Why might the state of Alaska be interested in getting the bridge built, even though the total cost of the bridge exceeds the present value of the benefits from the bridge. From the standpoint of Alaska, what are the relevant costs and benefits? When you work on this problem, remember cost benefit is all about numbers, the answer should be numerical with explanation.

CASE 7-1 Some Rough Cost-Benefit Numbers for a "Bridge to Nowhere" A widely publicized federal earmark in the 2006 transportation appropriation bill was $223 million for a bridge intended to provide access to Ketchikan, Alaska's ort on lightly populated Gravina Island. The project had the misfortune to ome labeled the "Bridge to Nowhere" when the earmark came to light in the -benefit analysis airp 0 presdentialcampaign. It is possible to do some rough cost-beneht analysis Gravina Island has a population of around 50, so most of the bridge traffic would likely be those using the airport. The island was not inaccessible without the bridge. A ferry serves the island, with ferries leaving every half hour. The primary impact trom the bridge would be to reduce travel time on the trips. It has been estimated that the drive to the airport from Ketchikan would take 13 minutes, compared to minutes by ferry. Therefore, the time saving is around 15 minutes per passenger. kan is a port for cruise ships, which dock on the mainland, so some of the onage traffic would be ship passengers either joining or leaving the cruise ships ine enplanements/deplanements (total passengers coming and going through the on the project. 27 hoe197