The Clearview thread

[J N Winkler]

I don't have any problem with all-uppercase Clearview - that's part of why I posted that gallery of street signs from Fort Collins.   It is frustrating though there, about the city's lack of consistancy.  About the only consistant thing is all-uppercase, but Ft Collins has never used lowercase their road signs.

But that's just the problem.  Clearview is optimized for maximum legibility when used in mixed-case and is not significantly more legible than the FHWA alphabet series when used in all-uppercase.  If you are going to keep on using all-uppercase lettering, you might as well not change over to Clearview in the first place.

Before they adopted Clearview, Oklahoma DOT, TxDOT, Michigan DOT, and Arizona DOT all used all-uppercase legend (Series D in most cases, with the possible exception of Series C or even Series B on some boundary signs in Michigan, and Series C generally in Oklahoma) on their conventional-road guide signs.  Since they adopted Clearview, all four state DOTs have adopted mixed-case for these signs.

[Scott5114]

The bad thing here is a lot of those are the incorrect weight of Clearview. If CV-5W doesn't fit, rather than knocking it down to 4W, they're just compressing it. Think of using the sideways arrow handles in Inkscape...

Actually, no.  If the sideways arrow control had been used, the result would have been something like this:



Rather than this:

I was referring to what was going on in Android's first set of signs– the wide "Drake" and "Valley Forge" signs look sideways-compressed to my eyes. I know the ODOT mileage sign is just a kerning fail, probably due to the fact that they hadn't really had much Clearview experience when that was put up.

[hbelkins]

I much prefer the 5-W-R kerning, though I'm not looking at it from several hundred feet away at 80 mph...

"On paper" (or, rather, on computer screen) I like them about equally.  On the open road 5-W-R appeals to me fractionally more than 5-W, because it looks less snaggle-toothed.  On the other hand, I suspect 5-W would put less strain on my eyes if it were late and I was tired.

Frankly, to me the distinction between the two is less important than:

*  Keeping Clearview out of route marker digits

*  Keeping Clearview out of negative-contrast situations such as white and yellow panels on guide signs...

Why? What's wrong with black-on-white or black-on-yellow Clearview that isn't wrong with white-on-green or white-on-blue? (That's assuming that there's anything "wrong" with Clearview to start with....

[Scott5114]

FHWA only approved Clearview for use on positive-contrast applications because at the time that's all they had tested. Studies conducted since then have shown that Clearview legibility is no better than, or *worse* than, FHWA Series fonts for negative-contrast applications.

It's worth noting that FHWA still has a "conditional approval" (can't remember the exact term) for Clearview. Clearview is not mentioned in the 2009 MUTCD at all. FHWA could revoke that approval at any time, thus banning further Clearview signage.

[shoptb1]

It's worth noting that FHWA still has a "conditional approval" (can't remember the exact term) for Clearview. Clearview is not mentioned in the 2009 MUTCD at all. FHWA could revoke that approval at any time, thus banning further Clearview signage.

Road geek sentimentality aside, I think that the majority of public opinion has been positive towards Clearview indicating that it's much easier to read than Highway Gothic fonts at the same point size.  If the majority of the driving public finds this new font easier to read in most circumstances, isn't that the point of road signs anyway....prevention of accidents and easier navigation?  

That said, I don't think that there's any reason that a certain state highway department couldn't continue to use Highway Gothic if they wanted....

[agentsteel53]

I think that the majority of public opinion has been positive towards Clearview

really?  I've had numerous non-roadgeek friends of mine ask me (as their local roadgeek who is supposedly an expert at interpreting all things sign-related) "what's with the ugly font on recent signs?"

[roadfro]

It's worth noting that FHWA still has a "conditional approval" (can't remember the exact term) for Clearview. Clearview is not mentioned in the 2009 MUTCD at all. FHWA could revoke that approval at any time, thus banning further Clearview signage.

The term you're looking for Scott is "Interim Approval". With an interim approval, I think an agency need only submit a request to use the item in question, instead of the lengthier and more complex experimentation process.

Which is one of my pet peeves about the MUTCD and FHWA.  Why should they be in the business of regulating or dictating fonts? If a state wants to use Helvetica on its signs, why not? Why a federal standard? It's not like 50 different standards for a "merge" or "divided highway ends" sign if states use different fonts.

