
Uber.gov – It’s Time to Let the Government Drive - primigenus
https://medium.com/@blakeross/uber-gov-29db5fdff372
======
yonran
Company-owned marketplaces are wonderful for the 95% of people who never run
into problems, and some people such as Blake Ross may wonder why we don’t just
retire the publicly regulated markets. What he is missing is that there is no
due process on company marketplaces. If you happen to have a streak of bad
luck, or you are targeted or discriminated against and you get too many bad
ratings, you are kicked off with no appeal process. Uber does not care whether
the complaints are legitimate. Similar problems happen to a small fraction of
users on Google Adwords, eBay, and other company-owned marketplaces who
ultimately care about their own profit instead of justice. As public markets
are replaced with private marketplaces, I think the loss of due process is not
something that we should give up without some forethought.

~~~
tolmasky
Perfect is the enemy of good. What you're describing happens just as
frequently in regulated markets (the police works fine for a certain sector of
this country and not so great for another...), its just that regulated markets
offer the false promise of perfection. At the end of the day there's no magic,
its people at the end of all these services. So what's important, as Milton
Friedman used to like to say, is not finding the right people, but getting the
wrong people to do the right things.

The people that visit Las Vegas don't vote in Las Vegas, so what incentive is
there AT ALL for the government to protect the customer? This is basically the
worst edge case for a regulation: the regulators only receive votes from one
side of the arrangement, so who do you think they'll bias? Unless taxi abuse
got so bad that it actually affected tourism, then I assure you it will always
slip between the cracks. On the other hand, a business that cares about solely
this problem will actually figure out a way to solve it.

~~~
pfortuny
"its just that regulated markets offer the false promise of perfection"

No: it is just that regulated (I prefer the name public but anyway) markets
offer the possibility of legal defense _by definition_. Thus, the customer is
not left defenseless.

However, this applies possibly much more to Roman-law derivative States than
to the US.

~~~
csuwldcat
"It is just that regulated (I prefer the name public but anyway) markets offer
the possibility of legal defense by definition." \- I think you may be
forgetting an _entire area_ of the judicial branch: Civil Court. You can, in
fact, sue a business for: representing their product incorrectly, providing
service other than described, not sticking to the contract you signed, etc,
etc.

We could just as easily simplify, streamline, and reform the civil tort system
to allow people to file and address legitimate issues quickly through organic,
judicial means. But instead, people, for god knows why, believe it is easier
and more effective to have politicians appoint a bunch of crony farts to pass
hundreds of thousands of pages of regulation that make the 95% case of good
business operation harder, while most often failing to catch/fix the 5% of
time things go wrong.

Le sigh, I digress.

~~~
dragonwriter
Civil court is a venue in which action based on existing laws and regulations
are pursued. It does not substitute for actually having the laws and
regulations which provide the bases for actions.

------
DigitalSea
I just had my first Las Vegas cab experience, it was at 11:30pm. The taxi
driver picked us up from the airport and took us to our hotel 30 minutes away.
He was pretty helpful and seemed to know the area quite well. Then we got to
our destination and he demanded that I pay cash, even though the taxi had a
touchscreen terminal behind the front passenger seat for paying with card.

He said that he needed the $55 fare in cash because he needs to take some
money home and it is midnight. I told him that I didn't feel comfortable, he
was apologetic, explained he needed the money and so, to save trouble, I went
into the hotel and got out the cash for him because I just got off a few hours
plane ride, I didn't want to deal with this nonsense at this time of night.

I told the man behind the desk at the hotel and he explained that it happens
all of the time. He said a lot of the drivers pocket the cash for themselves
which is why they demand cash. He then advised us not to hire taxis and to use
a hotel recommended private driver service that is the same cost (no doubt a
nice referral fee for them). An ulterior motive there, but I don't doubt that
this happens all of the time.

This experience, other experiences from colleagues and friends as well as
online paints a picture of a pretty broken and corrupt taxi system in Los
Angeles especially. While I am not a big fan of Uber (ethically) I do like the
idea of ridesharing and the rating system. If Lyft, Uber and other companies
were operating here, perhaps things would be different.

~~~
artursapek
I'm curious, what's your ethical problem with Uber?

