Table 2 - Assessment of HOV scheme

Objective	Importance of objective	Means of achievement	Expected impact of HOV scheme	Method of assessment	Cost of assessment	Measurability of changes
Reduce number of vehicles in M1 corridor	H	Higher occupancy	M	Flows on M1, flows on surrounding network	M	M
Reduce delays for HOVs	H	Increased capacity for HOVs, smoother flows, reduced demand	H	Journey times	M	H
Improve journey time reliability for HOVs	H	Increased capacity for HOVs, smoother flows, reduced demand	H	Journey times	M	M
Minimise delay for non-HOV vehicles	H	Smoother flows, reduced demand	L	Journey times	M	H
Maintain safety levels in M1 corridor	H	Reduced demand	M	Accident logs, unexpected queueing on surrounding network, flows on surrounding network	H	L
Avoid new accident risks	H	Lane design at transitions of HOV lane, signing	M	Accident logs, CCTV coverage, opinions of emergency services	H	M
Avoid adverse landscape effect	M	Design of scheme and signing	H	Not by Monitoring Consultant	-	-
Improve public awareness of HOV schemes and influence travel behaviour3	H	Publicity and marketing	H	Not by Monitoring Consultant	-	-
Improve customer satisfaction	H	Better reliability, less delay (may be reduced fairness)	M	Driver surveys, feedback from users	H	L
Determine compliance	H	Monitoring	-	Rogue vehicles (too few occupants), level of enforcement	M	H
Determine extent of take-up	L	Monitoring	-	Flows in HOV lane, flows in general purpose lane, vehicle occupancy	M	M
Optimise operation of scheme	H	Times of operation, signing, enforcement	-	Not by Monitoring Consultant	-	-
Optimise physical design of scheme	M	Modelling, simulation	-	Not by Monitoring Consultant	-	-
Establish the case for any further rollout of HOV schemes	H	Monitoring	-	Not by Monitoring Consultant	-	-