Council committee hears mayor's delivery ordinance, weighing insurance, data and enforcement

Boston City Council's Committee on Government Operations held a Feb. 24 hearing on the mayor's "Road Safety and Accountability for Delivery Providers" ordinance (Docket 0407), a proposal that would require large third-party delivery platforms to obtain city permits, carry umbrella liability insurance and share aggregated data on pickup, delivery and vehicle operations.

The ordinance, sponsored by Mayor Michelle Wu and referred to the committee, is aimed at addressing what the administration called increasing congestion, illegal parking and unsafe operation by app-based delivery drivers. The committee did not take a vote at the hearing; city officials and platform representatives said they would continue negotiating regulatory details in follow-up working sessions.

Chief of Streets Joshua Franklin Hodge framed the proposal as an effort to bring accountability to a growing industry. "Food delivery apps support restaurants and they provide convenience to residents, but their explosive and unregulated growth in recent years has generated unintended consequences and created safety concerns on our streets," Hodge said. Under the draft ordinance, companies above an applicability threshold would register with the city, demonstrate insurance coverage that serves as a financial backstop for crashes or injuries, and supply aggregated operational data to the Boston Transportation Department (BTD) to inform curb and enforcement decisions.

The administration emphasized three central elements: registration/permits, an umbrella insurance requirement covering deliveries regardless of individual drivers' insurance status, and a data-sharing duty intended to let the city measure where and how delivery trips occur. Hodge cited a 2022 MAPC estimate that Massachusetts saw as many as 5,000,000 food delivery trips in a single year and said the city currently lacks sufficient operational data to plan curb space and targeted enforcement.

Police deputy superintendent Dan Humphreys said the Boston Police Department (BPD) has focused on voluntary education and enforcement and that current crash and EMS records do not reliably tag incidents as connected to app-based delivery. "We would have to have more data to kind of . . . assign a value to what did that cost to do that," Humphreys said, describing enforcement as performed largely with on-duty personnel rather than overtime details.

Council members pressed administration and industry witnesses on enforcement capacity, insurance scope and privacy protections for data sharing. Councilor Durkin asked whether the city could apply a per-order fee to help cover enforcement and curb-management costs; she cited market-share estimates (DoorDash 67%, Uber Eats 23%, Grubhub 8%) and back-of-envelope revenue estimates that a 50-cent assessment could generate roughly $14.5 million. Administration staff said a fee to cover implementation costs was a reasonable item for debate but was not part of the draft ordinance.

Platform representatives said they are willing to work with the city on safety goals but urged changes to the ordinance's text. Christina Kennedy, DoorDash's New England government-relations manager, said DoorDash already offers occupational-accident coverage and other safety measures and proposed showing the city an aggregated heat-map demonstration rather than broad raw data exports. "We hope the committee will take our offer up for a demonstration of this heat map tool," Kennedy said. Uber public policy manager Katie Franger warned the draft could push couriers from bicycles back into cars and reduce low-barrier earning options, saying, "If you pass this regulation as is, the message you're sending to workers is that they should get off their bikes and get back into cars." Grubhub and GoPuff representatives also objected to elements of the draft; GoPuff told the committee it operates from fixed retail locations in Boston and said it falls below the ordinance's 1,000,000 orders-per-year applicability threshold.

Industry witnesses identified three main concerns: (1) the precise insurance obligations and whether coverage can be procured for electric bikes and mopeds, (2) the breadth and cadence of the data request and related privacy and proprietary concerns, and (3) the ordinance's selective applicability. Several platform representatives suggested aggregated, privacy-protective reports (heat maps or census-block summaries) and requested more time and technical consultation on implementation timelines and reporting formats.

Council members and administration staff agreed on the need for a working session to refine the insurance definitions, data formats, and enforcement language. BTD staff confirmed the department would use its rulemaking authority to set technical insurance and reporting standards and that fines for noncompliance were proposed in the draft; the committee and industry flagged ambiguous language around $300-per-day penalties and whether the fine formula should say "whichever is greater."

The hearing produced no formal vote. Committee members signaled support for the ordinance's overall goals while requesting clearer regulatory text on: (a) when a company's required coverage must apply (what constitutes an "active" delivery session), (b) how aggregated data will be defined and protected before release, (c) how BTD will set specific insurance minimums, (d) whether small-platform exemptions and grocery/convenience-store carve-outs are appropriate, and (e) whether implementation should phase in (industry asked about a longer ramp than the draft's six months). DoorDash described a voluntary telematics pilot for car drivers and said it is open to expanding telematics and other safety programs.

The committee chair closed the hearing noting the 60-day referral clock on the mayor's submission and indicating further working sessions would follow; no vote was recorded and no final regulatory text was adopted at the hearing. The ordinance remains under committee consideration; the chair noted the mayor's referral record and the need for additional drafting to resolve technical and privacy concerns.