|
John, The reason many state DOTs have reverted to IP (some never changed to begin with) is that the TEA-21 legislation passed in 1997 removed the mandate for state DOTs to convert to metric by 1 October 2000. The law was not intended to be specifically anti-metric but had the effect of it anyway. While the law removed the mandate, the FHWA noted that it still preferred metric but would accept IP. Some states such as California and New York chose to remain metric (good for them!) while others, bowing to pressure of the local construction industry as well as county and municipal governments that did not convert, have gone back to IP. This is the case in my home state of New Jersey. Although New Jersey is listed as dual, the truth is it is switching to IP with a gradual phase out of metric projects. Please keep in mind that nowhere in any legislation does this apply to metric road signs. The law says that the Secretary of Transportation cannot require any money to be spent on metric road signs but does not prohibit a state from doing so on its own.
Phil
-----Original Message-----
Hello everyone. I read the list on the FHWA web site I saw the list of states that use metric in highway construction. I agree it is bleak. When did Oregon abandon metric in their highway construction. I read the memo on the FHWA web site dated Oct. 1998 stating they would no longer make states use metric in their highway construction. Why did the FHWA change the policy? The states that use dual in highway construction, do they have to submit plans in both metric and imperial or can they use either or? States that use dual are overpass heights and bridge heights given in both systems? Wouldn't it have cost Oregon or any other state that abandoned metric a lot of money to convert everything back? metric |
- [USMA:26920] FHWA john mercer
- Phil Chernack
