Road sign fonts and states' rights

[hbelkins]

[Split off from the Clearview thread, where discussion of FHWA's interim approval of Clearview sort of branched out...]

It's worth noting that FHWA still has a "conditional approval" (can't remember the exact term) for Clearview. Clearview is not mentioned in the 2009 MUTCD at all. FHWA could revoke that approval at any time, thus banning further Clearview signage.

Which is one of my pet peeves about the MUTCD and FHWA.  Why should they be in the business of regulating or dictating fonts? If a state wants to use Helvetica on its signs, why not? Why a federal standard? It's not like 50 different standards for a "merge" or "divided highway ends" sign if states use different fonts.

[agentsteel53]

Which is one of my pet peeves about the MUTCD and FHWA.  Why should they be in the business of regulating or dictating fonts? If a state wants to use Helvetica on its signs, why not? Why a federal standard? It's not like 50 different standards for a "merge" or "divided highway ends" sign if states use different fonts.

well, I'd rather have the attractive state fonts of the 1950s and 1960s (see New York, Massachusetts, Nevada, Montana, etc) as opposed to the hideousness of Clearview.

if it takes a federal statute to consign Clearview into oblivion, then I will happily look the other way.  It wouldn't be the worst violation of the tenth amendment we've ever seen...

[J N Winkler]

Which is one of my pet peeves about the MUTCD and FHWA.  Why should they be in the business of regulating or dictating fonts? If a state wants to use Helvetica on its signs, why not? Why a federal standard? It's not like 50 different standards for a "merge" or "divided highway ends" sign if states use different fonts.

Uniformity of typeface on traffic signs is necessary for two main reasons.

*  Drivers need to be able to recognize signs as official traffic control devices regardless of which state they may be in.

*  Requirements for sign letter height and limits on the amount of legend on signs are based on assumed nominal legibilities per unit of letter height.  (Series D, for example, is quoted as having a reading distance of 50 feet per inch of letter height.)  Restricting designers to a small range of officially approved traffic sign typefaces guarantees that the legibility of a sign can always be precisely characterized and will never fall below a floor implicit in MUTCD standards.

There is not a strict national requirement to use official FHWA alphabet series in Canada and as a result there is considerable typographic heterogeneity in some Canadian provinces, notably British Columbia.  This provides a substandard service to motorists--in BC particularly, it is hard to know whether a sign is official just by studying its typefaces; the judgment has to be based on whether the sign is clearly located in the right-of-way.

The legibility characteristics of signs are also inconsistent.  A sign becomes readable at a very far or a very short distance, depending on whether the FHWA alphabet series have been used or, if not, which generation and condensation level of the so-called "BC Font" has been used.  If you cannot count on motorists being able to read a sign from a given distance, you cannot manage the risk of dangerous lane-changing maneuvers being made in response to sign messages which are not understood until the absolute last moment.

[Duke87]

It's all in the name of the manual...uniform.  Uniformity of sign design isn't just in symbols, but in messages, sizes and fonts.  When non-standard fonts are used (and not used consistently) it makes a sign look "unofficial" an "unprofessional".

Inconsistency only looks bad when it's not the norm. Highway guide signs previously used FHWA Series EM pretty much exclusively, so the presense of Clearview or Helvetica or anything else on them becomes quite jarring. On the other hand, MTA's signage in the NYC subway is set exclusively in Helvetica. Seeing Highway Gothic there would be equally jarring!

Meanwhile, street signs always have looked wildly different from town to town, even within the same town, so "different" things don't really stand out so much.

I didn't even realize that these were Clearview until I went to get a picture of one:

I actually think they actually look kinda nice.
The key thing: because they're street signs, there isn't a single specific font I'd expect them to use. It was these signs that made me realize something: Clearview only looks ugly on guide signage because Highway Gothic is what's expected and anything else looks "wrong". In other applications where a similar expectation does not exist, it doesn't stand out and doesn't even necessarily look bad (c.f. the AllTell logo that was brought up a while back).  

