Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
6 The digest does address public RSP service. However, mobility services such as carsharing/bike- sharing (even though those services may be incorpo- rated by transit agencies) are also beyond the scope of the digest. II. BACKGROUND A. General Background 1. Historical Use of Third Parties to Provide Demand Response Services Because demand response service appears to be the type of service of greatest interest to transit agencies evaluating their relationships with RSPs, the focus of this discussion is on the historical use of third partiesâprimarily taxisâto deliver demand response service, including paratransit, rather than on contracting out for fixed-route service. Numerous reports on transit agenciesâ use of contracting to provide transit services have discussed the use of taxis to deliver demand response service and of contracting for paratransit service.16 The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that by far, the biggest factor in contracting out demand response and paratran- sit service was cost reduction, followed by improv- ing efficiency, and then allowing for more flexible service.17 At least through the 1990s, almost one- third of taxi companies had contracts with transit agencies, with ADA paratransit being the second most common type of contract, after voucher contracts.18 The taxicab business model has moved from employee-based to independent contractor- based, which has affected how transit agencies relate to taxi companies in contracting for services, including ensuring the availability of wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs).19 A transit agency may also contract with a broker to manage its paratransit service, with the broker then subcontracting out to paratransit providers, including taxi companies. For example, San Fran- cisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) provides three types of ADA paratransit through its broker, Transdev: pre-scheduled, door-to-door ADA shared van service; taxi services, via a variety of providers; and group van services, via a variety of providers. SFMTA also provides three types of non-ADA paratransit services through Transdev.20 2. Growth of Ridesourcing Services Most public attention has been to TNCs whose drivers operate single-occupancy vehicles, but microtransit is also of significant interest. There is a plethora of early writing on TNCs 16 E.g., elIZabeth h. ellIS, uSe oF taxIS In PublIC tranS- PortatIon For PeoPle wIth dISabIlItIeS and older adultS (Transit Cooperative Research Program, TCRP Synthesis 119, Transportation Research Board of the National Acad- emies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, Washington, D.C., 2016); u.S. GoVât aCCountabIlIty oFFICe, GAO-13- 782, PublIC tranSIt: tranSIt aGenCIeSâ uSe oF ContraCtInG to ProVIde SerVICe (2013), accessible at http://www.gao. gov/products/GAO-13-782; StePhen l. reICh & Janet l. daVIS, Analysis of Contracting for Fixed Route Bus Service, natâl Ctr. For tranSIt reS. at Ctr. For urban tranSP. reS. (2011), http://www.nctr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/ 08/77923.pdf; Gorman GIlbert, thomaS J. Cook, anna naleVanko & lynn eVerett-lee, the role oF the PrIVate- For-hIre VehICle InduStry In PublIC tranSIt 48 (Transit Cooperative Research Program, TCRP Report 75, 2002), Transportation Research Board of the National Acade- mies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, Washington, D.C., http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_ 75.pdf. See also, marIlyn Golden, daVId ChIa, buFFy ellIS & ruSSell thatCher, aCCeSSIble tranSIt SerVICeS For all, FTA Report No. 0081, December 2014, at 3, 12â13 (citing extensive use of non-dedicated service providers such as taxicabs to provide some paratransit service), https:// www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/FTA_Report_ No._0081.pdf. 17 GAO-13-782, supra note 16 at 8. See also ellIS, supra note 16 at 60; Jon e. burkhardt, John doherty, JoSePh m. rubIno & Joohee yum, a SurVey on the uSe oF taxIS In ParatranSIt ProGramS, ch. 5, Benefits From Taxi Paratran- sit Programs, (Easter Seals Project Accessible Community Transportation in Our Neighborhood (ACTION) 2008), http://www.nadtc.org/wp-content/uploads/NADTC-Use-of- Taxis-in-Paratransit-Programs-Full-Report.pdf (accessed Mar. 13, 2017). The GAO report also noted that cost sav- ings come largely because contractors are able to pay lower wages, provide less benefits (GAO-13-782, supra note 16 at 9, 22â23), use part-time employees (id. at 11), and allegedly provide less training (id. at 23). 18 ellIS, supra note 16, at 8; GIlbert et al., supra note 16, at 22. Ellisâ 2016 report contains a literature review of transit/taxi partnerships. ellIS at 9â14. 19 ellIS, supra note 16, at 7, 52â53. See also, Bruce Schaller, Unfinished Business: A Blueprint for Uber, Lyft and Taxi Regulation, Sep. 20, 2016, (hereinafter Schaller (Blueprint)) at 13, n. 69, http://www.schallerconsult.com/ rideservices/blueprint.htm (accessed Feb. 4, 2017). 20 SFMTA Paratransit, https://www.sfmta.com/getting- around/accessibility/paratransit; SFMTA Board of Direc- tors, Overview of SF Paratransit Program, Nov. 3, 2015, https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/agendaitems/ 2015/11-3-15%20Item%2011%20Presentation%20on%20 SF%20Paratransit%20Services.pdf.
7 (2013â2015)21 that is already somewhat dated in terms of describing the current state of the RSP market. More recent Transportation Research Board reports have provided extensive discussions of the growth of the TNC market.22 In addition, ridesourcing patrons and trip purposes have been studied.23 Nota- bly, and with potential consequences for transit agen- cies seeking to enter into relationships with them, TNCs have resisted being categorized as transporta- tion companies. The TNC business model has led Uber, for example, to contend vociferously that it is a technology company, not a transportation company.24 This âtechnology companyâ contention has been rejected by at least some courts and regulatory agen- cies in the United States, as well as internationally. TNCs in particular have been regarded as having something of a âcoolness factorâ25 associated with them, but they also have had their share of negative publicity. Both Lyft and Uber have been the subject of private litigation and regulatory enforcement actions concerning their employment and business prac- tices.26 Lyft has also been accused of illegally deduct- ing workersâ compensation fees from driversâ pay.27 Uber has faced a series of challenges, including allegations concerning failure to report data breaches as required under state law, misuse of privacy data, intentionally evading regulators, foreign brib- ery, misrepresentation, inadequately paying drivers, pay discrimination, and theft of trade secrets.28 21 E.g., Peter VIeChnICkI, abhIJIt khuPerkar, tIFFany doVey FIShman & wIllIam d. eGGerS, Smart mobIlIty: reduCInG ConGeStIon and FoSterInG FaSter, Greener, and CheaPer tranSPortatIon oPtIonS, 10, 28, deloItte u. PreSS (2015), http://dupress.deloitte.com/dup-us-en/industry/ public-sector/smart-mobility-trends.html; Alison Griswold, How Uber and Lyft stack up in the United States, Slate (Sept. 11, 2014, 5:54 PM), http://www.slate.com/blogs/ moneybox/2014/09/11/uber_vs_lyft_futureadvisor_study_ compares_revenue_users_growth_at_the_companies.html. 22 E.g., between PublIC and PrIVate mobIlIty, supra note 10; FeIGon & murPhy, supra note 6. 23 Lisa Rayle, Danielle Dai, Nelson Chan, Robert Cer- vero & Susan Shaheen, Just a better taxi? A survey-based comparison of taxis, transit, and ridesourcing services in San Francisco, 45 tranSPort PolICy 168, 171â75 (2016); FeIGon & murPhy, supra note 6. 24 E.g., Alexi Pfeffer-Gillett, When Disruption Collides With Accountability: Holding Ridesharing Companies Liable for Their Drivers, 104 Cal. l. reV. 233, 239 (2016); JameS thorSon & VeronICa l. GIll, For hIre tranSPorta- tIon SerVICeS rePort, a Study by the InStItute For munIC- IPal & reGIonal PolICy (IMRP) 12 (Central Connecticut State University, 2015), accessible from http://cslib.cdm- host.com/cdm/ref/collection/p128501coll2/id/353505. 25 Eric Jaffe, Uber and Public Transit Are Trying to Get Along, CItylab, Aug. 3, 2015, http://www.citylab.com/ cityfixer/2015/08/uber-and-public-transit-are-trying-to- get-along/400283/ (accessed Mar. 12, 2017). 