The Clearview thread

[kalvado]

Right, which is why I talked about campaign contributions. (There are other forms of influence, too, but I digress.)

My main point is that Clearview's entry into the political process did not come from upon high, or even from the middle. It came from somewhere down low, and made it through the entire process through some form of give-and-take compromise. It is very unlikely to come up again as any sort of even lukewarm political football in the near future, because realistically this kind of thing ranks near the bottom of the list of priorities Congress has.

More like below threshold of any Congress priorities...  Strange that it made it into the law..

[PHLBOS]

Right, which is why I talked about campaign contributions. (There are other forms of influence, too, but I digress.)

My main point is that Clearview's entry into the political process did not come from upon high, or even from the middle. It came from somewhere down low, and made it through the entire process through some form of give-and-take compromise. It is very unlikely to come up again as any sort of even lukewarm political football in the near future, because realistically this kind of thing ranks near the bottom of the list of priorities Congress has.

More like below threshold of any Congress priorities...  Strange that it made it into the law.

Such reminds me a bit of how the infamous Wright Amendment (such restricted Southwest Airlines' flight operations at Dallas-Love Field (DAL)) became law circa 1979-1980.  The Amendment was named after Congressman Jim Wright, from Fort Worth who would later become Speaker of the House during the 1980s.  Similar to the IA reinstatement, it was an eleventh-hour add-on; however unlike IA, it was added to a bill that had nothing to do with aviation nor Southwest. 

A repeal of the Wright Amendment would be signed in 2006 and the flight restrictions were phased out by 2014.

[Android]

Wow, what a lot of activity in this thread since I last looked up the AA forums! 

I've stated before, probably in this thread, that I while I don't exactly hate Clearview, but I don't like it much either, my own slang name for it is DimView.  I'd really rather prefer the "fixed" versions of FHWA Highway Gothic that I've seen over the years.

Now regarding this post:

Upon seeing some of the newer FHWA signs and the Clearview signs side-by-side here in Illinois, it strikes me that Clearview appears very dated and old-looking.  The FHWA appears timeless and fresh by comparison, especially on new signage.

Okay, I live out in the west now, but I was born in Rockford, Illinois and have done a lot of travelling there over the years.  While I don't currenly travel much beyond my rather long work commute these days, I appreciate this report from my "home turf"!

Highway Gothic Forever!  hah.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

I've stated before, probably in this thread, that I while I don't exactly hate Clearview, but I don't like it much either, my own slang name for it is DimView.

"Dimview" is a perfect name for NYSTA's Clearview signs–they all use completely non-reflective lettering on reflective signs, making legibility so remarkably, hilariously bad at night that it needs to be seen to be believed. Every time I drive by Clearview signage on the Thruway I'm shocked at how the authority ever put those signs up in the first place, let alone how they've allow them to stay up. They are as close to unreadable at night as any sign I've ever encountered.

[Android]

LOL, or do you mean "unseen to be believed"

[PHLBOS]

"Dimview" is a perfect name for NYSTA's Clearview signs–they all use completely non-reflective lettering on reflective signs, making legibility so remarkably, hilariously bad at night that it needs to be seen to be believed. Every time I drive by Clearview signage on the Thruway I'm shocked at how the authority ever put those signs up in the first place, let alone how they've allow them to stay up. They are as close to unreadable at night as any sign I've ever encountered.

Sadly, the NYSTA's newest signs that are in Highway Gothic still uses the non-reflective lettering.  One new BGS along the new span of the Tappan Zee Bridge's replacement for Exit 10 (US 9W) is Exhibit A of such.

[seicer]

Does this violate any part of the MUTCD? Can this be court challenged?

[J N Winkler]

Does this violate any part of the MUTCD? Can this be court challenged?

I think it might be possible to challenge the use of this sheeting combination under the MUTCD clause that requires signs to be retroreflectorized or illuminated so that they have substantially the same appearance by night as they do by day.  However, I would not lay high odds on such an action succeeding.  The same-appearance rule was designed to eliminate nonreflective backgrounds on unlit guide signs, while the Thruway signs have reflectorization across the entirety of their faces; it is just that the foreground elements get lost in the background.

[Scott5114]

The same-appearance rule was designed to eliminate nonreflective backgrounds on unlit guide signs, while the Thruway signs have reflectorization across the entirety of their faces; it is just that the foreground elements get lost in the background.

Out of curiosity, do you happen to know why that rule was enacted? I would imagine that nonreflective backgrounds would increase the contrast with the legend, thus aiding in readability. (The photos I have seen of non-reflective-background button copy at night appear much more legible than the reflective-background stuff Oklahoma was posting at the beginning of my driving career.) Is it simply to ensure that the background color is distinguishable? Because it seems like there would be much better ways of doing that (a reflective border, for instance).

[PHLBOS]

Does this violate any part of the MUTCD? Can this be court challenged?

I think it might be possible to challenge the use of this sheeting combination under the MUTCD clause that requires signs to be retroreflectorized or illuminated so that they have substantially the same appearance by night as they do by day.  However, I would not lay high odds on such an action succeeding.  The same-appearance rule was designed to eliminate nonreflective backgrounds on unlit guide signs, while the Thruway signs have reflectorization across the entirety of their faces; it is just that the foreground elements get lost in the background.

