Street Blade Signs Changing (All Uppercase > Mixed Case)?

[burgess87]

Per the New York Post:  http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bronx/million_kuj8X4Z2VolVhXnCymfkvM

Federal copy editors are demanding the city change its 250,900 street signs -- such as these for Perry Avenue in The Bronx -- from the all-caps style used for more than a century to ones that capitalize only the first letters.

The new regulations also require a change in font from the standard highway typeface to Clearview, which was specially developed for this purpose.

As a result, even numbered street signs will have to be replaced.

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

Mods, feel free to move / merge if necessary.

[6a]

I was under the impression that signs only had to be replaced when they were dilapidated or when road construction was done.  That article makes it sound like a new MUTCD means everyone has to rush out and change their signs.  Hell, we have all caps here and no one has said a peep, although I could imagine folks here saying "we'll change it when you give us the damn money."

[burgess87]

Exactly.  That's $27 million New York State doesn't have to spend.

NYSDOT has replaced a lot of signage in this area over the past two years.  They'd take a portion of highway and replace every sign (warning signs, speed limit / regulatory, etc.).  The new 'Reduced Speed Ahead' sign has made its way into three or four locations in Genesee County.

Last year (we'll take NY 63 from Shelby Center to Alabama as an example):  The street signs were all replaced and were all caps (FHWA Series C or D).  The cardinal direction banners were replaced with the 'new' ones (first letter taller than others).

This year (ex. NY 104 b/t Knowlesville RD & NY 279), the street signs were replaced and used primary capitalization in FHWA Series B.

[6a]

Might I add, the ^Av looks really dumb in the new sign. 

[Scott5114]

The bit about Clearview is clearly bogus, since Clearview still isn't even mentioned in the 2009 MUTCD. It's still supplemental material.

More likely is the old blades not being up to new retroreflectivity standards, thus requiring replacement immediately. Therefore, the new blades have to be in mixed-case (which otherwise would not need to be changed until the sign would need replacement for whatever other reason).

[Alps]

This is the New York Post.  Please stop expecting quality journalism.

[burgess87]

Hey, hey, hey . . . . I'm not a regular reader of the Post . . . who am I to know what kind of reputation it has?

[mightyace]

Hey, hey, hey . . . . I'm not a regular reader of the Post . . . who am I to know what kind of reputation it has?

I've never read the New York Post yet I know of their "reputation". 

[thenetwork]

The article does say that the Feds want NYC, and I assume every other town in America, to be totally converted by 2018.  I didn't even know of this rule/requirement until now, and it's been on the books for 7 years already?!?!?  Clearview was only a twinkle in a sign-maker's eye in 2003, so I would call shenanigans on the Clearview requirement as well.

Granted I have seen more municipalities moving over to Mixed-case over the last decade, but I never knew that it was part of a more "user-friendly" imaging campaign.  Also explains why my town is slowly replacing blades (in ALL CAPS and showing a city logo on them) with more generic mixed caps lettering (Does this Federal mandate also prohibit the use of city logos -- like the Statue of Liberty in NYC -- on street blades as well???)

That style seen in the NYC photo looks so "cheap looking". 

[Duke87]

So, once again, the city of New York has to spend money to replace all of its perfectly good street signs because someone complains about them not being technically MUTCD-compliant.

(the color-coded ones had to start being replaced ca. 1980 for the same reason)

[agentsteel53]

I'll bet a lot of smaller towns are going to say "screw that" and keep using their embossed 1930s signs.

[iwishiwascanadian]

I love the street signs in NYC, the Clearview ones sucks. I'm not a big fan of Clearview unless its on BGS's and even then I'm not the biggest fan.  Perhaps the city will sell off all of the signs they have to replace, but that's a glass half full approach to all of this. 

[Zmapper]

It is a pity they are wasting 27 million on signs that do not include braille so everyone can read the sign! 

Plus ... I like the upper-case sign better. I fail to see how the mixed case is more visible.

[NJRoadfan]

The article does say that the Feds want NYC, and I assume every other town in America, to be totally converted by 2018.  I didn't even know of this rule/requirement until now, and it's been on the books for 7 years already?!?!?  Clearview was only a twinkle in a sign-maker's eye in 2003, so I would call shenanigans on the Clearview requirement as well.

Granted I have seen more municipalities moving over to Mixed-case over the last decade, but I never knew that it was part of a more "user-friendly" imaging campaign.  Also explains why my town is slowly replacing blades (in ALL CAPS and showing a city logo on them) with more generic mixed caps lettering (Does this Federal mandate also prohibit the use of city logos -- like the Statue of Liberty in NYC -- on street blades as well???)

This would explain the new mixed case ground mounted signs I have been seeing on NJDOT maintained roads. Traditionally ground mounted signs at intersections in NJ such as this one ("WEST TRENTON") use all upper case letters:



New signs are popping up with mixed case. Same goes for the small signs along the highways listing mileage to control cities. Example:



Was there some sort of study that said mixed case was easier to read or something?

[Dougtone]

Hey, hey, hey . . . . I'm not a regular reader of the Post . . . who am I to know what kind of reputation it has?

