The Clearview thread

[DaBigE]

One thing that is particularly frustrating is that it seems obvious to me that the original studies regarding Clearview were fraudulent.  They clearly (pun not intended) favored Clearview, with brand-new Clearview signs being tested against aged FHWA signs that were in need of replacement regardless of font merits.  Even then, Clearview only barely showed improvement, and only in certain circumstances.  No wonder later studies were not in Clearview's favor.  Given the current business climate of taking any advantage possible regardless of morality (or sometimes even legality), it's hard to see this as unintentional.  Therefore, Meeker should have been punished, not rewarded.

I agree completely. But to expect a politician to act ethically and/or morally? As long as the money's green or the key turns, the hell with what's right or logical. Since a highway sign font is something that the general populace won't give a damn about, riders like this will unfortunately continue. And if it does get mainstream press, people will just see it as another way 'Big Government' is trying to screw "small" business, regardless of how much their product will end up costing the taxpayer.

From different business standpoint, I loved the fact that FHWA killed Clearview. It meant that we didn't have to buy $800+ worth of fonts.

[J N Winkler]

On another note, it's just "MOT" or "MOTI". The "MOTH" name was used up until 2001, when it was changed to "MOT", before being changed again in 2008 to "MOTI".

I've now taken notice of this.  I've been writing "MOTH" for years because the agency website was at www.th.gov.bc.ca for years, even while the "H" was dropped.

- I'm not sure what you mean by "inadequate space padding" in this context.

Ideally, there would be more yellow space top and bottom, closer (if not necessarily equal) to the yellow space provided at the sides, to allow the words to be picked out more easily.

I'm not trying to defend the MOT, but most of your issues are rooted in standards, not some perceived inadequacy on the part of the sign manufacturer. So, if you don't like the above sign, definitely don't come to BC.

Yes, my disagreement is really with the standards.  I've been to BC multiple times, though not since 2003, and frankly I've never really come for the signs--unlike a lot of road enthusiasts, I never particularly liked the BC Font, which was being phased out on the more recent visits.

If it helps, here's the initial document that discusses the implementation of Clearview (dated 5th September 2006): https://goo.gl/SNw8it. Why exactly BC decided to adopt Clearview for almost all uses (there are still some situations where the FHWA Series is used), I'm not totally sure. It could be that their initial implementation of Highway Gothic came without updating previous sheeting standards, so when Clearview was implemented, they decided to just go all in and adopt Clearview everywhere, and work with that as a starting point.

My understanding is that, until a point in the late 1990's/early noughties, all traffic signs on MOT infrastructure were manufactured in the Ministry sign shop in Kamloops and were ordered using a periodically updated catalogue that was published in print and is now online.  The BC Font was custom-made for the MOT and only the sign shop had the correct letter dies and silkscreens.  Then the decision was taken to open up the Ministry's signing program to the private sector; I don't know if the MOT ever went so far as to advertise and award pure signing contracts, but they did jettison the BC Font for most applications (though I spotted BC Font stop signs with fresh sheeting as late as 2003) in favor of standardized typefaces like the FHWA alphabet series.  I believe it was around this time that the first Dutch-inspired guide signs started appearing, initially in Series E Modified.

As part of the signing privatization, the MOT started publishing a Sign Pattern Manual online.  Initially the graphics were vectors and could simply be extracted directly using Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator.  But after a few years the MOT appeared to have second thoughts about the privatization and rolled it back.  Around the same time, the Sign Pattern Manual graphics began to be rasterized prior to packing in PDFs, so that all one can now extract directly from the PDFs of recent editions is a resolution-limited bitmap.  The Sign Pattern Manual has since been merged into the Sign Catalogue, which is still published under that title and now has sign patterns (one sign per page) following the catalogue pages (multiple signs per page) for each chapter.

As a person who collects sign layouts, sign panel detail sheets, and sign elevations from construction plans sets, I have found BC MOT to be generally a disappointment in terms of material one can collect.  Most of the standards documents are online and can be downloaded, with older versions available through the Web Archive.  However, like many other Canadian provincial transportation ministries, BC MOT requires a paying subscription to download actual tender documentation for highway projects (C$100 annually for BC Bid in their case).  Many years ago I was able to take advantage of a fee holiday to download documentation for some projects, and found signing to be very sparse.  It is my belief that the MOT tries to do as little signing as possible in turnkey construction contracts, reserving sign fabrication and erection to Ministry staff connected with the sign shop.  I also suspect, though I never got hold of any relevant documentation, that the sign shop privatization took the form of an indefinite-quantity term contract, where a contractor supplied workers and materials to the shop and then undertook to fabricate (and, possibly, install) finished signs in response to work orders issued by Ministry staff.

