## 4 Results
### Alternative Scenario #2  
The alternative scenario #2 is a hypothetical road situation, which assumes a decrease in traffic flow volumes for all movement O-D pairs by 10%, relative to the baseline scenario. In this case, the transport demand takes the following respective values: 3600, 4500 and 6300 veh./h. The results of optimization with the Nash and Stackelberg approaches are summarized in Tables 6 and 7 and illustrated in Figures 7 and 8. Figure 5: Comparison of traffic volume on individual links to road network for scenario #1. Figure 6: Compared travel times through individual links to road network for scenario #1. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Link**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Congestion**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Travel Time Increase (\%)**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Nash** & **Stackelberg** & **Nash** & **Stackelberg** \\ \hline (1,4) & 1.12 & 1.12 & 12.00 & 12.00 \\ (2,5) & 1.18 & 1.18 & 18.25 & 18.25 \\ (3,6) & 1.24 & 1.24 & 23.92 & 23.92 \\ (4,7) & 1.04 & 1.12 & 4.20 & 12.18 \\ (4,8) & 1.99 & 1.94 & 98.75 & 94.44 \\ (5,4) & 1.10 & 1.16 & 9.55 & 16.07 \\ (5,6) & 1.03 & 1.00 & 2.60 & 0.11 \\ (6,7) & 3.42 & 2.78 & 242.02 & 177.89 \\ (7,8) & 2.88 & 2.94 & 188.48 & 193.54 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Traffic congestion in transport network links for scenario #1. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**O-D Pair**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Route**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Traffic Flow Volume (\(\times 10^{3}\) veh.)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Average Travel Time (Min)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Marginal Travel Time (Min)**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]** & **[PERSON]** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{(1,8)} & \(p_{1}\) & 2.585 & 2.376 & 14.63 & 14.39 & 25.56 \\  & \(p_{2}\) & 1.015 & 1.224 & 14.63 & 15.02 & 25.56 \\  & \(p_{3}\) & 2.846 & 2.886 & 24.88 & 24.88 & 35.90 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{(2,8)} & \(p_{4}\) & 0.000 & 1.346 & - & 25.52 & 35.90 \\  & \(p_{5}\) & 1.654 & 0.268 & 24.88 & 24.18 & 35.90 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{(3,8)} & \(p_{6}\) & 6.300 & 6.300 & 15.40 & 14.86 & 25.92 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Results of optimization with the Nash and Stackelberg approaches for movement routes in scenario #2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Link**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Traffic Flow Volume (\(\times 10^{3}\) veh.)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Average Travel Time (Min)**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Nash** & **Stackelberg** & **Nash** & **Stackelberg** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{(1,4)} & 3.600 & 3.600 & 5.50 & 5.50 \\  & 4.500 & 4.500 & 11.50 & 11.50 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{(3,6)} & 6.300 & 6.300 & 7.18 & 7.18 \\  & 1.015 & 2.570 & 4.08 & 4.37 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{(4,8)} & 5.431 & 5.262 & 9.12 & 8.88 \\  & 2.846 & 4.232 & 4.26 & 4.51 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{(5,6)} & 1.654 & 0.268 & 5.17 & 5.01 \\  & 7.954 & 6.568 & 3.18 & 2.52 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{(7,8)} & 8.969 & 9.138 & 5.04 & 5.15 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Results of optimization with the Nash and Stackelberg approaches for road network links in scenario #2. Figure 7: Traffic volume compared in individual links to road network for scenario #2. (Nash and Stackelberg differences (%) represent the percentage increase in traffic volumes on each link compared to the results of scenario #1). The number of vehicles traveling on the links to the starting nodes is strictly determined by the value of demand for transportation on each route. It should be stressed that, in the case of the analyzed system, they do not depend on the applied traffic flow distribution approach. Significant differences in traffic flow depended on the applied optimization approach occurring in links (4,7), (5,4), (5,6), and (6,7). Regardless of the applied approach (Nash, Stackelberg), the most loaded road section in both cases was on link (7,8). On the other hand, the least loaded is link (4,7) for the solution obtained with the Nash approach and link (5,6) in the case of the Stackelberg approach.