This paper is a research report showing the similarities and differences between two airport master plans with a special focus on landslide access, vehicle circulation and efficiency. The relationship between the activities taking place at airports and the ones taking place on the road network is very complex. The first master plan provides the basic means of landslide access to the airport which is provided indirectly urban road network. This road network providing landslide access to the airport is used by the airport users but it also acts as an east-west cross-country route around the Northern fringes of the City. This plan provides an easy access to the surrounding land and making it easy for the airport users to easily access the landslide as they move in and out of the airport. The second master plan presents a similar access to the landslide as the first one. There is a basic form of landslide access to the road network but this plan shows that the airport is poorly served by the landslide access that may not be as good as the first airport master plan. The accessibility of the second airport is related to the infrastructure of the road network and the general accessibility of the southern part of the city (U.S. Department of Transportation, 1999).
The circulation of vehicles in and out of the airport is a very important factor for the efficient operation of the airport. There is commitment by the airport in the first master plan use bus based public transport with the use of the airport’s car park as the traffic head for the airport. There is the use of other parkways and vehicles stations that are used as the secondary traffic heads. The long distance bus services that pass through the airport and the short distance taxis services that generally join and leave the roan network at the junction of one of the major roads ensures that the vehicle circulation efficiently take place. However, a considerable time penalty is usually incurred when these vehicles are routed through the airport and to the junction of the main highway. The circulation of vehicles through the second airport as shown in the second airport master plan shows traffic circulation that efficiently moves in and out of the airport. This kind of vehicle circulation definitely makes the airport very efficient and busier than the first master plan. However, parts of the airport suffers from severe traffic congestion at air quality in parts of the airport’s traffic are. The master plan was therefore developed to focus on five main aims as far as the activities of the airport are concerned: To deal with congestion, to improve road safety for the airport users, improve the airport’s air quality, improvement of accessibility and improvement of the quality of life. With such a plan, the second master plan shows that the second airport is more efficient than the first one because, like the first one, it has traffic bus routes but the second airport has more than four bus route connecting the airport to four different parts of the city.
The efficiency any airport of course depends on the landslide accessibility, the efficiency on vehicle circulation and its link to the road network. The first master plan shows an airport that is linked to the road network with more than two main roads providing easy landslide access by the airport users. The availability of a well managed traffic area with one bus route and a number of taxis connecting the airport to the road terminus makes this airport efficient. However, this is not as efficient as the airport presented in the second master plan. Although the landslide access is not as good as the one seen in the first mater plan, the airport is linked to great road network with more than four bus routes and well managed traffic area that improves air quality and accessibility to the main land. These two master plans present fairly efficient master plan for airports but I’d rather have the first one than the second one because of the congestion.