Boris bikes fuel rising prices in London rental market, says lettings agency

racyrich wrote:

Those walks to the station must have redefined 'leisurely'!

Cycling at six times walking pace is good going. especially on a Boris Bike.

Might have been downhill? The beauty of a hire bike is you might make the trip back home uphill by bus.

KiwiMike wrote:

A number of commentators seem to object to areas getting better amenities, therefore more people wanting to live there to benefit from them, therefore increasing the pool of applicants for rental housing, therefore (in a free market with no form of price control) increasing the value the properties available can command.

If you really have a problem with this, you might be living in the wrong country.

Or century.

I'd suggest writing to your MP, not appearing to want a halt to the rollout of sustainable transport infrastructure.

Exactly! If you want lower rent, why not write to your MP and demand public services are stopped, litter and burnt-out-cars are spread in the streets and unemployment be increased. Then you can live in your low-rent utopia.

KiwiMike wrote:

A number of commentators seem to object to areas getting better amenities, therefore more people wanting to live there to benefit from them, therefore increasing the pool of applicants for rental housing, therefore (in a free market with no form of price control) increasing the value the properties available can command.

If you really have a problem with this, you might be living in the wrong country.

I think you are misunderstanding the point being made. People aren't against the infrustructure. They are against defining the resultant increase in price as a 'benefit' (at least that's my point)

md6 wrote:

I think you are misunderstanding the point being made. People aren't against the infrustructure. They are against defining the resultant increase in price as a 'benefit' (at least that's my point)

The price increase itself isn't a benefit, obviously, and Mr Alworth from TfL never said it was. He appeared to be espousing the realisation of quick and cheap local transport options, welcomed by Londoners that are then prepared to spend more to ensure they have access to them. A significant number of people are willing to pay more owing to the benefit of having bikes nearby. Enough people value the bikes that it's skewing the overall market, therefore it must be a decent percentage. Otherwise once the one or two bike freaks had signed up the rest of the buyers would look elsewhere, eschewing the inflated rents. But there's enough demand to shift the whole market. That's my point

freespirit1 wrote:

Not much of a benefit to those who are on a low wage. They will be forced to move when their tenancy agreement expires, move further away and pay more in fares.

The only winners appear to be the property owners.

...and the people choosing to pay more to take advantage of something that will deliver them a net benefit.

Yes, ideally the whole of London would have a bike hire station a few minutes from every door. Until that time some will value the proximity and vote with their wallets.

I really struggle to see your point - are you suggesting the the bikes should not be available? Or that landlords and tenants should not be able to agree a premium once bikes are nearby? London is healing itself from five decades of car-driven expansion. There are always going to be short-term losers.

I agree completely that the UK rental market is fundamentally broken, and that landlords should face capital gains taxes and a myriad other dis-incentives to commoditise basic human needs. But it's hardly the fault of a rental bike.

KiwiMike wrote:

freespirit1 wrote:

Not much of a benefit to those who are on a low wage. They will be forced to move when their tenancy agreement expires, move further away and pay more in fares.

The only winners appear to be the property owners.

...and the people choosing to pay more to take advantage of something that will deliver them a net benefit.

Yes, ideally the whole of London would have a bike hire station a few minutes from every door. Until that time some will value the proximity and vote with their wallets.

I really struggle to see your point - are you suggesting the the bikes should not be available? Or that landlords and tenants should not be able to agree a premium once bikes are nearby? London is healing itself from five decades of car-driven expansion. There are always going to be short-term losers.

I agree completely that the UK rental market is fundamentally broken, and that landlords should face capital gains taxes and a myriad other dis-incentives to commoditise basic human needs. But it's hardly the fault of a rental bike.

London's rental market has seen an increase in costs. Some landlords are merely paying their bills, like everyone else. Not everyone is a Rachman.

OldRidgeback wrote:

London's rental market has seen an increase in costs. Some landlords are merely paying their bills, like everyone else. Not everyone is a Rachman.

My rental property is earning me precisely nothing. I am actually subsidising my tenant on a monthly basis.

I will only see a pay-back if and when when I come to sell it.... but I can't afford to do that yet.

I wish the Boris Bikes covered the entire area inside the M25, and then we might see more people cycling all over the city.

MrGear wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

London's rental market has seen an increase in costs. Some landlords are merely paying their bills, like everyone else. Not everyone is a Rachman.

My rental property is earning me precisely nothing. I am actually subsidising my tenant on a monthly basis.

I will only see a pay-back if and when when I come to sell it.... but I can't afford to do that yet.

I wish the Boris Bikes covered the entire area inside the M25, and then we might see more people cycling all over the city.

What complete BS, your tenant is no doubt paying the majority of the mortgage on the property, but do they get the property at the end of the mortgage term, no, you do, you have earned the value of a property which is a lot different than 'nothing'.

My tenant doesn't WANT to own a property in London, they are a foreign contractor, and the rent is paid by their employer.

Without private landlords providing this kind of economy, there would be problems.

I only ended up becoming a landlord because I needed to work abroad myself, and I decided to rent my property while I was away. When I came back to London, I couldn't move back into my own home any time soon due to my tenant's 3-year contract (which is now tracking below the normal rate for rent in the area).

So less of this "evil Landlords" bollocks, it's an important part of a flexible economy.

KiwiMike wrote:

I really struggle to see your point - are you suggesting the the bikes should not be available? Or that landlords and tenants should not be able to agree a premium once bikes are nearby? London is healing itself from five decades of car-driven expansion. There are always going to be short-term losers.

