The Clearview thread

[US 89]

I'm in Utah right now and have seen a total of zero Clearview signs.

Only used on the Legacy Parkway (Hwy 67), as far as I know.

Yes, that's the only road with them, although the Clearview spills over onto the Legacy-related signs on other nearby roads. I know there's a truck restriction sign for Legacy on I-215 that's in Clearview, for example.

[tckma]

So, I drove by this yesterday, and I noticed that MDOT left some space on the exit signage for Konterra Dr, anticipating future ramp construction, perhaps?  Are they going to use Clearview for the new exit number/letter now that it's been deprecated?

https://goo.gl/maps/wKwUZyYjiM32

[Eth]

So, I drove by this yesterday, and I noticed that MDOT left some space on the exit signage for Konterra Dr, anticipating future ramp construction, perhaps?  Are they going to use Clearview for the new exit number/letter now that it's been deprecated?

https://goo.gl/maps/wKwUZyYjiM32

Looks to me like they went ahead and fabricated the exit tab to read "EXITS 32A-B" and have simply covered over the relevant parts until they're needed. So I'd say it's pretty much certain that the hidden text is already in Clearview.

[PHLBOS]

Philadelphia Update:

Along I-95 - Northeast Philadelphia, the reconstruction project between Exit 22 (I-676/US 30) & Exit 26 (NJ 90/Aramingo Ave.); a new 2-mile advance-BGS for Exit 22 (I-676/US 30) has been erected with its control cities in Clearview.  My guess is that this BGS was fabricated a while ago but was probably sitting in a PennDOT storage facility until it was erected.

Further north, northbound along the Exit 27/Bridge St. collector-distributor road; both 95 NORTH Trenton pull-through BGS' have been completely replaced with ones bearing New York in Clearview.  Such deviates from other recent signage revisions along I-95 northbound that had New York masks placed on them in Highway Gothic regardless of what font the old Trenton legend was in.

The above begs the question whether or not PennDOT has quietly reinstated Clearview.  These may be just one-offers.

[J N Winkler]

The above begs the question whether or not PennDOT has quietly reinstated Clearview.  These may be just one-offers.

I continue to monitor ECMS and there was actually one large project in the last tranche that had Clearview.  This was project 76400, part of the expansion of US 15 around Shamokin Dam (Snyder, Union, and Northumberland counties).  However, I can't rule out the possibility that this project was sitting on the shelf for a while.

[jakeroot]

I'm not sure anyone cares about street blades, but Fife, Washington recently installed a new signal, and the street blades use Clearview. This city had formerly used Clearview, but all installations in the last four or five years have been in Highway Gothic.

Oh, and it's all caps too. Brilliant.

[Roadwarriors79]

I'm just wondering, has the state of Texas (TxDOT or any of the toll agencies) ever given up on Clearview? I can't remember the last new NON-Clearview sign posted on any of the highways or freeways there.

[epzik8]

I am a staunch supporter of Clearview font.

[Roadwarriors79]

I'm not sure anyone cares about street blades, but Fife, Washington recently installed a new signal, and the street blades use Clearview. This city had formerly used Clearview, but all installations in the last four or five years have been in Highway Gothic.

Oh, and it's all caps too. Brilliant.

I pay attention to street blades, mostly in Arizona.

For a few years it seemed that ADOT, Maricopa County DOT, the various cities in the Phoenix area, and even Tucson and Pima County DOT all jumped on the Clearview bandwagon. Today, I can't think of any new Clearview installations other than the street blades at traffic signals in the city of Phoenix. As far as Phoenix goes, I have never seen a lighted street blade in the city of Phoenix that wasn't in Clearview.

[J N Winkler]

I'm just wondering, has the state of Texas (TxDOT or any of the toll agencies) ever given up on Clearview? I can't remember the last new NON-Clearview sign posted on any of the highways or freeways there.

Clearview is very much still alive in Texas.  In fact, TxDOT carried right on using Clearview after FHWA revoked the interim approval.  The toll agencies and RMAs all follow the TxMUTCD and SHSD, so there have been few if any noticeable departures from TxDOT practice on their infrastructure.

[jakeroot]

As far as Phoenix goes, I have never seen a lighted street blade in the city of Phoenix that wasn't in Clearview.

