BILL ANALYSIS �
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.