Comment Period Underway now for MUTCD Prior to Next Edition

[roadfro]

Folks, with this comment period, the FHWA is looking for comments about formatting, target audience, presentation of information, ways to streamline and improve usability of the MUTCD across its user base, and frequency of updates/revisions. From the submission page (emphasis added):

The FHWA is interested in planning for future editions of the MUTCD  that will reflect the growing number and application of traffic control devices, changes in technology not only for traffic control devices, but for viewing content in the MUTCD, and developing a structure for the MUTCD that is efficient and easy to use. The FHWA initiated the public comment process by publishing an RFC at 78 FR 2347 (Docket ID: FHWA-2012-0118) on January 11, 2013, that included two options for restructuring the MUTCD and several questions regarding content and public use of the MUTCD. The FHWA's response to the comments, issued June 17, 2013 at 78 FR 36132 (Docket ID: FHWA-2012-0118-0187), indicated that over one half of the commenters recommended postponing any action to restructure the manual pending results from the ongoing National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) strategic planning effort. That effort is now complete.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from users of the MUTCD about the direction of future editions of the MUTCD. This notice includes a set of specific questions for which FHWA requests comments. Comments and input may be offered on any part of this notification.

Thus, discussion about specific content (such as APLs, Clearview font, specific service signs, etc.) are not relevant to this request for comments.

[vdeane]

I think a lot of the clearview hate comes from the fact that the font doesn't "fail" as gracefully as the FHWA fonts do.  If a sign has sizing issues, the FHWA fonts will still look OK, whereas clearview tends to look hideous if sized out of proportion to the rest of the sign.  It looks fine when done right, but clearview has a tendency to draw attention to pretty much any kind of flaw a sign can have, no matter how minor (like a fat person wearing a catsuit).

Though I understand your point, I don't think that should be a knock against Clearview, but rather a knock against the designer. If your choice of typeface boils down to the competency of the signing engineer, you're doing something wrong.

True, but the clearview is what is noticed, not the other issues.  For example, when the Thruway adopted clearview, the coincidentally changed to nonreflective lettering at the same time.  The result is the signs are now unreadable at night.  This is due to the lettering not being reflective, but clearview was blamed instead.  Even the Thruway was fooled with this one, with it driving their decision to abandon clearview.  Clearview also exposed sizing issues that had previously been easy to not notice.  The point of the post was not to debate the merits of clearview but to explain why roadgeeks hate it so much (because it makes the signs uglier than they otherwise would be).  The fact that the ugliness actually derives from some other flaw that simply became more obvious because of the clearview will not sway someone who saw an atrocious-looking clearview sign and came to hate the font because of it.  You only have one chance to make a first impression.

[Pink Jazz]

One of the major bugs in Clearview is how difficult it is to compose fractions using either SignCAD or GuidSIGN.  When Clearview is used, the fraction composing functions of both software packages produce fractions that are too tall, with numerals too small to be MUTCD compliant.  There are a few early Clearview signs in Arizona where you can notice this error.  ADOT later developed a custom hand-made fraction design using Clearview with a different angle to the fraction slash, but such fractions looked funky and thus ADOT eventually abandoned Clearview for fractions.  Later on, ADOT also abandoned Clearview for whole numbers in distances.  For some unknown reason, exit numbers continued to use Clearview even though some studies have shown that Clearview numerals are less legible than their FHWA counterparts.

[PHLBOS]

One of the major bugs in Clearview is how difficult it is to compose fractions using either SignCAD or GuidSIGN.  When Clearview is used, the fraction composing functions of both software packages produce fractions that are too tall, with numerals too small to be MUTCD compliant.  There are a few early Clearview signs in Arizona where you can notice this error.  ADOT later developed a custom hand-made fraction design using Clearview with a different angle to the fraction slash, but such fractions looked funky and thus ADOT eventually abandoned Clearview for fractions.  Later on, ADOT also abandoned Clearview for whole numbers in distances.  For some unknown reason, exit numbers continued to use Clearview even though some studies have shown that Clearview numerals are less legible than their FHWA counterparts.

