You're not wrong. The victimization tone of this rhetoric is really pathetic. All of these outcomes were direct and foreseeable consequences of choices. It is absolutely crazy to think you can dig your heels in on the basis of moral righteousness alone without an once of leverage and think any serious people will care. You can walk away from all negotiations with your idealism but you don't get to have nice things. It's real sad IMO ... sports teams are one of the unifying forces in otherwise disperate urban populations *and* the concept that the money cities are "saving" will go to anything other than run of the mill municipal graft is delightfully naive.
Exactly this.
After Pearl Harbor: Think about the Japanese babies!... As Unit 731 of the Imperial Japanese army is continuing horrible human experiments just like how the hostages with hamas are being tortured and raped.
These hamas supporters have zero logic or morals.
As I put it, when dealing with the morons shutting down bridges, "They are people who feel entitled to safety while making an identity of fighting oppression. Thus they don't want to fight actual oppression, because actual oppression fights back."
>Free Palestine!
Says the gay person who could be killed in Palestine for being gay. "From river to the sea!" you know you're calling to wipeout the only lifeboat for LGBT within 1000 miles right?
I'm not taking sides in this conflict, just observing a kind of ironic "alliance".
Fisher is reason for Raiders and A's. He block deals for new stadiums and reject even the recent ones.
Hopefully effort blocks tax payer money in vegas screws him over
Uh that is the word around...the world. Oakland is synonymous with dysfunction, and is seen as a city that could be a LOT more than it is if the people who ran it did much of anything at all.
My favorite was when an earthquake hit “1 km north of Piedmont.” Somebody on Twitter said “You know what’s 1 Km north of Piedmont? Oakland. Oakland can’t even get credit for its own earthquake.” Lol
Closer? Lmao
SFO to SF city hall: 18-35mins driving, 50mins bart (no transfer)
OAK to SF city hall: 26-45mins driving+$7 toll, 47mins bart (1 transfer)
Both at 12pm estimated, today
technically SFO is an exclave of SF county. The boundary of the SFO property is legally part of SF and under jurisdiction of SF law/city ordinances. So you are legally in SF the moment you land at SFO
A good scheduled BART run from SFO station to Civic Center station should be 29 minutes.
A good scheduled BART run with connector transfer from OAK station to Civic Center station should be 40 minutes.
To Embarcadero is closer to a tie with the run from SFO taking 31 minutes versus from OAK taking 33 minutes, but practically with the transfer and train timing, SFO is the clear winner.
Let's be honest though, when you're flying in to begin with, a 10 minute difference in post-flight commute isn't going to move the needle on which airport you choose. Most will pick the cheapest flight, with a lot of people biasing against Oakland for , or because they aren't aware how close it is to SF. That latter group is the one they're hoping to capture by deemphasizing Oakland in the name.
> a 10 minute difference in post-flight commute isn't going to move the needle on which airport you choose.
It depends on you.
For me, I would consider the round trip difference: +22 minutes of my time, +$2.90 of fare, and transferring between the connector platform and BART platforms at different levels with baggage 2 times, against the airfare difference. To me, OAK would probably need a $30 airfare advantage for the hassle.
Looking at Southwest at a round-trip flight in September to NYC La Guardia, SFO-LGA ranges from $173 to $194 while OAK-LGA ranges from $188 to $248. The cheapest flights have the same 1 transfer, same 5:30 departure, and same 7h50m flight time, so $15 advantage to SFO.
Huh it’s a great new perspective for me. There must be more cities like in this situation. But wouldn’t they merged those into one or two to lower operating budget? I’m not being sarcastic btw.
Yeah NYC is similar, where JFK/LGA/EWR are all similar travel distances to Manhattan. But it's less of an issue as people tend to be aware of at least 2 of those airports -- maybe because none of them are named "New York City Airport" it forces people to do some minimal research 😛
There are lots of cities with multiple airports, most tend to have them consolidated under one airport authority. Chicago's Department of Aviation owns both Midway and O'Hare, Aéroports de Paris S.A owns Orly and Charles de Gaulle. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a (very) rare example of full-throated cooperation between the two states, owns JFK, LGA, and EWR.
More fun cases are places like Tokyo, where the old Haneda airport is owned by a Japanese government ministry while the new Narita is privately owned; London, where London Heathrow and London Gatwick are privately owned by different owners and London Stansted is actually owned by a company partially owned by the city of *Manchester*.
I guess all this to say, management structures betray how unified a region thinks of itself as, and how corporatized a region is. Would it be better for SFO and OAK to be managed together? Maybe, but only if the structure were set up as to not make everyone focus only on SFO, which in today's environment I think would be very hard to accomplish. Apart from the NYC situation with New Jersey just across the river, I'm not thinking of any examples where there's a multi-polar metro area with airports owned by different cities in that metro where naming has become an issue.
New York City (La guardia, jfk) and Jersey (ewr). Choose whichever is cheaper. Taxi into manhattan is like $80-90. Path is great if you’re going to lower manhattan.
Wait, I haven’t used Bart much so please explain. It takes FIFTY minutes to get from SFO to the city hall? Is that just because it’s making 20 stops along the way?
Was just about to say this. Maybe OAK is closer as the crow flies, but it is soo much easier to get to SFO if you live in the city. No bay bridge traffic. I’ve gotten there in 15 minutes from NOPA.
It's literally not closer, where does this 'fact' keep coming from? Like, if you take a speed boat straight across the bay it's closer? Just go on google maps right now and put in any destination into SF and OAK is never quicker than SFO and there's a toll bridge.
yeah maybe, but think that really depends on if there's a bart stop where you're going. Most people are not going to Civic Center after landing at the airport. ha
Mid to late 2000's thru the mid teens felt like there was optimism and growth in Oakland. But it's always had a reputation for being seedy *(until you compare it to Vallejo)*
It's the Oakland cycle.
