Some earmarks have real merit

Re “The value of pork,” editorial, Sept. 23

Increasing the transparency of the congressional earmarking process is a step in the right direction, as the editorial suggests. However, there is an important distinction to be made between narrowly drawn, poorly vetted earmarks pushed by a member of Congress versus projects that have undergone intense scrutiny and evaluation by the federal government through an established process.

The Metro Gold Line Eastside Light Rail Project, which you cited as an example of pork, underwent rigorous review by several agencies and the U.S. secretary of Transportation.

The president’s proposed 2008 budget recommended $80 million as the fourth installment for construction of the $898.8-million Eastside project. Fixed guideway transit projects that are included in the budget must meet strict tests before being awarded a federal commitment to fund a specified portion of the project. This is exactly what the project has undergone, and Metro is now on schedule to complete the project by late 2009.

The Times is right to call for greater disclosure of earmarks. However, let’s be mindful that not all projects are alike. Some may be questionable, but many have been thoroughly analyzed and deserve to be seen in a more positive light.

Roger Snoble

Chief executive officer

Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Los Angeles