski, I don't really see the point.

As I've mentioned, permanent DST mainly benefits morning Larks, and quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of Larks bending the world to suit their whims.  It's bad for my physical and mental health.  I was flirting with the idea of someday changing my hours at work to be 8-4 instead of 8:30-4:30 if I can ever get myself in and out of bed on time consistently (to avoid traffic congestion that gets more annoying every single year), but that won't be possible with year-round DST.  In fact, I'd need to change my hours to 9-5 and have a hellish commute in summer (switching between the two by season isn't an option as that would likely be interpreted as flex time, which is strictly verboten for NYSDOT employees).  State government is already Lark-oriented enough and this would just make that worse.  I'm already having a hard time imagining how I'll keep up this schedule for the next 36 years as it is.  Not to mention the effects on scraping ice, which is hard enough.  Ice scrapers are just plain not effective if the ice is stuck on hard enough.  I've had days where it takes me half an hour or more (though 10 minutes is more common).  Ice scrapers also tend to leave streaks of ice behind unless the sun has mostly melted it anyways.

[kalvado]

Not to mention the effects on scraping ice, which is hard enough.  Ice scrapers are just plain not effective if the ice is stuck on hard enough.  I've had days where it takes me half an hour or more (though 10 minutes is more common).  Ice scrapers also tend to leave streaks of ice behind unless the sun has mostly melted it anyways.

What I do is spraying some tap water on windows. Cold tap water to avoid stress, and half a gallon to a gallon is enough to loosen even worst buildup.

[tradephoric]

The better solution is for areas that want year-round DST to get the DOT to move them east one time zone and then stop observing DST.

It just doesn't seem practical for 11 states to observe standard time (ie. residents never change their clocks) while the other 39 states observe daylight saving time (ie. residents change their clocks two times a year).  Not only would visitors have to know what time zone a state is in, they would have to know if the state observes DST or not.  It's one thing with Arizona and Hawaii being on standard time year-round, but it's just getting too complicated if 9 other states throughout different parts of the country join them.

Even if a state does get approval to change time-zones, what happens if the state doesn't like the change and wants to change back?  They risk the USDOT denying their request to change back, and could be stuck in a time zone they don't want to be in.  Why would a state want to leave that decision up to the federal government?  It will be hung up in committee for years.  Think I'm kidding?  There is a Wikipedia page dedicated to Indiana time.  It took USDOT 2 years to respond to Governor Branigin's petition to place all of Indiana back in the Central Time Zone.  Once you get the federal government involved in anything, it's going to turn into a convoluted mess.

Having the state split in two time zones was inconvenient, however, so Governor Roger D. Branigin petitioned the USDOT to place all of Indiana back in the Central Time Zone a year later.

Over the next two years, the USDOT conducted several hearings in response to Governor Branigan's petition. Citizens of northwest and southwest Indiana appeared to favor the Central Time Zone with observance of DST, while those from other areas of the state favored the Eastern Time Zone with no observance of DST. The USDOT chose to divide Indiana between the Central Time Zone and the Eastern Time Zone. Six counties near Chicago (Lake, Porter, LaPorte, Jasper, Newton, and Starke) and six counties near Evansville (Posey, Vanderburgh, Warrick, Spencer, Gibson, and Pike) were placed in the Central Time Zone with observance of DST. The remainder of the state was placed in the Eastern Time Zone; the state was given special dispensation to exempt parts of itself from DST.

[tradephoric]

I'd hardly call it obsolete, either; while the original energy-saving argument no longer applies, I'd assert that the other benefits the clock changes bring with respect to daylight optimization are worth it.  Plus the idea of it being light out past 5:30 (I consider civil twilight to still be light out) in winter is just plain wrong.

Can you explain how standard time in the winter optimizes daylight?  Standard time is clearly not optimal if daylight optimization is based on minimizing the minutes American's are "˜sleeping in light' during the winter.  Common sense dictates that if there is precious little sunlight during the winter and a lack of sunlight makes people depressed, then sleeping through daylight would not help alleviate their winter depression.   And for many American's people get home from work and it's already pitch dark out.  How does that not sound depressing to you?  It's not surprising that people in Maine wants to move to Atlantic time considering the sun sets there before 4PM during the winter.

[NWI_Irish96]

The better solution is for areas that want year-round DST to get the DOT to move them east one time zone and then stop observing DST.

It just doesn't seem practical for 11 states to observe standard time (ie. residents never change their clocks) while the other 39 states observe daylight saving time (ie. residents change their clocks two times a year).  Not only would visitors have to know what time zone a state is in, they would have to know if the state observes DST or not.  It's one thing with Arizona and Hawaii being on standard time year-round, but it's just getting too complicated if 9 other states throughout different parts of the country join them.

