If you’re an electric car or plug-in hybrid buyer, you’ve probably had a hard 2022. EV buyers have had to contend with seemingly volatile pricing changes, long waits from manufacturers, and now, a reconfiguration of the EV incentive tax code that many have warned would leave buyers of good EVs high and dry. It’s 2023 and the Inflation Reduction Act is supposed to make buying an EV easier, but after talking to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Internal Revenue Service it seems like the new law is poised to make the adoption of PHEVs and EVs more of a mess than it was, especially in the short term.
Basically, the Inflation Reduction Act, or at least, the EV, PHEV, and alternative fuel (largely hydrogen) portion of the bill, was meant to combat inflation, in part, by stimulating green energy initiatives. It wasn’t an easy bill to get through; the plug-in tax credit portion went through several revisions, with one of the architects of the bill, Senator Joe Manchin, deriding the concept of an EV tax credit entirely, citing high demand for plug-in vehicles. “When we can’t produce enough product for the people that want it and we’re still going to pay them to take it – it’s absolutely ludicrous in my mind,” said Senator Manchin, at a Senate hearing in April 2022.
On its face, it may have been a little silly to give tax breaks to hyper-expensive cars. Under the old scheme, cars like the $199,999 Lucid Air Grand Touring Performance qualified for a tax credit, but the sensibly priced $27,000 Chevy Bolt EV no longer did. If the goal is to get more people into EVs, that’s not helpful. So, after a lot of political deliberation, and multiple revisions (including a reduction of the initially proposed $12,500 credit for plug-in vehicles), we got the bill we did. President Biden has been open about his goal to get 50% of all new vehicles sold in the United States to be plug-in vehicles by 2030. To reach that goal, the administration wants to invest in EV infrastructure, but also most pertinently, sweeten the pot on the consumer side, to get butts in seats.
When the Inflation Reduction Act was signed on August 16th, 2022, it immediately removed any non-north American-made EV from being eligible for the $7,500 plug-in tax credit, meaning reasonably (comparatively) priced EVs from Hyundai, Kia, Toyota, Subaru, and many more, instantly became more expensive overnight, and with little warning. However, there was a plus side: The new legislation removed the 200,000-unit cap from automakers, so manufacturers like Tesla and GM, which had already produced more than 200,000 cars, were once again eligible for tax credits (which Tesla is likely taking advantage of with recent price cuts). Also, Ford and Ford customers wouldn’t have to sweat bullets waiting for the phase-out period to kick in, since the automaker was on track to hit the 200,000 threshold very soon.
But now that the caps are off, it feels like effectively fewer consumers can take advantage of the tax credit. The tax credit’s revision included a new price cap: trucks, vans, and SUVs are allowed to be sold for up to $80,000, but every other type of car is subject to a lower $55,000 price ceiling. In an age of the crossover, it seems like the bill was aimed right at the crossover-heavy EV lineups of most manufacturers. Yet, now that the official IRS list of qualifying cars is out, consumers and automakers are left scratching their heads as their beloved EV crossover SUV may not actually be an SUV at all, and may therefore be completely ineligible for any tax credit.
Is It An SUV Or Not An SUV?
Plenty of outlets have been open about how dubious the actual definition of an “SUV” actually is. Some vehicles are marketed as SUVs or crossovers, only for the EPA and NHTSA to actually classify them as hatchbacks or station wagons. For example, the Ford Mustang Mach-E is marketed as an SUV, but depending on the year, it’s actually a “station wagon.” Or, the Hyundai Venue, marketed as Hyundai’s entry-level SUV, is actually a hatchback, according to NHTSA. An SUV, or specifically a non-passenger car, typically has pretty cut-and-dry criteria to meet, as the entire auto journalism field has breathlessly covered in years past. The EPA, NHTSA, and IRS seem to be using the same definitions to define SUVdom, so we all foolishly thought that whatever the EPA or NHTSA said is what the IRS would use.
Then, the IRS quietly dropped the list of eligible models in that no-man’s-land between Christmas Day and New Year’s Eve. I’ve sat with the list for a few days, trying to make sense of it, only to realize that it’s kind of a big ol’ game of government Calvinball.
