## 1 Introduction
In contrast to the DSRC/IEEE 802.11p, it deploys the existing infrastructure and requires less infrastructural equipment while covering potentially larger areas, reducing the operational and capital costs for infrastructure operators [3]. Several studies have been conducted to benchmark the performance of the LTE-based (4G-based) C-V2X and IEEE 802.11p/ITS-G5 as well as to evaluate the LTE-based C-V2X performance. In [4], the authors investigated, by simulations, the performance of the LTE-based C-V2X in terms of the V2V and I2V communications. Moreover, the authors of [5] dealt with the performance of the LTE-based C-V2X (mode 4) from the packet reception ratio and packet inter-reception perspective in the context of the V2V communication. The performance of the LTE-based C-V2X (mode 4) in the context of the traffic collision avoidance applications based on sharing occupancy maps between the infrastructure and vehicles was investigated in [6] in terms of the packet delivery ratio. In [7], the authors also investigated the performance of the mode 4 of the LTE-based C-V2X, but in a multiapplication context, considering both Cooperative Awareness Messages (CAM) as well as event-based Decentralized Environmental Notification Messages and the V2V communication. The authors in [8] compared mode 3 and mode 4 of the LTE-based C-V2X for the V2V communication in terms of the packet delivery ratio. Regarding the IEEE 802.11p/ITS-G5 and LTE-based (4G-based) C-V2X performance benchmark, the following studies were found: [9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21]. In [9], the LTE-based C-V2X and IEEE 802.11p were benchmarked from the average packet reception ratio perspective while taking into account typical urban and freeway scenarios and the V2V communication. The authors in [10] compared, considering again only the V2V context, these two technologies, i.e., the IEEE 802.11p and LTE-based C-V2X, in the context of packet delivery ratio in different traffic scenarios, i.e., cities and highways. In [11], the LTE-based C-V2X (mode 3) and ITS-G5 were compared from the end-to-end (E2E) latency and communication channel conditions perspective in two scenarios; first, considering the effects of realistic data traffic on an ITS alert service, and second, the impact of handover on an ITS safety service. This was again only done in the V2V communication scenario. The authors in [12] benchmarked the corresponding technologies in the V2V context and an urban micro-cell highway scenario in terms of the packet reception ratio and transmitter-receiver distance. In [13; 14], the corresponding communication systems were compared, in the context of the V2V communication scenario, in terms of the E2E latency, Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR), and throughput and in terms of the average packet reception ratio, respectively. To be more precise, the authors of [13] benchmarked the performance of the LTE-based C-V2X and IEEE 802.11p under various network conditions and parameter values from delay, reliability and scalability perspective. When it comes to the work published in [14], the benchmark highlighted the fact that LTE-based alternatives, i.e., the LTE multicast and LTE sidelink, offer a higher performance than the IEEE 802.11p from the reliable communication range reached in all of the studied scenarios perspective. In [15], the authors compared, by means of system level simulation, the performance of the ITS-G5 and LTE-based C-V2X (mode 4) in terms of the packet delivery rate in order to provide statistics about CAM transmission reliability in typical urban scenario. In [16], the performance of the IEEE 802.11p and LTE-based C-V2X, i.e., LTE in the infrastructural mode and LTE Device-to-Device mode (mode 3), was benchmarked in terms of the average E2E latency and packet delivery ratio under varying communication conditions achieved through the variation of the communication perimeter, message generation frequency and road traffic intensity in the V2I communication context and an urban scenario.