Train Fares .....

[LuckyOne]

We went into London for dinner this evening.

Thinking a bit about train fares and interest rates, London prices started to make a little bit of sense.

Imagine a young couple commuting into London from the outer reaches of Herts, Surrey, Hants, Essex, Cambs, Kent etc. Their annual season ticket could easily cost £4,000 each. If they commuted from zone 2 into central London, their annual commuting cost would be around £1,000 each.

The net savings from living in London versus commuting is about £6,000per household. At a discount rate of 4%, a £500 monthly payment over 30 years is worth close to £105,000 upfront.

Given the differences in quality of life enjoyed from a short commute versus a long commute and the flexibility offered by the Tube compared to Overland trains, it is quite easy to see that many people are choosing smaller flats at higher prices and similar payments to live in London compared to long commutes from the Home Counties.

While I accept the fact that prices in parts of London are being driven higher by foreign money, I also think that prices in many parts of London are being driven higher by low discount rates being applied to the increasing divergence between relative transport costs between Town and the Home Counties.

Of course, there is no guarantee that low discount rates will apply in the long term but the idea of low rates and increasing rail fares is becoming ingrained in many people's minds.

[Chuffy Chuffnell]

So, the choice for the Londoner is:

1) Live in a tiny slavebox for vast amounts of money in a shithole within a few miles of billionaires and absolute (occasionally rioting) scum

or

2) Live in modest slavebox (if lucky with 2 storeys ) for stupid (but not so vast) amounts of money in a soul-less SE dormitory town and pay more silly sums for overcrowded delayed dirty public transport which you have to use 10 times a week, about an hour at at time

Hmm. Or just not be a complete idiot and simply refuse to live in the beehive that is SE England.

I may earn about ten times less than I could in a high-powered central London job, but I actually enjoy where I live, where I work and the TINY (and very pleasant) commute (5 min walk through a market town in the Shropshire hills).

Edited March 1, 2012 by Chuffy Chuffnell

[LuckyOne]

So, the choice for the Londoner is:

1) Live in a tiny slavebox for vast amounts of money in a shithole within a few miles of billionaires and absolute (occasionally rioting) scum

or

2) Live in modest slavebox (if lucky with 2 storeys ) for stupid (but not so vast) amounts of money in a soul-less SE dormitory town and pay more silly sums for overcrowded delayed dirty public transport which you have to use 10 times a week, about an hour at at time

Hmm. Or just not be a complete idiot and simply refuse to live in the beehive that is SE England.

I may earn about ten times less than I could in a high-powered central London job, but I actually enjoy where I live, where I work and the TINY (and very pleasant) commute (5 min walk through a market town in the Shropshire hills).

My discussion point is that a close to central London slave box is relatively less unaffordable than it has been for a long time for people with London centric jobs relative to suburban slave boxes when considering transport costs and interest rates.

I do agree that people who have non London centric jobs would have to be mad to live anywhere close to London.

[Sibley's Love Child]

We went into London for dinner this evening.

Thinking a bit about train fares and interest rates, London prices started to make a little bit of sense.

Imagine a young couple commuting into London from the outer reaches of Herts, Surrey, Hants, Essex, Cambs, Kent etc. Their annual season ticket could easily cost £4,000 each. If they commuted from zone 2 into central London, their annual commuting cost would be around £1,000 each.

The net savings from living in London versus commuting is about £6,000per household. At a discount rate of 4%, a £500 monthly payment over 30 years is worth close to £105,000 upfront.

Given the differences in quality of life enjoyed from a short commute versus a long commute and the flexibility offered by the Tube compared to Overland trains, it is quite easy to see that many people are choosing smaller flats at higher prices and similar payments to live in London compared to long commutes from the Home Counties.

While I accept the fact that prices in parts of London are being driven higher by foreign money, I also think that prices in many parts of London are being driven higher by low discount rates being applied to the increasing divergence between relative transport costs between Town and the Home Counties.

Of course, there is no guarantee that low discount rates will apply in the long term but the idea of low rates and increasing rail fares is becoming ingrained in many people's minds.

It's a simple trade-off, for something like each minute (in commuting terms) further away from London it costs a grand or so less to buy a house but that's off-set against increasing travel costs. Any gain made by living further out is eaten up by the cost of transport. Ricardo's Law at work I guess.

