Home » South City »Transportation » Currently Reading:

Left turn onto Taft Ave from Gravois Ave?

May 10, 2010 South City, Transportation 4 Comments

When heading away from downtown (Southwest) on Gravois you go under the train tracks just after Meramec St.  When you come back up to grade there is a traffic signal at Taft Ave:

As you can see from the pavement markings the lane heading away gives you the option to go straight or turn left, a pretty common situation in the city.  But this intersection isn’t so common.

If you look at the signs posted on the signal arm you will see they indicate no turns are allowed, neither left or right.  Clearly the pavement markings conflict with the posted signs.  I will be sending a link to the post to city officials and folks with MoDOT.

– Steve Patterson


Currently there are "4 comments" on this Article:

  1. JZ71 says:

    The “No Left” sign appears to have a disclaimer on the bottom. It probably says either “Except When Flashing” or during rush hour, something like “3 PM – 6 PM”. Confusing? Yes, but not unique. Similar confusion exists at NB McCausland & Wise, where many people assume it's OK to ignore the traffic signal to turn onto the EB I-64 on-ramp.

    • You are right, I didn't even notice that when driving through the intersection twice recently. I can't read it on Google Streetview.

      • JZ71 says:

        I just drove by. One, the (very) fine print says “7 AM – 9 AM & 4 PM – 6PM”. And two, there's a left-turn arrow (the bottom two holes on the left signal), that apparently works at other times. Still, the pavement arrow is a bit confusing.

        A bigger pet peeve of mine are the intersections that have a “Left on Green Arrow” sign but only have a green ball for the through-traffic phase. If you can put in a left green arrow, why not also put in a straight + right green arrow?! It eliminates the mixed message a green ball sends.


  2. JZ71 says:

    BTW, coming back home, I happened to drive down Delor, where the reconstruction project has been completed (http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/?p=7139). Personally, I think that it's fairly successful, especially since they did incorporate street trees in with the parking. Could there be more trees and fewer cars? Yes. But as a way to balance existing density with limited on-street parking, it does seem to work . . .


Comment on this Article: