>> good morning, everyone. I'm charles allen ward six
councilmember chair of transportation and environment.
today is monday july 13th, 2026.
we're meeting both in room 500 as well as over the zoom virtual
platform. The time is now 9:44 a.m.
I'm calling to order this public roundtable.
the hearing will focus. We introduced bill 26-874.
bill referred to committee on may 5, 2026.
the advancement of autonomous vehicles is watershed moment in
the world of transportation. They are offering ride.
they all want to boast that they offer rides in the nation's
capitol. I don't think it's a question of
avs are coming. Despite what I see as an -- at
the same time, my tenure, way too many, human drivers cannot
safely operate a motor vehicle. If there's a transportation
option we owe to our residents to explore that option fully.
today, I believe we'll hear from proponents argue that av's
improve traffic safety and consumer choice.
if structured the right way. Av's can provide equitable
access to rideshare service. In our previous hearing, we
heard from people who are blind and low vision I heard from a
lot of people who use wheelchairs about shortcoming of
autonomous vehicles. There are other legitimate
concerns about autonomous vehicle deployment.
the deployment of av's on district roadways can exacerbate
traffic congestion. It draw rider away public
transportation. Commercial av operation will
compete with taxi, delivery workers, displacing those jobs.
crashes or traffic violations involve av's present novel
question regarding who's responsible for any resulting
legal liability. As well as potential privacy
issues and reports of companies alerting authorities and
observing rider behavior. Some people are just skeptical
that av's improve traffic safety.
to be sure, I can make a list of crashes, injuries and dangerous
human driver decisions as well. Currently, the district on
allows av companies to engage with a test operator present in
the vehicle. Vehicle is operating
autonomously but the human can take over the steering wheel.
the district department of transportation has been tasked
developing a driverless test permit for years.
that progress is stalled. Bill 26-684, the autonomous
deployment authorization will pave the way for deployment
commercial av's through a resist.
let me walk through the provisions.
first it establishes a autonomous vehicle program that
will issue av permits. Applicants must have a record of
safe testing and must submit a first responders interaction
plan that ensures law enforcement and emergency
personnel can interact with av's on the road.
the bill sets deadlines to address permit and commercial av
permit. Until june 1, 2028, fleet size
will be limited to 200 vehicles commercial av operators can
submit on demand vehicle network will allow the operator to
increase their fleet size. It explains out operator will
minimize passengerless vehicle trippings, ensure riders have
equitable access to av's that allows people with disability to
request a ride. The bill establishes clear rules
win autonomous driving system can be engaged.
the bill restricts the use of level 3, 4 and 5 system except
when an operator received a permit for commercial operation
and testing. To ensure the vehicle is aware
of vehicle of semi and manufactures levelings degree
ufo and 5, must register their products with ddot.
the bill establishes vmt tax commercial av operators.
it encourages operators it minimize passengerless
operators. Hoping today's conversation will
involve some discussion how to strengthen it.
the bill improves public transit by investing portion of the
revenue collected from av operations in the public transit
infrastructure and service investments.
the bill encourages av operators to collaborate to offer
discounted fares for av rides. We have a representative who
will be join one of our panel to describe how the technology
support not withhold riders from public transit.
it also supports existing taxi and rideshare workers by
requiring the ddot and collaboration and department of
employment service publish a report on taxi and rideshare
industries. The bill support taxi and
rideshare drivers through education and workforce
development. We'll be joined by labor
leaders. I look forward to learning about
their concern. The bill clarifies how existing
traffic safety laws and liability rules apply to
autonomous vehicle. The bill provide guidance for
when human driver or the autonomous driving system should
be considered the driverrer if the purposes of liability.
the clarification will help litigants avoid liability
disputes. Third panel includes legal
experts including a law professor who helped inform
those portions of the bill. If I learned anything over the
last months, already few people are ambivalent about autonomous
vehicles. Looking forward to today's
conversation and hearing a recommendations how the bill can
be strengthened to achieve the goals we want here in the
district. I do believe we'll be joaned by
colleagues and council. I will turn to them opening
statements they have. With that, couple of quick
comments on the format. Commissioners will have five
minute each. Public witnesses on behalf of
organization will have five minute.
those testifying on their own behalf will have three minutes.
multiple witnesses testifying on behalf of the same organization,
only five minutes. We have other 80 registered
witnesses today. That's great.
that means I will be using a time keeper.
for witnesses that are testifying in-person, please
take a seat at the table when your name is called.
we may need to pull up a seat to ask a witness to make room.
for witnesses testifying virtually you will receive a
prompt via zoom to accept a promotion no panelist.
please remain seated or in zoom. The committee will accept
written testimony for the council -- the record closes on
july 27, 2026. I do believe councilmember lewis
george is with us online. If have an opening statement, I
will turn to you before we call our first panel is.
>> thank you, good morning. Chairperson allen and good
morning to our witnesses, joining us both in-person and
online. I will keep my opening remarks
brief. This hearing marks an important
moment for the district. Emerging technologies presents
tremendous opportunities. They reshape how our residents
interact with a built environment and with one
another. We saw this with at rival of
rideshare platform like uber. D.c. Is distinct from the cities
which av's have been deployed. We have unique public safety
concerns such as motorcade and specific security measures that
must be taken into care and consideration.
especially because safety has to be a cornerstone of our unique
city, given that we are the capital city of this country.
I will be listening closely to how these issues will be
addressed. I'm interested in hearing all
the perspectives from industry leaders from technical experts
from advocates from the disability community from our
labor partners and workers and many others about the deployment
of autonomous vehicles and the legislation before us today.
thank you councilman allen for hosting this hearing.
thank you. >> excellent.
thank you so much for joining us.
let's call our first panel which is combination of folks here in
in-person as well as online. Got matthew walsh.
regional head of state and local public policy for waymo.
david margines director of product management for waymo.
marisa tuell with lyft. India herdman, senior policy
advisor with tesla. Harry hartfield director and
policy advisory with uber.
good morning to you all. Matt walsh, we will kick off
with you. When you're ready.
push the button. >> good morning, mr. Chairman
and members of the committee. My name is matt walsh.
I'm please to be here today on behalf of waymo.
where I serve as regional head of state and local policy.
imaginalled toad by waymo director of product management,
david margines. We appreciate the opportunity to
participate. I want to thank you,
mr. Chairman, for your leadership and restarting this
important conversation. This proposed legislation is one
of the most robust av frameworks in the nation.
the first to focus on workers, transit and equitable
transportation. We strongly support the bill's
objectives and we know from our experience that waymo service
can help accomplish that. Making roads safer, creating
opportunities for district residents and making rideshare
more accessible and equitable. Waymo serves the public in 11
major city, providing 500,000 fully autonomous rides every
week. In d.c., we have operated with
professional test drivers in our vehicles for the past two years
as that is the maximum operating authority currently allowed by
ddot. We have spent this time
validating the technology across all eight wards of the district,
autonomously driving more than 300,000 miles with trained
professionals behind the wheel. Compared to human drivers, the
data shows we are reducing injury causing crashes in cities
where we operate. With 220 million miles of
driving, we helped prevent more than 700 injury crashes.
including near the 50 that could have caused serious injury or
worse. We're avoiding about 13 injury
crashes every single week. Our technology alone won't fix
all of d.c.'s road safety challenges.
it will absolutely contribute to the safe system's approach
outlined in the district's vision zero plan.
waymo's automated driving system increases safety for all road
users. It is designed to follow traffic
laws and travel at safe speeds. Waymo can build upon the success
that the district has made in reducing fatalities on the
roadways. Waymo will bring new
opportunities to d.c. Our commitment to the district
is built on direct, large scale investments in local workforce
and infrastructure. Traditional riding networks push
heavy operating costs on drivers.
with take a fundamentally different approach and recently
committed tens of millions of dollars in wards five and seven
to build service centers and charging facilities to support
our fleet. If the council can provide
additional regulatory certainty, our current local workforce will
grow from dozens of people today to hundreds of personnel who
will provide day-to-day operational support.
the construction of our facilities will also create
hundreds more jobs and the maintenance of our fleet will
bring more business to the local automotive supply chain.
this is only the beginning. If the district chooses to
become a regional leader in this space, waymo will match that
vision with long-term investment and jobs needed to support it.
these investments are crucial for operating a robust service
that addresses transportation equity challenges in the
district. Transportation is the gateway to
employment, education, healthcare and participation in
community life. Our technology does not consider
a rider's race, income, disability or destination.
we offer a safe space where people can feel inherent secured
and option for people including those who are blind or low
vision who face barriers getting around.
a scaled av fleet supported by significant investment in local
jobs and infrastructure will offer predictable wait time and
uniform service across the district.
helping address the geographic inequalities that have hinchly
impacted residents east of the river.
we look forward to developing deeper partnerships with the
district and community organizations to fill
transportation gaps as we have in cities where we serve.
in los angeles and san francisco, we're proud to
partner with city agencies like l.a. Metro and community os
including the homeless prenatal program to provide subsidized
rides to underserve community. In the bay area, we are
exploring partnerships to connect our riders with bus and
trains. We want to bring that
collaborative approach to the district.
we are optimistic about this legislation and we are eager to
deepen our partnership with the district.
we consistently hear from thousands of washingtonians who
are excited to have the opportunity to choose waymo
alongside other great options available.
we proud to have the support of dozens of organizes representing
a diverse range of washingtonians who believe waymo
will be a positive force in their community.
these include the national council on independent living,
new futures d.c., the arc, and many others who I'm proud to see
in the room today. If the district establishes this
pramework, waymo is ready to deliver safer roads, remove
transportation barriers for residents and back it up with
hundreds of local jobs. We look forward to working with
this committee, department of transportation and the community
to get this right and build the safer, more sustainable and more
equitable transit ecosystem. Thank you.
I look forward to your questions.
>> thank you very much. Mr. Margines.
>> I yielded my time for comments.
>> thank you very much. All right, marisa tuell.
>> good morning, chairman allen. Members of the committee.
my name is marisa tuell, I'm pleased to testify on behalf of
lyft. Lyft is operated our rideshare
platform in the district for other a decade.
we also operate capital bike share.
giving us unique advantage point how mobility technology fits in
the transportation network. We thank you, chairman allen and
the ddot for the delivered approach the district has taken
towards autonomous vehicles. We support the bill's goal to
bring av's to d.c. Andly the best way to realize that goal
for equity, transit and workforce is to make sure that
the bill clearly accommodates hybrid network deployment
structures. On a hybrid network, human
drivers and av's operate side-by-side on the same
platform. Sharing supply and demand and
reasonabreasonable -- reaching e people and more places.
as introduced, the bill is silent on whether permitted av
operator may dispatch through existing rideshare platform.
that ra creates real ambiguity m companies like ours.
we urge the committee to add language for hi hybrid networks.
lyft already operates this model in atlanta, riders access av
rides from our partner on the lyft platform and later this
year, waymo av's will be available for matching on the
lyft platform in nashville. The district has been clear that
it wants av deployment to expand access.
av's don't need to solve every mobility challenge.
like ddot approach, no single mode fits every need.
av fleets will be limited to specific service areas and fixed
number of vehicles in situation like extreme weather event to
require them to pause service. Hybrid network who draw on human
drivers, is well positioned to deliver consistent, resilient
and district-wide service from day one.
it preserves choice for riders like older adults and those with
mobility challenge who may assistance of a human driver.
providing new options for riders who excited about the benefit of
av's and don't feel like their needs are well met.
the disruption drivers feel from automation isn't new.
atm's, self-checkout, didn't eliminate tellers and ca cashie.
it gave customers more ways to bank and shop.
on another plat -- platform, the number of human drivers have
grown year-over-year. This transition creates new
opportunities. Av fleets need fleet manager and
technicians that offer full-time opportunities.
we begun building in nashville and one we like to replicate
with av partners here in d.c. We appreciate the committee's
openness that works for district residents, visitors, drivers and
companies ready to invest here. Equity, resiliency and workforce
continuity are four benefits of the same design choice.
a framework that treats hybrid deployment as a core option.
district is taking time to get this right.
we believe that patience puts d.c. In a strong position to
lead by example. Thank you.
>> thank you very much. Next, india herdman.
good morning. >> good morning.
chair allen, members of the committee.
I'm india herdman. I'm senior policy advisor tesla.
autonomous vehicle represent transformative opportunity for
d.c. Resident. Av's promise to improve road
safety, create new jobs and expand accessibility.
in june 2025, tesla began operating robotaxi, our
commercial autonomous ride service in texas.
rides are available to the public in austin, dallas,
houston and miami. Safety is our top priority.
tesla's vision-based automated driving system is designedder
superior safety, delivering deeper seen understanding,
faster reaction time and more reliable decision-making.
the tesla ads is trained on over 11 billion miles of real world
driving, including events that most drivers never experience in
their lifetime. Tesla's ads system performance
service validated against scenarios.
av's represent tremendous economic opportunities.
research shows that av adoption could create three million new
jobs in the united states by 2035.
tesla with over 100,000 u.s. Employees, builds av technology
in-house to scale production and create high quality american
jobs. Av expand access for everyone as
my colleagues have mentioned. Tesla robotaxi vehicles support
in 29 languages. Tesla supports the intent of
this legislation, we believe significant amendments are
needed to ensure d.c. Can fully capitalize on the av's offer.
we usual the strike the 180 mandatory testing requirement
the combined 180 day waiting period and 250,000-mile
requirement creates an unnecessarily burdensome barrier
to entry. Second, the proposed permit fees
are extraordinarily high and out of step with the national
market. $1 million non-refundable
application fee plus a $5 million operational permit
fee followed by $1 million renewals.
this far exceeds any other u.s. Jurisdiction.
for context, nevada caps one-time permit fiat $500,000.
we urge the committee to substantially lower these permit
fees to levels that are reasonable, proportionate and
aligned with national benchmarks.
third, we urge removal of prooperation -- provisions in
reporting requirement that don't overlap with data made public by
the national highway safety administration.
tesla opposes levying 15-cent a mile on av's.
any new tax deserves rigorous scrutiny one that adds
technology specifically designed to provide more affordable
transportation. Notably, no other jurisdiction
has imposed av specific tax of this nature.
finally, tesla strongly opposed the litigation and liability
provisions in the bill which present a significant departure
from liability principles. Most concerning the provision
that imposes tort liability whenever the automated driving
system is engaged without the necessity approving product
defect. Ads engagement should not
absolve a plaintiff from the fundamental requirement of
proving product defect. These provisions expand
manufacture exposure and risk chilling innovation by creating
unpredictable and unlimited liability.
we urge the committee to substantially revise these
provisions. Tesla is committed to working
with the committee to ensure that legislation promotes both
the highest standards of public safety and continue innovation
in av technology. We stand ready to partner with
you to ensure safer roads, expanded mobility and click
growth -- economic growth for the people of d.c.
>> thank you very much. I got harry hartfield.
>> chairperson allen and members of the committee.
thank you for opportunity to testify.
my name is harry hatfield. We support the expansion of
autonomous vehicles. We appreciate the council's
willingness to engage on this issue.
av's is have are the potential to make our roads safer, expand
access to transportation and lower costs.
the question for the council is not whether autonomous vehicle
should come to the vehicle it's when.
the question instead is how best balance notification in way that
benefits riders, drivers and all washingtonians.
we believe this bill gets that balance wrong.
if future of transportation is not a binary choice between
human drivers and autonomous drivers the future of
transportation will be hybrid. Each fulfilling different needs.
unfortunately, this bill does the opposite.
it limits competition. By requiring companies to build
autonomous technology and operate the rideshare platform.
the bill narrows the field to small number of companies.
it's hostile to start-ups and small businesses and forces
drivers to go to autonomous vehicles.
second, it contains no requirement to ensure service
reaches all cohort. In the bay area, av operations
have expanded in the san francisco wealthiest
neighborhoods while remaining absent from underserved
communities. The bill does not provide a
framework for accessibility from ability, disabilities or
mandatory supply. Accessibility cannot be an
afterthought. Technology is in the infancy.
autonomous technology learning how to manage situation to
understand blackout,s, rain and flood events.
the outcomes impact not just av passengers but residents across
the city. That risk is magnified in the
district with motorcades and frequent unexpected road
closures. Finally, the bill ignores the
workforce transition. There are tens of thousands of
drivers in the district. Workforce disruption is not a
reason to stop innovation but we should be honest about the
tradeoffs. Av's can grow in partnership
with drivers. We've seen firsthand the impact
when av's and drivers compete. In san francisco and los
angeles, where drivers compete, driver utilization declined last
year. One av in california now perform
roughly of four drivers. That's how the district can
lady. Not by moving first.
thank you for your time. >> all right.
thank you all very much. A lot of questions for the
panel. Thank you very much.
so, I will start probably mr. Walsh.
few questions for you. How many vehicles are currently
deployed in your testing phase today?
>> here in the district. It's currently 25 vehicles.
>> okay. What is their level of
automation right now using sae level system?
>> that would be level 4. >> okay.
does anybody else have any vehicles testing currently?
>> we're not testing level 4. We are doing data collection at
level 2. >> okay, thank you.
mr. Walsh, how many miles of testing have you performed in
the district? >> over 300,000 miles in the
last two years. >> what is the breakdown of
testing miles by ward, for example?
>> I don't have the exact mileage break down by ward.
we have mapped the entirety of the district.
all eight wards we have mapped and or tested.
there's not a single ward that we haven't been in.
I think we've said that our commitment is to serve the
entirety of the district. We can follow-up with your
office on the specific mileage breakdown.
>> should I their that to mean that your test vehicle driven
every block every road in entirety of the district?
>> that is correct. >> some blocks you driven many
more times over? >> that is true.
>> okay. When we think about a testing
regime, should driving, for example downtown over and over
again, certainly will tell you something.
if I'm looking for a system that is across the whole city, should
the legislation not require total number of miles but to
have some type of geographic distribution such that any av
operator should have to be able to show they tested never corner
of the ward, every neighborhood, unique characteristics that go
with those roadways? >> it's an important question.
we would be interested in having a conversation with you and your
team over the summer about exactly how the way to achieve
that. Regardless of how we ensure that
that test is done. That has been to a commitment
from av operator. That's something that waymo has
been committed to and continues to be committed to.
certainly we've shown that through the testing and mapping
that we have done. I do think it's important part
of this conversation that all operators should be committed to
providing equitable service. >> do you have a breakdown of
testing miles by condition? What I mean by that, by day,
night, day snow, by ice. To get a full testing experience
of what the conditions will be like in the district?
>> over the last two years, we have seen pretty much everything
that the district has had to offer us.
I don't have those exact breakdown figures.