For example, the Volkswagen ID.4 can only reap the benefits of the SUV tax credit benefits in AWD dual-motor form. The Tesla Model Y is only an SUV in 7-seat form, and the Cadillac Lyriq and Ford Mustang Mach-E fall under the “car” $55,000 price cap. Even more maddening, the Ford Escape PHEV is an SUV but its mechanically identical cousin, the Lincoln Corsair PHEV, is a passenger car. (Remarkably, it looks like all RWD, single motor ID.4s will qualify for the lower $55,000 MSRP cap, even with options. The AWD, dual-motor cars would not.)
This conundrum is more than rich-people-problems as it has real implications for consumers patiently waiting for the manufacturer to overcome supply chain issues. For example, the Ford Mustang Mach-E is subject to the $55,000 price cap. As it stands, only the very base Mustang Mach-E select (in RWD or AWD) form qualifies for tax incentives, and the RWD Premium with zero options qualify for tax credits. Even adding a paint color, or specifying AWD on the Mach-E Premium will make it too expensive, and therefore ineligible for any tax credits. It’s a similar story at Lincoln, except the most basic Lincoln Corsair PHEV is maddeningly only slightly under the $55,000 threshold, even adding heated seats would make the Corsair too expensive, too expensive to even qualify, let alone if you want options like heated seats.
How The IRS Sees A ‘Car’
Using tax forms, and a lot of Google-Fu, I went to work figuring out the method to the IRS’s madness. I also asked them to help explain the process. Here’s what the agency had to say in a fact sheet, published in December 2022:
“How do I know if my vehicle is a truck, van, SUV, or other type of vehicle for purposes of determining the applicable manufacturer’s suggested retail price for a vehicle?”
“The vehicle classifications of vehicles are described in IRS Notice 2023-1. The vehicle classification for this purpose may not match the classification on the fuel economy label or marketing materials describing the vehicle. Vehicle classification information can be found at the Clean Vehicle Qualified Manufacturer Requirements page containing a listing of eligible clean vehicles, including fuel cell vehicles, that qualified manufacturers have indicated to the IRS meet the requirements to claim the new clean vehicle credit beginning January 1, 2023.”Okay, that makes sense. Like we’ve all said before, the SUV and crossover craze is more marketing than an actual class. IRS Notice 2023-1 points to 40 CFR 600.002, which says this:
“Sport utility vehicle (SUV) means a light truck with an extended roof line to increase cargo or passenger capacity, cargo compartment open to the passenger compartment, and one or more rear seats readily removed or folded to facilitate cargo carrying.”
Clicking “light truck” brings us to this:
“Light truck means an automobile that is not a passenger automobile, as defined by the Secretary of Transportation at 49 CFR 523.5. This term is interchangeable with non-passenger automobile. The term light truck includes medium-duty passenger vehicles which are manufactured during 2011 and later model years.”
Voila! Now we’re getting somewhere. When I reached out to the NHTSA, asking it how it defined an “SUV,” it told me that they don’t have distinct classifications, but used the same guidance that the IRS also pointed to.
And what is this guidance? It’s here. Instead of block quoting again, here’s a screenshot that shows off that dividing line between passenger car and SUV, or more specifically, passenger car and non-passenger car (but also, not a work truck or commercial vehicle)
This isn’t a new phenomenon. It makes sense automakers are going out of their way to get their car-shaped wagons into the light truck category since CAFE and MPG averages are far kinder to light trucks compared to passenger cars. The U.S. Energy Information Administration, which is in charge of tracking energy use, said way back in 2017 that SUVs are blurring the lines, as some are classified as passenger cars, but others are classified as SUVs. With that said, the criteria seemed to be cut and dry, but the more I looked at the list of criteria, the less sense it made.
It appears that to call an SUV an SUV, or specifically, a light truck, many automakers are going the “49 CFR 523.5 section b”-route. In this instance, it appears that to be an SUV, um, er, light truck, the vehicle must have AWD or surpass 6,000 in its GVWR, short for Gross Vehicle Weight Rating. GVWR isn’t curb weight; it’s curb weight and the vehicle’s weight carrying capacity (aka payload). If an automaker wants a vehicle to be considered an off-road vehicle it must satisfy several approach, departure, and breakover angles, and have a minimum ground clearance of 20cm, or 7.87 inches. The easiest way to qualify? Automakers can use three rows of seats that fold flat (or can be removed) as a quick “hey, this thing isn’t a car.”
