One general objection to two-tier systems is that they are a symptom of people with the ability to effect change saying "we know this is broken, but we've decided to just fix it for ourselves, not for you". The emergence of the new tier shows they have the power to effect change, even as it removes their incentive to cause further change.
For example, if the boss has a reserved parking space it's a sign the other parking sucks and he/she doesn't plan to fix that. If the politician puts their kids in private school it's a sign they think public schools don't work, but they don't plan to fix them. If the affluent community installs gates and hires their own guards. In countries with public healthcare, if upper middle class families buy private medical insurance.
When the powerful eat the same dog food as the rest of us, the theory goes, we get better dog food than otherwise.
A person with this view might think Google should use their evident power fix the public transport system instead of putting in place a parallel private system.
Politicians putting their kids in private schools is hypocritical because they are in charge of the public education system. Google has no responsibility whatsoever for the public transportation system and would probably prefer one (since they wouldn't have to pay for and deal with their private bus system.)
Your argument applies to anyone who has ever solved any problem for themselves rather than the common good.
If that's the view, why would this person imagine that Google had any power or obligation to fix the public transit system?
If a politician were doing it, I would understand the inclination towards protest -- a politician who felt that a public transportation system that was inadequate should try to fix it, assuming they had sway over it -- assuming of course that there aren't more pressing matters, like rampant crime, poverty, etc.
Otherwise, I'm having a hard time identifying here. Should I be obligated to fix the train system because I choose to fly? Why not? Am I not rich enough to be held responsible?
There may be some large piece that I'm missing here, I don't know, but there's really very little about this situation that makes sense to me.
Edit: It's been explained elsewhere that Google is using the municipal stops illegally. Somehow or another, that wasn't clear to me from my reading of the article. This at least helps me understand the motivation.
For example, if the boss has a reserved parking space it's a sign the other parking sucks and he/she doesn't plan to fix that. If the politician puts their kids in private school it's a sign they think public schools don't work, but they don't plan to fix them. If the affluent community installs gates and hires their own guards. In countries with public healthcare, if upper middle class families buy private medical insurance.
When the powerful eat the same dog food as the rest of us, the theory goes, we get better dog food than otherwise.
A person with this view might think Google should use their evident power fix the public transport system instead of putting in place a parallel private system.