Parkway factions pointing fingers. Backers say process stonewalled.

"What we have here is a failure to communicate." Paul New man as "Cool Hand Luke."

This is not what Carl Gibilaro envisioned.

When the Department of Transportation created the Suncoast Parkway Advisory Group, Gibilaro wanted to ensure parkway opponents were fairly represented.

Gibilaro, project manager for the proposed parkway extension through Citrus County, said he wanted to afford opponents the opportunity to comment and possibly help shape the proposed route.

"We knew with the public interest and the sheer scope of this project that it'd be a good idea to go above and beyond the public involvement program," Gibilaro said.

The 14-member committee had its first meeting two years ago. The group was so divided between supporters and opponents that it could not choose a chairman.

That was an omen.

Gibilaro, a turnpike consultant who is heading up the planning, develop and environmental study for what's known as Suncoast 2, now says those opponents are stonewalling discussions he believes are necessary to keep the study moving.

"I think there's a lot of distrust in us by them," Gibilaro said. "They flatly refuse to cooperate. All they're interested in is the no-build alternative."

Jack Reynolds, a bank vice president who represents the Citrus County Chamber of Commerce on the committee, agrees.

"It does appear there are some diametrically opposite opinions as it relates to the parkway," Reynolds said. "As a result, sometimes the individuals who state those opinions lose sight of what we agreed to do."

He added: "It does seem from time to time that we digress to Day 1."

Janet Masaoy, a committee member who heads up Citizens Opposed to the Suncoast Tollway, or COST, said the criticism is unfounded.

"We have participated in the past and the DOT is not listening," she said. "It really dismayed me that someone would question my participant. I've been doing this for nine years."

Process bogged down

Consultants from H.W. Lochner, a Clearwater company that is conducting the Suncoast 2 study, wanted the committee to help shape the corridors and proposed routes for the roadway. Whether the road should be built or not, they said, is not an item for committee discussion.

Opponents, though, say it's a waste of time to discuss possible routes when they believe the entire road isn't necessary.

The result, as shown last Tuesday, is some members follow the Lochner process and others refuse to.

Herschel Conner, project manager for H.W. Lochner; on Tuesday presented members with a tentative list of advantages and disadvantages for the 10 potential routes. He then asked members to review each route and suggest other advantages and disadvantages they may know of.

Opponents such as Masaoy and Teddi Bierly, a stand-in Tuesday for the Citrus County Council, said none of the routes would work. Bierly, for example, said the topography of the area presents the danger of groundwater contamination should a road be built.

They then insisted the no-build option be explored before a route is chosen.

Conner said they should also consider the build option, even if they disagree with it.

"If that is the decision wouldn't you want input into it?" he said.

Masaoy said Friday she refuses to concede the build option.

"It is not the point. I don't even allow myself to think that," she said. "I don't believe this road is going to be built."

Meanwhile, Gibilaro said he is "reevaluating" the group and is eager to see who participates in the commenting on proposed routes. Because law does not require the group, Gibilaro said it could be disbanded. Asked if that was a consideration, Gibilaro said he and other consultants haven't discussed it.

"We're hopeful it will work out," he said. "Everyone's entitled to their opinion. We're not going to come in here trying to sway anyone."