[14:25] >> good morning, everyone. I'm charles allen ward six

[14:29] councilmember chair of transportation and environment.

[14:31] today is monday july 13th, 2026.

[14:35] we're meeting both in room 500 as well as over the zoom virtual

[14:39] platform. The time is now 9:44 a.m.

[14:43] I'm calling to order this public roundtable.

[14:48] the hearing will focus. We introduced bill 26-874.

[15:00] bill referred to committee on may 5, 2026.

[15:03] the advancement of autonomous vehicles is watershed moment in

[15:07] the world of transportation. They are offering ride.

[15:12] they all want to boast that they offer rides in the nation's

[15:16] capitol. I don't think it's a question of

[15:22] avs are coming. Despite what I see as an -- at

[15:32] the same time, my tenure, way too many, human drivers cannot

[15:40] safely operate a motor vehicle. If there's a transportation

[15:45] option we owe to our residents to explore that option fully.

[15:49] today, I believe we'll hear from proponents argue that av's

[15:53] improve traffic safety and consumer choice.

[15:54] if structured the right way. Av's can provide equitable

[16:00] access to rideshare service. In our previous hearing, we

[16:05] heard from people who are blind and low vision I heard from a

[16:17] lot of people who use wheelchairs about shortcoming of

[16:22] autonomous vehicles. There are other legitimate

[16:25] concerns about autonomous vehicle deployment.

[16:28] the deployment of av's on district roadways can exacerbate

[16:33] traffic congestion. It draw rider away public

[16:37] transportation. Commercial av operation will

[16:40] compete with taxi, delivery workers, displacing those jobs.

[16:43] crashes or traffic violations involve av's present novel

[16:47] question regarding who's responsible for any resulting

[16:50] legal liability. As well as potential privacy

[16:52] issues and reports of companies alerting authorities and

[16:55] observing rider behavior. Some people are just skeptical

[16:59] that av's improve traffic safety.

[17:11] to be sure, I can make a list of crashes, injuries and dangerous

[17:16] human driver decisions as well. Currently, the district on

[17:19] allows av companies to engage with a test operator present in

[17:24] the vehicle. Vehicle is operating

[17:27] autonomously but the human can take over the steering wheel.

[17:30] the district department of transportation has been tasked

[17:33] developing a driverless test permit for years.

[17:36] that progress is stalled. Bill 26-684, the autonomous

[17:42] deployment authorization will pave the way for deployment

[17:45] commercial av's through a resist.

[17:47] let me walk through the provisions.

[17:50] first it establishes a autonomous vehicle program that

[17:53] will issue av permits. Applicants must have a record of

[17:57] safe testing and must submit a first responders interaction

[18:00] plan that ensures law enforcement and emergency

[18:05] personnel can interact with av's on the road.

[18:18] the bill sets deadlines to address permit and commercial av

[18:24] permit. Until june 1, 2028, fleet size

[18:27] will be limited to 200 vehicles commercial av operators can

[18:33] submit on demand vehicle network will allow the operator to

[18:37] increase their fleet size. It explains out operator will

[18:43] minimize passengerless vehicle trippings, ensure riders have

[18:48] equitable access to av's that allows people with disability to

[18:52] request a ride. The bill establishes clear rules

[18:56] win autonomous driving system can be engaged.

[19:05] the bill restricts the use of level 3, 4 and 5 system except

[19:10] when an operator received a permit for commercial operation

[19:13] and testing. To ensure the vehicle is aware

[19:15] of vehicle of semi and manufactures levelings degree

[19:19] ufo and 5, must register their products with ddot.

[19:28] the bill establishes vmt tax commercial av operators.

[19:33] it encourages operators it minimize passengerless

[19:37] operators. Hoping today's conversation will

[19:43] involve some discussion how to strengthen it.

[19:48] the bill improves public transit by investing portion of the

[19:51] revenue collected from av operations in the public transit

[19:55] infrastructure and service investments.

[19:56] the bill encourages av operators to collaborate to offer

[20:02] discounted fares for av rides. We have a representative who

[20:07] will be join one of our panel to describe how the technology

[20:11] support not withhold riders from public transit.

[20:13] it also supports existing taxi and rideshare workers by

[20:16] requiring the ddot and collaboration and department of

[20:22] employment service publish a report on taxi and rideshare

[20:28] industries. The bill support taxi and

[20:32] rideshare drivers through education and workforce

[20:34] development. We'll be joined by labor

[20:38] leaders. I look forward to learning about

[20:39] their concern. The bill clarifies how existing

[20:42] traffic safety laws and liability rules apply to

[20:45] autonomous vehicle. The bill provide guidance for

[20:48] when human driver or the autonomous driving system should

[20:50] be considered the driverrer if the purposes of liability.

[20:55] the clarification will help litigants avoid liability

[21:00] disputes. Third panel includes legal

[21:02] experts including a law professor who helped inform

[21:05] those portions of the bill. If I learned anything over the

[21:08] last months, already few people are ambivalent about autonomous

[21:16] vehicles. Looking forward to today's

[21:17] conversation and hearing a recommendations how the bill can

[21:20] be strengthened to achieve the goals we want here in the

[21:23] district. I do believe we'll be joaned by

[21:25] colleagues and council. I will turn to them opening

[21:28] statements they have. With that, couple of quick

[21:30] comments on the format. Commissioners will have five

[21:37] minute each. Public witnesses on behalf of

[21:39] organization will have five minute.

[21:40] those testifying on their own behalf will have three minutes.

[21:44] multiple witnesses testifying on behalf of the same organization,

[21:49] only five minutes. We have other 80 registered

[21:53] witnesses today. That's great.

[21:54] that means I will be using a time keeper.

[21:57] for witnesses that are testifying in-person, please

[22:00] take a seat at the table when your name is called.

[22:07] we may need to pull up a seat to ask a witness to make room.

[22:13] for witnesses testifying virtually you will receive a

[22:16] prompt via zoom to accept a promotion no panelist.

[22:20] please remain seated or in zoom. The committee will accept

[22:27] written testimony for the council -- the record closes on

[22:39] july 27, 2026. I do believe councilmember lewis

[22:41] george is with us online. If have an opening statement, I

[22:44] will turn to you before we call our first panel is.

[22:47] >> thank you, good morning. Chairperson allen and good

[22:50] morning to our witnesses, joining us both in-person and

[22:54] online. I will keep my opening remarks

[22:58] brief. This hearing marks an important

[23:01] moment for the district. Emerging technologies presents

[23:05] tremendous opportunities. They reshape how our residents

[23:08] interact with a built environment and with one

[23:11] another. We saw this with at rival of

[23:17] rideshare platform like uber. D.c. Is distinct from the cities

[23:24] which av's have been deployed. We have unique public safety

[23:28] concerns such as motorcade and specific security measures that

[23:32] must be taken into care and consideration.

[23:35] especially because safety has to be a cornerstone of our unique

[23:39] city, given that we are the capital city of this country.

[23:43] I will be listening closely to how these issues will be

[23:47] addressed. I'm interested in hearing all

[23:51] the perspectives from industry leaders from technical experts

[23:54] from advocates from the disability community from our

[23:57] labor partners and workers and many others about the deployment

[24:00] of autonomous vehicles and the legislation before us today.

[24:05] thank you councilman allen for hosting this hearing.

[24:11] thank you. >> excellent.

[24:12] thank you so much for joining us.

[24:14] let's call our first panel which is combination of folks here in

[24:18] in-person as well as online. Got matthew walsh.

[24:21] regional head of state and local public policy for waymo.

[24:26] david margines director of product management for waymo.

[24:31] marisa tuell with lyft. India herdman, senior policy

[24:38] advisor with tesla. Harry hartfield director and

[24:47] policy advisory with uber.

[25:19] good morning to you all. Matt walsh, we will kick off

[25:22] with you. When you're ready.

[25:25] push the button. >> good morning, mr. Chairman

[25:28] and members of the committee. My name is matt walsh.

[25:30] I'm please to be here today on behalf of waymo.

[25:33] where I serve as regional head of state and local policy.

[25:39] imaginalled toad by waymo director of product management,

[25:43] david margines. We appreciate the opportunity to

[25:45] participate. I want to thank you,

[25:51] mr. Chairman, for your leadership and restarting this

[25:56] important conversation. This proposed legislation is one

[25:58] of the most robust av frameworks in the nation.

[26:02] the first to focus on workers, transit and equitable

[26:06] transportation. We strongly support the bill's

[26:08] objectives and we know from our experience that waymo service

[26:11] can help accomplish that. Making roads safer, creating

[26:15] opportunities for district residents and making rideshare

[26:19] more accessible and equitable. Waymo serves the public in 11

[26:23] major city, providing 500,000 fully autonomous rides every

[26:27] week. In d.c., we have operated with

[26:29] professional test drivers in our vehicles for the past two years

[26:31] as that is the maximum operating authority currently allowed by

[26:36] ddot. We have spent this time

[26:38] validating the technology across all eight wards of the district,

[26:41] autonomously driving more than 300,000 miles with trained

[26:46] professionals behind the wheel. Compared to human drivers, the

[26:49] data shows we are reducing injury causing crashes in cities

[26:54] where we operate. With 220 million miles of

[26:57] driving, we helped prevent more than 700 injury crashes.

[27:01] including near the 50 that could have caused serious injury or

[27:05] worse. We're avoiding about 13 injury

[27:08] crashes every single week. Our technology alone won't fix

[27:11] all of d.c.'s road safety challenges.

[27:14] it will absolutely contribute to the safe system's approach

[27:17] outlined in the district's vision zero plan.

[27:21] waymo's automated driving system increases safety for all road

[27:24] users. It is designed to follow traffic

[27:27] laws and travel at safe speeds. Waymo can build upon the success

[27:32] that the district has made in reducing fatalities on the

[27:38] roadways. Waymo will bring new

[27:38] opportunities to d.c. Our commitment to the district

[27:41] is built on direct, large scale investments in local workforce

[27:46] and infrastructure. Traditional riding networks push

[27:50] heavy operating costs on drivers.

[27:53] with take a fundamentally different approach and recently

[27:56] committed tens of millions of dollars in wards five and seven

[28:00] to build service centers and charging facilities to support

[28:03] our fleet. If the council can provide

[28:05] additional regulatory certainty, our current local workforce will

[28:08] grow from dozens of people today to hundreds of personnel who

[28:12] will provide day-to-day operational support.

[28:15] the construction of our facilities will also create

[28:17] hundreds more jobs and the maintenance of our fleet will

[28:20] bring more business to the local automotive supply chain.

[28:24] this is only the beginning. If the district chooses to

[28:27] become a regional leader in this space, waymo will match that

[28:31] vision with long-term investment and jobs needed to support it.

[28:34] these investments are crucial for operating a robust service

[28:38] that addresses transportation equity challenges in the

[28:41] district. Transportation is the gateway to

[28:44] employment, education, healthcare and participation in

[28:48] community life. Our technology does not consider

[28:51] a rider's race, income, disability or destination.

[28:55] we offer a safe space where people can feel inherent secured

[29:01] and option for people including those who are blind or low

[29:07] vision who face barriers getting around.

[29:09] a scaled av fleet supported by significant investment in local

[29:13] jobs and infrastructure will offer predictable wait time and

[29:16] uniform service across the district.

[29:18] helping address the geographic inequalities that have hinchly

[29:22] impacted residents east of the river.

[29:24] we look forward to developing deeper partnerships with the

[29:27] district and community organizations to fill

[29:30] transportation gaps as we have in cities where we serve.

[29:33] in los angeles and san francisco, we're proud to

[29:35] partner with city agencies like l.a. Metro and community os

[29:40] including the homeless prenatal program to provide subsidized

[29:44] rides to underserve community. In the bay area, we are

[29:48] exploring partnerships to connect our riders with bus and

[29:52] trains. We want to bring that

[29:53] collaborative approach to the district.

[29:55] we are optimistic about this legislation and we are eager to

[29:58] deepen our partnership with the district.

[29:59] we consistently hear from thousands of washingtonians who

[30:04] are excited to have the opportunity to choose waymo

[30:08] alongside other great options available.

[30:10] we proud to have the support of dozens of organizes representing

[30:12] a diverse range of washingtonians who believe waymo

[30:15] will be a positive force in their community.

[30:18] these include the national council on independent living,

[30:21] new futures d.c., the arc, and many others who I'm proud to see

[30:26] in the room today. If the district establishes this

[30:30] pramework, waymo is ready to deliver safer roads, remove

[30:33] transportation barriers for residents and back it up with

[30:35] hundreds of local jobs. We look forward to working with

[30:38] this committee, department of transportation and the community

[30:41] to get this right and build the safer, more sustainable and more

[30:45] equitable transit ecosystem. Thank you.

[30:46] I look forward to your questions.

[30:49] >> thank you very much. Mr. Margines.

[30:52] >> I yielded my time for comments.

[30:55] >> thank you very much. All right, marisa tuell.

[31:03] >> good morning, chairman allen. Members of the committee.

[31:09] my name is marisa tuell, I'm pleased to testify on behalf of

[31:16] lyft. Lyft is operated our rideshare

[31:17] platform in the district for other a decade.

[31:20] we also operate capital bike share.

[31:22] giving us unique advantage point how mobility technology fits in

[31:27] the transportation network. We thank you, chairman allen and

[31:31] the ddot for the delivered approach the district has taken

[31:34] towards autonomous vehicles. We support the bill's goal to

[31:55] bring av's to d.c. Andly the best way to realize that goal

[32:00] for equity, transit and workforce is to make sure that

[32:03] the bill clearly accommodates hybrid network deployment

[32:06] structures. On a hybrid network, human

[32:09] drivers and av's operate side-by-side on the same

[32:12] platform. Sharing supply and demand and

[32:15] reasonabreasonable -- reaching e people and more places.

[32:19] as introduced, the bill is silent on whether permitted av

[32:23] operator may dispatch through existing rideshare platform.

[32:27] that ra creates real ambiguity m companies like ours.

[32:33] we urge the committee to add language for hi hybrid networks.

[32:41] lyft already operates this model in atlanta, riders access av

[32:46] rides from our partner on the lyft platform and later this

[32:51] year, waymo av's will be available for matching on the

[32:53] lyft platform in nashville. The district has been clear that

[33:09] it wants av deployment to expand access.

[33:12] av's don't need to solve every mobility challenge.

[33:16] like ddot approach, no single mode fits every need.

[33:21] av fleets will be limited to specific service areas and fixed

[33:24] number of vehicles in situation like extreme weather event to

[33:27] require them to pause service. Hybrid network who draw on human

[33:33] drivers, is well positioned to deliver consistent, resilient

[33:36] and district-wide service from day one.

[33:39] it preserves choice for riders like older adults and those with

[33:44] mobility challenge who may assistance of a human driver.

[33:46] providing new options for riders who excited about the benefit of

[33:52] av's and don't feel like their needs are well met.

[33:55] the disruption drivers feel from automation isn't new.

[34:01] atm's, self-checkout, didn't eliminate tellers and ca cashie.

[34:09] it gave customers more ways to bank and shop.

[34:18] on another plat -- platform, the number of human drivers have

[34:25] grown year-over-year. This transition creates new

[34:28] opportunities. Av fleets need fleet manager and

[34:34] technicians that offer full-time opportunities.

[34:37] we begun building in nashville and one we like to replicate

[34:41] with av partners here in d.c. We appreciate the committee's

[34:45] openness that works for district residents, visitors, drivers and

[34:49] companies ready to invest here. Equity, resiliency and workforce

[34:54] continuity are four benefits of the same design choice.

[34:58] a framework that treats hybrid deployment as a core option.

[35:01] district is taking time to get this right.

[35:05] we believe that patience puts d.c. In a strong position to

[35:08] lead by example. Thank you.

[35:11] >> thank you very much. Next, india herdman.

[35:17] good morning. >> good morning.

[35:20] chair allen, members of the committee.

[35:23] I'm india herdman. I'm senior policy advisor tesla.

[35:31] autonomous vehicle represent transformative opportunity for

[35:33] d.c. Resident. Av's promise to improve road

[35:36] safety, create new jobs and expand accessibility.

[35:41] in june 2025, tesla began operating robotaxi, our

[35:47] commercial autonomous ride service in texas.

[35:49] rides are available to the public in austin, dallas,

[35:52] houston and miami. Safety is our top priority.

[35:55] tesla's vision-based automated driving system is designedder

[36:01] superior safety, delivering deeper seen understanding,

[36:04] faster reaction time and more reliable decision-making.

[36:07] the tesla ads is trained on over 11 billion miles of real world

[36:13] driving, including events that most drivers never experience in

[36:16] their lifetime. Tesla's ads system performance

[36:20] service validated against scenarios.

[36:27] av's represent tremendous economic opportunities.

[36:30] research shows that av adoption could create three million new

[36:34] jobs in the united states by 2035.

[36:37] tesla with over 100,000 u.s. Employees, builds av technology

[36:41] in-house to scale production and create high quality american

[36:46] jobs. Av expand access for everyone as

[36:48] my colleagues have mentioned. Tesla robotaxi vehicles support

[36:57] in 29 languages. Tesla supports the intent of

[37:05] this legislation, we believe significant amendments are

[37:08] needed to ensure d.c. Can fully capitalize on the av's offer.

[37:18] we usual the strike the 180 mandatory testing requirement

[37:24] the combined 180 day waiting period and 250,000-mile

[37:29] requirement creates an unnecessarily burdensome barrier

[37:32] to entry. Second, the proposed permit fees

[37:35] are extraordinarily high and out of step with the national

[37:40] market. $1 million non-refundable

[37:41] application fee plus a $5 million operational permit

[37:44] fee followed by $1 million renewals.

[37:47] this far exceeds any other u.s. Jurisdiction.

[37:52] for context, nevada caps one-time permit fiat $500,000.

[37:56] we urge the committee to substantially lower these permit

[37:58] fees to levels that are reasonable, proportionate and

[38:03] aligned with national benchmarks.

[38:04] third, we urge removal of prooperation -- provisions in

[38:10] reporting requirement that don't overlap with data made public by

[38:15] the national highway safety administration.

[38:18] tesla opposes levying 15-cent a mile on av's.

[38:25] any new tax deserves rigorous scrutiny one that adds

[38:30] technology specifically designed to provide more affordable

[38:34] transportation. Notably, no other jurisdiction

[38:36] has imposed av specific tax of this nature.

[38:39] finally, tesla strongly opposed the litigation and liability

[38:43] provisions in the bill which present a significant departure

[38:48] from liability principles. Most concerning the provision

[38:52] that imposes tort liability whenever the automated driving

[38:55] system is engaged without the necessity approving product

[38:59] defect. Ads engagement should not

[39:02] absolve a plaintiff from the fundamental requirement of

[39:08] proving product defect. These provisions expand

[39:12] manufacture exposure and risk chilling innovation by creating

[39:15] unpredictable and unlimited liability.

[39:16] we urge the committee to substantially revise these

[39:21] provisions. Tesla is committed to working

[39:22] with the committee to ensure that legislation promotes both

[39:24] the highest standards of public safety and continue innovation

[39:29] in av technology. We stand ready to partner with

[39:32] you to ensure safer roads, expanded mobility and click

[39:37] growth -- economic growth for the people of d.c.

[39:40] >> thank you very much. I got harry hartfield.

[39:46] >> chairperson allen and members of the committee.

[39:48] thank you for opportunity to testify.

[39:52] my name is harry hatfield. We support the expansion of

[39:57] autonomous vehicles. We appreciate the council's

[39:59] willingness to engage on this issue.

[40:02] av's is have are the potential to make our roads safer, expand

[40:06] access to transportation and lower costs.

[40:10] the question for the council is not whether autonomous vehicle

[40:14] should come to the vehicle it's when.

[40:17] the question instead is how best balance notification in way that

[40:20] benefits riders, drivers and all washingtonians.

[40:24] we believe this bill gets that balance wrong.

[40:26] if future of transportation is not a binary choice between

[40:29] human drivers and autonomous drivers the future of

[40:35] transportation will be hybrid. Each fulfilling different needs.

[40:57] unfortunately, this bill does the opposite.

[40:58] it limits competition. By requiring companies to build

[41:02] autonomous technology and operate the rideshare platform.

[41:05] the bill narrows the field to small number of companies.

[41:10] it's hostile to start-ups and small businesses and forces

[41:14] drivers to go to autonomous vehicles.

[41:17] second, it contains no requirement to ensure service

[41:21] reaches all cohort. In the bay area, av operations

[41:27] have expanded in the san francisco wealthiest

[41:29] neighborhoods while remaining absent from underserved

[41:33] communities. The bill does not provide a

[41:37] framework for accessibility from ability, disabilities or

[41:42] mandatory supply. Accessibility cannot be an

[41:48] afterthought. Technology is in the infancy.

[41:51] autonomous technology learning how to manage situation to

[41:55] understand blackout,s, rain and flood events.

[41:59] the outcomes impact not just av passengers but residents across

[42:02] the city. That risk is magnified in the

[42:06] district with motorcades and frequent unexpected road

[42:09] closures. Finally, the bill ignores the

[42:11] workforce transition. There are tens of thousands of

[42:13] drivers in the district. Workforce disruption is not a

[42:17] reason to stop innovation but we should be honest about the

[42:21] tradeoffs. Av's can grow in partnership

[42:22] with drivers. We've seen firsthand the impact

[42:25] when av's and drivers compete. In san francisco and los

[42:30] angeles, where drivers compete, driver utilization declined last

[42:37] year. One av in california now perform

[42:45] roughly of four drivers. That's how the district can

[42:52] lady. Not by moving first.

[42:55] thank you for your time. >> all right.

[43:00] thank you all very much. A lot of questions for the

[43:03] panel. Thank you very much.

[43:06] so, I will start probably mr. Walsh.

[43:10] few questions for you. How many vehicles are currently

[43:16] deployed in your testing phase today?

[43:21] >> here in the district. It's currently 25 vehicles.

[43:27] >> okay. What is their level of

[43:30] automation right now using sae level system?

[43:35] >> that would be level 4. >> okay.

[43:41] does anybody else have any vehicles testing currently?

[43:48] >> we're not testing level 4. We are doing data collection at

[43:51] level 2. >> okay, thank you.

[43:57] mr. Walsh, how many miles of testing have you performed in

[43:59] the district? >> over 300,000 miles in the

[44:03] last two years. >> what is the breakdown of

[44:08] testing miles by ward, for example?

[44:12] >> I don't have the exact mileage break down by ward.

[44:17] we have mapped the entirety of the district.

[44:19] all eight wards we have mapped and or tested.

[44:22] there's not a single ward that we haven't been in.

[44:26] I think we've said that our commitment is to serve the

[44:29] entirety of the district. We can follow-up with your

[44:32] office on the specific mileage breakdown.

[44:35] >> should I their that to mean that your test vehicle driven

[44:40] every block every road in entirety of the district?

[44:43] >> that is correct. >> some blocks you driven many

[44:45] more times over? >> that is true.

[44:49] >> okay. When we think about a testing

[44:57] regime, should driving, for example downtown over and over

[45:01] again, certainly will tell you something.

[45:03] if I'm looking for a system that is across the whole city, should

[45:09] the legislation not require total number of miles but to

[45:11] have some type of geographic distribution such that any av

[45:18] operator should have to be able to show they tested never corner

[45:21] of the ward, every neighborhood, unique characteristics that go

[45:26] with those roadways? >> it's an important question.

[45:31] we would be interested in having a conversation with you and your

[45:34] team over the summer about exactly how the way to achieve

[45:39] that. Regardless of how we ensure that

[45:45] that test is done. That has been to a commitment

[45:49] from av operator. That's something that waymo has

[45:51] been committed to and continues to be committed to.

[45:54] certainly we've shown that through the testing and mapping

[45:57] that we have done. I do think it's important part

[46:01] of this conversation that all operators should be committed to

[46:05] providing equitable service. >> do you have a breakdown of

[46:12] testing miles by condition? What I mean by that, by day,

[46:17] night, day snow, by ice. To get a full testing experience

[46:23] of what the conditions will be like in the district?

[46:26] >> over the last two years, we have seen pretty much everything

[46:29] that the district has had to offer us.

[46:33] I don't have those exact breakdown figures.

[46:36] I'm happy to follow up. >> do you categorize your

[46:40] testing by condition? Is that a known answer?

[46:46] you can get back to us. >> it absolutely is.

[46:49] we do characterize those. We seek to get as much of a

[46:54] variety as possible when we do deploy, we do start to scale.

[46:57] we are prepared for anything. >> okay.

[47:05] have there been or how many collisions have there been

[47:09] during the testing phase with your vehicles?

[47:11] there there have been a hand full of collisions.

[47:13] most of them have been in the fault of other human drivers

[47:15] from what I understand. Those have been reported to ddot

[47:22] as require. There's been no serious major

[47:24] collision. >> does that report distinguish

[47:29] whether -- does it assign fault where the fault lied in that

[47:36] collision? >> to the best of my knowledge,

[47:38] the report details the facts of the incident.

[47:40] I do not believe that when we put that report in, we're not

[47:47] assigned fault to waymo. There's police reports that npd

[47:53] files. We as waymo do not assign fault

[47:55] in our reports. >> I want to pull the thread a

[48:03] little bit on understanding the app.

[48:07] hybrid model versus a vertical integration.

[48:15] the legislation is silent to it we didn't legislatively specify

[48:21] what the actual integration has to be.

[48:23] sometimes we're a little -- we don't to over legislate.

[48:28] that can lock things in. At the same time, if I

[48:35] understood ms. Tuell it can be interpreted to disallow that

[48:38] from taking place. I understand your argument is we

[48:41] don't want to disallow it. Does waymo operate a hybrid

[48:48] network platform in other jurisdictions or is it mixed

[48:52] based on which jurisdiction you're in?

[48:54] >> mr. Chairman, I think a better way to sort of zoom out

[48:56] and talk about the fact that I think when we talk about a

[49:00] hybrid network, which has been said multiple times today that

[49:03] your colleagues have had. This idea of hybrid network is a

[49:08] problem in search of a solution. It's a solution in search of

[49:13] problem. In 11 major cities that we

[49:15] operate this today, there is a ecosystem of transportation

[49:18] options. People can choose to take a

[49:21] waymo. People can choose to take one of

[49:24] the ride handling apps. People can choose metro transit.

[49:28] the idea this that legislation has to be specific in statute as

[49:33] to needing a hybrid network. I don't understand that.

[49:35] as written, there will be the same transportation ecosystem

[49:38] that operates here that operates in every any other city that we

[49:41] currently operate in. I'm not quite sure, I don't

[49:46] think your colleagues have understood what this hybrid

[49:50] network truly is. >> let me pull in mr. Hartfield

[49:55] and ms. Tuell on this. When I take an uber, I pull out

[50:00] my app. I have different types of

[50:02] choices what type of vehicle I'm looking at.

[50:04] if provides me an approximate time and cost.

[50:07] I can make a choice. If I'm not going to take an

[50:11] uber, because I'm going to go jump on a bikeshare, I don't go

[50:19] to uber app to get the bikeshare.

[50:20] same phone, I say, where are my bikes that are available.

[50:26] why do I need a hybrid model, why do you think that's

[50:31] advantageous you're advocating for that, compared to probably

[50:34] have all the apps on my phone here and I can choose the best

[50:39] one that I'm looking for. >> today, if you open your lyft

[50:45] app in d.c., we have human driven apps available and

[50:53] bikeshare. You tip in your destination.

[50:58] you assess how am I beginning to get there based on wait time or

[51:04] proximity of bicycle cost. When we bring av's on the

[51:08] platform that will be a new added choice.

[51:11] we also believe will bring needs of riders today that see human

[51:16] driven ride or see bikeshare ride.

[51:17] saying my needs are not being met.

[51:19] that's the big opportunity for us there.

[51:23] >> mr. Hartfield. >> one quick clarifying thing.

[51:31] it wouldn't allow uber or lyft for that matter to have av's on

[51:34] their platform. Only an av developer,

[51:42] manufacturer, operator can get the av permit to dispatch those

[51:46] vehicles which means that uber and lyft couldn't get the

[51:49] permit. We therefore couldn't dispatch

[51:51] av's on our platform. If we went to go work with a

[51:54] company with av's we allowed to do that.

[52:00] >> just to be clear, I don't believe that was the legislative

[52:03] intent. That's the point of hearing

[52:05] where we're able to hear different perspectives and

[52:08] readings and we work on goals. >> I think zooming out, the

[52:14] benefit of the hybrid network, yes, it's from customer

[52:17] experience. I'm going to the airport, it's

[52:21] nice to have that option. I think that's a positive

[52:24] customer experience. For the city, the district, for

[52:28] drivers, the benefits are we run rideshare network.

[52:35] we should be better. We don't need thousands of av's

[52:40] to run relabel. Hundreds of av's can help me

[52:46] demand and meet people where they are.

[52:48] if got an av only network, you need thousand plus av to meet

[52:58] demand otherwise your eta's are too long.

[53:00] it's like a reverse fly wheel if you will.

[53:04] hybrid network will ask you to scale slowly.

[53:09] drivers sort of have more time to make an adjustment.

[53:13] I would say overtime, drivers will start to leave the

[53:17] platform. There will be less work.

[53:19] that's the nature of this. It's not a reason to stop it.

[53:22] it's something we should keep in mind.

[53:25] that means traditional rideshare might be little less reliable.

[53:29] an av can't operate or won't operate in certain places.

[53:36] the fallback network isn't there.

[53:38] we think that a hybrid network allows you to scale better.

[53:43] it also -- we serve -- you should have to serve all the

[53:52] wards on day one. Av's will be safer.

[53:57] they have an incredible safety benefit.

[53:59] we won't realize the safety benefit unless day one.

[54:03] I'm happy to keep talking about it.

[54:08] >> I will turn my colleague for round of questions.

[54:12] I do think, happy to work with folks after the hearing as we

[54:15] think in the weeks and months ahead.

[54:21] part of the legislation contemplate, the company request

[54:23] asking the av permit. We want to be one that's

[54:26] directly managing the fleet. I hear, I will wrestle with this

[54:32] ail little bit, around what is the user interface look like in

[54:36] a way that consumer friendly for that choice as possible.

[54:42] we want to create a system direct management of the fleet.

[54:45] we'll come back to that. I want to turn to my colleague,

[54:53] councilwoman lewis george. >> I appreciate the conversation

[54:55] around the hybrid model. Ms. Tuell and mr. Hartfield, how

[55:01] many drivers do you have on your app in the d.c. Region and how

[55:07] many driver more than 20 hours per week?

[55:12] >> I don't have an official number.

[55:15] tens of thousands of drivers in the district.

[55:16] in general, about 80% of them drive less than 20 hours a week.

[55:21] I'm happy to come back. >> thank you.

[55:24] >> I have this number. About 87% of drivers on the lyft

[55:30] network work fewer than 20 hours a week.

[55:32] that is national, not d.c. Specific.

[55:37] >> how is this changed in jurisdictions where av's

[55:45] operate? >> we seen in places where av's

[55:51] compete with human drivers. Like san francisco and l.a.

[56:00] there are whole host of reasons for that.

[56:04] clearly, there's an impact. There's an impact how many trips

[56:08] drivers get. People who use it flexible way

[56:25] to make money or college student after school and parent making

[56:29] extra money for christmas. Those people have little less

[56:32] time to make the same amount will probably see the

[56:35] consequences first. >> thank you for that.

[56:41] mr. Walsh and I wanted to come to you around can you speak in

[56:46] greater detail about the number of employees you have in other

[56:50] regions comparable size? What kinds of jobs do you

[56:55] generally bring into markets with av deployment?

[56:59] >> I appreciate the question, councilmember.

[57:01] we're seeing hundred of jobs in similar larger metro markets.

[57:06] these types of jobs range from things like our autonomous

[57:10] specialist who are there behind the wheel during the initial

[57:13] phases of testing and development.

[57:16] we have fleet managers. We have vehicle technicians.

[57:20] we have individuals responsible for cleaning and maintaining the

[57:22] vehicles, charging the vehicles. There's the broader automotive

[57:27] av ecosystem that builds around that.

[57:30] we will require suppliers for things like tire.

[57:32] we go through an incredible amount of tires traveling 24/7 a

[57:36] day. There's a whole ecosystem that's

[57:38] built around that. Those are are the types of jobs

[57:41] right now that we see being created.

[57:45] >> okay. Ms. Herdman.

[57:52] same question. For tesla.

[57:55] can you speak to about the number of employees you have in

[57:59] other regions of comparable size and what kinds of jobs do you

[58:02] bring in markets with av deployment?

[58:05] >> very similar to my colleague at waymo.

[58:09] we hire different types of positions to support fleet

[58:14] operationtors including specialists, remote operators,

[58:18] anything to do with a depot charging, cleaning.

[58:21] we're also unique in that we are the manufacture of the vehicle

[58:25] as well. We've hired thousands of people

[58:29] down in texas to support our manufacturing processes for our

[58:34] robotaxi vehicles. We continue to be hiring.

[58:38] please look at our website. We're hiring a lot of jobs now.

[58:41] it's a very competitive market. >> where the wages for those

[58:46] positions generally seeking? >> all tesla employees for

[58:51] robotaxi are in-house. They get full benefits the

[58:55] salary depends on the specific position.

[58:58] they also get equity in the company as well.

[59:04] >> mr. Walsh, what about for waymo?

[59:06] what are the wages for those positions generally speaking?

[59:12] >> appreciate the question, councilmember.

[59:15] I think a lot of those wages are dependent on different

[59:19] classification of role and skills that are needed for those

[59:23] roles. There is a mixture full-time and

[59:27] in-house and through our partner vendors.

[59:32] >> okay. I guess how many -- one of the

[59:42] concerns is making sure that our workforce remains within the

[59:46] district and there are jobs available for them.

[59:51] I know some of the jobs are temporary.

[59:54] how many of them, the temporary jobs I guess the initial

[59:58] deployment versus individuals who end up with long-term jobs?

[1:00:02] what is does that transition look like?

[1:00:03] >> I appreciate the question. I think a lot our autonomous

[1:00:11] specialists involved with the beginning phase they transition

[1:00:14] into autonomous specialist trainer jobs.

[1:00:16] they are going training other autonomous specialist on fleed

[1:00:22] management role these are roles that give people an opportunity

[1:00:27] for career development. We've been really proud to be

[1:00:30] able to hire a majority of our current testing and autonomous

[1:00:34] specialist that are d.c. Residents.

[1:00:36] I think we're committed to continuing that local hiring.

[1:00:41] one thing I will say, councilmember, the size of our

[1:00:45] operation in here in d.c. Is going to dictate what the size

[1:00:50] of our workforce can be. Right now there's some

[1:00:53] discussion vehicle cap in the legislation in the larger and

[1:00:57] operation we can have here in d.c., bigger the footprint can

[1:01:01] be and more people we will need to support that service.

[1:01:04] eager to have that conversation with you and your colleagues.

[1:01:07] >> I appreciate that. As I mentioned, d.c. Is unique

[1:01:11] in its safety concerns. What have you all been doing

[1:01:15] during the testing phase to take about account the safety

[1:01:20] concerns? We are home of embassies and

[1:01:23] diplomats. Not only the president of the

[1:01:24] united states but also many congressmen and women.

[1:01:28] a lot of high security traffic as well as our roadways.

[1:01:37] what have you all been doing to take into account the unique

[1:01:41] security concerns that face the district of columbia?

[1:01:44] what can be done to address the unique security concerns that

[1:01:48] face the district of columbia as the capitol city?

[1:01:53] >> this has been part of our approach thinking ever isn't we

[1:01:56] entered this area and started driving with autonomous

[1:02:07] specialists here. It was a key part of our

[1:02:14] approach. What we have seen is that our

[1:02:20] software generalized extremely well to the district.

[1:02:23] there were great opportunities to observe these situations that

[1:02:27] you speak of, like motorcades, unplanned road closures,

[1:02:33] etcetera and validate that more than 200 million fully

[1:02:37] autonomous miles that we have seen in our other cities

[1:02:42] translated well here. We transparently released all

[1:02:55] data through nhtsa and the order.

[1:02:56] what we have demonstrated over a track record of

[1:03:00] 220 million miles is a 94% reduction in serious injury

[1:03:06] collisions. The other thing that I would

[1:03:09] mention that I think is unique to this district and we've heard

[1:03:12] from other officials in our other districts is that the

[1:03:16] privacy that waymo vehicles offer is a key factor in them

[1:03:21] selecting their own transportation options.

[1:03:23] they are able to hold personal conversations in the vehicle and

[1:03:27] extend it in a work space. Because of the privacy that

[1:03:31] offers. I think that the waymo service

[1:03:34] is actually a uniquely suited to the needs of the district and we

[1:03:38] look forward to being able to demonstrate that through a scale

[1:03:44] then methodical deployment. >> what caused the autonomous

[1:03:51] vehicle to drive in the flooded roadway prompting recall of 35

[1:03:56] money vehicles? Could you talk for about nhtsa

[1:04:03] letter about ongoing issues which you are going to address

[1:04:07] nhtsa's concern. >> absolutely.

[1:04:11] couple of topics within that question.

[1:04:15] let me try to tackle them all. Nhtsa did release a letter

[1:04:23] emphasizing the importance of autonomous vehicles to comply

[1:04:26] with first responders and essentially keep them moving on

[1:04:29] roads. This is a position that we

[1:04:32] wholeheartedly agree with. It's something that we have

[1:04:39] espouses since we started as a company over 16 years ago.

[1:04:41] we've worked with nhtsa throughout that period to make

[1:04:46] sure they understand our technology and we're taking

[1:04:49] feedback from them throughout. The content letter was no

[1:04:54] surprise. Something we agree with.

[1:04:57] furthermore, just to calculate on the scale and size of

[1:05:00] operations in our level of performance, waymo interacts

[1:05:06] with 68,000 active emergency vehicles every single week.

[1:05:10] the overwhelming majority of those are complete nonevents.

[1:05:14] we're able to move to the side well ahead because we're paying

[1:05:19] attention, 360 degrees. We're able to reroute to get

[1:05:22] away from active emergency scenes, etcetera.

[1:05:25] the san francisco fire department went so far as to

[1:05:28] tweet out a video of waymo vehicle getting out of the way

[1:05:32] of active fire truck. There are going to opportunity

[1:05:44] for improvement. It's something we continue to

[1:05:45] work with the department and agencies and all the cities that

[1:05:48] we're at including at the federal level to make sure that

[1:05:52] we continue to improve. >> I'm over time.

[1:05:54] if you all have an -- I don't know if you did official

[1:05:59] response to nhtsa concern, if so, that's something you can

[1:06:02] share with the committee. >> we'll go ahead and follow-up

[1:06:06] with you, councilmember. Appreciate the question.

[1:06:09] >> thank you. >> thank you, councilmember.

[1:06:12] let me stick on safety for a little bit as well.

[1:06:16] basically, I think every av company we heard from touts

[1:06:19] safety record. We're going to be safer than

[1:06:23] human driver. Can you talk more about how you

[1:06:26] quantify the safety of the vehicle.

[1:06:29] how is it measured? Being safer than the worst

[1:06:35] driver on the road is not a very high bar.

[1:06:39] shouldn't it be safer for the safest driver?

[1:06:41] can you tuck -- talk about how you measure and quantify what

[1:06:47] safer means and who we measuring against?

[1:06:51] >> excellent question. Thank you for focusing on the

[1:06:54] holistic approach here. It's important to measure and

[1:06:57] give actual reports rather than looking at individual events.

[1:07:01] to get to your question, we've released our safety measurement

[1:07:09] methodology in a peer review white paper.

[1:07:14] I encourage you to get the answer there.

[1:07:16] we take extremely apples to apple approach in measuring our

[1:07:20] vehicle safety against human-driven miles in the same

[1:07:24] gee okay I if I -- geographies d the same type of roads.

[1:07:34] if you driving on one type of roadway, say a freeway and then

[1:07:38] measuring against the holistic baseline including roadways that

[1:07:42] include many more pedestrians or cyclists versus vehicles it's

[1:07:48] easy to produce a number that popurports to be much safer.

[1:08:03] which is why we've released that data.

[1:08:04] we released unredacted collision report.

[1:08:11] what we have demonstrated with that and all these numbers are

[1:08:14] available at waymo.com/safety/impact.

[1:08:20] we enjoy a 94% reduction in serious injury collisions.

[1:08:24] we also have numbers that show the performance of the waymo

[1:08:31] driver with regard to different collision types like within

[1:08:35] intersection or front to rear, head-to-head, etcetera.

[1:08:40] also, against vulnerable road users.

[1:08:41] which is an area we take very seriously.

[1:08:45] where we see some of our highest impact numbers.

[1:08:49] hopefully that shed some light on it.

[1:08:50] there's a lot more in the paper. T

[1:08:57] >> absolutely. Ms. Herdman, similar question

[1:09:00] how tesla evaluates this? Not testing the district in the

[1:09:03] same way. How is tesla measuring?

[1:09:07] is it similar or comparable. >> it's very similar.

[1:09:12] we have to measure against human benchmarks.

[1:09:14] otherwise everything is just a imaginary.

[1:09:16] we have that collision reporting done by the u.s. Department of

[1:09:21] transportation. We can take collisions per miles

[1:09:24] traveled in our robotaxi fleet and produce that data as well.

[1:09:30] just like my colleague as well, we transparently submit

[1:09:34] unredacted reports to the national highway traffic safety

[1:09:49] administration. >> thank you.

[1:10:06] following this thread little bit longer, there was a forum about

[1:10:08] a week ago by families for safe streets on autonomous vehicles.

[1:10:12] during the forum, one of the folks kind of challenged about

[1:10:19] what level of safety is a fair expectation or demand for

[1:10:24] autonomous vehicles? They were talking about specific

[1:10:27] numbers. Is it -- should we be saying

[1:10:31] autonomous vehicle is ten times safer than humans?

[1:10:35] should be 100 times safer. You giving numbers saying 94%

[1:10:41] fewer collisions. Is there a measurement or a

[1:10:44] metric that exists to say an av is ten time safer than a human

[1:10:49] driver? What will be a reasonable

[1:10:52] threshold to hold av's to? >> it's very interesting

[1:10:56] question. It's not something that we've

[1:10:58] considered deeply. Maybe some of the considerings

[1:11:01] that you might incorporate as you consider the path forward

[1:11:05] here. At waymo, we have safety built

[1:11:09] into every aspect of our culture.

[1:11:11] one of the things that we talk about internally is the safety

[1:11:16] is urgent. 40,000 people die on our

[1:11:18] roadways every single year. 1.2 million internationally.

[1:11:25] it is the number 14 leading cause of death amongst people.

[1:11:29] it's a number two leading cause of death amongst young people.

[1:11:35] what waymo is offering is a 94% effective cure to that public

[1:11:43] health crisis. Now, it's not 100% cure.

[1:11:47] there's still 6% left there. We're working hard on improving

[1:11:51] that. But if you're offered 94% cure

[1:11:54] to that number 14 leading cause of death, I think that the poach

[1:11:59] should be to try to take that as soon as possible.

[1:12:04] today, right now, somebody going to experience untime it will

[1:12:09] death, serious injury collision that's going to keep them from

[1:12:11] being able to go to their job, play with their kid.

[1:12:15] it's going to change their life. If we have the opportunity to

[1:12:18] prevent one of those, if we have the opportunity to prevent

[1:12:21] 10,000 of those in the future by acting faster, I think that's an

[1:12:24] opportunity to we should take. >> all right.

[1:12:29] devil's advocate. When we think about changing

[1:12:35] behavior to have safer driving. I heard folks say, all right,

[1:12:40] from an impairment standpoint,s there a great option.

[1:12:43] someone has gone out. They had too much to drink.

[1:12:49] they are impaired. They can get home this way.

[1:12:52] most impaired drivers are driving because they don't think

[1:12:55] they are impaired. Folks will go to a bar,

[1:12:58] restaurant, drink too much, they get back in their car and drive

[1:13:01] home. Today, they have the option in

[1:13:04] d.c. At least, I can call an uber or lyft right now.

[1:13:08] the cynic would say, are you going to change behavior?

[1:13:11] to the 17-year-old kid who's going to make really dumb

[1:13:14] decision on a roadway, they can make a different choice.

[1:13:19] how do you help answer that cynic say, I don't know if we'll

[1:13:24] get that impaired driver off the road.

[1:13:26] they are choosing to get behind the wheel for little bit of

[1:13:30] variety of reasons. They are making that choice

[1:13:33] today. Why would they choose to get a

[1:13:36] waymo? >> it's an excellent question.

[1:13:38] we approached this through a study where we worked with the

[1:13:41] city of chandler, arizona. Examining accident reports,

[1:13:49] recreated every single fatal collision that have occurred

[1:13:52] over a certain period there. Then we used our extensive

[1:13:57] simulation capabilities to replace the actors in each of

[1:14:01] those accidents with the waymo driver to see how well it would

[1:14:06] performed. We did that both for the primary

[1:14:09] actor. Essentially the actor that was

[1:14:11] cause of that accident. We also did it for the secondary

[1:14:16] vehicles in that collision. What we found when the waymo

[1:14:20] driver replaced the primary actor, 100% of those collisions

[1:14:23] were avoided. When we replaced the vehicle,

[1:14:29] more than 85% was avoided. The waymo driver is able to

[1:14:35] prevent not only the primary cause of the collision, say that

[1:14:39] person making a better decision because waymo is available in

[1:14:42] the district. But also the secondary

[1:14:45] collisions as well. We have videos of what this

[1:14:48] looks like on our website. Waymo.com/safety.

[1:14:51] you can see the waymo driver swerving out of the way of red

[1:14:57] light runners or potential t-bone collisions.

[1:15:01] drivers aren't just paying attention.

[1:15:04] that will be level of safety that the district would enjoy.

[1:15:07] even if we're not convincing that potential drunk driver to

[1:15:12] take waymo instead of driving home.

[1:15:15] >> ms. Herdman? >> a lot of this burden on the

[1:15:18] manufactures who incentivize the behavior to call an autonomous

[1:15:22] vehicle. The way that tesla think about

[1:15:24] this is by providing the most affordable option for our

[1:15:28] vehicles. Our goal to get the cost per

[1:15:31] mile down to 30 cents per mile to the customer as we scale.

[1:15:34] you can see why I have concerns about the 15-cent per mile

[1:15:37] number since that is half of what we would be charge as a

[1:15:44] fare per mile. >> council man lewis george I

[1:15:49] have couple of more questions. One of the things that I think

[1:15:55] we've heard around arguments for the av driver is that we can

[1:16:00] program it to be safer. Is there any scenario where we

[1:16:05] would say that you can program an autonomous vehicle to exceed

[1:16:09] the speed limit? It's not 5 miles per hour over.

[1:16:16] it's not two miles over. The limit is the limit.

[1:16:19] do we program our autonomous vehicles to operate at the speed

[1:16:22] limit and no greater? >> that is the way that waymos

[1:16:29] are programmed. Waymos are designed to drive

[1:16:33] safely. That includes speed limits.

[1:16:35] they can for very brief periods, exceed the speed limit only if

[1:16:40] they are attempting to avoid a collision.

[1:16:42] that would be the only instance in which that occurs.

[1:16:45] that's waymo's approach. Different autonomous vehicle

[1:16:49] companies might take a different approach.

[1:16:52] >> ms. Herdman. >> our vehicles are designed to

[1:16:55] comply with local traffic law. The vehicle can go faster than

[1:16:58] the speed limit in the event of a safety critical situation as

[1:17:03] well as to keep pace with the traffic surrounding it.

[1:17:07] we found that there are actually additional incidents in av

[1:17:11] vehicle is going too far below the speed eliminate.

[1:17:13] we've done a lot of testing with speed.

[1:17:18] >> okay, why would you allow it to go over the speed limit?

[1:17:24] I understand the safety. That makes sense.

[1:17:26] flow of traffic, whole bunch of people just driving dangerously

[1:17:31] above the speed limit. >> it won't necessarily mimic

[1:17:34] the speed that the other drivers are going.

[1:17:37] be within a specific margin between the traffic law with the

[1:17:41] spite limit posted as well as what's going on around behind

[1:17:45] the vehicle and sides of the vehicle in the event it needs to

[1:17:49] swerve. >> got it.

[1:17:53] I feel the evasive maneuver, the safety response are quick

[1:17:58] momentary piece, I can wrap my head around that one.

[1:18:01] I feel pretty strongly we set a speed limit for a reason.

[1:18:04] that's the limit. We can't go over that.

[1:18:09] similarly, I had a lot of conversation around how do you

[1:18:13] manage curbside, pick up and dropoff, but also, you can't

[1:18:16] park in a bike lane. That's the bike lane's.

[1:18:22] is the programming such that the vehicle cannot stop in impede

[1:18:27] the travel within a marked designated bike lane?

[1:18:33] >> yeah. I think the discussion of curb

[1:18:38] usage is interesting one, dense urban environment like the

[1:18:42] district. The waymo vehicle prioritizes

[1:18:45] safe and compliant roadway usage including the use of curb space.

[1:18:52] generally, I think that I know that the council has opinions

[1:18:57] about how to collaborate with autonomous vehicle players.

[1:19:00] that's a conversation we are excited to have with you.

[1:19:03] so that we can understand the district's needs as well as make

[1:19:06] sure that we're programming our vehicles to be able to take the

[1:19:12] most advantage curb days. Get people safely and rapidly

[1:19:17] where they need to get to. >> thank for the question.

[1:19:19] the tesla ads is designed to never stop in a bike lane.

[1:19:25] curbs are super important for a variety of reasons particularly,

[1:19:28] for blind and visually impaired customers.

[1:19:31] we need to be able to make sure that pick-ups and dropoffs are

[1:19:35] perfect essentially and be able to give that guidance in app

[1:19:40] where vehicle is located. Another really interesting

[1:19:43] conversation that we're having with other jurisdictions is pick

[1:19:45] up and dropoff locations for extremely busy areas.

[1:19:58] >> curbside management is something that is really

[1:20:00] important whether it's our av conversation or anybody else.

[1:20:05] we're going to continue to follow this after the hearing,

[1:20:09] obviously. I think there's a healthy

[1:20:15] discussion to have. When take uber or lyft and it's

[1:20:17] drooping me off at my house, it's not unreasonable thing it

[1:20:22] will stop in the roadway and let the passengers out and the

[1:20:25] driver makes decision around that.

[1:20:27] I don't believe it should stop in a bike lane.

[1:20:29] I do believe there's instances where there's a reasonable

[1:20:32] standard of I do that in uber and lyft, that's not

[1:20:37] unreasonable expectation that I will be able to walk out in the

[1:20:42] vehicle or not. I do think safety around not

[1:20:47] blocking a bike lane is going to be very important.

[1:20:50] for multiple stakeholders in the district as well.

[1:20:52] I can also understand we got to find a reasonableness of when a

[1:20:56] vehicle is will drop me off, for example.

[1:20:58] outside my door, which is not unreasonable expectation.

[1:21:04] I gone well over councilwoman lewis george.

[1:21:10] >> I want to talk more about infrastructure and how you plan

[1:21:13] to manage the specific way the district is different from other

[1:21:17] jurisdictions. These questions are primarily

[1:21:18] for the folks from waymo wells ms. Herdman.

[1:21:23] all are welcome to respond. In preparation for deployment,

[1:21:27] what were will your companies do to set up infrastructure.

[1:21:33] will will you look to set up depots.

[1:21:36] I'm assuming those will be sites where job with district

[1:21:41] residents primarily located? >> great question.

[1:21:44] right now, as I said, we have made initial investments in

[1:21:48] wards 5 and 7. Those are for both service

[1:21:52] depots as well as charging facilities.

[1:21:54] I we're excited to see those become open in the future.

[1:22:00] those will be where district residents will be able to have

[1:22:05] carrier opportunities. There's shorter wait time.

[1:22:18] there's more prevalence of waymos coming in and out of the

[1:22:21] depo. For ward 7, we're excited about

[1:22:24] the possibility that those residents will have unfettered

[1:22:28] access to waymo. Which is a pretty stark

[1:22:30] departure from their current transportation options.

[1:22:36] >> ms. Herdman. >> thank you for the question,

[1:22:38] councilmember. Outside of our hiring for our

[1:22:41] data collection operations in d.c., we have not made any hard

[1:22:45] investments in the community yet.

[1:22:48] transparently, it's kind of all about whether we'll be able to

[1:22:50] come here. This is the purpose for this

[1:22:53] conversation. When there's a clear deployment

[1:22:56] pathway for commercial operation that's when you would see tesla

[1:22:59] make investments in the community.

[1:23:02] >> got it. How do you all expect this

[1:23:05] infrastructure to impact our electrical grid capacity?

[1:23:08] rising electricity rates are a top of mind concern for our

[1:23:12] residents and for us. As leaders.

[1:23:15] understanding these impacts are really critical for us.

[1:23:23] >> thank you. Yes, as you know, tesla

[1:23:26] manufactures a range of products outside of vehicles including

[1:23:31] solar equipment and utility scaled batteries.

[1:23:34] we think about this question a lot.

[1:23:36] we need to be very diligent about what times of day we are

[1:23:41] charging to avoid high usage times during the day as well as

[1:23:46] investing in our super charger network, tesla operates the

[1:23:50] largest charging network in the world.

[1:23:55] we understand that those continued investments are really

[1:23:58] important. I spoke with your office prior

[1:24:00] to this hearing and I'm going to come in and talk to you about

[1:24:04] our battery management systems. So we can chat further.

[1:24:10] >> waymo is also proud to operate a 100% battery electric

[1:24:17] fleet. As america continues its

[1:24:21] transformation towards electrification, the types of

[1:24:23] questions you asked are coming up.

[1:24:26] we've had extensive experience doing this in other metros that

[1:24:30] we've been operating in. We also recently introduced a

[1:24:34] program that takes the batteries out of the vehicles that we have

[1:24:39] retired to add to the grid and supplement grid level storage so

[1:24:46] we can reduce usage during peak times.

[1:24:49] this is a challenge broadly that the industry, automobile

[1:24:55] industry, not just waymo is facing.

[1:24:56] we look forward to working with you and your office to

[1:25:00] understand d.c.'s unique challenges and make sure that we

[1:25:04] are building towards that more electrified future that we're

[1:25:08] all pushing for. >> how can your companies -- I'm

[1:25:12] hearing a lot about how you can plan to offset, can you speak

[1:25:15] more about the way the grid itself is impacted and how your

[1:25:21] companies can offset the cost and how you all can helps in the

[1:25:27] district meet our clean energy goals?

[1:25:34] >> because we do not have commercial operations in the

[1:25:37] district, I'm not extremely familiar --

[1:25:42] [ indiscernible ] >> I can't speak to that.

[1:25:46] I'm happy to follow-up with your office and give some more

[1:25:50] information on that. >> I appreciate it.

[1:25:54] >> do you mind if I add something.

[1:25:56] this is harry. I think getting back to

[1:25:59] something you said before. Under the current version of the

[1:26:04] bill, network you want a world where the manufacturer also

[1:26:08] operates the fleet. By necessity, that means

[1:26:16] multiple depot. Everyone needs their own depot

[1:26:18] pulling from the grid individually.

[1:26:22] hybrid network, you might have two or three depots but there's

[1:26:27] multiple companies pulling from the depot.

[1:26:29] you're reducing footprint and potentially reducing your grid

[1:26:35] usage. Which is long-term benefit

[1:26:37] there. >> thank you, I appreciate that.

[1:26:43] mr. Walsh, thanks to speaking to locate in wards 5 and 7.

[1:26:46] I wonder how see that impacting traffic patterns.

[1:26:50] the roadways that run through these wards are extremely

[1:26:54] congested and represent high traffic areas.

[1:26:56] how about waymo adding vehicles change these patterns.

[1:27:04] wha >> I appreciate the question.

[1:27:09] councilmember, long before we finalized any specific site

[1:27:13] location, we are going through an extensive review process of

[1:27:16] not only the site but the surrounding community.

[1:27:20] traffic assessments are being conducted well before we move

[1:27:23] forward with our plans. I think right now, of the sites

[1:27:27] that we are moving forward on, we feel very confident that the

[1:27:31] addition of the waymo facilities will not negatively contribute

[1:27:35] to traffic congestion. The other thing that we have

[1:27:38] implemented in our facilities is our staff are constantly aware

[1:27:42] making sure the flow of vehicles is smooth and efficient.

[1:27:45] certainly we don't want those vehicles blocking any of those

[1:27:48] street. If you look at the facilities

[1:27:50] that we have in other market, you will see that these

[1:27:53] facilities are fairly seemless operations and so, the other

[1:27:57] last thing I'll say, as those facilities begin to near further

[1:28:03] stages of completion, the waymo team will be interacting with

[1:28:08] the surrounding communities engaging with them so they have

[1:28:11] an understanding what these facility look like.

[1:28:13] lastly and probably most importantly, what can those

[1:28:17] members of the public and local businesses do if they need to

[1:28:20] contact waymo about any concerns.

[1:28:22] looking forward to engaging with the communities deeply in coming

[1:28:26] weeks or months. >> thank you, I appreciate that.

[1:28:29] I wanted to -- the district is also unique in such a bounded

[1:28:34] area. We are surrounded by multiple

[1:28:37] states, counties and cities on all sides.

[1:28:40] as we think about this legislation, how do you see the

[1:28:44] laws in those jurisdiction impacting employment?

[1:28:47] do you expect the employment here to align with employment in

[1:28:51] neighboring jurisdictions? >> yes.

[1:28:53] really good question. I think the regional aspect of

[1:28:57] this has been part of the conversation from the early days

[1:29:00] two years ago. Where things stand now I think

[1:29:03] that the district is in position to be a leader on this subject.

[1:29:08] should this legislation move forward, waymo, there are

[1:29:12] initial service will be operating within the confines of

[1:29:15] the district. Virginia and maryland are in

[1:29:17] different stages of their sort of legislative development on

[1:29:20] this policy area. While we're incredibly proud to

[1:29:24] be able to hopefully be the first av operator, we understand

[1:29:29] the realities of ride, hail and transportation patterns.

[1:29:41] we are actively involved in conversations in virginia and

[1:29:44] maryland. I'm very optimistic that both

[1:29:47] state legislatures will act in 2027 to catch up with the

[1:29:51] district and then eventually we will have some type of broad

[1:29:55] policy across the dmv region so that people can use av's to get

[1:30:00] all of their destinations. >> okay.

[1:30:04] my question really is like do we have to move as a region given

[1:30:08] the unique nature of the city and what -- can one piece of the

[1:30:17] region move forward without the other pieces staying in line?

[1:30:20] or is this we have to move together as a region on this

[1:30:23] issue for it to be successful? >> I would say that I think the

[1:30:28] district is well poised to continue this legislation.

[1:30:32] I know there's going to be future conversations over the

[1:30:35] summer. I think washingtonians are

[1:30:36] excited about having waymo as an option.

[1:30:39] we're certainly ready to make the investment.

[1:30:41] I would not want to see the district wait for the other

[1:30:45] jurisdictions to act. I think that you all have taken

[1:30:49] a strong interest in this policy area.

[1:30:56] >> I am currently the chair of office of disability rights,

[1:31:01] disability services. I do want to end on questions

[1:31:04] around accessibility when deployment takes place.

[1:31:07] how will your companies ensure equal access to those services?

[1:31:13] what will your deployment plan will be to ensure services are

[1:31:20] available for disabled residents from our deaf, deaf/blind and

[1:31:25] hard of hearing community. How have you been able to meet,

[1:31:28] you will hear from our odr director.

[1:31:32] we will hear from them at the end.

[1:31:34] I want to get a sense how you all can and will respond to

[1:31:40] accessibility issues especially for our disabled residents

[1:31:44] across the district? >> I appreciate the question,

[1:31:49] councilmember. You will hear a lot from

[1:31:51] individuals today who are from the disabled community that use

[1:31:56] waymo and using to use waymo here in district.

[1:31:59] I don't want to get ahead of them.

[1:32:02] we have long developed our product in partnership with

[1:32:06] members of the disability community.

[1:32:08] I think particularly, those in the low vision or blind

[1:32:12] community. Use our service every single

[1:32:14] day. Quite frankly, it represents the

[1:32:17] first time they have had fully independent mobility.

[1:32:22] I am certainly personally incredibly proud of that product

[1:32:26] that fact we can give that mobility to people.

[1:32:28] in the cities that we operate in, in several cities, we offer

[1:32:36] fully accessible option. We look to future cities, we're

[1:32:40] actively trying to figure out what those options will look

[1:32:44] like. Currently, we are a technology

[1:32:45] company. We're in active discussions with

[1:32:49] vehicle manufactures to identify future vehicle platforms that

[1:32:53] may meet better needs. I think serving all rider is a

[1:33:00] priority for waymo. >> thank you for the question.

[1:33:02] this is a super important part for tesla.

[1:33:06] for our current fleet using tesla model y vehicles, there

[1:33:11] are many accessibility considerations for blind,

[1:33:16] visually impaired stokes folks. --

[1:33:19] folks. We're in development for purpose

[1:33:25] built wheelchair accessible autonomous vehicle.

[1:33:26] we know that paratransit can be difficult.

[1:33:30] people confined to wheelchairs should be able to move around

[1:33:34] freely. That's an active product being

[1:33:36] built by tesla in texas. >> thank you, chairman, allen

[1:33:42] will I will follow-up for additional questions.

[1:33:49] I do appreciate the expertise. >> thank you very much

[1:33:53] councilmember. One of the great things about

[1:33:54] having a smart colleague, they ask a lot of the same questions

[1:33:57] I had prepped. I will pull that thread little

[1:34:02] bit further. For a d.c. Taxi fleet, for

[1:34:09] example, we recognized we did not have enough wheelchair

[1:34:13] accessible taxi cabs. We have to use the power of our

[1:34:17] legislation to say this is how many we have to have in our

[1:34:20] fleet. I will probably hear from folks

[1:34:22] who say, even that's not enough. We don't hit the threshold that

[1:34:27] even is in law. We put it there to start

[1:34:30] creating the incentive and little bit of caret and stick.

