Any chance they’ll increase those earlier 18-foot sections to 30 feet?
I doubt it.
- Demolition would be expensive.
- 18 footers give most of the benefits of 30 footers (anti-tunneling, anti-vehicle ram, deter/defeat most free climbers).
- Those 18 footers are mostly in very rural locations, where the added delay to climbers (more likely ladder/rope attacks), is dwarfed by the effects of reliable detection, tracking and response speed.
- A lot of the operational value (real effectiveness in stopping illegal traffic) out there comes from the other components of the wall system - the high detection rate from the cameras, lights and sensors; and the roads for quick response.
- The great likelihood is that after they collect real data on the illegal crossings, there just won’t be anywhere near the justification for the high expense.
- There is room for a secondary barrier, where needed.
The available land in the Roosevelt Reservation (Federal easement) is 60 feet wide. Why tear down the 18 footers, when you can simply reinforce the border with a secondary barrier. The double barriers (like San Diego, and contracted for a big chunk of the Yuma Sector) are particularly effective for several reasons unique to that set up (length of tunnels needed, supporting equipment is restricted from the secondary barrier by the primary, “trapping” effect between barriers, etc.). The use of a secondary barrier is the current go to solution, where upgrades are needed.
Great points, thanks! Thanks for taking the time to write that up. I particularly like the secondary barrier idea.
I was picturing topping off the existing bollards with hefty 18 or 20-foot bollards whose bottom six or eight feet would be an integral sleeve that would fit right over the old bollard, then welded on to the bollard below, not necessarily tearing down what was already built.
Of course, I’m not a very practical person and have few practical skills (I’m sure a picket fence would be a challenge for me in real life!). :-)