GROUND TRANSPORTATION REGULATION:

1. GROUND TRANSPORTATION REGULATION: The Relationship between Airports and Taxi Regulators

2. Airports & Taxicabs • Taxi drivers – the first and last face an airport traveler may see outside the terminal. • Airport/Taxi Synergy – Safe, efficient, customer friendly and inexpensive taxi service supplements and helps the host city, airport customer service and the overall positive nature of the airport experience. • Trend – More direct regulation of taxis on airport premises, replicating the work of regulatory licensing bodies.

3. Airport Benefits – Taxi Oversight • Revenue • Licensing, permit and use fees • Fines and penalties • Franchise agreements • Customer Service • Open vs. closed entry – control of number of vehicles; Environmental goals (types/age of vehicles); Complaint systems – vehicle conditions and driver misconduct, Training, GPS/dispatch… • Safety • Criminal background checks • Drug testing • Security cameras/partitions • Driver misconduct…

4. Airport Ground Transportation Franchise/Concession Agreements May incorporate additional vehicle and/or driver standards for ground transportation to/from Airports • Public Bidding Process • Concession/Franchise Agreements are generally awarded by Airports to ground transportation companies through a public bidding process. • Exclusive Use/Fee to Airport • Concession/franchise agreements often contain exclusive or semi-exclusive use provisions as to the approved ground transportation providers. In exchange for the exclusive or semi-exclusive privilege, the ground transportation company is required to pay a fee to the airport. • Exclusive Pick-Up • Most concession/franchise agreements provide that any taxi can drop passengers off at the airport, but only taxis affiliated with designated companies can pick passengers up from the airport.

5. Airport Ground Transportation Example: Baltimore Washington Airport (BWI) BWI has had a franchise agreement for its taxis for 20 years. • Purpose: Establish a high level of customer service; ensure supply of taxis; ensure consistent vehicle aesthetics. • These standards are different from those outlined by the Maryland Public Service Commission which regulates taxis and limousines in the state – e.g., higher customer service standards in franchise agreements, than in the Md. Code

6. Taxi Regulator and Host City Benefits & Issues • Benefits • Enhanced rules benefit safety and service to supplement regulatory efforts; • Regulation that cannot be politically accomplished by regulator, can be by independent airport; • Potential Issues/Downside • Industry opposition to fines, fees and regulations • Strained relations with taxi regulator • Two classes of vehicles and drivers • Confusion – Having two sets of regulations

7. IATR/AGTA Surveys • In 2012, the IATR, in conjunction with the AGTA, administered a survey to 20 Airport Ground Transportation Officers (“Survey 1”). • As a follow-up, the IATR administered a similar survey to City Taxi Regulators in jurisdictions where the Airports in Survey 1 are located (“Survey 2”). • The Surveys consisted of approximately 30 questions regarding the details of ground transportation services and regulation at the given Airport, or in the given jurisdiction.

8. IATR Surveys • The AGTA Airport Survey (“Survey 1”) • Licensing, franchise or permit requirements • Airport rule review and comparison to taxi regulation rules, both nationally and locally • The IATR Regulatory Survey (“Survey 2”) • Licensing requirement review • Airport related regulations • Analysis of jurisdictional overlapwith airports.

9. Survey Goals • To compare and contrast licensing requirements of airports and regulators; • Identify trends and differing approaches in jurisdictions • Identify issues for further academic study and/or recommendations for synergy and cooperation between airports, regulators and the industry.

10. Summary of Approaches • Partnership Approach: Jurisdictions in which the Airport and City work together in developing regulations and standards that are equally applied and enforced at the Airport and in the City. • Independent Approach: Jurisdictions in which the Airport and City have separate regulations and standards that are applied and enforced by the independent officers and agents of the Airport and City, respectively, and which may at times, be contradictory. • City-Lead Approach: Jurisdictions in which the City outlines regulations and standards that are applied and enforced by the Airport, which follows the lead of the City Taxi Regulator • Airport-Lead Approach: In very rare instances, the airport may be designated as the agency responsible for inspecting and/or licensing all ground transportation operators in the City.