[1:34:51] I appreciate the question. From the waymo perspective, we

[1:34:55] are a technology company. We do not develop our own and

[1:34:59] manufacture our own vehicle. From a certain part of this, we

[1:35:02] are restricted by the vehicle platforms that we can source.

[1:35:06] to date, it's my understanding we have not been able to

[1:35:09] identify an electric vehicle platform that is fully

[1:35:14] wheelchair accessible while also meeting the very unique

[1:35:17] specifications that we need to retrofit that vehicle with our

[1:35:21] technology. I don't want that to sound like

[1:35:25] a cop out. I don't think that is.

[1:35:27] we trying to find that vehicle platform.

[1:35:30] what I do think there's opportunity here, the waymo

[1:35:34] vehicles may be able to take other rides, for example within

[1:35:37] the pair tra transit program that do not require wheelchair

[1:35:41] vehicles that can lessen the burden on the fleet wheelchair

[1:35:46] vehicles that do exist so those vehicles can do more rides for

[1:35:49] people that need them. As far as whether to require

[1:35:54] those this legislation, that's an area of discussion we should

[1:35:59] have. Ensuring that there is a

[1:36:03] commitment to offering waymo services.

[1:36:06] >> having been here back in some considerations, taxi cab fleet.

[1:36:13] we heard similarly. It's hard to source those

[1:36:17] vehicles. It's hard to find them.

[1:36:19] the legislation kind of act as a way to say, I think we can.

[1:36:23] now, I don't think we're hitting our marks in terms of being able

[1:36:25] to make sure that we have wheelchair accessible fleet in

[1:36:30] the taxi cab. The legislation can be pretty

[1:36:32] strong incentive to say we got to find that solution.

[1:36:36] I want to flag this something I want to continue to work on.

[1:36:45] mr. Hartfield. >> av's can deliver tremendous

[1:36:48] value for individuals with accessibility needs.

[1:36:51] I think -- today, whether you get tax or uber, if you need

[1:36:58] help getting in and out of the car, there's someone to help you

[1:37:02] get in and out of the car. That obviously doesn't exist

[1:37:11] with an av. Making sure we have some way to

[1:37:15] ensure if I need a person, I continue to have that service.

[1:37:22] >> I think that speaks to why the choice is an important piece

[1:37:25] for what the rider needs and what they are looking for.

[1:37:29] move on to couple of other topics.

[1:37:32] one of the things I've heard globally, concerns around racial

[1:37:38] bias that exists in sensing. What I mean by that is, well

[1:37:46] documented technology like facial recognition, for example.

[1:37:48] the technology that is used both if cameras, lidar, radar, what

[1:37:53] has been the intentional testing to look for, examine and ensure

[1:38:01] there's not racial bias in the data that comes back into the

[1:38:04] vehicles and systems? >> absolutely.

[1:38:08] we looked into this a while ago with our own sensor suite.

[1:38:11] did not find any evidence systematic issues in detecting

[1:38:17] pedestrians based on race. For little bit of context, we

[1:38:24] employ three visual sensors in our vehicles.

[1:38:26] we use cameras. We also use lidar.

[1:38:29] which is a technology that bounces laser points off of

[1:38:35] objects to measure how farther. It brings its own light source.

[1:38:39] it doesn't rely on the sun or street lighting and it works

[1:38:45] equally well. Then radar.

[1:38:48] which is important to see through things like fog and

[1:38:53] rain. Our perception system on the car

[1:38:56] uses all three of those to do detection of all objects.

[1:39:02] pedestrians are some of the most important objects out there to

[1:39:04] be able to recognize. We look for any sort of

[1:39:11] deficiencies that might cause us not able to recognize

[1:39:16] pedestrians and to date, have not found any sort of bias

[1:39:21] related to race. >> okay.

[1:39:26] ms. Herdman? >> similarly.

[1:39:27] we have not found anything that would indicate that our vehicle

[1:39:33] are discriminating on the context of race.

[1:39:35] we go out of our way to make sure our neuronetwork is trained

[1:39:39] on a generalized data set. Both across, state, cities ate

[1:39:44] world. When we're talking about keeping

[1:39:46] a vehicle safe and ensuring that, we're delivering for our

[1:39:50] riders, there's nothing to indicate that the tesla ads

[1:39:56] would discriminate. >> sticking with that for little

[1:39:59] bit. Another concern I heard related

[1:40:02] to imaging and data privacy. I'm walking on the sidewalk.

[1:40:05] I'm in the crosswalk and in front of one of your vehicles.

[1:40:09] there are images, radar, lidar being taken of me as I walk

[1:40:13] through. I heard some people say, is this

[1:40:17] similar technology when I'm in the airport getting scanned.

[1:40:21] I don't want those images shared.

[1:40:24] can you talk about what if I'm a person who is having expectation

[1:40:29] walking on the sidewalk and not having images too close to me,

[1:40:34] what images are captured? What is the data that is held

[1:40:38] and what are the privacy protections in place?

[1:40:40] >> thank you for bringing up that important topic.

[1:40:43] privacy for our users and really all users of the road is

[1:40:47] paramount to our goals. It's something that we have

[1:40:54] espoused ever since our founding.

[1:40:56] I mentioned our three visual sensorrers.

[1:40:59] let me first talk about the non-camera sensors.

[1:41:01] one of the benefits of those, they are essentially already

[1:41:07] itemized looking at lidar scan, or radar scan, you can't tell

[1:41:10] who a person is. You can tell that they are a

[1:41:13] pedestrian. That's a technology that already

[1:41:15] enjoys that benefit. We don't stop there.

[1:41:18] on top of that, we automatically blur all of our images of

[1:41:25] pedestrians faces and license plates as we drive by them.

[1:41:31] to make sure even our engineer who are working on analyzing

[1:41:40] events or logs not able to tell. >> is it recorded?

[1:41:48] let's say there's a crime takes place in front of a waymo.

[1:41:55] ndp say, did your camera catch the license of that tag?

[1:41:58] was it recorded or is it no, our camera blurs it intentionally.

[1:42:05] >> there are many different levels to consider here.

[1:42:08] the perception system on board the vehicle doesn't blur its own

[1:42:14] images. It uses all of those pixels in

[1:42:20] its own driving. We have blurring protections

[1:42:23] that occur at the point of off loading and resisting those

[1:42:27] logs. Then the vast majority of our

[1:42:30] driving that data is just thrown away or not even off loaded off

[1:42:34] the car. The reason for that, we generate

[1:42:37] way too much data for our system to handle.

[1:42:43] generally, that's thrown away. If there was no reason to record

[1:42:48] the crime that you refer to in your hypothetical scenario, it's

[1:42:52] reasonable to suspect that the detailed data from that might be

[1:42:56] thrown away. In other cases if the crime

[1:43:00] impacted the waymo's driving, it might have been logged.

[1:43:03] to your broader point, waymo also makes sure that it would

[1:43:09] only reveal the existence of that data or turn over that data

[1:43:14] to a law enforcement department only in the presence of a lawful

[1:43:20] subpoena for that data. We take privacy protections

[1:43:23] seriously both at the technological level and legal

[1:43:26] level. >> thank you.

[1:43:29] ms. Herdman? >> yes, the tesla ads does

[1:43:32] automatically blur the surrounding imaging.

[1:43:41] tesla also unique in that all vehicle computations are done on

[1:43:46] the actual vehicle. Nothing goes in the cloud.

[1:43:50] tesla accesses that data upon lawful request or a legal event

[1:43:55] that would trigger accessing that data such as a crash or an

[1:43:59] attempted carjack running of a tesla robotaxi vehicle, for

[1:44:03] example. We take privacy extremely

[1:44:06] seriously. The actual vehicle controls our

[1:44:10] hidden command and control centers that would have to have

[1:44:14] double encryption keys to access.

[1:44:16] we are never selling our data to third parties regardless of the

[1:44:20] tesla product whether it's robotaxi or otherwise.

[1:44:24] >> you brought up a good point of the when in public reasonable

[1:44:28] expectation of privacy. I think that's what I heard from

[1:44:30] folks saying, I'm walking on the sidewalk, I can't have a

[1:44:34] reasonable expectation to being in a public space.

[1:44:36] I do have a reasonable expectation that the technology

[1:44:40] you're using isn't seen through my clothes.

[1:44:44] that's I think I'm hearing. I need to understand what level

[1:44:48] does this lidar and radar technology impede upon what I

[1:44:54] think is reasonable. >> just address that point

[1:44:57] directly. No, it cannot see through your

[1:45:01] clothes. >> it is actual question I

[1:45:02] gotten many times. It's helpful to state it out

[1:45:05] loud. >> hopefully it's helpful to

[1:45:07] give you a definitive answer. >> thank you very much.

[1:45:13] you do not sell data to any third parties.

[1:45:17] >> we don't sell data to third parties.

[1:45:21] we did recently announce a program where we are sharing

[1:45:25] some ancillary data that we collect to cities in order to

[1:45:28] help them. We have recently started

[1:45:32] releasing data where potholes exist in cities through the ways

[1:45:37] for cities platform. This is a way that cities can

[1:45:40] get some additional benefit from the vehicles driving around.

[1:45:45] understanding where the potholes are.

[1:45:47] that's something we're seeking to expand to provide additional

[1:45:50] benefits to cities. I know you're at the spirit of

[1:45:53] your question was in different direction.

[1:45:55] I think there's a lot of benefits that can be created

[1:45:57] from that data. >> I appreciate you taking the

[1:46:01] advantage to log that one. Couple of more questions.

[1:46:04] I will make sure we move to other panelists.

[1:46:13] impact on workforce. I don't think it's an if.

[1:46:17] it is. There will be an impact to

[1:46:20] workforce. It's important that we not

[1:46:24] pretend that there isn't plow going to be impact on workforce.

[1:46:27] there will be. As we think about how we prepare

[1:46:30] for that impact, part of the legislation is attempted to do

[1:46:33] as both say, let me have our department of transportation,

[1:46:38] department of employment services work together to help

[1:46:42] write a report and guide us, saying this is what we think the

[1:46:45] impact will be and strategies and how we'll able to affect

[1:46:48] that. The legislation say, let me take

[1:46:50] some of the fees that are coming in and say, how do I use these

[1:46:55] fees to help train a workforce. Help with that impact.

[1:46:59] there's intentionality that we have in the legislation to

[1:47:02] recognize this. What are the ways -- ms. Tuell,

[1:47:09] you talk about the transition of lyft workers into a different

[1:47:13] space. What are some of the intentional

[1:47:15] ways that you recommend if the district will move forward with

[1:47:20] this legislation and let's be clear, even if we pass that

[1:47:23] legislation tomorrow, there will not be commercial operation of

[1:47:29] av's. >> that is why hybrid network is

[1:47:45] important to us. On the one hand, we have not

[1:47:49] brought fully driverless on the platform.

[1:47:51] we're seeing in places like austin and atlanta in cities

[1:47:57] where av's operate in competition with human drivers.

[1:48:01] we see there's growing the pile. Like harry said earlier.

[1:48:05] when you can bring more demand and supply into one network, it

[1:48:09] can help improve driver earnings opportunity.

[1:48:12] at the same time, a lot of our drivers are in this earnings

[1:48:17] opportunity because it's flexible work.

[1:48:20] they potentially are driving on the weekends or night to earn,

[1:48:23] save towards a house and tuition.

[1:48:25] a lot of them have told us in our annual survey, they don't

[1:48:28] see themselves driver oing for the platform this time next

[1:48:31] year. This is a temporary flexible

[1:48:34] job. I think there's a big

[1:48:36] opportunity here to take the skills that are rideshare driver

[1:48:39] has around hospitality, around vehicle and put them in that

[1:48:45] pipeline and prioritize them in av deeper roles and support

[1:48:49] roles. We're excited about that.

[1:48:53] it's something we're able to do in the market.

[1:48:55] we're able to hire 70 staff to work at the depot.

[1:49:01] our hiring team move lyft driver to the front of the line.

[1:49:06] there's skills from the rideshare driving role that are

[1:49:12] directly transferable and should be celebrated and promoted into

[1:49:14] that pipeline. >> were they legislated?

[1:49:21] were they part of agreement for jurisdiction or city?

[1:49:28] >> in nashville, we are the operating partner for waymo.

[1:49:31] we handle all end-to-end fleet management.

[1:49:35] that was a lyft specific practice that we put in place

[1:49:37] around hiring. We also leading up to the launch

[1:49:40] in nashville, we've been hosting lyft driver, autonomous driver

[1:49:45] forums where we meet some of our five star driver regularly to

[1:49:49] hear what they are excited about when av's come to market and

[1:49:53] potential to try one. But also what they are concerned

[1:49:56] about. They are concern about impact on

[1:50:00] their earnings opportunities. We've been able to talk through

[1:50:02] -- what we are seeing, small markets why there's hybrid,

[1:50:07] austin and atlanta. But the potential opportunity to

[1:50:10] actually improve their earnings opportunity and help them choose

[1:50:12] the rides they want to take and an av can take otherwise.

[1:50:20] >> mr. Walsh. >> I appreciate the question.

[1:50:21] I think workforce has been a huge component of the

[1:50:25] conversation around av's and every city but particularly here

[1:50:29] in d.c. I think on the proactive sense,

[1:50:33] waymo has been committed to expanding our workforce

[1:50:36] development program. We have scholarship programs

[1:50:40] through tech united. We have developed first of kind

[1:50:43] community college vocational training program like the one

[1:50:46] that we just established in new york.

[1:50:48] here in d.c., we have begun conversations about how we can

[1:50:54] build out that pipeline. The reality is right now, we

[1:50:59] have not seen that direct job loss that is being illustrated

[1:51:04] today. You're going to hear from other

[1:51:06] people today that are going to talk about the loss of driver

[1:51:11] earnings as a result of the arrival of av's.

[1:51:13] in the long-term, will there be job losses like any other

[1:51:18] technological shift, the answer is likely yes.

[1:51:20] which is why I think the workforce fun that you have put

[1:51:22] in this legislation is an important one that waymo

[1:51:25] supports. In terms of the funding

[1:51:27] mechanisms and how much funding goes into that, that's a

[1:51:30] conversation we're eager to have.

[1:51:40] there are companies seated at this table who control how much

[1:51:45] earnings drivers take home. These companies are taking

[1:51:49] nearly 40 per of those earnings for the company and leaving the

[1:51:52] driver for less. We want to talk about driving,

[1:52:00] earning, the companies at this table should engage in that.

[1:52:06] >> drivers in the district make more than $30 per hour on

[1:52:12] utilized time. There are tens of thousands of

[1:52:15] them, there's 100 plus people. That's about 9900 people who can

[1:52:19] stand lose access to work. People work on their own

[1:52:23] schedule on our app. You work in the depot you're a

[1:52:28] full-time employee. If you want to make extra money,

[1:52:31] that's not really an option to go work at a depot.

[1:52:35] this is very valuable work to a lot of people.

[1:52:37] happy to talk about the insurance when it comes to pay

[1:52:42] grade. These are people who live in the

[1:52:44] district. If you work on our app, you live

[1:52:47] in district, you pay a tax in the district, you go to local

[1:52:50] restaurants and you go to bars and see your friends.

[1:52:53] if you give money to tesla or waymo, both great companies,

[1:52:59] that money ends up in texas or california.

[1:53:02] there's no they don't -- that's why their headquarters are.

[1:53:07] we should be honest that depot jobs, there's 20 scholarships

[1:53:12] they are working on and 100 depot jobs is not a replacement

[1:53:17] for tens of thousands of people who drive on our platform and

[1:53:20] enjoy the flexibility. That's not a reason not to have

[1:53:24] av's. It is a reason to be thoughtful

[1:53:25] about how we do a workforce transition.

[1:53:29] you know in general, rescaling and training programs haven't

[1:53:33] always delivered to value workers really need.

[1:53:37] we should be transparent that there will be especially we see

[1:53:40] in california, drivers makeless one.

[1:53:44] one av takes the work of four drivers.

[1:53:46] that's real. We should expect that in 2028

[1:53:50] there will be thousands of av's in the district.

[1:53:54] that means less work for a lot of drivers in the district.

[1:53:57] >> I'm going to try to keep us constructive.

[1:54:00] we are slading behind schedule. This panel has been a lot of

[1:54:04] expertise that we needed to tease tout and flush through.

[1:54:09] I was here when uber came in the marketplace.

[1:54:13] if we were to pretend we didn't see loss of earnings for taxi

[1:54:18] cab drives, we wouldn't be honest.

[1:54:21] that doesn't mean having uber and lyft come in the marketplace

[1:54:25] to be a disruptor that created more options to get around my

[1:54:29] city, at the end of the day, it's a net benefit to my

[1:54:33] transportation choices in the city.

[1:54:34] I can't say I didn't see people who had earned a living as taxi

[1:54:39] driver see their income diminish.

[1:54:43] when I think about this, we're not going to do right by the

[1:54:46] city or by our workers if we say, there might be an impact, I

[1:54:50] don't know. There will be an impact.

[1:54:53] there will. We have the opportunity to be

[1:54:57] very intentional thinking about what does workforce transition.

[1:54:59] what does workforce loss mitigation.

[1:55:02] what are are the different strategies to use.

[1:55:07] it doesn't mean we say no to innovation and technology.

[1:55:10] it does mean we have a responsibility to think about

[1:55:12] what that this looks like to do right.

[1:55:17] that's kind of been my approach. I think it's probably consistent

[1:55:20] what most of the council wants to look at.

[1:55:25] I'm grateful we'll continue this conversation in the weeks and

[1:55:30] months to come. This panel has been great.

[1:55:34] I have a lot of witnesses I want to make sure I get through

[1:55:37] today. I want to thank you all for your

[1:55:38] testimony today. Thank you.

[1:55:44] our second panel of witnesses now.

[1:55:48] jabari cooper, the director of state and local government

[1:55:53] affair. Chamber of progress.

[1:55:55] I have shawn townsend, restaurant association of

[1:55:59] metropolitan washington. Daniel flores, vice president

[1:56:02] for regional engagement with the greater washington board of

[1:56:08] trade. Crispus gordon, vice president

[1:56:10] government affairs. Chinyere hubbard.

[1:56:18] we have you signed up as public witness.

[1:56:25] ms. Hubbard is with chamber of commerce.

[1:56:28] please come on up. >> cooper.

[1:56:44] >> good afternoon. I'm director of state and local

[1:56:47] government relations for chamber of progress, systemming public

[1:56:51] policies to build a more inclusive society which all

[1:56:57] people benefit. We strongly support this

[1:56:59] legislation. We believe will help build

[1:57:01] better on goals of safety, equity and successful

[1:57:05] deployment. Chair allen after more than four

[1:57:07] years of delay, you developed a attract's serious framework for

[1:57:13] commercial autonomous vehicle deployment.

[1:57:15] that deserves real credit. Autonomous vehicles are

[1:57:21] demonstrating safety perform performance.

[1:57:27] meanwhile, the district experienced highest traffic

[1:57:31] fatality rate in 16 years. We deplayed deploying safer

[1:57:36] technology. Our recommen recommendations ard

[1:57:41] to help the bill succeed. The 200 vehicle fleet cap.

[1:57:45] the by requires service across all eight wards.

[1:57:48] it makes that goal difficult to achieve.

[1:57:50] operators will naturally concentrate limited vehicle

[1:57:53] where is demand is highest, likely downtown and not in ward

[1:57:57] 7 and 8. Nearly half of households do not

[1:58:01] own a vehicle, autonomous vehicles are not just about

[1:58:04] innovation, they are about expanding access to reliable

[1:58:08] transportation. We recommend replacing the cap

[1:58:10] with a performance-based expansion tied to safety and

[1:58:17] equitable service milestone. Third, deployment model

[1:58:37] neutrallalty. The definition should

[1:58:40] accommodate all autonomous vehicles including hybrid

[1:58:43] networks to companies can compete on equal footing.

[1:58:48] finally, arbitration provision. As drafted, this likely to

[1:58:52] conflict with the federal arbitration act, accuracying

[1:58:58] unnecessary litigation that can delay implementation.

[1:59:00] riders are well protected because the bill makes av

[1:59:04] companies legally responsible whenever autonomous drivers are

[1:59:07] engaged. Chair allen, we believe this

[1:59:09] legislation can make a district national leader autonomous

[1:59:16] vehicle deployment. We submitted more detailed

[1:59:22] written testimony that goes into more detail.

[1:59:25] thank you again. >> thank you very much.

[1:59:29] next, mr. Townsend. >> good morning.

[1:59:34] chairman allen and member of the committee.

[1:59:36] thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

[1:59:39] I'm shawn townsend. I have the pleasure of serving

[1:59:41] as president and ceo of the restaurant association of

[1:59:45] metropolitan washington. For more than 100 years, rmw

[1:59:52] represented more than 1500 restaurants across the

[1:59:57] washington region. Before joining our rmw, I served

[2:00:05] as first district of night life and culture.

[2:00:07] earlier, I worked part time as an uber driver.

[2:00:12] like so many people in hospitality, picked up

[2:00:15] additional work to help make ends meet.

[2:00:17] these experience give me a unique perspective on how

[2:00:22] transportation, economic opportunity and public safety

[2:00:25] all have interest. That's why I believe good

[2:00:28] transportation policy is good restaurant policy.

[2:00:30] for our industry, transportation is economic development.

[2:00:34] the easier it is for people to get to our restaurants the more

[2:00:37] likely they are to dine out explore new neighborhoods and

[2:00:40] support local businesses. Autonomous vehicles have the

[2:00:43] potential to remove some of the biggest barriers, customers face

[2:00:49] including traffic, parking and hassle getting around the city.

[2:00:53] reliable transportation is just as important for our workforce.

[2:00:58] restaurants operate early in the morning often before metro opens

[2:01:01] long after it closes. Thousands of hospitality

[2:01:05] employees rely on rid cher services -- rideshare services

[2:01:09] to get to work. Expanding transportation options

[2:01:12] isn't about convenience. It's about making these jobs

[2:01:15] more accessible. I had the opportunity to see

[2:01:17] this technology firsthand. Early this year, I tours

[2:01:24] facilities in phoenix better understand how autonomous

[2:01:25] vehicles are deployed and managed.

[2:01:29] I was impressed by the company's focus on safety, training and

[2:01:32] oversight. I know there's some concerns

[2:01:35] about how this technology may affect existing jobs.

[2:01:38] I don't want to minimize those concerns.

[2:01:41] I do think it's equally important to recognize the jobs

[2:01:45] this industry is creating. I've learned about the wide

[2:01:48] range of positions needed to support autonomous vehicle

[2:01:52] operations from fleet operations and vehicle maintenance to

[2:01:56] charging infrastructure, logistics, customer support and

[2:01:58] safety specialists. These are good paying jobs that

[2:02:02] include training and career advancement opportunities.

[2:02:05] as this technology grows in the district, those employment

[2:02:09] opportunities deserve to be part of the conversation.

[2:02:11] we support the overall framework of this legislation including

[2:02:16] the creation of ddot's commercial autonomous vehicle

[2:02:19] program and the phased employment -- it's a approach

[2:02:27] that allows innovation while maintaining accountability.

[2:02:30] our primary concern is the proposed 15-cent per mile

[2:02:33] vehicle miles travel tax. As drafted that tax would apply

[2:02:38] to every autonomous vehicle trip including the trips that help

[2:02:41] someone get home safely after dinner or help a worker get to

[2:02:45] work before sunrise or home after a late night shift.

[2:02:48] those are exactly the kind of trips we should be encouraging

[2:02:51] and not making more expensive. If our shared goals is improving

[2:03:01] mobility, and encouraging, we should be kind of not to educate

[2:03:08] barriers to discourage people from using the service.

[2:03:14] I'm happy to answer any questions.

[2:03:16] >> thank you very much. Mr. Flores.

[2:03:20] >> thank you, mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

[2:03:23] for the opportunity to submit testimony.

[2:03:26] my name is daniel flores r vice president of regional engagement

[2:03:31] for the greater washington board of trade.

[2:03:35] the greater washington board of trade brings together leaders

[2:03:39] across business, government, academia and nonprofit sector to

[2:03:43] advance policies that in partnerships support economic

[2:03:46] growth, innovation and opportunity across the

[2:03:50] washington metropolitan region. We are committed to a district

[2:03:53] that is safe, competitive and prepare for the future.

[2:03:58] greater washington board of trade support the bill sense of

[2:04:01] purpose it's creating a clear pathway for the responsibility

[2:04:06] -- the responsible deployment of commercial autonomous vehicles

[2:04:10] in the district. Autonomous vehicles technology

[2:04:16] is no longer distant possibility.

[2:04:37] greater washington has the assets to participate in that

[2:04:41] growth, a region strength, cybersecurity, logistics,

[2:04:48] research and advanced technology make it well position to lead in

[2:04:53] the next generation of transportation systems.

[2:04:56] as the region works to strengthen and diversify its

[2:05:01] economy, transportation innovation is part of the

[2:05:05] broader competitiveness in the conversation.

[2:05:07] the district should help shape the future of mobility rather

[2:05:13] than wait for the benefits that innovation to accrue elsewhere.

[2:05:20] safety must remain central. Concerns about recent incidents

[2:05:24] involving autonomous vehicles are understandable.

[2:05:27] particularly, in a city with dense streets, significant

[2:05:32] pedestrian activity major events, emergency operationings

[2:05:35] and the complex transportation network.

[2:05:39] new technology requires clear expectations, public

[2:05:42] accountability and safeguards that build confidence among

[2:05:48] residents first responders, businesses and policy makers.

[2:05:52] we believe those concerns can be addressed throughout thoughtful

[2:05:58] policy but not delayed. The district should establish a

[2:06:03] framework that holds operators accountable for public safety

[2:06:09] and gives the city the ability to respond when standards are

[2:06:12] not met. You should also create an

[2:06:15] environment in which responsible companies can enter the market,

[2:06:19] test, learn and grow. As the bill moves forward, we

[2:06:24] encourage the committee to ensure that it is final

[2:06:28] requirements remain balance and workable.

[2:06:31] a framework intended to authorize deployment should not

[2:06:37] impose costs, reporting obligations or operational

[2:06:41] restrictions that make the district an outlier among peers

[2:06:48] jurisdictions or discourage responsible investment before it

[2:06:51] begins. Requirement should protect the

[2:06:56] public and cover administrative costs while remaining

[2:07:00] proportionate, predictable and align with established national

[2:07:04] standards wherever possible. Autonomous vehicles should

[2:07:17] compliment public transit, improve access and mobility and

[2:07:23] fit within a regional approach to transportation, economic

[2:07:29] growth. The district's decision will not

[2:07:31] occur in isolation. Businesses, worker, residents

[2:07:35] and transportation systems move across d.c., maryland and

[2:07:41] virginia every day and the region will be a better place

[2:07:44] served by policies that recognize that reality.

[2:07:47] the greater washington appreciation, the commitments

[2:07:50] leadership and thank you for the opportunity to testify and for

[2:07:53] the consideration of this bill. >> thank you mr. Flores.

[2:08:05] mr. Gordon. >> good morning councilmember

[2:08:10] allen. My name is crispus gordon I'm

[2:08:14] vice president government affairs.

[2:08:15] I'm here to present testimony on bill 26-0684.

[2:08:22] I'm thrilled to be on a panel with individuals like shawn

[2:08:27] townsend who board I serve on, david flores and mr. Hubbard.

[2:08:41] the same should be applied to autonomous vehicle technology.

[2:08:45] autonomous vehicle represent one of the most significant leaps in

[2:08:49] urban mobility. The offer for those who cannot

[2:08:52] drive do you to age. A safe, affordable on demand

[2:08:56] vehicle to get to various places.

[2:08:59] as an anchor for downtown, we want to see as many people have

[2:09:02] their ability to attend 200 plus events.

[2:09:06] this will continue to bring d.c. Residents and visitor who are in

[2:09:10] the city to the many restaurants and retail establishment that

[2:09:13] support our local economy. We desire to ensure that all our

[2:09:20] fans, have accessible ways to see games or come to various

[2:09:27] concerts. We believe the autonomous

[2:09:29] vehicle will be part of the renaissance of downtown.

[2:09:32] d.c. Cannot afford to be the last major american city to

[2:09:42] embrace autonomous vehicles. The autonomous vehicle

[2:09:49] deployment authorization act creates a path for the future to

[2:09:53] arrive here in d.c. >> thank you very much.

[2:10:08] ms. Hubbard. You also the president and ceo

[2:10:12] d.c. Chamber of commerce. >> thank you so much, chairman

[2:10:16] allen. My name is chinyere hubbard.

[2:10:28] I thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

[2:10:32] I am placed to appear on behalf of the business community to

[2:10:37] stress the chamber's strong support for proposed support for

[2:10:43] enabling autonomous vehicles in washington d.c.

[2:10:45] we appreciate your support and leadership on this bill.

[2:10:48] it represents a transformative opportunity to strengthen public

[2:10:51] safety and improve transportation reliability and

[2:10:54] stimulate economic growth across our neighborhoods and commercial

[2:10:57] corridors. The d.c. Chamber support for

[2:10:59] this bill is grounded in four areas.

[2:11:03] first, safer d.c. Street. As you heard from the previous

[2:11:08] panel, autonomous vehicle technology has been shown to

[2:11:09] reduce severe crashes by 94%. Pedestrian injuries by 93%.

[2:11:17] cyclists injuries by 84%. For washington d.c., this means

[2:11:23] safer commutes along corridors like george avenue, and

[2:11:27] pennsylvania avenue and greater confidence for residents in all

[2:11:29] eight wards. Second, mobility and equity.

[2:11:32] for many district residents the ability to get to work on time

[2:11:35] attend a doctor's appointment or really depends on reliable

[2:11:41] transit options. When transportation is

[2:11:44] unreliable or unaffordable, it becomes a barrier that limits

[2:11:49] opportunity and deepens inequities.

[2:11:52] autonomous ride services offer a consistent safe and inclusive

[2:11:55] option. A driverless alternative that

[2:11:58] supports local businesses and offers residents, especially

[2:12:01] women and vulnerable populations a safer alternative traditional

[2:12:08] ride. This technology can be a

[2:12:10] powerful tool in advancing equity for those who have faced

[2:12:13] transportation challenges. Strengthening access to jobs,

[2:12:17] retail and services across the city.

[2:12:19] when people have another trusted way to get around town, they go

[2:12:23] out more, stay out later and spend more money at d.c.

[2:12:29] businesses. Proven readness.

[2:12:33] waymo extensive experience, including mapping, driving

[2:12:35] hundreds thousands of miles here in the district and operating 11

[2:12:40] major u.s. Cities, with more than 500,000 rides weekly,

[2:12:44] underscores the technologies reliability and readiness for

[2:12:47] deployment in the district of columbia.

[2:12:50] fourth, economic development. Waymo investment in local

[2:12:53] infrastructure and job creation in vehicle maintenance and fleet

[2:12:57] operations aligns with the d.c.'s chamber mission to foster

[2:13:01] workforce growth and expand opportunity in the district.

[2:13:03] notably, this investment is happening even before official

[2:13:08] authorization to serve the public here.

[2:13:10] it will only grow as waymo expands.

[2:13:13] autonomous vehicles won't eliminate jobs.

[2:13:15] they'll create them. These fleets require technicians

[2:13:19] as we've heard. Vehicle maintenance special is,

[2:13:21] fleet operators and safety monitors.

[2:13:24] each role represents a pathway into stable eye demand careers

[2:13:27] that align with the district eats workforce development

[2:13:30] priorities. While the chamber supports the

[2:13:33] bill, we do recommend three adjustments to ensure it

[2:13:36] delivers maximum benefit for all washingtonians.

[2:13:38] first, a fair tax structure, the bill's high per mile travel tax,

[2:13:45] layered on top of d.c.'s existing fees will make the

[2:13:49] service 30% more expensive before the first ride even

[2:13:51] starts. Replace it with a modest per

[2:13:54] trip fee. To keep rides affordable for

[2:13:57] residents and visitors. Second, fleet expansion, remove

[2:14:03] the cap of 200 vehicles along with the city's permanent

[2:14:08] authority to impose new caps. Now expansion based on safety

[2:14:15] milestones. This ensures reliable service

[2:14:18] across all wards. Third, a timely launch.

[2:14:28] eliminate this delay and allow paid rides to begin as soon as

[2:14:31] safety and operational standards are met.

[2:14:33] the district shouldn't wait years to benefit from safer and

[2:14:37] more reliable mobility. Autonomous vehicles are

[2:14:40] important and opportunity to make washington d.c. A more

[2:14:44] connected, economically vibrant. The d.c. Chamber urges the

[2:14:48] council to adopt this legislation with the recommendly

[2:14:52] modification so their city can lady the nation I can.-- lead

[2:14:57] the nation with equitable transportation.

[2:14:59] I'm happy to answer any questions.

[2:15:03] >> let me work through a couple of questions here.

[2:15:07] mr. Flores, let me start with you.

[2:15:08] the board of trade works regionally, correct?

[2:15:16] we heard a question earlier, if I wanted to catch an av, let's

[2:15:21] assume it's operation now, I want to catch it to go to

[2:15:27] national airport, it's not going to let me out at the state line.

[2:15:30] that trip is not going to exist. It won't be an option.

[2:15:34] what is the board of trade doing in terms of reaching out to

[2:15:37] colleagues in maryland and in virginia.

[2:15:39] how much do you think the eyes are on d.c. To set the tone for

[2:15:44] the region around what this looks like for our neighbors in

[2:15:47] virginia and maryland? >> thank you for that question.

[2:15:50] definitely, it's something that we have looked in the past but

[2:15:53] also is up to the elected officials to make sure that

[2:15:57] something like this can go across jurisdictions in like you

[2:16:05] mentioned if you take a taxi to go to the airport.

[2:16:10] you can't take one back. Which I think is for a lack of

[2:16:19] better word, a waste. A lost opportunity.

[2:16:24] right now, in talking to some folks that work late at night in

[2:16:30] the restaurant or similar industry, sometimes it's

[2:16:34] difficult to get across jurisdictions because of that

[2:16:40] similar problem. It's something we would like to

[2:16:43] see that buses and metro just get around well but we have

[2:16:50] different bus systems that we would like for them to work

[2:16:53] together to make sure that we serve everybody not only in

[2:16:57] maryland and virginia but also in the district.

[2:17:01] make sure that it is seemless connection from one jurisdiction

[2:17:05] to the next. That's a very good question.

[2:17:07] thank you. >> I think it's important that

[2:17:09] you be able to move regionally. I want to make sure I get a

[2:17:19] shout out to my friends. Let me work through a couple of issues

[2:17:30] you highlighted. Mr. Cooper, the 200 cap you

[2:17:35] brought that up. The way the legislation is

[2:17:38] crafted right now is kind of a tiered approach to continue to

[2:17:41] show who the concept. This is new technology.

[2:17:44] it is going to be something that is disruptive in some ways.

[2:17:50] also innovative. The idea behind it is let's

[2:17:53] start with 200 cap. It also says, which is about ten

[2:17:57] times the number of vehicles for testing about 25.

[2:18:01] it also say us got to make sure your wait times across the city

[2:18:07] are relatively equal. What I hear you saying, not too

[2:18:10] convinced you will be able to achieve that with a cap of 200.

[2:18:14] should that cap go up to better accomplish goal.

[2:18:21] I don't believe we should eliminate a cap.

[2:18:24] I think that's a fair point to say are you going to reach your

[2:18:30] policy goals ensuring equitable reach across the city is 200

[2:18:35] cap? >> I think that's a great

[2:18:40] encapsulation. I think the 200 cap, we trying

[2:18:43] to performance-based cap. That's what you're getting at as

[2:18:48] well. We just want to make sure that

[2:18:51] this policy gets off the ground. We'll be able to work with 200.

[2:18:55] we trying to increase and want to make sure all wards are

[2:18:58] served by the policy. >> the legislation requires

[2:19:03] every ward to be service to the same level but I think what I'm

[2:19:05] hearing you say is, you should really think long and hard.

[2:19:09] you testified about the hybrid network.

[2:19:23] we heard about that in the first panel.

[2:19:26] on one hand, we do want to create a structure that the

[2:19:32] autonomous vehicle permit holder is directly managing the fleet

[2:19:35] that they are responsible for. I think one of our witnesses

[2:19:42] testified about would that preclude, for example, shared

[2:19:46] resourcing of a hub? I don't read the legislation

[2:19:51] that way. That's why we're here.

[2:19:54] to explore that. I don't think that being having

[2:19:58] to have celebrate av permit holders where they share one

[2:20:02] site and they have their charging infrastructure and

[2:20:05] different pieces there. They take advantage of multiple

[2:20:11] companies pooling in one resource they're all going to

[2:20:13] draw from. I don't think the legislation

[2:20:15] prohibits that. It's more about the direct

[2:20:18] management of the fleet. Really good testimony from the

[2:20:23] first panel. >> I kind of really thought it

[2:20:25] was a great job done on the first panel highlighting the

[2:20:29] need for the hybrid model. It's just about making sure that

[2:20:34] we're, d.c. Making it accessible for all type of models.

[2:20:40] it's more of the legislative certainty that is looking

[2:20:42] forward within this legislation. We want to continue to have

[2:20:48] conversations.

[2:21:01] conversation >> mr. Flores, you said you

[2:21:06] don't want d.c. To be outlier. >> for now.

[2:21:10] >> I would reframe it. I don't want us to be an

[2:21:14] outlayer. -- outlier.

[2:21:18] I want us to be the leader. We're not just another city.

[2:21:22] we're the nation's capitol. Everybody is watching what we do

[2:21:26] with this legislation. Whatever this council passes.

[2:21:28] if the council passes legislation, whatever version of

[2:21:30] it, other cities around the entire country are going to be

[2:21:34] looking at what we do. We all know, we live it

[2:21:36] everyday. Sometimes we're the district of

[2:21:39] columbia and sometimes the nation's capitol.

[2:21:47] >> I'm glad you brought that up. We are looking for the district

[2:21:52] to be a leader and for other jurisdictions, states, counties,

[2:21:57] whatever it is to copy what the district did and how well they

[2:22:01] put it together. >> I agree.

[2:22:03] let me go to one of the recommendations you had.

[2:22:06] which I respectfully disagree with.

[2:22:11] vnt it is an important component of the legislation.

[2:22:16] right now, waymo operates in all electorate.

[2:22:21] electric -- -- electric fleet. They don't pay a gas tax.

[2:22:29] why would I exempt them from that?

[2:22:33] why would I exempt them from other fees insu insu and -- sur.

[2:22:46] if I move to push trip charge, I'm not getting my other policy

[2:22:51] goals. I want to reduce deadheading.

[2:22:53] I want to reduce amount of time vehicle adding congestion.

[2:23:01] I don't assume that a vmt gets passed on to the rider.

[2:23:06] why should it? The companies at this table

[2:23:09] tesla was sitting in that seat. Waymo owned by alphabet.

[2:23:20] these are not nonprofit organizations.

[2:23:22] they are here to make money and a profit.

[2:23:26] why would I be concerned that they wouldn't be able to absorb

[2:23:31] fairly modest charge to make sure we're achieving policy

[2:23:34] goals? I'm going to wager.

[2:23:38] none us want to see more congestion added.

[2:23:41] we can use policy ideas to try to help manage the impact on

[2:23:46] congestion as well as make up for we're not going to get gas

[2:23:49] tax on a vehicle like that. Why should I exempt them from a

[2:23:55] vm -- from that type of surcharge?

[2:23:57] >> it's not that it's been exempt from vmt.

[2:24:03] the federal government has been looking at it because we are

[2:24:05] more electric vehicles and more electric vehicles will grow into

[2:24:11] the population that come into the city as well they're not

[2:24:15] waymos. Waymo is going to be a very

[2:24:19] small number of electrical vehicles that the ones that come

[2:24:22] in the city. What keeps you from taxing other

[2:24:27] ones that come in here. The federal government is the

[2:24:33] one working towards this because we need the transportation trust

[2:24:40] fund to stay -- to have funding for us to fix infrastructure.

[2:24:47] the way it is coming right now that is going to be piecemeal I

[2:24:53] will say. If you look into that, I think

[2:24:57] it will be good thing to reconsider how you approaching

[2:25:02] that. How the federal government will

[2:25:04] come with that number. >> I think all these fleets thus

[2:25:09] far, I think out a trend that will continue are electric.

[2:25:13] waymos are all electric. Obviously tesla electric.

[2:25:21] that's what the fleet we're going to see.

[2:25:22] they're not going to pay a gas tax.

[2:25:27] I do agree with you. Let's for the sake of argument

[2:25:31] pretend we keep the 200 cap. 200 vehicles is not even

[2:25:36] remotely. It's a fraction of a fraction of

[2:25:37] total number of vehicles on the roadway.

[2:25:39] it begins to start the conversation as we are seeing

[2:25:44] greater and greater uptick of electric vehicle.

[2:25:48] we're going to have more vmt conversation how do you create

[2:25:53] parity between those two. I think that the legislation is

[2:25:57] very important from the standpoint of working with

[2:26:03] innovation and technology. Which the district should be a

[2:26:05] leader on. I don't think 15 cents vmt is a

[2:26:12] deal breaker for being in place of innovation.

[2:26:14] I think it it's a mart policy choice.

[2:26:19] again, I know everybody at this table cares about making sure

[2:26:22] that we reduce congestion in our roadway and we help make sure we

[2:26:26] get around. That's part of what I think

[2:26:30] allows us to help create a financial disincentive to adding

[2:26:34] to that deadheading and that congestion.

[2:26:37] we're going to take a feedback from today's hearing.

[2:26:39] keep working with stakeholders around this.

[2:26:41] that is one where I think a lot of the points in several of you

[2:26:45] hit on the same recommendations, there are several of them that

[2:26:48] make some sense. We'll work with you on that one.

[2:26:53] vmt probably not going to agree on that one.

[2:26:55] I do think it's an important policy goal we trying to achieve

[2:26:58] with that. Anything else that you wanted to

[2:27:00] add on that regard? Okay.

[2:27:09] mr. Gordon. You're a huge hub.

[2:27:14] monumental in capital arena. 200 plus events per year.

[2:27:18] crucially important. Sitting right on top of metro.

[2:27:21] which is great. For those that aren't, what are

[2:27:29] the types of things you would think monumental -- we talked

[2:27:34] about curbside management -- I asked earlier the first panel,

[2:27:37] as someone who will jump in uber or lyft, fairly reasonable

[2:27:41] expectation in my experience that the vehicle, the driver is

[2:27:45] going to stop it's not going to always have a curb space to pull

[2:27:48] over to. I'm going to be able to hop out

[2:27:51] quickly. Oftentimes the driver looking in

[2:27:57] the mirror. What would be your expectation

[2:27:59] or maybe your desire from a curbside management for

[2:28:02] autonomous vehicles? Do you want to see dedicated

[2:28:07] curb space just for av's to pull up to?

[2:28:10] what would help make that work for at monumental with

[2:28:16] >> first thing we walk back original point.

[2:28:18] we encourage rideshare and metro for everyone coming to a concert

[2:28:22] or a game. Reason being, it will reduce

[2:28:26] congestion in downtown. Second is, our parking garage is

[2:28:29] very limited. Even through our renovation, we

[2:28:32] can't expand because of the old metro building next door.

[2:28:39] we would want to work with the department to make sure that we

[2:28:44] have a dedicated space. We do that now for uber and lyft

[2:28:48] and other rideshare. You try to get at uber or lyft

[2:28:53] to capital one arena, it can't drop you off on f or sixth

[2:29:00] street. A dedicated place for rideshare.

[2:29:03] which is important for curbside management.

[2:29:06] it does create that long line of cars stopping in the military of

[2:29:10] the -- middle of the street. That's our outlook for av

[2:29:17] vehicle, av is to have a dedicated space along with other

[2:29:21] ridesharing. >> from your experience, or

[2:29:24] maybe if you talked to other colleagues that started to

[2:29:29] implement this, do those have main venues?

[2:29:34] do they create that type of -- I don't know if I'm using the

[2:29:41] right terminology -- geofencing for ubers and lyfts.

[2:29:45] do they geofence autonomous vehicles in the same space.

[2:29:47] would it make sense to have autonomous vehicles geofenced

[2:29:51] for pick-up and dropoff in one location.

[2:29:54] >> you're asking great question. I need to talk to our folks

[2:29:58] chase center c1

[2:30:06] from our experience, just look and, like we said earlier, we

[2:30:08] are a unique city. We are not new york city or san

[2:30:11] francisco. So the approach is like apples

[2:30:13] to oranges. I would check with our team, our

[2:30:19] colleagues, to see how they manage it.

[2:30:21] from here covered may be a dedicated place.

[2:30:26] >> yes, it would be helpful. >> are utilized waymo for the

[2:30:30] first time in san francisco for all-star game a couple of years

[2:30:38] ago. Much more vehicular and

[2:30:41] pedestrian traffic. I use uber to get there.

[2:30:45] the drop off zone was different, where I had to meet the waymo

[2:30:52] vehicle. Completely different zones, but

[2:30:57] it was easy. >> I would be curious as we

[2:31:04] learned in other places, what are pros and cons, even mixing

[2:31:10] uber and left and one space corps it doesn't make sense to

[2:31:13] have them in two separate spaces to manage that differently?

[2:31:19] that would be helpful. From a workforce perspective,

[2:31:28] any recommendations you have? Should we be saying a certain

[2:31:30] number of jobs have to be d.c. Residents?

[2:31:33] is there a number of jobs has to be transitioned from previous

[2:31:37] drivers? What are recommendations you

[2:31:40] have, not just here is an investment in innovation, a good

[2:31:47] thing in business economy overall, but any recommendations

[2:31:50] about how you ensure those are d.c. Jobs, careers, you heard

[2:31:58] outreach to create training programs.

[2:32:03] he worked a lot thinking through how to create a business and

[2:32:05] workforce. If there's anything you want to

[2:32:07] add in that regard? >> absolutely.

[2:32:09] as a d.c. Resident, I do believe we should work together on

[2:32:16] strategies and workforce transitions and insure d.c.

[2:32:20] residents, there are a portion of jobs allocated for residents.

[2:32:24] as we try to fashion attracting businesses and retaining

[2:32:34] businesses. I do think it is important for

[2:32:36] businesses of all sizes, this will help strengthen our value,

[2:32:48] but workforce is cash our shortcake job or at least even

[2:32:54] considered as transitions from other rideshare companies.

[2:33:01] >> I know you had a note about timeline.

[2:33:06] I will just share, if we assume, best case scenario, the

[2:33:17] legislation happens in the fall, soon -- assume it is signed by

[2:33:24] the mayor, doesn't take effect until the spring of 2027.

[2:33:29] there is other continue to testing and another piece.

[2:33:35] it feels a long way off from the legislative calendar.

[2:33:43] part of what I was hoping to do, we also want to give some

[2:33:49] certainty to companies thinking, am I going to invest and is this

[2:33:54] the investment I want to make in the district, creating the

[2:33:57] workforce in the jobs, so part of it is trying to give some

[2:34:04] certainty to folks where the last couple of years are defined

[2:34:05] by uncertainty. That is the goal.

[2:34:08] we will take the feedback and look at it.

[2:34:11] that is one legislative gold. Creates certainty in a space

[2:34:16] that has felt like nothing in it -- but a couple of years of

[2:34:19] uncertainty. That is difficult when trying to

[2:34:24] attract. I appreciate everyone's

[2:34:26] testimony. Thank you very much.

[2:34:27] thank you. Let's look to panel number

[2:34:33] three. Let me call will hubbard,

[2:34:37] christopher nace with the trial lawyers association metropolitan

[2:34:41] washington dc, I have drew. I mispronounce that.

[2:34:50] president of advocates for highway and auto safety.

[2:35:03] drew, I apologize. I mispronounced her last name.

[2:35:06] can you say it for me again? Thank you very much.

[2:35:14] with a last name like alan, it is pretty boring.

[2:35:19] we called kathryn chase but I don't think catherine is here.

[2:35:26] we can come back to catherine later she will join us.

[2:35:28] we will start with you. >> good morning, chairman and

[2:35:32] members of the committee. My name is will.

[2:35:38] I am professor of baltimore school of law.

[2:35:41] my academic research focuses on regulation.

[2:35:45] I am here in my individual academic capacity.

[2:35:50] I support the passage of the act and want to highlight two key

[2:35:54] points today. As an innovation scholar, I

[2:35:58] applied attempts for deployment of d.c. Technologies.

[2:36:03] 80's have great potential to keep roads safer,

[2:36:07] transportation, and driving hassles.

[2:36:09] I want to highlight and support an aspect of the act.

[2:36:14] the definition of driver to be applied is a critical issue in

[2:36:20] every jurisdiction including the district has enacted numerous

[2:36:21] laws to ensure that motor vehicles operate in a safe and

[2:36:27] predictable fashion. Many of the laws like speed

[2:36:29] limits are familiar to anyone who drives.

[2:36:32] importantly, these often target the conduct of drivers.

[2:36:37] d.c. Law states, drivers of vehicles proceeding in opposite

[2:36:43] directions shall pass each other to the right.

[2:36:46] these rules of the road established legal standards for

[2:36:49] operating motor vehicles and identify a person who is legally

[2:36:53] responsible for violations. It is the driver who gets the

[2:36:59] ticket for speeding and the driver who gets pursued.

[2:37:04] this -- the driver to operate in compliance with the law.

[2:37:08] the meeting with the term driver is not clear when applied to

[2:37:12] 80's. The whole point is to relieve

[2:37:14] humans of many tasks we think of with driving.

[2:37:18] consequently, updating the meaning of the word driver is a

[2:37:22] crucial step in developing effective laws for 80's.

[2:37:25] the act addresses this issue and two provisions.

[2:37:29] for commercial 80's, entity has obtained a commercial 80's

[2:37:34] permit. Using a permit registration

[2:37:50] system should be considered best practice.

[2:37:55] regarding drivers, clearly identifies who would be legal --

[2:38:01] legally responsible if the laws were violated.

[2:38:06] already adopted in three states. I also highlighted a looming

[2:38:20] problem with the implementation for private 80's.

[2:38:26] I or the act in its current form largely because other issues can

[2:38:29] be addressed down the road, so to speak.

[2:38:32] I am happy to answer any questions.

[2:38:36] >> thank you very much. >> good morning, chairperson and

[2:38:45] members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to

[2:38:50] testify on bill 26-68 four, autonomous authorization

[2:38:55] amendment act of 2026. I am an attorney practiced and

[2:39:01] resided in the district of columbia for more than a decade.

[2:39:04] I am testifying in my capacity as president of the trial

[2:39:08] lawyers association in washington, d.c., or tl d.c. For

[2:39:12] short. It is comprised of more than 500

[2:39:14] members. All of whom advocate for victims

[2:39:18] of negligence and civil wrongdoing in the district,

[2:39:22] including those injured on d.c. Roadways.

[2:39:26] as an organization, the top priority is ensuring that

[2:39:28] victims of negligence and their families have fair and equitable

[2:39:35] access to justice through our court system, and appropriate

[2:39:37] recourse when they suffer loss at the hands of individuals and

[2:39:38] corporations who act unlawfully. We start from the recognition

[2:39:42] that autonomous vehicle technology is here.

[2:39:47] avs are present on our roads today, and we strongly

[2:39:58] assume, and, I think, safely assume, that this technology

[2:39:59] will become more and more commonplace.

[2:40:00] in the face of this rapidly advancing technology, we believe

[2:40:01] it is the responsibility of this body to ensure that strong

[2:40:03] protections exist for all road users-drivers, passengers,

[2:40:06] bicyclists, and pedestrians alike-through public policy.

[2:40:25] chairperson allen, we have worked closely with your office

[2:40:26] to ensure that this bill provides appropriate avenues of

[2:40:28] redress for victims of av-involved crashes, and we

[2:40:29] sincerely appreciate your commitment to this critical

[2:40:30] public safety issue. In addition to ensuring that

[2:40:31] victims and their families have proper recourse, the bill needs

[2:40:33] robust and clear standards for determining when and how

[2:40:37] autonomous vehicles can take to our streets, and what guardrails

[2:40:39] should be in place to reduce instances of injury or death.

[2:40:43] for the purpose of determining civil liability for an

[2:40:49] av-involved crash, the tla-dc has consistently held the

[2:40:58] position that the bill must make clear who is responsible for the

[2:41:00] behavior of an autonomous vehicle.

[2:41:01] public policy makers, researchers, and the american

[2:41:05] association for justice (aaj) agree: in order to ensure

[2:41:07] accountability when an autonomous vehicle violates the

[2:41:12] law and injures someone, av companies must be considered

[2:41:13] "drivers" under the law. In this bill, the autonomous

[2:41:35] driving system manufacturer is considered the driver of the av

[2:41:36] for such purposes-a best practice we fully support.

[2:41:39] but from a public safety perspective, the tla-dc believes

[2:41:41] the bill is in need of improvement.

[2:41:41] in the first instance, autonomous vehicles should be

[2:41:42] required, unequivocally, to follow all traffic safety laws

[2:41:44] to operate in the district. It is crucial that the bill is

[2:41:46] explicit about this requirement. To that end, the law should not

[2:42:03] settle for avs being merely as safe as "the human driver of

[2:42:06] average competence," an ambiguous standard that the bill

[2:42:07] references when defining what constitutes an unreasonable risk

[2:42:09] to public safety. To set the bar so low is to

[2:42:10] normalize the high volume of crashes, road deaths, and

[2:42:12] serious injuries that we have today in the district.

[2:42:26] it is to accept much less than the promise made to us by av

[2:42:28] companies, and to needlessly put human lives at risk.

[2:42:30] we ask that the committee reconsider this language and

[2:42:31] make much clearer the safety expectations that we have for

[2:42:32] avs in our community. On the back end, a safety

[2:42:35] enforcement mechanism should be indispensable to this bill.

[2:42:40] in our view, this legislation lacks appropriate enforcement

[2:42:41] and escalation for those av companies that violate the

[2:42:43] traffic laws of the district. We recommend the creation of an

[2:42:45] escalation structure that provides clear warnings,

[2:42:47] opportunities for remediation, and ultimately, cancellation of

[2:43:11] permits for those who refuse remediation or whose remediation

[2:43:13] is insufficient. Specifically, we recommend that

[2:43:14] an enforcement and accountability framework

[2:43:15] include: 1. A formal review by an

[2:43:15] independent regulatory agency when violations cross a certain

[2:43:17] threshold, or when a serious violation occurs.

[2:43:19] 2. Suspending the permittee's

[2:43:20] authorization when violations go uncorrected or exceed allowable

[2:43:21] levels. 3.

[2:43:22] revoking authorization when suspension fails to produce

[2:43:23] improvement, or when serious failures are found to be

[2:43:30] systemic. My colleague, christopher nace,

[2:43:32] is prepared to testify about some of the tla-dc's additional

[2:43:34] positions with respect to this bill.

[2:43:36] in the meantime, I thank you again for your dedication to

[2:43:38] this issue and your work on this legislation.

[2:43:40] I look forward to answering any questions you have.

[2:43:41] thank you. >> thank.

[2:43:50] mr. Nace. >> my law firm is a dc-based

[2:43:57] small business but I am testifying today as co-fit --

[2:44:01] cochair of the d.c. Trial lawyer -- committee.

[2:44:26] -- my name is christopher nace, and I am testifying today as

[2:44:27] legislative chair of the trial lawyers association of

[2:44:28] metropolitan washington, d.c. Our organization represents

[2:44:30] attorneys who advocate for injured people and their

[2:44:31] families in the district's courts.

[2:44:32] in reality, our voice, is for citizens of the district and

[2:44:34] victims of negligence. We come to testify on matters

[2:44:36] that effect the safety of district families

[2:44:37] I want to be clear at the outset: tla-dc takes no position

[2:44:38] today on whether autonomous vehicles should operate in the

[2:44:40] district. Our comments are limited

[2:44:41] entirely to the liability framework in this bill - what

[2:44:42] happens after an av hurts someone.

[2:44:47] when a human driver injures someone, the victim knows who to

[2:44:50] sue, has a license plate and insurance card to work from, and

[2:44:54] can get a police report within days.

[2:44:58] avs remove the human from that equation, and this bill needs to

[2:45:01] replace those basic building blocks of a lawsuit with

[2:45:05] equivalent, or better, tools. In several respects it does: a

[2:45:07] real insurance floor, a ban on forced arbitration for

[2:45:13] commercial riders, and, for privately owned avs, a direct

[2:45:15] claims process against the manufacturer with a data-based

[2:45:17] presumption of engagement and no need to plead a product defect.

[2:45:21] that framework, in section 3j, is the model, and our first ask

[2:45:23] is that the council pass it. Second, data transparency.

[2:45:59] plaintiffs' attorneys in states that already permit avs report

[2:46:00] spending years just trying to access crash data, because those

[2:46:02] states never required real disclosure.

[2:46:42] this bill should require av companies to submit the full,

[2:46:43] unredacted federal standard general order data, made

[2:46:44] available to the public. Each vehicle should also carry a

[2:46:46] separate, read-only sensor recorder capturing at least 30

[2:46:47] seconds before any crash, retained until extracted by

[2:46:48] appropriate agencies, and available to plaintiffs in

[2:46:49] litigation. Third, insurance.

[2:46:50] we're glad the bill sets a $5 million floor, but permit

[2:46:51] holders should also be required to carry $5 million in uninsured

[2:46:55] and underinsured motorist coverage, since many av riders

[2:46:57] don't own cars and have no other policy to fall back on if an

[2:46:59] at-fault third party has no coverage.

[2:47:03] finally, data privacy and passenger safety.

[2:47:04] a vehicle that collects this much information about where

[2:47:05] people go and what they do needs enforceable privacy protections,

[2:47:08] not a handshake, and companies -- we had some questions and

[2:47:14] answers on this earlier today. So that is something we want to

[2:47:18] make sure remains at the forefront of the committee's

[2:47:21] thoughts. In sum, the promise of avs is

[2:47:25] still just a promise - we have heard similar promises before,

[2:47:27] from other technology companies, that did not survive contact

[2:47:29] with the market. If the district is going to let

[2:47:38] autonomous vehicles operate, this committee should make sure

[2:47:40] the liability rules hold companies to those promises.

[2:47:42] we look forward to working with your office on the specific

[2:47:44] language. Thank you, and I am happy to

[2:47:45] answer any questions. >> excellent.

[2:47:56] thank you all very much. Let's see.

[2:48:01] let me start with you. He joined with roundtables a few

[2:48:06] years ago on the same topic. How do you resolve the legal

[2:48:12] uncertainties within the law. From your testimony, it sounds

[2:48:18] like this legibly -- legislation largely is successful resolving

[2:48:23] those issues, is that a fair characterization, in terms of

[2:48:28] defining driver? Collects the short answer is

[2:48:29] yes. I think this should be enacted.

[2:48:33] there is a looming problem with implementing the bill level is

[2:48:54] fraught with all kinds of challenges.

[2:48:57] the level cannot be determined through technological testing.

[2:49:00] the same standard that defines the levels also says as a

[2:49:06] practical matter, it is not possible to describe or specify

[2:49:10] a complete test that could comply to a feature to

[2:49:14] conclusively identify or verify its level of driving automation.

[2:49:19] a single av might be level two and one contacts like high-speed

[2:49:25] traveling on highway and three on another context, like driving

[2:49:29] in a parking lot. That is why the sae

[2:49:32] classifications refer to features, but the act refers to

[2:49:37] the avs itself as having a single level.

[2:49:39] it is not clear for purposes of the act how you would categorize

[2:49:44] this. The act suggests many factors

[2:49:47] might self serve fight and identify at the level of the

[2:49:51] vehicle. I think this would work well.

[2:49:53] when there is no human sitting behind a steering wheel, there

[2:49:57] will generally be gnosis -- notice for this say vehicle

[2:50:01] subject to the act. Where it gets harder is

[2:50:04] distinguishing between level to and level three.

[2:50:09] av companies might assert to regulators that privately owned

[2:50:13] vehicles particularly are only level two, thereby avoiding the

[2:50:16] regulatory structures of the act.

[2:50:18] but those companies can then advertise vehicles to consumers

[2:50:22] with terms that imply greater levels of autonomy like

[2:50:26] self-driving or autonomous, something like that.

[2:50:30] the problem is being dumped in the literature at level two.

[2:50:34] the act limits the loophole by imposing spots on av companies

[2:50:40] that do not register, but the act does not address how ddot

[2:50:44] would know which vehicles to go after.

[2:50:48] so additional provisions might be added to address this

[2:50:54] problem. California has a law that

[2:50:55] prohibits an auto company from marketing vehicles in a way that

[2:50:58] would lead a reasonable person to believe that the vehicles are

[2:51:04] av's. A similar provision could be

[2:51:05] added to the act. Alternatively, the act could

[2:51:09] empower ddot to come up with regulations for identifying when

[2:51:13] a vehicle must be registered. To your initial point, despite

[2:51:18] these concerns, I think the act is frankly groundbreaking.

[2:51:21] I think it is an excellent piece of legislation.

[2:51:25] there are a lot of moving parts that make it hard to identify

[2:51:31] what should be enacted as it currently stands, but the core

[2:51:34] issue of liability -- >> to your point, if you guys

[2:51:50] one, is there a model you can point to and just point to one

[2:51:57] way to get the issue around how a private a/d --

[2:52:06] >> there are two ways of addressing this.

[2:52:10] the california way might be redeploying jurisdictions

[2:52:15] because what it says explicitly is that marketing a conventional

[2:52:20] vehicle in a way that suggests to a reasonable person that is

[2:52:24] an av violates california consumer protection laws

[2:52:29] regarding accepted advertisements.

[2:52:32] we would have to look to see if similar regimes -- whether or

[2:52:38] not that would be brought to the district.

[2:52:39] another approach would be to focus on the substance of

[2:52:43] reasonable beliefs of consumers. You could cut through it and say

[2:52:48] when there is a reasonable belief by a consumer, that a

[2:52:52] vehicle operates as an autonomous vehicle that it is

[2:52:57] subject to registration for level three or higher.

