Talk:MacArthur Maze/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about MacArthur Maze. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

April 27, 2007 Tanker Fire

I’m not sure who this user is but I pulled this text because it’s more editorial and not really relevant to the article…

"and furthermore the reconstruction of the Bay Bridge has taken 18 years so far and is expected to be completed 26 years after the 1989 quake. Therefore many in the Bay Area expect this repair to take years."

Replacement of smaller structures like the one section of the Bay Bridge, the La Cienega overpass, and this section of the Maze are very straightforward as they simply involve putting back the structure as it was. Historically, Caltrans has done this in span of months (even weeks), especially if a major thoroughfare is impacted and that is what Caltrans is saying now. The Maze was recently retrofitted which should eliminate this project as a “trigger” to do additional seismic retrofit work.

The Cypress Freeway was a political mess primarily because the residents of West Oakland ultimately [and rightfully] pushed to have this 2 mile section of freeway re-aligned. The politics of assembling the new right-of-way and working with various landowners, community groups and railroads was the primary schedule impact. - the Maze repair is not likely to be anywhere close to being this contentious. In addition this project was hundreds of times the size of the prospective Maze project (e.g. like comparing a door replacement to building a completely new house) and is not a good comparison.

The Bay Bridge is a massive project that is thousands of times the size of the potential maze repair and is simply not a relevant comparison (e.g. the door replacement to a new highrise office building). Its multiyear schedule was already delayed 10+ years simply because Oakland and SF couldn’t agree with a new alignment, and the application of a completely new technology for the $1.5 billion plus center span caused additional overruns and schedule delays – these issues won’t occur on this simple replacement.

If we were talking about several miles of roadway being replaced I would concur that it would take years, fortunately a 250m section of roadway is a slam dunk – even for Caltrans (JoeConsumer 4/27/07)

Hi, I'm Josh. Good to meet you JoeConsumer. "fortunately a 250m section of roadway is a slam dunk" With Caltrans, time will tell if you are right. I HOPE so.... but wouldn't put money on it.

JoeConsumer - you're just wrong about this. As a person who has lived in San Francisco for almost 30 years, I can assure you, it's not going to take a month. The problem will be in the politics of Caltrans versus the municipalities affected. I'd like a revert of your edit, especially since I live here, and will be affected by this. You are just wrong about this, and as the person said, "many in the Bay Area expect this to take years." That is exactly the sentiments of anyone who has lived through these things. Ruth E

Hi Ruth - please note months *plural*, e.g. less than a year. I'm certainly don’t believe it will take a month – likely several. Please note that I'm also Bay Area resident who is also currently planning my route home on E80 this evening through this mess. I'm also an architect with a strong structural engineering background who manages multimillion construction projects in San Francisco, Berkeley and for the UC system (e.g. political enviroments). A couple of points:

1: All that is in the article at this point is Caltran’s stated timeline “weeks or months.” If you and I were to put our conjecture in the text, it would be just be our editorialization. Unless there is an independent, credible source that you can cite I would not revert the text (and if you have such a source, great, cite it!). 2: All of the “affected municipalities” basically want the damn thing rebuilt as quickly as possible! Even the governator is fueling the fire under Caltrans rear end. As with the Bay Bridge and I-10 repair this project is now officially on the emergency fastrack which will bypass most of Caltrans red tape. Finding $10 million for the repair will be a much easier task than funding the $1 billion + Cypress Expansion or the (now) nearly $10 Billion Bay Bridge replacement. No one will be squabbling over right of ways, aesthetics, etc. No one will be displaced by this repair, no one’s political pet project compromised. The scope of the project is to use basic concrete/steel construction to simply put back 250m of standard 3 lane connector, something which is being built at 25M - 30M a day at the Western Approach project. The private sector could easily get this done in 1 – 2 months, and even the bumbling idiots at Caltrans can pull this off within a year.

