Mr. Gibilaro,

For the purpose of clarify, I have cited excerpts from your note, preceded with >, and my comments related to that point directly follows those quotes.

> 3) The Suncoast 2 would serve as an intercity link whereas US-19 has
> changed from that role to one serving comparatively short local trips
> oriented to shopping and personal business. The proliferation of traffic

I am puzzled. This is contradictory to the purpose of an Florida Intrastate Highway System road. Per FIHS web site:

"Intrastate highways, the rail network, airports and seaports are the backbone of today's system. They provide the primary means for long-distance movement of goods between Florida and markets in other states and countries. They serve national and international visitors who travel to and from Florida."

The purpose of an FIHS road such as US-19 is clearly not PRIMARILY to serve local traffic, per its designation as an FIHS road.

Who made the decision to change the purpose of US-19 from being an FIHS road to one whose primary purpose is to serve the local traffic? Please forward me the necessary documentation on this key decision. I would like to ask Senator Argenziano about this change of focus in the designated use of this FIHS road.

> signals and driveway access points along US-19 point to the essential
> difference in the routes. The Suncoast 2 will most likely be utilized by
> those people traveling either to or from Tampa thus freeing up capacity on
> US 19 for local trips. As to whether both will be needed or not, that will

If a primary reason for the Suncoast 2 is to alleviate congestion on US-19, then I assume there must be some scientific data to validate this need. Please forward me the traffic data to show how much of traffic on US-19 are local and how much are pass-throughs, and also how much congestion is projected to be alleviated from US-19 by Suncoast 2 by the Suncoast 2. If there is no actual data to validate this determination, which scientifically-valid study was used to come to this conclusion? I would appreciate any information related to this.

> need to be looked at as part of the PD&E Study. US 19 north of Red Level
> is predicted to have excess capacity and will be capable of serving,
> without modifications, any traffic that the Suncoast 2 would bring to it.

Perhaps US-19 north of Red Level has a low traffic count because noone has need to go that route? If there were need (people WANT to drive down that route), then there would be more traffic on US-19 north of Red Level, correct? Which study has been done to differentiate between:

1. there is no traffic because there is need but no one can get there
2. there is no traffic because there is no need

Low traffic count at Red Level does not seem to be directly related to the need for the Suncoast 2 (alleviate US-19 local traffic pre your reply), unless the purpose of the Suncoast 2 is actually to steer traffic that would NOT otherwise occur at US-19 north of Red Level (and does not occur now) INTO that area, and down through Citrus, where it is not occurring either. Is this a purpose of the Suncoast 2?

> 4) Depending on the alternative selected, anywhere from 18 to 21 crossings
> will be provided to allow traffic to either go under or over the Suncoast
> Parkway. The parkway will not create the huge barrier that has been
> mentioned in recent articles. Exact locations will be coordinated with the
> Citrus County Sheriff's Office and Public Safety Department. As for
> funding of future crossings, that is at the discretion of Citrus County as
> to whether they ask for outside funding or not.

I must disagree that the parkway will not create the huge barrier. I base this on three points:

1. less east/west routes will be available to the public to use, funneling them into the limited underpasses. Citrus County will grow, the underpasses will not. As the Suncoast 2 is proposed to solve traffic problems 20 years into the future, we should also consider Citrus County's traffic problems 20 years into the future, as a direct impact from the Suncoast 2. What is the traffic projects for Citrus County's feeder roads into Suncoast 2 and the underpasses through it in 20 years?

2. future east/west roads will be expensive for the County to build, hence slowing down if not stopping their development altogether until traffic congestion become critical. This will worsen the traffic problems for Citrus as more people move into the County and as development is attracted to the roads that feed Suncoast 2. Evidence from counties further south shows that as more developments are attracted to "feeder roads" and as the surrounding area continues to grow, traffic has worsened along those roads and through the underpasses. At the same rate of growth, traffic which must tunnel through a limited number of underpasses will become a problem, which hits a ceiling if new east/west roads cannot be built to re-route the traffic. Is there any data that shows the contrary?

3. Funding of future crossings: I read your reply to mean that if the Suncoast 2 is built through Citrus, then the county would be left on its own to ask (but not necessarily receive) outside funding to fix east/west traffic problems related to the Suncoast 2 (feeder roads). This is of great concern to me, as a tax payer. Just because we ask for funding in no way means we will get funding. Ultimately that means Citrus County will be left holding the bag.

Again, if we are planning for 10-20 years into the future for the Suncoast 2 to alleviate traffic, why not do a cost impact study for Citrus County related to the Suncoast 2 for feeder road improvements and other "mitigations" for the same time range? Are there cost projections of how much the tollway will cost Citrus County in 10-20 years in terms of feeder road improvements and other secondary effects as the result of Suncoast 2? If it's difficult/impossible to do traffic projections for Citrus, why is it possible to do traffic projections for Suncoast 2 for the same time period?

> 5) Once a "Build" option is identified, a direct comparison of it versus
> the "No-Build" will be performed and documented in the Draft and Final
> Environmental Impact Statements which will be available for public review

Please forward me the legal or procedural documentation specifying that the "Build" option must be identified before the "No-Build" option can be discussed. There must be some procedural project guidelines to specify this type of milestone in the project plan, else this would be an arbitary decision unsupported by valid procedural or legal guidelines.

The part that confuses me about that requirement is that it seems to me that if the FHA has enough information to decide whether or not this project should proceed with Federal funds (i.e., should be built) as they are studying now, then the same information can be used to discuss the No Build option. That is, if the FHA has enough information to decide to build the road, then that is enough details to discuss the No-Build option. Since the FHA does not know the final alignment as it is at this time reviewing the 4f proposal, the same data can be used to discuss the No-Build option. So, logically either the FHA is not working with enough information to make informed decision, or there IS enough information to discuss No-Build and it simply is not being allowed. Logically, I am having problems seeing how both can be valid.

> The public can comment on the "No-Build" at anytime during
> the process, however, any specific questions about the "No-Build" can not
> be answered until the analysis has been performed.

Although the public can comment, what type of impact do those comments really have on the decision? Is there a vote count that would sway the decision one way or the other? or are all comments only for someone's review and "consideration". If 3 out of the 5 commissioners vote against the tollway, does this in effect legally determine the No Build decision for the tollroad, regardless if it passed the economic and environment tests? even if FHA approves funding? To what extend does the community really have a voice in the decision? or is it simply show?

> The final decision as
> to the selection of the "Build" vs. "No-Build" will be made by the Federal
> Highway Administration.

I did not know that the final "build" vs "no build" decision will be made by the FHA. This is contrary to my current understanding, please clarify to make sure I am not in error.

I thought that the final decision would depend on (1) economic feasibility, (2) environmental soundness, and (3) community support. The FHA's decision only allows Federal funds to be used for the construction of the Suncoast 2, and not whether or not the road will be built.

FTE has the ability to float bonds to pay for its construction even if FHA turns down funding. That does not equate to FHA making the build/no-build decision itself. Unless, there are things between the lines which I missed: does your statement mean to say that if FHA disallows Federal funds for the project, then FTE will NOT pursue the construction further through the bond market? Please clarify this for me.

Thank you for your time and attention,