[2:53:05] >> a good number of car sales to d.c. Residence actually takes

[2:53:12] place in virginia, maryland. As discovered, we can't rent

[2:53:15] their loss. Ok.

[2:53:17] let me turn -- we heard earlier testimony that criticized

[2:53:26] provisions in the bill banning force arbitration as a condition

[2:53:30] of service. If we were to knock that out,

[2:53:33] what would happen? Why would that be bad?

[2:53:47] >> it is of course with these companies seek to do, to limit

[2:53:52] liability exposure. If there is force arbitration,

[2:53:56] of course the victim of negligence and their families,

[2:54:07] they get potentially limited discovery, if discovery at all.

[2:54:13] it becomes a much harder -- obtaining equitable damages.

[2:54:19] we have a jury system in place for a reason.

[2:54:24] it is an evisceration of the seventh amendment of the

[2:54:30] constitution. If you want to be a full deep

[2:54:32] dive, I can, but we think it is fundamental that mandatory

[2:54:42] arbitration be the also testified he felt like we need

[2:54:53] to have clear language around the traffic safety laws have to

[2:55:00] be followed. U.s. Servers panel for example,

[2:55:06] do you ever allow the autonomous vehicle to exceed the speed

[2:55:12] limit? Both answers were now -- waymo

[2:55:16] said no except for the safety response.

[2:55:24] people going faster around it, it seems like it was entirely

[2:55:29] counter to the purpose. I do live draw, if there is a

[2:55:39] safety rate -- safety removed -- maneuver to make a safe distance

[2:55:42] of the for pastors, and others, it may add to contemporary

[2:55:51] acceleration, do you have any feedback about how you write

[2:55:54] that in a defined way to -- and also exceed the speed limit?

[2:56:02] >> I think it is a tricky issue. We are certainly happy to work

[2:56:08] with your office in the coming months on better defining

[2:56:14] precise language. I will say though, to the

[2:56:18] broader point, we see no reason why an autonomous vehicle

[2:56:23] outside of potentially an evasive maneuver to avoid injury

[2:56:25] or death, we need to exceed the speed limit under any

[2:56:29] circumstance. I did hear about tesla

[2:56:34] representatives testimony on that and it struck me as odd.

[2:56:41] as to your precise question, first of all, I don't have the

[2:56:46] d.c. Traffic code in front of me, but if there is a maneuver

[2:56:50] to avoid injury or death, it may well be in compliance with the

[2:56:55] law, as a practical manner, but beyond that, I will reiterate we

[2:56:59] are more than willing to work with your office on digging into

[2:57:01] that issue and coming up with precise and definitive language

[2:57:09] on that. >> obviously, we still have some

[2:57:12] work ahead of us in the weeks to come.

[2:57:14] we want to be precise as possible.

[2:57:21] cannot stop in the middle of a bike lane.

[2:57:23] at the same time, there will be a reasonableness to figure out

[2:57:26] because I think it is fairly reasonable the vehicle.

[2:57:31] in traveling on a residential street in front of my house, in

[2:57:33] the same way I don't think twice about when an over driver stops

[2:57:37] to let me out or let me in, so fine-tuning that to where the

[2:57:42] reasonableness works, but the legislation is precise enough

[2:57:49] because technically, double parking in the middle of my

[2:57:52] residential street might not be compliant with the safety lock.

[2:57:59] we will have to spend time working on that.

[2:58:02] you talked about full unredacted data.

[2:58:14] -- >> when there is an event or a

[2:58:16] crash, that victims have access to that data, that they don't

[2:58:22] have to jump through unbelievable hoops over hurdles

[2:58:26] to find out what the vehicle knows about the crash.

[2:58:32] it shouldn't be held back. Tied back a little bit with the

[2:58:38] question about the vehicles, we have her testimony they are 10

[2:58:48] times safer, 94% safety, ok. If that is the case, let's share

[2:58:55] that information. The people who are hurt in an

[2:59:00] accident, by putting something, and this is the arbitration part

[2:59:05] of it, arbitration proceedings are not open forums like court

[2:59:09] proceedings are. So when we have technology

[2:59:14] companies coming in and saying this is safer and this will make

[2:59:18] people safer, ok, fine, but when something may go along and does

[2:59:22] go wrong, everyone has that data and information as to why how

[2:59:31] often things are going wrong and how often, so I just think data

[2:59:36] sharing is one of the ways and transparency is one of the ways

[2:59:39] of gaining confidence in these vehicles.

[2:59:46] >> councilmember henderson, let me turn to you and we will tack

[2:59:49] on additional time as well for any statement you would like to

[2:59:52] make. >> thank you, chair alan.

[2:59:54] I do not have an opening statement.

[2:59:56] I've been listening. I don't think you saw me before.

[2:59:58] you asked a lot of the questions I have for this group but I want

[3:00:01] to thank everyone for their testimony.

[3:00:05] I think it was you or mr. L who said he felt like the bill was

[3:00:15] good but you felt things were missing.

[3:00:19] can you state a little more about that because I do not

[3:00:22] think I heard you say what the two or three additional things

[3:00:24] were that you wanted to see. >> councilmember>> council memb

[3:00:32] this is drew laframboise. I will briefly restate both of

[3:00:35] them. One issue that we think needs

[3:00:40] some better precision is defining explicitly or stating

[3:00:49] explicitly that avs are required to comply --

[3:00:53] >> that is what you were talking about in terms --

[3:00:55] >> and specifically, if I may. Specifically, we have a problem

[3:00:59] with the definition of an unreasonable risk to public

[3:01:04] safety, which is used throughout the bill.

[3:01:07] and that -- that is defined as something lower than, quote, the

[3:01:14] average -- sorry, the human driver of average competence.

[3:01:18] that is what is used in the bill to define an unreasonable risk

[3:01:22] to public safety. And that is really -- that

[3:01:25] definition is so vague to be without meaning.

[3:01:28] we don't know how we would apply it in the first instance, and we

[3:01:36] expect more from the avs, that they be more than the better

[3:01:42] driver, the average competent driver, but that comply with all

[3:01:46] traffic laws. And if they don't, there needs

[3:01:49] to be repercussions. And that is the first issue.

[3:01:53] and on the back end, we think there needs to be a better and

[3:01:58] clearer tiered enforcement mechanism to make sure that when

[3:02:01] avs fail to comply with traffic laws, and there should be a

[3:02:08] record of all that, there should be repercussions.

[3:02:11] and this is in my written testimony as well.

[3:02:15] but we put out a three-tiered frame work what that might look

[3:02:18] like. And we are certainly happy to

[3:02:21] work with the committee on that language.

[3:02:23] >> when you see prepercussions. If you have an a.v. That ran a

[3:02:32] red light or happened to be going over the speed limit, the

[3:02:36] company would still receive a ticket.

[3:02:38] they have a license plate. You're suggesting something more

[3:02:43] than what a typical driver would face?

[3:02:46] >> certainly. Under this technology, there is

[3:02:52] no reason an av should run a red light.

[3:02:53] if they have running a red light, that slophows you someth

[3:02:58] is wrong with that av. And it's incumbent on the

[3:03:04] district to find out what that is.

[3:03:06] what it means is a formal review to find it out what it means.

[3:03:12] and an extension on the d.c. Roadways.

[3:03:14] and if there is determined to be a significant problem or a

[3:03:19] systemic problem with the av company, a revocation of the

[3:03:24] permit. >> got it.

[3:03:28] council member allen, board chair allen, I know we are

[3:03:31] running behind. Those are all the questions I

[3:03:34] have for the panel. >> thank you.

[3:03:36] and to the last point. Part of -- we can certainly take

[3:03:39] a look at it. The legislation, we are trying

[3:03:46] to figure out where it's decrypt

[3:03:51] descriptive, and there are some elements where an av permit

[3:03:55] obviously, based on safety, track record, can be suspended

[3:04:02] and can be revoked. But we will take a look at this

[3:04:05] afterwards so that the language is precise as it can be.

[3:04:07] and we want to give some politics to the agency so they

[3:04:12] are not overly prescriptive. Thank you.

[3:04:16] I appreciate everyone on the panel.

[3:04:17] thank you. >> thank you.

[3:04:19] >> all right, let me turn to the next panel of witnesses.

[3:04:22] I have kelly mack who is a member with the d.c. Multimodal

[3:04:27] accessibility advisory council. Heidi case, the co-founder of

[3:04:31] the dmv disability senior community meeting.

[3:04:36] ct tyson, government affairs liaison with the disability

[3:04:40] rights education and defense fund.

[3:04:45] theo braddy, executive director with the national council of

[3:04:50] independent living. And kafui attoh, public witness.

[3:04:56] and I apologize if I mispronounced that.

[3:05:18] all right, I see that kelly mack is here.

[3:05:22] ct is here. Is theo braddy -- okay, theo is

[3:05:30] online. And kafui attoh?

[3:05:35] also online. We have three people in person,

[3:05:37] and two on zoom. Kelly mack, we will start with

[3:05:41] you. Good afternoon.

[3:05:41] >> good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to

[3:05:44] testify today. My name is kelly mack.

[3:05:46] I am a disabled d.c. Resident who uses a power wheelchair, and

[3:05:51] I'm a member of the multimodal accessibility advisory council

[3:05:56] or mac, which advises d.c. On improving accessibility.

[3:06:02] like the majority of disabled people, I do not drive, and I

[3:06:05] rely on publicly available transportation services like

[3:06:12] cabs and ride shares. For years, I have spoke with the

[3:06:16] problems with on-demand wheelchair vehicles and

[3:06:23] services. Disabled people are generally

[3:06:27] enthusiastic about the potential for transportation safety and

[3:06:32] accessibility promised by autonomous vehicles.

[3:06:34] however, we must learn from the example of ride share example in

[3:06:37] d.c. More than ten years ago. That bill had no minimum

[3:06:44] requirements and when ride share entered dv, the until of waves

[3:06:50] declined more. Unfortunately, there is no

[3:06:53] example in history where an entity has voluntarily offered

[3:06:58] to make their transportation services more accessible.

[3:07:03] the only approach that ever worked is through mandates,

[3:07:09] either legislatively or through costly and lengthy litigation.

[3:07:15] multid.c. Laws support full accessibility and equity that is

[3:07:19] yet to be experienced by disabled people seeks on-demand

[3:07:28] transportation. Following years of advocates,

[3:07:29] there is no excuse for av companies to say they are

[3:07:35] unaware or unprepared. What has been missing is the

[3:07:38] will of av companies to adopt inclusive design practices to

[3:07:42] accommodate all customers, including those with

[3:07:45] disabilities. We must take their actions as

[3:07:48] the truth of their intentions. Av companies will not

[3:07:53] voluntarily adopt accessibility, so it must be mandated.

[3:07:56] the max letter advising that any legislation permitting av

[3:08:01] deployment must include accessibility requirements and

[3:08:05] warn against permittinger refel to another service.

[3:08:11] they can asking they are allowed to violate existing law and

[3:08:16] refer disabled customers to the same exact providers their

[3:08:22] business model aims to replace. The growth will lead directly to

[3:08:27] the destruction of the already -- number operating

[3:08:33] here. The mac recommended two concepts

[3:08:36] included in the av legislation. A requirement for

[3:08:43] nondiscrimination laws that names disabled people.

[3:08:46] and that all av service operators must provide direct

[3:08:51] serb visit directly, including minimums that scale over time

[3:08:56] with enforceable milestones. The mac recommended d.c.

[3:09:02] agency's oversight engage with stake holders and that

[3:09:05] legislation explicitly permit and encourage pilots of

[3:09:11] automated transit buses and shuttles.

[3:09:16] to achieve accessibility for disabled people, four categories

[3:09:20] must be added to the bill. One, wheelchair accessible

[3:09:24] vehicles for loading and securement.

[3:09:27] two, installing accessible human machine interfaces.

[3:09:32] three, detecting and responding appropriately to diverse,

[3:09:38] disabled pedestrians. And four, promoting the safety

[3:09:41] of riders and pedestrians. A more conclusive list was

[3:09:47] included in my written testimony.

[3:09:51] disabled advocates are eager about legislation, and without

[3:09:59] baseline requirements, it is repeating that the mistakes that

[3:10:05] resulted in no adoption of accessibility.

[3:10:09] 36 years following the americans with disability act, separate

[3:10:13] and unequal transportation service is not accessible.

[3:10:19] d.c. Council plays a vie cal role here, and we welcome

[3:10:23] discussion to make that legislation optimal for the

[3:10:26] city's needs. Thank you.

[3:10:29] >> thank you very much. Next, we turn to heidi case.

[3:10:35] >> good morning, council member allen and henderson and staff.

[3:10:39] my name is heidi case. I'm al person with a disability,

[3:10:43] and part of my story, like many people with disabilities, is I

[3:10:48] particularly move in to d.c., and cities, people with

[3:10:56] disabilities do, because of the accessibility options that

[3:11:01] cities provide. Particularly around public

[3:11:08] transportation. Even -- d.c. Is even a greater

[3:11:12] m hub for that because the federal

[3:11:14] government for such a long time has ploemployed so many people h

[3:11:21] disabilities and the equity that is required around that.

[3:11:25] so there is an even higher population of people with

[3:11:30] disabilities in cities. And part of my work is I did

[3:11:37] that as a disabled person to ensure, I came here and realized

[3:11:43] I have been a member of the metro accessibility advisory

[3:11:49] condominiumty when transport d.c. Accessible d.c. Programs.

[3:11:53] I have been a part of the dhp advisory committee for ten

[3:12:01] years, chaired it on and off, and I have chaired the mac for

[3:12:04] several years also. So this is my work and what I

[3:12:11] do. And reiterate some of kelly's

[3:12:17] point. Plessy versus ferguson over 100

[3:12:23] years ago said separate but equal is okay.

[3:12:25] it's not coincidental, that was about public transportation in

[3:12:30] trains. Civil rights legislation has

[3:12:33] gone through the public transportation.

[3:12:36] the bus boycott in the '60s. All of that.

[3:12:42] and I was part of the -- initially named dependent

[3:12:48] against a uber lawsuit. Unfortunately this is deja vu

[3:12:53] all over again. It's what happens when tncs came

[3:12:56] in d.c., and there were no accessibility requirements on

[3:13:02] them. That uber lawsuit, and they did

[3:13:06] exactly what waymo is suggesting, refer to taxis.

[3:13:14] and they lost that lawsuit. Because testing proved that

[3:13:19] people paid twice as much and waited five to six times as

[3:13:28] long. The -- sorry, resolution to that

[3:13:33] lawsuits lawsuit has required uber under

[3:13:39] their own company, on the app, they provide wheelchair

[3:13:43] accessibility vehicles and hire staff to provide them.

[3:13:46] that is a way they provide equity, and that way you can

[3:13:51] match time waits, costs, et cetera.

[3:13:54] so let's avoid all of that and put some of those requirements

[3:14:01] in legislation at this point. Separate but equal never has

[3:14:13] been. The other things that kelly

[3:14:17] mentioned, exactly what the history and dhs fee has the data

[3:14:25] to prove -- we had such robust wheelchair taxis, and tncs came

[3:14:34] in, and ever since then, the number of wheelchair taxis on

[3:14:39] d.c. Streets has dropped and dropped and dropped.

[3:14:42] they are required to provide monthly data on how many.

[3:14:46] yes, there was legislation about a percentage, and you questioned

[3:14:52] them. Here in d.c., that was 20%.

[3:14:54] the thing is, do you -- they allowed that 20% to be met by

[3:15:02] taxis sitting in garages with no drivers and never on the

[3:15:06] streets. So that actually -- if you want

[3:15:10] a percentage, I was in new york city for pride.

[3:15:14] and united sued them, 50% on wheelchair taxis.

[3:15:18] I hailed a taxi on the street! They have a wheelchair symbol on

[3:15:24] the front of the taxi. You can see when it's coming.

[3:15:28] and be able to do that. So there are some models to make

[3:15:34] this better. I wanted to briefly -- oh.

[3:15:39] I will have to put in my -- that the -- the disability community,

[3:15:46] the ada's history of the blind and wheelchaired drivers, and

[3:15:53] wheelchair communities, disagreeing on curb cuts.

[3:15:57] and quickly, they said, they will die.

[3:16:01] wheelchair says we have to have it.

[3:16:05] the bumpy domes was the solution.

[3:16:07] there are solutions. Where both of our communities

[3:16:14] win and have access and safety. Thank you.

[3:16:16] >> thank you very much. Next, we turn to c.t. Tyson.

[3:16:24] >> tel >> hello, and thank you for the

[3:16:26] opportunity to testify on the 36th anniversary of the

[3:16:31] americans with disabilities act. My name is c.t. Tyson.

[3:16:36] I am a white person with short hair and a dark blazer.

[3:16:42] I am a former chair, 2014 to 2016 of the department of

[3:16:48] vehicle accessibility advisory community, and a proud ward 4

[3:16:57] district resident. And the policy center directed

[3:17:00] by individuals with disabilities and parents who have children

[3:17:06] with disabilities. My colleagues are based in the

[3:17:09] bay area and in los angeles. So we have extensive experience

[3:17:15] with av and av policy. We developed an interest in av

[3:17:22] policy in the drooafting of the 2015 report of self-driving

[3:17:26] cars, and mapping access to a technology resolution.

[3:17:31] we participated in three days of av accessibility workshops in

[3:17:36] 2019, posted by the double manufacturers, and providing the

[3:17:40] alliance for automotive, and the u.s. Department of

[3:17:48] transforpassion, and the u.s. Department of labor listening

[3:17:52] sessions and the transportation adv

[3:17:56] advisory committee. Policymakers have acknowledged

[3:17:59] and discussed the need for avs to be fully accessible for more

[3:18:06] than a decade. A little progress has been made.

[3:18:08] in 2022, a brief on addressing the autonomous vehicles.

[3:18:14] there has been modeling and an ek notes of avs failing to stop

[3:18:19] when it encounters a wheeler. And they have not inclusive, as

[3:18:28] mentioned earlier. Of people with darker skin tones

[3:18:32] and many people with disable tips including wheelchair users.

[3:18:36] we urge the community to consider the following in a

[3:18:40] future version of the bill. First, just because this is said

[3:18:44] on the previous panel, we fully support mandatory or forced

[3:18:53] arbitration appearing nowhere in the bill.

[3:18:57] I work on federal policy. It does not work.

[3:18:59] it's not good for the community. Please do not do that.

[3:19:02] clear accessibility requirements for av operators in the district

[3:19:05] should be set, including a minimum number of wheelchair

[3:19:10] accessible avs and operators in the future.

[3:19:13] to qualify for a permit -- because I understand this is a

[3:19:17] tiered system -- operators must adopt zero tolerance

[3:19:26] discrimination policy. This is already required for

[3:19:29] tmcs. Commit to accessible service for

[3:19:32] all district residents and visitors.

[3:19:36] having in place wheelchair accessible options.

[3:19:40] refer to d.c. Dot documenting the number of ride requests,

[3:19:48] rides fulfilled and wait times for each, and inaccessible rides

[3:19:53] to ensure equitable service is provided.

[3:19:57] report to the crash and near crash data involving people with

[3:20:04] disability, including repair efforts and provide proof with

[3:20:08] successful testing with detection and response to a

[3:20:11] variety of people with disabilities.

[3:20:13] at the outset while they are here.

[3:20:18] to qualify to increase the fleet sizes, operators should include

[3:20:22] safety and equity, when and how they will ensure the human

[3:20:26] machine interface and the vehicle is fully accessible for

[3:20:29] all people with disabilities and the required number of vehicles

[3:20:34] are accessible for wheelchair user pro

[3:20:38] user provided. Regular reporting for the

[3:20:44] advisory committee and response to recommendations and on going

[3:20:49] consultation. Failure to comply with the

[3:20:52] policies and their provision of equitable service should result

[3:20:57] in suspension of a permit. In addition, tech companies

[3:21:01] providing transportation service are still required to ensure

[3:21:10] that equitable service. They should not rewarded for

[3:21:17] cherry picking and awarding service to those easiest to

[3:21:23] serve. Thank you for allowing me to

[3:21:25] provide testimony to ensuring equal access to all modes of

[3:21:30] transportation. >> thank you very much.

[3:21:32] next, we turn to theo braddy who is online, I believe.

[3:21:43] >> I'm not able to come off camera.

[3:21:45] there we go. >> there we go.

[3:21:47] we can both see and hear you. When you're ready, sir.

[3:21:53] >> awesome. Thank you.

[3:21:54] I do appreciate the fact that you have made accommodations for

[3:21:59] me to provide comment. I am providing comments in

[3:22:08] support. The 26-0684.

[3:22:17] my name theo w. Braddy, for independent living.

[3:22:22] my video description. I'm a black man with a bald head

[3:22:27] with salt and pepper beard, blue classes, and I'm a c-4

[3:22:45] quadriplegic. And the disability grassroots

[3:22:49] organization represents people with disable tips and a nation

[3:22:54] network for immedindependent li and the independent living

[3:22:57] council appreciate the opportunity to provide comments

[3:23:01] in support of the legislation. For people with disabilities,

[3:23:05] transportation has never been simple about getting from one

[3:23:08] place to the other. It's about independence.

[3:23:15] employment, health care, education, civil engagement and

[3:23:17] the civil right to participate fully in community life.

[3:23:21] for decades, inaccessible for unreliable tra

[3:23:29] unreliable transportation has remained one of the greatest

[3:23:33] barriers of the american with disability act.

[3:23:37] we believe this legislation represents an important step

[3:23:42] towards removing those barriers. The national council of

[3:23:47] independent living supports is the bill, and a thoughtful

[3:23:51] approach to creating a thoughtful autonomous vehicle.

[3:23:57] the support of an autonomous vehicle combined with

[3:24:01] requirements for safety, emergency response planning,

[3:24:09] equitable access throughout the eight wards, and interface

[3:24:13] demonstrates commitment to ensure that innovation in public

[3:24:17] safety advances together. These provisions provide a

[3:24:20] strong frame work of responsible deployment and recognizing their

[3:24:26] importance of accessibility from the on set.

[3:24:31] autonomous vehicle technology has special to transform

[3:24:35] transportation for millions of americans.

[3:24:39] it can be a game changer, no doubt about it.

[3:24:43] maymo has demonstrated meaningful benefits for broad

[3:24:47] cross section of the disability community.

[3:24:51] including people who are blind, low vision, people who are deaf,

[3:24:55] hard of hearing and those who use and can't walk, use canes,

[3:25:01] walkers, and other walking aids, and many other disabilities that

[3:25:08] transportation was very difficult or inconsistent or

[3:25:13] inaccessible. Many riders of autonomous

[3:25:16] transportation is something that cannot be made in miles travel.

[3:25:20] it provides freedom, dignity, privacy and predictability.

[3:25:27] that is so important for people with disabilities.

[3:25:31] they are positioned to become the nation's leader in

[3:25:37] transportation. Washington serves as the main

[3:25:41] national center for disability policy, advocacy, civil rights

[3:25:48] leaders and so forth. Every year, thousands of people

[3:25:52] travel to the district participating in congress, to

[3:25:57] meet agendas, attend medical appointments and engage in

[3:26:02] national organizations. In addition, washington hosts a

[3:26:05] national disability conference that we put on every year to

[3:26:08] bring in thousands of people with disabilities, including

[3:26:12] policymakers and international guests from out of this country.

[3:26:15] reliable and accessible autonomous transportation has

[3:26:19] the potential to dramatically improve their experiences with

[3:26:24] the businesses. -- recognize this is important

[3:26:26] that waymo's commit to engage directly with the disability

[3:26:33] communities, waymo has established an accessibility

[3:26:41] network made up of individuals with disabilities regarding

[3:26:47] feedback with rider experience and continued improvement.

[3:26:51] we believe this proposed act provides an opportunity for the

[3:26:55] district to build upon this model successfully.

[3:27:01] accordingly, we strongly recommend, and I can't explain

[3:27:06] how important that this is, the council include language

[3:27:11] districting the department of transportation to establish a

[3:27:19] permanent advisory committee to advise on accessibility issues

[3:27:24] related to the autonomous transporatra

[3:27:31] transporation. Now, you will hear from

[3:27:32] individuals today just like you heard from carl highson who

[3:27:40] provided comments on who should be invited to be a member of the

[3:27:42] committee. I can't implore you enough how

[3:27:45] important it is to have that kind of feedback.

[3:27:48] I can heard many of your petitioners here today use the

[3:27:54] word all. All of washingtonians.

[3:27:59] all of washington, d.c. Citizens.

[3:28:03] of course, generally, when people use that terminology,

[3:28:05] they don't always include people with disabilities as citizens.

[3:28:10] you all right now have an opportunity to ensure that

[3:28:14] people with disabilities, including people with wheelchair

[3:28:20] users as well as motorized wheelchair, to be included in

[3:28:25] regard to creating wheelchair accessible vehicles.

[3:28:31] and for the first time, we will see that game changer in regard

[3:28:38] to everyone having an opportunity to fully participate

[3:28:42] happen. And I think you all have a

[3:28:44] student because I have seen -- I have been sitting here

[3:28:47] listening, and there is a lot of great comments coming in.

[3:28:51] and this is an effort. It's a major effort,

[3:28:58] councilmember allen. But one of the things we cannot

[3:29:01] do is to continue to leave off wheelchair users and motorized

[3:29:11] wheelchair users. It's just too important.

[3:29:13] >> thank you very much. And next, let me turn to kafui

[3:29:20] attoh. If I mispronounced that, correct

[3:29:23] me. >> it's kafui.

[3:29:25] I'm used to it. Good afternoon, chairperson

[3:29:29] allen and members of the committee.

[3:29:32] let me say thank you for the opportunity to offer this

[3:29:39] testimony. My name is kafui.

[3:29:40] I am a professor of urban studies in new york, and along

[3:29:45] with my colleagues katie wells who wouldn't be here, my

[3:29:49] research is focused on the relationship between urban

[3:29:54] platforms, transportation and how cities govern emerging

[3:29:59] technologies. So this very issue.

[3:30:00] this research, just to do a shameless plug, has yielded two

[3:30:07] books, disrupting d.c., the use of uber and the fall of the

[3:30:11] city, and the rights of public transportation in california's

[3:30:16] east bay. I should start by saying I did

[3:30:19] appreciate the effort that has gone into krafrtingcrafting theg

[3:30:29] technology. I urge the council to reconsider

[3:30:34] , to go back to it. The question is not whether

[3:30:37] autonomous vehicles can be regulated but whether their

[3:30:41] commercial appointment advances public policy goals.

[3:30:44] the district should first be cautious, and this is already

[3:30:49] covered by tyson and not whethe claims of accessibility.

[3:31:05] accessibility is more than the ability to request a ride.

[3:31:08] view act sszibcessibilitity req affordable services, and

[3:31:16] geographic coverage, and the int

[3:31:22] integration with public systems. The district has yet to

[3:31:26] demonstrate that commercial operators can meet the operators

[3:31:29] and skam, or they will improve on existing ada services.

[3:31:37] it should not be assumed because a vehicle is autonomous or a

[3:31:41] company claims as much. The ability to claim that

[3:31:45] autonomous vehicles are an answer to the priorities.

[3:31:48] the priorities include improving metro reliability, expanding

[3:31:53] service, and expanding infrastructure, and ensuring

[3:31:59] equitable transportation access. Commercial vehicles address a

[3:32:02] view of the priorities directly. Instead, they risk the public

[3:32:08] attention. And this is a bigger issue, and

[3:32:14] regulatory capacity, and the principle beneficiaries may be

[3:32:20] private. We have seen this before.

[3:32:22] and it's a movie we have written about in disrupting d.c.

[3:32:25] over a decade ago, ride platforms have changed the city.

[3:32:31] so they have fulfilled a few of the early promises to incrude

[3:32:41] y equality.

[3:32:42] we should not repeat the same cycle where technological

[3:32:47] changes celebrate and the economic and social cluster

[3:32:50] extend to workers and vulnerable comm

[3:32:54] communities. The question is not whether

[3:32:56] vehicles can be safety introduced in a frame work.

[3:33:00] the question is whether commercial can deployment by one

[3:33:02] of the largest tech forms in the world is officially aligned with

[3:33:07] the equity accessibility and accountability.

[3:33:13] and sustainability to justify authorizing their operation at

[3:33:17] this time. I and my colleagues, you know,

[3:33:25] we still need to be persuaded. Once deployment beginning, the

[3:33:30] district streets -- this is a top take came up in an earlier

[3:33:35] panel discussion. Becomes part of a privately

[3:33:39] operated mobility platform where owners have proven -- like

[3:33:46] google, have proven to be sk scrupulous.

[3:33:57] and the district has ever right and every responsibility to ask

[3:34:03] whether this technology solves problems that the residents face

[3:34:08] before opening the streets to commercial deployment.

[3:34:10] so I will end my comments there. Thank you for the time, and I

[3:34:13] will submit the written record into the written -- written

[3:34:20] testimony into the record. >> thank you very much.

[3:34:22] I appreciate it. Thanks to everybody on the

[3:34:25] panel. Let me go through a couple

[3:34:28] questions. I might start, kelly mack and

[3:34:33] heidi case and c.t. Tyson, with you, since you are in front of

[3:34:35] me. When I ask the question to the

[3:34:40] earlier panel of the av operators, waymo in particular,

[3:34:49] the distinction, tell ist w tes about a purpose vehicle.

[3:34:56] and waymo's answer is, we're the technology company.

[3:34:59] we don't actually make the vehicle.

[3:35:04] I don't disagree. We wrote in law, a requirement

[3:35:09] around taxi cabs. The driver didn't make the

[3:35:13] vehicle either. So I'm not sure that is good

[3:35:16] enough to say, well, you have to have a better representation

[3:35:23] within your fleet. What were your reactions when

[3:35:25] you heard that? And do you see parallels to the

[3:35:29] conversations that we had with the taxi cab fleet?

[3:35:32] >> yes. It is a direct parallel.

[3:35:39] -- again. Please, can we have a different

[3:35:41] response by the district? I am begging you.

[3:35:45] heidi can attest, I was in the motion to the hearing where

[3:35:51] heidi was a plaintiff, and now supreme court justice jackson

[3:35:55] was the judge, and the uber lawyer said, we are just a tech

[3:36:01] company, and we provide uber eats.

[3:36:04] we should never have to comply with the ada.

[3:36:10] I have never been more happy to see a judge's jaw drop.

[3:36:16] I have been a fan since. I ask you to please require them

[3:36:20] to do it. Otherwise, it's putting the onus

[3:36:24] on my community to litigate. And we are getting beat up on

[3:36:28] all sides. The federal government, and now

[3:36:30] just feeling very left out and invisibility in all of this.

[3:36:35] so yes, no, they absolutely have a responsibility.

[3:36:37] it's in law. They know it.

[3:36:39] it's been litigated in the courts.

[3:36:41] we have been talking about it in rooms with them.

[3:36:43] as I mentioned, for a decade. And they haved admitted they ar

[3:36:52] obligated. >> exactly.

[3:36:52] I mean, that is exactly what tnc said.

[3:36:57] we're -- technology, not that. And there hasn't been a single

[3:37:03] court case where that stood up. D.c. Is not the only place that

[3:37:06] has taken uber for example to court to force this.

[3:37:10] and as I mentioned, the option then is, yeah, the settlement of

[3:37:19] that is they're buying wheelchair accessible vehicles,

[3:37:22] paying drivers. And that's part of their whole

[3:37:26] service. But sending it to another is

[3:37:32] simply not. And the biggest thing, to say,

[3:37:36] again, the problem is, kelly said it beautifully.

[3:37:38] they are taking the jobs from the accessible vehicles.

[3:37:46] wheelchair drivers -- their whole -- for the job to be

[3:37:51] viable, they take people who aren't.

[3:37:55] and avs and tncs took those jobs away.

[3:38:02] that is why it riveted. It actually doesn't stay the

[3:38:06] same. Even what we have.

[3:38:08] and that's the concerning thing. >> okay.

[3:38:11] thank you. This question is my own

[3:38:16] ignorance. Is there a -- are we aware of a

[3:38:20] wheelchair accessible vehicle where it does not require a

[3:38:25] human operator? What I'm getting, I have had

[3:38:28] people say, well -- you want to have a driver, because that

[3:38:33] driver can assist getting in and out of the vehicle.

[3:38:37] if the wheelchair or other devices need to be stored in a

[3:38:42] certain way, an autonomous vehicle doesn't have the other

[3:38:44] person there. Is there -- just my own

[3:38:48] ignorance. Is there a vehicle that anyone

[3:38:50] is aware of where it doesn't require another person?

[3:38:54] >> if I may? -- to name ability.

[3:39:03] they have provided shuttle av service for some time.

[3:39:08] and they were -- they hold a standard of a company that

[3:39:14] recognized their need to commit and provide accessible service.

[3:39:19] so they do have av shuttles that don't require a driver and are

[3:39:25] wheelchair accessible. A purpose built versus retro

[3:39:30] fitted. That is including the taxi and

[3:39:33] the tmc space. We would love to see that.

[3:39:36] companies and various operators have committed to and we have

[3:39:40] seen them fall apart. When leadership or accessible

[3:39:43] teams have changed or left. Over and over again.

[3:39:46] so it think it's going -- as kelly said, it's going to have

[3:39:49] to be required for it to actually happen.

[3:39:52] and you might have one company that says, tesla, we have

[3:39:55] something in the works. But that doesn't mean that any

[3:39:59] other companies are going to do it.

[3:40:00] so it's really important. And I know heidi talked about

[3:40:06] her experience in new york city, and we have accessible taxis in

[3:40:11] europe. So it is possible.

[3:40:13] it just really has to be required.

[3:40:16] and force them to put the money into it.

[3:40:18] >> I will come to you in a second.

[3:40:22] I see your hand's up. We will pull in mr. Braddy here

[3:40:27] as well. From your perspective, does the

[3:40:31] vehicle -- would a vehicle have to be autonomous?

[3:40:34] or is it more that the fleet operator has to have a fleet of

[3:40:40] vehicles that could actually be a subset of the vehicles have a

[3:40:44] human driver in it? And the -- is providing that

[3:40:49] wheelchair access vehicle? Like, is that a distinction a

[3:40:53] difference? >> there is a distinction, and

[3:40:56] we need both. We need the first in the outset.

[3:40:58] and the human -- they don't have a wheelchair accessible av right

[3:41:01] now. With the automated securement,

[3:41:04] and there is a coalition, and I believe somebody will be

[3:41:09] testifying about that later today.

[3:41:11] so you can ask kent when he talks.

[3:41:13] I don't want to steal his thunder.

[3:41:15] if the companies are coming, they should be required,

[3:41:19] absolutely required to provide at least the driver --

[3:41:25] wheelchair accessible service for the driver.

[3:41:28] think can't come in and provide the wheelchair accessible

[3:41:32] service. They are violating the law.

[3:41:35] but whether or not av s are equitable, I would say they are

[3:41:43] not. I ask you to get them to report

[3:41:45] on the wait times. If they are relying on a driver,

[3:41:48] is that going to be available 24/7 like with an unmanned av?

[3:41:53] I would say probably not. Are the wait times going to be

[3:41:58] the same? Probably not.

[3:42:00] but if avs are supposed to be safer, safer for people outside

[3:42:04] the vehicle, why are we not requiring that for wheelchair

[3:42:08] users as well? I really hope that the district

[3:42:11] will take this opportunity to ensure that same level, the same

[3:42:14] quality of service across the board.

[3:42:17] >> let me turn to mr. Braddy before time runs out here.

[3:42:22] mr. Braddy? >> yeah, thank you.

[3:42:25] I do agree with what was just said.

[3:42:28] it's going to require both. I was working with a company

[3:42:31] called cruz, and they stopped work on a wheelchair-accessible

[3:42:36] vehicle simply because it was a regulation that required a

[3:42:39] steering wheel. And they couldn't get past that.

[3:42:42] but they had developed a wheelchair-accessible autonomous

[3:42:49] vehicle. And because it had so much

[3:42:51] problem in d.c. In regards to regulations, in regards to one

[3:42:56] particular thing, having a steering wheel missing, they ran

[3:43:00] into a roadblock. I will add to this, autonomous

[3:43:05] vehicles are coming. Whether we want to admit it or

[3:43:08] not. But to do it the right way

[3:43:12] fos, to be on the right side of history,

[3:43:15] I have seen it so many times. People on the wrong side of

[3:43:19] history. >> mr. Braddy, one more question

[3:43:23] for you. It's possible I didn't hear your

[3:43:25] testimony the right way. I think I heard you recommending

[3:43:29] that ddot has to have a permanent advisory committee.

[3:43:43] we have the mrak. A

[3:43:44] -- mac. Are you recommending --

[3:43:48] >> yeah, if you write in they should use the mac, that would

[3:43:51] be okay. But it has to be in it.

[3:43:53] you get to get feedback from the people that the programs and

[3:43:59] design to use. >> that is helpful.

[3:44:01] I didn't understand -- now I understand what your

[3:44:04] recommendation was. I don't think I followed it the

[3:44:07] first time. That is helpful.

[3:44:08] thank you very much. And then, miss case, you pointed

[3:44:14] out, even though we have a law that says what the percentage of

[3:44:18] vehicles needs to be, we -- you're flagging for it.

[3:44:22] it doesn't mean the number of vehicles that are in the fleet

[3:44:25] in operation on the street. That could count as a vehicle

[3:44:28] that is just in a garage somewhere, right?

[3:44:31] >> that is the way it is. The company has to have that

[3:44:35] many vehicles. And it's only required of

[3:44:37] companies in the legislation. >> I want to add about service

[3:44:42] hours are much more limited. You can get a wave during the

[3:44:48] day. But say you go out to dinner and

[3:44:50] a show, good luck. That is another thing as far as

[3:44:53] service requirements we need to be looking at for avs.

[3:44:57] the same hours, the same wait times, that kind of thing.

[3:45:02] >> so you didn't buy the arguments that waymos are going

[3:45:06] to free up the other accessible vehicles?

[3:45:08] >> it's not what happens. The drivers leave because they

[3:45:11] can't make the money. The trip limits.

[3:45:14] >> that is a 2013 argument. It's quite dated.

[3:45:17] >> okay. This is a space where we have a

[3:45:19] lot of work to do. >> yeah.

[3:45:24] >> I think we've got some time in the next couple weeks and

[3:45:26] months to really work with you, work with the mac and others.

[3:45:30] I know, and thank you for hosting the conversation just

[3:45:33] last week that my community director was able to join.

[3:45:36] so we will stay engaged on that as well.

[3:45:39] thank you. >> thank you very much.

[3:45:42] >> councilmember, chairman, I have it to bring.

[3:45:46] I brought with me. It's a be fierce sticker.

[3:45:50] and in these days with big money's impact on policy and

[3:45:54] politics, I call for all of us to be fierce.

[3:45:58] and I would like to give that to you.

[3:46:01] because you are and have been. Thank you.

[3:46:10] >> I appreciate it. Thank you very much.

[3:46:16] all right, I'm going to call our next panel of witnesses.

[3:46:17] just give us a moment as we transition over the witness

[3:46:19] table. The next panel, I have conner

[3:46:28] couple cummings with the arc of

[3:46:31] northern virginia. Claire standy, theed a voe kay

[3:46:34] and government affairs, the american council of the blind.

[3:46:38] kent keyser, a policy fellow with the united spinal

[3:46:44] association. Scott thornhill, executive

[3:46:46] director with the american council of the blind.

[3:46:49] and ana torres-davis, executive director of the national council

[3:46:54] of disability independent federal agency.

[3:47:36] all right, good afternoon, everyone.

[3:47:40] conner cummings. I will have you go first, and

[3:47:45] after that, we will go to claire stanley, and after that, do I

[3:47:47] have kent keyser here? We have folks online too.

[3:47:54] mr. Cummings, I will start with you.

[3:47:54] >> my name is conner cummings, I am a self-advocate, and I

[3:48:04] represent the arc of northern virginia.

[3:48:05] here is why this technology is so important to be in my

[3:48:09] community. I am so excited for an av as we

[3:48:12] match the needs for understanding the unexpected

[3:48:18] surrounding in responding appropriately.

[3:48:24] one. People who can't drive will be

[3:48:27] able to get around easier. Many autistic individuals will

[3:48:35] feel comfortable in a vehicle. Plea, broad benefits.

[3:48:40] avs won't just support people with disabilities.

[3:48:41] they will be a lifeline for seniors who can no longer drive.

[3:48:46] four, greater independent. This technology will provide

[3:48:49] massive independent for people who are blind, as well as those

[3:48:54] with night blindness who can safely navigate the day and lose

[3:48:59] freedom after dark. Five, new opportunities.

[3:49:02] I feel an incredible sense of independence because an av

[3:49:10] creates freedom to go where I want.

[3:49:13] and autonomous vehicles will get me to where I want to go, and

[3:49:16] they will not speed or run through red lights.

[3:49:19] we must ensure they are adaptable to any possible

[3:49:25] situation and real time hazards. Seven, no fear of getting lost.

[3:49:29] I wouldn't lose my way of getting disoriented.

[3:49:34] and fewer human errors. I feel avs are safer than

[3:49:39] regular cars because they eliminate human errors.

[3:49:44] and unpredictable driver emotions.

[3:49:47] ensuring implementation, and safety first.

[3:49:50] this autonomous vehicle opens a vehicle for so many of us.

[3:49:57] and I have suggestions that developers should consider.

[3:50:04] integration. Will a vehicle understand

[3:50:09] augmented communication? Many people use apps or devices

[3:50:15] to speak. The device must be fully

[3:50:18] accessible and come partible wi --

[3:50:24] compatible of each other. No matter how we speak, with

[3:50:28] aav, typing or with the mouth. And also include wheelchair

[3:50:35] accessible vehicles. Environmental impact.

[3:50:37] because they are alleged cars, they will provide clearer air

[3:50:42] for the communities. Community training, disability

[3:50:48] organizations can provide lessons on how to ride in an av.

[3:50:56] my mom and I can train it to say please and thank you.

[3:51:01] >> let me turn to claire stanley.

[3:51:08] yep, thank you. >> thank you so much.

[3:51:10] thank you so much for the opportunity to be here this

[3:51:12] afternoon. My name is claire stanley, and

[3:51:14] I'm the director of advocacy and the government affairs for the

[3:51:19] american council of the blind. The acb is the nation's leading

[3:51:25] member-driven organization of and for individuals who are

[3:51:27] individuals who are blind or have low vision.

[3:51:31] founded in 1961 and comprised of 65 state and special interest

[3:51:38] affiliates, acb strives for the security opportunity, and

[3:51:43] improve the quality of life for people who are blind or have low

[3:51:47] visions, including our thousands of members.

[3:51:50] our national office is located right here in old time

[3:51:55] alexandria, virginia, and we routinely travel to washington,

[3:51:59] d.c. To carry out work on capitol hill or with the

[3:52:03] numerous federal agencies. Transportation remains one of

[3:52:10] the biggest barriers for people who are blind or low vision.

[3:52:14] we are relying on forms of transformation.

[3:52:20] if they don't have access, they can't travel to work, access

[3:52:22] medical care or engaging in community activity.

[3:52:30] marge imagine if you needed medical

[3:52:36] treatment and you had knno way get there.

[3:52:39] it will provide information for people who are blinds or have

[3:52:42] low vision. This will help to erode the

[3:52:46] access barriers that so many of us face because of access

[3:52:50] issues. Washington, d.c. Is well

[3:52:51] respected for the public transportation system.

[3:52:56] many members of the disability community applaud the metro for

[3:52:59] being one of the most accessible systems in the united states.

[3:53:03] however, its reach is limited. There are still portions of the

[3:53:09] district that the metro rail does not reach to.

[3:53:11] additionally, the hours of operation are limited.

[3:53:14] access to autonomous vehicles around the clock and in all

[3:53:17] parts of the district will be another form of transportation

[3:53:21] option. The more options we have, the

[3:53:24] more mobility we can have. Additionally, blind persons who

[3:53:30] use guide dogs to travel around the city are repeatedly denied

[3:53:36] access to ride shares. As a person with a guide dog

[3:53:44] myself, she is under the dog, I have lost count how many times I

[3:53:50] have been denied access because of my guide dog.

[3:53:54] regardless of the laws, the problem continues.

[3:53:56] I have found myself in situations where it was raining,

[3:54:02] extremely cold or where I had a meeting to be at, and I was

[3:54:06] repeatedly denied rides by the drivers.

[3:54:08] one of the most ironic and hurtful ride share denial took

[3:54:14] place in front of the security of

[3:54:18] -- supreme court of the united states.

[3:54:19] there is no driver to say no with autonomous.

[3:54:23] I can travel in an autonomous vehicle knowing no human being

[3:54:27] can say no in my right to access transportation.

[3:54:31] to learn more about my experience, you can read the

[3:54:42] "washington post" op-ed from december 2025.

[3:54:45] as an adult who can never drive, the first time I took an

[3:54:50] autonomous vehicle in phoenix, I experienced freedom.

[3:54:54] I was in a -- I was in a vehicle all by myself.

[3:54:59] I had autonomy. I did not have to deal with

[3:55:03] drivers to deny because of my guide dog.

[3:55:05] I did not have to deal with a driver who made me uncomfortable

[3:55:09] because of the things he said to me.

[3:55:12] when avs come to the district, I will have a resource to give me

[3:55:17] autonomy, freedom, safety and peace.

[3:55:22] blind individuals will have transportation options and the

[3:55:26] more ready bli available options will be more safe and likely not

[3:55:32] receive -- excuse me. I urge you to approve though

[3:55:36] legislation that will bring avs to the district of columbia.

[3:55:42] the more option that blind and low vision community have to

[3:55:45] access transportation, the more involved we can become in the

[3:55:49] community. This is a tool we can use to be

[3:55:51] more it and engage in the essential activities of life.

[3:55:57] so please move forward with the legislation.

[3:56:00] thank you. >> thank you.

[3:56:02] we move to kent keyser who is online.

[3:56:07] and after that, we go to scott thornhill.

[3:56:11] mr. Keyser, if you can hear me, when you're ready.

[3:56:17] >> thank you. The united finspinal associatio

[3:56:22] rep sdentss 5.5 million wheelchair users.

[3:56:26] we fully support autonomous vehicle deployment.

[3:56:31] the testing and commercial operations.

[3:56:33] every av mile traveled adds to the safety.

[3:56:40] and av rz developed by industry. We are speeding up that day with

[3:56:45] our security ride coalition work on automated wheelchair secu

[3:56:51] security -- securement. We urge you to consider the

[3:56:57] following components in a future version of the bill.

[3:57:00] please incorporate zero tolerance anti-discrimination

[3:57:05] policy, citing the d.c. Human rights act and americans with

[3:57:12] disabilities act. D.c. Is not an island itself.

[3:57:15] we urge to you work with virginia, maryland and the kwoun

[3:57:18] sill of governments in the community to ensure seamless

[3:57:22] legislation for the dmv. As a decades-old commuter

[3:57:30] myself, and 20 years a s as a wheelchair user, the dmv can

[3:57:46] demonstrate to the world how av kz improve people's lives.

[3:57:50] the challenging means that safe, accessible, reliable and pick up

[3:57:56] and dropoff spodz need to break ground.

[3:57:57] well, in the last decade. And please, for get the idea

[3:58:01] that accessibility is just for wheelchair guys or folks with

[3:58:09] disabilities. Accessibility serves everyone.

[3:58:12] conduct needs with operators and us with infrastructure and

[3:58:15] public rights of way such as sidewalks, curb cuts and pick up

[3:58:22] and dropoffs. The place where I am dropped off

[3:58:25] is the entrance and exit of a parking garage.

[3:58:30] how safe is that? Considering the district has

[3:58:33] almost 37,000 people with ambulatory difficulties, you

[3:58:39] have more work to do. Sorry.

[3:58:45] >> that's okay. Take your time.

[3:58:48] >> thank you. The district must build an

[3:58:53] infrastructure to address the problem that wheelchair users

[3:58:57] are 36% more likely to die in traffic collusions compared to

[3:59:02] the general population. Importantly, when our av

[3:59:08] arrives, we must be able to safely identify it and

[3:59:15] communicate with it. And with the human machine

[3:59:17] interface. In the event of an emergency,

[3:59:20] there must be redundant ways for us to be safely evacuated.

[3:59:27] in fact, require safety plans. At a minimum, and prior to major

[3:59:33] deployment, establish a program that is transparent, without

[3:59:42] jurj injuring pedestrians, or riders,

[3:59:45] and will be processed, kof compensated in a time frame.

[3:59:53] inspect lieu of the current lack of wheelchair accessible avs,

[3:59:59] separate but equal is in fact equal.

[4:00:01] we know that is impossible, as we heard this morning.

[4:00:05] but make it as equal as it can be by requiring key data to be

[4:00:13] reported. Please require av operators to

[4:00:17] regularly report to ddot and include the documenting of the

[4:00:23] number of accessible ride requests, rides fulfilled, wait

[4:00:30] times, days and times and data for inaccessible rides to ensure

[4:00:35] equitable services provided. Please know that I am not

[4:00:39] reducing my brothers and sisters to a data set.

[4:00:42] just like the abled bodies, a minute waiting for a pickup or

[4:00:49] dropoff time is time and money wasted.

[4:00:50] thank you for remembers the value of the drivers in the

[4:00:53] bill. Experienced drivers are a vast

[4:00:58] wealth of knowledge when and where and how traffic moves.

[4:01:01] they have a transportation asset that can drive circles around

[4:01:06] the best transportation out there.

[4:01:08] they can assist av operators tremendously.

[4:01:12] please track their job transitions and fully report the

[4:01:15] efforts to assist them. Thank you very much.

[4:01:17] and happy to answer any questions.

[4:01:19] >> great, thank you very much. Next, we turn to scott

[4:01:26] thornhill. Good afternoon.

[4:01:27] >> good afternoon. Chairman allen and fellow

[4:01:29] members of the council, thank you for the opportunity to speak

[4:01:34] with you today mrfrp. My name is scott thornhill and

[4:01:45] I'm the executive director of the american council of the

[4:01:49] blind. I will begin with a confession,

[4:01:51] chairman allen. Like most teenagers of my era, I

[4:01:59] could not wait to drive a vehicle.

[4:02:03] unlike most teenagers of my generation, I was losing my

[4:02:11] sight. It was due to an eye disease, rp

[4:02:14] for short. I did sneak behind the wheel a

[4:02:18] couple times. I don't recommend that for

[4:02:20] people who are losing their sight.

[4:02:22] and thankfully, it can't become a habit.

[4:02:25] the point is this. I never qualified for a driver's

[4:02:34] license due to failing the eye test.

[4:02:34] for most people in the district and across the nation, driving

[4:02:38] represents independence. For those of us who are blind,

[4:02:43] transportation has always depended on the options

[4:02:47] available to us. Driving represents independence.

[4:02:59] for those who are blind, transportation is -- I use ride

[4:03:07] share regular. I rely on public transportation.

[4:03:10] both have expanded opportunities for people who are blind, and I

[4:03:14] value them tremendously. But independence is not created

[4:03:16] by having one way to travel. It's created by choices.

[4:03:20] the american council of the blind has long advocated for

[4:03:24] those choices for people who are blind.

[4:03:29] we view autonomous vehicles in the next step, important step in

[4:03:34] expanding the choices. It's just another way to get

[4:03:37] from one place to another. People who are blind, it

[4:03:42] represents something that is more significant.

[4:03:44] they have a potential to expand access to employment, education,

[4:03:50] community activities and countless everyday things people

[4:03:58] take for granded. And because washington is the

[4:04:02] nation's capital, millions of people who are blind every year

[4:04:05] travel here for work, advocacy, for tourism, enjoying the

[4:04:16] monuments and the museums that belong to all of us.

[4:04:22] expanding transportation helps make the district more welcoming

[4:04:26] to visitors. Most people don't plan their day

[4:04:31] around transportation. They plan transportation around

[4:04:34] their day. Those who are blind have to do

[4:04:37] the opposite. We think whether a ride will be

[4:04:42] available, and whether we need someone else for assistance.

[4:04:45] transportation shapes many of the choices we need before we

[4:04:48] leave home. Autonomous vehicles will not

[4:04:54] replace public transportation or ride share or taxi services.

[4:04:59] b but they can become another

[4:05:01] option, one that gives greater flexibility, independence and

[4:05:06] opportunity. As you can consider this

[4:05:10] technology, we implore you to make sure that accessibility

[4:05:14] remains at the forefront. That you consider it in

[4:05:18] everything that you do around this subject.

[4:05:22] autonomous vehicles won't change the fact that I am blind.

[4:05:27] but they can change what blindness means when it comes to

[4:05:32] getting around. They have the potential to give

[4:05:34] people who cannot drive something many others rarely

[4:05:40] think about. The freedom to choose how and

[4:05:45] when we travel. Thank you for your time and

[4:05:48] consideration. And I'm happy to answer any

[4:05:51] questions. >> thank you very much, mr.

[4:05:54] thornhill. And last on the panel, let me

[4:05:57] turn to ana torres-davis who is joining us on zoom.

[4:06:08] there we go. Good afternoon.

[4:06:11] >> good afternoon. Can you hear me?

[4:06:13] >> yes, we can. Whenever you're ready.

[4:06:20] >> members of the committee, my name is ana torres-davis and I'm

[4:06:26] executive director of the council of disability, an

[4:06:29] independent federal agency that advises the president, federal

[4:06:36] agencies and disability policy. I am here today to share

[4:06:40] information from the 2025 report to examine the current state of

[4:06:48] grand transportation for people with disability, particularly

[4:06:54] wheelchair. And to make sure that this

[4:06:55] population is addressed in the av bill.

[4:06:58] in the report titled ground transportation for people with

[4:07:06] disability, 2025, challenges in 3

[4:07:10] progress, we found that wheelchair users with vehicles

[4:07:14] with ramp access, have been consistently left behind in the

[4:07:18] ability to use the most common transportation options available

[4:07:23] today, like ride shares and taxis.

[4:07:26] while most people can get a ride within minutes of getting an app

[4:07:31] and benefit from the inconvenient, they will not

[4:07:36] benefit from the advances in transportation.

[4:07:39] we examine the accessibility of taxis and yuber in d.c., and we

[4:07:46] found there is a shortage in waves, and it has impacted

[4:07:53] residents and workers in the district.

[4:07:55] the inability to access common on demand consistransportation.

[4:08:08] the inability to meet employment responsibilities and educational

[4:08:14] goals. To attend family functions and

[4:08:18] recreation effects. To get medical care, and meet

[4:08:22] life obligations. They are often left waiting or

[4:08:27] left without any transportation at all.

[4:08:32] up ending planning and putting them in danger.

[4:08:34] the report discusses the plan for autonomous vehicles to

[4:08:39] expand access tor all people with disabilities and to ensure

[4:08:44] that access is at the forefront as avs are developed and

[4:08:50] deployed. When you introduce the bill, you

[4:08:54] provide access. We agree this is true.

[4:08:58] but to do this, it must be inclusive of wheelchair users.

[4:09:02] while certain portions of the disability community, as we

[4:09:06] heard today, benefit and concurrently act ssz cess and b,

[4:09:15] they have not being served by this technology.

[4:09:18] the businesses that currently provide transportation to the

[4:09:23] public in tax zips is like waymy have limited ways like we do in

[4:09:37] d.c. To the extent that av companies

[4:09:39] plan to rely on existing, nonautonomous way process vieded

[4:09:46] by providers to offer transportation in the district.

[4:09:49] we found this model worsens service because it relies on a

[4:09:56] limited fly of waves that is overstressed.

[4:09:58] an example of this exists already in d.c.

[4:10:01] uber does not provide waves. It refers passengers who need a

[4:10:08] wave to local providers, often taxis that are not accessible.

[4:10:13] due to the limited hours they are in service, wheelchair users

[4:10:18] experience long waits, if a wave is available at all, adding

[4:10:24] hundreds of inaccessible avs to the roads with no option, and

[4:10:30] will do nothing to help provide better wave service in d.c.

[4:10:33] the d.c. Av law should require companies to provide a

[4:10:38] percentage of their own waves when they begin serves d.c., not

[4:10:45] rely on a supply that is overburdened and I would love to

[4:10:49] be able to reply to the questions you asked the previous

[4:10:53] panel. Because there are options

[4:10:55] available for autonomous vehicles that are accessible

[4:10:59] that have a safety driver. As c.t. Tyson mentioned, the may

[4:11:06] mobility, that is a company that can be contracted with to bring

[4:11:10] vehicles with the autonomous fleets into the district so they

[4:11:15] are adding waves to what currently exists in the city,

[4:11:19] rather than relying on what is there now.

[4:11:21] and my time is up, and I will leave it at that.

[4:11:25] I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

[4:11:27] thank you again for the opportunity.

[4:11:29] >> excellent, thank you very much.

[4:11:31] thanks to everybody on this panel.

[4:11:33] let me jump in with a couple questions.

[4:11:38] especially mr. Cummings, miss stanley and mr. Thornhill.

[4:11:44] can I hear your testimony with a little enthusiasm, about

[4:11:50] autonomous vehicles. They can help restore travel

[4:11:55] independence to people who are blind, and individuals with

[4:11:59] autism. They are opportunities.

[4:12:01] despite the advances, are there any gaps that you would e

[4:12:08] identify, and not just create a pathway for commercial

[4:12:11] operation. But in your support for them,

[4:12:13] are they recommendations that you have that we should keep on

[4:12:18] eye out for, to make sure they can fulfill the perhromise thatu

[4:12:26] can helping to do. Miss sftanley?

[4:12:28] >> yeah, we want to make sure that new forms of autonomous

[4:12:33] vehicles coming out on the street, they are made accessible

[4:12:37] for the blind and low vision community.

[4:12:39] we had the opportunity to work with all of the -- what I will

[4:12:43] call main stream autonomous vehicle companies that have

[4:12:46] actually been on the road in cities such as waymo and zuks,

[4:12:54] and we should wonderful experiencens seeing how the apps

[4:12:58] have been accessible with screen reading software, and putting

[4:13:05] out audio sound so we can locate them.

[4:13:07] I have myself taking them without a single person, just me

[4:13:10] and my dog, using the accessible functions and features put in

[4:13:16] the app itself and the car. I have been able to do it

[4:13:19] independently. Is we would love and be happy to

[4:13:28] see it mrput in place. But we have had great

[4:13:31] opportunities with the companies we have seen with the zuks and

[4:13:36] waymos have put in place. >> mr. Thornhill?

[4:13:41] >> yeah, I wanted to make sure. Yeah, there is always a balance,

[4:13:45] as you have been seeing here today, and listening to the

[4:13:47] previous panels. And in this case, you asked

[4:13:52] about gaps. You asked about that.

[4:13:53] I think the balance of safety, saferty and functionality or

[4:13:58] ease of use, whatever terminology we put to that, I

[4:14:04] think certainly as we helped advise and helped work and we

[4:14:07] are willing to continue that on terms of an advisory network or

[4:14:12] council as well, any work that is in the district, certain

[4:14:18] thingsky speak to with waymo, having ridden in waymo several

[4:14:22] times now, that the features that miss stanley spoke about,

[4:14:27] in terms of how to locate the vehicle and while you are inside

[4:14:30] the vehicle, that balance of safety, in terms of where you

[4:14:35] are dropped off. Like you mentioned, the

[4:14:39] residential street, how it's done, and what we expect from

[4:14:43] uber or lift, and double parking, quote unquote, in

[4:14:47] certain cities, is not feasible, so pick up at corners and along

[4:14:52] those things. So being able to navigate to the

[4:14:56] vehicles is crucially important. I would be able to see where

[4:14:59] they are. And to be able to do that, and

[4:15:01] where you get dropped off at the end of the ride.

[4:15:04] so that balance of that functionality of making sure

[4:15:08] that we're at a place where we can navigate well, and the

[4:15:13] safety of where the vehicles would be allowed to drop off and

[4:15:16] pickup is going to be something we want to follow closely.

[4:15:20] but the gaps as they exist today, I believe, are the things

[4:15:25] that everyone would be aware of. And they have done so much work

[4:15:29] in navigating the streets and gathering information that it

[4:15:33] feels like the gaps are fine tuning some of the elements we

[4:15:38] are talked about. >> thank you.

[4:15:40] mr. Cummings, anything to add to that?

[4:15:42] >> sure. I just want to say that

[4:15:48] autonomous vehicles, would not only be safe and have more

[4:15:54] freedom for blindness or the elderly and the course of

[4:16:02] autism, the disabilities, but they would be able to provide

[4:16:07] cleaner fuel because they are electric cars.

[4:16:16] although my communication style, I tie my words when I breathe

[4:16:22] them. I can respond later with you

[4:16:25] with written words. So thank you for your

[4:16:31] ekomizat accommodation.

[4:16:32] >> thank you. Mr. Keyser, do you have anything

[4:16:35] to add from what we heard? >> just, if we would -- if

[4:16:41] military users enjoy the same freedoms because as it is now,

[4:16:47] when we ride, we have to be secured by another person.

[4:16:52] and that person has to be trained and competent.

[4:16:56] so we're in the hands often of strangers.

[4:17:01] supposedly trained strangers, but that doesn't always go well.

[4:17:07] so reliving that human element is a modicum of safety that we

[4:17:13] would enjoy as well as freedom on the road.

[4:17:17] >> and miss torres-davis, you ran out of time and you were

[4:17:22] looking to share information you had around av options.

[4:17:24] so I want to give you extra time if there were things you wanted

[4:17:29] to identify different alternatives and different

[4:17:32] models that would be pursued. I want to make sure you have

[4:17:34] time for that. >> thank you so much.

[4:17:37] yeah, we examined a lot of the av companies that are providing

[4:17:42] a rise to the public right now and working on new models.

[4:17:47] and one of the things that we wound is a very bright light was

[4:17:53] a company called main mobility. I am not here to promote them.