I agree completely that the UK rental market is fundamentally broken, and that landlords should face capital gains taxes and a myriad other dis-incentives to commoditise basic human needs. But it's hardly the fault of a rental bike.

I think the point is that given the excessive costs of renting in London already, it is not of benefit to the majority of people for a further 25% increase in costs in the 'cheaper' areas, meaning that those who can not afford the increase will have to move away from the areas = loss to those people. The ones who then stay, regardless of need or desire to use the bikes have to pay more = loss to those people. In general, when people have to pay more, for the same thing, that isn't a benefit to them. The people benefiting are the ones who are (largely) responsible for the cost of housing being so extortionate, i.e. the landlords who own the properties and the estate agents who earm money from the turnover and management of the properties (most charge a % of the rental value so the higher the rent the higher thier earnings). The commuters who choose to rent in the area on the basis that there is a boris bike gain a marginal benefit of slightly cheaper rent (but at a 25% increase v around 10% elsewhere that saving will rapidly deminish) but the others who live there because they have no choice (i.e. can't afford to live closer to a station etc) don't benefit.

Landlords - unlike owner-occupies - do face capital gains tax.

briano 55 wrote:

This is not a benefit Mr Alworth.

It's a benefit to those who are willing to pay up to 25% more in rent to use it, surely? If they can eschew car ownership, or save money/time on other forms of public transport?

KiwiMike wrote:

briano 55 wrote:

This is not a benefit Mr Alworth.

It's a benefit to those who are willing to pay up to 25% more in rent to use it, surely? If they can eschew car ownership, or save money/time on other forms of public transport?

Bikes are a benefit to the tenant, but increase in prices is not a benefit of the bikes, or did I misread the original quote?

briano 55 wrote:

Bikes are a benefit to the tenant, but increase in prices is not a benefit of the bikes, or did I misread the original quote?

Nick Alworth, TfL’s general manager of the Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme, said: “We have always known that Barclays Cycle Hire would bring a range of benefits to London, so it’s nice to see some of these further confirmed by this latest research.

“Since the scheme opened in July 2010, the popular and now iconic bikes have helped change the way people make short journeys across London. More than eight million hires were carried out last year and we expect many millions more to be made during 2014.”

The 'benefit' as I read and see it, is that the bikes "have helped change the way people make short journeys across London". Changed so much, for so many, that a significant number are prepared to pay not only the daily hire charge of £2, but also a monthly premium of a few dozen to maybe a few hundred pounds for proximity to a docking station. Figure no doubt dependent on rent, number of renters in a property etc.

Certainly if proximity to a docking station meant a Zone or two off your travel card, or ability to sell your own bike/not worry about it getting nicked, or - horror - sell a car, the increase in rental would be more than justified. Maybe it means a 10min spin through a park each morning & evening as opposed ot a slog on a High street or an armpit of a TfL bus. Priceless.

KiwiMike wrote:

The 'benefit' as I read and see it, is that the bikes "have helped change the way people make short journeys across London". Changed so much, for so many, that a significant number are prepared to pay not only the daily hire charge of £2, but also a monthly premium of a few dozen to maybe a few hundred pounds for proximity to a docking station. Figure no doubt dependent on rent, number of renters in a property etc.

Certainly if proximity to a docking station meant a Zone or two off your travel card, or ability to sell your own bike/not worry about it getting nicked, or - horror - sell a car, the increase in rental would be more than justified. Maybe it means a 10min spin through a park each morning & evening as opposed ot a slog on a High street or an armpit of a TfL bus. Priceless.

I'd not describe it as a benefit to those who already live there that can't now afford the increased rents, but anyway...

I read the article and comments differently, given the context - an article about the increase in rent prices, then talking about a 'range of benefits' being further confirmed by research, when the research is that having the bikes nearby increases rents, led me to read it as 'increased rents are a benefit'. But I can see why you read it differently and agree that the bikes themselves being available can be a benefit to those that use them.

briano 55 wrote:

This is not a benefit Mr Alworth.

Not necessarily a "benefit" (unless you are a landlord), but surely an important indicator.
We argue all the time that better cycling infrastructure will deliver benefits, but most of it is theoretical and easy for those to oppose it to raise doubts that they will deliver, or that they may be OK in Holland but not in the UK etc

So here we have a measurable metric. The proximity of a cycle hire docking station means that more people want to live in the area.
Just think of the effect if there were bikes AND a safe route to the station / place of work!

RedfishUK wrote:

So here we have a measurable metric. The proximity of a cycle hire docking station means that more people want to live in the area.
Just think of the effect if there were bikes AND a safe route to the station / place of work!

Imagine the collective property barons of greater London barracking TfL / councils / RA's et al to build stuff that will net them more income.

Imagine the fabulously liveable city it would be. More expensive based on a rather crude metric, yes. But look at all the externalities London residents 'pay' for now...

KiwiMike wrote:

RedfishUK wrote:

So here we have a measurable metric. The proximity of a cycle hire docking station means that more people want to live in the area.
Just think of the effect if there were bikes AND a safe route to the station / place of work!

Imagine the collective property barons of greater London barracking TfL / councils / RA's et al to build stuff that will net them more income.

Imagine the fabulously liveable city it would be. More expensive based on a rather crude metric, yes. But look at all the externalities London residents 'pay' for now...

I'm sure it will be really livable for the ever decreasing pool of people who are able to afford to live there. Lets take this further and just price everyone who isn't in the top 10% of earners out of london. Think how livable it would be with out 10% of its current population?
And in the meantime those lack of externalities will prevent children going hungry.

*Well i never thought that a cycling website would have me casting my mind back to undergrad economics