UDOT = Unit Decisions Of Troglodytes
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Duncan Bath
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 12:16 PM
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Subject: [USMA:12936] Re: UDOT - Metric to English Conversion Memo
>
>
> [Almost] inevitably, UDOT will find itself having to convert back
> [again] to
> SI. The people (through their taxes) will pay for the
> foot-dragging by the
> contractors.
> Duncan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Gillmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: May 23, 2001 08:59
> Subject: [USMA:12923] Re: UDOT - Metric to English Conversion Memo
>
>
> >I checked into this and was told:
> >
> >"Practitioners at UDOT didn't want to go back to English Units
> because they
> made the transition to Metric and spent a lot of money to do it. But, the
> contracting and supplier communities never changed. They just
> converted to
> Metric when necessary to bid, etc. So they pushed the State back to
> English."
> >
> >The last Federal Highway Administration policy memorandum on metrication
> states "while FHWA can no longer mandate that States convert to SI, we
> strongly encourage its continued use."
> >
> >http://www.fhwa.dot.gov//////infrastructure/progadmin/contracts/s
taopt.htm
>
>The good news is that many parts of the Federal government use SI
internally. In FHWA, almost all data bases are SI. However, publications
for the general public are usually dual units or archaic units only.
>
>Ralph Gillmann
>Office of Policy
>Federal Highway Administration
>Washington, DC
>
