The Clearview thread

[Michael]

I'm currently visiting a friend who recently moved to Ohio.  While were were driving last night, I saw Clearview on this church.  It's hard to see since I had to zoom in from the far side of the expressway.  I find it funny that the church is called Mainstreet Church and they use a road sign font on their sign.  I was too busy looking at the building itself, so I didn't notice the sign closer to the road also uses Clearview.

[Thing 342]

We may have some movement  from VDOT here. On my way to work I spotted a new "Reach the Beach" sign (I don't remember it being there last week, and it's not on the March 2016 GMSV imagery) between exits 255 and 256 on I-64, and noticed something a bit odd about it:

No Clearview to be found! All previous "Reach the Beach" signs have had the legend text in Clearview. Now, there is a decent chance that this is simply a contractor error, as evidenced by the non-rounded corners and 18C numerals on the 664 shield (most of these signs use 16D), but this could be a sign that VDOT may be considering ditching Clearview.

Anybody have any other signing plans for VA?   

[J N Winkler]

I wonder if that travel-time sign was actually fabricated in a VDOT shop and installed by state forces.

On the contracting side of things, the aircraft carrier has not yet been turned around.  UPC 105823, an I-81 signs replacement that had its bid opening shortly before last May 5, still has primary destination legend in Clearview, though UPC 709 (which looks to me like an off-system City of Roanoke job) has street blades in mixed-case FHWA.

[PHLBOS]

No Clearview to be found! All previous "Reach the Beach" signs have had the legend text in Clearview. Now, there is a decent chance that this is simply a contractor error, as evidenced by the non-rounded corners and 18C numerals on the 664 shield (most of these signs use 16D), but this could be a sign that VDOT may be considering ditching Clearview.

IMHO, there's nothing wrong with that I-664 shield.  18C should be the standard for 3-digit routes not containing a "1" in them.

[Thing 342]

No Clearview to be found! All previous "Reach the Beach" signs have had the legend text in Clearview. Now, there is a decent chance that this is simply a contractor error, as evidenced by the non-rounded corners and 18C numerals on the 664 shield (most of these signs use 16D), but this could be a sign that VDOT may be considering ditching Clearview.

IMHO, there's nothing wrong with that I-664 shield.  18C should be the standard for 3-digit routes not containing a "1" in them.

I'm not saying it's an error, per se, but literally every other one of these travel time signs uses 16D for 3-digit interstates, meaning that it's possibly just an out-of-spec sign. Here's an earlier example (installed early 2012, per GMSV): https://goo.gl/maps/f6Kdyj3bDjx

[PHLBOS]

meaning that it's possibly just an out-of-spec sign.

Either that or maybe the specs were modified at the same time that the Clearview font was nixed.  One thing I've learned, just because XXDOT or equivalent specs FHWA Series *blank* font for route sign numerals doesn't mean that particular Series is actually used.  VDOT has plenty of BGS' that have *ugh* Series B numerals for 3dI-shields.

[J N Winkler]

After accumulating over 50,000 pattern-accurate sign panel detail sheets, I have come to realize that plan sheets rarely get into the minutiae of route marker design.  Those are typically controlled separately through standards that have their own update cycles.  How well these are followed in sign fabrication in turn is a function of the state DOT's inspection practices and criteria for acceptance or rejection of signs.  Aspects of these processes that involve exercise of discretion tend not to be written down.

Some state DOTs do incorporate some quality assurance for shields within signing plans.  For example, Iowa DOT is moving toward using three-digit guide-sign shields for three-digit routes and eliminating black borders for US and state route guide-sign shields.  Recent signing plans have included recurring sheets (not standard plan sheets per se) with dimensioned drawings for two- and three-digit shields for all three types of route; those for state and US routes show the old black-bordered design "cancelled" with a red circle and slash.

[machias]

We may have some movement  from VDOT here. On my way to work I spotted a new "Reach the Beach" sign (I don't remember it being there last week, and it's not on the March 2016 GMSV imagery) between exits 255 and 256 on I-64, and noticed something a bit odd about it:

No Clearview to be found! All previous "Reach the Beach" signs have had the legend text in Clearview. Now, there is a decent chance that this is simply a contractor error, as evidenced by the non-rounded corners and 18C numerals on the 664 shield (most of these signs use 16D), but this could be a sign that VDOT may be considering ditching Clearview.

Anybody have any other signing plans for VA?   

I certainly hope VDOT is considering ditching Clearview since they don't really have any choice in the matter per the FHWA.

As far as the lettering choice for the 664, I find the marker to be quite readable and the glyphs are within motorist expectations so legibility shouldn't be an issue, therefore I deem it perfectly acceptable.

[Pink Jazz]

I certainly hope VDOT is considering ditching Clearview since they don't really have any choice in the matter per the FHWA.

As far as the lettering choice for the 664, I find the marker to be quite readable and the glyphs are within motorist expectations so legibility shouldn't be an issue, therefore I deem it perfectly acceptable.

I know VDOT was apparently interested in Enhanced E Modified.  Perhaps if the FHWA approves it (either in an interim approval and/or a future edition of the MUTCD) we could see VDOT adopt it.

