Public transit isn't profitable either. It's heavily subsidized by the taxpayer, so the author's logic isn't intellectually honest. Look at Amtrak as a good example. Or the MTA in New York.
Uber is subsidized by private investors, public transport is subsidized by everyone -- whether they want, need or use it or not.
No, the author's logic is good - the investors will expect to make that money back through a future monopoly, and proposals for replacing public transport with Uber often also include similar taxpayer subsides on top too.
Uber is subsidized by private investors, public transport is subsidized by everyone -- whether they want, need or use it or not.