Assuming that this non-reflectivity issue only exists among one entity/authority (NYSTA); a better approach may to take some good quality night photos of the several signs (granted, such may take time & logistics) and send them to the Thruway Authority itself & comment on the problem.

[PurdueBill]

The same-appearance rule was designed to eliminate nonreflective backgrounds on unlit guide signs, while the Thruway signs have reflectorization across the entirety of their faces; it is just that the foreground elements get lost in the background.

Out of curiosity, do you happen to know why that rule was enacted? I would imagine that nonreflective backgrounds would increase the contrast with the legend, thus aiding in readability. (The photos I have seen of non-reflective-background button copy at night appear much more legible than the reflective-background stuff Oklahoma was posting at the beginning of my driving career.) Is it simply to ensure that the background color is distinguishable? Because it seems like there would be much better ways of doing that (a reflective border, for instance).

I thought the same when I found that my late father, who was having worse and worse trouble with eyesight and stopped driving at the first sign of any issue with his eyes, said one time when we were in California how much easier the button copy signs were to read at night, even the ones without lighting, because the newer fully-reflective ones were essentially blobs of reflection, whereas the button copy signs with nonreflective backgrounds allowed the letters to show easily.  He noticed especially because the signs at home in Mass. were generally fully-reflective and thus generally harder for him to read.

The border color reflection being keyed to the sign color is a neat idea.

[J N Winkler]

Out of curiosity, do you happen to know why that rule was enacted?

Here is the rationale, as given in a 1998 NPA issued as part of the multi-phase rulemaking that resulted in the Millennium MUTCD:

In Section 2A.8, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to extend the general requirements of sign retroreflectivity or illumination to all signs, not just regulatory and warning signs. This requirement would apply to all signs unless specifically stated otherwise in the MUTCD text for a particular sign or group of signs. The FHWA believes this will improve safety and visibility during adverse ambient conditions. After the FHWA has developed minimum retroreflectivity levels, the FHWA would include this information as GUIDANCE in the proposed new Section 2A.9.

Previously, there was a whole-signface retroreflectorization requirement that applied only to warning and regulatory signs.  I think it was introduced in the 1971 MUTCD because that is when the contrast option disappeared in California (previously, agencies could choose white on black or black on white for many regulatory signs, white on black typically having button reflectors for the significant elements of the message while black on white had whole-signface retroreflectorization).  The Millennium Edition change extended the whole-signface retroreflectorization requirement to guide signs, for which reflectivity requirements had previously been specified by sign type or sign group in the Chapter 2 guide signing subchapters.

Some agencies opted to develop contrast to facilitate sign reading by using brighter sheeting for foreground elements--Arizona DOT, for example, at one point used super engineer-grade for the green background and high-intensity or microprismatic for white lettering.  Others, like Kansas DOT, have had satisfactory results with microprismatic sheeting for all sign elements.  Gene Hawkins' group at TTI also did research into the rotational sensitivity of sign sheetings that showed that the amount of light reflected back from certain sheetings varied as they were turned through a full circle.

The real problem with the Thruway signs is that the agency's approach to signing in general is slapdash, as is the case with many toll agencies.  This is also true of the Ohio Turnpike, Illinois Tollway, and Kansas Turnpike, though not the Texas urban toll road operators or the Pennsylvania or New Jersey Turnpikes.  Signs look dilapidated, use house typefaces that only vaguely resemble the FHWA series, and are badly composed with either too much or too little padding between foreground elements.

[vdeane]

Heck, the Thruway knows they have a reflective problem on the letters already.  Years ago, they ordered the wrong type of sheeting for their sign shop.  Instead of ordering the right sheeting and getting rid of the stuff they shouldn't have ordered, however, they're using it until it runs out.

As for toll authorities, the slapdash nature of signage gets even worse with authorities that maintain bridges but not roads.  Much of the MTA's signage was absolutely atrocious and looked like it came from a third-world country, though thankfully their newer signage is significantly improved (maybe someone there finally discovered this thing called the MUTCD).  The Bridge Authority can have odd signage too (and extraordinarily low speed limits to go with it; the Mid-Hudson is 25 all the way from US 9W to US 9, where the speed limit goes up entering Poughkeepsie; it should be 30 on the bridge and 40 on the mile-long, four-lane, limited access approach road).

[US 89]

Although I prefer FHWA Highway Gothic, I don't really mind Clearview for BGSs. But IMO, this is definitely an example of how not to use Clearview:



This is actually really hard to read, especially at freeway speed.

[PurdueBill]

Although I prefer FHWA Highway Gothic, I don't really mind Clearview for BGSs. But IMO, this is definitely an example of how not to use Clearview:



This is actually really hard to read, especially at freeway speed.

Looks a lot like the how-not-to examples FHWA posted on their FAQ.  Most of the bad examples of dark Clearview on a light background seemed to come from Maryland or Virginia; this one would be good for them to add.

