The Clearview thread

[hbelkins]

Leave it up to the Feds to cause drama over a typeface! As a passenger, the tails of certain lowercase characters (a), and spacing in Clearview (to me) doesn't make a difference. It has already been stated that Clearview was skewed in it's test results (or inconclusive).

Define "the feds."

This isn't on FHWA. They were directed to reinstate the approval for the use of Clearview by Congress.

[vdeane]

Interesting:

How long will the Interim Approval be valid?
Answer:
FHWA has no plans at this time to terminate the use of Clearview as allowed in IA-5 after September 30, 2018 when the appropriations language expires.

source

Very interesting. The IA approval ending so soon after reinstatement would have been a major blow to Clearview advocates. But with the FHWA not having any plans to rescind the IA, even after September, agencies might be more likely to reconsider the typeface, as the risk is much lower. There are many states, I'm sure, that would only use Clearview if it were added to the MUTCD (WA for example, who confirmed as much to me in an email). But agencies that previously used it could very easily start reusing it again.

In states that choose to readopt the typeface, I would expect for there to be a period of FHWA signs popping up again, due to the design of the signs having taken place after the initial rescinding. But, after that, Clearview popping up again.

I'm wondering if FHWA figured that doing it this way was the best change to avoid Congress butting in again.

[jakeroot]

I'm wondering if FHWA figured that doing it this way was the best change to avoid Congress butting in again.

Certainly possible. And them removing the IA again would just put them right back where they were before. I would not be surprised if Clearview persists as an interim approval until another experimental typeface comes along, even if that's ten years down the road. Unless IA's automatically expire after a certain length of time?

[vdeane]

Well, if they wait long enough, the political winds could change.  Certainly better than having Congress write into law that Clearview has equal standing to the FHWA fonts.

[Brandon]

Leave it up to the Feds to cause drama over a typeface! As a passenger, the tails of certain lowercase characters (a), and spacing in Clearview (to me) doesn't make a difference. It has already been stated that Clearview was skewed in it's test results (or inconclusive).

Not the feds so much as Tex-ass.

[jakeroot]

Well, if they wait long enough, the political winds could change.  Certainly better than having Congress write into law that Clearview has equal standing to the FHWA fonts.

At this point, as long as political lobbying still exists, and the Texas Transportation Institute does as well, Clearview will probably stick around.

[J N Winkler]

I think Clearview is pretty much it for experimental typefaces with new glyphs.  Even the claimed benefits were micro at best, for macro hassle, and the whole debacle with badly composed signs and the on-off-on interim approval will tell any prudent state DOT to steer clear.

[seicer]

Badly composed signs isn't the fault of the typeface, but the fault of misinformed or misguided (or worse: careless) contractors/fabricators/state workers. West Virginia can erect great Clearview signs consistently. But Pennsylvania? Pfft.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

So, I found this if anyone is interested in using it for their guide sign illustrations and/or modelling.

[Scott5114]

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me"--although I have been told that VDOT will likely pursue a return to Clearview, TxDOT is the prime mover behind this initiative and may very well remain the only agency using it on a large scale.  It is distantly possible that Michigan DOT could return to using Clearview, but I just downloaded a major I-696 contract and it shows Series E Modified for new installs.  I cannot think of any US state other than Texas for which I have access to pattern-accurate signing construction plans where the typefaces specified are not the FHWA series.

In the statement "FHWA has no plans at this time to terminate the use of Clearview . . . after the appropriations language expires," I believe the key phrase is at this time, and that the likeliest outcome of this current phase of the Clearview fight is a "Texas exception" rather than Mexico City Policy cycling.

My thoughts on this are similar to yours. I included the Mexico City Policy as an absolute worst case scenario–people would have to care about road sign typefaces enough to justify such a thing, and that's not going to happen.

