There is another article in today's paper about the "progress" on the so called 'Signature Bridge' that would link the United States to Canada.

It was announced recently that a 400'+ "Signature Bridge" would be put in to replace the Peace Bridge. This will surely cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

My question: Why? If the goal is to get a bridge that can handle more cars and trucks, fine, let's do that. But why do we need to make a wonder of the world landmark span? Do we really need to inflate our egos? Does anybody really believe such a bridge is going to increase tourism to the area? Come on. Let's get real.

The purpose of a bridge is to get from point A to point B. Not to look pretty or attract tourists. So then why are we wasting all this money on style and flash over substance?

The state and the federal government is in dire straits. Money is hemorrhaging because of projects like this one. Why not build the bare minimum that will get the job done? The people driving over the bridge won't care what it looks like. The truckers coming across won't care about its appearance.

I'd rather save my tax dollars than build some post-modern piece of eye candy. If we had simply wanted to get the job done with the cheapest design that would accomplish the goal we wouldn't have had to have a "design jury," confer with preservationists, worry about damage to migratory birds from aerial towers or any of that bureaucratic red tape. It would have done quicker and it would be cheaper.

But that's not the Buffalo way, is it? We'd rather demand something flashy, overly expensive and wasteful that is paid for with the free cheese government money of our fellow countrymen.