## 3 Results
### Simulation-Based Verification  
We designed four simulation-based schemes of verification to test the validity of the results of the above analysis. The results were used to verify the effect of the optimization and formulate optimal measures.  
Scheme 1: No optimization measure was implemented. This was the control scheme.  
Scheme 2: We optimized signal timing and design speed (scheme optimization). [PERSON]'s method [33] was used to optimize the scheme for signal timing at the key intersection, and the optimal cycle was calculated to be 125 s. We analyzed the trajectory and bandwidth at different design speeds, and obtained an optimal design speed of 50 km/h. The optimal schemes for green wave control were calculated and represented graphically [7; 11], as shown in Table 12. The time-distance diagram is shown in Figure 4.  
Scheme 3: Limiting heavy vehicle traffic and pedestrian crossing (traffic management). This involved restricting heavy vehicles on the road through detours. The zebra crossing was eliminated to isolate the road.  
Scheme 4: This involved optimizing the signal timing and design speed on the premise of limiting heavy vehicle traffic and pedestrian crossing. That is, we adopted the measures of Schemes 2 and 3 for the overall optimization of the system.  
The \(S\), \(T\), and \(D\) were output by Vissim software according to the above four schemes, and the \(E\) was calculated according to Equations (1-4). The schemes and their results are shown in Table 13.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Intersection 1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Intersection 2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Intersection 3**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Intersection 4**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Intersection 5**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Intersection 6**} \\ \hline Phase & Timing & Phase & Timing & Phase & Timing & Phase & Timing & Phase & Timing & Phase & Timing \\ \hline \(\star\) & 34 & \(\star\) & 31 & \(\star\) & 26 & \(\star\) & 25 & \(\star\) & 33 & \(\star\) & 45 \\ \(\star\) & 12 & \(\star\) & 54 & \(\star\) & 70 & \(\star\) & 28 & \(\star\) & 18 & \(\star\) & 46 \\ \(\star\) & 34 & \(\star\) & 19 & \(\star\) & 29 & \(\star\) & 25 & \(\star\) & 33 & \(\star\) & 15 \\ \(\star\) & 20 & \(\dagger\) & 21 & & & \(\star\) & 20 & \(\star\) & 18 & \(\dagger\) & 19 \\ \(\dagger\) & 25 & & & & & \(\dagger\) & 27 & \(\dagger\) & 23 & & \\ \hline Offset & 108 & Offset & 59 & Offset & 50 & Offset & 109 & Offset & 54 & Offset & 0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 12: Scheme for green wave control with a design speed of 50 km/h and signal cycle of 125 s (unit: s).  
Figure 4: Time-distance diagram.  
Figures 5 and 6 show that compared with Scheme 1, the average number of stops in Scheme 2 was smaller by 11.3%; the average travel time was shorter by 5.6%; the average delay was shorter by 15.4%; and the value of influence was smaller by 10.9%. The average number of stops in Scheme 3 was smaller by 18.9%; the average travel time was shorter by 11.1%; the average delay by 9.6%; and the value of influence decreased by 13.3% compared with Scheme 1. The average number of stops in Scheme 4 was smaller by 39.6%; the average travel time was shorter by 17.5%; the average delay by 31.2%; and the value of influence decreased by 29.8%.