## 4 Results and Discussion
Regardless of traffic flow density, traffic control reduced \(r_{D,Sc}\) by an average of 9% to 13% considering the weather conditions (Table 2). Differences in relative delays between different weather conditions appeared with increasing traffic density and with the same traffic control measure. It is interesting to note that \(r_{D,Sc}\) did not deviate significantly from the reference value up to the value of the traffic flow density \(k_{Sc}\leq 9\) veh/km, which we interpreted as a lower efficiency of the traffic management measure. For the cases \(k_{Sc}>9\) veh/km, the differences  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \(k_{Sc}\) & \(r_{D,NB\_ALL}\) & \(k_{Sc}\) & \(r_{D,NB\_d}\) & \(k_{Sc}\) & \(r_{D,NB\_d}\) & \(k_{Sc}\) & \(r_{D,NB\_d}\) & \(k_{Sc}\) & \(r_{D,NB\_d}\) & \(k_{Sc}\) & \(r_{D,NB\_d}\) & \(k_{Sc}\) & \(r_{D,NB\_d}\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{12}{c}{**(veh/km)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(veh/km)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(veh/km)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(veh/km)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(veh/km)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(veh/km)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(veh/km)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(veh/km)**} \\ \hline
6.0 & 4.1\% & 6.0 & 3.8\% & 6.0 & 3.9\% & 6.0 & 3.9\% & 6.0 & 3.8\% & 6.0 & 3.9\% & 6.0 & 3.8\% \\
8.7 & 5.4\% & 8.6 & 5.2\% & 8.7 & 5.2\% & 8.7 & 5.3\% & 8.7 & 5.2\% & 8.7 & 5.3\% & 8.7 & 5.4\% \\
11.4 & 9.3\% & 11.4 & 7.1\% & 11.3 & 7.3\% & 11.3 & 7.3\% & 11.3 & 7.1\% & 11.4 & 7.5\% & 11.4 & 7.6\% \\
14.3 & 12.9\% & 14.1 & 10.4\% & 14.1 & 10.6\% & 14.1 & 10.9\% & 14.1 & 10.9\% & 14.1 & 10.5\% & 14.1 & 10.6\% \\
17.3 & 15.6\% & 17.1 & 14.0\% & 17.2 & 15.1\% & 17.4 & 15.2\% & 17.2 & 14.3\% & 17.3 & 14.7\% & 17.3 & 14.9\% \\
20.7 & 20.9\% & 20.6 & 18.9\% & 20.6 & 19.2\% & 20.8 & 19.8\% & 20.7 & 18.9\% & 20.6 & 19.1\% & 20.6 & 19.2\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{12}{c}{\(13.1\)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{11.4\%} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{13.0} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{9.9\%} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{13.0} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{10.2\%} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{13.1} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{10.4\%} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{13.0} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{10.0\%} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{10.2\%} \\ \hline \multicolumn{12}{c}{\(k_{Sc}\)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(r_{D,NB\_ALL}-r_{D,NB\_A}\)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(r_{D,NB\_ALL}-r_{D,NB\_A}\)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(r_{D,NB\_All}-r_{D,NB\_d}\)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(r_{D,NB\_all}-r_{D,NB\_d}\)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(r_{D,NB\_all}-r_{D,NB\_d}\)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(r_{D,NB\_all}-r_{D,NB\_d}\)} \\ \multicolumn{12}{c}{**(veh/km)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(r_{D,NB\_All}-r_{D,NB\_A}\)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(r_{D,NB\_All}-r_{D,NB\_d}\)} \\ \hline
6.0 & \(-\)7\% & \(-\)5\% & \(-\)4\% & \(-\)7\% & \(-\)4\% & \(-\)8\% \\
8.7 & \(-\)4\% & \(-\)4\% & \(-\)2\% & \(-\)4\% & \(-\)2\% & \(-\)2\% & \(-\)1\% \\
11.4 & \(-\)24\% & \(-\)21\% & \(-\)22\% & \(-\)2\% & \(-\)2\% & \(-\)2\% & \(-\)19\% \\
14.3 & \(-\)19\% & \(-\)18\% & \(-\)1 increased and reached values from \(-19\%\) to \(-24\%\), with the greatest impact in dry weather conditions. Thus, for a traffic flow density of around 9 veh/km, the relative reduction in total relative delays without and with lane management was up to 1% in heavy rainfall and up to 4% in light rain and in dry conditions. With the additional increase in traffic flow density, the relative differences according to weather conditions no longer changed with the same trends. With a traffic flow density of about 21 veh/km and with the _WB_c_ measure, the total relative delays were reduced by 8% to 9% in all weather conditions, and by 5% in snow. Again, results of the paired _t_-test indicated that there is a significantly large difference between \(r_{D,WB\_c}\) (\(\mu\) = 10.1, \(\sigma\) = 5.4) and \(r_{D,NB\_ALL}\) (\(\mu\) = 11.4, \(\sigma\) = 5.8), \(n\) = 36, \(t\) = 8.2, \(p\) < 0.001.