[4:18:00] but what we found is this is a company who contracts with

[4:18:06] cities, municipalities, localities.

[4:18:11] they modify sienna vans for accessibility with ramps.

[4:18:17] and then they provide services to is the cities.

[4:18:21] specialty services just to pick up the people with disabilities

[4:18:26] and it's on demand. Just like a uber would be.

[4:18:30] and this company is doing it now on a small scale.

[4:18:35] and so, like c.t. Tyson engs mentioned earlier, this is

[4:18:41] probably a really good option for companies like waymo who

[4:18:46] says we have a tech company, not a developer of a vehicle.

[4:18:49] you don't have to be a developer of a vehicle.

[4:18:52] you can use what is out there now.

[4:18:54] right now, we are aware of main mobility.

[4:18:59] I'm not sure if other companies have joined in producing and

[4:19:04] deploying that type of van. But my bigger point is to that,

[4:19:09] if waymo, for example, comes in the city and they bring 200

[4:19:14] vehicles, it would be great if there was a require they bring

[4:19:17] with them a percentage that can accessible by contracting with

[4:19:25] an outside vendser and not usin what we have already in the

[4:19:28] city, which is already so limited, as we have heard from

[4:19:32] advocates today. >> all right, thank you very

[4:19:35] much, and miss stanley, one more question for you, and I want to

[4:19:38] make sure I understand the world as tz toit is today.

[4:19:43] you mentioned some of the challenges

[4:19:46] challenges with navigating with a guide dog.

[4:19:50] how do you communicate the need to have a vehicle that allows

[4:19:54] you -- is that an option? You are rolling a dice to see

[4:20:01] who shows up? Is there a flag on the account

[4:20:02] so the driver knows? >> how long do you have?

[4:20:06] there is many discussions and this issue.

[4:20:08] the long and short of it, there has been mump debate in the

[4:20:12] blind and low vision community, and I'm sure persons who euser

[4:20:17] visit animals for all disabilities, whether you want

[4:20:21] to disclose or not disclose. Turnly with the two ride share

[4:20:25] companies, uber and lift, they have a policy where you can

[4:20:33] identify. That is layers whether before

[4:20:39] you order, or in your profile. They ping you have a service

[4:20:43] animal and it starts the process.

[4:20:45] this is totally optional, and there are a lot of opinions out

[4:20:50] there. Some people don't want to

[4:20:52] identify at all. Because the driver will say no

[4:20:55] ahead of time. Some people like the idea ahead

[4:20:58] of time. Because it's going to get the

[4:21:02] elephant in the room, it's going to get it out there.

[4:21:05] and some people like it when they are undoubtedly denied at

[4:21:11] some point -- I lost count how many times I have been denied,

[4:21:16] it's in the system and the ball can roll more quickly as far as

[4:21:25] processing the denial. The jury is still out.

[4:21:26] we had great relationships with uber and lyft.

[4:21:29] they are counting the data. But all this is fairly new.

[4:21:33] so whether it works or doesn't work, I can't definitively say

[4:21:38] yes or no. So as a result, if you ask my

[4:21:43] blind person, where they don't have to deal with somebody

[4:21:45] saying you can't have your dog, every blind person who uses a

[4:21:49] dog says yes, please, because it's such a burden that all of

[4:21:56] us face on a daily basis. >> I will share.

[4:21:59] so miss stanley and I worked together a bit at the american

[4:22:05] council of the blind, work, travel, conferences, things on

[4:22:08] those lines. We have literally at times been

[4:22:11] in a situation where to avoid her being denied with her guide

[4:22:19] dog, she could wait behind me. The ride share would pull up,

[4:22:25] for example. I would greet the driver, get

[4:22:28] the door open, and she could quickly join me at the vehicle

[4:22:32] in opens that by sort of overwhelming them in the

[4:22:36] vehicle, she would not be denied.

[4:22:38] so it becomes, if you miss that ride and wait another 11 minutes

[4:22:46] for meetings, appointments, whatever it might be.

[4:22:51] it is a no-brainer for us that we prefer not to have our

[4:22:55] members across the nation, not have those denials on a daily

[4:23:00] basis. >> all right, that is incredibly

[4:23:02] helpful. And thank you for sharing that.

[4:23:05] all right, we move on to the next panel of public witnesses.

[4:23:09] but we really appreciate your testimony today, and look

[4:23:13] forward to following up as needed.

[4:23:15] ly start to all our next panel. Public witnesses.

[4:23:19] I have john pare, public witness.

[4:23:26] sandra neuzil, public witness. Olivia norman, public witness.

[4:23:36] I think joining us online. And shawn callaway, public

[4:23:43] witness, also joining us online. All right.

[4:24:02] mr. Pare, why don't we start whenever you're ready.

[4:24:07] >> you called on me? >> yes.

[4:24:09] >> all right, good afternoon. Thank you for having me.

[4:24:12] my name is john pare, I'm the expect

[4:24:17] executive director of policy for the national center of the

[4:24:20] blind. In the spring of 2001, I lost my

[4:24:22] job due to my blindness in part -- many reasons, but due to

[4:24:27] lack of transportation. I did later get a job and

[4:24:35] became -- with the national federation of the blind and

[4:24:36] worked my way up to executive director where I am now.

[4:24:42] last week, I was at our national convention in austin, texas.

[4:24:49] and interesting, on july 4th, I was with a group of my people,

[4:24:55] and one of them ordered a waymo. And in that case, you can

[4:25:01] indicate that you hope to get autonomous vehicle.

[4:25:04] we checked that box. We didn't get an autonomous

[4:25:08] vehicle. Because there, you order it

[4:25:10] through uber. So that is why you have to ends

[4:25:13] kate the preference. But it was satisfied with a

[4:25:17] waymo. Just to give you that detail.

[4:25:20] and the three of us road. I road in the front seat.

[4:25:25] I rode in the front passenger seat, and they rode in the back,

[4:25:31] and we had a ride just like any old ride.

[4:25:34] I felt very safe, very confident in both getting to the vehicle,

[4:25:39] the ride and at the destination. Our hotel.

[4:25:46] the -- we -- the national federation of the blind really

[4:25:51] support autonomous vehicles. We're having excited about

[4:25:54] autonomous vehicles. And we support our legislation.

[4:25:58] there are two -- I want to comment on some of the things

[4:26:02] you heard today to add a little more color.

[4:26:04] one of the things on many -- all blind people that have a guide

[4:26:11] dog, who have ever used ride share most likely have

[4:26:14] experienced the ride share denial.

[4:26:16] one thing to make sure is clear. It's absolutely illegal for a

[4:26:22] driver to deny somebody with a guide dog.

[4:26:25] it's in violation of the americans with disabilities act.

[4:26:31] the ride share companies, uber and lyft, say it's in violation

[4:26:37] of the law and their policy. There is no disagreement on

[4:26:41] that. It's just the u.s. Department of

[4:26:44] justice, department of civil rights that would say -- the

[4:26:49] current -- under the current administration would say it is a

[4:26:54] violation of the law, that they have sued uber over this issue.

[4:27:03] ent and it's the drivers who are

[4:27:05] violating the law and creating the discrimination.

[4:27:09] this can lead people stranded and it would be so helpful to

[4:27:13] have autonomous vehicles that didn't have the drivers.

[4:27:16] because it's the drivers that are doing the discrimination.

[4:27:22] approximately 2.5% of people in the district of columbia are

[4:27:27] blind or low vision. Another -- a total of 25% of the

[4:27:31] people in the district of columbia do not have a driver's

[4:27:36] license. That is a lot of people that

[4:27:38] don't have a driver's license, that have to do something other

[4:27:42] than drive themselves to wherever they need to go.

[4:27:46] so similar to blind people, all the other people are using other

[4:27:49] types of transportation. It's been a lot of talk today

[4:27:54] about employment. And I want to talk about the

[4:27:58] impact that lack of transportation options have on

[4:28:03] employment. I once experienced that.

[4:28:05] it helped contribute to me losing my job one time.

[4:28:13] many of people who are not employed in the district of

[4:28:15] columbia probably -- do not have a sdrodriver's license, the lac

[4:28:21] transportation options could impact their employment.

[4:28:26] not always the case but would. There is mass transit in the

[4:28:31] district of columbia. But having more options is a

[4:28:35] good thing. The autonomous vehicles would

[4:28:38] not be a panacea, but it will create another transportation

[4:28:44] option. When I travel, I live in

[4:28:46] baltimore. When I travel to washington,

[4:28:49] d.c., which I do on a weekly basis, I come in a variety of

[4:28:54] ways, probably like other people do.

[4:28:56] it's not always the same. I match the best transportation

[4:29:00] to the situation. And in some cases, if we get

[4:29:05] avs, especially to get around d.c., that could be one of the

[4:29:09] choices that I would try to evaluate that would help me get

[4:29:15] around and could improve employment, which I urge you to

[4:29:19] keep in mind. When gap, you asked in the

[4:29:23] legislation, the previous panel, I agree, they can't quite -- the

[4:29:27] performance of accessibility of the app and -- they didn't

[4:29:31] specifically mention, there's a standard called accessibility

[4:29:40] group. And wcad, and 2.2 level double

[4:29:47] "a," which we can send to you after, that would be the

[4:29:51] appropriate standard to require. That is the ones the companies

[4:29:55] say they strive to meet. If they do strive to meet it,

[4:29:59] why don't you put it in law? That would be a good thing.

[4:30:03] we would appreciate that. And I don't think they could

[4:30:05] disagree with that. That's what they strive to do,

[4:30:08] and it's what the department of justice regulation that almost

[4:30:13] went into efficient on april 20th of this year.

[4:30:18] it was postponed by a year. But it's going to require the

[4:30:23] district -- well, this -- it requires all state and local

[4:30:29] government entities to meet 2.1 level double "a," and we urge

[4:30:41] you to do that. Thank you for the opportunity to

[4:30:45] speak today. >> thank you.

[4:30:46] we turn next to sandra neuzil who is joining us online.

[4:30:50] >> good afternoon. You can hear me?

[4:30:51] >> yes, we can. Good afternoon.

[4:30:55] >> council member allen -- chair allen and other members, thank

[4:30:59] you for the opportunity to speak today.

[4:31:03] my name is sandy neuzil. I am speaking on behalf of all

[4:31:08] people who have disabilities. I'm a resident of fairfax county

[4:31:18] for 42 years and the past ten years, I have been volunteering

[4:31:21] and working part time throughout the dmv.

[4:31:24] I'm unfamiliar with the streets and layout of most of d.c. And

[4:31:28] frequently find myself going to new locations where I have never

[4:31:31] been before. I have been legally blind my

[4:31:34] whole lifer, and thus never had the opportunity to drive a car.

[4:31:37] I rely on public transportation, friends and family and metro

[4:31:44] access to go where I need to go. However, each of those modes of

[4:31:50] transportation require a significant amount of time to

[4:31:54] plan, strategize, coordinate the trip and wait for rides or ride

[4:31:59] to take me to my destination. And on demand ride in an ant

[4:32:10] autonomous vehicle would help. Followed by walking to the

[4:32:14] destination. Allowing time to catch a bus or

[4:32:17] metro, plus more time if I must transfer and wait for another

[4:32:22] bus or metro. It takes longer than hopping in

[4:32:27] a car and driving somewhere, which is never an option for me.

[4:32:32] public transportation may get me close to my destination.

[4:32:35] with my blindness, in a new and unfamiliar area, that last walk

[4:32:38] from the nearest public transportation stop to the -- to

[4:32:44] the exact address I need to go to is often challenging and

[4:32:49] stressful. A ride from a froiend can take p

[4:32:54] twice as much as their time as mine.

[4:32:58] they need to pick me up, drop me up and drive home.

[4:33:00] that does not include the back and forth time spent asking a

[4:33:05] friend for a ride and juggling their schedules and mine to

[4:33:10] accommodate where I'm going when.

[4:33:14] friends may be willing to do this but they don't always have

[4:33:19] the time. Metro access is a lifeline.

[4:33:22] however, it requires planning ahead by more than a day.

[4:33:26] and it gets me from my door to my destination in a time equal

[4:33:30] to that of public transportation.

[4:33:33] there is a lot of anxiety and time involved in the process of

[4:33:38] booking the ride, verifying the ride was booked correctly,

[4:33:43] wondering if I will pick me up when promised and waiting for

[4:33:47] the ride to ariverive. If I could hop in an autonomous

[4:33:56] vehicle wherever I want to go, in a metro station from fairfax

[4:34:01] county and go where I want to go for work or pleasure or

[4:34:05] whatever, on my own without hours or days planning and

[4:34:09] coordinating, I would save a tremendous amount of time and

[4:34:12] significantly reduce frustration and stress for me.

[4:34:16] I am running out of time, so I can say thank you very much for

[4:34:20] the opportunity, and happy to await and answer questions.

[4:34:24] thank you. >> thank you very much.

[4:34:26] next, let me turn to olivia f norman, also yoinjoining us onl

[4:34:36] >> good afternoon. You can hear me?

[4:34:38] >> yes, good afternoon. >> it's wonderful to see you

[4:34:41] again. My name is olivia norman, and I

[4:34:45] am represents myself today. I'm a d.c. Resident of 20 years.

[4:34:49] I am also totally blind. I have been since birth, and I

[4:34:55] am a guide dog user. No one with a disability is a

[4:35:00] monolith, as you pointed out this morning.

[4:35:02] in addition to my blindness, I'm also a cancer survivor and I

[4:35:08] have anxiety and chronic I illnesses, and I simply did not

[4:35:15] have the energy to mess around and take metro and do that kind

[4:35:18] of planning on transportation. So as a result, I'm less -- it's

[4:35:24] a straight shot for me downtown or somewhere that I know well.

[4:35:27] I have to rely on wide shares or friends.

[4:35:33] most notably, a friend's tesla, and I have experienced the

[4:35:38] self-driving of a friend that way, and I would love to have

[4:35:41] that kind of freedom. I get around 50% refusal rate

[4:35:48] from uber and lyft, and I will say this tapped in the days of

[4:35:52] taxi days in d.c. As well. Interestingly, similar story to

[4:35:56] what scott torn hill just told you.

[4:35:59] in 2012, I was downtown, and it was raining.

[4:36:04] and this person had stopped because I had -- kept getting

[4:36:08] passed over by taxis. I was hailing on the street b

[4:36:13] because at that time, that is how you got the cabs.

[4:36:15] and I don't know this, and this man stopped and said, hey, two

[4:36:20] cabs just have driven past you. Hide behind this tree, and I

[4:36:24] will get you a cab and put you in it to get you home.

[4:36:33] and so, it worked.

[4:36:33] the guy didn't want to take my guide dog.

[4:36:40] and I went to pay, and he said, don't worry.

[4:36:45] the man in front of you took care of it.

[4:36:49] and in that moment, I saw the best and worst of humanity.

[4:36:52] they cannot deny any guide dog and it amount of stress this

[4:36:57] causes me. I just can't describe it.

[4:36:59] it has a huge impact on my mental health.

[4:37:02] I get a lot of my treatments from my various illnesses.

[4:37:07] the hospital in ward 3. It's not accessible via metro,

[4:37:12] even if I could do it that way. So I mostly have to rely on my

[4:37:17] friends or uber and hope they don't deny me when I go get my

[4:37:24] treatment. And it's -- this is just -- I

[4:37:26] really hope that we can get to where we can have autonomous

[4:37:30] vehicles on a street that will give me and others more

[4:37:35] flexibility and more choices as to how we get around the

[4:37:40] district. And I'm running out of time, so

[4:37:42] I will be happy to answer any of your questions.

[4:37:46] and I thank you for your time. >> absolutely.

[4:37:48] all right, next, let me turn to shawn callaway.

[4:37:53] >> good afternoon, councilman allen and the rest of the

[4:37:59] committee. My name is shawn callaway.

[4:38:02] I serve as president of the national council of the blind.

[4:38:10] I am a d.c. Resident, and I'm a proud washington wizards season

[4:38:16] ticket holder and attend national games as well, and I'm

[4:38:20] the parent of a 11-year-old. And I'm married as well.

[4:38:25] so I am responsible of taking my douth

[4:38:30] daughter too and from school. And you heard the world

[4:38:33] independence, and options here is a key word.

[4:38:36] I can't tell you how many times, chairman allen, where I will try

[4:38:43] to obtain an uber during rush hour, wait 5 to 6 minutes to

[4:38:49] finds out if I'm getting a ride, and then find out that there are

[4:38:53] no ubers available at that time. This has apphappened several ti

[4:39:00] this year. And what makes it worse is that

[4:39:03] you have an option once they tell you they have no vehicles

[4:39:09] available, you have an option to get a priority vehicle, which

[4:39:15] costs $5 or $6 more, than the ride itself.

[4:39:19] also, when it comes to options, you heard the denials of blind

[4:39:24] individuals who have guide dogs. But I have been denied as a

[4:39:29] blind person, multiple times. A driver will see me and he will

[4:39:34] ask me, are you blind for real? And he will drive off.

[4:39:41] also, I want to ride the vehicles without judgment.

[4:39:44] often times, I have been questioned about my blindness.

[4:39:50] this is no brag point. A lot of blind people love to

[4:39:53] dress nice and look nice. And we are independent.

[4:39:56] but we have been questioned by drivers about our blindness and

[4:40:00] if we are blind for real. And I don't think we should be

[4:40:06] subject to actions as to what we do and how we do things.

[4:40:09] we just want to ride to get from point "a" to point "b," and the

[4:40:13] last thing I want to mention is the option of -- something other

[4:40:18] than the access. Of course you have to plan as

[4:40:22] one panelist said in regards to utilizing metro access.

[4:40:30] some days, I have to use transportation the day of, and I

[4:40:36] want to use an av. Because there might be issues

[4:40:40] with uber of lyft I don't want to deal with.

[4:40:44] and I'm excited about avs coming to washington, d.c., and I'm

[4:40:48] looking forward to the bill passing.

[4:40:51] thank you. >> all right, thank you very

[4:40:53] much. I appreciate that very much.

[4:40:54] all right a couple questions. Miss norman, I might start with

[4:40:59] you. I was really struck in your

[4:41:01] testimony as you talked about just the sheer amount of time,

[4:41:10] energy, mental energy it sounds like to be able to plan for a

[4:41:16] basic trip you have to take. And it leaves you essentially to

[4:41:20] just say, I will just stay home. That's not the choice we

[4:41:24] obviously want people to feel they must make or have to make

[4:41:28] as we think about the tradeoffs. Is there -- the experience

[4:41:34] you've shared, does that cut across both taxi, for-hire

[4:41:44] vehicles, metro? In other words, is it all of

[4:41:48] your transportation? And do I hear you correct that

[4:41:51] it's the autonomous vehicle is the one that really opens up

[4:41:56] your options in independence? >> yes, you did.

[4:41:59] and it does cut across all modalities.

[4:42:04] metro not quite as much. And metro works going downtown,

[4:42:09] if I don't have to expend a lot of energy on transportation.

[4:42:12] but if I have to work somewhere and try -- and some days, I

[4:42:15] don't have the energy. And it's like, I will just stay

[4:42:18] home. Because when I get denied by the

[4:42:21] ride shares, you know, or the taxis or whoever drivers,

[4:42:27] that -- that is an another energy drain.

[4:42:33] so unless I can get a private driver, which I actually went to

[4:42:38] a party in rockville that miss stanley held.

[4:42:42] and I was able to get a private driver.

[4:42:45] but it cost money. It's time or money.

[4:42:47] you know, I had a great time. But if I had not been able to

[4:42:50] get a driver for that event, I would have just stayed home.

[4:42:55] yeah, absolutely. And I think that that's -- the

[4:42:58] autonomous vehicles are going to help me a lot.

[4:43:02] you zowon't have to worry about being denied and I can intend my

[4:43:06] limited energy on things that I enjoy doing instead of

[4:43:10] transportation. I think that's key.

[4:43:12] >> okay. Thank you.

[4:43:14] mr. Callaway, and then mr. Pare, I will ask you the same thing.

[4:43:19] you have been listening to a lot of conversation in the course of

[4:43:22] the day. One of the things I'm interested

[4:43:24] in thinking through how we balance, is the precision we

[4:43:28] need to give autonomous vehicle operators of not breaking

[4:43:34] traffic safety laws, meaning speed limit, red light, shot

[4:43:40] signs, et cetera. And then the reasonableness of

[4:43:44] where dropoff and pickup locations are.

[4:43:49] often times, if we talk about commercial street of residential

[4:43:53] street, it's a reasonable expectation that that vehicle is

[4:43:59] going to double park momentarily.

[4:44:02] te technically that is against the

[4:44:05] traffic safely law. But I think that most people

[4:44:09] would reasonably assume it will take place.

[4:44:11] do you have thoughts how to strike that balance?

[4:44:16] especially when we think about blind and vision impaired, where

[4:44:20] is the place for a pickup and dropoff?

[4:44:23] or is it like any other and it's a balance we are speaking?

[4:44:27] >> I will go with the latter on that one.

[4:44:30] as you well know, I mean, it's -- the streets are pretty

[4:44:35] different in d.c. But for us, and I hope I'm

[4:44:40] answering your question correctly.

[4:44:42] I believe that just trying to locate the vehicle if it's

[4:44:49] double parked or if it's on the corner, one thing I do know

[4:44:52] about the vehicles, autonomous vehicles, it does have a

[4:44:57] mechanism where you can locate that vehicle.

[4:45:01] so if it's across the street or if it's down the street, you are

[4:45:09] able to navigate to locate that vehicle.

[4:45:13] >> mr. Pare, anything you want to add to that?

[4:45:17] >> yeah. Just to give you some context.

[4:45:21] with typical ride share, it's not unusual for a blind person

[4:45:24] to call the driver and try to negotiate to help find the

[4:45:31] vehicle. So when with waymo and tesla,

[4:45:34] and it was also cruz, we -- the national federation of the blind

[4:45:39] said there is no driver to talk to, it would be very helpful.

[4:45:43] because this is what we do. We say to the driver, can you

[4:45:49] toot your horn softly and we can say, toot it again and toot it

[4:45:52] again and we can move to the vehicle and find the vehicle

[4:45:56] that way. So the ride -- the av companies

[4:45:59] have instituted in the app so that you can toot the horn from

[4:46:04] the app. So that really makes it easier

[4:46:08] to find the vehicle. So finding the vehicle through

[4:46:11] the auditory meth thougod where touch the thing works pretty

[4:46:18] well. The dropoff can be trickier.

[4:46:25] but it isn't necessarily harder than when we have maybe a ride

[4:46:31] share where there's a language barrier or just a person who is

[4:46:37] not necessarily very helpful. I took two ride shares to get

[4:46:41] here. I will take two ride shares to

[4:46:43] get home, to go to union station.

[4:46:49] not sure -- they let you off all kinds of places and blind people

[4:46:53] use travel skills to help find where they need to go.

[4:47:00] so afrwe don't have to have specialized places.

[4:47:02] but if there are specialized pickup and dropoff places, they

[4:47:08] don't have to happen but they are helpful.

[4:47:10] >> all right. And mr. Neuzil, anything you

[4:47:14] want to add to that? >> I'm familiar with the mac

[4:47:19] trying to coax the d.c. Into assessing where they could have

[4:47:27] pickup/dropoff zones on the core blocks in d.c. Where it's very

[4:47:31] crowded. And I think that would be

[4:47:33] helpful to avoid the double parking and to avoid pulling

[4:47:37] into a dangerous crosswalk at corner of a block.

[4:47:42] but yes, I have a lot of trouble finding my vehicles.

[4:47:49] negotiating with the driver, where you are?

[4:47:51] and they tell me, I'm in the red car, and I don't see a red car.

[4:47:56] I don't see. So it's tricky.

[4:48:01] it's perpetually tricky. >> can I add to that as well?

[4:48:05] >> sure, miss norman. >> yeah, thank you.

[4:48:13] I worry an it w little bit. I live on connecticut avenue,

[4:48:17] and it's a commercial strip. And they have to double park,

[4:48:20] and also, there might be multiple, you know -- there are

[4:48:26] multiple waymos or teslas at the same time.

[4:48:32] I would worry a bit about being left off in a travel lane of

[4:48:37] connecticut avenue. So I think we would have to

[4:48:39] adjust some of that for commercial or busy business

[4:48:46] areas. I wonder how that would work.

[4:48:48] >> okay. Got it.

[4:48:50] all right, well, I appreciate it.

[4:48:52] I appreciate that panel for all your testimony recommendations.

[4:48:56] thank you very much, and we will follow up with each of you as

[4:49:02] needed. Thank you.

[4:49:03] >> thank you. >> all right, let me call the

[4:49:06] next panel of witnesses. I have emma cleveland, the state

[4:49:08] and local political coordinator with amalgamated transit union,

[4:49:14] joining us online. Brian wivell, the director of

[4:49:22] special projects amalgamated transit union local 689, and

[4:49:30] crystal middleton, member seiu local 32bj, and jaime contreras.

[4:49:42] >> emma will not be yojoining u today.

[4:49:45] >> I thought she was online? >> oh, is she?

[4:49:49] >> all right, and then contreras, and crystal

[4:49:56] middleton? >> yeah --

[4:49:57] >> you're right. Helen, we had you lowered down.

[4:50:02] okay. We got you not.

[4:50:04] okay, now, brian. >> sounds good.

[4:50:06] thank you very much. My name is brian wivell.

[4:50:11] by way of introductions, we represent about 16,000 transit

[4:50:18] workers and retirees throughout the dmv area.

[4:50:21] you can see the full testimony that we submitted written.

[4:50:24] but just to cover a bunch of points raised in the several

[4:50:28] hours of the hearing and the several hours that additional

[4:50:31] points will be raised, I will go and try to summarize some of

[4:50:35] those. I want to say, part of the

[4:50:37] reason why this whole debate is going on, a lot of us are

[4:50:42] recognizing this is not simply about the future of robo taxis.

[4:50:46] this is not about waymo and lyft and tmcs in the region.

[4:50:54] this is setting a precedent for the large scale operations.

[4:51:00] and the precedent we hope is that that takes care of workers

[4:51:04] and ensures that I have a safe, just transition to other

[4:51:09] employment or that the employment is protected.

[4:51:10] and as we look at this bill, there are definitely steps,

[4:51:13] clear intention taking to pay attention to the issue.

[4:51:17] but we think there needs to be more.

[4:51:19] so I think it was funny that it was brought up earlier, a ref

[4:51:24] fence to automated checkout and tellers and cashiers.

[4:51:31] if anyone thinks that the consumer experience is improved

[4:51:37] by a removal of a large number of clerks from stores, I think

[4:51:41] they lying to you. We have to recognize they are --

[4:51:43] by their own admission of the uber and lyft, there are

[4:51:47] thousands of workers in region that work more than 20 hours a

[4:51:50] week doing ride share work. That is thousands of people that

[4:51:54] may lose their employment in this industry if we do not

[4:51:58] correctly set up the infrastructure and the

[4:52:01] incentives for this. Additionalty.

[4:52:06] speaking as a public transit worker union, we saw it as a

[4:52:13] public transit in one vehicle. If you look at the way that land

[4:52:16] use has been shaped and development has been shaped by

[4:52:19] the transportation technology. We had an era where people had

[4:52:28] to live near where they worked because they walked there.

[4:52:31] and then you had horses and streetcars and buses.

[4:52:34] and with each one of the changes, it changed the way that

[4:52:37] people lived around where they were able to work.

[4:52:40] and as we consider allowing a technology that will allow

[4:52:45] someone to do a 30 to 45-minute drive without having to talk to

[4:52:49] a single human being and they can work the entire time, we are

[4:52:54] going to work sprawl on a level we have never seen before, and I

[4:53:12] think it's abonti-thetical to t goals.

[4:53:14] and most of the issues found have been because of the under

[4:53:18] regulation of transporatitation network companies.

[4:53:30] and we actually share the concerns.

[4:53:31] that is because they are provided to the absolute minimum

[4:53:32] legal level necessary to provide those services.

[4:53:35] and if you want to get the high qualify transit that doesn't

[4:53:40] require calling in 24 hours in advance, if you want the transit

[4:53:44] that doesn't require staying in a three-quarter mile catch zone,

[4:53:49] it requires spending to make that possible.

[4:53:51] and we have extreme concerns about d.c.'s road peculiarity.

[4:53:59] it's said that autonomous vehicles, they might be able to

[4:54:04] detect a pedestrian, but can they detect an elephant.

[4:54:11] if they see an object they cannot trained to see, there are

[4:54:16] weird protest activities that involve marionettes.

[4:54:37] and they do 340,000 on a metro bus on a day.

[4:54:41] we are talking and scales of magnitude where this is not

[4:54:45] truly the fully tested system they claim.

[4:54:48] now, additionally, I want to end on good job creation.

[4:54:52] good job creation is the responsibility of the council,

[4:54:55] adds I'm sure you know. If I want these to be good jobs,

[4:55:00] the council has to mandate they are created as good jobs.

[4:55:05] labor peace requirements and retraining in joint labor

[4:55:10] management apprenticeship. Not just saying we have waymo

[4:55:14] university. We need the retraining programs

[4:55:16] to go through joint labor management programs.

[4:55:22] int ultimately, this is going to

[4:55:23] did on a level we have not seen yet.

[4:55:27] thank you. >> thank you very much.

[4:55:30] and then, for seiu, did you have an order you want to go in?

[4:55:37] okay, I have crystal middleton, and helen marren, and mr.

[4:55:45] contreras? >> good afternoon.

[4:55:50] my name is jaime contreras. I oversee the dmv and represent

[4:56:00] 22,000 airplane workers, commercial office workers and

[4:56:02] thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important bill.

[4:56:07] this autonomous bill cannot pass as it lacks the kinds of guide

[4:56:12] rails necessary so that the new technology would actually

[4:56:16] benefit the residents of washington, d.c. And workers

[4:56:20] instead of hurting them. Instead, the legislation will

[4:56:24] send, as you heard from other testimony, it will send money

[4:56:28] that should go in the pockets of d.c. Residents out of our

[4:56:35] communities into silicon valley meta corporations.

[4:56:39] we believe that it's -- it lacks protections for working people

[4:56:44] and it reminds us as a union of another bill that destroyed

[4:56:51] unimaginable number of jobs in our country, con nafta.

[4:56:59] if the passes legislation, your legacy will be introduced in

[4:57:03] that massive threat that jobs in the city, and our economy.

[4:57:08] no city on the east coast, not baltimore, not philadelphia, not

[4:57:13] new york, not boston, no city has done this, and you must not

[4:57:18] be the first one on the east coast to do such a thing.

[4:57:21] avs threatten to destroy the jobs of thousands of workers

[4:57:25] across the district. Not only ride share drivers but

[4:57:30] taxi drivers and truck drivers and public transit workers, as

[4:57:35] you heard in the previous testimony.

[4:57:37] this is what we are seeing in other cities.

[4:57:41] in san francisco, waymo had 30% of all the ride share market in

[4:57:49] 20 months. And in most cities where

[4:57:53] autonomous vehicles are introduced, driver way is

[4:57:54] already declining. Now, this wages not only go to

[4:58:00] drivers but they stay in the communities, paying rent, and

[4:58:05] purchasing in local businesses, investing in families and

[4:58:10] funding public services. Many are immigrants and

[4:58:14] communities of color. And the economy has left behind.

[4:58:20] supplementing jobs that don't pay enough or juggling care

[4:58:25] giving and require flexible schedules.

[4:58:28] these are people who will be severely harmed if we pull their

[4:58:32] jobs from under them to benefit high-tech organizations.

[4:58:37] let me be clear, we are not opposited

[4:58:42] opposited to innovation in the union.

[4:58:44] but it has to strengthen public public services and it has to

[4:58:50] protect people. But with any innovation, we must

[4:58:57] also ask who sthanands to benef and who stands to lose when we

[4:59:00] introduce this type of legislation in the community?

[4:59:04] who benefits? Who loses?

[4:59:05] d.c. Is a union town fueled by working people.

[4:59:11] we answer our neighbors, the truckers and shop workers who

[4:59:15] sheep our shelves stocked. The ride share drivers who get

[4:59:18] to us to where we need to go and the first responders who show up

[4:59:26] at a moment's knnotice. It's up to us, the working

[4:59:31] people of washington, d.c., to decide when and how to introduce

[4:59:35] technology in the community and allow -- and allow it to shape

[4:59:39] our lives. It shouldn't be silicon valley

[4:59:46] ek extiecutives. It should be us.

[4:59:49] and they roll out needs to have trang protectors for workers.

[4:59:54] cities like san francisco and phoenix did not have a chance to

[4:59:58] create guardrails around the commercial robo taxis and they

[5:00:03] are struggling in the industry. This bill calls for a study of

[5:00:07] the impacts on the taxi and ride share sfindustries and the jobs

[5:00:13] those jobs create. And also, supposedly creates a

[5:00:18] front for the workers. And at the same time, the

[5:00:23] extraordinarily authorizes -- the mass use of robo taxis

[5:00:27] blindly without waiting for the results of the study without

[5:00:32] understanding the impacts of finally, dc does not need

[5:00:36] to follow that path. It must not follow that path. We can chart a

[5:00:43] different course and need strong measures that protect drivers in

[5:00:46] the city and everything they contribute to our economy. Until

[5:00:49] those are included, we ask that you reject this dangerous

[5:00:53] legislation. Thank you very much.

[5:00:55] >> thank you very much. Ms. Middleton now.

[5:01:02] >> hello. How you doing? I'm krista middleton. I was born and

[5:01:06] raised in dc and work in the district as a special police

[5:01:10] officer. I also drive for uber and lyft. I am a mother and a

[5:01:16] grandmother. Recently I've had to drive for you caner and lyft

[5:01:19] more frequently to support my family due to the skyrocketing

[5:01:24] bills and expenses. I used to be able to get overtime at my

[5:01:28] full-time job as a special police officer in the district,

[5:01:32] but now that has been cut due to federal budget cuts. Ride share

[5:01:37] has provided me the flexibility to earn extra income, which I

[5:01:43] need with my children and my grandchildren that rely on me.

[5:01:49] every day I finish my nine-hour shift as a special police

[5:01:53] officer in the district, I still get in my car and do a ride

[5:01:58] share driving anywhere from 4-6 hours per day to make money just

[5:02:05] to stay afloat. This income supports my weekly groceries and

[5:02:10] essentials for my family. I cannot understand why when dc is

[5:02:15] in the middle of an unemployment crisis the council is

[5:02:19] considering bringing waymo, a company that will put thousands

[5:02:24] of drivers like myself, out of work and devastate the local

[5:02:29] economy. When drivers lose income, our whole local economy

[5:02:36] suffers. Gas stations, car washes, convenient stores,

[5:02:40] restaurants, et cetera. We depend on those things just as

[5:02:44] well as they depend on us to support those local businesses.

[5:02:50] row bo taxis also -- robotaxis don't pay taxes. They don't

[5:02:54] raise families here, they don't vote, they don't make judgment

[5:02:57] calls when someone is in trouble. This isn't just a

[5:03:01] public safety issue, it's all about profit. Profits not

[5:03:08] getting reinvested in the district but instead going

[5:03:11] straight to silicon valley. But it's not just about the economy,

[5:03:15] it is about people. I as a driver, I always help people on

[5:03:21] a daily basis in my regular job and in ride sharing. Including

[5:03:27] those coming from hospitals, blind or deaf passengers that

[5:03:33] need assistance and people with special needs through metro

[5:03:37] access. Sometimes passengers, especially elderly passengers,

[5:03:40] tell me that I am the only person that they've actually

[5:03:44] spoken to that day. I've received multiple requests for

[5:03:57] women leaving events that want women drives to safely take them

[5:04:00] to their homes from events. Row bo taxis will not do any of

[5:04:08] that. I would like to extend this sincere invitation to any

[5:04:15] council member to join me on the shift behind the wheel so you

[5:04:21] can see yourself and how human, you know, providing a human

[5:04:27] service is ibram valuable service to your community. I

[5:04:33] support technology and innovation and people are

[5:04:36] skeptical. People were skeptical of you caner and lyft when they

[5:04:41] started, but they created new job ntsb area and new way of

[5:04:44] working. But driverless cars like waymo are different. They

[5:04:48] don't create a opportunity for our neighbors. They just erase

[5:04:56] it. For ride share opportunities

[5:04:58] vanish in dc, we'll struggle to make ends meet. The shift

[5:05:04] towards robotaxi benefits only a few ceo in silicon valley and

[5:05:11] harming many in the district. Thank you for hearing my

[5:05:14] testimony. >> thank you very much.

[5:05:21] >> good afternoon. I'm helen rainer, and I worked in war dc

[5:05:25] for over 20 years. -- washington dc for over 20 years. A proud

[5:05:30] member of sciu-3 # 2bj. In addition to my full-time job,

[5:05:35] I've been driving for uber and lyft through the dc metro area

[5:05:40] since 2019. The income I earn from driving helps me make ends

[5:05:43] meet and support my family without the extra income, I

[5:05:50] honestly adopt know where I would be. -- don't know where I

[5:05:53] would be. If autonomous vehicles are allowed to operate in dc.

[5:05:57] drivers like me would lose rides and see our earnings decline,

[5:06:01] which we're already fighting. That would have a serious

[5:06:04] financial impact on me and my family. We cannot rush to bring

[5:06:08] autonomous vehicles into our city without first making sure

[5:06:12] they truly benefit the people that live and work here, not

[5:06:15] just the companies drying them. I'm also deeply concerned about

[5:06:19] the safety issues autonomous vehicles have already had in

[5:06:24] other cities. There's been reports of crashes, traffic

[5:06:29] disruptions and situations where they fail to respond properly to

[5:06:33] pedestrians, cyclists and other drives. As a mother, those

[5:06:35] concerns hit especially close to home. I work near day care

[5:06:41] centers and young children are often on crowded sidewalks and

[5:06:46] in crossing some of the busiest intersections in the cities. How

[5:06:49] can we be certain a driverless vehicle will recognize and

[5:06:53] safely respond to children in these situations. Our city is

[5:06:58] not ready for autonomous vehicles like waymo. They

[5:07:03] threaten the livelihoods of hard working people like me, while

[5:07:06] also raising serious public safety concerns. One thing were

[5:07:17] signs of human trafficking and I don't see where waymo is able to

[5:07:22] do that when we are out there talking to people, seeing

[5:07:26] people, sometimes we have people who are going through mental

[5:07:30] distress and all the professional and stypes we're

[5:07:35] the one there is to talk them off the ledge. I urge you to put

[5:07:42] the people of dc by protecting our jo jobs and ensuring the

[5:07:46] streets are safe and allowing autonomous vehicles here. Thank

[5:07:52] you for your time and consideration.

[5:07:53] >> thank you very much. Let me start. We met maybe a month or

[5:08:00] so ago. At the time atu shared a memo outlines several

[5:08:06] recommendations would it be fair to say it would be fair to say

[5:08:11] these are the recommendations? >> slightly expanded and updated

[5:08:15] testimony included additional two or three.

[5:08:18] >> I'll make sure. I'm not going to have time to go through every

[5:08:22] single one and there's a couple I want to ask you about on the

[5:08:25] record to make sure we went through. I think your first one

[5:08:30] for example was vehicles require ago cdl should not be included.

[5:08:39] I think we keep using the phrase "robotaxi."

[5:08:45] >> correct. >> the common assumption we're

[5:08:46] all saying is passenger vehicle, not freight vehicle, but your

[5:08:50] recommendation is make is ex-police it. And cdl be one way

[5:08:54] to do that? >> correct. [inaudible] vehicle

[5:08:58] position any vehicle over 10 pol driver's license and

[5:09:08] transferring hazardous materials should not be proactively

[5:09:12] permitted by this type of legislation.

[5:09:15] >> I would 100% agree with you and I have no concept in my mind

[5:09:19] allowing hazardous materials through and fair point, not

[5:09:22] explicitly saying that. >> rather on the safe side.

[5:09:25] >> I hear you. I hear you. One of the recommendation recomm re-

[5:09:33] recommendation hades to do with remote operations system

[5:09:38] requirement. Anyone not that deep, there's remote workers

[5:09:41] with the ability to actually help operate the vehicle

[5:09:44] remotely. >> correct.

[5:09:46] >> your recommendation is any remote worker should have taken

[5:09:49] and passed dc's driver's test. >> correct.

[5:09:53] >> are we aware of examples where there's a remote operator

[5:09:57] operating a vehicle in a different jurisdiction --

[5:10:01] >> we are aware of examples because waymo had to deal with

[5:10:04] incident where remote operations facilities located in the

[5:10:09] philippines. Goal with propose amendment would be if you're

[5:10:11] going to be doing a remote operator assistance moving

[5:10:15] vehicles on dc streets, you should probably have a dc

[5:10:21] driver's license. >> okay. Common sense there.

[5:10:26] really interesting point you kind of phrased as a backstop

[5:10:29] for the vmt. Obviously the district of columbia, we're not

[5:10:34] a huge location. A trip that might take a long amount of time

[5:10:39] is not actually traveling a long distance so you're

[5:10:43] recommendation is considering the vehicle hours traveled in

[5:10:46] other words to take into consideration the distance not

[5:10:51] long but time maybe? >> it's a good comparison back

[5:10:53] to old days of taxis and you were waiting and not moving and

[5:10:57] all of a sudden a switch would flip in the number would still

[5:11:01] keep increasing for the amount that you were getting charged

[5:11:05] but it would go into wait time. Part of the issue is obviously

[5:11:07] your proposal around vmt is dealing with the fact elect

[5:11:13] trick vehicles not paying gas tax and fund this system we're

[5:11:16] paying for collectively but the issue with vmt is like you said,

[5:11:22] it's -- this is a district of 1. Not a lot of distance to travel.

[5:11:26] the vmt you're collecting might not be sufficient to offset the

[5:11:31] congestion effects of these vehicles. So if you're going to

[5:11:34] mitigate congestion to mitigate the fact these vehicles might be

[5:11:38] everywhere, which is a major concern of a public transit

[5:11:43] union, we propose a vehicle hours traveled as backstop

[5:11:46] measure to make sure that basically whenever is the higher

[5:11:48] of the two would be what the district ultimately collects.

[5:11:53] >> got it. Thank you. We'll take a look at

[5:11:55] that after the hearing too. Not hitting every one of the points

[5:11:57] but the other to ask you while you're here, the intention

[5:12:03] around the transit incentive program is all right, big claims

[5:12:08] are made and saying I'm not going to pick on one. The

[5:12:11] operator will say no, we really connect people to transit. Use

[5:12:15] our capital one example earlier there's hubs of act and I have

[5:12:34] the enlivening to that. What you're saying is make sure it

[5:12:42] work when is you use the transit system.

[5:12:45] >> the fear would be that people are using avs to substitute what

[5:12:49] could have been public transit trips and call this dismissively

[5:12:53] avs as anti-public transit. They're moving people

[5:12:56] potentially into single combined effect wan seizure disorders

[5:12:57] vehicles and take up more of the roadway and being less of a

[5:13:02] public transit option thees the way to prevent any type of

[5:13:05] transit incentive program or discounts being offered is make

[5:13:13] sure the perk taps their card and -- person taps their card

[5:13:17] and takes a trip. It risks subsidizing a nice trip to

[5:13:21] capital one arena. >> exactly. Again, that's why we

[5:13:26] hold a hearing on bills, cha you're describing is the intent

[5:13:29] of legislation. >> yes, definitely.

[5:13:31] >> hearings help us narrow down and get precise with the

[5:13:34] language. >> okay, that's helpful. Mr

[5:13:43] mr. Cantraras. This bill does not represent you caner and lyft

[5:13:49] drivers; correct? >> not in dc.

[5:13:50] >> got pointed. Not just in dc. Where do they represent yber and

[5:13:54] lyft? >> boston. Massachusetts.

[5:13:56] >> all right. And part of the conversation has also been

[5:14:02] talking about a labor piece, when you say that do you mean I

[5:14:08] respect and recognize saying if the bill is moving forward, not

[5:14:11] advocating for the bill. If the bill moves forward, your

[5:14:14] recommendation is labor piece for things like fleet

[5:14:18] maintenance for all workers with autonomous vehicle operator. Are

[5:14:23] you going beyond that also to other labor piece. Help me

[5:14:29] understand what you mean a bit more about what hawkeyes you're

[5:14:33] recommending when it comes to having a labor peace agreement?

[5:14:39] >> we believe if this goes forward at some point, whatever

[5:14:41] small number of jobs created should be good jobs, good union

[5:14:46] jobs with benefits, good wages and worker protection and, yes,

[5:14:52] at some point we would want those jobs to be covered by

[5:14:59] labor piece and also uber and lyft. They also need to do right

[5:15:06] by their workers who work for them. Right now those are

[5:15:11] considered independent contractors and have no benefits

[5:15:14] whatsoever and they're 1099 employees basically. It should

[5:15:19] be pretty broad who is covered. >> that's incredibly important

[5:15:22] point in that you caner and lyft take about 50% out of every --

[5:15:26] uber and lyft take about 50% of every ride into their pocket and

[5:15:31] drivers don't have health insurance, retirement or

[5:15:34] benefits. They're independent contractors. One thing that the

[5:15:37] legislation is attempting to do and again, acknowledging you're

[5:15:44] not supportive of the element here and have the revenue

[5:15:49] getting generated and goes back to try and help a workforce that

[5:15:51] will be impacted, displaced. I said early on, no no one should

[5:16:04] say "if" workers are impacted. It's "when." I can think about

[5:16:08] the fact that I don't get a newspaper on my doorstep

[5:16:12] anymore. I read it din tally. Doesn't mean that -- digitally.

[5:16:16] doesn't mean it's a negative thing. I like to get my news in

[5:16:18] a digital format but somebody somewhere was impacted with that

[5:16:23] transition; right? We want to move towards more clean energy

[5:16:30] creation. Probably mean as cole miner similar pacted and

[5:16:33] different technology innovation has impacts and try to set up

[5:16:39] ability for 50% of the funds going into some type of, and

[5:16:41] leave it intentionally vague to start with to get the feedback,

[5:16:44] some type of fund to help with workforce transition and

[5:16:49] everything from direct compensation to people that lose

[5:16:51] their jobs. Could be everything from workforce transition and

[5:16:54] workforce training. What are ways that you think the council

[5:16:58] can best try to get ideas, feedback, recommendation around

[5:17:02] ways to be impactful touchdown catch so that funds generated

[5:17:07] actually -- impactful so that funds generated can be helpful

[5:17:12] for workers? >> you're right. Automation has

[5:17:14] never been good for workers. That's bottom line what it is.

[5:17:19] whether you're working in a grocery store or toll booth;

[5:17:22] right, those jobs are no longer -- or almost extinct. Our

[5:17:30] position is that if there's a study, we should let the study

[5:17:33] go forward and not rush into bringing avs into our city

[5:17:36] before the study findings are public to all of us. That's our

[5:17:49] position as a union and we're not opposed to innovation. But

[5:17:53] it has to benefit the public and it has to benefit workers in

[5:18:00] whatever small number of jobs created, they should be good

[5:18:04] union jobs. >> okay. Your recommendation is

[5:18:07] while the legislation requires this st study to help inform wht

[5:18:11] we do with the fund and what the impacts will be, your

[5:18:14] recommendation is essentially trying to tie that report to any

[5:18:18] permit being issued. Am I hearing that correct?

[5:18:21] >> say that again, the last part of your question.

[5:18:23] >> am I hearing your recommendation while the reports

[5:18:26] in the legislation, am I hearing you correctly that your

[5:18:29] recommendation is don't allow a permit move forward until it's

[5:18:33] been completed? >> correct, yes. That is

[5:18:35] correct. We also sent you a set of recommendations if you are --

[5:18:40] once a study comes out, are you going to move forward with any

[5:18:44] legislation like this? We send you some recommendations that I

[5:18:46] think would be useful for a few discussions as well.

[5:18:50] >> okay. Devil's advocate here. We've been waiting for a ddot

[5:18:55] report for quite a long time. There's a concern that if we tie

[5:19:01] something and say we have to wait for a report to get done,

[5:19:04] one strategy is that report sits on the shelf and never moves

[5:19:08] forward. I don't think a report should take that long to be able

[5:19:11] to come up with -- needs to be done right and don't take that

[5:19:14] long. One could be the report is done by a certain deadline to

[5:19:19] ensure it's completed. I have a hunch that the incoming mayor in

[5:19:25] january will not sit on a report like this. That's one way to

[5:19:29] look at it to think about what that could be.

[5:19:32] >> okay. Yeah. We agree. I think that's the impact of people it's

[5:19:49] going to hurt. >> people excited about

[5:19:54] autonomous vehicles and believe it opens up inexpert witness for

[5:19:58] them. -- independence for them and people say I think it'll be

[5:20:02] a negative impact for us. I said at the opening, I don't find

[5:20:09] much ambivalence around this and people are really in support or

[5:20:12] opposition and we want to get feedback to see what we can do

[5:20:15] so the testimony is really helpful. And it is a lot of

[5:20:20] balancing that we're trying to do. Your advice and

[5:20:23] recommendations even if not supporting the overall bill and

[5:20:25] say if it's coming, these are the things we believe need to

[5:20:28] take place. I think that makes whatever decision we make a

[5:20:33] better one. Appreciate it. >> appreciate it.

[5:20:36] thank you. >> thank you all very much.

[5:20:38] appreciate your testimony. We move to our next panel. I've got

[5:20:42] jessica kelly with the teamsters local 639. Another speaker with

[5:20:55] teamsters 639 and thomas doyle state director of national

[5:21:04] teamster brothers. Jessica is not here, okay.

[5:21:12] >> good afternoon. Thank you. >> aa or as de good afternoon. E

[5:21:17] ready. >> thank you for allowing me to

[5:21:20] speak. I'm demoni. Ups driver with teamsters local 639 and

[5:21:25] here not just as a individual but representative of tens of

[5:21:28] thousands of drivers in the district of columbia who keep

[5:21:30] our economy moving. As a ups driver, I play an essential role

[5:21:35] in district supply chain. Every day I safely deliver packages to

[5:21:38] homes and businesses across our situate this work is more than a

[5:21:42] job. It's a career that provides a fair wage, supports my family,

[5:21:44] and enables me to contribute to our community. I'm a proud

[5:21:49] teamster. This union secured a livelihood that many district

[5:21:53] residents rely on and it's helped create a middle class

[5:21:57] backbone for our economy. Replacing my job with driverless

[5:22:02] vehicle would not only put the district at risk, it would

[5:22:06] undermine the middle class that sustains local as much ass,

[5:22:10] schools and neighborhoods. There are clear real world

[5:22:14] implications behind tech enthusiasm. Jobs and local

[5:22:18] economy, driverless vehicles threaten tens of thousands of

[5:22:22] driving jobs in our district and ripple through related sectors.

[5:22:26] maintenance fuelling and logistic coordination and route

[5:22:29] planning. Working people lose good jobs, consumer spending

[5:22:32] declines and small businesses suffer and tax revenue shrink

[5:22:35] hurting public services we all rely on. Driveless technology is

[5:22:42] still maturing even with testing and autonomous systems must

[5:22:47] navigate unpredictable urban environments. Construction zones

[5:22:51] and weather in dense districts like dc, the reality on the

[5:22:58] ground includes pedestrian cyclists and cannot be

[5:23:08] replicated overnight. It depends on reliable delivery network to

[5:23:10] keep essential flowing and more thanes, holidays and

[5:23:15] disruptions. Over reliance on automation without robust human

[5:23:18] backup creates single points of failures affecting families and

[5:23:21] businesses alike. Ups drivers and other front line workers

[5:23:26] operate under establish safety wage and benefits, protections

[5:23:30] negotiated through a collective bargaining allowing driverless

[5:23:33] vehicles to replace the roles and risks eroding a hard one and

[5:23:38] protection that protects workers safety and -- professional

[5:23:42] drivers bring expertise in route optimization security and

[5:23:46] customer service which translates into newer damaged

[5:23:50] goods, better last mile experiences and higher overall

[5:23:53] exhibitor seizure doverall -- e. Technology cannot guarantee

[5:23:58] these outcomes and scale without these investments and human

[5:24:03] oversight. Waymo has demonstrated impressive

[5:24:08] sameabilities in controlled scenarios and specialized routes

[5:24:11] and real world urban deployment faced extensive testing,

[5:24:16] regulatory scuteny and on going safety questions. Claps of

[5:24:22] seemless wide scale replacement of drivers and not full scope of

[5:24:24] trial and educate failures and continued need for human

[5:24:29] monitors and operators in many settings. Even when autonomous

[5:24:33] systems perform well, complexity in urban driving means

[5:24:36] accountability. Who's responsible for the errors?

[5:24:40] maintenance, insurance, and incident responses? These

[5:24:43] questions remain unsettled in many jurisdictions and require

[5:24:46] thoughtful policy design to protect the workers and public.

[5:24:51] large scale substitution of driving jobs with autonomous

[5:24:54] vehicles would demand massive capital charging infrastructure,

[5:24:58] maintenance equal system and continuous software updates and

[5:25:02] labor disruption is real and rushed rollout leaving without a

[5:25:07] viable transitional path. What I'm asking today, protect the

[5:25:11] jobs in the district, do not eliminate driverless roles

[5:25:16] without timeless plans for workers including retraining,

[5:25:20] income support, and opportunities to move into a

[5:25:22] higher wage role with transportation and logistic

[5:25:27] sectors. Embrace responsible and innovation. Encourage policy

[5:25:31] that prioritize road safety, accountability and resilience

[5:25:34] while ensuring workers and their families aren't left behind.

[5:25:39] innovation should lift communities not hollow out the

[5:25:43] middle class. Require meaningful stakeholder engagement before

[5:25:48] approval pilot programs are scaleups of autonomous delivery

[5:25:53] and require row customer consultation with labor, small

[5:25:56] businesses and community representatives, public safety

[5:25:59] and economic stability should guide any deployment decisions.

[5:26:05] I want us to demand clear criteria for deployment and if

[5:26:09] it's pursued, insist of transparent milestones, safety

[5:26:15] audits and metrics that protect workers, customers and

[5:26:19] taxpayers. Ensure robust transition framework any move

[5:26:27] towards atomization and guarantee a clear path to

[5:26:32] affordable, stable path for current drivers and related

[5:26:35] workers. That you can't and urge you to oppose measures that

[5:26:38] threaten these livelihoods and support policies and preserve

[5:26:41] and create good family sustaining jobs for district

[5:26:46] residents. >> thank you.

[5:26:51] >> my name is thomas doyle. Serve as state program director

[5:26:55] for the international brotherhood of teamsters here in

[5:26:57] the district of columbia. Local 639 represents about 900

[5:27:01] remembers across the dmv. Nationwide teamsters represent

[5:27:06] 1.3 million members that operate every classification of vehicle

[5:27:09] from large 18 wheelers which we're historically known for to

[5:27:14] ambulances, school buses, garage and recycling, receptacle

[5:27:19] vehicles. It is our members that have to face the consequences of

[5:27:22] what the deployment of the vehicles look like in the real

[5:27:25] world scenarios and I want to thank you for holding it

[5:27:28] hearing. It has a bill that will have tremendous impact on lives

[5:27:31] of the members. Our members here in the district of columbia

[5:27:37] live, work and raise their families and each start their

[5:27:39] workday by turning the key in an ignition. These teamsters and

[5:27:44] all professional drivers are relevant stakeholders who's

[5:27:47] concerns need heard when examining this bill, we thank

[5:27:49] you for that opportunity today. I want to be perfectly clear

[5:27:53] that the teamsters do not oppose new technology that would make

[5:27:57] our road safer. . Over the years our drivers trained and adapted

[5:28:02] to work in vehicles that are equipped with emergency brakes,

[5:28:05] lane de-portanovature, tools, speed limiters, electronic

[5:28:09] logging devic devices and more. However, this legislation as

[5:28:12] currently written would give the green light to autonomous

[5:28:19] vehicles of any size and weight, and I understand your intent is

[5:28:23] not that but as a union, the contract language of what matter

[5:28:29] same for the legislative hearts and happy to work with you

[5:28:33] trying to address that. Of the most pressing issues we've

[5:28:37] identified in the legislation, the statement that a permit tee

[5:28:40] can dispatch autonomous vehicles for the transportation of goods,

[5:28:45] this comments the district conflict of livelihoods of

[5:28:48] thousands of members across the dmv making homes and delivers

[5:28:55] across the district. Team stares keep the grocery stores stocked

[5:28:58] at giant foods and keeping our community connected and

[5:29:02] accessible across all eight words. Freight drivers and

[5:29:05] deliver to hospitals and dc public schools and thousands of

[5:29:09] small businesses and our ups members in the ha familiar brown

[5:29:14] uniforms deliver long awaited packages to our doors. Each one

[5:29:18] of the members has comprehensive health

[5:29:22] each one of these members has benefits and take-home

[5:29:25] family-sustaining wages. As a union, we must treat

[5:29:30] legislation as an immediate and direct threat to jobs.

[5:29:38] we urge the members of the committee to continue bringing

[5:29:42] relevant stakeholders together, professional drivers, including

[5:29:46] teamsters members, public, law enforcement, and small

[5:29:52] businesses across the district that will face impact before we

[5:29:54] push unproven vehicles onto our roadway.

[5:29:58] it is important to note this legislative session, every

[5:30:02] single legislature that had the opportunity to expand av

[5:30:06] operation in their state has decided to wait.

[5:30:08] we believe there is no reason to rush the deployment of these

[5:30:13] vehicles in a broad reaching bill.

[5:30:16] I think the experience our members around the country bring

[5:30:19] forward is part of the reason many legislatures have decided

[5:30:21] to wait. I appreciated you mentioning

[5:30:27] earlier we have an expectation these vehicles should be better

[5:30:29] than a human driver. The track record we have seen is

[5:30:33] they are not meeting the standard of being better.

[5:30:35] there are many videos circulating of these

[5:30:41] vehicles crossing with arms deployed.

[5:30:49] drivers in the san francisco area have reported firsthand

[5:30:53] these vehicles are interfering with doing their job.

[5:30:58] collecting garbage is a very dangerous job.

[5:31:00] you are exposed to carcinogens. You are on the streets every

[5:31:03] single day. These vehicles block trash

[5:31:08] receptacles in alleyways. It causes delays.

[5:31:12] who is the first person he hears about garbage not being picked

[5:31:14] up? It is the city council.

[5:31:19] we want to thank you for having us all here today.

[5:31:23] we would like to have the opportunity to answer any

[5:31:25] questions you may have. Chair allen: thank you both very

[5:31:27] much. A couple of quick questions.

[5:31:32] you heard me mention the totality of our conversations

[5:31:37] around what people call robotaxis, the new passenger

[5:31:41] service. Fair point, the legislation is

[5:31:45] not precise with that. Understandably, that could be

[5:31:49] interpreted to mean it could be too expensive -- expansive.

[5:31:56] the intent was talking about passenger travel.

[5:32:04] if the cdl language helps give us the position we need, we can

[5:32:10] report on that after the hearing.

[5:32:14] if the intent you mentioned, it is not freight vehicles.

[5:32:20] you mentioned the language around transportation of goods.

[5:32:25] we can work around the precision of that.

[5:32:27] the idea was talking about, I am getting in and I have my

[5:32:32] groceries from the grocery store, where I have my meal with

[5:32:35] me. It is not an 18-wheeler of goods

[5:32:40] we are transporting. We can work afterwards on that.

[5:32:45] I would be curious, and mr. Petron-king, you might be the

[5:32:48] best to answer this, we have some in the testing phase now.

[5:32:54] two companies have been testing in the district for a while.

[5:32:57] have you had them come down the street or had any interaction?

[5:33:04] it sounds like your colleagues have.

[5:33:07] I'm curious if you have had any of that?

[5:33:16] mr. Petron-king: have I witnessed waymo try to deliver

[5:33:20] or just seen it on my route? Yes, I have seen them on the

[5:33:26] route, just driving around, not doing anything, just driving

[5:33:31] around. Chair allen: have you had any

[5:33:34] negative interactions or seen them not know what to do?

[5:33:35] mr. Petron-king: other than stopping and waiting for a long

[5:33:39] time for them to decide to do, I have seen that.

[5:33:42] I have seen them in pause mode trying to figure out what the

[5:33:44] next step is. Chair allen: ok, and that is in

[5:33:47] the middle of the street? Mr. Petron-king: yes, waiting

[5:33:51] for the waymo to decide what it wants to do at the intersection.

[5:33:55] I have witnessed that personally.

[5:33:56] chair allen: ok, that is helpful.

[5:34:00] the other piece, you don't have to answer right now, you can

[5:34:06] also follow-up, part of what we are trying to do is should the

[5:34:10] bill move forward, 50% of the revenue generated is set up any

[5:34:13] work workforce fund to help support workers either with

[5:34:17] retraining, again, could be direct compensation to a

[5:34:21] displaced worker, any thoughts or ideas you may have about what

[5:34:26] would make the most benefit out of a fund like that?

[5:34:29] you can also get back to us on any recommendations you might

[5:34:32] have. Mr. Petron-king: I think it

[5:34:35] would be beneficial the actual fund be used for what it is

[5:34:38] there for. We can come up with funds all

[5:34:43] day, does not mean it will get to the people that need it.

[5:34:49] chair allen: I think I would underscore the family-sustaining

[5:34:54] wages and benefits members take-home we view as a

[5:34:57] replaceable at this time. Mr. Doyle the intention of the

[5:35:02] fund, we appreciate. For many drivers that ups, these

[5:35:07] are lifelong careers. We think it will take more than

[5:35:10] just a fund to replace such a career.

[5:35:14] we would like to work with you to make sure the fund is

[5:35:17] accessible to our members or any professional driver facing

[5:35:23] replacement by technology. Chair allen: thank you.

[5:35:25] just to make it very clear, ups, fedex delivery, that kind of

[5:35:32] delivery is not in this legislation.

[5:35:34] the language could be more precise.

[5:35:35] thank you. I appreciate it.

[5:35:38] thank you both very much. Let me move to our next panel.

