This post is part of a series spotlighting ten stories from Mobility 10X: Accelerating Transportation Innovation in California, a research magazine highlighting key insights from the four-year, multi-campus Resilient and Innovative Mobility Initiative (RIMI). Drawing on research from UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UC Irvine, and UCLA, the series explores innovative solutions to California’s most pressing transportation challenges and the path from research to real-world impact. Read the full Mobility 10X magazine to explore all ten stories.
In September of 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), which amended the California Labor Code to clarify the conditions under which workers could be classified as independent contractors. Newsom and other supporters intended for AB 5 to require transportation network companies (ridehailing), such as Uber and Lyft, and courier network services (such as Instacart and Doordash) to reclassify their independent ‘gig’ economy drivers as employees eligible for minimum wage and benefits.
Though AB 5 did not explicitly mention gig drivers, Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash quickly mobilized to oppose it, spending over $200 million to promote a public ballot initiative, Proposition 22 (Prop 22), which passed the following year and exempted app-based gig drivers from AB 5. In October 2025, Newsom signed two bills that created a compromise among gig drivers, unions, and ridehailing companies. Assembly Bill 1340 (AB 1340) grants gig drivers the right to unionize statewide, while Senate Bill 371 (SB 371) lowers insurance requirements for ridehailing companies, enabling them to reduce rider fees and potentially improve their competitiveness.
It’s viewed as a win-win outcome, but researchers with the University of California’s Resilient and Innovative Mobility Initiative (RIMI) note that gig drivers face challenges beyond pay and representation. Their research shows that opaque payment structures, unclear policies, pressure to transition to electric vehicles (EVs), and the looming possibility of being replaced by autonomous taxis (robotaxis) may continue to make gig driving difficult.
“Too many drivers are caught in a hamster wheel situation where they can’t get by without working longer and longer hours.”
Brooke Wolfe, Researcher, Transportation Sustainability Research Center, UC Berkeley
As part of a two-year study, Wolfe and her colleague Susan Shaheen, a UC Berkeley civil and environmental engineering professor and the RIMI director, interviewed labor experts and surveyed gig drivers to provide detailed policy recommendations for regulators. Their findings, soon to be released in a forthcoming publication, are summarized in a policy brief.1 They report that a gig driver’s ability to earn a net profit depends heavily on whether gig work is their primary source of income. Part-time drivers often don’t closely track their operating costs, while full-time gig drivers described a consistent pattern of being nickel-and-dimed.
Drivers are Frustrated by Opaque Payments and Policies
Wolfe explains that many gig drivers described their work as ‘gamified’ by app companies to encourage longer hours. Drivers reported being offered bonuses that pushed them to work beyond their preferred schedules or during inconvenient times. Some said they asked passengers to share the fare shown in the app, only to learn that it was often much higher than what the driver received. Others recounted having their driver accounts deactivated (effectively terminating their ability to work) for unspecified reasons they believed were tied to declining certain rides.
The common refrain Wolfe heard from gig drivers, both full- and part-time, consistently emphasized the need for greater transparency in the apps. Drivers want to know the destination and full fee breakdown before accepting a ride, and they want a straightforward appeals process for account deactivations. The union that drivers ultimately choose to represent them will likely take up many of these concerns, and policymakers will need to wait and see how those efforts unfold before determining which gaps still require action.
EV Adoption Foals may be Hindered by the Loss of Subsidies
Senate Bill 1014 (SB 1014) created the Clean Miles Standard, which requires that 90% of all miles driven by ridehailing companies be in EVs by 2030. Gig drivers told Wolfe and Shaheen that they were worried about the high upfront cost of purchasing an EV. To better understand these costs, Shaheen surveyed 430 gig drivers and analyzed California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) data covering 150 million ridehailing trips. The resulting study2 can help gig drivers assess whether EV adoption is financially viable based on their annual driving mileage.
Shaheen found that for most gig drivers, adopting EVs is not a feasible option. Her analysis showed that driving fewer than 100 miles per week is not profitable regardless of vehicle type, which encourages drivers to log more miles. For full-time drivers averaging 700 to 800 miles per week, leasing an EV is not practical, since most leases impose mileage limits. Exceeding these limits results in costly fees that eat into net earnings. Buying an EV can be viable for full-time gig drivers, but only if the EV is new. At the time of the Shaheen’s study, new EV buyers were entitled to a $7,500 federal tax credit, which was the primary factor in making ownership profitable. However, the federal EV tax credits were eliminated after September 30, 2025, making EV adoption even more challenging for gig drivers.
“This federal policy change has introduced significant uncertainty. The state is evaluating whether and in what form to replace or redesign clean-vehicle incentives, including the California Air Resources Board’s Drive Forward initiative. By establishing a predictable framework for incentives and regulation, policymakers can give consumers, vehicle manufacturers, and infrastructure planners a clearer sense of what to expect.”
Susan Shaheen, Civil and Environmental Engineering Professor, RIMI Director, UC Berkeley
In a recent study3 and related policy brief,4 Shaheen notes that stakeholders could offer state-level incentives and do more to offset the loss of federal subsidies. She emphasizes that incentives and support should be tailored to the diverse needs of ridehailing drivers. State agencies, ridehailing companies, utilities, and housing developers should avoid one-size-fits-all strategies and instead create layered incentives that reflect driver type, income dependence, and access to charging. Stakeholders should collaborate to expand affordable EV options, improve charging availability and reliability, and align pricing or time-of-use charging rates with driver work patterns to enhance affordability.
Robotaxis Will Complicate the Picture Further
Gig drivers told Wolfe and Shaheen that robotaxis are a concern, though not their most urgent one. Many fear that robotaxis will gradually reduce ridehailing demand, increasing pressure to work longer hours or seek trips farther from robotaxi operating areas. Shaheen notes that more research on automation’s impact on ridehailing is needed before more concrete policy options can be formulated, and workforce training should be part of the conversation.
