The name is absent

CHAPTER 5. SIMULATION RESULTS

5.1.6 Summary

Table 5.2: Scenario 1: Best results

The self-organizing traffic light controllers are better than the optim and marching
controller, except for sotl-request at high traffic density. The sotl-request con-
troller for high traffic density is worse than the optim and marching controller.
This is because at high traffic density requests are granted almost immediately.
This results in very fast switching of the traffic lights. The value of θ can regulate
the green times of the traffic lights. This is why the highest tested value for θ gives
the best ATWT value (Average Trip Waiting Time).

The sotl-phase controller is better than the optim and marching controller for
both traffic densities. Compared to the optim controller, the sotl-phase controller
at high traffic density reduces the ATWT with 62% and the TWQL (Total waiting
queue length) with 91%. At low traffic density, this is a reduction of 82% for the
value of ATWT and an elimination of the TWQL value.

At high traffic density it can be concluded that the sotl-platoon controller is
better than optim . Compared to the optim controller, the sotl-platoon controller
has reduced the ATWT with 62% and the TWQL with 90%.

The best controller for low traffic density is the sotl-platoon controller. It reduces
the ATWT with 90% compared to the optim controler and the TWQL is elimi-
nated.

Concluding, at both densities the platoon controller is a lot better than the
optim controller.

<<   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   >>

More intriguing information