Even if a state does get approval to change time-zones, what happens if the state doesn't like the change and wants to change back?  They risk the USDOT denying their request to change back, and could be stuck in a time zone they don't want to be in.  Why would a state want to leave that decision up to the federal government?  It will be hung up in committee for years.  Think I'm kidding?  There is a Wikipedia page dedicated to Indiana time.  It took USDOT 2 years to respond to Governor Branigin's petition to place all of Indiana back in the Central Time Zone.  Once you get the federal government involved in anything, it's going to turn into a convoluted mess.

Having the state split in two time zones was inconvenient, however, so Governor Roger D. Branigin petitioned the USDOT to place all of Indiana back in the Central Time Zone a year later.

Over the next two years, the USDOT conducted several hearings in response to Governor Branigan's petition. Citizens of northwest and southwest Indiana appeared to favor the Central Time Zone with observance of DST, while those from other areas of the state favored the Eastern Time Zone with no observance of DST. The USDOT chose to divide Indiana between the Central Time Zone and the Eastern Time Zone. Six counties near Chicago (Lake, Porter, LaPorte, Jasper, Newton, and Starke) and six counties near Evansville (Posey, Vanderburgh, Warrick, Spencer, Gibson, and Pike) were placed in the Central Time Zone with observance of DST. The remainder of the state was placed in the Eastern Time Zone; the state was given special dispensation to exempt parts of itself from DST.

So there are two competing priorities, each of which has merits.  The first is that the fewer variances we have from the current norm of DST observance, the easier it is for everybody to understand what time it is everywhere else.  The second is the physical reality that for places that are farther south and/or east in any given time zone, more (or total) DST makes sense and for places that are farther north and/or west in any given time zone, less (or none) DST makes sense.  While both are in the Central Time Zone, more DST makes a lot of sense for Pensacola but is a horrible idea for Bismarck.

[english si]

Can you explain how standard time in the winter optimizes daylight?  Standard time is clearly not optimal if daylight optimization is based on minimizing the minutes American's are "˜sleeping in light' during the winter.

Why do people have to be awake in daylight and asleep when dark? We didn't even do that when we didn't have cheap artificial light!

Common sense dictates that if there is precious little sunlight during the winter and a lack of sunlight makes people depressed, then sleeping through daylight would not help alleviate their winter depression.

Which makes the idiotic anti-science assumption that we can't use sunlight when asleep. That might be 'common', but it's not 'sense' - rather it's 'nonsense'.

SAD is often alleviated by having sun-imitating lamps in the morning as the lack of morning sleeping through daylight in winter is a cause of SAD!

Optimal daylight is something like dawn around 6am and sunset about 8pm - this gives morning sun to allow people to wake up properly, and evening sun to do outdoor activities after work. There isn't enough sun in winter for this, so we sacrifice the economy-boosting evening activities for the health and sanity of the populous by turning the clocks back to Standard Time. In summer there's plenty of sun (I'm watching the streetlights light up at 10 to 9, and they will go off at about 5:15 tomorrow morning) and so we can shift an hour from the morning and put it on the evening - not because morning sun isn't important (it is), but that sun after 6pm is more useful than sun before 6am - just as sun before 7am is more useful than sun after 7pm.

[tradephoric]

Optimal daylight is something like dawn around 6am and sunset about 8pm - this gives morning sun to allow people to wake up properly, and evening sun to do outdoor activities after work. There isn't enough sun in winter for this, so we sacrifice the economy-boosting evening activities for the health and sanity of the populous by turning the clocks back to Standard Time.

During the winter, dawn begins in Bangor, Maine at 6:35AM and dusk ends at 4:30PM.  If what you say is true - that the optimum dawn is around 6AM and that we are willing to sacrifice evening outdoor activities during the winter so that people can wake up properly - then why has Maine's legislator essentially approve a move to Atlantic time?  The only reason it hasn't changed time zones yet is because the legislation is contingent on other Atlantic states joining them in the move.  I just think there is a larger contingency of people who prefer later sunsets during the winter than you are acknowledging (the people in Maine and Massachusetts being a prime example).   

[CNGL-Leudimin]

Arizona already observes year-round standard time.

And due to that, should Big Rig Steve drive through that state while DST is in force elsewhere (like now), I'd state my forum time is "Pacific" instead of "Mountain" which AZ uses year-round. Steve hasn't moved from Central for over a week now, though.

