As you see in their statement, the cost to reversion is offset by the long-term savings. I took this to mean suppliers are charging them premiums for using metric. The removal of the premiums will produce a cost savings that will off-set the costs of reversion.
If the FEDs and the states would have worked together to pressure suppliers to provide metric products either cheaper or at the same cost, then this could not be used as an excuse. I was told in my business by suppliers, that metric doubles the cost. This may be an exaggeration by the suppliers as a means to scare people off from using metric, but it is an effective method that is working. Euric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, 2004-08-28 08:27 Subject: [USMA:30895] RE: CALTRANS memo right here > > Of Paul Trusten, R.Ph. > >Here, as pasted text, Word document, and .pdf file, > >is the CALTRANS memo dealing with the proposed > >reversion to non-metric units > > Thank you for posting that. I was a bit cynical about the messages saying > that their was a reversion. I was about to suggest that it might be just one > of those things where they are forbidden to spend taxpayer money on > metrication. > > To my horror, I see that it is taxpayer financed reversion. We have often > argued that costs of change to metric can be justified if offset against > long term savings. It is ironic that they are suggesting that it works in > the opposite direction. >
