AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION

Discussion Paper on Proposed Policy Statement on Metrication

(Revised August 21, 2000 by Engineering & Technology Committee)

[Note to Reviewers…A metrication policy was originally drafted by APWA staff and considered by E+TC in their 1998-99 program. That committee decided to take no action. 1999-2000 President Jerry Fay requested that the Committee re-consider whether APWA should take a leadership role in metrication. Due to lack of consensus by the Committee members, the E+TC agreed in August 2000 to present a discussion paper, with three alternative policies, to the APWA membership. Staff will submit the proposed policy to chapter executive committees and delegates for member feedback; results will then be evaluated by the 2000-01 E+TC; and a policy statement reflecting member input will be forwarded to the Government Affairs Committee for review and consideration, and finally to the APWA Board of Directors for action.]

Issue

With the exception of the United States and a small handful of developing nations, the remaining nations in the world have adopted the metric (SI, or Le Systeme International d’Unites) system of measurement. Engineers, scientists and technicians trained in other countries must learn to use Imperial (English or US) units in order to practice in the United States. Advancements in technology developed in other countries are less likely to be adopted in the US because the products or processes may be available only in SI units. Technical publications and journals are moving to the SI System as the primary, if not the only, form of measurement. Over the past decades, federal and state governments have wavered on their policies regarding the adoption of the SI System, creating uncertainty among public works practitioners and manufacturers.

The issue for APWA is whether it should take a strong leadership role in advocating the conversion to the SI System of measurement in the United States, take a stand against metrication, or take a position neither advocating or opposing. In taking a position, our members should consider our Association's desire to be a leader among the professional public works and infrastructure-based organizations in the world.

Discussion of the Issues

It is extremely unlikely that countries currently using the SI System will convert to the Imperial system. Existence of two systems in a shrinking world can create inefficiency and confusion. Some consider adoption of the SI System in the US to be inevitable.

As of January 1, 2000, all products and services sold in the European Union must be labeled only in SI units. Dual labeling, as is common in the United States, will not be permitted. Products produced by Discussion Paper on Proposed Policy Statement on Metrication August 21, 2000 companies with primary sales focus in Europe will either be forced to produce duplicate products labeled in Imperial units or face possible loss of business due to resistance in the U.S. marketplace.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), passed by the 105th Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, originally contained a provision that would have required States and local government agencies to use the SI System to receive Federal funds. That provision was eliminated in a conference committee version of the bill before its final passage. This outcome highlights the difficulty in establishing a national policy on conversion to metric.

The American Water Works Association's policy on metrication was adopted in 1979 in response to the adoption in the United States of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 and the White Paper on Metric Conversion written in Canada in 1970. AWWA's policy, still in effect today, only supports metrication through informing its members and making their members aware of the costs associated with the conversion.

The Institute of Transportation Engineers first adopted their policy on metrication in 1978. ITE's position is dependent on the Federal Highway Administration adopting a coordinated nationwide metrication program. Two out of three responding ITE members support a rapid conversion, similar to the one implemented when Canada made the conversion.

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers first approved a metric system policy in 1975. The latest ASME policy, adopted in 1993, supports a national conversion program and further commits to publishing Society publications and standards in SI units. ASME stops short of moving exclusively to the SI System, but allows "customary" units as well.

The American Society of Civil Engineers adopted a new policy on metrication (ASCE Policy Statement 119, October 1997). The policy encourages their members to make the conversion to metric, adopts IEEE/ASTM SI-10 as the standard, implements SI units in all ASCE publications, and encourages schools to use SI units in their curriculum.

The 1997 edition of the National Electrical Code was the first edition to have SI units listed in the preferred (first place) position. Starting in January 2000, IEEE's codes and standards were published exclusively in SI units.

The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics issued a position paper in 1994 that describes the state of metrication in their industry. The paper generally concurs that their association should encourage conversion to SI units in all of their industry segments.

The National Education Association's metric policy, adopted in 1969 and confirmed in 1996, simply states that "[t]he National Education Association believes in the adoption of the International System of Units (SI metric system). The Association advocates that the SI system be taught at all educational levels." The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics adopted a position statement in 1986 which "supports the use of the metric system as an integral part of the mathematics curriculum . . ."

James W. Van Loben Sels, former director of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), issued a memorandum to all employees on June 22, 1998 that reaffirmed that the Caltrans policy of designing all projects in metric units as of July 1, 1998 -- regardless of the provisions [or lack thereof] in the TEA-21 legislation. Caltrans will no longer publish their specifications in Imperial or dual units. (This 2 Discussion Paper on Proposed Policy Statement on Metrication August 21, 2000 policy may change due to changes in management at Caltrans and the removal of the metric conversion requirements from TEA-21, but it is indicative that some State DOTs are willing to support metrication.)

