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 820322 times)

Bitmapped

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1181
  • Location: Morgantown, WV
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:36:44 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1500 on: December 11, 2017, 03:32:18 PM »

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.

West Virginia always used FHWA on DOH-manufactured signage. Clearview signage was installed by contractors, generally as part of larger sign replacement projects. I don't think DOH wanted to spend money on the Clearview licenses.

A couple years ago, US 50 (Corridor D) between Parkersburg and Clarksburg got a complete signage replacement in Clearview. Soon after, you started seeing DOH-installed replacements with FHWA pop up because of accidents and road name changes. This was well before Clearview use was rescinded.
Logged

Pink Jazz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1717
  • Real Men Wear Pink

  • Age: 36
  • Location: Queen Creek, AZ
  • Last Login: March 16, 2024, 07:59:29 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1501 on: December 11, 2017, 03:57:18 PM »

I wonder, has NMDOT District 5 switched back?  They were the only district in New Mexico to use Clearview.

Locally, Clearview has been used by the City of Rio Rancho, as well as Los Alamos County.
Logged

okroads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1029
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:59:45 PM
    • OKRoads Flickr
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1502 on: December 11, 2017, 10:46:47 PM »

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.

Ohio has switched back to FHWA. New signage installed this year on I-70 in Madison County & east Columbus, parts of OH 315, and U.S. 33 from Marysville to Dublin all use FHWA. This also applies to other parts of the state where construction projects have recently been completed (ie. I-76 near Barberton, I-71 just northeast of downtown Cincinnati).

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15874
  • 日本標準時

  • Age: 28
  • Location: Uruma-shi, Japan
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:09:51 PM
    • Flickr
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1503 on: December 12, 2017, 01:35:30 AM »

Can't remember the last time I saw a Clearview speed limit sign in the US. This was taken in Phoenix, at the Jackson Street overpass downtown (here). The Phoenix suburbs appear to have quite a few of these...(installed 2010, AFAICT)...

« Last Edit: December 13, 2017, 01:04:31 AM by jakeroot »
Logged

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 19829
  • Nit picker of unprecedented pedantry

  • Age: 34
  • Location: Las Vegas, NV
  • Last Login: Today at 02:20:41 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1504 on: December 12, 2017, 02:44:24 PM »

Oklahoma has definitely switched back. Some FHWA Series panels went up in the otherwise entirely-Clearview I-35/SH-9 project in Norman, and a fairly big signage contract for I-35 was let that will replace a whole bunch of Clearview signs with FHWA Series.
Logged
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Pink Jazz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1717
  • Real Men Wear Pink

  • Age: 36
  • Location: Queen Creek, AZ
  • Last Login: March 16, 2024, 07:59:29 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1505 on: December 12, 2017, 04:00:31 PM »

Can't remember the last time I saw a Clearview speed limit sign in the US. This was taken in Phoenix, at the Jackson Street overpass downtown (here). The Phoenix suburbs appear to have quite a few of these...(installed 2010, AFAICT)...



Phoenix did have a short-lived negative contrast Clearview phase in the early 2010s; not just with speed limit signs, but with its black on white street blades at non-signalized intersections as well when it switched them to mixed case.  This was eventually corrected; I think they switched the negative contrast signs back to FHWA around 2012, with the street blades now in mixed-case FHWA.  However, I am not sure about what is their current status on the illuminated street blades at signalized intersections (which are white on green).  I have yet to see an illuminated sign in FHWA in Phoenix.  For comparison, Mesa, Gilbert, and Queen Creek are now using FHWA for overhead street blades, and Chandler apparently recently switched to FHWA this year after a short-lived experiment with thin-stroked Helvetica as a replacement for Clearview.
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 #1506 on: December 12, 2017, 07:00:44 PM »

Can't remember the last time I saw a Clearview speed limit sign in the US. This was taken in Phoenix, at the Jackson Street overpass downtown (here). The Phoenix suburbs appear to have quite a few of these...(installed 2010, AFAICT)...

<image removed>

Eh, I can live with that I suppose.  The nearby city of Mountain View, CA uses Helvetica for its speed limit signs.
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.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15874
  • 日本標準時

  • Age: 28
  • Location: Uruma-shi, Japan
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:09:51 PM
    • Flickr
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1507 on: December 12, 2017, 08:17:10 PM »

Can't remember the last time I saw a Clearview speed limit sign in the US. This was taken in Phoenix, at the Jackson Street overpass downtown (here). The Phoenix suburbs appear to have quite a few of these...(installed 2010, AFAICT)...

<image removed>

Eh, I can live with that I suppose.  The nearby city of Mountain View, CA uses Helvetica for its speed limit signs.

