The lowering of sign standards

[Mergingtraffic]

In my travels I've noticed more and more crappy signs.  They either look weird, have crappy sheeting, odd shape, odd font etc.  It seems to happen a lot more now then it did in the 1980s and prior.

Example:
Driving in Queens, most of the interstate shields were either bubble shields, or too long or they had odd font.    The new BGS on all roads look horrible at times. Again, with large clearview or bubble interstate shields.  I hate the rectangle around some roads like "Westchester Ave" on BGSs as well.

Driving in Rhode Island, forget it.    awful interstate shields, either the font is too big, a 2di shield for I-295 or I-195. Most of their signs have big, thick font.
The new RI-10 BGS signage is normal looking.

Have you noticed similar stuff too?

[-NCX75-]

From TX, most the signs seem A-OK. Of course there are a couple odd ducks (the older signs with 2 digit interstates on 3di shields and vice versa make me cringe) but the signs seem to be getting better, not worse.

The High Five Interchange is awesome, but as for these two signs there, I honestly can't tell which one is worse:

[jeffandnicole]

Yep.

There's a few I could point out from the 80s or 90s, but I could always count on certain signs (stop, speed limit, etc) signs looking the same. Now, it's amazing how many look different, and in some cases just horrible.

[jakeroot]

Admittedly, I wasn't around back in the 50s-80s, but I've noticed that recently, signs seem to be getting replaced a lot more (especially with the new retroreflective sheeting standard), and so logically, there's more opportunity to screw up.

And now I have to wonder, were signs designed back then using a CAD program? Or was everything designed using a pre-set template?

[DTComposer]

Absolutely yes. There are comments and threads a-plenty about Caltrans' recent signs.

I would never profess to be an expert on kerning, message loading, shield specs and the like, but I am continually flabbergasted that there are people who work in road-related industries for a living who allow so many poor, poor examples of signage make it onto the roads. All the "professional-grade" technology and data and software that's available, and these signs simply fail the eyeball test, while the (mostly) hobbyists on this forum, using software readily available to (and learnable by) the average user, create signage that is more accurate, more readable, error-free and more elegant than what's being placed out there by people getting paid to do so.

[Quillz]

I still don't understand the logic of TxDOT reversing 2- and 3-digit Interstate shields.

[J N Winkler]

And now I have to wonder, were signs designed back then using a CAD program? Or was everything designed using a pre-set template?

Signs were laid out in a variety of ways.  Probably the majority of state DOTs simply sketched the signs directly onto the plan sheets, with no attempt to imitate correct legend typefaces, shield outlines, placement, overall dimensions, etc.  However, a few (such as Arizona DOT) made extensive use of letter stencils--sets were available for each of the FHWA alphabet series and are now considered a collector's item--and in general attempted to draw signs to scale, not necessarily with correct borders but always with correct legend typeface and shield outlines.

A common approach to producing sign specifications was to cut legend to size, stick it to a background of the appropriate color using rubber cement (taking care to maintain correct spacing), and then photoreproduce the result using dupe film to make a copying master.  The Caltrans sign specs were originally produced this way, but I believe a few state DOTs (e.g. Nevada DOT) briefly experimented with a similar approach to producing drawings for freeway guide signs.

Minnesota DOT was probably the first agency to try to automate drawing production using computer software.  In the late 1960's, MnDOT started using a FORTRAN program to plot signs to scale on the plan sheet, using the correct typefaces but placeholder shields.  I believe this program was later spun off and became SignCAD.  Most other state DOTs were using CAD packages to lay out signs by the mid-1980's, but the output was rarely pattern-accurate; instead, placeholder fonts were used instead (some very reminiscent of output from the dot-matrix printers used at the time).  Pattern-accurate output from signing CAD programs did not become routine for many state DOTs until the late 1990's, and there are still a few holdouts that haven't gotten with the program (Montana comes to mind).

There is no simple direct relationship between the quality of the signing plan sheet (or signing work order, if that is pattern-accurate--e.g. Louisiana DOTD has really awful-looking signing plans but quite good-looking signing work orders) and the quality of the finished sign.

I still don't understand the logic of TxDOT reversing 2- and 3-digit Interstate shields.