When I was in Phoenix last December visiting family, I didn't see hardly any signs that weren't Clearview. That extends to speed limit signs as well. Even some stop signs, I think.

[Roadsguy]

Not looking too good for Pennsylvania. A recently-improved local intersection in Lebanon has Clearview overhead blades.

[PHLBOS]

I'm just wondering, has the state of Texas (TxDOT or any of the toll agencies) ever given up on Clearview? I can't remember the last new NON-Clearview sign posted on any of the highways or freeways there.

No.  As a matter of fact, TX (representatives actually) was the one that inserted legislation into an appropriations bill (that was passed & signed into law by the President) that reinstated the IA use of Clearview.  At the time of this posting, & it was mentioned several posts back; TX, VA & KY are the only known state DOTs that officially (re)started using Clearview again.

Not looking too good for Pennsylvania. A recently-improved local intersection in Lebanon has Clearview overhead blades.

Are those local streets in that intersection PennDOT-maintained roads?  Even if such were, I have seen many fonts (besides Clearview & Highway Gothic) used on street blade signs... especially on ones mounted on traffic signal poles.

[J N Winkler]

Not looking too good for Pennsylvania. A recently-improved local intersection in Lebanon has Clearview overhead blades.

Are those local streets in that intersection PennDOT-maintained roads?  Even if such were, I have seen many fonts (besides Clearview & Highway Gothic) used on street blade signs... especially on ones mounted on traffic signal poles.

I don't think I ever stopped seeing Clearview on mast arm signs in PennDOT construction plans even when the plug was pulled on the IA.  I am reluctant to regard fonts on this type of sign as indicative of the agency's typeface policy, for the following reasons:

*  Traffic signal plans could spend more time on the shelf than plans for major projects.

*  Empirical observation in most states (not just Pennsylvania) reveals that typeface conformity on mast arm signs is typically much poorer than for other types of guide sign.  Local agencies often want to use whatever font looks "cool" and are usually better positioned to get their way than with even D-series guide signs.

[PHLBOS]

I don't think I ever stopped seeing Clearview on mast arm signs in PennDOT construction plans even when the plug was pulled on the IA.

Actually, this replacement street-blade sign (from about a year ago) is certainly not Clearview; looks to be Series D.   2012 GSV showing the older Clearview sign.

[J N Winkler]

Last night was another four-weekly run of my PennDOT ECMS downloader, and it pulled in more material than usual--4.34 GB spread across 22 projects, about twice the usual aggregate filesize and project count for a typical month.  This was because of major projects for I-78 in Berks and Lehigh Counties (ECMS 10466), I-84 in Wayne and Pike Counties (ECMS 76861), and US 1 Roosevelt Expressway in greater Philadelphia (ECMS 83736).  There was also a fair amount of traffic signal work, including mast arm signs.

I am sharing this month's tranche of the pattern-accurate signing sheets I typically collect for PennDOT (sign panel detail sheets, sign elevation sheets, and detour map sheets) to give a clearer and more precise picture of where the agency is with regard to Clearview.  The big three projects all have permanent signing with Series E Modified, while a lot of the mast arm signs are Clearview, as are a few isolated large panel sign replacements.

[PHLBOS]

Last night was another four-weekly run of my PennDOT ECMS downloader, and it pulled in more material than usual--4.34 GB spread across 22 projects, about twice the usual aggregate filesize and project count for a typical month.  This was because of major projects for I-78 in Berks and Lehigh Counties (ECMS 10466), I-84 in Wayne and Pike Counties (ECMS 76861), and US 1 Roosevelt Expressway in greater Philadelphia (ECMS 83736).  There was also a fair amount of traffic signal work, including mast arm signs.

I am sharing this month's tranche of the pattern-accurate signing sheets I typically collect for PennDOT (sign panel detail sheets, sign elevation sheets, and detour map sheets) to give a clearer and more precise picture of where the agency is with regard to Clearview.  The big three projects all have permanent signing with Series E Modified, while a lot of the mast arm signs are Clearview, as are a few isolated large panel sign replacements.

After thumbing through those, what I find interesting is that some street blade signs are still in all-caps.  Most if not all newer street blade signs I've seen erected are in mixed-case regardless of the font used/selected.

