Most places in the United States are built around the assumption that you will drive for nearly everything.
That design choice does not just shape how we move. It shapes our health, finances, relationships, and fundamental physical freedom.
And it means that, with the exception of a small number expensive neighborhoods in a small number of expensive cities, the prospect of not driving puts you on the margins.
Probably half to two thirds of Americans have experienced or will experience real burdens from the way we have designed for cars first. That is roughly 45 to 65 percent of the population (about 150 to 200 million people) whose lives are measurably harder, more constrained, or more expensive because the system assumes near‑universal car access.
What follows are some of the groups who are carrying these stressors and burdens.
1. Children and teens
There are about 74 million people under 18 in the US and roughly 23 million aged 18 to 24. Together that is close to 30 percent of the population (about 100 million people). The majority live in car‑centric suburbs or low‑density areas where walking or biking is either unsafe, unpleasant, or simply not feasible.
Car‑centric design becomes a direct source of stress and constraint in several ways.
For children, wide fast roads, missing sidewalks, and long distances mean that independent mobility is rare. Parents are often unwilling to let kids walk or bike to school or parks because traffic is dangerous and crossings are not designed for small, slow pedestrians. This leaves many children stuck indoors or dependent on adults for every trip. The cost is not just physical inactivity. It is also loneliness and boredom in environments where friends and destinations are technically “nearby” but practically unreachable without a car.
This loss of independence also has developmental consequences. Research on children’s independent mobility shows that as car use has increased, children have lost opportunities to develop road skills, spatial awareness, decision‑making, and confidence in navigating their environments. Earlier generations often walked or biked to school, played in streets, and roamed their neighborhoods. Today’s children are much more likely to be chauffeured, supervised, and confined to indoor or highly controlled spaces.
These shifts tie into broader concerns about an “anxious generation.” When children have fewer chances to take manageable risks, to practice autonomy, and to move through the world without constant adult oversight, it can contribute to higher anxiety, less resilience, and weaker social networks. Automobile‑centric planning has normalized car dependence even for very short trips and has helped erode the conditions that once allowed children to claim some part of the public realm as their own.
For teenagers and young adults, the situation is different but still stressful. In many metro areas a driver’s license and a car are the only realistic way to access jobs, extracurricular activities, or social life. Those who cannot afford a car, cannot get a license, or are not comfortable driving often find themselves excluded from opportunities that their driving peers can easily reach. That can mean taking long, complex transit trips where service exists, or simply staying home.
How many are actually burdened? The details vary by region, but you can conservatively say that at least half of US children and teens face real constraints on their freedom and social life due to car‑centric design. That is on the order of 15 percent of Americans (about 50 million people) who are not just “living in car‑oriented places” but are measurably more isolated, less active, or more dependent on adults because of it.
2. Older adults and seniors
There are around 60 million people aged 65 and older in the US, which is roughly 18 percent of the population. Many live in neighborhoods that were designed for drivers in their prime working years, not for people whose vision, mobility, or reaction times may have declined.
Here, car centrism produces a very specific kind of stress. As long as older adults can drive safely, they can often manage, though congestion, distance, and parking can be tiring. But once driving becomes difficult or unsafe, the entire structure of car‑centric life becomes a barrier.
The decline in driving comfort is usually gradual. Many older adults start by avoiding driving at night because of vision issues or glare. Then they may begin to avoid highways or fast arterials, or certain complex intersections. Busy parking lots, with tight spaces and lots of pedestrian and vehicle movement, can become intimidating. Over time, seniors may restrict their travel radius, delay or skip certain trips, or depend more on family members for rides.
In low‑density, auto‑oriented suburbs and exurbs, basic needs like groceries, pharmacies, and medical care may be several miles away along hostile roads. Sidewalks are often missing or incomplete. Crossings are long and poorly timed. Transit, if it exists, may be infrequent and not well connected. For an older adult who gives up driving, this can mean a sudden loss of independence and a sharp rise in loneliness and logistical stress.
At the same time, seniors who continue to drive despite growing discomfort or impairment can pose risks to themselves and others. Slower reaction times, reduced peripheral vision, and confusion in complex traffic environments can lead to crashes. Families and caregivers then face painful conversations about “taking away the keys,” often in communities where there are no good alternatives. Adult children may feel torn between safety concerns and fears of plunging a parent into isolation. Seniors themselves may cling to driving longer than they would in a less car‑dependent environment, precisely because giving it up can mean losing access to basic needs and social contacts.