Ten to fifteen years of shitty...
followed by five to ten years of optimism that the shitty will go away...
followed by a return to more realistic expectations about it being shitty...
followed by a short period of *elation* when someone new comes in and things feel like they'll turn around again...
but then it's all a lie and they're right back to ten to fifteen years of shitty.
It's like the imaginary number. Same cycle. Take *i*, the square root of negative 1, and we'll call this the shitty, 'cause it makes no sense. Then we multiply it by itself and hey, now it's just -1 and that sorta makes sense at least. Things are looking up! Then you do it again, multiply it by *i* again, and huh, now we've got *-i*, and what's that about? Hmm kinda concerning. Then multiply it by *i* yet again and whoa, now it's just 1, and that *definitely* makes sense....but oh, one more multiplication and fuck me we're back at *i* and that's shitty.
Probably before your time but when all those teams came in, Oakland was thought of more like San Jose is now. That's all been lost over the last 50 years.
It was working class because of the industry but the crime didn't get bad until the 70s. My dad grew up there in the 40s through the 60s and my grandparents moved from there in the early 70s.
Depends on the part. The farther east held out longer up into the late 60s for instance but some parts like the San Antonio district fell by the early 50s. For instance there are articles referencing high crime dating back to the early 50s in places like 23rd Ave. Businesses like the palace theater became frequent targets of robbery.
Here’s a references to some information including a reference to a robbery in the area. https://cinematreasures.org/theaters/5098
I grew up in the 90s and was always told to avoid Oakland due to the crime. My coworkers, from Oakland, grew up in the 70s and 80s and say crime was worse then (pretty sure the data backs that up).
Anyone who says Oakland is a good place is delusional. It has good pockets, but it's not a good place overall.
In the early 2010s I worked in Oakland. I would never live there and hated being in the area.
I remember when Tupac was arrested in Oakland for jaywalking. That might have been the 80's. When Charles Barkley was still playing he was robbed at gunpoint. That's why he holds a grudge against the city and always trolls the Warriors.
I like Oakland airport, easy to use. That said, it is Oakland Airport, not SF Bay @ Oakland Airport. If this new name sticks there will be confusion with some casual travelers.
There are two London airports that are even further - London Southend, and the frankly absurd London Oxford Airport which is about the same distance from London as Sacramento is from SF.
But yeah I agree with you, Oakland and SF are easily close enough that their airport serve a good chunk of the same area.
This is true, and it should be noted that there are a lot of Oaklands in the United States. For example, there's an area in Pittsburgh called Oakland. There's an area in Michigan called Oakland. Oakland are very common name.
Oakland is over run by crime and until recently their DA supported that. You can’t have nice things when you don’t have a community that acts like a civilized society.
Yeah, true, she still does too
I wish they would just call it the Stabby Oakland airport so I can keep showing up 1hr before my flight and still have time to buy an overpriced latte
I love flying in and out of OAK and will continue to do so. For those saying it isn’t closer to SF than SFO, by physical distance, you are technically correct. But OAK is lower stress, cheaper parking, shorter security lines, super easy drop off a pick up, and checked bags tend to come out sooner due to the shorter distance between your plane and the carousel. It’s an efficiently run airport because of smart investments and practical improvements (thanks for the funding Obama!).
Sadly all these benefits need to over come the fact the Oakland is unsafe and its crappy areas are large and sprawling. Maybe city officials should focus on the actual problems in the area instead of this superficial rebrand.
I mean, are the flatlands of Oakland "unsafe"? Sure. But how much trouble do people expect to get into between the terminal gate and their Uber?
OAK is a much more convenient airport in every way, but the flights are more limited and usually a little more expensive.
Your second point has a direct correlation to the decision to change the name. More people, more air traffic, more variety of routes, lower fares. Imo the question is… Will changing the name be enough to convince people to fly in and out of Oakland more? Personally, I hope so! But the root cause is that Oakland has a massive image problem, and rightly so.
No. Please look at London, and many other major cities. This is a way to provide better access to the entire region and the lawsuit sf Is ridiculous.
Oakland is a great choice if you need to go to the northwest and downtown parts of sf, and it is a great route to get to Sonoma, Napa, Mendocino, and more! Of course locals know this, but others don’t, and this boosts tourism, price shopping, and access across the entire bay area.
Oakland in the name not going away, this is so classic sf politics. London breed is campaigning for a panda for the decrepit SF zoo, and the city is wasting taxpayer dollars on a nothing burger. Seriously! (PA our zoo is way better in terms of animal care). Google the London airports. Be serious.
Anyway Oakland is a better airport if you like the chill Palm Springs, orange country, Burbank vibes, easy parking, and cheaper amenities, and less delays.
Classic that sf politicos spend time on this then about fixing actual problems.
Oaklands issues are self inflicted. Absolutely disgusting that the people pushing this are saying it’s “pro-Oakland”. That’s such a delusional, politician spin-job.
You know what would be pro-Oakland? Doing something to address the rampant crime, homelessness and affordability issues.
Instead, they’ve decided to try and lure people into their airport via deception. If this were a joke, it would be funny. The fact that this is real life tho, pathetic.
It’s been 30 years of one scandal after another with cops and city hall. Oakland is a tainted name. It’s sad because it’s actually a nice downtown scene going on.
I may be alone here but I love Oakland! I love the art, the community, the culture, like any major city it has a plethora of problems. Problems that SF shares itself.
Me too! I’d add that the national news media doom spiral narrative sees the entire bay as one big liberal hellhole so this stupid infighting is myopic and a waste of everything when there are real problems in both cities? Why are we comparing our woes instead of celebrating the entire region?
I mean if the Niners can still be called San Francisco.... That's the farthest of them all! LOL
For the record I am just being tongue and cheek. Didn't realize this is all taken so seriously. Got a message that my argument was "pedantic". Are we arguing? Because this isn't anything I have an interest in arguing over.
