Suburban sprawl linked to health problems, premature aging

With the first issue of Network Life put to bed, I’m back home again. Yet, I can’t shake this feeling I’m missing something for not being in the office. I’ll go in tomorrow to see for myself. 

But today, instead of whizzing to work on my reverse commute, I got a taste of genuine gridlock, attending a 9 a.m. conference on consumer cybersecurity at Bentley College in Waltham, Mass. In the car for 90 minutes; arrived half an hour late. The worst part? Behind their wheels people seemed complacent, even enjoying themselves –  reading the paper, eating a muffin, chatting on the phone, no doubt listening to enlightening radio.     

What was I missing? Where was the road rage? Didn’t they have better places to be? Or is the car just the place they want to be – a refuge from work-life disequilibrium?

Would it anger them to know eating a muffin at 5 mph costs $2,100 per year? 

Indeed, a recent study by a Metro D.C. transportation research group, the Road Information Program, found traffic congestion costs the average Washington commuter $2,100 annually. That breaks down to $1,278 per year in lost time and fuel, $353 in added car maintenance and $500 for “serious accidents caused by inadequate roads,” the study says. Can’t be much less in metro Boston, I’m sure.

A recent poll by the National Association of Realtors and Smart Growth America restored my faith somewhat. Among respondents planning to buy a home within the next three years, 87% said a shorter commute was top priority. Seventy-five percent want easy access to highways; 72% want sidewalks and places to walk. 

Teleworking is great – but what I really want is to walk to work. All this sitting around – in the house, the car, the office – just to carve out 5 or 10 hours weekly at the gym for a hamster wheel workout – just makes no sense.

Sure, lots of people love their big houses, lawns, a bedroom for each kid – a kitchen the size of my apartment. But look – a recent Rand Corporation study found people who live in high-sprawl areas are more likely to report health  problems – high blood pressure, arthritis, headaches and difficulty breathing – compared to people who live in more compact areas.

The study found a person who lives in a high-sprawl city such as Atlanta will have similar health problems to someone four years older living in a more compact city like Seattle.

The findings appear in the October issue of the journal Public Health (“Suburban sprawl and physical and mental health”). For the study, Rand researchers used info from Healthcare for Communities, a survey that analyzed physical and mental health information from 8,600 people in 38 U.S. metro areas.

The report found sprawl affected the poor and elderly disproportionately, but no difference in mental health problems – depression, anxiety and psychological well being – between urbanites and suburbanites.

Regions with the worst sprawl include Riverside-San Bernadino, Calif; Atlanta; Winston-Salem, N.C.; West Palm Beach, Fla.; Bridgeport-Danbury-Stamford, Conn.; Knoxville, Tenn.; Rochester, N.Y.; and Detroit. Regions with the least amount of sprawl include New York; San Francisco; Boston; Portland, Ore.; Miami; Denver; Chicago; and Milwaukee.