The Clearview thread

[joseph1723]

Yeah I should have put a Clearview warning before posting that link. Anyways I will miss the old series EM font if MTO decides to use Clearview but at least it doesn't look as bad as Toronto clearview.

[Alex]

Saw this link on Yahoo! Groups Northeast Roads this morning:

PennDOT: New signs clearly are much better

[shoptb1]

Saw this link on Yahoo! Groups Northeast Roads this morning:

PennDOT: New signs clearly are much better

Boo-ya!  Why am I the only person on this board that likes the ClearView font?   Maybe 'cuz my eyes are starting to suck and it's harder for me to read the Highway Gothic at night vs. Clearview.  

[agentsteel53]

Saw this link on Yahoo! Groups Northeast Roads this morning:

PennDOT: WHAT WE ARE DOING IS GOOD.  WE WILL CONTINUE.  DO NOT LOOK AT ME LIKE THAT.

thanks for the propaganda, fellers.  My tax dollars at work.

[agentsteel53]

that said, the one thing that Clearview does do better than Highway Gothic is differentiate the Series E equivalent number 6 and 4.  I once got a speeding ticket because I was driving into the sun and I misread a half-knocked-down Speed Limit 45 as Speed Limit 65.  (hey, every other construction zone on I-40 in AZ was 65... the very last one before the California state line? 45.) 

They ticketed me for 51 in a 45, despite the fact that I pointed out that the sign was bent sufficiently backwards as to be illegible.  Virginia plates on the rental car; they knew I couldn't afford to fly back to butt-ass Arizona to contest the citation. 

[PAHighways]

Saw this link on Yahoo! Groups Northeast Roads this morning:

PennDOT: New signs clearly are much better

I don't know why this is news considering Clearview signs have been showing up around the area and state since the beginning of the decade.

[MikeTheActuary]

Boo-ya!  Why am I the only person on this board that likes the ClearView font?   Maybe 'cuz my eyes are starting to suck and it's harder for me to read the Highway Gothic at night vs. Clearview. 

After I recovered from several days of tracing the characters, I found that I didn't hate Clearview.   It grows on you after a while, I think.

What bothers me is lack of consistency.   Clearview at DFW is nice, because it's ALL Clearview.   Random Clearview signs popping up in Highway Gothic land, however, are much like running nails across a chalkboard.

The economics of highway sign replacement being what they are...I'm resigned to being annoyed for a few years...at least until Clearview dominates and the few remaining Highway Gothic signs can be enjoyed as relics of yesteryear.

[agentsteel53]

After I recovered from several days of tracing the characters, I found that I didn't hate Clearview. 

I still hate the fact that it has a non-uniform stroke width.  In general a non-uniform stroke width may be all right, but only if the font around it is designed well.  Clearview is not designed well - and all I see is the bulges and the narrow straits where the font decided that it needed to change its stroke width based on some obscure study that threw aesthetics in the garbage. 

the fact is, the best-looking highway sign fonts (FHWA 1926, FHWA 1948, Transport (Britain), Mittelschrift (Germany)) - they are all of uniform stroke width. 

[shoptb1]

the fact is, the best-looking highway sign fonts (FHWA 1926, FHWA 1948, Transport (Britain), Mittelschrift (Germany)) - they are all of uniform stroke width. 

I will have to admit that I have never had any problem reading Mittelschrift fonts at night as opposed to Highway Gothic, when the former is presented in a large-enough font size.

[burgess87]

I'm currently in Central Texas - we drove down from WNY this weekend.

I have to say, the Clearview signs have really helped during the nighttime - most of Arkansas' signage along IH 30 is in Clearview now.

When done right (see AR & TX) - I could get used to Clearview.

[agentsteel53]

I was in the Texas panhandle around Nov of this year and when I saw the frosted-over signs at dawn I really had trouble reading them and that was independent of whether they were Highway Gothic or Clearview - they just had the reflectivity frosted to the point where the signs yielded blobs of color and did not denote their legend at all...