[tradephoric]

The second is the physical reality that for places that are farther south and/or east in any given time zone, more (or total) DST makes sense and for places that are farther north and/or west in any given time zone, less (or none) DST makes sense.  While both are in the Central Time Zone, more DST makes a lot of sense for Pensacola but is a horrible idea for Bismarck.

I love diving into specific examples like this.  Currently during the winter, dawn in Pensacola begins at 6:15AM and dusk ends at 5:19PM.  With year-round DST, dawn would begin at 7:15AM and dusk would end at 6:19PM.  I don't think many people in Pensacola would complain about an extra hour of sunlight during the winter evenings, especially considering Pensacola relies heavily on tourist dollars in the winter.  And dawn beginning at 7:15AM really doesn't sound excessively late. 

Currently dawn in Bismarck during the winter begins at 7:49AM and dusk ends at 5:32PM.  With year-round DST, dawn would begin at 8:49AM and dusk would end at 6:32PM.  If given the option to run year-round standard time or year-round DST, I think North Dakota may decide to run year-round standard time.  But we leave it in the state's hands to decide what is best for it.  Honestly nobody is complaining about the dawn/dusk times in Bismarck during the summer.  During DST dawn begins at 5:09AM and dusk ends at 10:20PM.  Would people of Bismarck really care that much if they went to standard time in the summer and dawn began at 4:09AM and dusk ended at 9:20PM in the summer?   That's still plenty of evening sunshine.  See under the current system states only decide whether DST makes sense for them during the summer.  If they also now must consider how year-round DST would affect the dawn/dusk times during the winter, they may choose to get rid of DST altogether and just stick with standard time year-round.  It would sort itself out.

[jp the roadgeek]

If you're going to change the Northeast to AST/permanent DST/UTC-4, it would make sense for all of the major metro areas to join in on it.  If you draw a hard line at the CT/NY border, you would have a major cf for commuters taking Metro-North and/or commuting to and from NYC. You'd have to change time zones going to and from work.  Leave at 8 AM in CT, get to work at 8 AM in NY.  Then on the way home, leave work at 5 in NY, get home to CT and it's already 7:00.  And it would be hard for those who travel between Boston/New York/Philly/DC.  The time zone line should pass in an area west of these areas; essentially along or just west of I-81, then curving around through VA south of the DC area and meeting the VA/NC border just west of the Richmond area and following it to the coast. 

[english si]

If what you say is true - that the optimum dawn is around 6AM and that we are willing to sacrifice evening outdoor activities during the winter so that people can wake up properly - then why has Maine's legislator essentially approve a move to Atlantic time?

The House's 'only if New Hampshire and Mass do it' clause is designed to give it the impression of wanting to do it, while pushing the actual decision to places further west (and thus more reluctant).

The Senate's amendment about a referendum is a handy buck pass too 'well you the people voted for it, so you can't blame us for you not knowing that there is something more depressing than 4pm sunsets: 8am sunrises!' if they vote in favour of the bill and by some disaster the obstacles others have put up have been overcome and Maine moves to AST. That the two legislatures did different wrecking amendments gives another obstacle of their own making to stop them having to actually go through with it, while still looking as if they are on the case wrt the problem of dark evenings in winter.

So while their collective wisdom is pandering to idiots who think a few minutes of light after work is going to mean they get to do all sorts of outdoor activities after work in winter (and those who, like some of the reps voting in favour seem to think from the press clippings I've gleaned*, believe this will increasing the length of daylight experienced) in order to get votes, they won't have to deal with voters turning on them for changing the clocks as it won't happen.

Add in that the legislatures passed it knowing full well that Governor Page views it as "insane", that its supporters need a "therapy session" and that he will certainly veto the bill, with there not being enough support for an override. It's very clear that any vote in favour of the bill was done in the knowledge that they would not be held responsible for any of the negative effects as it would not be enacted (even before we get to the Federal level) - it's all politics and not policy.

*eg bill co-sponsor Kathleen Dillingham "It also is to address health benefits that an extra hour of usable daylight can provide." - how is twilight from 6:30-7:30am not usable if you are finishing work early enough that twilight from 4:30-5:30 is? It's again this bollocks that you can't use sun before work, and especially not when asleep despite the science saying otherwise.

[tradephoric]

Add in that the legislatures passed it knowing full well that Governor Page views it as "insane", that its supporters need a "therapy session" and that he will certainly veto the bill, with there not being enough support for an override. It's very clear that any vote in favour of the bill was done in the knowledge that they would not be held responsible for any of the negative effects as it would not be enacted (even before we get to the Federal level) - it's all politics and not policy.