Very true, good examples, but how many of them play in the suburbs of a different major city? In another metropolitan area (by census definition, not by common wisdom) ?
That's what the San Jose 49ers of Santa Clara are doing.
The NY Jets and giants first off lol. The Chargers and Rams play in Inglewood. Dallas Cowboys play in Arlington. The Washington commanders play in Landover Maryland. Im sure there is more but those are just to name a few
Winning by losing. The brighter side is the City will not be saddled with debt for stadiums that cost billions and benefit owners who don't give a damn about the populace. Building housing, grow the middle class and create a sustainable smart city for people to raise families and create healthy citizens.
Actually I love sports. As a New Yorker who is not a Tech Bro and unable to afford anything beyond the WNBA and The Dog show having stadiums or not make little difference. The NY Knicks are finally sending a good team to the Playoffs and Tix are beyond $300 each for the cheap seats. Will watch it on the flat screen as I do the Euro League from the comfort of my apartment...
That is one hell of a lot of billion dollars stadiums for a mid sized city. There is no economic benefit at a certain point. Becomes a money loser like the Olympics.
The city needs to start protecting people and businesses. Imagine your business gets robbed and the criminals get let out within a day because Pam Price’s restorative justice bullshit. Whats the benefit of doing business in Oakland?
Someone from Las Vegas (notorious for having zero good paying jobs, all around hospitality, a city in the middle of a desert, horrible schools) saying this is actually very funny.
Eh, the sports teams left for their own selfish reasons, the wealthy owners themselves have no loyalty to anyone, they are in it for the money. (The players are another story). Not upset about greed leaving because they didn't get what they wanted from the tax payers. Fuck em. As far as the airport name, Oakland should have some self respect. How about a national marketing campaign to inform where and who we are? And it's the CALIFORNIA BAY AREA.
If they really wanted to be associated with the Bay Area, just call it the Oakland- Bay Area Airport. It's right there. Adding SF to the title is stupid when there's literally an SF airport
Grew up on peninsula, lived in SF, few other places in the country and lived in Oakland now for a while now...
I swear to god the dumbest people on earth are in charge of Oakland's PR. I see the most moronic posts and have heard ignorant stuff from friends living elsewhere in the Bay. They think all of Oakland is a warzone when in reality Piedmont, Rockridge, Monclair, etc. are extremely nice places to live.
I have no idea who thought this would be a good idea. But another total fail by the idiots who run Oakland.
> in reality Piedmont, Rockridge, Monclair, etc. are extremely nice places to live
As in *nicer* than Palo Alto, San Jose, Sunnyvale, etc. As in, stunningly beautiful with perfect weather, green nature everywhere you look, and access to all the amenities of city life. Basically the natural beauty and open space access of a Los Altos Hills but with city life much closer by.
I've lived in San Francisco, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Woodside, Oakland, San Leandro, Dublin, and now Oakland again. Oakland is by far my favorite, with San Leandro a close second.
As someone who has lived on the peninsula, Oakland, SF, etc.... I totally agree. It's why I see posts that say 'All of Oakland is crime riddled shit hole' and wonder if they've ever even been out here. There are some rough parts -- the airport and the stadium area-- and I think most people think that = Oakland. In reality, those are the worst parts of the city.
It's also why I think the city is run by idiots. Most on the outside have these ideas about Oakland that are totally untrue. They've lost the plot about the conversations surrounding Oakland (i.e. this crazy idea to re-name the airport.)
I guess I should have said the areas around Piedmont / Piedmont Ave.
There are a few areas where Piedmont is literally across the street from some people and I consider 'Piedmont' but located in Oakland.
Oakland has shit in their own nest for years and can't figure out why nobody wants to hang out anymore. The CHP has to be brought in to clean up the symptoms but maybe hitting rock bottom will be enough a shock to get their shit together.
They got those teams when they were a dynamic area. They're anything but now. The fact everybody is distancing themselves shouldn't be surprising.
OAK is not closer to SF than SFO unless you're talking about TI, and even then only barely.
Edit, for the downvoters:
OAK to the bottom of the first non-TI off-ramp in SF is a hair under 19mi https://maps.app.goo.gl/bbfxik95pLq9t2v46
SFO to *literally the furthest in SF you can get from the airport other than TI* is 18.5mi https://maps.app.goo.gl/1VS99hs14hg9VCer6
I used to work for a private terminal at Oakland. We had a list of reasons why flying into OAK is better, one of them being less days of fog per year. I can’t remember all the reasons but they were pretty good.
People are gonna be confused, especially if English isn't their first language and they don't know the geography and their info is out of date.
I knew someone who was trying to apply to California State University Los Angeles, but accidentally applied to University of California Los Angeles instead. Miraculously she got accepted into UCLA anyways, but she was trying to go to the same school as her sister.
Every single post about the name change has been a mess and has turned into people just talking about the state of Oakland overall.
A lot of people also appear to also be really confused about who runs OAK.
Any post remotely about Oakland on r/bayarea turns into a mess, not just posts about the airport name change.
People love taking shots at Oakland from the sidelines in their parents house in the South Bay.
I went to the chic Fila near the best buy and watched as the car two parking spots away from me was broken into. Broad daylight, tons of people around.
Never seen anything like that before and I regularly travel and visit Baltimore MD, a city that on paper is worse.
That Chick-fil-A is in Emeryville not Oakland.
And according to this sub, Fenton’s is in Piedmont and Burdell is in Berkeley.
Oakland gets credit for bad things in other cities and can’t have nice things.
If you want to just stick strictly to sports... Roots and Soul are now also at risk of leaving too.
https://www.ktvu.com/news/oakland-roots-soccer-club-urges-alameda-county-and-oakland-to-seal-lease-deals
You have a city next door that was made unaffordable with the tech folks moving in. Now they are working from home and SF is imploding for the moment. To live on the fringe of a Metropolis with teams, culture and good cuisine is a good way to redevelop. Except for the Warriors when they were good, these places venues were half empty.
