Post-Gazette Editorial – 9/15/06

This page was last updated on September 16, 2006.

Tunnel vision / Critics need to make peace with a transit project; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; September 15, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Although the North Shore Connector project had been moving steadily forward for months, it can now be called official: the Federal Transit Administration has pledged to fund 80 percent of the Port Authority project. Pittsburghers should rejoice at this news, although in truth inconvenience will precede convenience for them.

“Pittsburgh’s own ‘big dig’ will involve drilling two tunnels under the Allegheny River to extend the light-rail system by 1.2 miles. As early as next month, those infuriating cones, barrels and concrete barricades will be going up in a limited number of locations.”

[RWC] Boston’s “Big Dig” has been a gross example of everything bad about large government projects, yet the PG apparently holds it up as a good example. As a reminder, the original estimate for the Big Dig was about $3 billion. As of 2006, nearly $15 billion had been spent and falling ceiling panels in a tunnel killed a woman.

“On the bright side, the Port Authority’s assistant general manager, Henry Nutbrown, told the Post-Gazette that the agency will be sensitive to motorists’ needs, and street traffic won’t be badly disrupted for the 4 1/2 years it should take to complete the project.

“The cost is now up to $435 million -- an increase of $42 million in a little over a year. Critics have lately seized upon this to bolster their claim that the money would be better spent elsewhere, that patrons of the ballparks and science center, students at community college and workers at the new developments on the North Shore don’t need an expensive way to get there when they can walk over the bridges. But that sort of critique fails to see the bigger picture.

“The North Shore Connector will make good assets much better -- after all, not everyone can walk to the stadiums and extending the line will improve the T’s usefulness and capacity as well as serve to reduce traffic congestion. Moreover, extending the line to the North Shore establishes a beachhead that one day may extend light-rail service to points north or west.”

[RWC] This is a typical liberal viewpoint. In their eyes, the only reason liberal programs don’t live up to their promises is that we haven’t spent enough money on them. It’s similar to the idea popular among many libs that the Soviet Union could have been successful if we’d only given it a fair chance.

“Pittsburghers make a habit of not seeing their best interests, but this should tell them something: The federal government has approved this project in a fiscally challenged era, against other competitive proposals -- and it considers this one of the top transit projects in the nation. Besides, all the criticism is years too late to the point of being moot. The time to have opposed this project was back in 1999 when the planning started.”

[RWC] Who said no one complained until recently? In any case, this is a ridiculous position. The PG claims that if you don’t object to a program from the very beginning, you can never object to it.

I’m sure you noticed the PG doesn’t take this position regarding Iraq.

Also, remember this the next time the PG cries crocodile tears over federal budget deficits.

“Sure, the Port Authority has funding problems -- it may have to raise fares and cut service if it can’t secure a steady source of state funding. But the operating budget is a different pot of money from the capital budget. If the agency had turned down the federal construction money now, it would have looked a gift horse in the mouth.”

[RWC] This is the “If we don’t spend it, someone else will” argument.

Remember, this comes from a paper that considers itself “more conservative on economic issues.” As I’ve written before, this begs the question, more conservative than whom?

“The building of the stadiums was itself almost killed by local resentments, and now they confound that lack of vision by standing as the city’s crown jewels during nationally televised sports events and by generating new development nearby. The extension of light rail beyond the Allegheny River will only enhance the neighborhood.”

[RWC] Heinz Field and PNC Park make nice pictures, but why did taxpayers have to build them?

Note the slamming of Pittsburghers and other voters. Above it was “Pittsburghers make a habit of not seeing their best interests.” Here, because voters didn’t do what the PG wanted, they had a “lack of vision” and were motivated “by local resentments.” More and more it becomes apparent liberals believe in democracy only when the vote goes their way. When it doesn’t, libs bypass the voters.

“The critics can call this what they want, but it’s still progress.”

[RWC] How many times do we need to hear this drivel?

We heard the same thing about the David Lawrence Convention Center, Heinz Field, PNC Park, Lord & Taylor, Lazarus, and on and on. Regarding the Convention Center, we’re now told it can’t be successful without a $100 million taxpayer-subsidized hotel built next door. The economic development resulting from the ball fields has been essentially non-existent. Remember the three North Side restaurants the Stadium & Exhibition Authority (SEA) helped build with $1 million from taxpayers? Even with that subsidy, the SEA had to cut the rent paid by the restaurants by more than 50% in 2004.

In the realm of failed transportation projects, we have the James E. Ross (D) Highway (Toll Route 60) and the Amos K. Hutchinson (D) Bypass ($544 million between them) as recent examples.

Finally, an editorial expressed displeasure because the PG believes the Bush administration is “requiring Americans to sacrifice nothing” to conduct the war on Islamofascism. When the time came to sacrifice, however, the PG was AWOL.