The Clearview thread

[J N Winkler]

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.

It does not actually exclude the other Clearview typefaces from the approval.  The attempt to deprecate them came only much later, with the Clearview FAQ.

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.

As written, the IA allows the use of any typeface in the Clearview family, in any capitalization mode currently permitted by the MUTCD.  If FHWA wanted to forbid the use of the narrower Clearview typefaces, it would have had to say so expressly in the IA, which it did not do.  Many state DOTs initially failed to understand the rationale for using Clearview (which really makes sense only when the legend is mixed-case) and simply started using Clearview on all of their positive-contrast guide and general informatory signing, including ones (such as D-series signs in many states) that by default use all-uppercase legend.  Not many state DOTs did as TxDOT did, which was to overhaul its conventional-road guide signing to take advantage of Clearview.  (As an example, TxDOT county line signs used to be in all-uppercase with the county name in larger type, but with Clearview the county name was put in mixed-case while all-uppercase was retained for the "small words" that are useful for identifying the type of sign but are not really read.)

[PurdueBill]

There is no reason for sign design sheets dated 2013 and 2014 to be using the narrower series.  The date on the sheets for both signs above is July 18, 2014.  There is NO reason that any Clearview belongs on a spec sheet less than a year old for a sign with all caps and numerals that isn't designable.  The FAQ has been around long enough, with anyone who cares able to see it (and those designing signs probably should be aware of it), that it's obvious that the Clearview doesn't belong on either sign.   If the IA wasn't clear, more recent FHWA guidance has been clear.  A 2014 design sheet has no business ignoring the guidance and using anything but what is called for.

Virginia was smart enough to come out with something to straighten out the problems.  Ohio seems to not have gotten the memo--seeing stuff like those Safety Patrol signs day in and day out which never were intended to be Clearview in the first place drives you crazy when you know that the rollout was botched and butchered needlessly.  The only thing worse is seeing those black-on-yellow Clearview signs in PA for things like "Fasten Seat Belts Next Million Miles"....

[vtk]

What's the point of those Safety Patrol signs, besides creating an opportunity for ODOT to take in ad revenue from State Farm?

[PurdueBill]

Beats me.  I know that I once had mechanical issues on I-77 just outside Akron and never saw the Safety Patrol for the hours I was with the vehicle.  And I have State Farm!!

[J N Winkler]

There is no reason for sign design sheets dated 2013 and 2014 to be using the narrower series.  The date on the sheets for both signs above is July 18, 2014.  There is NO reason that any Clearview belongs on a spec sheet less than a year old for a sign with all caps and numerals that isn't designable.  The FAQ has been around long enough, with anyone who cares able to see it (and those designing signs probably should be aware of it), that it's obvious that the Clearview doesn't belong on either sign.   If the IA wasn't clear, more recent FHWA guidance has been clear.  A 2014 design sheet has no business ignoring the guidance and using anything but what is called for.

The FAQ is not regulatory.  Not all of its advice is good either--for example, it calls for interline spacing set equal to the lowercase loop height of Clearview, which is a good deal higher than that of the FHWA series of the same uppercase letter height.  Almost nobody follows this particular bit of advice (thankfully).

It is up to an individual state DOT to decide what elements of the FAQ it wants to make into standard requirements and to circularize its staff and consultant designers accordingly.

As for the IA, it cannot be "clear" on something not being allowed when it is, in fact, allowed.

Virginia was smart enough to come out with something to straighten out the problems.  Ohio seems to not have gotten the memo--seeing stuff like those Safety Patrol signs day in and day out which never were intended to be Clearview in the first place drives you crazy when you know that the rollout was botched and butchered needlessly.

VDOT had some initial missteps.  Instead of redesigning their conventional-road guide signs from the get-go, like TxDOT did, they tried to use Clearview as a drop-in replacement.

[PurdueBill]

Words like "Acceptable" vs. "NOT Acceptable" on the FAQ page titled "Design and Use Policy for Clearview Alphabet" with the word "Policy" may not be regulatory, but it sure sounds damned close to saying Do this, not that.  Bad usage back in 2004 is understandable.  Bad usage today, not understandable. 

[Zeffy]

It seems like the CFEA has utilized those new super-hi-tech VMS to... display text in Clearview???


Photo by Alex Nitzman

Compare the 4 in the I-4 shield to the 4 in the 1/4 text - you'll notice it's different. I can guarantee with certainty that it's Clearview, and  I'm sure the EAST/WEST is also Clearview.

[cl94]

It seems like the CFEA has utilized those new super-hi-tech VMS to... display text in Clearview???

[img snipped]


Compare the 4 in the I-4 shield to the 4 in the 1/4 text - you'll notice it's different. I can guarantee with certainty that it's Clearview, and  I'm sure the EAST/WEST is also Clearview.