Actually, I can guess at what it probably was.  Two-digit routes tend to be through routes, so giving them additional width on guide signs (at 36" height) emphasizes them as such.  Meanwhile, three-digit routes tend to be beltways (Texas doesn't have many three-digit spurs; I-345 isn't explicitly signed, and I am not sure I-110 is), so 48" x 48" shields on guide signs (visibly taller than adjacent top-aligned 36" shields) emphasizes them as such.  The difference in digit height is probably quite small (18" Series D for two-digit versus maybe 16" Series D for three-digit?).  Also, given that Texas had and still has suffixed Interstates (I-35W and I-35E, and now the various flavors of I-69), the "shield reversal" policy allows them to be signed on three-digit blanks as the two-digit through routes they really are without having to compromise letter series or size.

[PHLBOS]

In PA, both PennDOT and the PTC for the last decade or two can't seem to master using the Series C font for many 3di routes, I-2xx routes in particular; whereas they did during the 80s and earlier.

The worst offenders are newer I-276 shields on BGS'; they're either the narrow Series B or they're Series D but scrunched together or elongated (the latter's clearly a CAD manipulation).

Recently-erected BGS' along I-476 South just north of the Mid-County & I-276 interchange; the font on the I-476 shield is fine but the font for the two I-276 shields clearly need help

Heck, even the NJTPA knows & does a better job with the font on their I-276 shields on the newly-erected NJTP BGS' for Exit 6.; a route that doesn't even enter their state.

However, neither the NJTPA nor NJDOT aren't immume to sign-standard deviations either.  In addition to some hideous-looking I-287 stand-alone assurance shields; some subtle asymetrical 3di shields for I-195, I-276 & I-287 have been popping up on several newer NJTPA & NJDOT BGS'.  At a quick glance, one doesn't notice the oddity but when one looks at it a tad longer (during a traffic jam) the offness in symmetry of the shield shape becomes more apparent.

Several recent MassDOT 2di shields on BGS' feature numerals that are grossly undersized and scrunched together for the shields.  Several exit ramp BGS' for I-93 & I-95 are the worst offenders of the above in addition to the diagrammatic and pull-through BGS'  for I-95 at the US 3 North/Middlesex Ave. interchange (Exits 32A-B).  Note: one or two of the NJTP BGS' for I-195/Exit 7A have the same undersized, poorly-placed font problem for the 3di shield BTW.

Some of the newer BGS' along the same highways (I-93 & 95 in MA) that have the proper height fonts seem to have the numerals (the 9s in particular) tilted clockwise at a slight angle.  The BGS' at the Canton interchange (I-93/95) and several I-95 interchanges in the Weston/Newton area feature such.

Like PA, DelDOT also seems to have trouble with fonts on 3di routes; they use either Series B or D but not Series C (which is more proper on 3di routes not containing a 1 in them).  Addtionally, DelDOT has some I-495 bubble shields that resemble a shape that Rand McNally used for all 3dis on maps pre-1980; though such doesn't look too bad IMHO.

[jeffandnicole]

Personally, DelDOT seems to have trouble with every single BGS they've produced over the past 5 years.

[Zeffy]

Personally, DelDOT seems to have trouble with every single BGS they've produced over the past 5 years.

I blame the Clearview.

However, neither the NJTPA nor NJDOT aren't immume to sign-standard deviations either.  In addition to some hideous-looking I-287 stand-alone assurance shields; some subtle asymetrical 3di shields for I-195, I-276 & I-287 have been popping up on several newer NJTPA & NJDOT BGS'.  At a quick glance, one doesn't notice the oddity but when one looks at it a tad longer (during a traffic jam) the offness in symmetry of the shield shape becomes more apparent.

While this is definitely true, I'd like to think that most guide signs NJDOT erects are good about following the MUTCD.

[getemngo]

While Michigan was never the best at signs, they used to be way above average. Now... not so much.

I see state highway shields with Series C or Series E digits for no reason. Where a highway ends, you might see "ENDS" above the shield, "ENDS" below, "END" above, or "END" below. For EMERGENCY bannered routes (permanently signed detours for when a freeway is closed), there's lots of oversized shields, M's roughly the width of Series B, Clearview digits, and Clearview negative contrast violations on banners. These were obviously all installed very quickly by contractors.

What's really annoying is when MDOT replaces all the signage on a stretch of highway at once. Nobody seems to be reviewing the accuracy or placement of the signs. All old typos stay, and all places where there should be a sign but isn't remain signless. It's clear that all they're doing is taking the same text of the same signs and reworking them to the current spec.

