# Evaluation of Adjustment Effects of Highway Guide Signs Based on the TOPSIS Method
## 5 Evaluation Model and Application
### Application of the Evaluation Model  
The G2 Expressway in China, a major north-south arterial route, connects Beijing to Shanghai and passes through key cities in Hebei Province, such as Langfang and Cangzhou. Through the investigation of existing traffic signs on the G2 expressway mentioned earlier, it was found that this section has significant high traffic flow characteristics. It is worth noting that a questionnaire survey and in-depth interviews with high-frequency drivers on this section revealed that the Hebei section of the G2 Expressway intersects with 11 typical roads, with a large number of traffic sign samples (involving 11 typical sections), and a large number of sign facilities do not comply with standard specifications. Based on this, in order to effectively verify the practical application effectiveness of the traffic sign evaluation model constructed in this article, the research team selected the Hebei section of the G2 Expressway, including its intersections with 11 other highways (e.g., G3, G2501, and G18), as the empirical research object, focusing on the technical evaluation of the standardization of its sign system. A total of 558 traffic guide signs were surveyed along the selected segment, with 99 signs failing to meet the relevant requirements for guide signage. In addition, for subjective indicators (D5, D11, D13, and D18), on-site questionnaires were administered to collect drivers' evaluations of the signage's effectiveness. After filtering out invalid responses, the corresponding indicator values were calculated. Microsoft Excel (Version 2019) was utilized for the computational processes of the TOPSIS method. The evaluation results for all indicators are summarized in Table 4 (see Appendix A). From Table 4, it can be seen that the issues with traffic signs are layout specification problems (58), sign occlusion problems (21), and layout information overload problems (18). The number of problematic traffic signs corresponding to different evaluation indicators varies greatly, which reflects the actual situation of traffic signs on this highway. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Indicator Category** & **Evaluation Indicators** \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{Compliance rate for distance sign configuration} \\ \hline Configuration rate for exit advance and confirmation signs \\ \hline Completeness rate of facility guidance signs \\ \hline Compliance rate with layout standards \\ \hline Non-overload rate of layout information \\ \hline Rational selection rate of hierarchical information \\ \hline Completeness rate of advance signs \\ \hline Reasonable layout rate of exit advance signs \\ \hline Consistency rate of directional signs \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{Obstruction-free rate of sign placement} \\ \hline Completeness rate of reflective films \\ \hline Maintenance rate of signs against damage \\ \hline Correct alignment rate of signs \\ \hline Continuity rate of guiding information \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{Visual comfort of the layout} \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{Effectiveness of information retrieval} \\ \hline Satisfaction with information selection \\ \hline Appropriateness of route guidance \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Evaluation indicator categories. Forming the decision matrix  
In the evaluation of the G2 Hebei section's signage indicators, the optimal value for all indicators is set to 1, while the worst value is set to 0. All optimal indicator values are treated as an optimal set (denoted as M1), and all worst indicator values are treated as a worst set (denoted as M2). The actual indicator values from the road network form the actual set (denoted as M3). Thus, the decision matrix X is formed, and normalization is applied to X to obtain standardized values. Determining the weights of indicators  
Determining the weights of primary indicators: Using the AHP, pairwise comparisons are made to evaluate the relative importance of the primary indicators.