I'm happy to follow up. >> do you categorize your
testing by condition? Is that a known answer?
you can get back to us. >> it absolutely is.
we do characterize those. We seek to get as much of a
variety as possible when we do deploy, we do start to scale.
we are prepared for anything. >> okay.
have there been or how many collisions have there been
during the testing phase with your vehicles?
there there have been a hand full of collisions.
most of them have been in the fault of other human drivers
from what I understand. Those have been reported to ddot
as require. There's been no serious major
collision. >> does that report distinguish
whether -- does it assign fault where the fault lied in that
collision? >> to the best of my knowledge,
the report details the facts of the incident.
I do not believe that when we put that report in, we're not
assigned fault to waymo. There's police reports that npd
files. We as waymo do not assign fault
in our reports. >> I want to pull the thread a
little bit on understanding the app.
hybrid model versus a vertical integration.
the legislation is silent to it we didn't legislatively specify
what the actual integration has to be.
sometimes we're a little -- we don't to over legislate.
that can lock things in. At the same time, if I
understood ms. Tuell it can be interpreted to disallow that
from taking place. I understand your argument is we
don't want to disallow it. Does waymo operate a hybrid
network platform in other jurisdictions or is it mixed
based on which jurisdiction you're in?
>> mr. Chairman, I think a better way to sort of zoom out
and talk about the fact that I think when we talk about a
hybrid network, which has been said multiple times today that
your colleagues have had. This idea of hybrid network is a
problem in search of a solution. It's a solution in search of
problem. In 11 major cities that we
operate this today, there is a ecosystem of transportation
options. People can choose to take a
waymo. People can choose to take one of
the ride handling apps. People can choose metro transit.
the idea this that legislation has to be specific in statute as
to needing a hybrid network. I don't understand that.
as written, there will be the same transportation ecosystem
that operates here that operates in every any other city that we
currently operate in. I'm not quite sure, I don't
think your colleagues have understood what this hybrid
network truly is. >> let me pull in mr. Hartfield
and ms. Tuell on this. When I take an uber, I pull out
my app. I have different types of
choices what type of vehicle I'm looking at.
if provides me an approximate time and cost.
I can make a choice. If I'm not going to take an
uber, because I'm going to go jump on a bikeshare, I don't go
to uber app to get the bikeshare.
same phone, I say, where are my bikes that are available.
why do I need a hybrid model, why do you think that's
advantageous you're advocating for that, compared to probably
have all the apps on my phone here and I can choose the best
one that I'm looking for. >> today, if you open your lyft
app in d.c., we have human driven apps available and
bikeshare. You tip in your destination.
you assess how am I beginning to get there based on wait time or
proximity of bicycle cost. When we bring av's on the
platform that will be a new added choice.
we also believe will bring needs of riders today that see human
driven ride or see bikeshare ride.
saying my needs are not being met.
that's the big opportunity for us there.
>> mr. Hartfield. >> one quick clarifying thing.
it wouldn't allow uber or lyft for that matter to have av's on
their platform. Only an av developer,
manufacturer, operator can get the av permit to dispatch those
vehicles which means that uber and lyft couldn't get the
permit. We therefore couldn't dispatch
av's on our platform. If we went to go work with a
company with av's we allowed to do that.
>> just to be clear, I don't believe that was the legislative
intent. That's the point of hearing
where we're able to hear different perspectives and
readings and we work on goals. >> I think zooming out, the
benefit of the hybrid network, yes, it's from customer
experience. I'm going to the airport, it's
nice to have that option. I think that's a positive
customer experience. For the city, the district, for
drivers, the benefits are we run rideshare network.
we should be better. We don't need thousands of av's
to run relabel. Hundreds of av's can help me
demand and meet people where they are.
if got an av only network, you need thousand plus av to meet
demand otherwise your eta's are too long.
it's like a reverse fly wheel if you will.
hybrid network will ask you to scale slowly.
drivers sort of have more time to make an adjustment.
I would say overtime, drivers will start to leave the
platform. There will be less work.
that's the nature of this. It's not a reason to stop it.
it's something we should keep in mind.
that means traditional rideshare might be little less reliable.
an av can't operate or won't operate in certain places.
the fallback network isn't there.
we think that a hybrid network allows you to scale better.
it also -- we serve -- you should have to serve all the
wards on day one. Av's will be safer.
they have an incredible safety benefit.
we won't realize the safety benefit unless day one.
I'm happy to keep talking about it.
>> I will turn my colleague for round of questions.
I do think, happy to work with folks after the hearing as we
think in the weeks and months ahead.
part of the legislation contemplate, the company request
asking the av permit. We want to be one that's
directly managing the fleet. I hear, I will wrestle with this
ail little bit, around what is the user interface look like in
a way that consumer friendly for that choice as possible.
we want to create a system direct management of the fleet.
we'll come back to that. I want to turn to my colleague,
councilwoman lewis george. >> I appreciate the conversation
around the hybrid model. Ms. Tuell and mr. Hartfield, how
many drivers do you have on your app in the d.c. Region and how
many driver more than 20 hours per week?
>> I don't have an official number.
tens of thousands of drivers in the district.
in general, about 80% of them drive less than 20 hours a week.
I'm happy to come back. >> thank you.
>> I have this number. About 87% of drivers on the lyft
network work fewer than 20 hours a week.
that is national, not d.c. Specific.
>> how is this changed in jurisdictions where av's
operate? >> we seen in places where av's
compete with human drivers. Like san francisco and l.a.
there are whole host of reasons for that.
clearly, there's an impact. There's an impact how many trips
drivers get. People who use it flexible way
to make money or college student after school and parent making
extra money for christmas. Those people have little less
time to make the same amount will probably see the
consequences first. >> thank you for that.
mr. Walsh and I wanted to come to you around can you speak in
greater detail about the number of employees you have in other
regions comparable size? What kinds of jobs do you
generally bring into markets with av deployment?
>> I appreciate the question, councilmember.
we're seeing hundred of jobs in similar larger metro markets.
these types of jobs range from things like our autonomous
specialist who are there behind the wheel during the initial
phases of testing and development.
we have fleet managers. We have vehicle technicians.
we have individuals responsible for cleaning and maintaining the
vehicles, charging the vehicles. There's the broader automotive
av ecosystem that builds around that.
we will require suppliers for things like tire.
we go through an incredible amount of tires traveling 24/7 a
day. There's a whole ecosystem that's
built around that. Those are are the types of jobs
right now that we see being created.
>> okay. Ms. Herdman.
same question. For tesla.
can you speak to about the number of employees you have in
other regions of comparable size and what kinds of jobs do you
bring in markets with av deployment?
>> very similar to my colleague at waymo.
we hire different types of positions to support fleet
operationtors including specialists, remote operators,
anything to do with a depot charging, cleaning.
we're also unique in that we are the manufacture of the vehicle
as well. We've hired thousands of people
down in texas to support our manufacturing processes for our
robotaxi vehicles. We continue to be hiring.
please look at our website. We're hiring a lot of jobs now.
it's a very competitive market. >> where the wages for those
positions generally seeking? >> all tesla employees for
robotaxi are in-house. They get full benefits the
salary depends on the specific position.
they also get equity in the company as well.
>> mr. Walsh, what about for waymo?
what are the wages for those positions generally speaking?
>> appreciate the question, councilmember.
I think a lot of those wages are dependent on different
classification of role and skills that are needed for those
roles. There is a mixture full-time and
in-house and through our partner vendors.
>> okay. I guess how many -- one of the
concerns is making sure that our workforce remains within the
district and there are jobs available for them.
I know some of the jobs are temporary.
how many of them, the temporary jobs I guess the initial
deployment versus individuals who end up with long-term jobs?
what is does that transition look like?
>> I appreciate the question. I think a lot our autonomous
specialists involved with the beginning phase they transition
into autonomous specialist trainer jobs.
they are going training other autonomous specialist on fleed
management role these are roles that give people an opportunity
for career development. We've been really proud to be
able to hire a majority of our current testing and autonomous
specialist that are d.c. Residents.
I think we're committed to continuing that local hiring.
one thing I will say, councilmember, the size of our
operation in here in d.c. Is going to dictate what the size
of our workforce can be. Right now there's some
discussion vehicle cap in the legislation in the larger and
operation we can have here in d.c., bigger the footprint can
be and more people we will need to support that service.
eager to have that conversation with you and your colleagues.
>> I appreciate that. As I mentioned, d.c. Is unique
in its safety concerns. What have you all been doing
during the testing phase to take about account the safety
concerns? We are home of embassies and
diplomats. Not only the president of the
united states but also many congressmen and women.
a lot of high security traffic as well as our roadways.
what have you all been doing to take into account the unique
security concerns that face the district of columbia?
what can be done to address the unique security concerns that
face the district of columbia as the capitol city?
>> this has been part of our approach thinking ever isn't we
entered this area and started driving with autonomous
specialists here. It was a key part of our
approach. What we have seen is that our
software generalized extremely well to the district.
there were great opportunities to observe these situations that
you speak of, like motorcades, unplanned road closures,
etcetera and validate that more than 200 million fully
autonomous miles that we have seen in our other cities
translated well here. We transparently released all
data through nhtsa and the order.
what we have demonstrated over a track record of
220 million miles is a 94% reduction in serious injury
collisions. The other thing that I would
mention that I think is unique to this district and we've heard
from other officials in our other districts is that the
privacy that waymo vehicles offer is a key factor in them
selecting their own transportation options.
they are able to hold personal conversations in the vehicle and
extend it in a work space. Because of the privacy that
offers. I think that the waymo service
is actually a uniquely suited to the needs of the district and we
look forward to being able to demonstrate that through a scale
then methodical deployment. >> what caused the autonomous
vehicle to drive in the flooded roadway prompting recall of 35
money vehicles? Could you talk for about nhtsa
letter about ongoing issues which you are going to address
nhtsa's concern. >> absolutely.
couple of topics within that question.
let me try to tackle them all. Nhtsa did release a letter
emphasizing the importance of autonomous vehicles to comply
with first responders and essentially keep them moving on
roads. This is a position that we
wholeheartedly agree with. It's something that we have
espouses since we started as a company over 16 years ago.
we've worked with nhtsa throughout that period to make
sure they understand our technology and we're taking
feedback from them throughout. The content letter was no
surprise. Something we agree with.
furthermore, just to calculate on the scale and size of
operations in our level of performance, waymo interacts
with 68,000 active emergency vehicles every single week.
the overwhelming majority of those are complete nonevents.
we're able to move to the side well ahead because we're paying
attention, 360 degrees. We're able to reroute to get
away from active emergency scenes, etcetera.
the san francisco fire department went so far as to
tweet out a video of waymo vehicle getting out of the way
of active fire truck. There are going to opportunity
for improvement. It's something we continue to
work with the department and agencies and all the cities that
we're at including at the federal level to make sure that
we continue to improve. >> I'm over time.
if you all have an -- I don't know if you did official
response to nhtsa concern, if so, that's something you can
share with the committee. >> we'll go ahead and follow-up
with you, councilmember. Appreciate the question.
>> thank you. >> thank you, councilmember.
let me stick on safety for a little bit as well.
basically, I think every av company we heard from touts
safety record. We're going to be safer than
human driver. Can you talk more about how you
quantify the safety of the vehicle.
how is it measured? Being safer than the worst
driver on the road is not a very high bar.
shouldn't it be safer for the safest driver?
can you tuck -- talk about how you measure and quantify what
safer means and who we measuring against?
>> excellent question. Thank you for focusing on the
holistic approach here. It's important to measure and
give actual reports rather than looking at individual events.
to get to your question, we've released our safety measurement
methodology in a peer review white paper.
I encourage you to get the answer there.
we take extremely apples to apple approach in measuring our
vehicle safety against human-driven miles in the same
gee okay I if I -- geographies d the same type of roads.
if you driving on one type of roadway, say a freeway and then
measuring against the holistic baseline including roadways that
include many more pedestrians or cyclists versus vehicles it's
easy to produce a number that popurports to be much safer.
which is why we've released that data.
we released unredacted collision report.
what we have demonstrated with that and all these numbers are
available at waymo.com/safety/impact.
we enjoy a 94% reduction in serious injury collisions.
we also have numbers that show the performance of the waymo
driver with regard to different collision types like within
intersection or front to rear, head-to-head, etcetera.
also, against vulnerable road users.
which is an area we take very seriously.
where we see some of our highest impact numbers.
hopefully that shed some light on it.
there's a lot more in the paper. T
>> absolutely. Ms. Herdman, similar question
how tesla evaluates this? Not testing the district in the
same way. How is tesla measuring?
is it similar or comparable. >> it's very similar.
we have to measure against human benchmarks.
otherwise everything is just a imaginary.
we have that collision reporting done by the u.s. Department of
transportation. We can take collisions per miles
traveled in our robotaxi fleet and produce that data as well.
just like my colleague as well, we transparently submit
unredacted reports to the national highway traffic safety
administration. >> thank you.
following this thread little bit longer, there was a forum about
a week ago by families for safe streets on autonomous vehicles.
during the forum, one of the folks kind of challenged about
what level of safety is a fair expectation or demand for
autonomous vehicles? They were talking about specific
numbers. Is it -- should we be saying
autonomous vehicle is ten times safer than humans?
should be 100 times safer. You giving numbers saying 94%
fewer collisions. Is there a measurement or a
metric that exists to say an av is ten time safer than a human
driver? What will be a reasonable
threshold to hold av's to? >> it's very interesting
question. It's not something that we've
considered deeply. Maybe some of the considerings
that you might incorporate as you consider the path forward
here. At waymo, we have safety built
into every aspect of our culture.
one of the things that we talk about internally is the safety
is urgent. 40,000 people die on our
roadways every single year. 1.2 million internationally.
it is the number 14 leading cause of death amongst people.
it's a number two leading cause of death amongst young people.
what waymo is offering is a 94% effective cure to that public
health crisis. Now, it's not 100% cure.
there's still 6% left there. We're working hard on improving
that. But if you're offered 94% cure
to that number 14 leading cause of death, I think that the poach
should be to try to take that as soon as possible.
today, right now, somebody going to experience untime it will
death, serious injury collision that's going to keep them from
being able to go to their job, play with their kid.
it's going to change their life. If we have the opportunity to
prevent one of those, if we have the opportunity to prevent
10,000 of those in the future by acting faster, I think that's an
opportunity to we should take. >> all right.
devil's advocate. When we think about changing
behavior to have safer driving. I heard folks say, all right,
from an impairment standpoint,s there a great option.
someone has gone out. They had too much to drink.
they are impaired. They can get home this way.
most impaired drivers are driving because they don't think
they are impaired. Folks will go to a bar,
restaurant, drink too much, they get back in their car and drive
home. Today, they have the option in
d.c. At least, I can call an uber or lyft right now.
the cynic would say, are you going to change behavior?
to the 17-year-old kid who's going to make really dumb
decision on a roadway, they can make a different choice.
how do you help answer that cynic say, I don't know if we'll
get that impaired driver off the road.
they are choosing to get behind the wheel for little bit of
variety of reasons. They are making that choice
today. Why would they choose to get a
waymo? >> it's an excellent question.
we approached this through a study where we worked with the
city of chandler, arizona. Examining accident reports,
recreated every single fatal collision that have occurred
over a certain period there. Then we used our extensive
simulation capabilities to replace the actors in each of
those accidents with the waymo driver to see how well it would
performed. We did that both for the primary
actor. Essentially the actor that was
cause of that accident. We also did it for the secondary
vehicles in that collision. What we found when the waymo
driver replaced the primary actor, 100% of those collisions
were avoided. When we replaced the vehicle,
more than 85% was avoided. The waymo driver is able to
prevent not only the primary cause of the collision, say that
person making a better decision because waymo is available in
the district. But also the secondary
collisions as well. We have videos of what this
looks like on our website. Waymo.com/safety.
you can see the waymo driver swerving out of the way of red
light runners or potential t-bone collisions.
drivers aren't just paying attention.
that will be level of safety that the district would enjoy.
even if we're not convincing that potential drunk driver to
take waymo instead of driving home.
>> ms. Herdman? >> a lot of this burden on the
manufactures who incentivize the behavior to call an autonomous
vehicle. The way that tesla think about
this is by providing the most affordable option for our
vehicles. Our goal to get the cost per
mile down to 30 cents per mile to the customer as we scale.
you can see why I have concerns about the 15-cent per mile
number since that is half of what we would be charge as a
fare per mile. >> council man lewis george I
have couple of more questions. One of the things that I think
we've heard around arguments for the av driver is that we can
program it to be safer. Is there any scenario where we
would say that you can program an autonomous vehicle to exceed
the speed limit? It's not 5 miles per hour over.
it's not two miles over. The limit is the limit.
do we program our autonomous vehicles to operate at the speed
limit and no greater? >> that is the way that waymos
are programmed. Waymos are designed to drive
safely. That includes speed limits.
they can for very brief periods, exceed the speed limit only if
they are attempting to avoid a collision.
that would be the only instance in which that occurs.
that's waymo's approach. Different autonomous vehicle
companies might take a different approach.
>> ms. Herdman. >> our vehicles are designed to
comply with local traffic law. The vehicle can go faster than
the speed limit in the event of a safety critical situation as
well as to keep pace with the traffic surrounding it.
we found that there are actually additional incidents in av
vehicle is going too far below the speed eliminate.
we've done a lot of testing with speed.
>> okay, why would you allow it to go over the speed limit?
I understand the safety. That makes sense.
flow of traffic, whole bunch of people just driving dangerously
above the speed limit. >> it won't necessarily mimic
the speed that the other drivers are going.
be within a specific margin between the traffic law with the
spite limit posted as well as what's going on around behind
the vehicle and sides of the vehicle in the event it needs to
swerve. >> got it.
I feel the evasive maneuver, the safety response are quick
momentary piece, I can wrap my head around that one.
I feel pretty strongly we set a speed limit for a reason.
that's the limit. We can't go over that.
similarly, I had a lot of conversation around how do you
manage curbside, pick up and dropoff, but also, you can't
park in a bike lane. That's the bike lane's.
is the programming such that the vehicle cannot stop in impede
the travel within a marked designated bike lane?
>> yeah. I think the discussion of curb
usage is interesting one, dense urban environment like the
district. The waymo vehicle prioritizes
safe and compliant roadway usage including the use of curb space.
generally, I think that I know that the council has opinions
about how to collaborate with autonomous vehicle players.
that's a conversation we are excited to have with you.
so that we can understand the district's needs as well as make
sure that we're programming our vehicles to be able to take the
most advantage curb days. Get people safely and rapidly
where they need to get to. >> thank for the question.
the tesla ads is designed to never stop in a bike lane.
curbs are super important for a variety of reasons particularly,
for blind and visually impaired customers.
we need to be able to make sure that pick-ups and dropoffs are
perfect essentially and be able to give that guidance in app
where vehicle is located. Another really interesting
conversation that we're having with other jurisdictions is pick
up and dropoff locations for extremely busy areas.
