The Best/Worst Highway Innovations Of Each Decade...

[msubulldog]

For something positive:  Georgia in recent years getting rid of their pseudo-Clearview font on interstates, while including "normal" exit tabs and text that is not redundant(simply saying, for example, 3/4 MILE and not EXIT 3/4 MILE

[Ned Weasel]

Your mileage may vary on this but personally I think one of the worst highway innovations were the metrication of freeways, specifically Interstate 19 in Arizona and Delaware Highway 1 in Delaware. It seemed really unnecessary, even though at the time of their constructions, both transportation departments were anticipating the metrication of the United States, which fortunately never happened. Also, on both of these freeways, the speed limits are still in miles, so for the first-time driver on Interstate 19 might drive in kilometers per hour, slowing cars down.

I'm not sure why you say, "fortunately never happened."  I've never understood why people would oppose changing to a measurement system that is immensely easier to use than the U.S. system.  Unless you're some sort of savant, it's practically impossible to memorize all of the conversions in the U.S. system if you don't use them on a regular basis, but with metric, all conversions are multiples of 10.  To bring this back on topic, the only problem I see with converting road signs to metric is the fact that most U.S. cities' grid systems are based on miles and fractions thereof.  So, in relatively flat areas with mostly straight roads, you would lose the neat order of interchange guide signs showing distances at regular one-mile intervals.  But aside from that, I can't think of a single disadvantage to making all road signs consistent with the easier system.

Another is Clearview.  First of all, what the fuck is wrong with Highway Gothic and second of all, it is a major eyesore to the eyes. I find Clearview to be unnecessary. If the font ain't broken don't fix it but for some reason most states are starting to replace their Highway Gothic signs with Clearview signs. There are only a few states left that didn't convert to Clearview (Washington State for example). Also, no protest can change the direction Clearview is going since most states will be using it in the next few decades. Terminal Design, Inc, you're really a major eyesore.

I kind of like Clearview.  Highway Gothic is nice, but Clearview looks crisper and fresher.  I'm not sure how I'll feel about it in 10 to 20 years, though, after the newness has worn off.  I can see how the tail on the lowercase L makes it look a bit too "fun" (although that's probably there to help distinguish it from the capital I), but I think the typeface strikes a good balance between "lively" and "formal."

[Billy F 1988]

Another is Clearview.  First of all, what the fuck is wrong with Highway Gothic and second of all, it is a major eyesore to the eyes. I find Clearview to be unnecessary. If the font ain't broken don't fix it but for some reason most states are starting to replace their Highway Gothic signs with Clearview signs. There are only a few states left that didn't convert to Clearview (Washington State for example). Also, no protest can change the direction Clearview is going since most states will be using it in the next few decades. Terminal Design, Inc, you're really a major eyesore.

Oookay.  Not sure where you go with this, but let me just say this. Every roadgeek has a specific taste. You have those that are keen to Highway Gothic and those keen to Clearview. I don't see how you can make a case that Clearview was a bad choice. I just don't The only thing I see wrong with Clearview are the numbers. I just can't see a highway marker with numbers. The words are okay for Clearview application. Just not digits. I can't see an Interstate shield with Clearview digits. That's just ugly. There are states that are "changing with the times" and obviously, the way I see it, you're one of those people not willing to change with it and you suddenly get all butthurt thinking Clearview is an atrocity. I agree with stridentweasel in the fact that there may be a few nuances that hinder the application of Clearview. Road markers are one of them. Fractions is another. Plus the fact that interchange signs would have a pretty big pitfall in the one-mile intervals with Clearview applied. So, obviously, I can't agree with your notion that this is an eyesore. I actually find this to be a flat-out false excuse to ignore the fact that Clearview will arrive in all 48 contiguous states in due time. Will that happen next year? No. Ten years from now? Possible. I'd give it 20. So, there is where I go with Clearview. You go with however you wish to go with it.

[Alps]

I actually find this to be a flat-out false excuse to ignore the fact that Clearview will arrive in all 48 contiguous states in due time. Will that happen next year? No. Ten years from now? Possible. I'd give it 20. So, there is where I go with Clearview. You go with however you wish to go with it.

If anything, it's trending in the opposite direction with the FHWA. So I Doubt You.

[NE2]

Candidate Obama said he'd get rid of Clearview. We're waiting...