If you focus specifically on those who are substantially stressed or constrained by this arrangement, a cautious estimate would be that between one quarter and one half of US seniors are meaningfully burdened by car‑centric design. That is likely in the range of 5 to 9 percent of Americans (about 15 to 30 million people) whose daily lives are either riskier or more isolated than they would be in a less car‑dependent system.
3. People with disabilities
Around 42 to 45 million US adults report some form of disability, which is roughly 13 to 14 percent of the population. Many more live with chronic conditions that affect mobility, stamina, or cognition. For a substantial share of these people, driving is difficult, unsafe, or impossible.
In a car‑centric system, that does not simply mean “it is a bit harder to get around.” It often means the world is structured as if you do not exist. Sidewalks may be missing or broken. Curb ramps and accessible crossings may be incomplete. Bus stops can be placed on narrow shoulders of fast roads without safe ways to reach them. Paratransit services, where offered, may require advance scheduling, long waits, and unpredictable travel times.
The stress here is twofold. There is the practical stress of arranging every trip in advance, relying on others, and worrying about missed appointments or being stranded. There is also the emotional stress of lost autonomy and social isolation when spontaneous movement is impossible in an environment that caters almost entirely to drivers.
Even if not all disabled people experience these barriers to the same degree, it is reasonable to estimate that at least one third to one half of disabled adults are significantly stressed or constrained by car‑centric design. That is on the order of 5 to 7 percent of Americans (about 15 to 25 million people). In many cases their lives would be dramatically easier in places where daily necessities can be reached on foot, by wheelchair, or via frequent and accessible transit.
4. People and households with lower incomes
About 38 million people in the US live below the official poverty line, around 11 percent of the population, and many tens of millions more hover just above it. For these households, the combination of car dependence and low income is not an inconvenience. It is a continuous source of financial and emotional stress.
In a car‑centric system, most jobs, schools, and services are reachable only by car or by very time‑consuming transit. That means people feel compelled to own vehicles even when they can barely afford them. The cost of purchase, fuel, insurance, and repairs can consume a huge share of income. When something goes wrong with the car, people risk missing work, losing jobs, or facing eviction and food insecurity.
This is not theoretical. In many surveys, low‑income workers describe vehicles as both essential and fragile lifelines. Every breakdown is a crisis. Gas price spikes translate into real trade‑offs between driving to work and paying other bills. People may take on predatory loans to buy or fix cars, trapping them in cycles of debt.
Those who cannot afford a car at all face the stress of long, unreliable trips by bus or on foot in environments not built for pedestrians. Jobs that look accessible on a map become unreachable in practice. That can intensify a sense of exclusion and hopelessness.
If you include people below the poverty line and those near it who are regularly forced into painful trade‑offs because of the cost and fragility of car dependence, you are almost certainly looking at 18 to 24 percent of Americans (about 60 to 80 million people) carrying ongoing financial and time stress directly rooted in car‑centric planning.
5. Caregivers, especially women
Women make up about 52 percent of the US population. Tens of millions of adults, across genders but disproportionately women, are primary or co‑primary caregivers for children, aging parents, or other dependents. Surveys consistently show that mothers and women in general perform more of the day‑to‑day “logistics work” of family life: school runs, medical appointments, grocery trips, and other errands.
In a car‑dependent landscape, that logistics work translates directly into driving stress. Instead of walking to school or combining several close‑by errands on foot, caregivers often manage long trip chains by car. They are trying to hit multiple distant destinations, each with specific time windows, while navigating congestion, parking, and the constant risk of delay.
This creates time stress, because everything depends on traffic and the availability of parking. It creates cognitive stress, because caregivers must orchestrate complex schedules in a system where there are few fail‑safes if something goes wrong. It also creates safety stress, since caregivers may be forced to drive tired, rushed, or in bad conditions because there is simply no other way to meet obligations.
Car‑centric design also makes it hard for dependents to handle their own travel. Children cannot safely walk or bike. Older adults may not have transit. Disabled family members may not have accessible options. All of that extra driving and coordination falls back on caregivers.
