I can think of other reasons, then contractors; 1.) Suppliers. They may have been told that metric products have long lead times or cost premiums. they could no longer justify the costs.
2.) New Employees. Some people hired in recent years may not be metric friendly and may have been a force from within to end the practice. 3.) Other states. California may have to work with other states and even share information. Information in metric may have been rejected or criticized. 4.) New Administration. It is no secret that California is not sound financially. Any new administration is going to look for easy ways to trim costs. Metrication is expensive in the US and may be see as an unjustifiable cost. The change in the TEA-21 allowed those states that did not convert, i.e. the majority, by the original date to continue to receive funding. Euric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carleton MacDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, 2004-08-28 10:41 Subject: [USMA:30901] RE: CALTRANS memo right here > As I've said before, someone got to them. Most likely, a group of > contractors banded together and whined to someone high up in the state > government, who put the pressure on Caltrans. I can't believe that they > would have done this on their own. Utah and the other fully-converted > states were likely the same way. Anyone want to make a bet that this is a > concerted, coordinated effort by these contractors -- nationwide -- picking > off one state at a time until their "work" is "done" ? > > Legislation is the only thing that is going to end this once and for all. > That Congressman who changed the one sentence in TEA-21 caused more damage > than anyone could know -- and he very likely knew EXACTLY what he was doing. > He must be gloating right now, unless, of course, he's too busy spending the > payoff money he may have received. > > Carleton > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Terry Simpson > Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 08:28 > To: U.S. Metric Association > 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. > >
