The Clearview thread

[JoePCool14]

I remember about two weekends or so ago where I saw construction warning signs in Clearview, along the construction zones on CA-1 in Santa Cruz. As much as I don't dislike Clearview, it just looks really ugly on anything that's not BGS. It's just too thin to be effective on warning signs or whatnot.

Well, I'll say that many of the street signs in Somerset County that use Clearview that aren't negative contrast are very legible from a distance. However, some of the street sign blades tend to look disproportionate because the legend takes up more than 85% of the total sign height.

At a reader meetup yesterday (25th of October, 2014), Alps, Kacie Jane, and I met and drove around Seattle. We spotted these Clearview warning signs near the Port of Seattle. None of us could tell that they were Clearview until we were right up close. I suppose that means they're working, right?

Holy shit that is ugly. Kill it with fire, please... I used to use Clearview in my videos just because I thought it could work, but I stopped because its even too ugly for non-road purposes. No joke.

[jakeroot]

I thought I'd just leave this here:

http://goo.gl/QzoAnx (page 17)

[SignGeek101]

I don't know if I like this or not. It doesn't look too bad; looks better than helvetica. I'm okay with it. What's the width on the letters, 3W?

I see that some of the signs in the document still use FHWA fonts. Is this still the case in BC with those signs, or are those just older drawings?

[seicer]

The first bad installation I've seen in a while for Kentucky: https://goo.gl/maps/8RCG4

[SignGeek101]

The first bad installation I've seen in a while for Kentucky: https://goo.gl/maps/8RCG4

Looks like a candidate for the redesign this thread.

[vtk]

Today I noticed shiny new Clearview BGS on KY 8 where it runs into I-75 in Covington.  I don't think they were there the last time I had passed through.

[misterjimmy]

Virginia Beach uses some strange font on most of its speed limit signs (most notably on Shore Drive for the quick drop from 45 MPH to 25 MPH).

Hopewell...um, don't get me started with them.



Proof that this monstrosity really exists

It was still there when I was in Hopewell last weekend.

That is the most disgusting number "10" I've ever seen on a road sign!! How did they get away with that one? Where's the picture of the outraged roadgeeks protesting on the opposite corner?!?

[Zeffy]

The first bad installation I've seen in a while for Kentucky: https://goo.gl/maps/8RCG4

Looks like a candidate for the redesign this thread.

Agreed: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9539.msg2024199

[codyg1985]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but I have seen a couple of these attraction signs in Clearview in Mississippi. I've seen it in different counties, so I doubt it is a local installation. This sign is on US 98 between Hattiesburg and McComb.

[jakeroot]

Wanting to answer this because I left you hanging:

I don't know if I like this or not. It doesn't look too bad; looks better than helvetica. I'm okay with it. What's the width on the letters, 3W?

The letters are Clearview 1W, the narrowest of the Clearview versions.

I see that some of the signs in the document still use FHWA fonts. Is this still the case in BC with those signs, or are those just older drawings?

As far as I can tell, they just haven't updated them. I have seen most of the signs in the manual in Clearview at some point or another.

[mefailenglish]

Noticed this at a service plaza on Florida's Turnpike.

[sammi]

I actually like it off a road sign.

[Pink Jazz]

This was posted about a month ago, but it looks like Virginia is now becoming more strict on its use of Clearview, allowing them only for mixed case legends on positive contrast signs:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview_Highway_Font.pdf

That means no more Clearview exit gore signs, logo signs, cardinal directions, or worded directional signs in Virginia.

[jakeroot]

This was posted about a month ago, but it looks like Virginia is now becoming more strict on its use of Clearview, allowing them only for mixed case legends on positive contrast signs:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview_Highway_Font.pdf

That means no more Clearview exit gore signs, logo signs, cardinal directions, or worded directional signs in Virginia.

What was their previous policy (besides their in-the-field informal practice)?

