## 4 Conclusions  
In the studies carried out in Istanbul and Konya provinces, three junctions with three and four connected arms were examined. These intersections are also considered to have both a fixed and dynamic signal pattern. The starting point of this study was the use of queuing models in the approach arms at signalized intersections. 1. The queuing theory, which provides the opportunity to examine queuing problems mathematically, has certain disciplines, as mentioned in Section 2.4 above. In the previous studies that inspired this study, the queuing theory was examined in detail and the examined intersections were modeled depending on their distribution characteristics. Based on the results, it was predicted that improvements were required and, accordingly, new models could be tested in the control of signalized intersections. 2. Two different models are proposed for the use of green durations and the determination of phase sequences. In Figure 11, the average of the spent times experienced by the vehicles in three different intersections are given. It is seen that all three dynamic models manage better than the fixed-time signalized intersection. In addition, it is observed that less time was lost with the M1 model, compared to the other two models, M2 and M3, during rush hours, between 06:00 and 10:00. In addition, it is seen in Figure 12 that the intensity of the flow, which is the most important indicator of queuing and jamming in the intersection connecting arms, is lower with the improvement of green times. However, Figure 13 demonstrates the change in the number of vehicles in the queues before and after the proposed model. As can be seen from the graph, the number of vehicles in the queue is lower after the model. There was a decrease of approximately 21% in the average number of vehicles waiting in the queues during the day. 3. The work principle of the two models M2 and M3 differ from each other due to the sensors used. While loop detectors and wireless sensors are mainly used in M3, vehicle detection systems in M2 work with camera sensors. The main difference here is that sensors positioned on or below asphalt are positioned at certain distances on the junction link arms, while the cameras are positioned close to the intersection center to detect vehicles passing through the intersection endpoint. This fundamental difference in sensor types required performance values to be calculated with different analysis methods. For example, while the queue lengths on the junction approach arms can be calculated more accurately with the loop detectors, this could be calculated using a slightly more complex method with the camera sensors. Therefore, considering the infrastructure cost, using both sensor infrastructures will be more beneficial both in obtaining the number of vehicles more clearly and in distinguishing the vehicle types. 4. There are quite a lot of articles and studies in the literature that stand out with different approaches on this subject. However, it is also observed that most of the research does not go beyond written publication. Because of the lack of practical equivalents of the studies, a clear idea is not given about how it can be applied against different factors that may arise in the field. The prominent uniqueness of this study is the adaptation and testing of the proposed models to traffic control systems in the field. Based on the analysis of the state of the art for control of signal timing and phase sequences at signalized intersections, there are several factors, such as the location of the intersection, being isolated or coordinated, the capabilities of the sensors, the road capacities, the edges of the connection roads, the presence of irregular entrances other than the connecting roads to the intersection, the traffic use permissions of different types of vehicles during rush hours in the city, the turning density at the exit from the intersection, etc., that affect the performance of the roundabouts in urban areas. 5.