<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>End traffic chaos at Tuas Checkpoint
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I WRITE out of sheer exasperation at the poor systems and processes at Tuas Checkpoint.
This Chinese New Year, I spent two hours in a car queue leaving Singapore on Saturday morning, then three hours in a return queue on Tuesday night. At one point on Tuesday, traffic was completely stationary on the bridge for 45 minutes. I shudder to think of the discomfort to thousands of people there and the financial and environmental cost of thousands of litres of fuel burnt.
The following are areas in need of overhaul, especially in contrast to immigration and security at Changi Airport, which are efficient and courteous.
Traffic system
The booths are positioned such that one has to hand in immigration documents via the passenger window. This is acceptable when there are passengers in a car but I have had to leave my car and walk around the front. This is a waste of time and raises security issues.
The system of having three lanes lead to each block disadvantages drivers in the outer lanes as they can usually choose only one booth. The recent attempt to improve this by stationing officers to direct traffic has been inconsistent and confusing.
Traffic returning to Singapore is caught in a jam. Legitimate traffic in the second lane from the right is penalised when cars caught in the left-most bus lane try to cut into legitimate car lanes. There should be earlier lane-marking signs or gantries. I also suggest a flexible lane system to allow heavier traffic to squeeze through, and widening the entry point to more than the current two lanes. Manual traffic control is poor.
Slow and sullen passport checking
Officers are usually slow and, almost without fail, sullen. I contrast this with Changi Airport, where even if officers do not greet you, they at least acknowledge you.
Slow and inefficient security checks
Mandatory security checks are insufficient and a waste of time. Officers often do not even look carefully at the contents of a car boot before waving you on. So why must drivers open the boot? If they are looking for stowaways, I suggest clear stop zones with officers stationed behind cars.
One officer rudely required me to have a bag X-rayed, while completely failing to see and check more bags on my front seat. What is the point of all this activity if it yields no measurable security result? I suggest the model of Changi Airport be employed - random spot checks.
The traffic flow in these security check lanes is also bad. When the car in front is stopped for a more thorough search, all those behind are stuck too. The lane system should be revised to allow cars to bypass the ones that are stopped. John Cheong
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I WRITE out of sheer exasperation at the poor systems and processes at Tuas Checkpoint.
This Chinese New Year, I spent two hours in a car queue leaving Singapore on Saturday morning, then three hours in a return queue on Tuesday night. At one point on Tuesday, traffic was completely stationary on the bridge for 45 minutes. I shudder to think of the discomfort to thousands of people there and the financial and environmental cost of thousands of litres of fuel burnt.
The following are areas in need of overhaul, especially in contrast to immigration and security at Changi Airport, which are efficient and courteous.
Traffic system
The booths are positioned such that one has to hand in immigration documents via the passenger window. This is acceptable when there are passengers in a car but I have had to leave my car and walk around the front. This is a waste of time and raises security issues.
The system of having three lanes lead to each block disadvantages drivers in the outer lanes as they can usually choose only one booth. The recent attempt to improve this by stationing officers to direct traffic has been inconsistent and confusing.
Traffic returning to Singapore is caught in a jam. Legitimate traffic in the second lane from the right is penalised when cars caught in the left-most bus lane try to cut into legitimate car lanes. There should be earlier lane-marking signs or gantries. I also suggest a flexible lane system to allow heavier traffic to squeeze through, and widening the entry point to more than the current two lanes. Manual traffic control is poor.
Slow and sullen passport checking
Officers are usually slow and, almost without fail, sullen. I contrast this with Changi Airport, where even if officers do not greet you, they at least acknowledge you.
Slow and inefficient security checks
Mandatory security checks are insufficient and a waste of time. Officers often do not even look carefully at the contents of a car boot before waving you on. So why must drivers open the boot? If they are looking for stowaways, I suggest clear stop zones with officers stationed behind cars.
One officer rudely required me to have a bag X-rayed, while completely failing to see and check more bags on my front seat. What is the point of all this activity if it yields no measurable security result? I suggest the model of Changi Airport be employed - random spot checks.
The traffic flow in these security check lanes is also bad. When the car in front is stopped for a more thorough search, all those behind are stuck too. The lane system should be revised to allow cars to bypass the ones that are stopped. John Cheong