For big, heavy cars like the Lincoln Aviator PHEV, or Jeep Wrangler 4xe, those are shoo-ins into the off-road light truck class. Same with the Chrysler Pacifica PHEV, it has three rows of seats, so it’s obviously not a passenger car. However, for the smaller, lighter, more low-slung EV shapes, getting into the class is likely harder, taking some clever trickery.
The Tesla Model Y can’t hit the GVWR requirement, and it’s likely too low-slung; it’s hard to find exact numbers for the official approach and departure angle, but Motor Trend and Tesla owners have estimated that it’s somewhere in the 17 to 18-degree range for both front and rear. In reality, it’s not an off-roader, and its dimensions likely put it out of the “off-road” automobile class. However, if you look at the first half of 49 CF 523.5, it allows vehicles that have three rows of seats that fold flat to qualify as non-passenger automobiles. So, that’s likely the reason why the two-row Model Y is a “car,” but the three-row version is in the higher price bracket. Obviously, Tesla’s lowering of prices helps move more of these cars temporarily into a qualifying category.
The Cadillac Lyriq’s hefty 5,600 lbs should see its payload combination surpass the 6,000 GVWR limit, so it wouldn’t need AWD to be a light truck. However, its ground clearance is low, and I suspect that it can’t satisfy four of the five additional criteria to make an off-road automobile. It’s a two-row car, so it can’t sneak in the back door by being a fake MPV, either. So, it’s a car, according to the IRS.
Okay, those two cars sort of make sense, but then I started looking closer, and realized that the rules aren’t really being applied equally; with the Ford Escape PHEV and Lincoln Corsair PHEV probably being the best example.
The Ford Escape PHEV falls under the SUV category, but it’s unclear why or how. All Ford Escape PHEVs are FWD only, and its 3,900 ish curb weight (and about 1000 lbs payload) put it well under 6,000 lbs GVWR floor. It also only has two rows, so it isn’t a van. If anything, the Lincoln Corsair PHEV’s standard AWD would get it closer to being an SUV.
Yet, things get stranger when you check the EPA and NHTSA websites. Many of the contested models are listed as SUVs, including the Cadillac Lyriq and Lincoln Corsair PHEV. Whether or not they’re actually formally light trucks is a nigh impossible task to ascertain. If manufacturers are really following the 49 CFR 523.5, that would mean that nearly every 2WD crossover would be considered a car, by legal standards. Would most people who buy these vehicles view them as cars? Absolutely not.Whatever the seemingly nonsensical yardstick the IRS is using, it doesn’t seem like the latest revision to the EV tax credit program is really meant to incentivize EV adoption at all. As it stands, only a handful of model lines qualify in all their glory and options; the Chevrolet Bolt EV, Bolt EUV, Nissan Leaf, Volkswagen ID.4, Ford Escape PHEV, BMW X5 PHEV, Jeep Wrangler, and Cherokee 4xE, the Chrysler Pacifica PHEV, and most of the trims available on the Ford F-150 Lightning, except the topmost Platinum, or the Lariat with the extended range battery.
Most other EVs only qualify in base trim with minimal or no options. Some, straight up do not qualify at all.
The news has sent some folks into a tailspin, especially Mach-E hopefuls, who have been waiting for their cars for a while, only to learn that their only slightly-above-base vehicles are now too expensive to qualify for tax incentives. Some are considering canceling their orders.
Now, there’s a sort of loophole in the credit. Commercial customers don’t have to adhere to any of the plug-in credit rules, including price and national origin, leading many to assume that dealerships can fold that benefit into a vehicle lease, potentially making an EV more competitive.
But, Senator Manchin isn’t all that keen on it, even straight up asking the U.S. Treasury department to disallow that loophole to be used on vehicle leases.
Arguably, the bill is working as intended, as we’re not incentivizing expensive cars for rich people. However, the average transaction price of a new car has steadily trended upward. Maybe it’s a chicken-versus-egg thing, but consumers are paying more for their cars, partially due to inflation. These days, a buyer in search of a Corsair PHEV, Mach-E Premium, or Lyriq, could be thoroughly middle class. It seems like a program meant to help these buyers, isn’t going to do much.
I reached out to both Senator Joe Manchin and Senator Chuck Schumer’s offices to see if they could explain the discrepancies in vehicle classification, but neither office has provided details beyond a link to previous statements.
It’ll take automakers a while to reach all the requirements in the IRA for the full tax credit (specifically, battery material sourcing), with GM estimating it’ll take three years to fully qualify, which means there’s time for both the federal government and automakers to correct this issue for some vehicles.
