Guildford station overbridge upgrade?

[GodAtum]

I think the footbridge over the station is not fir for purpose: it is old and too narrow. Guildford is not exactly a backwater so I'm curious as to why haven't they upgraded the bridge to something like Slough or East Croydon?

 

[infobleep]

There is talk of redeveloping the whole station. The footbridge is a public right of way. Not that, that would preclude them from upgrading it.

Of course the footbridge is no worse than that at Surbiton in my mind. The queues to get through the barriers at Surbiton can be slow. In the fact when there's no one around at night, the barriers are open. Clearly for revenue purposes they can leave them open in the morning or evening peaks but it would speed up getting out of the station if they did.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

There is talk of redeveloping the whole station. The footbridge is a public right of way. Not that, that would preclude them from upgrading it.

Of course the footbridge is no worse than that at Surbiton in my mind. The queues to get through the barriers at Surbiton can be slow. In the fact when there's no one around at night, the barriers are open. Clearly for revenue purposes they can leave them open in the morning or evening peaks but it would speed up getting out of the station if they did.

Perhaps Guildford Borough Council may like to make a sizeable contribution to SWT for the amount of fraudulent travel that occurs because of this "Public Right Of Way", the amount of bridge passes that we find on the platforms, track & trains is quite astounding.

I would suggest that a £20 penalty charge per bridge pass that's abused may change their mind.

 

[infobleep]

Perhaps Guildford Borough Council may like to make a sizeable contribution to SWT for the amount of fraudulent travel that occurs because of this "Public Right Of Way", the amount of bridge passes that we find on the platforms, track & trains is quite astounding.

I would suggest that a £20 penalty charge per bridge pass that's abused may change their mind.

The public footpath was put in place when British Rail redeveloped the station in 1987. I think the council supported the plans if they agreed to the public footpath.

If South West Trains don't like it then they can build another bridge and divert the pedestrians along that. They are not going to spend such money themselves so the current situation remains. I would not support the footpath's complete closure. However I did not object to its closure from 1.30 to 4am, as approved by the council in the last few years. They even had to put up a diversion notice for pedestrians.

I've yet to see the future development plans but I wouldn't be surprised if a wider bridge, with two sides was built. They could add a fence in-between to stop people getting to the passenger paying side.

Of course that only works if they man the barriers. I guess they could close the back entrance for most of the day if there wasn't a public footpath. In the wider bridge situations the half leading to the platforms would be closed and passengers would be forced to walk all the way to the front and back again. Annoying I'd you only want to go to platform 8.

 

[TEW]

Both gatelines are manned early morning-late evening at present Monday-Saturday. Hopefully any redevelopment of the station will create a separate pedestrian route across. The number of people that abuse the bridge passes is unreal; at least 60 bridge passes going missing each day.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

So if SWT levied a £20 charge per lost barrier pass on GBC, that's £1200 pd, £8400 pw, £33600 pcm, £403200 pa. :eek:

All going to pay for the lost revenue caused by the fraudulent use of the barrier pass system. If SWT had the nerve to take GBC on, I reckon that GBC would drop the notion of having a public right of way across there, in lieu of losing £400k.

 

[Murph]

So if SWT levied a £20 charge per lost barrier pass on GBC, that's £1200 pd, £8400 pw, £33600 pcm, £403200 pa. :eek:

All going to pay for the lost revenue caused by the fraudulent use of the barrier pass system. If SWT had the nerve to take GBC on, I reckon that GBC would drop the notion of having a public right of way across there, in lieu of losing £400k.

Public rights of way don't work like that, and there would be no basis in law to support trying to extort money from the taxpayer like that. The correct thing for GBC to do would be to cite Arkell v. Pressdram, 1971, and not cave to such a completely absurd attempt at extortion.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Public rights of way don't work like that, and there would be no basis in law to support trying to extort money from the taxpayer like that. The correct thing for GBC to do would be to cite Arkell v. Pressdram, 1971, and not cave to such a completely absurd attempt at extortion.

Mmm, GBC who employed someone who is now facing serious criminal charges of pretending to be a lawyer & a council leader who's a known drunkard!

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/guildford-councillor-charged-following-barrister-7606960

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/guildford-council-leader-banned-drink-driving-4721746

I think it would be a tad rich to try and say about extortion!

And Murph, it's so nice to know that you condone fare evasion.

 

[Murph]

Mmm, GBC who employed someone who is now facing serious criminal charges of pretending to be a lawyer & a council leader who's a known drunkard!

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/guildford-councillor-charged-following-barrister-7606960

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/guildford-council-leader-banned-drink-driving-4721746

I think it would be a tad rich to try and say about extortion!

No matter what GBC's past misdeeds, SWT would be expected to be experts in the law surrounding liability for fraudulent travel. The scheme outlined above would be nothing less than extortion, as the law does not provide liability for them in that situation, and SWT would be expected to know that by the courts.

SWT have perfectly legal remedies available to them, to address the issue, none of which involve attempting to extort £400k from the taxpayer, or failing in their responsibilities towards a public right of way.

Edit below to address late added nonsense:

And Murph, it's so nice to know that you condone fare evasion.

I do not condone fare evasion in any way, shape, or form. I no more condone fare evasion, than absurd attempts to extort money from the taxpayer.

