Dennis has this exactly right as I see it.

Similar problem with highway construction even beyond the backtracking of TEA-21. For 
contractors not to have a legitimate beef there has to be a top-to-bottom coordinated 
program with teeth and funding so that everyday folks trying to make a living are not 
saddled with a crazy-quilt of "some of this and some of that" that ends up condemning 
them to the worst of both worlds.

Even in the UK we see some of these same issues, which adds impetus to the notion of 
"finishing the job" over there. We're so far behind over here that we have to look at 
getting serious about "starting the job"!

Ezra




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We keep hearing that "billions of dollars of federal building construction"is now 
>metric (not counting highways). But reading between the lines in the
latest issue of Construction Metrication (devoted to masonry) confirms my
suspicions that this is largely a sham.

According to the issue, hard metric modular components are not readily
available in most areas. That's partly due to the 1996 "Savings in
Construction Act" which exempted concrete block and suspended ceiling
systems from the federal metrication mandate. Even where metric block is
available, other key modular components (such doors, windows, and
reinforcement) are not. So "the modular concept no longer exists," says the
newsletter, and much extra labor and expense would be required in cutting
and filling, and architectural [decorative] elements would not align
correctly. In that case, the newsletter recommends that the easiest and most
efficient way of building "metric" is:

(1) The architect designs the building in conventional inch-foot modules.
(2) The architect then soft-converts all the dimensions on the plans to
metric, to comply with the federal mandate.
(3) The contractor [apparently] converts back to inch-foot on the job.

The newsletter recommends that every workman have a dual metric-inch tape
measure, presumably to simplify conversion of the metric dimensions on the
plans to the inch dimensions they actually use on the job. (As we discussed
in USMA 8761 and later postings, working with soft metric dimensions on the
job would be ridiculously awkward.) The newsletter then gives examples very
similar to mine, with 16" block.

It's no wonder that so many contractors are angry about metrication. It does
no good for us to rag on them or dismiss them as ignorant bumpkins. The
fault lies with Congress for backtracking and failing to mandate a
coordinated, consistent, speedy conversion.

When Congress passed the "Savings in Construction Act" 1996, it claimed that
it was not their intention to repeal the metric mandate of the 1988 Omnibus
Trade Act, but only to prevent undue economic hardship for some small
business, as that law explicitly allowed. Well, I'm not sure if Congress was
stupid or just trying to scuttle metrication by the back door. But concrete
block is the most common structural wall material for light commercial
buildings, and most such buildings also have suspended ceilings. As far as I
know there has never been an attempt to metricate vinyl floor tiles (which
usually come in 1 foot squares). So in the 1996 Act Congress basically said
that, yes, buildings should be metric except for the walls, ceilings,
floors, doors, and windows!!!

I think there are two important lessons from the building metrication fiasco
of the 1990s:

(1) The technical problems are easy to solve. In a remarkably short time,
government and industry working together developed detailed metric building
standards, most of which were quite practical and efficient. (As we have
discussed before, they wimped out in some areas, notably lumber).

(2) You can't do it half-assed or grant exemptions for political reasons.
The whole industry has to convert together at once; otherwise the parts
won't fit and you end up with an aggravating, inefficient, costly mishmash
which is far worse than wombat or metric alone--and you get the vehement
political backlash we're seeing now. I don't think that most contractors
were ideologically opposed to metrication when it began. But they said, if
we're going to do it, let's do it quickly and get it over with so we are not
saddled with endless conversions and compatibility headaches. As usual,
Congress failed to follow through.

Reply via email to