## 2 Study Framework
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameter**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Unit**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Description**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SUMO**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**VISSIM**} \\  & & & **Default** & **Default** & **Default** & **Values** [6] \\  & & & **Values** & **Values** & **Values** & **Values** \\ \hline CC0 & m & Standstill gap & 2.50 & 1.50 & 2.44 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{CC1} & \multirow{3}{*}{s} & Headway time: time gap & \multirow{3}{*}{1.30} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.90} & \multirow{3}{*}{1.09} \\  & & that the following driver & & & \\  & & keeps for a & & & \\  & & safety-in-moving state & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{CC2} & \multirow{3}{*}{m} & ‘Following’ variation: & \multirow{3}{*}{8.00} & \multirow{3}{*}{4.00} & \multirow{3}{*}{4.00} \\  & & range of gap between & & & \\  & & the two vehicles in the & & & \\  & & “following” regime & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{CC3} & \multirow{3}{*}{s} & Threshold for entering & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)12.00} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)8.00} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)6.09} \\  & & & \(\text{``following\" regime}\) & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{CC4} & \multirow{3}{*}{m/s} & Negative ‘following’ threshold & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)0.25} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)0.35} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)0.35} \\  & & Positive ‘following’ threshold & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{CC5} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(10^{-4}\) rad/s} & Speed dependency of & \multirow{3}{*}{6.00} & \multirow{3}{*}{11.44} & \multirow{3}{*}{11.44} \\  & & oscillation & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{CC7} & \multirow{3}{*}{m/s2} & Oscillation acceleration: & \multirow{3}{*}{0.25} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.25} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.25} \\  & & actual acceleration & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & during oscillation in the & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & unconscious following & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & regime & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{CC8} & \multirow{3}{*}{m/s2} & Standstill acceleration: & \multirow{3}{*}{2.00} & \multirow{3}{*}{3.50} & \multirow{3}{*}{3.50} \\  & & desired acceleration & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & when the vehicle starts & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & from the standing & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & condition & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{CC9} & \multirow{3}{*}{m/s2} & Desired acceleration at & \multirow{3}{*}{1.50} & \multirow{3}{*}{1.50} & \multirow{3}{*}{1.50} \\  & & 80 km/h & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Wiedemann-99 parameters. (i.e., look-ahead time in seconds for anticipating slow down) was set to 5.0 s, and the _\"lcStrategic\"_ (i.e., the eagerness for performing strategic lane changing) was set to 10 for both PC and TT vehicles. A general framework for estimating highway delays and conflicts is shown in Figure 1. The procedure begins by using SUMO to simulate the movements of all vehicles (PCs and TTs) on the highway network for a specified period. Input data are highway geometry, number of lanes, lane configuration, number of on/off ramps, etc. The traffic volumes simulated are 500, 750, 1000, 1500, and 2000 vehicle/h/lane. Four different levels are considered for the TT volume (i.e., 2.50%, 5.0%, 7.50%, 10.0% and 15%). The traffic volume is distributed as follows:  
- Seventy percent of total traffic volume from mainline to mainline;  
- Twenty percent of total traffic volume from mainline to off-ramp;  
- Ten percent of total traffic volume from on-ramp to mainline. The combinations of traffic volumes for both PCs and TTs are presented in Table 2.  
Figure 1: Study framework. One on-ramp entrance with one lane;  
One auxiliary merge lane after the on-ramp, 800 m in length;  
One off-ramp exit with two lanes;  
One auxiliary diverge lane before the off-ramp, 400 m in length;  
A lane width of 3.65 m;  
Three distinguished segments, namely, on-ramp, straight, and off-ramp, each 1200 m in length. In this study, one hour and forty minutes (i.e., 100 min or 6000 s) of traffic were simulated. For each scenario, 10 simulation runs, with each run using different random seeds, were applied with a warm-up period of 20 min.