Slashdot Mirror
Elon Musk Hates 405 Freeway Traffic, Pays Money To Speed Construction
S810 writes "Elon Musk, one of the main people behind PayPal, Space Exploration Technologies and Tesla Motors, has paid $50,000 to help Los Angeles speed up construction of the 405 Freeway, making it better and says that he will pay more if needed. From the article: 'Musk said he is open to pay the cost of adding workers to the widening project "as a contribution to the city and my own happiness. If it can actually make a difference, I would gladly contribute funds and ideas. I've super had it." — Musk quips that it's easier getting rockets into orbit than navigating his commute between home in Bel-Air and his Space Exploration Technologies factory in Hawthorne.' For those who aren't familiar with this issue, the 405 Freeway runs from the northern end of the San Fernando Valley all the way down to El Toro and runs by LAX. Residents are getting frustrated that this widening project is over budget and well over the anticipated time frame that it was supposed to completed by."
it's all the cars on it.
if they built the sort of light rail which the region desperately needs it could cut down on the traffic hugely.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
He didn't pay money to speed construction. He spent $50,000 on a consulting organization that would look into how to speed up construction. They did not find a way to do so. But hey, he's learning how these things work: spending $50k to "study" something with no results is exactly how many real projects happen too. ;-)
A better question might be why L.A. is spending $1.1 billion on widening a freeway, instead of improving its damn transit. Adding another lane is going to be a stop-gap solution at best, and it'll be congested to the hilt within another few years. Is the goal to have 30-lane freeways by 2030 or something?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You aren't in traffic, you are traffic.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This project was budgeted at $1 billion dollars, and is currently projected to cost $1.1 billion. So no, $50k is not significant. Also, he didn't even spend the $50k on construction: he paid it to a lobbying group, Angelinos Against Gridlock, whose goal is to speed construction. The group actually looks like one worth supporting (they have a vision that includes both roads and rail improvements and it seems reasonably thought out), so that $50k might be well spent. But it's spent on an advocacy organization, not on construction.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I like living in the country, I'm not going to move into the inner city where my job is just because the commute sucks. However, if I can contribute a fairly small portion of my money to make my commute a bit easier, I will. A good place for a job can be a really shitty place for a home.
If you want to throw money at the problem of highway construction, you offer a large payout contingent on how quickly it gets done while still within project specifications.
The workers get paid by the hour and so do the contractor managers most of the time. So to give them money with the promise of "more if needed" will result in pleas of "hey! we need more!!!"
These people seriously don't understand how it works when highways are constructed with public money -- the recipients never want the money to run out.
You know nothing about these construction contracts, which are handled by private firms. There are incentives to get the work done fast. But there are somethings you just can't rush, like having that sandy soil properly settled so new roadbed doesn't continue to settle and end up with cracks and holes. Then there's the matter of having the equipment necessary at various stages there on time, much of it coming from other worksites. There's hundreds of miles of freeways alone in the LA area. I see the same thing where I live. It looks simple enough, until you are in charge of the logistics and find how much more expensive it can be to try rushing things. Maybe if Musk threw several million dollars at the contractors, so they had more equipment they could get some things done faster. Sometimes private industry isn't faster than a good ol' bloated public department with lots of taxpayer dollar funded extra equipment available.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
He lives in BelAir and commutes to Hawthorne ?? Give me a break... that was ridiculous 30 years ago and still is. One word, listen closely... MOVE. Everyone seems to think it's normal to drive these ridiculous long commutes and it's actually a symptom of a screwed up society in love with their crappy cars. Try living closer to work and walk there, or ride your golf cart or something.
Since Elon Musk is so wealthy and he's only paying $50,000, may I contribute my $5 ?
The $5 from me to me is worth much more (by ratio of my wealth) than the $50,000 to Mr. Musk, btw
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Kind of true.The section of the 405 Elon Musk drives every day is the most congested of all, though. Have a look at traffic information on Google Maps. Right now (5:05pm local time), more than half of the distance between Hawthorne and Bel Air is red or black. The estimated time for that drive is 27 min, but 55 in the current traffic. And it is the same every day of the week.
I still find the money would be better invested in expanding the rail/subway network. How many lanes can you add to a freeway before it becomes ridiculously dangerous? There are already 17 lanes on some sections of the I-5 over here...
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
becasue the people who design this type of work, and mange it are really good.
My head just exploded.
You seem to have no idea the scale of work the goes into turning virgin terrain into a proper road. It involves hundreds of men working hard labor, dozens of machines that cost $10M each (or about $15K a month, if you want to rent) and are backordered for two years and burn 100 gallons of diesel a day, and hauling thousands of tons of rocks across large distances to poor on the ground. Then you take the amount of time to do all that and quadrupal it if you actually want to drive on it faster than 35MPH and not have your transmission fall out. None of that pays attention to the cost of surveying the land and planning out what angle is needed on the banks, determining just how much you can safely slope the road so both compact cars and big trucks can safely drive on it, to securing right-of-way from landowners,....
But yeah, it's public money, so we can ignore all that and complain that they should work for free so no tax dollars are wasted while we still get roads that you don't need a horse to traverse.
How about replying instead of trying to knock off my karma?
You're an idiot. Happy?