[DaBigE]

I actually find this to be a flat-out false excuse to ignore the fact that Clearview will arrive in all 48 contiguous states in due time.

Ummm...that can be interpreted many ways. Are you referring to just showing up, as in a few cities on their street name signs, or are you referring to state DOT's blessing Clearview as their official font? And why exclude Alaska and Hawaii? If your intention is the latter interpretation, it should be no higher than at least 47, as Wisconsin is one of the state DOTs that has tested Clearview and rejected it. It has, however, been adopted by a few Wisconsin cities for their SNSs. As far as your bold prediction, I don't see it happening on that wide of scale, especially if the MUTCD and the Standard Highway Signs Manual continue to exclude it in their publications.

The only reason I included Clearview in my "worst of" list, is how it was brought to market and subsequent field mis-use. Many of the agencies that have tested and/or switched to Clearview have bastardized its implementation (as noted on several occasions on this forum), with incorrect applications (BGS numbers, black on yellow usage), incorrect letter spacing and kerning, and comparisons between signs with differing quality of sign materials (Clearview on new, modern substraight vs. FHWA on old/existing panels). I also felt that the FHWA Gothic should have been given a better shot. To the best of my knowledge, tweaking aspects of the FHWA fonts was not attempted (opening up the letters 'a' and 'e' for example).

[/beating-a-dead-horse]

[roadman]

No, I understood the post just fine. Replacing a sign while adding extra square footage (Read: adding the yellow LEFT tab) still costs more than just a 1:1 in-kind replacement. Installations I've seen have retrofitted the new LEFT tab onto an otherwise OK sign.

That presumes that you're not replacing the support at the same time you're replacing the sign panel.  And if it happens that you're retaining the support, it's usually not that difficult to slightly downsize the main sign panel to accommodate the extra area of the "LEFT" tab.

The problem with the MUTCD "LEFT" exit tab design, as opposed to the MassHighway/MassDOT one that PHLBOS's photo illustrates, is that the yellow "LEFT" tends to get lost within the green of the tab.  This is the reason MassHighway shifted from using "LEFT EXIT" banners within the main sign panel to separate "LEFT" tabs above the exit tab several years before the MUTCD recommended the practice.

BTW, I totally agree with you about periodic re-testing of drivers when they go to renew their licenses.  However, it would be both very expensive to implement and a very tough sell politically in most states.

[hm insulators]

I'm surprised we've gotten to page 3 and no one's mentioned Google Street View +/-.

This was indeed a great innovation for road geeks.  I often drive roads vicariously that I don't have the time to travel to to actually drive them.  It's also helped me to know the layout of roads and lane configurations in unfamiliar territory before I physically got there.

I recently used Google Street View to vicariously drive Kaumualii Highway (Hawaii 50) and Maluhia Road (Hawaii 520) between Lihue and Koloa. Thirty years ago I lived in Koloa and used that route all the time, and I remember much of it passing sugar cane fields. Well, sugar is pretty much a dead industry in Hawaii and has been for years, but still, I was amazed when I "drove" through what used to be miles of sugar cane and instead there are entire forests of large (thanks to Hawaii's year-round growing season) trees in its place. The road has been widened to just west of a little town called Puhi, and the plant nursery that I used to work at is now two miles west of where it used to be.

I'll have to "drive" Kuhio Highway (Hawaii 56) next.

[bugo]

I seem to recall in the 90s that a gold top was used for caffeine-free Coke.

A gold top was always used for caffeine-free Coke, which first rolled out a year or two prior to New Coke.  The original design/label of the can/bottle was mostly gold with red pin stripes.


Couldn't find a copy-able pic. of the original label in can form; but the can itself was indeed gold-colored.

No, this was different.  The can was exactly the same, but the top was gold.  It tasted different from the new Coke that came in the cans with the NEW!

[cpzilliacus]

I'm not sure why you say, "fortunately never happened."  I've never understood why people would oppose changing to a measurement system that is immensely easier to use than the U.S. system.  Unless you're some sort of savant, it's practically impossible to memorize all of the conversions in the U.S. system if you don't use them on a regular basis, but with metric, all conversions are multiples of 10.

I hate the semi-British Imperial system of weights and measures that we seem incapable of getting rid of (though the  auto/truck manufacturing, liquor and pharmaceutical industries have gone almost entirely to SI).

