After Hurricane Katrina hit last fall, the “bridge to nowhere” — a special pork project inserted into a federal bill that would have paid hundreds of millions for a bridge connecting two unpopulated areas in Alaska — became the focus of national ridicule. A year earlier, though, no one gave a damn about UCSD’s own bridge to nowhere, a project that became a black hole for millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money.

In early August 2004, the university sent out a little-noticed press release, “UCSD To Discontinue Campus Bridge Project,” explaining that it was scrapping the construction of a bridge connecting east and west campus because of rising construction costs and budget shortfalls. In the previous six years, UCSD blew $7.4 million — $3.3 million of its own money, and the rest from the state and federal government — on the bridge that never came to be.

But the story of the I-5 Advanced Technology Bridge Project is not simply an amusing anecdote in the annals of UCSD history; it shows how self-interested lawmakers use so-called “earmarks” to waste billions on pet projects at their favorite universities, even as they cut billions from student loans and financial aid.

Every year, Congress approves bills with thousands of special provisions that provide funding for local programs — projects too inefficient or useless to qualify for federal funding under normal allocation processes. Alaska’s bridge was one such project, funded by a special provision attached by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Ala.) to a 2005 federal highway bill. And so was UCSD’s bridge, funded by a special provision attached by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to a 1998 federal highway bill.

The difference, though, is that Stevens became the subject of jokes on late-night talk shows, while Boxer was seen as a local hero.

In 1998, shortly after “bringing home the pork,” Boxer staged a press conference on campus, announcing proudly, “We are entering a new era of bridge building. This project will be a national model.”

Nor was Boxer shy about her role in getting the $6 million in federal funds, as a press release put out by her office proudly explained that “Boxer was instrumental in ensuring both authorization and funding for this bridge.”

Whatever the virtues of a bridge to connect two sides of a university campus — I would argue the government has better uses for the $6 million, like feeding the hungry and providing health insurance for the poor — it was never built, even as the university spent millions on the project.

UCSD, of course, argues that the bridge program was surely worthwhile, since it provided groundbreaking new research on construction with carbon-composite materials, a technological revolution that could make new roads safer during powerful earthquakes. Also, the project provided a subject for more than 100 senior and graduate theses.

And that is why pork projects are so alluring for politicans who face regular elections: They surely seem perfectly legitimate to the special local interests that benefit from them, be they UCSD or Alaska. (Nevermind, for a second, that if a project were really worthy, it would receive funding under the regular, rigorously competitive process used to award most research grants.)

In 2005, Congress approved 13,997 pork projects, according to a count kept by the group Citizens Against Government Waste. These projects cost $27.3 billion — far more than the $12 billion in cuts to student loan and financial aid projects Congress enacted this month under the guise of reducing the ballooning national deficit.

Universities — even as they pay lip service to the dangers of cutting financial aid — didn’t seem to mind: About one in 10 federal pork dollars flows to special academic research projects.

Sure, society may have benefited from the new knowledge discovered by UCSD’s bridge project. But imagine how many more poor kids could have gone to college with that $7.4 million.

Change, though, won’t happen any time soon. In the meantime, universities continues building their bridges to nowhere, even as the government continues turning a blind eye to the most vulnerable and needy in our society.