America the Mostly Beautiful

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

I'm sure Boulder City's blue laws helped the situation, but it wouldn't have turned into the destination that it was if every state had its own Las Vegas.

Covington, Kentucky; Atlantic City, and even Memphis and New Orleans are going, "Huh?" at your suggestion.

With the possible exception of Atlantic City, I want to say gaming was brought to all of these places following Las Vegas's example. Yes, just about every state has gambling now, either legitimately or through tribal gaming, but Las Vegas still dominates because it was built into the gaming mecca that it is now during the period where you couldn't have set something like that up any other place.

So Las Vegas had legal gambling in the 1800s?  Mark Twain would like to hear this.

[Scott5114]

Riverboat gambling was something different. Wasn't that not so much legal as just being impossible to shut down because of the fact that the boat was essentially operating in a no man's land between two states?

In any event, it's splitting hairs. A Mississippi riverboat doesn't compare to an entire town built around facilitating the pastime.

[hbelkins]

Riverboat gambling was something different. Wasn't that not so much legal as just being impossible to shut down because of the fact that the boat was essentially operating in a no man's land between two states?

In any event, it's splitting hairs. A Mississippi riverboat doesn't compare to an entire town built around facilitating the pastime.

This just begs me to re-tell one of my favorite stories.

Kentucky is, of course, famous for horse racing, and the parimutuel betting that accompanies it.

When Illinois approved riverboat gambling a couple of decades ago, one of the first casinos was built at Metropolis, across the river from Paducah. Remember that Kentucky controls the Ohio River up to the low-water mark on the north side of the river as it existed in 1792 when we separated from Virginia and became a state. This does not give an Illinois-based boat a lot of room in which to operate. The attorney general of Kentucky at the time issued a threat to Illinois that legal action would be forthcoming if the boat strayed into Kentucky's waters because, and I try to quote as accurately as memory will allow, "We don't allow gambling in Kentucky."

[agentsteel53]

anything's better than suburban blight.

That's not suburban blight - that's blight created by two state government agencies kow-towing to private owners of real estate in the middle of nowhere.

I did not mean Breezewood specifically.  I just figured that a google search for Breezewood would give me the type of image that I was looking for.  that "six-lane arterial, with mile after mile of horseshit to prop up the consumerist culture" can be found anywhere.

I note that the photo is not the perfect example.  I mean fewer gas stations and motels, and more car dealers, Walmarts, Home Depots, strip malls, Walmarts, etc.  we all know what it looks like; I just can't find a good photo online because I don't know a perfect search term for it.

[Mr_Northside]

I did not mean Breezewood specifically.  I just figured that a google search for Breezewood would give me the type of image that I was looking for.  that "six-lane arterial, with mile after mile of horseshit to prop up the consumerist culture" can be found anywhere.

I note that the photo is not the perfect example.  I mean fewer gas stations and motels, and more car dealers, Walmarts, Home Depots, strip malls, Walmarts, etc.  we all know what it looks like; I just can't find a good photo online because I don't know a perfect search term for it.

I don't know that the picture depicts mile-after-mile.  It's really only about 1 mile of shit.  The mountainous wilderness in the background also looks un-sprawl like.

I guess I'm just voicing my opinion that a picture of Breezewood is actually a horrible example of "Suburban Blight". 

[hbelkins]

Does this picture make my Breezewood look bigger? 

[NE2]

Yay for unfettered capitalism.

[agentsteel53]

I don't know that the picture depicts mile-after-mile.  It's really only about 1 mile of shit.  The mountainous wilderness in the background also looks un-sprawl like.

I guess I'm just voicing my opinion that a picture of Breezewood is actually a horrible example of "Suburban Blight".

I feel like it was good enough to get the point across, but you are right - a better photo would be appreciated. 

anyone got some photos of crap?

[Alps]

I don't know that the picture depicts mile-after-mile.  It's really only about 1 mile of shit.  The mountainous wilderness in the background also looks un-sprawl like.

I guess I'm just voicing my opinion that a picture of Breezewood is actually a horrible example of "Suburban Blight".

I feel like it was good enough to get the point across, but you are right - a better photo would be appreciated. 

anyone got some photos of crap?

Next time I poo, I'll inbox you.

[cjk374]

Does this picture make my Breezewood look bigger? 

I've been on this site for a couple of years & have read lots of posts talking about "the Breezewood situation".  I have been lost as to the meaning of the situation.  Now I think I see what y'all mean.  Is that REALLY I-70 going thru a suburban area as a non-divided interstate highway??      

