AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Poll

Which do you think is better: Highway Gothic or Clearview?

Highway Gothic
Clearview

Author Topic: The Clearview thread  (Read 820310 times)

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15874
  • 日本標準時

  • Age: 28
  • Location: Uruma-shi, Japan
  • Last Login: Today at 09:09:51 PM
    • Flickr
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1525 on: March 22, 2018, 10:06:39 PM »

British Columbia also uses Clearview extensively (in all contrast situations), with rather good results in my opinion. There's a few bad apples, but I'd give them an A overall.

Honestly, I can't say that I find British Columbia's signage to be aesthetically pleasing.

Not sure there's major differences between how Quebec and BC use it, although BC uses it across the whole sign (minus route shields). Don't you prefer one typeface for the whole sign? I do, which is why I think signs like this are much better than the same sign with a mix of fonts:



The one thing BC pretty consistently fails at is using properly-sized cardinal directions. I'm not sure what the provincial standard is, but I've seen a wide range of sizes.

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 19828
  • Nit picker of unprecedented pedantry

  • Age: 34
  • Location: Las Vegas, NV
  • Last Login: Today at 10:33:07 PM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1526 on: March 22, 2018, 11:23:38 PM »

"For this fiscal year" implies that the new Clearview IA would have a sunset date of September 30, 2018. If that's the case, what's the fucking point? Especially if agencies have to re-apply for the new IA, as they have to for the new RRFB IA.

Some legislator wanted to make Meeker & Associates think they were helping without actually doing so.
Logged
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Android

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 143
  • Location: Douglas, WY
  • Last Login: Today at 09:36:54 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1527 on: March 23, 2018, 12:25:09 AM »

It's not really back until it's passed both houses and is signed by Trump...right?

Right.

I'm curious as to who decided this section needed to be added to this bill, however, and why.

Uhh, yeah, I wonder if they had some kind of a "dimview", eh?
Logged
-Andy T. Not much of a fan of Clearview

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14684
  • Age: 32
  • Location: The 518
  • Last Login: Today at 09:10:05 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1528 on: March 23, 2018, 12:56:55 PM »

Not sure there's major differences between how Quebec and BC use it, although BC uses it across the whole sign (minus route shields). Don't you prefer one typeface for the whole sign? I do, which is why I think signs like this are much better than the same sign with a mix of fonts:



The one thing BC pretty consistently fails at is using properly-sized cardinal directions. I'm not sure what the provincial standard is, but I've seen a wide range of sizes.
I can't put my finger on it, but I think it's the arrows and the exit tabs.  What's weird is that these signs in West Virginia (looks like we can add WV to the list of places that make decent-looking Clearview signs) also use Clearview exit numbers and they actually look pretty good to my eyes.

EDIT: I also noticed that the exit only text is done "California style", which certainly doesn't help.

In general, I don't really have a formula for why some signs look good and others don't... they just do.  This makes the fact that changing the font from FHWA to Clearview makes so much of a difference perplexing.  My best guess is that Clearview magnifies issues while FHWA suppresses them.  I've noticed that many of the places that have good-looking Clearview (actually, Québec's signage looks better in Clearview) tend to have sexy-looking signs to begin with, while the places where Clearview looks bad either had so-so signs or changed more than the font when they switched.  The Thruway is an interesting example: when they switched to Clearview, they also changed the font size and spacing, as well as there exit tab standards - they switched those back when they reverted to FHWA.  They also purchased non-reflective sheeting for the letters by mistake when they switched, making the signs unreadable at night (and less readable during the day... the letters look gray instead of white because of it); while this is a problem with both the Clearview and newer FHWA signs (they still haven't used all of it up), the problem seems to be worse on the Clearview ones, even though it's the exact same sheeting.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2018, 01:01:08 PM by vdeane »
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8772
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas
  • Last Login: Today at 10:25:39 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1529 on: March 23, 2018, 02:22:44 PM »

I have been told--although I don't think I have ever seen a guide sign design manual--that BC MOTH carbon-copied Dutch standards for its current generation of guide signs.

