HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2006, 3:43 PM
ReDSPork02 ReDSPork02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 153
"NOW BOARDING TO L.A./Ontario INT. AIRPORT"

NEW NAME FOR A LOCAL AIRPORT!

Going to L.A.? Ontario says it's close enough
Mason Stockstill, Staff Writer
Article Launched:12/05/2006 12:00:00 AM PST


ONTARIO - In a vivid reminder that Ontario International Airport's fate is determined in Los Angeles, the airport's overseers altered its name on Monday, adding "L.A." in an effort to improve its marketability.
The newly rechristened L.A./Ontario International Airport is the result of negative feedback from airlines and business travelers based outside Southern California, who have told airport marketing managers for years that Ontario isn't the best moniker for the airport.

In addition, the fact that the city shares a name with the Canadian province means the California location "is typically either unknown or confusing" to business travelers and tourists, the report states.

Ontario Mayor Paul Leon said he wholeheartedly backed the change.

"What this does for us is it puts us on the map as a primary alternative gateway to Southern California," Leon said. "It's great for business, it's great for our economy. ... When somebody's looking for a flight to Los Angeles, we will automatically come up."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2006, 12:24 AM
DJM19 DJM19 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,523
Well, its an alternative, though somewhat misleading, like "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2006, 4:27 AM
ChrisLA's Avatar
ChrisLA ChrisLA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 6,665
Its was really no different than Islip, NY. Now tell me how many people know this airport is in the metro NYC area?

Both are far away from the city, but I think Islip maybe slightly further out from NYC and Ontario from LA. You're better off using Long Beach (which is really close) or even John Wayne for that matter. Unless you're specifically are heading to the Inland Empire, Victorville, or the San Gabriel Valley I can see using it as an alternate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2006, 5:26 AM
rs913's Avatar
rs913 rs913 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,302
I'd imagine JetBlue loves this move, as they've aggressively pushed Ontario, Burbank, and Long Beach as alternatives to LAX (where they don't fly).

But with the L.A. area being so widely dispersed, unlike NYC, it doesn't seem too outlandish for other airports to adopt the L.A. moniker. Ontario is the closest airport to a big swath of Inland Empire points that are still considered part of the L.A. area. None of those points (specifically Ontario) are particularly well-known on their own, though, which is why they probably felt the need to add L.A. to the name.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2006, 6:40 AM
Damien Damien is offline
Cool dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: LA-Leimert Park & Boston-Cambridge
Posts: 404
Inland Empire Int'l Airport not good enough for them?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2006, 7:35 AM
solongfullerton solongfullerton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 216
Apparently Meth Capitol of the World Airport didn't fit the bill either?!?!?!?!?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2006, 7:42 AM
Yankeebiscuitfan's Avatar
Yankeebiscuitfan Yankeebiscuitfan is offline
Dutch Biscuit fan
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere in the South of the Netherlands
Posts: 357
A couple of years ago, I heard somebody talk about Ontario Mills Shopping Mall. I must admit that I thought he was talking about some place in Canada.

So I can understand why people are thinking the same.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2006, 8:08 AM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,690
whatever spreads the passengers out to try the airports that are sooo underutilized.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2006, 3:44 PM
ReDSPork02 ReDSPork02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 153
Ontario is owned by the city of LOs Angeles and part of Los Angeles World Airports. I REad that the MTA Expands the Foothill LIne (GOLD LINE) it will Probably end at the Airport. I LOve the idea!!! Besides Forbes named "L.A./Ontario International "
http://www.forbes.com/2003/03/11/cx_...1airports.html
Number 1 of 5 best alternate airport in the Country!!http://www.forbes.com/2003/03/10/cx_...hisSpeed=20000
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2006, 5:46 PM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is offline
E pluribus unum
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 31,280
Well yeah. 90% of the time I fly out of Ontario there's hardly anyone there.

How about Riverside County-Ontario Intl Airport?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2006, 5:57 PM
Damien Damien is offline
Cool dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: LA-Leimert Park & Boston-Cambridge
Posts: 404
Extending the line to Ontario Airport would actually make it more of a regional project than as it is currently designed. Still LRT with stops every 2 miles, through low density cities with 20 minute off-peak service that goes that far out? It should be EMU in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2006, 6:41 PM
Wright Concept's Avatar
Wright Concept Wright Concept is offline
I just ran out of B***sht
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 2,338
Ontario courts Gold Line extension
By Mason Stockstill Staff Writer
San Gabriel Valley Tribune

ONTARIO - Though the city's western border is more than a mile from Los Angeles County, Ontario wants a piece of its big neighbor's transit system.

