In the past few years, an increasing number of public transportation agencies have established partnerships with Uber or Lyft. For transit agencies, these collaborations have the potential to improve mobility and expand the reach of public transportation systems. For example, the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority in Florida subsidizes Uber rides that start or end at a bus stop, helping to solve the "last mile" problem of getting people from a transit line to their home.
While improving mobility is one driving force behind these partnerships, cutting costs is another. A recent paper from researchers at Stanford found that 74% of Uber and Lyft drivers, earn less than minimum wage. Studies like these are informing the New York Taxi and Limousine Commission's discussion of whether to establish an hourly minimum wage for Uber and Lyft drivers. In the absence of a living wage for drivers, cash-strapped transit agencies are turning to partnerships with Uber and Lyft as a way to reduce costs without cutting service.
While these partnerships have the potential to improve access to public transportation, there is one glaring problem: they most likely violate federal civil rights law.
Public transportation agencies must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI makes it illegal for recipients of federal funds to discriminate on the basis of race, color, and national origin. President Clinton's Executive Order on Environmental Justice expanded these protections to prohibit federal agencies from taking actions that disproportionately burden low-income communities. Critically, both Title VI and the the Executive Order on Environmental Justice apply not only to public transportation agencies, but to any contractors they employ as well.
Title VI requires public transportation to ensure that the benefits and burdens of their service are distributed equitably. For example, in 1994, the LA Bus Riders Union led a landmark lawsuit against the LA Metropolitan Transportation Authority, arguing that the LA MTA had violated Title VI by disproportionately spending money on rail service while neglecting minority and low-income bus riders.
Before implementing major service changes, public transportation agencies conduct equity analyses to ensure compliance with Title VI. For example, when an agency is considering adding new bus or rail lines, it will assess whether the new routes will equitably serve a range of neighborhoods, or instead are favoring areas that are predominately white and affluent.
Partnerships with Uber and Lyft challenge the traditional Title VI framework in a number of ways. As an initial matter, Uber and Lyft closely guard the data they have about who uses their services. I spoke with one transit administrator who said that the agency's partnership agreement does not include any provision granting the agency direct access to data about who is using the service. Instead, the ride-hailing company tallies the number of people who use the service, and then sends the transit agency a bill. The agency is aware of the total number of people who use the service, but knows little else about the demographics of their ridership.
Even transit agencies who have negotiated data-sharing agreements still face a number of challenges. Under the traditional framework, transit agencies conduct equity analyses whenever they institute a "major service change." But the service that Uber and Lyft provide changes constantly with each update to the app's pricing algorithm. And, as the TransitCenter has warned, without a conscious effort to incorporate equity-considerations into Uber and Lyft's algorithms, it's entirely possible that "following perceived market demand is likely to lead to disparities in transportation access."
Title VI enforcement occurs primarily through the federal agencies that disperse money to state and local actors. For public transportation, that agency is the Federal Transit Authority, which reviews the Title VI policies that public transportation agencies create and adjudicates Title VI complaints made against transit agencies. Currently, the Federal Transit Authority has been granting waivers to transit agencies that partner with Uber and Lyft under the Mobility on Demand Sandbox Program, allowing them to forgo the requirement of needing to demonstrate compliance with Title VI.
As some of these partnerships enter their third year, it's time to start generating long-term solutions to the challenge of ensuring that these partnerships live up to the equality mandate that Title VI requires.
It's entirely possible that many of these partnerships are enhancing equity in transportation. By delivering riders to bus and train stops who might otherwise not be able to access the transit network, these partnerships may be a boon to racial and economic equity. Alternatively, it's possible that transit agencies are subsidizing a private service that disproportionately benefits higher-income, white riders.
Going forward, facts, not faith, should inform our understanding of the Title VI implications of partnerships between transit agencies and Uber & Lyft.
No comments:
Post a Comment