The politically savvy thing for an FHWA insider with an interest in killing Clearview for good to do–and which the "at this time" wording would eminently allow–would be to conduct one more Clearview study to reinforce the case against it and provide cover for deprecating it, allow the IA to stand until February 2019 or so, and try to yank it then. This would be a gambit that the 116th Congress would have a Democratic majority in the House (which current polling suggests is at least plausible), denying the Texas delegation easy access to the House calendar and amendments processes. Road sign fonts probably aren't a partisan issue, but having to plead their case on behalf of Meeker & Associates to a Democratic Speaker (who may well be focused on grappling with parts of the executive branch other than USDOT) most likely isn't worth the hassle.

[Pink Jazz]

Of the local cities and towns here in the Phoenix area, I don't see Gilbert reintroducing Clearview since they just introduced their illuminated street blades with the town logo on the upper left and they are in FHWA.  I don't see them redesigning them immediately after introducing these new street blades.

Phoenix stuck with Clearview for its illuminated street blades for quite a while, however, there is one report of a new installation with illuminated street blades that are not in Clearview.  I am not sure if this is now standard Phoenix practice or if this may have been a contractor error.

[J N Winkler]

The politically savvy thing for an FHWA insider with an interest in killing Clearview for good to do–and which the "at this time" wording would eminently allow–would be to conduct one more Clearview study to reinforce the case against it and provide cover for deprecating it, allow the IA to stand until February 2019 or so, and try to yank it then. This would be a gambit that the 116th Congress would have a Democratic majority in the House (which current polling suggests is at least plausible), denying the Texas delegation easy access to the House calendar and amendments processes. Road sign fonts probably aren't a partisan issue, but having to plead their case on behalf of Meeker & Associates to a Democratic Speaker (who may well be focused on grappling with parts of the executive branch other than USDOT) most likely isn't worth the hassle.

I think your analysis is solid.  However, I foresee the Texas delegation pressing their case not on behalf of Meeker and Associates (a private interest), but rather protection of their significant investment in Clearview signs.  And depending on the extent of the Democratic majority in the House, there may be logrolling opportunities such that it is convenient to buy the votes of representatives from Texas whose partisan affiliations are mildly mismatched with the leans of their districts.

One solution that finesses the issue for all parties concerned is for Texas, and only Texas, to be given authority to use Clearview.  This could be done through a standalone private bill, or through a local and private clause in a public general bill.  Private bills are nowadays used more or less exclusively for immigration matters, but precedents for local and private clauses in public general bills include the clause in the STAA of 1982 cancelling the Somerset Freeway in New Jersey, or the clause in a later piece of 1980's legislation authorizing FHWA to pay 100% of the construction cost for I-287 in New Jersey.  The law review literature suggests that private bills are constitutionally sound as long as they provide a benefit to a particular party instead of taking a benefit away from that party, which would be deprivation without due process of law and would probably be open to challenge under either substantive due process or the bill of attainder clause in the Constitution.

From FHWA's perspective, it is better for Congress to grant Texas a special exception than to overturn decades' worth of traffic control device policy, including typeface uniformity, non-approval of devices whose performance is deemed not substantially better than that of already approved devices, and no addition of regulatory language to the MUTCD without engineering assessment showing that it benefits the traveling public.

[Scott5114]

The politically savvy thing for an FHWA insider with an interest in killing Clearview for good to do–and which the "at this time" wording would eminently allow–would be to conduct one more Clearview study to reinforce the case against it and provide cover for deprecating it, allow the IA to stand until February 2019 or so, and try to yank it then. This would be a gambit that the 116th Congress would have a Democratic majority in the House (which current polling suggests is at least plausible), denying the Texas delegation easy access to the House calendar and amendments processes. Road sign fonts probably aren't a partisan issue, but having to plead their case on behalf of Meeker & Associates to a Democratic Speaker (who may well be focused on grappling with parts of the executive branch other than USDOT) most likely isn't worth the hassle.

I think your analysis is solid.  However, I foresee the Texas delegation pressing their case not on behalf of Meeker and Associates (a private interest), but rather protection of their significant investment in Clearview signs.  And depending on the extent of the Democratic majority in the House, there may be logrolling opportunities such that it is convenient to buy the votes of representatives from Texas whose partisan affiliations are mildly mismatched with the leans of their districts.