[WillWeaverRVA]

I certainly hope VDOT is considering ditching Clearview since they don't really have any choice in the matter per the FHWA.

Oh, they are. They were quick to stop using it when the approval was rescinded.

[roadman]

We may have some movement  from VDOT here. On my way to work I spotted a new "Reach the Beach" sign (I don't remember it being there last week, and it's not on the March 2016 GMSV imagery) between exits 255 and 256 on I-64, and noticed something a bit odd about it:

Interesting.  Apart from the use of Highway Gothic instead of Clearview (Yay!), that's the first 'generic' travel time sign installation I've seen that's overhead mounted.  Anybody know of similar installations.

[PurdueBill]

I certainly hope VDOT is considering ditching Clearview since they don't really have any choice in the matter per the FHWA.

Oh, they are. They were quick to stop using it when the approval was rescinded.

They could have stopped using it anytime before then, though--no one actually was forced to use it ever.

Virginia had some of the very worst specimens (as featured on the Clearview FAQ page) but cleaned up its act later on, specifying in writing where it was to be used (destination legend only) in its documents, whereas many users (Ohio, Arizona for example--both states who had handsome button copy right up until the end of button copy, ironically) insist on it being used all over signs, except for in route shields too (Michigan, cough cough).  Arizona eventually went to traditional numerals for distance legend because of fraction setting problems, but kept Clearview in exit numbers where it doesn't belong.  Too much screwball use overall, which is too bad for someplace like Virginia which had finally figured it out and had some actually decent-looking Clearview signgage eventually.

[jakeroot]

Virginia had some of the very worst specimens (as featured on the Clearview FAQ page) but cleaned up its act later on, specifying in writing where it was to be used (destination legend only) in its documents, whereas many users (Ohio, Arizona for example--both states who had handsome button copy right up until the end of button copy, ironically) insist on it being used all over signs, except for in route shields too (Michigan, cough cough).  Arizona eventually went to traditional numerals for distance legend because of fraction setting problems, but kept Clearview in exit numbers where it doesn't belong.  Too much screwball use overall, which is too bad for someplace like Virginia which had finally figured it out and had some actually decent-looking Clearview signgage eventually.

As much as I like Clearview, I don't think you should use it unless you're going to use it everywhere, like in the image below (minus the Helvetica in the TCH shield). I've always though that signs with both FHWA and Clearview were sort of Frankenstein installations, where they couldn't decide which font to use, so they just splattered different fonts wherever they want. Obviously this wasn't the reason, but from the perspective of someone who worries far too much about aesthetics, signs like this drive me up the wall. I am lucky enough to live where I get to experience both full use of Clearview (BC, and surrounding provinces), and full use of FHWA (WA, OR), so I don't find my head spinning too often.

[vtk]

Virginia had some of the very worst specimens (as featured on the Clearview FAQ page) but cleaned up its act later on, specifying in writing where it was to be used (destination legend only) in its documents, whereas many users (Ohio, Arizona for example--both states who had handsome button copy right up until the end of button copy, ironically) insist on it being used all over signs, except for in route shields too (Michigan, cough cough).  Arizona eventually went to traditional numerals for distance legend because of fraction setting problems, but kept Clearview in exit numbers where it doesn't belong.  Too much screwball use overall, which is too bad for someplace like Virginia which had finally figured it out and had some actually decent-looking Clearview signgage eventually.

As much as I like Clearview, I don't think you should use it unless you're going to use it everywhere, like in the image below (minus the Helvetica in the TCH shield). I've always though that signs with both FHWA and Clearview were sort of Frankenstein installations, where they couldn't decide which font to use, so they just splattered different fonts wherever they want. Obviously this wasn't the reason, but from the perspective of someone who worries far too much about aesthetics, signs like this drive me up the wall. I am lucky enough to live where I get to experience both full use of Clearview (BC, and surrounding provinces), and full use of FHWA (WA, OR), so I don't find my head spinning too often.

I can understand that point of view.  Particularly considering Clearview has different weights for positive and negative contrast, while the FHWA series doesn't, and that actually sounds like one of Clearview's better ideas.  On the other hand, if the destination legend in Clearview and everything else on the sign is FHWA, I think that can look good too, but I've seen very few examples of that most-restrained usage.

[cl94]

Cross-posting from the NYSTA thread is this sign intended for boaters at Erie Canal Lock 13. Photo is mine:

[SignGeek101]

(minus the Helvetica in the TCH shield).

Jake, BC (and the other Prairie provinces) use FHWA for the Trans-Canada shield, not Helvetica. Saskatchewan and Manitoba use a lot of EM. Compare below to your image:



BC uses either D or E (probably E). EM has that fat look to it that isn't present in any TCH shields in BC I've seen.

All the BC TCH shields on BGS's are all consistent which leads me to believe that the number (Hwy 1) is part of the design (similarly how the word "INTERSTATE" is part of the design of the interstate shield).

[jakeroot]

(minus the Helvetica in the TCH shield).

