Are We Confusing “More Vehicles” With “Better Accessibility” in Indian Cities?

AUTHOR: Astha Malhotra | READ TIME: 3-4min

In many Indian cities today, a familiar scene plays out every morning. A parent on a two-wheeler drops a child to school, carefully navigating potholes and speeding traffic. A woman waits at a bus stop with no shade, uncertain about when the next bus will arrive. An elderly person stands at the edge of a broken footpath, trying to cross a wide road without a safe pedestrian crossing.

These moments don’t just reflect “traffic problems.” They reveal something deeper about how cities work, and who they work for. They also raise an important question: Are we confusing more vehicles with better accessibility?

Vehicle Ownership Is Rising, But Does That Mean Mobility Is Improving?

The Road Transport Yearbook 2020–21 & 2021–22 notes that the number of registered motor vehicles per 1,000 persons increased from 53 in 2001 to 262 in 2022, indicating an improvement in the accessibility of means of transportation for the public.

At first glance, this sounds like progress. It suggests that people have more options to move, more freedom, and improved access to opportunities. However, this interpretation is misleading. 

Accessibility is not about how many cars or two-wheelers a city has. Accessibility is about how effortlessly people can reach essential destinations, including jobs, schools, hospitals, markets, and public spaces, in a way that is affordable, safe, and dignified.

A city is accessible when a child can walk to school safely, when public transport is dependable for everyday trips, and when streets support older adults, people with disabilities, and caregivers. Accessibility is a public outcome, built through planning, investment, and governance. It should not depend on whether someone owns a private vehicle.

When cities start using vehicle ownership as a proxy for accessibility, they indirectly glorify private transport as the “solution”, even when it increases congestion, pollution, and inequity.

Why More Vehicles Often Means Public Systems Are Failing

In many Indian cities, rising vehicle ownership is not always aspirational. It is often a response to the absence of reliable alternatives.

When buses are overcrowded, inconsistent, or unavailable, households shift to two-wheelers. When footpaths are missing or encroached, walking feels unsafe. When there are no safe crossings or traffic-calmed streets, people avoid walking and cycling altogether. Over time, private vehicle ownership becomes a survival strategy rather than a lifestyle choice.

Those who can afford to buy a vehicle are counted as “more accessible.” Those who cannot are left behind, excluded from opportunity, forced into longer commutes, and exposed to unsafe streets. This affects women, children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, low-income workers, and communities in peripheral areas the most.

What Should Cities Measure Instead of Vehicle Growth?

If cities want to strengthen accessibility, they must measure outcomes that reflect real life, not just registrations. Human-centric accessibility indicators are far more meaningful, such as time taken to reach essential services, affordability of daily travel, quality of pedestrian infrastructure, safety for children and women, and the reliability of public transport. 

One of the biggest reasons we misread accessibility is because of how we collect data. In most cities, routine traffic surveys focus heavily on vehicle volumes and speeds. We measure how many cars and two-wheelers pass through a junction, how fast traffic moves, and where congestion builds up. But traffic is not only vehicles — traffic is people.

If pedestrian movement is missing from surveys, we unintentionally send a message that walking does not matter. Yet pedestrians are often the largest group of road users in Indian cities. When cities fail to count pedestrians, they fail to plan for them. And when they fail to plan for them, streets become more hostile, unsafe, and inaccessible.

So, the question remains: Are we confusing “more vehicles” with “better accessibility”?

Because if rising vehicle ownership is being interpreted as improvement, we may be celebrating the wrong thing. We may be normalising a system where people must buy mobility because public systems are failing them.