Answer:
The benefits of a High Speed Rail in California:
- It becomes a feasible alternative to air travel, because it can be either cheaper, or even faster, since passengers do not have to spend as much time on a train station as they do on an airport.
- If demand is high enough, state highways can become less congested, because many people who would otherwise travel by car, would take a high speed train instead.
- Because the trains are electric, they are likely to help reduce pollution.
The cons would be:
- We cannot know for sure how many people would take the high speed trains. Demand could not be high enough to justify the cost.
- The line would be very costly.
- It could end up benefit only a small section of the population who would take the trains, or who travel often.
I believe that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, as can be seen in most countries where high speed lines have been made between large cities. For example, in Spain, the line between Madrid and Barcelona is profitable. The same would likely happen for a line between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
What are the implications of starting a project based on tenuous projections that may or may not come true 10 years from now?
If demand projections are tenous, there is always the possiblity that the high speed line could not be profitable. However, this risk can be lowered if the line is made between highly populated cities.
Could you justify the California high-speed rail project from the perspective of a massive public works initiative?
Yes, a high speed rail would be a project that could massively impact California. The benefits of its operation could outweight the cost.
In other words, what other factors enter into the decision of whether to pursue a high-speed rail project?
As I said before, the most important factor is to construct line between highly populated cities in order to reduce the risk of not having enough demand. It has been demonstrated around the world, in Spain, in Italy, in Japan, in China, that high speed lines that connect very populated regions, can be profitable.
Answer:
Instructions are below.
Explanation:
Giving the following information:
Fixed costs= $109,000
Unit variable cost= $21
Selling price= $85.
To calculate the break-even point in units, we need to use the following formula:
Break-even point in units= fixed costs/ contribution margin per unit
Break-even point in units= 109,000/ (85 - 21)
Break-even point in units= 1,703 units
Now, we need to include the desired profit:
Break-even point in units= (fixed costs + desired profit) / contribution margin per unit
Break-even point in units= (109,000 + 150,000) / 64
Break-even point in units= 4047 units
Sales= 500,000
Variable cost= 5,882*21= (123,522)
Contribution margin= 376,478
Fixed costs= (109,000)
Net operating income= $267,478
Answer:
c. you need a lot of money to buy a home
Explanation:
mark me brainliest pl
hope it help you
Answer:
The Supreme Court ruled that the name Coke was so well known around the world, that it is effectively a common term for the trademarked Coca Cola. If other companies try to use similar terms like Koke for other types of products, e.g. bakery items, there is a risk that the Coca Cola company would be negatively affected by that product's image since consumers might associate Koke directly to Coca Cola.
It doesn't matter if the products were low quality or not, the courts cannot determine that, what matters is that the use of the term may negatively impact another company.