The above is just one reason why the use of Clearview numerals wasn't recommended for any sign application.  Unfortunately, many state DOT & toll road agencies haven't gotten that point through their skulls just yet.

[cl94]

One of the major bugs in Clearview is how difficult it is to compose fractions using either SignCAD or GuidSIGN.  When Clearview is used, the fraction composing functions of both software packages produce fractions that are too tall, with numerals too small to be MUTCD compliant.  There are a few early Clearview signs in Arizona where you can notice this error.  ADOT later developed a custom hand-made fraction design using Clearview with a different angle to the fraction slash, but such fractions looked funky and thus ADOT eventually abandoned Clearview for fractions.  Later on, ADOT also abandoned Clearview for whole numbers in distances.  For some unknown reason, exit numbers continued to use Clearview even though some studies have shown that Clearview numerals are less legible than their FHWA counterparts.

The above is just one reason why the use of Clearview numerals wasn't recommended for any sign application.  Unfortunately, many state DOT & toll road agencies haven't gotten that point through their skulls just yet.

At least this is a non-issue now. Interim approval is officially rescinded effective February 24.

[PHLBOS]

At least this is a non-issue now. Interim approval is officially rescinded effective February 24.

Source

[Pink Jazz]

I wonder what will some of the Phoenix area cities use for signal mounted street name signs, since Clearview is so widespread in the Valley now.  While Phoenix itself as far as I know used FHWA, Mesa, Chandler, and Gilbert used a bold version of Helvetica prior to introducing Clearview for such signs.  Will they go back to Helvetica, or will they use a version of FHWA?  The old bold Helvetica I think would have similar halation issues to Series E Modified.  ADOT will mostly be using FHWA Series C for street name signs.

[jakeroot]

I wonder what will some of the Phoenix area cities use for signal mounted street name signs, since Clearview is so widespread in the Valley now.  While Phoenix itself as far as I know used FHWA, Mesa, Chandler, and Gilbert used a bold version of Helvetica prior to introducing Clearview for such signs.  Will they go back to Helvetica, or will they use a version of FHWA?  The old bold Helvetica I think would have similar halation issues to Series E Modified.  ADOT will mostly be using FHWA Series C for street name signs.

I could be wrong, but I still think Clearview is permitted on street blades.

[cl94]

I wonder what will some of the Phoenix area cities use for signal mounted street name signs, since Clearview is so widespread in the Valley now.  While Phoenix itself as far as I know used FHWA, Mesa, Chandler, and Gilbert used a bold version of Helvetica prior to introducing Clearview for such signs.  Will they go back to Helvetica, or will they use a version of FHWA?  The old bold Helvetica I think would have similar halation issues to Series E Modified.  ADOT will mostly be using FHWA Series C for street name signs.

I could be wrong, but I still think Clearview is permitted on street blades.

You are.

The result of this termination rescinds the use of letter styles other than the FHWA Standard Alphabets on traffic control devices, except as provided otherwise in the MUTCD

The notice bans all non-FHWA fonts from all traffic control devices unless stated otherwise. A quick look at the MUTCD does not show an exception for any type of guide signage. As far as the MUTCD is concerned, street blades are guide signage.

[jakeroot]

The notice bans all non-FHWA fonts from all traffic control devices unless stated otherwise. A quick look at the MUTCD does not show an exception for any type of guide signage. As far as the MUTCD is concerned, street blades are guide signage.

I would more willing to understand this, if I only saw Clearview and FHWA fonts on street blades. But, I've seen Helvetica, Times, Comic Sans, etc. Were these all approved by the FHWA as well?

To be more specific, I should have said that Clearview goes into the "tolerated" category for street blades, along with Helvetica, Times, etc.

[Scott5114]

I would more willing to understand this, if I only saw Clearview and FHWA fonts on street blades. But, I've seen Helvetica, Times, Comic Sans, etc. Were these all approved by the FHWA as well?