 

[bigdelboy]

I think the footbridge over the station is not fir for purpose: it is old and too narrow. Guildford is not exactly a backwater so I'm curious as to why haven't they upgraded the bridge to something like Slough or East Croydon?

And 50% of London worker disembarking at platform 4 in the evening peak have little understanding of 'keep left' while mounting the stairs (or doing the underpass)! It almost requires a heavy physical shoulder charge to go against the flow and make a connection from (late running) inbound connecting trains on plaforms 1/2/5/6/8 ....

 

[David Goddard]

I think I have provided the solution to this quandary on several occasions.........

 

[TEW]

And 50% of London worker disembarking at platform 4 in the evening peak have little understanding of 'keep left' while mounting the stairs (or doing the underpass)! It almost requires a heavy physical shoulder charge to go against the flow and make a connection from (late running) inbound connecting trains on plaforms 1/2/5/6/8 ....

But if they didn't keep left less of them could use the stairs/subway and one time and it would take them 10 seconds longer to get home! A new wider footbridge at Guildford with lifts rather than fairly steep ramps would be a welcome improvement.

 

[infobleep]

So if SWT levied a £20 charge per lost barrier pass on GBC, that's £1200 pd, £8400 pw, £33600 pcm, £403200 pa. :eek:

All going to pay for the lost revenue caused by the fraudulent use of the barrier pass system. If SWT had the nerve to take GBC on, I reckon that GBC would drop the notion of having a public right of way across there, in lieu of losing £400k.

It's a public right of way. End of. I am a strong believer in public rights of way and that is a useful one I'd not want to see closed, without another bridge built instead.

Back in around 2003, the bridge use to be closed after 10pm each night and all day Sundays. At the time I wasn't aware it was a public right of way. It was claimed this was done for operational reasons. I don't know why it went back into 24 opening. I couldn't find anything online about it when I last looked. I assume someone reminded SWT of its public footpath status.

As a result of closing it, it would take an extra 5 minutes or so to reach a platform when coming from the back side of the station.

Both gatelines are manned early morning-late evening at present Monday-Saturday. Hopefully any redevelopment of the station will create a separate pedestrian route across. The number of people that abuse the bridge passes is unreal; at least 60 bridge passes going missing each day.

I am staggered at the number of bridge passes that go missing. Never expected it to be so high.

I did once see someone jump the side barrier at the front end of the station. Perhaps the members of staff near by didn't spot them. That did surprise me though.

I do wonder if some are getting a bridge pass whilst holding a valid ticket, just to have them with them in case they lose their ticket in the future. After all there's nothing to stop someone taking a bridge pass whilst holding a valid ticket. However that will be in the minority of passes that go missing I imagine.

I do also have one of the current bridge passes. I was given it one time and I think at the other end it wasn't collected or the person to collect it wasn't there. I kept it as a bit of railway memorabilia. I guess technically I shouldn't have but where would I have left it as wasn't collected. I guess I could have dropped it on the floor or left it in front of the closed ticket window for someone else to pick up.

Back in around 2003 there was a bridge pass machine that printed tickets. For periods of time it wouldn't be switched on however making it seem pointless.

Now if I was in a hurry I would occasionally get a bridge pass ticket from their instead of pulling out my valid train ticket from my wallet. One time I got followed to the train and upon asking to see my train ticket, I pulled out a valid ticket.

At the moment I joke to friends that when there isn't any staff at the back entrance that means they trust you as no bridge passes are issued and when there is, they don't. I know that isn't really the case.

From memory the posters state you must ask for a valid bridge pass. Of course that's very hard to do when there is no staff around to ask.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Rebuilding the footbridge to something much wider and segregating it a la Kensington (Olympia) might be worth it.

 

[The Ham]

It's not just Guildford that could do with a bigger bridge, Woking's bridge is often very busy as well. In fact I would suggest that it can be a lot worse, especially when 2 trains arrive to platforms 2 and 4 at the same time.

 

[GodAtum]

It's not just Guildford that could do with a bigger bridge, Woking's bridge is often very busy as well. In fact I would suggest that it can be a lot worse, especially when 2 trains arrive to platforms 2 and 4 at the same time.

true, I remember after a one under a whole trainful of passengers had to change at Woking. There was a fight down the stairs with old ladies falling down and children being crushed.

 

[ASharpe]

I don't think the bridge is that bad. It can get rather congested going up the stairs when a busy train arrives. However it's always easier to fight you way down stairs than up and the subway is not usually as congested.

If people really think the best way to spend a limited pot of money is on improving the bridge then I would like to see one on the south end of the platforms in addition - not all the way across to Park Road. Perhaps just at the end of where the canopy is now. It would be a shorter walk from the ticket hall to the trains than currently. I also don't think it would need to be covered either so that would save some money.

 

[higthomas]

I agree that the bridge and subway are not really up to modern standards. As to removing the public right of way, that is nothing to do with GBC and everything to do with the law, so won't change until a new bridge is built.
But I don't think a new bridge will be built as such, because I suspect that this Solum redevelopment scheme will happen.
Whilst I would say that I am not in favour, because I just think stations are much nicer when open air or glass roofed and airy, it would provide many benefits, presumably including a much improved crossing system and segregated public right of way.