When the Town Planner provided us with 2 exits for our USJ23,there are a lot of reasons behind it and among others is for the Fire Engine to reach us in case of fire. If we were to close one of the exits, not only we will be facing problem of inbalance flow of traffic in our housing estate, we are also doing something which is against the relevant Rules & Regulations. Who will be held responsible if any untoward accidents happened due to the closure of one of the exits???? MPSJ??? or The Committee??? We have to strike a balance between the "security" and "likelihood of untoward accidents or loss or damages to the residents" arising from the closure. In the final analysis, it is my opinion that both the exits should remain open and another guard house be installed at the other exit. We may station only one guard at each guard house. - (Beh Yong Hock)
 

It is logical to open the gate at USJ23/5A so that it is accessible for us to go either way-to other USJ/Puchong or to Putra Height without having to go against the traffic flow when one wants to visit USJ 24, 26, 27 or Putra Heights later. Maintaining the opening of two gates would pose a problem, as stationing a guard each to each gate would leave no guard to do the 'ronda'. If it's a problem due to the Fire engine cannot enter the locked gate, may I suggest that the key to that locked gate be placed in the breakable glass-door casing installed near the said gate. - (unknown)
 

One exit will maintain the security integrity for USJ 23. Exit at 5A WILL HELP TO REDUCE TRAFFIC RISK IN THE LONG RUN. - (unknown)
 

I think that there would be a high chance that the u-turn main road will be sealed off, as there will be a lot of fast traffic coming down from the bridge. Then the consideration of access to USJ24, 26, 26 will become moot. Let's all wait till the bridge construction is complete and the bridge is open, then we can decide as a community the direction to take. - (KK Yoon)
 

Having both gates open poses the same security problem we have encountered previously, which we have tried so hard to resolved (and have worked to a fair extent) with a majority vote (I believe). Why going back to the same issue again? "If it's not broken, why fix it?" I'm not sure if opening the exit on USJ 23/5A to allow traffic towards the other direction (i.e. USJ 24, 26 etc.) is a good idea due to the bi-directional traffic flow (into USJ23 from the fly-over and out to USJ 24 from USJ 23/5A) at the same point. Besides, there are alternatives (might be a bit longer distance) to get to USJ 24's direction - safety over convenience, right? - (unknown)
 

I should like to remind Residents to identify themselves when making comments - it really does not matter if you have a completely different opinion - we just want to ensure that the comments are fair and without malice. - (Robert Chan)
 

Any form of security will come with certain form of inconvenience. To choose the former or latter, I would go for the latter. I don't think we should compromise on security. "Prevention is better than cure." In this respect may I suggest that only one entrance be accessible. The question now is which of the two entrances we should open. Both the entrances have its pros and cons. In the case of the entrance at USJ 23/3C, this entrance will serve the needs of the majority of our neighours since the number of households within the vicinity of USJ 23/3 is by far more than those in USJ 23/5. On the other hand by accessing USJ 23/5, it may not meet the needs of the majority staying in USJ23/3. But for those who intend to use the "trumpet flyover" to Puchong, it would be a shortcut rather than making a U-turn at USJ 21 traffic light. At the same time I don't think upon completion of the flyover we could still make a right turn, since the traffic flow would be extremely heavy once Putra Height is fully developed. Similarly attempting to cross over to USJ 24, 25 or 26 from USJ 23/5 may be out of the question due to oncoming traffic from Putra Height and Puchong. (KK CHUA)
 

It is interesting to know that USJ 23 residents are open and sharing their views with each other, indicating that we are starting to have more emotional deposits, and speak our mind. The subject on the 24-hour closure of the barrier at the exit/entrance of USJ 23/3C or USJ 23/5A has lately become a topic of immense interest amongst residents of USJ 23. I for one, feel that we can and should all express our individual views, however perhaps we should really wait until the final completion of the trumpet flyover to be completed by late 2001 or early 2002, and by that time we can have a real assessment of the traffic flow and the overall situation affecting USJ 23 residents, then a final decision will be made on where exactly we will close the barrier. For security reasons and safety, I strongly feel that at least one barrier must be closely for 24 hours, otherwise I really do not know what is security and why employ security guards? With security, we have to live with some inconvenience, nothing is " free". I prefer inconvenience with security, than convenience without security. Finally I sincerely hope that the minority will cooperate and accept, the majority's decision, when the time comes. Let's all help each other to ensure that USJ 23 is a safe place for our family. (Yee Foon Kong)
 

I strongly supported the view that both exits remain open and at the same time we shall try to maintain a tight security at our housing estate. The issue of nobody to carry out "ronda" if we were to station both guards at the 2 guardhouses does not arise at all. One of the guards can still do the "ronda". It is very highly unlikely that they will come in during that 15 minutes to do their job. The example of fire engine cannot reach the destination is one of the many examples of incidents or emergencies that can cause loss or damages to properties or even injury or loss of lives. Closing of one of the exit may caused a delay for the ambulance to reach the destination and what the consequences arising from that? If I were to choose between (a) Security & Convenience and (b) Tight Security & inconvenience, my answer is definitely tight security & inconvenience. But now we have another option ie. Tight security & No risk of loss and damage to property and lives, then I will go for the third option. (Lisa Liaw Siew Ling-Mrs Beh)
 

My opinion is to open both the entrances with one guard to each entrance during day time, as what Beh suggested. Since we have all put up the backlane grilles, and with the ongoing Night Watch duties, our security from 5.00 p.m. to 2.00 a.m. is acceptable, even though not a perfect one. By closing one exit for better security, may in turn result in certain roads having unusually heavy traffic, like USJ 23/3C(as it is now), and USJ 23/5 & USJ 23/5A (when exit at USJ 23/5A is closed) ;which may endanger the safety of children. We, therefore need to strike a balance amongst security, safety and ease of access, which I feel open both exits is the best way! (teh kim yong)