## 3 Results and Analysis  
### General Analysis  
Table 3 offers a comparison of driving indicators between GDS and tunnel-interchange scenarios, which underscores noticeable distinctions in driving parameters between these environments. Particularly in smaller spacing scenarios, a notable trend emerges: a reduction in average speed and an escalation in speed variability. This trend accompanies a decrease in both the duration and length of lane-changing maneuvers. Significantly, the study observes a 62.61% increase in RV (S.E. = 0.217, \(p\) = 0.011), an 18.60% rise in DCC \(\max\) (S.E. = 0.021, \(p\) < 0.001), and a 61.11% escalation in V \(\stst\) (S.E. = 0.26, \(p\) < 0.001) within tunnel-interchange samples. The distributions of V \(\mean\), TH, MLCD, and MLCL closely resemble the traffic observational data extracted from the previous study [10,25]. These preliminary analyses point to potential detrimental impacts on driving stability and safety due to environmental transitions specific to tunnel-interchange contexts. Delving into the influence of environmental factors, Table 4 elucidates the correlations among various indicators. CD stands out with strong correlations across most driving metrics, particularly evident in MLCD and MLCA, where coefficients surpass 0.60. This implies a pronounced sensitivity of lane-changing behavior to spatial alterations in tunnel-interchange environments. IV, exhibiting moderate correlations with key speed and CF indicators, suggests signage information's substantial influence on driver speed selection. In addition, drivers' gap selection during LC displays the highest correlation with TC, with a coefficient exceeding 0.6. Contrarily, TL does not exhibit significant correlations with other indicators, aligning with findings from prior research [25]. The following analyses will be carried out focusing on combinations of independent and dependent variables with correlation coefficients higher than 0.25 (the bold terms). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **CD** & **IV** & **TC** & **TL** & **Variable** & **CD** & **IV** & **TC** & **TL** \\ \hline V mean & \(\mathbf{0.48}\)* & \(\mathbf{-0.30}\) & \(-0.18\) & \(-0.13\) & MLCD & \(\mathbf{0.65}\) & \(-0.10\) & \(-0.24\) & \(-0.09\) \\ RV & \(\mathbf{-0.28}\) & \(\mathbf{0.31}\) & \(0.10\) & \(0.09\) & MLCL & \(\mathbf{0.43}\) & \(-0.15\) & \(-0.17\) & \(-0.04\) \\ DCC max & \(\mathbf{0.29}\) & \(\mathbf{-0.38}\) & \(0.16\) & \(-0.09\) & MLCA & \(\mathbf{-0.62}\) & \(0.11\) & \(0.21\) & \(-0.07\) \\ DH min & \(\mathbf{-0.31}\) & \(\mathbf{0.30}\) & \(\mathbf{-0.46}\) & \(-0.08\) & DLCD & \(0.22\) & \(-0.07\) & \(0.16\) & \(-0.03\) \\ TH min & \(\mathbf{-0.45}\) & \(\mathbf{0.39}\) & \(\mathbf{-0.52}\) & \(-0.06\) & DLCL & \(0.15\) & \(-0.13\) & \(0.14\) & \(-0.05\) \\ PMLC & \(\mathbf{0.57}\) & \(0.05\) & \(-0.09\) & \(0.03\) & DLCA & \(-0.15\) & \(0.10\) & \(0.05\) & \(-0.04\) \\ PDLC & \(\mathbf{0.54}\) & \(0.02\) & \(-0.03\) & \(0.04\) & Gap & \(\mathbf{0.37}\) & \(-0.15\) & \(\mathbf{-0.48}\) & \(-0.03\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
* Bold terms indicate that the correlation coefficient is greater than 0.25.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Correlation analysis.