11. Partnership Approach Example – San Antonio, Texas • San Antonio International Airport & the City of San Antonio • The City issues city permits and airport permits • The Airport and City have contact 1x – 2x/ week to discuss enforcement issues and rule changes

12. Partnership Approach Example – San Antonio, Texas • City regulations are the same as airport regulations with the exception of: • Credit Cards are mandated by the City but not the Airport • Vehicle age limit for Airport is 7 years versus 8 years for the City • Airport requires $250K minimum liability insurance versus 30/60/25 minimum liability • Physical exams of drivers and refresher training are required by the City, not the Airport

13. Partnership Approach Example – San Antonio, Texas • Both the City and the Airport have a role in setting taxicab fares • Airport may collect revenue from city-regulated ground transportation through “Departure/Access Fees” • Complaint information submitted to the City and Airport, respectively, are shared

14. Partnership Approach • Benefits: • Consistent regulation allows ground transportation providers to meet City and Airport standards with minimal additional costs • Service expectations of the consumer may be met by ground transportation providers at the airport and those used throughout the jurisdiction • Cons: • May be difficult to implement and/or maintain in larger market • Question of whether the City and Airport have an equal say in the promulgation of new standards/regulations

15. Independent Approach Example: Minneapolis, Minnesota • Airport Taxi Regulation - Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) • Provides coordinated aviation services throughout the Twin Cities metro area, particularly at Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport (MSP) • MAC regulates all Taxicabs at MSP and has its own taxi rules, regulations & driver handbook • City Taxi Regulation - License and Consumer Services Division of the City of Minneapolis • Regulates taxis and drivers within the City of Minneapolis

16. Independent Approach Example: Minneapolis, Minnesota • Taxis licensed by MAC are not required to be licensed by any other regulatory body • Vehicle Standards • Vehicle Age • MSP & Minneapolis - no more than 6 yrs old • St. Paul allows older vehicles • Vehicle Inspections • St. Paul and MSP require annual inspection • Minneapolis requires semiannual inspection • Insurance • MSP requires minimum of $200K/$600K liability & property damage; or combined single limit of $1MM per occurrence

17. Independent Approach Example: Minneapolis, Minnesota • Vehicle Standards (continued) • Fuel Efficiency Standards • St. Paul & MSP do not have fuel requirements. (Minneapolis requires a portion of fleet use compressed natural gas.) • In Vehicle Safety • MSP does not have any regulations • Minneapolis requires a shield or camera or GPS locator • Driver Licensing Standards • Criminal Background Checks • MSP prohibits any misdemeanor convictions in 5 yrs. • City prohibits serious misdemeanors in last 3 yrs.

18. Independent Approach Example: Minneapolis, Minnesota • Driver Conduct Rule Comparison (Examples) • Varying levels of detail: • Solicitation – MSP defines; Minneapolis does not • Different or additional requirements: • Weapons – identical except MSP allows if carrier permit • Courteous – City limits to public; MSP applies to passengers, public, drivers, MSP reps • Luggage – MSP refusal exception for excessive luggage & City requires all luggage except > 50 lbs. • No similar or corresponding provisions: • Discrimination – MSP only • Cell Phones – MSP only

19. Independent Approach Example: Minneapolis, Minnesota • There is a current ongoing initiative between MSP, St. Paul and Minneapolis to align standards, in part, to allow operators to obtain licensure in all jurisdictions • For example, Minneapolis, St. Paul, and MAC have worked together to create a new numbering system for all taxis licensed in 2013 in the metro area

20. City-Lead Approach Example – San Francisco, CA • San Francisco International Airport (“SFO”) and the San Francisco Transportation Agency (“SFMTA”) • SFMTA issues medallions to taxicabs without airport restrictions • SFMTA-licensed taxicabs only need to be inspected by the SFO Ground Transportation Unit to operate at the airport. • All vehicles providing service to/from SFO must have a transponder installed (a small computer chip that records all trips made into and out of the airport) and proper decals evidencing SFO authority.

21. City-Lead Approach Example – San Francisco, CA • All newly issued SFMTA taxicab medallions must be fuel efficiency vehicles, but this is not required by SFO. • SFMTA requires minimum liability insurance, not SFO. • SFMTA requires cameras in taxicabs, not SFO. • SFMTA requires criminal background checks of drivers and driver training, not SFO • In general, SFMTA fines and penalties for violations are higher/more stringent than for SFO.

22. Airport-Lead Approach Example – Salt Lake City International Airport • Salt Lake City ordinances require that all ground transportation companies, vehicles and drivers must be registered, inspected and licensed through the Airport. • The Airport and Salt Lake City operate under the same laws with penalties that exceed neighboring municipalities. • The Airport is charged with the process required to review requested fare increases from companies and to make recommendations to the City Council. • The Airport is the most influential stakeholder involved in ground transportation issues.

23. Common Ground Transportation Issues between Airports and Cities Driver Conduct and Vehicle Rules – Violations

24. Common Ground Transportation Issues between Airports and Cities General Issues

25. Common Ground Transportation Issues between Airports and Cities • There are many common issues that are faced by Cities and Airports, although the level of importance may be weighed differently • The Partnership Approach is ideal to address such issues

26. Questions & Comments? • We hope to illicit a dialogue between Airport ground transportation officers and Taxi Regulators. • Cooperation is the key! • Thank you!