I'm a Civil Engineer by trade and education in the US. I work in Maryland and we do all of our work exclusively in Customary units. The shear cost of converting our work to metric is immense. For example, every day I use a 2,000 page book of Baltimore City Standard Details. This includes manholes, inlets, lamp posts, and every other imaginable thing in a street for public works. Every detail is drawn with Customary measures on it. These things have been standard for years and if metric were required, then each standard would have to be re-drawn with standard metric sizes and it would take forever and the cost would be enormous, not to mention that these things aren't made in the US at all in metric. Now just extrapolate that out to everything a Civil Engineer deals with daily, and for that matter a building Mechanical Engineer as well. An overnight switch would be diasterous and leaving us to our own vices, we will never switch because of the cost, and inconvenience.

In my view, it will never happen here in the US.

The UK engineering industry managed it, so did the Australian and South African engineering industries. It did require Government backing to ensure that there was sufficient momentum to get the job done.

I beleive that the US automobile industry has converted (at least partially) to metric units over the last few decades. I believe (and you might correct me in this score) that in the US, the automobile industry now uses metric sized bolts, having discarded the various bolts based on customary units some years ago. Likewise, engine capacities are quoted in litres, not in cubic inches.

Finally, in your job as a civil engineer, how often do you relate roads etc to a metric-based grid? All of Europe does. The grid for Britain (The National Grid)uses the line 2degres West as its reference, but most of the Eurasian land mass use the lines 0degrees, 6 degrees, 12degrees etc as refence lines and 3 degrees, 9 degrees, 15 degrees etc as "join" lines (ie lines where two segments are joined).

Yes I realise that the engineering in the UK, Australia, and South Africa did it, and I'm sure the Governments had to back them, but you forget that the US is larger in all aspects than your examples. We have millions of miles of expressways,roads, railroads, pipelines, and various other things all designed to customary units. Could you imagine what would happen if the entire Alaskan pipeline one day had no replacement parts because it was all built with customary sized things? What about the pipes in everyone's houses? If I had to replace a valve in my house, and only standard metric sized pipe was available, what do I do? Do I replace all my plumbing?

The reason the auto industry could do it was that cars do not last as long as things like the plumbing in buildings or roads or land. After about 20 years, a car is dead. Thus there is enough hold over to make sure there are replacement parts for the older customary cars. And it's only the bolts, and engine sizes. My gasoline tank is made a round gallon size; my tires are sized in inches (as are the rest of the world's); the amount of oil is quoted in quarts; the speedometer and odometers are in miles. Could you imagine what would happen with odometers? We use odometers as lawful information on automobile titles. Not only that, but they would be useless if all distances were measured in kilometers (Something you still do not have to worry about in the UK).

Lastly in response to your question about grids, we never relate anything to metric anything. The Maryland State Grid is in feet, the Baltimore City grid is in feet, the Baltimore County grid is in feet. Further, none of these grids relate to one another. Somethings are designed on the state grid, and if you're in the city, it's all the city's grid. Our surveyors return all their measurements in feet and tenths of a foot. You see, the shear size of the American continent is a factor here. There are vast quantities of land measured in feet and acres. If we were to convert to metric, then entire country would have to be resurveyed. Just converting the numbers in peoples' deeds would not be accurate.

The whole thing would be a nightmare. Just consider everything we use everyday that would have to be converted, and then what do you do about the things that are impractical to convert. Then when they break there will be no way to fix them.

"What about the pipes in everyone's houses? If I had to replace a valve in my house, and only standard metric sized pipe was available, what do I do? Do I replace all my plumbing?"

Both (systems) are available in the UK.
Indeed there have been some climbdowns here.
My house stuff is in feet and inches, - it was also sold as such. Land registry is in acres.
Office space is sold by the sq foot.

Oops, started doing a list - I'll stop now!

So you see, you still have a lot of things in the UK that are still in customary measures and I think you'd both agree that converting the entire land registry would be a mess.

I thought I'd add that they tried to convert the State Highway Administrations here to metric and it was a huge disaster. Nothing worked properly. They had roadway designs all fouled up and nothing could be built because nothing here is available in metric sizes. It was so bad that they all shortly converted back again.

It's a lot easier to imagine the UK or the different European countries making the switch because their economies are smaller, their land area is smaller and a lot of them have been metric for a very long time. Thus before a lot of modern things were invented they were metric. The US is a completely different animal because nothing here of this kind of thing is national. Most things that require conversion are at the State, County/Parish, and even Township level, so coordinating that type of thing is extremely difficult. There is no national land regisrty, so each county/parish or township is responsible for just that. Now extrapolate that out.

Never under estimate the metric lobby. They are capable of almost anything in pursuit of their goal, total metrication.

I wonder if this is backed up by any recent mumblings at the USMA?

