Talk:MacArthur Maze

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Topics California State Highways
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article needs a map. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.
WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[1] 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 [2] 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)

[edit] 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 [3]), 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).

[edit] Separate article

This might warrent a separate article. The event in itself is major. Officials are talking about maybe a billion dollars[4] 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)

[edit] 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 eiπ 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. --wL<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)

[edit] 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. --wL<speak·check> 06:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.


[edit] 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).

[edit] Original configuration

There's an awesome photo of the original configuration in [5]; 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)

[edit] 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)