All of the authors arguments for car infrastructure are also arguments for transit infrastructure. And Transit infrastructure investment is more efficient in basically every way. So the conclusion should be... don't invest in car infrastructure...
The author seems to seriously underestimate if not ignore the incredible negative externalizaties of car infrastructure.
Viable human embryos made the old fashioned way are fairly easy to create or come by, what is the difference? Except having more flexibility in who can have children?
The issue with the original article seems like it could be summed up pretty simply, startups, for their founders and investors, aren't meant to create profit, they are meant to increase equity. Therefore having the same business model as a cancerous tumor makes perfect sense, consume as much free resources (low interest debt) as possible to grow as large as possible in as short a time as possible, independent of any external effects or moral hazards that creates.
So in that way at least the original article does have a point, in a better world startups most likely shouldn't take as much funding as they do, but in the current world, the correct answer for any particular startup will always be to do exactly that.
The author seems to seriously underestimate if not ignore the incredible negative externalizaties of car infrastructure.