The Dutch approach can work, but proper space padding and management of color adjacencies (rule of tincture, etc.) is important.  The BC sign assembly shown in Jake's picture is more bug than feature.  Specific criticisms I would make:

*  Inadequate space padding in the "Exit" and "Only" patches for the dropped lane

*  Use of inset black borders for yellow areas regardless of whether the edge is free or set onto a different-colored background (black border should run out to the edge and be used only for free edges)

*  Too-small exit tabs, with insufficient space padding; also, letter suffixes should be at the same size as the digits; tab borders should be merged with main sign panel borders to simplify border treatments and make more effective use of green space

*  "HOV Exit" panel on left sign should not have a black bottom border (rule of tincture)

*  Cardinal direction word is too small (letter height needs to be at least doubled)

*  TCH 1 shield is too small (needs to be at least half again as tall)

*  Arrows in general seem unnecessarily tall, and cramp the legend quite a bit--one should expect to see at least three-quarters capital letter height between arrow tops and legend blocks, and between legend blocks and sign borders

All of these are quite aside from the use of negative-contrast Clearview.  I would prefer for FHWA Series E Modified to be used for all negative-contrast legend, and the justification for this is not entirely aesthetic since multiple studies have found that negative-contrast Clearview does have inferior legibility.  I don't feel using positive-contrast Clearview with negative-contrast FHWA series detracts from a sign's aesthetic appeal; I consider it comparable to a book using one typeface for body text and others for chapter and section headers.

As for the West Virginia signs, I'm not real keen on Clearview 4-W for exit tabs.  I'd rather stop pretending that Series D and D-like typefaces are appropriate for exit tabs and simply use Series E Modified/Clearview 5-W/5-W-R.  Border detailing is much better, however, and it looks like they are using proper 30 in tabs instead of 24 in.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

seicer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2336
  • Last Login: Today at 05:16:09 PM
    • Bridges & Tunnels
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1530 on: March 23, 2018, 02:24:40 PM »

Do you have an example of the West Virginia exit tabs? I thought they were very well applied on the I-64 signage projects near Huntington.

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8772
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas
  • Last Login: Today at 10:25:39 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1531 on: March 23, 2018, 02:34:02 PM »

I was working from the StreetView link Vdeane posted upthread.

Because WVDOT puts its letting plans online through Bid Express, which charges a $135/month subscription that I refuse to pay on principle (construction plans for public works projects should be available electronically at no charge), I have only a very limited sample of WVDOT signing plans.  However, it does include one sheet with a 2-mile advance guide sign for the US 40 Elm Grove Road exit on I-70.  It confirms 30 in exit tabs but tells me the tab legend is Clearview 5-W, not 4-W.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

mtantillo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 580
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Washington, DC
  • Last Login: May 21, 2023, 04:48:53 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1532 on: March 23, 2018, 04:21:36 PM »

It's not really back until it's passed both houses and is signed by Trump...right?

Right.

I'm curious as to who decided this section needed to be added to this bill, however, and why.

Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX), Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Senator John Cornyn (R-TX).
Logged

mtantillo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 580
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Washington, DC
  • Last Login: May 21, 2023, 04:48:53 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1533 on: March 23, 2018, 04:23:07 PM »

"For this fiscal year" implies that the new Clearview IA would have a sunset date of September 30, 2018. If that's the case, what's the fucking point? Especially if agencies have to re-apply for the new IA, as they have to for the new RRFB IA.

Some legislator wanted to make Meeker & Associates think they were helping without actually doing so.

In this case, the old IA has been reinstated, meaning agencies DO NOT have to reapply if they had permission under the old (now active again) IA-5.

"SEC. 125. For this fiscal year, the Federal Highway Administration shall reinstate Interim Approval IA—5, relating to the provisional use of an alternative lettering style on certain highway guide signs, as it existed before its termination, as announced in the Federal Register on 14 January 25, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 4083)."
Logged

mtantillo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 580
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Washington, DC
  • Last Login: May 21, 2023, 04:48:53 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1534 on: March 23, 2018, 04:26:15 PM »

What would FHWA do with it?  It serves no purpose.  The studies justifying trying it were fraudulent, and even then only showed improvement for mixed cast positive contrast, and IMO signs shouldn't be a mix of fonts.  That alone justifies not using it, but for some reason Clearview also causes states to put out poor signage.  The only places in the entire world that I've seen erect Clearview signs that don't make me want to throw up are Vermont, Arizona, and Québec.  Additionally, it requires a licensing fee, which IMO should have been enough to disqualify Clearview in and of itself.

