Between the numbers of people who pass through, the amenities they serve, and the employment they provide, airports operate much like cities do. But which has more efficient security?
To further grasp the comparison between airports and cities, consider that Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport is the world's busiest airport in terms of passenger numbers. In 2011, 92,365,860 passengers went through -- an average of over 250,000 per day. Airports such as Heathrow, UK, employ around 66,000 people to support operations. With hotels and additional infrastructure part of the airport terminal, airports are effectively cities -- and substantial ones at that. In many ways, they operate like a city centre, attracting commuters and employees at peak times, offering food and entertainment and a place to sleep. Critical infrastructure, such as energy, water, and transportation, is required and needs protection.
However, one key difference from cities is the threat profile of airports. Flights and airports themselves are vulnerabile to terrorism, and high profile examples making the news annually -- from the Moscow Airport, to Glasgow, to the 9/11 flights -- necessitate a heightened level of security. If people don't feel safe, they won't fly (though statistically it's safer to fly than drive... but that's another story).
With airports operating like businesses with an eye on customer satisfaction, getting people through security checks and border control is a key performance indicator. What also makes airports different from cities is that they are not slowed down by needing multiple agencies to agree on a citywide surveillance program. High threat levels, fast decision making, big budgets, and a focus on customer satisfaction all contribute to airports being a hotbed of new security innovation. I find myself asking, "When and how will this technology trickle down and become embedded in the urban context?"
Integration of security systems across the airport drives improved collaboration between authorities. Fusing data from cyberspace, baggage handling, and planes, amongst other data sources, provides all stakeholders (including border police, immigration, intelligence agencies, customs, airport control towers, etc.) with better intelligence and situational awareness. The TASS project, part of the EU Seventh Framework Programme, provides a working example of an airport security system and a clue to the future of city safety.
Focusing on customer satisfaction, airports are increasing their focus on improving the passenger experience. The goal is for people to walk into the airport, pass straight through border control and security checks, and enter into a world of shops and restaurants. Significant strides are being made (in spite of the performance of some government agencies... I'll mention no names to avoid being stuck when I next fly). License Plate Readers to check cars on the approach to airports, behavioral analytics, improved biometric performance, and advances in body scanners all contribute to a clearer assessment of potential terrorist threats, resulting in a swifter check-in and safer flights.
Such technology that does not restrict personal mobility will see an increase in applications. The city is an obvious next step. For example, Madrid and London have highlighted that rail infrastructure is a potential terrorist target. In 10 years it may be possible we'll see body scanners, biometrics, and behavioral analytics deployed at the turnstiles of your local underground station. Football stadiums, shopping centres, and tourist attractions like the London Eye are all venues that can be made safer through security technology. The key is getting the balance right -- applying the right balance of technology based on a thorough risk assessment.
Time will tell how quickly lessons from airports are applied elsewhere.
Re: Problem is, most airport security rules are stupid I perceive the "con" is a perception that Airports are safe when items are detected. Interestingly enough, I have never escaped liquids check at local New York airports, JFK or LGA.
What bothers me most is the personal intrusion of privacy by surveillance cameras, body scanners, drug sniffing dogs and the like. New York City Police (NYPD) partnered with Microsoft to create a huge network of cameras called DAS "Domain Awareness System". I think of it as "the Machine" from CBS' Person of Interest. It would take an unreasonable amount of manpower to comb real time data to apprehend criminals. Airport security rules are designed to prevent and deter.
An airport security blueprint for mass transit systems can over-extend the fractured judicial system. How will law enforcement officials manage the increased number of arrests for petty offenses?
Re: Mixed feelings here You raise and interesting discussion point here. Everything - companies, banks, schools, airports - is getting bigger because it's more efficient. And future cities will inevitably have many of these big things in them. Yet Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful: Economics as if people mattered" resonates more and more with people.
We have moved from when Henry Ford sold a million identical cars to a point where his successors sell a million different vehicles each built to order. We want to be seen as individuals not processed as a grey mass. Commerce and retailers are understanding that just as government looks to be more "efficient"
Re: Problem is, most airport security rules are stupid Nicole, the liquids thing is a con because as you and I have found the scanners can't see them. So innumerable people are put to inconvenience (and some airports sell the bags) displaying their shampoo for no purpose whatsoever. The real terrorist won't. Not that I can recall a bomb EVER being found by a security check.
What 9/11 and 7/7 proved was that terrorists can be creative. Maximum impact will always be achieved by doing the unpredicted thing at the unexpected time. Doing it again next week or a year later will always be much harder.
The best we can do is constant vigilance. And we are all safer when unstable travellers are relieved of what you call a box cutter and I call a Stanley knife
Re: Problem is, most airport security rules are stupid A few years back, I renewed my US Passport and was excited by the "chip" inside. Intel [the semiconductor company] has had much greater success with them!