>> curbside management is something that is really
important whether it's our av conversation or anybody else.
we're going to continue to follow this after the hearing,
obviously. I think there's a healthy
discussion to have. When take uber or lyft and it's
drooping me off at my house, it's not unreasonable thing it
will stop in the roadway and let the passengers out and the
driver makes decision around that.
I don't believe it should stop in a bike lane.
I do believe there's instances where there's a reasonable
standard of I do that in uber and lyft, that's not
unreasonable expectation that I will be able to walk out in the
vehicle or not. I do think safety around not
blocking a bike lane is going to be very important.
for multiple stakeholders in the district as well.
I can also understand we got to find a reasonableness of when a
vehicle is will drop me off, for example.
outside my door, which is not unreasonable expectation.
I gone well over councilwoman lewis george.
>> I want to talk more about infrastructure and how you plan
to manage the specific way the district is different from other
jurisdictions. These questions are primarily
for the folks from waymo wells ms. Herdman.
all are welcome to respond. In preparation for deployment,
what were will your companies do to set up infrastructure.
will will you look to set up depots.
I'm assuming those will be sites where job with district
residents primarily located? >> great question.
right now, as I said, we have made initial investments in
wards 5 and 7. Those are for both service
depots as well as charging facilities.
I we're excited to see those become open in the future.
those will be where district residents will be able to have
carrier opportunities. There's shorter wait time.
there's more prevalence of waymos coming in and out of the
depo. For ward 7, we're excited about
the possibility that those residents will have unfettered
access to waymo. Which is a pretty stark
departure from their current transportation options.
>> ms. Herdman. >> thank you for the question,
councilmember. Outside of our hiring for our
data collection operations in d.c., we have not made any hard
investments in the community yet.
transparently, it's kind of all about whether we'll be able to
come here. This is the purpose for this
conversation. When there's a clear deployment
pathway for commercial operation that's when you would see tesla
make investments in the community.
>> got it. How do you all expect this
infrastructure to impact our electrical grid capacity?
rising electricity rates are a top of mind concern for our
residents and for us. As leaders.
understanding these impacts are really critical for us.
>> thank you. Yes, as you know, tesla
manufactures a range of products outside of vehicles including
solar equipment and utility scaled batteries.
we think about this question a lot.
we need to be very diligent about what times of day we are
charging to avoid high usage times during the day as well as
investing in our super charger network, tesla operates the
largest charging network in the world.
we understand that those continued investments are really
important. I spoke with your office prior
to this hearing and I'm going to come in and talk to you about
our battery management systems. So we can chat further.
>> waymo is also proud to operate a 100% battery electric
fleet. As america continues its
transformation towards electrification, the types of
questions you asked are coming up.
we've had extensive experience doing this in other metros that
we've been operating in. We also recently introduced a
program that takes the batteries out of the vehicles that we have
retired to add to the grid and supplement grid level storage so
we can reduce usage during peak times.
this is a challenge broadly that the industry, automobile
industry, not just waymo is facing.
we look forward to working with you and your office to
understand d.c.'s unique challenges and make sure that we
are building towards that more electrified future that we're
all pushing for. >> how can your companies -- I'm
hearing a lot about how you can plan to offset, can you speak
more about the way the grid itself is impacted and how your
companies can offset the cost and how you all can helps in the
district meet our clean energy goals?
>> because we do not have commercial operations in the
district, I'm not extremely familiar --
[ indiscernible ] >> I can't speak to that.
I'm happy to follow-up with your office and give some more
information on that. >> I appreciate it.
>> do you mind if I add something.
this is harry. I think getting back to
something you said before. Under the current version of the
bill, network you want a world where the manufacturer also
operates the fleet. By necessity, that means
multiple depot. Everyone needs their own depot
pulling from the grid individually.
hybrid network, you might have two or three depots but there's
multiple companies pulling from the depot.
you're reducing footprint and potentially reducing your grid
usage. Which is long-term benefit
there. >> thank you, I appreciate that.
mr. Walsh, thanks to speaking to locate in wards 5 and 7.
I wonder how see that impacting traffic patterns.
the roadways that run through these wards are extremely
congested and represent high traffic areas.
how about waymo adding vehicles change these patterns.
wha >> I appreciate the question.
councilmember, long before we finalized any specific site
location, we are going through an extensive review process of
not only the site but the surrounding community.
traffic assessments are being conducted well before we move
forward with our plans. I think right now, of the sites
that we are moving forward on, we feel very confident that the
addition of the waymo facilities will not negatively contribute
to traffic congestion. The other thing that we have
implemented in our facilities is our staff are constantly aware
making sure the flow of vehicles is smooth and efficient.
certainly we don't want those vehicles blocking any of those
street. If you look at the facilities
that we have in other market, you will see that these
facilities are fairly seemless operations and so, the other
last thing I'll say, as those facilities begin to near further
stages of completion, the waymo team will be interacting with
the surrounding communities engaging with them so they have
an understanding what these facility look like.
lastly and probably most importantly, what can those
members of the public and local businesses do if they need to
contact waymo about any concerns.
looking forward to engaging with the communities deeply in coming
weeks or months. >> thank you, I appreciate that.
I wanted to -- the district is also unique in such a bounded
area. We are surrounded by multiple
states, counties and cities on all sides.
as we think about this legislation, how do you see the
laws in those jurisdiction impacting employment?
do you expect the employment here to align with employment in
neighboring jurisdictions? >> yes.
really good question. I think the regional aspect of
this has been part of the conversation from the early days
two years ago. Where things stand now I think
that the district is in position to be a leader on this subject.
should this legislation move forward, waymo, there are
initial service will be operating within the confines of
the district. Virginia and maryland are in
different stages of their sort of legislative development on
this policy area. While we're incredibly proud to
be able to hopefully be the first av operator, we understand
the realities of ride, hail and transportation patterns.
we are actively involved in conversations in virginia and
maryland. I'm very optimistic that both
state legislatures will act in 2027 to catch up with the
district and then eventually we will have some type of broad
policy across the dmv region so that people can use av's to get
all of their destinations. >> okay.
my question really is like do we have to move as a region given
the unique nature of the city and what -- can one piece of the
region move forward without the other pieces staying in line?
or is this we have to move together as a region on this
issue for it to be successful? >> I would say that I think the
district is well poised to continue this legislation.
I know there's going to be future conversations over the
summer. I think washingtonians are
excited about having waymo as an option.
we're certainly ready to make the investment.
I would not want to see the district wait for the other
jurisdictions to act. I think that you all have taken
a strong interest in this policy area.
>> I am currently the chair of office of disability rights,
disability services. I do want to end on questions
around accessibility when deployment takes place.
how will your companies ensure equal access to those services?
what will your deployment plan will be to ensure services are
available for disabled residents from our deaf, deaf/blind and
hard of hearing community. How have you been able to meet,
you will hear from our odr director.
we will hear from them at the end.
I want to get a sense how you all can and will respond to
accessibility issues especially for our disabled residents
across the district? >> I appreciate the question,
councilmember. You will hear a lot from
individuals today who are from the disabled community that use
waymo and using to use waymo here in district.
I don't want to get ahead of them.
we have long developed our product in partnership with
members of the disability community.
I think particularly, those in the low vision or blind
community. Use our service every single
day. Quite frankly, it represents the
first time they have had fully independent mobility.
I am certainly personally incredibly proud of that product
that fact we can give that mobility to people.
in the cities that we operate in, in several cities, we offer
fully accessible option. We look to future cities, we're
actively trying to figure out what those options will look
like. Currently, we are a technology
company. We're in active discussions with
vehicle manufactures to identify future vehicle platforms that
may meet better needs. I think serving all rider is a
priority for waymo. >> thank you for the question.
this is a super important part for tesla.
for our current fleet using tesla model y vehicles, there
are many accessibility considerations for blind,
visually impaired stokes folks. --
folks. We're in development for purpose
built wheelchair accessible autonomous vehicle.
we know that paratransit can be difficult.
people confined to wheelchairs should be able to move around
freely. That's an active product being
built by tesla in texas. >> thank you, chairman, allen
will I will follow-up for additional questions.
I do appreciate the expertise. >> thank you very much
councilmember. One of the great things about
having a smart colleague, they ask a lot of the same questions
I had prepped. I will pull that thread little
bit further. For a d.c. Taxi fleet, for
example, we recognized we did not have enough wheelchair
accessible taxi cabs. We have to use the power of our
legislation to say this is how many we have to have in our
fleet. I will probably hear from folks
who say, even that's not enough. We don't hit the threshold that
even is in law. We put it there to start
creating the incentive and little bit of caret and stick.
I appreciate the question. From the waymo perspective, we
are a technology company. We do not develop our own and
manufacture our own vehicle. From a certain part of this, we
are restricted by the vehicle platforms that we can source.
to date, it's my understanding we have not been able to
identify an electric vehicle platform that is fully
wheelchair accessible while also meeting the very unique
specifications that we need to retrofit that vehicle with our
technology. I don't want that to sound like
a cop out. I don't think that is.
we trying to find that vehicle platform.
what I do think there's opportunity here, the waymo
vehicles may be able to take other rides, for example within
the pair tra transit program that do not require wheelchair
vehicles that can lessen the burden on the fleet wheelchair
vehicles that do exist so those vehicles can do more rides for
people that need them. As far as whether to require
those this legislation, that's an area of discussion we should
have. Ensuring that there is a
commitment to offering waymo services.
>> having been here back in some considerations, taxi cab fleet.
we heard similarly. It's hard to source those
vehicles. It's hard to find them.
the legislation kind of act as a way to say, I think we can.
now, I don't think we're hitting our marks in terms of being able
to make sure that we have wheelchair accessible fleet in
the taxi cab. The legislation can be pretty
strong incentive to say we got to find that solution.
I want to flag this something I want to continue to work on.
mr. Hartfield. >> av's can deliver tremendous
value for individuals with accessibility needs.
I think -- today, whether you get tax or uber, if you need
help getting in and out of the car, there's someone to help you
get in and out of the car. That obviously doesn't exist
with an av. Making sure we have some way to
ensure if I need a person, I continue to have that service.
>> I think that speaks to why the choice is an important piece
for what the rider needs and what they are looking for.
move on to couple of other topics.
one of the things I've heard globally, concerns around racial
bias that exists in sensing. What I mean by that is, well
documented technology like facial recognition, for example.
the technology that is used both if cameras, lidar, radar, what
has been the intentional testing to look for, examine and ensure
there's not racial bias in the data that comes back into the
vehicles and systems? >> absolutely.
we looked into this a while ago with our own sensor suite.
did not find any evidence systematic issues in detecting
pedestrians based on race. For little bit of context, we
employ three visual sensors in our vehicles.
we use cameras. We also use lidar.
which is a technology that bounces laser points off of
objects to measure how farther. It brings its own light source.
it doesn't rely on the sun or street lighting and it works
equally well. Then radar.
which is important to see through things like fog and
rain. Our perception system on the car
uses all three of those to do detection of all objects.
pedestrians are some of the most important objects out there to
be able to recognize. We look for any sort of
deficiencies that might cause us not able to recognize
pedestrians and to date, have not found any sort of bias
related to race. >> okay.
ms. Herdman? >> similarly.
we have not found anything that would indicate that our vehicle
are discriminating on the context of race.
we go out of our way to make sure our neuronetwork is trained
on a generalized data set. Both across, state, cities ate
world. When we're talking about keeping
a vehicle safe and ensuring that, we're delivering for our
riders, there's nothing to indicate that the tesla ads
would discriminate. >> sticking with that for little
bit. Another concern I heard related
to imaging and data privacy. I'm walking on the sidewalk.
I'm in the crosswalk and in front of one of your vehicles.
there are images, radar, lidar being taken of me as I walk
through. I heard some people say, is this
similar technology when I'm in the airport getting scanned.
I don't want those images shared.
can you talk about what if I'm a person who is having expectation
walking on the sidewalk and not having images too close to me,
what images are captured? What is the data that is held
and what are the privacy protections in place?
>> thank you for bringing up that important topic.
privacy for our users and really all users of the road is
paramount to our goals. It's something that we have
espoused ever since our founding.
I mentioned our three visual sensorrers.
let me first talk about the non-camera sensors.
one of the benefits of those, they are essentially already
itemized looking at lidar scan, or radar scan, you can't tell
who a person is. You can tell that they are a
pedestrian. That's a technology that already
enjoys that benefit. We don't stop there.
on top of that, we automatically blur all of our images of
pedestrians faces and license plates as we drive by them.
to make sure even our engineer who are working on analyzing
events or logs not able to tell. >> is it recorded?
let's say there's a crime takes place in front of a waymo.
ndp say, did your camera catch the license of that tag?
was it recorded or is it no, our camera blurs it intentionally.
>> there are many different levels to consider here.
the perception system on board the vehicle doesn't blur its own
images. It uses all of those pixels in
its own driving. We have blurring protections
that occur at the point of off loading and resisting those
logs. Then the vast majority of our
driving that data is just thrown away or not even off loaded off
the car. The reason for that, we generate
way too much data for our system to handle.
generally, that's thrown away. If there was no reason to record
the crime that you refer to in your hypothetical scenario, it's
reasonable to suspect that the detailed data from that might be
thrown away. In other cases if the crime
impacted the waymo's driving, it might have been logged.
to your broader point, waymo also makes sure that it would
only reveal the existence of that data or turn over that data
to a law enforcement department only in the presence of a lawful
subpoena for that data. We take privacy protections
seriously both at the technological level and legal
level. >> thank you.
ms. Herdman? >> yes, the tesla ads does
automatically blur the surrounding imaging.
tesla also unique in that all vehicle computations are done on
the actual vehicle. Nothing goes in the cloud.
tesla accesses that data upon lawful request or a legal event
that would trigger accessing that data such as a crash or an
attempted carjack running of a tesla robotaxi vehicle, for
example. We take privacy extremely
seriously. The actual vehicle controls our
hidden command and control centers that would have to have
double encryption keys to access.
we are never selling our data to third parties regardless of the
tesla product whether it's robotaxi or otherwise.
>> you brought up a good point of the when in public reasonable
expectation of privacy. I think that's what I heard from
folks saying, I'm walking on the sidewalk, I can't have a
reasonable expectation to being in a public space.
I do have a reasonable expectation that the technology
you're using isn't seen through my clothes.
that's I think I'm hearing. I need to understand what level
does this lidar and radar technology impede upon what I
think is reasonable. >> just address that point
directly. No, it cannot see through your
clothes. >> it is actual question I
gotten many times. It's helpful to state it out
loud. >> hopefully it's helpful to
give you a definitive answer. >> thank you very much.
you do not sell data to any third parties.
>> we don't sell data to third parties.
we did recently announce a program where we are sharing
some ancillary data that we collect to cities in order to
help them. We have recently started
releasing data where potholes exist in cities through the ways
for cities platform. This is a way that cities can
get some additional benefit from the vehicles driving around.
understanding where the potholes are.
that's something we're seeking to expand to provide additional
benefits to cities. I know you're at the spirit of
your question was in different direction.
I think there's a lot of benefits that can be created
from that data. >> I appreciate you taking the
advantage to log that one. Couple of more questions.
I will make sure we move to other panelists.
impact on workforce. I don't think it's an if.
it is. There will be an impact to
workforce. It's important that we not
pretend that there isn't plow going to be impact on workforce.
there will be. As we think about how we prepare
for that impact, part of the legislation is attempted to do
as both say, let me have our department of transportation,
department of employment services work together to help
write a report and guide us, saying this is what we think the
impact will be and strategies and how we'll able to affect
that. The legislation say, let me take
some of the fees that are coming in and say, how do I use these
fees to help train a workforce. Help with that impact.
there's intentionality that we have in the legislation to
recognize this. What are the ways -- ms. Tuell,
you talk about the transition of lyft workers into a different
space. What are some of the intentional
ways that you recommend if the district will move forward with
this legislation and let's be clear, even if we pass that
legislation tomorrow, there will not be commercial operation of
av's. >> that is why hybrid network is
important to us. On the one hand, we have not
brought fully driverless on the platform.
we're seeing in places like austin and atlanta in cities
where av's operate in competition with human drivers.
we see there's growing the pile. Like harry said earlier.
when you can bring more demand and supply into one network, it
can help improve driver earnings opportunity.
at the same time, a lot of our drivers are in this earnings
opportunity because it's flexible work.
they potentially are driving on the weekends or night to earn,
save towards a house and tuition.
a lot of them have told us in our annual survey, they don't
see themselves driver oing for the platform this time next
year. This is a temporary flexible
job. I think there's a big
opportunity here to take the skills that are rideshare driver
has around hospitality, around vehicle and put them in that
pipeline and prioritize them in av deeper roles and support
roles. We're excited about that.
it's something we're able to do in the market.
we're able to hire 70 staff to work at the depot.
our hiring team move lyft driver to the front of the line.
there's skills from the rideshare driving role that are
directly transferable and should be celebrated and promoted into
that pipeline. >> were they legislated?
were they part of agreement for jurisdiction or city?
>> in nashville, we are the operating partner for waymo.
we handle all end-to-end fleet management.
that was a lyft specific practice that we put in place
around hiring. We also leading up to the launch
in nashville, we've been hosting lyft driver, autonomous driver
forums where we meet some of our five star driver regularly to
hear what they are excited about when av's come to market and
potential to try one. But also what they are concerned
about. They are concern about impact on
their earnings opportunities. We've been able to talk through
-- what we are seeing, small markets why there's hybrid,
austin and atlanta. But the potential opportunity to
actually improve their earnings opportunity and help them choose
the rides they want to take and an av can take otherwise.
>> mr. Walsh. >> I appreciate the question.
I think workforce has been a huge component of the
conversation around av's and every city but particularly here
in d.c. I think on the proactive sense,
waymo has been committed to expanding our workforce
development program. We have scholarship programs
through tech united. We have developed first of kind
community college vocational training program like the one
that we just established in new york.
here in d.c., we have begun conversations about how we can
build out that pipeline. The reality is right now, we
have not seen that direct job loss that is being illustrated
today. You're going to hear from other
people today that are going to talk about the loss of driver
earnings as a result of the arrival of av's.
in the long-term, will there be job losses like any other
technological shift, the answer is likely yes.
which is why I think the workforce fun that you have put
in this legislation is an important one that waymo
supports. In terms of the funding
mechanisms and how much funding goes into that, that's a
conversation we're eager to have.
there are companies seated at this table who control how much
earnings drivers take home. These companies are taking
nearly 40 per of those earnings for the company and leaving the
driver for less. We want to talk about driving,
earning, the companies at this table should engage in that.