[5:35:46] this will be a combination of people here in person and some

[5:35:48] online. I have reem rayef, project

[5:35:51] manager with the washington metropolitan area transit

[5:35:55] authority. Laura miller brooks, director of

[5:36:00] transportation and infrastructure, federal city

[5:36:02] council. Seth grimes, washington

[5:36:06] organizer of the washington area bicyclist association.

[5:36:07] cheryle adams, public witness. And cheryl cort who is the d.c.

[5:36:15] and prince george's county policy director at the coalition

[5:36:19] for smarter growth who I think is online.

[5:36:24] all right, excellent. 3:00, we are getting there.

[5:36:29] thank you all very much. Reem, we will start with you if

[5:36:35] you are ready. Ms. Rayef: thank you for the

[5:36:42] opportunity to testify. Metro is proud to move the

[5:36:48] district on our transit service and our purpose is to provide

[5:36:51] great service to the region. The district is a transit-first

[5:36:58] city. This is because of the work of

[5:36:59] legislators like yourself who provide metro with the funds and

[5:37:03] policy environment we need. Our streetscapes of

[5:37:09] transit-oriented development and bike lanes and sidewalks tell

[5:37:13] the story of city leadership that understands the importance

[5:37:17] of it. We believe this bill lazor the

[5:37:19] groundwork for thoughtfully integrating -- we believe that

[5:37:24] this bill lays the groundwork for thoughtfully integrating av

[5:37:27] 's into the district. Limit interruption through the

[5:37:36] framework. Enforced bus stops of the most

[5:37:43] important. They support buses to move

[5:37:45] through traffic congestion so they can remain on schedule and

[5:37:50] avoid bunching and gapping and ensure that people can safely

[5:37:56] get on and off the bus. Investments in camera enforced

[5:38:00] bus lanes and transit signal priority have meant faster

[5:38:03] trips. Introducing av's has the

[5:38:08] potential to exacerbate the trend of traffic congestion and

[5:38:10] slowing bus service. Av operators must credibly

[5:38:16] demonstrate their ability and intention to complete trips

[5:38:21] without impeding bus lanes and bus stops through the plan.

[5:38:24] at minimum, the plan should outline how commercial operators

[5:38:28] will collaborate with metro to ingest data about our bus

[5:38:32] service on an ongoing basis. Operators should program

[5:38:37] vehicles to abide by d.c.'s parking and driving restrictions

[5:38:42] without exception. It should establish pathways by

[5:38:46] which they communicate regarding detours due to construction and

[5:38:50] other deviations for standard bus service.

[5:38:54] number two, support future planning and transit first

[5:39:00] policies. Metro and ddot are reliant on

[5:39:04] close elaboration and data transparency to enable

[5:39:07] decision-making. Understanding when av trips are

[5:39:11] in demand, how they contribute to congestion, how they interact

[5:39:14] with the curbside and conflict with other modes of transit will

[5:39:18] enable implementing agencies to learn about mobility needs in

[5:39:21] the district and make wise investments.

[5:39:24] sharing trip level data could provide the basis for a

[5:39:26] partnership facilitating smooth av trips for people who want to

[5:39:32] use metrorail but do not have good options to get to the

[5:39:34] nearest station for example. Partnerships like this are

[5:39:38] reliant on ongoing transparency and agreements.

[5:39:43] this legislation should make the av's legal operation contingent

[5:39:49] on trip level data to accurately understand the impact on

[5:39:54] congestion and more. With these two adjustments in

[5:39:58] place, we believe d.c. Could be the first city in the u.s. With

[5:40:03] a clear perspective of how they should fit into city needs.

[5:40:06] av operators state their intention is not to replace

[5:40:12] transit trips. Only 2.8% of the population were

[5:40:17] 19,000 residents live more than a quarter-mile from a bus stop.

[5:40:23] expensive coverage is thanks to this counsel ongoing investment

[5:40:30] in transit. We appreciate the inclusion of

[5:40:34] metro in the decision. We are no strangers to

[5:40:38] innovation. We are modernizing the system to

[5:40:42] improve efficiency and appreciate the potential for

[5:40:45] street-level safety improvements that could come from vehicle

[5:40:47] automation. Safer vehicles that rigidly

[5:40:50] abide by traffic laws have the potential to improve bus

[5:40:53] operation. We look forward to operating

[5:40:56] great transit service in a district that balances the needs

[5:40:59] of all. Thank you for the opportunity to

[5:41:04] comment and I would welcome any questions.

[5:41:05] chair allen: thank you very much.

[5:41:08] next, we will turn to laura miller brooks.

[5:41:14] >> I serve as the director of transportation and

[5:41:19] infrastructure for the federal city council.

[5:41:21] I'm here to testify today on behalf of federal city council's

[5:41:25] 250 trustees, civic and business leaders deeply invested in the

[5:41:32] long-term success of the district and its residents.

[5:41:34] federal city council applauds councilmember allen for

[5:41:37] introducing and the members for cosponsoring the amendment act

[5:41:42] of 2026. This thoughtful, evidence-based

[5:41:46] bill properly positions the district to transition from

[5:41:50] autonomous vehicle testing to deployment with the goals of

[5:41:52] enhancing traffic safety and consumer choice across all eight

[5:41:56] boards. Embracing smart city technology

[5:41:59] is a proven economic multiplier and its adoption is more

[5:42:03] important now. As the district incorporates

[5:42:09] structural disruptions, now is the time for d.c. To embrace new

[5:42:14] industries and advance technologies to diversify our

[5:42:16] economy. This bill is an opportunity not

[5:42:20] only to improve daily mobility but to ensure d.c.'s

[5:42:24] competitiveness as a global hub for next-generation industries.

[5:42:28] in the past, the district was a national leader in urban

[5:42:32] mobility and transportation innovation.

[5:42:34] yet in recent years, we have lost some of our last year.

[5:42:37] with u.s. Department of transportation headquartered

[5:42:41] here and congress, the city is naturally positioned to showcase

[5:42:45] transportation innovation on the national and global stage.

[5:42:49] this legislation thanks to your leadership signals d.c. Is

[5:42:51] actively pivoting toward the future and is again ready to be

[5:42:55] positioned as a national leader. While the current draft provides

[5:42:59] a solid foundation for the district to be a leader on av

[5:43:04] policy, specific provisions regarding taxation and timing of

[5:43:07] deployment may stifle very aspects and goals of this

[5:43:12] legislation focused on equity,, growth and innovation.

[5:43:18] to ensure the technology can scale successively, operate

[5:43:21] reliably, and remain accessible to all, we recommend the

[5:43:24] following minor adjustments but important adjustments.

[5:43:29] the vehicle miles traveled 10x tax threatens to increase cost

[5:43:36] and price out lower income residents.

[5:43:37] we recommend replacing this with a cap fee that mirrors the local

[5:43:42] gas tax rate or at least has parity with delivery trips.

[5:43:46] the shift from fleet caps to performance milestones, the

[5:43:55] proposed 200-vehicle fleet cap may artificially constrain the

[5:43:59] ability to meet the demand of the market and could create

[5:44:02] unreliable wait times and restrict service availability,

[5:44:06] disproportionately harming residents.

[5:44:10] finally, we request that you remove the 2028 pay to ride

[5:44:15] moratorium. This legislation currently

[5:44:19] blocks paid rides until january of 2028.

[5:44:20] we recommend removing this and allowing any commercial service

[5:44:25] ready to launch to launch as soon as operators meet all of

[5:44:30] the stringent safety needs the legislation outlines.

[5:44:35] federal city council applauds your leadership to introduce

[5:44:37] this act and we are confident the district's agencies will be

[5:44:43] able to deliver these programs effectively and make sure we are

[5:44:46] serving residents with the maximum benefit of commercial

[5:44:53] autonomous vehicle technology. I welcome any questions you may

[5:44:54] have and thank you again for hosting this important forum to

[5:44:57] provide us with the opportunity. Chair allen: thank you very

[5:44:59] much. Seth grimes.

[5:45:05] mr. Grimes: I am seth grimes representing the washington area

[5:45:09] bicyclist association. You will not hear a statement

[5:45:12] that opposes or supports the legislation.

[5:45:14] you will not hear a line by line analysis of changes.

[5:45:18] instead, you will hear a statement of our values, shared

[5:45:20] values. My organization's concerns and

[5:45:25] steps we believe will address those concerns as embodied in

[5:45:29] the legislation you have introduced.

[5:45:30] thank you.

[5:45:35] the association envisions a just and sustainable region where

[5:45:40] walking, biking, and transit are the best ways to get around.

[5:45:43] these are the greenest, most affordable, and most helpful way

[5:45:46] to travel in washington, d.c. They are often also the fastest

[5:45:50] due to backed up traffic on frequently congested streets.

[5:45:54] they are also not the safest. 22 individuals have died on d.c.

[5:45:59] streets in 2028 pedestrians, one scooter rider, and one bike

[5:46:07] rider. It is an artifact of the

[5:46:10] transportation system that focuses on vehicles and

[5:46:14] prioritizes them over transit and active transportation.

[5:46:18] overreliance on cars backed up traffic and slows surface

[5:46:20] transit. The bill would set rules that

[5:46:25] govern the widespread deployment of a new type of commercial

[5:46:29] vehicle, more specifically a new type of driver to the district

[5:46:33] streets. We applaud the legislation's

[5:46:37] cautious approach that covers multiple dimensions including

[5:46:40] safety, congestion, and environmental impacts, equitable

[5:46:46] access across all eight words, and for persons with

[5:46:49] disabilities, and av's repercussions for utilization

[5:46:54] and workers. Av's must improve the

[5:46:58] transportation system for everyone and regulators need to

[5:47:00] ensure av profitability is tied to advancing public interest.

[5:47:06] the council should advance a legal regulatory and

[5:47:09] accountability framework that ensures av deployments

[5:47:14] demonstrably achieve the following criteria when

[5:47:16] operating on district streets. I will offer these in bullet

[5:47:19] form except for the last couple. Av should improve safety.

[5:47:23] they should reduce emissions. They should reduce car ownership

[5:47:27] and have a neutral or positive impact on transit ridership.

[5:47:32] access to for higher av's -- for -higher av's must be equitable.

[5:47:41] there must be strict liability for manufacturers and fleet

[5:47:44] operators. There should be uniform

[5:47:47] operations across the district especially coordinated as these

[5:47:53] are deployed in other districts and there should be transparency

[5:47:58] about operations. Regulations should include

[5:48:00] mandatory transparency about algorithms, external

[5:48:05] verification the code prioritizes safety for

[5:48:07] vulnerable road users and adheres to traffic and parking

[5:48:12] regulations overspeed and rider convenience 100% of

[5:48:16] the time with appropriate enforcement tools.

[5:48:21] finally, there should be transparency affecting back.

[5:48:26] legislation should require public mandatory reporting about

[5:48:29] trips, safety issues, emissions, and impacts on transit

[5:48:32] ridership. Without these factors, av's just

[5:48:36] exacerbate the challenges of our car-dependent transportation

[5:48:42] system while putting gig workers out of work.

[5:48:45] on the safety front, we endorse families for safe streets

[5:48:50] criteria that where they operate they must be at least 10 times

[5:48:53] safer than human drivers on average across the operational

[5:48:59] design domains and never worse than human drivers.

[5:49:02] noting again that 22 individuals have died on d.c. Streets in

[5:49:06] 2026, we cite the statement that the standard must not be as safe

[5:49:14] as human drivers, it must be to set us on a trajectory toward

[5:49:18] eliminating traffic deaths. That is what commercial has

[5:49:24] achieved and what we must require of av's.

[5:49:28] we call for a tiered traffic alliance framework that

[5:49:33] escalates regulatory intervention up to the

[5:49:34] revocation of operating authorization when they

[5:49:40] accumulate persistent violations.

[5:49:41] this applies to passing stock school buses and crossing

[5:49:50] crosswalks and parking in a bike lane which is illegal in the

[5:49:51] district, even if the violations do not cause measurable harm.

[5:49:55] where there is harm, manufacturers and operators must

[5:49:57] be held liable. Thank you very much for this

[5:50:00] opportunity to share waba's views on this important

[5:50:03] legislation. Chair allen: thank you very

[5:50:06] much, mr. Grimes. Next, let me turn to cheryle

[5:50:09] adams. Ms. Adams: good afternoon.

[5:50:15] my name is cheryle adams. I live in ward 6 and I serve on

[5:50:22] the d.c. Pedestrian advisory council.

[5:50:24] today, I am testifying as a private resident regarding bill

[5:50:31] 26-0684. 33 years ago, I was struck by a

[5:50:36] vehicle while waiting to cross an intersection in downtown d.c.

[5:50:41] that near fatal incident fundamentally changed my life

[5:50:45] and drove me to pedestrian safety advocacy.

[5:50:49] while av technology aims to reduce hair -- human error,

[5:50:56] technology is never objective. Without explicit safety

[5:51:01] oversight, it risks turning our neighborhoods into unsupervised

[5:51:05] corporate testing grounds. Our streets are filled with

[5:51:10] children, parents with strollers , elderly pedestrians, physical

[5:51:15] and sensory impaired pedestrians, tourists darting

[5:51:20] out between parked cars, and crowds crossing active

[5:51:26] intersections. While the bill takes positive

[5:51:31] regulatory steps, it contains a critical gap.

[5:51:35] it fails to require rigorous real-world adverse weather and

[5:51:42] edge case testing data before deployment.

[5:51:46] companies must prove to ddot how the sensors perform in dense

[5:51:51] fog, heavy d.c. Rainstorms, and dark intersections, and exactly

[5:51:57] how the algorithms react when a child steps off a curb.

[5:52:02] when an av fails, a vulnerable pedestrian pays the ultimate

[5:52:08] price. The asymmetry of risk is

[5:52:10] staggering. Between january and july of this

[5:52:14] year alone, d.c. Vision zero data shows the district has

[5:52:21] already lost seven pedestrians with 42 major injuries and over

[5:52:25] 300 minor injuries. Nationally, recent data reveals

[5:52:31] the ongoing volatility of this technology.

[5:52:33] just this year, a waymo av struck a child near a school in

[5:52:39] santa monica. A software flock triggered a

[5:52:45] massive recall. And recent outages in san

[5:52:50] francisco and lane errors in los angeles caused several

[5:52:55] intersection gridlocks. We cannot build public safety

[5:53:01] policy on self-reported corporate metrics.

[5:53:02] I urge the council to strengthen it by embedding five

[5:53:10] nonnegotiable mandates. Require independent real-world

[5:53:15] d.c. Testing prior to any deployment.

[5:53:18] mandate continuous safety updates and standardized vehicle

[5:53:23] to pedestrian communication interfaces.

[5:53:27] eradicate ghost vehicle congestion by heavily penalizing

[5:53:33] empty cruising. Protect public space from

[5:53:37] chaotic passenger drop-offs. And enforce strict separate

[5:53:41] oversight of level five driverless systems versus

[5:53:48] driver-assisted software. Let us measure the success of

[5:53:51] bill 26-0684 not by corporate revenue generated but by human

[5:54:02] lives protected. Thank you, and I welcome your

[5:54:04] questions. .

[5:54:06] chair allen: thank you very much.

[5:54:08] last on the panel, let me turn to cheryl cort joining us

[5:54:13] online. Ms. Cort: I am representing the

[5:54:16] coalition for smarter growth. To advocate for -- week advocate

[5:54:23] for the most sustainable way for the d.c. Region to grow and

[5:54:26] provide opportunities for all. The district coalition for

[5:54:30] smarter growth supports bill 26-0684, in particular the

[5:54:37] important provisions for recording operations and safety

[5:54:41] data including miles, tax, supporting public transit,

[5:54:50] serving all eight words, and user interface for individuals

[5:54:54] with disabilities. We believe autonomous vehicles

[5:54:57] have the intention to improve roadway safety and provide

[5:55:02] additional transportation options for persons without a

[5:55:05] car or who are unable to drive, especially in areas with limited

[5:55:10] transit options, av and that's also have the potential to

[5:55:14] degrade our cities and towns by adding more traffic and control

[5:55:19] of public streets and curb space to unaccountable private

[5:55:23] companies. We appreciate that this bill

[5:55:26] seeks to address these issues. The district of columbia must

[5:55:30] manage av's to support adopted district policy.

[5:55:34] excuse me. To support district policy that

[5:55:41] prioritizes people over vehicles.

[5:55:44] for instance, policies such as design and manage public space

[5:55:51] and space along the roadway to be people focused promoting

[5:55:56] livability and public health and sustainability, safety, and

[5:56:00] place making. Multiple studies have concluded

[5:56:04] unregulated av's would be -- would have major impacts on

[5:56:09] traffic volumes. A recent synthesis of 26 studies

[5:56:14] found av adoption would increase total city traffic volumes by

[5:56:19] over 5%. This increase is enough to jam

[5:56:23] up key intersections in busy urban corridors.

[5:56:27] in 2020, the d.c. Study likewise found congestion would rise

[5:56:36] significantly without strong policy measures like congestion

[5:56:39] pricing. Av legislation must discourage

[5:56:44] excess traffic, support transit, help travelers with

[5:56:48] disabilities, and ensure accountability and transparency

[5:56:50] by av companies, lest we return to this specific provisions in

[5:56:57] the bill we support and urge the council to move forward strongly

[5:57:04] regulating this emerging technology.

[5:57:06] thank you. Chair allen: thank you very

[5:57:09] much. Appreciate everyone's testimony

[5:57:12] here. Let me start here.

[5:57:18] I was going to ask you about the partnership.

[5:57:26] the bill directs av operators to partner where riders could

[5:57:34] receive discounts for trips that connect to public transit.

[5:57:38] I am not looking for a discount to get you close to transit, it

[5:57:42] has to be on transit. Do you agree the only way that

[5:57:45] makes sense is if we are actually connecting you to

[5:57:49] transit, it has to be connected to that in some way?

[5:57:52] I think I saw your head nodding when talking about this.

[5:57:57] does not make sense that it has to be connected in a meaningful

[5:58:00] way, not just that you get close to a metro station?

[5:58:02] ms. Rayef: I think that is correct.

[5:58:05] I think it points to the urgency of securing really good

[5:58:10] datasharing agreements in addition to being able to

[5:58:15] confirm somebody tapped their card after taking a waymo trip

[5:58:19] to a metro station. Getting good data transparency

[5:58:24] agreements from waymo or whatever av operator it is,

[5:58:30] sharing trip level data about where these trips are coming

[5:58:32] from and where they are going. Chair allen: could you say more

[5:58:35] about that? What does that look like in

[5:58:37] terms of getting that kind of agreement?

[5:58:41] is it the expectation the trip level data is being shared with

[5:58:44] ddot who is then sharing it with you?

[5:58:45] is it the av sharing it directly?

[5:58:48] ms. Rayef: as an example, my understanding is they share trip

[5:58:54] level data with the department of motor vehicles which shares

[5:58:59] them with ddot. We have an mou with ddot and can

[5:59:04] receive that trip level data. It really informs how we plan

[5:59:07] our service. We have used bill 26-0684 --

[5:59:11] uber and lyft data to model what trips will look like at r.f.k.

[5:59:19] based on what occurs at gametime at the stadium.

[5:59:24] we have also examined use to areas near the yellow and green

[5:59:32] line to help us understand what trips are happening that really

[5:59:35] should be yellow and green line trips.

[5:59:38] we make significant use of the data we got from tnt's to plan

[5:59:45] and adjust our service where needed.

[5:59:48] securing something like that trip level data shared with ddot

[5:59:52] we could access through an mou is important for us to

[5:59:56] understand the impact of av operators on our service.

[6:00:00] chair allen: ok, got it.

[6:00:04] -- chair allen: got it. So building off of that is the

[6:00:08] way to go? >> correct.

[6:00:10] I don't know if ddot is speaking later but there is an issue with

[6:00:15] the level of granularity of data provided by tnc's.

[6:00:20] we would like to see something even more granular so we

[6:00:23] understand someone is taking a trip, not from the plaza area

[6:00:29] but the plaza station exit. Chair allen: that is helpful.

[6:00:36] you made a great point around the message you are making for

[6:00:39] bus riders in transit, everything we do there is to

[6:00:45] move more reliably, save money, save time.

[6:00:48] have you had a chance to see what the experience has been in

[6:00:52] other cities that also have a transit system, none of which

[6:00:55] are nearly as good of -- as hours of course, and running an

[6:00:59] automated vehicle? Are we seeing friction points

[6:01:02] that already exist? Is there something we can point

[6:01:06] to to inform how to draft hours? >> I would have to get back to

[6:01:10] you. We have discussed with other

[6:01:13] transit operators in cities including san francisco their

[6:01:17] experience of operating around autonomous vehicles, primarily

[6:01:23] when av trips replace transit trips.

[6:01:29] they have reported insufficient data about the impacts to their

[6:01:34] service again, another reason why sharing is important, to

[6:01:38] understand the level of interaction between bus service

[6:01:42] and av trips as well as av trips.

[6:01:48] chair allen: that is important to look at.

[6:01:51] we will do everything. My metro trip to work this

[6:01:55] morning was fast, easy, relatively cheap.

[6:02:00] I could count on it and I was here.

[6:02:01] if I had gotten into an uber, lyft, or potential av, it would

[6:02:08] cost more, take longer. I think our transit system is

[6:02:11] the best way to get around so I don't know why it would ever

[6:02:16] replace my trip on transit with an autonomous vehicle.

[6:02:20] it will take more out of my pocket and take longer.

[6:02:23] at the same time we want that data to help show what it looks

[6:02:25] like. So we hear you on that.

[6:02:30] laura miller brooks, thank you for your testimony.

[6:02:32] let me dig in with you a bit. One part of your testimony.

[6:02:38] if I understood you said the vmt could raise costs on low income

[6:02:44] riders taking autonomous vehicles.

[6:02:49] the autonomous vehicle companies are today owned by tesla, owned

[6:02:56] by amazon and alphabet, also known as google.

[6:03:03] I'm not convinced that they are doing all of this because they

[6:03:07] really want to lower costs for riders.

[6:03:10] let's just be honest, there was a lot of money to be made in

[6:03:12] this space. So these are movers looking to

[6:03:15] get into a market, test new technology because they see what

[6:03:19] they think is a strong business plan.

[6:03:22] in addition to solving different transportation problems.

[6:03:24] I think vmt is very important in terms of both being able to help

[6:03:30] focus on a gas tax these fleets would not be paying, but also

[6:03:35] our goal around avoiding deadheading, avoiding other

[6:03:40] costs. Why would I eliminate vmt?

[6:03:42] ms. Brooks: great question. I think your bill does a great

[6:03:47] job stating outfront you are here to help consumer choice for

[6:03:50] the district so our goals are very much aligned in the

[6:03:54] testimony. The vmt as currently written

[6:03:59] would be just for autonomous vehicle trips so you have a lot

[6:04:02] of other trips occurring in the district, private owned

[6:04:06] vehicles, tnc's, deliveries. Personally I think the spirit of

[6:04:12] your vmt capturing the cost of that trip is fair but you would

[6:04:19] want to see that be implemented across the market in a way that

[6:04:26] daniel florez earlier brought up the gas tax, but I think even

[6:04:30] concerns as we look, when you have both the cap and the vmt

[6:04:34] tax, the deadheading question is yet to be seen on how much

[6:04:42] these vehicles have to -- chair allen: I think the cap

[6:04:46] conversation, at least for me, I'm able to hear that

[6:04:50] conversation easier. I think logically it can make

[6:04:53] some sense. We are trying to strike the

[6:04:56] right balance but in terms of, if we say it is a cap of 200 but

[6:05:02] also you have to meet these minimum thresholds, you have to

[6:05:05] have, time has to be equitable across all eight wards.

[6:05:10] I can hear the argument that says you may have the cap too

[6:05:14] low to achieve other policy goals so that will be an area we

[6:05:18] will take a look at following the hearing to say how do you

[6:05:21] strike the right balance. Ms. Brooks: back when I was at

[6:05:28] lime, in the early days of deploying scooters when we had a

[6:05:32] limited fleet of vehicles and trying to get coverage in all

[6:05:34] eight wards and providing a trip, capital bikeshare is even

[6:05:40] more expensive these days than 2018, 2019.

[6:05:48] I agree everybody is here to make money, this is a top tnc

[6:05:52] market for uber lyft. And we are seeing that in san

[6:05:57] francisco so I think the question is, if the goal is

[6:06:01] consumer choice, making sure the vmt tax is applied in a way that

[6:06:07] is both getting to your climate and equity goals but not

[6:06:10] impacting the consumer choice element that is core to the

[6:06:13] bill. Chair allen: thank you.

[6:06:17] mr. Grimes, thank you for your testimony.

[6:06:21] hopefully you heard when I talked to av operators, both

[6:06:27] said when I asked, does your program treat parking in the

[6:06:35] bike lane as you can't do it, it is not allowed, and both said

[6:06:39] yes. That is something we will work

[6:06:41] on to make sure the language in the bill is precise.

[6:06:46] you having your recommendation and it seems consistent with the

[6:06:50] families for safe streets ,tiered escalation approach.

[6:06:54] we had an earlier conversation. If it runs a red light, it is

[6:07:01] not supposed to be programmed to do that.

[6:07:04] so if we see these safety elements or blocking a bike lane

[6:07:07] you want to see a tiered escalation to fix the system so

[6:07:12] it does not happen again or if you are not taking those

[6:07:14] actions, there are [indiscernible]

[6:07:16] risks. Did I hear you correctly when

[6:07:18] you testify to that? Mr. Grimes: excuse me, as I

[6:07:23] answer your question by bringing up a different program or the

[6:07:29] a pilot program with amazon for

[6:07:30] cargo e-quads for last mile delivery out of a distribution

[6:07:36] hub in southwest and wmata has received a number of violation

[6:07:42] notices from residents taking pictures of the vehicles parked

[6:07:45] in bike lanes and weave a very good relationship with ddot, and

[6:07:52] ddot is working with amazon. Part of their pilot agreement is

[6:07:55] they will not have vehicles parked in bike lanes.

[6:07:57] they are doing it anyway. I got around very quickly today

[6:08:04] as you did. I observed a fedex truck parked

[6:08:07] in a bike lane on l street, of course illegally.

[6:08:12] we know these operators do that and will continue to do that.

[6:08:15] we would hate to see another set of operators -- I won't mention

[6:08:19] companies, the ones talking to you today, cavalierly disobey

[6:08:25] the laws they know exist in the name of expediency.

[6:08:30] it is more than just parking and bike lanes were blocking bus

[6:08:32] lanes. It is also occupying commercial

[6:08:36] loading zones. We hear over and over again

[6:08:41] concerns from business improvement districts and

[6:08:43] businesses about the lack of loading solutions, for their

[6:08:48] vehicles to park in bike lanes. We need holistic solutions.

[6:08:52] I'm sorry, you're fully aware of that in your aiming toward. The

[6:08:56] district transportation needs we need especially to make sure

[6:09:00] new operations cannot degrade the situation.

[6:09:02] yes, tiered enforcement, you know how to implement that, as

[6:09:08] does ddot. Chair allen: thank you.

[6:09:12] real fast, ms. Adams, your recommendation on pedestrian

[6:09:18] intent interfaces, can you just say a little more about an

[6:09:22] example of what that means and then I will turn to

[6:09:26] councilmember lewis george. Ms. Adams: that would be

[6:09:30] something similar to, while we do currently have walk signs.

[6:09:38] if there were some sort of integration in av's that were

[6:09:43] keywords like pedestrians crossing, for example, at the

[6:09:47] barn dance at seventh and aphis street.

[6:09:52] if there was some sort of warning that says the barn

[6:09:57] dance. Is in effect ava -- av's in all directions

[6:10:02] must stop. There needs to be some sort of

[6:10:06] interfacing between the av's and whatever the hub is that would

[6:10:11] be in that area to just provide some sort of notification that

[6:10:18] this is a pedestrian crossing, it is stopping traffic in all

[6:10:24] directions, including diagonally.

[6:10:26] and that there is some type of mechanism indicating to all.

[6:10:32] for example, if there were four robotaxis on seventh and h on

[6:10:43] all four intersections, if they are all there at the same time

[6:10:48] there is an interfacing that lets people know there are four

[6:10:54] robotaxis in place that must stop when pedestrians are all

[6:10:57] crossing at one time. For example, the barn dance at h

[6:11:02] and 7th street. There would be some sort of

[6:11:08] mechanism, and some type of keywords that these robotaxis

[6:11:14] are being programmed with that lets them know in that specific

[6:11:20] area, it is pedestrian-dense and there is a barn dance there.

[6:11:24] chair allen: thank you. Councilmember lewis george,

[6:11:29] welcome back. Councilmember lewis-george:

[6:11:31] thank you. I want to start with wmata.

[6:11:33] is it ms.rayef? Thank you so much.

[6:11:41] how does wmata view its relationship with autonomous

[6:11:44] vehicles? Ms. Rayef: I think we see the

[6:11:50] district is a place with a lot of different mobility needs and

[6:11:53] see ourselves as part of a tapestry of mobility solutions

[6:11:56] in the region including cars, rideshare, bikeshare and so on.

[6:12:03] our chief interest is in making sure av trips do not replace

[6:12:10] transit trips and we don't see significant declines in

[6:12:14] ridership and increases in congestion that make it harder

[6:12:16] to run our bus service. That is why we want good data

[6:12:22] about where av trips are happening, the extent to which

[6:12:23] they are running along our rail lines, our major bus lines.

[6:12:27] and it is why we want good assurances from the av operators

[6:12:30] they will provide strict laws that keep cars out of our bus

[6:12:36] lanes and away from our bus stops.

[6:12:39] that is super important because the quality of our bus service,

[6:12:42] which we are constantly working to improve, is completely

[6:12:46] dependent on how congested our streets are and the extent to

[6:12:49] which our buses have clear lanes and clear bus stops in which to

[6:12:51] operate. And when we have cars that block

[6:12:56] bus lanes and bus stops which happens all the time, we get

[6:12:59] bunching and delays, and at our bus stops in particular when

[6:13:06] stopped by vehicles they can't get to the curbside which makes

[6:13:09] it impossible for the drivers to lower the ramp, the wheelchair

[6:13:13] ramp, for a wheelchair user or a stroller pusher, or anybody who

[6:13:19] needs the smooth transition onto the bus, can't get onto the bus

[6:13:23] anymore. Making sure all cars stay out of

[6:13:27] our bus lanes and bus stops is a chief priority.

[6:13:29] councilmember lewis-george: with that, as we agreed in our line

[6:13:35] on continuing to strengthen our bus network in the district, how

[6:13:37] does wmata see itself working aggressively to protecting our

[6:13:42] dedicated bus lanes and insuring those projects are successful in

[6:13:48] making our public transit the fastest and most reliable way to

[6:13:50] move around the district and region?

[6:13:51] ms. Rayef: the council has been an amazing partner in providing

[6:13:58] resources for us to improve our bus service and we know we have

[6:14:01] a lot of friends on counsel who want to burp -- council who want

[6:14:06] to provide us the resources. A program which enables us to

[6:14:12] use cameras on our buses to supply tickets to drivers

[6:14:17] locking our bus lanes is an essential provision that allows

[6:14:21] us to enforce our bus lanes and something enabled by legislation

[6:14:28] which really is essential to those bus lanes making a

[6:14:34] difference for bus riders. Councilmember lewis-george: is

[6:14:38] wmata planning on experimenting with autonomous vehicle

[6:14:41] technology in the metrobus, metro access or maintenance

[6:14:43] piece? Ms. Rayef: I can't speak to

[6:14:46] that, but can get back to you. Councilmember lewis-george: is

[6:14:53] there any things the council can ensure as part of this

[6:14:57] legislation will ensure some of the data collection necessary

[6:15:01] for wmata to continue to achieve its goals?

[6:15:07] ms. Rayef: I think ensuring the data collection provisions, the

[6:15:12] data required to be shared with ddot, making sure that is

[6:15:18] airtight and really provides a granular information such that

[6:15:21] we can see if a trip is ending, not in southern dupont circle,

[6:15:27] but on a specific corner, so we understand exactly where trip is

[6:15:32] beginning and ending and what curbside use looks like.

[6:15:39] that is essential central and ensuring the information is

[6:15:45] protective of privacy while also being sufficiently useful.

[6:15:47] councilmember lewis-george: thank you, I appreciate that.

[6:15:51] mr. Grimes, thank you for speaking about the issues with

[6:15:56] vehicles parked in bike lanes. I know you spoke a little about

[6:15:59] the tiered approach. I also wanted to make sure some

[6:16:05] of the concerns we have heard from pedestrians about ways we

[6:16:12] can continue as a district to ensure both our pedestrians and

[6:16:15] bikes are able to continue to be the primary users of roadways

[6:16:22] and prioritized in safety. Mr. Grimes: thank you p would as

[6:16:28] I mentioned at the start of my testimony, they aim to make sure

[6:16:34] those who are walking -- they operate extensively.

[6:16:39] we are sensitive to concerns about bicyclists on sidewalks

[6:16:45] outside of the central business district.

[6:16:47] it is undesirable that bikes, especially as we get more bike

[6:16:53] riders on sidewalks and scooters we need a separation of

[6:16:55] infrastructure. One of my key messages is we

[6:16:59] appreciate innovation in all forms includng the introduction

[6:17:04] of autonomous vehicles, but have to ensure there is continued,

[6:17:08] sufficient, robust funding for infrastructure improvements that

[6:17:11] support transit, that support walking, and use of mobility

[6:17:17] devices, and the support bicycling that separate

[6:17:21] different modes appropriately across the district.

[6:17:23] enforcement is important but design of infrastructure is

[6:17:26] essential. Councilmember lewis-george:

[6:17:31] laura, I spoke a little earlier on the first panel about how --

[6:17:35] there are things we can do as a city and things we must do

[6:17:40] regionally in order for this to be successful.

[6:17:45] what would have to happen on a regional level for us to be

[6:17:52] successful in moving towards this happening in the d.c. Area?

[6:17:55] ms. Brooks: great question. The city council is focused on

[6:18:01] the district and federal relationship.

[6:18:03] this is a great opportunity because virginia rail did not

[6:18:08] pass legislation this year and also for us to set the standard

[6:18:14] with the areas where we can for a working, productive

[6:18:18] relationship with the federal government.

[6:18:23] there is expressed interest here.

[6:18:25] the district being proactive, taking the opportunity to show

[6:18:31] we understand all the externalities that might be

[6:18:34] risks and show how we and our incredible staff are able to

[6:18:37] overcome that, work with our transit agency and set the

[6:18:42] standard is a huge opportunity for setting the benchmark for

[6:18:45] the region. There is coordination with

[6:18:46] airports. Obviously that is something

[6:18:49] councilmember allen noted, but there are other ways in which

[6:18:53] the region -- I think cog has been focused on how to cultivate

[6:19:00] jurisdictional conversations that happened once state-level

[6:19:05] legislation is passed. D.c. Being both a state in a

[6:19:10] city and having the federal apparatus where we can make that

[6:19:14] proactive is a unique moment. I'm excited this registration

[6:19:18] rises to that opportunity. Councilmember lewis-george: what

[6:19:21] is the federal landscape regarding this technology and

[6:19:25] legislation? Where does the federal city

[6:19:29] council see both democrats and republicans in the house and

[6:19:32] senate fall on the issue currently?

[6:19:33] ms. Brooks: I'm not an expert and I can get back to you on

[6:19:37] that but I will say, what I'm aware of and conversations were

[6:19:40] this is come up, that I have been part of, usdmt is

[6:19:48] incredibly interested in this. Secretary duffy mentioned this

[6:19:50] in his hearing. This continues to be an issue

[6:19:55] that house oversight republicans are aware of.

[6:19:57] so if there is a world in which this could be a productive olive

[6:20:01] branch to the federal government in a world where they are

[6:20:03] looking at taking away red light cameras, and we could talk about

[6:20:07] automation in a productive way, and keeping some of the many

[6:20:11] ways in which we are using automated enforcement to clear

[6:20:14] bus lanes, to keep roads safe, this is an opportunity to

[6:20:19] proactively meet them where we are seeing negative movement

[6:20:24] from congressional stakeholders on other issues.

[6:20:25] councilmember lewis-george: thank you.

[6:20:28] chair allen: thank you everybody for your testimony on this

[6:20:33] panel. Next I will move to panel 10,

[6:20:41] colin mortimer from dmv new liberals joining us online.

[6:20:47] alex baca d.c. Policy director with greater greater washington.

[6:20:52] margaret durkin, executive director for pennsylvania and

[6:20:54] the mid-atlantic region with technet.

[6:20:58] and david alpert, public witness.

[6:21:17] going to go ahead because I have two empty seats.

[6:21:30] david zipper, public witness and colleen hawkinson, executive

[6:21:34] director of the d.c. Bid council pair would I will pull you up

[6:21:37] because I have two seats. Colin mortimer, why don't you

[6:21:45] kick us off, then we will go to alex baca, margaret durkin and

[6:21:49] then -- and colleen after that. >> my name is colin mortimer and

[6:21:57] I'm testifying on behalf of the dmv new liberals.

[6:22:00] where the washington area chapter of pragmatic liberal

[6:22:05] neighbors across the district, maryland and virginia organizing

[6:22:07] for innovation, growth, safety and cities built for people.

[6:22:11] thank you for moving this bill in a fraud political moment and

[6:22:14] for sitting through nine hours of testimony to do it.

[6:22:16] we testify today in strong support of bill bill 26-0684

[6:22:21] with two amendments raising the 200 vehicle cap.

[6:22:29] san francisco is served by 1000 and moving the january 2028

[6:22:33] launch date ahead. We don't need to speculate on

[6:22:35] how safe waymo is or other autonomous vehicles.

[6:22:39] in the vast majority of situations waymo has proven to

[6:22:43] be safe, reliable and predictable.

[6:22:44] waymo has driven over 170 miles behind the wheel, fewer crashes

[6:22:54] than human drivers and larger reduction still for pedestrians

[6:22:56] and cyclists. The last technology with this

[6:23:00] potential to bend the curve on road safety was the airbag which

[6:23:04] saved 50,000 american lives. In the past five years more than

[6:23:08] 200 people have died on district streets paired rarely does the

[6:23:10] council have the opportunity to vote on a bill that will save so

[6:23:14] many lives, and prevent so many deaths in the future, like the

[6:23:18] ones we have suffered in recent years.

[6:23:20] I my daily capital bikeshare rider, on connecticut avenue

[6:23:26] every day. Still waiting for my bike lane

[6:23:29] and I want to thank the council and chairman allen for making

[6:23:34] cyclists such an important part of the conversation and ensuring

[6:23:38] autonomous vehicles can continue to prioritize cyclists.

[6:23:40] at the end of the day I've cycled in los angeles, san

[6:23:46] francisco, I've seen how autonomous vehicles interact

[6:23:48] around me and how human drivers interact around me on

[6:23:53] connecticut avenue each day paradise he people changing

[6:23:56] lanes without signaling, making illegal turns on red, watching

[6:23:59] youtube videos will driving. This all happened last week, by

[6:24:02] the way. Driver errors and distracted

[6:24:05] driving of the reason people die on the road and waymo doesn't do

[6:24:08] that. Yes last fall waymo passed a

[6:24:12] school bus in boston and we have seen unfortunate incidents

[6:24:15] across the country but with waymo we are able to do updates,

[6:24:18] train the cars to do better, ensure mistakes never happen

[6:24:22] again. Autonomous vehicles can be

[6:24:27] regulated like airplanes were one mistake ensures similar

[6:24:28] incidents never happen again. Airplanes are far and away the

[6:24:32] safest way to travel in the entire world.

[6:24:35] we can do the same with automobiles.

[6:24:37] on jobs it is somewhat of an ironic stroke of luck that 14

[6:24:42] years ago to the day the council had the uber amendment to

[6:24:46] protect taxi drivers from rideshare.

[6:24:49] now we're being asked to protect rideshare from what comes next.

[6:24:53] we didn't band the automobile to save the stable hands, we built

[6:24:56] better jobs on top of it. This next leap forward will be

[6:24:59] no different in this bill fund ensures displaced workers will

[6:25:05] receive more protection than they ever had for any

[6:25:06] technological innovation before. Autonomous vehicles are cutting

[6:25:10] into this region come of this bill decides whether they arrive

[6:25:14] on the district's terms. One day I think we will look

[6:25:17] back on humans piloting two tons of steel the same way we look

[6:25:22] back on the frequency of airplane crashes in the mid-20th

[6:25:25] century. I am for this bill and I'm open

[6:25:29] to any questions or follow-ups you may have.

[6:25:31] thank you. Chair allen: thank you.

[6:25:34] let me turn to alex baca. Good afternoon.

[6:25:40] ms.baca: good afternoon, thank you for having me.

[6:25:43] I'm speaking on behalf of greater greater washington where

[6:25:47] I serve as policy director. We find this flawed in its

[6:25:51] conceptualization of the means by which the district should

[6:25:55] regulate for higher autonomous vehicles and do not think it

[6:25:59] mitigates their negative externalities.

[6:26:02] the bill puts the department of transportation in charge of

[6:26:04] regulation of av's. I understand why to this

[6:26:08] committee it is an advantage. Should this bill pass here you

[6:26:13] get to be the committee jurisdiction.

[6:26:14] I know this is a salient issue, a lot of prominent commentators

[6:26:19] have said a lot about how we need to do something about this

[6:26:21] as soon as possible lest we stifle innovation in private

[6:26:26] industry but no operator is suggesting personal autonomous

[6:26:28] vehicles are immediately forthcoming paired the matter at

[6:26:32] hand is one of carriers for higher --for hire.

[6:26:37] we struggle to see a compelling reason for assigning av's to

[6:26:41] ddot. The district is on the back foot

[6:26:47] with tnc's. Uber begged cities for

[6:26:52] permission rather than from permission to operate.

[6:26:57] we were in this room talking about this with other folks as

[6:27:00] well. We are running back the tape a

[6:27:04] little bit in a bizarre way I never expected.

[6:27:09] but right now the district does not require tnc's to identify

[6:27:15] operators or share real-time data and do not have to complete

[6:27:19] safety checks. On light taxis, their fares are

[6:27:23] not regulated and their fleets do not have to require

[6:27:25] wheelchair accessible vehicles. There is the process of

[6:27:29] appraising whether this system is serving residents and

[6:27:33] visitors. Meantime autonomous vehicles and

[6:27:35] their operators are stepping in to generous breach.

[6:27:39] more importantly to us as urbanists, av's are just cars in

[6:27:45] the district is not good at managing cars regardless of who

[6:27:49] or what is driving them and that makes this the worse place to

[6:27:53] visit and travel. Congestion makes this last

[6:27:56] result -- reliable and safe. Those who drive when they could

[6:28:01] take transit, walk or bike make it harder for those who need to

[6:28:04] drive or be driven. We have advocated for fewer

[6:28:07] trips by car since2008. District policy and politics is

[6:28:13] not that divergent from my stance.

[6:28:18] no candidate for office here in response to a questionnaire has

[6:28:21] ever indicated they would like more trips by car.

[6:28:24] av's will result in more trips by car.

[6:28:26] the district's report recommends road pricing as an antidote.

[6:28:34] we wished there had been an opportunity during fy 27 budget

[6:28:40] negotiations for options including road pricing.

[6:28:44] without a holistic understanding of how curbside management,

[6:28:47] parking and road access policies can work together, not

[6:28:50] necessarily solely to contribute to the district coffers but make

[6:28:54] sure the environment is a safe, healthy and enjoyable one.

[6:28:59] my testimony includes some asks, but none as specific as we have

[6:29:02] heard fromatu, the trial lawyers and excellent witnesses

[6:29:07] on panel. I do defer to them as well to

[6:29:11] d.c. Families for safe streets and want to reaffirm what they

[6:29:14] have to say. Ultimately, and I appreciate

[6:29:19] councilmember allen recognizing this in your opening remarks,

[6:29:23] there is not a need to rush to pass legislation, regulating

[6:29:26] av's. I do want to urge we enable

[6:29:30] broad regulatory powers that allow the district to pivot as

[6:29:33] needed when new pressures emerge.

[6:29:38] I don't think concerns today were anti-av or anti-innovation.

[6:29:45] it is broadly understood av's are coming.

[6:29:51] this is a fast-changing space. We did not get tmc regulations

[6:29:58] perfect in 2012 and have taken time before visiting them.

[6:30:02] legislation passed so we can see that av's are operating here

[6:30:09] sooner is not likely to age well.

[6:30:11] cars regardless of driven by people or robots may benefit

[6:30:14] some but they are to the -- they are not to the public good and

[6:30:18] we need fewer of them in the district.

[6:30:19] chair allen: thank you. >> good afternoon.

[6:30:25] my name is margaret durkin, I'm the mid-atlantic executive

[6:30:28] director for technet. Thank you for allowing me the

[6:30:32] opportunity to speak on bill 26-0684.

[6:30:35] we believe autonomous vehicles bring tremendous societal

[6:30:41] benefits and provide access to transportation for those with

[6:30:44] disabilities or those who can drive themselves.

[6:30:46] I will note technet is a membership organization so we

[6:30:51] have a sizable amount of members in the autonomous vehicle space

[6:30:56] and concerns in speaking on today are those I've been made

[6:30:59] aware of. First and foremost we are

[6:31:02] concerned about the high application fees.

[6:31:04] the bill as drafted has a one million-dollar initial permit

[6:31:09] fee with a $500,000 subsequent fee as well as a post approval

[6:31:15] 500 fee. This is out of step with other

[6:31:19] states that enacted authorizing av legislation.

[6:31:24] california charges $3600 for testing application and $3275

[6:31:33] for deployment application. In new york city the annual fee

[6:31:35] is $5,000. We believe these high fees will

[6:31:39] set a harmful precedent and discourage av investment and

[6:31:42] deployment in the district. We are also concerned about the

[6:31:46] prohibition on permitees and customers agreeing to real and

[6:31:51] potential liability as a condition for service.

[6:31:55] prohibiting arbitration agreements would be a first in

[6:31:58] the nation requirement and lead to potential costly litigation.

[6:32:04] regarding accident reporting environment -- requirements we

[6:32:07] believe the eight hour window is burdensome.

[6:32:10] our members are required to report crashes to the national

[6:32:16] highway traffic safety administration per their

[6:32:18] standing general order and this bill requires the submission and

[6:32:22] we believe it is adequate and interoperable with other

[6:32:28] jurisdictions. We request this eight hour

[6:32:30] window of reporting in the bill be removed.

[6:32:33] regarding rules and the bill we believe rules in any

[6:32:37] jurisdiction can run far afield of the underlying statutes and

[6:32:40] request provision to promulgate rules and regulations be removed

[6:32:45] . Finally the proposed vehicle

[6:32:47] miles traveled tax, $.15 per mile.

[6:32:50] technet as an organization works to ensure tax structures create

[6:32:58] a level playing field I miss $.15 tax on commercial av

[6:33:02] operators will place a non-very burden on a merging industry in

[6:33:06] the district. Thank you for your time and I'm

[6:33:09] happy to take any questions. Chair allen: thank you very

[6:33:12] much. David alpert I don't believe he

[6:33:15] is here so if you can join us later we will bring him to eyed

[6:33:18] other -- another panel. >> good afternoon, chairman

[6:33:24] allen and members of the committee.

[6:33:25] thank you for allowing me to speak him I'm the president and

[6:33:29] ceo of the navy improvement district business.

[6:33:34] thank you for allowing me to testify.

[6:33:37] I will not read the text of my testimony that I will submit, I

[6:33:41] will just speak to a couple points I wanted to share in this

[6:33:44] discussion. I will start with, the district

[6:33:47] has a long history of maintaining strong public

[6:33:50] oversight. Through leadership of ddot and

[6:33:55] other agencies, successful partnerships for delivery, and

[6:34:00] transportation infrastructure, systems and services.

[6:34:06] car sharing and bike sharing, the nation's largest smart curb

[6:34:10] management. They have improved quality of

[6:34:13] life in the district. I believe av's can be the next

[6:34:18] chapter in that tradition. In my opinion the relevant

[6:34:21] question is not whether or not av technology is coming because

[6:34:26] it is already here. The question is whether the

[6:34:28] district can help shape it in a way that advances safety,

[6:34:34] equity, accessibility and public benefit.

[6:34:35] I support this bill because it takes a measured and thoughtful

[6:34:39] approach and establishes a phased deployment strategy,

[6:34:43] requires planning and safety provisions to ensure equitable

[6:34:47] access across all eight wards for residents with disabilities

[6:34:51] and recognizes the importance of supporting public transit and

[6:34:54] helping workers adapt to changes in the transportation sector I

[6:34:58] would further encourage ddot to leverage a partnership first

[6:35:03] created by the southwest bid and now in part with the navy yard

[6:35:09] to become a national testbed for new technology, public-private

[6:35:14] partnerships and services. We have been doing that for

[6:35:16] several years and stand ready to partner with the city when you

[6:35:21] move forward with this. The bid can help the district

[6:35:26] compare and evaluate outcomes, service equity and impacts on

[6:35:32] congestion which can lead to smarter policy decisions at the

[6:35:36] beginning and as we make changes .

[6:35:40] finally as a former ddot director I want to offer this

[6:35:45] perspective, for services that touch district residents,

[6:35:49] education is essential and key. I will share some perspectives

[6:35:56] today reflect the we have not told people about this

[6:36:00] experience enough. I encourage you to do that not

[6:36:03] only for public officials, for city agencies, but for the

[6:36:08] users, employees, future employees and anybody who will

[6:36:10] be impacted by this. It is coming and we need to

[6:36:14] explain to people how it works, how it doesn't work, things to

[6:36:18] be concerned about and things we have data and factor support

[6:36:20] whether or not it works. Av technology is new, very

[6:36:27] different and it will be disruptive to the status quo.

[6:36:33] education engagement will be essential for managing.

[6:36:37] disruption can be ok because we learned and got better and have

[6:36:40] done things better than in the past so I think this bill

[6:36:43] positions the district to lead and not react, to ensure

[6:36:48] innovation serves the public interest.

[6:36:49] thank you for your consideration.

[6:36:51] I'm happy to take any questions you might have.

[6:36:53] chair allen: thank you. Colleen hawkinson.

[6:36:56] ms. Hawkinson: good afternoon, chair allen and members of the

[6:37:01] committee. My name is colleen hawkinson and

[6:37:03] I'm testifying on behalf of the d.c. Bid council which unites 13

[6:37:08] business improvement districts to champion ride -- vibrant

[6:37:13] mixed-use neighborhoods paired we applaud council member alan

[6:37:18] for introducing and councilmembers pinto and frumin

[6:37:20] for cosponsoring the autonomous vehicle deployment authorization

[6:37:22] act of 2026. This legislation marks a pivotal

[6:37:26] moment in the district's 14 year regulatory journey by building

[6:37:31] upon frameworks established by the council in 2012 and 2020.

[6:37:36] this thoughtful evidence-based bill positions the district to

[6:37:39] transition from av testing to commercial deployment.

[6:37:44] years of rigorous on road operations, millions of driven

[6:37:49] miles and exhaustive data collection have proven av

[6:37:52] technology is no longer experimental.

[6:37:55] commercial av deployment aligned seamlessly with the district

[6:37:59] core goals of safety, equity and economic growth.

[6:38:02] regarding safety, av technology removes human error from the

[6:38:07] equation resulting in 94% fewer severe or fatal crashes, 93%

[6:38:12] fewer pedestrian injuries and 84% fewer bicyclist injuries

[6:38:19] compared to human drivers. Av's do not discriminate based

[6:38:26] on -- do not discriminate. Furthermore, operators have

[6:38:31] mapped every ward in d.c. To ensure equitable access.

[6:38:35] fleet operations require a robust local footprint, industry

[6:38:39] leaders are already investing in d.c. By crating stable, good

[6:38:42] paying jobs in vehicle maintenance and logistics.

[6:38:46] while the current draft provides a strong foundation, specific

[6:38:51] provisions risk stifling the very innovation, equity and

[6:38:53] growth the bill aims to achieve. We recommend the following

[6:38:56] adjustments. Remove the 2028 paid ride

[6:39:03] moratorium allowing commercial service to launch as soon as

[6:39:07] operators meet all stringent district safety and operational

[6:39:10] benchmarks. The shift from fleet caps to

[6:39:17] performance milestones. The proposed 200 vehicle fleet

[6:39:20] cap will provide -- create -- will disproportionately harm

[6:39:25] residents. The council should allow fleets

[6:39:27] to scale dynamically based on proven safety milestones.

[6:39:33] and the vehicle miles traveled tax we have heard about we

[6:39:37] recommend replacing the vmt tax with a capped fee that mirrors

[6:39:43] the local gas tax. Embracing city technology is a

[6:39:47] proven economic multiplier and its adoption is more critical

[6:39:49] now than ever. As the district navigates

[6:39:54] structural economic disruptions, particularly the long-term

[6:39:56] shrinking of the federal government footprint, now is the

[6:39:59] time for d.c. To embrace new industries and advanced

[6:40:04] technologies to diversify our economy.

[6:40:07] we already have blueprints through two existing innovation

[6:40:11] districts, the penn west and mobility innovation district.

[6:40:17] the former initiative is managed and operated by the golden

[6:40:21] triangle bid and the latter is a collaboration by the southwest

[6:40:25] and navy yard bids. With few refinements this bill

[6:40:28] is number two not only to improve daily mobility but

[6:40:33] firmly secure d.c.'s competitiveness is a resilient,

[6:40:36] self-sustaining global hub by incorporating next-generation

[6:40:42] industries into our ecosystem. Thank you for your leadership

[6:40:46] and the opportunity to testify. I'm happy to answer questions.

[6:40:48] chair allen: thank you all. Mr. Mortimer, I don't think we

[6:40:55] have a copy of your testimony. If you have not already -- I

[6:41:00] don't think you have, so if you would submit your testimony,

[6:41:03] that way it becomes part of the record.

[6:41:06] that would be helpful. Mr. Mortimer: happy to do so.

[6:41:10] chair allen: did you have any -- I heard your support for the

[6:41:20] legislation. Where there any recommendations

[6:41:22] or changes you were advocating? Or are you just testifying to

[6:41:27] say the council needs to move forward with this?

[6:41:28] mr. Mortimer: yes, top of my testimony I stayed in my support

[6:41:33] for the bill and my desire to see the council remove the 200

[6:41:39] car cap, to have one more similar to san francisco, 1004

[6:41:44] similarly sized city and move forward with the 2028 launch

[6:41:48] date. Chair allen: thank you.

[6:41:51] let me touch base on that quickly and ms. Hawkinson we are

[6:41:57] happy to take a look at the date after the hearing.

[6:42:02] part of the reason the 2028 date is selected, let's play

[6:42:09] hypotheticals. If legislation were to move

[6:42:10] forward this fall aftertwo readings and a mayor signature

[6:42:17] on the always lovely congressional review, best case

[6:42:22] scenario, the law's effective date be sometime next spring,

[6:42:26] maybe late spring and ddot having to issue the next round

[6:42:32] of permits they will go through the process to do all the

[6:42:34] different checks they have to do so january 1, 2028.

[6:42:39] it may be feels like a far-off date, but on a legislative

[6:42:44] timeline I would be hard-pressed that anyone could get done

[6:42:48] before that. We will take a look at it to see

[6:42:52] if there are any spaces. I do think there is a decent

[6:42:57] point made around the 200 cap for introduced legislation.

[6:43:03] I'm not sure mr. Mortimer I would go all the way to 1000,

[6:43:05] but from 200 if one of our policy goals is we want to have

[6:43:12] equitable distribution serving all neighborhoods across the

[6:43:13] city you could make a strong argument that if you only have

[6:43:17] 200 you will have a hard time being able to manage that.

[6:43:21] the flipside to a cap is, this is new technology, it is disrupt

[6:43:27] the, so we want to take a tiered approach as we phase in this new

[6:43:32] technology in our city. You are not the only ones who

[6:43:36] raised that over the course of the hearing so it is one we will

[6:43:39] look at and see where the numbers are.

[6:43:43] I don't know if 1000 is the right number but we have heard

[6:43:47] 200 may cut against other policy goals we are trying to achieve

[6:43:52] so I appreciate that. Baca, I hear your point of hired

[6:44:01] vehicles versus ddot. We will have ddot and the

[6:44:10] department of hired vehicles here to have a conversation and

[6:44:15] if the will is at some point what this moves into a

[6:44:18] commercial operation, happy to have that conversation.

[6:44:27] you mentioned specifics of recommendations and based on

[6:44:29] your testimony it sounds like you would a chance to look

[6:44:31] atatu's. There are a lot of them,

[6:44:36] thoughtful stuff. Where there any you specifically

[6:44:39] wanted to highlight as your top one or two you thought were

[6:44:44] best? >> sure, I appreciate the reef

[6:44:48] amy -- reframing of vmt, we have talked a little about it.

[6:44:57] I'm very supportive of it in theory.

[6:45:02] the dial needs to be turned up a little.

[6:45:03] it is not just av's. It should be all tnc's.

[6:45:08] maybe vmt's. The district is very small.

[6:45:17] this is intentionally on how are we going to reduce congestion?

[6:45:21] the potential benefits we heard are not going to be realized if

[6:45:24] people are sitting in traffic. We are closely aligned with atu,

[6:45:34] really appreciate the work they have put into this but I would

[6:45:37] emphasize I don't think the vmt charges may be not the right

[6:45:41] modality and we need to figure out not necessarily for revenue

[6:45:46] purposes but congestion reduction purposes how we will

[6:45:47] handle this and there is a separate conversation to be had

[6:45:52] about curbside which we have not been able to figure out and that

[6:45:55] is really critical for ddot. If I could apply ddot energy

[6:46:01] anywhere I would love for it to be to a comprehensive curbside

[6:46:05] management program. We are not where we need to be

[6:46:09] to prepare for the deployment of av's.

[6:46:11] chair allen: curbside management is what I was good to bring in

[6:46:16] with meca and the navy yard. We had conversations around a

[6:46:22] very dense environments, a lot of foot traffic and it is a

[6:46:30] challenge to manage curbside throughout the navy yard bid.

[6:46:35] I went to the ballgame saturday, was smart enough to know, don't

[6:46:41] dare try to drive there so my son and I biked down, we had a

[6:46:46] great experience as we do. The bike valley was not as full

[6:46:49] as it normally is. The curbside's were jampacked.

[6:46:57] double parked. And when we think about if

[6:46:59] somebody were to say I would encourage them to take metro or

[6:47:03] take a bike but somebody may say let me get an av to go to the

[6:47:07] ballgame. I don't know where the vehicle

[6:47:11] would pull over. As you think about managing and

[6:47:15] working with different stakeholders around the curbside

[6:47:18] space what are tips or advice you have for ddot to think about

[6:47:24] curbside management as a former ddot director? >> you can craft

[6:47:28] the most elegant solution but if you can't enforce it, doesn't

[6:47:34] exist. The challenge is the capacity of

[6:47:36] ddot to enforce regulations. We say the outcome goal is x.

[6:47:44] we want you to bring your technology, solutions to achieve

[6:47:48] that outcome and give room for solutions.

[6:47:53] over the many years I've been around ddot, this issue of

[6:47:58] enforcement has been a sticking point.

[6:48:02] we don't have the bodies, we don't have the coverage we need

[6:48:05] to protect a neighborhood or support the experience people

[6:48:08] want so I do think this is the type of idea where even as it

[6:48:11] relates to road charging or curbside enforcement, technology

[6:48:18] is a powerful multiplier and expander of the enforcement

[6:48:23] capability. That keeps people honest.

[6:48:25] if you know there are consequences and value attached

[6:48:29] with that choice you will factor it in verses, we all play the

[6:48:32] numbers. I think I can get down there and

[6:48:35] they may or may not enforce it. Chair allen: we have very

[6:48:42] specific rules about for-hire vehicles around the ballpark.

[6:48:50] should the same rules apply for any av operator that needs to

[6:48:53] align with department of for-hire vehicle rules around

[6:48:59] picking up and dropping off? >> I have a perspective on this.

[6:49:04] when we drafted the plan for nats park we identified places

[6:49:08] to drop off vehicles and bicycles to park at the stadium.

[6:49:12] we just don't enforce it. Chair allen: I do see some.

[6:49:16] >> consistently. Chair allen: I do see

[6:49:20] enforcement from time to time. >> consistently.

[6:49:24] if you know, you're a driver that ever tried the park in a

[6:49:28] dense urban environment to take the risk if you know there is

[6:49:32] certainty of the price being levied, you make a different

[6:49:35] decision. Chair allen: ms. Durkin, was

[6:49:39] going to ask you. Trying to follow your

[6:49:42] recommendation around, we should not have the reporting

[6:49:46] requirement around a crash or collision within eight hours

[6:49:49] because -- correct me if I did not follow you correctly,

[6:49:53] because there is a requirement, it would be redundant, did I

[6:49:56] hear that correctly? Ms. Durkin: correct.

[6:49:59] eight hours after a crash we believe that would be burdensome

[6:50:03] remember companies to get that information in.

[6:50:05] we would rather it be reported m totsa, and the bill follow that

[6:50:11] per the standing order. Chair allen: what is the

[6:50:14] timeline for that report? Ms. Durkin: I believe it is 24

[6:50:19] hours but I will have to get back to you.

[6:50:20] chair allen: does ntsa call up ddot and let them know about the

[6:50:26] report? Ms. Durkin: I will check on that

[6:50:28] process. Chair allen: wouldn't it be in

[6:50:31] my self-interest as a local government, to know about a

[6:50:36] crash or collision as soon as possible, and I don't entirely

[6:50:38] trust ntsa to contact local d.c. But we have a vested interest in

[6:50:44] knowing a crash or collision took place so we can look at how

[6:50:48] do you help align reporting. 24 hours feels too long from a

[6:50:55] local perspective. I'm also not sure if that is 24

[6:50:59] business hours were real hours. Ms. Durkin: I will find out the

[6:51:05] specifics and get back to you. Chair allen: from a local

[6:51:08] perspective we have a vested interest in knowing as quickly

[6:51:11] as possible if there is a crash or collision.