This kind of example shows a problem with Clearview: that some agencies or contractors don't care enough to read the whole IA or FAQ or anything, and just go with Clearview everywhere.

[seicer]

In general, that's not a very good sign design. I'm not sure why we are not using more symbols in the states like Europe, or even accepted symbols. An example is the Hazmat/No Hazmat icon - which is used consistently in some states (Ohio) but not others.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

In general, that's not a very good sign design. I'm not sure why we are not using more symbols in the states like Europe, or even accepted symbols. An example is the Hazmat/No Hazmat icon - which is used consistently in some states (Ohio) but not others.

The symbol you see there is in the SHS as 'National Network'.

There are three different symbols for roughly the same meaning:

National Network
Hazardous Materials - HM
Hazardous Chemicals - HC - An example of this would be the Little Rock Freeway System. I-30 (Downtown) and all of I-630 effectively ban all truck traffic on those Interstates.

[roadman]

In general, that's not a very good sign design. I'm not sure why we are not using more symbols in the states like Europe, or even accepted symbols. An example is the Hazmat/No Hazmat icon - which is used consistently in some states (Ohio) but not others.

The symbol you see there is in the SHS as 'National Network'.

There are three different symbols for roughly the same meaning:

National Network
Hazardous Materials - HM
Hazardous Chemicals - HC - An example of this would be the Little Rock Freeway System. I-30 (Downtown) and all of I-630 effectively ban all truck traffic on those Interstates.

HC stands for Hazardous Cargoes, and was the standard abbreviation for the R14-2 and R14-3 signs until the 2003 MUTCD, when it was changed to HM.  Although HM is the current terminology, it's not uncommon to still see signs out there that read HC - this was common in Downtown Boston (signs for the I-90 and I-93 tunnels) until recently.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

In general, that's not a very good sign design. I'm not sure why we are not using more symbols in the states like Europe, or even accepted symbols. An example is the Hazmat/No Hazmat icon - which is used consistently in some states (Ohio) but not others.

The symbol you see there is in the SHS as 'National Network'.

There are three different symbols for roughly the same meaning:

National Network
Hazardous Materials - HM
Hazardous Chemicals - HC - An example of this would be the Little Rock Freeway System. I-30 (Downtown) and all of I-630 effectively ban all truck traffic on those Interstates.

HC stands for Hazardous Cargoes, and was the standard abbreviation for the R14-2 and R14-3 signs until the 2003 MUTCD, when it was changed to HM.  Although HM is the current terminology, it's not uncommon to still see signs out there that read HC - this was common in Downtown Boston (signs for the I-90 and I-93 tunnels) until recently.

Thanks for the correction! I honestly thought it was Chemicals, but I shall get informed.

[seicer]

Is it also standardized that it must be in pounds? Instead of "80,000 RGVW & OVER", it would be "80,000 RGVW & OVER" or "40 TONS & OVER" or "40+ TONS"?

[roadman]

Is it also standardized that it must be in pounds? Instead of "80,000 RGVW & OVER", it would be "80,000 RGVW & OVER" or "40 TONS & OVER" or "40+ TONS"?

It's an enforcement issue.  Many agencies specify RGVW (or GVWR in the US) to clarify that it is the entire vehicle weight, and not just the weight of the load.  And you are correct, truck weights are normally specified in tons, not pounds.

[seicer]

Thanks! I'm not certain this is as much of a font issue, then, as much of a problem with spacing, wordiness, and the lack of symbols.

It would be easier to have a sign panel that reads:

LEGACY PARKWAY
TRUCKS 5+ AXLES
40+ TONS RGVW

Omit the awkward RGVW spacing, add appropriate context for the pluses, and now the text is scannable.

[hbelkins]

Kentucky may not have gone back to using Clearview after permission was granted again.

A mileage sign on I-64 westbound at Winchester had been knocked down quite some time ago. It had been down for several weeks. I noticed yesterday that it had been replaced with an FHWA font sign and not a Clearview sign.

[jakeroot]

Kentucky may not have gone back to using Clearview after permission was granted again.

A mileage sign on I-64 westbound at Winchester had been knocked down quite some time ago. It had been down for several weeks. I noticed yesterday that it had been replaced with an FHWA font sign and not a Clearview sign.

My understanding is that, much like the change from Clearview back to Highway Gothic, it takes more than a few months for sign orders to actually be processed, designed, and installed. So it's possible that the new sign was actually designed before Clearview was reinstated.

[hbelkins]

Kentucky may not have gone back to using Clearview after permission was granted again.

A mileage sign on I-64 westbound at Winchester had been knocked down quite some time ago. It had been down for several weeks. I noticed yesterday that it had been replaced with an FHWA font sign and not a Clearview sign.

My understanding is that, much like the change from Clearview back to Highway Gothic, it takes more than a few months for sign orders to actually be processed, designed, and installed. So it's possible that the new sign was actually designed before Clearview was reinstated.

Doubtful. This was a one-off replacement. In the past, if an old FHWA sign had to be replaced, it was done in Clearview. This one was knocked down after the reinstatement was done last year.