>> drivers in the district make more than $30 per hour on
utilized time. There are tens of thousands of
them, there's 100 plus people. That's about 9900 people who can
stand lose access to work. People work on their own
schedule on our app. You work in the depot you're a
full-time employee. If you want to make extra money,
that's not really an option to go work at a depot.
this is very valuable work to a lot of people.
happy to talk about the insurance when it comes to pay
grade. These are people who live in the
district. If you work on our app, you live
in district, you pay a tax in the district, you go to local
restaurants and you go to bars and see your friends.
if you give money to tesla or waymo, both great companies,
that money ends up in texas or california.
there's no they don't -- that's why their headquarters are.
we should be honest that depot jobs, there's 20 scholarships
they are working on and 100 depot jobs is not a replacement
for tens of thousands of people who drive on our platform and
enjoy the flexibility. That's not a reason not to have
av's. It is a reason to be thoughtful
about how we do a workforce transition.
you know in general, rescaling and training programs haven't
always delivered to value workers really need.
we should be transparent that there will be especially we see
in california, drivers makeless one.
one av takes the work of four drivers.
that's real. We should expect that in 2028
there will be thousands of av's in the district.
that means less work for a lot of drivers in the district.
>> I'm going to try to keep us constructive.
we are slading behind schedule. This panel has been a lot of
expertise that we needed to tease tout and flush through.
I was here when uber came in the marketplace.
if we were to pretend we didn't see loss of earnings for taxi
cab drives, we wouldn't be honest.
that doesn't mean having uber and lyft come in the marketplace
to be a disruptor that created more options to get around my
city, at the end of the day, it's a net benefit to my
transportation choices in the city.
I can't say I didn't see people who had earned a living as taxi
driver see their income diminish.
when I think about this, we're not going to do right by the
city or by our workers if we say, there might be an impact, I
don't know. There will be an impact.
there will. We have the opportunity to be
very intentional thinking about what does workforce transition.
what does workforce loss mitigation.
what are are the different strategies to use.
it doesn't mean we say no to innovation and technology.
it does mean we have a responsibility to think about
what that this looks like to do right.
that's kind of been my approach. I think it's probably consistent
what most of the council wants to look at.
I'm grateful we'll continue this conversation in the weeks and
months to come. This panel has been great.
I have a lot of witnesses I want to make sure I get through
today. I want to thank you all for your
testimony today. Thank you.
our second panel of witnesses now.
jabari cooper, the director of state and local government
affair. Chamber of progress.
I have shawn townsend, restaurant association of
metropolitan washington. Daniel flores, vice president
for regional engagement with the greater washington board of
trade. Crispus gordon, vice president
government affairs. Chinyere hubbard.
we have you signed up as public witness.
ms. Hubbard is with chamber of commerce.
please come on up. >> cooper.
>> good afternoon. I'm director of state and local
government relations for chamber of progress, systemming public
policies to build a more inclusive society which all
people benefit. We strongly support this
legislation. We believe will help build
better on goals of safety, equity and successful
deployment. Chair allen after more than four
years of delay, you developed a attract's serious framework for
commercial autonomous vehicle deployment.
that deserves real credit. Autonomous vehicles are
demonstrating safety perform performance.
meanwhile, the district experienced highest traffic
fatality rate in 16 years. We deplayed deploying safer
technology. Our recommen recommendations ard
to help the bill succeed. The 200 vehicle fleet cap.
the by requires service across all eight wards.
it makes that goal difficult to achieve.
operators will naturally concentrate limited vehicle
where is demand is highest, likely downtown and not in ward
7 and 8. Nearly half of households do not
own a vehicle, autonomous vehicles are not just about
innovation, they are about expanding access to reliable
transportation. We recommend replacing the cap
with a performance-based expansion tied to safety and
equitable service milestone. Third, deployment model
neutrallalty. The definition should
accommodate all autonomous vehicles including hybrid
networks to companies can compete on equal footing.
finally, arbitration provision. As drafted, this likely to
conflict with the federal arbitration act, accuracying
unnecessary litigation that can delay implementation.
riders are well protected because the bill makes av
companies legally responsible whenever autonomous drivers are
engaged. Chair allen, we believe this
legislation can make a district national leader autonomous
vehicle deployment. We submitted more detailed
written testimony that goes into more detail.
thank you again. >> thank you very much.
next, mr. Townsend. >> good morning.
chairman allen and member of the committee.
thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
I'm shawn townsend. I have the pleasure of serving
as president and ceo of the restaurant association of
metropolitan washington. For more than 100 years, rmw
represented more than 1500 restaurants across the
washington region. Before joining our rmw, I served
as first district of night life and culture.
earlier, I worked part time as an uber driver.
like so many people in hospitality, picked up
additional work to help make ends meet.
these experience give me a unique perspective on how
transportation, economic opportunity and public safety
all have interest. That's why I believe good
transportation policy is good restaurant policy.
for our industry, transportation is economic development.
the easier it is for people to get to our restaurants the more
likely they are to dine out explore new neighborhoods and
support local businesses. Autonomous vehicles have the
potential to remove some of the biggest barriers, customers face
including traffic, parking and hassle getting around the city.
reliable transportation is just as important for our workforce.
restaurants operate early in the morning often before metro opens
long after it closes. Thousands of hospitality
employees rely on rid cher services -- rideshare services
to get to work. Expanding transportation options
isn't about convenience. It's about making these jobs
more accessible. I had the opportunity to see
this technology firsthand. Early this year, I tours
facilities in phoenix better understand how autonomous
vehicles are deployed and managed.
I was impressed by the company's focus on safety, training and
oversight. I know there's some concerns
about how this technology may affect existing jobs.
I don't want to minimize those concerns.
I do think it's equally important to recognize the jobs
this industry is creating. I've learned about the wide
range of positions needed to support autonomous vehicle
operations from fleet operations and vehicle maintenance to
charging infrastructure, logistics, customer support and
safety specialists. These are good paying jobs that
include training and career advancement opportunities.
as this technology grows in the district, those employment
opportunities deserve to be part of the conversation.
we support the overall framework of this legislation including
the creation of ddot's commercial autonomous vehicle
program and the phased employment -- it's a approach
that allows innovation while maintaining accountability.
our primary concern is the proposed 15-cent per mile
vehicle miles travel tax. As drafted that tax would apply
to every autonomous vehicle trip including the trips that help
someone get home safely after dinner or help a worker get to
work before sunrise or home after a late night shift.
those are exactly the kind of trips we should be encouraging
and not making more expensive. If our shared goals is improving
mobility, and encouraging, we should be kind of not to educate
barriers to discourage people from using the service.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
>> thank you very much. Mr. Flores.
>> thank you, mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
for the opportunity to submit testimony.
my name is daniel flores r vice president of regional engagement
for the greater washington board of trade.
the greater washington board of trade brings together leaders
across business, government, academia and nonprofit sector to
advance policies that in partnerships support economic
growth, innovation and opportunity across the
washington metropolitan region. We are committed to a district
that is safe, competitive and prepare for the future.
greater washington board of trade support the bill sense of
purpose it's creating a clear pathway for the responsibility
-- the responsible deployment of commercial autonomous vehicles
in the district. Autonomous vehicles technology
is no longer distant possibility.
greater washington has the assets to participate in that
growth, a region strength, cybersecurity, logistics,
research and advanced technology make it well position to lead in
the next generation of transportation systems.
as the region works to strengthen and diversify its
economy, transportation innovation is part of the
broader competitiveness in the conversation.
the district should help shape the future of mobility rather
than wait for the benefits that innovation to accrue elsewhere.
safety must remain central. Concerns about recent incidents
involving autonomous vehicles are understandable.
particularly, in a city with dense streets, significant
pedestrian activity major events, emergency operationings
and the complex transportation network.
new technology requires clear expectations, public
accountability and safeguards that build confidence among
residents first responders, businesses and policy makers.
we believe those concerns can be addressed throughout thoughtful
policy but not delayed. The district should establish a
framework that holds operators accountable for public safety
and gives the city the ability to respond when standards are
not met. You should also create an
environment in which responsible companies can enter the market,
test, learn and grow. As the bill moves forward, we
encourage the committee to ensure that it is final
requirements remain balance and workable.
a framework intended to authorize deployment should not
impose costs, reporting obligations or operational
restrictions that make the district an outlier among peers
jurisdictions or discourage responsible investment before it
begins. Requirement should protect the
public and cover administrative costs while remaining
proportionate, predictable and align with established national
standards wherever possible. Autonomous vehicles should
compliment public transit, improve access and mobility and
fit within a regional approach to transportation, economic
growth. The district's decision will not
occur in isolation. Businesses, worker, residents
and transportation systems move across d.c., maryland and
virginia every day and the region will be a better place
served by policies that recognize that reality.
the greater washington appreciation, the commitments
leadership and thank you for the opportunity to testify and for
the consideration of this bill. >> thank you mr. Flores.
mr. Gordon. >> good morning councilmember
allen. My name is crispus gordon I'm
vice president government affairs.
I'm here to present testimony on bill 26-0684.
I'm thrilled to be on a panel with individuals like shawn
townsend who board I serve on, david flores and mr. Hubbard.
the same should be applied to autonomous vehicle technology.
autonomous vehicle represent one of the most significant leaps in
urban mobility. The offer for those who cannot
drive do you to age. A safe, affordable on demand
vehicle to get to various places.
as an anchor for downtown, we want to see as many people have
their ability to attend 200 plus events.
this will continue to bring d.c. Residents and visitor who are in
the city to the many restaurants and retail establishment that
support our local economy. We desire to ensure that all our
fans, have accessible ways to see games or come to various
concerts. We believe the autonomous
vehicle will be part of the renaissance of downtown.
d.c. Cannot afford to be the last major american city to
embrace autonomous vehicles. The autonomous vehicle
deployment authorization act creates a path for the future to
arrive here in d.c. >> thank you very much.
ms. Hubbard. You also the president and ceo
d.c. Chamber of commerce. >> thank you so much, chairman
allen. My name is chinyere hubbard.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
I am placed to appear on behalf of the business community to
stress the chamber's strong support for proposed support for
enabling autonomous vehicles in washington d.c.
we appreciate your support and leadership on this bill.
it represents a transformative opportunity to strengthen public
safety and improve transportation reliability and
stimulate economic growth across our neighborhoods and commercial
corridors. The d.c. Chamber support for
this bill is grounded in four areas.
first, safer d.c. Street. As you heard from the previous
panel, autonomous vehicle technology has been shown to
reduce severe crashes by 94%. Pedestrian injuries by 93%.
cyclists injuries by 84%. For washington d.c., this means
safer commutes along corridors like george avenue, and
pennsylvania avenue and greater confidence for residents in all
eight wards. Second, mobility and equity.
for many district residents the ability to get to work on time
attend a doctor's appointment or really depends on reliable
transit options. When transportation is
unreliable or unaffordable, it becomes a barrier that limits
opportunity and deepens inequities.
autonomous ride services offer a consistent safe and inclusive
option. A driverless alternative that
supports local businesses and offers residents, especially
women and vulnerable populations a safer alternative traditional
ride. This technology can be a
powerful tool in advancing equity for those who have faced
transportation challenges. Strengthening access to jobs,
retail and services across the city.
when people have another trusted way to get around town, they go
out more, stay out later and spend more money at d.c.
businesses. Proven readness.
waymo extensive experience, including mapping, driving
hundreds thousands of miles here in the district and operating 11
major u.s. Cities, with more than 500,000 rides weekly,
underscores the technologies reliability and readiness for
deployment in the district of columbia.
fourth, economic development. Waymo investment in local
infrastructure and job creation in vehicle maintenance and fleet
operations aligns with the d.c.'s chamber mission to foster
workforce growth and expand opportunity in the district.
notably, this investment is happening even before official
authorization to serve the public here.
it will only grow as waymo expands.
autonomous vehicles won't eliminate jobs.
they'll create them. These fleets require technicians
as we've heard. Vehicle maintenance special is,
fleet operators and safety monitors.
each role represents a pathway into stable eye demand careers
that align with the district eats workforce development
priorities. While the chamber supports the
bill, we do recommend three adjustments to ensure it
delivers maximum benefit for all washingtonians.
first, a fair tax structure, the bill's high per mile travel tax,
layered on top of d.c.'s existing fees will make the
service 30% more expensive before the first ride even
starts. Replace it with a modest per
trip fee. To keep rides affordable for
residents and visitors. Second, fleet expansion, remove
the cap of 200 vehicles along with the city's permanent
authority to impose new caps. Now expansion based on safety
milestones. This ensures reliable service
across all wards. Third, a timely launch.
eliminate this delay and allow paid rides to begin as soon as
safety and operational standards are met.
the district shouldn't wait years to benefit from safer and
more reliable mobility. Autonomous vehicles are
important and opportunity to make washington d.c. A more
connected, economically vibrant. The d.c. Chamber urges the
council to adopt this legislation with the recommendly
modification so their city can lady the nation I can.-- lead
the nation with equitable transportation.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
>> let me work through a couple of questions here.
mr. Flores, let me start with you.
the board of trade works regionally, correct?
we heard a question earlier, if I wanted to catch an av, let's
assume it's operation now, I want to catch it to go to
national airport, it's not going to let me out at the state line.
that trip is not going to exist. It won't be an option.
what is the board of trade doing in terms of reaching out to
colleagues in maryland and in virginia.
how much do you think the eyes are on d.c. To set the tone for
the region around what this looks like for our neighbors in
virginia and maryland? >> thank you for that question.
definitely, it's something that we have looked in the past but
also is up to the elected officials to make sure that
something like this can go across jurisdictions in like you
mentioned if you take a taxi to go to the airport.
you can't take one back. Which I think is for a lack of
better word, a waste. A lost opportunity.
right now, in talking to some folks that work late at night in
the restaurant or similar industry, sometimes it's
difficult to get across jurisdictions because of that
similar problem. It's something we would like to
see that buses and metro just get around well but we have
different bus systems that we would like for them to work
together to make sure that we serve everybody not only in
maryland and virginia but also in the district.
make sure that it is seemless connection from one jurisdiction
to the next. That's a very good question.
thank you. >> I think it's important that
you be able to move regionally. I want to make sure I get a
shout out to my friends. Let me work through a couple of issues
you highlighted. Mr. Cooper, the 200 cap you
brought that up. The way the legislation is
crafted right now is kind of a tiered approach to continue to
show who the concept. This is new technology.
it is going to be something that is disruptive in some ways.
also innovative. The idea behind it is let's
start with 200 cap. It also says, which is about ten
times the number of vehicles for testing about 25.
it also say us got to make sure your wait times across the city
are relatively equal. What I hear you saying, not too
convinced you will be able to achieve that with a cap of 200.
should that cap go up to better accomplish goal.
I don't believe we should eliminate a cap.
I think that's a fair point to say are you going to reach your
policy goals ensuring equitable reach across the city is 200
cap? >> I think that's a great
encapsulation. I think the 200 cap, we trying
to performance-based cap. That's what you're getting at as
well. We just want to make sure that
this policy gets off the ground. We'll be able to work with 200.
we trying to increase and want to make sure all wards are
served by the policy. >> the legislation requires
every ward to be service to the same level but I think what I'm
hearing you say is, you should really think long and hard.
you testified about the hybrid network.
we heard about that in the first panel.
on one hand, we do want to create a structure that the
autonomous vehicle permit holder is directly managing the fleet
that they are responsible for. I think one of our witnesses
testified about would that preclude, for example, shared
resourcing of a hub? I don't read the legislation
that way. That's why we're here.
to explore that. I don't think that being having
to have celebrate av permit holders where they share one
site and they have their charging infrastructure and
different pieces there. They take advantage of multiple
companies pooling in one resource they're all going to
draw from. I don't think the legislation
prohibits that. It's more about the direct
management of the fleet. Really good testimony from the
first panel. >> I kind of really thought it
was a great job done on the first panel highlighting the
need for the hybrid model. It's just about making sure that
we're, d.c. Making it accessible for all type of models.
it's more of the legislative certainty that is looking
forward within this legislation. We want to continue to have
conversations.
conversation >> mr. Flores, you said you
don't want d.c. To be outlier. >> for now.
>> I would reframe it. I don't want us to be an
outlayer. -- outlier.
I want us to be the leader. We're not just another city.
we're the nation's capitol. Everybody is watching what we do
with this legislation. Whatever this council passes.
if the council passes legislation, whatever version of
it, other cities around the entire country are going to be
looking at what we do. We all know, we live it
everyday. Sometimes we're the district of
columbia and sometimes the nation's capitol.
>> I'm glad you brought that up. We are looking for the district
to be a leader and for other jurisdictions, states, counties,
whatever it is to copy what the district did and how well they
put it together. >> I agree.
let me go to one of the recommendations you had.
which I respectfully disagree with.
vnt it is an important component of the legislation.
right now, waymo operates in all electorate.
electric -- -- electric fleet. They don't pay a gas tax.
why would I exempt them from that?
why would I exempt them from other fees insu insu and -- sur.
if I move to push trip charge, I'm not getting my other policy
goals. I want to reduce deadheading.
I want to reduce amount of time vehicle adding congestion.
I don't assume that a vmt gets passed on to the rider.
why should it? The companies at this table
tesla was sitting in that seat. Waymo owned by alphabet.
these are not nonprofit organizations.
they are here to make money and a profit.
why would I be concerned that they wouldn't be able to absorb
fairly modest charge to make sure we're achieving policy
goals? I'm going to wager.
none us want to see more congestion added.
we can use policy ideas to try to help manage the impact on
congestion as well as make up for we're not going to get gas
tax on a vehicle like that. Why should I exempt them from a
vm -- from that type of surcharge?
>> it's not that it's been exempt from vmt.
the federal government has been looking at it because we are
more electric vehicles and more electric vehicles will grow into
the population that come into the city as well they're not
waymos. Waymo is going to be a very
small number of electrical vehicles that the ones that come
in the city. What keeps you from taxing other
ones that come in here. The federal government is the
one working towards this because we need the transportation trust
fund to stay -- to have funding for us to fix infrastructure.
the way it is coming right now that is going to be piecemeal I
will say. If you look into that, I think
it will be good thing to reconsider how you approaching
that. How the federal government will
come with that number. >> I think all these fleets thus
far, I think out a trend that will continue are electric.
waymos are all electric. Obviously tesla electric.
that's what the fleet we're going to see.
they're not going to pay a gas tax.