26 See infra Part IV, State and Local Legal and Risk Management Issues Related to Relationships with RSPs, and Part V, RSP Cases and Regulatory Proceedings. 27 Louise Esola, Lyft faces lawsuit over workers comp fees, buS. InSuranCe, Oct. 19, 2017, http://www.businessin- surance.com/article/20171019/NEWS08/912316629/Lyft- faces-lawsuit-over-workers-comp-fees--?utm_campaign= BI20171019DailyBriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_ source=ActiveCampaign (accessed Oc. 19, 2017). 28 Eric Newcomer, Uber Pushed the Limits of the Law. Now Comes the Reckoning, bloomberG, Oct. 11, 2017, https:// www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-10-11/uber- pushed-the-limits-of-the-law-now-comes-the-reckoning (accessed Oct. 30, 2017). See also, Johana Bhuiyan, The city of Chicago is suing Uber for failing to disclose the 2016 breach of 57 million usersâ data, reCode, Nov. 27, 2017, https://www.recode.net/2017/11/27/16707550/uber-chicago- data-breach (accessed Nov. 28, 2017); Joe Carmichael, Ex- Employee: Uber Stalked Politicians, Celebs (BeyoncÃ©), and Exes, InVerSe, Dec. 12, 2016, https://www.inverse.com/ article/25093-uber-infosec (accessed Jan. 26, 2017); Eliza- beth Dwoskin, DOJ is investigating whether Uber broke the law against foreign bribery, waSh. PoSt, Aug. 29, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/ wp/2017/08/29/doj-is-investigating-whether-uber-broke-the- law-against-foreign-bribery/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_ uber-930pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=. 055fd3c10082 (accessed Aug. 29, 2017); Stephanie Forshee, Uber Faces Pay Discrimination Claims From Former Female Engineers, the reCorder, Oct. 24, 2017, https://www.law. com/therecorder/sites/therecorder/2017/10/24/uber-faces- pay-discrimination-claims-from-former-female-engineers/ (accessed Oct. 24, 2017); Ben Hancock & Vanessa Blum, Google Wins Injunction in Trade Secrets Fight Against Uber, law.Com, May 15, 2017, http://www.law.com/sites/alm- staff/2017/05/15/google-wins-injunction-in-trade-secrets- fight-against-uber/ (accessed May 15, 2017); Dan Levine & Joseph Menn, Exclusive: Uber faces criminal probe over soft- ware used to evade authorities, reuterS, May 4, 2017, http:// www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-tech-crime-exclusive- idUSKBN1802U1 (accessed May 5, 2017); Pamela MacLean, Lyft Drivers Sue Uber Saying It Spied on Them to Gain Edge, bloomberG, Apr. 24, 2017, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/ articles/2017-04-24/lyft-drivers-accuse-uber-of-spying-to- gain-competitive-edge (accessed Apr. 27, 2017); Eric New- comer, Uber Plans Millions in Back Pay After Shorting NYC Drivers, bloomberG, May 23, 2017, https://www.bloomberg. com/news/articles/2017-05-23/uber-said-it-shortchanged- nyc-drivers-will-pay-out-millions (accessed May 23, 2017); Tony Romm, Uber is facing fresh, sharp rebukes from Con- gress for initially withholding details about a 2016 security breach, reCode, Feb. 6, 2018, https://www.recode.net/2018/ 2/6/16980356/uber-congress-senate-commerce-committee- 2016-security-breach (accessed Feb. 7, 2018); Ross Todd & Caroline Spiezio, In Contentious Pretrial Hearing, Judge Alsop Slams Uber over Secretive Data Practices, Delays Trial, the reCorder, Nov. 28, 2017, https://www.law.com/the recorder/sites/therecorder/2017/11/28/alsup-to-delay- waymo-v-uber-trial-citing-revelations-from-us-attorneys- investigation/ (accessed March 8, 2018); Dustin Volz, RPT- Uber to end post-trip tracking of riders as part of privacy push, reuterS, Aug. 29, 2017, http://www.reuters.com/article/ uber-privacy-idUSL2N1LF01Q (accessed Aug. 30, 2017). The Greyball allegations have drawn the attention of other authorities as well, e.g., Elliot Njus, Portland to investigate Uberâs âGreyballâ scheme to thwart regulators, oreGonIan, Mar. 7, 2017, http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index. ssf/2017/03/ubers_greyball_scheme_to_thwar.html (accessed Mar. 11, 2017).
8 In September 2017, Transport for London (TfL) announced that it would not renew Uberâs license to operate because of Uberâs unfitness to operate safely. TfL cited Uberâs improper reporting of criminal offenses, its medical certificate process, its driver background checks, and its explanation of Greyball.29 It appeared that Uber might also be facing congres- sional inquiry as a result of the companyâs cover up of its 2016 data breach.30 The fact that Uber report- edly disclosed the breach to a potential investor about three weeks before it disclosed the breach to authorities31 was a matter of concern. Ridesourcing Services in General.âAlthough the term may be used in slightly varying ways, for purposes of this digest, ridesourcing is defined as including both microtransit and TNCs. Microtransit refers to âmulti- passenger transportation servicesâ¦ that serve passen- gers using dynamically generated routes, and may expect passengers to make their way to and from common pick-up or drop-off points,â delivered in vehi- cles larger than passenger sedans but smaller than full-sized buses.32 There are several ways microtransit providers can work with public transit agencies, including providing dynamically routed bus service and licensing dynamic routing technology.33 The more prevalent type of TNC service is the provision of prearranged rides by a driver operating a personal, noncommercial vehicle who connects to a 29 Sarah Butler & Gwyn Topham, Uber stripped of London licence due to lack of corporate responsibility, the GuardIan, Sept. 22, 2017, https://www.theguardian. com/technology/2017/sep/22/uber-licence-transport-for- london-tfl; James Titcomb, Uber denied London licence in shock move that bans cars from cityâs streets, the teleGraPh, Sept. 22, 2017, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ technology/2017/09/22/uber-denied-london-licence-huge- setback-app/ (accessed Sept. 25, 2017). 30 See November 27, 2017 Letter from Senator Mark Warner to Dara Khosrowshahi, CEO of Uber, https://www. scribd.com/document/365661732/11-27-2017-Letter-to- Uber (accessed Nov. 28, 2017). 31 Uber told SoftBank about data breach before telling public, reuterS, Nov. 23, 2017, https://www.reuters.com/ article/us-uber-cyberattack-disclosure/uber-told-softbank- about-data-breach-before-telling-public-idUSKBN1 DN28A (accessed Nov. 28, 2017). 32 E.g., FeIGon & murPhy, supra note 6, at 5. Note that Feigon & Murphy define âridesourcingâ as providers such as Uber and Lyft, which are simply referred to in this digest as TNCs. See also, between PublIC and PrIVate mobIlIty, supra note 10, at 16; Shaheen et al., supra note 2, at 14. 33 E.g., Via partners with Keolis and LeCab to launch on-demand shared ride service in Paris, Jan. 31, 2017, https://ridewithvia.com/2017/01/via-launch-in-paris/ (accessed Feb. 9, 2017) (announcement includes reference to Via licensing its on-demand transit technology to trans- portation operators); Building the Operating System for the future of transportation, Jan. 31, 2017, https://ridewith- via.com/2017/01/building-operating-system-future- transportation/ (accessed Feb. 11, 2017). 34 Shaheen et al., supra note 2. 35 between PublIC and PrIVate mobIlIty, supra note 10, at 14. 36 Work with transit agencies: See infra Appendix D. App integration: Transportation software companies offer multimodal apps that include public transit, TNCs, and other modes, e.g., Moovelâs RideTap, https://www.moovel-transit. com/products, routematCh, https://www.routematch.com/ solutions/amble/; in 2017 Uber integrated its app with the Transit app (Andrew Salzberg, Uber + Transit Makes it Easy to be Multimodal, May 16, 2017, http://ridesharenews.org/ 2017/05/16/uber-transit-makes-it-easy-to-be-multimodal/); Lyft has integrated its app with Trapeze (Trapeze Group and Lyft Work Together to Transform American Paratransit Service, Oct. 9, 2017, http://www.trapezegroup.com/news/ article/trapeze-group-and-lyft-work-together-to-transform- american-paratransit). Title VI efforts: Uber Central allows entities to request Uber rides from their Uber busi- ness account on behalf of their customers, who do not need an Uber account or smartphone to use the service, (Greg Greiner, Uber for Business now makes it easy to give your customers a ride, Apr. 18, 2017, https://www.uber.com/ newsroom/u4b-central/) and has been used in transit agency relationships to provide service to customers who are unbanked and/or do not own smartphones; Concierge is Lyftâs analogous service, https://www.lyft.com/business/concierge, and has also been included in transit agency agreements. Automated vehicles: Dara Kerr, Self-driving Lyft cars are headed to San Francisco, C/net, Sept. 7, 2017, https:// www.cnet.com/news/lyft-self-driving-cars-are-headed-to- san-francisco/ (accessed Sept. 13, 2017). Other providers have begun to offer autonomous service. Alexandria Sage, Waymo launching ride-hailing service in Phoenix with no human behind wheel, reuterS, Nov. 7, 2017, http://www. reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-selfdriving/waymo- launching-ride-hailing-service-in-phoenix-with-no-human- behind-wheel-idUSKBN1D72BU (accessed Nov. 7, 2017). 