82 INDUSTRY INSIDER September 2026 AirportImprovement.com The next vehicle approaching your perimeter gate may look familiar, but could actually be quite different beneath the hood. Electric vehicles (EVs) are changing the physics of vehicle threats, and airport security planning has not fully caught up. Historically, perimeter protection has been shaped around how vehicles with internal combustion engines accelerate, turn and weigh in on approach. This matters for airport managers because gates designed today may remain in service for decades while the fleet approaching them changes rapidly. As EVs become heavier, faster and more common, the question is whether yesterday’s assumptions are still sufficient for today’s perimeter threats. The issue is not that EVs are inherently more dangerous than internal combustion engine vehicles. The concern for airport security planners is narrower: When a vehicle is intentionally used as a weapon, its mass, acceleration, handling and approach geometry matter. EVs change several of those variables in ways that deserve attention. Traditional crash-rated gate systems are often addressed through standards such as ASTM F2656, the Standard Test Method for Crash Testing of Vehicle Security Barriers. This particular standard provides a structured method for evaluating how barriers perform when struck by defined classes of internal combustion engine vehicles at defined speeds, with penetration beyond the barrier measured as part of the rating. This gives owners, designers and manufacturers a common language for comparing performance. It does not, however, mean that every real-world vehicle or airport site condition is fully represented by the test conditions. A crash rating answers one important question: How did a barrier perform under a defined test condition? It does not answer other questions an airport should ask about attacker opportunity, vehicle availability, approach geometry, or how the surrounding roadway may allow speed to build before impact. The barrier rating establishes a baseline, but the site design determines how much of the threat reaches the barrier in the first place. The prudent action for airport managers is not to replace every gate, but to revalidate the assumptions behind each vehicle control point before the next design, replacement or capital improvement project. The modern EV fleet includes vehicles that are substantially heavier than comparable internal combustion counterparts because of large battery packs. EVs also deliver near-instant torque, allowing rapid acceleration from a stopped or low-speed position. Battery placement often gives EVs a lower center of gravity and more stable handling. For an attacker approaching a vehicle control point, those characteristics affect how quickly speed can be gained, how confidently a vehicle can negotiate turns, and how much kinetic energy is presented at impact. Airport perimeters are particularly sensitive to these changes because vehicle control points aren’t theoretical installations on open test tracks. They are constrained by roadway geometry, queuing needs, emergency access, tenant operations, delivery traffic and the constant requirement to keep the airport functioning. Historically, designers have used approach length, turning radius, lane alignment, gates and active barriers to reduce achievable speed before impact. If an EV can accelerate more quickly from a short approach or maintain stability through a tighter turn, those roadway assumptions may need to be revisited. This does not mean airports should abandon current standards or assume existing crash-rated systems are obsolete. ASTM F2656 remains an essential benchmark for performance- based selection of vehicle security barriers. But standards are only one part of the decision. Airport managers should pair the rating with a site-specific threat assessment that considers available approach distance, turning geometry, shoulders, service roads and any secondary alignment that could create an unintended attack path. Electric vehicles aren’t going away. Before airport managers approve their next perimeter gate replacement or capital improvement, they should ask whether the vehicle threat assessment reflects the EVs likely to approach that gate soon. The planning checklist is straightforward: • Confirm the threat model, • Review approach geometry, • Test turning assumptions, • Evaluate standoff and layered protection, and • Pair crash-rated gate selections with site-specific analysis. ASTM F2656 still matters, but assumptions about airport perimeter design must also consider the EVs now approaching the gates. Burns Security Practice Lead René Rieder Jr. emphasizes the critical influence of security programs on overall operations. During 25 years in the industry, he has amassed expertise in security assessments and master planning, physical security design, electronic security systems and testing/commissioning procedures. His experience spans airports and transit facilities to commercial and educational campuses. Electric Vehicles are an Emerging Perimeter Security Threat
View this content as a flipbook by clicking here.