The Clearview thread

[PHLBOS]

I'm going to assume series EEM was not considered in this study...

After skimming through the pdf that J N Winkler posted; I would assume not.  Which is a shame given that the whole Interim Approval was implemented in response to readability issues associated with the thicknesses of the mixed cased Series EM font (post-button-copy); especially with shorter, lower-case letters involving arcs or loops (letters a, c, & o for examples).  The EEM examples I've seen out in the field addresses those readability issues without changing to a completely different font.

To my knowledge, Series D & E all-caps applications and Highway Gothic numerals (Series C through E in particular) had no readability issues; which was the reason why the Interim Approval was very narrow in scope & application.

In short & IMHO; the MIT study seems, at best, not a fully-complete nor fair comparison; and, at worst, biased towards the Clearview font.

[J N Winkler]

Not sure if you meant myself or the abstract when you say that it's misleading, but when I said "across the board", I meant in all cases where Clearview could be used, not that Clearview is superior when comparing similar weights.

I was referring to the abstract.  Part of the problem we have faced with Clearview is agencies relying on very limited studies, generally comparing only Clearview 5-W to Series E Modified (Series D has not been in the mix since the early noughties), to conclude that all of the Clearview W series are superior to the FHWA series in positive-contrast applications.  This is why it is important to specify that experimental results refer just to the typefaces from each family that have actually been tested, not the entirety of the typeface families.  Even the use of the non-official term "Highway Gothic" is unhelpful.

[kalvado]

And thinking about it... MIT study is fairly simple from software perspective. Similar program can be drafted with minimal effort to run on PC screen, assuming fonts are available on the machine. Would be cool to scratch a program and do some first-hand "studies" to see how big the difference is for this forum population...

[PurdueBill]

Excluding Series D because it would be a "third font" which would weaken the statistical analysis seems fishy.  It's a lab simulation, not a real-life test track exercise in actual sign viewing conditions.  A font that would actually be seen out there was excluded.  Meeker is acknowledged for providing background on Clearview's design, and the study concludes that it adds "converging evidence of its superior legibility" when in reality, there is evidence that Clearview isn't superior all the time.  The study seems to be flawed, biased, or otherwise somehow imperfect.

What about EEM?  Why exclude D?  (D was excluded because it was inconvenient.)  Not sold on the study's impartiality or objectivity.

[Scott5114]

Not to mention that a PC screen probably can't adequately simulate things like reflectivity, halation, and such. (I've not read the study and don't know if they attempted to simulate these or not.)

[MikeCL]

what does the hourglass mean?

That shape is painted on the pavement on the spot you're not supposed to block in each of the northbound lanes. You can see them the lower left of my photo. They're also visible on Google's satellite view and Bing's "birds eye" view (the sign is visible but not legible in street view).

I live in Greenwich and no one takes that don't block the box serious.. the sign is crappy looking

[Pink Jazz]

For some of the cities here in the East Valley of the Phoenix metro area, Mesa, Gilbert, and Queen Creek now use FHWA for all new street blades including those on signalized intersections, with FHWA now becoming common in the former two.  These cities previously used Clearview, and prior to that signalized intersections in Mesa and Gilbert used Helvetica (although Helvetica is now becoming rare in Mesa as they get replaced by new signs in FHWA).


However, Chandler seems to be a different story.  While street blades for non-signalized intersections have reverted to FHWA (though now in mixed case), it appears that Chandler is now using a thinner-stroked Helvetica for the lighted signs at signalized intersections, since I did notice such signs that appeared to be brand new.  Chandler did use Helvetica for the lighted signs at signalized intersections prior to switching to Clearview, but these new Helvetica signs had thinner letter strokes than most of Chandler's Helvetica signs.  It looks fairly similar to the Helvetica used on Tempe's illuminated signs.

[txstateends]

The city of Dallas seems to be continuing use of Clearview on street blade signs and guide signs.

As far as the state, so far any new/recent TxDOT green guide signage is still Clearview.  I've not seen any kind of return to FHWA style.

[Pink Jazz]

The city of Dallas seems to be continuing use of Clearview on street blade signs and guide signs.

As far as the state, so far any new/recent TxDOT green guide signage is still Clearview.  I've not seen any kind of return to FHWA style.

As far as I know, Texas is one of the states that is challenging the elimination of Clearview, so my guess is that they are continuing to use Clearview in protest.

