Assembly Bill 1112 aims to add regulations for e-scooters and bikeshares into the state transporation code.

State bill could dismantle SF regulations of bikeshare, e-scooters

Legislation backed by Uber, Bird would override local rules for ‘micro-mobility’ services

A state bill may soon roll right over San Francisco’s e-scooter and bikeshare regulations.

The legislation, which was approved Wednesday by the state Assembly Wednesday 74-1, has local officials fuming and transit experts are warning that low-income communities may lose access to bikeshare and e-scooter service.

Assembly Bill 1112, authored by Assemblymember Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), aims to enshrine regulations for “micro-mobility” rental services in state transportation code. Right now, California cities have been responding in an ad-hoc manner, developing their own rules for electric scooters, shared bikes, shared electric bikes, and other wheeled-rental services.

But critics say the bill is an attempt by micro-mobility companies to circumvent what they see as overly-restrictive local laws that slam the brakes on their expansion into a multi-billion dollar industry. An earlier version of the bill would have weakened cities’ ability to collect data on how micro-mobility services operate, and the current version may pre-empt cities from requiring those services to operate in low-income areas called “communities of concern.”

Uber and e-scooter company Bird are among the listed supporters of AB 1112.

“While a handful of corporations have been willing to work with cities and counties in deploying this technology in a responsible manner, a number of corporations have been running afoul of local regulation and law enforcement as companies skirt local laws to compete for market share,” wrote the League of California Cities, in opposition to the bill. “Unfortunately, AB 1112’s elimination of local authority in this space would put the public’s safety, health, and welfare at risk.”

Importantly, even with requirements to operate in communities of concern, e-scooters in San Francisco are primarily used by white men who make more than $100,000 annually, according to a San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Survey released in April.

San Francisco’s state representatives, Assemblymembers Phil Ting and David Chiu, both voted for the bill. The pair wrote a joint statement to the San Francisco Examiner:

“AB 1112’s intent is to ensure that local jurisdictions create a regulatory structure for shared mobility platforms and solicit feedback from the public before permitting those platforms to operate, and we support that intent,” Ting and Chiu said, in a statement. “The bill’s author, Assemblymember Friedman, assured us that her intent was not to override comprehensive local programs like San Francisco’s, and we will be working with her to address San Francisco’s concerns in future amendments.”

But local transit experts disagree with our elected representatives. The SFMTA, which regulates e-scooters and bikeshare in San Francisco, said the bill in its current form would likely dismantle all of its hard-won regulations — which were only enacted after The City of San Francisco collectively signaled outrage against scofflaw e-scooter companies Bird, Lime and Spin, and City Attorney Dennis Herrera sent them packing.

“Our shared scooter pilot program is designed to achieve safety, accessibility, and equity goals through the cap on allowable devices, lock-to requirements, rebalancing requirements and low-income programs,” SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose said in a statement. “These requirements would all likely be prohibited if the bill passed in its current form.”

Rose said the bill would also “hinder our ability to effectively manage and evaluate the program” by curtailing the data SFMTA could obtain from e-scooter and bikeshare companies. That data would also be used to guide SFMTA in making further investments, like in bike racks or staff to manage those programs.

Recalling the public anger over e-scooters littering San Francisco sidewalks,

Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who is also the chair of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, expressed outrage that Chiu and Ting supported AB 1112.

“I am extremely disappointed to hear that San Francisco’s Assembly delegation voted for the measure,” Peskin said. “This is shocking. I think the vast majority of San Franciscans appreciate the responsible ways the Board of Supervisors and mayor have gone to regulating the excesses of some of these ‘go-fast-and-break-things’ arrogant companies that have used San Franciscans as guinea pigs.”

Peskin said he hopes the bill “meets its demise” in the state senate, which will now consider AB 1112.

State Sen. Scott Wiener, who represents San Francisco and is considered a leader in transportation issues, told the Examiner he has not yet analyzed the bill and is waiting for it to reach the senate to take a position.

While Peskin and the usual suspects — like the League of California Cities — are perhaps expected to be opposed to regulations that aid micro-mobility companies,

Dave Snyder, director of CalBike, the statewide bicycle advocacy organization, told the Examiner his group also opposes the measure.

AB 1112 still “ties cities hands too much,” Snyder said. “We want cities to be able to regulate scooters to serve the public good, especially to make sure they serve disadvantaged communities, in addition to wealthier, more advantaged communities.”

In a statement to the Examiner, Friedman’s office said the bill has been heavily amended, and in a future amendment will soon include “express provisions that cities can require special programs for ‘communities of concern’ as a condition for operating within their jurisdiction.”

But Snyder said some problematic language in the bill would hamper local transportation agencies or other government bodies’ ability to truly require that level of service.

That language reads that local government “shall not impose any unduly restrictive requirement on a provider, including requiring operation below cost,” and would prohibit localities from making rules on “shared” mobility devices “more restrictive than those applicable to riders of personally owned similar transportation devices.”

“This is just another attempt for Bird to give San Francisco and every other crowded city in California the middle finger,” Peskin said. Or, he added, “‘the bird.’”

joe@sfexaminer.com

If you find our journalism valuable and relevant, please consider joining our Examiner membership program.
Find out more at www.sfexaminer.com/join/

Just Posted

Homeless sweep leads to few shelter placements

City officials report that the removal of a large homeless encampment from… Continue reading

Shoe guru John Fluevog celebrates 50 years

Designer’s new book is ‘Unique Soles for Unique Souls’

Man injured in SF police shooting suspected of assault, battery

DA has yet to file formal charges against Jamaica Hampton, 24

It’s official: SF e-scooter company workers vote to unionize, a first

San Francisco e-scooter company Spin may be the first in the nation… Continue reading

Muni lobbies for funding to buy more trains after fixing problems with first batch

Muni’s $1.1 billion new train fleet debuted with multiple problems — but… Continue reading

Most Read