Traffic Network Analysis

Transportation represents a highly salient component of daily life, influencing an individual’s livelihood and activities he/ she can accomplish (Trafas, 2015). The County of Los Angeles has been facing its third big transport crisis within the span of a hundred years. That is, it is the third time in this period that transportation issues have topped the county’s agenda. The crisis has been viewed as a matter of great urgency by concerned authorities and has been experiencing a very high degree of public concern and awareness. Also, whilst the factors contributing to the present traffic crisis have been deemed as akin to past crises’ contributing factors, the reactions of current public policy making authorities differ from the responses of previous policy makers in the sense that, currently, traffic congestion is being dealt with using other means besides major highway expansions (Wachs, 1993).
Ever since the past four decades, traffic growth rate has surpassed population growth rate. Though the traffic spurt of the 1920s may be attributed to the introduction of cars and their acquisition by a swiftly growing segment of the population, and that of the 1950s may be credited to suburban development and the pent up automobile demand depressed artificially by twenty years of war and economic depression, the increased traffic congestion during the 1970s and 1980s have been traced back to relatively different sources. Of late, vehicle ownership has augmented to such an extent that one will find two or more registered vehicles for every licensed driver within Los Angeles County (Wachs, 1993).
Most individuals in the US tend to use their private automobiles during the rush hour, for the following two key reasons: Firstly, the major part of the American population resides in areas of low population density which are not effectively served by public transit. Secondly, private automobiles are more private, comfortable, and convenient when timing one’s trip, swifter, and more flexible when one desires to accomplish multiple tasks in a single trip as compared to any other public transit vehicle. With the growth in household incomes across the globe, an increasing number of individuals have been shifting from the cheaper but slower modes of public transport to private trucks and cars (Downs, 2004). The city of Los Angeles has been counted among the world’s most automobile- dependent cities, second (in America) only to the city of San Francisco, with regard to automobiles for every square mile (2,161) (Newton, 2010). Further, transit in Los Angeles makes up only 2% of overall trips across different modes, thus illustrating private automobiles’ total dominance (Eidlin, 2010).
Transportation network type
A careful analysis of individual areas within Los Angeles may aid one in identifying areas wherein new development ought to commence. Project plans may be formulated in such a way that they concentrate on areas associated with least effect on extant land- use patterns. Furthermore, projects have to support present uses by means of concentrating particular developments within particular regions. For ensuring effective integration of transit into the area, development needs to take into account long- term transit goals. It would be prudent to discourage land- use not in line with goals of transit sustainability to facilitate land- use efficacy maximization. Areas containing employment centers accompanied by high residential population density serve as ideal transit development prospects. With a population of 3.8 million inhabitants in the county (i.e., forty percent inhabitants), development of transit development displays a great likelihood for decreasing traffic congestion. Land- use effectiveness will serve to prioritize transit in highest employment regions, connecting residents with these regions using short, convenient transit trips. Vertical and horizontal development are attractive options within these regions, for maintaining cluster characterization as a cultural, economic, and entertainment hub (Trafas, 2015).
As Los Angeles has been burdened by high traffic congestion on its extant roadways, further development for decreasing congestion and preventing further congestion prove imperative. To this end, the Regional Connector Transit (RCT) Project may prove valuable. Transit project prioritization over additional highway plans demonstrates the fact that increased highway infrastructure is no solution for ideal land- use effectiveness within the Los Angeles region. The RCT venture aids the regional project target of developing a livable, integrated, and dynamic area bearing in mind projected growth. Established objectives additionally attempt at creating transit- and extant land-use pattern- supportive land-use, concentrating on development of transit with residential, recreational and employment centers. The RCT project’s three planned stations are situated in high-traffic and downtown hotspot areas. The first station will be situated adjacent to the Arts District/ Little Tokyo – a recreational and cultural hub that boasts numerous visitors. The area’s accessibility will be increased by developing transit which supports its extant land- use pattern, besides connecting several high traffic regions. The next station will be in its civic center (which is a high employment region), offering commuters an alternate option to taking personal automobiles to work daily. The last station will be located adjacent to a recreational hub characterized by numerous museums, theaters and concert halls. Station locations demonstrate attempts at connecting city areas already marked by high congestion using transit alternatives for decreasing congestion and supporting extant land- use patterns (Trafas, 2015).
Bicycle network
Another valuable option may be the establishment and maintenance of interconnected bicycle networks (Neighborhood Network, Bicycle Enhanced Network (BEN), and Backbone) in Los Angeles’s street system for providing comfortable, safe, and convenient regional and local facilities for all kinds of cyclists. BEN represents a 180-mile-long subset of Los Angeles’ larger city street system. BEN-Enhanced streets can, together with neighborhood streets and extant bicycle paths, offer riders a relatively stress-free bikeway network (LADCP, 2014).
Vehicle network
The VEN (Vehicle Enhanced Network) may be set up on an arterial system subset of Los Angeles city for providing regional freeway access. This network, when implemented with time, could serve to forbid construction filming and utility work in the weekdays, with the exception of special circumstances, and could mandate weekend or night- time construction. Furthermore, VEN streets could typically include active tow-away zone enforcement, loading zones, limited turning, and time-limited parking, and, in the areas where it is practical, peak period and reverse flow lanes (LADCP, 2014).
Goods movement
Traffic mobility may also be improved through implementing projects providing regionally-substantial goods transit improvements. It is an established fact that entrepreneurs are drawn to regions characterized by dependable, convenient small package and other business-related deliveries. However, improvements in goods movement do not prove good only for corporations, but for the whole city, as they decrease congestion, mobile air emissions, and traffic safety risks, besides improving economic health and mobility. Goods transport is vital to organizational vitality. Additionally, all projects, undertakings and policies aimed at improving goods movement serve to increase the city’s safety, cleanliness and economic strength. Transit right-of-ways (e.g., the Orange Line, Blue Line, Exposition lines and certain at- grade Gold Line segments) prove problematic for various reasons, including the at- grade setup increasing chances of collisions or delays between train and the remaining roadway users (like pedestrians, automobiles, trucks, and bicyclists). The delays that ensue end up further degrading train timeliness and reliability. Grade-separating such amenities can increase train punctuality; the decrease in delays will tend to attract more users (LADCP, 2014).


References
Downs, A. (2004). Traffic: Why it’s getting worse, what government can do. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/traffic-why-its-getting-worse-what-government-can-do/
Eidlin, E. (2010). What density doesn’t tell us about sprawl. Access 37, 2–9.
LADCP. (2014). Mobility plan 2035. Retrieved from https://planning.lacity.org/Cwd/GnlPln/MobiltyElement/Text/MobilityPlan_2035.pdf
Newton, D. (2010). Density, car ownership, and what it means for the future of Los Angeles. Retrieved from http://la.streetsblog.org/2010/12/13/density-car-ownership-and-what-it-means-for-the-futureof-los-angeles/
Trafas, V. (2015). An analysis of the Los Angeles metropolitan transportation authority ’s ability to achieve sustainability as defined by the transportation index for sustainable places. (Master’s Thesis, University of San Francisco). Retrieved from https://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1144&context=capstone
Wachs, M. (1993). Learning from Los Angeles: Transport, urban form and air quality. (Working Paper, University of California at Los Angeles). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.294.1982&rep=rep1&type=pdf