If you focus on people for whom this adds significant daily or weekly stress, it is quite plausible that around 10 to 15 percent of Americans (about 30 to 50 million people), predominantly women, are substantively burdened by the way car‑centric design turns caregiving into a constant driving and scheduling challenge.
6. Racially marginalized communities
Roughly 40 percent of the US population identifies as a racial or ethnic minority, which is about 130 million people. Car‑centric planning does not affect all of these communities in the same way, but a long history of discriminatory siting of highways, zoning, and transit investment has created patterns in which people of color often bear more of the costs and fewer of the benefits.
Highways are more likely to run through or alongside Black and brown neighborhoods. That means more exposure to air pollution, noise, and dangerous traffic. At the same time, those neighborhoods may receive weaker transit service, with slower, less frequent buses and longer travel times to jobs and schools. This combination creates both health stress and time stress.
Car ownership rates are high across all races, but income disparities mean that many households of color are more financially vulnerable to car costs and breakdowns. In some regions, aggressive policing of traffic violations in communities of color adds legal and psychological stress to everyday driving.
Because racial identity intersects with income, disability, caregiving, and other factors, it is difficult to isolate a single number. But it is realistic to say that tens of millions of people in racially marginalized communities experience a heavier burden from car‑centric planning than more advantaged groups: more time spent commuting, more exposure to traffic pollution, more risk in both driving and walking environments.
Even if only one third of the roughly 40 percent of Americans in racial and ethnic minority groups are significantly stressed or disadvantaged by these patterns, that would still be on the order of 13 percent of Americans (about 40 million people).
7. People without stable housing or documentation
On a given night, more than 650,000 people in the US are unhoused, which is about 0.2 percent of the population, and several million more move in and out of homelessness over time. There are also millions of undocumented immigrants and others who, because of immigration status, prior legal issues, or finances, cannot easily obtain or maintain a driver’s license.
In a car‑centric system, these groups are not just “inconvenienced.” They are often locked into daily survival conditions shaped by the lack of safe, affordable mobility. Shelters, clinics, food banks, and social services may be scattered over wide areas that cannot be covered on foot. Walking along high‑speed roads is dangerous and stigmatizing. Transit may not align with service hours or may not reach key locations at all.
Undocumented people in states that tightly control access to driver’s licenses face the stress of choosing between driving illegally, with the attendant fear of traffic stops and serious legal consequences, or staying trapped in a small physical radius that limits access to work, education, and health care.
Numerically these groups are smaller than some others, but the intensity of stress tied to car‑centric design is extremely high. It is fair to say that for a large share of unhoused people and a substantial share of undocumented residents in car‑dependent regions, transportation design is an everyday source of risk, anxiety, and constraint.
8. Workers with long or stressful car commutes
There are roughly 165 million workers in the US, about half the total population. Around 130 to 140 million commute primarily by car. Many have short or tolerable drives, but tens of millions endure lengthy or highly congested commutes that are a direct byproduct of car‑oriented land use and highway‑led planning.
The stress here is not subtle. Long car commutes eat into sleep, family time, and social life. They make it hard to care for children or elders, maintain friendships, or pursue education in the evenings. People often feel trapped by rising housing costs near jobs and the lack of alternatives to driving. When traffic worsens, there is rarely a good backup plan.
Research links long car commutes to higher levels of reported stress, worse mental health, less exercise, and weaker community ties. These are not just correlations with distance. They are experiences of daily frustration and fatigue in environments designed around moving vehicles rather than reducing the need to travel far.
If you focus on those whose commutes are long or consistently congested enough to cause noticeable stress, a conservative estimate might be that one quarter to one third of car commuters are significantly burdened. That amounts to roughly 10 to 15 percent of Americans (about 30 to 50 million people) who pay a daily mental and physical price for the way jobs and housing have been separated in a car‑first system.
Putting the burdens into perspective
Across these groups, the numbers overlap, but the pattern is clear. Large segments of the US population are not simply “users of a car‑centric system.” They are stressed by it.
All in all, probably half to two thirds of Americans experience meaningful stress or burden tied to car‑centric planning. That is about 45 to 65 percent of the population (roughly 150 to 200 million people) whose lives would be measurably less stressful if the built environment supported shorter distances, safer walking and rolling, and reliable alternatives to driving.
The level and type of stress from car‑centric design vary across the US, depending on how places are built, where they are located, and how they are changing over time.
