The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is asking the public to accept one of the most significant and irreversible transportation projects in our region’s history: carving a massive open-cut through Allegheny Mountain.

The commission says the so-called “Gray Cut” is necessary to improve safety, reduce congestion, address hazardous materials routing, and save money compared to a tunnel-based alternative. Those are serious claims. They deserve to be taken seriously. But serious claims should be backed by clear, public evidence.

So far, too much of this discussion still comes down to one message from the Turnpike Commission: Trust us.

That’s not good enough.

The current tunnels carry Interstates 70 and 76 beneath Allegheny Mountain, allowing traffic to move while the mountain, forest, streams, wildlife, and surrounding landscape remain intact above it. That is the value of a tunnel: it moves people through difficult terrain without permanently scarring the surface.

The Gray Cut would do the opposite.

Turnpike officials will say it has been studying this area for decades. It will say it has released data and considered alternatives. But the reality is that much of the publicly available information is insufficient, vague, and, in some cases, inaccurate. PTC’s defense of the Gray Cut project only reinforces the need for independent review. If cutting through Allegheny Mountain is safer, more responsible, and better for the commonwealth, then PTC should welcome the opportunity to show the data.

Central to their argument is safety. We could not agree more. But since safety is the primary concern, safety data should be public, detailed, and easy to understand. Where is the updated crash data?

Crashes can occur in fog, clouds, ice, snow, steep grades, and poor visibility on an open mountain bypass cut as well. How do crash rates and crash severity at Sideling Hill and Laurel Mountain bypasses compare to the overall turnpike system? If those bypasses are being treated as successful examples, the public should see whether they actually improved safety or created new risks related to wind, fog, ice, snow, and steep grades.

PTC has also cited emergency response accessibility, but the Allegheny Tunnel area is not an inaccessible, remote stretch of highway. In fact, there are access points roughly a half mile from both tunnel entrances, making this one of the more accessible areas of the turnpike corridor. If PTC is going to cite emergency response as a justification for the Gray Cut, it should explain how it accounted for those access points and how destroying a mountain would meaningfully improve response times.

PTC has also raised concerns about disruptions during tunnel construction or rehabilitation. Those concerns should be examined. But the same standard must apply to the Gray Cut. Building it would require blasting through roughly 12 million cubic yards of mountain. Is that really less disruptive than boring a tunnel?

PTC has also emphasized hazardous materials routing. If hazardous materials movement was so central, why did PTC spend years and significant resources evaluating tunnel options?

The PA Turnpike Commission should also release a true apples-to-apples comparison of the Gray Cut and the optimized three-tunnel alternative, including construction costs, environmental mitigation, property acquisition, water remediation, blasting, long-term maintenance, winter operations, litigation risk, emergency response needs, and future weather-related operating costs.

That comparison should also address the broader question of cost and proportionality. Operation and maintenance at the Allegheny Tunnel cost a little over 12 cents per vehicle. For 12 cents, are we willing to permanently destroy a mountain? If PTC disagrees, it should release its own numbers and compare the true per-vehicle cost of maintaining the tunnel with the full cost of the Gray Cut.

Finally, environmental concerns cannot be brushed aside. Compliance with permitting requirements is not the same as proving this is the least damaging or most responsible alternative.

Have updated reports been completed in recent years? Has PTC reexamined traffic flow, especially given that projected traffic volumes have not materialized? Has it updated assumptions around U.S. Route 219, water impacts, severe weather, blasting, and long-term maintenance?

These questions are not anti-infrastructure. They are not anti-safety. They are responsible government.

The PTC controls major public infrastructure, collects tolls, carries significant debt, and makes decisions with enormous consequences for communities, landowners, motorists, and taxpayers. Yet when its assumptions appear outdated, or when its public statements do not match the reality on the ground, who is responsible for calling that out?

We agree on one thing: the traveling public deserves a safe and reliable roadway. However, if the turnpike is going to ask Pennsylvanians to permanently alter a mountain, affect private property, disturb headwaters and natural resources, and reshape a region that has already carried the burden of major transportation infrastructure for generations, then the public deserves more than broad assurances.

Release the studies. Show the crash data. Compare the alternatives. Explain the costs. Disclose the environmental risks. Account for blasting impacts. Clarify the oversight. Let the public and policymakers evaluate the facts.

Before you cut through Allegheny Mountain, we need answers.

Randall L. Musser, P.E., is chairman of Citizens to Save Allegheny Mountain.