News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

The Clearview thread

Started by BigMattFromTexas, August 03, 2009, 05:35:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

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

Highway Gothic
Clearview

Pink Jazz

Quote from: jakeroot on April 23, 2017, 10:49:52 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 23, 2017, 10:27:54 PM
The popularity of green was actually a frustration to Bertram Tallamy (then BPR head) at a personal level, since he had a visual impairment that made it difficult for him to read white text on green background.

I guess that begs the question: is there a similar visual impairment for white-on-blue?

Not sure.  However, for most people, since the human eye is much more sensitive to green than it is to blue, a sign with a green background can probably be detected at a longer distance at night than one with a blue background assuming the same grade of sheeting is used.


hbelkins

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 23, 2017, 09:51:12 PM
I'm not arguing whether or not Congress has the ability–it totally does. They pretty much have total free reign. What I'm arguing is whether or not it's a good idea (I don't think it is), and whether or not it's appropriate for Congress to descend into such nitty-gritty details like highway sign typefaces (I think that's a total waste of Congressional time and effort.)

That's why people contact their legislators to get certain things done. In this instance, a constituent had a representative's ear to file this legislation. If any of you know your congressional representative, you could ask them to file a competing bill.

(I know my congressman -- not really really well -- but I'm not going to ask him to because Clearview doesn't bother me the way it does some of you.  :bigass: )


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

vdeane

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 23, 2017, 10:27:54 PM
Yup.  If the elephant wants to stick his trunk into the tent, there's not a lot we can do about it other than try to persuade him that there are better uses for his time.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on April 23, 2017, 10:21:11 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 23, 2017, 09:28:45 PMBack in 1958, green was chosen as the background for guide signs not on the basis of controlled legibility testing, but rather through a glorified popularity contest.

However, note that the human eye is most sensitive to green and yellow wavelengths.  This may have some effect on the legibility of signs compared to other background colors.

The 1958 study didn't get into those human-factors issues.  It was literally an exercise in having people drive past signs with blue, green, and black backgrounds, and asking them which color they liked the best.  The popularity of green was actually a frustration to Bertram Tallamy (then BPR head) at a personal level, since he had a visual impairment that made it difficult for him to read white text on green background.  (He was previously head of the NYS Thruway, which at the time had blue signs.)
The version told in The Roads that Built America says that AASHTO already selected green and the contest was just to resolve the dispute with Tallamy.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Pink Jazz

Looking at the updated cosponsor list for the SIGN Act, it appears that very few Democratic congressmen have signed onto the bill.  I have a feeling that most Democrats in the House are going to vote against it while most Republicans will vote for it.

hbelkins

Quote from: Pink Jazz on July 29, 2017, 05:25:39 PM
Looking at the updated cosponsor list for the SIGN Act, it appears that very few Democratic congressmen have signed onto the bill.  I have a feeling that most Democrats in the House are going to vote against it while most Republicans will vote for it.

Why in the world would this be a partisan issue?


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

kalvado

Quote from: hbelkins on July 30, 2017, 02:27:12 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on July 29, 2017, 05:25:39 PM
Looking at the updated cosponsor list for the SIGN Act, it appears that very few Democratic congressmen have signed onto the bill.  I have a feeling that most Democrats in the House are going to vote against it while most Republicans will vote for it.

Why in the world would this be a partisan issue?
Because the way things are, if a democrat sneeze, no republican would even think about saying "bless you" - and vice versa.

jakeroot

Quote from: kalvado on July 30, 2017, 07:27:52 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 30, 2017, 02:27:12 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on July 29, 2017, 05:25:39 PM
Looking at the updated cosponsor list for the SIGN Act, it appears that very few Democratic congressmen have signed onto the bill.  I have a feeling that most Democrats in the House are going to vote against it while most Republicans will vote for it.

Why in the world would this be a partisan issue?

Because the way things are, if a democrat sneeze, no republican would even think about saying "bless you" - and vice versa.

That's true for some things, like healthcare, but not generic legislation like Clearview.

Pink Jazz


Quote from: jakeroot on July 30, 2017, 11:13:25 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 30, 2017, 07:27:52 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 30, 2017, 02:27:12 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on July 29, 2017, 05:25:39 PM
Looking at the updated cosponsor list for the SIGN Act, it appears that very few Democratic congressmen have signed onto the bill.  I have a feeling that most Democrats in the House are going to vote against it while most Republicans will vote for it.

Why in the world would this be a partisan issue?

Because the way things are, if a democrat sneeze, no republican would even think about saying "bless you" - and vice versa.

That's true for some things, like healthcare, but not generic legislation like Clearview.


But it is surprising how few Democrats have cosponsored the bill, even from states outside Texas.  This makes me wonder what will be the vote on the bill by party.

