# Evaluation of Different Work Zone Road-Occupation Schemes for Monorail Construction
## 5 Analysis of Behavior Improvement of Schemes
The maximum improvement rate of Scheme 2 is 36.6%. When the east entrance traffic volume for Scheme 2 exceeds 1896 veh/h, the improvement degree in CO emissions compared to Scheme 1 noticeably decreases. Figure 4d shows the improvement rate in terms of parking frequency for Scheme 2 compared to Scheme 1. When the east entrance traffic volume is low, Scheme 2 and Scheme 1 have similar operational performance. When the traffic volume at the east entrance is 711 veh/h, the improvement rate is the highest at 18.0%. As the traffic volume at the east entrance increases, the performance of Scheme 2 is noticeably inferior to that of Scheme 1, and the most unfavorable situation leads to a 50% increase in parking frequency. As can be seen in Figure 4e, Scheme 2 has lower delays than Scheme 1 at lower traffic volumes, with the highest improvement rate increasing by 45.1%. The delays of Scheme 1 and Scheme 2 are similar when the east entrance traffic volume continues to increase up to a moderate level. When the traffic volume exceeds 1659 veh/h, Scheme 1 is superior to  
Figure 5: Improvement ratio (IR) of Scheme 3 compared with Scheme 1. (**a**) Queue length, (**b**) number of vehicles, (**c**) CO emissions, (**d**) number of stops, (**e**) delay, and (**f**) number of conflicts. Scheme 2, and as the traffic volume increases, Scheme 1 gradually outperforms Scheme 2, with a maximum delay improvement rate of 17.3%. Comparing the trend of conflict indicators between Schemes 1 and 2 (Figure 4f), in most traffic volume combinations, Scheme 1 is superior to Scheme 2, and the conflict indicator of Scheme 2 is 38.9% higher than that of Scheme 1 at the most unfavorable time. When the traffic volume at the east entrance is 711 veh/h and the traffic volume at the west entrance is less than 711 veh/h, Scheme 2 does not provide a significant degree of enhancement. The performance improvement analysis results show that compared to occupying the innermost two lanes of the east entrance during the construction of the monorail (Scheme 2) and occupying the innermost single lane of the east entrance and west entrance (Scheme 1), Scheme 2 is suitable for situations with low traffic volume at the east entrance, while Scheme 1 is suitable for situations with high traffic volume. This indicates that occupying the opposite lane as the left-turn lane of the east entrance can ensure that the innermost predicted left-turn vehicles on the east entrance reduce queue length and ensure the travel time of left-turn vehicles. However, as the overall traffic volume of the east entrance increases, the negative impact of this plan on traffic is greater than its positive impact, especially when the traffic volume exceeds 1659 veh/h. Compared with Scheme 1, Scheme 3's queue length is superior to Scheme 1 in most traffic volume combinations, with a maximum increase of 37.1%. When the traffic volume at the eastbound is 711 veh/h, the improvement rate of Scheme 3 decreases. In the most unfavorable situation, Scheme 3 performs significantly worse than Scheme 1, with a queue length improvement rate of \(-\)14.4%. The improvement degree of vehicle quantity and parking frequency between Schemes 3 and 1 is in Figure 5b,d. In all traffic volume combinations, Scheme 3 is superior to Scheme 1, with a maximum improvement degree of 29.7% and 36.1%, respectively. However, while the eastbound traffic volume is relatively low, there is little change compared to Schemes 3 and 1. Figure 5c,e compare the CO emissions and delays between Schemes 1 and 3. Under the condition of low eastbound traffic volume, the improvement rate of Scheme 3 decreases with the increase in traffic volume at the west entrance. When the westbound traffic volume exceeds 1422 veh/h, Scheme 1 is significantly better than Scheme 3. Overall, Scheme 3 is superior to Scheme 1, with Scheme 3 achieving the highest improvement in CO emissions and delays of 20.4% and 28.1%, respectively. Figure 5f compares the conflict situation between Schemes 1 and 3.