Use of Metropolitan public transport is not associated with the flu (and considering the way it's transmitted it's a very good candidate for a disease that would spread in that environment).

I don't want to get into the whole driving debate. Just wanted this fact out there.

Recent bus or tram use within five days of symptom onset was associated with an almost six-fold increased risk of consulting for ARI.

Some will not "exercise" unless forced, sure. For others, the best way to promote exercise is to promote free time.

Even if the commuter has to spend the same time on transit, they have time to relax, read, work etc.

This is ignoring the strides we can make with bike infrastructure which provides excercise along with the commute, even in low density suburban areas. Or encouraging remote work, which eliminates the commute entirely and frees up much more time.

Sprawl exists because people want to be connected to cities without paying downtown luxury condo rents, and it's the only viable option (considering public school quality, neighborhood safety, etc.) we're being given.

When the only place where zoning and planning boards allow density is a relatively tiny downtown, surrounded by low density development, it's no surprise prices shoot through the roof.

That's a very America centric view.

Well it turns out driving takes a long time too, but you're really just being a moving couch potato.

Quoting the linked paper:

> Conclusion: The home environment appears to play an > important role in the spread of influenza in adults, > but not the use of public transport.

Personally, I find public transit much less stressful than driving in a large city. Probably because I'm used to one, but not the other.

> Personally, I find public transit much less stressful than driving in a large city.

I'll agree with that, with the added asterisk that I try to avoid high-traffic times in both cases (and actually large cities in general).