Need For Change from Car Lane: Why America Should Transform the Way it Transports

I have been living in US for over 3 and a half years by now on a H1B visa with a decent pay scale. Anyone from this country knows that a techie with decent pay will buy a car in first or second month of employment in this country other than in heart of cities where it is not possible due to space limitations or any other reasons. I waited for nearly four years for car ownership and at last got one as I mentioned in a post last week. Along with affordability, this is also due to my ability and a bit of a scare if I can maintain a car on my own. Leaving the convenience of having your own car, in these four years what are my alternative modes of transportation. None, which are in acceptance of society. There are no two wheelers in US which can be used for every day transport like in India. I relied on bicycle, rather strangely, in this time frame. Other than accessing ride sharing services and rented cars or roommate’s cars, I never felt I had independence in my mobility. Car is a symbol of affluence and what about people like me to navigate in this country. Is it a crime if we are not as rich as everyone else. America should not be built just for driving in a car alone. There should be other affordable personal means of transportation like two wheelers etc. I should have have been given other options to move easily if not waiting for four years to buy a car and not knowing if it is a right decision. Still, I am not sure if car ownership is right for me. Among these evolving situations, America has restricted my ability to move freely and put me in dangerous lane at last. Simply, America has failed a person like me in my mobility needs. It is high time the transportation ecosystem is transformed to allow more meaner, more affordable and more poorer means of transport in this country. For the simple reason no country on Earth should work only for rich and no country on Earth should be built only for cars. 

This historic and contemporary mistake shouldn’t have happened at all. Why is this stat allowed to reach present state in this country – of the 292 million registered vehicles in US, 97% are cars. In contrast to a similar nation, of all the vehicles in China, only 45% are cars and larger vehicles. Not anywhere near 100% as in the US. When 97 out of 100 vehicles purchased are cars in this country, what hope does it give for mobility to a person like me who needs other cheaper and efficient options. As expected, I lived an alien life in a society that doesn’t fit me. This should be a big lesson to this country to change the way it transports. How can a poor fakir ride and own a car. Isn’t this against the approved law of nature and how come I own a car. In a way, these are transgressions happened because of highly restrictive, costly means of transport available in this country. 

America's transportation monoculture represents a failure of imagination—a choice to prioritize one mode above all others, regardless of efficiency, equity, or sustainability. This choice has created artificial scarcity: scarcity of mobility options, scarcity of urban space, scarcity of clean air, and scarcity of economic opportunity. 

The path forward isn't about eliminating cars—it's about ending car dependency. It's about creating cities and regions where driving remains an option but not an obligation. Where a teenager can reach opportunities without parental chauffeur service. Where an elderly resident can age in place without surrendering independence. Where a low-income family can access employment without dedicating half their income to a vehicle. 

India and China didn't embrace two and three-wheelers out of backwardness—they recognized diverse solutions for diverse needs. Europe didn't invest in cycling and transit out of anti-car ideology—they prioritized efficiency, livability, and equity. These aren't foreign concepts incompatible with American values; they're actually deeply consistent with stated American ideals of opportunity, innovation, and practical problem-solving. 

The transformation won't happen overnight, and it needn't happen uniformly. Rural areas will always require personal vehicles; that's fine. But there's no legitimate reason why urban and suburban residents should be forced into car ownership as a prerequisite for basic participation in society. 

The great irony is that in clinging to car dependency—defending it as freedom—America has created a nation where most people have no transportation freedom at all. True freedom means having choices. It's time America built a transportation system that actually offers them. 

In India and China, the prevalence of two and three-wheelers stems from stark economic realities. A basic motorcycle in India costs approximately $1,000-2,000, while a car starts at $5,000 for the most basic model—representing several years of income for much of the population. In China, electric scooters can be purchased for under $500. These vehicles aren't merely transportation; they're economic enablers, allowing people to access employment, education, and healthcare without the crushing burden of car ownership. 

