LETTERS: At airport, Uber and Lyft operate against everybody’s best interests

Ride-hailing services

Not too long ago, the Review-Journal was pushing for the services of Uber and Lyft to be allowed in Las Vegas because those companies tend to the suburban market — where you cannot get timely taxi service, and when you do, it is too expensive. One editorial high-fived McCarran International Airport for facilitating these services for arriving passengers ("McCarran wisely allows Uber, Lyft services," Aug. 27 Review-Journal).

I am wondering if the writer of that editorial has ever been to McCarran, landing there and then proceeding to the taxi queue the airport provides. What you see is the line of people who are waiting for taxis being swiftly and sequentially delivered into the next open taxi. As soon as the driver gets the bags in, the passengers are on their way. The wait for passengers is driven by the limited capacity of the taxi queue.

What you may not notice is the incredibly long line of taxis staged outside the pickup area. These drivers spend a minimum of 15 minutes waiting for their next fare.

Soon the airport will allow 32 Uber/Lyft vehicles to cut in line ahead of taxis. There is nothing to stop additional Uber/Lyft vehicles from jumping in and filling these spaces as they open. It will be no different than the taxi queue. So much for the disingenuous argument that Uber and Lyft fill the void for those who can't get transportation. The editorial refers to this as innovation for the tourist transportation industry. At the airport, it is business-busting and nothing more.

Yes, the Nevada Taxicab Authority is raising its rates. Why? Because taxis will have to sit longer to get their next fares. Instead of driving our taxi industry to financial difficulty, why not spend some time working with it on productive ways to reduce its costs and, subsequently, its rates? Start at McCarran and double or triple the taxi queue capacity.

So, what do we tell those trendy visitors who arrive at McCarran wanting Uber? We tell them the truth: It is in no one's interest, including theirs, to inject this half-baked, untested, rife-with-problems gypsy crew into our current, time-tested, ground-transport process.

Jim Cassidy

Henderson

ESAs a cosmetic fix

I have to disagree with columnist Glenn Cook's position on the recently created Education Savings Account law ("ESAs nothing like vouchers," Aug. 30 Review-Journal). Monies collected from the citizenry of the state of Nevada in the form of taxes to be used for education are public funds. You can call them ESAs, vouchers or pixie dust, but the process is funded by state taxes. So Mr. Cook is only playing semantics.

But the real problem is that the state Legislature is expanding the gap between the rich and the poor. The idea of wanting to increase educational opportunities for students by offering parents school choice might seem admirable, but if those choices aren't reachable by all parents of all children, then the Legislature has only succeeded in providing a subsidy to the wealthy who can afford the cost difference between public and private education. As Sarah Palin so eloquently put it, "It's lipstick on a pig."

Fredrick Wilkening

Henderson

Voters and social media

As a retiree, I chuckled at the story on Carly Fiorina following last week's GOP presidential debate ("Fiorina scores well on social media in face-off with Trump," Friday Review-Journal). We retired folk are probably the largest demographic of voters, because we are not at jobs or kept at home with child care. Those who use social media are likely teenagers and young adults, who would be the smallest demographic of voters.

I realize that digital information can be culled quickly and easily, but the demographic it represents is probably the lowest percentage of voters. Have someone go out to Siena or Sun City to poll our choices, and you might get a well-informed result.

Barbara Wishnev

Las Vegas