Consumers don’t really care about what the granular definition of SUV or passenger car is. Instead of fostering EV and plug-in adoption, we’ve effectively made it harder for people to buy EVs, with a nonsensical, inconsistent interpretation of a statute that means little to the average American consumer.
Why is it a tax credit?
When I bought my Volt in Quebec, I negotiated the price, the taxes were added, the $8000 credit was then subtracted from the final amount.
One extra government form to sign, that was it.
The did fix their mistake on the Escape and have it now classified as other and thus now has a $55k cap. It didn’t matter though since it does max out under $50k.
I think a ton of people miss the fact that almost everything in the IRA has very little to do with consumption, it’s about production. Consumers can only consume what is produced, and producers find it much easier to just keep producing what they always have with small tweaks every couple years.
Think about where the previous system of EV incentives got us, a ton of high-income people buying expensive cars. This incentivizes manufacturers to only produce status-symbol EVs. The current system is “Hey rich people, go buy your $60k+ vehicle and it’ll be subsidized even though you dont need it!” and that system is very obviously broken.
If we want EVs that people outside the top two tax brackets can afford, and I very much argue that we do, we have to force the manufacturers hands. If you don’t make something that meets the incentive criteria, that’s on you and means you are missing out on the induced demand. If it means you CAN’T make something that meets the incentive criteria (which is total BS, because GM and Nissan have been doing it for a long time), then unless you are willing to give up a segment of the market, the bill incentivizes you to get cheaper.
The whole point of the thing was to not let people buy luxury cars with incentives, and the reality of the market is almost every EV out there is the marque’s halo car. I just bought a brand new car a couple months ago and even though I wanted to go EV, I had to go gas because unless I wanted a Bolt or Leaf (the Bolt was super tempting and seems like a great car for the money, but good god why is it so ugly) I simply couldn’t afford an EV, credit or not, and the car I ended up with was still $35k, which is a lot of money.
The whole point of the bill is to incentivize, first, mfgs to provide me more options i can afford, and then second, incentivize me to take the more climate friendly option.
If I’m saving money because the cars are maintenance free and I don’t have to pay for gas, why do I need government assistance too?
Oh, and once the robotaxi thing starts, I’ll actually be making money with my car.
This is sarcasm right? Please tell me this is sarcasm.
The robotaxi thing will never start. And if it does I hope you like cleaning gross shit out of your car.
I find it odd that the Escape credit is up to $80,000, but the Mach E is capped at $55,000, especially considering the Mach is built on a modified Escape chassis. You’ll never see an $80K Escape (or Corsair for that matter), but there are a few almost-$80K Mach Es sitting on my dealership’s lot. I’d like to think the IRS got this backwards, but this is the government we’re talking about.
The gov’t did find and correct their mistake on the Escape and its not classified as “other” and gets the $55k cap. It didn’t matter either way though since the MSRP tops out under $50k.
You are correct sir but you are wrong. The administration uses the trying to combat climate change as an excuse to spend billions of tax payers dollars to pay off supporters. Generating a lot of economic activity also helps. But no administration not Biden not Trump not any do anything for the voters or for mother nature.
I might go a bit “left field” here, but bear with me…
All of these credits are kind of wool over the eyes manuever. There is a reason (put aside the idiocy of the actual policy makers who vote on this, as they are not working individually, and always mess up the actual delivery), that these “free money credits” are given out. It’s not really for the benefit of humanity in the sense of it being some altruistic gesture or for the greater good. There are many larger purposes.
The main purpose of this is to generate an entirely new industry in a hurry with no real regard to what happens to those left in the wake. There is just no new money to “mine” out of the traditional auto manufactoring sector, and the mining/fossil fuel sectors are pretty well (pardon the pun) saturated.
I’m not opposed to EVs as a concept, although I do think it’s half baked at this point
(damn track pad, ha) Anyway…
I’m not opposed to EVs as a concept, although I do think it’s half-baked at this point, but, as we all know and have been saying for close to a decade now, it’s pretty silly to think that we can actually implement the infrastructure needed in the next 6 or so years for a sustainable conversion to what amounts to the Beta Max of zero-emission tech. We’ve seen it in all the SPAC listings, the pump-and-dumps, the awarded Government contracts etc.. It doesn’t actually matter whether the current tech is even actually a net positive environmentally (it’s not), or whether the current tech is even going to be around in 10 years (see: Moore’s Law).
