You're post makes a whole lot of assumptions about ridesharing.
1. Uber drivers are compensated sufficiently for their time and expenses (research has shown this isn't true, Uber drivers scrape by just like cabbies)
2. That a consumer's time is more valuable than having public transportation available to everyone (Ridesharing > Buses/bike shares/etc)
3. That expensive rail is one of the only options.
The solution is a mix of buses, bicycle sharing, and electric self-driving cars. How we get there is the tricky part.
Didn't assume either 1, 2, nor 3.
1. Perhaps your definition of "compensated sufficiently" doesn't jibe with those of the thousands of drivers who voluntarily choose to drive for Uber and similar services.
2. SOME consumers consider their time too valuable to take public transportation as you have defined it.
3. I mentioned light rail AND buses in my decidedly non-encyclopedic comment about efficiency of ridesharing. Those are two of the main options currently available in Austin.
Definitely, "the solution is a mix", but the components and proportions of that mix are best left to the consumers, not solely to central planners, whether in governments or in large corporations. Indeed, since the vote, local rideshare companies have sprung up in Austin, perhaps better suited to the needs of Austinites.
1. Uber drivers are compensated sufficiently for their time and expenses (research has shown this isn't true, Uber drivers scrape by just like cabbies)
2. That a consumer's time is more valuable than having public transportation available to everyone (Ridesharing > Buses/bike shares/etc)
3. That expensive rail is one of the only options.
The solution is a mix of buses, bicycle sharing, and electric self-driving cars. How we get there is the tricky part.