Aggregating a Policy Dataset

We set out to identify and gather, structure, and organize as many local government data sharing policy documents as we could. Here’s how we went about it.

Focusing the Scope

Although urban platforms include companies outside of the sharing economy, the sharing economy is the sector most associated with platform urbanism and has received the bulk of regulatory attention from cities and other local government agencies. I therefore decided to limit my policy gathering search to local government data mandates focused on sharing economy platforms. This meant searching for policies targeting the three most prominently regulated sharing economy types:

• Ride hail platforms like Uber and Lyft,

• Short term rental platforms like Airbnb and VRBO and

• Micromobility platforms like Bird and Lime

For purposes of consistency of language and national government context, and to avoid expanding my search outside my own geography of expertise, I also decided to focus my search on local government agencies in the United States but to remain flexible about including international data sharing mandate examples as they arose.

Finding Policies

In general, my team and I went about finding local government data sharing mandates by using a combination of the following tactics.

• Searching for media stories focused on controversies, conflicts, and negotiations, or even lawsuits between cities and sharing economy platforms.

• Noting examples from our literature review, especially from reports covering sharing economy governance trends.

• Searching through resources from existing networks like the North

American Bike Share Association (NABSA), North American

City Transportation Officials (NACTO), and the Open Mobility

Foundation (OMF).

• Searching through industry- or company-specific websites and materials, particularly in the short-term rental sector.68

• Asking city officials and other experts (including advocates and current or former platform employees) about what local agencies had polices or what cities were receiving data from sharing economy platforms.

Because our primary goal was to quickly build a database providing better access to as many relevant policy texts as possible these approaches contain biases and limitations that should be acknowledged. In particular, the policies we gathered are not a complete accounting of all local government data sharing mandates, nor do they represent a perfectly representative statistical sample.

68 For example, “2ndaddress.com” and “buildyourbnb.com”, both websites serving the short-term rental industry, as well as platform company websites, like Uber’s “Uber Movement” page.

Finding Micromobility Data Sharing Policies

Micromobility policies were the easiest to find, in part because they were the most recent and most abundant, and it was relatively easy to find news stories covering where e-scooters or other dockless vehicles had been deployed, with those stories often mentioning new city council ordinances or administrative rules or permit programs taking effect.

Most importantly though, the rise of networked municipalism was a huge help in our search. The Open Mobility Foundation (OMF) maintains a list of member agencies69 as well as a list of “who is using MDS”70 , and this provided a primary pool of possible agencies in our search for micromobility data mandates. While many of the cities listed on OMF’s websites were receiving micromobility data as part of a pilot or via a voluntary agreement with micromobility companies, many of these had polices either directly linked on OMF’s websites, or discoverable by perusing the agency’s shared scooter program website. All in all, we were able to find micromobility data sharing policies for about 40 local agencies.

Finding Ride Hail Data Sharing Policies

Because Uber in particular has historically been so antagonistic to local government regulation, including with respect to attempts by local agencies to require data reporting, a review of the literature and media coverage pointed us toward a handful of public agencies that had enacted data sharing requirements on ride hail platforms, including New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, the City of Boston, and the Province of British Columbia. Additionally, Uber Movement lists cities that participate in Uber’s voluntary data sharing program71, providing another pool of cities and local agencies about which to inquire. Of particular importance to our search was a 2015 report from the University of British Columbia entitled “Transportation Network Companies and the Ridesourcing Industry: A Review of Impacts and Regulatory Frameworks for Uber” which included a section on emerging data sharing practices, as well as an

69 “Members | Open Mobility Foundation,” June 17, 2019, https://www.openmobilityfoundation.org/members/.

70 “Who Is Using MDS?” 71 “Uber Movement: Let’s Find Smarter Ways Forward, Together.,” accessed April 9, 2022, https://movement.uber. com/cities?lang=en-US.

addendum listing local government data sharing policy requirements from various local government agencies, including the California Public Utilities Commission, the City of Seattle, and the City of Chicago.72 These strategies uncovered 13 policies from 6 jurisdictions.

Finding Short Term Rental Data Sharing Policies

Short term rental platform data sharing mandates were perhaps the most difficult to find. Our team reviewed industry materials, including policy comparisons intended to help real estate businesses evaluate and compare potential markets for acquiring property for short term rental use73. We also reviewed high profile lawsuits, such as those between Airbnb and the City of Boston and Airbnb and the City of New York74 as well as case studies from Amsterdam75 and the national government of Iceland76 . These strategies yielded 7 policies from 6 jurisdictions, but as a national government policy (and one not easily found in English), Iceland’s was ultimately excluded from the core research dataset.

Other Types of Data Sharing Policies

While we did not actively pursue collection of data sharing policies outside of the above categories, during the course of our search we also came across relevant policies from other emerging urban technologies, including the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT)’s permit requirements for personal delivery robots, the State of California Department of Motor Vehicle’s reporting requirements for Autonomous Vehicles77, and New York City’s local law 90 of 2021 requiring food

72 Ngo, “Transportation Network Companies and the Ridesourcing Industry: A Review of Impacts and Emerging Regulatory Frameworks for Uber.” 73 See, for example, “BuildYourBnb - US City STR Regulation Database,” accessed April 27, 2022, https:// www.buildyourbnb.com/buildyourbnb-us-city-str-regulation-index. and “Short-Term Rental Laws in Major U.S. Cities (Updated 2/5/2020) – 2nd Address Research,” accessed April 27, 2022, https:// www.2ndaddress.com/research/short-term-rental-laws/.

74 Botero Arcila, “The Case for Local Data Sharing Ordinances.”

75 Mitchell Weiss, “Airbnb in Amsterdam (B) - Supplement - Faculty & Research - Harvard Business School,” Case Study (Harvard Business School), accessed April 6, 2022, https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item. aspx?num=51744.

76 Söderström and Mermet, “When Airbnb Sits in the Control Room: Platform Urbanism as Actually Existing Smart Urbanism in Reykjavík | Sustainable Cities.” We were ultimately unable to find a copy of Iceland’s policy in English, so it was not included in the core research database or quantitative analysis. 77 “California Autonomous Vehicle Regulations,” California DMV (blog), accessed April 27, 2022, https:// www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/autonomous-vehicles/california-autonomous-vehicleregulations/.