Maybe you’ve had the same thoughts we’ve had while waiting in an airport line to remove jacket, shoes, belt, the odd paper clip, and pass them through security screening: For all the work the agents are doing, an alert terrorist is going to figure out this system quickly. And this line is really long.

It turns out the Department of Homeland Security has been thinking similarly.

According to a confidential report obtained and reported on in The New York Times, the department wants both more intense screening for explosives and a faster screening process for passengers. The department, according to the Times, believes it can achieve both through some high-tech equipment and some low-tech process changes. The effectiveness of any security system relies in part on the public’s willingness to endure it, so simple steps to improve detection while reducing waiting times would be especially appreciated.

The long-term, high-tech changes include increasing the use of equipment that can detect, by blowing puffs of air as passengers walk through a screening device, minuscule amounts of explosives. Short-term and less expensive are providing longer tables where passengers put items into plastic bins for screening and automatic bin returns so workers can focus on checking passengers.

The news story said inefficiency in waiting lines can mean the X-ray machine used for carry-on bags is idle as much as 30 percent of the time. Other simple measures were more use of computer screening to check baggage rather than checking it by hand, increasing the number of screening lanes and preventing passengers from improperly using exits in secure areas.

Two of the more difficult challenges are to figure out how to check air cargo efficiently on passenger planes and, even harder, to persuade airports internationally to use a similar level of security.

There is no going back to pre-9-11 days at airports, but it is surely possible to go forward through the use of better scanning tools, more efficient movement for passengers, greater attention focused on realistic threats and more steps to prevent panic-producing episodes. (The department studied 10 of 120 airport evacuations in 2003, caused by passengers exiting the wrong door, improper screening during comprehensive checks, a checkpoint gate found open, etc.)

The current system was set up in a hurry, under uncertain conditions with evolving security processes. Reforms that respond more effectively to potential terrorism while making something as essential and mundane as catching a flight easier are to be welcomed.