The Worst of Road Signs

[Alps]

A few from Baton Rouge:

Ewwwwwwwwwwwww. Ew Ew EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.

<--- the RIGHT way

[vtk]

Personally, I think the *B variants of Clearview look fine in negative contrast (for which they were designed). If FHWA won't approve that, they might as well abolish Clearview.

[PurdueBill]

FHWA states that the research shows that negative contrast Clearview is less legible than the traditional typeface.  Maybe they can include those new LA signs on their page and shame LA a little. 

[PurdueBill]

Related to just above, here are a couple recent installs on US 30 near Bucyrus, Ohio.  The bypass of Bucyrus had been around long before the connecting freeway/expressway stretches between Bucyrus and Mansfield, and Bucyrus and Upper Sandusky opened, so it was an island of button copy surrounded by reflective lettering.  That changed within the last year and a half.  Bad, bad Clearview implementation in places; several signs have fractions laid out wrong (while others have it OK).  Statewide you see these old-format blue signs for HOSPITAL or HWY PATROL on one line with NEXT RIGHT below, dating back to button copy.  Sometimes there would be an add-on above.  Of course, what did they do in the replacement?  Carbon-copy the old sign instead of making it one sign (with double border, sigh)--and in all-caps Clearview (which FHWA frowns on--they state that if it's all caps, it should be in traditional lettering).  Of course, ODOT or its contractors are probably saying "screw it, we paid for the license for Clearview, we're going to use it!"  At least Ohio is generally good about route shields and negative contrast (although the latter has popped up here and there but not in epidemic proportions).

[InterstateNG]

Michigan:
I-94: Exits 108, 194 (C/D ramps)
I-69: Exit 38 (C/D ramps)

Oddly, Exit 180 for I-94 (US-23) is an A-B in both directions, even with the C-D setup EB.

[Scott5114]

At least we can't get on LA's case on the Interstate shield...I-shields are positive contrast, after all.

[PurdueBill]

At least we can't get on LA's case on the Interstate shield...I-shields are positive contrast, after all.

We can based on their guidance that it not be used in shields, positive or negative contrast. 
(Seriously, if it's not supposed to be used in so many places, then why use it at all?)

[Scott5114]

Wow, reading that FAQ it sounds like FHWA doesn't really like Clearview much at all. Wonder if they'll end up revoking the Interim Approval?

[Alps]

Wow, reading that FAQ it sounds like FHWA doesn't really like Clearview much at all. Wonder if they'll end up revoking the Interim Approval?

Most of them hate it, but one or two very influential people feel otherwise.

[Brandon]

Wow, reading that FAQ it sounds like FHWA doesn't really like Clearview much at all. Wonder if they'll end up revoking the Interim Approval?

If they do, I can think of a lot of new signage around here that will need to replaced.  And that even includes a lot of positive contrast signage.

[Scott5114]

Wow, reading that FAQ it sounds like FHWA doesn't really like Clearview much at all. Wonder if they'll end up revoking the Interim Approval?

If they do, I can think of a lot of new signage around here that will need to replaced.  And that even includes a lot of positive contrast signage.

I imagine that in the event it were revoked existing signage, since there is a lot of it, would be allowed to stand until it otherwise needed to be replaced.

And then there would be a spate of roadgeeks crashing cars into signs...

[vtk]

FHWA states that the research shows that negative contrast Clearview is less legible than the traditional typeface. 

No, from what I understand, they only found that Clearview (presumably 5B) is not more legible than FHWA (presumably E(M)) in negative contrast.  I doubt they tested any *B Clearview against non-(M) FHWA in negative contrast; and in positive contrast, as far as I know they only found "no improvement".  While I can see the reasoning behind not recommending Clearview where it performs similarly to the standard alphabets, I find it strange that FHWA is outright disallowing it in those cases.

