This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Security


The University of Sheffield is investigating how Europe’s railway stations can be designed to be more resilient to terrorist attacks


S


tation security in the UK has traditionally been concerned with graffiti, theft and personal safety, but the terrorist attacks on London’s transport system in 2005 and similar events globally have redefined what we understand by the term ‘security’. However, unlike the perimeter security model applied to air travel, public land transportation is typically an open system, unsuited to individual ID checks, passenger scanning and baggage inspection. From an engineering perspective, this provides an interesting challenge: how can we design railway stations to be inherently more resilient to potential terrorist threats without compromising passenger privacy, travel time and cost?


Researchers from the University of


Sheffield together with others from across Europe are working on this problem as part of ‘SecureStation’, an EU FP7 project. The project is focusing on this relatively recent threat as well as more traditional security issues in the context of railway stations, and is developing a risk assessment tool and design handbook for European infrastructure managers, transport operators and architects. These aim to complement existing advice and regulation, where this exists. The risk assessment tool will aid decision makers in assessing the relative risk to a station from a terrorist attack according to criteria such as station location, size,


‘attractiveness’ as a potential target and vulnerability. The design handbook then aims to give thorough but relatively high level guidance on designing stations to be resilient to various types of attack including explosions, cyber-attacks and toxic substances as well as reducing fire risks and general crime. Since any measures taken will require site specific input the aim is to guide but not to offer prescriptive instructions.


The UK participants of SecureStation are researchers from the University of Sheffield’s Department of Mechanical Engineering (led by Dr David Fletcher, with Dr Jon Paragreen and Dr Emma Carter) and London- based architects John McAslan + Partners. They have previously worked together in the UK programme ‘ReDesign’


which developed


understanding of how resilience to terrorism could be designed into crowded public places (shopping centres, sports venues, transport hubs), beginning from much earlier ideas on crime prevention through environmental design first explored in the 1960’s.


The SecureStation project is coordinated by the Spanish security and defence consultancy, Isdefe, and other partners include risk management experts, engineering consultants, security consultants and transport operators from Italy, Spain, Israel, Romania and Switzerland.


As part of the project, opinion has been sought from operators and managers from the industry (online survey available at www.securestation-operatorsurvey. integralconsulting.ro/) on subjects such as security related equipment, HVAC systems and information management systems. The information requested includes values such as capital expenditure and operating costs as well as ranking the relative importance of factors such as cost-effectiveness and public perception.


Opinion has also been sought from the travelling public to find out passenger priorities concerning personal privacy,


November 2013 Page 59


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140