I'm used to seeing both in BC, although Helvetica is by far more common. Between those two and FHWA, I don't really prefer any of them. They all look fine to me.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15874
  • 日本標準時

  • Age: 28
  • Location: Uruma-shi, Japan
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:09:51 PM
    • Flickr
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1508 on: December 13, 2017, 01:15:56 AM »

Can't remember the last time I saw a Clearview speed limit sign in the US. This was taken in Phoenix, at the Jackson Street overpass downtown (here). The Phoenix suburbs appear to have quite a few of these...(installed 2010, AFAICT)...

https://i.imgur.com/0JEDeAl.jpg

Phoenix did have a short-lived negative contrast Clearview phase in the early 2010s; not just with speed limit signs, but with its black on white street blades at non-signalized intersections as well when it switched them to mixed case.  This was eventually corrected; I think they switched the negative contrast signs back to FHWA around 2012, with the street blades now in mixed-case FHWA.  However, I am not sure about what is their current status on the illuminated street blades at signalized intersections (which are white on green).  I have yet to see an illuminated sign in FHWA in Phoenix.  For comparison, Mesa, Gilbert, and Queen Creek are now using FHWA for overhead street blades, and Chandler apparently recently switched to FHWA this year after a short-lived experiment with thin-stroked Helvetica as a replacement for Clearview.

I neglected to take a photo, but I also saw a Clearview variation of the stop sign "ALL WAY" plaque: https://goo.gl/nAXsZ5 (doesn't look like it from the image, but IRL it was definitely Clearview).

PurdueBill

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1515
  • Last Login: December 20, 2023, 04:13:55 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1509 on: December 14, 2017, 08:54:57 PM »

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.

Ohio has switched back to FHWA. New signage installed this year on I-70 in Madison County & east Columbus, parts of OH 315, and U.S. 33 from Marysville to Dublin all use FHWA. This also applies to other parts of the state where construction projects have recently been completed (ie. I-76 near Barberton, I-71 just northeast of downtown Cincinnati).

Signage on US 30 from OH 235 to the Indiana line (some of it less than 10 years old, others 1999 button copy) is in replacement right now and is FHWA.  Akron street sign blades had been Clearview and are now FHWA as well. 

Interestingly, the signs on I-75 for the US 30 interchange, recent Clearview signs, have been replaced with FHWA.  I haven't been on I-75 itself beyond there lately or seen plans; was this only because of the interchange with 30?  As much as I dislike Clearview, I also dislike wasting money on replacing signs that are not very old and have probably a couple decades of life in them still.  (The signs from just west of US 30 to nearly the Indiana line on 30 fit this description as well, less than 10 years old and very reflective--and being replaced now.)
Logged

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 #1510 on: December 15, 2017, 11:40:44 AM »

As much as I dislike Clearview, I also dislike wasting money on replacing signs that are not very old and have probably a couple decades of life in them still.  (The signs from just west of US 30 to nearly the Indiana line on 30 fit this description as well, less than 10 years old and very reflective--and being replaced now.)
IIRC, VA's reaction to the switch back to Highway Gothic was that the existing Clearview signs would remain until such either are worn (due to age), damaged and/or the legend(s) on the signs need to be changed for some reason.  I'd assume that other states would have a similar approach.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Pink Jazz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1717
  • Real Men Wear Pink

  • Age: 36
  • Location: Queen Creek, AZ
  • Last Login: March 16, 2024, 07:59:29 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1511 on: December 15, 2017, 12:21:03 PM »

As much as I dislike Clearview, I also dislike wasting money on replacing signs that are not very old and have probably a couple decades of life in them still.  (The signs from just west of US 30 to nearly the Indiana line on 30 fit this description as well, less than 10 years old and very reflective--and being replaced now.)
IIRC, VA's reaction to the switch back to Highway Gothic was that the existing Clearview signs would remain until such either are worn (due to age), damaged and/or the legend(s) on the signs need to be changed for some reason.  I'd assume that other states would have a similar approach.

I know on the Loop 101 Price Freeway in Tempe and Chandler, Arizona, several Clearview signs were replaced by new signs in FHWA Series E.  This was part of a mass sign replacement project on the Price Freeway, since some of the other signs were older button-copy signs.  The only Clearview signs that were retained were those in Chandler in the southbound direction (I think those were newer than the others).  Also, the exit gore signs were updated to the tall/narrow type for urban areas.
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8772
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas
  • Last Login: Today at 02:48:46 AM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1512 on: December 15, 2017, 01:15:12 PM »

I don't think we necessarily have a full appreciation of how difficult it has been for some agencies to manage signface life in a way that avoids premature sign replacements.  There are three basic approaches out there:  (1) replace all signs in a given corridor at a set time interval regardless of actual retroreflectivity; (2) log all signs by install date and add them to a sign log or sign inventory and replace all signs in a certain date cohort based on sampling of a few signs within that cohort to assess the retroreflective performance of the cohort as a whole; or (3) use remote sensing on a periodic basis to find the signs, measure their retroreflectivity, and mark them up for replacement as needed.

(3) is cutting-edge and the bugs are still being worked out.  Finding the signs is done as part of photologging and machine vision is used to identify the signs.  The computer typically has access to a catalog of standard signs but is not necessarily reliable at identifying one-off designs.  (2) is conceptually straightforward, but experience suggests that many agencies struggle to maintain up-to-date sign logs.  Several software solutions are available for sign inventorying but without automation, the task has to compete for scarce staff resource not just for adding new signs to the log but also for sampling retroreflectivity.  (1) has the advantage of establishing a clear baseline and thereby simplifying planning for sign replacement without the need to dedicate resources to actually going out and checking sign retroreflectivity periodically.

