USMA & especially Howard Ressel, My nephew, who sells for a machinery dealer, forwarded this to me. It appears that the New York state chapter of Associated General Contractors may now want to explore reverting to "English".
Norm Werling Norm Werling ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Schwarz" To: "Norm Werling" Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 21:22 Subject: Fw: Metrics > Uncle Norm - I could onl;y think of you when I saw this one. > This is an update sent to member firms by the NYS chapter of the AGC, > Associated General Contractors. That is a big trade group of the highway > contractors. NYS has been using metrics for the specifications on highway > projects for a little while now. And to think that NYS DOT is one of only > about six states using metrics for their highway construction. All along I > thought it was a natioanl standard when I saw it in NYS specifications. > It is amazing how struggle with such simple things. > Tom Schwarz > > -----Original Message----- > From: AGC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 1:00 AM > To: Schwarz, Tom > Subject: Metrics > > > Nortrax Equipment Co., Northeast > > > In the last Executive Level Partnering meeting with NYSDOT, held November > 6, 2003, AGC raised the question of metric reversal, or a return to the > english system of measures. With only about six states in the union using > the metric system, does it make sense for New York to continue? In the > past, NYSDOT vehemently opposed to turning back. Surprisingly, this time, > their reply was simply, "no decision has been made". DOT representatives > appear to be willing to talk, and have agreed that an AGC/DOT task force to > study this issue may be appropriate. > > How do you, as an AGC member, feel about metric? Please give this some > thought. AGC would like to present a list of reasons, pro and con, for > continuing with metric or for reverting to english. Don't list the reason, > "metrics leads to a lot of errors in calculations". This may be very true, > but DOT has already heard it thousands of times, and doesn't need to hear > it again. > Please reply by e-mail to John Neidhart, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Thank you. > > > > > > > >