The third quarter 1998 edition of the Construction Metrication newsletter, published by the National Institute of Building Sciences' Construction Metrication Council, contained a case study of the use of metric in highway projects. The study was a survey of the 43 State DOT's which had an active metrication initiative. The newsletter lists 23 projects, all of which were considered successful by their respective project managers. The study concludes that contractors had difficulty in making the adjustment to metric, but concluded that the problem would be resolved once the transition to SI units had been fully implemented.

Finally, APWA's previous policy on conversion to the metric system (Policy Number 3.16, adopted in 1992) was allowed to sunset and is no longer in force. There is currently no APWA policy on metrication.

Policy Alternative #1: Advocate Metrication

The American Public Works Association believes that all Federal, State and local government agencies responsible for administration, management, operation, maintaining or provision of services related to public works and infrastructure should convert to the SI System by the end of 2005. APWA believes that the continued delay in making the conversion to the SI system of measurement in the United States increases the ultimate cost of conversion and burdens public works and infrastructure engineers and managers with working in dual units.

APWA hereby adopts the current edition of IEEE/ASTM SI-10, Standards for Use of the International System of Units, as its standard for the SI System.

To encourage our membership to make the conversion, beginning in 2005 SI units will be used exclusively in all APWA publications and printed communications containing the APWA name or logo, including all publications issued by its chapters. Dual units will be permitted until that date.

APWA requests that the Congress of the United States adopt legislation establishing a national implementation schedule, which provides for conversion to the SI System by December 31, 2005. Further, the Congress is encouraged to appropriate funds for conversion by all Federal agencies and to create a grant program based on need which would be available to assist state and local government agencies in making the conversion. The President of the United States is requested to sign such legislation upon its passage by the Congress.

APWA believes that all Federal and State governments should take a leadership role in the conversion to the SI system by using only SI units in their publications, regulations and other communications. The U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration and State departments of transportation are encouraged to make the transition to the SI System before mandated by Congress as a sign of leadership.

APWA believes that all vendors and suppliers should provide new products and services using only the SI System, recognizing that the Imperial system must be maintained in some instances to accommodate existing installed infrastructure. APWA encourages each industry group to adopt soft metric standards for existing products to enable assimilation of existing products into the SI System. 3 Discussion Paper on Proposed Policy Statement on Metrication August 21, 2000

4 Discussion Paper on Proposed Policy Statement on Metrication August 21, 2000

Policy Alternative #2: Recommend Against Adopting Metrication prior to a Federal Commitment

APWA recognizes that conversion to metrication in the United States has been a controversial policy issue at all levels of government and the private sector for generations. Several significant efforts initiated at the federal level have been abandoned due to lack of support and commitment from politicians and practitioners. Problems cited include the cost of conversion, lack of awareness and inadequate education of the public and practitioners, and increased confusion and chance for errors in applying the SI units during the transition period. Meanwhile, some states and local governments have committed to metric.

APWA believes that the United States’ technological leadership role in the world will override any disadvantages brought by not converting to the SI system. Until there is an unwavering commitment from the federal government to convert, it is not in the best interest of the APWA organization or its membership to promote or support partial or total conversion to metric by state and local governments. Any federal requirement for metrication must be accompanied by provisions for funding and education.

Policy Alternative #3: No Position Regarding Metrication

APWA’s position on metrication is not to take an advocacy role, but to abide by and support the metrication policies generated at various levels of government, from federal to local. Given the reality that sporadic adoption of metrication will continue to occur throughout the US, APWA encourages educational institutions to teach metric, and public works practitioners to learn to use metric, in order to function more efficiently and accurately within the reality of a dual-unit work environment. To the extent feasible, APWA publications will be produced in dual units, to further the educational process.

Request for Comment and Opinion

The Engineering and Technology Committee hereby requests that interested members and entities (committees/task forces/chapters/councils) of the American Public Works Association provide comments and opinions on which of the above three alternative policy directions should pursue. Please provide written comments no later than March 30, 2001 to Dennis H. Ross, Director of Professional Development, APWA Headquarters, 2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 500, Kansas City, MO, 64112, [email protected], Fax (816) 472-1610.

In order to help the Committee members in understanding your position, please provide the reasoning behind your recommendation, supported by factual data and anecdotal information that illustrate your position. Responses do not need to be extensive, but sufficient information needs to be provided to allow the Committee members to understand your position. Responses from APWA entities should include an indication of how the position was reached (i.e. vote of the members—with supporting numbers, consensus of the committee, etc.) Responses that simply indicate which alternative is preferred, without supporting information, will be considered—but may not have as much influence as responses with explanation of the reasoning behind the stated preference.

5