Call it the Pennsylvania Turnpike’s half-billion-dollar dilemma.
On the one hand, the agency says more than 30 years of study have shown the Allegheny Tunnel in Somerset and Bedford counties has too many accidents, can’t carry many hazardous loads and is too expensive to maintain and expand. The turnpike’s recommendation is to build a $500 million bypass around the southern ridge of the tunnel.
On the other hand, many residents are steadfastly against that idea because they believe removing 10 million cubic yards of dirt to build a new section of highway would irreparably harm what they consider an idyllic wildlife paradise. More than 160 at an overflow meeting in Somerset Thursday were nearly unanimous in their opposition to the bypass, calling it a “gash” and a “scar” on the mountain and favoring instead building a third tunnel even if it would cost twice as much.
Kevin Scheurich, the turnpike’s assistant chief engineer, said after the outpouring of opposition he would convey the sentiments of residents to top management at the agency. With the project just beginning five years of preliminary design, he said he believes the best course would be to continue that work for now to better understand environmental, water and weather issues before deciding whether to find another alternative.
“I didn’t hear any support for the project,” Scheurich said. “We need to talk about that. I know it seems we’re at odds with the community.”
In addition to the cost of a third tunnel, Scheurich said, the concern is that it wouldn’t address the issues of accidents approaching the tunnel or the movement of hazardous loads. The turnpike says the tunnel has twice the traffic since the second tunnel opened in the 1960s and the area has three times the number of fatal accidents compared to other parts of the toll road because traffic slows approaching it, leading to many rear-end collisions.
The turnpike usually doesn’t hold public meetings on a project until preliminary design is well underway because officials say they can’t answer many of the technical questions from residents. But when state and local leaders asked for a meeting now, the agency agreed.
Nicholas Noss, senior engineer project manager for the turnpike, told the crowd the agency is aware of many of the concerns.
“There’s a lot more that needs to be done to satisfy the environmental concerns, no doubt,” he said. “We’re going to be respectful. We want to keep everybody informed.”
Noss pledged the agency would hold status meetings four times a year until preliminary design is finished in 2028. During that time, the agency expects to work with the Army Corps of Engineers, the state Game and Fish & Boat commissions and the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, among others, to develop preliminary plans.
Right now, that would be followed by five years of final design before construction would begin in 2032.
When the meeting opened to questions, what turnpike officials heard was a steady stream of opposition that questioned everything from disruption of the mountain habitat to the potential for dangerous fog along the new road, the creation of another crash-prone area and ruining the water supply for Berlin and the communities around the borough. Many of the presenters drew applause for their comments and questions.
Evan Endres, Pennsylvania director of government relations and policy for The Nature Conservancy, said the bypass would disrupt untouched forest land in the state. That would lead to some of the most severe fragmenting of the migration “superhighway” that he’s ever seen, he said.
Tom Shuster of the state chapter of the Sierra Club took it one step further, calling the mountain “one of the most important wildlife corridors in the world.” “This is amazing,” he said.
Randy Musser, chairman of Citizens to Save Allegheny Mountain and a retired engineer, said the group is trying to prevent “an environmental disaster.” He’s also an official with the Mountain Field and Stream Club in Stoneycreek that stands to lose some property if the bypass is built.
The bypass is fraught with problems such as the potential for dangerous foggy conditions, wildlife disruption and a sharp bend at the end of a downward slope on the east side of the road, Musser said. He pushed the third tunnel option despite the cost.
“This may be the turnpike’s preferred alternative, but it’s not the public’s preferred alternative,” he said.
Many of the comments centered on disturbing wildlife. Christine Dahlin, a professor of biology and environmental studies at the University of Pittsburgh-Johnstown, was particularly blunt.
“Think of all the animals you’re going to kill,” she said. “It’s not worth it.”
Berlin’s water system is a big concern. After road work near neighboring New Baltimore, many residents began having problems with contaminated wells, and water buffaloes are deployed there to help residents.
Scheurich said the turnpike would begin testing water soon so that it knows the current state of the system and take steps so it never reaches that situation in New Baltimore.
“We need to make sure we don’t have that situation,” he said. “We need to take a look to make sure we are not exacerbating the problem. Our pledge is to continue to look at it.”
Some of what the agency will find as it looks is “really toxic material” along the Kittanning coal seam, said John Wilk, a retired coal inspector for the state Department of Environmental Protection. There were many areas where the department wouldn’t allow additional mining because of serious environmental concerns, he said.
After 14 speakers and about 90 minutes, state Rep. Carl Walker Metzgar, R-Somerset, summed up the feeling of the crowd.
“None of us want this,” he said. “This is our life. We’re never going to let you do this.”
In an interview a few minutes later, Somerset County Commissioner Pamela Tokar-Ickes said she was hopeful that message got through. She had told the turnpike it could solve problems other ways, such as having hazardous material move on Route 219 when the section to Maryland is finished in 2032.
“I will say the burden is on the commission to come up with something different,” she said. “We made [our position] very clear. I’m going to hope for compromise.”
Ed covers transportation at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, but he's currently on strike. Email him at eblazina@unionprogress.com.