The $1 trillion illusion: What car dependency really costs us.
If a car were a person working for you, you’d fire it before it even finished onboarding. It’s expensive, unreliable, moody, needs constant “medical” treatment, demands premium fuel like a diva, takes up half the office, and still expects you to manage all its paperwork. And for reasons nobody can quite explain, we’ve all just accepted this as normal adult behavior.
Meanwhile, I’ve been car-free for all 42 years of my life, raising three kids in New York City, commuting by bike to Manhattan, and getting everywhere just fine — often faster. My bike shows up every day, takes zero sick leave, and has never once threatened to bankrupt me.
But let’s be fair: in car-dependent places, having a car can feel necessary. Some cities were built with transit, biking, and walking in mind; some were built with the assumption that everyone would drive everywhere forever. So yes, cars can provide access and freedom — especially where street design leaves no realistic alternative.
But that doesn’t mean we should pretend we’re not all living inside an enormous, rolling illusion.
The hidden résumé of your car (you probably didn’t read the fine print)
1. It quietly drains your bank account.
Cars are like bad financial habits disguised as transportation. Monthly payments, insurance, gas, repairs, parking, registration — it stacks up. Donald Shoup famously points out that “free” parking isn’t free at all; you pay for it in higher rent, higher taxes, and higher store prices. Cities force developers to overbuild parking, so the cost of car storage gets baked into everything you buy.
The average American household spends over $10,000 annually on owning and operating their vehicles — a sum that is often the second-largest expense after housing.
2. It charges society even more.
We subsidize car infrastructure massively. Drivers pay some fees, but nowhere near enough to cover street maintenance, policing, land consumption, and the health impacts of traffic and pollution. The general public quietly foots the bill — even people who walk, bike, or ride transit.
Even just the direct economic costs of car crashes — medical care, property damage, and lost productivity — hit society with an annual bill of over $340 billion. When accounting for the full social toll, including quality of life and lost life years, the real annual social cost balloons to nearly $1.4 trillion.
3. It helps manufacture “accidents.”
In the book There Are No Accidents, Jessi Singer explains that traffic deaths are rarely random; they’re usually the predictable result of design choices that prioritize speed and convenience over safety. Streets modeled for cars — wide lanes, high speeds, poor crossings — generate danger automatically. And the most vulnerable people pay the price: kids, seniors, low-income communities, and anyone outside a vehicle.
4. It’s a 4,000-pound middle manager who injures its own coworkers.
Cars are deadly. Full stop. And we tend to blame individuals, not systems. “Pedestrian error” is the go-to phrase, but Singer reminds us the real culprit is design that makes dangerous outcomes inevitable.
The SUV loophole that ate America
Here’s the part that still shocks people: big vehicles are “safe” only for the people inside them. U.S. safety testing has historically focused on occupants. Europe has long required pedestrian safety testing; the U.S. didn’t until recently, and even then, not as strictly.
That means an SUV can get five stars while being a real threat to anyone on foot or bike.
Add the “light truck” classification — a loophole that let SUVs avoid stricter standards — and you get the modern American street: a parade of tall vehicles with huge blind spots and high, blunt fronts that turn survivable crashes into life-threatening ones.
Get Shmuli Evers’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Even worse, many states let drivers legally raise their vehicles higher. Because what we all need are cars with more deadly geometry.
Electric cars: The hero who solves 1 problem and adds 10 more
EVs reduce tailpipe emissions — which is good!
But:
- They’re heavier, which increases crash severity.
- They still require roads, parking, subsidies, and enormous amounts of space.
- They don’t solve congestion, traffic violence, asthma from tire/brake dust, or land-use sprawl.
- They perpetuate the idea that car dependency is natural and inevitable.
EVs fix the engine. They don’t fix the system.
The social body count (we pretend not to see)
Cars are not just expensive — they’re unhealthy.
Sprawl and car dependency:
- Increase obesity by reducing daily movement
- Worsen asthma from pollution
- Reduce kids’ independence by making streets too dangerous for them to walk or play on
- Fracture communities that kill local businesses
- Makes streets wider, noisier, hotter, and less pleasant
- Reinforce inequality for anyone who cannot afford a car
- The bigger the vehicle, the more extreme these effects become.
My bike, on the other hand…
My bike asks for:
- An occasional tune-up
- A little chain lube
- Half a closet’s worth of space
- And a lock
In return, it gives:
- Exercise
- Reliability
- Simplicity
- Zero emissions
- Independence for my kids
- A commute that doubles as therapy & cardio
It’s the best employee I’ve ever had.
The path forward: Reclaiming our cities and our human scale.
Cars can be useful tools. But when a whole society is built around them:
- Cities lose their human scale
- Budgets balloon
- Streets get deadlier
- Children lose independence
- Health declines
- And we normalize a system that feels “natural” only because we’re used to it
The goal isn’t to ban cars.
It’s to stop pretending they’re the default, the destiny, and the only way to live.
Some places have already proven this: the Netherlands didn’t magically start out bike-friendly , they chose to redesign their cities after realizing how many people cars were killing. They fired the bad employee and promoted a better one.
Imagine if we did the same everywhere.
