The Clearview thread

[jakeroot]

Kentucky may not have gone back to using Clearview after permission was granted again.

A mileage sign on I-64 westbound at Winchester had been knocked down quite some time ago. It had been down for several weeks. I noticed yesterday that it had been replaced with an FHWA font sign and not a Clearview sign.

My understanding is that, much like the change from Clearview back to Highway Gothic, it takes more than a few months for sign orders to actually be processed, designed, and installed. So it's possible that the new sign was actually designed before Clearview was reinstated.

Doubtful. This was a one-off replacement. In the past, if an old FHWA sign had to be replaced, it was done in Clearview. This one was knocked down after the reinstatement was done last year.

Was the knocked-down sign in Clearview or FHWA?

[hbelkins]

It's actually been knocked down twice. The first time, it was a Clearview sign that was replaced with FHWA. This time, FHWA got replaced with FHWA.

[jakeroot]

It's actually been knocked down twice. The first time, it was a Clearview sign that was replaced with FHWA. This time, FHWA got replaced with FHWA.

I see. It's possible the sign was replaced using identical plan sheets from the original sign (with no thought given to the typeface). I'm not certain I am using the correct terms there, but I think you know what I mean.

[wanderer2575]

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me"--although I have been told that VDOT will likely pursue a return to Clearview, TxDOT is the prime mover behind this initiative and may very well remain the only agency using it on a large scale.  It is distantly possible that Michigan DOT could return to using Clearview, but I just downloaded a major I-696 contract and it shows Series E Modified for new installs.  I cannot think of any US state other than Texas for which I have access to pattern-accurate signing construction plans where the typefaces specified are not the FHWA series.

I'd love to know the letting date on that I-696 contract so I can download the plans myself.  MDOT just replaced signs in 2017 on the western two-thirds of I-696, and the signs on the eastern third in Macomb County aren't that old.  It would be a waste of money to replace them as part of the current freeway reconstruction (unless raised dump truck beds take out half of them).

The contract letting date of last year's I-696 signing contract was 01/16/2017 and the signs are in Clearview.  A few new BGSs in Detroit went up last year (southbound M-10 at M-5 Grand River Avenue, and on the ramp from northbound M-39 to I-96) and those signs are in FHWA.  A 10/06/2017 contract to replace a dozen or so signs at various metro Detroit locations (work currently in process) shows those new signs also will be in FHWA.  But contracts let on 12/01/2017 to replace signs on I-96 in Livingston County and on I-196 between Grandville and Grand Rapids show those signs will be in Clearview.  All of which suggests that Michigan very briefly switched back to FHWA but has switched again back to Clearview.

[J N Winkler]

I'd love to know the letting date on that I-696 contract so I can download the plans myself.  MDOT just replaced signs in 2017 on the western two-thirds of I-696, and the signs on the eastern third in Macomb County aren't that old.  It would be a waste of money to replace them as part of the current freeway reconstruction (unless raised dump truck beds take out half of them).

It is in fact a Macomb County contract--50061-117578, let March 16, 2018, covering I-696 from I-275 to I-94.  The signing plans aren't actually in the main roadway plans set.  Michigan DOT is experimenting with rollplots in construction document packages (not uncommon for construction documents in European countries like France and Germany, but almost unknown in the US and not really encouraged under FAPG 630(b) Supplement), so the signing for this contract is all in one rollplot, with the SignCAD detail for the sign to be replaced (I think there may be just one or two in this contract) off to one side.  Series E Modified is used.

The contract letting date of last year's I-696 signing contract was 01/16/2017 and the signs are in Clearview.  A few new BGSs in Detroit went up last year (southbound M-10 at M-5 Grand River Avenue, and on the ramp from northbound M-39 to I-96) and those signs are in FHWA.  A 10/06/2017 contract to replace a dozen or so signs at various metro Detroit locations (work currently in process) shows those new signs also will be in FHWA.  But contracts let on 12/01/2017 to replace signs on I-96 in Livingston County and on I-196 between Grandville and Grand Rapids show those signs will be in Clearview.  All of which suggests that Michigan very briefly switched back to FHWA but has switched again back to Clearview.

Another data point is a small-signs replacement contract for the Upper Peninsula, 66012-126586, let last May 4, which uses Clearview for all positive-contrast signs.  While it does seem like Michigan DOT has gone back to Clearview and indeed went back before the FHWA reinstatement memo was issued, there are a couple of caveats to keep in mind.  We don't know how long the plans for these projects were sitting on the shelf, and the time from design to fabrication and erection tends to be less for knockdown replacements and other ad hoc jobs.

[MASTERNC]

Seems PennDOT does not want to let go of Clearview, even if they can't use it on signs - the car inspection stickers seem to now use it all of a sudden, starting with the stickers expiring in 2019-2020.

[PHLBOS]

Seems PennDOT does not want to let go of Clearview, even if they can't use it on signs - the car inspection stickers seem to now use it all of a sudden, starting with the stickers expiring in 2019-2020.