It's all in the name of the manual...uniform.  Uniformity of sign design isn't just in symbols, but in messages, sizes and fonts.  When non-standard fonts are used (and not used consistently) it makes a sign look "unofficial" an "unprofessional".

[Android]

  When non-standard fonts are used (and not used consistently) it makes a sign look "unofficial" an "unprofessional".

definitely.  It is helpful to have some kind of uniform look to the signage as you travel the country. 

And onto another topic - back-lit street signs.  In Fort Collins they have many, but they are all Highway Gothic (fine with me!) but I keep expecting to come across one in Clearview.   Well a couple of weeks ago I did, somewhere on the plains north of Denver. I grabbed a photo, and here it is - not just Clear View, but also Mountain View!  -

[shoptb1]

really?  I've had numerous non-roadgeek friends of mine ask me (as their local roadgeek who is supposedly an expert at interpreting all things sign-related) "what's with the ugly font on recent signs?"

Since Ohio started placing Clearview on the highway...I've had more folks come up to me in passing and comment on the great new signage.  "Easy to read", "larger fonts", "better reflectivity" are the most common comments.  Of course, the "better reflectivity" is just because it's a new sign (not really specific to the Clearview), but considering that most of these folks are usually not ones to make any road-related comments...I take it as a good thing. 

[Michael]

From the Texas Freeway Signing Handbook mentioned earlier (Chapter 4, Section 3):

In 2003, TxDOT decided to implement Clearview as the standard font for all freeway guide signs (white on green, white on blue, and white on brown).

I'm glad I don't live in Texas!

[joseph1723]

when they overlay, are they putting a new hard substrate (metal? fiberglass?) over the old layers?  Or just new soft/flexible sheeting?

According to the Ontario Traffic Manual the overlays are supposed to be 1mm/0.40 aluminum sheets that are riveted to the sign. 

there appears to be some rippling with the new Clearview sign, but I am thinking that if they put a thin layer of material (maybe 030 aluminum) over the old sign, and put the new vinyl on top of that, you'd get the combined advantage of the old sign structure (which I am sure is in good condition) and the new legend, thereby saving money.

Yeah there's a pretty noticeable rippling on the sign, I've seen some other ones that were done a lot better than this one  but it's maybe the the new type of sheeting that makes the effect worse. It look like MTO is using diamond grade sheeting and making the whole sign diamond grade instead of the old arrangement with engineer grade background and high intensity legend. I'm kind of more partial towards the old sheeting arrangement and the FHWA fonts. I wonder if MTO is starting to phase in Clearview and diamond grade signs?

[Android]

Inconsistency only looks bad when it's not the norm. Highway guide signs previously used FHWA Series EM pretty much exclusively, so the presense of Clearview or Helvetica or anything else on them becomes quite jarring. On the other hand, MTA's signage in the NYC subway is set exclusively in Helvetica. Seeing Highway Gothic there would be equally jarring!

Meanwhile, street signs always have looked wildly different from town to town, even within the same town, so "different" things don't really stand out so much.

True, that is.  However, having lived in Fort Collins from 1981-2001, and learned to drive there, I was used to what they had.  And what they had there was consistant, I had no idea back then what typeface they used, but now know it was Series C.   Then this Clearview stuff starts showing up...  as I said, I don't mind it since they mostly do not use the horrible CV numerals, but the more and I see of it, (I get down there about once a month) the more variety there is, when it used to be consistant all over town. 

Those examples from Stamford, see what you mean by inconsistant - I do see that many of the newer signs are that modified version of HG that I like, Cheyenne WY and some parts of Denver use that now too, best of both worlds there, .

[agentsteel53]

It look like MTO is using diamond grade sheeting and making the whole sign diamond grade instead of the old arrangement with engineer grade background and high intensity legend. I'm kind of more partial towards the old sheeting arrangement and the FHWA fonts. I wonder if MTO is starting to phase in Clearview and diamond grade signs?

Are you sure it is diamond grade, as opposed to prismatic high-intensity, which has a very similar diamond pattern?  The way to tell prismatic apart from diamond is the distinct alternating "striping" about 1/2 wide that is seen from particular angles.



Prismatic is very cost-effective compared to diamond, though it is not quite as reflective (JN, do you know the absolute numbers?  I have heard High Intensity - both honeycomb and prismatic - is 3x as bright as old-school Engineer Grade, and diamond is 10x.) 