India's population density of 464 people per square kilometer and China's urban concentration of over 800 million people in cities create physical constraints that make universal car ownership mathematically impossible. Delhi, with roughly 13,000 people per square kilometer in its urban core, simply cannot accommodate the spatial footprint of American-style car dependency. The geometry is unforgiving: a single car occupies roughly 12-15 square meters when parked and requires significantly more when moving, while a scooter needs barely 2 square meters. 

Post-independence India and post-reform China built their transportation systems during eras of limited resources. Rather than viewing this as a deficit, these nations developed sophisticated multi-modal ecosystems. The motorcycle and scooter industries became sources of innovation, employment, and manufacturing prowess. Companies like Bajaj, Hero, and Niu didn't just build vehicles—they built economic ecosystems. 

No nation on Earth relies on cars for point-to-point transportation to the extent that the United States does. Even wealthy nations with lower population densities—Canada, Australia—maintain more diverse transportation options. The U.S. represents a genuine outlier, where approximately 85% of daily trips occur in personal vehicles, and vast swaths of the country offer literally zero alternatives. 

This wasn't inevitable. America's car-centric transformation resulted from specific mid-20th century decisions: 

• The Interstate Highway System (1956): Eisenhower's massive infrastructure project, while engineering marvel, prioritized automobile travel over all other modes, often bulldozing through urban neighborhoods and especially communities of color. 

• Exclusionary Zoning: Single-family zoning covering roughly 75% of residential land in major cities legally prohibited the density necessary for effective transit, walkability, or cycling infrastructure. 

• Parking Minimums: Regulations requiring abundant free parking made every destination accessible by car while subsidizing automobile use through mandated space allocation—space that could have housed people or businesses. 

• Dismantling of Streetcar Systems: Between the 1930s-1950s, America possessed over 45,000 miles of streetcar lines. These were systematically purchased and dismantled, in part through coordinated efforts by automobile, tire, and oil companies (later prosecuted in the General Motors streetcar conspiracy). 

The result? Americans who cannot or choose not to drive—the elderly, the young, the disabled, those who cannot afford vehicles—face severe mobility poverty. In sprawling Sun Belt cities, living without a car often means being unable to access employment, healthcare, or education. 

Transportation spending represents the second-largest household expense for most Americans, averaging $9,000-12,000 annually. For low-income households, this constitutes an enormous burden. AAA estimates the total annual cost of vehicle ownership at roughly $10,000-12,000 when factoring in depreciation, insurance, maintenance, fuel, and registration. 

Consider the mathematics of poverty: A family earning $30,000 annually dedicating $10,000 to transportation has just $20,000 remaining for housing, food, healthcare, and everything else. This isn't just inefficient—it's a structural barrier to economic mobility. Meanwhile, that same family in a transit-rich environment might spend $1,200-2,000 annually on passes and occasional ride-hailing, freeing up $8,000 for wealth-building or immediate needs. 

The current system doesn't work for the poor. It forces them to buy depreciating assets (often older, less reliable vehicles), pay high insurance rates, and face employment termination if their car breaks down. Car dependency is a regressive tax on those least able to afford it. 

Transportation accounts for the largest share of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (29%), with personal vehicles representing the majority. While electric vehicles offer improvement, they don't address fundamental inefficiencies: 

• A 4,000-pound vehicle to transport a 150-pound person remains wasteful regardless of power source 

• EVs still require massive material extraction (lithium, cobalt) and energy-intensive manufacturing 

• Road infrastructure itself—the asphalt, maintenance, and urban heat island effects—creates environmental costs 

China and Europe demonstrate alternatives. China has become the global leader in electric buses, with over 400,000 in service (compared to roughly 5,000 in the U.S.). European cities have invested heavily in cycling infrastructure, with Dutch cities achieving 50%+ of trips by bicycle. These aren't wealthy-only solutions—they're accessible, scalable, and dramatically lower-carbon. 

Critics often claim European or Asian models don't apply because America is larger, less dense, or culturally wedded to cars. These arguments don't withstand scrutiny: 

Density: Yes, America has lower average density, but most Americans live in metropolitan areas with densities comparable to European cities. Greater Los Angeles, for instance, is actually denser than urbanized areas of Paris. The difference isn't inherent density but how density is designed and served. 