[Brandon]

I'm not sure why you say, "fortunately never happened."  I've never understood why people would oppose changing to a measurement system that is immensely easier to use than the U.S. system.  Unless you're some sort of savant, it's practically impossible to memorize all of the conversions in the U.S. system if you don't use them on a regular basis, but with metric, all conversions are multiples of 10.  To bring this back on topic, the only problem I see with converting road signs to metric is the fact that most U.S. cities' grid systems are based on miles and fractions thereof.  So, in relatively flat areas with mostly straight roads, you would lose the neat order of interchange guide signs showing distances at regular one-mile intervals.  But aside from that, I can't think of a single disadvantage to making all road signs consistent with the easier system.

1. Imperial/Customary fits with what is on the ground.  Everything has been surveyed in it, not similarly arbitrary kilometers, but in miles, chains, and links.  It apparently is a problem in western Canada where everything has been surveyed in Imperial.  The only difficult conversion is 5,280 feet to 1 mile.  I'd rather dump feet and use furlongs (8 to the mile), chains (10 to the furlong), and links (100 to the chain).  It makes acres make sense (1 furlong (10 chains) by 1 chain).

2. How are multiples of 10 any more natural than multiples of 4?  A multiple of 4 makes far more sense to subdivide easily than a multiple of 10 for most everything.  A quart makes sense as 1/4 of a gallon.  WTF do you use in metric?  Jack shit.  It's either 1 liter or 4 liters.  Not easily sub-dividable into basic units required for cooking.  If anything, we should have modified our ounces to those used by the Imperial System (which I think is superior to the so-called SI).

/end rant.

[1995hoo]

One of the fallacies pushed by the anti-metric crowd is that if the US were to switch over, cooking would be difficult and you'd never know what the temperature is outside. That's a silly argument because there would be nothing prohibiting the individual from continuing to use all the same kitchen equipment, outdoor thermometer, etc. As a practical matter, for example, most ovens sold in the US tell temperature only in Fahrenheit (my Breville toaster oven is an exception), and it's not like we'd all be going out and buying new ovens and the like just because Congress finally changed us over. It doesn't matter much if milk is sold by the litre (or multiple thereof) if your recipe calls for a "cup"–you just pull out your existing measuring cup and pour in enough milk to reach the appropriate line. (Shopping could be complicated slightly if you needed a larger quantity of something and your recipe were in old-fashioned units, but frankly it's easy enough just to go online as you make your grocery list and work out how much you need.)

Shopping is confusing as it is with the way American recipes always measure everything by volume, even for ingredients sold by weight. I have a very useful iPhone/iPad app for that purpose called "Kitchen Calculator." It converts units, not just from American to metric but from American to American as well. It drives me crazy when a recipe tells me I need a "cup" of something that isn't sold by the "cup" because the recipe doesn't help me know how much I need to buy. The Kitchen Calculator app will do the conversion once I see what unit is used at the store. Very helpful.

I frequently use grams on my kitchen scale for precision. Since so many recipes are for four or more servings, I often cut them in half to serve the two of us. So I determine how many grams the full recipe requires and then I measure out half that amount. It's more precise than the fractions of a pound the scale uses (I think it uses eighths of a pound).

But to return this to highways....the dumbest argument I ever heard against metric was by a secretary at the firm where I used to work. She said, "How would you know how fast you're going with a metric speed limit?" I replied, with a perfectly straight face, "You look at your speedometer and see where the needle is pointing. If you want to have a sense for what that is in miles per hour, you look at the other ring, since almost nobody would buy a new car just to get bigger metric numbers."

[NE2]

5280 has a weird factor of 11 in there. 4800 would have been fine.

[roadman]

The only reason I included Clearview in my "worst of" list, is how it was brought to market and subsequent field mis-use. Many of the agencies that have tested and/or switched to Clearview have bastardized its implementation (as noted on several occasions on this forum), with incorrect applications (BGS numbers, black on yellow usage), incorrect letter spacing and kerning, and comparisons between signs with differing quality of sign materials (Clearview on new, modern substraight vs. FHWA on old/existing panels). I also felt that the FHWA Gothic should have been given a better shot. To the best of my knowledge, tweaking aspects of the FHWA fonts was not attempted (opening up the letters 'a' and 'e' for example).

If I could 'plus' comments, I'd give this a +500.

