Transportation network company
It has been requested that the title of this article be changed. Please see the relevant discussion. The page should not be moved unless the discussion is closed; summarizing the consensus achieved in support of the move.
A transportation network company (TNC), sometimes known as a mobility service provider (MSP) is a company that matches passengers with vehicles, via websites and mobile apps. TNCs for automobiles are commonly referred to as ride-hailing services, and TNCs exist for aircraft and watercraft as well. TNCs are examples of the sharing economy and shared mobility.
TNCs have been noted for providing service in less populated or poorer areas that are not regularly served by taxicabs, and charging lower rates than taxicabs, since taxicab rates are often set by local jurisdictions.
Studies are inconclusive on whether TNCs reduce drunk driving rates in cities where they operate, with some studies showing that it depends on the city.
TNCs are regulated in most jurisdictions and have been banned in a few jurisdictions. Regulations can include requirements for driver background checks, fares, the number of drivers, licensing, and minimum wage. Airport taxi drivers in some places spend more than $3,000 annually on required commercial permits and insurance. For more information, see Legality of TNCs by jurisdiction.
- 1 Definition and terminology
- 2 Criticism
- 2.1 Criticism by the taxi industry
- 2.2 Classification of drivers as independent contractors
- 2.3 Driver criticism of compensation
- 2.4 Dynamic pricing
- 2.5 Increased traffic congestion
- 2.6 Reduced usage of public transportation
- 2.7 Lack of wheelchair accessible vans
- 2.8 Drivers using their phones while driving
- 3 List of notable companies
- 4 References
Definition and terminology
In 2013, the California Public Utilities Commission defined, for regulatory purposes, a transportation network company as a company that uses an online-enabled platform to connect passengers with drivers using their personal, non-commercial vehicles. The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles defines a TNC as a company that "provides prearranged rides for compensation using a digital platform that connects passengers with drivers using a personal vehicle."
In 2017, Uber opened a mobility service for boats.
Misnomer as "Ridesharing"
In January 2015, the Associated Press Stylebook, the collective that sets many of the news industry's grammar and word use standards, officially adopted the term "ride-hailing" to describe the services offered by Lyft and Uber, claiming that "ridesharing" doesn't accurately describe the services since not all rides are shared, and "ride-sourcing" only is accurate when drivers provide rides for income. While the Associated Press recommended the use of "ride-hailing" as a term, it noted that, unlike taxis, TNCs cannot pick up street hails.
Criticism by the taxi industry
The taxi industry has claimed that TNCs skirt regulations that apply to passenger transport and TNCs are therefore illegal taxicab operations. This has resulted in additional regulations imposed on TNCs and, in some jurisdictions, certain TNCs are banned from operating.
In New York City, use of TNCs has reduced the value of taxi medallions, transferable permits or licenses authorizing the holder to pick up passengers for hire. After soaring in value after the Great Recession due to their perceived safety, New York City taxi medallions were again trading for around $170,000 each in 2018. Annual rental rates were $30,000. A couple of credit unions that lent money secured by medallions suffered from bank failure.
Classification of drivers as independent contractors
Unless otherwise required by law, TNC drivers are independent contractors and not employees. This designation may affect taxation, work hours, and overtime benefits and lawsuits have been filed by drivers alleging that they are entitled to the rights and remedies of being considered "employees" under employment law. In response, TNCs say they provide "flexible and independent jobs" for drivers.
In O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on August 16, 2013, Uber drivers pleaded that according to the California Labor Code they should be classified as employees and receive reimbursement of business expenses such as gas and vehicle maintenance costs. In March 2019, Uber agreed to pay $20 million to settle the case.
On October 28, 2016, in the case of Aslam v Uber BV, the Central London Employment tribunal ruled that Uber drivers are "workers", rather than self-employed individuals, and are entitled to the minimum wage under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, paid holiday, and other normal worker entitlements. Two Uber drivers had brought the test case to the employment tribunal with the assistance of the GMB Union, on behalf of a group of drivers in London. Uber appealed the decision. In December 2018, Uber lost an appeal of the case at the Court of Appeal, but was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
In March 2018, the Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research of Switzerland, gave the legal opinion that under the conditions that bind drivers to Uber that they should be classified as employees.
