Statement:\nVehicular traffic has increased so much that, during peak hours, it takes at least two hours to travel between the city and the airport.\n\nCourses of Action:\nI. Prohibit all non-airport-bound vehicles from using the city–airport road.\nII. Regulate flight departure/arrival waves to reduce peak-hour road congestion.\n\nWhich course(s) of action logically follow(s)?

Difficulty: Medium

Correct Answer: Only II follows

Explanation:


Introduction / Context:
Peak-hour road congestion to the airport can be alleviated by smoothing demand (flight wave regulation) or increasing supply (lane management, transit). A blanket road ban for non-airport vehicles is disproportionate and impractical unless there is an exclusive access road and legal basis.


Given Data / Assumptions:

  • Travel time balloons to ~2 hours only during peak hours.
  • Airport traffic is a major contributor to the peak surge.
  • No dedicated access-controlled expressway is mentioned.


Concept / Approach:
Choose a targeted, feasible, legally sound step. Regulating flight banks can shift passenger/taxi arrivals, smoothing the demand curve for the connecting road. Prohibiting non-airport traffic is over-broad and likely unenforceable without alternate routes.


Step-by-Step Solution:

1) I (ban non-airport vehicles): Disruptive to city mobility, hard to verify intent, creates enforcement friction.2) II (regulate flight waves): Airports and DGCA/airport operator can stagger schedules, spreading road demand.3) Therefore, Only II follows.


Verification / Alternative check:
Many airports manage “peaks” through slot coordination to ease both terminal and kerbside congestion.


Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• I / Both: I is not justified by the statement.• None: Ignores a viable lever (II).


Common Pitfalls:
Over-reliance on bans; ignoring demand management tools.


Final Answer:
Only II follows.

More Questions from Course of Action

Discussion & Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
Join Discussion