just returned from a nice vacation in Sweden, Germany and the Czech Republic but read on... alfred -----Original Message----- From: Gary G. Naeyaert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 11:38 AM To: Hu, Alfred Cc: Foran, Janet; Maki, Tom; Blaxton, Vanessa; Murray, Jennifer; LoVette, Colleen; LIBIRAN, CARLOS Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: metric at MDOT > Dear Mr. Hu: > > I would like to respond your e-mail regarding the role of the Michigan Road Builders Association (MRBA) in the recent decision of the Michigan State Transportation Commission (STC) directing the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) to eliminate the state's dual measurement system and return to the exclusive use of English measurements in road and bridge construction. > > Since 1928, MRBA has been the leading statewide trade association representing the interests of the private sector road and bridge building industry. MRBA members currently perform nearly 90% of all road and bridge repair projects in the state. MRBA has been working with a broad industry coalition on the issue of metric and English measurements for road and bridge construction. > > It should be noted that MDOT deserves much credit for their proactive transition to metrics following the federal mandate of the early 1990's. MDOT "did the right thing" even though many federal agencies failed to convert including the FAA, FRA, FTA, NHTSA, and RSPA - each citing safety and public information issues as the primary reasons. > > As you know, the MDOT remained one of only fourteen state DOT's using metric measurements despite elimination of the federal mandate to do so in 1998. At the same time, the rest of the construction industry, equipment manufacturers, subcontractors, suppliers and the state's local road agencies continued to use English measurements. Michigan's highway construction industry has been forced to work with dual measurement systems where back-and-forth conversions from English to metrics occur each time we plan, estimate, bid, build and bill a project. This is cumbersome, inefficient, mistake-prone, costly, and completely unnecessary. > > In fact, Michigan's construction industry represents $29 billion per year in investments, and only $1 billion of this is conducted with metric measurements. Throughout the past year MRBA has been discussing the challenges, inefficiencies and annual financial costs to taxpayers of maintaining a dual measurement system in the state. In the end, Michigan's taxpayers are footing the bill for the direct (materials & equipment) and indirect (loss of productivity & efficiency) costs associated with maintaining a dual measurement system, and all without any tangible value or return. MRBA's initial analysis demonstrates that Michigan taxpayers are paying at least $7.4 million per year to > continue with a dual measurement system. > > It should be made clear that the highway construction industry does not oppose metric measurements, per se, but rather we oppose continuation of the dual measurement system in the state. If the federal government hadn't repealed the metric mandate in 1998's TEA-21 bill, our industry would not likely have been involved in this issue this year. > > Since MDOT is currently in the process of re-writing the 1996 Standard Specifications for Construction book (the "bible" of road and bridge construction in the state), however, now is the time for us to address this issue. > > Our industry's goal has been that we return to the use of a single measurement system in the state. We applaud the STC for their recent policy decision and we look forward to working cooperatively with MDOT to implement the short phased-in return to the exclusive use of English measurements in highway construction. > > If you would like further information on this issue, please feel free to contact me. > > Sincerely, > > > Gary G. Naeyaert > Director of Government & Public Relations > Michigan Road Builders Association > 517-886-9000 (office) > > > Subject: Re: metric at MDOT > Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 12:57:37 -0400 > From: "JANET FORAN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: "Vanessa Blaxton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "CARLOS LIBIRAN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Colleen LoVette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "C. Thomas Maki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Jennifer Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "VICKIE A. PLUMMER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Dear Mr. Hu, > I am responding on behalf of MDOT Communications Director Jennifer Murray regarding your comments about the Transportation Department's recent decision to return to English measurements. The decision to go back to English measurements was made by our State Transportation Commission in response to concerns by the Michigan road building industry. At MDOT, we had been doing business in metric and had found no major problems in either design or construction of projects. We believed that metric was much like Y2K - we worked hard to prepare and there was no doomsday or disaster once we got there. But it was outside objections that caused the repeal of the metric transportation initiative. > > I don't believe we've seen the last of the national metrication effort. The history of metrication in the U.S. is that it keeps coming back, and each time it grows stronger. > > I will share your e-mail with others at MDOT. Please feel free to contact Gary Naeyaert at the Michigan Road Builders Association with your concerns. He is the director of Government and Public Relations for MRBA which spearheaded the return to English measurements on behalf of the industry. > > Sincerely, > Janet Foran > Office of Communications > Michigan Department of Transportation > PO Box 30050 > Lansing, MI 48909 > > >>> "Hu, Alfred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/04/00 01:46PM >>> > Dear Jennifer, > > Why did the Michigan DOT decide to revert back to "English" specifications? > I contacted MDOT in March of this year and I got a firm reply that MDOT is > firmly commited to metric. I was very happy to hear that. > > Metric is the international language of measuerment and 95% of the world is > on the metric system. Why waste tax dollars in reverting > back to an archaic "system" that hardlly anyone else uses? I (and many > others) am quite disappointed at MDOT's decision which in the long run may > be the wrong one. What if the deadline is reinstated? > > Sincerely, > Alfred H. Programmer/Analyst San Francisco, CA > > (went to Michigan for a few summers and my brother lived in Flint and > Saginaw for 5 years)