[cl94]

I didn't tell you this, but from what I heard at a conference, the folks at FHWA aren't too happy when they see something that doesn't use the Standard Alphabets. The FHWA engineers are far worse than everyone else I've ever heard when it comes to hating on Clearview.

[jakeroot]

I didn't tell you this, but from what I heard at a conference, the folks at FHWA aren't too happy when they see something that doesn't use the Standard Alphabets. The FHWA engineers are far worse than everyone else I've ever heard when it comes to hating on Clearview.

Just a thought, but do they feel like they might be responsible for creating a mess? I mean, Clearview had potential, it was just horribly rolled out.

[cl94]

I didn't tell you this, but from what I heard at a conference, the folks at FHWA aren't too happy when they see something that doesn't use the Standard Alphabets. The FHWA engineers are far worse than everyone else I've ever heard when it comes to hating on Clearview.

Just a thought, but do they feel like they might be responsible for creating a mess? I mean, Clearview had potential, it was just horribly rolled out.

Studies have shown that, if letter size, spacing, and retroreflectivity are equal, the standard alphabet is equally or more legible as/than Clearview. Remember- even with the initial studies, Clearview was only better for mixed-case positive-contrast signage Clearview would have had potential if it was used only as allowed and intended. Clearview was only allowed for mixed-case positive-contrast signs and it was greatly abused, being utilized in ways that actually decreased legibility.

[Zeffy]

I don't think it's FHWAs fault too much based on the fact that when Clearview was rolled out in the Interim Approval, there were very strict guidelines on where it should be used. Now, apparently, that memo was not received too well, because in states like Pennsylvania and Texas (which have gotten much better with Clearview usage nowadays if I do say so myself) there were a lot of signs that violated that Interim Approval rules for Clearview. But what could FHWA do to states that continued to use it incorrectly? Besides, a lot of contractors picked up the typefaces anyway - just look at New Jersey's new (UGLY) Clearview signs on I-195 and I-295 near Trenton, whereas NJDOT themselves do not use Clearview.

[Pink Jazz]

What was their previous policy (besides their in-the-field informal practice)?

Not sure, but I can definitely say I have seen some Clearview logo signs in the Hampton Roads area.

[jakeroot]

You won't find I bigger proponent of Clearview than I. I'm a huge fan of it. That's why I hold the FHWA completely responsible for botching the roll-out.

Even if the studies found Clearview to be less legible in some cases, it was also found to be more legible in other areas. What they should have done was completely use Clearview, or not adopt it at all. We both know that Clearview was found to be more legible (in some cases), and in other cases, less legible. The FHWA choosing to no longer adopt Clearview tells me that they are not as interested in readability as they lead on, given that they are falling back on the (in some cases) slightly less legible font. By piecemeal-ing the roll-out, they were setting themselves up for failure. They know full well that some states already don't exactly follow guidelines set forth by the FHWA. What made them think they'd follow these guidelines any better?

[PHLBOS]

This was posted about a month ago, but it looks like Virginia is now becoming more strict on its use of Clearview, allowing them only for mixed case legends on positive contrast signs:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview_Highway_Font.pdf

That means no more Clearview exit gore signs, logo signs, cardinal directions, or worded directional signs in Virginia.

If one reads further down the memorandum, there still will be some new VDOT signs erected containing more (than allowed) Clearview only because the design documents & shop drawings predate this memo.

Future contracts: These standards should be implemented on all projects for which the sign fabrication layout details have not yet been completed. Projects issued for advertisement on or after July 15, 2015 shall be in full compliance.

Interesting tid-bit on how to handle lettering for numbered streets:

**except when the numerals are a part of a destination name, e.g. "91st Ave"

Along I-83 near Harrisburg, PA; I've seen BGS' for 2nd St. in both all-Clearview and mixed FHWA/Clearview for the 2ND St. lettering.  Of course, the ND & ST listings are in all-caps (vs. lower-case); which makes a more cohesive/logical use of mixed fonts for the same line.