Thus, Québec aside, Clearview needs to die.  Naturally, Congress managed to do the opposite.  What makes them think they know more about this stuff than the civil servants who actually know what they're doing?  :pan:

It did die. Until it didn't die.

Although it is only back for a year, and FHWA has 90 days to provide research results.
I know for a fact that the Texas Congressional Delegation is working on language for next years appropriations bill that will make Clearview permanent.

And Congress legislates on everything, even things they don't know anything about. It is up to their staff to research the issue and inform the legislators as to whether or not they should support the legislation. In this case, parties from the State of Texas (maybe TxDOT, maybe TTI, I'm not sure exactly) lobbied their Congressional delegation, and apparently did a good enough job convincing their staff that this was a very important item to include in the bill.

And honestly, Clearview is a high enough level policy, that many civil servants get told by their superiors if they should support Clearview or not. Just because a DOT employee has an opinion, even an informed opinion on the matter, is irrelevant if the agency head feels differently.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2018, 04:37:15 PM by mtantillo »
Logged

Brandon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11564
  • Stop making sense

  • Age: 46
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: Today at 07:52:25 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1535 on: March 23, 2018, 04:45:52 PM »

It's not really back until it's passed both houses and is signed by Trump...right?

Right.

I'm curious as to who decided this section needed to be added to this bill, however, and why.

Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX), Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Senator John Cornyn (R-TX).

A bipartisan effort from Tex-ass.
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

Bitmapped

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1181
  • Location: Morgantown, WV
  • Last Login: Today at 09:36:44 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1536 on: March 23, 2018, 08:08:26 PM »

Not sure there's major differences between how Quebec and BC use it, although BC uses it across the whole sign (minus route shields). Don't you prefer one typeface for the whole sign? I do, which is why I think signs like this are much better than the same sign with a mix of fonts:



The one thing BC pretty consistently fails at is using properly-sized cardinal directions. I'm not sure what the provincial standard is, but I've seen a wide range of sizes.
I can't put my finger on it, but I think it's the arrows and the exit tabs.  What's weird is that these signs in West Virginia (looks like we can add WV to the list of places that make decent-looking Clearview signs) also use Clearview exit numbers and they actually look pretty good to my eyes.

West Virginia's signage in general is consistent and well done, both FHWA and Clearview. Clearview's usage in West Virginia was limited to contracted projects, either large scale sign replacements or other construction. Signage manufactured in-house continued to be made in FHWA, even when it was replacing Clearview signage.

I hope PennDOT doesn't go back to Clearview. Despite being one of its pioneers, they never got the hang of it. Their signage tended to have a lot of problems with character height varying between capital and lowercase letters like in https://goo.gl/maps/ar3WY1vbg7w
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8772
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas
  • Last Login: Today at 10:25:39 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1537 on: March 23, 2018, 09:01:28 PM »

I hope PennDOT doesn't go back to Clearview. Despite being one of its pioneers, they never got the hang of it. Their signage tended to have a lot of problems with character height varying between capital and lowercase letters like in https://goo.gl/maps/ar3WY1vbg7w

We actually had a PennDOT employee on here a few years ago asking us what about these signs was so objectionable.  Several of us tried to explain that the issue was one of letter height mismatch between capitals and lowercase, but I am not sure it was getting through.  The problem seemed a lot worse in some districts than in others.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

freebrickproductions

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2560
  • The traffic signal enthusiast from north Alabama.

  • Age: -6977
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
  • Last Login: Today at 09:01:49 PM
    • Mike's Railroad Crossing Website
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1538 on: March 23, 2018, 11:46:27 PM »

ALDOT's Clearview signage has been pretty well made, IMO. Well, up until they decided to quit caring about quality control, which is something that's sadly continued into the use of Highway Gothic again.
Logged
It's all fun & games until someone summons Cthulhu and brings about the end of the world.

I also collect traffic lights, road signs, fans, and railroad crossing equipment.

(They/Them)

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 19828
  • Nit picker of unprecedented pedantry

  • Age: 34
  • Location: Las Vegas, NV
  • Last Login: Today at 10:33:07 PM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1539 on: March 24, 2018, 02:01:34 AM »

"For this fiscal year" implies that the new Clearview IA would have a sunset date of September 30, 2018. If that's the case, what's the fucking point? Especially if agencies have to re-apply for the new IA, as they have to for the new RRFB IA.