About the only good things going are that most BGSes still look nice and I've yet to see any mangled or mis-sized Clearview. MDOT does Clearview very well (except for the brief period when it experimented with all caps on surface highways).

[PurdueBill]

Personally, DelDOT seems to have trouble with every single BGS they've produced over the past 5 years.

I blame the Clearview.

While this is definitely true, I'd like to think that most guide signs NJDOT erects are good about following the MUTCD.

I was thinking the same thing about Clearview and lower standards....Ohio BGSs used to be pretty uniformly well-done.  Now with Clearview, there seems to be a lot of sloppy work.  5-W and 5-W-R mixed on the same signs.  Vastly different sizes on different lines.  (For example, check out the edge of the right-hand sign, with Vernon Odom in much tinier letters than Opportunity Pkwy; then check out the old sign, which still looked better even with two different patches over the old names of those streets.  This kind of crap never seemed to happen before Clearview.  There are a lot of sloppy signs appearing compared to the old days with button copy.

[-NCX75-]

Personally, DelDOT seems to have trouble with every single BGS they've produced over the past 5 years.

I blame the Clearview.

While this is definitely true, I'd like to think that most guide signs NJDOT erects are good about following the MUTCD.

I was thinking the same thing about Clearview and lower standards....Ohio BGSs used to be pretty uniformly well-done.  Now with Clearview, there seems to be a lot of sloppy work.  5-W and 5-W-R mixed on the same signs.  Vastly different sizes on different lines.  (For example, check out the edge of the right-hand sign, with Vernon Odom in much tinier letters than Opportunity Pkwy; then check out the old sign, which still looked better even with two different patches over the old names of those streets.  This kind of crap never seemed to happen before Clearview.  There are a lot of sloppy signs appearing compared to the old days with button copy.

It's what happens when states try to "experiment". Here in Texas, (most) Clearview is done right, so that it actually looks better than the signs it replaces. Of course there are exceptions, but the older signs had exceptions too.

My only real complaint about Texas signs is that, on older signs, wrong Interstate shields pop up or the shields just look ugly. Those signs are getting rectified, though.

[getemngo]

It's what happens when states try to "experiment". Here in Texas, (most) Clearview is done right, so that it actually looks better than the signs it replaces. Of course there are exceptions, but the older signs had exceptions too.

Thank you. 

It's amazing how every thread on this board devolves into Clearview bashing now. Yes, it's clearly the font's fault when the state designs the sign wrong.    As I said further up, Michigan gets its Clearview pretty close to perfect.

[PurdueBill]

I don't care for Clearview but wouldn't care if it were always done right; the problem with the experimenting is that Clearview has enabled it greatly...if FHWA would have stuck to their guns and insisted on it being only for mixed-case destination legend.  Instead, it shows up in all kinds of places it shouldn't.  Done right, used only where it is supposed to be, it could be OK.  But many places have done it all wrong and it reflects badly on the font when such problems didn't occur with FHWA fonts (reflective or button copy).

[Zeffy]

Here's the problem. People say that the Clearview is done correctly so that it doesn't look misscaled - the problem is that the FHWA only intended Clearview to be used for destination legends, which states then expanded for both cardinal directions and action messages. Some have also expanded it to using it in shields. So IMO, if a sign is replaced with Clearview all over, it can look better, but it won't technically be better.

I don't care for Clearview but wouldn't care if it were always done right; the problem with the experimenting is that Clearview has enabled it greatly...if FHWA would have stuck to their guns and insisted on it being only for mixed-case destination legend.  Instead, it shows up in all kinds of places it shouldn't.  Done right, used only where it is supposed to be, it could be OK.  But many places have done it all wrong and it reflects badly on the font when such problems didn't occur with FHWA fonts (reflective or button copy).

While posting this was posted, so I'll quote it because yeah, basically my point.

[jakeroot]

Maybe me being picky, and this is sort of a 180 from what I have always thought, but signs really should only be one font. Otherwise, to my eyes, it just starts to look like an PowerPoint presentation and the presenter couldn't decide which font he like better.

If Clearview is better, use it everywhere: numerals, action messages, cardinal directions, destinations, sign blades, everywhere.

If FHWA is better,...you get the point.

Here's what I've noticed, having lived in Vancouver (ignore the location tag) for about 10 months: the signs are completely in Clearview, but I don't notice people getting in accidents every three seconds because they couldn't read the sign.

