Improvements in Surface Transportation Signing
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Improvements in Surface Transportation Signing A chronological overview of designs, research and field studies that includes the development of the Clearview type system and related application concepts to improve the consistency, performance, and visual quality of traffic control devices. Prepared for: Mr. Gregory Nadeau Mr. Mark Kehrli Administrator Director Office of the Administrator Transportation Operations Federal Highway Administration Federal Highway Administration Mr. Jeffrey Lindley Mr. Kevin Sylvester Associate Administrator MUTCD Office Office of Operations Federal Highway Administration Federal Highway Administration Prepared by: March 21, 2016 Donald T. Meeker, F. SEGD Meeker & Associates, Inc. Larchmont, NY This body of work started at this sleepy intersection off of I-84 in the state of Oregon. As part of a motorist information project for the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), I was finally forced to look for the answers to questions that I had wondered for years. Why? 1) Why is the structure of this information so eclectic and seemingly dysfunctional? 2) We are taught that mixed case would be more readable (why isn’t book/magazine/newspaper text published in all upper case?); so why are conventional road guide sign destination names in all upper case letters? 3) Why is the destination name on that freeway guide sign so fat? Why does it appear that you can’t fit your finger through the center space of the small “e” and the letterforms chunk up when viewed at a distance? 2 3 A lot of information competing for your attention yet created as if it is to stand alone! And Oregon is not alone. The inconsistent layouts for freeways signs and the cluttered streetscape extend from coast to coast. How does one give this to a reader in the best possible way at 55 mph or more? 4 5 Search out guidance and trace the history for clues I took my questions to Dr. Richard Pain, a specialist in highway safety at TRB. Pain introduced me to Dr. Martin Pietrucha. Pietrucha, a traffic engineer with human factors as a specialty, understood the questions but did not know the answers, and he too had some of the same questions. I am a graphic designer with experience in systems and safety. Together we began our studies. The MUTCD is type-centric. Early on in our review, it seemed obvious that whatever is designed to give order to road signs will need to start with a typeface that is most legible, readable, recognizable and understandable. It was our assumption that this typeface already existed. The history of E-modified dates back The use of all capital letters for con- to 1948 when Theodore Forbes creat- ventional road guide, regulatory, and ed a typeface for destination names warning signs dates back to the 1920s for, the then, early divided highways when brushes of various widths were in California. He had a good idea and the tools used to hand letter signs. accomplished this using the tools he was familiar with: a Leroy lettering As sign making methods evolved, set, used to label engineering draw- those same upper case type weights ings. With this tool, he created words were brought to each new technolo- that were 1/2” tall and then photo- gy-from silk screen printing, to die- graphically enlarge them to 18” tall. cut letters, to the various digital tools This “Rube Goldberg” solution is used today. what we have lived with for the past 68 years. 6 FHWA Series E-modified FHWA Series D (20% larger) 7 What started as an issue of readability became a serious design challenge Understanding what is needed to accommodate older drivers, who typically have reduced contrast sensitivity, poorer visual acuity, and slower reaction times would be paramount. We also knew that if you accommodate the older driver, all users would benefit (a rising tide raises all boats). A major federal “older driver” study (Mace, et al., 1994)(1) recommended lettering on all guide signs be 20 percent taller. The size requirement was prohibitive, and it would not address the overglow experienced by drivers as high brightness (i.e., cube-corner) retroreflective signs were illuminated by their headlights. Proposed Existing The original FHWA older driver strategy We would later learn that panels using Clear- of a 20 percent larger legend creates a view with standard legend sizes retain the 20 percent wider panel, with nearly a 50 existing panel size for most legends with the percent larger panel area overall. desired ease of recognition. 