What about the Florida legislator passing the Sunshine Protection Act?  Governor Rick Scott already signed it on March 9, 2018 and the issue is now going to the US Congress.  I guess if the Florida legislator felt like Rick Scott would veto the bill, they were mistaken.  You really don't think the US Congress would amend the Uniform Time Act again?  They just amended it in 2005 under Bush, so I think anything is possible.   

[vdeane]

What english si said.  I suspect most supporters of year-round DST haven't wholly thought through the implications of the change and, given the way many Americans are, I wouldn't be surprised if some people really did think that the amount of daylight would get longer simply because sunset would be later!

It doesn't help that America tends to value economic activity above all else, so if there's even a tiny chance that people will be spending more money due to it, legislatures will be for it.

[tradephoric]

It doesn't help that America tends to value economic activity above all else, so if there's even a tiny chance that people will be spending more money due to it, legislatures will be for it.

This Merica!

I wouldn't be surprised if some people really did think that the amount of daylight would get longer simply because sunset would be later!

It's too confusing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4EUTMPuvHo&t=60s

[mrsman]

California is pushing for year-round DST. 

Last year, the California Legislature passed a bipartisan resolution asking Congress to approve a third option for states – permanent daylight saving time. South Bay Congressman Ro Khanna is now spearheading that effort in Washington, D.C.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/05/daylight-saving-time-is-here-to-stay-in-california/

Florida is pushing for year-round DST.

Lawmakers in Florida are tired of the whole "fall back" and "spring forward" rigamarole. So they've approved a bill to keep Daylight Saving Time going throughout the year in their state.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/07/us/florida-year-round-daylight-saving-time-trnd/index.html

Maine is pushing to change to Atlantic Time (which would effectively be the same as Eastern time w/year-round DST).

LD 203 would exempt Maine from federal provisions observing Eastern daylight saving time for eight months of the year and move Maine to the Atlantic Standard Time Zone year-round. Practically speaking, that would put Maine an hour ahead of other eastern states, into the time zone shared by Puerto Rico and Canada's maritime provinces, for part of the year.
http://bangordailynews.com/2017/04/27/politics/maine-house-supports-time-zone-switch-dumping-daylight-saving-time/

Massachusetts is pushing to change to Atlantic Time (which would effectively be the same as Eastern time w/year-round DST):

In their final report released this past week, a special state commission recommended that Massachusetts switch time zones "under certain circumstances,"  effectively adopting daylight saving time all year round. The move – which would have the Bay State join Nova Scotia, Puerto Rico, and others in Atlantic Standard Time – would come with costs and benefits.
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2017/11/05/new-england-atlantic-time-zone

South Carolina wants to put the issue to the voters:

South Carolina lawmakers say they want to hear from voters about whether to observe year-round daylight saving time.

The referendum would ask voters if they want to end spring forward and fall back and observe year-round daylight saving time. If the bill is approved, lawmakers would send a joint resolution to Congress requesting a change depending on what the voters decide in November.
https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/future-of-daylight-saving-time-may-go-to-south-carolina/article_334bcac8-48a2-11e8-b19c-5374dd6266ac.html

Louisiana lawmakers consider ending DST; one option being going to year-round DST:

Rep. Mark Wright of Covington presented a proposal to the House Commerce Committee Tuesday that would create a task force to study the impacts of Daylight Saving Time. That proposal was passed favorably to the House floor. Wright and the proposal's author, Rep. Julie Stokes, feel the change in hours is unhealthy and can even lead to injury.

Wright says there are two options for how the adjustment would work. Louisiana would either fall back an hour and stay on that time year-round. This is what Arizona and Hawaii do. Or, the state could stay on Daylight Saving Time (the current time) year-round. Wright says the latter option may be better because Louisianans actually spend most of the year on that time.
http://www.wafb.com/story/38086267/la-lawmakers-consider-getting-rid-of-daylight-saving-time

Arizona already observes year-round standard time. 

Hawaii already observes year-round standard time.

What's complicated about this, as has already been pointed out, is that states can choose whether or not to observe DST, but the USDOT determines which time zone any county or state is in, and Congress decides the time frame of DST for those who choose to observe it.  States can't actually choose to observe year-round DST, they would have to have the USDOT agree to move them east one time zone and then decide not to observe DST.

One thing to consider is that as of now, standard time is only slightly more than 4 months a year (or 1/3 of the year).  So the majority of the year is already at DST.  It would then seem appropriate that if the changing of the clocks were fully abandoned, it would not be missed.  Most places will probably shift their time to being towards summer time (especially eastern ends of the current time zone), but those on the western end will probably stay on winter time.

