It wasn't Clinton. Some Republican congressman from the South (forget his name) did a little modification zinger to TEA-21 (Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century, passed in 1998) that altered the language for mandatory state highway metric design to make the 2000 deadline optional.
It was probably buried far too deeply for Bill Clinton or anyone on his staff to notice it, and, even if he had, given the size and importance of the bill, it probably would not have been considered a veto matter even if it had been found. (It would have been a veto matter had I been president.) Note that you don't have to actually veto something -- threatening to do so often gets the desired result. Hiding things like this in major bills is a way to get something you want without people finding out until it is too late. The states immediately interpreted this as "not only don't we have to do this, we can even go back if we want." Without doubt, whining contractors got to this guy and had him do this. Now they are busy at work picking off the remaining metric states. With Schwartzenegger in power in California, don't even feel safe there. Carleton > The failure here is NOT the states. It was the federal government for > removing the metric requirements. > A big Clinton-era failure IMHO. > > At 06:58 2004-01-08, Andy Johnson wrote: > >Any state that goes back to FFU will certainly be > >delayed for a long long time in going metric. Of > >course I don't think you really mean it when you say > >that you fear the state would then NEVER go metric. > > > >I feel sure that if all of us who are proponents of > >metrication were to drop dead...then the U.S. will > >eventually go metric anyhow. > > > >But there is much to be gained by going metric sooner > >rather than later. > > > >Delay in these individual state DOT operations could > >result in delay altogether of an additional 10 or 20 > >or 30 years. That will be inefficient and wasteful. > > > >But metrication will come someday. > > > >Our job here is to boost that date and make it as soon > >as possible. > > > >I see no way that metrication might be something which > >NEVER happens. > > > >It is inevitable. > > > >But metrication in the next few years...or even in the > >next one or two decades...is not inevitable. > > > >The people on this list could do things to make a > >difference perhaps as dramatic as 10 or 20 or 30 years > >in when metrication is here. > > > >Andy Johnson > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >http://www.downtobusiness.org > >--- john mercer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I read the posting about the N. Y. s. D.O. T. > > > thinking of going back to FFU. If this happens i > > > feel it would be an unfortunate thing. I feel that > > > any state that has gone back to FFU will probably > > > never go back to metric. Why have so many states > > > gone back? I believe all highway construction > > > contracts in Canada are metric, but i'm not sure. > > > If someone could let me know i would really > > > appreciate it. It must of cost Utah quite a bit of > > > money to switch back to FFU considering they had > > > sold all their old FFU books. The BWMA would love > > > to hear about N.Y. thinking of going back to FFU. I > > > also believe that all highway construction contracts > > > in the U K are done in metric, again if someone > > > could let me know that would be great. Just think > > > if highway construction contracts in the U K are in > > > metric the members of the BWMA have to either > > > walk or drive on them every day. Oh how that must > > > bug them. Have a great evening John. > > > > > >===== > >Andy Johnson > >Host of "Down to Business Andy Johnson" > >Florida's Best & Most Efficacious Talk Show > >AM1280 WSVE & http://www.downtobusiness.org > >weekdays, noon--3 p.m., east coast time. > >On-air: 904-713-9783 (713-WSVE) Off-air: 904-568-0769 > >Non-voters are not welcome on Andy's show. > > > >__________________________________ > >Do you Yahoo!? > >Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes > >http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus >
