The Clearview thread

[SD Mapman]

The reason why you see such variance in MUTCD compliance with blade signs is because cities are more or less on the honor system to follow the MUTCD. The only mechanism FHWA has to enforce MUTCD compliance is withholding of federal highway funding. Cities usually don't get all that much federal highway funding in the first place, so it's not much of a threat.

I guess that's why Cullman has such bad signs that no-one's really done anything about.

And also explains why Atchison, KS is still putting up brand-new Clearview street blades.

[wanderer2575]

I e-mailed MDOT and asked if the sign plans were available for viewing online, but received no reply.

I-696 signing plans can be downloaded here:

http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/eprop/index.cfm?action=showCall&letting=170106&originalLet=170106&sr=5

In order to load the actual project advertisement with the documentation without running into a login redirect, you have to be logged in to the Eproposals site.  If you do not have an Eproposals account, you can create one by following the "New user registration" link found here:

http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/eprop/login/index.cfm

Ignore the "Vendor number" field (unless, of course, you have a vendor number); it is not obligatory.  Use a throwaway password because the login mechanism is not secure (HTTPS was used in the past, but plain HTTP is used now).

I do have the signing sheets extracted and most if not all of them have 2016-10-28 as a nominal date (probably a plotting date).  This project was advertised probably in December 2016 for a letting in early January 2017.  I suspect it was not considered a suitable candidate for redesign with FHWA alphabet series because it has high structural content (engineer's estimate of $7 million-$10 million versus the usual $1 million or so when panels only are being replaced).

I appreciate the info.  I finally found the project page but can't view the sign plans because they're in a format my computer can't read (SGN file?).  Oh, well -- I'll eventually see the real things when the install is complete.

[J N Winkler]

The *.sgn files are SignCAD files and to view them you need either SignCAD itself or a specialist SignCAD viewer (not cheap, let alone free).  I'd just go to the plans--they are in PDF and should have about 57 pages of sign truss elevations and sign panel detail sheets, as well as the sign layouts.

[Pink Jazz]

Looks like we have an official bill that will mandate the FHWA to approve Clearview:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2029/all-info?r=96

[MNHighwayMan]

Oh boy, politicians trying to force through what specialists and engineers didn't approve of. Fun stuff.

[Pink Jazz]

Oh boy, politicians trying to force through what specialists and engineers didn't approve of. Fun stuff.

There are indeed many studies that show Clearview having an advantage, and what these politicians believe is that the FHWA is selectively choosing the studies showing that Clearview is inferior.  In fact, the MAJORITY of studies apparently show Clearview being superior at least in positive contrast application, yet the FHWA is choosing a fringe minority study (the Texas A&M study) as rationale to rescind its interim approval.  This is government overreach and grounds for a lawsuit IMO, since they are going against the majority of studies.

I will be keeping track of this bill and will continue to provide updates.

[MNHighwayMan]

So why did the FHWA rescind its approval for Clearview, then? Is there really a bias against studies demonstrating its superiority?

Edit: Never mind, I posted right before your edit. I'm leaving this post for discussion purposes, though.

[DaBigE]

Oh boy, politicians trying to force through what specialists and engineers didn't approve of. Fun stuff.

There are indeed many studies that show Clearview having an advantage, and what these politicians believe is that the FHWA is selectively choosing the studies showing that Clearview is inferior.  In fact, the MAJORITY of studies apparently show Clearview being superior at least in positive contrast application, yet the FHWA is choosing a fringe minority study to rescind its interim approval.

Yes, studies which many of us have agreed were flawed to begin with.

Yay...more politics getting in the way of real science    Regardless of how FHWA went about the font IA process, I still have heartburn over something a company will continue to receive profits for beyond the initial contract, in the form of each agency having to buy a license to use the font for public roadways. Great business model for them; more having our hands tied for taxpayers.