Even more interesting if not odd item: granted, such signage is only temporary; but those orange signs for the I-76 closure detour in Philly are mostly in Clearview... even the numerals in the I-76 & I-95 shields.  Such was never allowed during both the current & previous IA periods.

Side bar & note to PennDOT: Get rid of those short, squatty US shields (for the US 1 & US 13 signage) & use the standard FHWA ones.

[Roadsguy]

Last night was another four-weekly run of my PennDOT ECMS downloader, and it pulled in more material than usual--4.34 GB spread across 22 projects, about twice the usual aggregate filesize and project count for a typical month.  This was because of major projects for I-78 in Berks and Lehigh Counties (ECMS 10466), I-84 in Wayne and Pike Counties (ECMS 76861), and US 1 Roosevelt Expressway in greater Philadelphia (ECMS 83736).  There was also a fair amount of traffic signal work, including mast arm signs.

I am sharing this month's tranche of the pattern-accurate signing sheets I typically collect for PennDOT (sign panel detail sheets, sign elevation sheets, and detour map sheets) to give a clearer and more precise picture of where the agency is with regard to Clearview.  The big three projects all have permanent signing with Series E Modified, while a lot of the mast arm signs are Clearview, as are a few isolated large panel sign replacements.

How do you get all this?

[J N Winkler]

How do you get all this?

I have two scripts for PennDOT's ECMS, both of which are wget wrappers.  The first script is a shootlist compiler.  It logs into ECMS using the guest account, makes a list of all projects that have had their bid opening since the last run, pulls the bid item quantity listing for each project, parses it for signing-related quantities, and adds that project to the shootlist if it has more than 400 square feet of sign panel.  (I generally find that when a PennDOT project has signing, the quantities bottom out at 400 SF.  Only about 5%-10% of the projects PennDOT advertises have signing.)  The second script logs back into ECMS using the guest account and then downloads the plans and special provisions for each project on the shootlist.

There are other "helper" scripts.  I have a validator script that sniffs out corrupt PDFs in the download, deletes them, and marks them up on a list, and a recoverer script that uses the list to re-attempt the failed downloads.  These were necessary several years ago when ECMS would choke on downloads fairly often, but its performance has improved considerably and it has been many months (probably over a year) since I last had a dirty download.  To process the signing, I have a script set that uses robocopy to copy over signing-related files ("Signing and Pavement Marking," "Traffic Control," "Sign Structure," "Traffic Signal," "Other-Project Specific"--this last because this often hides signing, and "Roadway" if there is no separate signing set) to a separate directory.  These are then broken down into their constituent sheets and premerged (using a combination of GhostScript and pdftk) into a single file, with sheets considered likely to have signing placed closer to the front (so "Signing and Pavement Marking" first while "Other-Project Specific" at the back).  Then I go through the file in a PDF viewer and mark out pages to extract by page number, and a separate script extracts them.  This month the file to examine ran to 2072 pages while I identified 143 that were suitable for extraction.  (It would be nice to have an extraction ratio closer to 90%, which is what I have for TxDOT, but in order for that to happen there would have to be metadata such as PDF bookmarks to single out sign design, sign elevation, and detour map sheets, and PennDOT doesn't generate it at that level.)

Even more interesting if not odd item: granted, such signage is only temporary; but those orange signs for the I-76 closure detour in Philly are mostly in Clearview... even the numerals in the I-76 & I-95 shields.  Such was never allowed during both the current & previous IA periods.

I have my doubts as to whether those were plotted accurately, since I suspect practitioners in many PennDOT districts use Clearview as a CAD placeholder for signs that will ultimately be fabricated using the FHWA series.  It is also possible to achieve this kind of unwanted font substitution by using the wrong signcad.rsc file for sign drawings prepared in SignCAD.  Nevertheless, I extracted these drawings given PennDOT's reported and photographically documented history of using Clearview in negative contrast for certain types of nag sign.

One additional piece of evidence that PennDOT is moving away from Clearview is the existing signing in the I-84 sign layout sheets (not included in the 143 extracted sheets I uploaded) being shown using Clearview.  This implies that new signs with Series E Modified are replacing old signs with Clearview.

Side bar & note to PennDOT: Get rid of those short, squatty US shields (for the US 1 & US 13 signage) & use the standard FHWA ones.

I find it mildly astonishing that they have a CAD-plottable version of the "acorn."

