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: Option (B) is correct.
Explanation:
Correct Option: Resources to the highest value good or service.
Prices normally are able allocate scarce resources efficiently because they will allocate resources in a better way, so that there can be a full utilization of resources.
If the resources are used efficiently and effectively then this will lead to an optimal utilization of the limited resources.
Answer:
The correct answer is option C.
Explanation:
When the interest rate falls below the normal level, people expect the interest rates to rise in future and bond prices to fall. This causes investors to sell the bonds at present so that they can buy bonds when they are selling at lower prices in future as of result of an increase in interest rates. Money demand will, as a result, will decrease.
<span>Right of association-Gradpoint</span>
Ummm, Government does not fund nonprofits.