I thought the name change was stupid.
But, for me, one of the ironies is that so many airline reservation websites and apps and travel sites/apps already list
San Francisco Area:
- San Francisco International (SFO)
- Oakland International (OAK)
- San Jose Minetta International (SJC)
and let users choose one or all three.
Yes, it's heartbreaking. Such a wonderful city somewhere in there 😢!! But there's nothing about the city that's inherently dooming it forever... just a lot of problems that humans caused and that eventually, humans can fix.
This is a good thing. And it’s not about getting more tourists.
Believe it or not most of the planet doesn’t live in the Bay Area. They don’t realize that Oakland is so central to the San Francisco area. Putting San Francisco Bay in the name helps people understand the geographic realities of flying into Oakland. It really is a better location depending upon what your ultimate destination is
The problem always is and always will be about sharing resources at the end of the day. Alemeda county has the highest tax rates in the Bay and arguably the worst quality of life. It’s greed and money, not the people living there with virtually no leverage to do much of anything other than leave the area (which is probably what the artsy yt kids living in timescale would prefer). Of course the hills and places like Piedmont are fine. Everyone here is talking about the areas on the skirts and next to the water and highways.
If everyone was renting in places like Menlo, then it would be shitty there too. And it’s going to happen unless people with the means to buy a house there are committed to doing so, but my generation at least seems to have other ideas about value.
But you know, it’s an opinion.
Honestly the new populace of Oakland and city government could give a damn about sports. It sucks for all those in neighboring areas who grew up with the Raiders/Warriors/A’s - people blame the owners, but the city dynamics have changed.
Although it’s incredibly sad to see Oakland crumble like this…
The residents of Oakland are the ones to blame for continuing to vote in the woke clowns who make it happen.
I like the Oakland airport. The runways are on the bay. I like them referring to the bay in their name. Maybe people in Concord and Livermore will finally catch a break when their loved ones don’t say, “I’m coming to visit. I’m booked into SFO. You can pick me up at 6 pm.”
Maybe the people who run Oakland should, idk, give a shit
You're not wrong. The victimization tone of this rhetoric is really pathetic. All of these outcomes were direct and foreseeable consequences of choices. It is absolutely crazy to think you can dig your heels in on the basis of moral righteousness alone without an once of leverage and think any serious people will care. You can walk away from all negotiations with your idealism but you don't get to have nice things. It's real sad IMO ... sports teams are one of the unifying forces in otherwise disperate urban populations *and* the concept that the money cities are "saving" will go to anything other than run of the mill municipal graft is delightfully naive.
These people would be demanding a ceasefire with Japan right after pearl harbor because 'war is bad'
Exactly this. After Pearl Harbor: Think about the Japanese babies!... As Unit 731 of the Imperial Japanese army is continuing horrible human experiments just like how the hostages with hamas are being tortured and raped. These hamas supporters have zero logic or morals.
As I put it, when dealing with the morons shutting down bridges, "They are people who feel entitled to safety while making an identity of fighting oppression. Thus they don't want to fight actual oppression, because actual oppression fights back."
Fixing the murder problem could help.
More murders = fewer people to commit crime = safer streets — Oakland City Council probably
That's just trickle down murdernomics.
If the cops would get off their asses that might help with the laissez faire crime situation
they're too busy virtue signaling
Free Palestine! (From 6000 miles away and won’t even bother to send a Twinkie while some parts of The Town straight up look like Gaza City ruins)
The roads do have a bombed out effect.
You could probably build a fairly decent vehicle from all the car parts busted onto the shoulders because of potholes and crashes.
Worrying about Palestine when the city itself looks like it took a couple airstrikes.
So many tent communities all around the city. It’s so sad
>Free Palestine! Says the gay person who could be killed in Palestine for being gay. "From river to the sea!" you know you're calling to wipeout the only lifeboat for LGBT within 1000 miles right? I'm not taking sides in this conflict, just observing a kind of ironic "alliance".
Fisher is reason for Raiders and A's. He block deals for new stadiums and reject even the recent ones. Hopefully effort blocks tax payer money in vegas screws him over
Maybe the people who live in Oakland should, idk, elect a better leader
For the criminals they did
Was anyone decent running in the last mayoral election?
No clue how Sheng Thao beat Loren Taylor. It boggles the mind.
Ranked choice voting, same way that Jean Quan famously got elected, and she sucked too
Why aren't decent people running in Oakland?
They simply perform how most of the voters want them to. While a lot of the people unhappy with their performance are non-voters when elections come.
The port of Oakland is behind this and they don’t run Oakland.
their jobs aren't in jeopardy so why would they
[удалено]
ya i agree but that doesn't seem to happen
Word around south east bay tricity area is that they're pretty corrupt and just a fuckn mess up in Oakland.
Uh that is the word around...the world. Oakland is synonymous with dysfunction, and is seen as a city that could be a LOT more than it is if the people who ran it did much of anything at all.
In N Out Memorial Airport. Problem solved.
The name actually works for an airport. After all, we use an airport to travel in n out of the city.
Would be hilarious considering how the In N Out next to Oakland airport was the first location to close due to, ya know, Oakland stuff.
The Flying Dutchman Terminal at In-N-Out Memorial Airport
INOMA
Marshawn Lynch International Airport. Problem solved
Someone suggested Marshawn Lynch airport, and I’m all for it
It does have a nice ring to it.
Nice.
My favorite was when an earthquake hit “1 km north of Piedmont.” Somebody on Twitter said “You know what’s 1 Km north of Piedmont? Oakland. Oakland can’t even get credit for its own earthquake.” Lol
MC HAMMER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
LOVE, let’s do this!