I do agree with you. Let's for the sake of argument
pretend we keep the 200 cap. 200 vehicles is not even
remotely. It's a fraction of a fraction of
total number of vehicles on the roadway.
it begins to start the conversation as we are seeing
greater and greater uptick of electric vehicle.
we're going to have more vmt conversation how do you create
parity between those two. I think that the legislation is
very important from the standpoint of working with
innovation and technology. Which the district should be a
leader on. I don't think 15 cents vmt is a
deal breaker for being in place of innovation.
I think it it's a mart policy choice.
again, I know everybody at this table cares about making sure
that we reduce congestion in our roadway and we help make sure we
get around. That's part of what I think
allows us to help create a financial disincentive to adding
to that deadheading and that congestion.
we're going to take a feedback from today's hearing.
keep working with stakeholders around this.
that is one where I think a lot of the points in several of you
hit on the same recommendations, there are several of them that
make some sense. We'll work with you on that one.
vmt probably not going to agree on that one.
I do think it's an important policy goal we trying to achieve
with that. Anything else that you wanted to
add on that regard? Okay.
mr. Gordon. You're a huge hub.
monumental in capital arena. 200 plus events per year.
crucially important. Sitting right on top of metro.
which is great. For those that aren't, what are
the types of things you would think monumental -- we talked
about curbside management -- I asked earlier the first panel,
as someone who will jump in uber or lyft, fairly reasonable
expectation in my experience that the vehicle, the driver is
going to stop it's not going to always have a curb space to pull
over to. I'm going to be able to hop out
quickly. Oftentimes the driver looking in
the mirror. What would be your expectation
or maybe your desire from a curbside management for
autonomous vehicles? Do you want to see dedicated
curb space just for av's to pull up to?
what would help make that work for at monumental with
>> first thing we walk back original point.
we encourage rideshare and metro for everyone coming to a concert
or a game. Reason being, it will reduce
congestion in downtown. Second is, our parking garage is
very limited. Even through our renovation, we
can't expand because of the old metro building next door.
we would want to work with the department to make sure that we
have a dedicated space. We do that now for uber and lyft
and other rideshare. You try to get at uber or lyft
to capital one arena, it can't drop you off on f or sixth
street. A dedicated place for rideshare.
which is important for curbside management.
it does create that long line of cars stopping in the military of
the -- middle of the street. That's our outlook for av
vehicle, av is to have a dedicated space along with other
ridesharing. >> from your experience, or
maybe if you talked to other colleagues that started to
implement this, do those have main venues?
do they create that type of -- I don't know if I'm using the
right terminology -- geofencing for ubers and lyfts.
do they geofence autonomous vehicles in the same space.
would it make sense to have autonomous vehicles geofenced
for pick-up and dropoff in one location.
>> you're asking great question. I need to talk to our folks
chase center c1
from our experience, just look and, like we said earlier, we
are a unique city. We are not new york city or san
francisco. So the approach is like apples
to oranges. I would check with our team, our
colleagues, to see how they manage it.
from here covered may be a dedicated place.
>> yes, it would be helpful. >> are utilized waymo for the
first time in san francisco for all-star game a couple of years
ago. Much more vehicular and
pedestrian traffic. I use uber to get there.
the drop off zone was different, where I had to meet the waymo
vehicle. Completely different zones, but
it was easy. >> I would be curious as we
learned in other places, what are pros and cons, even mixing
uber and left and one space corps it doesn't make sense to
have them in two separate spaces to manage that differently?
that would be helpful. From a workforce perspective,
any recommendations you have? Should we be saying a certain
number of jobs have to be d.c. Residents?
is there a number of jobs has to be transitioned from previous
drivers? What are recommendations you
have, not just here is an investment in innovation, a good
thing in business economy overall, but any recommendations
about how you ensure those are d.c. Jobs, careers, you heard
outreach to create training programs.
he worked a lot thinking through how to create a business and
workforce. If there's anything you want to
add in that regard? >> absolutely.
as a d.c. Resident, I do believe we should work together on
strategies and workforce transitions and insure d.c.
residents, there are a portion of jobs allocated for residents.
as we try to fashion attracting businesses and retaining
businesses. I do think it is important for
businesses of all sizes, this will help strengthen our value,
but workforce is cash our shortcake job or at least even
considered as transitions from other rideshare companies.
>> I know you had a note about timeline.
I will just share, if we assume, best case scenario, the
legislation happens in the fall, soon -- assume it is signed by
the mayor, doesn't take effect until the spring of 2027.
there is other continue to testing and another piece.
it feels a long way off from the legislative calendar.
part of what I was hoping to do, we also want to give some
certainty to companies thinking, am I going to invest and is this
the investment I want to make in the district, creating the
workforce in the jobs, so part of it is trying to give some
certainty to folks where the last couple of years are defined
by uncertainty. That is the goal.
we will take the feedback and look at it.
that is one legislative gold. Creates certainty in a space
that has felt like nothing in it -- but a couple of years of
uncertainty. That is difficult when trying to
attract. I appreciate everyone's
testimony. Thank you very much.
thank you. Let's look to panel number
three. Let me call will hubbard,
christopher nace with the trial lawyers association metropolitan
washington dc, I have drew. I mispronounce that.
president of advocates for highway and auto safety.
drew, I apologize. I mispronounced her last name.
can you say it for me again? Thank you very much.
with a last name like alan, it is pretty boring.
we called kathryn chase but I don't think catherine is here.
we can come back to catherine later she will join us.
we will start with you. >> good morning, chairman and
members of the committee. My name is will.
I am professor of baltimore school of law.
my academic research focuses on regulation.
I am here in my individual academic capacity.
I support the passage of the act and want to highlight two key
points today. As an innovation scholar, I
applied attempts for deployment of d.c. Technologies.
80's have great potential to keep roads safer,
transportation, and driving hassles.
I want to highlight and support an aspect of the act.
the definition of driver to be applied is a critical issue in
every jurisdiction including the district has enacted numerous
laws to ensure that motor vehicles operate in a safe and
predictable fashion. Many of the laws like speed
limits are familiar to anyone who drives.
importantly, these often target the conduct of drivers.
d.c. Law states, drivers of vehicles proceeding in opposite
directions shall pass each other to the right.
these rules of the road established legal standards for
operating motor vehicles and identify a person who is legally
responsible for violations. It is the driver who gets the
ticket for speeding and the driver who gets pursued.
this -- the driver to operate in compliance with the law.
the meeting with the term driver is not clear when applied to
80's. The whole point is to relieve
humans of many tasks we think of with driving.
consequently, updating the meaning of the word driver is a
crucial step in developing effective laws for 80's.
the act addresses this issue and two provisions.
for commercial 80's, entity has obtained a commercial 80's
permit. Using a permit registration
system should be considered best practice.
regarding drivers, clearly identifies who would be legal --
legally responsible if the laws were violated.
already adopted in three states. I also highlighted a looming
problem with the implementation for private 80's.
I or the act in its current form largely because other issues can
be addressed down the road, so to speak.
I am happy to answer any questions.
>> thank you very much. >> good morning, chairperson and
members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify on bill 26-68 four, autonomous authorization
amendment act of 2026. I am an attorney practiced and
resided in the district of columbia for more than a decade.
I am testifying in my capacity as president of the trial
lawyers association in washington, d.c., or tl d.c. For
short. It is comprised of more than 500
members. All of whom advocate for victims
of negligence and civil wrongdoing in the district,
including those injured on d.c. Roadways.
as an organization, the top priority is ensuring that
victims of negligence and their families have fair and equitable
access to justice through our court system, and appropriate
recourse when they suffer loss at the hands of individuals and
corporations who act unlawfully. We start from the recognition
that autonomous vehicle technology is here.
avs are present on our roads today, and we strongly
assume, and, I think, safely assume, that this technology
will become more and more commonplace.
in the face of this rapidly advancing technology, we believe
it is the responsibility of this body to ensure that strong
protections exist for all road users-drivers, passengers,
bicyclists, and pedestrians alike-through public policy.
chairperson allen, we have worked closely with your office
to ensure that this bill provides appropriate avenues of
redress for victims of av-involved crashes, and we
sincerely appreciate your commitment to this critical
public safety issue. In addition to ensuring that
victims and their families have proper recourse, the bill needs
robust and clear standards for determining when and how
autonomous vehicles can take to our streets, and what guardrails
should be in place to reduce instances of injury or death.
for the purpose of determining civil liability for an
av-involved crash, the tla-dc has consistently held the
position that the bill must make clear who is responsible for the
behavior of an autonomous vehicle.
public policy makers, researchers, and the american
association for justice (aaj) agree: in order to ensure
accountability when an autonomous vehicle violates the
law and injures someone, av companies must be considered
"drivers" under the law. In this bill, the autonomous
driving system manufacturer is considered the driver of the av
for such purposes-a best practice we fully support.
but from a public safety perspective, the tla-dc believes
the bill is in need of improvement.
in the first instance, autonomous vehicles should be
required, unequivocally, to follow all traffic safety laws
to operate in the district. It is crucial that the bill is
explicit about this requirement. To that end, the law should not
settle for avs being merely as safe as "the human driver of
average competence," an ambiguous standard that the bill
references when defining what constitutes an unreasonable risk
to public safety. To set the bar so low is to
normalize the high volume of crashes, road deaths, and
serious injuries that we have today in the district.
it is to accept much less than the promise made to us by av
companies, and to needlessly put human lives at risk.
we ask that the committee reconsider this language and
make much clearer the safety expectations that we have for
avs in our community. On the back end, a safety
enforcement mechanism should be indispensable to this bill.
in our view, this legislation lacks appropriate enforcement
and escalation for those av companies that violate the
traffic laws of the district. We recommend the creation of an
escalation structure that provides clear warnings,
opportunities for remediation, and ultimately, cancellation of
permits for those who refuse remediation or whose remediation
is insufficient. Specifically, we recommend that
an enforcement and accountability framework
include: 1. A formal review by an
independent regulatory agency when violations cross a certain
threshold, or when a serious violation occurs.
2. Suspending the permittee's
authorization when violations go uncorrected or exceed allowable
levels. 3.
revoking authorization when suspension fails to produce
improvement, or when serious failures are found to be
systemic. My colleague, christopher nace,
is prepared to testify about some of the tla-dc's additional
positions with respect to this bill.
in the meantime, I thank you again for your dedication to
this issue and your work on this legislation.
I look forward to answering any questions you have.
thank you. >> thank.
mr. Nace. >> my law firm is a dc-based
small business but I am testifying today as co-fit --
cochair of the d.c. Trial lawyer -- committee.
-- my name is christopher nace, and I am testifying today as
legislative chair of the trial lawyers association of
metropolitan washington, d.c. Our organization represents
attorneys who advocate for injured people and their
families in the district's courts.
in reality, our voice, is for citizens of the district and
victims of negligence. We come to testify on matters
that effect the safety of district families
I want to be clear at the outset: tla-dc takes no position
today on whether autonomous vehicles should operate in the
district. Our comments are limited
entirely to the liability framework in this bill - what
happens after an av hurts someone.
when a human driver injures someone, the victim knows who to
sue, has a license plate and insurance card to work from, and
can get a police report within days.
avs remove the human from that equation, and this bill needs to
replace those basic building blocks of a lawsuit with
equivalent, or better, tools. In several respects it does: a
real insurance floor, a ban on forced arbitration for
commercial riders, and, for privately owned avs, a direct
claims process against the manufacturer with a data-based
presumption of engagement and no need to plead a product defect.
that framework, in section 3j, is the model, and our first ask
is that the council pass it. Second, data transparency.
plaintiffs' attorneys in states that already permit avs report
spending years just trying to access crash data, because those
states never required real disclosure.
this bill should require av companies to submit the full,
unredacted federal standard general order data, made
available to the public. Each vehicle should also carry a
separate, read-only sensor recorder capturing at least 30
seconds before any crash, retained until extracted by
appropriate agencies, and available to plaintiffs in
litigation. Third, insurance.
we're glad the bill sets a $5 million floor, but permit
holders should also be required to carry $5 million in uninsured
and underinsured motorist coverage, since many av riders
don't own cars and have no other policy to fall back on if an
at-fault third party has no coverage.
finally, data privacy and passenger safety.
a vehicle that collects this much information about where
people go and what they do needs enforceable privacy protections,
not a handshake, and companies -- we had some questions and
answers on this earlier today. So that is something we want to
make sure remains at the forefront of the committee's
thoughts. In sum, the promise of avs is
still just a promise - we have heard similar promises before,
from other technology companies, that did not survive contact
with the market. If the district is going to let
autonomous vehicles operate, this committee should make sure
the liability rules hold companies to those promises.
we look forward to working with your office on the specific
language. Thank you, and I am happy to
answer any questions. >> excellent.
thank you all very much. Let's see.
let me start with you. He joined with roundtables a few
years ago on the same topic. How do you resolve the legal
uncertainties within the law. From your testimony, it sounds
like this legibly -- legislation largely is successful resolving
those issues, is that a fair characterization, in terms of
defining driver? Collects the short answer is
yes. I think this should be enacted.
there is a looming problem with implementing the bill level is
fraught with all kinds of challenges.
the level cannot be determined through technological testing.
the same standard that defines the levels also says as a
practical matter, it is not possible to describe or specify
a complete test that could comply to a feature to
conclusively identify or verify its level of driving automation.
a single av might be level two and one contacts like high-speed
traveling on highway and three on another context, like driving
in a parking lot. That is why the sae
classifications refer to features, but the act refers to
the avs itself as having a single level.
it is not clear for purposes of the act how you would categorize
this. The act suggests many factors
might self serve fight and identify at the level of the
vehicle. I think this would work well.
when there is no human sitting behind a steering wheel, there
will generally be gnosis -- notice for this say vehicle
subject to the act. Where it gets harder is
distinguishing between level to and level three.
av companies might assert to regulators that privately owned
vehicles particularly are only level two, thereby avoiding the
regulatory structures of the act.
but those companies can then advertise vehicles to consumers
with terms that imply greater levels of autonomy like
self-driving or autonomous, something like that.
the problem is being dumped in the literature at level two.
the act limits the loophole by imposing spots on av companies
that do not register, but the act does not address how ddot
would know which vehicles to go after.
so additional provisions might be added to address this
problem. California has a law that
prohibits an auto company from marketing vehicles in a way that
would lead a reasonable person to believe that the vehicles are
av's. A similar provision could be
added to the act. Alternatively, the act could
empower ddot to come up with regulations for identifying when
a vehicle must be registered. To your initial point, despite
these concerns, I think the act is frankly groundbreaking.
I think it is an excellent piece of legislation.
there are a lot of moving parts that make it hard to identify
what should be enacted as it currently stands, but the core
issue of liability -- >> to your point, if you guys
one, is there a model you can point to and just point to one
way to get the issue around how a private a/d --
>> there are two ways of addressing this.
the california way might be redeploying jurisdictions
because what it says explicitly is that marketing a conventional
vehicle in a way that suggests to a reasonable person that is
an av violates california consumer protection laws
regarding accepted advertisements.
we would have to look to see if similar regimes -- whether or
not that would be brought to the district.
another approach would be to focus on the substance of
reasonable beliefs of consumers. You could cut through it and say
when there is a reasonable belief by a consumer, that a
vehicle operates as an autonomous vehicle that it is
subject to registration for level three or higher.
>> a good number of car sales to d.c. Residence actually takes
place in virginia, maryland. As discovered, we can't rent
their loss. Ok.
let me turn -- we heard earlier testimony that criticized
provisions in the bill banning force arbitration as a condition
of service. If we were to knock that out,
what would happen? Why would that be bad?
>> it is of course with these companies seek to do, to limit
liability exposure. If there is force arbitration,
of course the victim of negligence and their families,
they get potentially limited discovery, if discovery at all.
it becomes a much harder -- obtaining equitable damages.
we have a jury system in place for a reason.
it is an evisceration of the seventh amendment of the
constitution. If you want to be a full deep
dive, I can, but we think it is fundamental that mandatory
arbitration be the also testified he felt like we need
to have clear language around the traffic safety laws have to
be followed. U.s. Servers panel for example,
do you ever allow the autonomous vehicle to exceed the speed
limit? Both answers were now -- waymo
said no except for the safety response.
people going faster around it, it seems like it was entirely
counter to the purpose. I do live draw, if there is a
safety rate -- safety removed -- maneuver to make a safe distance
of the for pastors, and others, it may add to contemporary
acceleration, do you have any feedback about how you write
that in a defined way to -- and also exceed the speed limit?
>> I think it is a tricky issue. We are certainly happy to work
with your office in the coming months on better defining
precise language. I will say though, to the
broader point, we see no reason why an autonomous vehicle
outside of potentially an evasive maneuver to avoid injury
or death, we need to exceed the speed limit under any
circumstance. I did hear about tesla
representatives testimony on that and it struck me as odd.
as to your precise question, first of all, I don't have the
d.c. Traffic code in front of me, but if there is a maneuver
to avoid injury or death, it may well be in compliance with the
law, as a practical manner, but beyond that, I will reiterate we
are more than willing to work with your office on digging into
that issue and coming up with precise and definitive language
on that. >> obviously, we still have some
work ahead of us in the weeks to come.
we want to be precise as possible.
cannot stop in the middle of a bike lane.
at the same time, there will be a reasonableness to figure out
because I think it is fairly reasonable the vehicle.
in traveling on a residential street in front of my house, in
the same way I don't think twice about when an over driver stops
to let me out or let me in, so fine-tuning that to where the
reasonableness works, but the legislation is precise enough
because technically, double parking in the middle of my
residential street might not be compliant with the safety lock.
we will have to spend time working on that.
you talked about full unredacted data.
-- >> when there is an event or a
crash, that victims have access to that data, that they don't
have to jump through unbelievable hoops over hurdles
to find out what the vehicle knows about the crash.
it shouldn't be held back. Tied back a little bit with the
question about the vehicles, we have her testimony they are 10
times safer, 94% safety, ok. If that is the case, let's share
that information. The people who are hurt in an
accident, by putting something, and this is the arbitration part
of it, arbitration proceedings are not open forums like court
proceedings are. So when we have technology
companies coming in and saying this is safer and this will make
people safer, ok, fine, but when something may go along and does
go wrong, everyone has that data and information as to why how
often things are going wrong and how often, so I just think data
sharing is one of the ways and transparency is one of the ways
of gaining confidence in these vehicles.
>> councilmember henderson, let me turn to you and we will tack
on additional time as well for any statement you would like to
make. >> thank you, chair alan.
I do not have an opening statement.
I've been listening. I don't think you saw me before.
you asked a lot of the questions I have for this group but I want
to thank everyone for their testimony.