What is needed is more-complete testing.  In positive-contrast, compare 5WR against E(M) against E, with adjustments for spacing and loop height to make it fair. (For example, 16" 5WR versus 18.67" E(M) to match loop height, versus 18.67" E with extra intercharacter spacing to match E(M) and 5WR's overall width.) In negative-contrast, compare 5B against E(M) against E, again with appropriate adjustments. Then do the same comparisons with the other widths (making (M) variants of the other standard alphabets). 

Maybe Clearview isn't better than the standard alphabets at all, all things being equal. But I don't think it's that much worse.  And if Clearview is dismissed, I think the standard alphabets can be improved with some Clearview-like characteristics. Just make the darn signs bigger for more legibility (which is what 5W effectively does anyway). Use a bolder variant for negative-contrast, and a lighter variant (with more intercharacter spacing) for positive-contrast, to counter halation. And tell old folks if they can't read the signs at night, then they shouldn't drive at night!

[dfilpus]

Look at the skid marks on the bicycle. Not only is it sliding sideways, but it is sliding backwards.

[PurdueBill]

FHWA states that the research shows that negative contrast Clearview is less legible than the traditional typeface. 

No, from what I understand, they only found that Clearview (presumably 5B) is not more legible than FHWA (presumably E(M)) in negative contrast.  I doubt they tested any *B Clearview against non-(M) FHWA in negative contrast; and in positive contrast, as far as I know they only found "no improvement".  While I can see the reasoning behind not recommending Clearview where it performs similarly to the standard alphabets, I find it strange that FHWA is outright disallowing it in those cases.

I'm just going by what the linked document says, accompanied by the photos of Bad Clearview.  They assert that at least some research has been done on Clearview counterparts to other than E(M) and it was less legible.

The use of Clearview as an alternative to the Standard Alphabets is allowed only on positive-contrast (white legend on a green, blue, or brown background) guide signs, as this contrast orientation is the only one that has demonstrated an improvement in legibility distance to date for those legends composed of upper- and lower-case letters when using specific series of Clearview lettering. The use of Clearview in negative-contrast color orientations, such as on regulatory and warning signs, has been shown to decrease legibility distance when compared with the FHWA Standard Alphabet series.

Standard signs (except those with variable destination legends displayed in upper- and lower-case letters) shall retain their distinct designs using the FHWA Standard Alphabets and shall not be redesigned to employ an alternative alphabet, regardless of contrast orientation. The narrower series of Clearview that would typically be used for standard sign legends did not provide for longer legibility distances. For example, 3-W was found to be less legible than the comparable Series D of the Standard Alphabets. Route signs shall continue to use the FHWA Standard Alphabets for numerals and letters.

[J N Winkler]

No, from what I understand, they only found that Clearview (presumably 5B) is not more legible than FHWA (presumably E(M)) in negative contrast.  I doubt they tested any *B Clearview against non-(M) FHWA in negative contrast; and in positive contrast, as far as I know they only found "no improvement".  While I can see the reasoning behind not recommending Clearview where it performs similarly to the standard alphabets, I find it strange that FHWA is outright disallowing it in those cases.

Frankly, I don't.  FHWA has some interest in preserving typeface uniformity since that indirectly aids motorist recognition of signs (not just comprehension of the sign messages but also interpretation of the signs as official traffic control devices).  This is why I would not expect FHWA to allow any alternatives to the FHWA alphabet series unless they were shown to have a significant advantage--not just parity of performance.  Note what the FAQ says:  "Changes to the MUTCD are made to improve traffic control devices, not to offer equivalent alternatives."  What really surprises me is that FHWA's interim authorization of Clearview covers all the W series in positive contrast (aside from non-designable signs, which is why Interstate markers and other shields with digits in positive contrast are not supposed to have Clearview digits), even though the test results published prior to the interim authorization focused almost exclusively on the 5-W glyphs.  Now, in the new Clearview FAQ, FHWA says that some of the more condensed W series offer legibility performance inferior to the equivalent FHWA alphabet series (the case of Series D versus Clearview 3-W is mentioned specifically).  I am not aware that those findings have been published.

The FAQ now discourages the use of Clearview alphabets other than 5-W and 5-W-R even though these are, in the terms of the Interim Approval memorandum issued in 2004, still permitted for guide-sign use.