[hbelkins]

*  Drivers need to be able to recognize signs as official traffic control devices regardless of which state they may be in.

I offer Georgia to you as the exception. Georgia's freeway signage, being a different weight of "Highway Gothic," makes it appear to be an entirely different font. However, after you've passed two or three exits in Georgia, you know all the signs are going to look that way.

I don't think it would be too difficult for a motorist to grasp that after he'd passed a handful of signs in Arial after entering a new state, that Arial was the font used in that state.

[J N Winkler]

I offer Georgia to you as the exception. Georgia's freeway signage, being a different weight of "Highway Gothic," makes it appear to be an entirely different font. However, after you've passed two or three exits in Georgia, you know all the signs are going to look that way.

The so-called "Georgia font" is not, in fact, a different typeface--it is just mixed-case Series D and so is one of the FHWA alphabet series.  GDOT uses it because it allows letter height to be increased from 16" uppercase/12" lowercase to 20" uppercase/15" lowercase on overhead guide signs without bumping into size constraints.  The legibility performance is no worse than Series E Modified at the usual 16" uppercase/12" lowercase height.

I don't think it would be too difficult for a motorist to grasp that after he'd passed a handful of signs in Arial after entering a new state, that Arial was the font used in that state.

If a state uses a typeface which offers worse legibility performance than the FHWA alphabet series, it is inconveniencing out-of-state drivers and thus interfering with interstate commerce.  A state could use Arial or another non-standard typeface only if it could convince FHWA that the standard heights adopted for design with that typeface would offer legibility performance equal to or better than that offered by the FHWA alphabet series at their standard heights.  That is the basis on which Clearview has been approved.  I don't think this could be done using Arial without increasing sign panel size to an extent most state DOTs would find economically unacceptable.

If you feel that strongly about a "states' rights" policy with regard to traffic sign typefaces, why not push for a state DOT to experiment with Arial and see what happens?

[agentsteel53]

why not push for a state DOT to experiment with Arial and see what happens?

I'd rather have Clearview.

or Wingdings.

[hbelkins]

I offer Georgia to you as the exception. Georgia's freeway signage, being a different weight of "Highway Gothic," makes it appear to be an entirely different font. However, after you've passed two or three exits in Georgia, you know all the signs are going to look that way.

The so-called "Georgia font" is not, in fact, a different typeface--it is just mixed-case Series D and so is one of the FHWA alphabet series.  GDOT uses it because it allows letter height to be increased from 16" uppercase/12" lowercase to 20" uppercase/15" lowercase on overhead guide signs without bumping into size constraints.  The legibility performance is no worse than Series E Modified at the usual 16" uppercase/12" lowercase height.

I don't think it would be too difficult for a motorist to grasp that after he'd passed a handful of signs in Arial after entering a new state, that Arial was the font used in that state.

If a state uses a typeface which offers worse legibility performance than the FHWA alphabet series, it is inconveniencing out-of-state drivers and thus interfering with interstate commerce.  A state could use Arial or another non-standard typeface only if it could convince FHWA that the standard heights adopted for design with that typeface would offer legibility performance equal to or better than that offered by the FHWA alphabet series at their standard heights.  That is the basis on which Clearview has been approved.  I don't think this could be done using Arial without increasing sign panel size to an extent most state DOTs would find economically unacceptable.

If you feel that strongly about a "states' rights" policy with regard to traffic sign typefaces, why not push for a state DOT to experiment with Arial and see what happens?

Duh. I know that the Georgia application isn't a different typeface. I said that. I also said that it appears to be a different typeface. I worked in the newspaper business for way too many years so I have more than a passing knowledge of fonts. But even I didn't know that it was just a different weight of "Highway Gothic" until somebody pointed it out on MTR a few years ago. Even to my trained eye it looks like an entirely different typeface than what you normally see on highway signs.