I think the major technological improvement that needs to be done is not playing with the fonts, but making sure that at dawn hours (say 4am to 6am) the standards in place actively are sufficient to break the ice.



can you tell what road leads to Des Moines?  Or what the destination city is of US-65 and US-69 south?  I barely can... and that is an enhanced photo with the contrast bumped up to 340%... (3.4x as sharp difference between black and white compared to what you see on the actual highway).  trust me, when you are driving past this gantry, you have no idea what the signs say because the frost at 4am on a November morning has made the sign gantry illegible.  I took this photo at 6:06am local time (well past when rush hour starts!) and I had to bump up the contrast to 340% - when you are driving past the sign, it is 100% and you cannot read the shields.

And this has nothing to do with the font (Clearview vs. Highway Gothic) - the signs are just plain frosted over, and no amount of Clearview can fix that.  

Maybe that's what I want my federal tax dollars going towards - making signs actually be visible when they are frosted, not replacing perfectly good older signs with newer ones when they remain ineffective under sub-optimal highway conditions.  Clearview is a waste - concentrate on blasting frost using the fonts you have had available since 1943.

[shoptb1]

Maybe that's what I want my federal tax dollars going towards - making signs actually be visible when they are frosted, not replacing perfectly good older signs with newer ones when they remain ineffective under sub-optimal highway conditions.  Clearview is a waste - concentrate on blasting frost using the fonts you have had available since 1943.

As usual, you make a good argument....and thanks for the photo...I think that helps illustrate your point.  And I absolutely won't dispute the fact that there is a separate and outstanding issue with reflective signs and icing. 

However, the point that I'm making is that the font does make a difference in night-time legibility sans ice coverage.  The studies seem to show (and based upon my own personal experience I would have to agree) that the Clearview font (especially when presented in a larger font size than the old button-copy implementations) is more effectively comprehended at a glance than the Highway Gothic font.  Therefore, I would have to say that regardless of whether or not there is icing on the reflective signs, the font legibility is higher when presented in a Clearview font vs. a Highway Gothic font. 

Now, with that said, I will be the first to submit Kentucky as an example of where a larger font-size usage of Highway Gothic font lettering can be just as effective for me personally for legibility.  I have no issue reading Kentucky's new interstate signage, which I believe is still Highway Gothic on retroreflective signs, but in a larger-than-normal font-size.   Problem is though...if we're going to be replacing smaller font-size signage with something larger...why not do it in Clearview, which seems to have a higher legibility rate?  But this whole issue is separate from the one you mention, which is related to reflectivity and icing conditions...not font, right?

[Alex]

Maybe that's what I want my federal tax dollars going towards - making signs actually be visible when they are frosted, not replacing perfectly good older signs with newer ones when they remain ineffective under sub-optimal highway conditions.  Clearview is a waste - concentrate on blasting frost using the fonts you have had available since 1943.

That is more of an argument for retaining highway sign lighting than a font issue. I contest that in areas with frost and areas with a lot of dew (especially on the Gulf Coast during the winter months), that lighting should be used. I know that in the Delaware MUTCD, sign lighting is mentioned, but the state removes fixtures when replacing signs, because the MUTCD indicates that if reflectivity is sufficient enough, lighting is not required. However there are many times, Clearview or not, that signs are harder to read because of condensation.

[agentsteel53]

yeah, the icing has nothing to do with the font - a Clearview font sign would ice up just as badly if made with the same materials (aluminum, vinyl, etc).  

if the studies say Clearview is easier to read than EM then that's what they say... question is, is it so much easier to read that it's worth the tax money to develop the font, do the testing, and replace signs by the thousands?  I do not believe that to be the case.  There are other technological improvements that could be made to signage that would have a much greater bang for the buck, like solving the icing problem - or, alternately, just not using the money for signage when other aspects of the infrastructure are in need of improvement.  

For example, in California, brand new retroreflective signage (not Clearview in this case, but still new) at the East LA interchange ... same 1949 ramp system that makes it impossible to stay on I-5 southbound unless you're Mario Andretti.

[TheStranger]

For example, in California, brand new retroreflective signage (not Clearview in this case, but still new) at the East LA interchange ... same 1949 ramp system that makes it impossible to stay on I-5 southbound unless you're Mario Andretti.

