The two sides in the debate about whether the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission should construct a new section of roadway atop Allegheny Mountain and eliminate the existing Allegheny Mountain Tunnel might not be giving enough attention to what should be the most relevant consideration regarding the project proposal.

That consideration is this:

If the project were to be pursued by way of the commission’s preference to build new roadway and eliminate the tunnel, would the traveling public and the commercial drivers who use the toll road be subjected suddenly to a winter-weather albatross requiring the commission to spend tons of money and allocate much additional equipment, manpower and materials to ensure safety during the most challenging — and even during many of the not-so-challenging — storms that affect Pennsylvania’s mountaintops?

Although challenges exist around the current tunnel, there is a brief respite from storms’ ravages, rather than the white-outs, quick tendency for drifting, as well as the otherwise slippery, impassable conditions inherent in mountaintop travel and how quickly weather conditions can deteriorate. Consider the sometimes-differing weather conditions now on the west side of the tunnel, compared with the east side.

The east side is generally easier to navigate than the higher-altitude west side — the difference notable during an east-to-west trip through the tunnel during a snow event.

It’s true that a new roadway section eliminating the tunnel might be more scenic for most of the year, but few motorists will be impressed if the new roadway section, during the winter months, were to be most conducive to a sleigh ride, rather than meeting their important travel needs for which they pay the “pike’s” high tolls to get to their destinations on time.

Opponents of the commission’s plans are alleging that, what they are calling the 1,000-foot “Gray Cut,” would create a massive open scar across the ridgeline, disrupt water aquifers and forests on the eastern continental divide, remove sportsmen’s land and interfere with wildlife.

Whether those opinions are fully valid in terms of perceived impacts, quick-changing weather conditions are a fact of life in that area, just as many Johnstown-area residents are quick to point out that such a situation afflicts their airport in suburban Johnstown.

That situation guides project preparations when plans are being assembled.

It would be foolish and dangerous if that were not done, just as it will be foolish and potentially dangerous not to factor in that situation regarding the Allegheny Tunnel area.

The commission deserves praise regarding the realignment projects it has completed, is in the process of building and what it is hoping to do in the years and decades ahead.

However, the Allegheny Tunnel bypass project, although much shorter than many of the turnpike’s projects, has aspects deserving the kind of evaluations that much larger projects entail.

But then there are the projected costs:

The commission estimates the cost of the roadway project reaching $500 million, and that a new tunnel would cost double that figure, not including ongoing tunnel maintenance necessary when the bypass project was in the construction stage.

No doubt the cost of adding another tunnel at the current tunnel site would negatively impact pursuit of other projects in the future, even with toll rates continuing to rise.

Therefore, arguments from both sides are valid, with the weather possibly being the ultimate deciding factor.

A project’s preliminary engineering phase is a right time for deciding issues like the one in question, and that is the stage that the Allegheny Mountain project is in.

Trucking companies, bus and car fleets and average motorists should add their voices to the debate underway.