FHWA is essentially metric but I believe they talk both languages. Many Federal publications are in metric. Some but not all use both. The latest AASHTO standards, 2001, are in both units. Actually, they are separate standards as much is hard converted. You can't really go back and forth, you have to chose one set of standard (metric or English) and stick with it. For example, lane widths are either 12' or 3.6 m which are hard conversions.
Howard Ressel Project Design Engineer, Region 4 (585) 272-3372 >>> "Phil Chernack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/24/04 08:59AM >>> Howard, Here's a question for you. Do the FHWA and AASHTO even maintain non-metric standards any more or do state DOTs take the metric standards and convert them to non-metric ones? I realize that states supplement these standards with their own as well. I know that the MUTCD has both in it with metric first and non-metric in parenthesis. It would seem that the FHWA has no compelling reason to go non-metric. TEA-21 makes no requirement on them to do so. Also as the FHWA examines standards from around the world and interchanges information with other countries, it makes sense for them to be metric. Then again, we all know that making sense and governmental policy can be mutually exclusive. Thanks, Phil -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Howard Ressel Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 8:21 AM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:30843] RE: US road map Don't be so sure of that. Standards change all the time. By the time the Government has the courage to change to metric again the Standards will be outdated several times over. Many States that reverted never fully converted in the first place. The first time we did it, industry didn't really take notice until it was too late and many States had converted and the laws were passed. Once they found out though it didn't take too much lobbying to get the law rescinded. The lesson to learn is that we can not do this piecemeal. Its all or nothing. Every industry needs to convert and the Government has to have the courage to say we are doing so despite those who object (like that will ever happen in our present system). As far as DOT's I don't think we will see any national attempt to go metric again until this generation is gone and the memory of the great failure of ISTEA and TEA-21 (metrically speaking) is long gone. With no US plan, not even a long term one, to convert I hope that we in NY can maintain our present footing and withstand the pressure to revert. Sorry to be so pessimistic, perhaps its more just realistic. Howard Bessel, Metric Manger New York State Department of Transportation, Region 4 Howard Ressel Project Design Engineer, Region 4 (585) 272-3372 >>> "Phil Chernack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/23/04 03:04PM >>> Unfortunately that document is 6 years old. Since then, most state DOT's bowing to pressure from their local construction companies have reverted back. States like California have mandated local agencies submit plans and use SI on their projects so there is consistency for all contractors. I'm sure states that have reverted will not discard their metric standards (like they did their USC ones) as they are probably keeping an eye open on when the feds change course and require SI once again. You know it's bound to happen. Phil -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David King Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 2:31 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:30838] US road map http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/septoct98/metric.htm Progress in metricating US roads -- David King