37 Sidecar, one of the original TNCs, and microtransit providers Bridj, Split, Loup, Leap, and Nighschool have gone out of business. Sunil Paul, So Long Sidecar and Thanks, medIum, Dec. 29, 2015, https://medium.com/@ SunilPaul/so-long-sidecar-and-thanks-74c8a0955064#. wg78lt3oj (accessed Aug. 27, 2017); Bridj Microtransit Shutdown, Shared Use Mobility Center, May 3, 2017, http://policies.sharedusemobilitycenter.org/#/analysis/58 (accessed Oct. 7, 2017). passenger (or related passengers) through an online platform. A variation of that common TNC service is ride splitting, where a single TNC driver uses the online platform to provide prearranged rides to unre- lated passengers traveling along similar routes.34 The fare for ride-splitting passengers is discounted from the regular TNC fare. These two types of TNC services have also been described as sequential and concurrent shared mobility, respectively.35 As of 2017, recent trends among RSPs included efforts to work with transit agencies and local governments, app integration, facilitating usage by unbanked customers and customers without smartphones, and exploring service delivery via autonomous vehicles.36 There has been a churn in the RSP industry since its inception in 2010.37 As of November 2017, the
9 as well as arguably worth less.40[E-5] Uber began in 2010 in San Francisco as UberCab, a black-car service (delivered by commercial drivers using high- end vehicles) that allowed passengers to book a ride via an online platform. Later that year, the company shortened its name to Uber after SFMTA and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) ordered the company to cease marketing an unli- censed cab company. In 2012, Uber launched UberX, a service delivered by (non-professional) drivers using their own vehicles.41 By 2018, Uberâs services also included UberPool, Uberâs ride-splitting service; Express Pool, a lower-cost ride-splitting service; UberXL (same as UberX, but the vehicles must seat up to six passengers); UberSelect (guarantees higher-end personal sedans); and UberBLACK (essentially the same as the original UberCab). Although UberPool has not been popular with Uber drivers, the company has placed a lot of emphasis on the service, and in 2018 launched Express Pool, which was less expensive than UberPool and required riders to walk farther to pick up their rides and to be dropped off farther from their destina- tions.[E-4]42 Uber Commute facilitates carpooling among daily commuters and does not include any vetting of the drivers.43 UberWAV and UberAssist are marketed as ADA services, although they have been criticized as being more of a way to use the Uber platform to find accessible service offered by other providers than actual provision of ADA 38 E.g., Transloc (MicroTransit Simulator, http://transloc. com/ondemand-microtransit-simulator/, Microtransit Pilot, http://transloc.com/ondemand-microtransit-pilot/, TransLoc OnDemand (agency-owned microtransit), http://transloc. com/microtransit-ondemand-software/; Ridecell, https:// ridecell.com/faq.html, Customer Success Story: Southwest Transit, https://ridecell.com/downloads/Ridecell_SouthWest %20Transit%20Case%20Study.pdf; DemandTrans Intro- duces New MaaS-Builder Simulator, maSS tranSIt, Feb. 5, 2018, http://www.masstransitmag.com/press_release/ 12395558/the-mobility-as-a-service-revolution-has-arrived- demandtrans-introduces-new-maas-builder-simulator (accessed Feb. 5, 2018). In January 2018, TransLoc was acquired by Ford. [E-3] Ridecell also markets an autono- mous operations platform. Joseph White, Ford buys trans- port services startups Autonomic, TransLoc, reuterS, Jan. 25, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autonomic- m-a-ford/ford-buys-transport-services-startups-autonomic- transloc-idUSKBN1FE2I1 (accessed Jan. 26, 2018). Ride- cell Introduces the First Complete Autonomous New Mobility Solution with Acquisition of Auro and the Launch of the Ridecell Autonomous Operations Platform, PR Newswire, Oct. 9, 2017, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ ridecell-introduces-the-first-complete-autonomous-new- mobility-solution-with-acquisition-of-auro-and-the-launch- of-the-ridecell-autonomous-operations-platform- 300532889.html (accessed Oct. 16, 2017). 39 Johana Bhuiyan, Uberâs U.S. sales have recovered after the #deleteUber campaign but Lyft is still gaining, reCode, Nov. 5, 2017, https://www.recode.net/2017/11/5/16599156/ uber-business-market-share-lyft-scandal-delete-uber (accessed Nov. 6, 2017). In 2017, Googleâs parent company invested $1 billion in Lyft, after having invested in Uber in 2013. Tracey Lien, Lyft gets $1-billion investment, led by Googleâs parent company, L.A. tImeS, Oct. 19, 2017, http:// www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-lyft- alphabet-google-20171019-story.html (accessed Oct. 27, 2017). Although Uber Technologies, Inc. is the company that owns the app, Rasier LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary, is the entity that actually contracts with the drivers. See, e.g., Nevada Transportation Authority permit issued to Rasier LLC, neVada tranSPortatIon authorIty order and PermIt: Rasier LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Uber Technologies, Inc., TNC 0002, Docket 15-08017, Sept. 14, 2015, http://nta.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/ntanvgov/content/ Carriers/Certificates/P_to_S/Rasier_Uber_Permit_ TNC_0002-cert.pdf (accessed Aug. 29, 2017). In addition, there are state-specific Rasier LLCs. For simplicity of discussion, these entities are referred to as âUberâ through- out this digest except where distinguishing between them is germane. major players in the TNC industry were Uber and Lyft, as well as a number of regional and local TNCs. Chariot appeared to be the major microtransit service provider, although Transdev was also moving into that space. Via offered several on-demand services, with all rides provided by Via driversâ regardless of vehicle typeâto be shared. There are also companies that do not provide their own service, but do market microtransit software services to transit agencies and others.38 Uber.âUber is the largest TNC in the United States, although it became less dominant in 2017,39 40 Theodore Schleifer, Uberâs valuation dropped 20 per- cent, according to some investors, reCode, Jan. 11, 2018, https://www.recode.net/2018/1/11/16879370/mutual-funds- uber-wall-street-fidelity-principal-blackrock-valuation (accessed Jan. 11, 2018). [E-5] 41 See Mike Isaac, Uberâs C.E.O. Plays With Fire, N.Y. tImeS, Apr. 23, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/23/ technology/travis-kalanick-pushes-uber-and-himself-to- the-precipice.html?_r=0 (accessed Oct. 7, 2017); Shaheen et al., supra note 2, at 1; thorSon & GIll, supra, at 24, (Uberâs beginning as UberCab, a town/black-car service). 42 Johana Bhuiyan, Uber drivers will get a flat fee for every new pick up on Pool rides, reCode, Sept. 26, 2017, https://www.recode.net/2017/9/26/16365904/uber-drivers- pool-driver-improvement (accessed Oct. 7, 2017). As of March 2016, UberPool accounted for more than half the Uber trips taken in some cities. Farhad Manjoo, Car-Pooling Helps Uber Go the Extra Mile, N.Y. tImeS, Mar. 30, 2016. Express Pool was intended to make ride share more effi- cient. Johana Bhuiyan, Uberâs new âExpress Poolâ is all about getting more riders to share rides, reCode, Feb. 21, 2018, https://www.recode.net/2018/2/21/17032598/uber-express- pool-transit-bus-cheaper (accessed Feb. 22, 2018). [E-4] 43 Andrew Metcalf, Uber Commute Expands into Mont- gomery County, betheSda maGaZIne, Oct. 23, 2017, http:// www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/2017/Uber- Commute-Expands-into-Montgomery-County/ (accessed Nov. 8, 2017).
