This bill directs the California Public Utilities Commission to set up a statewide program to improve access to wheelchair-accessible vehicles (WAVs) for on‑demand trips ordered through transportation network companies (TNCs). It establishes a per‑trip fee (minimum $0.05) collected by TNCs, creates the TNC Access for All Fund to award competitive grants to access providers, and allows TNCs to earn exemptions or offsets by demonstrably improving WAV service on their platforms.
The measure combines targeted user fees, performance targets, and competitive grants rather than direct mandates on TNC fleet composition. For mobility managers, TNC compliance teams, and disability advocates, the bill creates new reporting and benchmarking obligations, a funding stream for local access programs, and a mechanism intended to align private TNC operations with public WAV demand — while leaving unresolved issues about measurement, geographic equity, and the potential for gaming offsets.
At a Glance
What It Does
Mandates the PUC to run an accessibility program that (1) collects a per‑trip fee from TNC trips originating in selected geographic areas, (2) deposits proceeds into a TNC Access for All Fund, and (3) awards competitive grants to providers who deliver on‑demand WAV service. TNCs can avoid the fee for a given area the following year if they meet a commission‑set WAV service level.
Who It Affects
Transportation network companies operating in California (and their riders, who must be charged the per‑trip fee), local access providers and paratransit partners that may receive grants, cities and counties involved in workshops and geographic selection, and disability advocacy organizations engaged in the proceeding.
Why It Matters
It creates a dedicated, user‑fee funded mechanism to expand WAV availability tied to measurable service outcomes rather than a flat fleet mandate. That approach shifts much of the programmatic design and enforcement to the PUC and creates recurring data and benchmarking responsibilities for private firms and grant recipients.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill requires the California Public Utilities Commission to design and administer a program specifically targeting wheelchair‑accessible vehicle availability for on‑demand TNC trips. The commission must convene multi‑stakeholder workshops to determine demand and supply patterns and to recommend geographic areas and spending criteria; those workshop outcomes feed into which areas the commission selects for program funding.
The bill channels money for the program through a new TNC Access for All Fund that holds per‑trip fees collected from TNC trips originating in the selected geographic areas.
TNCs must charge customers a per‑trip fee (the bill sets a minimum of $0.05) and remit those amounts quarterly to the commission, but the commission may allow a TNC to offset its remittance by documenting investments that demonstrably improve WAV service in the specific area that quarter. Offset claims require evidence of WAV driver presence, measurable service improvements (including reasonable response times), outreach to disability communities, and a full accounting of expenditures.
The commission may adjust per‑trip fees by geographic area to reflect differing costs of providing WAV service.The Access Fund distributes grants on a competitive basis to access providers and partnerships that propose on‑demand WAV programs. Allocation to each selected geographic area must be proportional to the share of Access Fund fees originating in that area.
Applicants must demonstrate improved response times, WAV availability, and outreach efforts; funds are distributed annually within 90 days after the end of the year. Separately, the commission must set yearly benchmarks for response times, fulfillment rates, and other metrics to drive continuous improvement.To limit double‑charging and to keep incentives aligned, the bill creates an exemption: a TNC that meets a commission‑designated WAV service level in a geographic area for a year is exempt from paying the per‑trip fee in that area for the following year.
The bill also requires quarterly reporting from TNCs that claimed offsets and from funded access providers, including counts of WAV requests and fulfillments, response‑time data, outreach activities, and expense details. The bill authorizes limited payment (up to 2 percent of funds collected under a specified account) to accessibility advocates who substantially contribute to the proceeding and allows the PUC to hire an independent administrator.
The statute is self‑funded (continuous appropriation from the Access Fund) and contains a sunset date, after which it is repealed.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill sets a minimum per‑trip assessment of $0.05 on each TNC trip that originates in commission‑selected geographic areas, with the commission able to set different fee levels by area.
TNCs may offset quarterly remittances by documenting investments that measurably improve WAV availability and service (driver availability, response times, outreach, and accounting for expenditures) in the same geographic area.
A TNC that meets the commission’s WAV service‑level requirement in an area (including an 80% threshold for response times for WAV requests) is exempt from paying the per‑trip fee for the next year in that area.
Proceeds go into the TNC Access for All Fund and the PUC awards competitive grants to access providers; allocations to areas must be proportional to the share of fees generated there, and funds are distributed annually within 90 days after year‑end.
The bill requires quarterly reports from any TNC that claims offsets and from funded access providers with detailed counts of requested versus fulfilled WAV rides, response times, outreach activities, and expenditure records.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Workshops to map WAV demand and develop program design
The commission must convene at least five statewide workshops with a broad set of stakeholders — cities and counties, disability organizations, transit agencies, paratransit councils, social service providers, and TNCs — to identify geographic WAV demand, supply gaps, and operational issues like vehicle specs, pickup logistics, and needed driver incentives. Practically, these workshops serve as the fact‑finding and participatory design phase: their outcomes determine which areas the commission targets, what criteria the Access Fund will use, and what outreach/education is necessary to connect WAV users to services.
Per‑trip fee, collection mechanics, and the Access Fund
The bill requires TNCs to add a per‑trip charge (minimum $0.05) to customers for trips originating in selected areas, collect it at point of sale, and remit it quarterly to the commission. Those receipts fund the newly created TNC Access for All Fund. The commission can vary the fee by geographic area to reflect differing costs of providing WAV service. Because the fee is collected from riders and remitted by platforms, it creates a dedicated revenue stream that bypasses the general fund.
