## 6 Results and Analysis  
In this section, we analyze the overall performance of the heterogeneous vehicular network in terms of average throughput, latency, packet size, and good-put time. Table 2 illustrates the pilot measurement results of the V2I scenario, including the communication range in terms of VANET connection accessibility. The ideal situation for the communication link availability time was calculated according to (1), although the  
Figure 8: (**a**) Packet capture using 5 GTN (**b**) Packet capture using heterogeneous (5 GTN and ITS-G5) network. Figure 7: (**a**) RWS-1 packet capture using ITS-G5 (**b**) RWS-2 packet capture using ITS-G5. availability of a VANET communication link has a relation between the ideal situation and the collected results, respectively. Table 3 summarizes the pilot measurement results in the tailored V2V scenario. The table provides the communication range as a VANET communication link availability using heterogeneous networking, calculated as a relation between the collected results and ideal situation based on (3). For the V2I scenario, we conducted 25 measurement drives, and for the V2V scenario we conducted 30 measurement drives using the ITS-G5 and the 5 GTN, respectively. In the heterogeneous network, the RWSs continuously transmit real-time road weather and traffic information, as presented in Table 1, and we captured the data packets in the testing vehicle for both V2V and V2I scenarios. For V2V and V2I scenarios, the testing vehicle was driving along the test-track. We evaluated the behavior of vehicular networking on the test-track, as presented in Tables 2 and 3. We also analyzed the latency of the VANET communication on the test-track for V2I and V2V scenarios. Tables 2 and 3 illustrate that the good-put time and latency affected the average throughput in heterogeneous vehicular networking. These results reveal that the network latency had an impact on the network throughput, while the V2V performance was slightly better as compared to the V2I scenario. Figure 9 shows the packet loss in vehicular networking during the pilot measurements. In the V2I scenario, the cellular system had a slightly higher packet loss compared to the ITS-G5 case, due to relatively long initialization time for the connection step-up in the field measurements. However, when connection between vehicles was established, the cellular network packet loss dropped dramatically, and it had almost the same performance at the end of the test drives. For the V2V scenario, the 5 GTN performed better in contrast to the cellular system. Figure 9 also illustrates that the packet loss in the V2V scenario using ITS-G5 was slightly higher due to the haphazard nature of the test-track and weak communication link between vehicles due to the fluctuating distance between them. Features like high carrier frequency and edge computing made the 5 GTN's performance superior that of ITS-G5 (e.g., less latency). Hence, the overall performance of the pilot measurements illustrates that the heterogeneous network's performance was good enough to fulfill the vehicular networking application requirements. This heterogeneous network shows that the pilot measurements performance have clear potential to decrease the accidents and loss of life on roads. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Vehicle Speed** & **Good-Put Time** & **Data Packet** & **Latency (ms)** & **Avg. Throughput** \\
**(km/h)** & **(s)** & **Size (Bytes)** & **Latency (ms)** & **(Mbps)** \\ \hline
30 & 28.95 & 1202 & 0.14 & 1.361 \\
40 & 31.55 & 1202 & 0.23 & 1.225 \\
50 & 26.21 & 1202 & 0.28 & 1.276 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Test measurement results for V2I.