(Joe Consumer) 04-30-07

I certainly see where this discussion is headed. If you all don't know already, significant progress is already being made at the Maze. The I-880 connector reopened yesterday (May 7), according to SFGate, which will make the traffic nightmare a lot less hectic. As for the I-580 connector, that will be done within 25 days according to the contractor (see this link [1]), which I must say pretty quick. But in comparison to similar repairs made to other freeways following the earthquakes, I guess its no surprise. Wslupecki 03:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

This bridge damage is comparable to the damage in Birmingham AL in two separate accidents on a bridge at the intersection of Interstates 20, 59 and 65. This energy deformed and collapsed both bridges on January 5, 2002 and October 21, 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.40.137 (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Separate article

This might warrent a separate article. The event in itself is major. Officials are talking about maybe a billion dollars[2] in effects and extreme inconvenience for this major artery for several months. The news articles on this event are extensive. Titles anyone? --Oakshade 05:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. It is a very major event, especially for the Bay Area. Knowing that there is many sources, and follows many of the guidelines of WP:WIAGA, I agree that making a new article for the tanker crash is a good idea. Chickyfuzz14^{(user talk)} 17:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I dissent. It's a middling major local event, relative to say the Loma Prieta damage. Moreover, there really isn't THAT much to say about it, except in context with this article. Once the facts are fully sorted, the whole thing could easily be summarized in one or two paragraphs. Keep perspective, resist the impulse to sensationalize. Leave that to the mass media who have something to sell. Tmangray 19:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll fence sit. It is a major disaster for Northern California and should be noted in the history of both the maze and 580, but I think over time we could really condense the event itself into three paragraphs. All that really matters is the time of the event, how it happened, and the cost in time and dollars for the repair. If there is a change in the design and the firms used to do the emergency work are also worth noting. But I'd try to keep everything small in these existing articles and point to legit news sources. MCalamari 20:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I diagree with creating a new article. Although this certainly will be big news for the next few months, after that, I doubt that it will be significant enough to warrant its own article. For comparison, both the Bay Bridge and Cypress Structure were damaged during the Loma Prieta Quake. Neither of these repair projects have its own article (aside from being mentioned in Loma Prieta Earthquake, San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, and Cypress Street Viaduct). I think that keeping this information as a section in the MacArthur Maze article is just fine. --76.200.100.62 21:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability is permanant and already the subject specific collapse is taking up 1/3rd of this article. I have a feeling it will out-weigh the non-collapse part soon. Cypress Street Viaduct was actually a signifficant part of the Loma Prieta Earthquake event and most of the content in that article is earthquake related. The amount of subject-specific content is why it's a separate article. --Oakshade 22:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't agree. Just because an event is notable, doesn't mean it needs its own article. Although the information regarding the collapse takes up a good portion of the article, you have to consider that: the article wasn't that beefy to begin with, and there's only three paragraphs dealing with the collapse. It's just about as notable as the collapse on the Bay Bridge (perhaps less), and much like the Bay Bridge collapse, there's only so much you can write about it without becoming bogged down with unencyclopedic details.

The Cypress Viaduct garners notability not only due to its collapse, but also do to the fact that an entire freeway was rerouted and reconfigured. The Cypress structure was both a freeway collapse and a political debate. That is why the article is named "Cypress Street Viaduct" and not "Cypress Structure Collapse."--76.200.100.62 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge from James Mosqueda

I propose that James Mosqueda be merged into this article (or to a separate article for the ramp collapse, should one be created as discussed above). -- Scott e^iπ 19:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing else that makes this person notable than the collapse, so I think it should be merged, or redirected. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 20:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the name of the truck driver and other trivia be deleted. These do not add anything of much importance to the overall article now. Tmangray 16:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Image requested

Is it possible to find a free image of the MacArthur maze collapse? One that shows the debris. I've tried to upload the structure collapsing under a fair use, but the deleting admin said it wasn't historical because it being a truck fire. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 06:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Collapse comment

Comon folks, I may not have the most Wikipedia writing style but its clear based on past Caltrans experience with the Bay Bridge in recent years that months is overly optomistic. This isn't one little metal section like in the quake. This is concrete that needs to designed, molded, etc.

Current Event Tag

It's been about a month or so now since the connectors reopened from that collapse. At this point, I no longer see a need for the "Current Event" tag in the Connector Collapse section of the article. Unless there are still developments in the local media regarding this issue, I think the tag should be removed. Wslupecki 00:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC).