And I've heard of the interstate commerce clause justifying a lot of goofy things, but highway signage fonts? That's a stretch.

My point was, and remains, that state's shouldn't have to ask permission to use a different font. And I just threw Arial out there as an example. I could just as easily have said Helvetica or Franklin Gothic or New Century Schoolbook.

[J N Winkler]

Duh. I know that the Georgia application isn't a different typeface. I said that. I also said that it appears to be a different typeface. I worked in the newspaper business for way too many years so I have more than a passing knowledge of fonts. But even I didn't know that it was just a different weight of "Highway Gothic" until somebody pointed it out on MTR a few years ago. Even to my trained eye it looks like an entirely different typeface than what you normally see on highway signs.

Your newspaper experience should be telling you that the "Georgia font" isn't a "different weight" of the FHWA alphabet series.  The FHWA alphabet series is a typeface family and mixed-case Series D is a typeface in its own right within that family.  Only Series E Modified is properly described as a different weight, since it is a bolded version of Series E.

BTW, it's lucky Richard Moeur isn't around to jump down your throat for using the "Highway Gothic" term.

And I've heard of the interstate commerce clause justifying a lot of goofy things, but highway signage fonts? That's a stretch.

Is it really?  Why so?

My point was, and remains, that states shouldn't have to ask permission to use a different font. And I just threw Arial out there as an example. I could just as easily have said Helvetica or Franklin Gothic or New Century Schoolbook.

Doesn't matter what the typeface is--if signs designed using it do not provide service equal to or better than that provided by the FHWA alphabet series or other FHWA-approved substitutes, then FHWA has not only the legal right but also the moral imperative to intervene.

My point stands:  if you object so strongly to the federal mandate to use federally approved typefaces, why don't you push KyTC (or any other state DOT) to adopt a different typeface?  If you want to get rid of a noxious federal mandate, you have to push against it somewhere.  Kentucky could try with Arial what South Dakota did with abortion.

[agentsteel53]

Kentucky could try with Arial what South Dakota did with abortion.

a lot of states could try with Clearview what South Dakota did with abortion - namely, ban it.

of course, then we'd have all kinds of desperate folks surreptitiously installing Clearview signs in back alleys and what have you ...

[agentsteel53]

besides, a lot of states somehow get away with violations of the federal standard.  CA for example uses 1961-spec shields - cutout US and state markers, and small-number interstates.  Ohio, on the other hand, put up neutered interstate shields with huge numbers as early as 1959.

New Mexico, ahem, does a lot of strange things.

I don't know why Florida had the feds come down hard on them for the colored US markers; there are violations everywhere.  

[hbelkins]

Morality expressed through a font on road signs? (rolls eyes and throws up hands...)

[Michael]

Credit: Gribblenation

Need I say more?

[J N Winkler]

My point is that whether or not it is considered significant enough to justify the cost of enforcement action (which can entail litigation in federal court), there is a federal interest in traffic signing which provides an uniform minimum level of service nationally.  This federal interest derives from the interstate commerce clause.  The easiest way to guarantee this minimum level of service with regard to text legends is to specify layouts of signs and typefaces that are approved for use on those signs, but from the standpoint of interstate commerce a state can legitimately use a different typeface and different sign sizing rules so long as the combination of the two can be shown not to provide a worse level of service to motorists than the vanilla MUTCD implementation.  This is why I suggest pushing for Arial (or some other nonstandard typeface) and seeing what happens--if the lack of flexibility over choice of typeface is so objectionable, why not actually do something about it instead of fussing about it on a Web forum?

States' rights is a double-edged sword.  You might not like Clearview, or even the FHWA alphabet series for that matter, but what if a state adopted a typeface which you liked a lot less than either and there was no comeback?  Wingdings would be easy to exclude on functional grounds, but the case would be less clear-cut for, say, Helvetica, Arial, Univers, Frutiger, and Gill Sans--all of which have some history of use as display typefaces--not to mention Times New Roman, Baskerton, Garamond, Optima, even Palatino.