Really?  I just had the stickers replaced last month on my 2011 Crown Vic.  I'll have to double-check but I believe the font used for the numerals & two-digit year on those stickers appear to be the font that the PennDOT's DMV always uses... which is neither Clearview nor FHWA.  To my knowledge, PennDOT's DMV never used FHWA/Highway Gothic for their inspection stickers.

[MASTERNC]

Seems PennDOT does not want to let go of Clearview, even if they can't use it on signs - the car inspection stickers seem to now use it all of a sudden, starting with the stickers expiring in 2019-2020.

Really?  I just had the stickers replaced last month on my 2011 Crown Vic.  I'll have to double-check but I believe the font used for the numerals & two-digit year on those stickers appear to be the font that the PennDOT's DMV always uses... which is neither Clearview nor FHWA.  To my knowledge, PennDOT's DMV never used FHWA/Highway Gothic for their inspection stickers.

Here is my sticker - the year looks like Clearview

[J N Winkler]

The year digits are not Clearview, though they look similar.  Real Clearview "1" has an angled cut on the top tail (not vertical) and no bottom crossbar.  Real Clearview "9" also has an angled cut on the bottom stroke (not vertical).

[PHLBOS]

The year digits are not Clearview, though they look similar.  Real Clearview "1" has an angled cut on the top tail (not vertical) and no bottom crossbar.  Real Clearview "9" also has an angled cut on the bottom stroke (not vertical).

Additionally, the 8 on the 18 on that sticker, which is covered by the 1 sticker in the above-example, looks nothing like the Clearview 8.

Example of the current 18/19 PA inspection stickers with the 18 exposed:

[J N Winkler]

Just to add to the exchange upthread (May 20-22) dealing with Clearview in Michigan:  Michigan DOT recently let another really large contract, covering I-94 in and around Jackson, with dozens of pages of sign panel detail sheets, all of which use the FHWA alphabet series (E Modified for large panel signs).

The contract in question is 38101-115861 and was Call 31 in the June 1, 2018 letting.  My Michigan DOT shootlist maker estimates it has about 33,222 SF of sign panel.

[Scott5114]

I assume that MDOT is still using the MUTCD-standard small caps format for cardinal directions, and did not return to the practice of underlining directions that they used pre-Clearview?

[J N Winkler]

I assume that MDOT is still using the MUTCD-standard small caps format for cardinal directions, and did not return to the practice of underlining directions that they used pre-Clearview?

That assumption is correct.  The underlining (for which, if memory serves, the house term was "divider bar") has not been part of MDOT standards for over a decade now, and field examples are getting rarer and rarer.

[Pink Jazz]

Confirmed here that VDOT has re-adopted Clearview:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview_Highway_Font_Lettering.pdf

[Roadsguy]

With the reapproval and VDOT's reinstatement of it, can anyone confirm whether or not PennDOT plans to start using it again? Or, for that matter, the PTC?

[Takumi]

Confirmed here that VDOT has re-adopted Clearview:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview_Highway_Font_Lettering.pdf

[Roadwarriors79]

Confirmed here that VDOT has re-adopted Clearview:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview_Highway_Font_Lettering.pdf

From reading the sample sign panel layout, I believe VDOT makes a better case why they should NOT go back to Clearview. Everything except the destination message on the sample sign is supposed to be in FHWA font. It makes more sense to me to stick to FHWA.

[DaBigE]

Confirmed here that VDOT has re-adopted Clearview:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview_Highway_Font_Lettering.pdf

From reading the sample sign panel layout, I believe VDOT makes a better case why they should NOT go back to Clearview. Everything except the destination message on the sample sign is supposed to be in FHWA font. It makes more sense to me to stick to FHWA.

I think it would have been far easier to just state what you can use Clearview for. 

[J N Winkler]

With the reapproval and VDOT's reinstatement of it, can anyone confirm whether or not PennDOT plans to start using it again? Or, for that matter, the PTC?

The latest edition of Publication 46 (PennDOT's traffic engineering manual) dates from 2014, when Clearview was still authorized.  Recent PennDOT construction plans sets have been using Series E Modified.  For the PTC I have no clear indication one way or another; they do sign replacements from time to time, but usually through work order contracts where the sign designs are given to the contractor after contract award rather than being made available to all prospective bidders during the contract advertising period.

[Roadsguy]

With the reapproval and VDOT's reinstatement of it, can anyone confirm whether or not PennDOT plans to start using it again? Or, for that matter, the PTC?

The latest edition of Publication 46 (PennDOT's traffic engineering manual) dates from 2014, when Clearview was still authorized.  Recent PennDOT construction plans sets have been using Series E Modified.  For the PTC I have no clear indication one way or another; they do sign replacements from time to time, but usually through work order contracts where the sign designs are given to the contractor after contract award rather than being made available to all prospective bidders during the contract advertising period.

Yeah, I definitely know PennDOT has been using FHWA again since the interim approval was first revoked (One odd interchange on I-81 near Carlisle reconstructed as early as 2010-2012 features Highway Gothic for some reason.), but since PennDOT wanted to keep Clearview at first, it would definitely be unpleasantly unsurprising to find out that they're going back to it.

