BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: SB 1430 SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: Hill VERSION: 3/25/14 Analysis by: Nathan Phillips FISCAL: yes Hearing date: April 29, 2014 URGENCY: YES SUBJECT: Enforcement of ground transportation services at airports DESCRIPTION: This bill prohibits unregulated transportation operators from taking passengers to public airports. ANALYSIS: Existing law provides that a person who enters or remains on airport property owned by a city, county, or city and county, but located in another county, and sells, peddles, or offers for sale any goods, merchandise, property, or services of any kind whatsoever, including transportation services on or from, the airport property, without express written consent of the governing board of the airport property, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law as described above does not include transportation services to airport property. This urgency bill makes it a misdemeanor for transportation services to take passengers to public airports without the express written consent of the airport governing board. COMMENTS: 1.Purpose . According to the sponsor, transportation network companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft are currently operating illegally at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) by offering airport-return trip services to arriving air travelers who, at the end of their visit, will need to use ground transportation to return to the airport for departure home by air. Because current law does not include trips to the airport, these return trip services being offered on airport property constitute a legal loophole. The San Mateo County District Attorney, who prosecutes violations of illegal commercial activity on airport property, has declined to prosecute these cases because statute only includes SB 1430 (HILL) Page 2 transportation services from and on, but not to the airport. This bill would close the loophole by including transportation services to airports. 2.This bill may narrow, but not close the loophole . While the intent of this bill seems simple, the technology-enabled business it targets has proven to present challenges in interpreting existing law. For example, TNCs offering trips to airports are routinely arranged off of airport property, and could thus be interpreted as being exempt from this bill, since existing law and this bill requires services to be offered while on airport property. Where the financial transaction for a ride to the airport occurs - on entry to a vehicle off airport grounds, or upon exiting the vehicle at the airport - may be relevant to the applicability of this bill. Currently, Legislative Counsel is of the informal opinion that this bill will cover offers of return trips that are made at airports, but may not apply to rides to airports that are originally arranged off-site. The author may wish to amend the bill to clarify whether rides to the airport that are arranged off airport property should also be included in provisions of this bill. 3.Whack-a-mole ? Traffic has been likened to water, which, when faced with a new barrier, will re-route to find paths of least resistance. There is some potential for such a phenomenon to occur with TNC services as a result of this bill. TNCs could potentially arrange, pick up, and/or drop off passengers adjacent to airport property at convenient places with free shuttles, like (in the case of SFO) the long-term parking lot on South Airport Boulevard, the private ParkSFO lot on North Access Road, or, most conveniently, at the SFO Bart Station on North McDonnell Road, which serves as a pedestrian gateway to the terminals. The sponsor suggests that these are not practicable options for passengers because of the premium they place on convenient curbside drop-off. The TNC business model is however, based on a combination of convenience and price, and some travelers may trade off some inconvenience for a lower price. 4.Applicability to other public airports . According to the author, the governing statute proposed for amendment by this bill was written specifically for SFO, which is owned by the City and County of San Francisco but located in San Mateo County. However, there is at least one other airport (LA/Ontario International Airport) which is owned by a city SB 1430 (HILL) Page 3 (Los Angeles) but located in a different county (San Bernardino County). This bill would therefore apply to at least one public airport besides SFO. There does not appear to be unintended consequences of this broader applicability, but the author may wish to notify other public airports of this bill. 5.Urgency . This bill is an urgency act because of ongoing unregulated commercial activity by TNCs on airport property, which the author asserts creates a public safety problem. The CPUC is actively developing regulations for TNCs to protect public safety. Consistent with that effort, and because of an overall elevated security concern at airports, this urgency provision seems warranted. POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday, April 23, 2014.) SUPPORT: San Francisco International Airport (sponsor) OPPOSED: None received.