[Alps]

I've been on this site for a couple of years & have read lots of posts talking about "the Breezewood situation".  I have been lost as to the meaning of the situation.  Now I think I see what y'all mean.  Is that REALLY I-70 going thru a suburban area as a non-divided interstate highway??      

It's in the "MTR FAQs" on roadfan.com, but briefly - I-70 gets onto I-76 at an interchange that was built for US 30. It is possible and relatively simple to direct connect the two, but the established businesses at Breezewood by that point all complained and successfully blocked the direct ramps. In order to make I-70 a continuous route, it therefore has to follow US 30 from its terminus to the I-76 interchange. "To Breezewood," instead of meaning "putting an Interstate on surface roads," means "to have two freeways interchange using surface streets."

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

The places in my mind that should not be large cities are Las Vegas and Phoenix.  Not enough water to support the population

There actually /is/ enough.  The problem comes in with all the snowbirds who want to have a pretty green lawn like they had back home, thus they're wasting copious amounts of water trying to make a place into something it's not.  Seriously, people, lawns are not for the desert...if you want a lawn, MOVE BACK EAST.

[J N Winkler]

The general rule of thumb is that the water allocations in a given area find the highest-value uses over time, with municipal tap water ranking higher in the value hierarchy than agricultural uses such as irrigation and stock watering.  This means that if there is enough available water in the area to farm, it is not "about to run out of water" in any real sense.  Thanks to Carl Hayden and the US taxpayer, Arizona has the Central Arizona Project and I believe it is still the case that agriculture is the dominant user of the water it supplies.  If I were looking for an area in the US which was most likely to suffer a "water crunch," it would not be in Arizona but rather in eastern Colorado, where investments in the water supply infrastructure have not kept up with rising salinity and recent unfavorable court decisions regarding water allocation between Colorado and Kansas, with the result that municipal water users are slowly squeezing out agricultural users.

My concern with living in Arizona has more to do with energy supply.  Phoenix and Tucson are both heavily dependent on HVAC and it is arguable that neither would have experienced their rapid growth in the mid- to late twentieth century without refrigeration technology (current population of Phoenix is 1.4 million; population in 1920 was just 30,000).  HVAC in central and southern Arizona is largely refrigeration, so it is very electricity-dependent.  If the carbon cost of electricity rises steeply without corresponding investments in cutting electricity consumption or reducing the carbon intensity of the electricity supply, then energy alone could drive a steep spike in the cost of living in those two cities.

If I had to live in a HVAC-dependent part of the country (which includes pretty much everywhere except northern California) and wanted to hedge against escalation in energy costs, I would probably go for an area that needs heating in winter more than it needs A/C in the summer, on the basis that with current technology and approaches to building construction, it is easier to keep a house passively warm than it is to keep it passively cool.

[triplemultiplex]

Yeah the Colorado River fails to reach the Gulf of California because it's water is used to turn the Imperial Valley from a 130 degree wasteland into a lush agricultural cornucopia.  More so than Vegas casino fountains and golf courses.  (I still think those are both stupid uses of water in a desert, though.)

[hbelkins]

If I had to live in a HVAC-dependent part of the country (which includes pretty much everywhere except northern California) and wanted to hedge against escalation in energy costs, I would probably go for an area that needs heating in winter more than it needs A/C in the summer, on the basis that with current technology and approaches to building construction, it is easier to keep a house passively warm than it is to keep it passively cool.

My electricity bill disagrees with you.

[J N Winkler]

My electricity bill disagrees with you.

Are you using electricity for heat?

[Brandon]

If I had to live in a HVAC-dependent part of the country (which includes pretty much everywhere except northern California) and wanted to hedge against escalation in energy costs, I would probably go for an area that needs heating in winter more than it needs A/C in the summer, on the basis that with current technology and approaches to building construction, it is easier to keep a house passively warm than it is to keep it passively cool.

My electricity bill disagrees with you.

My gas bill feels all the better for it.

[hbelkins]

My electricity bill disagrees with you.

Are you using electricity for heat?

Yes. No natural gas service here, but when I had natural gas it was very expensive too.

[J N Winkler]

Are you using electricity for heat?

Yes. No natural gas service here, but when I had natural gas it was very expensive too.