I've never read the New York Post yet I know of their "reputation". 

Alexander Hamilton would be rolling in his grave if he knew what the Post has become.

[Ian]

I don't want to know what a mixed case Massachusetts paddle sign would look like 

[Dougtone]

The article does say that the Feds want NYC, and I assume every other town in America, to be totally converted by 2018.  I didn't even know of this rule/requirement until now, and it's been on the books for 7 years already?!?!?  Clearview was only a twinkle in a sign-maker's eye in 2003, so I would call shenanigans on the Clearview requirement as well.

Granted I have seen more municipalities moving over to Mixed-case over the last decade, but I never knew that it was part of a more "user-friendly" imaging campaign.  Also explains why my town is slowly replacing blades (in ALL CAPS and showing a city logo on them) with more generic mixed caps lettering (Does this Federal mandate also prohibit the use of city logos -- like the Statue of Liberty in NYC -- on street blades as well???)

That style seen in the NYC photo looks so "cheap looking".  

The Clearview comment in the article is indeed bogus.  However, I think some DOTs, municipalities, etc. are going with the assumption that the Clearview font may one day be mandatory for all signs, which is why I think NYCDOT is going that route.  On the flip side, NYCDOT replaces thousands of blade signs a year normally, so I don't find this to be a big deal as some people are making it out to be.

Also, I've noticed in some of the NYSDOT regions located in Upstate NY that are replacing blade signage with signs that contain mixed case font, but they are using FHWA Series B or C font, not Clearview.  I don't think NYSDOT will convert to Clearview until they have to.

Finally, in my opinion, I don't think that blade signage replacement to mixed case font should have a set deadline to meet, but rather, the signage should be replaced with mixed case font when the signs are ready to be replaced.  There are plenty of other things that could be fixed or replaced on the roads, and there's only so much money to go around.

[Kniwt]

Here's a somewhat less-apocalyptic version of the same story in Topeka, packed with some additional actual facts that mostly already have been noted here.

http://cjonline.com/news/local/2010-09-29/city_abiding_by_federal_mandate

And the print edition of this story got written up as an interesting example of newspaper design, thanks to its use of blade signs as the lead art:

http://apple.copydesk.org/2010/09/30/the-centerpiece-story-today-in-topeka-typography

[mgk920]

I haven't checked, but is there any requirement in the latest MUTCD regarding identifying every street at every intersection?  It is a pain in the you-know-what to come up to an intersection and the only street that is identified is the one that you are on.



Mike

[Alps]

I haven't checked, but is there any requirement in the latest MUTCD regarding identifying every street at every intersection?  It is a pain in the you-know-what to come up to an intersection and the only street that is identified is the one that you are on.



Mike

Do not believe so.  I agree - not only is it a pain, but emergency responders need to know what every turn is.

[TheStranger]

Considering California's reluctance to ever follow federal signage standards to the letter...how many years will it be before San Francisco stops using its classic all-caps black-on-white blades?

[myosh_tino]

Considering California's reluctance to ever follow federal signage standards to the letter...how many years will it be before San Francisco stops using its classic all-caps black-on-white blades?

I think hell has to freeze over before San Francisco will replace their all-caps street blades.  I know of one south bay city (Los Altos) that recently installed new reflective all-caps blades.  I'd wager that cash-strapped cities in California will give the new MUTCD street blade requirements the middle finger.

On a related note, I was poking around the Caltrans website and ran across an interesting letter that was sent to the FHWA regarding the new 2009 MUTCD.  It's basically a complaint letter saying the wording of paragraph 1.A in section 1A.13 in the new MUTCD prohibits state agencies from modifying "Standard" statements (something Caltrans does heavily) regardless of engineering studies or judgement.  Caltrans claims it will cost the state $500 million to $1 billion (which we don't have) to comply with the 2009 MUTCD if it is not given the flexibility to modify or replace "Standard" statements as it's done in the past.  A few things drawing the ire of Caltrans is the requirement that down or directional arrows need to be centered over the lane and the use of arrow-per-lane or diagrammatic signage.  Diagrammatic signs are hardly ever used in California and the arrow-per-lane signs don't fit on the largest California-standard guide sign (120" or 10 ft).

Link to Letter...
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/policy/201011582_LtrFHWA_2009MUTCD_Final-08-05-10.pdf

Link to Supporting Document...
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/policy/201011582_Encl_IssuesImplementingMUTCD2009.pdf

[Scott5114]

Caltrans needs to just stop being a whiny little bitch over stuff like this. Seriously, there's a time and a place for deviating from standard, and then there's times when you need to just do what the standard is for the sake of consistency. Caltrans has this air of "our way is better!" but their justifications tend to be flimsy at best.

[Alps]

California has these six lane freeways with three lane exits.  It's a situation really not anticipated by the MUTCD, and it's a sign that California's influence has shrunk much closer to that of any other state.  I mean, look, West Virginia's school bus sign made it in, for example.  They can't possibly be expected to make 100 foot wide signs just to comply with the MUTCD, so something has to give.

[kurumi]

I expected the Post article to be a lot more apoplectic; that was a little disappointing. (However, the comments were true to form.)