Support for LAist comes from
We Explain L.A.
Stay Connected

Share This

This is an archival story that predates current editorial management.

This archival content was written, edited, and published prior to LAist's acquisition by its current owner, Southern California Public Radio ("SCPR"). Content, such as language choice and subject matter, in archival articles therefore may not align with SCPR's current editorial standards. To learn more about those standards and why we make this distinction, please click here.


RAND Corp Tells Hahn: "Re-LAX"

Before you
Dear reader, we're asking you to help us keep local news available for all. Your tax-deductible financial support keeps our stories free to read, instead of hidden behind paywalls. We believe when reliable local reporting is widely available, the entire community benefits. Thank you for investing in your neighborhood.

The RAND Corporation has produced a new study of Mayor James Hahn's proposal to expand and realign LAX, and they have concluded that the $9 billion plan will do little to enhance the security of the airport.

Besides spelling out several chilling terrorist attack scenarios, the study finds that the most effective method of preventing a devasting attack on the airport is to limit the concentration of passengers in any one place.

However, creating a bottleneck of passengers is exactly what the Hahn plan will do by moving check-in operations to a consolidated off-site location. Such a collection of soft targets (ie, passengers) is sure to draw the interests of terrorists, who were narrowly prevented from blowing up the airport during the run-up to the Millennium celebration.

Support for LAist comes from

Mayor Hahn is taking a huge chance by putting all his eggs in one basket. As a public servant he should place the public welfare over political considerations, even if his plan needs to go back to the drawing board for major changes. A successful strike on the passenger collection area would have devastating consequences, in both human and economic losses.

We should not take that chance.