## 7 Results and Discussion  
### Discussion of the Calculations Results  
We used (25) to calculate the scores of the four schemes under different traffic conditions; the scores are plotted in Figure 10. The best scheme under each traffic combination was also selected and plotted in Figure 11. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & **Pricipal** & **Principal Ingredient** & **Principal Ingredient** & **Principal Ingredient Variance** & **Combined Weight** \\  & **Ingredient** & **Entropy Weights** & **Contribution Ratio** & **Combined Weight** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Scheme 1} & F\({}_{1}\) & 45.625 & 60.305 & 52.97 \\  & F\({}_{2}\) & 43.927 & 25.819 & 34.87 \\  & F\({}_{3}\) & 10.449 & 13.876 & 12.16 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Scheme 2} & F\({}_{1}\) & 50.668 & 62.929 & 56.80 \\  & F\({}_{2}\) & 42.598 & 23.299 & 32.95 \\  & F\({}_{3}\) & 6.734 & 13.772 & 10.25 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Scheme 3} & F\({}_{1}\) & 35.126 & 62.773 & 48.95 \\  & F\({}_{2}\) & 56.003 & 23.457 & 39.73 \\ \cline{1-1}  & F\({}_{3}\) & 8.871 & 13.771 & 11.32 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Scheme 4} & F\({}_{1}\) & 39.539 & 53.998 & 46.77 \\ \cline{1-1}  & F\({}_{2}\) & 42.325 & 26.27 & 34.30 \\ \cline{1-1}  & F\({}_{3}\) & 18.136 & 19.732 & 18.93 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 22: Principal ingredient weight values (%). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & **Item** & **Scheme 1** & **Scheme 2** & **Scheme 3** & **Scheme 4** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Factor 1} & Delay & 7.133 & 8.821 & 5.832 & 4.863 \\  & Travel time & 8.451 & 9.924 & 7.133 & 4.859 \\  & CO emission & 9.903 & 10.593 & 7.890 & 8.054 \\  & Fuel consumption & 9.903 & 10.593 & 7.890 & 8.054 \\  & Number of conflicts & 10.235 & 10.736 & 6.380 & 13.708 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Factor 2} & TTC & 18.332 & 14.222 & 21.226 & 8.257 \\  & PET & 25.595 & 28.376 & 34.777 & 34.068 \\ \hline Factor 3 & CSI & 10.449 & 6.734 & 8.871 & 18.136 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 21: Factor weighting results based on the EWM (%). As can be seen in Figures 10 and 11, Scheme 1 has the highest scores under traffic volumes of 5280-6600 veh/h and a diverging ratio of 10-20%, or traffic volumes of 1320-3300 veh/h and diverging ratio of 50%. This suggests that Scheme 1 should be used primarily when traffic volumes are high and the diverging ratio is low or where traffic volumes are low and the diverging ratio is high. The two-lane auxiliary lane can accommodate more vehicles when the traffic volume or diverging-emerging ratio is large. Meanwhile, Figure 10 shows that Scheme 1 scores second only to Scheme 2, and the gap between the two is small, so Scheme 1 has better applicability. Scheme 2 utilizes a unique design form that tapers the two-lane auxiliary lane to a single lane. It scored the highest at low traffic volumes of 1320-3960 veh/h and a diverging ratio of 10-40%. On the one hand, the design ensures that vehicles can efficiently enter or exit the mainline under a larger diverging-emerging ratio. This improvement enhances the capacity of the freeway while preserving the advantages of two lanes at the entrance and exit. On the other hand, once the vehicle enters the mainline of the freeway if the  
Figure 11: Optimal solutions under different traffic combinations (numbers 1–4 in the figure denote the optimal solutions under different traffic combinations; the circle has five layers, representing the diverging ratio of 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% from the inside to the outside; the same radial direction denotes the same traffic volume). Figure 10: Auxiliary lane design schemes score. traffic volume is low, the vehicle can quickly change lanes to the mainline. Therefore, the auxiliary lanes exhibit a low utilization rate of the outer lane, and the single-lane auxiliary lanes can ensure the vehicle's diverging and emerging needs. This indicates that the design of Scheme 2 adapts well to small traffic volumes.