There's a simple answer for "why would California throw money at signs and not interchange fixes?" - the latter probably requires environmental impact statements, long gestation process, hearings (and hearing out complaints from nearby property owners), etc.  the former probably simply requires "going into the budget, and maybe a brief runthrough of how much it'll cost", and then putting the new sign up there.

[agentsteel53]

or alternately they could just not spend the money that they continue to not have

[J N Winkler]

Regarding the condensation problem, I understand dew-resistant films are available to address it.  I also wonder if another possibility might be to move toward plastic sign substrates, which might dew up less easily and also be less attractive to metal thieves.

Comparing a sign rehabilitation job (which might top out at $2 million) to a major interchange improvement (probably $100 million or more in the case of the East Los Angeles Interchange) isn't really useful.  The reasons for this have to do with the disparities in cost, timescales for obligation of funding and project development, and relation of project rate of return to project scale which prompt state DOTs to program operational improvements (like sign rehabilitations, minor resurfacings, etc.) separately from major projects.

Looking more closely at this specific case:

The sign replacement has a project development cycle of about three years, and a total project lifecycle of perhaps 20 years or so.  It is not inherently complex (i.e., does not require in-depth investigations like traffic studies, and qualifies for CE since it occurs on existing infrastructure), so benefit, cost, and payoff period are all easily defined.

In the case of the East LA Interchange, the scoping process alone would probably take at least three years.  This is because you have to define the minimum parameters of an improvement that will deliver benefits that feed through to the wider economy, as opposed to--say--moving a bottleneck to the next interchange along.  This requires in-depth investigations, including traffic and origin/destination studies.  Also, because the East LA Interchange is a system interchange, this means that the minimum improvement is probably quite large, costing well over $100 million.  (The East LA Interchange has been around in close to its current form since the mid-1960's, so the available opportunities for small-scale operational improvements have been pretty well exhausted.)  You also have to have discussions with affected interests (adjoining communities, haulage interests, and other "stakeholders," to use the current jargon) to gauge their attitudes towards potential improvements and what the impacts are likely to be for them in terms of traffic, drainage, etc.  It takes time to work through these issues, compile environmental documentation, draw up construction plans, and then do the construction.  Given Caltrans' current project development methods, I wouldn't expect a major change to the East LA Interchange to have a project development cycle of less than 20 years.  This is approximately the same as the lifetime that could be expected from new signs installed in a sign rehabilitation contract.

Part of the reason for disentangling large and small projects when programming is to make sure that small projects which can deliver welfare for the motoring public at a good rate of return are not held up indefinitely in favor of some grand project which is supposed to solve all traffic problems forevermore but is subject to a project development process of uncertain length, is of uncertain scope, and delivers an uncertain rate of return.  It is a way for the state DOT to keep a diversified portfolio, in a manner of speaking.

Moreover, it is useful to have a stock of small projects in the hopper which can be readied for contract letting quickly in order to accommodate abrupt changes (either down or up) in funding levels.  Small projects can be rushed in to plug the breach left by rescinded funding for a major project, while (as we saw with ARRA) they are essentially the only things that can be developed from scratch quickly enough to meet within-the-year contract letting deadlines.

In regards to the benefits that can be expected from sign replacement contracts, it has to be noted that porcelain signs are not "perfectly good" from a strictly economic standpoint.  They are highly durable, which allows their somewhat higher initial cost to be paid out over long periods of time, so that they can cost less per year of service life than other types of signing.  However, especially at night, they provide a distinctly inferior service to motorists.  They require lighting to comply with the similar-appearance requirement in the MUTCD (and lighting is itself a significant running cost), and without retroreflective sheeting they have poor target value.  A commitment to maintain signs in place for over 50 years is also not consistent with the adaptations that may eventually become necessary to accommodate older drivers.  So systematic sign rehabilitation is in effect an attempt to purchase a higher level of service at a somewhat higher cost, while cutting down on technological risk.

[Hellfighter]

Clearview has invaded Quebec along A-55!

