Many places, like in California, do not have good public transportation and Uber is the only decent option. That statement in the article is definitely a heavy assumption.
The counter argument is that you no longer feel pressure to kick the issue to your congressperson to push for public transit, because a "good enough" solution has been presented (a solution that isn't as good for the environment or city than a bus).
Maybe, but perhaps the politicians should automatically look out and plan for the public good instead of needing a line-by-line spec sheet for their job.