10 services.44 By 2017, Uber had also begun providing routing services to local agencies.45 Lyft.âLyft was the successor company to Zimride, a ridesharing service, and is the second largest TNC in the United States. In 2012, Lyft was one of the first companies (along with Sidecar) to offerâalso in San Franciscoâservice that allowed passengers to book rides via its online platform with drivers who used their own personal vehicles. In 2014, Lyft launched Lyft Line, Lyftâs ride-splitting service. Lyft Line has accounted for more than half of the Lyft rides in San Francisco and as much as one-third of its overall business.46 Lyft has also entered into partnerships with medical providers to furnish non- emergency ambulatory transportation service.47 In 2016, Lyft began Lyft Premier, allowing passengers to book rides in higher-end vehicles, at a higher fare than regular Lyft service; in 2017 Lyft began Lux (offering black-car service) and Lyft SUV (luxury black SUV service), at substantially higher fares than ordinary Lyft service.48 Lyft also offers shuttle serviceâessentially microtransitâin San Francisco and Chicago.49 In 2016, Lyft briefly offered a carpool service that was similar to Uber Commute.50 Regional/Local TNCs.âA variety of regional and local TNCs have developed.51 These include RideAus- tin in Austin, Texas; Hovit, in Denver; Gett in New York City; Juno in New York City; Waze in San Fran- cisco; Wingz, offering service to airports; and See Jane Go in Orange County, California. These regional TNCs may operate differently than Uber and Lyft. RideAus- tin, for example, is a nonprofit, takes $3 in fees on each ride rather than taking a portion of the fare, and requires fingerprint background checks.52 Regional TNCs may also differ from Uber and Lyft in terms of their position on driver employment classification. Chariot.âChariot began in 2014 in San Francisco. By 2015 the company operated company-owned vans driven by its own employees over crowd-sourced routes. Ford Motor Company acquired Chariot in 2016, after which Chariot expanded operations to Austin, Seattle, and New York City. Chariot also provides commuting service to employers,53 and as of 44 Accessibility at Uber, Aug. 29, 2017, https://accessibility. uber.com (accessed Nov. 9, 2017). But see, Heather Kelly, Uberâs services for the disabled lack actual cars, CNN money, May 3, 2016, http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/02/ technology/uber-access/ (accessed Feb. 16, 2017). See also Bryan Casey, Uberâs Dilemma: How the ADA May End the On-Demand Economy, 12 U. maSS. l. reV. 124, 156â57 (2017) (hereinafter Casey (Dilemma). 45 E.g., Lone Tree Link on Demand, http://www.lone- treelink.com/link-on-demand-faqs. In 2017, the city of Lone Tree, Colorado, initiated a pilot that allowed passen- gers to use the Uber app to book on-demand rides on Lone Tree wheelchair accessible shuttles, driven by third-party contractor professional drivers. 46 Andrew J. Hawkins, Lyft envisions a future where you either carpool or pay to drive, the VerGe, Jan. 17, 2017, http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/17/14294736/lyft-traffic- carpool-congestion-pricing-hov-logan-green (accessed Feb. 22, 2017); Timothy Brown, Matchmaking in Lyft Line â Part 1, Feb. 2, 2016, https://eng.lyft.com/matchmaking-in- lyft-line-9c2635fe62c4 (accessed Oct. 7, 2017); Timothy Brown, Matchmaking in Lyft Line â Part 3, Apr. 20, 2016, https://eng.lyft.com/matchmaking-in-lyft-line-part- 3-d8f9497c0e51 (accessed Oct. 7, 2017). 47 Ellie Hensley, Logisticare launches Lyft partnership in 276 cities, atlanta buS. Chron., Feb. 7, 2017, https:// www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2017/02/07/logisticare- launches-lyft-partnership-in-276.html (accessed Sept. 14, 2017); Julia Horowitz, Blue Cross Blue Shield will offer customers free Lyft rides, CNN, May 10, 2017, http:// money.cnn.com/2017/05/10/technology/lyft-rides-blue- cross-blue-shield/index.html (accessed Oct. 7, 2017). 48 Tracey Lien, Lyft takes on Uberâs black luxury car ser- vices by launching Lyft Lux, L.A. tImeS, May 25, 2017, http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-lyft- lux-20170524-story.html (accessed Oct. 7, 2017). 49 Darrell Etherington, Lyft adds more routes and com- mute scheduling to Shuttle service, teCh CrunCh, Sept. 14, 2017, https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/14/lyft-adds-more- routes-and-commute-scheduling-to-shuttle-service/ (accessed Sept. 20, 2017). 50 Brian Solomon, Lyft Shuts Down Carpool Commute Feature As Drivers Opt Out, ForbeS, Aug. 18, 2016, https:// www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2016/08/18/lyft- shuts-down-carpool-commute-feature-as-drivers-opt- out/#1bae372e6f09 (accessed Nov. 8, 2017). 51 Ride Austin: Andy Tryba & Marisa Goldenberg, Top 5 things we learned from our first million RideAustin rideshare trips, auStIn StartuPS, Feb. 27, 2017, https://austinstartups. com/top-5-things-we-learned-from-our-first-million- rideaustin-rideshare-trips-1fe9f77cea63#.og9nl8d8j (accessed Feb. 22, 2017); maarIt moran, PolICy ImPlICatIonS oF tranS- PortatIon network ComPanIeS 3, tranSP. Polây reS. Ctr, texaS a&m tranSP. InSt., http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront. net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/PRC-2016-1.pdf; RideAustin, http://www.rideaustin.com/#introducing-ride-austin. Hovit: Emily Williams, Thereâs a New Ride-Sharing App in Town, 5280, Feb. 28, 2017, http://www.5280.com/news/science/ digital/2017/02/theres-new-ridesharing-app-town (accessed Mar. 10, 2017). Gett, Juno, Waze, Wingz, and See Jane Go: Joe Carmichael, The Best New Alternatives to Uber and Lyft, InVerSe InnoVatIon, Feb. 3, 2017, https://www.inverse.com/ article/25179-uber-lyft-other-options (accessed Oct. 7, 2017). 52 Frequently Asked Questions, rIdeauStIn, http://www. rideaustin.com/faq/. 53 Building sustainable mass transit, CharIot, https:// www.chariot.com/about; Chariot for Employers, https:// www.chariot.com/enterprise. Darrell Etherington, Chariot expands to Columbus, Ohio with JPMorgan Chase com- muter shuttle, teChCrunCh, Jan. 17, 2018, https://techcrunch. com/2018/01/17/chariot-expands-to-columbus-ohio-with- jpmorgan-chase-commuter-shuttle/ (accessed Feb. 9, 2018) [E-6]; Joseph White, Ford buys transport services startups Autonomic, TransLoc, reuterS, Jan. 25, 2018, https://www. reuters.com/article/us-autonomic-m-a-ford/ford-buys- transport-services-startups-autonomic-transloc-idUSKBN 1FE2I1 (accessed Jan. 26, 2018).
11 January 2018, appeared to be preparing to shift its focus to such service. Chariot still creates crowd- sourced routes by allowing potential riders to nomi- nate routes.54 Chariot has maintained that its service can fill transit deserts within cities. In San Francisco, its main venue, about 20% of its trips are to or from public transit links, including at least one route to be subsidized by a local government.55 In 2016, Chariot filed an application with the CPUC to operate as a fixed-route and on-demand passenger stage corporation. Several protests were filed; Chariot withdrew the application.56 In October 2017, Chariot was cited by the California Highway Patrol for having drivers operate without Commer- cial Class B licenses, resulting in a brief shut down of service.57 Transdev Link.âIn 2016, Transdev began to offer a microtransit platform that provides transit agen- cies with an FMLM solution that can be branded as an extension of the transit agencyâs service. Trans- dev provides the vehicles, drivers, and routing soft- ware. The service is ADA-compliant, allows for both cash and credit payment, and allows for real-time General Transit Feed Specificaiton and data ware- house integration. Transdev also offers an integrated trip planning and payment app for transit systems.58 The Hillsborough Area Regional Transit pilot of Transdev Link is described infra Appendix D. Via.âVia began on-demand service in New York City in September 2013. As of November 2017, Via also operated in Chicago and Washington D.C. The drivers use their own vehicles, which may include vehicles leased through companies working with Via. Passengers are picked up on nearby street corners as determined by the Via software; all rides are shared. Via also licenses its dynamic routing technology to transit agencies and other entities.59 In late 2017, Via was announced as LA Metroâs part- ner to provide TNC FMLM service in a 2018 pilot. Although not available in the United States as of November 2017, in September 2017, Via began an initiative with Daimler AG to provide on-demand shuttle services across Europe, as well as to license Viaâs on-demand shuttle operating system to Euro- pean transit authorities and municipalities.60 Public RSP Service.âThe Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) appears to have been the first transit agency to receive widespread recognition for operating its own microtransit service, which it did in partnership with the now- defunct Bridj.61 In October 2017, LA Metro issued a microtransit RFP seeking private partners to work with the agency in developing a public microtransit project. Both Chariot and Via have worked with public agencies to provide public microtransit 59 Passengers: Welcome to Via. We ride together, https:// ridewithvia.com; Drivers: Join Team Via!, https:// my.drivewithvia.com; Leasing: Vehicle Renting & Leasing Opportunities, https://nyc.drivewithvia.com/viavehicle- leasing/; Licensing: Via builds the most powerful on- demand transit systems in the world, https://viaplatform. wpengine.com. 60 Press Release, Ride with Via, Via and Daimler announce strategic investment and partnership to bring Viaâs technology to Europe and develop future mobility solutions (Sept. 5, 2017), https://ridewithvia.com/2017/09/ via-daimler-strategic-investment-partnership/ (accessed November 27, 2017). 61 See Appendix D. Also, in 2015, Salem, Oregon, initiated a real-time on-demand service based on software developed by university students for the system; Ashley Steward, More Uber Than Bus: Salemâs New Transit Service, boISe State PublIC radIo, July 28, 2015, http://boisestatepublicradio.org/ post/more-uber-bus-salems-new-transit-service#stream/0 (accessed Feb. 20, 2017). However, in 2017, the Cherriots Board voted to replace the Connector with fixed route ser- vice, effective 2018. Caleb Diehl, The Bus is Back: Salem experiments with an on-demand bus, oreGon buSIneSS, Oct. 31, 2017, https://www.oregonbusiness.com/article/item/18070- the-bus-is-back-salem-experiments-with-an-on-demand- bus-that-acts-like-uber (accessed Nov. 6, 2017). Grove Transit, a private provider in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, started GroveRideNow, using employee drivers who are trained, background/fingerprint checked, and drug tested. GroveRideNow, https://www.groveridenow.com. 54 Mass Transit Reinvented: The future of Chariotâs ser- vice is up to you! CharIot, July 17, 2017, https://blog.chariot. com/2017/07/17/the-future-of-chariots-service-is-up-to-you/. 55 Richard Morgan, Ford is readying a shuttle service to ease NYCâs âSummer of Hellâ, N.Y. PoSt, July 27, 2017, http://nypost.com/2017/07/27/ford-is-readying-a-shuttle- service-to-ease-nycs-summer-of-hell/ (accessed Oct. 8, 2017); Nat Levy, Chariot CEO says Ford-owned shuttle service will help alleviate Seattleâs âtransit desertsâ, GeekwIre, June 21, 2017, https://www.geekwire.com/2017/chariot- ceo-says-ford-owned-shuttle-service-will-help-alleviate- seattles-transit-deserts/ (accessed Oct. 8, 2017); Carolyn Said, Chariot to add 50 vans, increase shuttle frequency, add routes, S.F. Chron., Nov. 30, 2016, http://www. sfchronicle.com/business/article/Chariot-to-add-50-vans- increase-shuttle-10643284.php?t=a706e2ac60&cmpid= email-premium (accessed Oct. 8, 2017). 56 Erin Baldassari, Can crowd-sourcing bus routes solve Bay Area commutersâ woes?, merCury newS, Nov. 27, 2017, http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/27/building-a- better-bus-can-crowd-sourcing-bus-routes-solve- commuters-woes/ (accessed Nov. 29, 2017). 57 Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez, CHP inspections revealed some Chariot drivers drove without proper licenses, S.F. examIner, October 23, 2017, http://www.sfexaminer.com/ chp-inspections-revealed-chariot-drivers-drove-without- proper-licenses/ (accessed Oct. 23, 2017). 58 Transdev Link, http://www.transdevna.com/services- and-modes/first-and-last-mile/. The app is GoMobile, http://www.transdevna.com/transdev-difference/innova- tive-mobility/.
