Interesting History on the subject. Thanks for all the comments.

Mike Payne

> On 10 Jun 2020, at 20:55, Phil Chernack <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> The law that required metric plans to be submitted to the FHWA was ISTEA ( 
> Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991) passed in 1991.  
> While it required metric plans, it prohibited federal money to be used for 
> metric signage.  After AASHTO (American Association of State Highway 
> Transportation Officials) promulgated metric plans and many states converted 
> to metric by 2000, they were receiving complaints from contractors that while 
> the state level was metric, the county and local level as well as private 
> construction was not.  When the next transportation funding bill was passed 
> (TEA-21, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century) it removed the 
> metric plan requirement.
> 
> Phil Chernack
> 
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 9:28 AM Mark Henschel <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> I remember going to a conference of Federal highway officials back around 20 
> or 30 years ago. All of the discussion was about standards and sizes. How 
> wide will the roads be and how big will the interchanges be? Somehow somebody 
> got upset they would have to see those signs in kilometers, even though none 
> of the discussion was about signs.
> When the legislation went through in the highway bill, it prohibited ALL 
> federal money for metric related activities. I'm sure they were mainly afraid 
> of kilometer signs, but the legislation effectively stopped all federal money 
> for all metric related activities. Thus states, such as Minnesota, which was 
> fairly well along in the metric standards transition, had to roll back ALL 
> metric work, there being no federal reimbursement money available to pay for 
> any of their metric activity.
> 
> Mark Henschel
> 
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 7:17 AM Michael Payne <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> I distinctly remember reading somewhere, probably on this list serve how 
> someone in Congress slipped something into a budget bill (?) that upended the 
> whole transition, and if memory serves, I think more than 40 states had 
> already transitioned to doing all Federal Highway construction and planning 
> in SI. I’m sure this was in the late 90’s early 2000’s. It cost money to 
> transition and money to transition back. What a waste.
> 
> Someone will read this and remember. Unless I have it all wrong?
> 
> Mike Payne
> 
> 
>> On 10 Jun 2020, at 13:03, Mark Henschel <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Federal legislation in the Highway bill prohibited federal money being used 
>> to pay for Metric System items such as highway signs. Since there was no 
>> money to pay for it, all metrication work on highways stopped. Ironically 
>> states were not asking for money for signs, but for actual construction 
>> using SI units
>>  This was back in the Reagan era, and no changes have been made since.
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020, 11:45 PM Michael Payne <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> Anyone have the history of how and why most State Highway departments rolled 
>> back their metric transition a number of years back? I seem to remember it 
>> was some Congressmen who inserted language into a budget somewhere that made 
>> the whole transition voluntary. And it all unravelled.
>> 
>> Mike Payne
>> _______________________________________________
>> USMA mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma 
>> <https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> USMA mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma 
> <https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma>
> _______________________________________________
> USMA mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma 
> <https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma>
> _______________________________________________
> USMA mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma

_______________________________________________
USMA mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma

Reply via email to