And if engineers would be able to have their say, everything would go back to the drawing board...further exploring modifications to the existing FHWA fonts, e.g., utilizing a thinner-stroke series (like D or E), but at a typical E-modified letter height. Remove the E-modified altogether, since its original purpose is not needed any longer (to accommodate reflective buttons). Find a font that works for all instances, instead of Clearview for this FHWA Series for that. As seen in the threads on this forum, designers and fabricators are having a hard enough time following instructions. 

[Pink Jazz]

Oh boy, politicians trying to force through what specialists and engineers didn't approve of. Fun stuff.

There are indeed many studies that show Clearview having an advantage, and what these politicians believe is that the FHWA is selectively choosing the studies showing that Clearview is inferior.  In fact, the MAJORITY of studies apparently show Clearview being superior at least in positive contrast application, yet the FHWA is choosing a fringe minority study to rescind its interim approval.

Yes, studies which many of us have agreed were flawed to begin with.

Yay...more politics getting in the way of real science    Regardless of how FHWA went about the font IA process, I still have heartburn over something a company will continue to receive profits for beyond the initial contract, in the form of each agency having to buy a license to use the font for public roadways. Great business model for them; more having our hands tied for taxpayers.

And if engineers would be able to have their say, everything would go back to the drawing board...further exploring modifications to the existing FHWA fonts, e.g., utilizing a thinner-stroke series (like D or E), but at a typical E-modified letter height. Remove the E-modified altogether, since its original purpose is not needed any longer (to accommodate reflective buttons). Find a font that works for all instances, instead of Clearview for this FHWA Series for that. As seen in the threads on this forum, designers and fabricators are having a hard enough time following instructions. 

What about the recent MIT study?  This study lacks the inherent flaw of the original Clearview study (comparing worn signs in FHWA to brand new signs in Clearview).

[DaBigE]

Oh boy, politicians trying to force through what specialists and engineers didn't approve of. Fun stuff.

There are indeed many studies that show Clearview having an advantage, and what these politicians believe is that the FHWA is selectively choosing the studies showing that Clearview is inferior.  In fact, the MAJORITY of studies apparently show Clearview being superior at least in positive contrast application, yet the FHWA is choosing a fringe minority study to rescind its interim approval.

Yes, studies which many of us have agreed were flawed to begin with.

Yay...more politics getting in the way of real science    Regardless of how FHWA went about the font IA process, I still have heartburn over something a company will continue to receive profits for beyond the initial contract, in the form of each agency having to buy a license to use the font for public roadways. Great business model for them; more having our hands tied for taxpayers.

And if engineers would be able to have their say, everything would go back to the drawing board...further exploring modifications to the existing FHWA fonts, e.g., utilizing a thinner-stroke series (like D or E), but at a typical E-modified letter height. Remove the E-modified altogether, since its original purpose is not needed any longer (to accommodate reflective buttons). Find a font that works for all instances, instead of Clearview for this FHWA Series for that. As seen in the threads on this forum, designers and fabricators are having a hard enough time following instructions. 

What about the recent MIT study?  This study lacks the inherent flaw of the original Clearview study (comparing worn signs in FHWA to brand new signs in Clearview).

The MIT study is better, but lab/computer-based testing can only go so far. Similar to the differences between diving simulators vs. actual, real-life driving. Ideally, lab testing should only be one phase; real-world testing needs to follow to be more comprehensive.

[PurdueBill]

To require the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration to issue a final rule that approves the use of Clearview font for positive contrast legends on guide signs, and for other purposes

Other purposes? What other purposes?  Whatever Meeker says is appropriate?  Numerals in route shields?  All-caps? Dark text on light background? 

What is wrong with leaving MUTCD decisions to the engineers and scientists?  How much has Meeker donated to these four cosponsors from Texas?  I'd love to know.

I'd love if it were amended to make Clearview in the public domain without royalty.  Would Meeker et al. be enthusiastic anymore?

[J N Winkler]

We will have to wait for actual bill text, which is not yet available, to find out what these "other purposes" are.  My guess is that they are unimportant sundries.

