Impact of public transport on house prices

abankerbutnotafatcat

Hello fellow MSE-ers.

In a post a week or so ago someone wrote that shortly after they'd moved to an area (Colchester or Chelmsford I think) the local train service to London materially declined as in express services were withdrawn.

Then, after last night's East Croydon debacle (link below for those who didn't hear about it) it made me think how much the desirability of my house (to me at the very least) was tied up with the train service.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14368158

I wondered - what obligation, if any, is the incumbant train provider, under to provide as far as frequency/duration of service. Could they just stop serving my station etc?

All thoughts on vital public transport links invited!!! I presume this is a largely London region issue but please feel free to put me straight!!:)

Riq

Obviously I know nothing :rotfl:

dazeruk

Running train services


Train companies are responsible for:

• running the trains on their routes
• managing the stations on their routes – although some stations are managed by Network Rail and some are run by more than one company
• setting fares, station car-park charges and, with Network Rail, service timetables

What the government is responsible for:


The Department for Transport (DfT) and Transport Scotland sell 'franchises' to train operators to run train services. A franchise is a contract between the train company and the government. The contract sets outs the requirements that the company must meet, including:

• setting the minimum number of services that the company must run
• giving passengers information about train times and services, including when trains are delayed or cancelled
• providing safe, clean and reliable journeys for passengers

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Publictransport/RailTravel/DG_10036413

abankerbutnotafatcat

dazeruk wrote: »

Running train services



Train companies are responsible for:

• running the trains on their routes
• managing the stations on their routes – although some stations are managed by Network Rail and some are run by more than one company
• setting fares, station car-park charges and, with Network Rail, service timetables

What the government is responsible for:



The Department for Transport (DfT) and Transport Scotland sell 'franchises' to train operators to run train services. A franchise is a contract between the train company and the government. The contract sets outs the requirements that the company must meet, including:

• setting the minimum number of services that the company must run
• giving passengers information about train times and services, including when trains are delayed or cancelled
• providing safe, clean and reliable journeys for passengers

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Publictransport/RailTravel/DG_10036413

I guess that if you are buying a house based on the train service then you should check what that minimum is as it could be less than is currently providing and could therefore be withdrawn. Saying that - the fact that we are squeezed on the train like particularly squashed sardines means the train provider is unlikely to do this!!

lincroft1710

Oh for the days of British Rail(ways)!

Just a minute, though.

Back in the early 1960s, did not that brave Dr Richard Beeching decide that rail travel should be more exclusive and all those people living in villages and towns on less important branch lines were not worthy of having a railway station anymore.

It could happen again if there are any unprofitable lines or stations still around.

martindow

abankerbutnotafatcat wrote: »

Then, after last night's East Croydon debacle (link below for those who didn't hear about it) it made me think how much the desirability of my house (to me at the very least) was tied up with the train service.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14368158

Don't think you can blame the railway for this. It is a water board debacle, if anybody's.

PasturesNew

Plymouth airport's closing, routes shut down ... a train station's just as easy to close almost overnight.

abankerbutnotafatcat

martindow wrote: »

Don't think you can blame the railway for this. It is a water board debacle, if anybody's.

I didn't say the burst water main was the train company's fault. What I do think is their fault is the fact that they didn't advertise the issue - it happened at 09:30 and when I turned up at London Bridge at 17:30 it was the first I or any of my fellow passengers had heard about it. I also think it was their fault that they didn't advise people that there was a c4 hour wait for a replacement bus at East Croydon so they had a chance of making alternative arrangements - I could have taken a train on a different line from Waterloo, others said they would have got a hotel in London or stayed with a friend. Instead all they did was shuttle us down to the chaos of the mile long queue at East Croydon.

sarahevie

I think it has a big impact where I am a small town in West Yorkshire we are particularly well served by a small local metro train line. It is a mere 10 min walk from my house but has us in Ilkley (for the countryside within 20 mins). Leeds 12mins. Bradford 15mins.

The surrounding areas not served by the train tend to be 10/20% cheaper