Latest Headlines
- Tropical Storm Isaias Forms, Expected To Rapidly Strengthen
- Former Contractor Matt Banks Pleads Guilty to 19 Felonies, Faces Up to 25 Years
- ECSO: Suspect, 17, Wanted For Pulling Gun Inside Cantonment Whataburger After Tate Game
- Beulah Man Gets Over 10 Years For Possession Of Child Sexaul Abuse Materials
- Escambia Man Gets Federal Prison For Defrauding Local Credit Unions
- Escambia County Acquires Old Century High Gym Property For Multi-Use Shelter
- Escambia Clerk Pam Childers Sues County Over $1.1 Million Budget Cut
- DeSantis Signs Death Warrant For Record 20th Execution of Year
- Tate Sweeps Jay; Northview Defeats Blacksher
- 17 Arrested In Multi-Agency Human Trafficking And Prostitution Sting In Atmore
Traffic Light or Restricted U-turn? Residents Voice Opinions On Highway 29, Highway 196 Intersection Safety Options
September 16, 2026
A large crowd gathered late Tuesday afternoon at a Florida Department of Transportation public meeting in Molino to weigh in on proposed safety improvements at the deadly Highway 29 at Highway 196 (Barrineau Park Road) intersection. Area residents had the opportunity to weigh in on two alternatives being considered for the intersection: a traditional traffic signal or a Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT).
FDOT is considering two options for the Highway 29 safety project at Highway 196 (Barrineau Park Road). One option is a traditional traffic signal, and the other is an RCUT (Restricted Crossing U-Turn) intersection that would force vehicles to make U-turns on Highway 29 to cross over.
For more photos (and design drawings), click here.
“We did a full look at the intersection, reviewed it to see what options that we had to particularly make the locations safer,” said Assistant District Traffic Operations Engineer Alana Webb, P.E. “Alternative one, we called it an R-cut. It’s a restricted U-turn crossing; it’s basically median modifications. The second alternative is for a traffic signal.”
“This is important to us, and I know it is important to you guys,” she told the crowd. “There’s pros, cons. Let’s kind of figure out what’s good, what’s going to work. You guys are the ultimate users…we want your input.”
“We are going to take everything back with us, and we are going to use that as part of the decision-making process to determine which alternative we move forward with,” Webb added.
When an attendee asked the crowd, which nearly filled the Victory Assembly of God Fellowship Hall, for a show of hands in favor of the traffic light, the light appeared to be a strong choice over the U-turn solution in the informal poll.
During the public meeting, area residents were able to look at displays showing the two options (as previously published on NorthEscambia.com), ask officials questions, and submit written public comments.
According to Kohen Johns Brannon with FDOT, a decision on the project design could come in a few weeks, after public comment is accepted through September 25. She said the project is set for 100% design by early 2027 with bids out for construction in late 2027. Under that timeline, construction will take place in late 2027 or early 2028. Both design and construction are funded.
To submit your public comment to FDOT, click here.
NorthEscambia.com photos, click to enlarge.
Comments
11 Responses to “Traffic Light or Restricted U-turn? Residents Voice Opinions On Highway 29, Highway 196 Intersection Safety Options”
None of this needs to happen!! What needs to happen is these kids and folks driving while playing on the phone needs to absolutely stop and people need to pay attention!! Ive never ever ever had an issue at this crossing or any other for that matter. Because I pay attention and dont play on my phone when I drive. Kids these days need more driving school and less phone screen time.
People don’t stop at the stop sign on 196 as it is. They certainly won’t stop at a red light.
What about a 4-way stop? It would allow cars through more quickly than a traffic light. There’s one on US 45 north of Meridian, MS. Works great.
To make vehicles take U turns into on coming traffic on 29 kmown for high speeds. Has to be one of the dumbest ideas FDOT has ever done. Like, who ever even offered that as a option should be fired from their job for incompetence.
Don’t need U-turns or a light….What is needed is drivers putting their phones down and PAYING ATTENTION! Its awful tiring that Goverment has to protect Us from Our own stupidity and inattention.
LAUGHING MY A@@ OFF.
THINKING OF PUTTING SEMIS IN making UTURNS ON 29 WITH HILLS IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.
Sure glad we have Leviv groups,MORGAN A MORGAN
STATE,COUNTY BOTH SHOULD BE SUED ON THE FIRST UTURN ACCIDENT
Stop signs for left turn drivers off of north and south 29 traffic!
After living almost right on that corner for years ive seen many terrible accidents there. People die on that corner way too much. A traffic light is a must. I dont care who dont like it.
I vote for neither option. No amount of traffic control measures will solve the problem when the country will issue drivers licenses to any breathing human! There is absolutely nothing wrong with the intersection. The problem is the steering wheel holders. The state needs to start permanently revoking the licenses of all the idiots on the road, and make people prove they are competent before issuing drivers licenses in the first place. Side note…a U-Turn is MUCH worse than a light.
No to the u-turn because you’d have to turn right and into two lanes of traffic, then cut across them to reach the median for a turn around. To then have to quickly accelerate, while moving into the fast lane in the opposite direction. And if the desire was to go across 29 to continue either east or west on 196, you’d have to cut across two lanes of traffic so you could then turn right. In the process of design, I’m not sure how this u-turn plan ever made the cut.
NO MORE Traffic Lights in Molino. The ones that are there haven’t helped at all with traffic accidents, zero effect. People are trying to get to work in Pensacola, which means they’re trying to get through Molino as quickly as possible.