[Hellfighter]

Wait for the day when some state starts using Comic Sams MS for a font! 

[hbelkins]

.  This is why I suggest pushing for Arial (or some other nonstandard typeface) and seeing what happens--if the lack of flexibility over choice of typeface is so objectionable, why not actually do something about it instead of fussing about it on a Web forum?

Because I know how that game is played. Let's say Kentucky starts putting up signs on I-71 using Univers. The feds squawk and tell them to change the signs or lose highway funding. The state submits.

We have something similar going on regarding billboards on private property. An unpermitted billboard for a noncommercial entity (a church message saying "Hell is Real") was ordered to be removed from property adjacent to I-65. The legislator for that area filed a bill to exempt that type of billboard from the state permitting process. The feds said such a law would jeopardize funding because it fan afoul of the Lady Bird Johnson Memorial Act (or whatever the law is called). The legislature failed to move the bill.

My contention is why should a private property owner not be allowed to erect a billboard or lease space to an outdoor advertising company if he wants. Why should the federal government's jurisdiction over state highways expand to private property next to the road?

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm just not a fan of the government (especially the feds) dictating minutiae on stuff like fonts on signs.

[J N Winkler]

Because I know how that game is played. Let's say Kentucky starts putting up signs on I-71 using Univers. The feds squawk and tell them to change the signs or lose highway funding. The state submits.

It doesn't have to work that way--there is an experimentation process in the MUTCD that can be pursued.  (Of course you could reject that, but that war was lost in 1865.)

We have something similar going on regarding billboards on private property. An unpermitted billboard for a noncommercial entity (a church message saying "Hell is Real") was ordered to be removed from property adjacent to I-65. The legislator for that area filed a bill to exempt that type of billboard from the state permitting process. The feds said such a law would jeopardize funding because it fan afoul of the Lady Bird Johnson Memorial Act (or whatever the law is called). The legislature failed to move the bill.

It is called the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and it sounds like the system worked exactly like it should.

My contention is why should a private property owner not be allowed to erect a billboard or lease space to an outdoor advertising company if he wants. Why should the federal government's jurisdiction over state highways expand to private property next to the road?

These are really two separate questions:  the landowner's right to do with his property as he pleases, and federal versus state jurisdiction.  In regard to the first, it is well established in the common law that certain abuses of land (e.g., nuisance, loss of ancient lights, etc.) are tortious.  Government intervention has developed because, in complex societies, it is often more economically efficient to curb the tortious behavior through regulation rather than legal actions among private parties.

In regard to federal jurisdiction, the federal government did not actually say that Kentucky couldn't allow the nonconforming billboard.  Kentucky could very well have gone ahead and taken the financial hit.  As AlpsROADS said in a different context, the federal government is under no obligation to fund your roads.  The Spending Clause gives Congress the power to make appropriations for highway purposes contingent on compliance with the HBA.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm just not a fan of the government (especially the feds) dictating minutiae on stuff like fonts on signs.

You are going to have to agree to disagree with an awful lot of people.  This is the way the system has developed; you will just have to deal with it.

[Android]

I don't mind Helvetica (or the Microsoft bastardization of it, Arial), but not on road signs.  I've seen it used here and there, mostly on street signs in private subdivisions and the occasional speed limit sign, and well, it works but looks just totally wrong to me. The old "TV or Movie Sign" syndrome.  Clearview is a little bit better - the further away I see a CV sign the better it looks to me.  As I mentioned several pages back here, I was coming into Cheyenne a while back and saw one of the new CV signs way off ahead of me and initially thought it was in E(M)!   My opinion though is - please, let's keep Helvetica and other typefaces where they belong - on business signage and not on official guide and street signs. 

Mr Winkler - I do thank you for one thing - for being one of the few people who uses the terms "typeface" and "font" correctly.    It's gotten so bad in the way people misuse the term font that I don't even bother anymore trying to tell them otherwise.