I think it was you or mr. L who said he felt like the bill was
good but you felt things were missing.
can you state a little more about that because I do not
think I heard you say what the two or three additional things
were that you wanted to see. >> councilmember>> council memb
this is drew laframboise. I will briefly restate both of
them. One issue that we think needs
some better precision is defining explicitly or stating
explicitly that avs are required to comply --
>> that is what you were talking about in terms --
>> and specifically, if I may. Specifically, we have a problem
with the definition of an unreasonable risk to public
safety, which is used throughout the bill.
and that -- that is defined as something lower than, quote, the
average -- sorry, the human driver of average competence.
that is what is used in the bill to define an unreasonable risk
to public safety. And that is really -- that
definition is so vague to be without meaning.
we don't know how we would apply it in the first instance, and we
expect more from the avs, that they be more than the better
driver, the average competent driver, but that comply with all
traffic laws. And if they don't, there needs
to be repercussions. And that is the first issue.
and on the back end, we think there needs to be a better and
clearer tiered enforcement mechanism to make sure that when
avs fail to comply with traffic laws, and there should be a
record of all that, there should be repercussions.
and this is in my written testimony as well.
but we put out a three-tiered frame work what that might look
like. And we are certainly happy to
work with the committee on that language.
>> when you see prepercussions. If you have an a.v. That ran a
red light or happened to be going over the speed limit, the
company would still receive a ticket.
they have a license plate. You're suggesting something more
than what a typical driver would face?
>> certainly. Under this technology, there is
no reason an av should run a red light.
if they have running a red light, that slophows you someth
is wrong with that av. And it's incumbent on the
district to find out what that is.
what it means is a formal review to find it out what it means.
and an extension on the d.c. Roadways.
and if there is determined to be a significant problem or a
systemic problem with the av company, a revocation of the
permit. >> got it.
council member allen, board chair allen, I know we are
running behind. Those are all the questions I
have for the panel. >> thank you.
and to the last point. Part of -- we can certainly take
a look at it. The legislation, we are trying
to figure out where it's decrypt
descriptive, and there are some elements where an av permit
obviously, based on safety, track record, can be suspended
and can be revoked. But we will take a look at this
afterwards so that the language is precise as it can be.
and we want to give some politics to the agency so they
are not overly prescriptive. Thank you.
I appreciate everyone on the panel.
thank you. >> thank you.
>> all right, let me turn to the next panel of witnesses.
I have kelly mack who is a member with the d.c. Multimodal
accessibility advisory council. Heidi case, the co-founder of
the dmv disability senior community meeting.
ct tyson, government affairs liaison with the disability
rights education and defense fund.
theo braddy, executive director with the national council of
independent living. And kafui attoh, public witness.
and I apologize if I mispronounced that.
all right, I see that kelly mack is here.
ct is here. Is theo braddy -- okay, theo is
online. And kafui attoh?
also online. We have three people in person,
and two on zoom. Kelly mack, we will start with
you. Good afternoon.
>> good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. My name is kelly mack.
I am a disabled d.c. Resident who uses a power wheelchair, and
I'm a member of the multimodal accessibility advisory council
or mac, which advises d.c. On improving accessibility.
like the majority of disabled people, I do not drive, and I
rely on publicly available transportation services like
cabs and ride shares. For years, I have spoke with the
problems with on-demand wheelchair vehicles and
services. Disabled people are generally
enthusiastic about the potential for transportation safety and
accessibility promised by autonomous vehicles.
however, we must learn from the example of ride share example in
d.c. More than ten years ago. That bill had no minimum
requirements and when ride share entered dv, the until of waves
declined more. Unfortunately, there is no
example in history where an entity has voluntarily offered
to make their transportation services more accessible.
the only approach that ever worked is through mandates,
either legislatively or through costly and lengthy litigation.
multid.c. Laws support full accessibility and equity that is
yet to be experienced by disabled people seeks on-demand
transportation. Following years of advocates,
there is no excuse for av companies to say they are
unaware or unprepared. What has been missing is the
will of av companies to adopt inclusive design practices to
accommodate all customers, including those with
disabilities. We must take their actions as
the truth of their intentions. Av companies will not
voluntarily adopt accessibility, so it must be mandated.
the max letter advising that any legislation permitting av
deployment must include accessibility requirements and
warn against permittinger refel to another service.
they can asking they are allowed to violate existing law and
refer disabled customers to the same exact providers their
business model aims to replace. The growth will lead directly to
the destruction of the already -- number operating
here. The mac recommended two concepts
included in the av legislation. A requirement for
nondiscrimination laws that names disabled people.
and that all av service operators must provide direct
serb visit directly, including minimums that scale over time
with enforceable milestones. The mac recommended d.c.
agency's oversight engage with stake holders and that
legislation explicitly permit and encourage pilots of
automated transit buses and shuttles.
to achieve accessibility for disabled people, four categories
must be added to the bill. One, wheelchair accessible
vehicles for loading and securement.
two, installing accessible human machine interfaces.
three, detecting and responding appropriately to diverse,
disabled pedestrians. And four, promoting the safety
of riders and pedestrians. A more conclusive list was
included in my written testimony.
disabled advocates are eager about legislation, and without
baseline requirements, it is repeating that the mistakes that
resulted in no adoption of accessibility.
36 years following the americans with disability act, separate
and unequal transportation service is not accessible.
d.c. Council plays a vie cal role here, and we welcome
discussion to make that legislation optimal for the
city's needs. Thank you.
>> thank you very much. Next, we turn to heidi case.
>> good morning, council member allen and henderson and staff.
my name is heidi case. I'm al person with a disability,
and part of my story, like many people with disabilities, is I
particularly move in to d.c., and cities, people with
disabilities do, because of the accessibility options that
cities provide. Particularly around public
transportation. Even -- d.c. Is even a greater
m hub for that because the federal
government for such a long time has ploemployed so many people h
disabilities and the equity that is required around that.
so there is an even higher population of people with
disabilities in cities. And part of my work is I did
that as a disabled person to ensure, I came here and realized
I have been a member of the metro accessibility advisory
condominiumty when transport d.c. Accessible d.c. Programs.
I have been a part of the dhp advisory committee for ten
years, chaired it on and off, and I have chaired the mac for
several years also. So this is my work and what I
do. And reiterate some of kelly's
point. Plessy versus ferguson over 100
years ago said separate but equal is okay.
it's not coincidental, that was about public transportation in
trains. Civil rights legislation has
gone through the public transportation.
the bus boycott in the '60s. All of that.
and I was part of the -- initially named dependent
against a uber lawsuit. Unfortunately this is deja vu
all over again. It's what happens when tncs came
in d.c., and there were no accessibility requirements on
them. That uber lawsuit, and they did
exactly what waymo is suggesting, refer to taxis.
and they lost that lawsuit. Because testing proved that
people paid twice as much and waited five to six times as
long. The -- sorry, resolution to that
lawsuits lawsuit has required uber under
their own company, on the app, they provide wheelchair
accessibility vehicles and hire staff to provide them.
that is a way they provide equity, and that way you can
match time waits, costs, et cetera.
so let's avoid all of that and put some of those requirements
in legislation at this point. Separate but equal never has
been. The other things that kelly
mentioned, exactly what the history and dhs fee has the data
to prove -- we had such robust wheelchair taxis, and tncs came
in, and ever since then, the number of wheelchair taxis on
d.c. Streets has dropped and dropped and dropped.
they are required to provide monthly data on how many.
yes, there was legislation about a percentage, and you questioned
them. Here in d.c., that was 20%.
the thing is, do you -- they allowed that 20% to be met by
taxis sitting in garages with no drivers and never on the
streets. So that actually -- if you want
a percentage, I was in new york city for pride.
and united sued them, 50% on wheelchair taxis.
I hailed a taxi on the street! They have a wheelchair symbol on
the front of the taxi. You can see when it's coming.
and be able to do that. So there are some models to make
this better. I wanted to briefly -- oh.
I will have to put in my -- that the -- the disability community,
the ada's history of the blind and wheelchaired drivers, and
wheelchair communities, disagreeing on curb cuts.
and quickly, they said, they will die.
wheelchair says we have to have it.
the bumpy domes was the solution.
there are solutions. Where both of our communities
win and have access and safety. Thank you.
>> thank you very much. Next, we turn to c.t. Tyson.
>> tel >> hello, and thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the 36th anniversary of the
americans with disabilities act. My name is c.t. Tyson.
I am a white person with short hair and a dark blazer.
I am a former chair, 2014 to 2016 of the department of
vehicle accessibility advisory community, and a proud ward 4
district resident. And the policy center directed
by individuals with disabilities and parents who have children
with disabilities. My colleagues are based in the
bay area and in los angeles. So we have extensive experience
with av and av policy. We developed an interest in av
policy in the drooafting of the 2015 report of self-driving
cars, and mapping access to a technology resolution.
we participated in three days of av accessibility workshops in
2019, posted by the double manufacturers, and providing the
alliance for automotive, and the u.s. Department of
transforpassion, and the u.s. Department of labor listening
sessions and the transportation adv
advisory committee. Policymakers have acknowledged
and discussed the need for avs to be fully accessible for more
than a decade. A little progress has been made.
in 2022, a brief on addressing the autonomous vehicles.
there has been modeling and an ek notes of avs failing to stop
when it encounters a wheeler. And they have not inclusive, as
mentioned earlier. Of people with darker skin tones
and many people with disable tips including wheelchair users.
we urge the community to consider the following in a
future version of the bill. First, just because this is said
on the previous panel, we fully support mandatory or forced
arbitration appearing nowhere in the bill.
I work on federal policy. It does not work.
it's not good for the community. Please do not do that.
clear accessibility requirements for av operators in the district
should be set, including a minimum number of wheelchair
accessible avs and operators in the future.
to qualify for a permit -- because I understand this is a
tiered system -- operators must adopt zero tolerance
discrimination policy. This is already required for
tmcs. Commit to accessible service for
all district residents and visitors.
having in place wheelchair accessible options.
refer to d.c. Dot documenting the number of ride requests,
rides fulfilled and wait times for each, and inaccessible rides
to ensure equitable service is provided.
report to the crash and near crash data involving people with
disability, including repair efforts and provide proof with
successful testing with detection and response to a
variety of people with disabilities.
at the outset while they are here.
to qualify to increase the fleet sizes, operators should include
safety and equity, when and how they will ensure the human
machine interface and the vehicle is fully accessible for
all people with disabilities and the required number of vehicles
are accessible for wheelchair user pro
user provided. Regular reporting for the
advisory committee and response to recommendations and on going
consultation. Failure to comply with the
policies and their provision of equitable service should result
in suspension of a permit. In addition, tech companies
providing transportation service are still required to ensure
that equitable service. They should not rewarded for
cherry picking and awarding service to those easiest to
serve. Thank you for allowing me to
provide testimony to ensuring equal access to all modes of
transportation. >> thank you very much.
next, we turn to theo braddy who is online, I believe.
>> I'm not able to come off camera.
there we go. >> there we go.
we can both see and hear you. When you're ready, sir.
>> awesome. Thank you.
I do appreciate the fact that you have made accommodations for
me to provide comment. I am providing comments in
support. The 26-0684.
my name theo w. Braddy, for independent living.
my video description. I'm a black man with a bald head
with salt and pepper beard, blue classes, and I'm a c-4
quadriplegic. And the disability grassroots
organization represents people with disable tips and a nation
network for immedindependent li and the independent living
council appreciate the opportunity to provide comments
in support of the legislation. For people with disabilities,
transportation has never been simple about getting from one
place to the other. It's about independence.
employment, health care, education, civil engagement and
the civil right to participate fully in community life.
for decades, inaccessible for unreliable tra
unreliable transportation has remained one of the greatest
barriers of the american with disability act.
we believe this legislation represents an important step
towards removing those barriers. The national council of
independent living supports is the bill, and a thoughtful
approach to creating a thoughtful autonomous vehicle.
the support of an autonomous vehicle combined with
requirements for safety, emergency response planning,
equitable access throughout the eight wards, and interface
demonstrates commitment to ensure that innovation in public
safety advances together. These provisions provide a
strong frame work of responsible deployment and recognizing their
importance of accessibility from the on set.
autonomous vehicle technology has special to transform
transportation for millions of americans.
it can be a game changer, no doubt about it.
maymo has demonstrated meaningful benefits for broad
cross section of the disability community.
including people who are blind, low vision, people who are deaf,
hard of hearing and those who use and can't walk, use canes,
walkers, and other walking aids, and many other disabilities that
transportation was very difficult or inconsistent or
inaccessible. Many riders of autonomous
transportation is something that cannot be made in miles travel.
it provides freedom, dignity, privacy and predictability.
that is so important for people with disabilities.
they are positioned to become the nation's leader in
transportation. Washington serves as the main
national center for disability policy, advocacy, civil rights
leaders and so forth. Every year, thousands of people
travel to the district participating in congress, to
meet agendas, attend medical appointments and engage in
national organizations. In addition, washington hosts a
national disability conference that we put on every year to
bring in thousands of people with disabilities, including
policymakers and international guests from out of this country.
reliable and accessible autonomous transportation has
the potential to dramatically improve their experiences with
the businesses. -- recognize this is important
that waymo's commit to engage directly with the disability
communities, waymo has established an accessibility
network made up of individuals with disabilities regarding
feedback with rider experience and continued improvement.
we believe this proposed act provides an opportunity for the
district to build upon this model successfully.
accordingly, we strongly recommend, and I can't explain
how important that this is, the council include language
districting the department of transportation to establish a
permanent advisory committee to advise on accessibility issues
related to the autonomous transporatra
transporation. Now, you will hear from
individuals today just like you heard from carl highson who
provided comments on who should be invited to be a member of the
committee. I can't implore you enough how
important it is to have that kind of feedback.
I can heard many of your petitioners here today use the
word all. All of washingtonians.
all of washington, d.c. Citizens.
of course, generally, when people use that terminology,
they don't always include people with disabilities as citizens.
you all right now have an opportunity to ensure that
people with disabilities, including people with wheelchair
users as well as motorized wheelchair, to be included in
regard to creating wheelchair accessible vehicles.
and for the first time, we will see that game changer in regard
to everyone having an opportunity to fully participate
happen. And I think you all have a
student because I have seen -- I have been sitting here
listening, and there is a lot of great comments coming in.
and this is an effort. It's a major effort,
councilmember allen. But one of the things we cannot
do is to continue to leave off wheelchair users and motorized
wheelchair users. It's just too important.
>> thank you very much. And next, let me turn to kafui
attoh. If I mispronounced that, correct
me. >> it's kafui.
I'm used to it. Good afternoon, chairperson
allen and members of the committee.
let me say thank you for the opportunity to offer this
testimony. My name is kafui.
I am a professor of urban studies in new york, and along
with my colleagues katie wells who wouldn't be here, my
research is focused on the relationship between urban
platforms, transportation and how cities govern emerging
technologies. So this very issue.
this research, just to do a shameless plug, has yielded two
books, disrupting d.c., the use of uber and the fall of the
city, and the rights of public transportation in california's
east bay. I should start by saying I did
appreciate the effort that has gone into krafrtingcrafting theg
technology. I urge the council to reconsider
, to go back to it. The question is not whether
autonomous vehicles can be regulated but whether their
commercial appointment advances public policy goals.
the district should first be cautious, and this is already
covered by tyson and not whethe claims of accessibility.
accessibility is more than the ability to request a ride.
view act sszibcessibilitity req affordable services, and
geographic coverage, and the int
integration with public systems. The district has yet to
demonstrate that commercial operators can meet the operators
and skam, or they will improve on existing ada services.
it should not be assumed because a vehicle is autonomous or a
company claims as much. The ability to claim that
autonomous vehicles are an answer to the priorities.
the priorities include improving metro reliability, expanding
service, and expanding infrastructure, and ensuring
equitable transportation access. Commercial vehicles address a
view of the priorities directly. Instead, they risk the public
attention. And this is a bigger issue, and
regulatory capacity, and the principle beneficiaries may be
private. We have seen this before.
and it's a movie we have written about in disrupting d.c.
over a decade ago, ride platforms have changed the city.
so they have fulfilled a few of the early promises to incrude
y equality.
we should not repeat the same cycle where technological
changes celebrate and the economic and social cluster
extend to workers and vulnerable comm
communities. The question is not whether
vehicles can be safety introduced in a frame work.
the question is whether commercial can deployment by one
of the largest tech forms in the world is officially aligned with
the equity accessibility and accountability.
and sustainability to justify authorizing their operation at
this time. I and my colleagues, you know,
we still need to be persuaded. Once deployment beginning, the
district streets -- this is a top take came up in an earlier
panel discussion. Becomes part of a privately
operated mobility platform where owners have proven -- like
google, have proven to be sk scrupulous.
and the district has ever right and every responsibility to ask
whether this technology solves problems that the residents face
before opening the streets to commercial deployment.
so I will end my comments there. Thank you for the time, and I
will submit the written record into the written -- written
testimony into the record. >> thank you very much.
I appreciate it. Thanks to everybody on the
panel. Let me go through a couple
questions. I might start, kelly mack and
heidi case and c.t. Tyson, with you, since you are in front of
me. When I ask the question to the
earlier panel of the av operators, waymo in particular,
the distinction, tell ist w tes about a purpose vehicle.
and waymo's answer is, we're the technology company.
we don't actually make the vehicle.
I don't disagree. We wrote in law, a requirement
around taxi cabs. The driver didn't make the
vehicle either. So I'm not sure that is good
enough to say, well, you have to have a better representation
within your fleet. What were your reactions when
you heard that? And do you see parallels to the
conversations that we had with the taxi cab fleet?
>> yes. It is a direct parallel.
-- again. Please, can we have a different
response by the district? I am begging you.
heidi can attest, I was in the motion to the hearing where
heidi was a plaintiff, and now supreme court justice jackson
was the judge, and the uber lawyer said, we are just a tech
company, and we provide uber eats.
we should never have to comply with the ada.
I have never been more happy to see a judge's jaw drop.
I have been a fan since. I ask you to please require them
to do it. Otherwise, it's putting the onus
on my community to litigate. And we are getting beat up on
all sides. The federal government, and now
just feeling very left out and invisibility in all of this.
so yes, no, they absolutely have a responsibility.
it's in law. They know it.
it's been litigated in the courts.
we have been talking about it in rooms with them.
as I mentioned, for a decade. And they haved admitted they ar
obligated. >> exactly.