Re: Problem is, most airport security rules are stupid I am, without question, a fan of "Technology." But consider this: I am an upper extremity amputee. This means, that I am equipped with a prosthetic device which illicits a security scenario made ever more complicated by "Technology." Full body scanners are never quite enough to satisfy airport security. A full pat-down, complete with a bomb test [for that hidden explosive material inside my prosthetic] is also required.
Periodically, I'm 'treated' to an x-ray of my prosthetic [a Supervisor's call at JFK [NYC]. But NOT in place at Bob Hope International Airport [Burbank, CA]!!!
Since full pat-downs can only be performed by female security personnel [in my case] this typically amounts to a 15/20 minute wait [BEFORE the events I've described herein] because the TSA has [it seems] far fewer female personnel.
Re: Mixed feelings here You note: "i deplore the trend towards ever-larger airports, particularly those designed by Richard Rogers. They are designed for airport managers not passengers." This strikes me as true [though I have far less experience travelling by air, than you]. Also, I note how this very sentiment rings true for schools in the United States. That is, insert school administrators in place of airport managers; students, in place of passengers. The unifying theme? Crowd Control in the 21st Century.
Re: Problem is, most airport security rules are stupid "The liquids game is a con."
Simon, what do you mean when you say it's a con? I'm in the same boat in that I've never had to go back and take my liquids out, but are you saying it benefits the authorities or airports somehow to have us have our liquids in little baggies? Or just that it's stupid?
Re: Problem is, most airport security rules are stupid It's important to give the security services some credit here - most potential terrorists are known before they get close to a flight but there's always going to be somebody who slips through the net.
It's interesting to look at airport security in extremes. Post 9/11 how many people would have got on a flight if no security existed? I'm pretty sure nobody. Security exists as a deterrent - if you feel the process is rigorous you're less likely to try anything. As a passenger you tend to feel safer. Conversely, too much and you're likely to seek alternatives (different airports, the train or staying put). Getting the balance right is key. Technology can help us get the right balance - people moving quickly and feeling safe.
Smiley and welcoming faces at an airport is an entirely different challenge. There's not many happy faces during security and customs but then again people generally look pretty glum at my local supermarket.
Re: Problem is, most airport security rules are stupid Airport security is trying to catch the half-witted attacker rather than the coldly calculating terrorist. I once accidentally took a 6 inch mower blade into Heathrow. Another time after I lent my wheelie case to my son I got through 3 different airports with his pocket knife before the 4th spotted it.
The liquids game is a con. I never once put my collection of liberated hotel hair shampoos into a clear plastic bag, and I never once got challenged in hundreds of flights.
The UK operated iris scanners for some years which was a boon for frequent flyers but the machines were quite slow and unreliable. The current chipped passports are supposed to be machine readable but so far I've never seen the machines actually in use amid rumours that the chip security isn't perfect.
Re: Mixed feelings here I spent a decade as a business traveller, initially around Europe but then also covering Asia Pacific. It was a delight flying out of Heathrow just after 9/11 when the flights were half full. As a professional passenger you get to have your likes and dislikes about airlines and airports and you develop ways of dealing with them.
i deplore the trend towards ever-larger airports, particularly those designed by Richard Rogers. They are designed for airport managers not passengers, certainly not the business passengers who pay for them. The old Barajas passenger terminal in Madrid was pretty horrid but exceedinly efficient to get through. The new award-winning Terminal 3 takes 20 minutes more to navigate and is poorly labelled. My current favourite is London City airport in Docklands which has a confined site, with a short runway and steep glidepath. It's mostly business travellers and is a joy, being close to the City and fast to get through.
I can understand the loathing of Heathrow but it's my local airport and I know how it works including how to avoid the traffic snarl-ups. The hideous visa experience is our revenge for the loss of the colonies and is equally reciprocated toward UK visitors at US airports. Waiting for 90 minutes behind a 747 load of Chinese tourists visiting Atlanta has stayed with me as an experience not to be repeated. A huge contrast to the choice of smiling officers that you see at Changi in Singapore
Smart City Money Makers companies and solutions that are most prominent, and destined to be most profitable, in the smart city revolution.
How to Make Your City Smarter Cities all over the world need to become smarter and more sustainable. But where to start? Download this guide to learn the first, proven steps toward making your city smarter.
Site Moderators Future Cities is looking for engaged readers to moderate the message boards on this site. Engage in high-IQ conversations; earn kudos and perks. Interested? E-mail: moderators@ubmfuturecities.com
directory
Designed to provide the people with access to green building products all year round
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This