More urban vs more rural and suburban
In dense urban neighborhoods with mixed land uses, people often have more options. Shorter distances make walking, biking, or transit more viable. That tends to reduce some forms of car‑related stress, especially for non‑drivers, children, and older adults. However, even in cities, if streets are dominated by fast traffic and poorly designed crossings, walking and biking can still feel dangerous and stressful.
In car‑oriented suburbs and exurbs, the stress is often highest. Long blocks, wide arterials, and separated land uses mean driving is the only realistic choice for most trips. Children cannot safely go anywhere alone. Parents become full‑time chauffeurs. Older adults and disabled people who cannot drive are strongly isolated. Time and money pressures increase for low‑income households that must maintain cars just to function.
In rural areas, distances between destinations are even longer, and formal transit is often minimal or nonexistent. For those who can drive and afford it, this may be a manageable inconvenience. For people who cannot drive because of age, disability, or immigration status, it can be an almost total barrier. That intensifies both social isolation and anxiety about what happens when health or finances change.
Regional differences
Historically older regions in the Northeast and parts of the Midwest have legacy transit systems and compact pre‑war neighborhoods. These can mitigate stress for some groups, especially where walking and transit are still viable. But postwar suburban belts around these cities are heavily car‑dependent, and many jobs have shifted to edge locations, spreading commute stress and making low‑income workers more vulnerable.
In fast‑growing Sunbelt metros across the South and West, many neighborhoods and job centers were built almost entirely during the automobile era. Low densities and wide highways create environments where non‑car options are minimal. Here, the share of the population who must drive for nearly every trip is very high, and the pool of people stressed by congestion and car costs is correspondingly large.
Climate and weather magnify burdens too. In hot regions with little shade or safe walking routes, even short trips can feel punishing or dangerous, especially for children, older adults, and people with health conditions. In cold or wet climates, missing sidewalks and uncleared paths further discourage non‑car travel.
Trends and future directions
Several trends are likely to increase or shift the stresses described above.
The US population is aging. More people will reach a point where they should reduce or stop driving while still living in car‑dependent suburbs. Without changes to land use and transportation, the number of older adults who feel trapped or pressured to drive beyond their comfort will grow.
Younger adults across many surveys say they value walkability and transit access. Some cities are responding with new transit investments, bike networks, and zoning reforms that allow more housing near jobs and services. These changes can gradually reduce car‑related stress, especially for people who choose or need to live car‑light lives.
At the same time, there is still large‑scale development at metropolitan fringes in traditional auto‑oriented patterns. Transit funding is inconsistent and often politically vulnerable. New services like ride‑hailing can offer temporary relief for some, but they do not fix the underlying distances and land use patterns that make car dependence stressful in the first place.
In short, the US has built a system in which comfort, safety, and opportunity are easiest to achieve if you can drive easily, afford a car, and live where distances are manageable. Hundreds of millions of people do not fully meet those conditions. For them, car‑centric planning does not just define how they move. It defines what they can do, who they can see, and how stressed they feel on a daily basis.
References
American Public Health Association (2022). Creating Walkable and Bikeable Communities: The Health Case for Active Transportation. American Public Health Association. https://www.apha.org
Frohlich, K. L. et al. (2024). Children’s right to the city and their independent mobility. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. https://jech.bmj.com/content/78/1/66
Hillman, M., Adams, J., & Whitelegg, J. (1990). One False Move: A Study of Children’s Independent Mobility. Policy Studies Institute. https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/21844
Joint Center for Housing Studies (2023). The State of the Nation’s Housing. Harvard University. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/state-nations-housing-2023
National Center for Health Statistics (2023). Disability and Health Data System. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/dhds/index.html
National Household Travel Survey (2022). Summary of Travel Trends. Federal Highway Administration. https://nhts.ornl.gov
Pew Research Center (2023). What Public Transit Users and Non‑Users Think. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/06/22/what-public-transit-users-and-non-users-think
Twenge, J. (2024). Generations: The Real Differences Between Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Boomers, and Silents. Atria Books. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Generations/Jean-M-Twenge/9781982181612
United States Census Bureau (2023). American Community Survey 1‑Year Estimates. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs
United States Department of Transportation (2023). Transportation Statistics Annual Report. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. https://www.bts.gov
Moreworks 