People sometimes talk about NEEDING a psychological distance
between their work and their home. It might be expressed in time or
distance. Do people need time to re-adjust themselves between the
attitudes of work and the attitudes of home. If they simply need
TIME, why does it have to be in transport rather than in a waiting
room with a time-lock? Or is it the EFFORT that is the key? In that
case an enforced walk of half a mile with showers turned on a random
would give the feeling of having endured something.

As a particular exaple of this, people sometimes say "I don't
want to live just round the corner from the company in case the boss
gets into the habit of ringing up and saying 'Fred. You live just
round the corner. Can you pop round and do a little job.'". I know of
no ACTUAL CASE of such exploitation, but certainly many people say
that is the reason why they live where they are, some distance from
work. How widespread is this?

If this is true, then efforts to improve transport are a waste
of time, if you make it easier and better, people will offset it by
moving further away. Rather depressing.

This is what I have heard and seen, is it general experience?
Is there something we could or should do to change this so that people
can live nearer their work, put less burden on transport, and waste
less time?

--

Michael Bell

"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...
People sometimes talk about NEEDING a psychological distance
between their work and their home. It might be expressed in time or
distance. Do people need time to re-adjust themselves between the
attitudes of work and the attitudes of home. If they simply need
TIME, why does it have to be in transport rather than in a waiting
room with a time-lock? Or is it the EFFORT that is the key? In that
case an enforced walk of half a mile with showers turned on a random
would give the feeling of having endured something.

As a particular exaple of this, people sometimes say "I don't
want to live just round the corner from the company in case the boss
gets into the habit of ringing up and saying 'Fred. You live just
round the corner. Can you pop round and do a little job.'". I know of
no ACTUAL CASE of such exploitation, but certainly many people say
that is the reason why they live where they are, some distance from
work. How widespread is this?

If this is true, then efforts to improve transport are a waste
of time, if you make it easier and better, people will offset it by
moving further away. Rather depressing.

This is what I have heard and seen, is it general experience?
Is there something we could or should do to change this so that people
can live nearer their work, put less burden on transport, and waste
less time?

I would love to live within walking distance of my work but unfortunately I
(and many others) can't afford to live in the City. Even if I could afford
it, there's a real lack of services (especially at the weekend) that would
mean I would have to travel anyway.

As a particular exaple of this, people sometimes say "I don't
want to live just round the corner from the company in case the boss
gets into the habit of ringing up and saying 'Fred. You live just
round the corner. Can you pop round and do a little job.'". I know of
no ACTUAL CASE of such exploitation, but certainly many people say
that is the reason why they live where they are, some distance from
work. How widespread is this?

I used to work on a holiay park and actually lived on the site and there was
many occasions when i would get a phone call or someone knocking my door
asking if i could go into work on my day off or when i wasnt meant to be
working (i.e. after i had just finished a 12 hr shift) and i felt i had to
do it, simply because i would have got hassle next day if i didnt.

Michael Bell wrote:
People sometimes talk about NEEDING a psychological distance
between their work and their home. It might be expressed in time or
distance. Do people need time to re-adjust themselves between the
attitudes of work and the attitudes of home.

For most of my career, my commuting journey was between 30 and 90 minutes
each way. For the short period when it was 10 minutes, I did feel sometimes
that it wasn't long enough to let me unwind before getting home. However, I
wasn't bothered enough about it to cause me to go and do something else for
20 minutes before getting in the car.

As a particular exaple of this, people sometimes say "I don't
want to live just round the corner from the company in case the boss
gets into the habit of ringing up and saying 'Fred. You live just
round the corner. Can you pop round and do a little job.'". I know of
no ACTUAL CASE of such exploitation, but certainly many people say
that is the reason why they live where they are, some distance from
work. How widespread is this?

Less than it was, I suspect, because people are more able to work from home,
whereas 20 years ago you had to go to into the office to cope with a weekend
crisis.

If this is true, then efforts to improve transport are a waste
of time, if you make it easier and better, people will offset it by
moving further away. Rather depressing.

It gives them the choice to move further away if they wish to. I don't see
what's depressing about that. I think most people would ideally like a
short commuting journey, but find that it conflicts with other needs, such
as:

- frequent moves of workplace due to job changes (in one company or
several), but a desire not to move home
- partners with jobs in different places
- area of workplace not suitable for living (property prices, environment
for bringing up children, etc.)

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)



This is what I have heard and seen, is it general experience?
Is there something we could or should do to change this so that people
can live nearer their work, put less burden on transport, and waste
less time?

--

Michael Bell

This is what I have heard and seen, is it general experience?
Is there something we could or should do to change this so that people
can live nearer their work, put less burden on transport, and waste
less time?

Well, I hate to say it, but

1) I pay a fair price for transport (in fact car drivers pay 6 times
more per mile then the cost of the roads - £30bn on petrol tax + VED,
5bn on road funding), so there shouldnt be any burden. It's like
macdonalds saying "we are selling too many burgers, how can we reduce
the burden".
2) It's my time to waste. If I want to spend 2 hours commuting, then I
will, thats my choice. The government, as big and intrusive as it is,
still has no rights to tell me how to spend my time. If I want to do 3
laps of the M25 every night, then thats my freedom. I'd pay for the
damage to the road, many many times.

"Paul Weaver" wrote in message
om...
This is what I have heard and seen, is it general experience?
Is there something we could or should do to change this so that people
can live nearer their work, put less burden on transport, and waste
less time?

Well, I hate to say it, but

1) I pay a fair price for transport (in fact car drivers pay 6 times
more per mile then the cost of the roads - £30bn on petrol tax + VED,
5bn on road funding), so there shouldnt be any burden. It's like
macdonalds saying "we are selling too many burgers, how can we reduce
the burden".
2) It's my time to waste. If I want to spend 2 hours commuting, then I
will, thats my choice. The government, as big and intrusive as it is,
still has no rights to tell me how to spend my time. If I want to do 3
laps of the M25 every night, then thats my freedom. I'd pay for the
damage to the road, many many times.

3 laps of the M25? I'd rather stay in a glass box suspended over.....

Paul Weaver wrote:
1) I pay a fair price for transport

Do the people who bear the costs of your transport
receive the money? If so, do they consider the
money a fair price? Did they even want to make the
transaction?

#Paul

wrote in message ...
Paul Weaver wrote:
1) I pay a fair price for transport

Do the people who bear the costs of your transport
receive the money? If so, do they consider the
money a fair price? Did they even want to make the
transaction?

#Paul

The price that is charged and accepted is a fiar price to both the
provider of the service and the consumer of the service (otherwise
there is no transaction). I might not like you eating a big mac,
however I wouldnt argue you had to pay me money to do so.

On 17 Sep 2003 18:55:03 -0700 Paul Weaver wrote:
} wrote in message ...
} Paul Weaver wrote:
} 1) I pay a fair price for transport
}
} Do the people who bear the costs of your transport
} receive the money? If so, do they consider the
} money a fair price? Did they even want to make the
} transaction?
}
} The price that is charged and accepted is a fiar price to both the
} provider of the service and the consumer of the service (otherwise
} there is no transaction).

That a transaction takes place is not in itself sufficient evidence that
it is equitable when there is no choice.

In transport many routes are effective monopolies: you pay what is
demanded not what your journey actually costs the provider.

Matthew
--
Záhid sharáb píné dé, masjid mein baith kar
ya woh jagah batá dé jahán Khudá na ho.
http://www.calmeilles.co.uk/