12 service.62 Several of the public microtransit projects that were begun or proposed in 201763 are included in Appendix E. While most of the activity in this area has involved microtransit, in the wake of TfLâs decision not to renew Uberâs operating license, suggestions were raised that London create its own nonprofit alternative to Uber.64 Effect on Taxicab Usage.âThe rapid growth of TNCs has negatively affected the taxicab industry.65 Not only has ridership suffered, but the taxi indus- try has also lost a significant number of drivers to TNCs.66 TNCsâ detrimental effect on the taxi industry has also affected local efforts at taxi deregulation67 and the availability of WAVs. E-hail appsâ intended to allow taxicabs to better compete with TNCs68âare regarded by at least some in the taxi industry as useful in competing with TNCs.69 History of Regulation.70âWhen TNCs began to emerge as a market force, they faced an uncertain regulatory landscape. The major TNCs themselves asserted that they were not transportation compa- nies at all and so not subject to regulations govern- ing taxi companies, livery services, and other similar providers. Uber in particular moved into markets without any regulatory approval.71 Various state and local governments attempted to assert some modicum of regulatory control, with some issuing cease and desist letters. In 2013, in what appears to have been the first major state regulatory action related to TNCs, the CPUC initiated a rulemaking proceeding concern- ing those then-novel entities. Details of that proceed- ing are discussed infra Part IV.A, General State/ Local Responsibility for Regulation of RSPs, in this 62 Ellen Garrison, Itâs billed as a mix between a bus and Uber, all for a few bucks or less, SaCramento bee, Nov. 8, 2017, http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article183340381. html (accessed Nov. 9, 2017); Adele Peters, This New Sim- ulator Helps Cities Test A Future Of On-Demand Transit, FaSt ComPany, Aug. 1, 2017, https://www.fastcompany. com/40446331/this-new-simulator-helps-cities-test-a- future-of-on-demand-transit (accessed Nov. 2, 2017). See also, Luz Lazo, For public transit agencies losing riders, microtransit might be an answer, waSh. PoSt, Feb. 3, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommut- ing/for-public-transit-agencies-loosing-riders-microtran- sit-might-be-an-answer/2018/02/03/37771f46-0070-11e8- 9d31-d72cf78dbeee_story.html?utm_term=.f13790bf02b8 (accessed Feb. 5, 2018)[E-7]; Detroit and Atlanta Transit Agencies Win TransLocâs MicroTransit Accelerator Chal- lenge, tranSloC marketInG, Nov. 20, 2017, http://transloc. com/detroit-atlanta-transit-agencies-win-translocs-micro- transit-accelerator-challenge/ (accessed Nov. 21, 2017). 63 See Erin Baldassari, East Bay bus agency to launch Uber-like âon-demandâ service, merCury newS, Nov. 16, 2017, http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/16/east-bay- bus-agency-to-launch-uber-like-on-demand-service/ (accessed Nov. 22, 2017). 64 Ben Schiller, Could London Set Up A Nonprofit, Cooperative Alternative To Uber?, FaSt ComPany, Oct. 2, 2017, https://www.fastcompany.com/40473251/could-london- set-up-a-nonprofit-alternative-to-uber (accessed Oct. 4, 2017). 65 ellIS, supra note 16, at 61â62; Tim Stenovec, More proof that Uber is killing the taxi industry, buS. InSIder, Jan. 7, 2016, (reporting that Yellow Cab of San Francisco planned to file for bankruptcy protection) http://www. businessinsider.com/more-proof-that-uber-is-killing-the- taxi-industry-2016-1 (accessed Dec. 5, 2016). 66 Laura J. Nelson, Uber and Lyft have devastated L.A.âs taxi industry, city records show, L.A. tImeS, Apr. 14, 2016, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-uber-lyft- taxis-la-20160413-story.html; Schaller (Blueprint), supra note 19, at 9. While the migration of drivers from taxi to Uber began relatively early, J.P. Mangalindan, San Francisco cab drivers are Uberâs latest pickup, Fortune, Jan. 15, 2014, http://fortune.com/2014/01/15/san-francisco- cab-drivers-are-ubers-latest-pickup/ (accessed Mar. 16, 2017), more recently there had also been movement in the other direction, Matthew Flamm, Drivers are breaking up with Uber to get back with yellow, CraInâS n.y. buS., June 5, 2016, http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20160605/ TECHNOLOGY/160609940/the-yellow-cab-industry- shows-the-first-inklings-of-a-comeback-meanwhile-in-a- driveway-in-queens-brinto-rasheds-black-lexus-sits-idle (accessed Mar. 16, 2017). 67 David Garrick, Taxi deregulation in San Diego has fallen flat thanks to Uber, Lyft, San dIeGo unIon-trIb., Sept. 16, 2017, http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/ news/politics/sd-me-taxi-deregulate-20170915-story. html (accessed Sept. 18, 2017). 68 Shaheen et al., supra note 2, at 20. See also, ARRO Officially Approved by City of Houston to Provide Trans- portation App Service for All of Houstonâs For-Hire Vehicles, PR newSwIre, Oct. 24, 2016, http://www.prnewswire.com/ news-releases/arro-officially-approved-by-city-of-houston- to-provide-transportation-app-service-for-all-of-houstons- for-hire-vehicles-300349881.html (accessed Mar. 3, 2017). 69 Ellis, supra note 16, at 57. Whether that is in fact the case is unclear. Such apps have been available at least since 2014. Jeff Bercovici, Flywheel, the Anti-Uber for Taxi Hailing, Raises $12 Million for Expansion, InC., Nov. 20, 2014, https://www.inc.com/jeff-bercovici/flywheel-anti-uber. html (accessed Oct. 8, 2017). However, taxicab numbers have continued to plummet. E.g., Lauren Williams, The Uber effect: Ride-hailing apps have driven taxi drivers down by nearly half, oranGe County reGISter, Apr. 27, 2016, http://www.ocregister.com/2016/04/27/the-uber-effect- ride-hailing-apps-have-driven-taxi-drivers-down-by- nearly-half/ (accessed Oct. 8, 2017). 70 See infra Part III, Federal Legal Issues Affecting Relationships With RSPs and Part IV, State and Local Legal and Risk Management Issues Related to Relation- ships With RSPs. 71 See Mike Isaac, Uberâs C.E.O. Plays With Fire, N.Y. tImeS, Apr. 23, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/23/ technology/travis-kalanick-pushes-uber-and-himself-to- the-precipice.html?_r=0 (accessed Oct. 7, 2017). One com- mentator has posited that Uberâs determination to avoid regulation could be its undoing, arguing that just as the pre-regulation taxi industry was unprofitable, ironically Uber will remain unprofitable in unregulated markets. Len Sherman, Why Canât Uber Make Money?, ForbeS, Dec. 14, 2017, https://www.forbes.com/sites/lensherman/2017/ 12/14/why-cant-uber-make-money/amp/?__twitter_ impression=true (accessed December 16, 2017) [E-8].
