The Clearview thread

[J N Winkler]

The signs in Georgia with 20 in capital letter height are purposely designed that way.  After its experiment with replacing 16 in UC/12 in LC Series E Modified (generally button copy) with 20 in UC/15 in LC "D Georgia" (all retroreflective sheeting) failed, GDOT opted to bite the bullet and go back to Series E Modified, but one size larger, replacing many ground-mounted signs with signs mounted on balanced cantilever trusses to reduce the likelihood of obscuration by large trucks.  Space padding on the new signs is generally quite good except at the vertical edges, where they are being parsimonious in what I take to be an effort to reduce wind load.

20 in UC is already the norm for rural ground-mounted guide signs in many jurisdictions, e.g. Minnesota.  I don't really object, though my preference is for other sign elements, such as exit tabs, route shields, and "small caps" legend to be also made larger.  I don't know why PennDOT is using 20 in UC in spot locations.

[PHLBOS]

Just because it happens often, does not make it intentional. More than likely, a misunderstanding on the part of the agency, or the software they are using to design the signs is not producing the correct results (but no one notices until after the signs go up).

If prior/previous sign specs (in FHWA Series E(M)) call for 16-inch lettering; why wouldn't the Clearview equivalent (5-W(?)) be 16-inches as well?

The lettering from the earlier GSV examples I posted looks to be either 18 or 20 inches high.

You'd have to talk to someone like Mr Winkler. I don't understand sign making programs, but they are apparently very finicky.

Since you replied to my earlier comment; I'm asking/answering you. 

The issue I was raising regarding text heights has absolutely nothing to do with the sign-making programs per say but rather what's in the written sign specs./standards.  Also keep in mind that the FHWA Highway Gothic fonts existed long before CAD and sign-making programs came to be.  The sizing of the letters/numerals and the spacings for such were originally calculated by hand.

That said, one can conceivably design a highway sign without using computer programs as long as they have a set of sign specs. & spacing standards available.  I'm sure a similar manual for the Clearview font has existed for some time as well.

Even when a sign program is used; if an agency specifies 16-inch high lettering for control city legends on its highway signs, then the designer needs to use/input that height for said-design regardless of the selected font.

That said, the switch to 18" or 20" lettering by either a designer or fabricator is indeed deliberate/intentional.  Whether that intention was actually initiated by an actual agency like Georgia per J N Winkler's example or a rogue designer or fabricator in other states is not fully known.

Nonetheless & as previously stated, if the reason for the Clearview font's very existence was for readability; then why upsize it? 

[DaBigE]

Just because it happens often, does not make it intentional. More than likely, a misunderstanding on the part of the agency, or the software they are using to design the signs is not producing the correct results (but no one notices until after the signs go up).

If prior/previous sign specs (in FHWA Series E(M)) call for 16-inch lettering; why wouldn't the Clearview equivalent (5-W(?)) be 16-inches as well?

The lettering from the earlier GSV examples I posted looks to be either 18 or 20 inches high.

You'd have to talk to someone like Mr Winkler. I don't understand sign making programs, but they are apparently very finicky.

As someone who has used both of the major sign making programs, what is described here is least likely to cause issues with the software. Output/plan sheet issues are almost always the issue of the person sitting behind the keyboard and/or Q/C person or the sign manufacturer.

[jakeroot]

Just because it happens often, does not make it intentional. More than likely, a misunderstanding on the part of the agency, or the software they are using to design the signs is not producing the correct results (but no one notices until after the signs go up).

If prior/previous sign specs (in FHWA Series E(M)) call for 16-inch lettering; why wouldn't the Clearview equivalent (5-W(?)) be 16-inches as well?

The lettering from the earlier GSV examples I posted looks to be either 18 or 20 inches high.

You'd have to talk to someone like Mr Winkler. I don't understand sign making programs, but they are apparently very finicky.

Since you replied to my earlier comment; I'm asking/answering you. 

Well too bad, bud. I don't have the answer for everything. All I know is what I've heard, and apparently I heard wrong.

[Android]

Sounds like a clear dim view to me.   Kind of like the typeface.  hah.

I sort of was under the impression that Clearview had it's own set of overall usage instructions, but then again, maybe the fact that it was out-sourced means it never quite lined up with FHWA standards?   Mix that with whatever locals make up the signs and that road leads to _______ 

I was an early hater of CV, but while I would CERTAINLY rather see some kind of FHWA, I don't think CV is essentially horrible.   I just think that Highway Gothic was never as bad as some thought it was and that its slight faults could be easily fixed (and I think HAVE been fixed, as I've seen in some places over the years)

[freebrickproductions]

Sounds like a clear dim view to me.   Kind of like the typeface.  hah.