No. FHWA leans on states to follow the MUTCD by withholding funding for non-compliant signage; the best-known example was them refusing to fund Florida's colored US shields. But unless there's a unique situation or project, cities do not get any federal funding for blade signs and thus there is nothing the FHWA can do to enforce the MUTCD. Hell, Washington DC uses Helvetica on its blades. FHWA employees walk under them every day. They don't do anything about it because they can't.

Even if they could, who's going to call up FHWA and rat out the Possumbreath County road department for it?

Other than the funding situation, the only incentive to follow the MUTCD is legal liability. If you put up a non-standard sign and an accident is caused by it, the agency that put it up could be held partially liable in court for it. But good luck trying to prove in court that a non-standard font on a guide sign is a contributing factor to an accident.

[Pink Jazz]

Somewhat off topic, but I wonder if the next MUTCD will mandate the use of Fluorescent Pink for incident management signs, rather than keeping it only as an option.  After all, the purpose of Fluorescent Pink is to distinguish incident management signs from construction signs.

Also, as far as specific retroreflectivity values go, does Fluorescent Pink use the same values as Orange and Fluorescent Orange, or is it exempt from the specific retroreflectivity requirements as Blue, Brown, and Purple currently are?  The specific retroreflectivity values for Blue and Brown will probably be included in the next MUTCD, since testing has since been completed after the 2009 MUTCD went into effect.

[ekt8750]

I wonder what will some of the Phoenix area cities use for signal mounted street name signs, since Clearview is so widespread in the Valley now.  While Phoenix itself as far as I know used FHWA, Mesa, Chandler, and Gilbert used a bold version of Helvetica prior to introducing Clearview for such signs.  Will they go back to Helvetica, or will they use a version of FHWA?  The old bold Helvetica I think would have similar halation issues to Series E Modified.  ADOT will mostly be using FHWA Series C for street name signs.

I was wondering the same thing since Philly hasn't used FHWA on their street blades since at least 2007. I can see them going back to it  (with lowercase lettering) or just staying with Clearview, MUTCD be damned.

[jakeroot]

I would more willing to understand this, if I only saw Clearview and FHWA fonts on street blades. But, I've seen Helvetica, Times, Comic Sans, etc. Were these all approved by the FHWA as well?

No. FHWA leans on states to follow the MUTCD by withholding funding for non-compliant signage; the best-known example was them refusing to fund Florida's colored US shields. But unless there's a unique situation or project, cities do not get any federal funding for blade signs and thus there is nothing the FHWA can do to enforce the MUTCD. Hell, Washington DC uses Helvetica on its blades. FHWA employees walk under them every day. They don't do anything about it because they can't.

So, to wrap back around to Pink Jazz's original question, should there be an expectation that cities will phase out Clearview street blades? Something tells me that, in time, they will be phased out, but it won't be as sudden as the guide sign changes.

[Pink Jazz]

I recently noticed in Gilbert, Arizona that there was recently an intersection (McQueen and Guadalupe I think) that recently had its Helvetica street name signs replaced with FHWA Series D.  However, the new signs are all caps for some reason.  Gilbert has used mixed case Clearview on signal-mounted street name signs for quite some time now, while I have seen both Clearview and FHWA Series B or C used on non-signalized intersections for new installations (with Clearview in both all-caps and mixed case, but FHWA only in all-caps). 

Perhaps the town hasn't yet ordered the mixed case versions of FHWA other than Series E Modified.  After all, when the FHWA rescinded its interim approval for Clearview, they stated that many DOTs misinterpreted the mixed case requirement for street name signs in the 2009 MUTCD as requiring the use of Clearview.  A possible reason could be that many DOTs might be unaware of the existence of the mixed case versions of FHWA, thus they went with Clearview.

As for local authorities here in the Phoenix area, I have only seen mixed case FHWA used by the City of Phoenix for their black-on-white street name signs for non-signalized intersections, as well as on some MCDOT street blades (although newer signs use Clearview).

[vdeane]

In the Southern Tier there were a bunch of county/town line signs that popped up in clearview... reason was, the contractor who made them didn't have mixed case FHWA, so they just used clearview instead.