Using History to Develop Future Regulation of TNCs and Autonomous Taxis

Abstract

With the advent of ridesharing, or transportation network companies (TNCs) as they are legally labeled by the State of California, there have been considerable discussions, legislative actions, and lawsuits regarding their attempts to operate without being subject to local taxi, sedan, limousine, or private for hire regulations. Indeed, across the United States, Uber and Lyft, the two largest TNCs, disregarded local city and airport rules and regulations established for all commercial ground passenger transportation carriers, but were successful in changing state laws that would permit them to use a more flexible business model. TNCs successfully argued that they were not transportation companies, but rather, technology companies, so by definition not subject to the commercial vehicle regulations. As a result, fierce legal and legislative battles were fought bitterly and expensively. However, as of 2020, most of these legal battles for operating authority in North America have been settled in favor of greater flexibility for TNCs to use personal automobiles and self-vetted drivers. The result has been that regulations for TNCs, or ridesharing companies as they are called in different states, are regulated primarily at the state level with limited flexibility relegated to municipal or airport regulations. These legal proceedings, however, rarely address just why we have regulations for commercial for hire vehicles and their drivers. An understanding of past attempts to regulate commercial coach and taxi services at the local level and the impacts of statewide regulation of TNCs can assist in determining the appropriate level of regulations to ultimately apply to TNCs. This background information might additionally aid in better regulating the emergence of autonomous taxis and personal automobiles as they enter the marketplace in coming decades.