Size: America's geographic scale necessitates cars and planes for cross-country travel, but the vast majority of trips are local. Fifty percent of car trips are under three miles—easily bikeable or walkable with proper infrastructure. National size doesn't explain local car dependency. 

Culture: American "car culture" isn't ancient tradition—it's roughly 70 years old, created through specific policies and massive marketing. Culture changes; American cities were walkable before the 1950s. 

Freedom: The "freedom" argument ignores that car dependency restricts freedom for those who cannot drive. True transportation freedom means viable options, not mandated car ownership. 

A case for two-wheelers 

America's relationship with motorcycles and scooters is oddly constrained. While Harley-Davidson represents American motorcycle culture, practical commuter motorcycles—the bread and butter of Asian mobility—remain marginally adopted. This isn't about capability; it's about infrastructure and perception. 

The typical Honda CBR150, Bajaj Pulsar, or Hero Splendor delivers 60-80 miles per gallon, costs $1,500-3,000, and requires minimal parking space. A Honda PCX150 scooter achieves similar efficiency with automatic transmission and weather protection. These aren't recreational vehicles; they're serious transportation tools that move 2 billion people daily worldwide. 

While China has 300 million electric scooters, America has perhaps 1-2 million electric bicycles and scooters combined. This gap represents opportunity. 

Companies like NIU, Super Soco, and Vmoto Soco produce electric scooters with 60-80 mile range, 60 mph top speed, and $3,000-5,000 price points—comparable to used cars but with operating costs of roughly $50-100 annually for electricity. Indian manufacturers like Ather and Ola Electric have created sophisticated electric scooters with smartphone integration and swappable batteries. 

High-speed rail, metro expansion, and comprehensive bus networks remain essential elements of transportation transformation. But they're expensive, slow to build, and politically challenging. Two-wheeler integration offers something rare in policy: rapid, affordable, scalable impact. 

Within five years, supportive policies could put 5-10 million Americans on motorcycles, scooters, and e-bikes for regular transportation—a visible, dramatic shift that creates political momentum for larger infrastructure investments. 

Within fifteen years, comprehensive two-wheeler infrastructure could be moving 50-100 million trips daily—reducing congestion, emissions, and transportation costs while creating hundreds of thousands of manufacturing and service jobs. 

Within thirty years, fully integrated multimodal systems could make car ownership optional for 50%+ of Americans, with two-wheelers serving as the crucial connective tissue making transit, walking, and cycling viable for trips currently requiring cars. 

The path forward isn't just possible—it's pragmatic, affordable, and remarkably fast compared to alternatives. Cities that have embraced motorcycles and scooters haven't abandoned progress; they've embraced practical solutions to hard problems. America can do the same. 

The question isn't whether Honda, Bajaj, Hero, and their competitors can provide the vehicles—they already do for billions globally. The question is whether America will build the infrastructure, policy environment, and cultural acceptance allowing these proven solutions to flourish. 

Every day of delay means another day of low-income families crushed by transportation costs, another day of preventable congestion and pollution, another day of needless traffic deaths in oversized vehicles colliding with pedestrians and cyclists. 

The transformation begins with a simple recognition: the motorcycle and scooter, far from being backward or dangerous, represent sophisticated, efficient, equitable solutions to transportation challenges. They deserve infrastructure, investment, and respect proportional to their potential. Give them that, and watch American transportation transform in a generation. 

America's car-only experiment has failed the test of equity, sustainability, and basic economics. India and China move billions efficiently on two-wheelers and transit because they recognized a fundamental truth: transportation must serve everyone, not just those who can afford $12,000 annually in car costs. Europe proves wealthy nations can offer choices without sacrificing prosperity. The path forward isn't eliminating cars—it's ending car mandate through zoning reform, two-wheeler infrastructure, and transit investment. Two billion people worldwide have chosen diverse, accessible mobility. It's time America made the same choice, building a nation that finally works for the poor, not just the privileged.