What is needed is more-complete testing.  In positive-contrast, compare 5WR against E(M) against E, with adjustments for spacing and loop height to make it fair. (For example, 16" 5WR versus 18.67" E(M) to match loop height, versus 18.67" E with extra intercharacter spacing to match E(M) and 5WR's overall width.) In negative-contrast, compare 5B against E(M) against E, again with appropriate adjustments. Then do the same comparisons with the other widths (making (M) variants of the other standard alphabets).

Why should loop height be controlled for in a test to be "fair" to one set of alphabets or the other?  Surely it would make more sense to investigate the effect of lowercase loop height on overall legibility of the typeface.  Also, within the context of traffic signing research, the concern is generally not to be "fair" to one alphabet or another--we have been here before, not just with Clearview versus the FHWA alphabet series, but also with Transport Medium versus the Kindersley font in the early 1960's.  Fairness really has no place in what is essentially a matter of personal taste.  Rather, the principal aim, and the justification for spending money on research, is to maximize the distance at which a sign panel of fixed size can be read.

Maybe Clearview isn't better than the standard alphabets at all, all things being equal. But I don't think it's that much worse.  And if Clearview is dismissed, I think the standard alphabets can be improved with some Clearview-like characteristics.

I think the ceteris paribus condition is harder to define than that.

Just make the darn signs bigger for more legibility (which is what 5W effectively does anyway).

Making the signs bigger is expensive if it forces sign structures to be replaced to accommodate wind-loading requirements.  One of the drivers for Clearview adoption was the desire to avoid the costs associated with the alternative of increasing letter size one step (from 16" UC/12" LC to 20" UC/15" LC).  Aside from the added cost of larger sign panels, other constraints like lane width bear much more heavily on 20" UC/15" LC than 16" UC/12" LC.

Georgia DOT tried to square this circle by using Series D at 20" UC/15" LC size on overhead guide signs, instead of Series E Modified at 16" UC/12" LC.  Nobody followed their lead and now the Series D signs are being replaced with Series E Modified signs.  In the absence of a comparison between the two under controlled conditions (if one has been carried out, I am not aware that it has been published), this change in design practice is telling.

Use a bolder variant for negative-contrast, and a lighter variant (with more intercharacter spacing) for positive-contrast, to counter halation.

I am not aware a comparison (say, Series E versus Series E Modified) has been carried out under controlled conditions with results subsequently published.  Such a test does have the potential to give meaningful results:  for example, France, Great Britain, and Sweden all re-weigh traffic sign typefaces to accommodate light and dark backgrounds.

I have a suspicion, however, that the isolation of the few examples of Series E signs out there is an indication that there are no big legibility bonanzas to be had from using Series E in lieu of Series E Modified.

And tell old folks if they can't read the signs at night, then they shouldn't drive at night!

"There is this new typeface that might allow you to keep driving a little longer, but the advantages to it are not that great, and we like the look of the existing typeface better, so we are keeping it even though it disadvantages you."  Would you like to pitch that line that at a senior center sometime?  Keep in mind that the World War II generation (which was accustomed to the idea of sacrifice for the greater good) is now almost gone, so you would be dealing with baby boomers and their sense of entitlement.

[Scott5114]

What is needed is more-complete testing.  In positive-contrast, compare 5WR against E(M) against E, with adjustments for spacing and loop height to make it fair. (For example, 16" 5WR versus 18.67" E(M) to match loop height, versus 18.67" E with extra intercharacter spacing to match E(M) and 5WR's overall width.) In negative-contrast, compare 5B against E(M) against E, again with appropriate adjustments. Then do the same comparisons with the other widths (making (M) variants of the other standard alphabets).