I would be skeptical of such an argument. It is easily deflated as long as FHWA agrees not to force the removal of Clearview for the sake of being in Clearview, which the agency has never appeared to have an interest in doing. In that case, TxDOT's investments would be allowed to depreciate as any other road sign would until regularly-scheduled replacement. It is hard to see what the Texas delegation's actual motive is, other than to please Meeker lobbyists.

Current thinking on the 2018 election posits that a "blue wave" is within the realm of possibility, wherein the Democratic swing overcomes the usual partisan difference in districts drawn (i.e. gerrymandered) to split the Republican electorate between districts such that they have a slim majority in a large number of districts. If this were the case, such vote-buying by Democratic leadership would not really be necessary. (There is also the problem that such attempts at compromise have been less likely to work in recent Congresses than historically.) Unless, of course, incoming Democratic representatives in Texas were to choose to carry on the pro-Clearview campaign of their predecessors.

That being said, as with seemingly everything in Washington as of late, there is really no way to know how this will ultimately shake out until the results of the midterms are firmly in hand.

One solution that finesses the issue for all parties concerned is for Texas, and only Texas, to be given authority to use Clearview. [...]
From FHWA's perspective, it is better for Congress to grant Texas a special exception than to overturn decades' worth of traffic control device policy, including typeface uniformity, non-approval of devices whose performance is deemed not substantially better than that of already approved devices, and no addition of regulatory language to the MUTCD without engineering assessment showing that it benefits the traveling public.

Would this not cause other pro-Clearview states, like Virginia, to clamor for their own exemption? There is also the problem that allowing one of the largest states in both land area and population to be exempt from uniformity is not uniformity at all.

[kalvado]

The politically savvy thing for an FHWA insider with an interest in killing Clearview for good to do–and which the "at this time" wording would eminently allow–would be to conduct one more Clearview study to reinforce the case against it and provide cover for deprecating it, allow the IA to stand until February 2019 or so, and try to yank it then. This would be a gambit that the 116th Congress would have a Democratic majority in the House (which current polling suggests is at least plausible), denying the Texas delegation easy access to the House calendar and amendments processes. Road sign fonts probably aren't a partisan issue, but having to plead their case on behalf of Meeker & Associates to a Democratic Speaker (who may well be focused on grappling with parts of the executive branch other than USDOT) most likely isn't worth the hassle.

I think your analysis is solid.  However, I foresee the Texas delegation pressing their case not on behalf of Meeker and Associates (a private interest), but rather protection of their significant investment in Clearview signs.  And depending on the extent of the Democratic majority in the House, there may be logrolling opportunities such that it is convenient to buy the votes of representatives from Texas whose partisan affiliations are mildly mismatched with the leans of their districts.

I would be skeptical of such an argument. It is easily deflated as long as FHWA agrees not to force the removal of Clearview for the sake of being in Clearview, which the agency has never appeared to have an interest in doing. In that case, TxDOT's investments would be allowed to depreciate as any other road sign would until regularly-scheduled replacement. It is hard to see what the Texas delegation's actual motive is, other than to please Meeker lobbyists.

Current thinking on the 2018 election posits that a "blue wave" is within the realm of possibility, wherein the Democratic swing overcomes the usual partisan difference in districts drawn (i.e. gerrymandered) to split the Republican electorate between districts such that they have a slim majority in a large number of districts. If this were the case, such vote-buying by Democratic leadership would not really be necessary. (There is also the problem that such attempts at compromise have been less likely to work in recent Congresses than historically.) Unless, of course, incoming Democratic representatives in Texas were to choose to carry on the pro-Clearview campaign of their predecessors.

That being said, as with seemingly everything in Washington as of late, there is really no way to know how this will ultimately shake out until the results of the midterms are firmly in hand.

