BCT Editorial – 3/13/05

This page was last updated on March 17, 2005.

Woe are we; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 13, 2005.

This is a companion editorial to “Sound the alarm” of the same date.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“While the American Society of Civil Engineers didn’t grade the states in its 2005 report, it did evaluate the individual states.

“From the report, it’s obvious that Pennsylvania has a lot of heavy lifting to do. Here are some of the high points of ASCE’s Pennsylvania profile:”

[RWC] I have no reason to doubt the ASCE findings, but we need to recognize a conflict of interest. The more government spends on infrastructure, the more it benefits members of the ASCE. I believe it’s fair to speculate the ASCE will never issue a report saying we spend enough on infrastructure regardless of the amount we spend. If the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) issued a report saying our cars were too old and should be replaced immediately, would we accept the report findings?

“* PennDOT has a $2.3 billion maintenance backlog for roads. Twenty-three percent of the state’s major urban roads are congested and 46 percent of its major roads are in poor or mediocre condition.

“* PennDOT has an $8 billion maintenance backlog for bridges. Forty-two percent of the state’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.

“* The rehabilitation cost for the state’s most critical dams is estimated at $646.2 million.

“* Pennsylvania’s drinking water infrastructure need is $5.26 billion over 20 years, and Pennsylvania has $8.06 billion in wastewater infrastructure needs.

“These problems aren’t going to go away, and they will only get worse with time. Unfortunately, solving these problems is going to take skill and courage, both of which are in short supply in Harrisburg.”

[RWC] Now that you’ve read this, you also need to read “Welfare leeches” from the previous Sunday’s editorial page. In that editorial, the Times called “leeches” those of us who believe highway funds should be spent on highways. This week the Times complains that PA roads are not up to snuff. I agree PA roads are in relatively poor shape, but the Times can’t complain when it advocates taking highway tax dollars away from highway maintenance and giving them to mass transit welfare leeches.

I’ll keep asking the following question until I get an answer. Does anyone at the Times read proposed editorials and check them for logic consistency?