Discussion:
To address the issues given in the scenario for the discussion, I would utilize the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) as well as the non-experimental design. According to McDavid, Huse & Hawthorn (2013) even though the cost benefit analysis has proven to be somewhat complex it has proven to be one of the most effective, and economic evaluation system used in environmental and infrastructure studies. Its main purpose is to determine whether there is a net social benefit as well as whether there is improvements to social welfare through the work being done.
No doubt using the cost benefit analysis approach may be costly as new equipment, training, and other costs will have to be taken into consideration to effectively conduct an overall evaluation of the project as well as to calculate the life expectancy of the project. However, the benefits that will be gained will far exceed the cost as there will be lower mechanical costs to vehicles, less traffic congestion, decrease travel time and less corruption.
According to Langben (2012) the non-experimental design, incorporate those designs with statistical controls. Therefore the non-experimental design would be an effective choice in this scenario since it is imperative that statistical records are evaluated in order to make a more informed decision as to what is the better way forward.
References:
Langbein, L. (2012). Public program evaluation: A statistical guide (2nd ed.). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
McDavid, J. C., Huse, I., & Hawthorn, L. R. L. (2013). Program evaluation and performance measurement: An introduction to practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.