Failure is an important part of learning, but only learning is something we choose. We can treat failure as an inconvenient PR problem. Or it can be feedback on how our assumptions and thinking need work.
Transportation in 2025 provided some meaty feedback. A decade of confident predictions ran into political reality, economic incentives, and the basic messiness of moving people and goods in real cities.
Here are a few places where 2025 should be changing how we think and act.
1. Despite industry promises, personal cars are not on their way out
Ten years ago, a Lyft co‑founder wrote that by 2025 personal cars would be “nearly gone” from cities. Even then, that ignored basic facts about land use, politics, and human behavior. Yet the claim slid into headlines and policy conversations with little pushback.
Today, cars still dominate how Americans move. Many transit systems are struggling to recover riders. Rideshare is a supplement, not a substitute, for car ownership. Parking lots still occupy prime land that could house people or jobs.
The lesson is not that car‑light cities are impossible. It is that technology alone does not unwind decades of pro‑car decisions. If we want fewer cars, we have to change streets, zoning, finance, and law.
Questions to ask now:
- What changes to parking policy, zoning, street design, and investments are we willing to make to reduce car dependence?
- How do we hold companies and public officials accountable when they sell futures that depend on changes they never seriously pursue?
- When we hear bold forecasts today, what visible groundwork would show they are more than wishful thinking?
2. Despite industry promises, EVs aren’t going to be cheap without a strong hand from the government
Elon Musk once said Tesla’s goal was to make EVs affordable for the masses, including a 25,000 dollar car by 2025. That car has not arrived. Tesla and most competitors focus on larger, more expensive models that deliver better margins.
This outcome is mostly the market responding to the incentives we have set up. For years, policy has encouraged bigger, heavier vehicles. Public subsidies do not always prioritize affordability. We have also allowed car ownership to remain the default way to access jobs and daily needs.
Without policies that directly favor smaller and cheaper EVs, the industry will keep drifting upscale.
Questions to ask now:
- If we truly want a $25,000 EV, what tax credits, standards, feebates, and procurement rules are we willing to change to make that outcome likely?
- Should subsidies be larger for smaller, lower‑cost vehicles and phase out for luxury models?
- How can we invest in transit, shared mobility, walking, and biking so that “better transportation” does not always mean “another car?”
3. E‑bikes, the best transportation technology in a generation, are held back by what happens after the sale
E‑bikes may be the most transformative transportation technology of the past decade. They turn hills into minor details, extend the range of everyday trips, and offer a real alternative to many car journeys. They are also efficient, relatively affordable, and enjoyable to use.
Yet the e‑bike market is fragile. Rad Power Bikes, a high‑profile brand, rode a wave of rapid growth, then faltered under quality problems, safety concerns, and a thin support network. One seeming important mistake was treating the first sale as the finish line. Many owners were left to navigate parts, repairs, and battery issues on their own.
Transportation products need a durable support ecosystem. Cars have it through dealers, independent shops, and standardized parts. E‑bikes mostly do not, which erodes trust just as the mode is gaining momentum.
Questions to ask now:
- What would a reliable national support system for e‑bikes look like, from standardized parts to training for local mechanics?
- When governments subsidize e‑bike purchases, should they also fund (or require) maintenance support, warranties, or repair assistance?
- How do we prevent “grow fast, fix it later” business models from undermining confidence in a technology that cities badly need?
4. Automated vehicles don’t really work unless they work in messy edge cases
Companies like Waymo have promised safer streets through automated driving. Waymo in particular has worked to build a reputation for caution and respect for the social contract on public roads.
Then came a clear warning sign. When confronted with unusual but real‑world conditions, Waymo’s vehicles shut down in ways that blocked traffic across a city and interfered with emergency responders and transit vehicles. The details of that event matter, but the broader pattern matters more. Transportation is full of overlapping, low‑probability situations. At scale, those situations are not rare at all.
A system that works only when everything seems normal is not a replacement for human drivers given thar driving is so complex, filled with unexpected things happening, and with ever-changing conditions. A system that expects broad public tolerance for its failures, while humans are punished for theirs, is also hard to defend.
Questions to ask now:
- What level of performance in unusual, high‑risk situations should be required before automated vehicles are widely deployed?
- Who bears responsibility when automated fleets fail in ways that hurt the public, from delays to blocked ambulances?
- Are regulators equipped to demand independent, real‑world evidence of safety before granting broad operating permissions?
5. The US still tolerates an unusually deadly road system for no good reason
The harshest lesson is not new, but it is still largely unanswered. US roads remain far more dangerous than those in other wealthy countries. Our national death rate of roughly 11 to 12 traffic deaths per 100,000 people is two to three times the rate in Canada, Australia, and Western Europe, and four to six times that of the safest Scandinavian countries.
This is not destiny. Other countries have cut traffic deaths dramatically with known tools. These include lower, self‑enforcing speed limits, safer street designs, protected bike lanes, safe pedestrian crossings, better vehicle standards for people outside the car, and targeted enforcement with privacy protections.
We know many of these countermeasures. Some cities and states are starting to apply them. Yet at the national level, especially under the Trump administration, we have seen steps away from stricter safety rules and toward looser standards and larger vehicles.
Questions to ask now
- If other countries have cut traffic deaths by half or more, what stops us from doing the same?
- Why are proven safety measures still treated as controversial experiments instead of standard practice?
- How can states and cities move ahead with evidence‑based safety changes even when federal policy is lagging or hostile?
Choosing to learn from 2025
The common thread in these failures is not technology. It is choice. We chose to treat bold forecasts as destiny instead of asking what would have to change to make them real. We chose to trust that markets would deliver public benefits without shaping incentives to line up with those benefits. We chose, in many cases, to ignore examples from other countries that are already doing better.
Transportation will keep evolving. AI, automation, new business models, and new vehicles will all play a role. The question is whether we keep repeating the same patterns or start designing systems that are safer, fairer, and more resilient.
To learn from 2025, we should be asking
How do we align private profit with public goals instead of hoping they match on their own
Where do we need firm rules and public investment, not just innovation and marketing
How do we center human life, climate stability, and equitable access in every “future of mobility” pitch from now on
Failure in transportation is measured in lives, health, time, and money. We cannot avoid every failure, but we can decide whether each one becomes a turning point or just another missed chance to change course.
References
Badger, E. and Fitzsimmons, E.G. (2023). America’s Roads Are More Deadly. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/05/us/traffic-deaths-pandemic.html
Boudette, N.E. and Charging, A. (2024). Tesla Drops Plan for a $25,000 Car, Prioritizing Robotaxis. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/05/business/tesla-cheap-car-robotaxi.html
Cobb, J. (2018). Lyft Co‑Founder Predicts End of Private Car Ownership in Cities by 2025. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamescobb/2018/03/13/lyft-cofounder-cities-private-car-ownership-2025
Feitelberg, R. (2023). Why E‑Bikes Are the Future of Urban Transportation. Bloomberg CityLab. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-07-10/e-bikes-are-replacing-cars-in-cities
Marshall, A. (2023). Rad Power Bikes’ Troubled Ride and What It Means for Micromobility. WIRED. https://www.wired.com/story/rad-power-bikes-troubles-micromobility
NTSB (2024). Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements 2024–2025. National Transportation Safety Board. https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/default.aspx
OECD/ITF (2023). Road Safety Annual Report 2023. International Transport Forum. https://www.itf-oecd.org/road-safety-annual-report-2023
Waymo (2023). Waymo Safety Methodologies and Performance Update. Waymo. https://waymo.com/safety
Moreworks 