13 digest. As of 2017, there had been no federal legisla- tive action concerning TNCs, and regulatory action has been limited to clarifying the application of existing requirements. However, as discussed in Part V, RSP Cases and Regulatory Proceedings, there has been federal enforcement action. RSP Interaction with Transit Agencies.âNumer- ous transit agencies either have entered intoâor were considering entering intoârelationships with RSPs (primarily, but not exclusively, TNCs). These relationships involve app integration, marketing, FMLM connections, microtransit extensions to fixed-route service,72 and paratransit, or combina- tions thereof. Funding relationships include those in which the transit agency subsidizes RSP service, the RSP makes payments to the transit agency, or there is no exchange of funding. The Federal Transit Administrationâs (FTAâs) Mobility on Demand Sandbox Demonstration Program (MOD Sandbox) has been a source of funding for some of the projects. The MOD Sandbox is a research program whose purpose includes helping transit agencies develop the ability to integrate MOD practices with existing transit service, validating the feasibility of innovative MOD business models, and examining relevant requirements, regulations, and policies that may support or impede such integration.73 In the 2016 MOD Sandbox funding notice, FTA encouraged applicants to identify regu- latory or policy waivers that might be needed to implement the proposed demonstration projects, stating that in order to advance innovative projects, the agency would consider relaxing FTA rules and regulations as appropriate and where possible. FTA approved funding for eleven projects (one of which involved two transit agencies), three of which involved relationships with RSPs to provide service, and four that involved trip planning, app integra- tion, or similar data-oriented services.74 Stakeholder Opposition to RSPs.âAs TNCs and other RSPs emerged, both taxicab interests and state/local governments raised challenges to their unlicensed/unpermitted operations. Then as those governments moved to accommodate TNCs, stake- holders challenged new laws and regulations and raised questions about enforcement of existing regu- lationsâboth as to TNCs and as to taxicab compa- nies themselves.75 In addition, unions have opposed turning over service to TNCs, particularly in provid- ing paratransit services.76 While arguably not stake- holders in the economic sense that taxicab companies are, various communities of people with disabilities have continued to express concern, particularly about disability segregation.77 3. RSP Impact on Paratransit As most transit agencies are well aware, para- transit is generally an increasingly expensive service, with the unit cost of paratransit increasing 72 âMicrotransit/Dynamic Demand Responseâ is an emerging mobility model identified by Feigon & Murphy, supra note 6. The report describes these models as âextend[ing] the reach of fixed-route transit into lower density areas with dispersed ridership, provide service in core areas outside of peak travel times, or augment fixed- route transit in corridors that are operating at or beyond capacity.â FeIGon & murPhy, supra note 6, at 35. 73 FTA: Public Transportation Innovation Funding Opportunity; Mobility on Demand (MOD) Sandbox Demon- stration Program [hereinafter MOD NOFO], 81 Fed. Reg. 26,621, (May 3, 2016), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2016-05-03/pdf/2016-10320.pdf. See also SuSan Shaheen, adam Cohen & ellIot martIn, the u.S. dePartment oF tranSPortatIonâS Smart CIty ChallenGe and the Federal tranSIt admInIStratIonâS mobIlIty on demand Sandbox (Transportation Research Board, Circ. E-C219 2017) http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec219.pdf. 74 Federal tranSIt admInIStratIon, Fiscal Year 2016 Mobility on Demand (MOD) Sandbox Program Projects, May 18, 2017 (update), https://www.transit.dot.gov/research- innovation/fiscal-year-2016-mobility-demand-mod-sand- box-program-projects. 75 E.g., Spencer Buell, The Stateâs Taxi Industry vs. Uber Battle Is Headed to Federal Court, boSton maGaZIne (Sep. 26, 2016, 11:57 AM), http://www.bostonmagazine. com/news/blog/2016/09/26/taxi-uber-lyft-lawsuit/ (accessed Oct. 8, 2017); Cabbies protest at city hearing on ridesharing, houSton Chron., Feb. 25, 2014, http://www. chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Cabbies- protest-at-city-hearing-on-ridesharing-5266036.php (accessed Oct. 8, 2017); Marisa Iati, Newark cab compa- nies file federal lawsuit over cityâs $10M Uber deal, NJ.Com, Aug. 9, 2016, http://www.nj.com/essex/index. ssf/2016/08/taxi_groups_sue_newark_over_regulation_ of_uber.html (accessed Jan. 6, 2017); Tim Sheehan, Undercut by Uber and Lyft, taxis want Fresno to ease rules, FreSno bee, June 2, 2016, http://www.fresnobee. com/news/local/article81492517.html (accessed Feb. 25, 2017); Alex Wolf, Philly Cab Cos. Sue City Over Uber, Lyft âFavoritismâ, law360, Aug. 30, 2016, https://www.law360. com/articles/834046/philly-cab-cos-sue-city-over-uber- lyft-favoritism (accessed Jan. 6, 2017). 76 See ABANDONING PARATRANSIT SERVICE TO SAVE IT? How Partnering with Lyft and Uber Undermines the Mission of Transit Agencies, amalGamated tranSIt unIon, 2016, http://www.atu.org/atu-pdfs/fieldmobilization/ ParatransitandTNCs.pdf. 77 Bob Salsberg, Transit systems eye Uber, Lyft for sav- ings on the disabled, aSSoCIated PreSS, Apr. 10, 2016, http:// bigstory.ap.org/article/3eb064615a2445b28229214e3fe a5b49/transit-systems-eye-uber-lyft-savings-disabled (accessed Feb. 12, 2017). See also, Jay Tokasz, Ride hailing gets public airing during Albright-Knox forum (citing labor as well as disability rights concerns), buFFalo newS, Feb. 11, 2017, https://buffalonews.com/2017/02/11/ride-hailing- get-public-airing-gallery-forum/ (accessed Feb. 13, 2017).
14 at a greater rate than for other modes.78 Labor is the largest cost factor, with driver experience having a significant effect on the quality of service delivery.79 The GAOâs 2012 report on paratransit discussed tran- sit agency cost-savings measures, specifically referenc- ing improving technology for scheduling and dispatch.80 Because of the expanding costs of paratransit and frequent complaints about timeliness of service, para- transit could be expected to be particularly fertile ground for collaboration between transit agencies and ridesourcing services.81 A Transit Cooperative Research Program study found that transit agencies indeed âexpressed a strong interest in finding ways to harness emerging shared-use business models and technologies to increase mobility, lower costs, and improve the rider experience associated with para- transit and related services,â which could be done by having RSPs deliver paratransit service directly.82 However, the special demands of paratransitâ notably training and screening requirements for driversâpose challenges for delivery via a TNC. Therefore, that 2016 study suggested that another approach would be to license RSP technologies to deliver service using existing capacity.83 Moreover, current providers have argued that following the regulatory requirements for delivering paratransit are what makes it expensive and that the only way to lower costs is to skimp on service requirements.84 Thus, while providing paratransit patrons with âthe least expensive appropriate vehi- cleâ could substantially reduce costs,85 the challenge is structuring the program in such a way as not to violate federal and state requirements for providing wheelchair accessible service. The concerns about using TNCs for paratransit service are encapsulated in the reaction of the then Director of the District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT) to the Washington Metro- politan Area Transit Authorityâs (WMATAâs) 2016 proposal to subcontract paratransit service to TNCs. The concerns he raised focused on whether WMATA would be able to exercise sufficient oversight in regard to driver screening and disability training. The DDOT Director specifically questioned whether WMATA would be able to ensure that the drivers were safe, in terms of their backgrounds, driving records, and drug and alcohol usage, and whether the drivers would be adequately trained to provide ADA-compliant services.86 Finally, the negative effect of TNCs on the taxi industry in many cities has had a cascading effect on the availability of accessible transportation. Lack of drivers due to TNC competition has hampered the availability of wheelchair-accessible taxis that had been added to various fleets. In addition, cities that had implemented a program offering special medal- lions for WAVs found that that the medallions were no longer in demand.87 Thus the growth of TNCs, 78 Golden et al., supra note 16, at 1, 13â14; U.S. GoVât aCCountabIlIty oFFICe, GAO-13-17, ADA ParatranSIt Ser- VICeS: demand haS InCreaSed, but lIttle IS known about ComPlIanCe 16â29 (2012), accessible at http://www.gao.gov/ products/GAO-13-17. See also, Luz Lazo, Uber, Lyft partner with transportation authority to offer paratransit customers service in Boston, waSh. PoSt, Sep. 16, 2016, https://www. washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2016/09/16/uber- lyft-partner-with-city-to-offer-paratransit-customers-on- demand-service-in-boston/?utm_term=.00774f8cdb0e (accessed Feb. 12, 2017); Daniel C. Vock, Disabled in DC: Coping With Increasing Costs and Demand for Paratransit, GoVernInG, Aug. 31, 2015, http://www.governing.com/topics/ transportation-infrastructure/gov-washington-paratransit- series-one.html (accessed Feb. 17, 2017). 