Electric Cars Won’t Cure Car Time, and Our Bodies Still Pay

Most commuters know the feeling. Long drives leave you stiff, tired, and drained, even if the car is new and quiet. Two decades of research suggest that discomfort is not just personal, it reflects a deeper health cost built into car-dependent cities.

Urban planner Lawrence Frank first put numbers to that intuition in 2004, when he linked time spent driving to obesity risk. Now, in a new commentary in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Frank argues that cleaner cars have not solved the underlying problem. Electric vehicles reduce pollution, but they do not reduce sitting.

Frank, a professor of urban studies and planning at UC San Diego, helped pioneer research showing that car time functions like any other sedentary behavior. His original study found that every additional hour spent in a car raised the odds of obesity by 6 percent, while each kilometer walked lowered those odds by 5 percent.

Why Cleaner Cars Don’t Change the Health Equation

The new commentary revisits that early work in light of two decades of technological change. Vehicles are cleaner and quieter than they were in the early 2000s, but daily routines remain largely unchanged in many regions. People still spend long stretches seated behind the wheel.

“You can spend just as much time sitting in an electric vehicle as you can in a gas one. Every hour in a car will still be a 6% increase in the likelihood of obesity.” – Lawrence Frank, Professor of Urban Studies and Planning

In everyday terms, electrification cleans the air but leaves the posture untouched. Sitting for hours at a time slows metabolism, reduces physical activity, and accumulates health risk, regardless of what powers the engine.

Frank’s early work, conducted as part of the SMARTRAQ project in Atlanta, was among the first to combine travel behavior data with health outcomes. The findings helped shift public understanding of driving from a neutral necessity to a form of prolonged inactivity with measurable consequences.

Designing Movement Back Into Daily Life

Frank’s commentary, co-authored with Jacob Carson from the UC San Diego and San Diego State University joint doctoral program in public health, reviews evidence linking the built environment to obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and mental health. Walkable, transit-connected communities consistently show better health outcomes.

The benefits are not evenly distributed. Frank notes that low-income neighborhoods and older adults often gain the most from modest changes such as sidewalks, shade, benches, and safer street crossings. These features make everyday movement possible rather than optional.

“Most people do not find the time to be physically active to counter the adverse effects of sedentary driving time. You have to reduce car dependence and integrate active transportation into daily life.” – Lawrence Frank, Professor of Urban Studies and Planning

In a related study published in Cities, Frank shows that small, street-level design choices can meaningfully influence whether people walk or stay home. These are not massive infrastructure projects, but targeted investments that lower the barrier to movement.

The takeaway is not anti-technology. Electric vehicles matter for air quality and climate. But from a health perspective, Frank argues, they are incomplete solutions. Until cities are designed to support walking, cycling, and transit as part of daily routines, the health costs of car dependence will remain parked right alongside cleaner engines.