## 6 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Continuous Traffic Stream Conditions**} \\ \hline Model & \(v_{max}\) [km/h] & \(v_{c}\) [km/h] & \(g_{c}\) [voz/km] & \(q_{max}\) [voz/h] \\ \hline [PERSON] (1935) [7] & 35.5 & 26.8 & 80.0 & 2141 \\ [PERSON] (1959) [9] & \(\infty\) & 18.7 & 59.0 & 1104 \\ [PERSON] (1961) [10] & 54.3 & 19.9 & 101.0 & 2009 \\ [PERSON] (1967) [13] & 50.0 & 30.3 & 47.0 & 1422 \\ Modified Morgan (1975) [64] & 51.6 & 19.3 & 69.0 & 1331 \\ [PERSON] (3P) (2011) [23] & 53.4 & 24.6 & 69.0 & 1699 \\ [PERSON] (5P) (2011) [23] & 53.7 & 25.2 & 68.0 & 1714 \\ Kucharski and Drabicki (2017) [4] & 48.2 & 34.7 & 40.0 & 1388 \\ Gadam and Rao (5P) (2019) [58] & 52.7 & 26.9 & 58.0 & 1562 \\ Gadam and Rao (6P) (2019) [58] & 54.5 & 18.6 & 113.0 & 2099 \\ [PERSON] (2020) [58] & 82.6 & 24.3 & 96.0 & 2333 \\ [PERSON] (2021) [63] & 72.3 & 18.1 & 60.0 & 1084 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Interrupted Traffic Stream Conditions**} \\ \hline Model & \(v_{max}\) [km/h] & \(v_{c}\) [km/h] & \(g_{c}\) [voz/km] & \(q_{max}\) [voz/h] \\ \hline [PERSON] (1935) [7] & 34.4 & 17.2 & 80.0 & 1374 \\ [PERSON] (1959) [9] & \(\infty\) & 15.0 & 59.0 & 885 \\ [PERSON] (1961) [10] & 50.0 & 18.3 & 59.0 & 1078 \\ [PERSON] (1967) [13] & 50.0 & 30.6 & 37.0 & 1132 \\ Modified Morgan (1975) [64] & 30.5 & 20.0 & 40.0 & 799 \\ [PERSON] (3P) (2011) [23] & 33.5 & 17.0 & 81.0 & 1381 \\ [PERSON] (5P) (2011) [23] & 34.0 & 16.9 & 84.0 & 1421 \\ Kucharski and Drabicki (2017) [4] & 30.0 & 21.6 & 59.0 & 1277 \\ Gadam and Rao (5P) (2019) [58] & 30.9 & 20.1 & 63.0 & 1268 \\ Gadam and Rao (6P) (2019) [58] & 35.0 & 12.7 & 129.0 & 1640 \\ [PERSON] (2020) [58] & 42.5 & 15.5 & 116.0 & 1793 \\ [PERSON] (2021) [63] & 49.6 & 12.4 & 83.0 & 1030 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Comparative Relative Differences [\%]**} \\ \hline Model & \(v_{max}\) [km/h] & \(v_{c}\) [km/h] & \(g_{c}\) [voz/km] & \(q_{max}\) [voz/h] \\ \hline [PERSON] (1935) [7] & 35.8\% & 35.8\% & 0.0\% & 35.8\% \\ [PERSON] (1959) [9] & - & 19.8\% & 0.0\% & 19.8\% \\ [PERSON] (1961) [10] & 8.0\% & 8.2\% & 41.6\% & 46.4\% \\ [PERSON] (1967) [13] & 0.0\% & \(-\)1.1\% & 21.3\% & 20.4\% \\ Modified Morgan (1975) [64] & 40.9\% & \(-\)3.5\% & 42.0\% & 40.0\% \\ [PERSON] (3P) (2011) [23] & 37.3\% & 30.8\% & \(-\)17.4\% & 18.7\% \\ [PERSON] (5P) (2011) [23] & 36.8\% & 32.9\% & \(-\)23.5\% & 17.1\% \\ Kucharski and Drabicki (2017) [4] & 37.7\% & 37.7\% & \(-\)47.5\% & 8.0\% \\ Gadam and Rao (5P) (2019) [58] & 41.3\% & 25.2\% & \(-\)8.6\% & 18.8\% \\ Gadam and Rao (6P) (2019) [58] & 35.7\% & 31.5\% & \(-\)14.2\% & 21.9\% \\ [PERSON] (2020) [58] & 33.1\% & 33.7\% & 0.9\% & 34.2\% \\ [PERSON] (2021) [63] & 31.3\% & 31.3\% & \(-\)38.3\% & 5.0\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} The meaning of the parameters in the table is as follows: \(v_{max}\) denotes free-flow speed; \(v_{c}\) is the critical speed at road capacity; \(g_{c}\) is the critical density at road capacity and \(q_{max}\) represents road capacity (maximum flow).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparative overview of the relevant traffic flow parameter boundary values representative of continuous and interrupted traffic stream conditions, determined by fitting the traffic flow models considered to empirical data collected on two selected segments of regional road ZC5210. traffic stream conditions is 5%-46.4% lower than the practical road capacity determined for continuous traffic stream conditions. The highest difference in practical road capacity values representative of continuous and interrupted traffic stream conditions (46.4%) is obtained based on [PERSON]'s model. The flow-density model based on modified Morgan-Mercer-Flodin equation, as well as Fosu's and Greenshields' models, also produce significantly different practical road capacity values for continuous and interrupted traffic flow conditions.