The Train to Somewhere, Take Two

First read Instapundit's comments here. Then read Confederate Yankee's comments here.

There are some interesting points to be made, both in the postings and associated comments to my original posting.

One observation at Glenn's site by a reader:

If I did not know the local history of this project, I might think differently than I do. I just think it stinks to use the worst disaster in American history to get funding for a local pet project, when so many people are still so devastated.

All too often, disasters turn out to be the tipping point for projects that have lay dormant. In the aftermath of the 1989 San Francisco quake, the city decided to tear down the heavily damaged elevated Embarcadero Freeway that ran through the Embarcadero 30 years after it was first built instead of rebuilding it. Seattle completely rebuilt itself after the fire of 1889 but did so by elevating the entire city so that flooding and drainage were no longer serious concerns. One could even point to some of the projects affecting Lower Manhattan following the 9/11 attacks and see that projects that had long been held goals of politicians and urban planners were suddenly given new life.

Another criticism is that we've just spent $250 million to rebuild the existing railroad so why spend another $750 million to build a new railroad along a completely new right of way. I think that criticism doesn't quite hold up. It actually conflates two separate issues. One is the restoration of service as quickly as possible. That's what rebuilding the existing railroad does. The movement of the railroad to a new location is a significant upgrade in that it would not be subject to disruption by storm surge, less likely to be disrupted by grade crossing accidents, and otherwise improve the safety and security of the transportation infrastructure.

Up here in the New York metro area, we had something similar happen after 9/11 when the Port Authority rebuilt a temporary PATH station so that service could be restored as quickly as possible after the attacks. A permanent PATH terminal is now being designed and constructed, which will cost nearly $1 billion. Does this mean that the permanent terminal is pork because we already have a temporary solution?

However, I do understand that there are problems with how and why people should pay for these changes. Providing low interest loans as an alternative to direct compensation might be one way to get the new line built without putting taxpayer dollars on the line.

As for whether property should be developed along the coastline, many of the affected areas have to seriously question whether they should rebuild as it was, reduce the density, provide new and additional buffer zones so that shorelines are able to absorb storm surges and otherwise reduce damage to property. Some are already looking at stricter building codes and other changes to make property more resistant to storm damage. Zoning changes are also being examined - and they should be. After the South Asian tsunami, some of the countries sought to impose restrictions limiting construction within 1,000 feet of the shoreline (however they define it). Many people living there promptly disregarded the potential restrictions. They're going to live with the risk, knowing that it could just as easily result in another mass casualty event. Here in the US, we could limit development along the shore, but competing interests have instead resulted in federally funded insurance programs that require those living near the shore (and all the benefits of views, etc.) to obtain insurance that will pick up costs. That should be one thing that's reexamined in light of the billions of dollars in damage caused by storms that regularly ravage US coastlines.

Now, Glenn points to a Heritage Foundation link that posits the following:

The President should therefore threaten to veto a bill that contains any extraneous spending items--that is, anything that is not truly emergency spending. Funding for the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq qualifies and is fair game for a supplemental bill. Hurricane-related funding that addresses immediate, on-the-ground needs qualifies, too. But not pork projects. Whatever its merit, the "Railroad to Nowhere," for example, is just not an emergency need. Little, if any, of the junk that the Senate has thrown into the supplemental and is still considering adding makes the cut, either.

If it's not an emergency need, it shouldn't be in the supplemental. That's a simple rule, and one that the President should enforce.

This actually makes a lot of sense. The rail link isn't an emergency need, unlike say improving the levees around New Orleans. We could make due with the repaired rail line until such time that a suitable financing arrangement is worked out and people realize that the relocation of the line inland is good long term planning.

All too frequently supplemental legislation have riders added to them, which are nothing but pork barrel projects that their sponsors hope will get through because other members want the original base legislation to pass. It's a trick that lets far too much pork get through.

My prior coverage is here (and the source of my first Instalanche).