Statement: Vehicular traffic has increased so much that, during peak hours, it takes at least two hours to travel between the city and the airport. Courses of Action: I. Prohibit all non-airport-bound vehicles from using the city–airport road. II. Regulate flight departure/arrival waves to reduce peak-hour road congestion. Which course(s) of action logically follow(s)?
-
AOnly I follows
-
BOnly I and II follow
-
COnly II follows
-
DAll follow
-
ENone of these
Answer
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.