I get why it matters to most of us that having a “net discount” on our individual bottom lines are, in regards to having reliable transportation. I do.
I could probably write more about it, but in difference to sounding like a whack job, I’ll just leave it there for now.
All I know is that I am getting the (not-as-faint as it was in concept) smell of stink about the whole thing, even as we are getting dazzled by “crab walking” and low-end torque. Whoopie-de-doo!!! It’s the brand new, and yet centuries old, version of a shiny new distraction.
Amen! At the end of the day, it’s a classic short-term cash grab that was spurred by Tesla’s stock boom. It’s not engineering driven, it’s windfall driven.
The human/environmental toll is immaterial to Wall-street.
Hmm, if I can buy a new Chevy Bolt for under $20K, I’m going to pull that trigger. Web brower: open; calculator app: open; IRS website: wait…, I’m in a bag flag zone!
“The IRS is Making it Way Too Confusing…”
You could have just stopped there. The American Tax system is already a byzantine complicated nightmare that consistently screws over the poor in favor of those who can afford armies of lawyers to exploit every possible loophole. I predict this little tax credit will spawn a bunch of conventionally wealthy people to suddenly make juuuust under the income needed to claim the credit, buy all the EVs they can (probably reselling them to their small businesses), and then magically go back to making the big bucks next year, or some such shenanigans.
I would ask if congress actually knows just how maliciously basically every incentive bill they try to pass is treated, but then I remembered that of course I do, their donors are the ones pushing this crap.
No one should ever make a major purchase dependant on money that they may or may not receive long after the deal is done.
If you can get the money, it’s a boon! But unless you’re cool with paying what’s on the contract in full when all is said and done, walk away.
Tax credits just allow manufacturers and dealers alike to further skirt discounts and price-gouge (all the while advertising “as low as” pricing).
Part of me wonders if the government cutting a deal with automakers for a $7500 manufacturer rebate would have been more beneficial.
It’s a refundable point-of-sale tax credit, so you get the whole thing, right when you buy the car, regardless of your tax liability. The new EV credit system has its share of problems to be sure, but that’s one of the areas where it makes a distinct improvement over the old system.
It’s not quite point-of-sale just yet. That doesn’t go into effect until 2024.
“was meant to combat inflation, in part, by stimulating…”
Yeah, how’s that working out?
It’s a bit early for a lot of the bill to have impacted anything, but since you asked I believe inflation has decreased for the last 5 months.
You are, of course, referring to the federal definition of “decrease.” Which is “increase less quickly.”
You think you’re being clever, but you’re actually exposing your ignorance. Inflation can be decreasing while prices are still increasing (in fact, if you have any inflation then prices are by definition increasing). Six months ago inflation was 9.1%. Now it’s 6.5%. That is a decrease by any reasonable definition of the word.
“You think you’re being clever, but you’re actually exposing your ignorance.”
I was actually making a joke. Instead of exposing my ignorance you’ve exposed your lack of sense of humor.
And a sense of humor is exactly what’s required in a situation where somebody is implying there is a negative effect on inflation from a bill that almost certainly increases inflation just because they decided at the eleventh hour to name it the “inflation reduction act.” Which every reasonable person agrees is a farce.
Surely you’re aware of the numerous other factors that have had a negative influence on inflation recently? And that the person I was responding to was almost certainly being ironic?
Sheesh.
I’m not sure how much the people involved with drafting this bill seriously expected it to impact inflation. That’s mostly marketing hype in my opinion—typically clumsy messaging by the Democrats. The main goals as I see them are to 1a) fight climate change, 1b) accelerate America’s transition to renewable energy, 2a) support American manufacturing and create well-paying jobs, and 2b) counter China’s global dominance over the global manufacturing and supply chain for next-generation energy technologies. Despite the mess with the EV credits, and despite the fact that goals 1 and 2 are sometimes in conflict with each other (see the made-in-America requirements for EV tax credits) I think it’s doing a pretty good job overall, so far.
There’s also Goal 3, which is basically “be something that Joe Manchin is willing to vote for,” and that’s a large part of why the bill is having the problems that it is. Not the whole reason, but a big part of it.
