My argument is twofold:

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.