*Centralised Traffic Control and Green Light Optimal Speed Advisory Procedure in Mixed… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95247*

The reader may refer to **Figure 3**, showing the traffic signal controllers (sections 4 and 5) and the link controllers (sections 1 and 2) are represented.

Concerning the simulation results, it must be specified that all numerical applications were run on a server machine Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5–1620 v3, clocked at 3.50GHz and with 8GB of RAM. As already anticipated in the introduction three scenarios were considered in all:


The simulation interval considered for each scenario is equal to one hour and for each simulation a warm-up period taking teen minutes is considered.

The tested scenarios are listed below:


To preliminarily compare the achieved results a further scenario has introduced as baseline. In particular, in the baseline scenario an Adaptive Signal Control [A - SC] strategy has been considered [23]. Furthermore, it must be also clarified that in all scenarios, the considered penetration rate of CAV (Connected Autonomous Vehicles) equals 50%, and the impact of the penetration rate of connected and autonomous vehicles has not yet been tested. Indeed, it will be remarked as future perspective then in terms of further issues to be investigated. In the following the results of each scenario are displayed.

In particular, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed strategy, the [A - SC] scenario was compared with each one of three scenarios [YY], and the relative difference (i.e. A - SC vs. YY) between the mean value of actual travel times of two alternative paths is then performed [TTpathx] (see **Table 4**) as well as the mean value of the relative difference of the queue lengths [QL] at significant sections (see **Table 5**; sections are identified in accordance with **Figure 3**). The results


**Table 4.**

*Mean TTS rel. Diff. [%] of [a - SC] scenario w.r.t [YY] scenario.*

