There is significant potential demand from the Coachella Valley (a potential passenger rail catchment of close to 350,000), and in the Beaumont Pass (catchment of 200,000), to LA, OC, and the IE centers. Which is why RCTC is looking at how this might be done. Beyond that, despite my working with Imperial County a few years back, and hearing their "dreams" of rail service to the "big city", there is not much, real rail passenger demand.

The problem that AZ has, is that CA would have to be willing to join any "coalition" to create such a "short" distance corridor (approximately 400 miles), and there is nothing in it for CA, who would have to deal with 250 miles of UP on the CA side...and get what benefit?

Travel times can vary considerably, (5 and half is pretty "optimal", but can easily grow to as much as 8 hours) as the urban approaches become more and more jammed with regional trips during the peaks, by comparison I believe the scheduled run time LA to PHX was about 8 hours, and, if you spent some money, speed could probably be raised to knock an hour and half or more off, with lots of 90 mph. running (I've done it easily with a dynamiter and poor dynamics, on the Acolita grade, on several hair raising trips across the east end). But, how much would UP ask for that?

I just saw my Steel Wheels calling for this connection to PHX and a daily Sunset, as among their top priorities. But, in my best professional opinion, on a scale of 1 to 10 in CA rail priorities, this is a 40, compared with my number 1 CA priority rail passenger project-the LAUPT Phase I run-through project, measured in cost benefit, and maximum time saving per user.

So, while I wish RCTC all the best all, of the luck in the world in coming up with a half a billion to get to Indio, which has a great deal of merit, and if done right would represent a cost per passenger on par with a major freeway widening of I-10. CA spending any money to get to PHX via the old line from Welton, is unlikely any time soon. As it really isn't of any real benefit to the CA voters, or politicians, who would be required to pay for it.

And, Max, that would have been the Federal Transportation Bill. The last half decent one was authored under Bud Schuster (the elder) with "ISTEA" (IIRC "Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act-we American bureaucrats just love our acronyms), which did a few good things to better plan projects, streamlining certain redundant planning requirements, and providing for things like ITS. But, ISTEA came with no real "money", and nothing that's passed since has had any "real" money to spend, either.

So, as the old saying from "The Right Stuff" goes, "no bucks=no Buck Rogers", bridges, roads, and rail lines don't build themselves, they get built when someone pays to build them. The State and local governments, now bear 90% of that burden.