I mean, that is exactly what tnc said.
we're -- technology, not that. And there hasn't been a single
court case where that stood up. D.c. Is not the only place that
has taken uber for example to court to force this.
and as I mentioned, the option then is, yeah, the settlement of
that is they're buying wheelchair accessible vehicles,
paying drivers. And that's part of their whole
service. But sending it to another is
simply not. And the biggest thing, to say,
again, the problem is, kelly said it beautifully.
they are taking the jobs from the accessible vehicles.
wheelchair drivers -- their whole -- for the job to be
viable, they take people who aren't.
and avs and tncs took those jobs away.
that is why it riveted. It actually doesn't stay the
same. Even what we have.
and that's the concerning thing. >> okay.
thank you. This question is my own
ignorance. Is there a -- are we aware of a
wheelchair accessible vehicle where it does not require a
human operator? What I'm getting, I have had
people say, well -- you want to have a driver, because that
driver can assist getting in and out of the vehicle.
if the wheelchair or other devices need to be stored in a
certain way, an autonomous vehicle doesn't have the other
person there. Is there -- just my own
ignorance. Is there a vehicle that anyone
is aware of where it doesn't require another person?
>> if I may? -- to name ability.
they have provided shuttle av service for some time.
and they were -- they hold a standard of a company that
recognized their need to commit and provide accessible service.
so they do have av shuttles that don't require a driver and are
wheelchair accessible. A purpose built versus retro
fitted. That is including the taxi and
the tmc space. We would love to see that.
companies and various operators have committed to and we have
seen them fall apart. When leadership or accessible
teams have changed or left. Over and over again.
so it think it's going -- as kelly said, it's going to have
to be required for it to actually happen.
and you might have one company that says, tesla, we have
something in the works. But that doesn't mean that any
other companies are going to do it.
so it's really important. And I know heidi talked about
her experience in new york city, and we have accessible taxis in
europe. So it is possible.
it just really has to be required.
and force them to put the money into it.
>> I will come to you in a second.
I see your hand's up. We will pull in mr. Braddy here
as well. From your perspective, does the
vehicle -- would a vehicle have to be autonomous?
or is it more that the fleet operator has to have a fleet of
vehicles that could actually be a subset of the vehicles have a
human driver in it? And the -- is providing that
wheelchair access vehicle? Like, is that a distinction a
difference? >> there is a distinction, and
we need both. We need the first in the outset.
and the human -- they don't have a wheelchair accessible av right
now. With the automated securement,
and there is a coalition, and I believe somebody will be
testifying about that later today.
so you can ask kent when he talks.
I don't want to steal his thunder.
if the companies are coming, they should be required,
absolutely required to provide at least the driver --
wheelchair accessible service for the driver.
think can't come in and provide the wheelchair accessible
service. They are violating the law.
but whether or not av s are equitable, I would say they are
not. I ask you to get them to report
on the wait times. If they are relying on a driver,
is that going to be available 24/7 like with an unmanned av?
I would say probably not. Are the wait times going to be
the same? Probably not.
but if avs are supposed to be safer, safer for people outside
the vehicle, why are we not requiring that for wheelchair
users as well? I really hope that the district
will take this opportunity to ensure that same level, the same
quality of service across the board.
>> let me turn to mr. Braddy before time runs out here.
mr. Braddy? >> yeah, thank you.
I do agree with what was just said.
it's going to require both. I was working with a company
called cruz, and they stopped work on a wheelchair-accessible
vehicle simply because it was a regulation that required a
steering wheel. And they couldn't get past that.
but they had developed a wheelchair-accessible autonomous
vehicle. And because it had so much
problem in d.c. In regards to regulations, in regards to one
particular thing, having a steering wheel missing, they ran
into a roadblock. I will add to this, autonomous
vehicles are coming. Whether we want to admit it or
not. But to do it the right way
fos, to be on the right side of history,
I have seen it so many times. People on the wrong side of
history. >> mr. Braddy, one more question
for you. It's possible I didn't hear your
testimony the right way. I think I heard you recommending
that ddot has to have a permanent advisory committee.
we have the mrak. A
-- mac. Are you recommending --
>> yeah, if you write in they should use the mac, that would
be okay. But it has to be in it.
you get to get feedback from the people that the programs and
design to use. >> that is helpful.
I didn't understand -- now I understand what your
recommendation was. I don't think I followed it the
first time. That is helpful.
thank you very much. And then, miss case, you pointed
out, even though we have a law that says what the percentage of
vehicles needs to be, we -- you're flagging for it.
it doesn't mean the number of vehicles that are in the fleet
in operation on the street. That could count as a vehicle
that is just in a garage somewhere, right?
>> that is the way it is. The company has to have that
many vehicles. And it's only required of
companies in the legislation. >> I want to add about service
hours are much more limited. You can get a wave during the
day. But say you go out to dinner and
a show, good luck. That is another thing as far as
service requirements we need to be looking at for avs.
the same hours, the same wait times, that kind of thing.
>> so you didn't buy the arguments that waymos are going
to free up the other accessible vehicles?
>> it's not what happens. The drivers leave because they
can't make the money. The trip limits.
>> that is a 2013 argument. It's quite dated.
>> okay. This is a space where we have a
lot of work to do. >> yeah.
>> I think we've got some time in the next couple weeks and
months to really work with you, work with the mac and others.
I know, and thank you for hosting the conversation just
last week that my community director was able to join.
so we will stay engaged on that as well.
thank you. >> thank you very much.
>> councilmember, chairman, I have it to bring.
I brought with me. It's a be fierce sticker.
and in these days with big money's impact on policy and
politics, I call for all of us to be fierce.
and I would like to give that to you.
because you are and have been. Thank you.
>> I appreciate it. Thank you very much.
all right, I'm going to call our next panel of witnesses.
just give us a moment as we transition over the witness
table. The next panel, I have conner
couple cummings with the arc of
northern virginia. Claire standy, theed a voe kay
and government affairs, the american council of the blind.
kent keyser, a policy fellow with the united spinal
association. Scott thornhill, executive
director with the american council of the blind.
and ana torres-davis, executive director of the national council
of disability independent federal agency.
all right, good afternoon, everyone.
conner cummings. I will have you go first, and
after that, we will go to claire stanley, and after that, do I
have kent keyser here? We have folks online too.
mr. Cummings, I will start with you.
>> my name is conner cummings, I am a self-advocate, and I
represent the arc of northern virginia.
here is why this technology is so important to be in my
community. I am so excited for an av as we
match the needs for understanding the unexpected
surrounding in responding appropriately.
one. People who can't drive will be
able to get around easier. Many autistic individuals will
feel comfortable in a vehicle. Plea, broad benefits.
avs won't just support people with disabilities.
they will be a lifeline for seniors who can no longer drive.
four, greater independent. This technology will provide
massive independent for people who are blind, as well as those
with night blindness who can safely navigate the day and lose
freedom after dark. Five, new opportunities.
I feel an incredible sense of independence because an av
creates freedom to go where I want.
and autonomous vehicles will get me to where I want to go, and
they will not speed or run through red lights.
we must ensure they are adaptable to any possible
situation and real time hazards. Seven, no fear of getting lost.
I wouldn't lose my way of getting disoriented.
and fewer human errors. I feel avs are safer than
regular cars because they eliminate human errors.
and unpredictable driver emotions.
ensuring implementation, and safety first.
this autonomous vehicle opens a vehicle for so many of us.
and I have suggestions that developers should consider.
integration. Will a vehicle understand
augmented communication? Many people use apps or devices
to speak. The device must be fully
accessible and come partible wi --
compatible of each other. No matter how we speak, with
aav, typing or with the mouth. And also include wheelchair
accessible vehicles. Environmental impact.
because they are alleged cars, they will provide clearer air
for the communities. Community training, disability
organizations can provide lessons on how to ride in an av.
my mom and I can train it to say please and thank you.
>> let me turn to claire stanley.
yep, thank you. >> thank you so much.
thank you so much for the opportunity to be here this
afternoon. My name is claire stanley, and
I'm the director of advocacy and the government affairs for the
american council of the blind. The acb is the nation's leading
member-driven organization of and for individuals who are
individuals who are blind or have low vision.
founded in 1961 and comprised of 65 state and special interest
affiliates, acb strives for the security opportunity, and
improve the quality of life for people who are blind or have low
visions, including our thousands of members.
our national office is located right here in old time
alexandria, virginia, and we routinely travel to washington,
d.c. To carry out work on capitol hill or with the
numerous federal agencies. Transportation remains one of
the biggest barriers for people who are blind or low vision.
we are relying on forms of transformation.
if they don't have access, they can't travel to work, access
medical care or engaging in community activity.
marge imagine if you needed medical
treatment and you had knno way get there.
it will provide information for people who are blinds or have
low vision. This will help to erode the
access barriers that so many of us face because of access
issues. Washington, d.c. Is well
respected for the public transportation system.
many members of the disability community applaud the metro for
being one of the most accessible systems in the united states.
however, its reach is limited. There are still portions of the
district that the metro rail does not reach to.
additionally, the hours of operation are limited.
access to autonomous vehicles around the clock and in all
parts of the district will be another form of transportation
option. The more options we have, the
more mobility we can have. Additionally, blind persons who
use guide dogs to travel around the city are repeatedly denied
access to ride shares. As a person with a guide dog
myself, she is under the dog, I have lost count how many times I
have been denied access because of my guide dog.
regardless of the laws, the problem continues.
I have found myself in situations where it was raining,
extremely cold or where I had a meeting to be at, and I was
repeatedly denied rides by the drivers.
one of the most ironic and hurtful ride share denial took
place in front of the security of
-- supreme court of the united states.
there is no driver to say no with autonomous.
I can travel in an autonomous vehicle knowing no human being
can say no in my right to access transportation.
to learn more about my experience, you can read the
"washington post" op-ed from december 2025.
as an adult who can never drive, the first time I took an
autonomous vehicle in phoenix, I experienced freedom.
I was in a -- I was in a vehicle all by myself.
I had autonomy. I did not have to deal with
drivers to deny because of my guide dog.
I did not have to deal with a driver who made me uncomfortable
because of the things he said to me.
when avs come to the district, I will have a resource to give me
autonomy, freedom, safety and peace.
blind individuals will have transportation options and the
more ready bli available options will be more safe and likely not
receive -- excuse me. I urge you to approve though
legislation that will bring avs to the district of columbia.
the more option that blind and low vision community have to
access transportation, the more involved we can become in the
community. This is a tool we can use to be
more it and engage in the essential activities of life.
so please move forward with the legislation.
thank you. >> thank you.
we move to kent keyser who is online.
and after that, we go to scott thornhill.
mr. Keyser, if you can hear me, when you're ready.
>> thank you. The united finspinal associatio
rep sdentss 5.5 million wheelchair users.
we fully support autonomous vehicle deployment.
the testing and commercial operations.
every av mile traveled adds to the safety.
and av rz developed by industry. We are speeding up that day with
our security ride coalition work on automated wheelchair secu
security -- securement. We urge you to consider the
following components in a future version of the bill.
please incorporate zero tolerance anti-discrimination
policy, citing the d.c. Human rights act and americans with
disabilities act. D.c. Is not an island itself.
we urge to you work with virginia, maryland and the kwoun
sill of governments in the community to ensure seamless
legislation for the dmv. As a decades-old commuter
myself, and 20 years a s as a wheelchair user, the dmv can
demonstrate to the world how av kz improve people's lives.
the challenging means that safe, accessible, reliable and pick up
and dropoff spodz need to break ground.
well, in the last decade. And please, for get the idea
that accessibility is just for wheelchair guys or folks with
disabilities. Accessibility serves everyone.
conduct needs with operators and us with infrastructure and
public rights of way such as sidewalks, curb cuts and pick up
and dropoffs. The place where I am dropped off
is the entrance and exit of a parking garage.
how safe is that? Considering the district has
almost 37,000 people with ambulatory difficulties, you
have more work to do. Sorry.
>> that's okay. Take your time.
>> thank you. The district must build an
infrastructure to address the problem that wheelchair users
are 36% more likely to die in traffic collusions compared to
the general population. Importantly, when our av
arrives, we must be able to safely identify it and
communicate with it. And with the human machine
interface. In the event of an emergency,
there must be redundant ways for us to be safely evacuated.
in fact, require safety plans. At a minimum, and prior to major
deployment, establish a program that is transparent, without
jurj injuring pedestrians, or riders,
and will be processed, kof compensated in a time frame.
inspect lieu of the current lack of wheelchair accessible avs,
separate but equal is in fact equal.
we know that is impossible, as we heard this morning.
but make it as equal as it can be by requiring key data to be
reported. Please require av operators to
regularly report to ddot and include the documenting of the
number of accessible ride requests, rides fulfilled, wait
times, days and times and data for inaccessible rides to ensure
equitable services provided. Please know that I am not
reducing my brothers and sisters to a data set.
just like the abled bodies, a minute waiting for a pickup or
dropoff time is time and money wasted.
thank you for remembers the value of the drivers in the
bill. Experienced drivers are a vast
wealth of knowledge when and where and how traffic moves.
they have a transportation asset that can drive circles around
the best transportation out there.
they can assist av operators tremendously.
please track their job transitions and fully report the
efforts to assist them. Thank you very much.
and happy to answer any questions.
>> great, thank you very much. Next, we turn to scott
thornhill. Good afternoon.
>> good afternoon. Chairman allen and fellow
members of the council, thank you for the opportunity to speak
with you today mrfrp. My name is scott thornhill and
I'm the executive director of the american council of the
blind. I will begin with a confession,
chairman allen. Like most teenagers of my era, I
could not wait to drive a vehicle.
unlike most teenagers of my generation, I was losing my
sight. It was due to an eye disease, rp
for short. I did sneak behind the wheel a
couple times. I don't recommend that for
people who are losing their sight.
and thankfully, it can't become a habit.
the point is this. I never qualified for a driver's
license due to failing the eye test.
for most people in the district and across the nation, driving
represents independence. For those of us who are blind,
transportation has always depended on the options
available to us. Driving represents independence.
for those who are blind, transportation is -- I use ride
share regular. I rely on public transportation.
both have expanded opportunities for people who are blind, and I
value them tremendously. But independence is not created
by having one way to travel. It's created by choices.
the american council of the blind has long advocated for
those choices for people who are blind.
we view autonomous vehicles in the next step, important step in
expanding the choices. It's just another way to get
from one place to another. People who are blind, it
represents something that is more significant.
they have a potential to expand access to employment, education,
community activities and countless everyday things people
take for granded. And because washington is the
nation's capital, millions of people who are blind every year
travel here for work, advocacy, for tourism, enjoying the
monuments and the museums that belong to all of us.
expanding transportation helps make the district more welcoming
to visitors. Most people don't plan their day
around transportation. They plan transportation around
their day. Those who are blind have to do
the opposite. We think whether a ride will be
available, and whether we need someone else for assistance.
transportation shapes many of the choices we need before we
leave home. Autonomous vehicles will not
replace public transportation or ride share or taxi services.
b but they can become another
option, one that gives greater flexibility, independence and
opportunity. As you can consider this
technology, we implore you to make sure that accessibility
remains at the forefront. That you consider it in
everything that you do around this subject.
autonomous vehicles won't change the fact that I am blind.
but they can change what blindness means when it comes to
getting around. They have the potential to give
people who cannot drive something many others rarely
think about. The freedom to choose how and
when we travel. Thank you for your time and
consideration. And I'm happy to answer any
questions. >> thank you very much, mr.
thornhill. And last on the panel, let me
turn to ana torres-davis who is joining us on zoom.
there we go. Good afternoon.
>> good afternoon. Can you hear me?
>> yes, we can. Whenever you're ready.
>> members of the committee, my name is ana torres-davis and I'm
executive director of the council of disability, an
independent federal agency that advises the president, federal
agencies and disability policy. I am here today to share
information from the 2025 report to examine the current state of
grand transportation for people with disability, particularly
wheelchair. And to make sure that this
population is addressed in the av bill.
in the report titled ground transportation for people with
disability, 2025, challenges in 3
progress, we found that wheelchair users with vehicles
with ramp access, have been consistently left behind in the
ability to use the most common transportation options available
today, like ride shares and taxis.
while most people can get a ride within minutes of getting an app
and benefit from the inconvenient, they will not
benefit from the advances in transportation.
we examine the accessibility of taxis and yuber in d.c., and we
found there is a shortage in waves, and it has impacted
residents and workers in the district.
the inability to access common on demand consistransportation.
the inability to meet employment responsibilities and educational
goals. To attend family functions and
recreation effects. To get medical care, and meet
life obligations. They are often left waiting or
left without any transportation at all.
up ending planning and putting them in danger.
the report discusses the plan for autonomous vehicles to
expand access tor all people with disabilities and to ensure
that access is at the forefront as avs are developed and
deployed. When you introduce the bill, you
provide access. We agree this is true.
but to do this, it must be inclusive of wheelchair users.
while certain portions of the disability community, as we
heard today, benefit and concurrently act ssz cess and b,
they have not being served by this technology.
the businesses that currently provide transportation to the
public in tax zips is like waymy have limited ways like we do in
d.c. To the extent that av companies
plan to rely on existing, nonautonomous way process vieded
by providers to offer transportation in the district.
we found this model worsens service because it relies on a
limited fly of waves that is overstressed.
an example of this exists already in d.c.
uber does not provide waves. It refers passengers who need a
wave to local providers, often taxis that are not accessible.
due to the limited hours they are in service, wheelchair users
experience long waits, if a wave is available at all, adding
hundreds of inaccessible avs to the roads with no option, and
will do nothing to help provide better wave service in d.c.
the d.c. Av law should require companies to provide a
percentage of their own waves when they begin serves d.c., not
rely on a supply that is overburdened and I would love to
be able to reply to the questions you asked the previous
panel. Because there are options
available for autonomous vehicles that are accessible
that have a safety driver. As c.t. Tyson mentioned, the may
mobility, that is a company that can be contracted with to bring
vehicles with the autonomous fleets into the district so they
are adding waves to what currently exists in the city,
rather than relying on what is there now.
and my time is up, and I will leave it at that.
I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
thank you again for the opportunity.
>> excellent, thank you very much.
thanks to everybody on this panel.
let me jump in with a couple questions.
especially mr. Cummings, miss stanley and mr. Thornhill.
can I hear your testimony with a little enthusiasm, about
autonomous vehicles. They can help restore travel
independence to people who are blind, and individuals with
autism. They are opportunities.
despite the advances, are there any gaps that you would e
identify, and not just create a pathway for commercial
operation. But in your support for them,
are they recommendations that you have that we should keep on
eye out for, to make sure they can fulfill the perhromise thatu
can helping to do. Miss sftanley?