I'm sure we can all agree that negative-contrast Clearview is still reasonably easy to read, right? It's not like they're using Comic Sans.

Yup.  I would fight use of the Clearview B series if that were proposed by an US agency, in light of there being better alternatives such as the FHWA alphabet series, but as long as BC MOT takes the inferior legibility performance into account in fixing letter height and so on, I can't really object on functional grounds.

[DJStephens]

I was in New Mexico last week, and noticed that a few signs on NB I-25 near Raton are in Clearview. Did NMDOT install them?

Believe Raton is in District V, (Las Vegas) which is the only state district that has been on record as having used the clearview font primarily.   Have seen it sporadically elsewhere, such as in Lea County, in the city of Hobbs.  Hobbs/Lea county is in District II, headquartered in Roswell.   

[DJStephens]

What would FHWA do with it?  It serves no purpose.  The studies justifying trying it were fraudulent, and even then only showed improvement for mixed cast positive contrast, and IMO signs shouldn't be a mix of fonts.  That alone justifies not using it, but for some reason Clearview also causes states to put out poor signage.  The only places in the entire world that I've seen erect Clearview signs that don't make me want to throw up are Vermont, Arizona, and Québec.  Additionally, it requires a licensing fee, which IMO should have been enough to disqualify Clearview in and of itself.

Thus, Québec aside, Clearview needs to die.  Naturally, Congress managed to do the opposite.  What makes them think they know more about this stuff than the civil servants who actually know what they're doing? 

Might want to check out the overhead "BGS" approaching the interchange with I-19 on I-10 in Tucson.   "Nogales" appears in a huge out of scale presentation.  Awful.  There are also some lousy distance signs on I-8 approaching Gila Bend, with out of scale clearview fonts.  Although the majority of AZ-DOT signage appears to be reasonable, otherwise. 

[Pink Jazz]

I was in New Mexico last week, and noticed that a few signs on NB I-25 near Raton are in Clearview. Did NMDOT install them?

Believe Raton is in District V, (Las Vegas) which is the only state district that has been on record as having used the clearview font primarily.   Have seen it sporadically elsewhere, such as in Lea County, in the city of Hobbs.  Hobbs/Lea county is in District II, headquartered in Roswell.

The City of Rio Rancho, as well as Los Alamos County, have used Clearview experimentally.

[hbelkins]

From different business standpoint, I loved the fact that FHWA killed Clearview. It meant that we didn't have to buy $800+ worth of fonts.

No one was ever required to buy Clearview. The FHWA font was still perfectly fine. I have my doubts that it would have ever been mandated to replace FHWA, and that it would have remained an option.

[DaBigE]

From different business standpoint, I loved the fact that FHWA killed Clearview. It meant that we didn't have to buy $800+ worth of fonts.

No one was ever required to buy Clearview. The FHWA font was still perfectly fine. I have my doubts that it would have ever been mandated to replace FHWA, and that it would have remained an option.

If you do business with places that switched to Clearview it does.

[lordsutch]

If you do business with places that switched to Clearview it does.

However, under well-established U.S. law the design and metrics of typefaces cannot be copyrighted (only the actual font files), so any agency or company could use a knockoff of Clearview or even trace the letter designs themselves, and still comply with the IA.

[seicer]

The licensing fees for Clearview is a drop in the bucket, especially for bulk license purchases if it isn't a centralized sign shop. Spread that over the hundreds and hundreds of signs that are replaced each year with what should be a common font, it becomes a non-issue.

We pay fees for using fonts all the time - at a much smaller institution. So do ad agencies. And businesses. A DOT spending money on a font is not any different.

[J N Winkler]

I've long suspected that the complaints about the cost of Clearview font licenses are really about other, less tangible issues, chiefly a private-sector player coming in to inscribe public space and presume to lecture trained professionals on how it's done.  Unlike Clearview, the FHWA series and the rules for its deployment on signs (space padding, message loading limits, etc.) are largely the result of research carried out by traffic engineers working for government agencies.  This gives agencies ownership of the research product and paves the way toward them being adopted nationwide through consensus.  In contrast, although much of the early testing and validation of Clearview was carried out by PTC and TTI, I have heard no shortage of complaints from traffic professionals who resent asked to embrace Clearview because a few of their colleagues were responsive to Meeker's sales pitches.

