# Evaluation of Different Work Zone Road-Occupation Schemes for Monorail Construction
## 6 Analysis of the Results Based on EWM
The weight of indicator-\(k\) at the \(n\)-th traffic volume situation is as follows: \[{{p_{jk}}}=\frac{{{m^{\prime}}_{jk}}}{\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\epsilon}{{m^{ \prime\prime}}_{jk}}},j=1\text{ to }4,k=1\text{ to }6\] (13) The indicator-\(k^{\prime}\) entropy value: \[{{e_{k}}}{=-\lambda\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\epsilon}{{p_{jk}}\ln({p_{jk}})}}\] (14) The computation for redundancy in information entropy is outlined as follows: \[{{d_{k}}}{=1-{{e_{k}}}}\] (15) Equation (15) was used for the weight of each indicator 15 calculations. \[{{w_{k}}}=\frac{{{d_{k}}}}{\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\epsilon}{{d_{k}}}}\] (16) The weights of six evaluation indicators were recorded as the following: \[{{w_{n}}}=[{{w_{n,1}},{w_{n,2}},\ldots,{w_{n,k}},\ldots,{w_{n,6}}}]\] (17) The weights of the nth traffic and the last 49 traffic combinations in matrix form were combined as the following: \[{{\rm{W}}}=[{{\rm{W}}_{1}},{{\rm{W}}_{2}},\ldots,{{\rm{W}}_{n}},\ldots,{{\rm{ W}}_{49}}]\] (18)  
### Evaluation of Schemes  
The design schemes were evaluated comprehensively under 49 traffic volume situations. (1) The ratio of the scheme-\(j\) value to all three scheme values:  
\[{{p_{jk}}}=\frac{{{m^{\prime\prime}}_{jk}}}{\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\epsilon}{{m^{ \prime\prime}}_{jk}}},j=1\text{ to }4,k=1\text{ to }6\] (19) (2) The score of indicator-\(k\) in scheme-\(j\) was recorded as the following: \[{{z_{jk}}}{={\rm{P}}_{jk}}\times{{{\rm{W}}_{n}}^{T}},k=1\text{ to }6\] (20) (3) The score of the calculation formula for the scheme-\(j\) is the following: \[{{z_{j}}}=\sum\limits_{k=1}^{6}{{z_{jk}}}\] (21) (4) The three schemes' final scores are shown in \({{Z_{n}}}\) as follows:\[{{p_{jk}}}=\frac{{{m^{\prime}}_{jk}}}{\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\epsilon}{{m^{ \prime\prime}}_{jk}}},j=1\text{ to }4,k=1\text{ to }6\]0  
Finally, the scores of all transportation combinations in matrix \(Z\) were summarized. After obtaining matrix Z, the highest score was located to find the best solution for each traffic combination condition, and Matrix T was obtained based on the 7 \(\times\) 7 traffic combination. The optimal solution result under 7 \(\times\) 7 traffic volume conditions, namely matrix T, is shown in the following figure:  
From Figure 6, it can be seen that Scheme 1 is distributed in the bottom left corner of the matrix, which means that the original construction area scheme can be evaluated with higher scores when the traffic volume on the two directions is low. With the gradual increase in traffic volume at the eastbound and the westbound, Scheme 2 shows better performance. However, as the traffic volume in the east direction further increases, the advantages of Scheme 3 in indicators such as traffic delay and traffic conflict become more apparent when it exceeds 1422 (veh/h). Moreover, due to the wider lane layout on the eastbound of Scheme 3, Scheme 2 has no advantage when the eastbound traffic volume exceeds 1422 (veh/h). The optimal performance ratio for Schemes 1, 2, and 3 is 6:19:24. Based on the results of the EWM, Scheme 1 is optimal when the traffic volume on both entrances does not exceed 1000 (veh/h). But, when the westbound traffic volume exceeds 1400 (veh/h), Scheme 2 shows better traffic performance. However, Scheme 2 has a relatively low level of transportation service for the east entrance. As the eastbound traffic volume exceeds 1422 (veh/h), Scheme 3 exhibits an absolute advantage in all transportation combinations. The optimal performance ratio for Schemes 1, 2, and 3 is 6:19:24. \[{{p_{jk}}}=\frac{{{m^{\prime}}_{jk}}}{\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\epsilon}{{m^{ \prime\prime}}_{jk}}},j=1\text{ to }4,k=1\text{ to }6\]1 Performances of Schemes 1, 2, and 3. The numbers in the figure represent the scheme number, and the number means the best performance among the three schemes for one volume combination.