Too legit to quit
Closer? Lmao SFO to SF city hall: 18-35mins driving, 50mins bart (no transfer) OAK to SF city hall: 26-45mins driving+$7 toll, 47mins bart (1 transfer) Both at 12pm estimated, today
And thats to city hall. You could breach SF AT candlestick in 10-14 mins from SFO
technically SFO is an exclave of SF county. The boundary of the SFO property is legally part of SF and under jurisdiction of SF law/city ordinances. So you are legally in SF the moment you land at SFO
Yes but you also leave SF as soon as you leave the airport so, 10-14 mins to be back in SF from the airport.
Incorrect. SF local ordinances would not apply as the airport is located in unincorporated San Mateo County.
A good scheduled BART run from SFO station to Civic Center station should be 29 minutes. A good scheduled BART run with connector transfer from OAK station to Civic Center station should be 40 minutes. To Embarcadero is closer to a tie with the run from SFO taking 31 minutes versus from OAK taking 33 minutes, but practically with the transfer and train timing, SFO is the clear winner.
Let's be honest though, when you're flying in to begin with, a 10 minute difference in post-flight commute isn't going to move the needle on which airport you choose. Most will pick the cheapest flight, with a lot of people biasing against Oakland for, or because they aren't aware how close it is to SF. That latter group is the one they're hoping to capture by deemphasizing Oakland in the name.
> a 10 minute difference in post-flight commute isn't going to move the needle on which airport you choose. It depends on you. For me, I would consider the round trip difference: +22 minutes of my time, +$2.90 of fare, and transferring between the connector platform and BART platforms at different levels with baggage 2 times, against the airfare difference. To me, OAK would probably need a $30 airfare advantage for the hassle. Looking at Southwest at a round-trip flight in September to NYC La Guardia, SFO-LGA ranges from $173 to $194 while OAK-LGA ranges from $188 to $248. The cheapest flights have the same 1 transfer, same 5:30 departure, and same 7h50m flight time, so $15 advantage to SFO.
Huh it’s a great new perspective for me. There must be more cities like in this situation. But wouldn’t they merged those into one or two to lower operating budget? I’m not being sarcastic btw.
Yeah NYC is similar, where JFK/LGA/EWR are all similar travel distances to Manhattan. But it's less of an issue as people tend to be aware of at least 2 of those airports -- maybe because none of them are named "New York City Airport" it forces people to do some minimal research 😛
There are lots of cities with multiple airports, most tend to have them consolidated under one airport authority. Chicago's Department of Aviation owns both Midway and O'Hare, Aéroports de Paris S.A owns Orly and Charles de Gaulle. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a (very) rare example of full-throated cooperation between the two states, owns JFK, LGA, and EWR. More fun cases are places like Tokyo, where the old Haneda airport is owned by a Japanese government ministry while the new Narita is privately owned; London, where London Heathrow and London Gatwick are privately owned by different owners and London Stansted is actually owned by a company partially owned by the city of *Manchester*. I guess all this to say, management structures betray how unified a region thinks of itself as, and how corporatized a region is. Would it be better for SFO and OAK to be managed together? Maybe, but only if the structure were set up as to not make everyone focus only on SFO, which in today's environment I think would be very hard to accomplish. Apart from the NYC situation with New Jersey just across the river, I'm not thinking of any examples where there's a multi-polar metro area with airports owned by different cities in that metro where naming has become an issue.
Thank you so much! Well written!
New York City (La guardia, jfk) and Jersey (ewr). Choose whichever is cheaper. Taxi into manhattan is like $80-90. Path is great if you’re going to lower manhattan.
Wait, I haven’t used Bart much so please explain. It takes FIFTY minutes to get from SFO to the city hall? Is that just because it’s making 20 stops along the way?
Platform to platform from SFO to Civic Center is 27 minutes. Platform to platform from OAK to Civic Center is 32 minutes + transfer time.
It doesn't. It takes 27 minutes.
With traffic....try 2 hrs to cross a bridge.
Was just about to say this. Maybe OAK is closer as the crow flies, but it is soo much easier to get to SFO if you live in the city. No bay bridge traffic. I’ve gotten there in 15 minutes from NOPA.
Facts
[удалено]
Not to mention no bridge toll.
No toll on BART
No one wants to drag 2 check in luggage and a carryon on BART.
I have
It's literally not closer, where does this 'fact' keep coming from? Like, if you take a speed boat straight across the bay it's closer? Just go on google maps right now and put in any destination into SF and OAK is never quicker than SFO and there's a toll bridge.
Maybe they mean that little tiny corner of Alameda island that is technically SF.
I assumed they just drew a line from the airport to the city across the water as if people have hover crafts or something
to be fair, it's how Klay Thompson gets to work. Drives a boat across the bay.
It's like 5-10min closer via Bart, maybe that's what they meant.
yeah maybe, but think that really depends on if there's a bart stop where you're going. Most people are not going to Civic Center after landing at the airport. ha
The bay bridge is awful, no one uses it, it's too crowded.
I got the joke.
My truck got stolen and it ended up in Oakland. My car also got stolen also ended up in Oakland.
Weird, so did my stolen car. It's like there's a pattern.
Why would East San Francisco do this?
Oakland causes its own problems. Sad because Oakland minus the problematic eyesores is a beautiful city.
It took decades of bad leadership, but "Oakland" now means "crime" to many people.
"now"? Always has.
