Promotion of PPPs assumes that a responsible agency already possesses or will obtain sufficient capacity and knowledge that is necessary to properly implement PPPs. While a network issue associated with fragmented adoption of PPPs and potential application of toll financing has to be carefully examined, there is no fundamental difference between local government and state government as long as both have the same level of capacity and knowledge for PPPs. On the other hand, statutes like this could operate as a safety mechanism in which a state department can make it sure that local adoption of PPP will not cause serious network problems. In reality, it often takes some time for any government which does not have any prior experience in PPPs to gain capacity and knowledge, it is recommended to have a central unit of employees that are equipped with a set of skills in PPPs and serve not just for a transportation service but for other public services (OECD 2008).
Five states, Minnesota, Nevada, Texas, Virginia, and just recently, California, allow for public agencies other than a state agency to enter into PPP agreements, while the other states either allow only the state agency to participate in PPPs or have no expressed provision. Minnesota allows "road authorities" to enter into PPP projects, which is any public agency with the authority to construct roads, from the state department to town boards. If public agencies other than the state Department of Transportation have the expertise to enter into these types of agreements, a state should provide them with the expressed ability to do so. For example, if a city owns and maintains a facility, it should be granted the ability to enter into a PPP agreement to maintain the facility or for construction of improvements. If, however, the state DOT is the main road-building agency in a state or the only agency equipped to manage the PPP process, it would be wise to grant it the sole ability to enter into PPP agreements.