They just didn't have the will to it. See below.
Howard Ressel
Project Design Engineer, Region 4
(585) 272-3372
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06/11/03 04:14PM >>>
2003 June 11
I asked the Colorado DOT about metric units. I received this reply.
It makes a good case for not changing. It tells me that changing
highways without the rest of society changing will not work. We
could all pick out details, such as signs, to tell CDOT how to it.
But details will not solve the problem. Even restoring the date
for conversion in FHWA, removed by TEA-21, will likely not be enough.
Robert H. Bushnell PhD PE
--------------------------
June 6, 2003
Dear Mr. Bushnell:
In the early to mid 1990's, the Colorado Department of Transportation
began conversion to the metric System. Many of our Manuals and the
Standard Specifications were rewritten in metric nomenclature. Two
years were given to convert all new projects to Metric, with
exceptions given to large multi-phased projects that had already been
partially prepared in English units.
Following are some of the reasons the Department has ceased to use
Metric and returned to the use of English units:
1. Most Contractors performing work for the Department also
do work for counties, cities and private individuals. None of these
entities have shown any interest in converting to metric.
Therefore, since working for the Department is usually less than
half of their work, their estimators and construction personnel
continued to think and use English units. This caused added
expense and construction errors on the Department's projects.
*We (State DOT's) should be the leaders not the followers. With State
metric specs being exclusive only in NY many have begun to use them. Our
County DOT has converted.
2. The learning curve for Department and Contractor personnel
was lengthy and there was much dissatisfaction with being forced
to use metric.
*You got to learn sometime.
3. It would be expensive to convert highway signs to metric. It was
suggested that the Department could simply replace signs when the
original failed. The Department was very uncomfortable with allowing
both English and metric.
* This needs to be done on a coordinated National level, no State can
take this on themselves.
4. The public could not accept and did not understand the metric
system.
When open houses or public meetings were held, or when we had to deal
with property owners on impacts to their property, they demanded
submittals be in English units. This required that both our personnel
and consultants preparing plans develop dual plans. Following through
on changes and inconsistencies became problematic. This also resulted
in
higher Design costs, leaving less money for roadway improvements.
*Engineers are pretty smart and have to be able to speak many
"languages" and communicate in a way their audience understands. We use
metric and English units at meetings, we understand how to converse in
both and the public has accepted that. There are few measurements they
need to understand anyway and it usually is sufficient to speak in
generalities anyway. Does a how owner care if a road is 3.6 m wide, 3.3
m wide (12' wide, 11' wide). They don't care how long a bridge is as
long as it crosses the intended feature. Again we should be the leaders
and take advantage of the opportunity to educate the public on metric.
5. Right of Way survey and documentation has historically been in
English units, and had to be converted to both Metric and English units
for permanent records.
* Not that big a deal, working well in NY.
6. Many Federal Guidelines and Agencies had not converted completely
to metric, causing errors and inconsistency in conversions.
* I don't buy this, Federal Agencies were supposed to all convert. Any
I have been involved with have. All Federal Highway Administration
documents have been converted. Even if they have not, we can deal with
them the same way we deal with the public.
7. Local Agencies who received Federal funding through CDOT were
not
familiar with of capable of providing metric plans, and resisted
conversion.
* There will always be resistance, doesn't mean its not the right thing
to do. Again, we have to start someplace.
8. Negotiating with Contractors during construction became
difficult.
Plans would be Metric, but individuals would be converting discussions
to English in their heads, and misunderstandings often occurred.
* This is one problem here too. I even find myself talking English from
time to time. The best cure though is time. The more we use it the more
Contractors will be used to it. After many years of metric Construction
I find more and more Contractors and more of our field staff are talking
metric. The Contractor that takes his plans and converts them to English
will make mistakes be less competitive and fade away.
9. Maintaining a bidding system and Contractor/Consultant payment
system for both English and Metric projects became burdensome and
expensive.
* Why do you need to maintain two systems, we converted and ditched the
English system. It doesn't take many years to convert everything then
its gone forever.
In summary, the Department discussed the continued use of Metric
Units with their partners (Consultants, Contractors, Local Agencies
and Suppliers). Support for returning to English was almost
unanimous. Additional costs, reducing errors and public
familiarity and comfort all were major factors in returning to the
use of English units.
.
Dean Van De Wege, PE
Project Development Branch manager
Colorado Department of Transportation