The city has joined a coalition of municipalities working to build an extension of the Metro Gold Line from Pasadena to this area.

More importantly, the city's leaders are pushing to locate the light-rail line's final station at LA/Ontario International Airport, rather than the currently proposed Montclair Transit Center.

"It makes a lot of sense for transportation corridors to have a main place they're going to," said Mayor Paul Leon. "Isn't it much better to say `I'm going to Ontario Airport' ... rather than just saying we're going to head east until the rail line ends?"

As it now exists, the Gold Line runs from downtown Los Angeles to east Pasadena.

When it was first proposed, the extension through the San Gabriel Valley on the old Santa Fe right-of-way was going to end in Claremont. But officials in San Bernardino County lured planners into Montclair, saying the transit center there made a natural terminus for the line.

Since then, the idea of going still farther into San Bernardino County and ending at the Ontario Airport gained traction among officials heading the charge.

"Because there's been interest from our board, we're going to sit down with folks in a preliminary way," said Susan Hodor of the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Authority. "It will set the groundwork for what we need to do, should this be an idea that San Bernardino County would embrace."

The move by Ontario to join the Gold Line authority's board, approved by the City Council on Tuesday, comes at a momentous time for the rail project, whose existence depends on a strategic plan being developed in Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority operates several light-rail transit lines, as well as a single subway and thousands of buses.

In order to qualify for federal funding, the Gold Line Foothill Extension needs to be listed as a high-priority item on the MTA's long-range plan, which is under development.

But the Gold Line is just one of several transit projects that could qualify for that money, several of which are becoming more politically popular.

For example, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa - who controls four seats on the MTA's 13-member board - promised during his 2005 campaign to work toward extending the Red Line subway in Los Angeles.

Carol Inge, the MTA's executive officer for planning, said the long-range plan will be updated next spring.

"At that time, this project, along with other projects, will be presented to the board for funding consideration," Inge said.

With transportation funding dollars scarce, the dueling proposals and political alliances have thrown the Gold Line project for a loop.

Still, the Gold Line extension has powerful allies.

Rep. David Dreier, R-Glendora, has said the project is a virtual done deal, though he's had to play "hard ball" with local leaders in Los Angeles over federal funding.

Additionally, the Gold Line extension is further along in its planning and environmental review process than the subway extension or other transit projects being considered, Hodor said.

"All the right-of-way is purchased. We have resolutions of support from all of these cities," she said. "We're really poised to begin construction as soon as these issues are resolved."

mason.stockstill@dailybulletin.com

(909) 483-9354
__________________
"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully
The Opposite of PRO is CON, that fact is clearly seen.
If Progress means moves forward, then what does Congress mean?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2006, 6:42 PM
JRinSoCal's Avatar
JRinSoCal JRinSoCal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Yo momma's house
Posts: 538
Damn, Ontario Airport is probably gonna get the Gold Line to it before LAX gets the Green Line to connect to it. Is that even still in the works?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2006, 8:02 PM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is offline
Ascension
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 5,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001
Well yeah. 90% of the time I fly out of Ontario there's hardly anyone there.

How about Riverside County-Ontario Intl Airport?
Because Ontario is in San Bernadino County.
__________________
Washed Out
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2006, 8:17 PM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is offline
E pluribus unum
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 31,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeHundred
Because Ontario is in San Bernadino County.
And I completely forgot about that until just now

Okay, okay, my bad: San Bernardino-Ontario Intl. Airport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2006, 10:54 PM
ReDSPork02 ReDSPork02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001
Well yeah. 90% of the time I fly out of Ontario there's hardly anyone there.

How about Riverside County-Ontario Intl Airport?
UMMM The Airport is in San Bernardino County about 37 miles east of Downtown L.A.

oops someone already said that! sowy




Distance From City: 35 miles
Rental Car Agencies On Site?: Yes
Number Of Airlines: nine major carriers, four regionals
Parking: 8,700 spaces
Passengers Served Annually: 6 million

There are several alternatives to LAX, which serves over 60 million annually, but we like Ontario because it's a bit closer to downtown L.A. than John Wayne Airport. Long Beach Airport is closer by ten miles but has only three carriers.