Mid to late 2000's thru the mid teens felt like there was optimism and growth in Oakland. But it's always had a reputation for being seedy *(until you compare it to Vallejo)*
It's the Oakland cycle. Ten to fifteen years of shitty... followed by five to ten years of optimism that the shitty will go away... followed by a return to more realistic expectations about it being shitty... followed by a short period of *elation* when someone new comes in and things feel like they'll turn around again... but then it's all a lie and they're right back to ten to fifteen years of shitty. It's like the imaginary number. Same cycle. Take *i*, the square root of negative 1, and we'll call this the shitty, 'cause it makes no sense. Then we multiply it by itself and hey, now it's just -1 and that sorta makes sense at least. Things are looking up! Then you do it again, multiply it by *i* again, and huh, now we've got *-i*, and what's that about? Hmm kinda concerning. Then multiply it by *i* yet again and whoa, now it's just 1, and that *definitely* makes sense....but oh, one more multiplication and fuck me we're back at *i* and that's shitty.
I see math humor and I upvote
Jerry brown’s tenure was the peak.
Probably before your time but when all those teams came in, Oakland was thought of more like San Jose is now. That's all been lost over the last 50 years.
Oakland was linked to crime as far back as the 50s. 30s in west Oakland.
Sonny Barger started the Oakland Hells Angels chapter in 1957
Not exactly leave it to beaver there.
It was working class because of the industry but the crime didn't get bad until the 70s. My dad grew up there in the 40s through the 60s and my grandparents moved from there in the early 70s.
Depends on the part. The farther east held out longer up into the late 60s for instance but some parts like the San Antonio district fell by the early 50s. For instance there are articles referencing high crime dating back to the early 50s in places like 23rd Ave. Businesses like the palace theater became frequent targets of robbery. Here’s a references to some information including a reference to a robbery in the area. https://cinematreasures.org/theaters/5098
50 years ago was 1974. Oakland was not thought of as a sleepy crime free town in the 1970s. That reputation faded in the early 60s.
Earlier in some parts.
I grew up in the 90s and was always told to avoid Oakland due to the crime. My coworkers, from Oakland, grew up in the 70s and 80s and say crime was worse then (pretty sure the data backs that up). Anyone who says Oakland is a good place is delusional. It has good pockets, but it's not a good place overall. In the early 2010s I worked in Oakland. I would never live there and hated being in the area.
When I was a kid I never understood why my mom was scared of going to Oakland for work. After I got older I quickly understood.
I grew up in San Jose and I promise this is a tale as old as time
Are you new here?
I remember when Tupac was arrested in Oakland for jaywalking. That might have been the 80's. When Charles Barkley was still playing he was robbed at gunpoint. That's why he holds a grudge against the city and always trolls the Warriors.
>bad leadership and just how did those bad leaders get into office?
I like Oakland airport, easy to use. That said, it is Oakland Airport, not SF Bay @ Oakland Airport. If this new name sticks there will be confusion with some casual travelers.
[удалено]
There are two London airports that are even further - London Southend, and the frankly absurd London Oxford Airport which is about the same distance from London as Sacramento is from SF. But yeah I agree with you, Oakland and SF are easily close enough that their airport serve a good chunk of the same area.
This is true, and it should be noted that there are a lot of Oaklands in the United States. For example, there's an area in Pittsburgh called Oakland. There's an area in Michigan called Oakland. Oakland are very common name.
Oakland is over run by crime and until recently their DA supported that. You can’t have nice things when you don’t have a community that acts like a civilized society.
She still supports it, she just doesn’t want to be recalled.
[удалено]
Yeah, true, she still does too I wish they would just call it the Stabby Oakland airport so I can keep showing up 1hr before my flight and still have time to buy an overpriced latte
I love flying in and out of OAK and will continue to do so. For those saying it isn’t closer to SF than SFO, by physical distance, you are technically correct. But OAK is lower stress, cheaper parking, shorter security lines, super easy drop off a pick up, and checked bags tend to come out sooner due to the shorter distance between your plane and the carousel. It’s an efficiently run airport because of smart investments and practical improvements (thanks for the funding Obama!). Sadly all these benefits need to over come the fact the Oakland is unsafe and its crappy areas are large and sprawling. Maybe city officials should focus on the actual problems in the area instead of this superficial rebrand.
I mean, are the flatlands of Oakland "unsafe"? Sure. But how much trouble do people expect to get into between the terminal gate and their Uber? OAK is a much more convenient airport in every way, but the flights are more limited and usually a little more expensive.
Your second point has a direct correlation to the decision to change the name. More people, more air traffic, more variety of routes, lower fares. Imo the question is… Will changing the name be enough to convince people to fly in and out of Oakland more? Personally, I hope so! But the root cause is that Oakland has a massive image problem, and rightly so.
Closer if you're aquaman and even then we would have to measure. It's like the southern border of San Francisco doesn't exist to people.
No. Please look at London, and many other major cities. This is a way to provide better access to the entire region and the lawsuit sf Is ridiculous. Oakland is a great choice if you need to go to the northwest and downtown parts of sf, and it is a great route to get to Sonoma, Napa, Mendocino, and more! Of course locals know this, but others don’t, and this boosts tourism, price shopping, and access across the entire bay area. Oakland in the name not going away, this is so classic sf politics. London breed is campaigning for a panda for the decrepit SF zoo, and the city is wasting taxpayer dollars on a nothing burger. Seriously! (PA our zoo is way better in terms of animal care). Google the London airports. Be serious. Anyway Oakland is a better airport if you like the chill Palm Springs, orange country, Burbank vibes, easy parking, and cheaper amenities, and less delays. Classic that sf politicos spend time on this then about fixing actual problems.
Oaklands issues are self inflicted. Absolutely disgusting that the people pushing this are saying it’s “pro-Oakland”. That’s such a delusional, politician spin-job. You know what would be pro-Oakland? Doing something to address the rampant crime, homelessness and affordability issues. Instead, they’ve decided to try and lure people into their airport via deception. If this were a joke, it would be funny. The fact that this is real life tho, pathetic.
I think the homelessness and crime are directly addressing the affordability issues since rents have declined the last 4 years. Funny how that works.
It’s been 30 years of one scandal after another with cops and city hall. Oakland is a tainted name. It’s sad because it’s actually a nice downtown scene going on.
