Letter: I Support SWR’s Decision to Close the Station Bridge

Published on: 4 Nov, 2023
Updated on: 4 Nov, 2023

From: David Smith

In response to: Are SWR’s Claims About Bridge Access Credible?

As a regular user of the station commuting to London almost daily. I would like to make the following comments.

In answer to Mr Paton’s letter, I regularly see people given bridge passes, walking onto the bridge and then boarding a train. That’s how bridge passes go missing.

Fair dodgers like these are more likely to cause antisocial behaviour on trains.

The bridge is not suitable for the disabled or elderly.

The route around the station is not much further, you have two options 1) Farnham Road or 2) Yorkies Bridge the latter of which is pedestrian-only.

I fully support SWR and my only negative comment to them is not closing it to non-passengers sooner.

I saw a comment about it leading to further decline – having these antisocial people and fair dodgers is a sign of decline.

Responses to Letter: I Support SWR’s Decision to Close the Station Bridge

Jim Allen Reply

November 4, 2023 at 2:00 pm

If only there were enough staff employed to stand at the entrance to each platform ‘like wot it used’ to be at Clapham and Waterloo

Modern electronics are not always the answer!
David Ogilvie Reply

November 4, 2023 at 3:32 pm

There is nothing to stop the station bridge being made accessible to the disabled. Only one lift would be needed. Guildford needs more pedestrian access not less. Surely there is a way to prevent bridge passes being used to board trains.
Tim Wolfenden Reply

November 7, 2023 at 6:00 pm

At the time that Solum’s proposals for the station redevelopment were being considered there were suggestions for a segregated bridge allowing step-free access for pedestrians between Guildford Park Road and Walnut Tree Close, which would have linked up with the recently upgraded river footbridge to provide a more direct and traffic-free route into the town centre.

The issue with fare-dodgers was known at that time (even if not so acute), and Network Rail could have ensured that the redevelopment include such a bridge (or GBC could have made it a planning condition or pushed for S106 funding to improve the hazardous pavement across the Farnham Road railway bridge and along Bridge Street).

Unfortunately but understandably, strategic considerations were overshadowed at the time by legitimate aesthetic considerations, subsequently over-ruled and we now have a solution which satisfies neither.