Then it sounds like the underlying problem is that energy is expensive in general, so the only way to cut your outgoings on energy for climatization would be to live in a house designed to Passivhaus standards, or something approaching them, so that either no or only a very small amount of energy would be required to maintain a comfortable indoor temperature.

It doesn't surprise me that electricity for heating is expensive in your area.  Aside from transmission and distribution costs, which I suspect contribute a larger share of the cost in your area than in Kansas and other cheap-energy states, electricity introduces load profile issues.  That means you pay more for enough generating capacity to ensure that the lights stay on at times of maximum demand of electricity for heating (e.g., cold snaps).  I don't like electricity for home heating because (1) it is thermodynamically inefficient and (2) it can lead to widespread blackouts, as happened in Britain during the winters of 1947-48 and 1948-49.

[agentsteel53]

"To Breezewood," instead of meaning "putting an Interstate on surface roads," means "to have two freeways interchange using surface streets."

is that really the definition?  here I thought it was the first - because one cannot drive I-70 in its entirety without taking the surface streets.

would I-5 at CA-56 be a partial Breezewood, since several of the turns require surface streets?

[Duke87]

Are you using electricity for heat?

Yes. No natural gas service here, but when I had natural gas it was very expensive too.

Then it sounds like the underlying problem is that energy is expensive in general, so the only way to cut your outgoings on energy for climatization would be to live in a house designed to Passivhaus standards, or something approaching them, so that either no or only a very small amount of energy would be required to maintain a comfortable indoor temperature.

It doesn't surprise me that electricity for heating is expensive in your area.  Aside from transmission and distribution costs, which I suspect contribute a larger share of the cost in your area than in Kansas and other cheap-energy states, electricity introduces load profile issues.  That means you pay more for enough generating capacity to ensure that the lights stay on at times of maximum demand of electricity for heating (e.g., cold snaps).  I don't like electricity for home heating because (1) it is thermodynamically inefficient and (2) it can lead to widespread blackouts, as happened in Britain during the winters of 1947-48 and 1948-49.

The problem is with electric resistive heat. If you get a heat pump it's much more efficient (uses about 60% less electricity). And you use the same equipment to cool in the summer, so it's two investments in one.

As for grid capacity issues, unless you live somewhere like Alaska, the highest demand peaks will occur during the hottest days of the summer, never in the winter. Almost everyone uses electricity for cooling, but comparatively few buildings use it for heating. Places that do not have access to gas mains usually either get gas delivered to a tank or use oil (currently the former is much cheaper).
Note that the British problems you cite occurred before air conditioning was commonplace. In those days electric heating would have absolutely strained the grid, but not today.

[J N Winkler]

The problem is with electric resistive heat. If you get a heat pump it's much more efficient (uses about 60% less electricity). And you use the same equipment to cool in the summer, so it's two investments in one.

All of that is true--but some caveats have to be noted:  coefficient of performance drops the wider the temperature difference between "inside" and "outside" gets; in extreme cold resistive heating is preferred to minimize wear and tear on the heat pump.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump

As for grid capacity issues, unless you live somewhere like Alaska, the highest demand peaks will occur during the hottest days of the summer, never in the winter. Almost everyone uses electricity for cooling, but comparatively few buildings use it for heating.  [. . .]

Note that the British problems you cite occurred before air conditioning was commonplace. In those days electric heating would have absolutely strained the grid, but not today.

In fact Britain uses very little air-conditioning even now.  (I lived there for about ten years and can still count on the fingers of one hand the buildings I personally visited which I knew had air conditioning.  One of these was the National Archives in Kew, where A/C is necessary partly to protect historical documents.)  Part of the problem in 1947-48 was unusually low winter temperatures in combination with severe rationing of investment in new generating capacity.  (Rationing of investment capital was general and also extended to a near-complete stoppage of new road construction from the end of World War II to the mid-1950's.)

One technique that is used in Britain nowadays to manage load profile issues, which does not really reduce energy consumption overall, is to have a special low tariff (popularly called "Economy 7" though in practice different electricity utilities have their own terms for it) that applies during the nighttime hours when base load would otherwise be low.  Economy 7 electricity feeds heat resistively into separately metered storage heaters at night, and then these release the heat slowly during the day.