Offsets for investments and quarterly reporting requirements
Rather than a strict tax, the bill allows TNCs to offset remittances by showing quarterly investments that demonstrably improved WAV service in the same geographic area — defined by driver presence, improved response times, outreach, and spend documentation. Any TNC claiming an offset, and any access provider receiving grants, must file quarterly reports with counts of WAV requests and fulfillments, response‑time data, outreach activities, and detailed expenditure descriptions. Those reporting lines create the data needed to verify offsets and to measure program performance, but they also introduce compliance and audit demands on private firms and grant recipients.
Competitive grant process and geographic allocation
The commission distributes Access Fund money on a competitive basis to access providers that propose on‑demand WAV programs or partnerships. Applications were to be solicited with specific deadlines and selection criteria developed with stakeholders; awards are made by a commission deadline and funds disbursed annually within 90 days of year‑end. Importantly, the statute requires allocations to be proportional to the percent of Access Fund fees originating in each selected geographic area — a formula that ties funding to where trips are generated rather than solely to local need assessments.
Service‑level exemption, methods to comply, and benchmarks
To avoid the per‑trip charge in a given area for the following year, a TNC must meet a commission‑designated WAV service level; the bill specifically includes an 80% response‑time threshold for WAV trips. TNCs can meet requirements by facilitating third‑party WAV providers on their platforms, operating their own WAV fleet, contracting with providers, or combining methods. The commission must also set annual benchmarks (response times, fulfillment percentage, usage vs demand) to drive continuous improvement across providers and platforms.
Advocate compensation, legislative reporting, and working group
The commission may allocate up to 2% of a specified portion of transportation funds to accessibility advocates who make substantial contributions to the proceeding, subject to existing intervenor‑compensation rules. The bill requires the PUC to report to the Legislature on program effectiveness, WAV demand studies, and funding allocations, and to form a working group to identify nonduplicative partnerships across local agencies, passenger carriers, and paratransit systems.
Funding mechanics, administration, legal preservation, and sunset
Access Fund moneys are continuously appropriated to the commission for program purposes, and the PUC may hire an independent administrator to run the program and produce the legislature report. The statute preserves existing legal remedies under state and federal disability law and explicitly states that it neither expands nor limits TNC obligations under those laws. The section also contains a repeal/sunset date, after which the program expires unless reauthorized.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Wheelchair users and persons with disabilities — gain a targeted program and funding stream intended to increase WAV availability, reduce response times, and improve outreach so users can reliably request on‑demand WAV trips.
- Local access providers and paratransit operators — become eligible for competitive grant funding to develop on‑demand WAV programs or to partner with TNCs, enabling pilots or service expansions that might not otherwise be funded.
- Cities and counties — receive technical support and a structured forum (workshops and working group) to align municipal transportation planning with TNC WAV capacity and to integrate on‑demand WAV options into broader mobility plans.
- Disability advocacy organizations — receive formal standing in the PUC proceeding and limited financial support (up to 2% of certain funds) for substantive participation, lowering the barrier for meaningful engagement in rule design.
Who Bears the Cost
- Transportation network companies — must collect and remit the per‑trip fee, track and document investments to claim offsets, comply with quarterly reporting, and potentially face operational costs to meet service‑level exemptions (vehicle procurement, driver incentives, software changes, and outreach).
- Riders — the statute requires TNCs to pass the per‑trip fee through to customers, so riders in selected areas will see a charge added to fares unless a TNC secures an exemption through performance.
- Drivers and WAV vehicle owners — may incur higher upfront costs (vehicle purchase/retrofit, maintenance); while some costs can be offset by TNC investments or grant funds, the statute leaves allocation of vehicle operating costs between drivers, TNCs, and grant programs unclear.
- The PUC and any contracted administrator — absorb administrative and enforcement responsibilities (workshops, grant management, data verification, and benchmarking), creating workload and program management obligations even though funds are continuously appropriated from collected fees.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to use a targeted, fee‑funded, performance‑based approach to expand WAV access or to impose direct, uniform mandates on TNC fleets: this bill opts for incentives, grants, and exemptions to drive private action, which preserves platform flexibility but raises enforcement, measurement, and equity questions — particularly about whether market and grant mechanisms will reliably produce universal, timely WAV service for the people who need it most.
The bill blends user fees, competitive grants, and performance exemptions in an attempt to create market incentives for WAV availability. That design creates implementation questions.
Measuring a meaningful, non‑gamed improvement in WAV service is hard: the statute allows TNCs to offset fees by proving investments and improved metrics, but it does not fully prescribe audit standards, third‑party verification, or penalties for fraudulent claims. The commission will need robust data quality rules and auditing capacity to prevent offsets becoming a way to avoid funding access programs.
Geographic allocation rules link funding to where Access Fund fees are generated, which can disadvantage rural or low‑trip areas with concentrated WAV need; areas that originate few TNC trips but have high WAV demand could receive little funding under a proportional allocation formula. The competitive grant model favors entities able to apply and manage grants (not necessarily the most effective local operators), and the 2% carve‑out for advocates is temporally limited to the proceeding — helpful for participation costs, but not a structural solution for sustained stakeholder engagement.
Finally, the bill contains explicit dated deadlines and a sunset date; those dates (several of which fall before or shortly after the program’s design activities) create potential timing and sequencing problems the commission must resolve in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.