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.