A storage heater is basically a separately wired unit, usually wall-mounted, which consists of bricks inside an insulated box with louvers on one side.  It is certainly cheaper to install and to wire than building a completely new house to Passivhaus standards, and I think in most cases it has a lower first cost than insulating an existing building by adding insulation and replacing existing single-pane windows.  (I don't know if it is cheaper than using window inserts with existing single-paned windows, which is often a first resort, particularly with historic buildings.)  But it is emphatically not more energy-efficient.  And unless you have an aggressive utility regulator, there is nothing to require the electricity company to provide preferential pricing for electricity supplied for heating at times of low base load, especially if the electricity is supplied by a separate firm and the utility only "passes through" the cost.  My guess is that in H.B.'s area, nobody uses storage heat; nobody sees why they should make the initial investment in it in preference to insulating their houses better to reduce energy consumption for heating; and the Kentucky utilities regulator, being run (as most such agencies are) either by corporatist Republicans or clientelist Democrats, has no interest in ensuring that consumers have cheap heating.

[Duke87]

All of that is true--but some caveats have to be noted:  coefficient of performance drops the wider the temperature difference between "inside" and "outside" gets; in extreme cold resistive heating is preferred to minimize wear and tear on the heat pump.

For anything residential, yes - although there are commercial grade heat pumps out on the market now which can operate effectively down as low as -10 or -20 degrees (Fahrenheit). They do, however, operate less efficiently in such conditions, much as air conditioning operates less efficiently when it's really hot out. Note how SEER and IEER ratings, which consider a standard usage profile, are always higher than EER ratings, which are measured at full load.

As for switching to resistive heating, burning something is still better, if it's an option.

One technique that is used in Britain nowadays to manage load profile issues, which does not really reduce energy consumption overall, is to have a special low tariff (popularly called "Economy 7" though in practice different electricity utilities have their own terms for it) that applies during the nighttime hours when base load would otherwise be low.  Economy 7 electricity feeds heat resistively into separately metered storage heaters at night, and then these release the heat slowly during the day.

Interesting to do this for heating, which seemingly arises from the prevalence of electric resistance heat in the UK. Such problems do not arise with fuel-based heating.

The idea of running HVAC at night and storing the energy for use during the day is not unheard of, but usually when implemented (at least in the US) it is on the cooling side, and it is done by making ice.
It should be noted that doing this for heating or for cooling actually uses more energy overall (due to inherent inefficiency in storing energy). The only reason it is done is to shave down demand peaks during the day. This benefits the grid if anyone does it however it is only worthwhile financially to any customer to do it if they are charged for their peak demand. In New York, commercial and industrial customers are, but residential customers are not.
Such systems are also more effective both in terms of efficiency and in terms of cost when scaled up. If you own a large factory or commercial building, great. For your house? Not worth it.

[kphoger]

"To Breezewood," instead of meaning "putting an Interstate on surface roads," means "to have two freeways interchange using surface streets."

is that really the definition?  here I thought it was the first - because one cannot drive I-70 in its entirety without taking the surface streets.

would I-5 at CA-56 be a partial Breezewood, since several of the turns require surface streets?

Agreed.  That's been the way I understood "Breezewood" ever since I started reading this forum.  I mean, there is any number of grade-level transitions between freeways out there.

I decided to see how long it would take me to find an example.  I thought to myself, I'll bet I can find one somewhere near Austin, TX.  I found one at the very first interchange I looked at:  SB TX-1 (MoPac) to EB US-290.  They're simply too common to all be included under the term 'Breezewood', which town is famous precisely for the reason you state:  because I-70 passes through a signalled intersection.

[cpzilliacus]

"To Breezewood," instead of meaning "putting an Interstate on surface roads," means "to have two freeways interchange using surface streets."

is that really the definition?  here I thought it was the first - because one cannot drive I-70 in its entirety without taking the surface streets.

would I-5 at CA-56 be a partial Breezewood, since several of the turns require surface streets?

Agreed.  That's been the way I understood "Breezewood" ever since I started reading this forum.  I mean, there is any number of grade-level transitions between freeways out there.

I decided to see how long it would take me to find an example.  I thought to myself, I'll bet I can find one somewhere near Austin, TX.  I found one at the very first interchange I looked at:  SB TX-1 (MoPac) to EB US-290.  They're simply too common to all be included under the term 'Breezewood', which town is famous precisely for the reason you state:  because I-70 passes through a signalled intersection.

I-70 at Breezewood is the most-craven instance.

But any junction of two freeways that requires traffic to use arterial roads or streets to reach the other freeway qualifies as a breezewood. 

Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Turnpike are still the champion of breezewoods, and it is there to protect businesses that want to have interstate and/or long-haul traffic rolling by their locations.