[Scott5114]

Okay, let's spin it around the other way: How would it benefit the general public (provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, etc etc) if the states could pick their own typefaces?

[shoptb1]

We have something similar going on regarding billboards on private property. An unpermitted billboard for a noncommercial entity (a church message saying "Hell is Real") was ordered to be removed from property adjacent to I-65.

We have one of those in Ohio on southbound I-71 just south of Columbus....I thought perhaps that was the official mileage sign to Cincinnati 

"Hell is Real....and you're only 75 miles from the fun!"

[hbelkins]

Okay, let's spin it around the other way: How would it benefit the general public (provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, etc etc) if the states could pick their own typefaces?

Well it would leave the decision to the states, which is what Enumerated Powers is all about. Those things you mention are functions of the federal government.

[shoptb1]

Well it would leave the decision to the states, which is what Enumerated Powers is all about. Those things you mention are functions of the federal government.

Like it or not, the idea of the individual US states having a greater level of autonomy with regards to the US federal government was effectively forever changed in 1865 with the result of the American Civil War.  I chuckle to myself when someone mentions "<insert issue here> is not what the founding fathers had in mind..."   The United States of the 20th/21st century is NOT what the founding fathers had in mind as their idea was clearly a government where the individual states had more authority than that of the federal government (the binding entity...the "Union").  When it was made clear that individual states did not have a choice to secede from the Union by the victory of the Union over the Confederacy, the federal government assumed a superior role over that of the individual states, which has (by precedent) continued to be strengthened over the course of the last 150 years.  

I'm not saying that this country is better or worse off by this change, just merely stating that it is markedly different from what was originally designed at a conceptual level.   I think there's this grand idea of what the United States should be, and there's a reality of what it actually is.  I think it's time that we as Americans stop mixing the vision and the reality and face what we have, for better or worse.

[J N Winkler]

Well it would leave the decision to the states, which is what Enumerated Powers is all about. Those things you mention are functions of the federal government.

Congress has the power to (1) regulate interstate commerce, (2) establish post offices and post roads, and (3) pass any laws that are necessary and proper for the execution of (1) and (2).  Enumerated powers! 

Anyway, while we are on this originalist sidetrack, I have a head-scratcher:  is a President allowed to resign?

[Scott5114]

Okay, let's spin it around the other way: How would it benefit the general public (provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, etc etc) if the states could pick their own typefaces?

Well it would leave the decision to the states, which is what Enumerated Powers is all about. Those things you mention are functions of the federal government.

But why do we leave decisions to the states? Yes, because the Constitution says so, but that's just an appeal to authority, so let's go beyond that. Fundamentally, the reason for federalism is because a government limited to a local area knows that area best and can look out for its interests best. Oklahoma is going to need different laws and structure than Massachusetts because the land, the people, the economic activity is different between those two states. Massachusetts can get along just fine with lots of townships and no county government. Oklahoma has lots of empty space so it needs counties. Also, the funding balance is going to be different. Oklahoma's Department of Agriculture is going to take up more of its budget than Massachusetts' is going to. This is, in essence, an example of what states are for.

But road sign fonts are not something that benefits from local differences. A font that is visible from X miles away in Kansas is going to have the same characteristics in Kentucky. Pragmatically, there is no benefit to allowing states to choose their own fonts. It might make the state government happy to have power the US government doesn't, but who benefits from that? And if states discover something better than FHWA Series or Clearview, then they ask FHWA for permission to experiment with it, so FHWA learns about it, and should the experiments bear fruit, then FHWA is in position to benefit the other 49 states by sharing this knowledge with them via the MUTCD. Far fetched? It's exactly what happened with Clearview.

Besides, H.B., do you really want Steve Beshear picking your state's fonts?

[agentsteel53]

is a President allowed to resign?

only if he uses state-named shields.