Stockton weighs adding 'San Francisco' to it's airport's name. (Los Angeles: lower-class, crime rate)

[kttam186290]

I don't see what the big deal is? Who seriously didn't see this coming?

I guess, here in L.A., we're used to things being long distances apart but within the same region.

Ontario International Airport, which is owned by Los Angeles World Airports (a division of the city of Los Angeles) is 50 miles outside of DTLA and about 65 miles from LAX.

Palmdale Regional Airport is also owned by Los Angeles World Airports and is about 65 miles north of DTLA and 70 miles north of LAX.

Ontario is vital because it serves the Inland Empire area of So Cal, and because, if LAX were ever encumbered by fog or (heaven forbid) a tsunami, Ontario and/or Palmdale would then become vital as points of service for the rest of Greater Los Angeles and Southern California.

Palmdale Regional Airport is also home to the Federal Aviation Administration's "Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center" which governs air traffic from the Pacific Ocean to the Rocky Mountains.

The airport in Stockton should be thought of in the same sense.

Besides that, Stockton is already home to San Francisco Naval Communication Station, and has been for quite some time.

[tikkasf]

SFO objection grounds Stockton airport name change, for now - San Francisco Chronicle

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by SocSciProf

How will the census bureau define a CSA (or other regional entity) as telecommuting continues to grow? And, who will want to live in Stockton and commute to the inner bay area when they can live in any one of dozens of higher amenity, lower cost locations (for example, . . . wait, maybe I shouldn't tell all my "secret" lower-cost "paradise" locations!), and telecommute to the same job? I suspect that if we continue to use 1950s ideas of work--that assume you have to travel to a central location to join lots and lots of other people in punching a clock to be working--then, based on commuting patterns, seeing Stockton as part of the bay area makes a certain amount of sense. But that's yesterday's present. Today's future is arriving and well on the way to making "commuting to work" a thing of the past. It is almost certain that top jobs (in terms of pay, power, and autonomy) are not going to be such that people sit in traffic or in some vehicle for hours on in to get into "the office." So that let's out top jobs. And, automation is hollowing out the middle--no idea what's gonna happen to people who need those jobs, but without those jobs they have no need to "commute" anywhere. So, I ask, in the future that is right now being born, who would live in Stockton and commute to SF for a barista job? All the barista's wages would be eaten up in commute costs, and all their time would be wasted in transit.

So, tell me again, who is gonna sign up for the "Live in Stockton, Commute to the job centers ringing the bay" lifestyle?

Stockton is trying to market itself. Too bad they're only 20 years too late. Oh well.

I certainly would not, as I live 15mins by light rail from my Sacramento neighborhood to my work in downtown Sacramento. Or, 5 mins by car or 25 mins by bicycle. And I use all 3 forms of transportation depending on the weather, my mood, or activities right after work.

I don't think Stockton is trying market itself as place to live so you can work around the Bay. Rather, it's Bay Area folks who move to Stockton that keep their Bay Area jobs. No different than the Bay Area folks who move to Pittsburgh, Antioch, Fairfield, Gilroy, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, Napa, etc. etc. and still commute to their jobs on the Peninsula, the South Bay, or Oakland-Berkeley.

Again, because Stockton is in the "Central Valley" there is this weird other mind set about weather Stockton is or isn't part of the Bay Area, who cares, and it doesn't matter. The person who commutes from Stockton to their job in Pleasanton is no different than the person who commutes from Fairfield, Vallejo, or Milpitas to their job in Pleasanton. Oh, the Vallejo or the Milpitas person is "more Bay Area" than the guy from Stockton, rolls eyes.

Stockton Airport is trying to attract more fliers. If you can fly to Stockton for a lot cheaper than flying to SFO, and your destination is Livermore, why not fly to Stockton instead of SFO. By inserting "San Francisco" in their name, they will get 10 times more "hits" when someone searches for San Francisco Bay Area Airports.

I personally wouldn't fly out of Stockton from Sacramento as it is 50+ miles south of Sacramento, and the amount of flights offered out of Stockton is minuscule compared to Sacramento flights. (10 million passenger/yr out of Sacramento versus less than 1/2 million passengers per yr out of Stockton). I almost always only fly out of SMF(Sacramento International). I have no need to ever fly out of any other airport in NorCal. The only time I drive down to SFO is to fly non-stop to Asia and Australia, and even then I would rather fly from Sacramento to SFO to make that connection, rather than driving down there.

[majoun]

The A's should move to Stockton and then call themselves the "San Francisco A's of Stockton"

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

2. Stockton very likely is the most "Bay Area" city located in the Central Valley. It's like another Vallejo, Oakland, Hayward, Antioch, Fairfield but located a bit further east in the heart of the Central Valley.

Apart from anecdotal similarities, Oakland and Stockton are not really alike at all.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Apart from anecdotal similarities, Oakland and Stockton are not really alike at all.

Oakland, Stockton, Vallejo, and Richmond: Racially, poverty levels, and crime all similar.

[49erfan916]

lmao, stockton doesn't deserve to be affiliated with the bay area.

[zitsky]

If you make $100,000 is it reasonable to commute to/from Stockton? I don't think a barista would do it.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

Oakland, Stockton, Vallejo, and Richmond: Racially, poverty levels, and crime all similar.

Yes that's all anecdotal like I said.

You could actually throw Sacramento into that group while your at it because it has similar diversity and poverty levels as well-actually Sac has a higher poverty rate than the others.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Yes that's all anecdotal like I said.

You could actually throw Sacramento into that group while your at it because it has similar diversity and poverty levels as well-actually Sac has a higher poverty rate than the others.

Nope, Sacramento is more Diverse, not has many African Americans, and the poverty level is a lot lower in Sacramento than Richmond, Vallejo and Stockton. Income levels and educational attainment a lot higher in Sacramento.

Big difference is Violent Crime, much higher in Oakland and Stockton versus Sacramento. Fact, not anecdotal.

Why would anyone care weather Stockton adds "San Francisco" to their airports name or not.

I personally would not drive to Stockton to fly anywhere unless it was at least half the cost.