Jim, This is why changing the FPLA is so important. It is one way to push metrication forward with virtually no imposed cost on business. Businesses may voluntarily change their labeling and decide when their business and customer base is ready. All the amendment does is remove an impediment to that. There is the key. We need to turn our attention to removing barriers to metrication rather then forcing it.
I have proposed ways to metricate our highways for while minimizing the cost of doing so. The FHWA had two different proposals to metricate highways, one was change all the signs at once which had the higher cost and the other was replace signs with metric ones as they wore out and needed replacing. This method would cost no more than the normal cost of replacement. As we know, the latter approach is not the most desirable. My idea was to use a hybrid where metric speed limit signs would be placed within 10 to 50 m of current signs. After a period of time, the non-metric signs would be removed. Guide and warning signs would be gradually replaced as they wore out, perhaps on an accelerated schedule. Mile-based exit number signs would be grandfathered for a period of time in certain states as they just recently converted from consecutive numbering. To put a change in so soon will only lead to confusion and resentment. While there would be some overlap for a few years, if people are educated properly and understand that there is no turning back, it will work. Phil > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Jim Elwell > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 5:19 PM > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:34570] Re: FW: What is stopping metrication? (Was spelling) > > Did I ever say there was a cost to NOT being metric? Answer . . . no. > Have you acknowledged that there is a real cost to changing to > metric? As far as I recall . . . no. > > Jim Elwell