[porca misèria]

Imagine a young couple commuting into London from the outer reaches of Herts, Surrey, Hants, Essex, Cambs, Kent etc. Their annual season ticket could easily cost £4,000 each. If they commuted from zone 2 into central London, their annual commuting cost would be around £1,000 each.

From zone 2 or 3 you have the ideal cheap transport: get on yer bike! Even if it were free, you'd be mad to do battle with the crowds on public transport over such short distances but not-so-short times!

[Gone baby gone]

From zone 2 or 3 you have the ideal cheap transport: get on yer bike! Even if it were free, you'd be mad to do battle with the crowds on public transport over such short distances but not-so-short times!

Yep, years ago I lived in Elephant & Castle and walked to work in the City most days.

[scottbeard]

2) Live in modest slavebox (if lucky with 2 storeys ) for stupid (but not so vast) amounts of money in a soul-less SE dormitory town and pay more silly sums for overcrowded delayed dirty public transport which you have to use 10 times a week, about an hour at at time

Hmm. Or just not be a complete idiot and simply refuse to live in the beehive that is SE England.

I may earn about ten times less than I could in a high-powered central London job, but I actually enjoy where I live, where I work and the TINY (and very pleasant) commute (5 min walk through a market town in the Shropshire hills).

I understand your point, but do you have to be abusive with it?

I live in a Home Counties town which has a lot of commuters, but I have never worked in London and never want to. Instead I work in my own town "commuting" via a 20 min walk down nice tree-lined roads.

I can't see why that makes me "a compltete idiot".

[phead]

So, the choice for the Londoner is:

1) Live in a tiny slavebox for vast amounts of money in a shithole within a few miles of billionaires and absolute (occasionally rioting) scum

or

2) Live in modest slavebox (if lucky with 2 storeys ) for stupid (but not so vast) amounts of money in a soul-less SE dormitory town and pay more silly sums for overcrowded delayed dirty public transport which you have to use 10 times a week, about an hour at at time

You missed ...

3) Screw West or East of london, go North. 30 Minutes into London , and you can buy a 4 bed detached for less than the price of a 1bed flat in zone 4.

Choices choices.

[Blod]

Or to save the cost of fares you could just cycle. This phenomenon is evident in the year on year increase of people turning away from public transport. I saw an article recently that was trying to infer that it was the wealthier that were fuelling this increase in cyclists. Reading the figure given here I can see why they end up being wealthier.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

If we get any more advanced, we'll resemble the cities of Mao's China.

or Amsterdam

[@contradevian]

Or to save the cost of fares you could just cycle. This phenomenon is evident in the year on year increase of people turning away from public transport. I saw an article recently that was trying to infer that it was the wealthier that were fuelling this increase in cyclists. Reading the figure given here I can see why they end up being wealthier.

London is an excellent cycling city, especially now that it has achieved critical mass. When I lived there, gave up public transport, only partly when I moved out to RM2. Even then a cycle ride from Romford into E14, or even the centre was viable, and you could put your bike on the District Line, or the train from Liverpool Street, during non busy periods.

[Dorkins]

From zone 2 or 3 you have the ideal cheap transport: get on yer bike! Even if it were free, you'd be mad to do battle with the crowds on public transport over such short distances but not-so-short times!

I live 7 miles from my job in the centre of zone 1 and my bicycle is the fastest and most reliable way to get to work, even over that distance.

[Dorkins]

You missed ...

3) Screw West or East of london, go North. 30 Minutes into London , and you can buy a 4 bed detached for less than the price of a 1bed flat in zone 4.

Choices choices.

Luton?

[mightytharg]

We went into London for dinner this evening.

Thinking a bit about train fares and interest rates, London prices started to make a little bit of sense.

Imagine a young couple commuting into London from the outer reaches of Herts, Surrey, Hants, Essex, Cambs, Kent etc. Their annual season ticket could easily cost £4,000 each. If they commuted from zone 2 into central London, their annual commuting cost would be around £1,000 each.

The net savings from living in London versus commuting is about £6,000per household. At a discount rate of 4%, a £500 monthly payment over 30 years is worth close to £105,000 upfront.