~~~
smackfu
Ha, have you not been paying attention?

~~~
joshstrange
This is a useless comment, I'm not saying Uber is ethical but saying "Ha, have
you not been paying attention?" adds no value. I think artursapek poses a
valid question to be answered with facts and sources not an off the cuff reply
that expects everyone follows everything that happens. People have questions,
why do you have to pretend they are stupid for not know every last detail?

~~~
smackfu
Fair enough. I should have included some links.

Uber's playbook for sabotaging Lyft:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8229081](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8229081)

Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622003](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8622003)

Uber rival accuses car service of dirty tactics:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7115177](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7115177)

------
devindotcom
As long as the laws prohibit Uber from operating, why is it strange that the
government would take steps to ensure that?

Perhaps the laws should change - certainly Uber wants them to. But flouting
the law isn't often the best way to make that happen. They're not protesting
injustice, they're jamming a foot in the door of a multi-billion dollar
industry with technology that is still very new to regulators. The "we're just
an app that connects people who want a ride with willing drivers" dodge is
disingenuous, and the alternation between wounded and scoffing attitudes is
grating. I don't like Uber as a company, and personally I hope it fails and
the next guy picks up the torch and does these things with a bit of tact.
Neither driver nor user will care.

~~~
philwelch
The purpose of law should be to benefit the public. Uber and Lyft empirically
demonstrate, in most cities, that taxi regulations-- _a textbook example of
regulatory capture for decades_ \--do not benefit the public when they protect
taxis against competition.

Some people have an authoritarian worldview--laws are handed down to us by our
betters, and we'd better follow them no matter what. I prefer a democratic
worldview--laws are an artifact created by the people for the benefit of the
people, and once they hinder that purpose rather than promote it, there's
nothing sacred about continuing to follow it to our own detriment.

~~~
Nursie
In many cities acrozs the world there is both comprtition and consumer-
oriented regulation. London is like this. Uber's business model isn't even
novel there.

------
brownbat
I think even Uber's star system pales in comparison to a better solution:
calculate fares in advance (maybe based purely on distance and average travel
time).

We have GPS, we can estimate costs before the trip. If we do so, the only
incentive for the cabbie is to get your service completed as efficiently as
possible.

And it's weird that it's one of the only services where we can estimate the
cost in advance fairly accurately in 99% of cases, but there's no price
transparency. Cabs and medical services, maybe. There's no reason cab drivers
should need a "billable hours" system of payment (at least not since gps
mapping technology was invented).

I'd settle for that much. But my more controversial rider is that costs
shouldn't vary by the time of the trip.

The risk of traffic flows should be borne by the party that will experience
all the variations enough to be able to average it out. In consumer goods, if
you buy a the one out of ten thousand products that are broken off the shelf,
(or explodes in your hand), the merchants accept the loss, because they can
even out this loss across all of their sales. In cabs, if there's suddenly an
accident a mile ahead of you, and you're just stopped in a parking lot
doubling your cost, that's your fault.

On an individual level, maybe just underpay if you've been jerked around. If
the cabbie complains, tell them to bring the cops so you can both talk about
the route and they can decide what's fair. If that behavior became widespread,
taxis would lose the incentive to cheat in this way. (Though you'd probably
get a few people shot in the street. I strongly prefer the "pre-calculated
fares.")

~~~
mlrtime
I get your traffic jam problem, but in big cities its more complicated than
that. There are supply demand imbalances and a traveling salesman type
problem.

Technology could solve some of these issues but I don't see it happening in
the near future.

~~~
brownbat
Oh, sure, on supply demand imbalances, I'd be ok with surge pricing if that's
what you mean. I don't need prices to be constant for days, I'd just like them
to be fixed at the moment both sides agree to the transaction.

It seems like that should be doable with current tech, without even affecting
the price of many transactions (except the ones where drivers are going
intentionally slowly).

The inputs for Uber's pricing are time, distance, and the demand multiplier.
Google maps does a pretty good job at giving an expected time and distance for
a driver taking the ideal route. The driver / Uber can toss in a demand
multiplier. If we agree that the Google Maps (or some other mapping service)
time estimate is "close enough," then we should be able to calculate the fee
before I sit down.

The driver can then feel free to take a scenic route, but it comes out of
their pocket, not mine, so they probably won't.

