Umm.. I'd say that merely looking, especially by a non-expert, is more than just a little naive.
A famous civil engineer, no less than William Mulholland, had his career ended by the geology of those hills.
A famous civil engineer, no less than William Mulholland, had his career ended by the geology of those hills.
And you are ignoring the fact they are trying to tunnel through something with very similar geology.
Okay.
Firstly, that merely visually observing the surface of a mountain ("look around when you drove through it") is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions about the overall geology from an engineering perspective, especially by a non-expert.
Secondly, that even experts have been confounded by the geological features of that particular mountain range.
If you're implying that my referring to an engineering project from approximately a century ago somehow makes it irrelevant, then you'd need to point out some fundamental engineering changes in tunneling and/or demolition (or the study of geology) as they relate to viability thereof, to be an actual argument/refutation.