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.453207,-71.95796&spn=0,359.888506&z=14&layer=c&cbll=45.453091,-71.957882&panoid=JpEb6CzxaNi050TXL_ky6A&cbp=12,162.86,,0,2.37

[agentsteel53]

They require lighting to comply with the similar-appearance requirement in the MUTCD (and lighting is itself a significant running cost), and without retroreflective sheeting they have poor target value.  A commitment to maintain signs in place for over 50 years is also not consistent with the adaptations that may eventually become necessary to accommodate older drivers.  So systematic sign rehabilitation is in effect an attempt to purchase a higher level of service at a somewhat higher cost, while cutting down on technological risk.

hmm, maybe it's time to re-evaluate that similar-appearance requirement?  what are the benefits of having that?  

also, all this accomodating of drivers with poor eyesight... if drivers cannot see the signs, what else are they not seeing?  Deer aren't getting more reflective as technology improves, and nor are tires in the road, stalled cars, and other things to be noticed and avoided.

[J N Winkler]

hmm, maybe it's time to re-evaluate that similar-appearance requirement?  what are the benefits of having that?

Basically, instant recognition of signs by type.  

also, all this accommodating of drivers with poor eyesight... if drivers cannot see the signs, what else are they not seeing?  Deer aren't getting more reflective as technology improves, and nor are tires in the road, stalled cars, and other things to be noticed and avoided.

The issue is not one of drivers not being able to see the signs--it is more one of making the highway environment as forgiving as possible for older drivers.  The changes that get pushed (not just Clearview, but also things like wider stripes) typically deliver benefits for most age groups, but tend to be more beneficial to older drivers.  Older drivers become less likely to encounter the other hazards you mention because they tend to elect not to drive where they are likely to encounter them.  Deer don't usually wander onto urban freeways, etc.

The tradeoff is between making relatively low-cost improvements which extend the ability of elderly drivers to stay in charge of their own transport, versus the significantly higher costs of keeping them out of transport poverty through some kind of subsidized transit provision, or the even higher costs (including the hidden cost of accelerated mental deterioration) of moving them early into assisted-living centers.

[agentsteel53]

Older drivers become less likely to encounter the other hazards you mention because they tend to elect not to drive where they are likely to encounter them.

I do not agree with this statement.  Deer were just one example of potential hazards; there are plenty of other hazards on urban freeways (other cars, mainly) whose presence is not mitigated by better signage.  

the driving environment is, by definition, not forgiving.  And to make some aspects of it forgiving while leaving other aspects precisely as dangerous as they were before, we are encouraging drivers to take to the road when "oh, I can't read the button copy signs anymore" would have been a tipoff that they are no longer competent as drivers.

[hbelkins]

I was in the Texas panhandle around Nov of this year and when I saw the frosted-over signs at dawn I really had trouble reading them and that was independent of whether they were Highway Gothic or Clearview - they just had the reflectivity frosted to the point where the signs yielded blobs of color and did not denote their legend at all...

I woke up this morning in Texarkana, Texas, and headed west on I-30 before dawn on my way to the DFW area. There was frost this morning and many of the signs along I-30, many of them newer installations, were very hard to read because of the frost. Usually I can get decent photos with a flash that will show the sign, but not this morning. I will have to post some of my efforts to show how much the cold temperature had affected their legibility before dawn.

[Riverside Frwy]

I saw this today heading to a relative's house.

EDIT:Link was linked to wrong thing.

[mightyace]

On the way back to Nashville today, I saw that the southernmost exit of I-65 in KY, Exit 2 for US 31 to Franklin, KY now has Clearview signs.  As it was still dark and I was dead tired and needing to get back, I have no photos of it yet.

Hopefully it won't cross the border into TN!

[Riverside Frwy]

Crap the link came out wrong.

EDIT:Ok try this one:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Orange,+CA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=40.732051,89.824219&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Orange,+California&ll=33.786495,-117.878881&spn=0.010468,0.02193&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.786216,-117.880107&panoid=RVMUy2_2uopoMarVOo1oQA&cbp=12,181.67,,0,6.23

Caltrans put a green strip for "Santa Ana" that's Clearview.First time I've seen Clearview in the wild.