Some legislator wanted to make Meeker & Associates think they were helping without actually doing so.

In this case, the old IA has been reinstated, meaning agencies DO NOT have to reapply if they had permission under the old (now active again) IA-5.

Are you sure? "As it existed before its termination" sounds like FHWA could comply just by reinstating the IA with the exact wording as before. The law says nothing about maintaining the approvals that existed before it. If FHWA wanted to be hard-nosed about it, they could require new approvals, pointing to the RRFB IA as precedent for how they handle the situation of a revived IA, and then dare TxDOT to file suit over it. (By the time the case was heard, the case might be mooted by the IA running out.)

I doubt many DOTs are going to jump on this second coming of Clearview with much gusto. They've already had to switch back to FHWA Series once, and switching back to Clearview with the possibility of having to switch back again in September sounds like it wouldn't be too appealing. Safer/cheaper option is to just stay on FHWA Series until at least September and see how things shake out.

Anything can happen, but I doubt there's going to be many more chances to kick the can down the road on Clearview this Congress–this is going to be a turbulent midterm and September 30 is smack dab in the middle of campaign season.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2018, 02:03:43 AM by Scott5114 »
Logged
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

SectorZ

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3162
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Massachusetts
  • Last Login: Today at 06:05:46 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1540 on: March 24, 2018, 08:50:35 AM »

It's not really back until it's passed both houses and is signed by Trump...right?

Right.

I'm curious as to who decided this section needed to be added to this bill, however, and why.

Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX), Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Senator John Cornyn (R-TX).

87, 82, and 66. Not to be ageist, but this is kind of the issue...
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8772
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas
  • Last Login: Today at 10:25:39 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1541 on: March 24, 2018, 09:07:30 AM »

I doubt many DOTs are going to jump on this second coming of Clearview with much gusto. They've already had to switch back to FHWA Series once, and switching back to Clearview with the possibility of having to switch back again in September sounds like it wouldn't be too appealing. Safer/cheaper option is to just stay on FHWA Series until at least September and see how things shake out.

I think a background factor in all of this is Clearview-adopting agencies' willingness to run half-and-half systems while Clearview slowly ages out of existing signing as it is replaced.  TxDOT went to Clearview as part of a once-and-for-all changeover from button copy to whole-letter retroreflectorization, and signs were changed out between 1998 and 2006 at an intensity not seen since.  Michigan DOT and Arizona DOT also went on sign replacement sprees that local observers suggested were aimed at replacing existing signs with still-acceptable reflectivity just to get new Clearview signing in place.  While Arizona DOT has gone sour on Clearview in a big way and is now trying out Enhanced E Modified (which I don't think is going to work), I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility that Michigan DOT will give Clearview another shot.

Iowa DOT went back to FHWA Series on its own account when the Grays Harbor letter from 2014 made it clear Clearview was on its way out, but I suspect they are very comfortable with a mixed system because they do rolling sign replacements in such a fashion that badly dilapidated signs with three-digit routes in two-digit shields (no longer the current standard) co-exist with fresh signs.  TxDOT, on the other hand, seems to like its signing fresh and consistent.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

thenetwork

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3278
  • Age: 2020
  • Location: Grand Junction, Colorado
  • Last Login: March 17, 2024, 11:28:55 AM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1542 on: March 24, 2018, 11:35:15 AM »

Clearview works okay if used properly.  But try reading some of the BGS in Phoenix, AZ, at the major interchanges.

Having 3 different text font sizes on a single panel is overkill.
Logged

myosh_tino

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2809
  • Silicon Valley Roadgeek

  • Age: 50
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: March 17, 2024, 01:25:52 PM
    • Silicon Valley Roads @ Markyville.com
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1543 on: March 24, 2018, 01:37:44 PM »

Clearview is back, baby! From the 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which just passed the House (page 1604):

Quote
SEC. 125. For this fiscal year, the Federal Highway Administration shall reinstate Interim Approval IA—5, relating to the provisional use of an alternative lettering style on certain highway guide signs, as it existed before its termination, as announced in the Federal Register on January 25, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 4083).