[Pink Jazz]

For a few years it seemed that ADOT, Maricopa County DOT, the various cities in the Phoenix area, and even Tucson and Pima County DOT all jumped on the Clearview bandwagon. Today, I can't think of any new Clearview installations other than the street blades at traffic signals in the city of Phoenix. As far as Phoenix goes, I have never seen a lighted street blade in the city of Phoenix that wasn't in Clearview.

It appears that Chandler has brought back Clearview for their regular street blades.  Can't confirm if they are using it again for their lighted street blades at signalized intersections; Chandler switched them to a thinner-stroked Helvetica after the interim approval was revoked, although there are a few isolated installations that are in FHWA (one of them being the Chandler Boulevard and Alma School intersection), possibly contractor errors.  Gilbert, Mesa, and Queen Creek still seem to be using FHWA (a Clearview sign in Queen Creek was replaced by one in FHWA the past week due to a change in the intersection for two different street names for each direction).  Gilbert and Mesa actually now put the city logos in their newest street blades at signalized intersections (although Mesa doesn't do illuminated blades at all signalized intersections; they have actually cut back on them except along Main Street, Downtown, and some specific districts such as the Fiesta District, Eastmark, and the Power Knowledge Corridor).

[DaBigE]

FHWA's recently submitted report to Congress on highway sign fonts has been made publicly available: "Highway Sign Fonts" [3.3MB]

The purpose of the report was to conduct a comprehensive review of the research on the Clearview alternative font, document the safety and cost implications of the decision to terminate approval of Clearview font, and fully address the comments submitted in response to the FHWA's subsequent Request for Information on this subject. The report also examines the complexities of implementing and maintaining alternative lettering styles in addition to the FHWA Standard Alphabets that are now required for use in traffic control device applications.

[Roadsguy]

FHWA's recently submitted report to Congress on highway sign fonts has been made publicly available: "Highway Sign Fonts" [3.3MB]

The purpose of the report was to conduct a comprehensive review of the research on the Clearview alternative font, document the safety and cost implications of the decision to terminate approval of Clearview font, and fully address the comments submitted in response to the FHWA's subsequent Request for Information on this subject. The report also examines the complexities of implementing and maintaining alternative lettering styles in addition to the FHWA Standard Alphabets that are now required for use in traffic control device applications.

I don't have time to read the whole thing, but it seems the FHWA's minds haven't been changed since the initial yanking of the approval.

[Brandon]

FHWA's recently submitted report to Congress on highway sign fonts has been made publicly available: "Highway Sign Fonts" [3.3MB]

The purpose of the report was to conduct a comprehensive review of the research on the Clearview alternative font, document the safety and cost implications of the decision to terminate approval of Clearview font, and fully address the comments submitted in response to the FHWA's subsequent Request for Information on this subject. The report also examines the complexities of implementing and maintaining alternative lettering styles in addition to the FHWA Standard Alphabets that are now required for use in traffic control device applications.

Nice find.  And it backs up my earlier criticisms of Clearview's size.

While there were no demonstrated deficiencies with the Standard Alphabets, the developers worked to
advance a new letter style with improved legibility. The stated goal was to rely exclusively on
modifications to the new letter forms (shapes) and stroke width. However, when this process failed to
compete with the legibility and recognition of the Standard Alphabets, the developer then turned to a
different characteristic of legibility: the size and height of the letters themselves. Ultimately, the
developers could not achieve comparable legibility to the Standard Alphabets until the size of the letters
was increased 12 percent larger than the corresponding Standard Alphabet letters.

In other words, as I've pointed out before, Clearview was made larger, and thus the comparison between FHWA and Clearview was unfair due to the size difference.  Nice slight of hand by the developer of Clearview.

[Pink Jazz]

With the FHWA's recent review and the new Congress coming in, I don't see the interim approval lasting much longer.  ADOT probably made the right decision on not to use it again when the interim approval was reinstated.

[Roadsguy]

With the FHWA's recent review and the new Congress coming in, I don't see the interim approval lasting much longer.  ADOT probably made the right decision on not to use it again when the interim approval was reinstated.

Besides Arizona and (seemingly at least) PennDOT and the PTC, which other states/agencies that used Clearview previously have opted out even after it was reinstated?