Mr. Gibilaro,

I am concerned at the apparent unfairness of allowing the Build option to proceed procedurally (e.g.: asking for funding for FHA, study of road alignments, etc.) while the discussion of why this road is needed is disallowed or has ever been entertained with the representatives of the County as represented by S.P.A.G.

It is a violation of all accepted standard project management principles to skip through Needs Analysis and jump into the preliminary stages of implementation. Although the PD&E phase is in name called a "study", it is in effect the initial stages of the Build option, because those are exactly the same stages that would have to take place if the Build option were selected. In contrast, none of those steps are necessary if a Needs Analysis study determines there is no need for the road. Corridor analysis and road alignment selection for example, belong certainly either to the Design phase (or even Implementation phase) in the project path -- those certain should NOT precede a Needs Analysis study.

The Needs Analysis for the road does not require knowledge of exactly where the road would go. The only things required to answer WHY the Suncoast 2 is needed are principally the traffic studies to justify this need, and data to justify why US-19 or other roads cannot possibly handle that amount of traffic which the Suncoast 2 means to alleviate.

We should first determine IF we need to build it, perform the studies necessary to make that determination, then we can decide WHERE the road will go. It does not make sense to say that we need the road ONLY IF it will take a specific route. This is what FTE is demanding of S.P.A.G. when it holds the No Build option off the table until an alignment is selected.

Either we need this road to manage traffic flow per FIHS, or we do not. It is not significant WHERE the road lies, if the road is not needed at all. The Build vs. No Build discussion is valid at the most preliminary stages of this project regardless of the alignment selection because it offers the opportunity to study the Need for the road.

As far as I know, the data necessary to discuss WHY we need the road is not available, for example: local vs. through-traffic studies and projections on US-19 now and for next 20 years. Neither am I able to find the FIHS traffic study to justify that the Suncoast 2 is needed for traffic flow in addition to US-19, which is already part of the FIHS and is being expanded. I imagine that FDOT and FTE must have some factual data to support the decision to spend hundreds of millions on a road, rather than simply go on a "hunch" that traffic will worsen and the road is "needed to alleviate traffic". Please forward me the data used by FTE to add the Suncoast 2 onto the FIHSP.

If there is no scientific study or valid data to justify the Need for the Suncoast 2, then it is premature to proceed down the path of:

(1) asking for money to build it (from FHA), and

(2) specifying exactly where it should go(alignment selection).

Until and unless these Needs-based studies are done, then it is not justifiable to spend money and proceeding AS IF the Suncoast 2 were actually needed (corridor analysis, alignment selection, environmental impact study).

Thus, I have 1 question and 1 request:

Question: Does the "need" for the Suncoast 2 have any scientifically valid data to support it? i.e. on which basis does FTE or FDOT determine that the road is needed, over other alternatives such as expanding US-19 and I-95 to improve traffic flow through Easten Florida (per FIHS charter). Or is the "perceived" need simply based by a subjective but unvalidated assumption that traffic will be unmanageable and that the Suncoast 2 is the only solution to alleviating this traffic for Citrus County as well as for the State of Florida?

Request: Millions of public funds or bond-holder funds should certainly not be spent on unvalidated assumptions. So certainly, the studies to justify the need for the Suncoast2 must have been done and be available to justify the project in the first place. Please forward me those studies and traffic projections which FTE used to justify (for itself and for the public) the need for the Suncoast 2.

As usual, I look forward to your reply. Thank you for your time and attention.