I hope it stays confusing enough to stop paying out subsidies. Why does the government get to use the money of some taxpayers to help other taxpayers buy a car? And before someone starts complaining about oil company subsidies, I am against those, too, as well as the silly ethanol mandate, which iOS basically a subsidy – especially when using corn is a net negative for the environment. The Feds’ own studies show that if we used switchgrass – something no one needs as food, by the way – instead of corn – then it would be a net positive.
Whenever the government tries to steer industry we usually get the kind of muck-up that you see in this article.
Though messy, government regulations have unquestionably given us safer and less-polluting vehicles. People don’t like paying for insurance against rare events, which is what seatbelts, airbags, ABS, crumple zones, etc. are. The free market also doesn’t deal well with “negative externalities” such as air pollution. The free market wouldn’t have gotten us catalytic converters and amazing (compared to several decades ago) fuel economy.
There’s a big difference between a regulation (“this car must have seatbelts and meet certain safety standards”) and subsidies (“here’s $7500 of other people’s money to go buy a car”). I never complained about regulation – that’s necessary to a certain extent.
I’ll question your unquestionability.
Our current regulation and testing schemes have made cars safe for the occupants. But not for the rest of everybody. Vehicles are bigger, and heavier, and more dangerous to everybody around them.
The free market may not “deal well with negative externalities”. But government doesn’t deal well with unintended consequences. The political consequences of admitting your mistakes are too significant. Instead you have to double down and pile on. So when your regulation results in manufacturers competing to figure out who can find the coolest name of something gigantic to use as the model name / metaphor for their new land barge, instead of fixing your mess you require backup cameras and beepers.
Thanks for the breakdown! I had no idea things had gotten this ridiculous. I was pretty bullish on the new EV credit system at first, and I still think it has some good points, but it’s way more of a mess than it should have been. Between Manchin’s hamstringing, the IRS’s baffling interpretation, and the general missing-the-mark on the price caps (which should be higher and also inflation-adjusted), it’s just going to be a way less effective bill than it could’ve been.
My biggest question in all of this is why have different caps for cars and SUVs in the first place? What was that supposed to accomplish, anyway?
Yeah, why not just have a single cap (or no tax credit at all). Much simpler for everyone, and doesn’t incentivize larger vehicles.
It really feels like updated categories—and simplified rules for those categories—would fix a lot of what’s annoying about American cars. No more extra loopholes for larger vehicles. That’s what’s pushed a lot of the bloat boom in ICE cars as well, and frankly, it sucks.
This entire credit has been done so ham-fistedly that it’s unreal.
nice
I also got offered a custom AR-15 for trade when I sold my E30 back in 2017. Then again, this was in Texas, where such things are a very common form of currency. (I politely declined.)
Congress and IRS make utilizing EV tax credits difficult
Who Killed
HannibalThe Demand for Tax Credits?So many poorly-written, overly complicated bills come down to the same issue of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. In this case, fairness concerns winning out over cold-blooded rational climate concerns.
I’m not in favor of any EV subsidies, but if I were writing the bill, it would be structured something like:
$X tax credit per EV sold until US EV market share reaches 10%, then
$0.5X tax credit per EV sold until market share reaches 25%, then
$0.25X until 50%, then ending.
Add either a fixed dollar amount or a percentage for US manufactured.
No penalties for successful companies ala the original 200k cap. No artificial income or MSRP caps. Sell as many as you can produce and market. This isn’t “fair” in the sense that Democrats in Congress define that term. It would lead to most of the tax benefits going to richer people. But at some point, you have to decide if the climate is really an emergency that demands all effort be made as quickly as possible, or if it isn’t. Because trying to dumb the program down in the name of fairness leads to badly written bills and fewer EVs sold.
If you’re going to have EV credits, that seems to be a sensible way to do it.
Personally, I’d rather those billions of dollars be invested in infrastructure buildout to reduce the number of people for whom EVs aren’t a feasible solution. The demand will take care of itself.
Too many cities and states are uninterested in taking federal dollars for anything other than highways. You’re going to end up with more money being sunk into places with already-functioning mass transit.
Instead of spending billions of dollars to build more transportation infrastructure, how about we stop spending billions of dollars moving jobs away from where people want to live, and into city centers?
You used to be able to buy a suburban home near your job. Now governments pay companies to move the jobs into the city, and there isn’t enough housing to live there or infrastructure to commute there. They should admit they caused the problem and undo it. Rather than use the manufactured crisis to justify spending on pre-existing but otherwise unjustifiable initiatives.