Diamond is intended for very high-priority applications, like stop signs.

I agree that an EG green background is more aesthetically pleasing than having the same level of reflectivity for both foreground and background.  Texas appears to have made some EG/honeycomb Clearview signs a couple years ago (before honeycomb was replaced with prismatic around August '06) and they are just about the only Clearview signs out there that I think are decent looking.

[J N Winkler]

JN, do you know the absolute numbers?  I have heard High Intensity - both honeycomb and prismatic - is 3x as bright as old-school Engineer Grade, and diamond is 10x.

Sorry, no, don't have that information at my fingertips--though I assume that comparison is based on retroreflectivity coefficients at a fixed combination of observation and entrance angles.

It is interesting that high-intensity prismatic sheeting is positioned as an upgrade from enclosed-lens sheeting, not encapsulated-lens sheeting, and that one of its main selling points is a "whiter white" than can be obtained with the older sheeting types.  "Whiter white" = better looking sign under daylight illumination.

[agentsteel53]

as far as I know, prismatic was unveiled and then the honeycomb stuff was retired, and about 2-3 years later (late 2009), they retired EG.  So for a little while, EG and prismatic existed side by side.

indeed, they are no longer making EG.  I asked the sign company I work with to stockpile a few rolls for me so I can continue to make replicas to 1970s standards!

[Brandon]

Regarding Clearview numbers, I've noticed some clipped Clearview numbers showing up on the Illinois Tollway system.  The 4 and 7 both are clipped the way some state DOTs used to do for their custom fonts.  The 2 also appears to be clipped the same way.
The 4 is best shown here: http://highwayexplorer.com/il_showFull.php?id=3921&section=30881&terminus=Other
And here is the 7: http://highwayexplorer.com/il_showFull.php?id=3904&section=30881&terminus=Other

[joseph1723]

Are you sure it is diamond grade, as opposed to prismatic high-intensity, which has a very similar diamond pattern?  The way to tell prismatic apart from diamond is the distinct alternating "striping" about 1/2 wide that is seen from particular angles.

You're probably right, it probably is prismatic high-intensity and I still haven't had the chance to look at that sign upclose and in detail before so I can't be sure about what type of sheeting was used, the thing that originally threw me off was that the MTO website said that:

The guide signs MTO will install this fall, along with the many sites where we use high performance Type XI sheeting, will be offered as potential evaluation sites for human factors studies.

[agentsteel53]

The guide signs MTO will install this fall, along with the many sites where we use high performance Type XI sheeting, will be offered as potential evaluation sites for human factors studies.

I do not know the distinction between all the Type-and-roman-numeral classifications of sheeting.  Does anyone know?

[Scott5114]

The guide signs MTO will install this fall, along with the many sites where we use high performance Type XI sheeting, will be offered as potential evaluation sites for human factors studies.

I do not know the distinction between all the Type-and-roman-numeral classifications of sheeting.  Does anyone know?

http://trafficsign.us/signsheet.html

Richard Moeur does.

[jdb1234]

On the road this morning, I found a new clearview sign for Birmingham Airport at the interchange between I-459 and I-20 here in Birmingham.

[ATLRedSoxFan]

Here in Atlanta, I've noticed more and more Clearview signs appearing with the ongoing construction, but also seems like GDOT is now starting to install the "Tab" BGS as well. I've noticed them slowly appearing since last Sept.

[jdb1234]

Update: It appears all signage for Birmingham Airport is now in clearview.

[The Premier]

Here's some Clearview for you gang. This is on SR 8 in Cuyahoga Falls, Stow, and Boston Heights.







A little note on the third picture: SR 8 is under reconstruction between Boston Mills Rd and Hines Hill Rd in Boston Heights (the Turnpike interchange is included in this) so it has the trademark orange part on the bottom of the signs.

[cu2010]

Wow...that third sign is hard to read with the sun shining on it thanks to the reflective sheeting...

[exit322]

I think that the majority of public opinion has been positive towards Clearview

really?  I've had numerous non-roadgeek friends of mine ask me (as their local roadgeek who is supposedly an expert at interpreting all things sign-related) "what's with the ugly font on recent signs?"

Most of the people I talk to that go from here towards Akron on 77 (most of 77 south of Akron in Summit County has converted to Clearview) like it more than the signs that were there (which unlike on 76 weren't all that old and still reasonably reflective).