## 4 Results  
### Modeled Scenarios  
The method was applied to 15 hypothetical scenarios, with an intersection of two lanes in each direction, bidirectional. The study area was considered in the vehicle-pedestrian conflict zone. The vehicular flow on the main road started at 500 vehicles per hour (veh/h) and increased by 100 veh/h until it reached 1900 veh/h, which was very close to the saturation flow. The vehicular flow on the secondary road was considered to be half of the vehicular flow on the main road. The input values for the method are those used as an example in Table 1 (Section 3.1). Table 2 shows the flow and saturation grade for vehicles. As explained earlier, the vehicular flow on the main road started at 500 vehicles per hour (veh/h) and increased by 100 veh/h increments until it reached 1900 veh/h. The flow on the secondary road was half of the flow on the main road. The saturation grade was low for flows less than 900 veh/h; however, for flows above 900 veh/h, the saturation grade approached a value of 1. The saturation grade is an important metric that represents the degree of congestion at an intersection or road. A saturation grade of 1 means that the intersection is operating at its full capacity, where the demand for space and time exceeds the available capacity, leading to congestion and delays. As the vehicular flow increases, especially beyond 900 veh/h, the saturation grade rises, indicating that the road and intersection are nearing their maximum capacity, which can lead to significant delays and inefficiencies if not managed properly. Understanding this behavior is crucial for optimizing traffic signal timings and managing the balance between traffic flow and pedestrian safety, especially during peak hours when congestion is at its highest. The cycle time of the signalized intersection was obtained for each modeled scenario using the method described in Section 3. The difference between the cases with and without the Shibuya-type crossing is presented in Table 3. In the case of the Shibuya-type crossing, a 3-phase signal crossing is presented (see Figure 3 in Section 3), while the opposite is presented with a 2-phase signal crossing. The green time is obtained using the proposed method for each modeled scenario (see Table 4). In the case of the 2-phase signal crossing, the green time is equal to the yellow time (defined as AA in Table 1, see Section 3). In addition, it is important to note that in the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Scenario** & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** & **6** & **7** & **8** & **9** & **10** & **11** & **12** & **13** & **14** & **15** \\ \hline Flow main road (veh/h) & 500 & 600 & 700 & 800 & 900 & 1000 & 1100 & 1200 & 1300 & 1400 & 1500 & 1600 & 1700 & 1800 & 1900 \\ Vehicle saturation & 0.260 & 0.312 & 0.364 & 0.416 & 0.468 & 0.520 & 0.572 & 0.624 & 0.676 & 0.728 & 0.780 & 0.832 & 0.884 & 0.937 & 0.989 \\ Flow secondary road (veh/h) & 250 & 300 & 350 & 400 & 450 & 500 & 550 & 600 & 650 & 700 & 750 & 800 & 850 & 900 & 950 \\ Vehicle saturation grade (secondary road) & 0.130 & 0.156 & 0.182 & 0.208 & 0.234 & 0.260 & 0.286 & 0.312 & 0.338 & 0.364 & 0.390 & 0.416 & 0.442 & 0.468 & 0.494 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Vehicle flow at each scenario modeled using the method. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Scenario** & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** & **6** & **7** & **8** & **9** & **10** & **11** & **12** & **13** & **14** & **15** \\ \hline
2-phase signal crossing & 40.00 & 40.00 & 40.00 & 40.00 & 40.00 & 40.00 & 40.00 & 40.00 & 40.00 & 41.70 & 51.33 & 66.74 & 120.00 &case of a Shibuya-type crossing, the green time must account for the diagonal distance of the crossing. The delays are presented in the following tables (see Tables 5 and 6), providing a comparative analysis of different scenarios at the signalized intersection.