[6:51:13] if there are ways that type of reporting can align so we are

[6:51:16] not making operators go in different directions, I'm for

[6:51:20] it, but also don't want to sacrifice that we have things

[6:51:23] reported to the district if I don't know that federal dot and

[6:51:28] ntsa will come back to us. Ms. Durkin: we will take a look

[6:51:32] at it. Chair allen: thank you all for

[6:51:36] your testimony, appreciate it. Let's move to our next panel of

[6:51:39] witnesses. I've got theanc commissioner

[6:51:46] eric heller from anc 4c07 who is joining us online.

[6:51:54] samuel littauer. We had joe bishop-henchman but

[6:52:03] he said he is not able to make it.

[6:52:09] faith gibson hubbard, interim president and ceo of greater

[6:52:12] washington urban league. >> she is supposed to be online.

[6:52:17] chair allen: anwar saleem, executive director of h street

[6:52:24] main street. Aman george, public witness.

[6:52:30] rachelle nigro, who I do believe is online.

[6:52:35] so I will promote you online. Michael cohen, public witness.

[6:52:42] he is also online. Is greg rogers here, founder and

[6:52:52] executive director of the innovation majority?

[6:52:54] ok, online. Ms. Talitha washington, exec

[6:53:03] live director of the center for applied data science and in a

[6:53:04] lytic? Talitha, come on up.

[6:53:09] >> she is joining online, too. Chair allen: I might stop there.

[6:53:19] for this panel we have two witnesses in person, several

[6:53:25] online so commissioner eric heller I see you are online and

[6:53:29] ready to go so why don't I turn it over to you for your

[6:53:31] testimony. Thank you for joining us.

[6:53:35] mr. Heller: absolutely. Good afternoon chair allen and

[6:53:41] fellow councilmembers, think you for the opportunity to testify

[6:53:43] before the committee. My name is eric heller, I'm the

[6:53:48] anc commissioner for district anc 4c07.

[6:53:52] I'm pleased to testify on behalf of our anc 4c07 commission.

[6:53:57] I'm testifying in support of the autonomous vehicle deployment

[6:54:00] authorization act of 2026. This position is rooted in the

[6:54:06] underlying problem I think we should focus on solving which

[6:54:10] is, how do we reduce the number of deaths, injuries and acute

[6:54:18] injuries to moderate -- motorists and bicyclist.

[6:54:22] the pros and cons of autonomous vehicles follow from that

[6:54:26] framing. Every day around 8:00 a.m. Until

[6:54:30] 5:30 p.m. I watch hampshire avenue and quincy southwest

[6:54:36] becoming a game of chance, drivers going through when a

[6:54:40] cyclist is trying to curve, scooters jumping curbs.

[6:54:46] I reported this to ddot for almost four years and many

[6:54:50] neighbors have as well and this is just one anecdote that plays

[6:54:54] out across the district. Those human driven interactions

[6:54:58] are the most dangerous thing on that street, not autonomous

[6:55:02] vehicles. That said, at meetings my

[6:55:09] neighbors are not sold on driverless vehicle technology

[6:55:12] and their concerns deserve to be addressed and allayed.

[6:55:17] they point to other topics raised in this forum, vehicles

[6:55:21] disabled in a power outage, and when a machine fails around

[6:55:26] children, no press release will erase that fear.

[6:55:32] the mechanism, all of these concerns deserve responses in

[6:55:37] conversation, the mechanism that matters for kids and other

[6:55:39] vulnerable residents is, an autonomous vehicle, unlike

[6:55:45] humans, does not drink, text, speed through a yellow light, or

[6:55:49] get impatient about being late for work at a crosswalk.

[6:55:52] those are human behaviors that kill pedestrians, children and

[6:55:56] vulnerable residents every year. On the plus side, this bill

[6:56:02] introduces solid requirements around miles and testing,

[6:56:04] capping the fleet size, giving ddot a number of abilities to

[6:56:13] permit operators creating unreasonable risk and that is

[6:56:15] grounded in evidence-based oversight.

[6:56:21] recognizing different community members have different concerns

[6:56:24] and assumptions about driverless vehicles, I ask our neighbors

[6:56:28] and would ask anyone who wants to understand the capabilities

[6:56:31] and limitations of the technology to do one thing I've

[6:56:33] done. It was eye-opening, and that is

[6:56:37] riding one. This is by no way an

[6:56:40] endorsement. It is because you cannot judge

[6:56:43] these systems from a hearing room or social media.

[6:56:48] you don't grasp the problem or how these technologies handle

[6:56:52] these complex interactions on the streets, outside of

[6:56:55] real-world experience. Beyond autonomous vehicles,

[6:57:01] history is rife with these learnings from experienced,

[6:57:04] whether it is automated elevators, trusting route

[6:57:08] planning and google maps, automated train signaling.

[6:57:11] the trust and automation comes from direct experience.

[6:57:15] this think said, the bill has room for improvement.

[6:57:20] what our commission would ask his five specific provisions to

[6:57:24] be added. First, at real-time

[6:57:26] transparency. While the bill makes them report

[6:57:31] crashes and disabling events the ddot, require that it is made

[6:57:35] public, spatially mapped, so they concert -- search of the

[6:57:40] data, available to the public the moment it reaches the

[6:57:43] agency. Second, an automatic standdown,

[6:57:47] any crash triggers immediate suspension for no shorter than

[6:57:51] 30 days pending full investigation.

[6:57:54] third is public findings. Make sure findings of

[6:57:57] investigations are released to the public, not distilled into a

[6:58:01] press release after the cars are back on the road.

[6:58:04] fourth, protect civil liberties. We recognize each vehicle has a

[6:58:08] robot camera and its footage can be subpoenaed and residents

[6:58:11] deserve to know when that happens.

[6:58:15] we recommend requiring each operator to publish an

[6:58:17] aggregated monthly report of all law enforcement requests for

[6:58:20] footage data, regardless of the agency that is outsourced from.

[6:58:26] fifth and final is funding the agency to do the work.

[6:58:29] this bill hands ddot a ton of responsibilities, they are

[6:58:33] already on a tight budget. Oversight not appropriately

[6:58:37] staffed becomes oversight in name only.

[6:58:41] it should not become the operators at the publix risk.

[6:58:44] I recognize I'm over my time. Thank you, happy to answer any

[6:58:48] questions you have. Chair allen: thank you,

[6:58:51] commissioner. Next let me turn to faith gibson

[6:58:55] hubbard who is also joining us online.

[6:58:58] ms. Hubbard: good afternoon, chairperson allen, members of

[6:59:04] the committee and staff. It is my pleasure to testify

[6:59:08] virtually on behalf of the greater washington urban league.

[6:59:12] my name is dr. Faith gibson hubbard and I serve as interim

[6:59:15] president and ceo. For almost 90 years the greater

[6:59:18] washington urban league has worked to advance mobility,

[6:59:22] strengthen families and expand opportunity and address racial

[6:59:25] and economic disparities across the district of columbia and

[6:59:27] this region. Every day through our community

[6:59:30] cares model we strengthen financial empowerment, workforce

[6:59:34] development, entrepreneurship, housing.

[6:59:36] we see residents working to build stability and a better

[6:59:39] future for themselves and their families.

[6:59:43] we know how critical transportation can be to a

[6:59:45] family or a resident's ability to access opportunity throughout

[6:59:50] the city and region. That is why this legislation is

[6:59:53] so important to us. For us it is not simply the lens

[6:59:57] of policy itself, but around whether or not this policy will

[7:00:03] expand economic opportunity and strengthen pathways to

[7:00:06] opportunity for those who have been furthest from opportunity

[7:00:09] for so long. That is the way we see this

[7:00:14] legislation. We believe autonomous vehicle

[7:00:19] technology has tremendous potential in the city and while

[7:00:22] it can be thoughtfully implemented and strengthen

[7:00:24] transit it has to also create greater opportunity, access jobs

[7:00:28] and meaningful investments in the district and that is what we

[7:00:32] care most about.

[7:00:36] that is why the question before us is whether or not the

[7:00:40] question comes before us. The question is will the benefit

[7:00:42] broadly be shared in and many times, it is not.

[7:00:45] as someone who lives in part of the city where metro is not

[7:00:49] easily accessible, and as a parent of a child who takes

[7:00:53] public transit to and from school every day and summer

[7:00:57] camp, I understand how important reliable transportation can be.

[7:01:00] especially for residents like me where transportation is not a

[7:01:06] meter of convenience, but it's a different of accessing

[7:01:09] opportunity. So for this legislation, we are

[7:01:12] very interested in how autonomous vehicles strengthen

[7:01:15] the first and last mile connections for residents.

[7:01:18] how will it improve access to jobs and serve as a compliment

[7:01:25] to public transit, rather than replacing it.

[7:01:30] reporting that we have seen have shown how it can strengthen the

[7:01:35] local hiring and partnerships with many of the programs we

[7:01:37] love and enjoy. A district resident should not

[7:01:41] be simply a rider in the economy.

[7:01:43] but we should be able to maintain it, build it, manage it

[7:01:47] and benefit from it in all the ways.

[7:01:49] that is why at gwul, we believe that career pathways, local

[7:01:54] hiring and apen trisship opportunities have to be central

[7:02:00] to the conversation. While the overall direction of

[7:02:02] the legislation is something that we are excited about, we

[7:02:10] believe that there are three important changes that we hope

[7:02:11] that the committee will continue to look at.

[7:02:16] first, to adopt an equitable approach and residents who rely

[7:02:22] on ride-sharing services to access jobs, child care, grocery

[7:02:26] stores and other essentials. Second, to replace the wait cap

[7:02:31] with a performance-based model tied with safety, service and

[7:02:36] equity outcome so that residents can have reliable access, and

[7:02:42] third, that it's more explicit -- that it's more of a

[7:02:49] hybrid transportation through networks, while supporting work

[7:02:53] force continuity and easterning opportunities for drivers for

[7:02:58] other ride hailing services. Finally, reencourage strong

[7:03:04] accountability manages, wait times and local hiring, work

[7:03:09] force participate, and equitable hiring across the district.

[7:03:13] we look forward to the success of the legislation measured by

[7:03:17] how many vehicles are on the street, but also the opportunity

[7:03:21] and pathways it creates for driktd residents.

[7:03:24] we know the technology cannot create an opportunity.

[7:03:27] but that intentional policy does.

[7:03:29] and many times, we have policy that starts intentional and

[7:03:33] moves in a different direction. I have submitted detailed

[7:03:37] testimony for the record and respectfully ask to continue to

[7:03:40] be a part of the conversation, like many of the others who have

[7:03:44] testified here today. Again, thank you so much for the

[7:03:46] opportunity, and I welcome any questions you might have.

[7:03:48] >> excellent. Thank you very much.

[7:03:50] next, we turn to anwar saleem who is here in person.

[7:03:57] sorry, mr. Saleem. Can you push the button.

[7:04:00] >> good afternoon, chairman allen and members of the

[7:04:03] committee. My name is anwar saleem, and I'm

[7:04:09] exk executive director of h street

[7:04:11] main street. And a former transportation

[7:04:16] professional with moda. Thank you for the opportunity to

[7:04:19] testify today on bill 26-684. I have submitted my written

[7:04:26] testimony for the record. This evening, I would like to

[7:04:29] briefly highlight what I believe are the four principles that

[7:04:33] should guide the district for autonomous vehicles.

[7:04:37] safety, access, opportunity and equity.

[7:04:41] for safety, publy confidence is essential.

[7:04:44] residents need to know that av vehicles safely operate along

[7:04:51] pedestrians, children, and people are disabilities.

[7:04:54] public trust will often determine whether this

[7:05:00] technology succeeds. Secondly is access.

[7:05:01] transportation is connecting people to opportunity.

[7:05:04] it connects people to jobs, and they work in the computers.

[7:05:10] and as director of main street, I see it connects with the local

[7:05:20] businesses, and how they spend time in the local districts.

[7:05:24] I don't see and it provides a safe transportation option.

[7:05:43] particularly during evenings and special events.

[7:05:45] I also believe that there is an exciting opportunity for

[7:05:49] thoughtful public private partnerships to introduce people

[7:05:56] to autonomous mobility, and encouraging them to discover

[7:05:58] neighbors like minnesota avenue, and colleges like georgetown and

[7:06:05] more. It should be more than a way to

[7:06:06] get somewhere. It should connect people to

[7:06:10] businesses, restaurants and entrepreneurs that make

[7:06:15] neighborhoods unique. Third, opportunity.

[7:06:18] before leading h street main street, I began as a bus

[7:06:24] cleaner, and a deezal mechanic. It taught me that transportation

[7:06:29] systems don't just move people. They create careers.

[7:06:31] when I recently toured the operations, I saw many

[7:06:36] opportunities reflected in modern transportation.

[7:06:40] from fleet operations, maintenance, technology, lodge

[7:06:44] igsices, facility, safety and technology again.

[7:06:50] through h street main street, we pay approximately 100 interns

[7:06:56] each year to work for the programs to expose them to

[7:07:04] artificial intelligence, and I believe the district has an

[7:07:06] opportunity to connect the young people to careers supporting

[7:07:10] future mobility. Finally, equity.

[7:07:13] one of the most important things is it emphasizes on comparable

[7:07:21] rate times. Innovation should not be limited

[7:07:24] to a few neighborhoods. Every resident should have an

[7:07:28] opportunity to get options regardless of where they live.

[7:07:32] chairman, throughout my career, I have learned to every major

[7:07:36] transportation investment has a power to shape communities.

[7:07:39] my hope is that autonomous mobility will do more than move

[7:07:43] people. It will expand opportunity,

[7:07:46] strengthen neighborhood quarters and help prepare the next

[7:07:50] generation of washingtonians. The future should not arrive in

[7:07:59] washington. It should create opportunities

[7:08:01] to participate in building it. As often said, I will say I many

[7:08:06] times, it isn't about moving vehicles.

[7:08:08] it's about moving communities forward.

[7:08:11] thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

[7:08:14] >> thank you very much. Next, let me turn to aman george

[7:08:17] who is joining us online. >> hi.

[7:08:20] thank you, chairman allen. My name is aman george.

[7:08:24] I'm a former neighborhood advisory commissioner.

[7:08:28] I'm a frequent driver, bicyclist and pedestrian in the city.

[7:08:33] and the father of two young children who get to and from

[7:08:38] school and daycare by bike most days.

[7:08:40] like many people, I'm hopeful that av adoption will make the

[7:08:47] streets less chaotic and dangerous.

[7:08:49] but, I believe that as a district begins to welcome avs

[7:08:53] on the streets to operate at scale, it needs to exercise

[7:08:58] tighter control of the companies.

[7:09:00] once the companies are operating in the district, it's going to

[7:09:03] be very difficult to adjust to be more strict, even when they

[7:09:08] are demonstrating to do so. I'm concerned that a huge amount

[7:09:12] of training experience found in the vehicles come from places

[7:09:17] that are more centric where cars are allowed to dominate the

[7:09:22] roads where they don't have to share the space.

[7:09:25] and what works on an arizona road may not on our street.

[7:09:31] waymo effectively acknowledged this morning, it programs the

[7:09:36] vehicles to block bike lanes to prioritize the expoorerience of

[7:09:43] waymo customers. Er don't think they should be

[7:09:45] allowed to pick and choose which laws to follow, when they are

[7:09:50] choosing not to follow the rules.

[7:09:53] if av companies are given the flexibility over safety, a lot

[7:09:58] of the safety improvements may not come to pass.

[7:10:01] I think the act is not as strong as it should be, and prohibiting

[7:10:08] the local traffic and parking laws, and I would like to see it

[7:10:11] changed before I support the bill.

[7:10:14] some provisions which could require av companies to disclose

[7:10:23] the conditions they chose to violate the parking laws and

[7:10:27] keep the city updated when that changes.

[7:10:29] another place to make modifications is 3a2f, not to

[7:10:37] make effort to idle in the travel lane.

[7:10:39] I prer fehr to see stronger language prohibiting them to

[7:10:44] stop in bike lanes or crosswalks, or if necessary, to

[7:10:49] serve customers with mobility impairments.

[7:10:52] I lould like to see enforcement efforts have to content against

[7:10:57] the biggest companies on the planet lobbying against them.

[7:11:01] transportation will look different in d.c. When they have

[7:11:05] to fight against google rather than a civic association.

[7:11:10] leaving enforcement totally up to lower agencies creates

[7:11:16] vulnerability for the regulatory scheme.

[7:11:18] the council should allow private citizens to seek relief locally

[7:11:25] for the violations. Thanks.

[7:11:28] >> thank you very much. Next, let me turn to rachelle

[7:11:35] nigro. Good afternoon.

[7:11:36] >> good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to

[7:11:39] testify. My name is rachelle nigro, and

[7:11:44] I'm speaking as a resident of washington, d.c., not as a

[7:11:48] commissioner. I'm here today to support

[7:11:51] autonomous vehicle amendsment act of 2026.

[7:11:53] this bill finally moves the district from years on of a

[7:11:56] stalled pilot program and to real, regulated frame work that

[7:12:02] prioritizes safety, transparency and accountability.

[7:12:05] the bill's introduction notes that autonomous vehicles present

[7:12:09] an opportunity to improve traffic safety, and proponents

[7:12:13] claim it's safer than the average human driver.

[7:12:16] national data backs this up. Autonomous systems have a lower

[7:12:21] crash rate per mile in dense urban environments where

[7:12:24] distraction and human error dominate collisions.

[7:12:26] I also want to speak from personal experience.

[7:12:29] I own a tesla equipped with full self-driving super vised.

[7:12:34] while it's not the same as a level four or level 5 autonomous

[7:12:40] vehicle, it is part of the same family.

[7:12:42] it is level 2, and I share my data with tesla.

[7:12:46] the car drives daily in the district, including new york

[7:12:50] avenue, 395, 295, and areas like navy yard with many pedestrians.

[7:12:59] it is rare that I need to disengage.

[7:13:02] the system handles lane centering, turns and complex

[7:13:08] intersections with a sifrp lmpl outperms many human drivers.

[7:13:17] all qualified companies, includes tesla, should have an

[7:13:20] opportunity to deploy vehicles in the district, provided they

[7:13:25] meet safety reporting and requirements in the legislation.

[7:13:28] the truth is, d.c. Is falling behind.

[7:13:31] cities like phoenix, san francisco, los angeles and las

[7:13:35] vegas already have commercial autonomous vehicle service

[7:13:41] operating. I'm headed to las vegas soon,

[7:13:44] and will not he has ssitate to there.

[7:13:49] d.c. Should be a leidner this, not a lagger.

[7:13:53] the bill's guardrail's 250,000 miles of safe testing in d.c.,

[7:13:58] first respondser interaction plans, and live coverage, and

[7:14:02] strict quarterly reporting are the strongest in the country.

[7:14:07] in short, this legislation is a safety first, accountability

[7:14:10] first frame work that positions d.c. To finally enter the 21st

[7:14:17] century. Autonomous vehicles can make the

[7:14:20] roads safer and more predictable.

[7:14:21] I have been on the hearing since 9:00 a.m., and I can tell you

[7:14:25] the avs will save lives. I use it every day, and it is --

[7:14:33] the bike lanes, tesla, what I use, it follows the rules of the

[7:14:38] road. Thank you very much.

[7:14:42] >> thank you very much. Miss nigro.

[7:14:46] let's go to michael kcohen who s joining us online.

[7:14:50] >> my name is michael cohen and I'm a d.c. Parent, and the

[7:14:58] commissioner -- in which oversees parts of manor park,

[7:15:02] and tacoma. I'm testifying in my personal

[7:15:08] capacity in the amendsment act of 2026.

[7:15:11] and again, just testifying in my own capacity.

[7:15:18] last night, imcame in contact with ha car accident.

[7:15:21] a driver crossed the double yellow to pass an oncoming

[7:15:26] vehicle off the road enter on a neighbor's property.

[7:15:30] inside the car was a parent and several children.

[7:15:34] no one was hurt, but that is by luck.

[7:15:37] no was was on the sidewalk, no one was walking a dog or pushing

[7:15:42] a stroller. And a fence stopped the car

[7:15:44] before it reached the neighbor's living room.

[7:15:47] I walk that sidewalk every day. We shouldn't have to rely on

[7:15:50] luck when it comes to safety. I want to be clear.

[7:15:53] I support the bill. I want to see autonomous

[7:15:57] vehicles in the district. And they don't cross a double

[7:16:02] yellow line, and it's not replying to a text message.

[7:16:06] but communities have to have a voice when it comes to feign

[7:16:09] structure, and it doesn't abstract from me, and the road

[7:16:17] is on contract for a bike share. And workers coming to me abouts

[7:16:21] the conditions they work in. And neighbors come to me about

[7:16:26] employee behavior in the blocks, enough that neighbors have

[7:16:30] called the police. I have raised the concerns to

[7:16:35] every channel. My point is that this isn't a

[7:16:41] company behaving badly. When the residents call the

[7:16:44] alarm, there is no reaction. Not that anyone responds.

[7:16:48] that is a design problem, and something that the committee can

[7:16:51] fix before the first av facility opens here in the district.

[7:16:56] so I -- first act, I'm hoping the committee will -- public

[7:17:01] comment on permitting the decisions regarding av

[7:17:06] infrastructure, charging sites and maintenance facilities.

[7:17:09] seconds, I would love to see the bill give notice before a

[7:17:14] facility, is sited in a neighborhood.

[7:17:16] where the people -- the constituents call first, so let

[7:17:20] us be useful in the front end, instead of cleeaning up the bac

[7:17:26] end. And let's hold ddot accountable

[7:17:30] and instead of giving authority. My neighbors know what the

[7:17:33] agency is going to keep them safe.

[7:17:36] the bill seems to hold companies to a high standard when it comes

[7:17:40] to reporting. Shut do the same for ddot, the

[7:17:44] agency overseeing themg. Thank you again for the time.

[7:17:47] and happy to answer any questions.

[7:17:49] >> thank you very much, sir. Next, greg rogers.

[7:17:54] >> excellent, thank you very much.

[7:17:57] chair personnel and members of the committee on transportation

[7:18:00] and the environment. I really appreciate you holding

[7:18:03] today's hearing on the topic. My name is greg rogers, the

[7:18:08] founder and executive director of the innovation majority, to

[7:18:12] fights to ensure that technology tangibly improves life in

[7:18:16] communities. I spent over a decade in

[7:18:20] transportation policy on the hill, in think tanks, in policy

[7:18:22] groups at waymo and neuro, and even a former ride share driver.

[7:18:27] so I have firsthand experience the challenges of providing

[7:18:30] rides on the streets and look, I will say it plainly.

[7:18:34] this is the most robust and rigorous aen to mouse vehicle

[7:18:38] bill I have seen in the past decade at the local, state --

[7:18:42] local or state levels. It is absolutely the most

[7:18:45] ambitious in terms on of addressing terms of safety,

[7:18:49] sustainability, issues of equity, and issues of investing

[7:18:53] in the work force and investing in the local economy.

[7:18:56] I do want to name what makes the zeh bait so hard.

[7:19:00] chair allen, people tend to be on one side of the other.

[7:19:06] and after my time in the industry, I think of autonomous

[7:19:10] vehicles as the policy version of the inkblot test.

[7:19:13] people look and see one of two things.

[7:19:15] they see their hopes on accounts of being realized on safer

[7:19:20] streets and independence for neighbors.

[7:19:22] or they see every fear in frustration with the

[7:19:26] transportation system and the politics and the economy as it

[7:19:28] exists today. And it's put on one technology.

[7:19:31] but the reality is going to work is somewhere in between.

[7:19:36] and the policy choices we make today and throughout the year,

[7:19:40] hopefully if the bill is passed, it's going to shape the future

[7:19:45] of the technology, and if we want to steer towards the

[7:19:48] benefits instead of the fears, we have to focus on the

[7:19:52] regulation and simple policymaking, rather than

[7:19:56] getting dragged in to the what ifs, when the status quo is

[7:20:01] koszing us more in terms of lives lost, and people who can't

[7:20:07] access jobs today, and of course, we're looking at how we

[7:20:17] connect the economy in the challenging economy for all of

[7:20:20] us. I do want to say I was honestly

[7:20:26] puzzled to hear testimony today, to see if it reduces road

[7:20:30] safety. It is exactly the opposite.

[7:20:41] it gives them hours to take action.

[7:20:43] and when I look at avs, I know if they are going to be safer.

[7:20:47] because avs are going to help to reduce the distracted, reckless

[7:20:52] drivers who I have to keep safe every single day, and day to

[7:20:57] day, based on hundreds of millions of mieles, it shows thy

[7:21:01] will continue to get better. I want to say, I know there are

[7:21:05] doubts so let's walk through a few mechanisms.

[7:21:11] pressure points. When a human driver crashes, we

[7:21:16] might get a police report at best.

[7:21:18] but an economy with an av permit would have to submit at crash

[7:21:24] report every quarter to operate in the district.

[7:21:26] number two, insurance coverage. A human driver is required to

[7:21:30] carry about $25,000 of bodily injury coverage.

[7:21:35] this bill requires them to cover $5 million of coverage.

[7:21:41] that is 200 times more than people driving in d.c.

[7:21:44] and unsafe behavior. Our region has one of the

[7:21:49] highest rates of hit and run crashes in the region.

[7:21:54] and most actually involve a hit and run according to a recent

[7:21:58] aaa report. One of the tragedies occurred at

[7:22:02] 3:00 a.m. This morning. A human driver hit and killed a

[7:22:07] person. And hit and run.

[7:22:09] and they are searching for the driver.

[7:22:10] this bill has a process and the oversight authority for

[7:22:16] behaviors and respond to incidents and the authority to

[7:22:24] suspend and revoke a permit. And I wish to share more of my

[7:22:30] thoughts on the written testimony of my thoughts.

[7:22:33] but the structure of a tmc with all the drivers, we are

[7:22:39] optimizing for the economics of the vehicles, completely

[7:22:42] different story. We have a few recommendations

[7:22:47] for improvements we will send over.

[7:22:49] but I want to thank you for your work on the issue, and the

[7:22:53] ambitious scope of the bill and moving this discussion forward.

[7:22:57] thank you. >> thank you very much.

[7:23:02] and then, last -- talitha washington here in person.

[7:23:07] >> chairman allen and members of the committee, thank you for the

[7:23:10] opportunity to provide testimony on the autonomous vehicle act of

[7:23:18] 2026. My name is talitha washington,

[7:23:25] and I co-chair the president's advisory council.

[7:23:30] my testimony is offered for information and educational

[7:23:32] purposes. I am not appearing as an

[7:23:36] advocate for or against the legislation, nor after I

[7:23:42] presents on behalf of howard university.

[7:23:43] rather, I hope to share my perspective as the district

[7:23:47] considers the next face of autonomous vehicle activity.

[7:23:50] the question before us is larger than whether a vehicle can drive

[7:23:55] itself. It is how emerging technologies

[7:24:02] can be understood and evaluated. I would like to highlight

[7:24:10] research, data. First, research can help us

[7:24:14] understand how autonomous vehicles operate in a complex

[7:24:18] environment. Howard university has promoted

[7:24:21] safety. A tier 1 university

[7:24:24] transportation center supported by the u.s. Department of

[7:24:27] transportation. Through this work, howard

[7:24:29] researchers studied transportation safety, human

[7:24:34] machine interaction, travel behavior, demand modeling and

[7:24:38] human systems. This reenfoinforces an importan

[7:24:44] point. They involve human behavior,

[7:24:49] infrastructure, accessibility, public safety and trust.

[7:24:51] questions involves construction zones, changing roadway

[7:24:56] conditions, communication with remote operators and

[7:25:00] interactions with pedestrians and cycles will require

[7:25:05] continued evaluation. Second, data can support

[7:25:08] evidence-based decisionmaking. With aproempropriate privacy, a

[7:25:19] protections, it may be examined with crash records, land use

[7:25:22] information, and demographic information and community input.

[7:25:24] it may provide greater insight in safety, mobility,

[7:25:29] accessibility and operational outcomes across different

[7:25:33] neighborhoods and population. Third, autonomous vehicles

[7:25:37] create opportunities to strengthen the work force.

[7:25:39] this emerging ecosystem will require expertise across

[7:25:48] mathematics, artificial intelligence, transportation,

[7:25:50] the social and behavioral sciences and public policy.

[7:25:54] as transportation becomes increasin

[7:25:59] increasingly connected, automated and data driven, the

[7:26:02] work force and future generations of professionals

[7:26:05] will need to understand not only how they function but how they

[7:26:09] affect the communities where people live, work, learn and

[7:26:12] travel. In closing, I'm not here to

[7:26:15] recommend a particular policy outcome.

[7:26:18] rather, I hope to provide connection to may inform future

[7:26:22] discussions. The district is long a place for

[7:26:27] ink innovation, public safety, and

[7:26:29] knowledge to come together to address complex challenges.

[7:26:31] the future of transportation will be shape bid advances in

[7:26:35] technology and also our ability to understand the advances,

[7:26:39] prepare people to work alongside them and use evidence to inform

[7:26:44] decisions. As the technologies continue to

[7:26:46] evolve, our shared goals should be to ensure that technological

[7:26:53] progress translates to safer streets, greater opportunities

[7:26:59] and more access for all residents.

[7:27:01] thank you for the opportunity to testify.

[7:27:04] >> thank you. Thanks to everybody on the

[7:27:05] panel. I have a few questions.

[7:27:10] mr. Saleem and faith gibson hubbard, both of you talked and

[7:27:14] jobs. And I think it's -- we talked

[7:27:17] about this a lot today. There is economic opportunity

[7:27:22] that is an option here. That will be jobs that do get

[7:27:26] created. And I also said, it will be a

[7:27:28] disrupter in the work force, and there will be other jobs that

[7:27:31] people have today that will be impacted.

[7:27:33] we heard earlier from folks that are in drive-sharing space right

[7:27:38] now who are opposed to this. They are concerned what it means

[7:27:42] for their jobs. Both of you are people who work

[7:27:45] hard and are thoughtful for the work force development in job

[7:27:50] creation. In what ways are you looking

[7:27:53] about the disruptive effect or the loss or change in jobs that

[7:27:56] people will have and some of the strategies we take to help

[7:28:01] people, either from a work force training or other ways to help

[7:28:06] support working folks who very likely will have an impact, if

[7:28:10] they have in this driving space. >> you know, I listened to

[7:28:14] earlier testimony where a young lady spoke about -- she is a

[7:28:18] young -- in security, and she was working part time job.

[7:28:21] and if you look at what waymo have done and a good example, in

[7:28:30] atlanta. Which my granddaughter is in

[7:28:33] school in phoenix. They are taking uber drivers and

[7:28:36] giving them full-time jobs. That is really reasonable, where

[7:28:39] they don't have to work two jobs.

[7:28:41] they pay them a decent salary. And the same thing with -- if

[7:28:44] you look at d.c. For a good example, folks who may not have

[7:28:52] jobs may not have a skill set to a certain degree, just like with

[7:28:57] metro, when I first started. You could go in there with

[7:29:01] maintenance and you have the ability to work your way up

[7:29:05] without going to school. And I think waymo will provide

[7:29:10] the studenopportunities. You can end up in customer

[7:29:14] support, and fleet maintenance, and next thing you know, you are

[7:29:17] a technician, and waymo pays you a decent salary.

[7:29:22] a real good salary. When I first started, it was a

[7:29:25] low level salary as a cleaner. And I left there, and I was a

[7:29:31] lead mechanic leading inspections and providing a good

[7:29:36] platform by my house at an early age.

[7:29:38] and I think the same opportunity will afford other people the

[7:29:41] same opportunity. >> thank you.

[7:29:45] miss gibson hubbard. >> yeah, thank you so much for

[7:29:48] the question. I was looking this weekend and I

[7:29:51] did get a chance to be in a waymo.

[7:29:55] and it is quite the experience. I think about jobs.

[7:29:58] I want to make sure that we're not just talking about the jobs

[7:30:02] that are on the lower end of the spectrum that will make it

[7:30:06] harder for district residents to stay in the district of

[7:30:10] columbia, but the spectrum around -- again, like I said,

[7:30:16] the building, the maintaining, the deployments, the technology

[7:30:21] of it all. And someone who has a middle

[7:30:26] school- school-aged child, they are

[7:30:28] talking about areas of interest in technology.

[7:30:31] and so thinking about how to partner with public schools with

[7:30:37] emerging areas of industry. And adult public charter schools

[7:30:41] that can help residents be ready for the jobs that are available.

[7:30:46] and a highlight in my testimony, around parameters ensuring there

[7:30:51] is local hiring and training for folks to be ready with jobs.

[7:30:54] we have done things with abr appren

[7:31:01] apprenticeship, and investment council, and the greater

[7:31:04] washington urban league. We have programs here with

[7:31:09] entrepreneurship and other career pathways that we would

[7:31:11] like to be a part of those experiences in making sure that

[7:31:15] district residents are ready for the jobs and the contractual

[7:31:21] opportunities. It's not just folks coming here

[7:31:25] and opportunity. But we are building and

[7:31:29] creating. And youth employment program,

[7:31:30] organizations like the greater washington urban league.

[7:31:33] the public charter schools for adults and many, many others

[7:31:36] will help us ensure that the opportunities are really focused

[7:31:39] on washingtonians, and those who have been not as close to the

[7:31:44] opportunity. I do think that this, as mr.

[7:31:49] saleem just mentioned, I think it will provide great

[7:31:53] opportunities for those who have been just drivers for other

[7:31:55] opportunities for them to expand their careers.

[7:31:57] but I think again, making sure they are partnering with

[7:32:01] organizations that can help them to be thoughtful about the work

[7:32:06] force creation, and making should you it's good for

[7:32:10] district residents. >> thank you very much for that.

[7:32:12] I appreciate it. Let me turn to amman george.

[7:32:19] I appreciate your testimony. And you talked about ways to

[7:32:22] strengthen legislation to make it stronger for traffic safety.

[7:32:27] earlier today, I had waymo representatives and tesla here,

[7:32:33] I asked two of the questions. If it's an anton mutonomous veh

[7:32:43] you can set it to not exceed the speed limit, correct?

[7:32:46] and waymo said yes. I was startled that tesla said,

[7:32:50] unless the flow of traffic have going faster.

[7:32:54] that shouldn't count. You should set the speed limit.

[7:32:57] I also asked about the bike infrastructure.

[7:32:59] can you set it to make sure it does not go in at like lane?

[7:33:04] and waymo said, correct, it will no go in a bike lane.

[7:33:08] so there are ways we can make it clear that -- I think that is an

[7:33:14] important part of managing our roadway in a way that -- as we

[7:33:18] had the conversation earlier today.

[7:33:19] it feels like it was ten hours ago.

[7:33:21] but we're not looking for somewhere to be safer than the

[7:33:24] worst driver. That is a low bar.

[7:33:27] this has to be safer than the safest driver, and that accident

[7:33:30] our expectation. I think you laid out specific

[7:33:36] rec recommendations which I

[7:33:38] appreciated. >> I am saying, that is what --

[7:33:46] not block the bike lanes. But rather, they are excited to

[7:33:50] continue the conversation about curb side access, which is not

[7:33:53] an answer to that question. But I think, you know, if

[7:33:57] they're willing to make that -- make those sorts of commitments,

[7:34:01] I think you're right. Our goal should be that the cars

[7:34:06] are rigorously rule following, and if the rules need to change,

[7:34:11] that is a question for the council, and not for the

[7:34:14] companies to take upon themse

[7:34:17] themselves by programming the cars to comply with the laws

[7:34:23] they like and not with the laws they don't.

[7:34:25] and the ways to strengthen the bill, I suggested a few where I

[7:34:30] think that language could be a little more explicit and clear.

[7:34:33] I think it would be worth, like I said, having part of the

[7:34:37] licensing process to involve the companies proactively disclosing

[7:34:44] the situations where the cars are programmed not to follow

[7:34:49] existing traffic rules. I think that is not part of the

[7:34:52] application, but I think that is a reasonable ask from this city,

[7:34:55] and any others that is considering licensing the

[7:34:59] companies. To the extent that there can be

[7:35:04] enforceable mechanisms to allow private citizens to allow them

[7:35:08] to go straight to court when the companies are regularly

[7:35:13] violating the traffic laws, rather than leaving it to what

[7:35:17] seems to be a multi-step administrative process.

[7:35:20] that would be helpful. I really do fear a world in

[7:35:27] which our regulators can be captured by the biggest

[7:35:32] companies in the world. >> I will say, at least in the

[7:35:34] room, I heard it differently in the conversation around

[7:35:37] programming it not -- you know, having the program not be such

[7:35:43] that it is going to pick and choose the rules to follow.

[7:35:45] and I specifically asked about blocking a bike lane.

[7:35:48] I think what we talked and, I had a conversation earlier about

[7:35:53] how do you distinguish between the precise language around not

[7:35:58] exceeding the speed limit, not parking in a bike lane.

[7:36:01] but the same time, in the same way that I expect the uber of

[7:36:07] lyft driver to double park in front of my home when I'm

[7:36:10] getting in and out. There is a reasonable stan sdar

[7:36:14] there. And finding the lane between the

[7:36:18] precision, and what most passengers expect that you will

[7:36:21] going to pick up and drop off in front of my house and double

[7:36:24] park for a moment. But certainly something we will

[7:36:27] go back to. I don't want to have a system

[7:36:30] that is -- maybe we are following the laws today.

[7:36:32] and maybe we're not. That is the promise of this.

[7:36:36] that it can be safe. We will follow up on that.

[7:36:40] miss nigro, you scared me when you talked about how you have

[7:36:44] your tesla drive you around town.

[7:36:49] we had an interesting conversation today.

[7:36:51] tesla will offer you something that they say is level 2, but in

[7:36:57] reality, it's level 3. If you are driving around -- we

[7:37:00] will follow up later. If you have your tesla driving

[7:37:06] you around tuown making turns, e will follow up.

[7:37:13] >> me and the hundreds of other people that are using it in the

[7:37:16] city. >> yeah f you are doing it

[7:37:17] illegally, I don't think you are intending to.

[7:37:20] let's not get in ourselves in trouble here in the hearing.

[7:37:24] >> they told me that is the level 2.

[7:37:26] >> that is the trick. They like to tell people what a

[7:37:29] level 2 is, but in fact you are going to level 3.

[7:37:33] we are going to make sure we are not going to get new trouble

[7:37:36] here. But I appreciate your support

[7:37:38] for the overall legislation. And I think you're overall point

[7:37:43] you are trying to make, you have confidence in a safe experience.

[7:37:45] and you see that safety kind of as one of the big driving

[7:37:51] factors here. >> it is my number one point.

[7:37:54] from my perspective, I use it every day in the city.

[7:37:57] and I also use it up and down the east coast and in new york

[7:38:01] city where there is even more pedestrians.

[7:38:04] so it is impressive. It updates continuously.

[7:38:10] all the time, frankly. I have to be honest with you.

[7:38:15] and there's not a hesitation with me because I would not put

[7:38:19] myself or any of my passengers in jeopardy.

[7:38:23] so I use the phrase very pro ped december d

[7:38:34] -- pedestrian. I will stop on a dime when

[7:38:36] someone steps in a crosswalk. >> I appreciate you sharing your

[7:38:41] hypothetical level 3 operations up and down the east coast.

[7:38:44] we will follow up afterwards too.

[7:38:49] I want to -- let's see, michael cohen.

[7:38:51] can you say more? I think you mentioned you were

[7:38:54] recommending more public comment.

[7:38:56] and I want to make sure you understood which section -- you

[7:39:00] think we should have more public comment.

[7:39:02] and you talked about having the ancs being notified about a

[7:39:10] facility cited. Maybe -- say a little more about

[7:39:12] what you mean by that. >> yeah, I mean, I think one of

[7:39:15] the challenges I have seen -- and I'm relating this to a lyft

[7:39:22] motivated location that is in my single-member district.

[7:39:25] but there's not really a lot -- there's not really a good

[7:39:29] mechanism in order to report or place concerns under concerns --

[7:39:36] you know, ddot has been responsive, but there's in a

[7:39:40] good way for residents to report -- this is -- charging

[7:39:49] the maintenance depots and that sort of thing.

[7:39:51] I think there is an opportunity to get things right when it

[7:39:54] comes to -- when it comes to putting this -- the locations in

[7:39:58] the district. So that is really what I'm

[7:40:00] looking for. An opportunity for the

[7:40:03] residents, and ancs to be able to say, hey, something's off at

[7:40:07] this charging station or something is off.

[7:40:10] I witnessed poor business practices, whatever.

[7:40:13] I want to report that to ddot. I want to report to the city of

[7:40:18] having a mechanism to do that. It's really what I'm after.

[7:40:21] >> got it. Okay.

[7:40:23] happy to follow-up more on that too.

[7:40:25] I guess, trying to strike the right balance, between what do

[7:40:30] we put -- I don't think an anc -- I love my ancs.

[7:40:34] I don't think it's an approval process for citing.

[7:40:38] that would have me concerned we may never get to a decision.

[7:40:42] but at the same time, making sure you, neighbors, others, if

[7:40:50] you are seeing something that is not correct, that there is a

[7:40:53] clear outlet for that. Maybe we can follow up after to

[7:40:58] big deeper in that. And mr. Rogers, I appreciate

[7:41:01] your testimony. I take it as a compliment.

[7:41:10] briefly, are there any specific weaknesses in the legislation

[7:41:13] that you think need though be addressed or other things that

[7:41:16] are highlighted throughout the day that you need to make sure

[7:41:19] they can continuing to get attention?

[7:41:21] >> well, thank you, mr. Chairman.

[7:41:23] I do think that it is certainly an example of an excellent bill.

[7:41:28] the fact is the bill -- say more, say more.

[7:41:32] >> what's that? >> you are giving me a

[7:41:36] compliment. I was saying, say more.

[7:41:38] well, the fact of the matter is that back in 2016, 2017, I was

[7:41:43] in a think tank that wrote some of the first recommendations on

[7:41:49] the local and state and federal level.

[7:41:52] and a lot of the things were given nine, ten years ago that

[7:41:58] legislature picked up and put in a package.

[7:42:01] looking at worker transition fund, and acknowledging the fact

[7:42:04] of the matter is, it's going to take a long time for there to be

[7:42:08] any displacement from the technology.

[7:42:11] these things happen over the course of many, many, many years

[7:42:15] when you look at scales of a fleet.

[7:42:17] and more broadly, just looking, what is the future of urbanism

[7:42:22] look like? A way that we can imagine when

[7:42:25] something is new and better. If autonomous vehicles do make

[7:42:29] it to where we can feel safer walking with kids and biking on

[7:42:34] streets, you know, cyclists in san francisco and phoenix have

[7:42:42] said as much, and that is incredible.

[7:42:44] and the recommendations, one key point here is that it's not just

[7:42:51] av avs are driven on the roads of

[7:42:54] phoenix. Waymo, and other companies are

[7:42:57] testing in london, which is a far more complex roadway system

[7:43:03] than here, and also in japan and tokyo, and for us to think that

[7:43:09] we are more complicated to tokyo.

[7:43:12] look, I was a ride share driver here.

[7:43:14] it ain't close to tokyo. And recommendations, I am happy

[7:43:22] to see it discussed here. Our goals and the policy

[7:43:26] mechanisms we use to achieve them conflict, and vehicle

[7:43:31] crafts have been discussed on that front in terms how you have

[7:43:34] to spread out a smaller fleet across more and more wards.

[7:43:40] the sister organization of the innovation majority, the

[7:43:43] innovation majority institute, did create an interactive

[7:43:49] website, mobility mayor.com, where you can go and test out

[7:43:52] this bill against hypothetical directions.

[7:43:55] for how changing the fleet size could affect service needs

[7:44:02] forward. We modeled it based upon recent

[7:44:04] research based on density, and people in a ward, based on just

[7:44:07] what we have seen so far in the data of av and ride share

[7:44:14] appointments, what I would look like to scale up or down, to see

[7:44:19] what the impacts will be. The it's a great way to help you

[7:44:24] understand just what fleet caps do, and caps the number of

[7:44:29] operators deal to how they deploy avs.

[7:44:32] and I can stop there. I will have more thoughts on the

[7:44:37] hybrid model as well. >> excellent.

[7:44:39] I appreciate that. And happy to follow-up after the

[7:44:41] hering as well to keep going, and I think we did see that

[7:44:45] website. And the tool you created.

[7:44:47] so thanks for helping put that together as well.

[7:44:49] >> happy to hear. My pleasure.

[7:44:52] >> and dr. Watson, I appreciate your testimony, and I know you

[7:44:56] will follow up as we wrestle this with.

[7:44:58] so a lot more witnesses. So I want to move to the next

[7:45:02] panel as well. Thank you all very much.

[7:45:07] next, let me call up zack reinstein who is online.

[7:45:13] and david alpert who is also online.

[7:45:17] michael petricone, senior vice pept of affairs of consumer

[7:45:26] technology association. Jeb ory joining us online.

[7:45:34] daift kasten. Anyone else?

[7:45:44] we have cathy chase online. All right, let me check to see.

[7:46:03] do I have abigail olvera here? Auguste rame?

[7:46:10] come on up. Rameez tase?

[7:46:35] all right. And hang with me.

[7:46:37] I'm going to call a number more names.

[7:46:44] corinna lathan here? Lucas pombo?

[7:46:48] all right, come on up. Isaac wilkins?

[7:46:52] all right, mr. Wilkins. All four chairs are filled now.

[7:46:58] excellent. All right.

[7:47:00] so we've got a couple folks online on zoom.

[7:47:02] we have four people here. Perfect.

[7:47:05] so zack reinstein, we will start with you when you're ready.

[7:47:13] >> thanks, mr. Chair. I appreciate you holding this

[7:47:18] hearing. I just want to say I'm here in

[7:47:21] my personal capacity as a d.c. Resident who has used waymo in

[7:47:26] phoenix and san francisco. As a trusted tester.

[7:47:30] so I have been able to use it on the freeway when it was on the

[7:47:36] freeway. My most impressive use of it,

[7:47:38] when I was most impressed was in a costco parking lot and it

[7:47:43] managed to navigate the hell that is a costco parking lot

[7:47:47] very well. And I stopped and was incredibly

[7:47:52] sensitive to all the pedestrians and children darting out and

[7:47:57] carts. So any way, just incredible

[7:48:01] technology. As a capital bike share user, I

[7:48:06] find that the drivers in d.c. Are incredibly dangerous.

[7:48:10] they are impatient and distracted driving.

[7:48:14] I would much rather be dealing with an autonomous vehicle that

[7:48:19] I know is programmed to stop at all stop signs and go the speed

[7:48:25] limit and not try to run me off the road.

[7:48:29] the only issue I ever had with waymos is that -- that they do

[7:48:36] pull in bike leans occasionally. I heard from previous panelists

[7:48:40] that you have taken that into account and will be ensuring

[7:48:44] that waymo does not do that in the district, which I'm a huge,

[7:48:48] huge fan of. I do agree with some of the

[7:48:52] previous panelist that 200 vehicles is too few.

[7:48:55] and I know you said that 1,000 might be too many.

[7:48:58] so I think 500, 750 might be a good compromise to start with.

[7:49:03] I do understand the time line laid out where you thought that

[7:49:07] 2028 might be the earliest. But I don't see why we have to

[7:49:11] resign ourselves to 18 months from now to get everything taken

[7:49:16] care of. I think maybe setting an

[7:49:21] optimistic time line for next summer might be doable.

[7:49:24] I would also highly encourage the council and staff to ride in

[7:49:30] an autonomous vehicle if you haven't to better understand how

[7:49:34] they perform on the road. My experience with them is

[7:49:38] something but positive, and I look forward to having them in

[7:49:41] the district. >> thank you very much.

[7:49:44] next, let's turn to david alpert.

[7:49:54] david, I think you're still on mute.

[7:49:58] >> thank you. Chairperson allen, members of

[7:50:02] the committee. My name is david alpert and I

[7:50:05] support this bill and have a number of suggestions.

[7:50:09] overall, the driblthistrict has opportunity to work with

[7:50:11] companies to shape how the company operates in urban areas

[7:50:16] such as d.c. They need to balance to ensure

[7:50:21] that public policy has an active hand.

[7:50:23] in 2019, ddot contracted with sustainable transportation,

[7:50:27] which I led at the time to study the impact of avs.

[7:50:32] the study concluded that avs are poised to provide benefits to

[7:50:38] residents and businesses, including safety.

[7:50:40] however, if unmanaged by public policy, avs have the potential

[7:50:46] to cause significant harm as well.

[7:50:48] increasing the vehicles travelled in the district by 60

[7:50:50] to 100%. After all, the down side of a

[7:50:54] long trip is far less when nobody has to drive.

[7:50:58] if widespread public ownership of avs are fine, people may live

[7:51:03] far from the city and endure long commutes since they can

[7:51:06] work from the mobile offices all day or send vehicles circling

[7:51:10] around in a lunch meeting. The bill today is not about

[7:51:16] that, but taxi service brings harms.

[7:51:20] so do av food deliveries. Something I want the bill to

[7:51:24] address. I recommend the following

[7:51:26] additions. First, require all avs to be

[7:51:29] fully electric. The ones that are under testing

[7:51:34] right now are fully electric. But we should ensure that is a

[7:51:38] guarantee as more companies become part of the av

[7:51:41] marketplace. Two, prohibit any company from

[7:51:45] programming cars to break traffic rules.

[7:51:46] you talked about this in the last panel and earlier in the

[7:51:49] day. Current avs are law abiding but

[7:51:53] also when there is a competitive market with many companies, one

[7:51:57] might see an advantage to program vehicles to be

[7:52:01] aggressive, to speed, to push through a yellow light or nose

[7:52:05] through pedestrians. And tesla vehicles may already

[7:52:09] do this. And three, ensure riders with

[7:52:16] disabilities. That is discussed earlier.

[7:52:17] and four, disclose the hail vehicles.

[7:52:20] current law requires trip data to disclose.

[7:52:25] av company be required to disclose all that now and in the

[7:52:29] future. Five, clarify that may not stop

[7:52:34] in crosswalks or bicycle lanes. And the bill right now says not

[7:52:37] to stop in a travel lane. It could be miscon trued to say

[7:52:43] the opposite, that it can stop in bicycle lanes if people don't

[7:52:49] understand that travel lane includes bicycle lane.

[7:52:53] allow ddot to prepare the curb sides for avs to prepare pickup

[7:52:59] and dropoff zones. They must plan for a world of

[7:53:05] rising construction -- congestion.

[7:53:10] and shared lanes and congestion charges.

[7:53:14] the counsel sill should continue to fund these and other

[7:53:17] solutions. Thank you very much.

[7:53:19] >> thank you very much. Appreciate that.

[7:53:21] next, let me turn to michael petricone.

[7:53:26] I may have mispronounced that. Please correct me.

[7:53:29] all right. >> chairman allen and members on

[7:53:32] of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify

[7:53:35] today. Claim allen, I appreciate

[7:53:39] thoughtful leadership on the issue and the time and care you

[7:53:41] have devolted on the hearing. Sitting through ten hours of

[7:53:45] testimony shows commitment to getting to right.

[7:53:48] I'm the senior vice president of consumer affairs and cta.

[7:53:55] we represent 1200 companies from start yups and leading

[7:54:00] innovators including autonomous vehicles.

[7:54:03] autonomous vehicles are no long ear future technology.

[7:54:05] they are already making roads safe interproviding benefits in

[7:54:08] communities across the country. And I would like to associate

[7:54:12] myself with a testimony with others I heard this afternoon

[7:54:19] regarding the proven safety benefitsle and why the issue

[7:54:23] malters. More than 40,000 americans lose

[7:54:26] their lives on the roads, including 22 tragedies in d.c.

[7:54:34] alone, and the overwhelming are caused by human error.

[7:54:39] and autonomous vehicles are saving lives that encourage the

[7:54:43] safe and rapid deployment. Av rz viewed as a trajs poration

[7:54:49] innovation, they should be recognized as a public health

[7:54:54] break through. They have an advance in public

[7:54:56] safety since the air bag. Avs are expanding indianapoepen

[7:55:07] for seniors and the potential to strengthen the district's

[7:55:08] economy, and making it easier for residents, and tourists and

[7:55:13] visitors to reach restaurants and hotels.

[7:55:14] over the years, d.c. Positioned themselves as a leader, and

[7:55:20] being one of the first jurisdictions to employ them to

[7:55:25] demonstrate the district welcomes emerging technologies.

[7:55:30] I have a strong personnel interest in this, as a

[7:55:34] decades-long resident of d.c. My family and I walk, run, bike,

[7:55:40] and scooter on the streets every day.

[7:55:41] I want the neighborhoods to be as safe as possible, whether

[7:55:47] someone is riding a bike, that is why they have technologies

[7:55:52] that are reducing crashes and improving the quality of life.

[7:55:57] I have used the streets with uber and waymo and my experience

[7:56:03] is safe and posty. I also join the other witnesses

[7:56:06] who encourage all the stake holders to please ride in an av.

[7:56:10] like, when you can. Just so you can see what the

[7:56:12] experience is line like. I think I will be education

[7:56:18] alabama. And d.c. Has an opportunity to

[7:56:20] be one of the leading communities.

[7:56:22] we appreciate the council leadership in developing the

[7:56:25] regulatory frame work. We support the objective for the

[7:56:28] safety in the district. As drafted, however, this bill,

[7:56:31] there are several provisions to make deployment more difficult

[7:56:35] than in other leading jurisdictions and we believe the

[7:56:40] bill can achieve the safety goals.

[7:56:44] enencourage the committee to make targeted changes and

[7:56:49] recognize the extensive testing that companies have accumulated

[7:56:54] in other states. Keep costs low, and provide

[7:56:58] clear liability standards. We urge you to support the full

[7:57:02] range of autonomous applications including goods delivery and

[7:57:08] autonomous trucking. The council showed the business

[7:57:11] model agnostic and ensure they meet the bill standard, and have

[7:57:17] the flexibility to deployment, and some business models, some

[7:57:23] prefer direct, and others prefer hybrid.

[7:57:27] a huge transportation break through will benefit all d.c.

[7:57:31] residents. The district has an opportunity

[7:57:32] to british one of the leading frame works for avs.

[7:57:36] throughout the history, the district is a leidner inknow

[7:57:41] investigation, and in has an opportunity to demonstrate that

[7:57:46] leadership. Thank you for your leadership

[7:57:51] and I look forward to making avs in d.c. A reality.

[7:57:55] >> great. Thank you very much.

[7:57:57] jeff ory is joining us own line. >> thank you very much, chairman

[7:58:02] allen and members of the committee.

[7:58:05] my name is jeb ory and I'm a resident of ward 6, and a parent

[7:58:10] of two children, and I have been in the district for nearly 15

[7:58:14] years. I want to commend you, chairman,

[7:58:17] for bringing this bill up to the committee for this discussion,

[7:58:20] because I think it's critically important.

[7:58:24] and I think echoing some points we heard before, from michael,

[7:58:30] we're always outside walk, biking, running, driving, and to

[7:58:34] have that -- to have the opportunity to do that in a

[7:58:38] safer way is something that I think everyone can embrace.

[7:58:42] and autonomous vehicles have clearly demonstrated they are

[7:58:45] much safer than vehicles that you or I drive.

[7:58:52] waymo's data, respently published data, 94% fewer

[7:58:57] crashes can fewer injuries. And 84% fewer cyclist injuries,

[7:59:03] and hugely beneficial to our society.

[7:59:08] but perhaps most importantly, what bringing in autonomous

[7:59:13] vehicles in d.c. Would do was change how people think of d.c.

[7:59:19] michael mentioned that we would be one of the leaders on the

[7:59:22] east coast by embracing this, and I think that is something we

[7:59:25] should very much lean into. There is an opportunity for d.c.

[7:59:28] to be a light house for technology on the east coast,

[7:59:31] and this is exactly how we do that.

[7:59:33] I think this is an especially critical because we need to

[7:59:37] offset so much of the federal job leoss that happened over th

[7:59:43] last year with doge and things like that.

[7:59:49] so there an opportunity to transform how people think about

[7:59:52] d.c. I first took a waymo two years

[7:59:55] ago in phoenix with my family. We stepped out of the airport.

[7:59:58] and it was like walking to the future.

[8:00:01] but that was two years ago, so it was an opportunity for us to

[8:00:05] level up and meet the opportunity today.

[8:00:06] there are a few things I think other people

[8:00:11] -- there are ways to make this bill even more effective.

[8:00:15] one, reducing taxes, the per mile tax and existing fees to

[8:00:20] make rides 30% more expensive before a trip even starts, that

[8:00:25] is one thing to put more money into people's pockets.

[8:00:28] the second, lifting the vehicle cap.

[8:00:30] 200 seems to be an arbitrary or -- arbitrarily low number.

[8:00:37] 500 or 750. And the timing.

[8:00:43] could we do this sooner than january 2028?

[8:00:47] what do we need to spend that time for?

[8:00:49] can we move more quickly to bring this technology and the

[8:00:52] effect it will have into d.c. Much sooner?

[8:00:55] thank you. Chair allen: thank you.

[8:00:59] next we have cathy chase who I think is joining us online.

[8:01:08] ms. Chase: I am. Its not letting my video --

[8:01:13] there, perfect. Just checking, the timer says

[8:01:18] three minutes. Do I get five?

[8:01:19] chair allen: you do, we will adjust that here.

[8:01:23] ms. Chase: thank you so much per good afternoon chair allen, and

[8:01:29] members of the council paradigm kathy chase, president of

[8:01:34] advocates for highway and auto safety headquartered in d.c.,

[8:01:37] with the law enforcement, safety groups and insurance companies

[8:01:40] and agents working to advance policy, laws and regulations to

[8:01:45] prevent crashes, save lives, curb injuries and reduce

[8:01:48] associated costs. Thank you for holding today's

[8:01:52] hearing and the opportunity to testify on bill 26-0684, the

[8:01:55] autonomous vehicle deployment authorization act of 2026.

[8:02:00] I would like to say at the outset advocates is not for or

[8:02:04] against the deployment of autonomous vehicles or av's.

[8:02:08] our focus is on ensuring they are safe for all route users and

[8:02:13] deliver on promised benefits including accessibility, equity,

[8:02:17] preserving worker rights and ensuring sustainable

[8:02:21] transportation among others. Currently av safety performance

[8:02:27] on reliably are largely unknown to the public.

[8:02:27] our main data sources arentsa's standing general order and the

[8:02:36] media. According to data collected by

[8:02:39] the sgo, there been 2574 crashes involving automated driving

[8:02:46] systems oravs and396 with advanced driver assistance

[8:02:53] systems through may 15, 20 26 these include if t9 crashes

[8:02:57] resulting in an to -- in a fatality.

[8:03:00] some are under investigation. From media sources we know ads

[8:03:12] have caused crashes and consternation and of driven into

[8:03:16] work zones, emergency responders and active police scenes and

[8:03:18] over the july 4 holidayan ad drove into live fireworks with a

[8:03:25] passenger on board and one caught on fire after driving

[8:03:28] into fireworks and another caused massive congestion by

[8:03:32] blocking a key parking area. Leaders have raised serious

[8:03:37] safety concerns and this was done during a planned holiday

[8:03:42] event. The district has numerous

[8:03:44] similar planned events as well as many unique to the area such

[8:03:52] as parades and protests resulting in road closures.

[8:03:55] other cities have experienced av's illegally passing blocked

[8:03:59] school buses and blocking ambulances responding to a mass

[8:04:02] shooting. Last weekntsa issued a call to

[8:04:07] action with numerous instances of av's that blocked of the

[8:04:11] paths of ambulances and firefighters were failed to

[8:04:14] respond to basic safety conditions like flashing lights,

[8:04:18] flares, smoke, fire and traffic cones.

[8:04:20] the letter noted quote an av that cannot safely interact with

[8:04:25] first responders is a danger to the general public, unquote.

[8:04:29] we agree. The collection of data is

[8:04:31] essential to make informed policy decisions.

[8:04:33] we cannot rely on claims by the av industry their vehicles will

[8:04:38] be safed or than humans. Trust but verify.

[8:04:42] av proponents claim they are safer because they don't get

[8:04:46] tired, distracted or drive impaired.

[8:04:48] while that may be true, there may be other types of. Crashes

[8:04:55] that otherwise sober and alert and engaged drivers would avoid

[8:04:56] av's, billion-dollar pieces of equipment with years of

[8:05:01] research, should be compared to the best drivers, not the worst

[8:05:04] or average drivers. In addition to comprehensive

[8:05:07] data collection, and policy to safeguard operations, which must

[8:05:14] include setting minimum safety standards, has not been set.

[8:05:19] this inaction underscores the vital role of states, cities in

[8:05:23] the district and taking action to protect road users and

[8:05:26] informs our policy position against preemption on localities

[8:05:32] poised to do so especially in the absence of robust federal

[8:05:35] standards. With regards to bill 26-0684 we

[8:05:40] submitted a letter with recommendations to improve the

[8:05:42] level of safety including ddot should determine an appropriate

[8:05:46] threshold for assessing ac risks, testing should be done in

[8:05:50] an appropriate sampling of conditions and crash and

[8:05:55] incident reporting and transparency should be approved.

[8:05:59] any permit for driverless operation should be predicated

[8:06:02] on safe operation during the testing phase that requires a

[8:06:04] human operator. Similarly authorization for

[8:06:09] commercial operations should be predicated on safe operations

[8:06:11] were driverless testing. And, providing more information

[8:06:15] regarding remote personnel and what safety deficiencies they

[8:06:19] are addressing along with restrictions on the number of

[8:06:22] vehicles an individual is managing and limits hours of

[8:06:28] sources. Absent these protections we risk

[8:06:29] the safety of road users and their acceptance of what av's

[8:06:33] may be able to accomplish. In closing, advancing safety and

[8:06:37] technological innovation must be compatible goals and not

[8:06:40] trade-offs. Thank you.