79 Golden et al., supra note 16, at 65â66. 80 GAO-13-17, supra note 78, at 23â28. 81 E.g., Jason Laughlin, Should Philly follow Boston and remake paratransit with ride hailing?, the InquIrer, Aug. 13, 2017, http://www.philly.com/philly/business/ transportation/paratransit-septa-boston-uber-lyft- 20170814.html (accessed Aug. 14, 2017); ShIn-PeI tSay, Zak aCCuardI & bruCe SChaller, PrIVate mobIlIty, PublIC IntereSt 33 (Transit Center 2016), http://transitcenter. org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/TC-Private-Mobility- Public-Interest-20160909.pdf (accessed Mar. 12, 2017). 82 FeIGon & murPhy, supra note 6, at 28, 31. 83 Id. at 31â32. 84 amalGamated tranSIt unIon, Abandoning Paratran- sit Service to Save It? How Partnering with Lyft and Uber Undermines the Mission of Transit Agencies, http://www. atu.org/atu-pdfs/fieldmobilization/ParatransitandTNCs. pdf; Jen Kinney, Uber, Lyft as Paratransit? Union Says Not So Fast, nextCIty, May 2, 2016, https://nextcity.org/daily/ entry/uber-lyft-paratransit-alternative-union-labor (accessed Feb. 12, 2016). 85 Charles Chieppo, Why Paratransit Doesnât Have to Be So Expensive, GoVernInG, Sep. 22, 2016, http://www. governing.com/blogs/bfc/col-cutting-costs-paratransit. html (accessed Feb. 12, 2016). 86 Martin Di Caro, DDOT Questions Metroâs Ability To Protect People With Disabilities For Ride-Hailing Para- transit Trips, WAMU, Sept. 27, 2016, http://wamu. org/story/16/09/27/can_metro_protect_people_with_ disabilities_as_paratransit_embraces_ride_hailing_apps/ (accessed Sept. 21, 2017). 87 See Report to Congress on Internet of Things, FTA Report No. 0099, February 2017, at 32â33, https://www. transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/60436/ftareportno0099.pdf; SR-319 at 136â37. As early as 2014, 35% of wheelchair accessible taxicabs in San Francisco were not being driven because drivers had abandoned cabs to drive for TNCs, which had no require- ment to provide WAVs. Carolyn Said, As Uber, Lyft, Sidecar grow, so do concerns of disabled, S.F. Chron., Feb. 25, 2014,
15 which have taken the position that the ADA does not apply to them, has weakened an industry on which many transit agencies rely for at least part of their paratransit service.88 4. Other RSP Issues A number of issues have been raised concerning RSPsâprimarily TNCsâthat may be of interest to transit agencies as they evaluate their MOD options. Questions have been raised about the profitability of Uber and other TNCs.89 Those skeptical of the viabil- ity of the current Uber business model (as of 2017 the company operated at a loss90) warn that sooner rather than later, the cost of TNCs could rise dramat- ically, particularly if changes in employment law were to require them to treat their drivers as employees. The danger suggested is that if transit agencies cut service on the assumption that gaps can be filled by TNCs, but TNCs then drastically raise prices, transit-dependent members of the public will be harmed.91 Concerns have also been raised about whether promoting RSPs will ultimately erode support for public transit,92 as questions have been raised about the extent to which TNCs increase use of public transit,93 as opposed to replacing 91 Henry Grabar, âThey Can Just Take an Uberâ, Slate, Dec. 14, 2016 (noting that Uber currently subsidizes ride cost to gain market share, a model that cannot be sus- tained indefinitely), http://www.slate.com/articles/business/ metropolis/2016/12/cities_are_cutting_transportation_ service_because_they_think_uber_will_fill.html (accessed Dec. 16, 2016). See also, Douglas Hanks, South Dade may- ors warn county against scratching rail plan while await- ing robot cars, mIamI herald, May 24, 2017, http://www. miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/ article152473304.html (accessed May 31, 2017); Tracey Lindeman, Uber Says Small Town Public Transit Partner- ships Are âCriticalâ to Its Success, motherboard, Jan.19, 2018, https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kzn5gx/ uber-says-small-town-public-transit-partnerships-are- critical-to-its-success-innisfil-enderby (accessed Jan. 22, 2018). [E-9] 92 Transit may be particularly vulnerable where fares are not low, for example in the case of BARTâs Oakland Airport Connector. See Erin Baldassari, BARTâs Oakland Airport Connector losing money; Uber, Lyft to blame?, merCury newS, Nov. 27, 2016, http://www.mercurynews. com/2016/11/27/barts-oakland-airport-connector-losing- money-uber-lyft-to-blame/ (accessed Feb. 25, 2017). 93 Emily Badger, Is Uber Helping or Hurting Mass Transit?, N.Y. tImeS, Oct. 16, 2017, https://www.nytimes. com/2017/10/16/upshot/is-uber-helping-or-hurting-mass- transit.html?_r=0 (accessed Oct. 16, 2017); Carolyn Said, Uber, Lyft reduce transit use, increase vehicle miles, report says, S.F. Chron., Oct. 11, 2017, http://www.sfgate.com/ business/article/Uber-Lyft-reduce-transit-use-increase- vehicle-12267774.php (accessed Oct. 12, 2017). The article discusses a UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies report, which found: On the whole, the majority of respondents indicated that there was no change in their transit use. However, based on the results of those who did change their behav- ior, we find that shared mobility likely attracts Americans in major cities away from bus services and light rail (6% and 3% net reduction in use, respectively), and may serve as a complementary mode for commuter rail (3% net increase in use). As compared with previous studies that have suggested shared mobility services complement transit services, we find that based on the type of transit service in question the substitutive versus complemen- tary nature of ride-hailing services varies. reGIna r. Clewlow & GourI Shankar mIShra, dISruP- tIVe tranSPortatIon: the adoPtIon, utIlIZatIon, and ImPaCtS oF rIde-haIlInG In the unIted StateS, InSt. oF tranSP. StudIeS, u. oF Ca., daVIS, Research Report UCD- ITS-RR-17-07, October 2017, at 24. But see, Ed Blazina, Study: Ride-sharing companies can supplement public transit, PItt. PoSt-GaZ., Jan. 29, 2018, http://www.post- gazette.com/local/region/2018/01/29/Study-Ridesharing- Uber-Lyft-supplement-public-transit-Port-Authority- transportation-Pittsburgh/stories/201801290020 (accessed Feb. 1, 2018). http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/As-Uber-Lyft-Sidecar- grow-so-do-concerns-of-5240889.php (accessed Feb. 13, 2017. New York City experienced similar difficulty in having WAV medallions not being claimed. Issie Lapowsky, Uberâs Business Isnât Built to Help Disabled People, wIred, Aug. 14, 2015, https://www.wired.com/2015/08/uber-disability/ (accessed Feb. 13, 2017). Philadelphia had to slash prices for its WAV medallions. Aamer Madhani, Once a sure bet, taxi medallions becoming unsellable, USA today, May 17, 2015, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/05/17/taxi- medallion-values-decline-uber-rideshare/27314735/ (accessed Sept. 21, 2017). 88 between PublIC and PrIVate mobIlIty, supra note 10, at 135â36. 89 See Regina Clewlow, How would an Uber implosion impact cities?, medIum, June 29, 2017, http://medium.com/@ ReginaClewlow/how-would-an-uber-implosion-impact- cities-988928abe2c7 (accessed July 7, 2017); Michael Hiltzik, With Travis Kalanick out, weâll see the real value of Uber â and it wonât be pretty, L.A. tImeS, June 21, 2017, http://www. latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-uber-kalanick- 20170621-story.html (accessed July 7, 2017). For a discus- sion of Uberâs cost-cutting and its implications, see Carmen Nobel, Maybe Uber isnât Godâs Gift to Mankind, workInG knowledGe, Jan. 20, 2016, http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/maybe- uber-isn-t-god-s-gift-to-mankind (accessed May 22, 2017). 90 Heather Somerville, Uber second-quarter bookings increase, loss narrows, reuterS, Aug. 23, 2017, https://www. reuters.com/article/us-uber-profitability-results/uber- second-quarter-bookings-increase-loss-narrows-idUSKCN 1B32FW. A union has sued the company for allegedly reduc- ing the value of its investments. Judy Greenwald, Lawsuit charges Uber negatively impacted investments, buS. InS., Sept. 29, 2017, http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/ 20170929/NEWS06/912316209/Lawsuit-charges-Uber- negatively-impacted-investments?utm_campaign=BI20170 929Dai lyBr ie f ing&utm_medium=emai l&utm_ source=ActiveCampaign (accessed Oct. 4, 2017).