[Scott5114]

Oklahoma has been posting signs from what appears to be its first major post-Clearview project, along I-240 eastbound approaching I-35. Some of the new signs are on monotube gantries, which is as far as I know the first combination of FHWA Series/monotube in Oklahoma (which feels really weird, since Oklahoma introduced monotubes well into the Clearview era).

[Pink Jazz]

Here in the Phoenix area, on the ADOT side of things, several new signs using non-Modified Series E have gone up on the Loop 101 Price Freeway in the past month, most of which have replaced older button copy signs but some of which have replaced some early Clearview signs.

I wonder if other states will consider adopting a similar practice.

[wanderer2575]

MDOT (Michigan) is still using Clearview.  A sign replacement project on I-696 started a couple weeks ago and the new BGSs are in Clearview.

[PHLBOS]

MDOT (Michigan) is still using Clearview.  A sign replacement project on I-696 started a couple weeks ago and the new BGSs are in Clearview.

One has to wonder when were the project drawings approved?

[roadman]

MDOT (Michigan) is still using Clearview.  A sign replacement project on I-696 started a couple weeks ago and the new BGSs are in Clearview.

One has to wonder when were the project drawings approved?

If they are just installing signs now, I would suspect the project design drawings were initially approved prior to FHWA rescinding the IA for Clearview.  Even if the project were advertised for bids after the IA was rescinded, MDOT may have made the decision not to revise the sign designs for cost and scheduling reasons.

[Pink Jazz]

Here is a document on MDOT's interim guidance on the Clearview termination issue:
http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/tands/Details_Web/mdot%20interim%20guidance%20-%20clearview%20termination.pdf

[wanderer2575]

Here is a document on MDOT's interim guidance on the Clearview termination issue:
http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/tands/Details_Web/mdot%20interim%20guidance%20-%20clearview%20termination.pdf

Good to know, thanks.  Considering how Clearview-crazy MDOT went (replacing signs that didn't need it, IMO), I assumed they thumbed their noses when the interim approval was rescinded.  I e-mailed MDOT and asked if the sign plans were available for viewing online, but received no reply.

[J N Winkler]

I'm 95% certain the signing plans are online, but they're a bit tricky to find on MDOT's Eproposals site without a letting month and call.  I'm away from home at the moment and will check to see if I have the signing sheets extracted when I return.

As for MDOT and Clearview generally, it's been half and half in recent lettings.  Last winter one Upper Peninsula signing replacement was in Clearview and the other was in FHWA series.

As for TxDOT, a lot of recent plans have been Clearview, but not all of them.  It takes time to turn around the aircraft carrier.

[epzik8]

So guess what? A set of traffic signals along Route 24 in Bel Air, Maryland previously had Clearview font on the signs stating the names of the cross-streets. The SHA or whoever is in the process of replacing the wire signals at these intersections with mast-arms. The mast-arms have yet to be switched on, but yesterday, I noticed that they added the street markers, and they're printed in Highway Gothic. I am aware of the Clearview recall and this is obviously a result. The funny thing is, I saw someone joke in a thread in reply to a post from 2005 depicting a Highway Gothic Interstate sign in Michigan being replaced by a Clearview sign. The user's joke was, "If this was 2017, the Clearview sign would be getting replaced by the Highway Gothic sign". And now I'm witnessing some Clearview signs get replaced by Highway Gothic signs. Crazy.

[Pink Jazz]

So guess what? A set of traffic signals along Route 24 in Bel Air, Maryland previously had Clearview font on the signs stating the names of the cross-streets. The SHA or whoever is in the process of replacing the wire signals at these intersections with mast-arms. The mast-arms have yet to be switched on, but yesterday, I noticed that they added the street markers, and they're printed in Highway Gothic. I am aware of the Clearview recall and this is obviously a result. The funny thing is, I saw someone joke in a thread in reply to a post from 2005 depicting a Highway Gothic Interstate sign in Michigan being replaced by a Clearview sign. The user's joke was, "If this was 2017, the Clearview sign would be getting replaced by the Highway Gothic sign". And now I'm witnessing some Clearview signs get replaced by Highway Gothic signs. Crazy.

Here in Arizona I have noticed ADOT replace some Clearview signs with Highway Gothic Series E as well.  Also, the City of Mesa has replaced a few Clearview street blades with Highway Gothic Series D, as well as replacing many of their older Helvetica street blades.