[PurdueBill]

We will have to wait for actual bill text, which is not yet available, to find out what these "other purposes" are.  My guess is that they are unimportant sundries.

It will sure be interesting, because positive-contrast destination legend was all that was supposed to be used under the IA.  Not that anyone using it seemed to care until lately.

[lordsutch]

"And for other purposes" is standard legislative boilerplate that means (a) the short title doesn't have to be changed if the bill is amended to do something else in the future and (b) nobody can complain that the short title doesn't fully describe what the bill does, since it may do other things beyond those spelled out in the short title.

For what it's worth, it seems to be being pushed by the Texas delegation in particular (not surprising given both TTI and TxDOT's enthusiasm for Clearview); there are four co-sponsors, two from each party.

Here's a press release from Johnson discussing his (and the other Rep. Johnson's) motivations in supporting the bill, which includes a supportive quote from TxDOT.

[Scott5114]

If it reaches a floor vote I'll be writing my representative to oppose it.

I doubt it will get that far, though. This feels like a "died in committee" type of bill. Even if it makes it further, the current House is dysfunctional enough that they probably couldn't agree on a pizza order.

[jeffandnicole]

Here's what you mainly need to know about this bill...

Sponsor:  Rep. Johnson, Sam [R-TX-3] (Introduced 04/06/2017)

Clearview's developing source (Per Wikipedia):   It was developed by independent researchers with the help of the Texas Transportation Institute...

No doubt there was some influence there.  PA also had a lot to do with the development of Clearview as well.

[J N Winkler]

"And for other purposes" is standard legislative boilerplate that means (a) the short title doesn't have to be changed if the bill is amended to do something else in the future and (b) nobody can complain that the short title doesn't fully describe what the bill does, since it may do other things beyond those spelled out in the short title.

This is what I was trying to get at by suggesting that the "other purposes" were unimportant sundries--thanks for expressing this more fluently than I did.  In principle "other purposes" holds the door open for riders, and since Congress (unlike many state legislatures) does not have a single-subject requirement for bills, it is conceptually possible for one or more of these riders to be far more radical in scope than the measure explicitly specified in the bill title.  However, such amendments are considered so mischievous that there are strong institutional constraints against introducing them.

Since the bill is effectively a mandamus action, only directed by Congress rather than a judge, it requires the FHWA head to take an action for which he or she has been granted powers under separate legislation.  I suspect that the "other purposes" will include verbiage clarifying that there will be no change to the administrator's duties and powers as specified elsewhere in statute, and relieving him or her of the obligation to consult stakeholders and the public through the rulemaking process before adding Clearview to the MUTCD.

[vdeane]

I read that press release and it reads like an advertisement to entice people to buy Clearview.

[Pink Jazz]

If it reaches a floor vote I'll be writing my representative to oppose it.

I doubt it will get that far, though. This feels like a "died in committee" type of bill. Even if it makes it further, the current House is dysfunctional enough that they probably couldn't agree on a pizza order.

Considering the cosponsors are from both political parties, I am not sure if I would agree with your statement.  I think this bill will have both support and opposition from both sides of the political spectrum.

[Brandon]

Oh boy, politicians trying to force through what specialists and engineers didn't approve of. Fun stuff.

There are indeed many studies that show Clearview having an advantage, and what these politicians believe is that the FHWA is selectively choosing the studies showing that Clearview is inferior.  In fact, the MAJORITY of studies apparently show Clearview being superior at least in positive contrast application, yet the FHWA is choosing a fringe minority study (the Texas A&M study) as rationale to rescind its interim approval.  This is government overreach and grounds for a lawsuit IMO, since they are going against the majority of studies.

I will be keeping track of this bill and will continue to provide updates.

The studies that seem to show Clearview as superior have a strange tendency to be uncontrolled.  My personal favorite is one that showed a faded FHWA sign next to a Clearview sign with new sheeting at night.  Of course the Clearview one is easier to read, it's got newer reflective sheeting.  On a direct one-to-one basis, Clearview has never (as far as I have seen) been proven to have any better legibility than FHWA font.