Or we can do nothing. I'm just really tired of cabs missing my exit
"accidentally." Three of the last four times I came back from the airport. The
last trip I directed every lane change from the backseat. I feel like I
shouldn't have to do that.

------
dkbrk
It's amusing to point out the failures of government bureaucracy, and while
it's admirable that they're trying, I think we can all agree that the people
responsible for these measures aren't exactly blessed with an overabundance of
competence.

That said, this article completely ignored the very significant failures in
Uber's rating system:
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/08/14/what-
ar...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/08/14/what-are-we-
actually-rating-when-we-rate-other-people/)

Fundamentally, a five-star rating is far too simple. In my opinion, an example
of this done well is Ebay's reputation system.

~~~
sneak
It seems to be working sufficiently for Uber and their happy customers. Uber
is a premium service. Drivers should be fired if they don't know their way
around, have a dirty or smelly car, or otherwise request things of me as a
customer beyond my destination address. I routinely give out two and three
star ratings, knowing it could well get people fired. 5 stars is for a perfect
trip that could not be improved.

~~~
SyneRyder
I wish the 5 stars system worked like that. I love UberX, but I don't like the
negotiation at the end of the ride over ratings. It hasn't been as bad for me
as in the Forbes article, but there's a definite read-between-the-lines of
always giving 5 stars.

I'd much rather give my feedback/rating in private once I'm out of the cab,
and for the driver to do the same with me. I really don't need/want to know
how they rated me. The "I gave you 5 stars, now you rate me" conversation is
always awkward.

~~~
dilap
Whoa, that's insane. I've never had a driver ask me to rate them, and I've
taken a lot of ubers (though more recently, lyfts). (This is in SF.)

~~~
drivingmenuts
I have - dude asked for a five-star rating.

There is no criteria for a five-star rating. Did he get me where I needed to
go at the expected price? Pretty much - that seems at best to rate average.

I don't even know what a five-star rating would be.

I gave him one because I really didn't feel the need to spend the time
figuring out exactly what I should give him.

However, the problem I have, in retrospect, is this:

DON'T FRICKIN' ASK FOR A FIVE-STAR RATING WITHOUT A GOOD REASON.

~~~
dilap
They shouldn't ask, which I would explain; if they persisted, I would give a
low rating for that.

In terms of stars, drivers get dropped if they are below around 4.5 on
average, so 5 stars basically means "keep this driver" and anything less means
"fire this driver".

------
blazespin
You know, I really wouldn't put it past Uber to game HackerNews. If they're
willing to dig up dirt on journalists, can you imagine that they'd have a
problem with 'employee advocacy' on HN?

~~~
jmckib
Either you didn't read the article, or I am totally misunderstanding it,
because it appeared to me to be a criticism of Uber.

~~~
SwellJoe
I believe you are misunderstanding it. It appears to be satire in the "A
Modest Proposal" vein.

~~~
jmckib
Yep, you're totally right, I skimmed the middle section when the author was
really laying it on thick.

------
whiddershins
It's funny, but people think there is something inherently inefficient about
government, but inefficiency and unresponsiveness are usually more a function
of incentives, as well as obvious stuff like organization size and structure.

Medicare is on average more efficient than private health care, for example.
Health care might be a situation where profit incentives don't create the best
outcome. In the case of the Nevada officials, there is no incentive whatsoever
to actually fix the problem.

~~~
briandear
Medicare is NOT more efficient that private health care. Ask any doctor.

~~~
cozzyd
I think parent meant efficiency in terms of health care provided / $, not
efficiency in terms of paying doctors quickly...

------
butwhy
Something I recently learned in Vegas; if a taxi driver picks you up from a
casino on the strip and offers to take you (or does it anyway) the "quicker
way" to your destination [also on the strip] via taking some off-strip
highway, reject him. A bit of traffic on the strip is nothing compared to how
fast the meter flies upwards when a taxi is speeding along a highway via a
long detour and it's going to result in you paying a lot more for the journey.

~~~
Nursie
Surely the decision at that point comes down to time vs money?

------
cbsmith
Wait. Uber does more than just use the star ratings. They actually look at the
route the driver took and compare it to the GPS recommended route...