BGS design really needs to come down to placement of the text, objects, etc. Not the font.

[PurdueBill]

Maybe me being picky, and this is sort of a 180 from what I have always thought, but signs really should only be one font. Otherwise, to my eyes, it just starts to look like an PowerPoint presentation and the presenter couldn't decide which font he like better.

If Clearview is better, use it everywhere: numerals, action messages, cardinal directions, destinations, sign blades, everywhere.

If FHWA is better,...you get the point.

Here's what I've noticed, having lived in Vancouver (ignore the location tag) for about 10 months: the signs are completely in Clearview, but I don't notice people getting in accidents every three seconds because they couldn't read the sign.

BGS design really needs to come down to placement of the text, objects, etc. Not the font.

The research on Clearview showed that the only benefit over FHWA was for light text on dark mixed-case alphabetic legend.  Numerals--nope.  All caps--nope.  Dark text on light background--nope.  Thus, if one font only is to be used, there isn't much choice which one.  If Clearview is worse for numerals, action messages, distances, etc., then it shouldn't be used.  It shouldn't show up at all on gore signs but does all over Ohio now, for example.

Looking at below, only "Towson", "Glen Burnie", "BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport", and "Catonsville" should be in Clearview.  The exit numbers, cardinal directions, and distances shouldn't be.  (Note also that the "2 miles" legend is even different sizes between the two signs--something else that Maryland has gotten terrible with since Clearview came on the scene.  Earlier Maryland Clearview also had legend like EXIT ONLY and LEFT EXIT in Clearview; at least they got it right here. 

And an offensive Clearview Sign in RL showing how MD uses Clearview.

On top of that but the wrong Series fonts are used for the numerals in the I-shields.  The I-695 shields should be in Series C (not B) and I-195 should be in Series D as opposed to Series C; though the Series C 195 numerals don't look too bad.

My beef with Clearview is how it is misused so badly.  The users who are doing all the wrong things with it are messing it up for those who are competently using it only for its intended purpose.  The easy solution is to just take it away from everyone because of the ones who can't handle it.

[jakeroot]

The research on Clearview showed that the only benefit over FHWA was for light text on dark mixed-case alphabetic legend.  Numerals--nope.  All caps--nope.  Dark text on light background--nope.  Thus, if one font only is to be used, there isn't much choice which one.  If Clearview is worse for numerals, action messages, distances, etc., then it shouldn't be used.  It shouldn't show up at all on gore signs but does all over Ohio now, for example.

Your missing my point. If the research in this alternate universe showed the Clearview was a better font, then it should be implemented sign-wise. And likewise, if the research in another alternate universe showed FHWA Series was a better font, then it should be implemented sign-wide. Not some Clearview here, some FHWA here, topped off with Helvetica. One font. Period.

[Duke87]

I would hypothesize that signage production standards have not necessarily gotten looser to the degree you might thing. What has happened is that signage design standards have gotten tighter, which has lowered the threshold for non-conformity and in turn increased the rate of non-conformity without increasing the actual variance.

Consider this: decades ago, various states and jurisdictions all very commonly had their own different designs for things. Today, the MUTCD makes us expect uniformity, so anything "non-standard" sticks out - whereas back in the day it wouldn't have been blinked at since there were lots of different designs out there anyway.


There are two common problems, however, which we can directly attribute to the involvement of computer software in the process:
1) The use of bubble shields and other distorted graphics. With a computer this is an easy lazy shortcut. Done manually it would take extra effort compared to just swapping stencils out.
2) The use of Arial and other fonts not intended for road signage. Arial, being the default font in a lot of Windows programs, will show up anywhere anyone didn't bother to change the default. When laying things out manually, a sign fabricator would not have even had Arial stencils to use.

[Scott5114]

I can understand some variance with regard to the MUTCD. But there's engineering judgment, where one consciously deviates from the manual to handle a unique situation, and there's design sloppiness, like misaligned characters, poor kerning, non-centered text, and differing font sizes that would reflect poorly on a college essay or internal corporate report, much less a $20,000 public works installation.