While I prefer the country myself (and just recently took a job in the country to get out of the city), working in the city and living in the country is irrational by almost any objective criteria. Here are some examples (all times are for the round trip):
Here is the article I pulled those stats from, it links to more definitive sources. Basically, it's absolutely not worth it to live further away from your job to have a bigger house. That said, raising a family might be better in the country, unless you're subjecting your kids to a long commute as well.
It gets worse. Until the 405 gets into the mountains, it's solid city on each side. Widening means buying property, expensive property. It's an elevated freeway, so it's hideously more expensive to build than on the ground.
Sadly, it's not going to fix the problem. Twice as many lanes would still not be enough. There's a choke point where the 405 meets the 101 in the San Fernando Valley that backs at least 2 miles every workday, and has done so for at least 30 years.
It may get better, but it's not going to be fixed.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
In America, suburban schools are usually better than inner city schools. Being that said, I am willing to take a slight pay cut for telecommunting privlege and indefinite tenure.
While true, inner cities also have private schools which are better than suburban public schools (particularly since problem students can easily be expelled, thanks to the safety net of public schools). Take ~$6,000/yr for high school for example - if schools are the main reason for moving to the suburbs, determine if you are losing more than $6,000/yr in money or time by commuting - it may end up actually being cheaper.
Don't think he's an exception, half the country thinks their experts on road design/construction, even when confronted by indisputable facts that run contrary to their initial thesis they will simply reformat their premise to reach the same conclusion.
I always get a kick out of people that like the OP claim there is no basis for the cost but it's designed by registered professional engineers to standards dictated by the American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO is a committee of experts in the field from state and federal government and private business). Those plans are then built by low bid contractors (often with 3+ bidders and prices that are frequently with 1-2%) operating under strict quality control guidelines with engineers supervising the installation, inspection, testing and quality assurance. And in the end the entire project is audited by both State and Federal auditors to ensure that no tax payer money was diverted or used contrary to law.
Yet, according to the OP the whole thing is horseshit and you could build roads for half the cost. That is of course if you didn't care if they lasted more than a week, nor cared at all about safety such as whether the bridges will fall down in a strong wind. That's because the OP is an absolute expert in examining his rectum visually up close and personal.
Yes roads cost a lot, and it's because they are designed to last anywhere from 20-40 years depending on pavement type. Considering the interstates were originally built in the 60's they've more than proved that the standards are adequate. But with truck weights more than 10 times larger than when the interstates were originally built it means complete reconstruction with much thicker pavements than the interstates used in the 60's. A typical interstate pavement section is over 3' thick with a foot of granular borrow, a foot of road base and a foot of concrete you aren't going to get any of that cheap.
I just mapped it, and it comes up about 17-18, but you're still in the right ballpark.
His best bet is to move- as soon as the 405 is built out, it will return to the same congestion as before (that happens to freeways everywhere). The next best thing (and better for LA) would be to fund a rail line that essentially parallels the 405. And maybe throw in a bikeway-- LA has 330 days/year that are good biking weather, but having to do a long commute on city streets can be a pain. There are a few bikeways along the various rivers and/or freeways (SGRT, LARIO) that can make a bike commute competitive with driving, even for very long distances. Shorter than about 10 miles it's faster to bike, and even at 15-20 miles, the combination of bike and train is faster than driving at rush hour.
Or maybe it's because there are 7 million more people in LA County than in Orange County?
You can't move a population of 10+ million people around every day by automobile without traffic jams. It's an impossible task. You can eke out tiny improvements, but just as quickly they are overtaken by increased usage and then you're looking at an even larger, more expensive and time-consuming upgrade to keep traffic moving . The 405 is a perfect example of this.
Auto travel does not scale efficiently and over the long term LA is going to have to significantly improve its mass transit (ie subway, light rail, street cars NOT buses) to have any chance of improving congestion. Thankfully the government understands this and is moving beyond 1950s urban planning policies.
But it's LA, and no place on earth is more beholden to the notion that a car is freedom and taking public transit is for the unwashed masses. Even when it's obvious to everyone involved that upgrading the freeway system is a huge, inefficient pain in the ass and a waste of public money you still get people like yourself clamoring that they should do *more* of it. It's absurd.
The Interstate numbering standards are not random, nor are they some secret. Here's how they work:
1- or 2-digit freeway = primary route
even last digit = east / west route
odd last digit = north / south route
3-digit freeway = loop or spur route from 1- or 2-digit primary route
3-digit freeway, even first digit = loop route
3-digit freeway, odd first digit = spur route
1- or 2-digit freeway numbers are numbered ascending, starting west to east for odd numbered routes, and south to north for even numbered routes. Thus, I-5 on the west coast and I-95 on the east coast; and I-10 across the southern US and I-90 across the northern US.
3-digit freeway numbers are unique per state. Thus, California, Oregon, and Washington all having a 405 loop route that connects twice with I-5. Interstate 105 in Oregon is a spur route that goes from I-5 to a downtown terminus in Eugene.
There are a few oddities in the system due to an early convention that allowed a "directional prefix" in a name if a freeway split, this has been abandoned causing abnormalities in numbering. Example: I-84 used to be I-80N before being re-signed, and now I-84 is actually south of I-82 in Eastern Oregon / Washington. There are other oddities too, but they are few in comparison to the rest of the system.
Hope that clears it up.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.