Driving around the state you notice we sure seem to have a lot of memorial highways and bridges. Is this common in other states? I haven't noticed it while driving in other states but I also haven't really looked for it either. It just seems odd to me that Oklahoma should have so many memorial highways and bridges named after people who have passed.

What is wrong with Oklahomans wanting to honor their own? I don't understand why you would think that would be odd. Getting a highway named like that requires a bill through the Oklahoma legislature. I think it's rather cool.

Driving around the state you notice we sure seem to have a lot of memorial highways and bridges. Is this common in other states? I haven't noticed it while driving in other states but I also haven't really looked for it either. It just seems odd to me that Oklahoma should have so many memorial highways and bridges named after people who have passed.

IIRC, the Federal Highway Dept's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) recommends against naming highways after people, even if it's only an honorary declaration. They want people to be able to follow the interstates/highways across the country and not be confused about what road they are actually on. Therefore, honors that used to be bestowed like that for highways were switched to bridges and interchanges. I've seen quite a few spots honoring Troopers in Missouri; it seems to be more common in MO and OK than in other states I drive through.

It looks bad and it's a waste of road money

It looks bad and it's a waste of road money

The cost of those signs are from private donations.
In Chicago, for example, there are hundreds of honorary street signs.
http://www.honorarychicago.com/

The cost of those signs are from private donations.
I don't think the Oklahoma signs are from donations. They comply with MUTCD design regulations and are on public Right of Way. The state passes a resolution and ODOT installs them. That said, the cost is very minimal.

What is wrong with Oklahomans wanting to honor their own? I don't understand why you would think that would be odd. Getting a highway named like that requires a bill through the Oklahoma legislature. I think it's rather cool.

Slow your roll there magz. I just said it's odd that Oklahoma has so many while other states don't seem to do this as much. I never said anything was wrong with wanting to honor someone.

Driving around the state you notice we sure seem to have a lot of memorial highways and bridges. Is this common in other states? I haven't noticed it while driving in other states but I also haven't really looked for it either. It just seems odd to me that Oklahoma should have so many memorial highways and bridges named after people who have passed.

Can't remember if it was Tennessee or Arkansas, but one of them names each 2 mile stretch after someone. Sgt. John Doe for 2 miles, then Cpl Jane Roe, etc.

The issue with these memorial designations is that it contributes to what engineers call "message loading". Which is a fancy way of saying information passed on to the motorist. Essentially, by including this sort of sign you are diluting the importance of each sign and inducing the motorist to start tuning out other, possibly more important signs. At stream crossings, a memorial bridge sign competes for attention with feature name and possibly county line signs, which can be useful in determining one's location in the event of an incident (and also makes navigation slightly easier). These signs are also required to be placed in areas that can sometimes fall within a gaggle of other signs. I think it's currently gone due to construction, but I remember a memorial sign being wedged in between the SH-9 east and Lindsey Street interchanges on northbound I-35. There isn't a lot of room between those ramps, so the message competes for attention from important navigation information being offered about the exits.

Practically, they don't do a very good job memorializing the person because most of the time it doesn't have room to explain why the person is notable enough to have the road named after them. I know part of I-240 is named the Keith Leftwich Memorial Loop. I remember reading on a road website that he was in the state legislature. If I hadn't read it online I wouldn't have the foggiest idea who he was. There are also dozens of interchangeable memorials to state troopers, most of which I assume were killed in the line of duty, but the sign certainly doesn't say that and doesn't tell me anything about his life before his death.

Overall, I would much prefer that the legislature appropriate a small amount of money for a plaque or statue to be placed in a park or other public place. Highways are not the place to memorialize the dead, and do nothing to really bring much visibility to the person after death unless they're the most commonly-used name a highway has (like the turnpikes, which are only referred to by their names because they were, in most cases, open and named such long before numbers were assigned to them).

The issue with these memorial designations is that it contributes to what engineers call "message loading". Which is a fancy way of saying information passed on to the motorist. Essentially, by including this sort of sign you are diluting the importance of each sign and inducing the motorist to start tuning out other, possibly more important signs. At stream crossings, a memorial bridge sign competes for attention with feature name and possibly county line signs, which can be useful in determining one's location in the event of an incident (and also makes navigation slightly easier). These signs are also required to be placed in areas that can sometimes fall within a gaggle of other signs. I think it's currently gone due to construction, but I remember a memorial sign being wedged in between the SH-9 east and Lindsey Street interchanges on northbound I-35. There isn't a lot of room between those ramps, so the message competes for attention from important navigation information being offered about the exits.

Practically, they don't do a very good job memorializing the person because most of the time it doesn't have room to explain why the person is notable enough to have the road named after them. I know part of I-240 is named the Keith Leftwich Memorial Loop. I remember reading on a road website that he was in the state legislature. If I hadn't read it online I wouldn't have the foggiest idea who he was. There are also dozens of interchangeable memorials to state troopers, most of which I assume were killed in the line of duty, but the sign certainly doesn't say that and doesn't tell me anything about his life before his death.

Overall, I would much prefer that the legislature appropriate a small amount of money for a plaque or statue to be placed in a park or other public place. Highways are not the place to memorialize the dead, and do nothing to really bring much visibility to the person after death unless they're the most commonly-used name a highway has (like the turnpikes, which are only referred to by their names because they were, in most cases, open and named such long before numbers were assigned to them).
Good points made here. If a person is from out of state and they're trying to navigate our metro, a memorial sign only adds to confusion as they're trying to figure out which signs pertain to the info that they need. It's similar to people putting up home-made roadside memorials for loved ones that have died in car wrecks at that site. If every person who died in a car wreck were memorialized that way, then every mile of road would have multiple memorials. It seems a poor way to honor someone.