I sort of was under the impression that Clearview had it's own set of overall usage instructions, but then again, maybe the fact that it was out-sourced means it never quite lined up with FHWA standards?   Mix that with whatever locals make up the signs and that road leads to _______ 

I was an early hater of CV, but while I would CERTAINLY rather see some kind of FHWA, I don't think CV is essentially horrible.   I just think that Highway Gothic was never as bad as some thought it was and that its slight faults could be easily fixed (and I think HAVE been fixed, as I've seen in some places over the years)

IIRC, didn't studies find that Series E with Series EM kerning was better than both Series EM and Clearview in terms of legibility?

[Scott5114]

Sounds like a clear dim view to me.   Kind of like the typeface.  hah.

I sort of was under the impression that Clearview had it's own set of overall usage instructions, but then again, maybe the fact that it was out-sourced means it never quite lined up with FHWA standards?   Mix that with whatever locals make up the signs and that road leads to _______ 

I was an early hater of CV, but while I would CERTAINLY rather see some kind of FHWA, I don't think CV is essentially horrible.   I just think that Highway Gothic was never as bad as some thought it was and that its slight faults could be easily fixed (and I think HAVE been fixed, as I've seen in some places over the years)

IIRC, didn't studies find that Series E with Series EM kerning was better than both Series EM and Clearview in terms of legibility?

That's called Enhanced E Modified. One study involving it did show that, but more independent studies should be done to verify.

[roadman]

Sounds like a clear dim view to me.   Kind of like the typeface.  hah.

I sort of was under the impression that Clearview had it's own set of overall usage instructions, but then again, maybe the fact that it was out-sourced means it never quite lined up with FHWA standards?   Mix that with whatever locals make up the signs and that road leads to _______ 

I was an early hater of CV, but while I would CERTAINLY rather see some kind of FHWA, I don't think CV is essentially horrible.   I just think that Highway Gothic was never as bad as some thought it was and that its slight faults could be easily fixed (and I think HAVE been fixed, as I've seen in some places over the years)

IIRC, didn't studies find that Series E with Series EM kerning was better than both Series EM and Clearview in terms of legibility?

That's called Enhanced E Modified. One study involving it did show that, but more independent studies should be done to verify.

The TTI study a few years back - which (unlike the initial Clearview testing) used actual drivers in actual vehicles with actual signs mounted overhead on a test track - compared E Modified, Clearview, and Enhanced E Modified.  Enhanced E Modified was slightly better than both E Modified and Clearview, but the results weren't statistically significant.

[Pink Jazz]

This list needs to be updated:

https://www.aaroads.com/highway_fonts/

Arizona is no longer using Clearview at the state level (even though the interim approval was reinstated), although some local agencies are using it.  Apparently the City of Phoenix never stopped using it on their illuminated street blades.  I actually wonder if Maricopa County DOT has starting using it again as well; they apparently made a big deal about the interim approval being rescinded and complained that that by rescinding the interim approval it will have a negative impact on older drivers.  I can't confirm, but possibly the City of Chandler might be using it again as well, since I think I saw new Clearview street blades in new neighborhoods.  Mesa and Gilbert as far as I know are not using it; new installs continue to use FHWA from what I have seen.

[OracleUsr]

Speaking of, where does South Dakota use Clearview?  Every new sign I've seen in the state uses Em.

[Eth]

This list needs to be updated:

https://www.aaroads.com/highway_fonts/

Since it looks like this list includes use by cities/counties: While GDOT doesn't use it and has no plans to, Clearview can be found on overhead street signs in Snellville, at least along US 78 (though not on ground-mounted ones, which are done by Gwinnett County). Tourist wayfinding signs in Atlanta also use it.

[J N Winkler]

Speaking of, where does South Dakota use Clearview?  Every new sign I've seen in the state uses Em.

I collect SDDOT signing plans and they do include some Clearview, but only for street name signs/traffic signal mast arm signs.  My guess is that SD is counted as Yes solely on the basis of local agency use of Clearview that is never seen in SDDOT plans sets except in cases where SDDOT carries out work on locally maintained roads as part of a state highway project and matches the signing for them to local agency standards.

BTW, the line for Kansas is "Yes, KTA."  However, KTA appears to be using Clearview only for in-house installs of large panel guide signs.  KTA contract signing work has never stopped using Series E Modified, to my knowledge.  Meanwhile, a few local agencies have been using Clearview and it has therefore made its way into KDOT plans sets for project elements that are matched to local agency standards.  This information mostly pre-dates rescinding and then reinstatement of the Clearview interim approval, so I don't have up-to-date information on how Kansas local agencies are reacting.

[OracleUsr]

That's like NC then.  Only in a few places (mostly city street guide signs, not BGS') does NC use Clearview.  The NC 8 exit off I-85 is a fluke.

