Public Governance

The Knik Arm Crossing Bridge project should be set-up using the most economical governance approach. It is important that the project proposal is designed to utilize fully and effectively the available scarce resources. This will allow other projects the opportunity to be completed. It will be uneconomical to forego one project for another yet both can be developed if the projects are shared between the private and the public sectors. The state has different responsibilities when developing a project. Transferring the construction of Knik Arm Crossing bridge to the state will be a bad and untimed decision. The decision will decline the economic engine for the state. The bridge is expected to allow Alaska to accommodate the growing population by ensuring its ability to provide accessibility to developable land thus creating employment. The same will enhance sustainability by ensuring freight and fuel savings.

Michael Foster the chairperson of the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority remarks that moving the public-private partnership will not affect the project but will affect the completion of the project (Forgey, 2013). I highly disagree with this statement as government governed projects are rated poorly compared with privatized or commercialized projects. It is important to note that public management is different from private management. The new challenges that will result from state management are highly influential to the project. The project is likely to take double the time it would have taken under the state management. Although the project might save a dollar for the state in the short-run, it is very expensive in the end. This is because people will have to wait longer before they can enjoy the benefits of the project including the state. In reference to Forgery (2013), United States Senator Tom Coburn, is equally concerned whether the project completion will succeed if the state permitted to take lead. Transferring the project to the state will create an unnecessary expense. The process of transferring the management from private to public governance will cost $300 million (Forgey, 2013). The amount if used in another government project would yield better results rather than using it for the transfer. The expense comes at a time when the government is already experiencing a $1 billion deficit.

The governor Sean Parnell provides the risks of transferring the management to the state. He also states that he is not for the idea to transfer the project management. In his argument he views the state as being unable to finance the project. In this regard it is more likely that the project will not succeed. It might be delayed just like the rest of the projects. The project as a public good should be permitted to all actors in the economy. Denying the private sector the opportunity to participate in development of the project will be contravening their right. Civil societies and the businesses locally and internationally should be allowed the opportunity to contribute to the state economy (Kaul, 2000). This will make it easy for the people to survive as the living standard will be better. It would be appropriate if the state decided to ensure quality management of the project rather than suggesting the withdrawal of the private sector from the project.

The project is administered by a legislative authority established in 2003 as a state corporation. The corporation was