At least the bulk of the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange signs put up so far seems to have been saved from it, though that's mostly the PTC's doing at this point.

[HTM Duke]

Confirmed here that VDOT has re-adopted Clearview:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview_Highway_Font_Lettering.pdf

My feelings exactly; back to contractors manufacturing whatever they want, and VDOT just checking it off instead of telling them to fix it.  Case in point: https://goo.gl/maps/819cszajyGn - This sign was installed around 2016 following the extension of Gloucester Pkwy to the VA-28 / Nokes Blvd interchange.  I believe I saw Clearview first pop up in Virginia around 2008 (I-66 east signage for the US-29 / VA-28 south exit), and there are still errors popping up ten years later.  Well, that and inconsistencies with the font size on destination legends.  Ever since questions have crept up over Clearview's ease of legibility over FHWA, it seems the response was to jack up the character size.  I wouldn't be so against it if VDOT actually enforced the standards they laid out in the first place.

[OracleUsr]

VA at least got it right, eventually.  A lot of the newer signage in Richmond (I-295 at I-64 and I-64W at I-95S for instance) properly used Clearview, just for the mixed case legends.  From the PDF we saw, the design for the 33/250 sign at least continues this practice, and this is coming from an ardent anti-Clearview person, as my signature shows.

[Eth]

My feelings exactly; back to contractors manufacturing whatever they want, and VDOT just checking it off instead of telling them to fix it.  Case in point: https://goo.gl/maps/819cszajyGn - This sign was installed around 2016 following the extension of Gloucester Pkwy to the VA-28 / Nokes Blvd interchange.  I believe I saw Clearview first pop up in Virginia around 2008 (I-66 east signage for the US-29 / VA-28 south exit), and there are still errors popping up ten years later. 

I have to admit, I don't see what the problem is with this one. I don't particularly love the horizontal divider in the middle, but I understand why it's there (an artifact of "Gloucester Pkwy" being written on two lines instead of one), and that's hardly Clearview-specific. I guess technically the distance message at the bottom is still supposed to be FHWA, but...meh. Even as a non-Clearview-fan, I can't really find anything to complain about here.

[J N Winkler]

I decided long ago that I would not criticize an agency for failing to conform 100% to FHWA's most recent guidance on Clearview usage (Clearview only for primary destination legend) as long as the "large caps" problem was absent, Clearview did not appear in route shields or in negative contrast, and the signs otherwise had the appropriate amount of space padding around legend elements.  From this standpoint, both the Gloucester Parkway sign and the more recent VDOT signs linked to above are acceptable.

I have not been to Virginia in 20 years, so the bulk of my information about VDOT Clearview usage comes from construction plans sets.  From that standpoint alone, I wish VDOT would give up Clearview altogether because it has been very hit and miss about ensuring that sign drawings are plotted with the actual Clearview fonts rather than generic sans-serif placeholder fonts.  Both it and Ohio DOT are among the worst of the Clearview-using agencies in this regard.  Back when VDOT was using FHWA series exclusively, sign drawings were nearly always plotted with the correct fonts.

[PHLBOS]

With the reapproval and VDOT's reinstatement of it, can anyone confirm whether or not PennDOT plans to start using it again? Or, for that matter, the PTC?

The latest edition of Publication 46 (PennDOT's traffic engineering manual) dates from 2014, when Clearview was still authorized.  Recent PennDOT construction plans sets have been using Series E Modified.  For the PTC I have no clear indication one way or another; they do sign replacements from time to time, but usually through work order contracts where the sign designs are given to the contractor after contract award rather than being made available to all prospective bidders during the contract advertising period.

Having been on the PA Turnpike on a recent trip to Carlisle; I noticed that while the slightly older westbound signage for the Harrisburg-West interchange (I-83) have the control cities in Clearview; the newer (erected within the past year) eastbound signage for it use taller Series E(M) lettering.

Yeah, I definitely know PennDOT has been using FHWA again since the interim approval was first revoked (One odd interchange on I-81 near Carlisle reconstructed as early as 2010-2012 features Highway Gothic for some reason.)

If you're referring to the signs west of the interchange (along I-76 eastbound) and the one westbound sign at the exit itself (which appears to use Enhanced Series E(M) with the ugly, squished US 11 shield); those were all erected within the past two years.  The westbound advance/approach signage are still the much older (~25 years) ones.

but since PennDOT wanted to keep Clearview at first, it would definitely be unpleasantly unsurprising to find out that they're going back to it.

At least along I-95 in Philly, one-off replacement signage are all in Highway Gothic.

At least the bulk of the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange signs put up so far seems to have been saved from it, though that's mostly the PTC's doing at this point.

Some of the covered signs erected at the interchange itself all appear to be in Highway Gothic (one can see such if the wind catches the tarps a certain way).

The recent New York maskings over Trenton legends for the various I-95 northbound ramp signage in Philly (from I-676 northward) have all been in Highway Gothic regardless of what font the Trenton legends were (many of the newer installs were in Clearview).

The recent signage updates along PA 420, north of I-95 include LGS' using Series D at the US 13/Chester Pike intersection.