[PHLBOS]

The only reason I included Clearview in my "worst of" list, is how it was brought to market and subsequent field mis-use. Many of the agencies that have tested and/or switched to Clearview have bastardized its implementation (as noted on several occasions on this forum), with incorrect applications (BGS numbers, black on yellow usage), incorrect letter spacing and kerning, and comparisons between signs with differing quality of sign materials (Clearview on new, modern substraight vs. FHWA on old/existing panels). I also felt that the FHWA Gothic should have been given a better shot. To the best of my knowledge, tweaking aspects of the FHWA fonts was not attempted (opening up the letters 'a' and 'e' for example).

If I could 'plus' comments, I'd give this a +500.

Ditto.

[agentsteel53]

the one change I'd make to FHWA is 4 vs 6 in Series E.  I once got a ticket because I parsed a '45' as a '65'.  in my defense, the previous sign was 65, the subsequent sign was 65, I was driving into the sun, and the sign was flat on the ground.

fuck Arizona.

[Ned Weasel]

2. How are multiples of 10 any more natural than multiples of 4?

I don't think "more natural" is the right term, but I would still say they're easier, simply due to the way our numbering system is configured in relation to the number 10.

10^0=1; 10^1=10; 10^2=100; 10^3=1,000; 10^4=10,000; 10^5=100,000; 10^6=1,000,000; 10^7=10,000,000

4^0=1; 4^1=4; 4^2=16; 4^3=64; 4^4=256; 4^5=1,024; 4^6=4,096; 4^7=16,384

Sure, it's not too hard to count powers of 4 up to 4,096 if you think about it, but 16,384?  That requires multiplying 96 by 4 in your head.  Congratulations if you can quickly get that far without a calculator!  But for the rest of us, what could be easier than putting zeros at the end of a number?  And why does this make metric conversions easy?  All you have to remember is the simple relationship within every metric measurement.  Let's use meters as an example:

1,000 millimeters = 100 centimeters = 10 decimeters = 1 meter = 0.1 dekameters = 0.01 hectometers = 0.001 kilometers

To convert meters to decimeters, you multiply them by 10^1, to convert meters to centimeters, you multiply them by 10^2, and to convert meters to millimeters, you multiply them by 10^3.  AND, to convert meters to dekameters, you multiply them by 10^-1, to convert meters to hectometers, you multiply them by 10^-2, and to convert meters to kilometers, you multiply them by 10^-3.  This relationship is universal in the metric system but largely lacking in the U.S./Imperial/Customary system(s).  Even if the Imperial/Customary system was based entirely on multiples of 4, which it isn't, it would still be inherently more difficult to use, due to the nature of our common numbering system being configured as such around the number 10.

1. Imperial/Customary fits with what is on the ground.

Yes, I acknowledge that converting to metric would cause a loss in the neatness of the relationship between the measuring units and some of the entities being measured, but such entities can still be fully represented in metric, and most measured entities in the field, as it were, do not maintain simple numeric relationships among one another for long.

[kkt]

That requires multiplying 96 by 4 in your head.  Congratulations if you can quickly get that far without a calculator!

96 x 4 = (100 - 4) x 4 = 400 - 16 = 384.  Easy peasy.  It also helps if you've done some assembly language programming.

Hm, maybe mental arithmetic and assembly language programming both belong in the "if you're too old" thread.

[sammi]

That requires multiplying 96 by 4 in your head.  Congratulations if you can quickly get that far without a calculator!

96 x 4 = (100 - 4) x 4 = 400 - 16 = 384.  Easy peasy.  It also helps if you've done some assembly language programming.

Hm, maybe mental arithmetic and assembly language programming both belong in the "if you're too old" thread.

Mental math, not so much. I do it all the time. Assembly, definitely. C is the lowest-level I've done.

EDIT: Spelling. Also, I don't think you can get any lower than C.

[Ned Weasel]

That requires multiplying 96 by 4 in your head.  Congratulations if you can quickly get that far without a calculator!

96 x 4 = (100 - 4) x 4 = 400 - 16 = 384.  Easy peasy.  It also helps if you've done some assembly language programming.

Hm, maybe mental arithmetic and assembly language programming both belong in the "if you're too old" thread.

Mental math, not so much. I do it all the time. Assembly, definitely. C is the lowest-leve I've done.