[Pink Jazz]

Here is a letter from the Institute of Transportation Engineers on the NCUTCD's position:
http://files.constantcontact.com/4990d50b001/075f45d8-74c7-4c0a-9056-53b365012f75.pdf?ver=1485957770000

Perhaps the ITE/NCUTCD position is the driving force behind the bill.

[Scott5114]

If it reaches a floor vote I'll be writing my representative to oppose it.

I doubt it will get that far, though. This feels like a "died in committee" type of bill. Even if it makes it further, the current House is dysfunctional enough that they probably couldn't agree on a pizza order.

Considering the cosponsors are from both political parties, I am not sure if I would agree with your statement.  I think this bill will have both support and opposition from both sides of the political spectrum.

Not to get too far out into the weeds on politics, but the problem is within one party. Paul Ryan is barely holding the Republicans together. They couldn't come to an agreement on the AHCA, which is something the party has been salivating over for seven years, so I'm not really convinced that they could get it together over something like this that nobody actually cares about.

Congress is currently in recess, in any event.

[PurdueBill]

I read that press release and it reads like an advertisement to entice people to buy Clearview.

That's what it sounded like to me as well.  They do not mention shortcomings of studies, other studies showing other findings, or the high cost of Clearview. 

I still have the gut feeling that this bill has come about because the originators of Clearview have hurt feelings about the IA ending and they will gosh darn get their font approved for good if it even takes a law to do it. 

If it manages to pass, I hope that FHWA makes sure in a document approving Clearview that they make clear what it is to be allowed for--positive contrast mixed-case destination legend in 5-W or 5-W-R only.  No shield numerals.  No all-caps action messages.  No exit tabs or gore signs.  No negative contrast of any kind.  No headings of blue service signs (they are all-caps).  Proper ratio of heights between capital and lowercase letters must be maintained; no microscopic lowercase letters due to improper scaling.

Research on Enhanced E should continue as well; it has been clear through the process that benefits of Clearview were in part due to its size--the letters themselves were larger than those of the FHWA lettering, so no wonder the Clearview was easier to read.  Enhanced E would be a royalty-free, public-domain solution to improved legibility if it were to work as it seems it may.  I am sure that there is a profit motive in keeping the Clearview train chugging, which is not right. 

[kphoger]

If it manages to pass, I hope that FHWA makes sure in a document approving Clearview that they make clear what it is to be allowed for

They could put a big green arrow sticker by that part, and then write "READ THIS!" in the margin with red Sharpie.
That should be good enough.

[vdeane]

If it reaches a floor vote I'll be writing my representative to oppose it.

I doubt it will get that far, though. This feels like a "died in committee" type of bill. Even if it makes it further, the current House is dysfunctional enough that they probably couldn't agree on a pizza order.

Considering the cosponsors are from both political parties, I am not sure if I would agree with your statement.  I think this bill will have both support and opposition from both sides of the political spectrum.

Not to get too far out into the weeds on politics, but the problem is within one party. Paul Ryan is barely holding the Republicans together. They couldn't come to an agreement on the AHCA, which is something the party has been salivating over for seven years, so I'm not really convinced that they could get it together over something like this that nobody actually cares about.

Congress is currently in recess, in any event.

I'd say the opposite.  It's easy to unite when the consequences are nil; harder when you have to own what you voted for.  Keeping with the AHCA example, note how all the previous bills that were guaranteed an Obama veto passed easily.  It was only when the representatives had to own the consequences of repealing/replacing the ACA (in the form of a high profile bill that had an actual chance of becoming law) that the infighting started.  The only people other than the FHWA who care about Clearview, however, are the people who created it, the DOTs that enthusiastically implemented it (often incorrectly), and roadgeeks.  Two of those three have political influence.  Two of those three are also staunch supporters of Clearview.  Unfortunately, both of those groupings are the same two!