The view that public transport is not profitable because it does not directly turn a profit also completely misses the bigger picture. Imagine in a city where public transport operates at a loss, but provides transportation to and from work for loads of people. Without public transport, they’d have to switch to something like cars, causing congestion, causing delays, causing loss of profit for the city as a whole. Not to mention less time spend with your family or your hobbies, causing unhappiness, decreasing people’s desire to work to the best of their abilities etc etc. I could probably go in quite a while listing things public transport provides that indirectly works in favor of capitalism.

It’s because they’re convinced, through their own experience, there isn’t enough money to go around so we have to make more instead of use what we have wisely.

Aka send a plumber to the billionaires

if it breaks even, or even if it’s designed to run at a slight loss because it’s value is more important than profit.

If it breaks even it can sustain itself in a market economy (anything where revenue >= costs can). If it operates at a loss, then someone other than the user is having to pay for it, and that’s usually where you lose them (because generally the answer is that you’re expecting them to pay for it in part, usually through taxes).

This is also why they get so grumpy about things like welfare (especially the ones who are working class and barely getting by) - they actively dislike the idea that they should have to pay for their own food/shelter/etc and also help pay for your food/shelter/etc when things are tight and they’re destroying their work/life balance just to get by and life would be meaningfully easier for them if they weren’t paying as much in taxes (and they grossly overestimate how much tax money goes to SNAP/TANF/etc).