That looks like something NYSTA would do. Recently, all of their cardinal directions have been Clearview, even on reassurance markers.

[6a]

What's the point of those Safety Patrol signs, besides creating an opportunity for ODOT to take in ad revenue from State Farm?

That is exactly why. State Farm threw money at the state for the rights to wrap the safety patrol trucks with their logos.

Beats me.  I know that I once had mechanical issues on I-77 just outside Akron and never saw the Safety Patrol for the hours I was with the vehicle.  And I have State Farm!!

Last summer I got a call that one of our trucks was broken down "on I-71 by Polaris" which really doesn't narrow things down. I'm headed north on 71, turns out they're stopped right under the Polaris bridge. By the time I got there the patrol was there, helping to fix a coolant hose. Since the truck barfed coolant, the guy called in another patrol truck that had a coolant pump on it. They said the camera guys saw the truck stopped and called them in.

[J N Winkler]

Bad usage back in 2004 is understandable.  Bad usage today, not understandable.

Agreed.

Words like "Acceptable" vs. "NOT Acceptable" on the FAQ page titled "Design and Use Policy for Clearview Alphabet" with the word "Policy" may not be regulatory, but it sure sounds damned close to saying Do this, not that.

This is true.  The title and link use the word "Policy" and the prescriptions are expressed in categorical language.  However, the document does not specify an enforcement mechanism, nor does it make a claim for its own legal authority.  FHWA has the right of review for construction plans for federal-aid projects, so in principle a state FHWA office can ask that a set of Clearview signing plans be revised in accord with the FAQ guidelines.  However, the state DOT is usually very close while Washington is very far away, and HOTO (which handles the MUTCD and related issues) is just a small part of HQ.  From FHWA's perspective the path of least resistance is for the state FHWA office to conduct a high-level dialogue with the senior traffic engineers at the state DOT, obtain their buy-in to the FAQ guidelines (expressed through a memo the DOT circulates), and hope that the state DOT's staff and consultants follow this lead.  I don't think state FHWA offices are really resourced well enough to police typeface usage on signs, even if they considered it a high priority, which I doubt they do.

In contradistinction, the IA memo has regulatory value because it lays out approved experimentation as provided for by a certain section of the MUTCD, which itself is a regulatory document since it is included in the CFR by reference and the Secretary of Transportation is authorized by an act of Congress to make rules (including adoption of a given edition of the MUTCD as the national traffic manual) that are codified in the CFR.

[jakeroot]

Nice close-up of a Vancouver BC street blade. Funny how big they are in real life.

[Brandon]

^^ That's a sign you'll never see in Illinois.  He got his ass bounced out of the governor's office last November.

[jakeroot]

^^ That's a sign you'll never see in Illinois.  He got his ass bounced out of the governor's office last November.

Evidently, there's a few more Pat Quinn's than I thought (five more, to be exact, according to Wikipedia).

[Brandon]

^^ That's a sign you'll never see in Illinois.  He got his ass bounced out of the governor's office last November.

Evidently, there's a few more Pat Quinn's than I thought (five more, to be exact, according to Wikipedia).

Yeah, I noticed that too, when I saw the sign. 

[vtk]

^^ That's a sign you'll never see in Illinois.  He got his ass bounced out of the governor's office last November.

Evidently, there's a few more Pat Quinn's than I thought (five more, to be exact, according to Wikipedia).

And those are just the notable ones.  From census data on name frequency, we can estimate there are approximately 9 males named Pat Quinn living in the US today, and about 163 named Patrick Quinn.  (Most of the Pats are probably actually Patricks who choose to write the short form of their name on government forms.)

[AsphaltPlanet]

Some Toronto Clearview:

[SignGeek101]

Some Toronto Clearview:

This can't be from the MTO, they dont use Clearview, right? Must be from the city.

[cl94]

Some Toronto Clearview:

[images snipped]

This can't be from the MTO, they dont use Clearview, right? Must be from the city.

They did for a short time. A few months ago, I saw some on 406 and there's some on the QEW.

[AsphaltPlanet]

^ About 6 or 7 years ago, MTO put up about a dozen or so signs along the QEW and 406 using clearview font as a trial.  They haven't put any up since (and actually have replaced a few clearview signs with FHWA since the trial).

The signs that I have put up are along the City of Toronto maintained portion of the Gardiner Expressway (former QEW).  The City of Toronto exclusively uses Clearview signage on the expressways that it maintains.