[J N Winkler]

What was their previous policy (besides their in-the-field informal practice)?

The memo Pink Jazz linked to is TE-337.1, a revised version of TE-337.0, which used to live at the same URL and so is no longer on the current Web because it has been overwritten on the server.  However, the Web Archive has it:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100616080616/http://virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview_Highway_Font.pdf

It is essentially a carbon copy of the original Interim Approval memorandum for Clearview, in much the same way the current version is a carbon copy of the Clearview FAQ.

As for current practice, VDOT has issued some contract signing plans that restrict Clearview to mixed-case legend since at least the autumn of 2013.  I have seen contract signing plans for Northern Virginia that use Clearview for everything, and others for Hampton Roads and the mountain districts that use it only for mixed-case text, but I haven't searched for a clear pattern with regard to contract date or district.  I suspect the current version of VDOT's Clearview memo is designed to harmonize practices that previously varied from designer to designer.

I don't think it's FHWAs fault too much based on the fact that when Clearview was rolled out in the Interim Approval, there were very strict guidelines on where it should be used.

The guidelines contained in the original IA are nowhere near as strict as what FHWA is trying to push as "best practice" in the Clearview FAQ.  In 2004 FHWA required just that Clearview be used in positive contrast on guide signs only, with its own spacing tables.  Now FHWA (as of October 2013, the apparent issue date for the Clearview FAQ) wants practitioners to use Clearview 5-W or 5-W-R only, and only for mixed-case legend on guide signs, with different rules for interline spacing (which nearly all Clearview-using agencies and I disagree with, BTW).

Now, apparently, that memo was not received too well, because in states like Pennsylvania and Texas (which have gotten much better with Clearview usage nowadays if I do say so myself) there were a lot of signs that violated that Interim Approval rules for Clearview.

I have been following the Clearview story in real time since before the IA was issued.  Texas' Clearview signing has actually been quite clean from the beginning.  Sure, there have been isolated examples of Clearview in negative contrast or in route marker digits, but these comprise a very small fraction of the contract signing TxDOT has done in the same period.  (To give an idea of scale, my current collection of pattern-accurate sign panel detail sheets extracted from TxDOT construction plans sets has more than 15,000 sheets from 1998 to the present.)  The main issue with TxDOT's Clearview signing has actually been the size of fraction numerals, an issue that was noted early on but never systematically addressed by state DOTs and which FHWA is trying to cure by encouraging the use of Series E or E Modified for all numerals.

The real reprobates are agencies like Oklahoma DOT and PennDOT that routinely do things that were never allowed by the original IA, such as negative-contrast Clearview.  The former has even inserted negative-contrast Clearview into plans for federal-aid projects, which are nominally subject to FHWA review.  PennDOT's contract signing plans are fairly clean (though not up to TxDOT standards), but the negative-contrast stuff that attracts ire from folk on here tends to be made in its district sign shops and installed by state forces, so it bypasses the project development process for contract work.

Studies have shown that, if letter size, spacing, and retroreflectivity are equal, the standard alphabet is equally or more legible as/than Clearview. Remember- even with the initial studies, Clearview was only better for mixed-case positive-contrast signage Clearview would have had potential if it was used only as allowed and intended. Clearview was only allowed for mixed-case positive-contrast signs and it was greatly abused, being utilized in ways that actually decreased legibility.

The original IA cited the early Clearview research, but it never actually required that the use of Clearview be restricted only to the specific cases where a clear benefit over the FHWA series had been demonstrated.  It also laid out typeface equivalencies (Clearview 1-W as a substitute for Series B, etc.) for Clearview faces whose advantages over the equivalent FHWA series had never been demonstrated in published research.

You won't find I bigger proponent of Clearview than I. I'm a huge fan of it. That's why I hold the FHWA completely responsible for botching the roll-out.