In the fifteen or so years I have been collecting sign panel detail sheets (accumulating about 70,000 from 40 US states), I have seen a few instances of the same sign being replaced three or more times in a ten-year period without any changes in message.  My personal favorite example:

SH 290/SH 349 Iraan/Sheffield

However, what is going on here is also comparable to Griliches' account of the diffusion of hybrid corn.  It takes time for agencies to study the "smart" options for scheduling sign replacement, which includes familiarizing themselves with evolving technology, and develop business cases showing that the initial costs (in equipment, software, and staff resources) involved in going "smart" will eventually deliver savings compared to sticking with an existing "dumb" approach.  This all follows a logistic curve.  At some point in the future many agencies will transit rapidly from "dumb" to "smart" and then there will be just a few holdouts left replacing the same signs pointlessly at too-short intervals.
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

Pink Jazz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1717
  • Real Men Wear Pink

  • Age: 36
  • Location: Queen Creek, AZ
  • Last Login: March 16, 2024, 07:59:29 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1513 on: December 15, 2017, 01:33:49 PM »

As far as I know, all of ADOT's Clearview BGS used either Type IX or XI sheeting.  Both should have at least a 10 year lifespan.
Logged

lordsutch

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1112
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 06:45:31 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1514 on: March 22, 2018, 03:11:39 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).
Logged

Brandon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11564
  • Stop making sense

  • Age: 46
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 07:52:25 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1515 on: March 22, 2018, 03:55:21 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).

 :thumbdown:
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15874
  • 日本標準時

  • Age: 28
  • Location: Uruma-shi, Japan
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:09:51 PM
    • Flickr
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1516 on: March 22, 2018, 04:32:57 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).

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

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4310
  • Blue and gold forever!

  • Age: 32
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: February 17, 2020, 10:23:20 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1517 on: March 22, 2018, 04:38:28 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.
Logged

lordsutch

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1112
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 06:45:31 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1518 on: March 22, 2018, 04:44:35 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).

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

True, but it's expected to sail through the Senate and Trump is allegedly going to sign it.

As for the who and why, it's been discussed earlier in this thread: several state DOTs and the people involved in developing and testing Clearview lobbied their senators and representatives to push for the interim approval to be reinstated.
Logged

SectorZ

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3162
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Massachusetts
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 06:05:46 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1519 on: March 22, 2018, 07:39:01 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).

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

If Trump vetoes it and asks them to fix what he doesn't like, I assume Clearview won't be on his list of things to address.
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15874
  • 日本標準時

  • Age: 28
  • Location: Uruma-shi, Japan
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:09:51 PM
    • Flickr
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1520 on: March 22, 2018, 07:46:59 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).

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

If Trump vetoes it and asks them to fix what he doesn't like, I assume Clearview won't be on his list of things to address.

I see. So basically, unless the entire CAA is scrapped, or someone removes this provision, it's as good as implemented. Interesting.

This is probably as good of a time as any to throw my hat into the ring for Clearview. I've never hated it, and I'm looking forward to what the FHWA's plans are for the typeface.

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14684
  • Age: 33
  • Location: The 518
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:10:05 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1521 on: March 22, 2018, 07:53:20 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:
« Last Edit: March 22, 2018, 08:09:28 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.

Roadwarriors79

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 364
  • Location: Arizona
  • Last Login: March 12, 2024, 08:11:36 PM
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1522 on: March 22, 2018, 07:58:11 PM »

I was in New Mexico last week, and noticed that a few signs on NB I-25 near Raton are in Clearview. Did NMDOT install them?
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15874
  • 日本標準時

  • Age: 28
  • Location: Uruma-shi, Japan
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:09:51 PM
    • Flickr
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1523 on: March 22, 2018, 08:45:13 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:

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.

I don't believe a mandate will ever come around requiring the FHWA to implement the IA into the manual. But the re-implementation of the IA would allow for further study (since it would have otherwise proven futile).



By the way, why no definite article in front of "FHWA"? You're not the only one who does that, but it doesn't seem gramatically correct: "in a press release, Federal Highway Administration announced..." vs "in a press release, the Federal Highway Administration announced..." In some situations, it's appropriate to modify indefinite articles preceding acronyms ("an FYA" instead of "a FYA", since FYA begins with an "e" sound), but I don't think dropping the definite article altogether is appropriate, since "FHWA" is a specific noun that would otherwise require a definite article.

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14684
  • Age: 33
  • Location: The 518
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:10:05 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: The Clearview thread
« Reply #1524 on: March 22, 2018, 09:12:17 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.

My gold standard for how interstate shields should look would be NYSDOT's standards from the 90s.  My gold standards for everything else are Vermont, Québec, and NYSDOT Region 3.
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.