Why should loop height be controlled for in a test to be "fair" to one set of alphabets or the other?  Surely it would make more sense to investigate the effect of lowercase loop height on overall legibility of the typeface.  Also, within the context of traffic signing research, the concern is generally not to be "fair" to one alphabet or another--we have been here before, not just with Clearview versus the FHWA alphabet series, but also with Transport Medium versus the Kindersley font in the early 1960's.  Fairness really has no place in what is essentially a matter of personal taste.  Rather, the principal aim, and the justification for spending money on research, is to maximize the distance at which a sign panel of fixed size can be read.

I think "fair" is not exactly the best word to use in this case. After all, we are not going to hurt the FHWA Series fonts' feelings if we replace them. Rather, I think what vtk is advocating is that any research carried out is conducted scientifically, and adequately compares FHWA Series fonts on a level playing field to the Clearview fonts. An experiment is no good if you make more than one change from the control group (in this case, FHWA fonts)–if you change the size and the font, how do you know if the improved results are actually a function of Clearview and not the increased size?

An important thing for researchers to remember here is that Clearview licenses are not cheap–the FHWA Series fonts are a sunk cost for many jurisdictions. With the fracas that we got in the press over the perceived wastefulness of having to replace signs to change to mixed case (which we know isn't the real reason), it's really disingenuous to try to sell Clearview licenses with claims of efficacy based on spurious research that started with the FHWA fonts having a disadvantage. Of course, this is not really an issue for state DOTs, many of which already have Clearview licenses (which are a very small item in the grand scheme of their budget) and can in a way amortize the cost over many thousands of signs, but for smaller city and county governments, often times every dollar counts. (And this is only considering the license fee itself, not any ancillary fees that might be caused purchasing plugins for sign design software or training operators to design proper Clearview signage.)

[J N Winkler]

I think "fair" is not exactly the best word to use in this case. After all, we are not going to hurt the FHWA Series fonts' feelings if we replace them. Rather, I think what vtk is advocating is that any research carried out is conducted scientifically, and adequately compares FHWA Series fonts on a level playing field to the Clearview fonts. An experiment is no good if you make more than one change from the control group (in this case, FHWA fonts)–if you change the size and the font, how do you know if the improved results are actually a function of Clearview and not the increased size?

The typefaces themselves are inanimate objects and so do not have feelings to worry about--any concerns about fairness (or otherwise) are likely to be held by their proponents.  As to the testing Vtk suggests, I think it matters what the purpose is.  If the intent is to study the parameters which govern an optimum choice of lowercase loop height as a proportion of uppercase letter height, then I don't think any objections could be made on the basis of fairness.  If it is to choose among Series E, Series E Modified, and Clearview 5-W-R, then insisting on comparison on the basis of uniform lowercase loop height is the same as putting a finger in the scale in favor of Series E Modified.  Unlike Series E Modified, which originally consisted of an uppercase alphabet used in conjunction with a separate lowercase alphabet which could also be used with Series D at a different height ratio, each Clearview alphabet has been designed as an unit with the forms and proportions of uppercase and lowercase letters carefully matched to each other.

Basically, I think manipulating the lowercase loop height of a given Clearview typeface (5-W, say) to see if there is some "essence" to Clearview that justifies using it instead of the FHWA alphabet series (or, given the bent of the Clearview critics on this board, proving that there is no such "essence") is fundamentally a metaphysical project.  It is certainly hard, if not impossible, to reduce to a clear hypothesis which can be tested empirically by measuring observable parameters.  (There is actually a PhD dissertation somewhere on the Web dealing with the problem of optimizing traffic sign typefaces for legibility--it's been a while since I looked at it, but the gist I got was that it compares in complexity to the many-body problem because many factors work together to determine legibility and changing one parameter changes several others, so it is hard to work out a consistent progression to an optimum.)

More prosaically, traffic sign research (including research into the legibility of sign typefaces) is applied research.  You do it to get results you can take out into the real world and start using right away.  So the focus in legibility studies has traditionally been on identifying which of several typefaces under consideration makes the most efficient use of sign area.  The candidates are generally tested "off the rack," so to speak--they may be tweaked to improve the results, but those doing the testing generally do not have the interest, expertise, or resource to attempt bottom-up redesign.

