Interesting points. I think the harm that's being caused is not in the existence of a new service, but in the transition to a system where our resources are spl

Interesting points. I think the harm that's being caused is not in the existence of a new service, but in the transition to a system where our resources are split: the notion that funding dedicated to general transportation is a zero-sum game and pushing resources towards a private solutions that helps only the wealthy takes away resources from the public, universal service -- hurting them. It's worth noting, also, that the public subsidizes services like Uber especially when it gets to the point where private cars are replacing busses and larger public transit: cars on the road generate risk of accidents and injury, pollute, generate wear and tear on the road and transportation system, generate traffic which harms everyone, etc. Having the poor subsidize a private service for the rich so they don't have to ride alongside the riff-raff on a bus is pretty unpalatable. We don't have to take away resources from public universal solutions and transition them over the private, wealthy-only solutions. So far we haven't, and it's certainly possible that we won't, and this private system will work concurrently alongside the public one in happy concert. I am just concerned that this will not happen. And I'm inclined to agree that the time-delay is necessary, but I'm not so sure about your assumption that the effects of this transition will eventually "trickle down" to the poor at all. I'll concede to your point that a two-tiered system doesn't necessarily cause harm to the poor just through its existence; you're right and your point is very well argued. But the remainder I think remains a valid concern.