Original configuration

There's an awesome photo of the original configuration in [3]; unfortunately it has no source. --NE2 19:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There's another set of even more awesome photos in the SF Public Library historical collection, available online. There ought to be a way of legitimately uploading one or more of these which show the Maze and its approaches under construction. Tmangray (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition of "MacArthur" to Maze Name

A Google news archives search with a time parameter shows no "MacArthur" attached to the name "Maze" before 1990, confirming my personal recollection that it is a relatively recent name. I believe traffic reporters may have begun using the extended name in the 1980s. In any case, unless someone can come up with a citation which narrows the usage date, I think it is appropriate to say that the usage post-dates the construction of the MacArthur Freeway in the 1950s, and mention that it is probably of relatively recent coinage based on the Google search. Tmangray (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Interchange is no match for Newark Airport Interchange

The Newark Airport Interchange is much larger than the MacArthur Maze. I looked on Google Earth. Hillcrest98 (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Hillcrest98

I do think it dubious that the Maze is the largest interchange in the world. If that claim is to remain in the article, a supporting cite is necessary. Tmangray (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What metric can be applied to rank the size of road interchanges? Number of vehicles passed/day? Here are some other large ones: High Five Interchange in Dallas, Texas, the Big I in Albuquerque, New Mexico is another 5 high stack; Judge Harry Pregerson Interchange in Watts, California; East Los Angeles Interchange in East LA (550,00 vehicles/day - although that encompasses what many consider two distinct interchanges); El Toro Y in Orange County, CA also claims to be one of the busiest in the world with traffic increasing from 102,000 to 356,000 vehicles/day from 1975 to 2002; and Newark Airport Interchange. The North West Tsing Yi Interchange in Hong Kong has orography similar to the Oakland-Emeryville Maze (I am in the "MacArthur Maze is the Route 24-I-580 camp). Note that in the article on The Stack of Phoenix Forbes Magazine proposes a rank via the metric of hours delay accumulated per year at an interchange. 2001:558:6045:A0:1947:F371:FD3B:B1F8 (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

CA State Route 24 should be listed under Freeways Connected

For some reason, CA-24 is not "officially" considered a part of the interchange according to previous editors, instead being noted as a freeway connecting to I-580 in a separate interchange about a mile to the southeast. This is a rather dubious omission, as westbound CA-24 essentially dead-ends into the Maze and I-980. It is set back from the I-880/I-580/I-80 portion by necessity, to give drivers from both CA-24 and I-580 enough space to merge onto eastbound I-80 if they are not continuing on to the bridge. Both "separate" interchanges are really one massive structure that has too many freeways to merge all at once, which is why it takes a mile to accomplish that.

It should also be noted that all traffic that enters eastbound CA-24 from the Bay Bridge must pass through the Maze.

This is essentially a matter of two roads (CA-24 and I-580) ending in the same place, but in this article they are both called I-580 on a superfluous technicality. However, both CA-24 and the "separate" CA-24/I-580/I-980 interchange are very much part of the Maze, and as a native and lifelong resident of the area, I can affirm that they have always been referred to as such. Bradrules (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for that? Otherwise, it has to be considered to be original research.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

There is No 'Official' MacArthur Maze

Properly speaking, the Macarthur Maze is the interchange where SR 24 and Interstate 980 join/cross Interstate 580 AKA the Macarthur Freeway. This interchange is in Oakland about halfway in between Piedmont and Emeryville, to the east of Emeryville.

This 580/980/24 interchange predates most of the current structure which this article is primarily discussing (near the base of the Bay bridge in Oakland just south of Emeryville). The two structures are less than two miles apart, but the term "Macarthur Maze" was used to refer to the eastern structure before the western structure grew into its current maze-like complexity.

--Eric Forste 21:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

From the Caltrans web site: Maze - The I-80/580/880 Interchange at the east end of the Bay Bridge. We call it the distribution structure. http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/trivia.htm Petersam 09:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

My recollection is the same as Eric Forste. The MacArthur Maze is (or was) the intersection of 580/980/24. The name was well-established in the early 1970s when I first began to drive. Traffic reporters would say that Bay Bridge traffic was "backed up to the Maze," and lo and behold it was -- well passed the Distribution Structure. It got its nickname because this area had been a mess for so long with the construction of BART, Highway 24, then 980. This intersection is right by MacArthur Avenue and the MacArthur BART station and it truly is a maze. It is a complete intersection of two freeways -- When you hit the interchange from any direction, you have three different directions you can go on a freeway, and all directions are well-travelled. There are also several large capacity on and off ramps. (It services downtown Oakland). And there are four layers of roadway.