So Maine will move to Eastern Daylight Time / Atlantic Standard Time.  And Arizona will continue to be at Pacific Daylight Time / Mountain Standard Time.

So end the time change.  The whole country will be at fixed time.  Then move the boundaries of the time zones as appropriate to fit the needs of the population.

And once the time is set, then we can change the time of activities in our lives.  If the new time has dark mornings until 8:30 am, then make the schools start later.  In this day and age, we aren't tied in to specific times for most things.

[hbelkins]

I suspect most supporters of year-round DST haven't wholly thought through the implications of the change...

I can think of no negative implications, especially as it personally concerns me.

[oscar]

And once the time is set, then we can change the time of activities in our lives.  If the new time has dark mornings until 8:30 am, then make the schools start later.  In this day and age, we aren't tied in to specific times for most things.

We are for a lot of important things. Work schedules, for one. Good luck changing school hours, only to have the new hours conflict with parents' unchanged work schedules.

Daylight savings time effectively automatically changes all schedules, a lot easier than changing them one by one.

[webny99]

I suspect most supporters of year-round DST haven't wholly thought through the implications of the change...

I can think of no negative implications, especially as it personally concerns me.

You must be able to wake up at or after 8:30 year round. Not all of us have that luxury.

[vdeane]

And once the time is set, then we can change the time of activities in our lives.  If the new time has dark mornings until 8:30 am, then make the schools start later.  In this day and age, we aren't tied in to specific times for most things.

We are for a lot of important things. Work schedules, for one. Good luck changing school hours, only to have the new hours conflict with parents' unchanged work schedules.

Daylight savings time effectively automatically changes all schedules, a lot easier than changing them one by one.

Especially since schools would have already changed thanks to research showing that teenagers are naturally night owls.  They don't because of concerns regarding activities and intersections with parent schedules.  Workplaces are also very resistant to changing their schedules.

[kphoger]

In this day and age, we aren't tied in to specific times for most things.

I believe that solar noon should be as close to 12:00 as possible.  In theory, I believe that, if our work and school and leisure schedules don't conform nicely to solar noon being close to 12:00, then we should change our schedules rather than shift 12:00 to something other than solar noon.  After all, there's nothing inherently difficult about waking up at 5 AM or going to sleep at 9 PM; it's only difficult for many of us because of what the sun is doing around those times.  In theory, I believe this.  In theory.

BUT.  Even in this day and age, we most certainly are tied in to specific times for most things.  At least I am, and so are most of the people I know.  Work starts at a specific time, school starts and ends at specific times, church starts at a specific time, the bus stops running at a specific time, the grocery store opens and the bank closes at specific times, etc, etc, etc.  And all those times are related to each other:  the bus stops running because most people are off work, the store doesn't open earlier because most people haven't gotten up yet, church starts at a time appropriate to its ending in time for lunch, and so on.  You can't just up and decide to get up at 11 AM and go to bed at 3 AM if you have a day job and kids in school.  Not that anyone suggested that, of course, but it's just as impossible for most of us to adjust our schedule by even one hour.

[mrsman]

And once the time is set, then we can change the time of activities in our lives.  If the new time has dark mornings until 8:30 am, then make the schools start later.  In this day and age, we aren't tied in to specific times for most things.

We are for a lot of important things. Work schedules, for one. Good luck changing school hours, only to have the new hours conflict with parents' unchanged work schedules.

Daylight savings time effectively automatically changes all schedules, a lot easier than changing them one by one.

Especially since schools would have already changed thanks to research showing that teenagers are naturally night owls.  They don't because of concerns regarding activities and intersections with parent schedules.  Workplaces are also very resistant to changing their schedules.

While there are many jobs with fixed schedules like retail and factory many knowledge base jobs allow for flexible schedules.  Where I currently work, so long as you work core hours of 10 - 3, you can work any shift that gives you 8 hours plus 30 minutes for lunch.   So I can work any schedule from 6:30 - 3 to 10 - 6:30.  Many jobs allow you to work extra hours to allow for additional flexibility like alternate Fridays off and maybe telecommuting. 

Again the discussion amounts to adjusting time by an hour, not having people disrupt their schedule completely.

Wrt school, I don't see how any working adult can accommodate drop off and pick up on the same day.  If the school day is 8:30 - 3 and your commute is 30 minutes, you only have time for 5.5 hours of work.  You need to share the responsibility with a spouse or a neighbor.