[seicer]

I can see that.

I've worked for my entire career, balancing myself between IT and the marketing realm and these same discussions come up all the time. Web engineers have wildly differing opinions on how products and services should work and look versus someone who has spent their time in marketing. It's no different when we discuss traffic engineers and those involved in design (or traffic engineers and those who want, say, complete streets).

[DaBigE]

The licensing fees for Clearview is a drop in the bucket, especially for bulk license purchases if it isn't a centralized sign shop. Spread that over the hundreds and hundreds of signs that are replaced each year with what should be a common font, it becomes a non-issue.

We pay fees for using fonts all the time - at a much smaller institution. So do ad agencies. And businesses. A DOT spending money on a font is not any different.

I'm looking at it from the consulting-world perspective. We're not designing hundreds of signs per year; we're on the order of maybe 100 signs in a year, with 2-3 people needing to access the font.

[seicer]

Depends on the order. If Clearview is around the stay, then obtaining a license and using it full blown should be considered. As HB mentioned earlier, Kentucky has contractors use Clearview for large guide signs, but if the state does any guide signs, then it's in FHWA. And practically all of the smaller signs around the state use FHWA. In this instance, are contractors paying for the cost of the license and simply increasing the cost of the sign? If so, that's gotta be small change compared to how many signs are replaced in the state (Clearview in Kentucky has been used for some ten years now?).

And it depends on the license, I suppose. If it's on a per user level, then that's still not a high cost. We had a license for an institution I worked for where it was per office, which was pretty unusual. But only 2 or 3 people will ever need to design a sign for a given DOT, right?

[vdeane]

The licence issue isn't just about costs to DOTs and contractors.  It is about a private company mooching profits using a government standard.

[SectorZ]

The licensing fees for Clearview is a drop in the bucket, especially for bulk license purchases if it isn't a centralized sign shop. Spread that over the hundreds and hundreds of signs that are replaced each year with what should be a common font, it becomes a non-issue.

We pay fees for using fonts all the time - at a much smaller institution. So do ad agencies. And businesses. A DOT spending money on a font is not any different.

Whether it's a small fee or not, it's 100% unnecessary. It is the epitome of gov't waste since there is a perfectly acceptable (and debatably better) alternative.

[jakeroot]

On another note, it's just "MOT" or "MOTI". The "MOTH" name was used up until 2001, when it was changed to "MOT", before being changed again in 2008 to "MOTI".

I've now taken notice of this.  I've been writing "MOTH" for years because the agency website was at www.th.gov.bc.ca for years, even while the "H" was dropped.

That's a good point. It's a shame they can't come up with another short URL that isn't misleading.

I'm not trying to defend the MOT, but most of your issues are rooted in standards, not some perceived inadequacy on the part of the sign manufacturer. So, if you don't like the above sign, definitely don't come to BC.

Yes, my disagreement is really with the standards.  I've been to BC multiple times, though not since 2003, and frankly I've never really come for the signs--unlike a lot of road enthusiasts, I never particularly liked the BC Font, which was being phased out on the more recent visits.

I don't think that many road enthusiasts actually like that old font. They just like the uniqueness of it. As a typeface, I think Clearview is far superior to anything BC has used before, both functionally and aesthetically. I don't have many Highway Gothic references to go on, but here's some signs that use the font. The first one has excellent padding for the exit-only patches...

https://goo.gl/UKKtYH -- (Hwy 99 at Steveston Hwy)
https://goo.gl/2W1Hb5 -- (Hwy 99 at Bridgeport Road)
https://goo.gl/PEzyzZ (Hwy 91 at Hwy 91A)

Based on these, they had a good thing going, with some familiar issues (undersized exit tabs, too-small shields). But I think the Clearview signs are good enough that bouncing back to Highway Gothic wouldn't be necessary. They ought to work on, and improve what they have already.

[snipped for brevity]

It is my belief that the MOT tries to do as little signing as possible in turnkey construction contracts, reserving sign fabrication and erection to Ministry staff connected with the sign shop.  I also suspect, though I never got hold of any relevant documentation, that the sign shop privatization took the form of an indefinite-quantity term contract, where a contractor supplied workers and materials to the shop and then undertook to fabricate (and, possibly, install) finished signs in response to work orders issued by Ministry staff.