In contrast the Distribution Structure is only a partial intersection, the 880-Bay Bridge traffic is syphoned off before hitting the structure, and there is no 880-580 connection: It is only from the North, heading down 80 that you have a choice of three different directions to go. It has fewer choices that don't come at you so fast. And at least until recently, it has been far easier to navigate. I will certainly admit that it has become more complicated recently with all of the new lanes that have been added to 80 near Berkeley. At least it is always stop and go so that you have plenty of time to prepare!

But the name "MacArthur Maze" sounded sooo good and sooo appropriate that about 15-20 years ago traffic reporters started referring to the MacArthur Maze combined with the Bay Bridge distribution structure as "the Maze." As soon as you leave one structure, you must immediately cross several lanes of traffic to prepare for the next structure, they are very close and connected by elevated freeway, together they feel like a single unit, and they really are a maze. The way they sit right next to each other, it is like the second loop on a roller coaster. A couple years ago, the SF Chronicle did a story about how the name evolved.

It still grates my ear a little when the Bay Bridge-80/580/880 intersection is referred to as the "MacArthur Maze," which historically speaking it is not. I note that the Wikipedia articles on (a) Highway 24, (b) Interstate 580 (in the sidebox) and (c) the MacArthur BART Station get it correct, at least historically, that 580/980/24 interchange is the "MacArthur Maze." However, it seems that the name has evolved so that a significant minority, and quite probably the majority of non-locals, now refer to the Bay Bridge-80/580/880 intersection as the MacArthur Maze. This makes sense because it is a catchy name and non-locals to the East Bay generally regard the whole infrastructure until you can get on a freeway and not have to worry about changing lanes as a "Maze." --Swlenz 23:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This was certainly my understanding too, that there was "The Maze" -- the 80/580/880 distribution structure -- and "the MacArthur Maze" -- the 580/980/24 interchange. But that certainly doesn't appear to be the case from current usage in the media. aaronrp 18:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, since calling the structure nearer the Bay Bridge the "Maze" is evidently a misnomer, albeit one that is irretrievably embedded in common usage and isn't likely to be "corrected", there oughta at least be something about it in the article. Maybe this can be done without devolving into "roadcruft" ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

From memory only (for the time being), I challenge the claim that the term "Maze" refers to the 24-580-980 connector and not the "distribution structure". The 24 and 980 freeways were constructed in the 1960s and I recall hearing traffic reporters talk about the "maze" (sans the "MacArthur") before then with reference to the distribution structure. Someone here has said there was a Chronicle story about the origin of the term. I would like to know the cite. Tmangray (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[4] shows some usage of "the maze" for the east end of the Bay Bridge. --NE2 17:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I was certain I heard that term before the Grove-Shafter Freeway was built. I see on that link a story as early as 1939 referring to "the maze", i.e. the distribution structure.

I challenge the assertion that the simple interchanges at 580 and 24 and the one at 980 and 880 are part of the Maze at all. They are distinct and distant, hardly part of the same structure. The article currently states that the distribution structure (an older technical name for the Maze) is merely a part of the Maze. This is patently false. The distribution structure IS the Maze. Here's a Caltrans map [5] The Maze has always referred to the Bay Bridge distribution structure only. The usage antedates the other interchanges by at least 25 years, and I must say, I have NEVER heard the term used with reference to these other interchanges, except here, without citation (unless I've missed one). I propose that this article be changed accordingly. Tmangray (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This article confuses two distinctly different interchanges:

   "The Maze" and ,"The MacArthur Maze."

The "Maze" was more complicated during the 1940's, as there were trolley tracks going to and from the bridge and along the Eastshore Highway. When the the large interchange with the I-580, SR24 and I980 was built, along with the BART system and associated surface street overpasses, it became known as the, "Macarthur Maze" to differentiater it from the Distribution Structure. I first heard reporters improperly confusing these two interchanges in the 1990's. When I speak to CALTRANS drivers and CHP officers, they currently call the Distribution Structure as, "The Triangle," to allude to the shape formed by the new I-880. 25September2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 946towguy (talk • contribs) 01:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia's policies regrading articles titles, it is the common name used by most reliable sources, not the official name. If you hear any traffic report by most of the Bay Area news media, they use the phrase "MacArthur Maze" to refer specifically to the 80/580/880 interchange. Thus, that is what the scope of this article should be. What the official name that is used by Caltrans is irrelevant. Any attempt to move it back to the 980/24 interchange will invariably get reverted. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
It also does not matter what was referred to as the "MacArthur Maze" back pre-1990s. What matters is what the media refers to it now in 2014. Otherwise, you just confuse readers who will just assume that this Wikipedia article is wrong when it does not match what KGO, KSFO, KCBS and all the other radio and TV stations say it is. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Page name is incorrect. Name should be 'The Maze'; (see Bay Bridge Distribution Structure for disambiguation)

