[USMA:36500] Re: Contractors resisting metrication (was April 1)

[Phil Chernack]

Actually, he was from Alabama.   What the law did was require plans to be submitted in metric to the FHWA for approval.  It did not require the states to actually convert to metric but it was hoped they would.  States were free to continue to design and build in non-metric but it would be more costly if they did so and had to submit plans to the FHWA in metric.  Therefore, most states decided to convert their design and construction to metric until the mandate was removed.   Phil   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carleton MacDonald Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 1:36 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:36498] Re: Contractors resisting metrication (was April 1)   I thought the Federal government did exactly that – until that retrograde Congressman from Georgia (I think) slipped that zinger into TEA-21 removing the metrication deadline, whereupon the states began reverting.   Carleton   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Millet Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 12:00 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:36490] Re: Contractors resisting metrication (was April 1)   I guess I got a little confused because the federal government provided a reimbursement for much of the funding :). So I guess the only other alternative would be having the federal government mandate metrication if the states wanted federal highway funding, which would never fly because it would be the federal government holding a gun to the state government's head and forcing them to do something . Thus trampling all over state's rights. Mike -- "The boy is dangerous, they all sense it why can't you?"