One solution that finesses the issue for all parties concerned is for Texas, and only Texas, to be given authority to use Clearview. [...]
From FHWA's perspective, it is better for Congress to grant Texas a special exception than to overturn decades' worth of traffic control device policy, including typeface uniformity, non-approval of devices whose performance is deemed not substantially better than that of already approved devices, and no addition of regulatory language to the MUTCD without engineering assessment showing that it benefits the traveling public.

Would this not cause other pro-Clearview states, like Virginia, to clamor for their own exemption? There is also the problem that allowing one of the largest states in both land area and population to be exempt from uniformity is not uniformity at all.

Do you actually think donkeys are more expensive than elephants? An issue of minor, if any, interest for general public, no significant impact.... Price is probably low 4-digit regardless of blue or red.

[Scott5114]

No–but I'm operating under the assumption that most districts in Texas will remain elephants, and thus be sidelined should donkeys take the House. Sam Johnson (R), sponsor of the pro-Clearview SIGN Act, represents an R+13 district* (TX-3), and thus under normal circumstances would be a relatively safe bet for re-election. R+13 is fairly mild for Texas–there are a large number of districts that are rated R+20 or better (even a few in the 30s).

That being said, this may be a faulty assumption. This is shaping up to be a really weird midterm, for a number of reasons not within the forum's remit.

*This number refers to an index called the Cook Partisan Voting Index (PVI). The PVI represents the district's "default" swing–that is, if you were to run a generic Democrat versus a generic Republican in a vacuum, you would expect a Republican to win an R+13 district by 13 points.

[J N Winkler]

I would be skeptical of such an argument. It is easily deflated as long as FHWA agrees not to force the removal of Clearview for the sake of being in Clearview, which the agency has never appeared to have an interest in doing. In that case, TxDOT's investments would be allowed to depreciate as any other road sign would until regularly-scheduled replacement. It is hard to see what the Texas delegation's actual motive is, other than to please Meeker lobbyists.

Many commenters in this thread have been saying "Money talks," but where is the proof?  Where would the money come from?  Clearview licenses for TxDOT's HQ, 26 districts, and maybe 20-30 of the frequent-flyer consultants still barely break $50,000 (assuming a cost of $800 per license).  This is a one-time cost and the money will have been spent long ago.

My theory that TxDOT does not want to run a "mixed font" system is based on the empirical observation that other Clearview adopters, such as Michigan DOT, staged a large number of sign replacements (covering, in some cases, recently replaced signs) with the apparent object of clearing guide signs with the FHWA series from entire corridors.  If TxDOT is forced to give up Clearview now, it will be running a mixed system for about 10-15 years, since it will be doing a significant amount of new construction as well as a background level of sign replacement from now until about 2025-2030 when Clearview signs installed as part of the early-noughties retroreflective sheeting upgrade come to the end of their service lives.

Current thinking on the 2018 election posits that a "blue wave" is within the realm of possibility, wherein the Democratic swing overcomes the usual partisan difference in districts drawn (i.e. gerrymandered) to split the Republican electorate between districts such that they have a slim majority in a large number of districts. If this were the case, such vote-buying by Democratic leadership would not really be necessary. (There is also the problem that such attempts at compromise have been less likely to work in recent Congresses than historically.) Unless, of course, incoming Democratic representatives in Texas were to choose to carry on the pro-Clearview campaign of their predecessors.

My thinking is that even with a less gerrymandered district map, Texas will have very few safe Democratic seats, especially outside urban areas, and thus it will be appealing to Democrats to back a measure that can be painted as saving the state money while maintaining the uniform appearance of guide signing within Texas.  Probably the most enduringly bipartisan sentiment among Texans is Mit uns ist alles immer besser.

One solution that finesses the issue for all parties concerned is for Texas, and only Texas, to be given authority to use Clearview.  [...]  From FHWA's perspective, it is better for Congress to grant Texas a special exception than to overturn decades' worth of traffic control device policy, including typeface uniformity, non-approval of devices whose performance is deemed not substantially better than that of already approved devices, and no addition of regulatory language to the MUTCD without engineering assessment showing that it benefits the traveling public.