Booooooo!!!!!!!  :thumbdown: :banghead:
Logged
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7391
  • Age: 58
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: February 02, 2024, 08:18:30 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1544 on: March 24, 2018, 02:47:05 PM »

I hope PennDOT doesn't go back to Clearview. Despite being one of its pioneers, they never got the hang of it. Their signage tended to have a lot of problems with character height varying between capital and lowercase letters like in https://goo.gl/maps/ar3WY1vbg7w
To be fair, that installation was done circa 2009-2010 based on looking through past GSVs for that area.  PennDOT, at least in Greater Philly, started getting better with its use of the Clearview font a few years later.  One of their worst (and earlier) Clearview examples are along PA 309 just north of I-276/PA Turnpike (but south of Susquehanna Ave.) to Bethlehem Pike in Montgomery County.

While Arizona DOT has gone sour on Clearview in a big way and is now trying out Enhanced E Modified (which I don't think is going to work),
Are you saying such won't work just for Arizona DOT or in general?  If you meant the latter, why do you believe that the Enhanced E Modified font will not work?

IIRC, and this was mentioned several pages back in this thread; the readability issues associated with mixed-case E-Modified post-button-copy (that triggered the whole Clearview font saga) had more to do with wider (than Standard Series E) letter stroke-width than anything else.  Using the narrower-stroked Series E lettering (either at the standard spacing of the E-Modifed spacing (which I believe is what Enhanced E-Modified font is)) would solve the readability issues that thicker-stroked (especially lower-case) letters had.

Such was the reasoning behind why the usage of the Clearview font in the Interim-Approval was so limited in scope/implementation & specific in the first place.  To my knowledge, there were no other readability issues associated with other FHWA fonts on other types of signs aside from Series B letters & numerals being too narrow to be read/deciphered from longer distances (personal opinion).

Maybe the 90-day period might open the door for the Enhanced E Modified font to be reviewed & accepted as an alternative.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2018, 02:49:44 PM by PHLBOS »
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8772
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas
  • Last Login: Today at 10:25:39 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1545 on: March 24, 2018, 03:12:15 PM »

My personal view is that Enhanced E Modified amounts to giving Lucy another try with the football.  The research is still preliminary and shows only a marginal advantage, which is similar to the position Clearview was in 2004 when the interim approval was originally granted.  It also contradicts previous research showing that Series E Modified has higher intrinsic unit legibility than Series E.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Android

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 143
  • Location: Douglas, WY
  • Last Login: Today at 09:36:54 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1546 on: March 24, 2018, 06:14:23 PM »

Ugh, more of the same, eh?   While I will not discount that Clearview "works" but I'm still happy to "kill it with fire"
Logged
-Andy T. Not much of a fan of Clearview

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 19278
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 62
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: Today at 04:15:45 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1547 on: March 24, 2018, 07:31:05 PM »

Just because a DOT employee has an opinion, even an informed opinion on the matter, is irrelevant if the agency head feels differently.

Truer words were never spoken.

As for the re-emergence of Clearview, I know I'm in the minority on this and am quite happy being the contrarian, but this is how government is supposed to work. And that's not because I like Clearview. Honestly, now that I'm used to it, I don't even notice it unless a sign formerly in FHWA gets replaced by a Clearview sign. And that's mostly because "ooh, a pretty shiny new sign!" instead of "ooh, a pretty shiny new sign that's in Clearview!"

The executive branch exists to carry out the dictates of the legislative branch. In this case, the executive branch made a decision that some people -- most likely Meeker and TTI -- did not like. They were unable to get resolution through the executive branch, so they lobbied the legislature to do something about it and were successful in that effort. Everyone knew this was coming. We had discussed this here before, so surely FHWA didn't get caught off-guard. They could have also lobbied to get that provision of the bill removed. In this case, an interested constituency won out.

I don't foresee this having a lot of impact. I doubt states will rush out to buy Clearview and produce signs using it. I don't foresee more states applying for IA. States that had been using it may go back to it.

As for Kentucky, new Clearview signage has popped up even after recission of the original IA because the signs were included in plans drawn up before that happened. New one-off replacement signs, however, have been done in FHWA. Kentucky contracts out its panel signage, as well as some signage on new construction. To my knowledge, no state-fabricated signs have ever used Clearview.
Logged


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15874
  • 日本標準時

  • Age: 28
  • Location: Uruma-shi, Japan
  • Last Login: Today at 09:09:51 PM
    • Flickr
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1548 on: March 24, 2018, 08:02:31 PM »

I have been told--although I don't think I have ever seen a guide sign design manual--that BC MOTH carbon-copied Dutch standards for its current generation of guide signs.