Yeah, I figured out the shortcut to multiplying 96 by 4 without a calculator, shortly after I made that post.  It's not terribly difficult, but it still takes longer than counting powers of 10, so I think my point still stands.

[english si]

5280 has a weird factor of 11 in there. 4800 would have been fine.

It's 3 (yard) x 22 (chain) x 80 (mile). A link is 7.92 inches, which is annoying (1% off 8 inches).

A 4800ft mile is 1600yds, would mean a 20yd chain, and a 7.2 inch link.

A 5760ft mile is 1920yds, so a 24yd chain (the magic number). 8.64 inch link.

It seems to me that the pseudo-metric 'link' is fine as long as you don't change to inches as the factor of 100 doesn't sit well.

To convert meters to decimeters, you multiply them by 10^1, to convert meters to centimeters, you multiply them by 10^2, and to convert meters to millimeters, you multiply them by 10^3.  AND, to convert meters to dekameters, you multiply them by 10^-1, to convert meters to hectometers, you multiply them by 10^-2, and to convert meters to kilometers, you multiply them by 10^-3.

These 'conversions' (I treat the prefixes as just misplaced suffixes to the numbers, and when doing the maths, simply treat p, f, μ, m, k, M, G, T as constants. I despise centi-, deci-, deca- and hecto- as they ruin the 1000 intervals and as such, refuse to use them) are much more common in metric than customary.

95% of the time with customary, you don't need to care how many x in a y (even with mixed unit stuff like people height, as you compare more than calculate). The 5280ft (or even the 1760yds) in a mile might be an annoying number, but it's a useless factoid, not a necessary part of life under customary.

Customary is much more natural for doing tasks (as many units designed for specific tasks, hence the odd factors) and comparison, metric is deliberately arbitrary and not tethered to the real world. As such, customary has harder numbers for conversion but metric has harder number for measurement and estimation.

[getemngo]

Customary is much more natural for doing tasks (as many units designed for specific tasks, hence the odd factors) and comparison, metric is deliberately arbitrary and not tethered to the real world. As such, customary has harder numbers for conversion but metric has harder number for measurement and estimation.

I don't know about this. A meter is very roughly a yard, a kilogram is very roughly 2 pounds, and a liter is very roughly a quart. In many cases, it's just getting used to different words, plus or minus a few percentage points.

And Celsius is most definitely tethered to the real world. One of the reasons I've heard for Fahrenheit's invention is that the difference between freezing and boiling is exactly 180 degrees, and that's "useful" because 180 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, etc. When on earth is that important!?

Metric is more useful for whenever something needs to be scaled or added, and it's not like comparison between two items is any harder in metric. I've been to the grocery store plenty of times and had to stop and figure out how many ounces are in a liquid... am I confusing pints and quarts again, do I multiply by 2 or 4 here, etc. 1 liter = 1000 mL comes instantly and you can convert between them in your head a lot faster.

There's also the benefit of one word always meaning the same thing. U.S. gallons vs. U.K. gallons (same with pints!), liquid ounces vs. ounces of weight, or troy pounds vs. avoirdupois pounds are such a mess.

[NE2]

And Celsius is most definitely tethered to the real world.

Yeah, it's so useful in the real world to measure the boiling point of water. Only yesterday I stuck a thermometer in me bum, read 101 C, and cooked some poo pasta.

PS: the whole advantage of being able to multiply or divide by 10 fails completely when you don't set zero at absolute zero.

[getemngo]

Wow, I contradicted myself there, didn't I? "Fahrenheit is dumb because who needs to divide by things, but Celsius is good because you can divide by things!" Dammit, I know the difference between an interval and ratio scale. 

My point is that English Si said metric is less "tethered to the real world" than customary. So here's a counterexample: Mr. Fahrenheit determined zero degrees by finding the lowest temperature he could get a bucket of water, ice, and NH₄Cl to be. The Celsius scale makes zero the freezing point of water. Which one of these are you more likely to encounter?

[Big John]

And Celsius is most definitely tethered to the real world. One of the reasons I've heard for Fahrenheit's invention is that the difference between freezing and boiling is exactly 180 degrees, and that's "useful" because 180 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, etc. When on earth is that important!?
Fahrenheit's scale originally was based on the human body temperature being 100 and the coldest mixture he came up with was 0.  Later refined for body temperature being 98.6.