[Pink Jazz]

Going back to the subject of Virginia, it appears that most of the logo signs on I-64 on the Virginia Peninsula have been replaced by new ones in Clearview fairly recently.  I wonder if these were installed or fabricated before or after Virginia updated its policy on its use of Clearview.  Perhaps Virginia's logo sign contractor (Interstate Logos subsidiary Virginia Logos) hasn't yet gotten the word on the state's current policy on the use of Clearview.

[jakeroot]

Going back to the subject of Virginia, it appears that most of the logo signs on I-64 on the Virginia Peninsula have been replaced by new ones in Clearview fairly recently.  I wonder if these were installed or fabricated before or after Virginia updated its policy on its use of Clearview.  Perhaps Virginia's logo sign contractor (Interstate Logos subsidiary Virginia Logos) hasn't yet gotten the word on the state's current policy on the use of Clearview.

I know the "policy" changed but I'm not convinced the practice is changing. I don't think any state has, in writing, a directive to use Clearview outside of destination legends, but it happens anyway. I think Clearview on blue/purple/etc will continue until Clearview is discontinued altogether, policy be-damned.

[Pink Jazz]

I know the "policy" changed but I'm not convinced the practice is changing. I don't think any state has, in writing, a directive to use Clearview outside of destination legends, but it happens anyway. I think Clearview on blue/purple/etc will continue until Clearview is discontinued altogether, policy be-damned.

Well, it seems that this policy is being followed for BGS, since the new signs at the I-85/I-95 interchange have Clearview only for the destination legends and Highway Gothic for everything else.  There are also reports of a new sign on I-95 southbound at Exit 161 (Woodbridge) that uses Highway Gothic Series D.

[codyg1985]

I know the "policy" changed but I'm not convinced the practice is changing. I don't think any state has, in writing, a directive to use Clearview outside of destination legends, but it happens anyway. I think Clearview on blue/purple/etc will continue until Clearview is discontinued altogether, policy be-damned.

Well, it seems that this policy is being followed for BGS, since the new signs at the I-85/I-95 interchange have Clearview only for the destination legends and Highway Gothic for everything else.  There are also reports of a new sign on I-95 southbound at Exit 161 (Woodbridge) that uses Highway Gothic Series D.

I have seen new BGSs in Houston where the exit tabs were in FHWA and the rest of the sign was in Clearview.

[Zeffy]

Crossposted from the New Jersey thread. A week or two ago, I emailed NJDOT asking them if Clearview was intended to be present on new sign installs on I-195/I-295 in the Trenton area. While the email confirmed that, it also brought to light the future of the typeface:

Hello Matthew,
Thank you for contacting the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). NJDOT is aware of all signs in the field using Clearview font. FHWA gave NJDOT interim approval in 2007 for the use of Clearview lettering on I-676 and I-76 as a test case. Based on positive feedback, Clearview font was installed on additional signs on Rt. 18, Rt. 295, and Rt. 195. A representative from FHWA has reached out to us recently and told us that they will no longer be pursuing the standardization of the Clearview font. Based on this direction, NJDOT will not be fabricating or installing more signs using Clearview. These signs will be replaced in the future with signs using the EC* Modified font.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact the office of Community and Constituent Relations at (609) 530-2110.
NJ DOT Correspondence Unit

* Note - I believe "EC" was intended to be either EM or E.

It should seem that Clearview is effectively dead at this point. I wonder how many states will begin to re-transition to the FHWA fonts? Big ones that come to mind near me are Pennsylvania and Delaware, as well as the New York Thruway Authority.

[cl94]

Crossposted from the New Jersey thread. A week or two ago, I emailed NJDOT asking them if Clearview was intended to be present on new sign installs on I-195/I-295 in the Trenton area. While the email confirmed that, it also brought to light the future of the typeface:

Hello Matthew,
Thank you for contacting the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). NJDOT is aware of all signs in the field using Clearview font. FHWA gave NJDOT interim approval in 2007 for the use of Clearview lettering on I-676 and I-76 as a test case. Based on positive feedback, Clearview font was installed on additional signs on Rt. 18, Rt. 295, and Rt. 195. A representative from FHWA has reached out to us recently and told us that they will no longer be pursuing the standardization of the Clearview font. Based on this direction, NJDOT will not be fabricating or installing more signs using Clearview. These signs will be replaced in the future with signs using the EC* Modified font.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact the office of Community and Constituent Relations at (609) 530-2110.
NJ DOT Correspondence Unit

* Note - I believe "EC" was intended to be either EM or E.

It should seem that Clearview is effectively dead at this point. I wonder how many states will begin to re-transition to the FHWA fonts? Big ones that come to mind near me are Pennsylvania and Delaware, as well as the New York Thruway Authority.

Good question. I know NYSTA has FHWA in its plans. Anyone know what font was installed on the new Exit 50 BGS on the monotube?