~~~
KaoruAoiShiho
You missed the sarcasm.

~~~
cbsmith
Whoosh! Yup, I thought that part was serious.

------
sah88
I'm surprised one of the smaller ride share companies hasn't pivoted into
licensing/partnering with municipal governments. Share revenue and let them
control the processes for accepting drivers and regulating them. Tada you're
partnered with a entity that can legislate your competition out of business.

~~~
briandear
Companies already do that; they're called "Taxi Companies."

------
eo3x0
I'll naively give the government the benefit of the doubt and assume there are
good arguments for being anti-Uber/Lyft. What are they? I'm curious to know if
there are valid reasons besides dollars being shuffled into the right pockets.
I'll assume preventing disruption is not a valid argument.

~~~
henrikschroder
The best reason I can think of is labour protection for the drivers. Even
though the US is pretty laissez faire when it comes to employee protections,
Uber and similar completely strip all rights from drivers. The almighty Rating
determines who gets fired, with zero transparency and zero second chances.
Imagine working as a waiter, but if your tip percentage drops below a certain
threshold, you're fired and banned from the restaurant business forever, even
though you might just have gotten a bunch of asshole customers in a row.

Also, if the bar to entry into the profession is simply to have a car and a
smartphone, it will quickly become a race to the bottom in terms of wages.

All of this is good for the consumers, they get a lot of power over the
drivers, they can threaten to give them a bad rating and so on, but there
should probably be a balance.

Then again, it's not like the existing taxi cab unions and medallion systems
and regulations are a guarantee of a good environment.

And on the third side, this profession is going to be eradicated by self-
driving cars within fifteen years, so who cares?

~~~
hueving
>Also, if the bar to entry into the profession is simply to have a car and a
smartphone, it will quickly become a race to the bottom in terms of wages.

If that's all that is required to be an effective driver, why should cab
drivers be overpaid?

~~~
henrikschroder
As a software engineer working in California, I (and many others here) enjoy
the labour protection of non-competes being unenforceable here. That drives up
the cost of hiring software engineers, i.e. we are being overpaid.

This is why we have labour laws, to shift the balance, to make work suck a
little bit less for everyone.

(In principle. In practice in the taxi-cab case, I can't say that the various
regulations and systems improve things for anyone, it's mostly captured by the
rent-seekers anyway, so everyone gets screwed)

------
learc83
Why should Uber get to flaunt the law just because they're big enough to get
away with it?

What about the little guy who can't afford the fines he'll have to pay if he
operates a cab without a license?

Sure a lot of the regulation is overburdensome, but the solution is to change
the law, not encourage companies to break it.

~~~
jasonisalive
You may be familiar with a thing called:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience).

It's a crazy theory that, if you are intelligent and believe that laws and
civil arrangements in your society are against logic and moral reason, the
best way to change them is to break them, to help raise awareness so that more
people realise their perversity.

It helped end British control of India and racial segregation in America. Cool
huh?

~~~
learc83
We're talking about a large company making a profit, not a lunch-counter
protest.

Uber isn't doing this because of some deeply held belief, they're doing it to
make a profit. I don't want corporations breaking regulations they don't agree
with and claiming it's "civil disobedience".

------
d23
> Flying to Vegas? Look to your left. Now look to your right. Statistically
> speaking, one of you is about to get ripped off by a cabbie. And it’ll
> probably be you, the imbecile who chose the middle seat and paid $15 for
> plane wifi.

Just a side-note: I wouldn't open an article with brazenly insulting the
reader.

~~~
moonka
I think it's just a fair warning as to the tone of the rest of the article.

------
djur
> The signs are done now, and I doubt they’ll ever need to be updated: Vegas
> is a sleepy town, and the dollar is a stable currency

This is a sarcastic remark, but: the US dollar is, in fact, a stable currency,
and inflation is currently very low. Cab fares are regulated. If getting from
point A to point B takes $20 in 2014, it will not be difficult to determine
how much the fare should be in 2020, and to send some people around with new
signs or price stickers.