Scott5114

0 to 0, most likely. It hasn't even made it out of the Transportation committee yet, despite being referred there in April.

To be frank, the House has more important things to do than legislate this; the next big thing to do after the August recess is handle the debt ceiling, and also try to tackle the FY 2018 budget, both of which are issues that Speaker Ryan is personally very invested in (before becoming Speaker, he was in his dream job of Ways and Means chair). Even if this came sailing out of the committee, he's not likely to schedule floor time for this bill when financial issues are still pending.

After that we'll get into the midterm campaign season, which is not historically the most Congressionally productive time.

If they REALLY wanted to get this done, the way to do it would be to attach it as a rider to a transportation bill like whatever the next SAFETEA/ISTEA/TEA-21 ends up being called. The fact that Rep. Johnson filed it as a stand-alone bill kind of makes me wonder if Rep. Johnson just wanted to show someone "look, I did something" for whatever reason.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

vdeane

Quote from: jakeroot on July 30, 2017, 11:13:25 PM
Quote from: kalvado on July 30, 2017, 07:27:52 PM
Because the way things are, if a democrat sneeze, no republican would even think about saying "bless you" - and vice versa.
That's true for some things, like healthcare, but not generic legislation like Clearview.
Also not true for driverless cars for some reason.  They're working together on a bill that would deregulate driverless cars, to the point of preempting existing state regulations.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Pink Jazz

Another legislation, H.R. 3353, contains text to reinstate the interim approval for Clearview:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3353/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Fiscal+Year+2018+Transportation%2C+Housing+and+Urban+Development+Funding%22%5D%7D&r=2

Unlike the SIGN Act, this bill will only reinstate the interim approval, rather than forcing the FHWA to issue a final rule to incorporate Clearview into the MUTCD.

ColossalBlocks

I am inactive for a while now my dudes. Good associating with y'all.

US Highways: 36, 49, 61, 412.

Interstates: 22, 24, 44, 55, 57, 59, 72, 74 (West).

lordsutch

As a minor trivia item, Georgia DOT has (accidentally, I think) posted some signs using Clearview - but nobody would notice them unless they're looking very, very closely.

Specifically, the fractional enhanced location markers on I-75 along the new express lanes south of Atlanta are in FHWA. But the ones every mile use Clearview, not FHWA, for the word "MILE." You can definitely tell it's not an FHWA "M" because the center "v" doesn't drop down as far - in FHWA it goes down to the baseline, but in Clearview it only makes it down halfway.

Compare an integer mile marker (Clearview) and a fractional mile marker (FHWA).

Also of interest: both the House and Senate appropriations bills for FHWA for Fiscal Year 18 call for IA-5 to be reinstated either directly or indirectly: House Appropriators Fuel FHWA Font Fight:

Quote
The House Transportation-HUD Appropriations bill, released earlier this month, would allow jurisdictions to choose between using Clearview or Highway Gothic for their roadway signs in the FY18 fiscal year. The bill report states that its provision on highway guide sign fonts "prohibits funds from being used to enforce actions terminating the interim approval of [Clearview] during fiscal year 2018."

The report also requires FHWA to conduct a comprehensive review of prior research on Clearview as well as the safety and cost implications of FHWA's 2016 decision to terminate its approval of the Clearview font. The agency is required to report back to the committee within 90 days of enactment. ...

[Update: July 31, 2017] The Senate Transportation-HUD Appropriations Committee also jumped into the debate with the release of its FY18 bill in late July. While Clearview was not mentioned in the bill itself, the accompanying report directed FHWA "to reinstate Interim Approval IA—5 unless there is sufficient information to demonstrate no improvement in the overall effectiveness of signs from the use of Clearview."

The provision also made it into the proposed omnibus spending bill published yesterday in the House (page 1174):

QuoteSEC. 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)].

As of yet it is unclear if the Senate will produce a similar omnibus bill or try to get the House to pass the individual parts separately.

Eth

Quote from: lordsutch on August 17, 2017, 06:13:16 PM
As a minor trivia item, Georgia DOT has (accidentally, I think) posted some signs using Clearview - but nobody would notice them unless they're looking very, very closely.

Specifically, the fractional enhanced location markers on I-75 along the new express lanes south of Atlanta are in FHWA. But the ones every mile use Clearview, not FHWA, for the word "MILE." You can definitely tell it's not an FHWA "M" because the center "v" doesn't drop down as far - in FHWA it goes down to the baseline, but in Clearview it only makes it down halfway.

Compare an integer mile marker (Clearview) and a fractional mile marker (FHWA).