I don't.  I remember the original correspondence between PennDOT, TxDOT, and FHWA back in the early noughties, when both agencies were pushing hard for Clearview to be approved and FHWA HOTO was dragging its feet.  The ATSSA database included at least two letters from Art Breneman (now long retired, but at the time PennDOT's chief signing engineer) asking for Clearview approval.  Meanwhile, TxDOT had been specifying "Expressway Clearview" (by plan sheet note only; the actual sign designs showed Series E Modified) since the late summer of 2002, and had also advertised its first contract explicitly showing Clearview in pattern-accurate sign panel detail sheets (an El Paso district job in June 2003) more than a full year before the FHWA IA was released.  There were plenty of experimental installations in both Texas and Pennsylvania.

At the time it was pretty easy to predict most of the design disasters that would happen if Clearview were entrusted to inexperienced or careless practitioners (negative contrast, route marker digits, signing half in one system and half in the other, etc.), though some others (such as the fraction problem) became evident only later.  But FHWA had to get out in front of this, from their perspective, unwanted development, because their institutional inclination has always been to use federal-aid funding as a tool for persuasion rather than as a club to ensure that every MUTCD standard is followed down to the letter.  It was in no one's interest at FHWA HQ to have Congressmen asking pointed questions about why the agency was standing in the way of innovation.

To the extent that FHWA can be said to "hate" Clearview--and I don't know if that is true for the agency as a whole, since there has always been a plurality of opinion and there are reputed to be one or two Clearview enthusiasts at FHWA--I suspect a lot of that sentiment comes from resentment at having their hands forced before the implications of national rollout of Clearview could be worked through.

[TrevorB]

Spotted this in Hernando, Mississippi. One of the very few Clearview signs in the state.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.755363,-89.990152,3a,15y,214.5h,86.44t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sZ22988sFqUMSlIL8afCDBQ!2e0

[Scott5114]

[...]The FHWA choosing to no longer adopt Clearview tells me that they are not as interested in readability as they lead on, given that they are falling back on the (in some cases) slightly less legible font. By piecemeal-ing the roll-out, they were setting themselves up for failure. They know full well that some states already don't exactly follow guidelines set forth by the FHWA. What made them think they'd follow these guidelines any better?

I think that's pretty unfair to FHWA, especially when you take into account that they made the switch to mixed-case text on most guide signs mandatory in the 2009 MUTCD. That is a huge change, and many cities have had to completely redesign their standard signage to compensate for it (case in point: Oklahoma City's mixed-case sign blades are an entirely different design from their most recent all-caps signs). Also, recent studies have indicated to them that Enhanced E(M)–that is, Series E with E(M) spacing tables–is king when it comes to legibility, so one can't fault them for backing off on Clearview.

As for the Clearview IA and FAQ...perhaps in the future before releasing any engineering document, be it an IA or a new MUTCD, FHWA should take the time to ask itself "What will be the result of this ending up at Oklahoma DOT?" (FHWA should probably keep it simple and use single-syllable words...)

[PurdueBill]

The interim approval including equivalencies between FHWA typefaces and Clearview typefaces was just asking for trouble.  The IA shows that table and probably doesn't in retrospect emphasize enough that ONLY 5-W and 5-W-R are approved for use at all.  The table in the IA saying that 3-W is essentially equivalent to Series D was just asking for trouble with people using it when they shouldn't.  The result was predictably signage with all sorts of too-narrow Clearview, in all-caps even.  Ohio's design manual makes use of all different series of Clearview for certain signs with destination legend, with the only info about Clearview buried in an appendix which in turn refers the reader to the IA online.  Nothing in the manual about using 5-W/5-W-R _only_ or anything like that.  The result? Crap like this.  All caps and numerals, Series B and D.....NOTHING that should involve Clearview.  Why is it even listed as an option????  (And again, Appendix D simply refers people to the IA online.)



These have popped up like wildfire as well around cities; again, the narrow Clearview both looks bad and is not supposed to be there.  The IA enabled this by even including 2-W and 3-W in the equivalency table.