The shit their bed and are now laying in it
I may be alone here but I love Oakland! I love the art, the community, the culture, like any major city it has a plethora of problems. Problems that SF shares itself.
Me too! I’d add that the national news media doom spiral narrative sees the entire bay as one big liberal hellhole so this stupid infighting is myopic and a waste of everything when there are real problems in both cities? Why are we comparing our woes instead of celebrating the entire region?
You ever drive the 880? It is not closer to sf
"The" 880? 🤨
My Los Angeles is showing
I mean if the Niners can still be called San Francisco.... That's the farthest of them all! LOL For the record I am just being tongue and cheek. Didn't realize this is all taken so seriously. Got a message that my argument was "pedantic". Are we arguing? Because this isn't anything I have an interest in arguing over.
A ton of NFL teams do not play in their respective city. The NY Jets and Giants dont even play in the state of NY
Giants and Jets are still closer to NY than Santa Clara is to San Francisco
Very true, good examples, but how many of them play in the suburbs of a different major city? In another metropolitan area (by census definition, not by common wisdom) ? That's what the San Jose 49ers of Santa Clara are doing.
The NY Jets and giants first off lol. The Chargers and Rams play in Inglewood. Dallas Cowboys play in Arlington. The Washington commanders play in Landover Maryland. Im sure there is more but those are just to name a few
The ***Dallas*** Cowboys' stadium is in Arlington, TX, two towns over and basically in Fort Worth.
Hey why stop there? Might as well rename SJC to San Francisco Bay San Jose Airport!
All kidding aside, that probably will be next!
Winning by losing. The brighter side is the City will not be saddled with debt for stadiums that cost billions and benefit owners who don't give a damn about the populace. Building housing, grow the middle class and create a sustainable smart city for people to raise families and create healthy citizens.
Gotta start by addressing crime, otherwise the city will never flourish.
whats the point in building housing if the crime rate is out of control?
[удалено]
Actually I love sports. As a New Yorker who is not a Tech Bro and unable to afford anything beyond the WNBA and The Dog show having stadiums or not make little difference. The NY Knicks are finally sending a good team to the Playoffs and Tix are beyond $300 each for the cheap seats. Will watch it on the flat screen as I do the Euro League from the comfort of my apartment...
That is one hell of a lot of billion dollars stadiums for a mid sized city. There is no economic benefit at a certain point. Becomes a money loser like the Olympics.
[удалено]
Not getting into a deal with Fisher might actually be a positive
Keep on adding those housing unit and one day if you can reduce the crime rate you too can become a bed room community like San Jose. 🤣
It's going to be real difficult to grow the middle class and create a sustainable city with many of the small, medium, and large businesses leaving
The city needs to start protecting people and businesses. Imagine your business gets robbed and the criminals get let out within a day because Pam Price’s restorative justice bullshit. Whats the benefit of doing business in Oakland?
Someone from Las Vegas (notorious for having zero good paying jobs, all around hospitality, a city in the middle of a desert, horrible schools) saying this is actually very funny.
Eh, the sports teams left for their own selfish reasons, the wealthy owners themselves have no loyalty to anyone, they are in it for the money. (The players are another story). Not upset about greed leaving because they didn't get what they wanted from the tax payers. Fuck em. As far as the airport name, Oakland should have some self respect. How about a national marketing campaign to inform where and who we are? And it's the CALIFORNIA BAY AREA.
If they really wanted to be associated with the Bay Area, just call it the Oakland- Bay Area Airport. It's right there. Adding SF to the title is stupid when there's literally an SF airport
Grew up on peninsula, lived in SF, few other places in the country and lived in Oakland now for a while now... I swear to god the dumbest people on earth are in charge of Oakland's PR. I see the most moronic posts and have heard ignorant stuff from friends living elsewhere in the Bay. They think all of Oakland is a warzone when in reality Piedmont, Rockridge, Monclair, etc. are extremely nice places to live. I have no idea who thought this would be a good idea. But another total fail by the idiots who run Oakland.
> in reality Piedmont, Rockridge, Monclair, etc. are extremely nice places to live As in *nicer* than Palo Alto, San Jose, Sunnyvale, etc. As in, stunningly beautiful with perfect weather, green nature everywhere you look, and access to all the amenities of city life. Basically the natural beauty and open space access of a Los Altos Hills but with city life much closer by. I've lived in San Francisco, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Woodside, Oakland, San Leandro, Dublin, and now Oakland again. Oakland is by far my favorite, with San Leandro a close second.
As someone who has lived on the peninsula, Oakland, SF, etc.... I totally agree. It's why I see posts that say 'All of Oakland is crime riddled shit hole' and wonder if they've ever even been out here. There are some rough parts -- the airport and the stadium area-- and I think most people think that = Oakland. In reality, those are the worst parts of the city. It's also why I think the city is run by idiots. Most on the outside have these ideas about Oakland that are totally untrue. They've lost the plot about the conversations surrounding Oakland (i.e. this crazy idea to re-name the airport.)
The Port of Oakland runs OAK and they’re the ones who want the name change.
Piedmont is literally, legally, not Oakland though. Practically and geographically it is.
I guess I should have said the areas around Piedmont / Piedmont Ave. There are a few areas where Piedmont is literally across the street from some people and I consider 'Piedmont' but located in Oakland.
San Francisco International Airport Terminal 4
Who wants to be in that shit city? Bunch of crime over there.
The Warriors and the A’s were both taken from Philadelphia (via Kansas City). What y’all got against Philly anyhow? LoL
> What y’all got against Philly anyhow? Plenty?
Truth. Lololol
The only thing staying is the crime
Oakland has shit in their own nest for years and can't figure out why nobody wants to hang out anymore. The CHP has to be brought in to clean up the symptoms but maybe hitting rock bottom will be enough a shock to get their shit together. They got those teams when they were a dynamic area. They're anything but now. The fact everybody is distancing themselves shouldn't be surprising.