Wouldn't surprise me. APLs are used wherever possible, much like how they are used in the Netherlands.

On another note, it's just "MOT" or "MOTI". The "MOTH" name was used up until 2001, when it was changed to "MOT", before being changed again in 2008 to "MOTI".

The Dutch approach can work, but proper space padding and management of color adjacencies (rule of tincture, etc.) is important.  The BC sign assembly shown in Jake's picture is more bug than feature.  Specific criticisms I would make:

*  Inadequate space padding in the "Exit" and "Only" patches for the dropped lane

*  Use of inset black borders for yellow areas regardless of whether the edge is free or set onto a different-colored background (black border should run out to the edge and be used only for free edges)

*  Too-small exit tabs, with insufficient space padding; also, letter suffixes should be at the same size as the digits; tab borders should be merged with main sign panel borders to simplify border treatments and make more effective use of green space

*  "HOV Exit" panel on left sign should not have a black bottom border (rule of tincture)

*  Cardinal direction word is too small (letter height needs to be at least doubled)

*  TCH 1 shield is too small (needs to be at least half again as tall)

*  Arrows in general seem unnecessarily tall, and cramp the legend quite a bit--one should expect to see at least three-quarters capital letter height between arrow tops and legend blocks, and between legend blocks and sign borders

All of these are quite aside from the use of negative-contrast Clearview.  I would prefer for FHWA Series E Modified to be used for all negative-contrast legend, and the justification for this is not entirely aesthetic since multiple studies have found that negative-contrast Clearview does have inferior legibility.  I don't feel using positive-contrast Clearview with negative-contrast FHWA series detracts from a sign's aesthetic appeal; I consider it comparable to a book using one typeface for body text and others for chapter and section headers.

These are all legitimate concerns that I've noticed in the field as well. To address them point by point...

- I'm not sure what you mean by "inadequate space padding" in this context.

- Inset black borders are always used in that situation (part of the standard).

- Exit tabs are indeed undersized, but the letter suffixes are always superscript (and it's been this way long before Clearview was implemented). Rounded exit tabs are pretty normal, but they should reduce the radius of the curve.

- Borders around an entire sign/tab/patch is pretty standard (hence the "EXIT ONLY" patches with black borders)

- The cardinal direction is definitely too small (an issue I've noted many times before). This is an issue on and off the freeway.

- I've never thought the shield was too small, although BC is perfectly happy to use undersized shields. Seems about normal height to me (at least compared to every other Hwy 1 pull-through)

- I haven't yet seen an APL with up arrows of different heights, although that would be a welcome modification to improve padding.

I'm not trying to defend the MOT, but most of your issues are rooted in standards, not some perceived inadequacy on the part of the sign manufacturer. So, if you don't like the above sign, definitely don't come to BC.

If it helps, here's the initial document that discusses the implementation of Clearview (dated 5th September 2006): https://goo.gl/SNw8it. Why exactly BC decided to adopt Clearview for almost all uses (there are still some situations where the FHWA Series is used), I'm not totally sure. It could be that their initial implementation of Highway Gothic came without updating previous sheeting standards, so when Clearview was implemented, they decided to just go all in and adopt Clearview everywhere, and work with that as a starting point.

I'm sure we can all agree that negative-contrast Clearview is still reasonably easy to read, right? It's not like they're using Comic Sans.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2018, 08:04:46 PM by jakeroot »
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14684
  • Age: 32
  • Location: The 518
  • Last Login: Today at 09:10:05 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1549 on: March 25, 2018, 05:45:10 PM »

One thing that is particularly frustrating is that it seems obvious to me that the original studies regarding Clearview were fraudulent.  They clearly (pun not intended) favored Clearview, with brand-new Clearview signs being tested against aged FHWA signs that were in need of replacement regardless of font merits.  Even then, Clearview only barely showed improvement, and only in certain circumstances.  No wonder later studies were not in Clearview's favor.  Given the current business climate of taking any advantage possible regardless of morality (or sometimes even legality), it's hard to see this as unintentional.  Therefore, Meeker should have been punished, not rewarded.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.