I see. So it's entirely possible that these consistent "errors" (at least as perceived by us, such as undersized cardinal directions, too-small shields, signs without enough padding, etc) are all the result of one sign shop making all the signs Province-wide? Perhaps it would be wise for the MOT to outsource this work once again, since (and I hate to admit this) the MOT has not yet provided any indication that these perceived issues may ever be rectified.

[seicer]

The licence issue isn't just about costs to DOTs and contractors.  It is about a private company mooching profits using a government standard.

Then that debate can go on for years. Thousands of contractors who essentially did the work of government employees do that every day now. We no longer hire internally, we outsource. It's no different than when we license fonts or license software. If we were to go after the minimal cost of font licensing, then we should go after other wasteful entities (e.g. grifters, nepotism - both which were very evident and reported upon when I lived in Kentucky and West Virginia).

[Scott5114]

My personal view is that Enhanced E Modified amounts to giving Lucy another try with the football.  The research is still preliminary and shows only a marginal advantage, which is similar to the position Clearview was in 2004 when the interim approval was originally granted.  It also contradicts previous research showing that Series E Modified has higher intrinsic unit legibility than Series E.

Without further studies, though, it remains to be seen whether the unit legibility increase is due to the stroke width or the character spacing changes from vanilla Series E. What data we have seems to point to the character spacing (which would make sense, following from the halation problems EM has due to small counter spaces). More data would be useful.

[PHLBOS]

One item that I believe has gotten lost in this recent discussion the 2016 revoking of IA has been reinstated for this fiscal year; nothing has been mentioned regarding the 2014 FHWA decision to not grant IA to additional states that applied for it in the past only to have it rejected in the wake of said-decision.  IIRC, Washington state applied for IA at that time and it's request was rejected.

In short, does this reversal of the 2016 decision only apply to states that were already had IA prior to 2014; or can other states apply for IA as well now?

[kalvado]

Maybe slightly off-topic, but still..
Does anyone else feels that federal mandate for font on signs goes a little too far in terms of regulation?
I can see some things as must-coordinate e.g. meaning of red light (and for that matter - "red" is actually defined in MUTCD through some third party document) or meaning of basic signs - but font is not even a grey area for me...
Uniformity is a good idea, but there are millions miles of roads, and one size cannot fit all, there will be differences..

[J N Winkler]

The licence issue isn't just about costs to DOTs and contractors.  It is about a private company mooching profits using a government standard.

How is this different from private-sector contractors making profit through construction contracts?

I see. So it's entirely possible that these consistent "errors" (at least as perceived by us, such as undersized cardinal directions, too-small shields, signs without enough padding, etc) are all the result of one sign shop making all the signs Province-wide? Perhaps it would be wise for the MOT to outsource this work once again, since (and I hate to admit this) the MOT has not yet provided any indication that these perceived issues may ever be rectified.

We would have to have sight of the fabrication drawings to be sure, but I think the real story here is that the people who design guide signs for the MOT don't see these issues as problems and are not interested in revising their design standards to address them.

Does anyone else feels that federal mandate for font on signs goes a little too far in terms of regulation?

I can see some things as must-coordinate e.g. meaning of red light (and for that matter - "red" is actually defined in MUTCD through some third party document) or meaning of basic signs - but font is not even a grey area for me...

We have had this discussion and variants of it before.  Some forum regulars have said that they do not believe the federal government should be in the business of regulating "minutiae" such as the typeface used on signs.  And there are examples of jurisdictions abroad, e.g. Canada, where typefaces from multiple families are mixed on traffic signs without there necessarily being an attempt to enforce a minimum unit legibility.

My personal view, formed on the basis of collecting traffic signing documentation from multiple countries for almost 20 years, is that notwithstanding the counterexample of various Canadian provinces, typographical consistency on traffic signs is the recognized international norm among wealthy countries and is worth having.  It is helpful in enforcing minimum legibility levels, it allows signs to be recognized more readily as having official standing, and it also signals intent on the part of public authorities to curate public space carefully.

[hbelkins]

The licence issue isn't just about costs to DOTs and contractors.  It is about a private company mooching profits using a government standard.

How is this different from private-sector contractors making profit through construction contracts?

