详情

原文传递 Policy Implications of Transportation Network Companies

题名：	Policy Implications of Transportation Network Companies
作者：	Moran, M.; Ettelman, B.; Stoeltje, G.; Hansen, T.; Pant, A.
关键词：	Policy Implications##Transportation Network Companies (TNCs)##Dallas (Texas)##Regulatory reviews##Legislative action##Transit partnerships##Driver training devices##Public safety benefits##
摘要：	Transportation network companies (TNCs) are rapidly expanding organizations that use digital technologies to connect passengers to drivers who use their personal vehicles to provide for-hire ride services. This research was designed to help Texas policy makers navigate the evolving policy considerations presented by the rising popularity—and accompanying controversy—of TNCs. This report presents the findings of a TNC legislative and regulatory review, discussions of priority issues related to TNC policy, and future considerations related to TNC policy. These findings include: (1) As of August 2017, 48 states and Washington, D.C., have passed at least one piece of legislation regulating some aspect of TNCs. The report identifies the states that passed legislation creating a statewide TNC framework, states that passed legislation that regulates insurance only, and states that do not have statewide legislation. Researchers tracked legislative activity through August 2017 to create a database of TNC legislation across the United States. (2) In September 2012, the first TNC services launched in Dallas, Texas (1). As of August 2017, at least six TNCs were operating in Texas and providing service in dozens of Texas cities. According to the 2016 Texas Transportation Poll, about 22 percent of Texans surveyed have used a TNC. (3) Between 2014 and 2016, 20 Texas cities approved regulations regarding TNCs. These local ordinances addressed issues such as operating permits and fees, background check requirements, operational standards, and protections for passengers. These regulations were nullified by the state-level regulations introduced in May 2017. The report evaluates and discusses the following priority issues discussed in the 2017 Texas legislative session: (1) HB 100 clarifies the relationship of TNCs and motor carriers under Texas law, stating in Section 2402.002 “Transportation network companies and drivers logged in to the company’s digital network are not common carriers, contract carriers, or motor carriers”. (2) A majority of state legislation overrules, or preempts, the local authority of cities to regulate, tax, or impose rules on TNCs. The national status of state preemption policy in TNC legislation as of August 2017 is included in the report. (3) Several studies find correlations between TNC activity and impaired-driving activity but cannot conclusively conclude that TNCs are directly responsible for these trends. Additional research is needed to link TNC ridership data to impaired-driving outcomes. (4) Forty-two states and Washington, D.C., require TNCs to have a name-based background check conducted for a TNC driver before, or within a specified amount of time after, that driver is allowed to operate. However, no state law currently requires fingerprint-based background checks for TNC drivers. (5) Policy makers, TNCs, and the public see public safety as a primary consideration for TNC operation, and the TNC business model incorporates new technology to provide safety features, some of which may increase public safety. However, more research is needed to identify which safety features and regulatory policies contribute to increasing safety and to ensure that policies are not unnecessarily hindering market innovation. (6) There are questions about whether TNC services are accessible to transportation-disadvantaged groups, such as older adults, low-income individuals, individuals with disabilities, or individuals who live in rural areas. However, the limited information available about TNC users and service areas suggests that TNCs primarily serve users who have higher incomes in urban areas. (7) TNC data can provide meaningful information to understand the role of TNCs and to inform decision making about transportation policy. However, due to TNCs’ concerns about privacy and competition, data-sharing agreements have not been common between TNCs and government agencies. (8) transit cross the country are exploring partnership opportunities with TNCs to identify the potential for mutual benefits. However, TNC and transit partnerships face challenges related to existing funding and regulatory frameworks for transit agencies; liability, insurance, and driver training concerns; and nondiscrimination and accessibility policies. Solutions for longer-term funding of TNC pilots and transit partnerships, and for clarifying how TNC services fit into transit liability and accessibility requirements, are needed to expand these types of programs.
总页数：	78
报告类型：	科技报告