[8:06:41] chair allen: thank you next may turn to auguste rame.

[8:06:51] >> I aim a resident and transitrider.

[8:06:58] I work with metro dcpa. D.c. Voters made it clear in the

[8:07:06] primaries they believe in the ability to build a better city.

[8:07:12] this bill could not stray further from those beliefs.

[8:07:16] it hands billion-dollar companies including lyft and ube

[8:07:22] r -- to further underpay them and opens the door for av's to

[8:07:26] replace drivers. A labor impact study has yet to

[8:07:34] be traveled. It is insufficient.

[8:07:42] what will thousands of workers who have so much to lose who

[8:07:45] will lose their livelihoods say about this bill?

[8:07:48] on equity it would let waymo serve only the wealthiest while

[8:07:52] leaving behind those who have been ignored or punished.

[8:07:57] councilmember allen, I'm glad to see the equity provision in your

[8:08:02] bill, but how are these prohibitively expensive waymo

[8:08:07] worth it for residents who have been underserved by transit for

[8:08:13] decades by racist urban highways and suffer from violence,

[8:08:17] insufficient transit coverage? How will it serve wheelchair

[8:08:23] users who after years of advocacy don't have adequate

[8:08:26] service? People in the city deserve so

[8:08:29] much more than an unattainable price tag on freedom of

[8:08:36] movement. You were here when uber first

[8:08:38] came to the city. Any benefits will be for the few

[8:08:43] and not the many. The impact of mass drop-offs

[8:08:47] will be disastrous. More cars has never been the

[8:08:50] solution. These driverless cars are

[8:08:53] inaccessible and unaffordable and harm the region.

[8:08:58] I urge this committee to work on condition pricing, to make buses

[8:09:04] fast, frequent and free, and are working system for the working

[8:09:08] class. If this committee feels it must

[8:09:15] pass this legislation I urge it to work closely with advocates

[8:09:17] and unions, policymakers, legislators, works and

[8:09:27] operations. We deserve way more than waymo.

[8:09:32] thank you. Chair allen: thank you very

[8:09:36] much. Next I have lucas pombo.

[8:09:39] >> hello. Good afternoon, chairman allen

[8:09:49] and committee members, I'm lucas pombo, research fellow at a

[8:09:52] think tank where I work on transportation policy, though

[8:09:55] I'm testifying here in my personal capacity.

[8:09:58] thank you for the opportunity to testify on this bill, the

[8:10:01] autonomous vehicle deployment authorization act of 2026.

[8:10:03] I will be submitting more detailed written testimony but

[8:10:06] today I want to focus on the timeline of commercial av

[8:10:11] permits. It I support the passage of this

[8:10:16] bill but with changes. In 2020, the autonomous vehicle

[8:10:23] testing program require ddot to submit a report on how to safely

[8:10:25] deploy autonomous vehicles by october 2022, and to create a

[8:10:32] testing framework and permitting process for autonomous vehicle

[8:10:34] testing the district. For reasons still unclear ddot

[8:10:38] submitted a report which included a report of testing

[8:10:40] conditions in other places, but did not meet the required

[8:10:44] recommendations and submitted that in april this year, almost

[8:10:46] four years late. The av testing process and

[8:10:51] permits didn't happen which is why they are in this one and I

[8:10:54] would like to further add the proposed bill, this bill,

[8:11:02] administrator bodies may need motivation to respond in timely

[8:11:04] faction -- fashion to requirements.

[8:11:07] the proposed bill states in the proposed amendment online 399,

[8:11:12] if the office of an ministry to hearings fails to hold a hearing

[8:11:16] within 90 days of a ddot determination, the appeal is

[8:11:19] successful, enforcement action is automatically reversed.

[8:11:22] it also requires ddot to extend testing permits if an applicant

[8:11:25] rep -- has not received response in a timely fashion on line 174.

[8:11:32] those mirror permitting best practices at federal and state

[8:11:36] levels. In california the permit

[8:11:40] streamlining act requires anybody issuing a development

[8:11:42] permit to deem a permit complete or name deficiencies within 30

[8:11:45] days. An department is deemed approved

[8:11:48] after 60 or 180 days depending on the size of the permit if not

[8:11:53] approved or denied. The federal communications

[8:11:58] commission requires clocks with wireless providers able to take

[8:12:01] governments to court if they failed to respond or denied new

[8:12:05] wireless structures and reasonable amount of time.

[8:12:09] 62 -- 60 to 150 days. Ddot has a record that has -- I

[8:12:18] asked this council to treat the creation of the permit process

[8:12:20] the same way it treats the handling permits themselves.

[8:12:25] if the district makes -- fails to make available a testing

[8:12:30] permit then those activities should be presumed lawful

[8:12:32] subject to all other statutory requirements of safety and

[8:12:36] insurance and testing already written into -- written.

[8:12:42] thank you for your time and I welcome questions or follow-ups.

[8:12:45] chair allen: thank you. Isaac wilkins.

[8:12:50] good afternoon-evening. >> I was under the impression I

[8:12:54] had a little more time so I will try to get through this quickly.

[8:12:58] good afternoon, chairperson alen and members of the committee.

[8:13:03] I appreciate the opportunity to testify and willingness for the

[8:13:08] committee to address this issue. My name is isaac wilkins, I,gig

[8:13:14] economy driver and I have worked in the gig economy over six

[8:13:20] years competing over 6000 rides. Across the district in many

[8:13:24] regions in the country. My testimony is not about

[8:13:26] whether autonomous vehicles should exist, but how government

[8:13:30] -- government should govern technological transitions.

[8:13:32] innovation can improve transportation.

[8:13:36] my question is if the district has given the same level of

[8:13:38] consideration to the people who will experience this

[8:13:42] technological transition as it has to the technology itself.

[8:13:45] first I remain concerned about safety.

[8:13:48] while legislation contains significant provisions,

[8:13:49] autonomous vehicles have experienced well publicized

[8:13:54] incidents with emergency vehicle obstructions.

[8:13:58] how will they respond when blocking an ambulance, or

[8:14:01] officers responding to an emergency?

[8:14:03] how will they safely navigate the unique traffic patterns,

[8:14:08] pedestrian activity, construction zones and roadway

[8:14:09] conditions that make d.c. Unlike any other city?

[8:14:14] these are questions that deserve attention as commercial

[8:14:16] deployment is considered. My second and biggest concern,

[8:14:22] according to the data, approximately 35,000 gig workers

[8:14:29] have received income from app-based platforms, $1.1

[8:14:33] billion in economic activity. Despite this significant

[8:14:39] contribution to the workforce fund, it is surprisingly

[8:14:42] underdeveloped. The bill outlines broad goals

[8:14:46] for workforce development like vocational planning and training

[8:14:49] but few details regarding how workers will be supported.

[8:14:54] more concerning, legislation directs ddot to publish a

[8:14:56] support -- a report 180 days after commercial av deployment

[8:15:02] begins. Workers should not have to wait

[8:15:05] six months for the government to begin evaluating workforce

[8:15:08] impacts. The question is not how we

[8:15:12] respond to workforce displacement once it occurs.

[8:15:15] how do we ensure workforce considerations are implemented

[8:15:19] into the policy before deployment begins?

[8:15:23] that question becomes more important when examining the

[8:15:25] structure of the legislation, which establishes approximately

[8:15:29] $30 million in application and permit fees with the district's

[8:15:34] current five purchase bidding av operators with a reoccurring

[8:15:39] $.15 vmt tax. My point is not the revenue,

[8:15:46] rather the legislation carefully defines how revenue will be

[8:15:49] generated while providing few implementation details regarding

[8:15:55] how workforce development funds will support workers affected by

[8:15:57] the transition. One question I continue to think

[8:16:02] about is how the committee evaluated experiences of other

[8:16:04] jurisdictions when developing this.

[8:16:06] new york city oversees one of the largest for-hire

[8:16:10] transportation systems, yet has taken a more cautious approach

[8:16:13] to commercial av deployment. What lessons did the committee

[8:16:18] draw from jurisdictions like new york city in determining the

[8:16:20] district is prepared to move forward?

[8:16:22] four quick questions. Did ddot conduct a work impact

[8:16:26] analysis? How many at risk workers will be

[8:16:29] affected? What workers or represented --

[8:16:33] were workers representatives consulted?

[8:16:35] how did the drive for-hire vehicle shape workforce

[8:16:38] provisions of the bill? My recommendations are three.

[8:16:43] first establish a permanent autonomous vehicle workforce

[8:16:45] advisory task force composed of workforce drivers, av operators,

[8:16:50] stakeholders. Second require ddot to have a

[8:16:58] comprehensive workforce assessment and transition plan

[8:17:01] before large-scale deployment, and third, dedicate a defined

[8:17:04] percentage of workforce development fund revenues to

[8:17:06] support current and future at risk workers through transition

[8:17:11] assistance and worker specific benefits including paid sick

[8:17:15] leave, minimum wage earning standards and other protections.

[8:17:18] in closing I believe av's have a place in the future of

[8:17:25] transportation, however the success of this legislation

[8:17:27] should not be measured solely by whether av's operate safely or

[8:17:30] efficiently. It should also be measured by

[8:17:33] whether the district governs this transition in a way that

[8:17:37] intentionally considers the people affected by it.

[8:17:41] the district demonstrated it knows how to prepare technology

[8:17:43] for deployment. The question is whether our

[8:17:47] policymaking process gives equal consideration to the people

[8:17:50] whose lives and livelihoods will be shaped by that transition.

[8:17:53] innovation and worker rejection should advance together, not on

[8:17:56] separate timelines. Thank you and I welcome

[8:18:00] questions. Chair allen: thanks everybody

[8:18:02] for your testimony. I might work backwards, think

[8:18:07] you for your testimony. The introduced version of the

[8:18:14] legislation, you rightly point out the workforce fund is broad,

[8:18:19] intentionally so, actually. When we introduced it we wanted

[8:18:22] to say, there is a fund. The actual implementation

[8:18:27] details are the goal of holding a hearing is to get feedback.

[8:18:32] those are the types of things we look for.

[8:18:35] so I take your point but also want to say the limited -- the

[8:18:41] limits are to be broad and get feedback from a lot of folks.

[8:18:45] ddot legislation requiresddot and the department of for-hire

[8:18:49] vehicles and others to come up with reports and recommendations

[8:18:54] to help inform that. You are correct it is a little

[8:19:01] open. That was a little intentional so

[8:19:02] we can get feedback like yours and others to fill that out, so

[8:19:07] when we move a committee print forward later, hopefully it will

[8:19:11] reflect more details. So your recommendations are very

[8:19:15] welcome at this stage. I will give you a chance if you

[8:19:24] wanted to respond. Mr. Wilkins: I work in policy as

[8:19:27] well. A little different.

[8:19:31] I understand being broad because there are particulars to work

[8:19:37] out. However, I think that the

[8:19:43] district has not developed the infrastructure in regards to

[8:19:47] regulations yet to be able to make this introduction to have

[8:19:50] av's on the commercial side of things.

[8:19:55] when we are talk about displacing 35,000 drivers with

[8:19:58] such vague language around what a workforce fund -- if the

[8:20:04] estimates are right you say $30 million the program is set to

[8:20:09] have for the five different av operators we should have more

[8:20:13] specifics around or I would hope to have more specifics around

[8:20:17] what the fund will be dealing with because it is displacing a

[8:20:20] lot of drivers. I think and I guess a follow-up

[8:20:23] question would be, this -- would this be regulation?

[8:20:29] if there was no workforce impact analysis done before the set

[8:20:32] date for deployment what is the confidence residents should have

[8:20:37] around this being a smooth transition?

[8:20:39] chair allen: one recommendation from an earlier panel was the

[8:20:46] workplace impact report we have in the bill should be pegged to

[8:20:49] a date prior to permits being issued.

[8:20:53] we are taking that to look at the order of things.

[8:20:57] the intention was to have that, to bring in different

[8:21:02] stakeholders to have a voice in shaping what that would look

[8:21:03] like. They could come in prescriptive

[8:21:08] language, regulations, different agencies.

[8:21:12] it is a mix and that is why we hold a hearing to see what

[8:21:14] people recommend. Your testimony is well-timed and

[8:21:17] valuable. Mr. Wilkins: if I can, I

[8:21:22] appreciate that you're taking the time to do that.

[8:21:27] expressing a little concerned because there has been -- the

[8:21:29] drive for-hire vehicle agency has made advancements in regards

[8:21:34] to giving a solution to support the transition.

[8:21:39] we now have carry for-hire operators under the jurisdiction

[8:21:44] of the drive for-hire vehicle agency.

[8:21:51] I think things are moving increasingly fast and not

[8:21:54] considering the workers of the core part of this and I

[8:21:57] understand the impact report and that is great but I think this

[8:22:02] deserves detail like solutions. My question, and I won't belabor

[8:22:09] this, I can put it in my comments I send, but when they

[8:22:14] say vocational training what does that look like?

[8:22:17] what are vocational trainings you have further gig workers

[8:22:21] that are 65 and over? Not saying it is not possible

[8:22:24] but recognize we are like kids sometimes, so engaged with a new

[8:22:30] toy we don't recognize we have other problems to deal with.

[8:22:35] I'm not sangamon against av's, but there needs to be a slow,

[8:22:39] phased approach to consider the workers.

[8:22:41] chair allen: I appreciate that. We had a lot of witnesses tell

[8:22:47] me how slow we are moving, and how painful it is and it has to

[8:22:50] move faster. Probably means we are about

[8:22:55] right in terms of our timing of a bunch of folks tell me a going

[8:22:58] too slow and some say too fast. All that is part of the feedback

[8:23:01] we are getting. I would welcome your testimony

[8:23:04] in writing to so we can add it to the record.

[8:23:06] mr. Pombo, appreciate your testimony.

[8:23:11] on one hand I like the idea of having that shot clock ticking

[8:23:15] down for an agency to take action.

[8:23:17] on the other, this is such a big deal, I would not be comfortable

[8:23:21] with an idea where, if an agency does not get something done,

[8:23:28] they automatically get a permit to operate.

[8:23:30] I think the stakes are too high to allow that.

[8:23:33] part of my job is oversight to make sure agencies are doing

[8:23:35] what they are supposed to do. The spirit of what you are

[8:23:40] recommending is keep compelling action but I think the specifics

[8:23:43] of allowing a permit to move forward would make me very

[8:23:47] uncomfortable. This is such a big deal I can't

[8:23:52] just affirmatively let the permit go and start operation if

[8:23:55] we don't have these pieces in place.

[8:23:57] I will give you a chance to respond.

[8:23:58] mr. Pombo: I definitely understand that and in part that

[8:24:02] kind of is the philosophy behind shot clock's -- clocks.

[8:24:09] you're more likely to do your job in a timely fashion of the

[8:24:14] consequences for not doing that is something you don't want.

[8:24:20] I understand as it pertains to ddot you would not want the shot

[8:24:25] clock to expire and allow av's without the rules you would

[8:24:32] want. If you are truly that

[8:24:37] uncomfortable with that you would not want to have a shot

[8:24:39] clock, I would like to see more guardrails are consequences for

[8:24:45] ddot if they fail to do their job.

[8:24:48] my concern is, given the last time this committee instructed

[8:24:54] ddot to crate a permit, they did not create any permits.

[8:24:59] I guess now there is a deadline to create a permit, but I think

[8:25:03] any reasonable reading of the previous attempt to require

[8:25:07] permits to be created would have been less than six years.

[8:25:12] I'm not that consoled by, tell them a little harder to do their

[8:25:16] jobs this time. At the end of the day, if there

[8:25:21] is a private company doing something, you can find them and

[8:25:25] pull their permits but no one can pull the permits for ddot.

[8:25:30] I would like more consequences that would be uncomfortable for

[8:25:32] this committee or ddot or whoever to make sure we get the

[8:25:36] permits we are asking for. Chair allen: I hear you and the

[8:25:42] nature of the competing legislative and executive

[8:25:47] co-competing branches of government are a constant

[8:25:50] struggle, I hear you. Appreciate your testimony.

[8:25:54] did you submit it? >> not yet but I will.

[8:25:56] chair allen: to kathy chase, somebody has to make a

[8:26:04] determination if av's can operate safely in the district

[8:26:08] so your recommendation is they need some standard against which

[8:26:15] we are measuring safety. We have this conversation

[8:26:18] earlier today. What is the measurable,

[8:26:23] quantitative thing we are saying this is safer than?

[8:26:28] my point is I have a bunch of dangerous drivers on the road

[8:26:31] right now and if my goal is to say are you safer than that

[8:26:33] driver out there it is a pretty low bar.

[8:26:35] if the promise is, these are going to be so safe, do have

[8:26:42] thoughts on a requirement for av safety to be quantified in a way

[8:26:46] they must exceed safety by 10 times, 100 times?

[8:26:50] what is an objective and quantifiable metric you would be

[8:26:55] recommending? Ms. Chase: it is a good question

[8:26:59] and a difficult one to answer or it would have been answered

[8:27:00] already. Chair allen: correct.

[8:27:03] ms. Chase: our recommendation is for ddot to take the data of

[8:27:08] crashes happening in the district and take away the

[8:27:13] impaired, the distracted, the speeding crashes.

[8:27:18] how does that driver perform and then it should exceed that

[8:27:22] because at a minimum, autonomous vehicle companies are saying

[8:27:28] their drivers don't drive while doing things humans do.

[8:27:35] if the companies are claiming they are performing 93% better,

[8:27:40] that should be a minimum if they are already doing that now.

[8:27:44] chair allen: part of what we wrestle with is, what do we

[8:27:53] specifically outline in legislation versus what do we

[8:27:57] say to an agency that is supposed to have the expertise.

[8:28:01] on the flipside, I don't think it is overly prescriptive at all

[8:28:07] to say, you can allow autonomous vehicles to exceed the speed

[8:28:11] limit. You cannot allow autonomous

[8:28:14] vehicles to park in a bike lane or run through a crosswalk or a

[8:28:20] stop sign. We can be prescriptive in some

[8:28:23] of the ways, but I will have to work on this over the next

[8:28:27] couple weeks and months around discretion between allowing an

[8:28:30] agency to set regulations and how we define the safety.

[8:28:35] ms. Chase: I agree with you and appreciate how thoughtful your

[8:28:40] being, and listening to the input today.

[8:28:46] we are more than glad to continue to work with you and

[8:28:48] your staff in furtherance of our shared goal of making these as

[8:28:52] safe as possible. Chair allen: thank you.

[8:28:56] mr. Ory, thank you for your testimony.

[8:29:00] some of your recommendations were consistent with what we

[8:29:02] heard from a few people over the day.

[8:29:07] especially when it comes to what should an initial fleet size be.

[8:29:13] I think there has been a good conversation around, are we able

[8:29:17] to achieve our overall policy goals with a fleet cap of 200 or

[8:29:21] should that go up? There is a compelling argument

[8:29:25] that 200 might mean you can't reach especially equitable

[8:29:29] response times. Geographically across the entire

[8:29:33] city with a fleet would we will take a look at that one.

[8:29:38] I'm not convinced the vehicle miles tax will somehow be cost

[8:29:45] prohibitive for entrance to the market place.

[8:29:49] I think we have big companies that are pretty major

[8:29:54] international corporations that want to see them operate in the

[8:29:57] district. I'm not as compelled on that but

[8:30:00] the fleet cap makes sense and the other pieces.

[8:30:05] we are talking about amazon, tesla and google.

[8:30:11] these are not tiny companies. Mr. Ory: fair, but everyone else

[8:30:19] is riding, so those prices will get passed on.

[8:30:26] I do think finding the right mix of price that would make it

[8:30:28] possible for people to ride across the district is very

[8:30:34] important. Your points about equity are

[8:30:35] great. Av's can create opportunities

[8:30:40] for people to tail these cars across the district in areas

[8:30:46] that have been challenging to get, ubers, lyft, what not.

[8:30:54] I think finding the right mix is important.

[8:30:59] chair allen: david alpert, you had specific recommendations.

[8:31:05] is your testimony already submitted?

[8:31:09] I think we accidentally moved you into a different side.

[8:31:11] will get you back. Mr. Petricone, thank you for

[8:31:17] your testimony. You mentioned freight.

[8:31:21] I am not prepared in this legislation to move toward

[8:31:28] autonomous freight delivery. We are talking about ups and

[8:31:32] fedex trucks, 18 wheelers. I don't think there has been any

[8:31:36] testing of that in the district so I'm not comfortable with that

[8:31:40] element paradigm more focused on the passenger vehicles thus far

[8:31:44] but I take your point that you are looking at the bigger

[8:31:47] picture. I think the introduced version

[8:31:52] of the bill did not specify that so I think it is reasonable.

[8:31:57] it is one of the areas we have to clean up and clarify because

[8:32:00] I'm not prepared for freight. >> [indiscernible]

[8:32:08] >> I know it is a process, a step-by-step process.

[8:32:13] the goal come everybody's goal, is to realize the full economic

[8:32:18] and public benefits of autonomous vehicle technology

[8:32:20] and that includes all of the applications.

[8:32:21] chair allen: possibly. I might not be there on all

[8:32:25] applications. Mr. Alpert, sorry, we

[8:32:32] excellently moved you. I've got you back.

[8:32:36] you laid out a series of specific recommendations, I

[8:32:38] appreciate it. Have you submitted your

[8:32:40] testimony yet in writing? Mr. Alpert: yes, and I can

[8:32:46] include graphs and more specifics on the submitted

[8:32:48] testimony page. Chair allen: thank you.

[8:32:53] I love graphs, appreciate it. I think the accessibility, you

[8:32:57] highlighted that, is important. We had a good conversation with

[8:33:00] several panels. I don't pretend that have -- to

[8:33:05] have the exact solution yet so I think it is important.

[8:33:10] >> tier earlier question about the freight, I was not

[8:33:15] testifying about freight, but I did mention that in the past,

[8:33:20] years ago people were talking about having the ability for an

[8:33:26] autonomous pizza van to pull up. May be you punch in a code and

[8:33:29] open it up. It seems no one is trying to

[8:33:33] launch that now, but perhaps the legislation could speak to --

[8:33:37] that is not yet legalized. 5, 10 years ago they were

[8:33:42] talking about it. Chair allen: mr. Weinstein --

[8:33:50] reinstein, thank you for testimony as well.

[8:33:54] your comments echoed those of many today.

[8:33:55] mr. Reinstein: yes, on the fleet size and bike lanes, as well as

[8:34:03] trying to bring the timeline forward if possible.

[8:34:06] you were pessimistic on that, but I like to be optimistic.

[8:34:09] chair allen: I'm an optimistic guy, too.

[8:34:14] my point was more realistic around the timeline from the

[8:34:17] legislative calendar. Even if this council in the fall

[8:34:22] votes to approve this, we go through two readings, have to

[8:34:26] have the mayor sign it. For d.c. Laws, congress likes to

[8:34:33] congress and does not meet often.

[8:34:35] the congressional review period would take us into the spring if

[8:34:39] not late spring before would become actual implemented law

[8:34:42] which means your down to 8, 9 months for ddot and others to do

[8:34:47] all the pieces. The january 1, 2028 is somewhat

[8:34:52] of a realistic timeframe, as well as to provide certainty for

[8:34:56] people because if anything, the last couple years around this

[8:35:00] issue have been defined by uncertainty.

[8:35:02] we will take a look at that. Your testimony echoes what we

[8:35:06] have heard from a couple folks. So we will look at that.

[8:35:09] mr. Reinstein: I would also like to echo one of the previous

[8:35:14] panelist who said ddot was directed to give out some of

[8:35:20] these permits by the executive branch and they didn't do that.

[8:35:26] I don't know if there's a stronger way to compel them to.

[8:35:30] I would really hate to see ddot sit on this again.

[8:35:33] chair allen: thank you very much.

[8:35:39] thank you everybody for your testimony today and appreciate

[8:35:41] your time. Thank you.

[8:35:45] let me turn to our next panel. I've got phillip wilcox.

[8:35:52] amanda wilson. Cesar toledo, I think is joining

[8:36:00] us online. Jennifer cooper.

[8:36:10] john morris. Sol eure-raker.

[8:36:24] nyah wilson. Brandon wu.

[8:36:31] michael ludgardo. I think he is online.

[8:36:38] jason odom. Dish a paris -- da'shai paris.

[8:36:47] and heather foote, who I see right there.

[8:36:50] ms. Foote, if you want to come up and grab a chair.

[8:36:57] mr. Wilcox and then ms. Wilson. Mr. Wilcox we will start with

[8:37:02] you when you are ready. Mr. Wilcox: thank you, chair

[8:37:09] allen and members of the committee, I appreciate you

[8:37:13] taking time to hear our testimonies.

[8:37:17] my name is phillip wilcox and I recently wrote and published a

[8:37:20] book called the future is autonomous which probably covers

[8:37:25] companies in the u.s. And china to develop and deploy autonomous

[8:37:28] vehicles. It also deals with the politics

[8:37:34] at the local level, the d.c. Bill, laboratories of democracy

[8:37:41] and at the federal level and the international space with china

[8:37:49] in competition in that regard. Self-promotion aside, we have

[8:37:53] heard a lot over the past 10 hours about the safety benefits

[8:37:58] of av's. For example, av's, over 40,000

[8:38:06] people a year are killed on road accidents in the u.s. And

[8:38:10] whether you are for or against this bill we can agree it is

[8:38:14] completely unacceptable and av's are never drunk, distracted or

[8:38:19] drowsy so they have that benefit , but enough has been spoken

[8:38:26] about that. I don't have much to add to

[8:38:28] that. I became interested in av's in

[8:38:35] 2012 after an accident left me with low vision and I quickly

[8:38:42] became aware of the lack of accessible, affordable and safe

[8:38:49] transportation options for people with low vision in the

[8:38:53] blind community as well as others.

[8:39:02] we have learned about benefits from those in the blind and low

[8:39:05] vision community that av companies have work to do with

[8:39:10] people -- for people with vision impairments but I think av's

[8:39:16] have the potential to offer people more freedom and

[8:39:21] opportunities. For all of their educational,

[8:39:27] career or social goals. Av's can also be used in

[8:39:33] conjunction with public transit options for people like me who

[8:39:37] do not live within walking distance of a metro station.

[8:39:42] one example I've seen is from a metro station with an av shuttle

[8:39:49] to a local shopping center, so that is one option for them to

[8:39:57] connect people to the transit system.

[8:40:02] the americans with disabilities act provides the baseline for

[8:40:05] accessibility standards in the u.s., however, this is just the

[8:40:10] base and not the ceiling. Av's have the potential to raise

[8:40:17] the ceiling of what people can accomplish within their lives

[8:40:20] with disabilities. Thank you very much and a look

[8:40:27] forward to hearing some of your questions.

[8:40:29] chair allen: thank you. Amanda wilson?

[8:40:33] ms. Wilson: thank you council member allen, and to the

[8:40:38] committee for the opportunity to speak.

[8:40:40] I'm a resident of ward 4 and come here is a daily d.c.

[8:40:46] cyclist to ask the committee for the deployment of autonomous

[8:40:53] vehicles on d.c. Streets. Every day I see drivers

[8:40:57] speeding, plowing through yellow and red lights with pedestrians

[8:41:00] in the crosswalk and turning right on red even if a no right

[8:41:03] turn on red sign is posted. Even though this is supposed to

[8:41:07] be a citywide rule implemented years ago.

[8:41:11] they speed past me within a few inches when d.c. Law requires

[8:41:14] three feet passing distance. The other day I saw a driver and

[8:41:20] suv speed aggressively pastor cyclist at a close distance

[8:41:24] because she was upset the cyclist was using the road.

[8:41:29] the angry driver was protected by 4000 pounds of metal.

[8:41:33] we cyclists and pedestrians are not.

[8:41:36] we are subject to the emotions of drivers who drive angry,

[8:41:40] tired, desperate, stressed and even vengeful.

[8:41:43] after more than 12 years cycling on d.c. Streets I'm convinced it

[8:41:47] is the norm rather than the exception for drivers to push

[8:41:52] their limits and break robles, especially if they know they are

[8:41:55] not being watched, and there is not enough enforcement, and with

[8:42:00] fatal consequences. Autonomous driving technology is

[8:42:03] different. After getting familiar with this

[8:42:09] technology at work, I learned it can be designed to follow

[8:42:14] robles, see road users through 360 degree vision system and

[8:42:20] keep a safe distance. It does not drive distracted or

[8:42:23] drunk and best of all, does not bring a motion to driving.

[8:42:28] I have also witnessed this firsthand driving bikes decides

[8:42:31] waymo as it tested in d.c. This technology provides a

[8:42:37] methodical and consistent predict ability that makes

[8:42:39] cycling feel safer. We must make decisions based on

[8:42:42] data. If data shows the promise of

[8:42:45] increasing road safety, authorizing this technology

[8:42:50] could be your is in the public interest.

[8:42:51] as an active multimodal transit system user, I wanted to add, in

[8:42:58] addition to being a cyclist I use metro and right healing

[8:43:02] services. I would love to have the choice

[8:43:06] of occasionally hailing an autonomous ride.

[8:43:09] I would continue to use bikeshare and the metro.

[8:43:13] now more than ever the dream of vision zero, no more traffic

[8:43:20] fatalities, is within reach. Let's see how safe our roads can

[8:43:23] be. Please authorize the deployment

[8:43:28] of this potentially life-saving road safety technology.

[8:43:31] I also support what the other witnesses have said regarding

[8:43:36] cyclist safety. Thank you.

[8:43:38] chair allen: thank you. Let me turn to cesar toledo, who

[8:43:46] is joining us online I believe. Good afternoon.

[8:43:49] mr. Toledo: good afternoon. Caesar toledo here.

[8:43:56] good evening, I should say, councilmember allen.

[8:44:02] I'm a member on the commission on poverty and a ward six

[8:44:06] resident, here to express deep appreciation for your leadership

[8:44:11] in safely bringing autonomous vehicles to d.c. Nice a bit in

[8:44:14] my full testimony for the record and will summarize it as you

[8:44:17] have had quite a lot of testimony today.

[8:44:20] congrats to you and the team. As a child my relationship with

[8:44:25] cars was defined by instability and fear.

[8:44:27] that changed an av in 2024. My father was obsessed with

[8:44:35] vehicles, which led to an unsustainable debt within our

[8:44:41] family. My childhood was marked by the

[8:44:44] terrifying reality of riding in vehicles with family members

[8:44:48] under the influence. No one especially a child should

[8:44:51] have to face the fear of putting their life into the hands of a

[8:44:53] driver who should not be behind the wheel.

[8:44:56] unfortunately that trauma shook my life.

[8:45:00] in 2024, on the deployment for the harris campaign I was

[8:45:07] introduced to waymo and became upset with that service.

[8:45:13] I really enjoy the safety, the comfort.

[8:45:16] I ranked as one of the top 3% riders for waymo nationwide that

[8:45:22] year. For someone who grew up

[8:45:26] terrified by the unpredictability of human

[8:45:27] drivers, riding in a vehicle program to never drive drunk, be

[8:45:34] distracted or enraged at drivers was informative.

[8:45:36] several organizations represented communities

[8:45:40] including mothers against drunk driving recognize the immense

[8:45:42] potential of av's to limit human error.

[8:45:49] now is the time to bring them to d.c.

[8:45:52] for context I don't view this through an abstract lens.

[8:45:56] I've biked more than 1500 miles across the district, log more

[8:46:00] than 600 ride shares and ridden the former x2 bus for many

[8:46:07] years. I have seen the best and worst

[8:46:10] of our transit ecosystem. Lastly as you consider this

[8:46:14] bill, I encourage d.c. Council to fund a universal initiative

[8:46:21] similar to the one l.a. To support low income constituents.

[8:46:25] and universal access to all transportation options.

[8:46:31] everything from public transit from the city, to being able to

[8:46:34] purchase bikes at a local shop, building a transportation

[8:46:39] system. Thank you charles allen, for

[8:46:44] your leadership. Appreciate your time and for

[8:46:47] taking on this effort. Chair allen: thank you very

[8:46:50] much. Let's turn to jennifer cooper

[8:46:54] who I believe is online. Ms. Cooper: hi.

[8:47:03] thank you councilmember allen, and everyone else for having a

[8:47:08] very long day. My name is jennifer cooper, a

[8:47:11] former resident of parkview where I lived a decade, recent

[8:47:14] transplant to baltimore where I work as a nurse.

[8:47:16] I'm affiliated with d.c. And baltimore chapters of the safe

[8:47:21] streets though today my statements are my own.

[8:47:24] I'm a nurse and former community journalist.

[8:47:26] I have written about poverty in the u.s.

[8:47:29] I know a few things about transportation in this country.

[8:47:32] but I'm here today because in november2020 I was hit by an suv

[8:47:36] while jogging. I was fortunate that they were

[8:47:40] traveling less than 20 miles an hour.

[8:47:42] I want to thank everyone for the time and energy they voted --

[8:47:45] devoted to determining if av's are safe for our streets.

[8:47:50] I want everyone to take a moment to appreciate being human

[8:47:53] because our ability to think and move and act on our own is

[8:47:56] slowly being taken away. I believe my statement is

[8:47:59] important, but also eyes your screen and give them a, shrug

[8:48:06] your shoulders, stretch and walk around.

[8:48:07] our health is important and should be valued.

[8:48:13] I understand the need to get ahead of technology and the

[8:48:15] value of regulation. However this proposal falls

[8:48:19] short and ignores the elephant in the room which is climate

[8:48:21] change. As many stated today, av's will

[8:48:26] increase energy production, use precious water supply and

[8:48:29] increase the number of vehicles on the road.

[8:48:33] further the testing timeline is too short, there is no public

[8:48:36] comment nor environmental review and no guarantee of service for

[8:48:39] those with disabilities. Those with disabilities often

[8:48:43] need door to door service, not curb to curb service.

[8:48:47] improved service for people disabilities won't happen

[8:48:48] because of av's. It will happen with a commitment

[8:48:52] by this council to value their life and contributions.

[8:48:58] we found public transit is 70 times safer than private

[8:49:03] vehicles. Despite the potential for

[8:49:08] increased independence for some with disabilities it is too soon

[8:49:09] to release technology onto our busy streets.

[8:49:13] anything that increases the number of vehicles on the road

[8:49:16] is associated with poor health outcomes.

[8:49:20] we need more public transportation, not more private

[8:49:21] vehicles. If companies want to release av

[8:49:23] 's on our streets they should start with shuttles, buses and

[8:49:26] vans. According to the national

[8:49:30] highway traffic association there were over 39,000 people

[8:49:35] killed in crashes in 2024. But that same year there were

[8:49:41] 41,800, 2000 more, killed as a direct result of vehicle

[8:49:47] pollution. When we talk about safety are

[8:49:49] urged the council to look at the big picture.

[8:49:52] it concerns me that this is viewed as a technology that

[8:49:55] exists, so we must accept it. I don't support this bill

[8:50:00] without substantial modifications including

[8:50:01] environmental review. Once we release this technology

[8:50:05] without due diligence it cannot be undone, so I urge you to take

[8:50:09] the time necessary and do appreciate the time you are

[8:50:10] taking. Thank you.

[8:50:12] chair allen: thank you. Next, michael ludgardo who I

[8:50:19] believe is also online. There we go.

[8:50:25] mr. Ludgardo: good evening chairallen and members of the

[8:50:30] committee. Thank you for the opportunity to

[8:50:34] testify regarding bill 26-0684. My name is michael ludgardo.

[8:50:40] I serve as the director philanthropy communications at

[8:50:44] new futures d.c. Years ago they invested in my

[8:50:51] future through a scholarship and advising.

[8:50:54] that support helped me earn my college degree and return to the

[8:50:57] organization where I now have the privilege of helping other

[8:51:00] young adults pursue their educational and career

[8:51:02] opportunities. For those unfamiliar with new

[8:51:07] futures we are a washington, d.c. Based nonprofit that

[8:51:10] invests in young adults with financial need by providing

[8:51:13] scholarships, advising, career development, professional

[8:51:17] connections, that help students earn degrees, complete

[8:51:20] credentials and launch meaningful careers.

[8:51:22] today they support 200 individuals and have over 410

[8:51:27] alumni. Every individual we serve comes

[8:51:30] from a household earning less than 80% of the district's

[8:51:33] median income. Many are first-generation

[8:51:39] college students balancing school, work and family response

[8:51:42] abilities while pursuing opportunities to transform their

[8:51:44] futures. While new futures is not a

[8:51:48] transportation organization we see every day how transportation

[8:51:50] affects mobility. We often say scholarship opens

[8:51:55] doors but students also need to walk through the doors.

[8:51:57] transportation is one of those critical links between

[8:52:01] opportunity and success. Many district scholars live-in

[8:52:04] in wards that historically experience disinvestment and

[8:52:08] fewer pathways to opportunity. Others traveling to the district

[8:52:12] for college or training, internships, advising

[8:52:17] appointments, networking events and employment opportunities.

[8:52:18] for students, convenient access to transportation, the

[8:52:24] challenges not only the financial cost but the time and

[8:52:26] opportunity. That gives less time to study,

[8:52:32] work, care for family members or purchase a paid in career

[8:52:36] building. Sometimes transportation

[8:52:37] challenges become the reason they miss an advising

[8:52:42] appointment, decline in internship or cannot take

[8:52:43] advantage of a professional opportunity.

[8:52:45] as the council considers bill 26-0684, we encourage continued

[8:52:51] attention to how emerging technologies including

[8:52:52] autonomous vehicles can complement existing options and

[8:52:58] expand access to education, employment and community

[8:53:01] resources. Transportation innovation alone

[8:53:07] will not solve every barrier but when implemented thoughtfully,

[8:53:11] it can become one tool to expand opportunity.

[8:53:14] as someone who's own life changed because others invested

[8:53:18] in my potential, I know success is built through many moments.

[8:53:21] getting to class, meeting with an advisor, interviewing and

[8:53:24] getting a career. When transportation barriers are

[8:53:29] reduced, more adults can get to the opportunities that change

[8:53:31] lives. Thank you.

[8:53:32] chair allen: thank you. Heather foote, who is here in

[8:53:37] person. Ms. Foote: I'm heather foote,

[8:53:44] from ward 1, testifying in my own capacity.

[8:53:48] I'm a public witness, but a member of the pedestrian

[8:53:52] advisory council and my transportation options workshops

[8:53:57] for older adults in wards seven and eight and spanish speakers

[8:54:00] as well as participation in a disability senior group which

[8:54:03] has met weekly since the advent of covid and several group

[8:54:07] members have testified today. Thank you for tackling this

[8:54:12] complex issue, chairman allen. Three issues require close

[8:54:21] attention as the council considers legislation, rather

[8:54:24] than after its passage. Detection, monitoring and wide

[8:54:29] public awareness among all d.c. Residents.

[8:54:34] as for detection others have spoken about adequate commercial

[8:54:38] company testing and data collection to enable av's to

[8:54:41] detect the widest range of movements and features.

[8:54:45] detection must include infrastructure design and

[8:54:49] traffic enforcement activity. It is vital and emergent av

[8:54:54] program not set back the slowly won gains for pedestrian safety.

[8:54:59] in my testimony for the record I raise three detection examples.

[8:55:03] one is uncontrolled crosswalks, the second, rectangular rapid

[8:55:10] flashing beacons,. And thethird is hawk signals

[8:55:12] av's must recognize a pedestrian stepping into a crosswalk where

[8:55:16] there is no traffic light has right-of-way over moving

[8:55:20] vehicles. Te -- the pac has worked with

[8:55:27] an npd sergeant. The imperative is all the more

[8:55:31] critical for those who need wheelchairs and assisted

[8:55:33] devices. As for rectangular rapid

[8:55:36] flashing beacons, pedestrian caps to trigger small flashing

[8:55:41] yellow lights, vehicles must cede to pedestrians.

[8:55:46] ddot installed two such signals on adams and morgan, the second

[8:55:53] where one was hit and dragged and killed when she crossed the

[8:55:57] road. I'm encouraged to watch how

[8:56:00] vehicles learn about and increasingly understand and

[8:56:06] respect this pedestrian device in the third example is hock

[8:56:09] signals. I think many in the room are

[8:56:10] familiar with hock signals --hawk signals.

[8:56:16] they have a video featuring a former and forthcoming member.

[8:56:25] the second issue is monitoring. I look forward to the department

[8:56:33] testimony, they have depth of experience in handling on-demand

[8:56:36] vehicle compliance with d.c. Law.

[8:56:38] such monitoring experience enables the agency to track and

[8:56:45] address illegal behavior and scofflaws.

[8:56:49] the key issue raised is, there should be -- whether there

[8:56:56] should be a separate set of rules and regulations for av's,

[8:57:01] or whether they should be regulated under across-the-board

[8:57:04] rules for for-hire vehicles including av's.

[8:57:08] under its current director the d fve has thought out those with

[8:57:17] disabilities and work to incorporate and address concerns

[8:57:19] raised in program planning. The final of my three issues is

[8:57:25] public awareness among particular audiences.

[8:57:27] I flagged the issue of d.c.'s growing senior population and

[8:57:32] the vital need for proactive, audience appropriate handouts

[8:57:36] now that leah with the district government is thinking around av

[8:57:39] 's. Rather than after the fact

[8:57:43] downstream when legislation is passed.

[8:57:47] the majority of adults I interact with do not track these

[8:57:50] hearings nor do many know what the letters av might stand for

[8:57:54] -- letters av might stand for. Government accountability to its

[8:58:04] electorate includes timely information sharing.

[8:58:06] then I go into the federal plane language initiative on how

[8:58:11] government communication must be tailored to particular audiences

[8:58:17] in ways that are accessible and understandable.

[8:58:21] the potentially money mental, the advent of autonomous vehicle

[8:58:24] s in the district is only the latest technology driven

[8:58:31] transportation innovation to arrive on district roadways.

[8:58:33] an important exercise would be to analyze issues and problems

[8:58:38] that arose with the advent of tnc's, especially for older

[8:58:42] adults and persons with disabilities.

[8:58:46] some lessons learned can be found in testimony by other

[8:58:48] witnesses in today's hearing. Finally in thinking the

[8:58:51] committee for its valuable work in researching, preparing and

[8:58:56] organizing this hearing, I want to flagged the welcome testimony

[8:59:02] by a fellow pedestrian advisory council member cheryle adams, a

[8:59:07] ward six resident who testified in the morning.

[8:59:08] chair allen: thank you. Brandon wu has joined us, our

[8:59:13] last public witness. Mr. Wu: good evening, council

[8:59:17] member allen. I apologize for my tardiness in

[8:59:21] being underdressed today. I'm speaking as a ward 1

[8:59:26] resident, a transit rider, a capital bikeshare user and as

[8:59:31] someone who really wants autonomous vehicles to be

[8:59:34] implemented in a manner that is safe for me as a bike rider, and

[8:59:39] prioritizes working people and equity in the district.

[8:59:41] I'm here speaking on three areas, hoping the bill is

[8:59:47] amended in those areas to ensure we have the strongest bill

[8:59:51] possible if this were to pass out of committee and go to the

[8:59:53] full council. On safety I would c1

[9:00:00] on safety, I would echo the points made by families for safe

[9:00:05] streets. Holding autonomous vehicles to

[9:00:06] standard second to the aviation industry, such as requiring

[9:00:11] autonomous vehicles be 10 times safer than human driven vehicles

[9:00:14] on average, eventually scaling up to 100 times safer in all or

[9:00:19] almost all operations. I think there should be a pulled

[9:00:23] fund for eeev crashes to ensure that any victims of av traffic

[9:00:28] five months can afford care. I would cite ephesus's white

[9:00:34] paper for more details. Finally, I think the remote

[9:00:38] operator should be passing d.c. Drivers tests, including the

[9:00:41] d.c. Road skills tests, since current law does not

[9:00:47] specifically outline them having to pass that test.

[9:00:50] I think that needs to happen before any av's are on the road

[9:00:57] without drivers. On the labor piece, I think this

[9:00:58] could investigate impacts before rather than after, to

[9:01:05] propose computer programs spending by using the av miles

[9:01:10] traveled tax for the practice rather than after, and I think

[9:01:17] we should be prohibiting entities funded by taxpayer

[9:01:21] dollars from putting out reflects -- requests for

[9:01:24] proposals to autonomous vehicles to protect union jobs.

[9:01:27] on the equity piece, I think the provisions could be strengthened

[9:01:30] to ensure we are protecting working-class communities,

[9:01:35] especially black working-class communities destroyed by freeway

[9:01:37] and other road construction projects, and writers who have

[9:01:41] long been denied rideshare service through an accessible

[9:01:44] vehicles. I think we should be subsidizing

[9:01:46] av service for those who cannot be -- cannot afford it.

[9:01:50] we should be mandating that robotaxis accommodate people in

[9:01:53] wheelchairs and folks who rely on this for their travel, and

[9:02:03] heavily fine permittees for not just on geography

[9:02:08] but also on the basis of race, disability, and any other

[9:02:11] protected class. I would also echo the multimodal

[9:02:17] council's recommendations. Thank you for letting me

[9:02:19] testify. I look forward to your

[9:02:20] questions. >> thank you all very much.

[9:02:25] I want to note several folks on this panel also shared stories

[9:02:29] about being struck or injured. I know that is not something

[9:02:33] that is always easy to talk about, so I appreciate that

[9:02:37] several of you brought that up, share your own personal

[9:02:39] experience. I think it is a reminder for all

[9:02:42] of us that on our roads in d.c., any one of us is just one step

[9:02:48] away from an injury or worse. Those of you who shared that, I

[9:02:54] really appreciate that, because that is not easy to share.

[9:02:57] when you are the last panel of the day after nine hours, we

[9:03:02] have asked many of the questions along the course of the day, so

[9:03:06] forgive me if we end up being a little bit brief, but I want to

[9:03:09] touch on a couple of things. To brandon wu, you laid out

[9:03:14] several recommendations, and I hope that you are submitting

[9:03:17] your testimony for the record so you have that, but one thing you

[9:03:20] said was the equity components of the legislation could be

[9:03:24] stronger, so I was going to ask if you could elaborate more on

[9:03:27] that. One of the things we are

[9:03:29] attempting in the legislation, because right now, depending on

[9:03:33] where you are, if you hail a new burger or lyft, you are going to

[9:03:38] get very different wait times for that ride.

[9:03:42] if you are in ward 1 or the outer edges of ward 8, you will

[9:03:47] probably have a different experience.

[9:03:50] with the legislation, we try to craft it in a way where the wait

[9:03:54] times have to be equitable across the city so we do not see

[9:03:58] any -- an av operator concentrate their vehicles in

[9:04:04] one spot. What are other ways we can

[9:04:07] decimate the equity? >> that is a fantastic question.

[9:04:12] I think one is holding hearings east of the river, places we

[9:04:15] have not had, meeting constituents where they are at

[9:04:19] and hearing that the concerns with rideshare.

[9:04:23] how have the wait times it been impacting you?

[9:04:26] and listening to what they want. Some ridweers may just want bus

[9:04:34] service every 10 to 15 minutes rather than 30 to 40 minutes.

[9:04:39] I think raising the tax to provide a dedicated fund

[9:04:41] allotted to achieve the visionary bus network could be a

[9:04:44] very great way to ensure we do not use av's as the end-all

[9:04:50] be-all. This should be we are expanding

[9:04:56] transect access if we are going to legalize av's, but I have

[9:04:59] concerns that with other witnesses and with folks you

[9:05:03] have opinions on this legislation, they do not want to

[9:05:07] pay that tax. I would say listening to

[9:05:09] constituents on the ground and hearing what they have to say on

[9:05:12] how their transit journeys can be improved is really critical.

[9:05:16] it is a great start to work on lowering wait times, but I have

[9:05:21] concerns about where we are going to put this parking lot

[9:05:24] where all the av's are going to be at.

[9:05:27] it's probably not going to be ward three or four, and I think

[9:05:32] neighbors next to that parking lot are going to be

[9:05:35] disproportionately impacted, so I think talking to those

[9:05:38] constituents, holding hearings in their neighborhoods and

[9:05:41] reaching out to them directly will be critical.

[9:05:48] chair allen: I appreciate you bringing up the vehicle miles

[9:05:50] traveled tax, which is intended to do two things.

[9:06:05] one is these are electric vehicle fleets, which means

[9:06:06] there is no gas tax paid, so we are losing that.

[9:06:07] secondly, it is an attempt to help work on congestion.

[9:06:08] we had people over the course of the day say it is going to pass

[9:06:10] the costs along to low income riders.

[9:06:13] I do not accept the perception that these companies are just

[9:06:15] going to pass it on. One person said to do a portrait

[9:06:19] fee. That will get passed on to the

[9:06:24] rider, I guarantee you. But in many cities, a navy ride

[9:06:30] is more than an uber or lyft bang ride.

[9:06:36] they are going to be competing with other ride services that

[9:06:43] are less expensive. I think it is in their interest

[9:06:49] to put all these costs on it. I have not been convinced we

[9:06:52] need to move away from a vehicle miles traveled tax.

[9:06:58] it is a way we manage distance and advising congestion and

[9:07:05] riderless travel. Can you talk about the

[9:07:19] micro-availability initiative? >> the city of l.a. Has a

[9:07:22] universal basic mobility initiatives supporting low

[9:07:25] income residents with 150 dollars a month of financial

[9:07:28] support through a mobile wallet to be able to access any and all

[9:07:33] transportation options they would like to, really providing

[9:07:35] that freedom, and universal access, everything from amtrak

[9:07:41] cam track to being able to purchase stuff at bike stores,

[9:07:44] there has been good research into showcasing some of the

[9:07:49] positive impacts. One of the interesting facts is

[9:07:52] that folks who actually were on that program, 15% of them

[9:07:56] actually use metrobus or rail. Most of the benefits are being

[9:08:04] used for everyday bus and transit.

[9:08:07] thinking that is a unique model and initiative d.c. Could look

[9:08:09] at to replicate using the funds that are being raised through

[9:08:14] the bill. Chair allen: got it.

[9:08:18] I agree with you. I tried a couple years ago

[9:08:22] something called metro for d.c. So every d.c. Resident would

[9:08:26] have $100 per month of metro benefit.

[9:08:29] I think after january 2, we could come back to that.

[9:08:33] but I think that in the same way that this committee worked with

[9:08:38] our adult learner transit subsidy program, we increased it

[9:08:42] from $70 per month to $100 per month.

[9:08:45] it is definitely meaningful to a lot of our adult learners to

[9:08:48] have the transportation costs for their education.

[9:08:52] I like what you are saying. Let's have more conversations

[9:08:55] about it to see what that looks like.

[9:09:00] thank you. Ms. Wilson, I appreciate your

[9:09:03] testimony. As a cyclist myself, I know

[9:09:09] exactly what you are describing when you talk about driver

[9:09:12] behavior and the unchecked sense of what happens there.

[9:09:16] I think we have had a lot of conversation that over the

[9:09:19] course of today, it is going to be important to be clear that

[9:09:25] you can't convince me that these vehicles are safer than other

[9:09:29] drivers if we don't have built into the language protections

[9:09:32] for preventing av's from driving into bike lanes.

[9:09:37] that is part of the ecosystem of our transit.

[9:09:41] that is something we will definitely be working on.

[9:09:49] your testimony was about other risks we have seen from other

[9:09:52] humans that are driving aggressively.

[9:09:55] I appreciate it. At this point, I don't think I

[9:09:57] have any further questions. I appreciate everyone's

[9:10:00] testimony. For those of you who have not

[9:10:02] yet submitted it to the record, please do that so we can get it

[9:10:05] as part of the hearing today. Thank you all very much.

[9:10:19] it has been nine straight hours since we have been in this

[9:10:22] chair, so we are going to take a brief recess and moved to our

[9:10:25] government witnesses next. I'm going to take a five minute

[9:10:27] recess to stretch my legs and then we will reconvene.

[9:10:31] the time is now 6:40 p.m., which is magically the time our new

[9:10:36] director said we would be transitioning to the government

[9:10:40] witnesses. He called that 10 hours ago.

[9:10:42] we will take a brief recess at 6:40, then we will pick back up

[9:10:47] with government witnesses.

[9:17:37] >>>> it is now 6:47. We will be reconvening with our

[9:17:39] government witnesses. Thank you for being here.

[9:17:42] I'm going to read out -- I guess we will go in the order of

[9:17:46] people of the list that works, but tell me if you have a plan

[9:17:50] otherwise. We have stephanie with the

[9:17:52] district department of transportation, john thomas,

[9:17:57] jonathan rogers, the director of the department of four higher

[9:18:00] vehicles, and peter stephan, interim director, office of

[9:18:05] disability rights. Good to see you.

[9:18:08] stephanie, are you kicking us off?

[9:18:11] >> I am. >> all right.

[9:18:15] good evening. >> I will turn it over to you.

[9:18:18] good evening. I am the manager of the

[9:18:22] innovation branch of the department of transportation.

[9:18:25] I am a white woman with brown hair tied back wearing a beige

[9:18:32] suit. On behalf of mayor muriel bowser

[9:18:33] I am presenting testimony on the autonomous vehicles deployment

[9:18:37] authorization amendment act of 2026.

[9:18:42] ddot recognizes the highly complex nature of regulating

[9:18:45] autonomous vehicles for a visa. Navies have the potential to

[9:18:49] reshape urban mobility by optimizing traffic flow,

[9:18:54] expanding access to underserved neighborhoods and expanding

[9:18:58] mobility options for neighbors with disabilities.

[9:18:59] but realizing these potential benefits requires making careful

[9:19:04] policy choices. We also acknowledge this new

[9:19:08] technology may bring workforce changes as we saw with new

[9:19:10] models that upended the traditional taxi industry.

[9:19:14] as a these interlocal marketplaces, there will be

[9:19:17] trade-offs. New jobs will be created but

[9:19:19] existing jobs maywhile this evot come at once, it is important we

[9:19:26] consider these impacts now before a these are deployed at

[9:19:29] scale. There are many lessons to be

[9:19:31] learned from other jurisdictions as we consider the next steps

[9:19:34] with a visa. In april, we released an av's

[9:19:42] report on how states have regulated this new industry.

[9:19:45] that report included recommendations on commercial av

[9:19:51] deployment. This will be available later

[9:19:53] this summer and will focus on agency roles and

[9:19:57] responsibilities, how to enact a stage engaged role for

[9:20:01] deployment, and recommendations for using legislation versus

[9:20:04] regulations to govern av deployment.

[9:20:08] turning to the bill at hand, the legislation would allow av's to

[9:20:13] aa primarily for ridesharing in the district 3 multiple ddot

[9:20:17] certifications -- a testing permit, a commercial deployment

[9:20:20] permit, a right ailing certification, and registration

[9:20:26] for personally owned davies -- personally owned av's.

[9:20:33] the bill also creates a deployment fund with fees on av

[9:20:37] companies. A key lesson learned from other

[9:20:40] jurisdictions is the value of a staged and gated approach to av

[9:20:45] deployment. The bill has only one stage,

[9:20:48] requiring companies to test for 100 a.d. Days and over 250,000

[9:20:51] miles before they apply for a permit.

[9:20:55] we recommend this be changed from a statutory mandate to a

[9:21:00] regulatory authorization so ddot can take into consideration

[9:21:02] things like whether the testing miles are driverless, the

[9:21:06] locations and circumstances of the testing miles, and what

[9:21:08] would disqualify a company for moving to the next phase.

[9:21:12] allowing companies to move through the steps without

[9:21:15] significant consideration to what each step entails could

[9:21:18] result in companies and the impact of district agencies

[9:21:22] being unprepared for full-scale districtwide service.

[9:21:27] similarly, general accountability provisions should

[9:21:29] be included in the legislation with the details flushed out in

[9:21:34] regulations. Finds are currently capped at

[9:21:35] $1000 per offense, far less than our normal public space finds

[9:21:40] that are progressive depending on the severity and whether it

[9:21:42] is recurrent. Ddot also recommends the

[9:21:46] legislation authorize restricting or geo-fencing 80's

[9:21:48] for commercial -- for emergency situations.

[9:21:54] the bill's suspension and revocation provisions raise

[9:21:57] concerns about whether the district would be able to

[9:21:59] effectively pull the permits of unsafe or uncooperative

[9:22:02] operators. We are also concerned that the

[9:22:07] bill allows personally owned davies to be registered in the

[9:22:10] district. Ddot believes these should be

[9:22:13] fleet operated rather than personally owned at this stage

[9:22:16] of the technology's nascent sea. Non-fleet vehicles would be

[9:22:19] difficult to regulate and ensure they are operating safely on our

[9:22:24] roadways. And the technology self-driving

[9:22:26] capabilities can be oversold to drivers, presenting a vehicle

[9:22:30] hazard -- safety hazard for both the vehicle occupants and those

[9:22:33] on the roadway. Finally, we see an opportunity

[9:22:36] to improve data collection and standardization requirements for

[9:22:38] all kinds of for higher services, which director rogers

[9:22:42] spoke about at the june 26 round table and will speak about

[9:22:46] today. We similarly hope that the fhp

[9:22:51] can set their own standards for right hail and carrier services

[9:22:54] as this within -- he within the regulatory scope.

[9:22:59] thank you for the opportunity to testify.

[9:23:01] I am available to answer questions you may have.

[9:23:05] >> mr. Thomas, are you testifying separately or just

[9:23:09] available for questions? Got it.

[9:23:13] mr. Rogers, we will turn to you. >> I am jonathan rogers,

[9:23:19] director of the department of for-hire vehicles.

[9:23:25] I am a white male, brown hair, wearing a gray suit.

[9:23:28] thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective on bill

[9:23:34] 26. The framework the district

[9:23:38] establishes to govern for hire of thomas vehicles will have a

[9:23:41] far-reaching impact on how we move in our city.

[9:23:45] I'm glad we are here hearing from a range of stakeholders.

[9:23:50] strive for safety, accessibility, and affordability

[9:23:54] in the services we regulate. That includes for higher

[9:23:57] services for passengers and the delivery of goods.

[9:24:00] both of these activities are already happening in some

[9:24:04] capacity in the district using autonomous technology.

[9:24:07] whether these surfaces are operated by a human or are

[9:24:10] automated, the actions of our agency will reflect our

[9:24:13] commitment to safety, accessibility, and

[9:24:15] affordability. This is why the burden to prove

[9:24:19] safe, accessible, and affordable operations must be on av

[9:24:24] operators. A graduated approach makes sense

[9:24:26] for growth and deployment and passengers service in terms of

[9:24:30] fleet size, operating on local streets versus highways, or

[9:24:35] geographic requirements for service.

[9:24:37] all phases of deployment must prioritize equity and

[9:24:40] accessibility. Without specific requirements,

[9:24:45] operators are likely to begin their service in neighborhoods

[9:24:48] and with vehicles that are convenient for them instead of

[9:24:50] filling gaps in mobility or adding wheelchair accessible

[9:24:54] service to our transportation system.

[9:24:57] while we expect many operators to utilize hybrid fleets that

[9:25:00] are automated and human driven in the near term, it is

[9:25:04] important to recognize and prepare for the adverse impacts

[9:25:06] av's will have on transportation providers, such as the

[9:25:12] district's taxis, which have demonstrated the most reliable

[9:25:15] commitment to accessible service.

[9:25:16] we must be honest with the public on the impacts av's will

[9:25:19] have on our employment agencies and viability.

[9:25:25] undoubtedly new jobs will be created, but av's are not a win

[9:25:29] for everyone involved. Some will have reduced wages or

[9:25:33] a drastically changed livelihood.

[9:25:35] our responsibility to those whose livelihoods we regulate is

[9:25:38] to be honest and upfront with them to be honest about the

[9:25:40] impacts this industry will have on them.

[9:25:42] that's not to mean we don't move forward with davies, but it

[9:25:46] means we have honest conversations about the

[9:25:49] trade-offs. Lastly, the district department

[9:25:51] of transportation remains the expert on transportation

[9:25:54] planning and operations, yet today many consequential

[9:25:58] activities affecting our transportation network originate

[9:26:01] in the for higher space. We permit, regulate, and enforce

[9:26:07] them on the street. Court transportation issues such

[9:26:10] as traffic congestion, mode shift, competition with public

[9:26:14] transit, vehicle miles traveled, and environmental impact are all

[9:26:20] already at play among the millions of annual trips right

[9:26:24] your companies perform. Commercial autonomous services

[9:26:27] have huge potential to affect these elements, just as the

[9:26:31] original rideshare companies did when they arrived more than a

[9:26:35] decade ago. Dfhv believes strongly in the

[9:26:37] value of the conversations that took place last month among the

[9:26:41] for hire industry. Many areas of potential reform

[9:26:47] were identified and a holistic view of for higher services will

[9:26:50] yield the most effective regulatory framework, creating a

[9:26:54] silo with another unique set of rules would hinder regulation

[9:26:57] and enforcement, burden operators, and slow mobility

[9:27:01] benefits to the public. Rather than further fragment the

[9:27:04] rules and regulations governing for higher service, there are

[9:27:08] opportunities to align requirements, consolidate roles,

[9:27:12] and make modifications were necessary.

[9:27:16] thank you for the opportunity to testify.

[9:27:18] I am happy to address any questions you may have at this

[9:27:22] time. Chair allen: thank you, mr. Vice

[9:27:30] director. Mr. Stephan.

[9:27:32] >> good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to

[9:27:37] share otr's perspective on the bill, the autonomous vehicle

[9:27:43] deployment authorization amendment act of 2026.

[9:27:46] I should add I am a middle aged white person with long curly

[9:27:49] brown hair, dark suit, and yellow tie.

[9:27:53] oh vr accepts the district's goal and recognizes this as an

[9:27:59] opportunity to transform right hailing and mobility.

[9:28:06] however, the bill as introduced does not ensure accessibility of

[9:28:08] vehicles, rider and bystander safety alerts, or boarding.

[9:28:11] it only addresses app accessibility.

[9:28:13] these shortcomings must be addressed to ensure compliance

[9:28:17] with the americans with disabilities act, the d.c. Human

[9:28:19] rights act, and related disability rights laws.