An important thing for researchers to remember here is that Clearview licenses are not cheap–the FHWA Series fonts are a sunk cost for many jurisdictions. With the fracas that we got in the press over the perceived wastefulness of having to replace signs to change to mixed case (which we know isn't the real reason), it's really disingenuous to try to sell Clearview licenses with claims of efficacy based on spurious research that started with the FHWA fonts having a disadvantage.

I'd dispute that last point.  I have seen some of the original work on Clearview, including Gene Hawkins' study for TTI (which I believe is still available on the Web), and I would not characterize it as spurious at all.  The methodology was basically sound:  Clearview 5-W and Series E Modified were compared on a single test sign, at identical capital letter height, in identical combinations of lighting and sheeting type, and using a group of testers with more or less the same age distribution as the population at large.  The results showed that Clearview had a legibility advantage over Series E Modified which strengthened when microprismatic sheeting was used (instead of enclosed-lens or encapsulated-lens sheeting) and with increasing age of the driver.

I am very suspicious of the material pushed out by the Clearview designers, and in view of all the problems that have been encountered with Clearview in practice I would not consider Hawkins' study by itself a strong argument in favor of changing over to Clearview.  Nevertheless there is solid research out there, using both Series E Modified and Clearview as they are designed to be used in the real world, which shows that Clearview 5-W and 5-W-R at least have certain definite strengths.

As an aside, Hawkins' methodology has much in common with that used by the Road Research Laboratory in comparing the Kindersley typeface with what eventually became Transport Medium.  The RRL found, and reported, that the Kindersley typeface had a modest legibility advantage of about 3% when used on sign panels with relatively narrow margins.  (The Kindersley typeface was all-uppercase with serifs, and in Britain is still quite popular for street name signs, which are not regulated by TSRGD the way US street name signs are regulated by the MUTCD.)

Of course, this is not really an issue for state DOTs, many of which already have Clearview licenses (which are a very small item in the grand scheme of their budget) and can in a way amortize the cost over many thousands of signs, but for smaller city and county governments, often times every dollar counts. (And this is only considering the license fee itself, not any ancillary fees that might be caused purchasing plugins for sign design software or training operators to design proper Clearview signage.)

I think cost is exaggerated as a reason not to change over to Clearview.  For starters, many local agencies don't do traffic design within their own organizations; quite often this is done for them by the state DOT through a local assistance program.  (Indiana DOT, for example, has been advertising large sign modernization contracts which essentially change out all the street name blades in a given community or even county.)  Local agencies which produce pattern-accurate signing plans (for which you do need a Clearview font license) are very much in the minority.  And although the FHWA alphabet series have been around since shortly after World War II, the lowercase letters are much more recent and fonts containing them are not supplied to the trade free of charge.

Given the empirical evidence of 5-W's legibility advantages, I don't think Clearview is at serious risk of being displaced by alternatives like vanilla Series E or as-yet-undeveloped versions of Series E or E Modified with manipulated glyphs or altered lowercase loop height.  I also doubt the licensing fee issue is an important consideration even for the smaller agencies--it is for private-sector sign designers and sign manufacturers, but they also have the ability to amortize across orders from multiple agencies.  Clearview's vulnerabilities are still the ones we have identified over time:  (1) clumsy digits; (2) lack of an easy uppercase/lowercase ratio (like 4:3 in the case of the FHWA alphabet series), leading to size mismatches between uppercase and lowercase letters; (3) odd and hard-to-work-with distribution of ascender heights, leading to frequent line spacing problems; (4) no advantage over similar FHWA alphabet series (and presumptive inferiority) in positive contrast aside from 5-W, and none at all in negative contrast; and (5) no advantage for all-uppercase legends.

For some agencies the benefits (especially for older drivers) will be worth the finickiness, and the latter can be controlled somewhat through good quality assurance processes.  There is a reason, for example, why TxDOT and Arizona DOT have little trouble producing clean Clearview sign designs, while many PennDOT districts have enormous problems with much smaller numbers of sign designs.