Sheesh, can't we at least finish one statewide font update before we go changing it again? (Also, I shudder to think what GDOT signs intentionally using Clearview would be like.)

lordsutch

Quote from: Eth on August 17, 2017, 06:56:11 PM
Sheesh, can't we at least finish one statewide font update before we go changing it again? (Also, I shudder to think what GDOT signs intentionally using Clearview would be like.)

I'm pretty sure a subcontractor just messed up and nobody caught it, or they just decided replacing the signs would be a waste of money since virtually nobody would notice the difference. You'd have to be incredibly anal (i.e. a roadgeek) to pick up on it either way.

ekt8750

Philadelphia has finally gotten the memo that Clearview's been revoked. Saw some new blades around town using mixed-case Highway Gothic Series B and C. Have to say they looked really nice.

J N Winkler

I might as well mention this:

http://falconsvp3.dot.state.wy.us/falconwebv3/falconwebapi3.aspx?cmd=search&app=apidesignplans&env=design%20plans&web%20viewable=yes&svp%20search=design%20plans

If you scroll down the listing (there is no way to provide a direct link to any of the files), one of the projects currently listed is an I-80 signs upgrade covering the route from Laramie eastward.  The sign layout sheets are pattern-accurate and confirm that Wyoming DOT has given up on Clearview.
"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

Personally, I have to "believe it when I see it" on the signs here in Wyoming.   Too bad there's not an overall sign design  document listed there.  Well, there may be somewhere, but digging into government documents makes my brain hurt.   
-Andy T. Not much of a fan of Clearview

Pink Jazz

It looks like Chandler's use of thin-stroked Helvetica as a replacement for Clearview on its illuminated street blades was apparently short-lived, since I saw illuminated street blades with brand new sheeting in FHWA today (I think it was at Chandler Boulevard and Alma School).

paulthemapguy

So which states have completed the switch back to FHWA font on the new signage?  I see that IDOT and ISTHA have gotten back to the regular font.  Even DuPage County, a huge proponent of Clearview, is back to installing signs with the superior font.
Avatar is the last interesting highway I clinched.
My website! http://www.paulacrossamerica.com Now featuring all of Ohio!
My USA Shield Gallery https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHwJRZk
TM Clinches https://bit.ly/2UwRs4O

National collection status: 361/425. Only 64 route markers remain

Pink Jazz

#1495
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 11, 2017, 09:37:32 AM
So which states have completed the switch back to FHWA font on the new signage?  I see that IDOT and ISTHA have gotten back to the regular font.  Even DuPage County, a huge proponent of Clearview, is back to installing signs with the superior font.

I know Arizona and Virginia have made the switch back.  However, does anyone know about Texas?  Texas is the lead state that is challenging the FHWA's decision on the rescinding of the interim approval, and continued to use Clearview well after the FHWA rescinded its interim approval.

However, note that ADOT isn't using Series E-Modified, but is using plain Series E on freeway BGS, Series D on regular roads, and Series C on street blades.

hbelkins

Kentucky is still using a mixture. I've noticed that on projects where signing plans were developed prior to the approval being rescinded, Clearview is still being installed. But on replacement signage, it's back to FHWA. I've also noticed that West Virginia is back to using FHWA for new or replacement signage in areas where Clearview replacements have been done, such as I-64 between the state line and Barboursville.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

J N Winkler

In terms of recent construction plans sets from the states that routinely used Clearview on their state highways (a proper subset of those that took out Clearview interim approvals), I am seeing reversion to the FHWA series in AZ, WY, OK, AR, IA, and VA, but not TX.  For IL, MI, PA, and OH, I have too little information to make a determination.

TxDOT is by far the largest holdout in terms of annual volume of sign panel detail sheets.  It is now making early review plans available online, at completion percentages ranging from 30% to 95%, and the ones that have signing still have Clearview.

In the case of MI I am seeing Clearview signing plans that post-date Michigan DOT's Clearview phaseout memo by more than a year.  I can't tell whether that is because they just have a lot of signing plans on the shelf, or if they are counting on being able to change typeface after contract award.
"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

tckma

It seems to me that any new signage I see going up here in MD is still in Clearview.  It was nice to see new signs in Connecticut using Highway Gothic last time I was up there, though I'm a bit sad to see their button copy and outline shields go.  The white route shields are probably more reflective, I tell myself -- though I have always enjoyed their outline button copy shields.

PHLBOS

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 11, 2017, 11:44:41 AM
In terms of recent construction plans sets from the states that routinely used Clearview on their state highways (a proper subset of those that took out Clearview interim approvals), I am seeing reversion to the FHWA series in AZ, WY, OK, AR, IA, and VA, but not TX.  For IL, MI, PA, and OH, I have too little information to make a determination.
Newer installs in PA are now Highway Gothic; such started appearing almost 2 years ago.
GPS does NOT equal GOD



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.