USMA 10876: >Document from Utah DOT from last summer... > >Nat > >http://www.dot.state.ut.us/esd/otheresdpages/cecu/08%2D23%2D00.htm > > >UDOT/CECU (Consultant Engineers Council of Utah) LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETING >MINUTES for August 23, 2000 >Place: UDOT 4th Floor Conference Room >Date: August 23, 2000 >Time: 9:00AM >Prepared By: Lee Arnold > ><snip> > >Item 7 > >Tom also led discussion on the Local Government cooperative agreements where >the local agencies prefer using English Units. UDOT no longer supports >anything but metric and that means the agencies and their consultants are >responsible for all costs associated with making the conversion of specs, >standard drawings, V-drawings, design standards, etc. They are also >responsible for all mistakes, omissions and incorrect standards in the bid >package. Tom handed out an insert to be included in cooperative agreements >and asked for feedback before the end of the month. > >Randy asked, "Should we be going back to English Units?" This generated a >lot of discussion. Tom said of the 40 DOT's that converted to metric, only >17 remain and half of those will go back to English soon. There is a high >degree of risk where conversion of standards is required or when double >dimensioning is required when dealing with the likes of Union Pacific >Railroad. Randy stated that a lot of state money was spent in meeting the >Federal mandate to convert to metric and it would cost a lot to go back. The >state would not have any interest in going back unless the Feds would agree >that it would be for the long term. They definitely would not want to go >back to English if there was any chance the Feds come back in two years and >mandate metric again. Randy pointed out its a lot cheaper for the local >agencies to do those designs using metric since the support is there. Joseph B. Reid 17 Glebe Road West Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071
