## 3 Results and Discussions
### Effects on CO\({}_{2}\) Emissions and Energy Dissipation  
As was discussed in the previous section, the mid-block raised crosswalk induces a bottleneck with different repercussions on the traffic behavior depending on the pedestrians' entrance rate \(\alpha_{p}\). To inquire about other collateral effects, in this section, the carbon dioxide emissions (CO\({}_{2}\)) and the energy dissipation (\(E_{d}\)) are investigated. For simplicity's sake, it is considered that all vehicles use petrol as fuel; hence, for the instantaneous CO\({}_{2}\) emission, the constants for Equation (9) were set as \(E_{0}=0\), \(f_{1}=5.53\times 10^{-1}\), \(f_{2}=1.61\times 10^{-1}\), \(f_{3}=-2.89\times 10^{-3}\), \(f_{4}=2.66\times 10^{-1}\), \(f_{5}=5.11\times 10^{-1}\), and \(f_{6}=1.83\times 10^{-1}\). According to References [35; 36; 37], greater speed fluctuations give rise to higher CO\({}_{2}\) emissions and energy dissipation as a consequence of acceleration or deceleration, respectively. Figures 6 and 7 show 3D presentations of the variation of the CO\({}_{2}\) emissions and energy dissipation as a function of \(\alpha_{p}\) and \(\beta\), for several values of \(\alpha\). From the plotted surfaces of Figures 6 and 7, one can note that the most notorious variations of CO\({}_{2}\) emissions and energy dissipation match the phases determined for traffic flow (see Figure 4). To obtain an affordable explanation about these effects, let us focus on the two most contrasting phases, jamming and gridlock. Firstly, let us analyze the jamming phase, where the highest levels of emission and energy dissipation are present. In this region, the averaged CO\({}_{2}\) emission value reaches up to 21.27 g/s, and the maximum level for averaged \(E_{d}/m\) is 0.193. The jamming phase is characterized by the queue of stop-and-go vehicles all along the lane, such that deceleration-acceleration events are recurrent due to a large number of interactions between vehicles. On the one hand, vehicles' acceleration contributes to the increase in CO\({}_{2}\) emission, and on the other hand, the topmost levels of energy are dissipated due to deceleration. To improve the understanding of this effect, the lane's energy dissipation profile is analyzed in Figure 8b. The energy dissipation profile shows that queues before the crosswalk and prior to the lane's exit increase the energy dissipation. In addition, Figure 8b reveals that queue formation, which characterizes the jamming phase, is strongly influenced by the extraction rate \(\beta\). In contrast to the effects observed in the jamming phase, at gridlock (\(\alpha_{p}\geq 0.8\) for any combination of \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\)), the lowest levels of CO\({}_{2}\) and \(E_{d}/m\) emissions are present. Thisis explained by the fact that gridlock takes place when traffic is at a complete standstill and there are no moving vehicles. Indeed, by analyzing the energy dissipation profile of Figure 8d, one can observe that there is no energy dissipation along the lane. To finish the discussion about CO\({}_{2}\) emissions and energy dissipation, the observed effects in maximum current and congestion phases are analyzed. Figure 6a shows a planar surface with CO\({}_{2}\) emissions values close to 2.5 g/s, that matches the maximum current phase depicted in Figure 4a. A similar feature can also be observed when energy dissipation is analyzed (see Figure 7a). In the maximum current phase, the only fluctuations of speed (stop-and-go) occur in the crosswalk's vicinity and at the lane's exit, remaining in free-flow conditions in the rest of the lane. Hence, when the energy dissipation profile is analyzed (Figure 8a), only two peaks with the highest levels of \(E_{d}\) are observed. Indeed, such peaks correspond to mid-lane and end-lane locations, where small queues are formed as depicted in the space-time diagram of Figure 5b.