I'm surprised at how many of these points seem to treat the low-tech methods
used by the Nevada state government as patently absurd. I guess it comes from
a mindset that technology is the obvious solution to society's problems, which
is something I do not find to be obvious. It took me a while to catch on to
the sarcasm as a result of that mismatch.

~~~
TheDong
I can agree that the Gov's solutions are not absurd - at least not half as
absurd as this post makes them out to be - but the overall point that the Uber
rating system is superior to advisory signs stands strong.

I found the sarcastic writing style a pleasure; it was enjoyable humorous and
obvious in intent to me.

~~~
djur
Uber has the benefit of employing the drivers, handling transactions, and
controlling pricing. This allows them to refund unfair fares and to punish
drivers for poor ratings. The technology is secondary.

As is so often the case, much of the expense and inefficiency of the
government regulatory apparatus here stems from an aversion to intervene
directly in markets.

------
jbigelow76
Up until the last few months when Uber came in and put the heat on the local
Dallas (TX) taxi market, government was driving at the behest of the largest
taxi company via local council and board members pushing ordinances[1] that
squeezed smaller cab companies. What a shit show that's been...

[http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2014/04/judge-dfw-
airport...](http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2014/04/judge-dfw-airport-
board-was-within-its-right-to-put-natural-gas-powered-cabs-at-the-front-of-
line.html/)

------
Fede_V
Leaving aside the pro-Uber aspect of the piece, the criticism of the existing
solutions was spot on.

If you add a huge amount of friction before you can offer feedback, the only
people to do will either be normal people who had truly horrific experiences,
or incredibly entitled and annoying assholes who complain about everything.

In practice, it's really difficult for the government to be as nimble as a
private company, but even people who support strong government regulation
(like me!) have absolutely no ground to stand on when defending that
particular status quo.

------
Tarang
I wonder if the next step in the evolution of public transport is something
akin to Uber. It may be more entropic come the day self driving cars come
along.

Given that each car heads to its destination without a transit route where
passengers are buffered would be good.

Additionally, since the road is shared unlike the subway, it may be more
efficient on resources.

Perhaps when the option becomes available, the government of some affording
country may be able to pilot such a thing.

~~~
jarek
The big problem is scale. You can replicate the capacity of a smaller bus
route with efficient self-driving cars, but bigger routes and higher-capacity
transit move tens and hundreds of thousands of people per day to a
destination, and loading/unloading capacity near those destinations is just
not going to fit.

Demand is already centralized both geographically and time-wise, with business
districts, downtowns, rush/peak hour. Self-driving cars might replace feeder
networks but they'll only strengthen the case for high-capacity trunk transit.

~~~
jarek
Some numbers for context because I was thinking about it. Let's say it takes a
person five seconds to get in a robocar at an organized terminal area (car
pulls up with door already open, people are lined up - getting in on the
street in front of a building would be slower). Let's say you can weave five
terminal lanes into one traffic lane, so cars can leave the terminal at about
1 car per second per lane. In five minutes you can ship out about 300 people
per lane.

In those same five minutes, a Calgary C-Train would have pulled in, loaded,
and departed with capacity of about 700 people. Or three Skytrain trains, each
with capacity of about 500 people. Or two Victoria Line trains, each with
capacity of about 1000 people (non-crush load). Or two double-decker RER
trains, capacity over 2000 people each. You'd need a lot of robocar
terminals...

------
lucianomt
Let me rewrite the first paragraph:

"Flying to Vegas? Look to your left. Now look to your right. Statistically
speaking, everyone of you is about to get ripped off."

~~~
joezydeco
Lots of us fly there on business (usually conventions) and spend very little
time in the casinos. But yeah, the restaurants can be a ripoff if you eat on-
strip.

------
usaar333
From my experience, long-hauling complaints are handled quite effectively. You
just go here:
[http://taxi.nv.gov/Complaints/Complaints/](http://taxi.nv.gov/Complaints/Complaints/)
and spend ~5 minutes copying info that is present on your receipt.

Did this three years back. Within days, the offending cab company called me
and issued me a complete refund.

~~~
madeofpalk
From my experience, long-hauling complaints are handled quite effectively. You
just spend ~2 minutes filling out the text box Uber asks you when completing a
ride.

Did this three days back. Within hours, Uber emailed me and issued me a
complete refund.

------
BorisMelnik
I always wonder about micro-long-hauling anytime I go to new areas of Brooklyn
or visit new cities. I pretty much know where I am, but if they went a little
out of the way I would not notice.