Last edited by ReDSPork02; Dec 6, 2006 at 11:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2006, 8:38 AM
tujunga tujunga is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 596
Los Angeles owns the Ontario airport therefore it gets the name Los Angeles / Ontario.
__________________
Los Angeles, Our Nation's Capital
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2006, 12:23 AM
WesTheAngelino's Avatar
WesTheAngelino WesTheAngelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Washington and Main, Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 2,239
A Gold Line extension to ONT??????

That has got to be the most asinine thing I've ever heard. It makes no sense at any level. No one is going to ride a light rail that far to downtown L.A. (how long would that freakin take???). One could make the argument that it would be used primarily by people travelling within the IE, like from ONT to Pomona per example, but I cry bullshit on that. Only if someone lived within a few blocks of a station and worked a few blocks from another station would I ever imagine them using it. We're talking one of the most autocentric areas of the metro where existing transit service which would be used to connect those who don't live within walking distance of a station is totally sub par.

That this would get serious consideration before a rail link to LAX is perverse
__________________
Drop Bush, Not Bombs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2006, 2:06 AM
Wright Concept's Avatar
Wright Concept Wright Concept is offline
I just ran out of B***sht
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 2,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesTheAngelino View Post
A Gold Line extension to ONT??????

That has got to be the most asinine thing I've ever heard. It makes no sense at any level. No one is going to ride a light rail that far to downtown L.A. (how long would that freakin take???). One could make the argument that it would be used primarily by people travelling within the IE, like from ONT to Pomona per example, but I cry bullshit on that. Only if someone lived within a few blocks of a station and worked a few blocks from another station would I ever imagine them using it. We're talking one of the most autocentric areas of the metro where existing transit service which would be used to connect those who don't live within walking distance of a station is totally sub par.

That this would get serious consideration before a rail link to LAX is perverse
Actually the majority of the stations along the Gold Line were part of the original 2-3 story city/town centers when the Red Cars ran through.

In terms of them getting it before LAX does, there could be a possiblity especially considering how our current Mayor is emphasizing regionalization of the airport system, this is a mechanism that they could use for their advantage and get additional $$$ to build it. Also there's less FAA/LAWA bullshit associated with Ontario as supposed to LAX.

In terms of ridership most of the riders that will use this service along the Foothill corridor, the Western most boundary is Pasadena. But this line in my mind shows that Metro should look at a zone based fare system for their busway and rail corridors. Where within a 12 mile distance or radius the fare is a base fare and for every additional zone an increase of 50-75 cents should be added. So that a rider traveling from Downtown to USC shouldn't have to pay more than a person traveling from Santa Monica to Montclair.
__________________
"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully
The Opposite of PRO is CON, that fact is clearly seen.
If Progress means moves forward, then what does Congress mean?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2006, 2:42 AM
solongfullerton solongfullerton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 216
LA need not feel insufficient because of our lack of airport to city transit. I've been to many cities in the US, Europe, and China, and the system that serves our airport is not that bad. For example, JFK has a monorail type train that connects to a subway line, but even with no tranfers, this trip is well over an hour, trust me i did it. ive also flown into Newark and taken the train into the city, which is also atleast an hour from terminal to Penn station. In Europe, getting into london from Heathrow is a minimum of an hour on the tube (unless you take the direct train that cost something like 17 pounds or $30 US). Athens just built a light rail to city from its new airport, and thats definitely no shorter than an hour. What im trying to get at, is that even though its nice to have the option to not drive, most of the time, its not wise to use trains, especially if youre on any kind of time schedule. Taxis are usually a much more efficient way of traveling to airports, especially if theres more than one person traveling (which obviously keeps the cost per peson down). Otherwise, direct limited service busses are also a good idea, ala Flyaway.

The only place ive been with efficient city to airport transit is Shanghai, with the 250+ mph maglev. however, even with the maglev, the station in the city is not in the center of the city, so you still have to take much slower transit to get there, then wait for your maglev train to get into the station.

Dont get me wrong, i would love to see a metrolink line that ran on the Harbor Subdivision past LAX and into the south bay communities, but i think this is more important to serve daily commuters rather than travelers. I think the best option for ontario airport is to have a shuttle that runs to the nearest metrolink station like in oakland. you get on a bus like those at lax, and they drive you to the coliseum a few miles away where you hop on a train about an hour away from the city. the only problem with ontario is that the nearest station is on the riverside line that doesnt run on weekends and has limited service during the week compared to the parellel san berdoo line just to the north.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:53 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.