Bonhomie in the 'Burbs
An intriguing new study argues that social interactions actually diminish in higher density settings. (Media coverage here, full pdf of study here.) What's odd about this finding is that it's in marked contrast to most other empircal studies of the relationship between density and social capital.
The literature on the subject (summary fact sheet) is certainly not uniform. But in general the research suggests that people tend to forge more social bonds when they live at higher densities. And, interestly enough, those social bonds can be protective of health -- meaning that it's possible that living near your neighbors can actually improve your health outcomes, at least on average.
The problem with these kinds of studies, however, is that it's very difficult to tease apart cause and effect. There's a good chance that people self select into communities that reflect their values. Those who want to socialize may want to live near a vibrant walkable commercial center (or, if this new study is correct, in a lower-density community with many people similar to them.) And there are the usual confounders like race, education, and income, all of which play a role in how many social interactions a person is likely to have.
I find this stuff fascinating, but despite a fair bit of exposure to the research, I can't make up my mind about how important sprawl may be to social capital. See, for example, my ramblings here and here. If folks have thoughts on the subject, I'd welcome ideas and references for further study.
Phantom Toll Booth
On most days, my wife and I commute together by car. And since my kids started a new, out-of-the-way school, our commute has gone from a fairly straightforward 15 minute trip -- mostly in the carpool lanes -- to a congested daily slog that, depending on traffic, can last over 45 minutes.
We definitely pay for our longer commute, through higher bills for gas and repairs. But we don't have to pay for the road space -- we drive on the "freeway," after all.
But stuck in rush hour gridlock, among all the other drivers parked on I-5, it strikes me that the term "freeway" is a misnomer. In fact, we do pay a toll to drive on the freeway, especially during rush hour. It's just that we pay with our time, not our money.
Perhaps it doesn't have to be that way. Last Friday, the Seattle Times reported on a high-tech experiment, conducted in the Puget Sound region, designed to test what would happen if people had to pay tolls to drive on the region's roads. In theory, tolls can ease congestion by reducing the number of trips on a crowded highway; tolls, in effect, let drivers exchange money for time.
That's the theory, at least. And the experiment bore it out. Charging drivers variable tolls, based on the type of road and the time of day, did encourage people to drive less -- especially during rush hour.
But, perhaps, not as much less as I might have hoped.