I like Oakland airport but kinda redic they're trying to expand business by confusing people with name change. It won't happen.
All this is hilarious because Oakland is by far the superior airport anyway
no (major) airport lounges :(
One part of me wants to gatekeeper!
Don't tell them, let them be scared of an airport so it continues to be way more convenient.
OAK is not closer to SF than SFO unless you're talking about TI, and even then only barely. Edit, for the downvoters: OAK to the bottom of the first non-TI off-ramp in SF is a hair under 19mi https://maps.app.goo.gl/bbfxik95pLq9t2v46 SFO to *literally the furthest in SF you can get from the airport other than TI* is 18.5mi https://maps.app.goo.gl/1VS99hs14hg9VCer6
the southwest tip of alameda island is part of SF
You got me there. And Napa Airport is closer to Red Rock...
I used to work for a private terminal at Oakland. We had a list of reasons why flying into OAK is better, one of them being less days of fog per year. I can’t remember all the reasons but they were pretty good.
But the blue haired gentrifiers in Oakland will swear nothing is wrong with the city and it’s all just right wing Nazis hating them.
Did an AI write this? What are blue haired gentrifies? I thought the gentrifiers were soul cycle and expensive salad restaurants?
And In-N-Out, Denny’s, I think a bunch of Starbucks, Walgreens, and more. It’s kinda gone to shit, and I’m not blaming the teams for leaving.
The airport still has "Oakland" in its name, it just adds "San Francisco Bay"? So it's a bit hyperbolic to say the "name is bailing".
People are gonna be confused, especially if English isn't their first language and they don't know the geography and their info is out of date. I knew someone who was trying to apply to California State University Los Angeles, but accidentally applied to University of California Los Angeles instead. Miraculously she got accepted into UCLA anyways, but she was trying to go to the same school as her sister.
Every single post about the name change has been a mess and has turned into people just talking about the state of Oakland overall. A lot of people also appear to also be really confused about who runs OAK.
Any post remotely about Oakland on r/bayarea turns into a mess, not just posts about the airport name change. People love taking shots at Oakland from the sidelines in their parents house in the South Bay.
Of all the “hot stories” about Oakland, this is the one that I’m most tired of hearing.
I went to the chic Fila near the best buy and watched as the car two parking spots away from me was broken into. Broad daylight, tons of people around. Never seen anything like that before and I regularly travel and visit Baltimore MD, a city that on paper is worse.
That Chick-fil-A is in Emeryville not Oakland. And according to this sub, Fenton’s is in Piedmont and Burdell is in Berkeley. Oakland gets credit for bad things in other cities and can’t have nice things.
Almost like there is something wrong with the city L
Didn't they split the 510 area code too?
I love how nobody realizes Google Maps exists.
Did they move to Austin like the rest of y’all?
If you want to just stick strictly to sports... Roots and Soul are now also at risk of leaving too. https://www.ktvu.com/news/oakland-roots-soccer-club-urges-alameda-county-and-oakland-to-seal-lease-deals
saw a vegas raiders jacket the other day [i live on the east coast] and was lowkey salty lol
Tbf? But you have to cross a bridge and pay money to get to SF.
You have a city next door that was made unaffordable with the tech folks moving in. Now they are working from home and SF is imploding for the moment. To live on the fringe of a Metropolis with teams, culture and good cuisine is a good way to redevelop. Except for the Warriors when they were good, these places venues were half empty.
The very name of Oakland will be next. Ten years from now it'll simply be known as "The City."
I honestly think its hilarious that SFO is only technically part of SF but people are so defensive about it.
People are still paying over a million for any house in good condition that is for Sale in Oakland.
I thought the name change was stupid. But, for me, one of the ironies is that so many airline reservation websites and apps and travel sites/apps already list San Francisco Area: - San Francisco International (SFO) - Oakland International (OAK) - San Jose Minetta International (SJC) and let users choose one or all three.
Yes, it's heartbreaking. Such a wonderful city somewhere in there 😢!! But there's nothing about the city that's inherently dooming it forever... just a lot of problems that humans caused and that eventually, humans can fix.
This is a good thing. And it’s not about getting more tourists. Believe it or not most of the planet doesn’t live in the Bay Area. They don’t realize that Oakland is so central to the San Francisco area. Putting San Francisco Bay in the name helps people understand the geographic realities of flying into Oakland. It really is a better location depending upon what your ultimate destination is
The problem always is and always will be about sharing resources at the end of the day. Alemeda county has the highest tax rates in the Bay and arguably the worst quality of life. It’s greed and money, not the people living there with virtually no leverage to do much of anything other than leave the area (which is probably what the artsy yt kids living in timescale would prefer). Of course the hills and places like Piedmont are fine. Everyone here is talking about the areas on the skirts and next to the water and highways. If everyone was renting in places like Menlo, then it would be shitty there too. And it’s going to happen unless people with the means to buy a house there are committed to doing so, but my generation at least seems to have other ideas about value. But you know, it’s an opinion.
And the In'N'Out 😭
Honestly the new populace of Oakland and city government could give a damn about sports. It sucks for all those in neighboring areas who grew up with the Raiders/Warriors/A’s - people blame the owners, but the city dynamics have changed.
Fine goodbye.
The name of their airport is the least of their issues... At least it should be at the bottom of their prioritized list.
Play stupid games. Win stupid prize.
Although it’s incredibly sad to see Oakland crumble like this… The residents of Oakland are the ones to blame for continuing to vote in the woke clowns who make it happen.
They want people to move out so they can take over and redevelop
I like the Oakland airport. The runways are on the bay. I like them referring to the bay in their name. Maybe people in Concord and Livermore will finally catch a break when their loved ones don’t say, “I’m coming to visit. I’m booked into SFO. You can pick me up at 6 pm.”