[Roadsguy]

Does anyone know for sure the status of Clearview in Pennsylvania, with PennDOT or the PTC? New signs are still FHWA it seems, but it took a while for the switch back to FHWA to completely go through the first time.

[J N Winkler]

PennDOT has gone back to Series E Modified and is sticking with it.  Two weeks ago my script pulled in 38 pattern-accurate signing sheets just for ECMS 93444 (a Philadelphia-area US 1 improvement) and everything used the FHWA series.  I still see Clearview in some projects, but those are all smaller jobs of the kind that are kept on the shelf for use as gap filler in lettings.  Clearview by itself on a signing sheet (no adjacent sign drawings using FHWA series) is becoming rarer and rarer.

[Pink Jazz]

I recently saw new signs on new signal masts on an MCDOT maintained intersection at Power Road and Elliot Road at the Gilbert/Mesa border, and they are still in FHWA.  I'm surprised MCDOT hasn't switched back to Clearview considering they made a big deal about the FHWA rescinding the interim approval.  However, since these signs were installed alongside new signal masts (replacing the existing very old signal masts), it is possible that the contract for these signs went out before the interim approval was reinstated.

[PHLBOS]

I believe only KY, TX & VA have presently indicated that they will be reinstating IA use of Clearview.

[Pink Jazz]

I believe only KY, TX & VA have presently indicated that they will be reinstating IA use of Clearview.

As far as I know the City of Phoenix continued to use it even when the interim approval was rescinded.  I haven't seen a non-Clearview illuminated sign in Phoenix at all, although there was one report of some at one intersection, although they might have been a fluke.

[PHLBOS]

I believe only KY, TX & VA have presently indicated that they will be reinstating IA use of Clearview.

As far as I know the City of Phoenix continued to use it even when the interim approval was rescinded.  I haven't seen a non-Clearview illuminated sign in Phoenix at all, although there was one report of some at one intersection, although they might have been a fluke.

I was specifically referring to state DOT agencies.  Cities tend to make their own rules regarding what to use.

[Roadsguy]

PennDOT has gone back to Series E Modified and is sticking with it.

Have they said anything to the effect, or have they just not yet started using Clearview again?

[J N Winkler]

Have they said anything to the effect, or have they just not yet started using Clearview again?

The latest edition of Publication 46 (PennDOT's traffic engineering manual) dates from 2014, well before revocation of the Clearview IA.  If PennDOT has any other guidance on traffic sign typefaces or confection of guide sign designs more generally, it seems not to be on their public-facing website or retrievable through Google search.  I go by what I see in construction plans on ECMS.

[myosh_tino]

I believe only KY, TX & VA have presently indicated that they will be reinstating IA use of Clearview.

As far as I know the City of Phoenix continued to use it even when the interim approval was rescinded.  I haven't seen a non-Clearview illuminated sign in Phoenix at all, although there was one report of some at one intersection, although they might have been a fluke.

I'd be more interested to know which state DOTs have transitioned back to Clearview after the reinstatement of the IA. 

IMO, Clearview's use at the local level for things like street blades and street name signs on traffic signals isn't any indication of an increased use of the typeface because I'm used to seeing a whole variety of non-FHWA fonts from Helvetica to Bookman to even Clearview being used on street blades in my local area.

[PHLBOS]

Bodl emphasis added:

I believe only KY, TX & VA have presently indicated that they will be reinstating IA use of Clearview.

As far as I know the City of Phoenix continued to use it even when the interim approval was rescinded.  I haven't seen a non-Clearview illuminated sign in Phoenix at all, although there was one report of some at one intersection, although they might have been a fluke.

I'd be more interested to know which state DOTs have transitioned back to Clearview after the reinstatement of the IA.

The answer to your question is in one of the above-nested quotes (in bold).

[hbelkins]

Bodl emphasis added:

I believe only KY, TX & VA have presently indicated that they will be reinstating IA use of Clearview.

As far as I know the City of Phoenix continued to use it even when the interim approval was rescinded.  I haven't seen a non-Clearview illuminated sign in Phoenix at all, although there was one report of some at one intersection, although they might have been a fluke.

I'd be more interested to know which state DOTs have transitioned back to Clearview after the reinstatement of the IA.

The answer to your question is in one of the above-nested quotes (in bold).

I haven't seen any documentation, but I can confirm that Kentucky is going back to Clearview. This was confirmed by someone in Frankfort when I asked directly.

[Pink Jazz]

Currently ADOT's Manual of Approved Signs continue to show FHWA fonts, although mainly with Series D and E instead of E(M).  Recent installs also continue to use FHWA fonts, including the first APL sign in the Phoenix area.