I think a lot of sloppiness appearing in recent years has to do with the freedom in design allowed by computer-driven sign fabrication. You simply can't stretch fonts when you're using block-font die punches or removable-copy (including button copy) characters. Likewise, you are limited to a few different discrete sizes, each of which is likely to be prescribed for a particular purpose; with computer design you are free to scale text to arbitrary sizes, and are more likely to do so inconsistently unless pains are taken to ensure that sizes match up for similar contexts from panel to panel. With the old-style processes using pre-fab dies or legend elements, the only way to screw up is to transpose characters, or to flub character alignment or kerning. On removable copy, all of these errors can be corrected without replacing the sign or fabricating overlays, meaning that QA has a greater opportunity to correct the sign before it goes out the door.

Unlike what some posters have implied in this thread, use of Clearview is actually relevant to the discussion. Clearview has several quirks to its design that might trip up a designer used to working with FHWA Series fonts. Chief among these is that lowercase letters with ascenders (l, d, b, etc.) are actually taller than uppercase letters, leading to subtle errors in measurement unless the effect is anticipated and compensated for. Clearview also requires awkward work-arounds to properly design fractions. (J.N. Winkler could probably expound upon these points in far greater detail than I could.)

There are also some issues particular to individual states and agencies that can exacerbate design problems. Other threads have explored Oklahoma's sign problems, which seem to be exacerbated by a contracting workflow which is designed to be friendly toward smaller businesses, but which does little to ensure contractors do quality work (i.e. actually follow the sign plans, which are far from error-free themselves). An insightful observation made with regards to the Boise City bypass, comparing its sign plans to the completed work:

This is partnership between the public and private sector at its finest:  what opportunity to screw up the one misses, the other will pick up.

[Bobby5280]

IMHO, digital technology has been both a blessing and destructive curse to the graphic design field, as well as other creative fields like photography. When the tools were entirely analog based it was absolutely vital for the person doing the work to be talented in that craft -being able to clearly visualize the finished product in his head and devising a good plan of bringing the vision into reality.

Talented people have been able to use digital-based creative tools to push their work to even higher quality levels. Unfortunately countless others have been digital-based creative tools as a means of cutting costs -namely taking work from qualified, often college educated professionals and giving it to other far less qualified people willing to do the work for far less pay. There are people working in sign shops and print shops making as little as burger flipper wages. 30 years ago I would have said an art school degree is worth the investment. Today I would tell a young person to spend college tuition money studying an entirely different line of work. The graphic design profession is hardly a profession anymore.

These declining standards are visibly evident in highway signs, other kinds of way-finding signage and especially store front business signage. The print graphics industry is infected with loads of poor quality work. I see the same problems with graphics in TV commercials. Bad design is everywhere.

In some respect bad design has always been with us, but in the past when all the tools were analog, even the bad designers had to stick with some kind of plan and sense of discipline to get anything accomplished at all. One couldn't take a random, scatter-shot approach to a project the way one can using a computer. It was also very difficult to commit certain typographical horrors, like squeezing, stretching & distorting letters out of their native proportions or faking large cap/small cap fonts. Type choices were limited, so if one wanted a really nice script for a headline he might actually have to paint the letters in ink rather than load Brush Script MT. Someone who actually knew how to paint letters and do it reasonably well would never set Brush Script in all capitals.

Highway signs are like any sign system. In order for them to look good they must not only be designed well with properly organized elements but they also must look uniformly consistent from one sign to the next. People with little or no design talent may not take the importance of that seriously at all.

Because numerous people are making decisions that affect the look of any highway sign contract, those decisions also can adversely affect the finished results. A higher up can try cutting costs by providing sign panels too small for the legends. I see that all the time in Oklahoma and even a good bit in Texas. Skinny panels with copy run edge to edge, perhaps with spacing no longer compliant to FHWA Series or Clearview tables.

Clearview has several quirks to its design that might trip up a designer used to working with FHWA Series fonts. Chief among these is that lowercase letters with ascenders (l, d, b, etc.) are actually taller than uppercase letters, leading to subtle errors in measurement unless the effect is anticipated and compensated for.

Even FHWA Series fonts have features that dip below the baseline and rise above the cap height line. The curved features of a capital letter "O" do just that. Plenty of lowercase letters do the same thing, especially the curved letters. Even chisled point of a lowercase "l" in Series Gothic rises a hair above the cap height line. Clearview is doing so a little more by way of its slightly larger lowercase character set. It's pretty standard for most typefaces to do the same thing. IMHO, if that sort of thing is enough to throw off a sign designer he ought to be doing some other job. It's pretty basic stuff.