L agree that the US is large and that if the US was to metricate, it would involve many more conversions that in the UK or in AUstralia. But .... the US also has many more people so the cost or effort per capita would be the same as elsewhere in the world. If teh US were ot metricate now they have an advantage of the UK AUstralia and South Africa in that the US could examine these other countries records and learn from their mistakes.

IMHO the real reason while the US is so slow in metricating is that metrication should be tackled at a national level the politicians at state level are more concerned with scoring political points off the politians at national level when both sets opf politicians have a disproportionate number of lawyers amongst their ranks and insufficient engineers.

"Our surveyors return all their measurements in feet and tenths of a foot."

Tenths? Isn't that a bit decimal?

"I think you'd both agree that converting the entire land registry would be a mess."

The Land Registry is in a complete mess anyway, with huge areas of land unaccounted for.

"...huge areas of land unaccounted for."

Perhaps they were stolen by the Dutch.

How DO they build those polders, anyhow?

"IMHO the real reason while the US is so slow in metricating is that metrication should be tackled at a national level"

It has been tackled at the national level. Remember the Metric Conversion Act and the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act? They were at the national level, but they had no effect other than to make it look like the US was making an effort to metricate. I doubt if the politicians were serious about them, because if they were they would have allotted more money. I think it was just to make it look like they were trying

{IMHO the real reason while the US is so slow in metricating is that metrication should be tackled at a national level the politicians at state level are more concerned with scoring political points off the politians at national level when both sets opf politicians have a disproportionate number of lawyers amongst their ranks and insufficient engineers.}

This post clearly shows that you have absolutely no understanding of U.S. federalism whatsoever.

The federal government has no authority to mandate what measurement standards may be by state and local government or the private sector, unless it is paying for a project.

So now you're telling us that Congress cannot even force the whole of the US to go metric ???

Current US national policy is that metric is "preferred" but not compulsory in the private sector.

That is exactly right Conrad, Congress can not force the metric system on anyone except their own contractors.

They can, of course, create a national standard. But all that does is set a common reference point. In other words, you could create a unit called a "blob," and then use the government standards to set the conversion "1 blob = 4oz = 113.5g."

As far as road construction goes, almost all public roads except the Interstate highway are owned and maintained by State and local governments, and they alone can decide what units are allowed. Although the Feds can bully them into accepting federal standards by withholding money--but that only works if a state isn't able to raise enough revenue from it's own taxes, fees, and bond sales.

Mike, are you absolutely sure of this? I don't say you're wrong, but I had a feeling that there was a clause in the US Constitution granting Congress authority over weights and measures, along with the coining of money.

I'm not sure, either. It is a fact that US federal legislation used to require inch-pound; now it requires both inch-pound and metric for packaged foods and goods. Presumably, it could require just metric.

I have heard that there is a constitutional argument that Congress can set only standards, not units. But I do not know how relevant this is, or whether it is like the constitutional debate over the right to bear arms - open to interpretation.

The Federal government is authorised to "fix standards of weights and measures," but by no means authorised to retract existing standards, or mandate the use of any particular standards in private commerce.

The purpose was to ensure the consistent collection of customs duties throughout the US. This was a federal responsibility; states do not have the power to lay tariffs on imports. (Neither institution has the power to regulate exports.)

Federal packaging regulations are really extra-constitutional, but most firms do go along with them. Even so, many do not (Every time I go to the supermarkets, I see dozens of products labelled without metric equivalents), and there's really no mechanism to enforce them.

To give you an idea of how well-regarded the constitution is, by the way, Article I, Section 10 of the constitution says "No state shall ... make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts[.]" We can see how well this has held up.

The prohibition against paper money does not apply to the federal government. The states themselves have no power to make Fed notes legal tender within their borders, but they do have the right to accept them in place of their own lawful money.

QUOTE: "The Federal government is authorised to "fix standards of weights and measures," but by no means authorised to retract existing standards, or mandate the use of any particular standards in private commerce".

What is the authority for this limitation on federal power? How is it that the federal government can pass laws on other matters? What would be the point of the federal government if it cannot pass mandates?

The bit of the constitution I was thinking of runs:

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
...
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;"

It seems clear that Congress has the authority to fix the standard of weights and measures for interstate and foreign commerce.

However, although it is not very explicit, the section could reasonably be interpreted as not prohibiting states from using their own standards internally; this interpretation is supported by the fact that, a little later on in the text, states are explicitly forbidden a number of relevant activities (such as making anything but silver and gold a tender in payment for debts); but using other standards of weights and measures is not mentioned as one of the bans.