Jake, BC (and the other Prairie provinces) use FHWA for the Trans-Canada shield, not Helvetica. Saskatchewan and Manitoba use a lot of EM. Compare below to your image:

Ahh, very true. Thank you for pointing that out. Gets pretty annoying when there's three prescribed typefaces all for different uses; I do occasionally forget which ones go where.

All the BC TCH shields on BGS's are all consistent which leads me to believe that the number (Hwy 1) is part of the design (similarly how the word "INTERSTATE" is part of the design of the interstate shield).

I'm pretty certain that I've seen a TCH shield with Clearview numerals somewhere. I think it was on Vancouver Island, but I'm not totally sure. If I remember where, I'll let you know. But until then, let's just assume that your theory is correct.

[opspe]

I'm pretty certain that I've seen a TCH shield with Clearview numerals somewhere. I think it was on Vancouver Island, but I'm not totally sure. If I remember where, I'll let you know. But until then, let's just assume that your theory is correct.

I know I've seen that, but if I remember correctly it wasn't a standard guide sign, it was an information sign.  Might've been on the Upper Levels Hwy, as a temporary fixture when they were redoing the ferry terminal.

[J N Winkler]

Just to note that AHTD (Arkansas) has advertised what appears to be its first recent contract in which the signing is in the FHWA series rather than Clearview:  CA0902, a modification of the I-49/SR 72 interchange in Bentonville.

[freebrickproductions]

Something interesting to note: Despite Alabama seemingly having dropped Clearview (as new signage for the new Exit 7 interchange on I-565 is in Highway Gothic), the new replacement signs on I-565 (with the possible exception of the gore signage) is in Clearview.

[PurdueBill]

Something interesting to note: Despite Alabama seemingly having dropped Clearview (as new signage for the new Exit 7 interchange on I-565 is in Highway Gothic), the new replacement signs on I-565 (with the possible exception of the gore signage) is in Clearview.

Did they design the signs and send the plans to fabrication before the cutoff?  If so, they may have just gotten in....I saw crews installing some brand-spanking-new Clearview (long-term "temporary"-or-maybe-not BGSs) signs on I-76, I-77, and I-277 in Akron today--I am hoping that they were fabricated based on plans approved and sent in before the cutoff.  If not, shame on ODOT.

[J N Winkler]

Did they design the signs and send the plans to fabrication before the cutoff?  If so, they may have just gotten in....I saw crews installing some brand-spanking-new Clearview (long-term "temporary"-or-maybe-not BGSs) signs on I-76, I-77, and I-277 in Akron today--I am hoping that they were fabricated based on plans approved and sent in before the cutoff.  If not, shame on ODOT.

Alabama DOT never used Clearview on signing plans, even when Clearview was adopted as the default for new or replacement signs.  My suspicion is that while the signing plans showed Series E Modified, the sign drawings actually supplied to the signing contractor used Clearview.  In quite a few states the construction plans are only indicative as to how the signs are supposed to look, and the actual control for fabrication purposes is the work order.

AFAIK, Alabama DOT never does pure sign replacements by contract, so the signs Freebrickproduction mentions were likely fabricated in-house.

[freebrickproductions]

Did they design the signs and send the plans to fabrication before the cutoff?  If so, they may have just gotten in....I saw crews installing some brand-spanking-new Clearview (long-term "temporary"-or-maybe-not BGSs) signs on I-76, I-77, and I-277 in Akron today--I am hoping that they were fabricated based on plans approved and sent in before the cutoff.  If not, shame on ODOT.

Alabama DOT never used Clearview on signing plans, even when Clearview was adopted as the default for new or replacement signs.  My suspicion is that while the signing plans showed Series E Modified, the sign drawings actually supplied to the signing contractor used Clearview.  In quite a few states the construction plans are only indicative as to how the signs are supposed to look, and the actual control for fabrication purposes is the work order.

AFAIK, Alabama DOT never does pure sign replacements by contract, so the signs Freebrickproduction mentions were likely fabricated in-house.

To be fair, I wouldn't be surprised if ALDOT did make them in-house, since Alabama seems to be very slow on the uptake of new developments most of the time.

[roadman]

Did they design the signs and send the plans to fabrication before the cutoff?  If so, they may have just gotten in....I saw crews installing some brand-spanking-new Clearview (long-term "temporary"-or-maybe-not BGSs) signs on I-76, I-77, and I-277 in Akron today--I am hoping that they were fabricated based on plans approved and sent in before the cutoff.  If not, shame on ODOT.

Alabama DOT never used Clearview on signing plans, even when Clearview was adopted as the default for new or replacement signs.  My suspicion is that while the signing plans showed Series E Modified, the sign drawings actually supplied to the signing contractor used Clearview.  In quite a few states the construction plans are only indicative as to how the signs are supposed to look, and the actual control for fabrication purposes is the work order.

In Massachusetts, the final design drawings for guide sign panels are prepared by the fabricator and reviewed by either MassDOT or the designer of record for the project.

[TravelingBethelite]

Are these signs (recently installed near me) in Clearview?