Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

There was, I haven't heard anything further.  A private pilot can fly until he can't pass his physical no matter the age.

But of course any age limit to Congress or the Federal judiciary isn't going to happen.

Air traffic controllers are out at 56, federal law enforcement at 57, pilots at 65, and judges in several states at 70.

In Ohio the age limit for Judges is a little goofy.  You can't RUN for Judge if you will turn 70 before election day.  Judicial terms in Ohio are six years so, at least in theory, you could SERVE as old as 76 (if your 70th birthday falls between election day and the commencement of your term then at the end of your term you would turn 76).  Other Judges age out and cannot run for reelection at age 70.  

There was, I haven't heard anything further.  A private pilot can fly until he can't pass his physical no matter the age.

In theory but . . .
A friend of mine here in Medina, actually the last living WWII veteran that I know, is 99.  He is in PHENOMENAL shape for that age and drives himself to our weekly Kiwanis meeting.  Up until a few years ago (when he was about 95-96) he was still riding his motorcycle to our weekly meetings.  

Anyway, he can still get a pilot's license but he had to give up flying because he couldn't get insurance.  

Is referendum an option?

Actually, no.  For one thing, there is no provision in the US Constitution for a national referendum.  Beyond that, even if Congress wanted to pass an age limit for themselves (good luck) it wouldn't matter.  Several states passed term limits for Congress and the Federal Judiciary tossed them.  because he requirements to serve in Congress are laid out in the Constitution and thus can only be amended by Constitutional Amendment.  Age is addressed in the Constitution (the other way, there is a minimum not a maximum) and the same principle applies here.  Since the requirements are spelled out in the Constitution, they can ONLY be changed by Constitutional Amendment.  

Actually, no.  For one thing, there is no provision in the US Constitution for a national referendum.  Beyond that, even if Congress wanted to pass an age limit for themselves (good luck) it wouldn't matter.  Several states passed term limits for Congress and the Federal Judiciary tossed them.  because he requirements to serve in Congress are laid out in the Constitution and thus can only be amended by Constitutional Amendment.  Age is addressed in the Constitution (the other way, there is a minimum not a maximum) and the same principle applies here.  Since the requirements are spelled out in the Constitution, they can ONLY be changed by Constitutional Amendment. 

That's what I was looking for and could not find anything. I'm pretty sure I know why there isn't a provision for that too.

It screams Democracy really, which we are not.

An amendment is never going to happen.

There's a reason that Washington-NYC and NYC-Boston are the two functional rail lines, and why LA-SF won't be, even if it's HSR.

Both of those East Coast corridors will get you city to city in under 4 hours. HSR in CA is estimating 6 hours. I honestly believe about that 4 hour range is the upper bound beyond which rail travel fails.

I highlighted earlier that flight time from SoCal to NorCal is 1 hour. But obviously that's not how long the trip takes. I need to budget 30 minutes to drive to Orange County to park. I prefer to get to the airport 60-90 minutes before flight time to get checked in (if traveling with my wife, that includes checking backs which I don't do when I travel alone), get through TSA, all so we can start boarding 30 minutes prior to takeoff and not be stressed over time. Then it's an hour flight. Then 20-30 minutes to deplane and get those checked bags. Finally, then there's getting a rental car, or if we're going to SF, taking a 30 minute BART ride up into the city.

So that's a 4 hour trip, and that's assuming the flight is on time. By flying I've added 3 hours to my actual trip outside transit time.

Anything near or less than that, and I honestly would rather drive. I.e. my wife was talking about flying to Vegas when we go in Sept, and that sounds like a hell of a lot of a hassle to avoid a 4 hour drive. Since we're going on a Saturday morning and coming back first thing Sunday morning, we'll avoid the only thing that usually makes me willing to fly--the Friday afternoon HELL trying to get out of Orange County on CA-91. Even for going up to the Bay Area, it's a 5-6 hour drive but if it's something where having a car is useful (i.e. Napa/Sonoma), I might even choose driving anyway. If it's downtown SF where I wouldn't dare have a car, then flying obviously makes sense.

Now compare it to HSR. The advantage to HSR is that you don't have the TSA, you don't check bags, you don't have checkin that you have to arrive 90 minutes before the train leaves, etc. Literally you can show up 10 minutes before the train leaves and hop right on. And when you arrive at your destination, you just get off the train with your bags and go on your way.

