SECURING THE AIRFRONT

Airports attract all kinds of traffic.  Yes, there are passengers, companions and workers, many coming be car. There are also taxis, limos, buses and shuttles from nearby hotels, car rental facilities and remote parking.  Unfortunately airports are frequent targets for terrorist attacks, so much attention is given to security matters airside, but also landside.

On an airport’s landside, what is more secure -- an unknown road vehicle with unidentified passengers and content, or a podcar that is video-watched as passengers in a station board it? Most of us would vote for the latter.  Roadway freedoms can bring mortal threats.

New Podcar Potentialities

A recent assessment of the ATN industry by the Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) at San Jose State University points out that few transport planners and land use officials understand the new, flexible design parameters of this now-proven (in small networks) mode of transit classically known as PRT.  Station location and sizing are fundamentally different from more familiar rail modes, including automated people movers without off-line stations. ATN guideway dimensions are significantly smaller, viable with one-way segments, and capable of sharper turns and higher grades. Station sizes can be minimal, enlarged only where there is demand. All this makes ATN design flexible in the third dimension, generically called “elevation” by architects and engineers, even in sections that are underground.  

An ATN-oriented development strategies waiting to be explored.

Visions of ATN-oriented airfront districts are few and far between.  Airport  districts are growing and attract private investment. Pressures to plan and manage them to be efficient and secure are increasing. ATN traffic will be easier to secure 24/7 than road traffic. With reduced parking needs, the airfront can be more compact, further reducing traffic.

ATN systems can more easily be expanded in the future by means of the flexible addition of guideway segments and stations. To make this bold, new development scenario even more attractive, GHG emissions will be significantly lower.

If Not San Jose, then Stockholm

The MTI report also pointed out that there is a disconnect between airport management, municipal zoning and land use regulation, and the general metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in place across the US. They have too little to do with each other -- to the detriment of land use efficiencies and competitive advantages in a global world. Outside the US, there are examples of better airport-land use coordination. Paris-CDG was one of the early ones to see the potential of commercial development beyond terminal retail on airport property.  Stockholm-Arlanda has interesting examples too.

The US Congress would do well to adjust MPO mandates to be more than passive recipients of FAA dictates. PCC8 at Stockholm’s Arlanda Airport is organized with USDOT coordination in the framework of long-term Swedish-USDOT cooperation. The September 3-5 gathering will advance the vision of ATN-served airfront districts laden with many benefits, including a more secure airport.