16 transit.94 In addition, there has been some sugges- tion that TNCs actually increase congestion in large urban areas.95 Finally, the viability of the TNC busi- ness model may be particularly vulnerable to unpre- dictable political events as well, such as loss of drivers due to loss of non-employer healthcare.96 B. Taxicab Regulation From 2014 to 2017, as TNCs spread throughout the United States, and states and local governments grappled with how to regulate them, commentators looked to the regulatory structures that governed taxicab companies for possible models.97 However, once virtually all states had settled on a basic regulatory structure for TNCs,98 the relevance of taxi regulation to TNC legal analysis appeared to be in two areas: the applicability of federal regulation of taxicabs and transit agency third-party contracts with taxicab companies, and tort liability for inci- dents involving taxicab drivers. Federal requirements for accessibility andâunder limited circumstancesâ drug and alcohol testing apply as specified further in this digest. The FTA has applied federal require- ments for taxicabs to TNCs in certain instances. Non-federal regulation of taxicabs can be divided into two categories: safety (e.g., liability insurance, driver qualifications, and vehicle requirements) and economic (e.g., permissible fares and control over market entry).99 Regulation varies by state: the range of approaches includes state, county, and (most commonly) municipal regulatory schemes.100 At least as of 2015, only 10 states regulated the taxi industry at the state level.101 In 2016, the Governor of California vetoed a bill that would have shifted regulatory authority from city and county regula- tion to an unspecified state agency.102 One study found, âLike Connecticut, most juris- dictions require some evidence of a taxicab compa- nyâs legitimacy, financial stability and viability of its business model prior to permitting it to operate within the jurisdiction. Most require substantial state and/or federal background checks of both busi- ness owner and drivers.â103 This following section briefly describes the types of issues addressed by taxi regulations, providing 94 See Henry Grabar, Uber Is Experimenting With a Ser- vice in Manhattan Thatâs Cheaper Than the Subway, Slate (July 11, 2016, 6:13 PM), http://www.slate.com/blogs/mon- eybox/2016/07/11/uber_s_manhattan_commute_card_ signifies_the_company_s_move_from_taxis_towards.html (accessed Mar. 10, 2017); Steve Harrison, Some Charlotte residents jump on Uber over train in South End, Charlotte obSerVer, June 5, 2016, http://www.charlotteobserver.com/ news/local/article81687862.html (accessed Feb. 23, 2017); Heather Kelly, Uber tests $2 flat rate fares and edges closer to public transit, CNN money, Aug. 25, 2016, http://money. cnn.com/2016/08/25/technology/uber-plus/ (accessed Feb. 25, 2017). Cf.: âNone of these emerging modes will replace high-quality transit in corridors with sufficient population and activity density.â tSay et al., supra note 81, at 18. 95 Charles Komanoff, Itâs Settled: Uber Is Making NYC Gridlock Worse, StreetSbloG NYC, Feb. 27, 2017, http:// nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/02/27/its-settled-uber-is-making- nyc-gridlock-worse/ (accessed Mar. 3, 2017); Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez, SFPD: Uber, Lyft account for two-thirds of con- gestion-related traffic violations downtown,) S.F. exam- Iner, Sept. 25, 2017, http://www.sfexaminer.com/sfpd-uber- lyft-account-two-thirds-congestion-related-traffic- violations-downtown/ (accessed Sept. 28, 2017); Carolyn Said, Uber, Lyft cars have heavy impact on SF streets, study finds, S.F. Chron., June 13, 2017, http://www.sfgate. com/business/article/Uber-Lyft-cars-have-heavy-impact- on-SF-streets-11214835.php (accessed June 13, 2017); Bruce Schaller, UNSUSTAINABLE? The Growth of App- Based Ride Services and Traffic, Travel and the Future of New York City, Schaller Consulting, Feb. 27, 2017, http:// schallerconsult.com/rideservices/unsustainable.htm (accessed Mar. 3, 2017). But see, Kaila White, Uber leads to less traffic congestion, ASU study finds, arIZona rePublIC, Sep. 29, 2016, http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/ phoenix-traffic/2016/09/29/study-uber-traffic-congestion- emissions/91275196/ (accessed Feb. 25, 2017). (The article discusses Ziru Li, Yili Hong, Zhongja Zhang, Do On- Demand Ride-sharing Services Affect Traffic Congestion? Evidence from Uber Entry (August30, 2016), https:// papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2838043). 96 See Richard R. Meneghello, ACA Repeal Could Put Dent In The Number Of Gig Workers, GIG emPloyer bloG, July 26, 2017, https://www.lexology.com/library/document. ashx?g=1f33833f-071c-47f5-97c4-bc3d580a7877#page=1 (accessed Aug. 18, 2017). (This article discusses Madison Alder, Health Law Repeal Could Force Some Gig Workers to Go Full Time, Bloomberg, BNA, July 25, 2017). 97 Schaller (Blueprint), supra note 19. 98 See infra pt. IV, State and Local Legal and Risk Man- agement Issues Related to Relationships with RSPs. 99 GIlbert et al., supra note 16, at 10. Note that regu- lation of taxis began when the Depression led to too many drivers competing for business. ellIS, supra note 16, at 6. One prominent industry analyst argues that market caps on cabs led to the growth of TNCs in San Francisco. Schaller (Blueprint), supra note 19, at 9. Bruce Schaller recommends that taxi regulation distinguish between dis- patch (very similar to TNCs) and flag trips, arguing that economic controls are necessary for the latter, but counter- productive for the former. Schaller (Blueprint), supra note 19, at 7â9. âA key recommendation is thus that regula- tions on entry, fares and fleet size should be relaxed or removed for dispatched taxi service and put on par with TNC regulatory requirements.â Id. at 7. 100 between PublIC and PrIVate mobIlIty, supra note 10, at 38â51. (These requirements are discussed in greater detail in Bruce Schaller, Taxi, Sedan, and Limousine Industries and Regulations, between PublIC and PrIVate mobIlIty, Appendix B at 14â24). See also, ellIS, supra note 16, at 7â8, 21â23. 101 thorSon & GIll, supra note 24, at 10, 19. 102 Governor Upholds Local Control of Taxi Regulation with AB 650 Veto, League of California Cities, Sept. 30, 2016, https://www.cacities.org/Top/News/News-Articles/ 2016/September/Governor-Upholds-Local-Control-of- Taxi-Regulation (accessed Mar. 13, 2017). 103 thorSon & GIll, supra note 24, at 19.
17 some context and contrast to the issues that may arise for transit agencies evaluating various rela- tionships with RSPs. 1. Federal Requirements Title III of the ADA prohibits private entities âprimarily engaged in the business of transporting people and whose operations affect commerceâ from discriminating against people with disabilities âin the full and equal enjoyment of specified public transpor- tation services.â104 The U.S. Department of Transporta- tion (DOT) ADA regulations specifically address the provision of taxi services by private entities.105 While TNCs have disputed the applicability of Title III to their operations, there is no such arguable ambiguity as to taxis. DOT regulations specifically cover taxi companies: Section 37.29(a) provides that taxi compa- nies are subject to the Part 37 requirements for private entities primarily engaged in the business of trans- porting people who provide demand responsive service. Section 37.29 prohibits taxi companies from discriminating against individuals with disabilities by actions including, but not limited to, refusing to provide service to individuals with disabilities who can use taxi vehicles, refusing to assist with the stow- ing of mobility devices, and charging higher fares or fees for carrying individuals with disabilities and their equipment than are charged to other persons. Vehicle accessibility requirements for providers of taxi service are limited to purchase or lease of a new vehicleâa limitation that has arguably substantially limited the scope of the requirement106 âother than an automobile. If such a purchase/lease occurs, the vehicle must be accessible unless the provider meets the equivalent service standard for demand responsive systems.107 However, providers of taxi service are not required to purchase vehicles other than automobiles in order to have a number of WAVs in their fleets. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has investi- gated complaints against taxicab companies for ADA violations, resulting in agreements to change company practice.108 FTA guidance provides: Taxi subsidy programs administered by transit agencies using FTA funds are subject to the equivalent service require- ments. In other words, agencies are responsible for providing equivalent service to individuals with disabilities, including those who use wheelchairs, who qualify for these services.109 Accessibility cases involving taxis are discussed infra Part III.B.5, ADA Cases. Depending on the structure of the service, drug and alcohol testing requirements may apply. Although not specified in DOTâs regulation prescrib- ing procedures for drug and alcohol testing for covered individuals,110 FTA policy has been that applicability of those testing requirements to taxi operators depends on the degree of passenger choice in selecting the service provider. In the 2001 revi- sion combining the former C.F.R. Part 653 (drug testing) and C.F.R. Part 654 (alcohol testing) into C.F.R. Part 655, FTA explained the applicability of the taxicab exception as follows: FTA policy continues to recognize the practical difficulty of administering a drug and alcohol testing program to taxi companies that only incidentally provide transit service. Therefore, the drug and alcohol testing rules apply when the transit provider enters into a contract with one or more entities to provide taxi service. The rules do not apply when the patron (using subsidized vouchers) selects the taxi company that provides the transit service.111 104 42 U.S.C. Â§ 12184(a); 49 C.F.R. Â§ 37.5(a), (f). For purposes of subsection (a), discrimination includes: (1) the imposition or application of eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or any class of individuals with disabilities from fully enjoying the specified public transportation services, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the services being offered; (2) the failure to make reasonable modifications as required under Title III, provide auxiliary aids and services consistent with the requirements of Â§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii), and remove barriers consistent with the requirements of Â§ 12182(b)(2)(A) with the requirements of section 12183(a)(2); specified vehicle accessibility requirements. Title III also prohibits similar discrimination by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. Â§ 12182. The definition of âpublic accommodationâ includes âa terminal, depot, or other station used for spec- ified public transportation.â 42 U.S.C. Â§ 12181(7). Section 12181 also defines the terms âdemand responsive systemâ and âfixed route system.â 105 49 C.F.R. Â§ 37.29. 106 Bryan Casey, A Loophole Large Enough to Drive an Autonomous Vehicle Through: The ADAâs âNew Vanâ Provi- sion and the Future of Access to Transportation, Stan. l. reV. onlIne, December 2016, https://www.stanfordlawre- view.org/online/loophole-large-enough/ (hereinafter Casey (Loophole)) (accessed Aug. 19, 2017). 107 49 C.F.R. Â§ 37.105. 108 See, e.g., Casey (Dilemma), supra note 44, at 156; enForCInG the ADA Part 3:3. Transportation, notes 122â 24, https://www.ada.gov/5yearadarpt/ii_enforcing_pt3.htm. See Settlement aGreement under the amerICanS wIth dISabIlItIeS aCt oF 1990 between the unIted StateS oF amerICa and lImo eConomy Cab, DJ # 202-86-27, https:// www.ada.gov/limocab.htm; Settlement aGreement under the amerICan wIth dISabIlItIeS aCt oF 1990 between the unIted StateS oF amerICa and yellow Cab drIVerS aSSoCI- atIon, InC. oF Salt lake CIty, utah, DJ 202-77-34, https:// www.ada.gov/yellocab.htm. 109 FTA C 4710.1, Chapter 7 â Demand Responsive Service: 7.5.2, Taxi Subsidy Service, p. 7â8. 110 49 C.F.R. pt. 40, Procedures for Transportation Work- place Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs. FTAâs regula- tion is to be read in conjunction with the DOT regulation. 111 Prevention of Alcohol Misuse and Prohibited Drug Use in Transit Operations: Final Rule, 66 Fed. Reg. 41,996, 41,999, Aug. 9, 2001, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ FR-2001-08-09/pdf/01-19234.pdf.