The page is incorrectly titled, "Macarthur Maze," based on recent erroneous sources. The Macarthur Maze is the 1960's to 1970's era interchange that is approximately 1 mile to the East, at the intersection of the Macarthur Freeway (I580), Byron Rumford Freeway (CA SR24) and the I 980. The newer interchange was so-named to differentiate it from,'The Maze' which is the 1930's structure referred to in the article. Nevertheless, some on Wikipedia refuse to accept that there are officially accepted names for these interchanges and insist on using incorrect references!

It should be noted, that the 3 dubious sources cited as 1,2, and 3, only date back to 2007.

The naming conventions for Wikipedia are that the commonly used name should be accepted. Prior to the 1990's,it was very rare for someone to make the mistake of referring to the Maze as the Macarthur Maze. Those of us who have lived here for any period of time KNOW the difference between these two interchanges and NEVER, incorrectly refer to, 'The Maze' (Distribution Structure) as the 'Macarthur Maze.' Having lived in the Oakland area for over 40 years, I consider myself a 'Primary Reliable Source.' If you ask 100 random Oakland residents, over the age of 35, the name of these interchanges, a consensus will show that I am correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 946towguy (talk • contribs) 18:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the naming convention should be the commonly used name that is used by reliable published sources now in 2014, not prior to the 1990s. The current citations are from the Contra Costa Times web site, SFGate.com (the San Francisco Chronicle's web site), and the web site of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. I do not understand why you think these sources are "dubious" (do you really think that any published work by the Contra Costa Times and the San Francisco Chronicle created after the 1990's is dubious?). Because you have no independent sources yourself, and can only say that you are a primary source, all your claims fall in the area of original research. All material on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Because anyone can edit, readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. For example, how do I really know that a phrase like "Emeryville Maze" is not made up? As you notice in that Google search link, there seems to be no exact match for that phrase. Others like me need solid evidence, not what sounds like hearsay. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

As a long, long time resident of the East Bay, I can confirm that 'MacArthur Maze' originally referred to the 24/580/980 interchange (and the messy construction thereof in the 70s). No surprise as this portion of 580 is officially named the MacArthur Freeway. It was difficult and onerous to navigate while the interchange was being built. The term "MacArthur Maze" was picked up by the traffic reporters on the radio, or at least the reporters I listened to (i.e., "Traffic to the bridge is backed up to the MacArthur Maze"). At the time, the 24/580/980 interchange was more complex than the nearby distribution structure adjacent to the Bay Bridge. Unlike the distribution structure where there was and remains no connection between N880 to E580, or W580 to S880, the 24/580/980 provides a choice to travel on any of the other connecting freeways.

I still remember being surprised to read in one of the local rags (newspapers), circa early 1980s, about the maze and traffic reporters. The gist of the story was that some radio traffic reporters referred to the maze as the distribution structure adjacent to the Bay Bridge while others referred to the Maze as the 24/580/980 interchange. (Somebody, with time to waste, should find that story)

Since the completion of the 24/580/980 interchange, the Bay Bridge distribution center has become more complex and maze-like and I am not surprised that the name has "MacArthur Maze" has become attached to the distribution center by non-locals. However, if you ever travel from 24 to 80 or vice versa, the 24/580/980 and distribution center interchanges appear to be, and for practical purposes, are contiguous. The distance between the interchanges is roughly the same as the size of each interchange. The driving path diverges, merges, diverges, then merges again. The maze should be best viewed the way a driver would, from as when you leave your initial freeway until you reach your destination freeway.Swlenz (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MacArthur Maze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

What happened to the newspaper article reference cites?

I clicked on a reference that previously had been directly linked to a newspaper article, but now I get a generic page for the newspaper archive. i.e. the reference cite has been destroyed. What gives? Tmangray (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)