Would this not cause other pro-Clearview states, like Virginia, to clamor for their own exemption? There is also the problem that allowing one of the largest states in both land area and population to be exempt from uniformity is not uniformity at all.

The legislation could be written to include Virginia.  But we will have to see what stance VDOT takes--notwithstanding what my sources say, I doubt they will want to be fooled twice.  Its consultants also really struggled to produce Clearview signing plans that were not schlock (placeholder fonts used instead of actual Clearview) long after Clearview had bedded in.

It is not like there is no precedent for ignoring glaring excursions from conformity.  The thirty-year lack of exit numbering in California comes to mind.

[MNHighwayMan]

As much as members of this forum like to make the FHWA vs Clearview debate a big deal, I just don't see this debate as being something that Congress wastes its time upon, again, any time soon. For now and the near future, Clearview has returned and will be used by those agencies that desire to do so.

[Scott5114]

As much as members of this forum like to make the FHWA vs Clearview debate a big deal, I just don't see this debate as being something that Congress wastes its time upon, again, any time soon.

I'm inclined to agree. As I mentioned above, if the 116th Congress goes looking for a fight with the executive branch, they will have enough potential points of conflict that it's doubtful anything USDOT does is going to be a very high priority.

[J N Winkler]

There are a few difficulties with the "Congress does not concern itself with small issues" argument:

*  Riders.

*  TxDOT (very large agency).

I agree this issue won't hit the floor in the House or the Senate, but that is as far as I go.  I suspect a group of staffers of comparatively high rank will end up brokering a compromise if TxDOT and FHWA cannot resolve their differences.

[Scott5114]

You're right, of course, but with the 116th Congress specifically there will be the potential to be a number of extremely high-profile issues sucking unusual amounts of air out of the room. It is hard to imagine anyone, even the Texas delegation, caring about any issue TxDOT has in the wake of something like, say, a final Mueller Report being released. Depending on its contents, it may be hard to find an actual bill to even attach a rider to for a while.

[hbelkins]

I don't think the top levels of the executive branch (meaning Trump, Pence, or whomever the president is) or even their appointed secretary of transportation, is going to bother with the minutiae of Clearview vs. FHWA. And I don't think it's a partisan issue whatsoever. On matters like these, the federal delegation usually works with the state, regardless of party affiliation, if the state is pressing for something. Even if there is a Democrat president or if the Dems take over Congress, they will work with Texas state officials on things like this.

[kalvado]

I don't think the top levels of the executive branch (meaning Trump, Pence, or whomever the president is) or even their appointed secretary of transportation, is going to bother with the minutiae of Clearview vs. FHWA. And I don't think it's a partisan issue whatsoever. On matters like these, the federal delegation usually works with the state, regardless of party affiliation, if the state is pressing for something. Even if there is a Democrat president or if the Dems take over Congress, they will work with Texas state officials on things like this.

It may be more interesting if, as speculated above, this is private interest - as opposed to state DOT engineering interest.

[MNHighwayMan]

The only likely reason Clearview got incorporated into the appropriations bill was as a compromise, IE "we'll accept language about reinstating the Clearview IA if you give us [whatever other small thing it was the opposition wanted]." No one in Congress actually cares about what State DOTs want in regards to sign fonts. They simply don't and can't, because big picture it's such a hugely unimportant issue–but they can use it as political leverage to get favorable language in a bill. They might also care if it involves campaign contributions, but again, that's still extremely small potatoes (and by extremely small I mean microscopic) in the grand scheme of things.

[kalvado]

The only likely reason Clearview got incorporated into the appropriations bill was as a compromise, IE "we'll accept language about reinstating the Clearview IA if you give us [whatever other small thing it was the opposition wanted]." No one in Congress actually cares about what State DOTs want in regards to sign fonts. They simply don't and can't, because big picture it's such a hugely unimportant issue. They might care if it involves campaign contributions, but again, that's still extremely small potatoes (and by extremely small I mean microscopic) in the grand scheme of things.

Someone had enough stimulus to include Clearview line into negotiation process. Otherwise it wouldn't get anywhere...

[MNHighwayMan]

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.