If you drive a cab for 40 years, do 25 fares a day and "reroute" 4-8 extra
blocks (~=$1.25) you'll see an extra ~$30/day or even if he/she does every
other fair $15/day.

~~~
cauterized
Depends. The starting fare means that if you have a decent chance of getting
another hail (which is the case in many parts of NY at most times of day) it's
actually more profitable to get to your destination as efficiently as possible
and be able to pick up another fare than to draw out the one you have. There's
a reason cabbies hate sitting in traffic even though the meter is running.

------
imgabe
The advantage of a cab over Uber is that you don't pay until the end of the
trip. If you know you've been ripped off, get out of the cab and walk away
without paying. Tell them to call the cops and explain why you aren't paying.
What are they going to do?

Of course, this requires that you know you're getting ripped off.

~~~
avz
There is plenty of circumstances where people are not willing to fight for
$10.

* You may be on holidays and may want to avoid arguments with strangers.

* You may be after a long flight, jetlagged and/or simply too tired.

* You may be running late for a plane or train and have no time to wait for the cops.

* You may not speak the local language.

On the other hand, leaving a rating or review is a lot simpler and more
commensurate with $10.

~~~
imgabe
I don't think you need to actually fight, just walk away. I'm thinking
specifically of Las Vegas, and you've taken the cab from the airport to your
hotel. Is the cab driver going to run through the lobby of the Bellagio and
tackle you? No. Who is the hotel staff going to side with, their customer or a
cab driver where they _know_ cab drivers routinely rip off their customers?

The cab driver is exploiting your reluctance to make a fuss to get a small
amount of extra money. You can turn right around and exploit the fact that by
breaking the law they've removed any recourse they have for getting you to
pay. If enough people did it, eventually the scam would not be worth trying
anymore.

------
tomario
Living in Amsterdam makes me wonder... only $10 extra? Seems like a fair deal.
On average it's more than 30 euro extra over here.

To be fair: we have signs displaying cost & travel time for bus, car, taxi and
train. Train (for once) is the clear winner by being cheapest & fastest.

~~~
cheald
The issue isn't taxi vs other modes of transit, it's that taxis take
intentionally longer routes to squeeze higher fares out of tourists.

~~~
dubcanada
Is that really the taxi's "fault" though? I mean it is in everyones best
interest to get paid the most. And in the end you arrived at your destination.
Sure you don't want to pay more. But I don't know if it should be illegal...

I mean there are tons of companies/people who "do stuff" to make more money
from you...

~~~
tolmasky
That's kind of the point right: with Uber, there was a solution that didn't
involve making anything illegal. Customers were allowed to easily express
unhappiness with their ride, and Uber is able to provide customers better
service. Seems like an ideal solution that, as you put it, simply balances
everyone's best interests.

Uber is making the _decision_ to get rid of drivers that take advantage of
their customers, not the government forcing anyone to abide by some law. Its
the same as how a restaurant _can_ take action against a waitress if they
provide bad service. Personally I think that system is way better than trying
to create a series of laws that make it illegal to be a bad waiter.

~~~
joezydeco
But I don't quite see the solution to the problem here.

The Vegas scam is that they are taking tourists _with no idea of the traffic
layout_ on a longer trip than an experienced driver would take.

If an Uber driver takes this longer route, the passengers still don't know
that this happened. They got to their hotel in one piece and everyone is
happy.

The only levelling factor is that the Uber ride is a fixed price, so it's in
the _driver 's_ best interest to take the shortest route.

If the Vegas cab authority mandated fixed prices for the rides, this would all
go away on their end as well.

~~~
smm2000
Uber emails you a map with your route on it and a final price after each trip.
If you are unhappy with the route, you can complain and uber will refund
whatever you overpaid compared to optimal trip. They can also easily implement
algorithm that checks if driver uses optimal route and fire/warn drivers that
don't.

Biggest difference between Uber and any taxi authority is that Uber is
interested in providing good service while taxi authority does not.

------
RyanMcGreal
Sounds like Las Vegas could use decent train service running between the
airport and the city.

~~~
gregpilling
When they built the Monorail, that was the idea. Taxi companies put a stop to
it. The Monorail could still be extended from the south end to the airport.

