It is quixotic because so few people ride it. SGV residents benefit much more when they can get to their jobs on the West side easier without driving 2 hours. Improving transit access on E-W corridors from Downtown to Westside where the jobs are is meaningful for the entire region. Your preferred approach is exactly what is wrong with transit planning in LA. SGV needs better commuter rail and more express buses to get people to Downtown, not local metro line in low density suburban tracks. Look at the ridership of 720 bus (that connects SGV to Westside) vs. Gold line. If you have limited amount of money to invest, which service upgrade will benefit the most people living in SGV?

You keep talking about regional approach and yet you are advocating a locally obsessed rail extension that benefits hardly anyone.

<redacted by moderator>

I was referring to earlier time when LAWA actually wanted to get rail access to ONT but SB County said no. The study you are referring to came much later.

This line about forcing people to switch train is full of nonsense. People will switch trains if it is the most continent way to reach an airport. Even your example totally undermines your point. How do people reach BUR by Metrolink? They probably have to take Metro rail/bus or Uber and get dropped off at Union Station. That's called a transfer! How many people live right next to a Metrolink station that can walk to the Ventura or Antelope Valley line and hope on the train to get to BUR without transfer?

You have to take 3 trains to reach Narita from most of Tokyo. You have to take at least 2 trains to reach Heathrow unless you are right next to the Piccadilly line. But people do it because the alternative is far less pleasant.

Connecting ONT to metro won't significantly change how people access the airport. It is still far easier to drive to ONT from SGV.

First, transfers never stop anyone from using the train. If that's the case, the entire notion of public transit wouldn't work. Frequency of service and total door to door travel time are far more important factors in whether people will use public transit to any destination. Most people will happily take 3 transfers from door to door if it is faster than driving.

Second, I have a good chuckle when you mentioned "population centers". The population in SGV is concentrated next to I-10 and CA-60 corridors. The I-210/Foothill corridor has a lot of traffic but lower population density (this is reflected in the fact that Gold line has relatively low ridership, especially in the Foothill section in the middle of the freeway). So if ONT wants to connect to a "population center" by rail, they need to figure out how to get the Metrolink SB and Riverside line to ONT. For someone in the more populated parts of SGV to reach ONT by Gold line, it will involve an out of way bus or Uber trip north to Foothill corridor first (gasp! a transfer, the horror!) before switching to the Gold line. Is that really a more convenient/faster way to reach ONT? They would just drive to ONT. Would someone in Pasadena take a 60+ minute Gold line ride to ONT over a 20 minute car ride to BUR? I'm not even going to ask you how Gold line will help people in North OC or most of the IE to reach ONT since you believe people there are predisposed to use ONT instead of LAX or SNA.

Third, a rail station at LAX in-line to a local Metro service that continues to other places. The investment is not just getting a handful of people to the airport. A Gold line extension to ONT will only be about ONT because it will be a terminus. There may be an Upland station on the way but it won't add much ridership, not in the same as adding the Leimert Park station on Crenshaw line.