Or paying private design firms when there are design engineers on staff?

As HB mentioned earlier, Kentucky has contractors use Clearview for large guide signs, but if the state does any guide signs, then it's in FHWA. And practically all of the smaller signs around the state use FHWA.

Kentucky doesn't do its own guide sign (BGS) fabrication. Replacements and one-off's are contracted out via standing agreeements. There are two contractors they use and they have the state pretty much divided in half. A few years ago I could have told you those contractors' names, but I've since forgotten.

It's been awhile since I've seen a sign replacement project let for bids. One of the more memorable ones I can remember was I-64 from Winchester to the West Virginia state line, and that's been at least 15 years ago. The limited replacements that were done on the Mountain Parkway in Powell County a few years ago were done under price contract and not let for bids. (They're in Clearview.)

[jakeroot]

IIRC, Washington state applied for IA at that time and it's request was rejected.

To clarify, it was Grays Harbor County, not the state of Washington. I did ask WSDOT what their position was on Clearview, and they told me they'd only use it if it we're implemented in the MUTCD.

[J N Winkler]

Kentucky doesn't do its own guide sign (BGS) fabrication. Replacements and one-offs are contracted out via standing agreeements. There are two contractors they use and they have the state pretty much divided in half. A few years ago I could have told you those contractors' names, but I've since forgotten.

It's been awhile since I've seen a sign replacement project let for bids. One of the more memorable ones I can remember was I-64 from Winchester to the West Virginia state line, and that's been at least 15 years ago. The limited replacements that were done on the Mountain Parkway in Powell County a few years ago were done under price contract and not let for bids. (They're in Clearview.)

I have heard of other agencies that follow variants of this approach for signing work.  Caltrans, for example, still uses it for all of its small signs and for isolated large guide signs (e.g., knockdown replacements).  The signs are ordered on a standard form, called a Sign Installation Order, that is forwarded to the statewide sign contractor; then the finished signs are delivered to the appropriate maintenance depot for installation by state forces.

Another approach, used historically by Illinois DOT and (AFAIK) currently by Colorado DOT (for small signs work only) and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, is to advertise a proposal-only contract that specifies fixed quantities of signs of various types, but does not include designs for the signs.  The designs are eventually sent to the contractor as part of work orders, and the contractor then fabricates and installs the signs.

I do not like any of these methods because they result in no documentation being made available at the advertising stage that includes sign layouts, sign elevations, and sign panel details.  The dream scenario would be for all agencies that use these methods to put the SIOs, work orders, etc. with such details online, e.g. on an EDMS, where they can be downloaded for study.  MnDOT already does this for signing work orders issued in connection with TODS.  I have heard that Caltrans also has an online SIO database, at least for District 7, but no public interface for it.

[vdeane]

The licence issue isn't just about costs to DOTs and contractors.  It is about a private company mooching profits using a government standard.

How is this different from private-sector contractors making profit through construction contracts?

The difference is officially sanctioned favoritism.  With regards to contracts, those go through a bidding process, where every firm that does business in that area has an opportunity to bid and potentially win the contract.  With respect to things like software licences, at least then the government is choosing among a marketplace which one to use.  With respect to Clearview, having it allowed at all is basically government-backed favoritism.  DOTs would be using either FHWA, or paying Meeker.  Nobody else.  That is why fonts, devices, etc. that are backed by privately owned intellectual property should not be allowed in the MUTCD.  If the federal government is going to allow states to pay Meeker for Clearview, then the only way to resolve the favoritism issue is to stop regulating fonts entirely.

I don't think that many road enthusiasts actually like that old font. They just like the uniqueness of it. As a typeface, I think Clearview is far superior to anything BC has used before, both functionally and aesthetically. I don't have many Highway Gothic references to go on, but here's some signs that use the font. The first one has excellent padding for the exit-only patches...

https://goo.gl/UKKtYH -- (Hwy 99 at Steveston Hwy)
https://goo.gl/2W1Hb5 -- (Hwy 99 at Bridgeport Road)
https://goo.gl/PEzyzZ (Hwy 91 at Hwy 91A)

Based on these, they had a good thing going, with some familiar issues (undersized exit tabs, too-small shields). But I think the Clearview signs are good enough that bouncing back to Highway Gothic wouldn't be necessary. They ought to work on, and improve what they have already.

I actually think those FHWA font signs look significantly better than their Clearview signs.