[Android]

Maybe it's just me, but shouldn't all of this back and forth about how good CV is or isn't, belong in CLEARVIEW THREAD ? 

[CentralCAroadgeek]

From the "Longest Distances On A Road Sign" thread:

Seen in Morgan Hill, CA.
Even though it has a long mileage shown, they just couldn't get the fonts right. Or at least get a bigger sign.

[vtk]

I wasn't trying to suggest altering the caps-height-to-loop-height ratio of either family of fonts.  I was saying that, because Clearview's proportions are different, Clearview 5W mixed-case text is generally bigger than E(M) text at the same "size" (measured by caps height).  It's the lowercase loop height that largely determines the perceived size of text (hence the font-size-adjust property in CSS, which changes the overall size of a replacement font to achieve the same loop height as a missing specified font).  Besides perceived size, Clearview's ascenders and descenders are larger than in the standard alphabets at the same caps-height, and Clearview (especially 5W) has a lot of built-in intercharacter spacing, so Clearview 5W takes up a bit more space than E(M).  The size adjustment I suggested to make the comparison "fair" should be applied to uppercase and lowercase letters alike, preserving each family's existing proportions; the purpose of the adjustment is to make much more equal both the perceived size of the text and the amount of sign space used.  (And actually I think the winner would be E or 5W, not E(M) – but I can't be sure unless legibility tests are carried out.)

The more I think/read/discuss about this, the more I think Clearview 5W's superiority over E(M) has been overstated.  Yes it's easier to read, but that's because it's bigger. When it fits in the same space as the E(M), E, or D text it replaced, is it still an improvement?

[PurdueBill]

That's the feeling I have too--that Clearview seems to be larger on the signs where it replaced E(M) so of course it will be easier to read. 
On I-77 south of Akron they replaced button copy with Clearview almost 3 years ago; I got some pictures during the process.  I did a comparison of signs on one gantry and what do you know--the word "Airport" on the new sign is larger.  In the first composite, I pasted the Clearview word over the button-copy one; the second has the button-copy word pasted over the Clearview one, and note that it doesn't even manage to cover it completely, making clear that the Clearview is larger, and the last is the undoctored side-by-side pair of signs.  While there was evidently some public comment about the new signs being easier to read, and that was taken as praise for Clearview, how can they be sure when the new text is larger? 



As an aside, the left sign is a candidate for the "longest distance on an exit advance sign" thread as well. 

On the Worst of Signs topic, this sequence shows the old and new (2008) signs on OH 21 approaching I-77.  The center sign was evidently too ugly to live, as it was replaced with the one pictured at the bottom after not too long.  Why was everything so huge on that sign in the first place?

[J N Winkler]

I wasn't trying to suggest altering the caps-height-to-loop-height ratio of either family of fonts.  I was saying that, because Clearview's proportions are different, Clearview 5W mixed-case text is generally bigger than E(M) text at the same "size" (measured by caps height).  It's the lowercase loop height that largely determines the perceived size of text (hence the font-size-adjust property in CSS, which changes the overall size of a replacement font to achieve the same loop height as a missing specified font).  Besides perceived size, Clearview's ascenders and descenders are larger than in the standard alphabets at the same caps-height, and Clearview (especially 5W) has a lot of built-in intercharacter spacing, so Clearview 5W takes up a bit more space than E(M).  The size adjustment I suggested to make the comparison "fair" should be applied to uppercase and lowercase letters alike, preserving each family's existing proportions; the purpose of the adjustment is to make much more equal both the perceived size of the text and the amount of sign space used.  (And actually I think the winner would be E or 5W, not E(M) – but I can't be sure unless legibility tests are carried out.)

I see what you mean now.  I guess my question now would be:  how would a comparison of 5-W with Series E Modified with all letter heights proportionally adjusted so that lowercase loop height matches that of the 5-W sample be different from a comparison of Series E Modified and Clearview 5-W-R at the same capital letter height?

