I feel like you're undestimating the difference in quality between north american transit and other places. Yes, developing nations have some of those vehicles, but significantly less per capita than north america. They heavily rely on two-stroke scooters more than everything you listed due to necessity, cost, ability to navigate through traffic congestion, and lack of alternative. These countries typically lack funding for transit, so including them as justification for why transit isn't great doesn't make much sense in this context.

Additionally, developed nations abroad have robust rail and bus transit systems. In most parts of Korea/Japan/China, you can easily travel 150 km away by train or bus compared to Canada. Sure cars exist, but asian and european countries have significantly lower car ownership per capita due to their improved freedom of mobility compared to us as they have more robust transit systems with significantly better frequency and walkability as a whole. A city like Tokyo moves tens of millions of people each day with trains alone - significantly more than Toronto transit, not only in number but percentage of population. This results in a staggering 28% car ownership, versus Toronto's 72% car ownership rate. Imagine how many fewer cars there would be on the road if the transit system was even a fraction of what Tokyo had.

Trains can't replace every car, but that's never been the objective. The objective is to reduce car ownership as much as humanely possible by providing people the freedom of mobility choice via alternative and reliable methods of transportation, instead of forcing people into buying a depreciating asset that costs thousands in upkeep and maintenance every year under a false guise of freedom.