Also the £6000 goes to some disgusting trade unionist if you commute, but if you live in London you get the £105,000 (ymmv) back when you sell the house,

[porca misèria]

I live 7 miles from my job in the centre of zone 1 and my bicycle is the fastest and most reliable way to get to work, even over that distance.

I lived at various distances from my (then) work in W1. The furthest out was Leyton (E10), from where the 10-mile journey was rather brutal but much quicker than any public transport.

A couple of years later I had a comparable-length commute from Bath to Bristol, where the motorbike was quickest, and the car also fractionally quicker than the bike so long as I avoided peak hour. Cycling was still far and away the most pleasant: the one to start the day feeling well!

[phead]

Luton?

God no, wrong line.

[bear call spread]

If they commuted from zone 2 into central London, their annual commuting cost would be around £1,000 each.

Not quite that much, my yearly 1-3 ticket = £840, would be slightly cheaper for 1-2 i would of thought?

the choice for the Londoner is:

just not be a complete idiot and simply refuse to live in the beehive that is SE England.

As already said, thats a bit harsh. Some of us were born and grew up in London, and dont want to move from our hometown - especially with our family/friends close, and the Lions share of employment being here.

From zone 2 or 3 you have the ideal cheap transport: get on yer bike! Even if it were free, you'd be mad to do battle with the crowds on public transport over such short distances but not-so-short times!

Indeed. We live in Zone 3 and i think this will be my last year commuting in via Train, nearly everyone i work with cycles now it seems. I think back to when i started working in the square mile back in the late 90's never used to see/know anyone cycling in back then. Just need to decide on which model of cycle now

[worried1]

Hmm. Or just not be a complete idiot and simply refuse to live in the beehive that is SE England.

I may earn about ten times less than I could in a high-powered central London job, but I actually enjoy where I live, where I work and the TINY (and very pleasant) commute (5 min walk through a market town in the Shropshire hills).

Some people actually enjoy different things, though. My commute into London is 15 minutes on an over-crowded train which is obviously much less pleasant that your walk, but I'd personally hate to live in a market town in Shropshire as I'd be bored stiff!

[worried1]

We went into London for dinner this evening.

Thinking a bit about train fares and interest rates, London prices started to make a little bit of sense.

Imagine a young couple commuting into London from the outer reaches of Herts, Surrey, Hants, Essex, Cambs, Kent etc. Their annual season ticket could easily cost £4,000 each. If they commuted from zone 2 into central London, their annual commuting cost would be around £1,000 each.

The net savings from living in London versus commuting is about £6,000per household. At a discount rate of 4%, a £500 monthly payment over 30 years is worth close to £105,000 upfront.

Given the differences in quality of life enjoyed from a short commute versus a long commute and the flexibility offered by the Tube compared to Overland trains, it is quite easy to see that many people are choosing smaller flats at higher prices and similar payments to live in London compared to long commutes from the Home Counties.

I agree with what you are saying, but people often pay high prices to live in nice areas regardless of how far they are out of London.

For example, Guildford is a 45 minute slog of a commute into Waterloo, but the little Victorian terraced cottages in the town centre are still much more expensive than they would be in Mitcham, Thornton Heath and countless other 'less nice' parts of London that have under half the commute time/cost.

I live in quite a nice part of zone 6 that has a good connection into Waterloo and house prices have been driven up by that, but my main concern about buying a place here is that the premium will not be maintained in the long term as commuting to London becomes less common.

I like the area, but the majority of people seem to prefer living out in the sticks, so I can''t see them being prepared to pay a premium to live in the London suburbs if they only have to go into the office once or twice a week. Of course, it will remain a nice area, but I'd expect the price to come down in relation to other nice areas further out.

[Deckard]

So the model plan is to buy as early and as big as possible and eventually you can cash in all your chips and act like a clever multi millionaire somewhere else in the country

[or abroad ]

[snip]

So - my answer is - follow the plan in the best way you can!

I agree that this masterplan has worked for a long time - but don't you think we are quickly getting close to breaking point?

Right now, we are getting to the point where unless you are a Director or above in a producer position with one of the IBs, you don't have a chance in hell of buying a decent 2 bedroom flat in the good parts of zone two, let alone anywhere in zone one.

If most people (even those with a decent city job) end up renting, surely your masterplan ceases to work?

Edited March 2, 2012 by Deckard