So for me, since I don't live near Union Station in LA, I would probably take the 10 minute drive to the Irvine metro station 10 minutes before a train leaves, there are frequent trains that get me up to LA in an hour, and as long as I don't cut it SUPER close I might wait 20-30 minutes for the HSR to leave. And then it's 6 hours and drops me off in downtown SF (I believe). So yeah, it probably adds about 90-120 minutes total, but considering I have to make it from Irvine to LA, that is actually an hour of real transit.

You could say I'm cherry-picking, because if I had to fly out of LAX (60 minutes drive plus factoring in 30 more minutes for traffic) for example it would be a lot different than flying out of Orange County. But I'd argue that since there are 5 pretty significant airports in the LA megalopolis, pretty much everyone lives within 30 minutes of an airport.

But it's 4ish hours by plane, 6ish hours by car, and 8ish hours by HSR. If HSR were cheap, it would make tons of sense to not have to worry about driving. But if HSR is as expensive (or moreso) than flying, there's no way it makes sense to double my trip time and pay anywhere near the same cost.

The expected travel time is six hours? Well that doesn’t feel all that high speed

It’s an unfortunate catch 22. The only way a project like that makes sense is if you can get the experience to be in some way better. But by the time conditions are so bad traffic wise that a train might be better, The space to build such a project is absurdly prohibitively expensive. (that’s basically the case with building any new public transit most anywhere now)

Like, I can very easily take a transit to work. The station is about two blocks away, oh my office is about two blocks from the other station. But I don’t. The trains don’t go as frequently as I would like and are often delayed. But more than that, I have parking in my office, and traffic is rarely particularly bad. The driving experience is better and offers flexibility, and therefore I do it. And if there is some big hullabaloo that is downtown that is going to create a parking a traffic mess, then I take the train.

Like, I can very easily take a transit to work. The station is about two blocks away, oh my office is about two blocks from the other station. But I don’t. The trains don’t go as frequently as I would like and are often delayed. But more than that, I have parking in my office, and traffic is rarely particularly bad. The driving experience is better and offers flexibility, and therefore I do it. And if there is some big hullabaloo that is downtown that is going to create a parking a traffic mess, then I take the train.

When I lived in San Jose, I did take the light rail. My apartment was on the south end of it, and my office just steps from one of the stations on North First St. My company paid for it, so it was $0 out of pocket. 

What was interesting was time:

• Driving: 60 minutes (due to traffic)
• Light rail: 60 minutes (due to all the stops)
• Motorcycle: 20 minutes (due to lane splitting)

So when I wanted to take the bike, I'd ride because i actually got there significantly faster than either car or rail. 


The light rail was also nice because if we (all being young and just out of college) wanted to go out drinking, it was a safe way to get home. 

It worked pretty well there with all the tech companies being so closely clustered along a single corridor. 

Supposedly capable of SF-LA in 2 hrs 40 minutes nonstop. But... What's the point of being on a rail line with a bunch of stops if you're going to be nonstop? How many nonstop trains will they run per day? Will they cost more than the ones that do stop, and how much?

I think the most reasonable/efficient option would be to have an "express" train that made two stops between SF and LA:

• At the S end of the SF suburbs
• At the N end of the LA suburbs

I'm thinking say Modesto (I realize more E than S but I'm thinking that crossing the bay would be cheaper than buying land to run the thing up the peninsula) for the "outer" SF stop.

I'm thinking say Bakersfield for the "outer" LA stop. That trip, by car per google is:

• 89 mi (2:16) from SF to Modesto
• 202 mi (3:12) from Modesto to Bakersfield
• 113 mi (2:06) from Bakersfield to LA

So the whole trip is about 400 mi and by car (per google) takes 7:34. To have a chance I think the train needs travel speeds approaching 200 MPH so that travel time is roughly:

• 30 mins SF  to Modesto
• An hour Modesto to Bakersfield
• 30 minutes Bakersfield to LA
• 2 hours total. Add in time to slow down, stop, let passengers on/off twice and you should be able to do it in under three hours.

The flight from here to Paris was about $1700, the flight from here to Marseille was about $1450.  It goes through Paris.  Nice was about $1600, comfort seats, depending on day.  My wife is wanting to go of course, I delayed it because she had to renew her passport and it took a while, but it came last week.

So my excuse is gone other than saying it's too expensive.

This is called being rich (since no one seemed to know what the word meant a couple of weeks ago).