First, it would probably violate Federal Buy America clauses for certain items. Second, we can not tell Contractors where to buy stuff from (of course unless there is a buy America clause).
Howard Ressel Project Design Engineer, Region 4 (585) 272-3372 >>> "James J. Wentworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/04/06 8:56 AM >>> Could NYSDOT or CalTrans legally outsource to Canada or Mexico to buy metric equipment and metric-spec materials? I usually oppose this kind of thing, but if it would light a fire under the AGC's posterior to metricate or lose business... -- Jason ----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard Ressel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 4:50 AM Subject: [USMA:36465] Re: April 1 >I don't disagree but, as I said, the AGC has money and political pull that >we don't have. > > > Jason Darfus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/03/06 1:44 PM >>> > Howard, > Why does NYSDOT even care what the contractors and suppliers think > about SI? You guys are the 1-tonne gorilla. If they don't like that > your shop is SI, then they (suppliers) lose your business or their jobs > (contractors). Draw the line and stand by it. > > > On Apr 3, 2006, at 09:05, Howard Ressel wrote: > >> Anecdotally I do not believe the US Civil Engineering profession >> opposes metric at all. Of course common practice, working in the US >> today, requires use of units that our clients prefer (for most Civil >> works in the US that means English). Although the New York State >> Department of Transportation is SI (with the distinct possibly of >> reconversion to English in the near future) most of our Engineers are >> quite comfortable with SI and not opposed to it's use. The bigger >> problem is our Contractors and suppliers. I think tough that relates >> more to the inconstancy in the industry. No one wants to be first but >> suppliers and fabricators really object when they have to work SI for >> the NYSDOT and English for a County or private developer. >> >> Of course Civil firms that work internationally design in SI for those >> countries. I don't think that is a big deal. >> >> >> >> >> >> Howard Ressel >> Project Design Engineer, Region 4 >> (585) 272-3372 >> >>>>> "Martin Vlietstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/02/06 1:28 AM >>> >> To what extent does the US civil engineering profession and the oil >> industry oppose metrication? The civil engineers have a vested >> interest as it prevents foreign companies from competing on US soil >> while, for projects in developing countries, it is not unknown for >> contractors to be selected on grounds other than "best tender". >> >> The oil industry is US dominated. The United Kingdom has a body set >> up by Parliament called The Engineering Council. This is an umbrella >> organisation for all the engineering organisations in the UK. Members >> include the Institution of Civil Engineers, Chartered Institution of >> Building Services Engineers, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, The >> British Computer Society (of which I am a member) and many others. It >> is noteworthy that although there are 34 members, none is specifically >> connected with the oil industry. While working in the oil industry, I >> looked at publications of the Society of Petroleum Engineers which is >> a US organisations that has a chapter in the UK. Given this and the >> way in which the oil industry uses imperial units tells me that the US >> oil industry is blocking metrication in order to preserve is control >> of the industry. It has also been suggested to me that certain US >> politicians (who shall be nameless) have received considerable >> assistance from t! >> he oil industry, particularly from Texas. >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Phil Chernack >> To: U.S. Metric Association >> Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 12:58 AM >> Subject: [USMA:36434] Re: April 1 >> >> >> I disagree. I think it all comes down to marketing and sales. >> Metrication has to be marketed correctly. Through education and >> thorough explanation of the need to metricate and making sure the >> message is indeed received by the masses, we could shorten the time >> from 20 or 50 years to 5 to 10. What sounds better: the Metric >> Conversion act or the Keep America Competitive act? People have to be >> convinced metrication is fairly painless and that their world won't >> change drastically. We've stated it before here, people don't fear >> metric, they fear change. It's not the conversion per se, but the >> cost, both financially and mentally people fear. With the proper >> sales and marketing, people need to be convinced that metrication >> necessary for us to retain and grow our edge in a global marketplace, >> not only in terms of economy, but also in terms of education. We all >> know the benefits, we just now have to get the right cheerleaders >> (salespeople) on board. Some politicians and bu! >> sinesspeople can sell ice cubes to Eskimos; they should be able to >> sell metrication to Americans. >> >> >> >> Phil >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ------- >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Mike Millet >> Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 5:54 PM >> To: U.S. Metric Association >> Subject: [USMA:36431] Re: April 1 >> >> >> >> Judging from the angry volume of responses they got I don't think >> any state would dare EVER switch anything :). They'd have the mob >> going for their blood. >> >> It makes me wonder if the only way we'll go fully metric is if we >> continue the gradual transition over the next 20 years or so. Phase it >> in rather than announcing it and pushing for a quick transition as we >> should have done. >> >> >> Mike >> >> -- >> "The boy is dangerous, they all sense it why can't you?" >> >> > > > Jason Darfus > Columbus, OH USA > > > Howard Ressel > Project Design Engineer, Region 4 > (585) 272-3372 > >