In April 2018, the California Supreme Court ruled in Dynamex Operations v. Superior Court that document delivery company Dynamex has misclassified its delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. This ultimately led to California passing Assembly Bill 5 on September 11, 2019, which would require many jobs, to be classified as employees, with the according minimum wage protections and unemployment benefits, beginning in 2020. Uber and Lyft both pledged to keep drivers classified as contractors, saying they could meet the requirements of the new test, and both pledged $30 million on a 2020 ballot initiative against AB 5.
Driver criticism of compensation
Drivers have complained that in some cases, after expenses, they earn less than minimum wage. As a result, in some jurisdictions, such as New York City, drivers are guaranteed a minimum wage. The New York City minimum wage was set at $26.51 before expenses or $17.22 after expenses in 2019, and an analysis by the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission revealed that 85% of drivers made less than the minimum wage prior to the law.
TNCs use dynamic pricing models; prices for the same route vary based on the supply and demand for rides at the time the ride is requested. When rides are in high demand in a certain area and there are not enough drivers in such area, fares increase to get more drivers to that area. The rate quoted to the rider reflects such dynamic pricing.
TNCs were criticized for extreme surcharges during emergencies such as Hurricane Sandy, the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis, and the June 2017 London Bridge attack, especially when taxis offered to transport riders for free; however, in many cases, the surcharges were refunded by the TNCs and TNCs later agreed to either not charge surcharges, or in some cases, offer free rides, during certain emergencies.
Increased traffic congestion
TNCs have been criticized for increasing traffic congestion in New York City and San Francisco. A report published by Schaller Consulting in July 2018 showed that, as a result of TNCs, traffic congestion increased both cities, which already had comprehensive public transport systems in place. A main reason was that a large number of people, who would otherwise have used public transport, shifted to services offered by transportation network companies.
Reduced usage of public transportation
Studies have shown that TNCs have led to a reduction in use of public transportation.
Lack of wheelchair accessible vans
In some areas, TNCs are required by law to have a certain amount of wheelchair accessible vans (WAVs) on the road at any given time. This can be a difficult requirement for TNCs to meet because TNCs don't provide vehicles and most drivers do not own a WAV, causing a shortage.
Drivers using their phones while driving
When a customer makes a pick-up request, a driver is notified via mobile app and is provided the customer's location. The driver has approximately 15 seconds to tap the phone to accept the request. In many jurisdictions, tapping a phone while driving is against the law as it could result in distracted driving.
List of notable companies
- McArdle, Megan (July 20, 2015). "Uber Serves the Poor by Going Where Taxis Don't". Bloomberg News.
- Hawkins, Andrew J. (October 4, 2017). "Does Uber lead to less drunk driving? It's complicated". The Verge. Vox Media.
- "Decision adopting rules and regulations to protect public safety while allowing new entrants to the transportation industry" (PDF). California Public Utilities Commission. December 20, 2012.
- "Virginia DMV: TNC Frequently Asked Questions". Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles.
- Kjelgaard, Chris (August 10, 2018). "Flapper Technologies Plans Online Booking Expansion". AINOnline. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
- Menza, Kaitlin (June 16, 2017). "Everything You Need to Know About the New UberBOAT Service". Town & Country. Retrieved May 13, 2019.
- Warzel, Charlie (January 8, 2015). "Let's All Join The AP Stylebook In Killing The Term 'Ride-Sharing'". BuzzFeed.
- FREED, BENJAMIN (June 30, 2015). "Why You Shouldn't Call Uber and Lyft "Ride-Sharing"". Washingtonian.
- Dickenson, Greg (June 26, 2018). "How the world is going to war with Uber". The Daily Telegraph.