The more I think/read/discuss about this, the more I think Clearview 5W's superiority over E(M) has been overstated.  Yes it's easier to read, but that's because it's bigger. When it fits in the same space as the E(M), E, or D text it replaced, is it still an improvement?

In the case of 5-W-R versus Series E Modified, then yes, it is an improvement.  (5-W-R is designed to occupy the same sign panel area as Series E Modified.)  You could try to achieve a similar result by increasing E Modified letter height while retaining legend on the same baselines so that the lowercase loop height matches that of Clearview 5-W/5-W-R, but the result would have reduced interline spacing and overall sign panel size would be larger since the sign panel would be wider (unless you also reduced the intercharacter spacing for the E Modified legend, which is not a good idea given its propensity for halation).  Using Series E instead of E Modified might allow you to retain (almost) the same sign panel area since it has less intercharacter spacing than E Modified, but past research has shown its unit legibility to be somewhat less than that of E Modified, so it might not be competitive with Clearview 5-W or 5-W-R.  (This is not to say that the study shouldn't be done; I have long suspected that the nominal unit legibilities for the FHWA series I have seen given in design guidance date from the enclosed-lens era and are not the result of controlled experimentation with different sheeting types, different ages of observer, etc.)

It is also worth asking to what extent the rules for sign composition are justified by research.  Setting interline spacing equal to lowercase loop height is a very convenient rule to follow, but I am not aware it has been fixed by research.  The same is true of the space cushion between legend block and inner border (lowercase loop height vertically, capital letter height horizontally).  We also have one spacing rule for D-series signs (capital letter height all around) and another for freeway/expressway guide signs.  Various state DOTs break these rules with impunity, sometimes on individual signs and sometimes in their engineering standard documents, and there seems to be little to no measurable impairment to traffic service.  In Britain the Road Research Laboratory made some attempts to optimize "padding" of blank space in the early 1960's, as part of the Transport Medium/Kindersley font controversy (part of the initial inspiration for David Kindersley's complaints was "motorway signs as big as houses," which was almost literally true since the square footages of the early experimental signs approximated the floor square footages of individual rooms in houses), but I know of no comparable investigations in the US.

[1995hoo]

I've developed a dislike for this recently-posted sign on the Beltway in Virginia because it offends the grammar/punctuation Nazi in me. The word "and" is not normally capitalized and it looks funny on this sign. The word "Visitors" should have an apostrophe, too. But it's the word "and" that really bugs me and, in my opinion, makes this sign look ugly.

[myosh_tino]

From the "Longest Distances On A Road Sign" thread:

Seen in Morgan Hill, CA.
Even though it has a long mileage shown, they just couldn't get the fonts right. Or at least get a bigger sign.

The Coyote Cr Golf Dr (Coyote Creek Golf Drive) exit was originally signed as Scheller Avenue.  When the name was changed with the opening of the Coyote Creek Golf Course, a greenout plate was used to change the sign.  Of course "Coyote Cr Golf Dr" is substantially longer than "Scheller Ave" which is why the letter heights were reduced to make it fit on the exiting sign.  The sign in your photograph is a new sign but appears to be a carbon-copy of the old sign and I suspect the contractor recycled the support structure (the mounting hardware on the overpass) which is why the sign could not be enlarged.

[Kacie Jane]

The Coyote Cr Golf Dr (Coyote Creek Golf Drive) exit was originally signed as Scheller Avenue.  When the name was changed with the opening of the Coyote Creek Golf Course, a greenout plate was used to change the sign.  Of course "Coyote Cr Golf Dr" is substantially longer than "Scheller Ave" which is why the letter heights were reduced to make it fit on the exiting sign.  The sign in your photograph is a new sign but appears to be a carbon-copy of the old sign and I suspect the contractor recycled the support structure (the mounting hardware on the overpass) which is why the sign could not be enlarged.

"Because it's easier" is not a valid excuse in my book.
"Because it's cheaper" is a lame excuse, but if it's significantly (insert arbitrary number here) cheaper, may be a valid one.

In other words, there may be a reason behind it, but it's still a definitively ugly sign.