I'd say it's relevant as the investment in for-profit transit-as-tech companies has coincided with the chronic under-funding of public transit. Focusing on the US here, but if public transit was accepted as a public good, and the populace accepted that funding things for the public good was an acceptable use of government funds, then these companies wouldn't be as sound of an investment for VCs.

I agree: The solution is to change government spending so that public goods are sufficient to render other options moot.

But the VC investment didn't cause the underinvestment of infrastructure. Rather, they stepped in to fill the void with other viable options when government initiatives failed to materialize. Example: where's my high-speed rail?!

If I recall correctly, a certain South African entrepreneur who overstayed his visa pitched a vacuum-based transport system which he provably knew will not work at critical funding stages of high-speed rail projects in California.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Definitely agree with the solution - but unfortunately the transit-as-tech organizations (as well as auto manufacturers, the oil industry, real estate, etc.) also lobby to ensure that funding remains low and infrastructure decays or that costs/time become prohibitively high for infrastructure expansion.

It's definitely one of those things where the goal is clear but the changes necessary to get there are complex.

unsure if you've been around VCs but they certainly are involved in non-commercial money-losing ventures