8 Nighttime View: Highway Gothic Daytime View: Highway Gothic Showing Overglow (simulation) FHWA Series E-modified FHWA Series E-modified FHWA Series D FHWA Series D 9 Reading from a distance has very particular requirements We read and analyzed everything we could In our review of the existing six Series B weights of Highway Gothic (right), find on road type and letterform design (some Series C only the E-modified had a lower of the fonts we investigated are shown on Page case, and that typeface lacked the Series D functional attributes inherent to 11). We built dozens of signs displaying several Series E a readable typeface. To solve this different typefaces in uppercase and mixed- Series E(M) problem we would need to design case to comparatively observe them–using the alternatives to FHWA E-modified Lower Case and FHWA Series D – the standard parking lot and platform railing of the local Series F commuter rail station as our lab. As crude as weights used for most guide signs. this was, it was very instructive. Based on their extensive experience worldwide, the 3M Company understood the challenges we identified and funded our initial studies as a design, development, and validation process, with no strings attached. Tying back to the FHWA recommendations for older drivers, our goal was to create a 20 percent improvement within what we hoped would be the same size sign. Of great interest was to revisit the work of Jock Kinneir and Margaret Calvert (above), who in 1964 rede- signed the entire road sign system in the United Kingdom, including the typefaces used on signs. 10 Existing Typefaces Used for U.S. Guide Signs Thin stroke width Small lower case Alternates Reviewed for Possible Use Mono-weight stroke Small lower case Constrained counters Closed terminals Slightly oblique& overly stylized for seamless integration 11 Not for a lack of trying… Our early attempt to augment the existing E-modified typeface was unsuccessful. If the designs were to merge seamlessly into an existing MUTCD standard, with a system with mixed-case letters, we would need to start from scratch. Early designs were hand drawn. We wanted to understand the key elements of each letter, and what they would share in the overall design. We referenced E-modified, but the letter shapes would need to be more open. In the design process, the most challenging letters are the lower case “a, e, and s.” Some letters will have unique characteristics used to aid word pattern readability; however, there are structural elements that are part of the overall design. E-modified was a stand-alone typeface. We knew that if our new typeface design was going to be successful, it had to be effective in each of the six weights. In concept, there were many cri- teria for design. The counters or terminating shapes would be open so as not to trap overglow. Bifurca- tions, connections, and terminals of Note: In 1993 as the early studies were taking form, the only mixed-case typeface strokes would feather so as to not to within Highway Gothic was E-modified. All other FHWA Highway Gothic series mass when illuminated on reflective were all upper case. That all changed once the early studies came out of the sheeting. The interior shapes were all Larson Transportation Institute at Penn State University. In the late 1990s, the drawn to optimize the round interior FHWA commissioned designs for lower case alphabets for each series for guide area. Descending letters would be signs. Although the FHWA never quantified the performance of the new type- short and ascending letters taller to faces for legibility or recognition, they were placed in the MUTCD in 2000, like emphasize word shape. Every ele- many things in the manual – without human-based performance reviews. ment had a functional purpose. 12 Metamorphosis of Design: FHWA Standard Highway Alphabet E-modified to Clearview Early Clearview Development FHWA Series E Original Sketch Clearview Version 1 Clearview 5-W FHWA Series E-m ClearviewOne BD-55 FHWA Series E-m 13 The big question that seemed obvious but would require careful study Would a mixed-case word with the same stroke width, letter width, and capital letter height be as readable as an all-uppercase word with a larger footprint? The testing would use a series of two syllable words that were easy to read but were uncommon. The “first generation” typeface designs: Clearview (1:5.2*) compared to E-modified and Clearview Condensed (1:6.9*) compared to Series D were tested by LTI with younger and older drivers (2). In addition, the same set of randomized Clearview words were enlarged 112 percent (as shown below). Compared to final design, the early designs were crude. There was an attempt to evolve using Highway Gothic as a starting point. This first study showed mixed case could be as easy to recognize as all upper case displays. With the 112 percent enlargements the improvement was greater than the size increase, especially at night. This suggested that word patterns inform recognition. (* Stroke width to height ratio. These Footprint comparison of FHWA Series would mimic FHWA Series D and D upper case typeface compared to E-modified ratios.