[Begin Story]
So, here I was, out cycling on Saturday 8am with my family (damn it was cold), ride from Fawkner to the Zoo and decide after 25kms I'd had enough (too sluggish - couldn't get warm) so we decide to catch train back home. Pick up a pamphlet on the Melbourne train fares after paying $2.60 concession fare for my baby daughter (only to find that under 4 children travel free). Damn ticket machines. Anyway ...
[End Story]
I'm looking at the stations in each of Zone 1, Zone 2, Zone 3 etc on the train line map (for interstate readers Zone 1 is essentially inner-suburban, Zone 2 middle suburban, Zone 3 outer).
My local area consists of the suburbs Fawkner, Glenroy, and Oak Park (plus others, but these ones are specific to my question). Fawkner is actually served by two stations - Fawkner and Gowrie (North Fawkner). Glenroy and Oak Park each have their own train station. All of these stations except Gowrie are in "Zone 1", and Gowrie is the first Zone 2 station.
From an investment perspective I consider all these suburbs fairly equivalent in terms of housing stock, rental potential, infrastructure/services available, schools, shops, and potential capital growth.
Zone 1 fares are around 40% cheaper than Zone 2 fares. $22 versus $38 per week, for example.
Which leads me to my question:
If you were going to buy "near" a train station (eg. modest walking distance) and you envisage your potential tenants might make use of the train, how much importance (in the scheme of things) do you think a tenant would place on a property according to whether they were paying Zone 1 or Zone 2 fares?
(Part of this question stems from a comment I think Sim made on another thread that sometimes tenants lease cheaper rentals and don't account for the increased travelling time, travelling costs etc).
So, here I was, out cycling on Saturday 8am with my family (damn it was cold), ride from Fawkner to the Zoo and decide after 25kms I'd had enough (too sluggish - couldn't get warm) so we decide to catch train back home. Pick up a pamphlet on the Melbourne train fares after paying $2.60 concession fare for my baby daughter (only to find that under 4 children travel free). Damn ticket machines. Anyway ...
[End Story]
I'm looking at the stations in each of Zone 1, Zone 2, Zone 3 etc on the train line map (for interstate readers Zone 1 is essentially inner-suburban, Zone 2 middle suburban, Zone 3 outer).
My local area consists of the suburbs Fawkner, Glenroy, and Oak Park (plus others, but these ones are specific to my question). Fawkner is actually served by two stations - Fawkner and Gowrie (North Fawkner). Glenroy and Oak Park each have their own train station. All of these stations except Gowrie are in "Zone 1", and Gowrie is the first Zone 2 station.
From an investment perspective I consider all these suburbs fairly equivalent in terms of housing stock, rental potential, infrastructure/services available, schools, shops, and potential capital growth.
Zone 1 fares are around 40% cheaper than Zone 2 fares. $22 versus $38 per week, for example.
Which leads me to my question:
If you were going to buy "near" a train station (eg. modest walking distance) and you envisage your potential tenants might make use of the train, how much importance (in the scheme of things) do you think a tenant would place on a property according to whether they were paying Zone 1 or Zone 2 fares?
(Part of this question stems from a comment I think Sim made on another thread that sometimes tenants lease cheaper rentals and don't account for the increased travelling time, travelling costs etc).