[jakeroot]

The cities of Fife and Lakewood, WA previously used Clearview for their street blades, but switched back to Highway Gothic well over three years ago, long before the IA was pulled. AFAIK, neither of these cities received approval to use Clearview, so I suspect they stopped using the typeface as a cautionary, "we'd rather not get caught" move, rather than a "Clearview may not be as great as we thought so we're reverting" move.

[myosh_tino]

The cities of Fife and Lakewood, WA previously used Clearview for their street blades, but switched back to Highway Gothic well over three years ago, long before the IA was pulled. AFAIK, neither of these cities received approval to use Clearview, so I suspect they stopped using the typeface as a cautionary, "we'd rather not get caught" move, rather than a "Clearview may not be as great as we thought so we're reverting" move.

We're talking street blades right?  If the FHWA starts cracking down on cities using alternate typefaces for their street blades, I would be *really* surprised.  While San Jose's new blades use mixed-cased Highway Gothic (the old ones did too), Santa Clara is still using Clearview, Mountain View and Sunnyvale continue to use all-caps Highway Gothic and Cupertino (my hometown) uses Bookman.

[jakeroot]

The cities of Fife and Lakewood, WA previously used Clearview for their street blades, but switched back to Highway Gothic well over three years ago, long before the IA was pulled. AFAIK, neither of these cities received approval to use Clearview, so I suspect they stopped using the typeface as a cautionary, "we'd rather not get caught" move, rather than a "Clearview may not be as great as we thought so we're reverting" move.

We're talking street blades right?  If the FHWA starts cracking down on cities using alternate typefaces for their street blades, I would be *really* surprised.  While San Jose's new blades use mixed-cased Highway Gothic (the old ones did too), Santa Clara is still using Clearview, Mountain View and Sunnyvale continue to use all-caps Highway Gothic and Cupertino (my hometown) uses Bookman.

Both Lakewood and Fife have historically followed the MUTCD to a tee. The fact that they adopted Clearview at all is staggering, if not completely out of character. You're right; street blades do not have the same font restrictions as other signs, but the FHWA still recommends Highway Gothic for road signs. My guess is that these cities would rather just use Highway Gothic for all signs, if only for simplicity's sake.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if the FHWA required a Clearview IA to use the typeface on street blades?

[Scott5114]

Yes, although some state DOTs phrased their approval request to include all highway agencies within the state. Oklahoma DOT, for example, included in their IA request "This request is for all jurisdictions within the state of Oklahoma." That would include OkDOT and OTA, but also any city that wished to use Clearview (although I'm not aware of any that did other than one intersection in Norman).

The reason why you see such variance in MUTCD compliance with blade signs is because cities are more or less on the honor system to follow the MUTCD. The only mechanism FHWA has to enforce MUTCD compliance is withholding of federal highway funding. Cities usually don't get all that much federal highway funding in the first place, so it's not much of a threat.

[freebrickproductions]

The reason why you see such variance in MUTCD compliance with blade signs is because cities are more or less on the honor system to follow the MUTCD. The only mechanism FHWA has to enforce MUTCD compliance is withholding of federal highway funding. Cities usually don't get all that much federal highway funding in the first place, so it's not much of a threat.

I guess that's why Cullman has such bad signs that no-one's really done anything about.

[J N Winkler]

I e-mailed MDOT and asked if the sign plans were available for viewing online, but received no reply.

I-696 signing plans can be downloaded here:

http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/eprop/index.cfm?action=showCall&letting=170106&originalLet=170106&sr=5

In order to load the actual project advertisement with the documentation without running into a login redirect, you have to be logged in to the Eproposals site.  If you do not have an Eproposals account, you can create one by following the "New user registration" link found here:

http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/eprop/login/index.cfm

Ignore the "Vendor number" field (unless, of course, you have a vendor number); it is not obligatory.  Use a throwaway password because the login mechanism is not secure (HTTPS was used in the past, but plain HTTP is used now).

I do have the signing sheets extracted and most if not all of them have 2016-10-28 as a nominal date (probably a plotting date).  This project was advertised probably in December 2016 for a letting in early January 2017.  I suspect it was not considered a suitable candidate for redesign with FHWA alphabet series because it has high structural content (engineer's estimate of $7 million-$10 million versus the usual $1 million or so when panels only are being replaced).