As I see it, and this can be backed up by reading the latest book called "Measuring America," the Congress under the arm of the National Institute for Standards and Technology to make the standards by which all national measures are compared. It is then up to the states to regulate their own measures. It is also true that the current U.S. Customary System is defined by U.S. Statute law. Here is the current Weights and Measures law from NIST:

"The International System of Units (SI) and the system of weights and measures in customary use in the United States are jointly recognized, and either one or both of these systems shall be used for all commercial purposes in the State. The definitions of basic units of weight and measure, the tables of weight and measure, and weights and measures equivalents as published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology are recognized and shall govern weighing and measuring equipment and transactions in the State."

Each state has the responsibility of defining what shall ba legal in it's border; however in view of the above law, it would seem to me that it would only need to be changed to read that only SI would be legal, and in that case, the state laws defining legal units would be trumped by the federal law, since all federal law trumps state law. For example, if you read each state's law, they echo the above federal statute. So if the federal statute read:

The International System of Units (SI) is recognized, and shall be used for all commercial purposes in the State. The definitions of basic units of weight and measure, the tables of weight and measure, and weights and measures equivalents as published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology are recognized and shall govern weighing and measuring equipment and transactions in the State.

Then all Customary units would not be legal for commercial purposes. It would be very easy for Congress to make a new federal law. Easy in legal terms, not in practical ones because the metric system only gets lip service here and is *extremely* unpopular.

Now this would change the law, but it would be a nightmare to enforce, and that's what you all from Europe fail to understand about Americans and the US. The scale of everything here (including public sentiment) is multiplied many times more here. Furthermore, the beaurocracy would be immense. Go back to the land registry. The entire country would have to be re-surveyed. We have deeds here in this country that are from the 18th century and are still the governing document for the property. The US is approximately 3,618,770 sq. miles or about 100,500 townships. Compare to the area of England which is only 50,318 sq. mi. or 1,400 twp. The US is HUGE. That would be a nightmare to resurvey, especially since each state has it's own grid and they're all in feet and all deeds are referenced to either a state grid or a county grid.

I reiterate the nightmare of conversion here in the US.

{However, although it is not very explicit, the section could reasonably be interpreted as not prohibiting states from using their own standards internally; this interpretation is supported by the fact that, a little later on in the text, states are explicitly forbidden a number of relevant activities (such as making anything but silver and gold a tender in payment for debts); but using other standards of weights and measures is not mentioned as one of the bans.

The states can set their own standard weights and measures, although most of them have simply codify the federal standards into state law.

For anyone interested in the legal tender clause mentioned above, findlaw.com provides a short explanation of it's purpose:

"Relying on this clause, which applies only to the States and not to the Federal Government, the Supreme Court has held that where the marshal of a state court received state bank notes in payment and discharge of an execution, the creditor was entitled to demand payment in gold or silver."

In other words, state bank notes are legally redeemable in gold or silver upon demand, at least in the state court systems. Federal bank notes, including federal reserve notes, are not, unless authorized by Act of Congress.

> What is the authority for this limitation on federal
> power? How is it that the federal government can
> pass laws on other matters? What would be the point
> of the federal government if it cannot pass mandates?

The tenth amendment restricts the powers of the federal government to those explicitly enumerated in the constitution. That is, the powers of the federal gov't are prescribed [i.e. this is what you may do, anything else is forbidden] whereas the powers of the states are proscribed [i.e. this is what you may not do, anything else is permitted].

The federal government is authorised to make an act "necessary and proper" in the pursuit of its express powers. Thus, any act relating to weights and measures applies only to areas of federal jurisdiction, such as interstate commerce and imports, but, at least from a strict-constructionalist viewpoint, cannot be extended to regulate private commerce within any state.

The "necessary and proper" clause and the commerce clause taken together are the constitutional "justification" for almost all federal regulation in existence today. The federal government simply makes some remote connection between the activity being regulated and interstate commerce. The manufacture of all goods, for example is regulated since the goods being manufeactured might someday pass across state lines, even if the firm itself does not sell its products outside of its home state. In addition, certain regulations apply to goods which have once crossed state lines -- The feds can impose penalties for violating federal gun regulations within a state on the grounds that the gun itself was at one time transported between states, even if its current owner was not the one who did so.

The feds even recently tried to defend a federal law against rape on the grounds that women might be reluctant to take part in interstate commerce in fear of being raped. The courts didn't accept this argument, but it certainly demonstrates how the constitution is viewed today as an obstacle to be circumvented, rather than as the basis of law.

In my opinion, the commerce clause has long outlived its usefullness. It was originally intended to promote a free market within the United States by preventing states from setting up their own barriers to trade, but today it's being used to perpetuate trade barriers.

(BTW, to be pedantic, the federal government has the power to "coin" money, but not to "print" it. This isn't an entirely superfluous distinction, either: to the constitution's framers, paper money was beyond the pale.)