- Berger, Paul; Gottfried, Miriam (January 17, 2018). "Hedge Fund Bets on Beaten-Up New York Taxi Business". The Wall Street Journal.
- Tansey, Bernadette (July 17, 2015). "Sharing Economy Companies Sharing the Heat in Contractor Controversy". Xconomy.
- "The gig-economy: Uber good or Uber bad?". Canadian Labour Congress. May 12, 2015. Archived from the original on May 18, 2015.
- Hawkins, Andrew J. (March 12, 2019). "Uber settles driver classification lawsuit for $20 million". The Verge.
- Griswold, Alison (October 28, 2016). "A British court rules Uber drivers have workers' rights in the "employment case of the decade"". Quartz.
- Between (1) Mr Y Aslam (2) Mr J Farrar & Others and (1) Uber B.V. (2) Uber London Ltd (3) Uber Britannia Ltd (PDF) (Report). Employment Tribunals. 28 October 2016. Case Nos: 2202550/2015 & Others.
- "Uber loses latest legal bid over driver rights". BBC News. 19 December 2018.
- "Swiss authorities say Uber drivers should be treated as 'employees'". Swissinfo. March 19, 2018.
- "California's top court makes it more difficult for employers to classify workers as independent contractors". Los Angeles Times. 2018-05-01. Retrieved 2019-09-10.
- "The Dynamex Decision: The California Supreme Court Restricts Use of Independent Contractors". Labor & Employment Law Blog. 2018-05-01. Retrieved 2019-09-10.
- Conger, Kate; Scheiber, Noam (2019-09-11). "California Passes Landmark Bill to Remake Gig Economy". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-09-11.
- Canon, Gabrielle. "California's controversial labor bill has passed. Experts forecast more worker rights, higher prices for services". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2019-09-11.
- "A bill giving workplace protection to a million Californians moves one step closer to law". Los Angeles Times. 2019-08-30. Retrieved 2019-09-10.
- "Uber defiant as gig workers on verge of becoming employees under AB 5". The Mercury News. 2019-09-11. Retrieved 2019-09-12.
- Brustein, Joshua (2018-12-04). "New York Sets Nation's First Minimum Wage for Uber, Lyft Drivers". www.bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2019-09-10.
- Newcomer, Eric (May 15, 2017). "Uber Starts Charging What It Thinks You're Willing to Pay". Bloomberg News.
- Kerr, Dara (August 23, 2015). "Detest Uber's surge pricing? Some drivers don't like it either". CNET.
- Carson, Biz (June 23, 2016). "Uber will stop showing the surge price that it charges for rides". Business Insider.
- Bosker, Bianca (October 31, 2012). "Uber Rethinks New York 'Surge Pricing,' But Doubles Driver Pay". The Huffington Post.
- Mazza, Ed (December 15, 2014). "Uber Raises Fares During Sydney Hostage Crisis, Then Offers Free Rides". The Huffington Post.
- "Uber has refunded passengers after London Bridge terror attack". BBC News. June 5, 2017.
- Fitzgerald Rodriguez, Joe (December 11, 2016). "SF blasts Uber, Lyft for downtown traffic congestion". The San Francisco Examiner.
- Fitzsimmons, Emma G.; Hu, Winnie (March 6, 2017). "The Downside of Ride-Hailing: More New York City Gridlock". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
- "The New Automobility: Lyft, Uber and the Future of American Cities" (PDF). Schaller Consulting. July 25, 2018.
- Wolfe, Sean (July 27, 2018). "Uber and Lyft are creating more traffic and congestion instead of reducing it, according to a new report". Business Insider.
- Badger, Emily (October 16, 2017). "Is Uber Helping or Hurting Mass Transit?". The New York Times.
- Said, Carolyn (February 27, 2018). "Uber does not have enough wheelchair-accessible vehicles, new lawsuit says". San Francisco Chronicle.
- Jacks, Timna (January 11, 2019). "Uber drivers complain they are forced to break the law to do their job.So that means that the drivers put the passenger in danger to which is against the law". Sydney Morning Herald.