[9:28:25] otr recommends and plummeting communication requirements into

[9:28:27] the permit framework at the outset, placing the department

[9:28:31] of for hire vehicles in charge of creating a holistic set of

[9:28:37] regulations pursuant to the bill to align requirements across all

[9:28:42] for-hire services. Companies outsource accessible

[9:28:50] rider requests to a small fleet of wheelchair accessible taxis

[9:28:53] they made their operating or staff, so this regularly leaves

[9:28:57] disabled riders with excessive wait times and lack of reliable

[9:29:02] service, particularly after hours.

[9:29:02] av's should not reproduce these inequities.

[9:29:07] we have several recommendations to improve the bill.

[9:29:10] first, require commercially deployed av's to provide the

[9:29:15] same service standards for wheelchair riders and be

[9:29:18] prepared for independent use for those with sensory or cognitive

[9:29:22] disabilities. These may not be driverless at

[9:29:25] first, but companies cannot just continue to rely on limited

[9:29:27] taxicab based fleets. Concrete vehicle accessibility

[9:29:31] requirements and timelines for av's to expand their fleet

[9:29:38] provide the opportunity to add more vehicles to the for hire

[9:29:40] industry. Av companies should report

[9:29:45] regularly on rides requested, rights fulfilled, and wait times

[9:29:48] for passengers with disabilities along with the date and time to

[9:29:52] ensure equitable service. Second, require pedestrian and

[9:29:56] passenger safety alerts. Vehicles must detect and

[9:29:59] communicate externally with pedestrians who are blind and

[9:30:02] low vision, deaf and hard of hearing, wheelchair riders,

[9:30:06] people using service candles or mobility devices, and

[9:30:13] they must provide multimodal inputs and alerts that indicate

[9:30:16] arrival, movement, and pending departure.

[9:30:19] the district department of transportation's recent av

[9:30:25] policy research underscores the importance of accessible

[9:30:27] operations and safety oversight. Third, acquiring reporting from

[9:30:33] av companies on their testing with people with disabilities.

[9:30:36] as part of the permit renewal and renewal processes to ensure

[9:30:41] safety. Prior to deployment, av

[9:30:44] companies must work at the district government -- with the

[9:30:49] district government, but also the the multimodal service

[9:30:53] advisory committee, other committees like that backpack

[9:30:55] and the mayor's commission on disabilities to identify their

[9:30:59] pickup and drop-off zones should be established.

[9:31:01] these accessible locations help many different users with

[9:31:06] disabilities so that people who are blind may know where they

[9:31:11] are picked up and dropped off. These can also prevent lane

[9:31:15] blocking. We recognize questions may be

[9:31:19] raised about cost. Ada puts these on the businesses

[9:31:22] as a cost of doing business. Accessibility is not cost

[9:31:26] prohibitive when designed from the outset and phased in.

[9:31:29] av's can and should expand independence for visitors and

[9:31:34] residents who do not or choose not to drive.

[9:31:39] it will increase opportunities by providing equitable access

[9:31:43] across all the wards. Those outcomes will not

[9:31:46] materialize if accessibility is left to chance.

[9:31:49] it never has in the past. Odr respectfully urges the

[9:31:53] committee to amend the bill so accessibility is guaranteed at

[9:31:58] av's at the curb and throughout operations from day one.

[9:32:02] we stand ready to ensure that district leads the nation in

[9:32:06] transportation accessibility. Thank you for the opportunity to

[9:32:10] testify. I am happy to address any

[9:32:12] questions you may have. Chair allen: thank you all very

[9:32:16] much. Throughout the day, we have

[9:32:18] heard different witnesses -- I know you and your teams have

[9:32:21] been paying attention to the testimony.

[9:32:23] folks kind of would say d.c. Did not get it right with a burger

[9:32:27] and lyft coming in, disrupting the marketplace, and really

[9:32:31] learned our lessons from it. What with the executives want to

[9:32:36] do differently if we view this as an opportunity to be

[9:32:40] deliberate, to be intentional, to take a lot of actions before

[9:32:44] something actually goes into effect?

[9:32:47] what are some of the main criteria -- maybe this is for

[9:32:50] ms. Dach and director rogers, but anybody please feel free to

[9:32:57] jump in, but what are the main things you would want to say

[9:32:59] looking back on that, here is how we would do this part of the

[9:33:02] conversation differently? >> I can start.

[9:33:08] it is not just a rival of the tmc's we are looking back on.

[9:33:12] we are looking at our learnings from the arrival of car share,

[9:33:16] whether it is point based or fixed based, how to be align the

[9:33:19] curve to the use of that, how do we set up the structures.

[9:33:23] we have also had the arrival of scooter and doc-based bikes.

[9:33:27] we are also dealing with personnel delivery devices.

[9:33:30] we have a whole range of technologies and emerging

[9:33:33] options that have come into our space, and each of them has

[9:33:37] brought us different lessons. Thinking through, in this case,

[9:33:42] we have some of the unique opportunity that we see this one

[9:33:46] coming and can prepare for it, but we also recognize the

[9:33:49] dangers of this one are much higher.

[9:33:51] something goes wrong when there is no human in the car to help

[9:33:54] take over and there are problems with trying to rearrange things.

[9:33:59] we recognize that once something moves to deployment, it is much

[9:34:02] harder to pull back. That is something we have

[9:34:05] learned from all of the modes. Once they are here, we have to

[9:34:08] deal with them as they are. I will also say that every one

[9:34:12] of those has gone through an iteration of regulation and

[9:34:15] oversight in that process. So recognizing that this field

[9:34:20] in particular is changing quite rapidly and we need to maintain

[9:34:23] as much flexibility as possible as one of the key items we are

[9:34:26] interested in, in taking from those past learnings and

[9:34:29] figuring out how we set ourselves up to iterate

[9:34:32] effectively so we can keep the pace without necessarily having

[9:34:37] to come back. The second one would be not

[9:34:39] missing out on asking for the data now.

[9:34:42] with uber and lyft, we did not get the data.

[9:34:49] that got negotiated. We have some dates are coming

[9:34:51] in, but as we will talk about, it does not quite -- it does not

[9:34:56] fit the need in full. There is a lack of specificity

[9:34:59] that relate to the curbside management.

[9:35:02] we do not know much about the workforce involved, and all of

[9:35:04] these things could be fixed, but once the regime was set up, it

[9:35:08] was very hard to change it. Essentially, start by asking for

[9:35:11] a lot and pare down from there, but also maintain flex ability

[9:35:15] as much as possible within the agencies, where we can pivot and

[9:35:18] adjust within the authorization we received from counsel.

[9:35:30] >> to add onto that, we do have the opportunity now to set a

[9:35:31] high bar for what we require. I think that was a common theme

[9:35:34] we heard from all sides of the conversation today that we

[9:35:39] really want to ensure and we have the opportunity that there

[9:35:42] can be a true benefit to what av passenger service would look

[9:35:46] like. So why not require those things

[9:35:52] that we really want to see? It is easy for me to think about

[9:35:57] the comparison to what we do require with our public vehicles

[9:35:59] for hire when it comes to public transportation, taxi side, and a

[9:36:03] lot of conversations we had in the public works committee, and

[9:36:07] it is such a stark contrast to what is required today on the

[9:36:12] private rideshare side. I think it is something we

[9:36:16] should not repeat. We can really set a high bar and

[9:36:19] just make sure we are getting the benefit.

[9:36:22] we heard a lot about the potential safety benefits and

[9:36:26] equity benefits and mobility benefits, but those all did not

[9:36:32] come to fruition with what we have seen the past decade with

[9:36:38] the rideshare companies. My biggest target is to require

[9:36:44] but I think we collectively are optimistic about for av

[9:36:51] passenger chair allen: service. Chair allen: the data elements

[9:36:56] echo -- we heard several businesses talk about it today.

[9:36:58] you are right. In that regard, being clear

[9:37:01] about what data do our agencies need, and we heard how ddot

[9:37:12] helps agencies with their service planning when it comes

[9:37:15] in. Mr. Thomas, did you have

[9:37:17] anything you wanted to add? >> no, I would just add the

[9:37:21] whole gated approach in keeping with working your way through

[9:37:24] the testing phase and deployment and eventually going back to

[9:37:27] testing when you have a change and going back to deployment and

[9:37:30] having the flexibility to work between those two where we are

[9:37:34] not just stop, we have the ability to slide back, test,

[9:37:39] fixed, then go back. >> I would add, like I said

[9:37:43] earlier, it should be a requirement that these companies

[9:37:48] establish and accessible -- a wheelchair accessible fleet at

[9:37:52] the outset. We saw what happened when that

[9:37:54] was not required. Chair allen: you had that really

[9:37:59] well. Thank you.

[9:38:00] let me ask a couple of quick questions.

[9:38:02] this will be a little bit of just current landscape.

[9:38:07] how many aav operators, companies are currently

[9:38:11] operating/testing in the district?

[9:38:13] >> we have two current testing entities, way moe and -- waymo

[9:38:29] and zoox. Zoox has less than 10.

[9:38:33] they do consider that confidential information, so I

[9:38:35] suggest that you asked them so I don't get in trouble for telling

[9:38:38] you on public record. >> less than 10 feels vague

[9:38:42] enough, but it gives us a sense of scale.

[9:38:43] >> we also had three entities pass through and give

[9:38:48] notification, but they are not actively testing right now.

[9:38:49] >> got it. You mentioned that the second

[9:38:58] report -- don't know if I'm using the right terminology here

[9:39:01] -- is being published at the end of the summer.

[9:39:05] the end of the summer could be a three month window.

[9:39:11] I am not trying to bang the drum from why isn't it here yet, but

[9:39:14] I do believe the quality of work and expertise that is going to

[9:39:18] come from that report is incredibly important for us and

[9:39:21] our policymaking and decision-making.

[9:39:23] I was hopeful we would see it today because I believe the work

[9:39:26] product is going to help the committee and the council do a

[9:39:28] better job of crafting a final bill.

[9:39:32] so if you say to me the end of the summer is labor day in

[9:39:38] september, you are going to make it really hard on the council

[9:39:40] because you know our schedule. We are in the second year of a

[9:39:46] two year counsel period. If legislation is not moving

[9:39:48] through by mid-october, it does not stand a chance from a

[9:39:53] calendar perspective to get through the process.

[9:39:56] what does the end of summer mean?

[9:39:58] >> we had some slowdowns, but we also went back and did some

[9:40:05] revisions and corrected some things and tightened it up.

[9:40:09] end of summer I think is -- end of summer, not july.

[9:40:18] as soon as possible, how is that?

[9:40:20] but still have some cleanup to do, but we are really close --

[9:40:24] we still have some cleanup to do, but we are really close.

[9:40:27] we are ready to soon submit it for final approval and review.

[9:40:29] >> end of august? I just want to be very upfront,

[9:40:37] not just with you guys, but with the public, if it comes in

[9:40:40] september to us, it is getting to the point where we are unable

[9:40:44] to do much with it. I believe there is expertise

[9:40:49] that is going to be in this report.

[9:40:52] if there is a draft, I don't have to publish it, but we will

[9:40:57] create a better product by having the benefit of that work

[9:41:01] product. >> can we get back to you --

[9:41:07] >> we are presaging the message on to people who understand the

[9:41:10] rest of the flow. >> all right.

[9:41:14] friday. Got it.

[9:41:14] ok. Does this report take a look at,

[9:41:20] for example, our ev charging infrastructure?

[9:41:25] I'm curious how much you have been able to take a look at the

[9:41:28] impact on our ev charging infrastructure.

[9:41:31] every now and then, we get a complaint that sometimes the

[9:41:34] operators are using probably accessible av chargers to the

[9:41:37] detriment of residents that are trying to use that.

[9:41:41] is that a component of what the report is looking at, and if

[9:41:48] not, what are the elements you are seeing is part of the ev

[9:41:51] infrastructure impacts? >> we are not digging in on the

[9:41:54] question of where are the chargers.

[9:41:57] we have been in conversation with doe e, who will be

[9:42:01] submitting written testimony as well.

[9:42:04] we are following this -- it's an evolving space that also has to

[9:42:07] do with the regional aspects here, because it is very

[9:42:12] possible that given our lack of industrial past, the

[9:42:15] availability of the land needed for the scale of charging that

[9:42:17] would come with deployment may not be entirely encompassed

[9:42:22] within the district. So our understanding as some of

[9:42:26] the companies are looking regionally for where they would

[9:42:28] put their depots, and maybe smaller facilities here in the

[9:42:32] district. I think that depends as well on

[9:42:35] what happens in maryland and virginia with their legislation.

[9:42:41] a range of impacts are possible, so we have not specifically dug

[9:42:44] in on where you should put that, but we think the control of how

[9:42:47] that happens aligns well with this idea of using agencies for

[9:42:50] where they already are in the processes we have.

[9:42:54] between the development review process and zoning, I think

[9:42:58] there is opportunities to weigh in and think about what those

[9:43:00] facilities might look like within the district.

[9:43:03] but without knowing the nature of the types of fleets and the

[9:43:06] scale and size of those fleets, it is difficult to answer the

[9:43:08] question of what would we want. The report is focused on the

[9:43:13] policy levers that you might employ to achieve the outcomes

[9:43:16] you want. Lesson to the deep, deep weeds

[9:43:19] of how should we get that specific outcome -- less into

[9:43:23] the deep, deep weeds of how we should get that specific

[9:43:26] outcome, but what do you require versus what should be enabled in

[9:43:30] legislation so we can maintain flexibility, and that may come

[9:43:33] down to the terms and conditions that apply to a permit rather

[9:43:36] than being codified fully in the regulation.

[9:43:40] the nuances of data reporting might not fully go into the

[9:43:43] regulation. It might come through in the

[9:43:46] specific definitions we require in the terms and conditions

[9:43:49] because we have more flexibility to respond to changes there with

[9:43:52] the broad framework set. We are trying to think about how

[9:43:56] we fit this into what we already have so that we are not creating

[9:44:00] something new but actually leveraging the structures in

[9:44:04] place to support this. >> you probably heard over the

[9:44:10] course of the day a number of things where we want to be

[9:44:13] prescriptive and we want to legislate, but I also believe

[9:44:16] some of what we want to be able to do is enable the agencies to

[9:44:19] make regulations, because sometimes it is to my benefit to

[9:44:23] be prescriptive, sometimes I actually am tying your hands by

[9:44:27] being prescriptive in a way you cannot have that flexibility.

[9:44:31] so I want to work with you to make sure we land that in the

[9:44:33] right way. We have also talked about the

[9:44:38] course of the day what is ddot, how do we navigate this.

[9:44:42] ddot primary traffic safety roadway design, curbside

[9:44:47] management, agency, when it comes to managing congestion or

[9:44:50] parking spaces by those are efforts I want ddot to lead on

[9:44:55] it. Similarly, I think that is

[9:44:57] probably best positioned, holistically assessed how safely

[9:45:03] at autonomous vehicles operate in the district.

[9:45:05] also hearing your testimony on the business of regulating for

[9:45:07] higher vehicle service, so our customer experience,

[9:45:12] accessibility would be where for higher vehicles will take the

[9:45:18] primary role. What agency responsibility is

[9:45:23] currently delegated to ddot in this legislation?

[9:45:27] have you, in your testimony, identified specific pieces that

[9:45:31] say this should be in for-hire vehicles or this should be in

[9:45:39] ddot? Marcus through the distinction

[9:45:41] before you leave. >> I think the general idea,

[9:45:44] looking at all use cases for autonomy, it is helpful to have

[9:45:47] one central point of view, to your point about assessing

[9:45:51] safety, determining operational impacts on roadways, and we

[9:45:54] believe that should stay with ddot.

[9:45:56] but when it comes to offering the service, that would be

[9:46:00] ddot's response ability when it comes to a passenger for hire

[9:46:05] services. There might be cases where

[9:46:08] something is outside dfhv's oversight.

[9:46:10] larger han 10 passengers is under different oversight.

[9:46:18] so if some sort of micro-transit service were to come in that had

[9:46:22] a 15 passenger vehicle, where does that fit in?

[9:46:25] but ddot is not in the business as of -- the business of

[9:46:30] overseeing that type of service. Really the autonomy generally

[9:46:37] through ddot and the specific use cases with their appropriate

[9:46:40] partners, if that makes sense. >> ok.

[9:46:44] director rogers? >> I would agree with that.

[9:46:49] I don't see our role changing much from what it is today in

[9:46:51] terms of what we do on a regular basis to receive applications

[9:46:56] for operating authority and review those applications,

[9:47:00] monitor the company's performance on a daily basis,

[9:47:02] due on the street enforcement, handle complaints from the

[9:47:06] public, all those sorts of functions.

[9:47:11] they're going to be things unique to the av version of

[9:47:14] this, but that same role for her agency in just regulating and

[9:47:21] enforcing the passengers service and if the delivery service

[9:47:24] becomes autonomous as well. >> ok.

[9:47:30] we moved into the conversation around phased deployment,

[9:47:33] whatever term we want to use here.

[9:47:36] your testimony recommends a more phased approach.

[9:47:40] I think you said the legislation looks at one phase.

[9:47:43] I feel like we are skipping the fact that we have a testing

[9:47:46] phase. In my mind, it actually is

[9:47:50] multiple phases to get there. I asked earlier today, for

[9:47:56] example, when we were testing, is it just sheer number of

[9:48:01] miles? Should it be testing certain

[9:48:02] number of miles in each ward? Should there be requirements set

[9:48:06] forth of there being a certain number of miles driven in

[9:48:10] daylight in sunlight, in rain, in snow, or do we just trust

[9:48:14] they say yeah, we have tried every condition?

[9:48:17] how prescriptive do you think, just quickly on the testing

[9:48:20] phase, are you currently, or do you believe we should be in

[9:48:25] saying just because you drove every block in ward 8 does not

[9:48:28] mean you actually tested effectively?

[9:48:30] wayne mo -- waymo has 25 vehicles.

[9:48:37] I guess I have seen all 25 on my own blog.

[9:48:40] I don't know if they are coming up and down my block because

[9:48:42] they are my block, but I think I have seen at least 25 in the

[9:48:47] last month or two. How prescriptive do you believe

[9:48:49] you should be in terms of how it looks to adequately test it?

[9:48:58] >> I agree that not all miles are the same.

[9:49:03] there is a certain amount of, do you have enough time, have you

[9:49:07] encountered enough things? I don't have a prescriptive list

[9:49:10] in the testing phase that would move someone from driver in

[9:49:13] testing to driverless testing. But we are looking to make sure

[9:49:19] that the indications are there that there is enough experience

[9:49:24] that they can do that. In testing, there was an easier

[9:49:29] opportunity than if we do move someone too quickly, we can also

[9:49:31] pull them back. That makes them step to

[9:49:35] deployment a little bit trickier, because once you get

[9:49:37] there, it is trickier to pull them back.

[9:49:43] but I think big things we are looking for is exposure to the

[9:49:47] dashing of types of streets. It is possible we will see

[9:49:50] people coming in and their operational design domain will

[9:49:53] not include all roads in the district.

[9:49:56] most of the passengers services are not testing on freeways, or

[9:49:59] they might be testing, but they are not preparing to deploy on

[9:50:03] freeways. We also could imagine a scenario

[9:50:05] where someone comes in and says they need to have a centerline

[9:50:07] on the road. This came up with the bus that

[9:50:12] came through and tested that u.s. Dot helped bring in.

[9:50:17] it needed lines. They did not want to drive it

[9:50:19] down a road. We would not have sent in 1 --

[9:50:23] down one of the local roads anyway.

[9:50:27] there could be cases where someone is not able to do all of

[9:50:30] that, so we want to see they have explored their plans own or

[9:50:35] types of roadways enough and that they have -- their planned

[9:50:38] zone or types of roadways enough and that they have encountered

[9:50:42] things that will be problematic. If you are thinking about

[9:50:45] operating downtown, have you encountered a protest?

[9:50:48] they are going to happen. You're going to have to respond

[9:50:51] to that. Have you encountered a

[9:50:53] motorcade? We are working towards this idea

[9:50:59] of enough laundry lists of key edge cases that may not be edge

[9:51:02] here in the district but might be someplace else, and really

[9:51:07] looking to identify that. I don't think we have a

[9:51:15] threshold. It is partial company readiness

[9:51:16] and making sure they had the operational infrastructure to

[9:51:19] support the move towards that, and some real expectations of

[9:51:21] what will happen once you are there, what will constitute not

[9:51:26] doing a good job beyond the obvious safety concerns, but

[9:51:29] vehicles getting stranded, do you have the infrastructure to

[9:51:32] collect the people and the equipment to get your vehicle in

[9:51:35] stock in a timely manner, or is he getting stuck in the roadway

[9:51:39] and blocking traffic while you try to get a tow truck there?

[9:51:43] trying to think about the balance.

[9:51:54] some of that burden may become lower in the district, but we do

[9:51:59] definitely think there will need to be a step through testing

[9:52:04] because we are unique. >> by our count, it is at least

[9:52:12] a three step facing. We have the driver in testing,

[9:52:13] then we have the driver out testing, then we have the fleet

[9:52:17] cap testing before full deployment.

[9:52:22] is there additional steps you are recommending, or are you

[9:52:24] just kind of looking at the tweaks within those phases?

[9:52:27] >> I think we would add one more in the driver out testing.

[9:52:33] the regulations we have proposed did recommend -- did allow for

[9:52:40] testing with passengers or goods movement after a period of time

[9:52:44] so that the first time they try to do the curbside pickup or

[9:52:48] drop-off is not a deployment. We would like to have seen

[9:52:52] evidence of how they are going to handle that in advance.

[9:52:54] whatever use case they are working towards, that we could

[9:52:56] see that before they get to full commercial activity, have they,

[9:53:00] for a small group of services, not for fares, just for testing,

[9:53:05] been able to demonstrate how they would do that so we have

[9:53:08] some confidence when they say yes, we are not parking in bike

[9:53:11] lanes or we have figured out to do the pickup and drop-off off

[9:53:16] for passengers with disabilities, we can get to the

[9:53:18] curb so they can unload at the curb ramp.

[9:53:20] those are things they have actually shown us.

[9:53:22] the other piece is that in deployment -- what you are

[9:53:26] getting at with the fleet cap of 200 aligns with what we are

[9:53:29] thinking, which is that you do not just completely launch your

[9:53:33] service in full with every single vehicle you think you

[9:53:36] might need, which is where we heard people asking for 1000

[9:53:40] vehicles, like san francisco has.

[9:53:42] we can think about how we get there, and I think the bill

[9:53:45] envisions that, but if that is the appropriate number, which I

[9:53:48] do not think we have a set number anyone is aiming for

[9:53:50] right now, but starting with the smaller zone, that maybe the

[9:53:55] whole district is ambitious, and that going from 25 vehicles

[9:53:58] testing on the streets to 200 vehicles in one fell swoop that

[9:54:03] are then trying to cover the whole district could be a lot.

[9:54:07] trying to think about could we also set smaller launch in areas

[9:54:11] where you start small built with small equity provisions built

[9:54:15] into that so they are not just serving downtown but are

[9:54:18] actually meeting the needs -- the transportation needs of our

[9:54:22] population, and then build up from there so we increase the

[9:54:25] fleet, we increase the service areas, but in a more stepwise

[9:54:29] fashion so it is not all at once.

[9:54:31] >> how many waymos operate in san francisco?

[9:54:38] >> basically from san francisco into the south bay.

[9:54:44] I think we have heard it is a thousand.

[9:54:46] >> we can round, give or take. >> the california public

[9:54:53] utilities commission does have the numbers on this.

[9:54:55] california is one of the rare states where you do know the

[9:54:58] numbers. >> the reason an approximate

[9:55:02] number is important, if the intentional legislation with 200

[9:55:06] , coming from 25 to 200 is a big step up.

[9:55:09] hearing folks say let's have an initial cap of seven hundred 50,

[9:55:15] that feels like you're close to the full operation anyway, and

[9:55:18] if we believe a phased approach is the right one, that would

[9:55:23] argue for something closer to 200.

[9:55:26] the exact number, I'm not sure, but it is somewhere in that

[9:55:29] ballpark. I do think there is an argument

[9:55:32] that holds a little logic, which is if we are trying to have an

[9:55:35] entire city wide equity in that delivery time, capping that at

[9:55:41] 200 will make it very hard to deliver that.

[9:55:45] what I am hearing you say, it is more of a thought exercise right

[9:55:49] now, is if you keep the 200, you might have to say, all right,

[9:55:52] what is a different way that I am trying to measure equity or

[9:55:55] have a zone approach so that I can both have enough that I can

[9:55:59] achieve that policy goal but not dilute it so much that we have

[9:56:02] set a goal that we cannot actually achieve.

[9:56:05] am I hearing that correctly? >> yes.

[9:56:09] you can put more of them in a smaller zone.

[9:56:12] I think this is also an opportunity to make sure that

[9:56:15] what they are promising they will be able to do and their

[9:56:18] operational plans, so we can observe that without having to

[9:56:21] watch the entire district, so that the issues that might arise

[9:56:26] become clearer faster so we can kind of nip them in the but if

[9:56:29] we are having problems. Where is trying to get to a

[9:56:33] point where you have enough coverage for the whole district

[9:56:35] does result in a very large starting fleet.

[9:56:38] if something goes awry, that's a lot of vehicles to potentially

[9:56:41] go awry with. >> ok.

[9:56:44] we also heard, as we talked about this phased approach.

[9:56:49] we heard folks say we need to go a lot faster than that.

[9:56:52] for me, january 1, 20 28, well, it may sound like it is far

[9:56:57] away. It is not very far away.

[9:57:00] purely from a realistic standpoint of legislation, let's

[9:57:03] assume for the sake of argument here a bill gets passed sometime

[9:57:06] in the fall. Let's say it passes and the

[9:57:11] mayor's signs it. Now we have to go through with

[9:57:14] the congressional review. Congress is not in session when

[9:57:18] they are off campaigning or before the midterm elections,

[9:57:21] nor the holidays, so by the time you get through the

[9:57:24] congressional review, it is easily late spring.

[9:57:27] the effective date isn't even until the, which means you've

[9:57:31] got eight months, may be, to get to january 1, 2020 eight, and

[9:57:35] from an implementation agency, that sounds pretty ambitious.

[9:57:39] how did you react to hearing testimony about saying got to

[9:57:44] move faster than january 1, 2028.

[9:57:53] >> we are tracking at the way you are tracking it.

[9:57:54] it would be 2028 or maybe the next quarter after that, but

[9:57:58] that seems the quickest to be able to do it well at right.

[9:58:00] I think that is the key to this. We want to get it right as much

[9:58:05] as we can the first time, so rushing is not going to -- and

[9:58:08] there is just gaetz we have to get through that we do not

[9:58:10] control. >> ok.

[9:58:13] I just think it is fair to the companies that are looking to

[9:58:18] pilot or invest, as well as the public, we've got to be clear

[9:58:22] eyed about what a time frame actually looks like.

[9:58:25] >> one thing we have heard quite a bit is having a clear pathway

[9:58:29] to deployment is what industry has indicated to us they are

[9:58:31] looking for, that even if the time -- as long as they know

[9:58:35] what is coming, that gives them more clarity for investing.

[9:58:40] I would defer to them as to whether that is still in the

[9:58:44] case, but in past conversations, that is what we have been told.

[9:58:48] >> I think to be fair to companies, the uncertainty that

[9:58:53] has existed for the last couple of years has been the biggest

[9:58:55] part for them up, should I even be trying to invest here?

[9:59:01] I am sure they always want to timeframe that is faster than we

[9:59:05] can provide, but getting a pathway and certainty I do think

[9:59:07] is a big deal and allows them to make better decision making what

[9:59:10] they want to do. It is our job to say this is the

[9:59:15] timeframe we can deliver. >> I would add I think some of

[9:59:20] the potential negatives we have talked about today, whether that

[9:59:24] is impact on current drivers, thinking through if there is a

[9:59:28] limited geographic area that a launch happens, how do we

[9:59:30] actually planned to make sure there is an equity benefit and a

[9:59:34] transportation benefit, those things take time to plan, those

[9:59:41] are not easy problems to solve. It makes the challenge more

[9:59:47] difficult. >> safety obviously is supposed

[9:59:54] to be a primary consideration here.

[9:59:58] how would ddot propose measuring safety?

[10:00:21] how would ddot go about assessing or how would you want

[10:00:25] to assess, this is what you mean when we say save.

[10:00:29] this is how we are determining or measuring against safety?

[10:00:42] >> some of the -- we are not in this what format, we are not

[10:00:51] comparing the national average of traffic fatalities.

[10:00:54] we should be talking about the safety record of the

[10:00:57] professional drivers in the for hire industry today.

[10:01:03] those of the trips that are either going to be replaced or

[10:01:06] augmented by autonomous passenger service.

[10:01:11] it is that safety record -- >> you make a good point.

[10:01:19] is that a quantifiable, knowable safety metric to measure

[10:01:22] against? >> it brings me to the point of

[10:01:30] -- millions and millions of trips more than the good data we

[10:01:33] do have on the public vehicle for hire side.

[10:01:38] we probably couldn't tell you exact vehicle miles traveled for

[10:01:46] serious injury. I think it is interesting with

[10:01:48] these fleets that will be owned by autonomous vehicle operators,

[10:01:54] they actually have a lot more technology but a lot more

[10:01:56] insight into when a crash happens so they can meet the bar

[10:01:59] much easier than the argument that taxi companies could make

[10:02:04] it too but uber and lyft have had for decades is we don't

[10:02:08] employ those drivers, we don't own those vehicles, so it is

[10:02:11] difficult for them to detect when a crash occurs, but that is

[10:02:14] not going to be the case with the autonomous lead.

[10:02:18] a really high bar from notification.

[10:02:23] >> ok. >> I guess we thought about it

[10:02:29] particularly in the testing phase, a big recommendation is

[10:02:35] looking for the patterns in the behavior.

[10:02:40] right now there are driver in -- there is a test operator in the

[10:02:45] vehicle that can take over. We don't actually know the date

[10:02:49] of when they are taking over or not, but understanding the

[10:02:52] circumstances where there are interventions by the human.

[10:02:55] if driverless testing will be the interventions by remote

[10:02:58] assistance or the part where the vehicle needed to be rescued.

[10:03:02] all of those, we are looking for a pattern of declining

[10:03:06] intervention, that the vehicle is able to handle the context

[10:03:09] more and more correctly. We also hopefully have a robust

[10:03:14] network of automated safety cameras.

[10:03:17] as we have had a lot of discussion today, I certainly

[10:03:21] would argue that one of these vehicles setting off one of the

[10:03:24] speed cameras will be highly problematic.

[10:03:26] it is a pretty high bar. You've got a pass to set that

[10:03:31] off if the vehicle is not going to go above the speed limit.

[10:03:34] red light cameras, there's always a little bit of nuance,

[10:03:38] and the vehicles have a tendency to hesitate a little bit more.

[10:03:42] maybe there is a case where that gets sent off.

[10:03:45] all fodder for conversation. But I think what we are looking

[10:03:48] at is how do we use the monitoring systems we already

[10:03:51] have in place and the data we will have for them to look for a

[10:03:55] pattern of declining intervention such that it is

[10:03:56] clear the vehicles are handling things well.

[10:04:00] that said, this is also going to be an ongoing monitoring need.

[10:04:05] the vehicles go through software updates.

[10:04:08] things change around them. Do they have -- do they

[10:04:15] understand what is going on with our construction?

[10:04:19] have they made a change in the behavior changing?

[10:04:26] having said the vehicle may past

[10:04:30] this is something that will require ongoing monitoring, much

[10:04:34] of the what if you do the driver tracking types of insurance,

[10:04:38] like to drive safe and safe, the progressive snapshot -- whatever

[10:04:43] the companies call their services.

[10:04:47] that is an ongoing monitoring by the insurance company to say how

[10:04:51] is your driving behavior doing? I think we have to think about

[10:04:54] watching ev's in the same manner because it is the brain that is

[10:04:58] in there that continues to evolve.

[10:05:01] it is not that you get to be a fully fledged automated driving

[10:05:05] system set loose and nothing changes again.

[10:05:08] it is also understanding their safety structures and how they

[10:05:11] are doing in making sure what they are putting up on the

[10:05:15] street, there are verification processes such they can do that.

[10:05:20] we need to be keeping some experts on retainer to help us

[10:05:23] with advising in this process because there are changes going

[10:05:26] on. Going to the conferences with

[10:05:31] the manufacturers, it is a very complex process they are doing.

[10:05:35] it is not a simple as saying don't break the speed limit.

[10:05:37] there's a lot more into it. >> ok.

[10:05:41] >> I will just add -- if they also change vehicle type, they

[10:05:48] need to go back because that is a new vehicle with different

[10:05:50] size and dimensions. There are a lot of factors that

[10:05:53] will change. We cannot really collaborate

[10:05:58] right up because they have a person behind the wheel.

[10:06:00] once you can get out of that, we will understand how they are

[10:06:04] doing, right? They say they are at 94%.

[10:06:08] >> ok. Let me switch gears to a couple

[10:06:12] other items. When it comes to restricting ads

[10:06:17] development -- sorry, deployment, the bill requires

[10:06:25] autonomous vehicles to register, which I think is what we want

[10:06:27] otherwise we don't know that they are there.

[10:06:30] does not necessarily permit the operation.

[10:06:33] do you have any feedback on the limitations established, looking

[10:06:37] at lines 94 through 95? Aviation into certain context.

[10:06:44] and if that is overly specific, you can get back to me.

[10:06:47] >> we will get back to you. >> ok.

[10:06:52] I will break it down this way. Think about level one, level

[10:06:55] two. I don't know if you were here

[10:06:58] when one of her witnesses talked about -- if not actually level

[10:07:04] three, sounded awfully close to operating level 3 three on the

[10:07:07] roads in the district, which is not allowed.

[10:07:10] what are your thoughts around vehicles equipped at level one

[10:07:14] and level two? >> those are not autonomous

[10:07:19] vehicles, to be clear. Those are advanced driver

[10:07:22] specific systems. >> yes, but there are elements

[10:07:26] of autonomous driving in level one and level two, right?

[10:07:29] my vehicle right now -- I have a supergroup -- subaru forester.

[10:07:39] I have two little eyeballs and it will be pet me if I go across

[10:07:44] the alley. It slams on the brakes every now

[10:07:48] and then because it thinks it is protecting me.

[10:07:51] it is jarring for me but it is automated in terms of what it is

[10:07:53] doing, right? I'm using a little bit of the

[10:07:57] level 1, level 2 from the automation standpoint.

[10:08:00] >> the society of automotive engineers, that standard does

[10:08:06] define this. Level zero through -- zero is no

[10:08:10] automation. There are automation features,

[10:08:15] but those require that the human continue to be engaged, right?

[10:08:19] the car slams on the brakes, which you will then override and

[10:08:22] say, no, that is just tree branches.

[10:08:25] they are very helpful features, they are great to have and we

[10:08:29] are definitely facing a period where there are a lot of level

[10:08:33] two vehicles that are being sold as level two plus plus, which is

[10:08:37] the term that is being referred to.

[10:08:42] the authors would remind you there is no two plus plus.

[10:08:45] you are either two or three. The key distinction is whether

[10:08:50] the driver needs to remain engaged the entire time.

[10:08:51] the two's can do a lot. The three should mean you are

[10:08:58] able to tune out almost entirely during when the car is doing the

[10:09:01] driving. >> is that allowed in d.c. Now?

[10:09:04] >> to completely tune up? No.

[10:09:08] you need to stay engaged. There was only one company

[10:09:12] marketing level three vehicles in the u.s.

[10:09:16] mercedes heather drive pilot system in southern california

[10:09:18] and over to lowe's vegas -- las vegas.

[10:09:22] they are no longer selling that system.

[10:09:24] everything being sold to consumers is a level 2 vehicle.

[10:09:27] the human needs to pay attention.

[10:09:30] the human cannot be impaired. Don't go to sleep, don't look at

[10:09:34] your phone, watch what your car is doing.

[10:09:37] >> at least right now, the regime we are in and the regime

[10:09:42] ddot supports, correct me if I am wrong, level three system

[10:09:48] should not be allowed to operate in the district for a private

[10:09:51] vehicle? >> yes.

[10:09:54] we think it should be fleet operated and in that context,

[10:09:59] you will generally see people pushing for level four vehicles.

[10:10:01] >> we have some conversation earlier today about remote

[10:10:07] operators and about whether or not a remote operator should be

[10:10:12] required to take the district driving test.

[10:10:17] do you have any thoughts about that?

[10:10:17] >> it is an interesting element here.

[10:10:22] I would note there is a distinction between a remote

[10:10:25] operator and a remote assistant. Almost all of the companies we

[10:10:30] are dealing with only have remote assistants, which is that

[10:10:34] the person remotely in most cases can drop breadcrumbs for

[10:10:37] the vehicle, but when the actual movement of the vehicle occurs,

[10:10:41] the automated driving system is still doing the driving,

[10:10:45] maintaining situational awareness.

[10:10:46] we are not supportive of remote driving.

[10:10:49] we want the vehicle -- it is either the vehicle is driving or

[10:10:53] the person in the vehicle is driving, not someone watching

[10:10:57] through a camera, playing a videogame on our streets.

[10:10:59] there are tele-operations companies that sit in that

[10:11:02] space, and I think I would be safe saying we don't support the

[10:11:07] idea of those coming in. >> do you think the legislation

[10:11:10] needs to be specific about that? To be very clear what is a

[10:11:14] remote operator, what is remote assistance, so we don't end up

[10:11:18] with anyone trying to play games on how they are defining

[10:11:20] different criteria? >> potentially.

[10:11:24] I don't know the full -- it would be helpful to do a re-skim

[10:11:30] of the market as to whether anyone is actually using remote

[10:11:32] driving in the ads context. I would generally say that would

[10:11:37] be fine. My only recommendation would be

[10:11:39] to make sure -- if possible, reference the definitions that

[10:11:44] are coming out of sae because they were built up within the

[10:11:48] industry and a lot of clarity about what that term means in

[10:11:52] the industry standard. >> what are the anticipated

[10:11:58] staff needs for reviewing permits related to commercial

[10:12:03] operations and monitoring compliance afterwards?

[10:12:04] does ddot have all the existing staff you need to be able to

[10:12:10] move into this and slacked -- and entire space, map out what

[10:12:14] you think this entire staffing needs are?

[10:12:17] >> yeah, we currently have stephanie and we have two other

[10:12:24] dedicated positions. Obviously, as we learned where

[10:12:29] this is going, we would definitely need to increase

[10:12:31] that. Scale it on whether they will

[10:12:36] have two companies, three companies, 200 vehicles out on

[10:12:39] the street, 1000. As that scale builds, we will

[10:12:43] need support to manage that. We are thinking about what that

[10:12:47] looks like and understanding what the demand would be on us

[10:12:53] are part of it and what we would need to do --

[10:12:55] >> what does that look like for the department of vehicles?

[10:13:00] >> I would say the same. It would be helpful to have a

[10:13:06] better indication of the volume of activity we would need to do.

[10:13:09] generally speaking, we are not overwhelmed currently with the

[10:13:15] application and renewal process for our private for higher

[10:13:18] operations. I would expect we would need a

[10:13:24] slight increase in a position maybe, but there are not that

[10:13:30] many private operators, what we call digital dispatch and

[10:13:33] private business. It is not a high number today.

[10:13:37] we could probably accommodate a few more applications a year.

[10:13:41] >> then, do you have any thoughts or feedback on the

[10:13:49] proposed either vmt costs or we also heard testimony about, not

[10:13:55] necessarily vehicles miles traveled, but hours travel.

[10:14:00] recognizing we are a compact base and may miles is not the

[10:14:04] best way to measure that. Do you have any thoughts on

[10:14:05] that? >> it is one we would like to

[10:14:08] give more thought to. I will obnoxiously note there is

[10:14:13] a program, report number 1165 which just came out.

[10:14:18] I chaired the panel that produce that report.

[10:14:21] it is about revenue related models for new mobility.

[10:14:23] I think it is a great framework laid out that we would love to

[10:14:26] chat through with you. A key thing is looking through

[10:14:30] the objectives of what we are trying to achieve with the fees

[10:14:32] we are imposing. I think there are some elements

[10:14:34] of the fee that we think could be approached a bit differently.

[10:14:37] the vmt has a straight gas tax replacement.

[10:14:43] I am not sure the number we've got aligns with that but I don't

[10:14:46] think the fee is one we are solely doing for the purposes of

[10:14:50] the gas tax. We are using it to achieve other

[10:14:53] objectives. Encouraging efficiency, dealing

[10:14:56] with congestion. In that sense, it makes it more

[10:15:01] administratively complex. As an agency, probably won't

[10:15:04] want this perhaps. In terms of achieving the

[10:15:08] objectives we all want for the system, I think thinking about

[10:15:12] the nuances that can be applied within that.

[10:15:15] is it looking differently at when and where the miles are

[10:15:17] driven? Who is in the vehicle, what

[10:15:21] types of services are being provided, and how do we use the

[10:15:24] tools to incentivize the behavior we want as well as

[10:15:28] dis-incentivize the negative impacts and negative

[10:15:31] externalities? Whether that is some combination

[10:15:34] of vehicle hours or miles, thought those were interesting

[10:15:38] suggestions. I don't have a direct comment

[10:15:41] right now but I think there's a lot to dig through.

[10:15:42] >> I think it is another policy area and potential policy lever

[10:15:49] that would benefit from being uniform across the for-hire

[10:15:53] industry. We talked about that in the

[10:15:56] public works committee. Focusing on the negative

[10:16:01] externalities, you are trying to discourage.

[10:16:04] something like a vmt or a miles or minutes maybe is probably a

[10:16:10] better tool to do that than a per trip, whether it is a flat

[10:16:17] fee like you pay for a taxi trip or a 6% gross receipt which I

[10:16:24] think is probably the least directly tied to the behaviors

[10:16:28] you want to change. I think having it uniform across

[10:16:32] all these trips is the way to go.

[10:16:33] >> all right. I was going to turn to you for a

[10:16:38] little bit. We had a large amount of

[10:16:41] conversation today around accessibility.

[10:16:43] you have highlighted in your own testimony.

[10:16:45] earlier today when we asked some of the operators how will you

[10:16:53] help make sure you are creating wheelchair accessible vehicles,

[10:16:55] one representative said we actually make -- we are working

[10:17:02] on a purpose built vehicle. We're a technology company so we

[10:17:06] don't actually build the cars and we can't find a way to make

[10:17:08] it work. An unsatisfactory answer for

[10:17:12] what we need and it's felt very familiar from a few years back.

[10:17:16] you mentioned that essentially rideshare companies that don't

[10:17:24] provide wheelchair accessible vehicles, they will just

[10:17:25] outsource rides and that ends up a worse experience for everyone.

[10:17:30] what does it look like just to say you don't have an option if

[10:17:33] you want the permit to operate, you have to meet this?

[10:17:37] I think you mentioned phasing. Is there a phased approach you

[10:17:40] recommend, a best practice or model?

[10:17:42] >> I think the northstar on this, you can refer back to the

[10:17:48] ada and the d.c. Human rights act.

[10:17:50] we are talking about equal service, equitable service

[10:17:53] across the board. If you are providing a way time

[10:17:58] of one minute for someone without a disability or does not

[10:18:01] need a wheelchair accessible vehicle, we want to see

[10:18:04] something similar to that for someone who does have a

[10:18:06] wheelchair vehicle. I am not suggesting a fleet

[10:18:11] size but parity in terms of service.

[10:18:13] when we are talking about what is accessible for people.

[10:18:16] to your point, yeah, we heard some company said they don't

[10:18:22] produce the vehicles but we understand they are the ones

[10:18:25] that are still providing this service to district residents

[10:18:30] and visitors. I think they need to be held

[10:18:35] responsible for acquiring those successful vehicles.

[10:18:38] while we have heard previously from other testimony that there

[10:18:42] are those autonomous vehicles that are accessible currently,

[10:18:44] one company makes them at least, in the meantime, we are not

[10:18:49] asking those be deployed immediately.

[10:18:51] we can have drivers were operating wheelchair accessible

[10:18:54] vehicles. I don't just want to emphasize

[10:18:57] those either. We also are asking that these

[10:19:02] vehicles be accessible for people who are blind or low

[10:19:04] vision, people who are deaf or hard of hearing.

[10:19:07] that requires multimodal input and communication devices.

[10:19:13] we heard about that as well. I think when we talk about

[10:19:18] phased-in approach, we are talking about parity in service,

[10:19:22] is my thought. And I would be ok with that.

[10:19:26] >> what is our current accessibility requirements?

[10:19:30] >> in my opinion, they have barely any.

[10:19:35] given what you noted, the bottom line can refer you elsewhere.

[10:19:40] that is pretty much what lyft does.

[10:19:42] uber is outsourcing it more. I second everything peter said.

[10:19:50] it is just as difficult for a taxi company who does not

[10:19:53] manufacture its own vehicles or own the vehicles to acquire or

[10:19:59] try to make available a wheelchair accessible fleet just

[10:20:01] on that particular point. Again, I think it is an area we

[10:20:06] can reach higher. It is also another potential

[10:20:09] role for a human to play in the near term.

[10:20:14] where if you don't have the fully humanless technology to

[10:20:20] secure a wheelchair and assist someone in and out of the

[10:20:22] vehicle, all the other issues you might encounter, maybe that

[10:20:27] is a former ride-share driver's role, something similar to what

[10:20:31] they were doing as a gig employee.

[10:20:33] so, I don't think it is something we should shy away

[10:20:36] from. I do like thinking about the

[10:20:40] performance-based metric. Very difficult for us to

[10:20:45] quantify it in force. A fleet based metric.

[10:20:49] you heard about loopholes that a vehicle could exist but not --

[10:20:53] might not be doing much service. We don't measure it that way

[10:20:56] anymore. We stepped up our game with a

[10:21:01] taxi requirement to make sure she's actually -- it's actually

[10:21:03] active. It is hard to measure the demand

[10:21:08] and not punish companies for not doing a trip that was never

[10:21:14] requested. We do think there are plenty of

[10:21:15] people trying to get wheelchair accessible trips for higher and

[10:21:20] so we are holding the only group of operators that are required

[10:21:25] to do so, we are trying to hold them accountable and help them

[10:21:29] through that. I think there are examples in

[10:21:32] new york and other places where they are doing exactly what you

[10:21:34] heard. They have a performance standard

[10:21:38] and it is on par with the average for anyone else.

[10:21:44] that is probably a better approach than trying to say you

[10:21:49] need 20% of whatever number of vehicles is wheelchair

[10:21:52] accessible. >> I want to add this is why

[10:21:56] data recording is critical, both in the deployment and before

[10:22:00] that when we were testing and permitting.

[10:22:02] just to ensure that those wait times are not extremely long

[10:22:06] like we've seen with tnc's. We have seen what doesn't work

[10:22:14] which is outsourcing that demand to taxi fleets that have to

[10:22:17] absorb that demand, which increases the wait times.

[10:22:18] >> ok. Director, you mention something

[10:22:22] in your testimony, I did not quite hear it or understand it.

[10:22:27] I wrote it down. You talked about external

[10:22:30] alerts. Can you maybe walk through what

[10:22:34] you are describing? Were you saying the

[10:22:37] recommendation is that autonomous vehicles need to have

[10:22:40] some type of external alert for all rides?

[10:22:43] I didn't quite follow. >> sure.

[10:22:47] I think this comes from -- you see it already in electric

[10:22:52] vehicles where they are operating below 25 -- 24 miles

[10:22:54] per hour. They have an artificial sound so

[10:22:59] people are aware. Even if they are not seeing the

[10:23:03] vehicle, you know that vehicle is approaching.

[10:23:05] whereas without that sound, they are virtually silent.

[10:23:09] with all the competing noise, it can be sometimes hard to hear

[10:23:13] where it is coming from. Things like that could be really

[10:23:15] helpful. >> thank you, now I understand.

[10:23:19] I was trying to follow and that makes total sense now.

[10:23:23] and then, let's see -- let me go back to director rogers for a

[10:23:30] moment. Beyond revenue generation, what

[10:23:35] are the goals or incentives you think that fees or surcharges

[10:23:39] should be trying to accomplish? We talked a lot about congestion

[10:23:44] management, curbside management. What are the other goals other

[10:23:48] than saying raise revenue? Using that revenue in a way to

[10:23:52] achieve a policy goal. >> those are the two big ones.

[10:23:57] usually, you think about the impact on the infrastructure,

[10:24:01] the wear and tear that all those miles create.

[10:24:03] I believe those were the ideas council had in mind when the law

[10:24:10] was created. I just think the mechanism with

[10:24:14] a flat 6% -- I guess it is not flat, but 6% trip per charge on

[10:24:21] the gross receipts are not tied directly to those negative

[10:24:26] externalities. If you are trying to reduce

[10:24:29] environmental impact, emissions or traffic congestion, encourage

[10:24:36] safety even, I think those are the big goals we've talked

[10:24:39] about. To the extent that is the right

[10:24:42] lever to do that, that is what we should be aiming for.

[10:24:44] >> ok. >> I would also add things we

[10:24:49] heard today that people are saying.

[10:24:51] the late-night service of getting people home or when they

[10:24:54] are coming off service work or third shifts.

[10:24:58] also thinking about the linkages to transit.

[10:25:02] heard some good ideas there but also just trying to imagine how

[10:25:07] you might also use the fees as a way to incentivize certain

[10:25:10] behaviors. In might be a lower fee in

[10:25:16] order to encourage the availability of the system.

[10:25:19] I think this is something that we somewhat learned in the car

[10:25:22] share an example where we originally set the fees set

[10:25:24] mostly to the cost of parking in a parking space for the entire

[10:25:28] time they were using the curbside.

[10:25:31] in the end, we realized those vehicles are also really

[10:25:34] important part of a car free lifestyle.

[10:25:36] it is car light. If it enables people to not own

[10:25:41] their own personal vehicle ago from two cars to one car,

[10:25:43] there's a benefit and the fees should not make it so difficult

[10:25:46] for those vehicles to operate at a fleet size that makes it a

[10:25:50] reasonable offering in the district.

[10:25:52] I think there has been conversations around the

[10:25:54] challenges of that and recognition the way that we

[10:25:59] structure our fees also needs to reflect what the value of the

[10:26:01] service that's being provided. >> ok.

[10:26:05] director rogers, we heard the criticism of the initial fleet

[10:26:09] capa at 200 in the proposed legislation.

[10:26:15] for context, a sense of scope, what are the fleet sizes of our

[10:26:21] major taxis in d.c. Or write your company's -- rideshare

[10:26:28] companies? >> taxis probably don't give --

[10:26:34] they are on the smaller side. We have around 1400 probably

[10:26:39] registered taxis in the district that are active.

[10:26:42] how often they drive or out on the street is probably a smaller

[10:26:47] number daily. We don't have as precise data

[10:26:51] from the ubers or lyfts of the world but it is significantly

[10:26:56] higher than that. I think in our hearing last

[10:27:00] month, I heard in the tens of thousands is sort of a daily

[10:27:04] ballpark. >> we don't actually know that.

[10:27:06] >> right. For wheelchair accessible trips,

[10:27:13] they have to provide more vehicle information.

[10:27:15] today, I cannot go through a list of these tag numbers are

[10:27:20] all the ubers I know are operating, same for lyft.

[10:27:26] I cannot tell -- which I will be double counting if someone

[10:27:29] drives for both services. >> it is a really big problem.

[10:27:33] the lack of data here is why I have some folks telling me there

[10:27:37] are tens of thousands of goobers and -- ubers and lyfts

[10:27:45] operating on the street today, or they could be double counting

[10:27:49] and that's because we don't have the reporting requirements the

[10:27:50] right way. >> it surely fluctuates but we

[10:27:54] don't have access to that. >> ok.

[10:27:58] some of the witnesses have also talked about does allowing

[10:28:04] autonomous vehicles put more cars on the road overall?

[10:28:08] we also heard witnesses who said at full deployment, san

[10:28:14] francisco for example -- I think we heard witnesses say

[10:28:18] essentially that has meant for everyone vehicle, autonomous

[10:28:21] vehicle that is out, that is four drivers being impacted and

[10:28:25] not making trips. Is that consistent with what

[10:28:29] we've seen? Does that number makes sense or

[10:28:32] line up at all with what you've seen as part of your review or

[10:28:36] you have to wait until the end of the summer to find out?

[10:28:38] >> we have to wait to see a bit more.

[10:28:42] the review of that is largely already in the research report.

[10:28:45] this is coming off of what we've heard from elsewhere but we are

[10:28:48] watching the updated stats and data and research coming out of

[10:28:51] california. This will essentially be coming

[10:28:54] out of california. That is the only place getting

[10:28:58] sufficient information to try to get a handle on this.

[10:29:01] texas, we now know how many vehicles are deployed statewide

[10:29:06] across multiple markets for any one company but it is very hard

[10:29:10] without actual data reporting requirements to get anything.

[10:29:13] we are really lacking data points on this one, even from

[10:29:16] other jurisdictions that have it.

[10:29:17] >> if for every autonomous vehicle, four drivers were no

[10:29:26] longer driving. From a workforce perspective,

[10:29:30] that would be deeply significant obviously and very disruptive

[10:29:34] from a work point -- workforce standpoint.

[10:29:39] if one autonomous vehicle means for cars removed from the

[10:29:40] roadway, thenw autonomous vehicles are not actually adding

[10:29:44] more cars to the roadway. We are in the position of trying

[10:29:50] to think through what the varied and multifaceted policy goals we

[10:29:53] are trying to achieve. That number jumped out to meet

[10:29:57] as we are also concerned about adding to congestion.

[10:29:59] >> yeah, I think trying to get a handle on what's going to adjust

[10:30:04] and also the nature of the behavior that suggested, how

[10:30:13] much are we seeing people who do this less than 20 hours a week

[10:30:15] as a side activity versus people who do it more fully as their

[10:30:20] day in and day out employment. We think more people do it on

[10:30:24] the side, but how and when that behavior changes will affect

[10:30:30] whether it actually impacts congestion.

[10:30:33] I think in the discussions of the hybrid model, we've heard

[10:30:38] that the benefit to having both autonomous and human driven

[10:30:40] vehicles is that human driven vehicles can help fill the surge

[10:30:44] demand in a way that is hard to scale your autonomous fleet.

[10:30:47] this is the premise of what we have heard from uber and lyft.

[10:30:53] that raises questions about how many trips are you actually

[10:30:55] taking off during the peak period if that is when that

[10:30:57] event is occurring? Because then we are just scaling

[10:31:02] up to meet demand. But we didn't necessarily change

[10:31:06] the number and that is when the workforce impacts become more

[10:31:10] pronounced. >> ok.

[10:31:12] >> I think at the root of all this is the pricing that these

[10:31:18] operators choose to use. It may be obvious to me but the

[10:31:22] big difference between the public vehicles for hire, the

[10:31:24] fare is regulated. The taxis are not charging you

[10:31:29] with if the meter is being used. That is a big change with uber

[10:31:32] and lyft coming in a decade ago. Their prices were very low at

[10:31:38] the beginning, so all these different side effects of that

[10:31:42] -- like if that meant more trips where they are stealing trips

[10:31:44] from transit. >> they are still a lot lower

[10:31:47] than a taxi fare today, right? Kidding.

[10:31:49] >> no, sir. Quite the opposite.

[10:31:53] >> amazing how that happened. >> when it's busy, the surge

[10:32:00] pricing, but taxis are not. We heard companies say they are

[10:32:03] aiming for a certain price per mile.

[10:32:07] I think if their goal is to be the cheapest transportation

[10:32:12] option, they could do that if they want.

[10:32:14] or they could ask -- they are asking don't put these fees, and

[10:32:20] they will be passed along to the customer.

[10:32:22] do you want to be a public vehicle for hire?

[10:32:25] do you want to have your fair regulated?

[10:32:27] that has a massive impact on employment upper groups --

[10:32:32] opportunities, how many trips and how many miles.

[10:32:34] >> you can call me skeptical if you want.

[10:32:38] I just have a hard time believing a company-owned by a

[10:32:44] trillionaire is really focused on the most affordable ride for

[10:32:47] that working family in ward 8. There's a lot of money to be

[10:32:50] made here. That is what these companies are

[10:32:53] thinking about. Our goal is not to think through

[10:32:57] solutions that benefit them. It is to think through what of

[10:33:01] the policy goals we are trying to achieve, what connects our

[10:33:03] residents and puts our city in the most advantageous and

[10:33:08] possible, not chasing after something like that.

[10:33:10] that is part of what we try to do throughout the day.

[10:33:13] a couple more quick questions. It is a little after 8:00 so I

[10:33:16] want to wrap this up, too. I lost my train of thought now.

[10:33:25] in terms of the how prescriptive versus regulation, from a safety

[10:33:30] perspective, did ddot have any, or anyone else, specifically

[10:33:38] stating you cannot go above the speed limit?

[10:33:42] specifically stating you cannot block a bike lane outside of

[10:33:49] some exigent circumstances, like maybe you have to drop someone

[10:33:51] off who has a mobility challenge, so there's a

[10:33:54] temporary element. But making sure it is not

[10:33:57] routine and will be very rare when it takes place.

[10:34:00] should we put that into legislation so that it is very

[10:34:03] clear and not a maybe we do our best to follow the law?

[10:34:08] >> somebody on the policy team could correct me as I try to

[10:34:14] remember what's actually in the law.

[10:34:16] I know in the testing side, definitely have in the

[10:34:20] regulations as proposed that you must follow the traffic laws.

[10:34:24] I strongly suspect we picked that up straight from the

[10:34:26] legislation. That is just mirroring over from

[10:34:30] the code. The expectation would be set

[10:34:32] there. I think the question is maybe

[10:34:35] what gets put into -- how does that impact your ability to

[10:34:41] continue to hold your permit? Does a pattern of noncompliance

[10:34:46] lead to revocation? >> if our automated cameras

[10:34:53] aren't going to capture speeding until you are over 10 miles per

[10:35:00] hour, and if our tesla folks said, yeah, they can go over the

[10:35:04] speed limit, just a with the flow of traffic, they still went

[10:35:08] over the speed limit. But our tools will necessarily

[10:35:12] capture that. Back to our issues around

[10:35:16] reporting, very important that we have that system so you have

[10:35:19] that type of reporting and enforcement.

[10:35:22] otherwise, there are ways you can game the system to go above

[10:35:25] the speed limit. I don't think if safety is the

[10:35:28] name of the game, we are not supposed to allow that to

[10:35:30] happen. Ok.

[10:35:36] I think we have exhausted almost every question we can or I'm

[10:35:40] exhausted at this point. And it think I missed that you

[10:35:43] want to highlight before we wrap up?

[10:35:44] >> I just want to stress the data point.

[10:35:48] you cannot do a lot of things if we don't get good data.

[10:35:54] otherwise, we are kind of guessing.

[10:35:57] we need them to give us good data so we can keep them honest.

[10:35:59] >> you have effectively talked about that is one of our key

[10:36:06] lessons learned as well. If we are not learning some of

[10:36:10] those lessons, that is us not figuring out how to do better

[10:36:13] each time. >> just that we would be very

[10:36:18] happy to continue the conversation and I encourage you

[10:36:20] to take a look at our observation zone which we are

[10:36:26] getting ready to kick off figuring out which side of the

[10:36:28] tech will do with that. We are excited about

[10:36:31] opportunities for public engagement and mobility

[10:36:35] innovation district as part of that.

[10:36:37] I think that will address some of the items we heard today.

[10:36:41] with people asking for input and would welcome your engagement

[10:36:43] since it covers ward six. >> I will echo the need for

[10:36:49] data. I already talked about data for

[10:36:53] testing and for reporting on wait times and trip completions.

[10:36:58] I think also, working with -- like I mentioned, with the

[10:37:02] companies in all phases on the data around her management and

[10:37:09] understanding where those needs take place.

[10:37:12] that benefits not only the autonomous vehicles, but also

[10:37:14] tnc's and para transit. Those services need accessible

[10:37:20] places the pickup up and drop off as well.

[10:37:21] >> thank you. >> might as well add my closing

[10:37:25] comments. I just think like you said,

[10:37:30] aiming for a higher bar than we have today and requiring it, not

[10:37:33] just hearing promises about that.

[10:37:36] accessibility and equity. Then, I think allowing dfhv to

[10:37:44] streamline what we can by having the functions we do in

[10:37:47] regulating for hire service remained within her agency and

[10:37:52] lastly, I think it is going to be a challenge to try to limit

[10:37:58] the adverse impact to the current ride-share drivers

[10:38:01] today. I think it's a little bit of

[10:38:02] deja vu. We saw what happened to taxi

[10:38:06] drivers over a decade ago. The company is coming --

[10:38:11] companies coming and did not have them or their interests at

[10:38:12] heart. So, we want to avoid that as

[10:38:16] much as possible. If there is around two.

[10:38:19] >> absolutely. I appreciate it.

[10:38:24] we are closing in on our number 11 so I think we will wrap it

[10:38:27] up. This will conclude the

[10:38:32] committee's public hearing on bill 26-684.

[10:38:38] I want to thank all of our public witnesses today who had

[10:38:42] really great comments, questions and helped us flesh out what the

[10:38:46] committee will be doing. Appreciate all of your testimony

[10:38:49] as well. Got a note from her government

[10:38:53] partners, so I appreciate that. I know you have family and

[10:38:57] friends as well so thank you very much for being here.

[10:39:00] as a reminder, the record for today's roundtable will close on

[10:39:04] monday, july 27, 2026. You can submit written testimony

[10:39:09] to the council's system until then.

[10:39:14] no further business before the committee.

[10:39:15] the time is now 8:09 p.m. And this public hearing is now

[10:39:22] adjourned. Thank you, everyone.

Committee on Transportation & the Environment, Public Hearing, Charles Allen, Chairperson

Agenda

Transcript