>> yeah, we want to make sure that new forms of autonomous
vehicles coming out on the street, they are made accessible
for the blind and low vision community.
we had the opportunity to work with all of the -- what I will
call main stream autonomous vehicle companies that have
actually been on the road in cities such as waymo and zuks,
and we should wonderful experiencens seeing how the apps
have been accessible with screen reading software, and putting
out audio sound so we can locate them.
I have myself taking them without a single person, just me
and my dog, using the accessible functions and features put in
the app itself and the car. I have been able to do it
independently. Is we would love and be happy to
see it mrput in place. But we have had great
opportunities with the companies we have seen with the zuks and
waymos have put in place. >> mr. Thornhill?
>> yeah, I wanted to make sure. Yeah, there is always a balance,
as you have been seeing here today, and listening to the
previous panels. And in this case, you asked
about gaps. You asked about that.
I think the balance of safety, saferty and functionality or
ease of use, whatever terminology we put to that, I
think certainly as we helped advise and helped work and we
are willing to continue that on terms of an advisory network or
council as well, any work that is in the district, certain
thingsky speak to with waymo, having ridden in waymo several
times now, that the features that miss stanley spoke about,
in terms of how to locate the vehicle and while you are inside
the vehicle, that balance of safety, in terms of where you
are dropped off. Like you mentioned, the
residential street, how it's done, and what we expect from
uber or lift, and double parking, quote unquote, in
certain cities, is not feasible, so pick up at corners and along
those things. So being able to navigate to the
vehicles is crucially important. I would be able to see where
they are. And to be able to do that, and
where you get dropped off at the end of the ride.
so that balance of that functionality of making sure
that we're at a place where we can navigate well, and the
safety of where the vehicles would be allowed to drop off and
pickup is going to be something we want to follow closely.
but the gaps as they exist today, I believe, are the things
that everyone would be aware of. And they have done so much work
in navigating the streets and gathering information that it
feels like the gaps are fine tuning some of the elements we
are talked about. >> thank you.
mr. Cummings, anything to add to that?
>> sure. I just want to say that
autonomous vehicles, would not only be safe and have more
freedom for blindness or the elderly and the course of
autism, the disabilities, but they would be able to provide
cleaner fuel because they are electric cars.
although my communication style, I tie my words when I breathe
them. I can respond later with you
with written words. So thank you for your
ekomizat accommodation.
>> thank you. Mr. Keyser, do you have anything
to add from what we heard? >> just, if we would -- if
military users enjoy the same freedoms because as it is now,
when we ride, we have to be secured by another person.
and that person has to be trained and competent.
so we're in the hands often of strangers.
supposedly trained strangers, but that doesn't always go well.
so reliving that human element is a modicum of safety that we
would enjoy as well as freedom on the road.
>> and miss torres-davis, you ran out of time and you were
looking to share information you had around av options.
so I want to give you extra time if there were things you wanted
to identify different alternatives and different
models that would be pursued. I want to make sure you have
time for that. >> thank you so much.
yeah, we examined a lot of the av companies that are providing
a rise to the public right now and working on new models.
and one of the things that we wound is a very bright light was
a company called main mobility. I am not here to promote them.
but what we found is this is a company who contracts with
cities, municipalities, localities.
they modify sienna vans for accessibility with ramps.
and then they provide services to is the cities.
specialty services just to pick up the people with disabilities
and it's on demand. Just like a uber would be.
and this company is doing it now on a small scale.
and so, like c.t. Tyson engs mentioned earlier, this is
probably a really good option for companies like waymo who
says we have a tech company, not a developer of a vehicle.
you don't have to be a developer of a vehicle.
you can use what is out there now.
right now, we are aware of main mobility.
I'm not sure if other companies have joined in producing and
deploying that type of van. But my bigger point is to that,
if waymo, for example, comes in the city and they bring 200
vehicles, it would be great if there was a require they bring
with them a percentage that can accessible by contracting with
an outside vendser and not usin what we have already in the
city, which is already so limited, as we have heard from
advocates today. >> all right, thank you very
much, and miss stanley, one more question for you, and I want to
make sure I understand the world as tz toit is today.
you mentioned some of the challenges
challenges with navigating with a guide dog.
how do you communicate the need to have a vehicle that allows
you -- is that an option? You are rolling a dice to see
who shows up? Is there a flag on the account
so the driver knows? >> how long do you have?
there is many discussions and this issue.
the long and short of it, there has been mump debate in the
blind and low vision community, and I'm sure persons who euser
visit animals for all disabilities, whether you want
to disclose or not disclose. Turnly with the two ride share
companies, uber and lift, they have a policy where you can
identify. That is layers whether before
you order, or in your profile. They ping you have a service
animal and it starts the process.
this is totally optional, and there are a lot of opinions out
there. Some people don't want to
identify at all. Because the driver will say no
ahead of time. Some people like the idea ahead
of time. Because it's going to get the
elephant in the room, it's going to get it out there.
and some people like it when they are undoubtedly denied at
some point -- I lost count how many times I have been denied,
it's in the system and the ball can roll more quickly as far as
processing the denial. The jury is still out.
we had great relationships with uber and lyft.
they are counting the data. But all this is fairly new.
so whether it works or doesn't work, I can't definitively say
yes or no. So as a result, if you ask my
blind person, where they don't have to deal with somebody
saying you can't have your dog, every blind person who uses a
dog says yes, please, because it's such a burden that all of
us face on a daily basis. >> I will share.
so miss stanley and I worked together a bit at the american
council of the blind, work, travel, conferences, things on
those lines. We have literally at times been
in a situation where to avoid her being denied with her guide
dog, she could wait behind me. The ride share would pull up,
for example. I would greet the driver, get
the door open, and she could quickly join me at the vehicle
in opens that by sort of overwhelming them in the
vehicle, she would not be denied.
so it becomes, if you miss that ride and wait another 11 minutes
for meetings, appointments, whatever it might be.
it is a no-brainer for us that we prefer not to have our
members across the nation, not have those denials on a daily
basis. >> all right, that is incredibly
helpful. And thank you for sharing that.
all right, we move on to the next panel of public witnesses.
but we really appreciate your testimony today, and look
forward to following up as needed.
ly start to all our next panel. Public witnesses.
I have john pare, public witness.
sandra neuzil, public witness. Olivia norman, public witness.
I think joining us online. And shawn callaway, public
witness, also joining us online. All right.
mr. Pare, why don't we start whenever you're ready.
>> you called on me? >> yes.
>> all right, good afternoon. Thank you for having me.
my name is john pare, I'm the expect
executive director of policy for the national center of the
blind. In the spring of 2001, I lost my
job due to my blindness in part -- many reasons, but due to
lack of transportation. I did later get a job and
became -- with the national federation of the blind and
worked my way up to executive director where I am now.
last week, I was at our national convention in austin, texas.
and interesting, on july 4th, I was with a group of my people,
and one of them ordered a waymo. And in that case, you can
indicate that you hope to get autonomous vehicle.
we checked that box. We didn't get an autonomous
vehicle. Because there, you order it
through uber. So that is why you have to ends
kate the preference. But it was satisfied with a
waymo. Just to give you that detail.
and the three of us road. I road in the front seat.
I rode in the front passenger seat, and they rode in the back,
and we had a ride just like any old ride.
I felt very safe, very confident in both getting to the vehicle,
the ride and at the destination. Our hotel.
the -- we -- the national federation of the blind really
support autonomous vehicles. We're having excited about
autonomous vehicles. And we support our legislation.
there are two -- I want to comment on some of the things
you heard today to add a little more color.
one of the things on many -- all blind people that have a guide
dog, who have ever used ride share most likely have
experienced the ride share denial.
one thing to make sure is clear. It's absolutely illegal for a
driver to deny somebody with a guide dog.
it's in violation of the americans with disabilities act.
the ride share companies, uber and lyft, say it's in violation
of the law and their policy. There is no disagreement on
that. It's just the u.s. Department of
justice, department of civil rights that would say -- the
current -- under the current administration would say it is a
violation of the law, that they have sued uber over this issue.
ent and it's the drivers who are
violating the law and creating the discrimination.
this can lead people stranded and it would be so helpful to
have autonomous vehicles that didn't have the drivers.
because it's the drivers that are doing the discrimination.
approximately 2.5% of people in the district of columbia are
blind or low vision. Another -- a total of 25% of the
people in the district of columbia do not have a driver's
license. That is a lot of people that
don't have a driver's license, that have to do something other
than drive themselves to wherever they need to go.
so similar to blind people, all the other people are using other
types of transportation. It's been a lot of talk today
about employment. And I want to talk about the
impact that lack of transportation options have on
employment. I once experienced that.
it helped contribute to me losing my job one time.
many of people who are not employed in the district of
columbia probably -- do not have a sdrodriver's license, the lac
transportation options could impact their employment.
not always the case but would. There is mass transit in the
district of columbia. But having more options is a
good thing. The autonomous vehicles would
not be a panacea, but it will create another transportation
option. When I travel, I live in
baltimore. When I travel to washington,
d.c., which I do on a weekly basis, I come in a variety of
ways, probably like other people do.
it's not always the same. I match the best transportation
to the situation. And in some cases, if we get
avs, especially to get around d.c., that could be one of the
choices that I would try to evaluate that would help me get
around and could improve employment, which I urge you to
keep in mind. When gap, you asked in the
legislation, the previous panel, I agree, they can't quite -- the
performance of accessibility of the app and -- they didn't
specifically mention, there's a standard called accessibility
group. And wcad, and 2.2 level double
"a," which we can send to you after, that would be the
appropriate standard to require. That is the ones the companies
say they strive to meet. If they do strive to meet it,
why don't you put it in law? That would be a good thing.
we would appreciate that. And I don't think they could
disagree with that. That's what they strive to do,
and it's what the department of justice regulation that almost
went into efficient on april 20th of this year.
it was postponed by a year. But it's going to require the
district -- well, this -- it requires all state and local
government entities to meet 2.1 level double "a," and we urge
you to do that. Thank you for the opportunity to
speak today. >> thank you.
we turn next to sandra neuzil who is joining us online.
>> good afternoon. You can hear me?
>> yes, we can. Good afternoon.
>> council member allen -- chair allen and other members, thank
you for the opportunity to speak today.
my name is sandy neuzil. I am speaking on behalf of all
people who have disabilities. I'm a resident of fairfax county
for 42 years and the past ten years, I have been volunteering
and working part time throughout the dmv.
I'm unfamiliar with the streets and layout of most of d.c. And
frequently find myself going to new locations where I have never
been before. I have been legally blind my
whole lifer, and thus never had the opportunity to drive a car.
I rely on public transportation, friends and family and metro
access to go where I need to go. However, each of those modes of
transportation require a significant amount of time to
plan, strategize, coordinate the trip and wait for rides or ride
to take me to my destination. And on demand ride in an ant
autonomous vehicle would help. Followed by walking to the
destination. Allowing time to catch a bus or
metro, plus more time if I must transfer and wait for another
bus or metro. It takes longer than hopping in
a car and driving somewhere, which is never an option for me.
public transportation may get me close to my destination.
with my blindness, in a new and unfamiliar area, that last walk
from the nearest public transportation stop to the -- to
the exact address I need to go to is often challenging and
stressful. A ride from a froiend can take p
twice as much as their time as mine.
they need to pick me up, drop me up and drive home.
that does not include the back and forth time spent asking a
friend for a ride and juggling their schedules and mine to
accommodate where I'm going when.
friends may be willing to do this but they don't always have
the time. Metro access is a lifeline.
however, it requires planning ahead by more than a day.
and it gets me from my door to my destination in a time equal
to that of public transportation.
there is a lot of anxiety and time involved in the process of
booking the ride, verifying the ride was booked correctly,
wondering if I will pick me up when promised and waiting for
the ride to ariverive. If I could hop in an autonomous
vehicle wherever I want to go, in a metro station from fairfax
county and go where I want to go for work or pleasure or
whatever, on my own without hours or days planning and
coordinating, I would save a tremendous amount of time and
significantly reduce frustration and stress for me.
I am running out of time, so I can say thank you very much for
the opportunity, and happy to await and answer questions.
thank you. >> thank you very much.
next, let me turn to olivia f norman, also yoinjoining us onl
>> good afternoon. You can hear me?
>> yes, good afternoon. >> it's wonderful to see you
again. My name is olivia norman, and I
am represents myself today. I'm a d.c. Resident of 20 years.
I am also totally blind. I have been since birth, and I
am a guide dog user. No one with a disability is a
monolith, as you pointed out this morning.
in addition to my blindness, I'm also a cancer survivor and I
have anxiety and chronic I illnesses, and I simply did not
have the energy to mess around and take metro and do that kind
of planning on transportation. So as a result, I'm less -- it's
a straight shot for me downtown or somewhere that I know well.
I have to rely on wide shares or friends.
most notably, a friend's tesla, and I have experienced the
self-driving of a friend that way, and I would love to have
that kind of freedom. I get around 50% refusal rate
from uber and lyft, and I will say this tapped in the days of
taxi days in d.c. As well. Interestingly, similar story to
what scott torn hill just told you.
in 2012, I was downtown, and it was raining.
and this person had stopped because I had -- kept getting
passed over by taxis. I was hailing on the street b
because at that time, that is how you got the cabs.
and I don't know this, and this man stopped and said, hey, two
cabs just have driven past you. Hide behind this tree, and I
will get you a cab and put you in it to get you home.
and so, it worked.
the guy didn't want to take my guide dog.
and I went to pay, and he said, don't worry.
the man in front of you took care of it.
and in that moment, I saw the best and worst of humanity.
they cannot deny any guide dog and it amount of stress this
causes me. I just can't describe it.
it has a huge impact on my mental health.
I get a lot of my treatments from my various illnesses.
the hospital in ward 3. It's not accessible via metro,
even if I could do it that way. So I mostly have to rely on my
friends or uber and hope they don't deny me when I go get my
treatment. And it's -- this is just -- I
really hope that we can get to where we can have autonomous
vehicles on a street that will give me and others more
flexibility and more choices as to how we get around the
district. And I'm running out of time, so
I will be happy to answer any of your questions.
and I thank you for your time. >> absolutely.
all right, next, let me turn to shawn callaway.
>> good afternoon, councilman allen and the rest of the
committee. My name is shawn callaway.
I serve as president of the national council of the blind.
I am a d.c. Resident, and I'm a proud washington wizards season
ticket holder and attend national games as well, and I'm
the parent of a 11-year-old. And I'm married as well.
so I am responsible of taking my douth
daughter too and from school. And you heard the world
independence, and options here is a key word.
I can't tell you how many times, chairman allen, where I will try
to obtain an uber during rush hour, wait 5 to 6 minutes to
finds out if I'm getting a ride, and then find out that there are
no ubers available at that time. This has apphappened several ti
this year. And what makes it worse is that
you have an option once they tell you they have no vehicles
available, you have an option to get a priority vehicle, which
costs $5 or $6 more, than the ride itself.
also, when it comes to options, you heard the denials of blind
individuals who have guide dogs. But I have been denied as a
blind person, multiple times. A driver will see me and he will
ask me, are you blind for real? And he will drive off.
also, I want to ride the vehicles without judgment.
often times, I have been questioned about my blindness.
this is no brag point. A lot of blind people love to
dress nice and look nice. And we are independent.
but we have been questioned by drivers about our blindness and
if we are blind for real. And I don't think we should be
subject to actions as to what we do and how we do things.
we just want to ride to get from point "a" to point "b," and the
last thing I want to mention is the option of -- something other
than the access. Of course you have to plan as
one panelist said in regards to utilizing metro access.
some days, I have to use transportation the day of, and I
want to use an av. Because there might be issues
with uber of lyft I don't want to deal with.
and I'm excited about avs coming to washington, d.c., and I'm
looking forward to the bill passing.
thank you. >> all right, thank you very
much. I appreciate that very much.
all right a couple questions. Miss norman, I might start with
you. I was really struck in your
testimony as you talked about just the sheer amount of time,
energy, mental energy it sounds like to be able to plan for a
basic trip you have to take. And it leaves you essentially to
just say, I will just stay home. That's not the choice we
obviously want people to feel they must make or have to make
as we think about the tradeoffs. Is there -- the experience
you've shared, does that cut across both taxi, for-hire
vehicles, metro? In other words, is it all of
your transportation? And do I hear you correct that
it's the autonomous vehicle is the one that really opens up
your options in independence? >> yes, you did.
and it does cut across all modalities.
metro not quite as much. And metro works going downtown,
if I don't have to expend a lot of energy on transportation.
but if I have to work somewhere and try -- and some days, I
don't have the energy. And it's like, I will just stay
home. Because when I get denied by the
ride shares, you know, or the taxis or whoever drivers,
that -- that is an another energy drain.
so unless I can get a private driver, which I actually went to
a party in rockville that miss stanley held.
and I was able to get a private driver.
but it cost money. It's time or money.
you know, I had a great time. But if I had not been able to
get a driver for that event, I would have just stayed home.
yeah, absolutely. And I think that that's -- the
autonomous vehicles are going to help me a lot.
you zowon't have to worry about being denied and I can intend my
limited energy on things that I enjoy doing instead of
transportation. I think that's key.
>> okay. Thank you.
mr. Callaway, and then mr. Pare, I will ask you the same thing.
you have been listening to a lot of conversation in the course of
the day. One of the things I'm interested
in thinking through how we balance, is the precision we
need to give autonomous vehicle operators of not breaking
traffic safety laws, meaning speed limit, red light, shot
signs, et cetera. And then the reasonableness of
where dropoff and pickup locations are.
often times, if we talk about commercial street of residential
street, it's a reasonable expectation that that vehicle is
going to double park momentarily.
te technically that is against the
traffic safely law. But I think that most people
would reasonably assume it will take place.
do you have thoughts how to strike that balance?
especially when we think about blind and vision impaired, where
is the place for a pickup and dropoff?
or is it like any other and it's a balance we are speaking?
>> I will go with the latter on that one.
as you well know, I mean, it's -- the streets are pretty
different in d.c. But for us, and I hope I'm
answering your question correctly.
I believe that just trying to locate the vehicle if it's
double parked or if it's on the corner, one thing I do know
about the vehicles, autonomous vehicles, it does have a
mechanism where you can locate that vehicle.
so if it's across the street or if it's down the street, you are
able to navigate to locate that vehicle.
>> mr. Pare, anything you want to add to that?
>> yeah. Just to give you some context.
with typical ride share, it's not unusual for a blind person
to call the driver and try to negotiate to help find the
vehicle. So when with waymo and tesla,
and it was also cruz, we -- the national federation of the blind
said there is no driver to talk to, it would be very helpful.
because this is what we do. We say to the driver, can you
toot your horn softly and we can say, toot it again and toot it
again and we can move to the vehicle and find the vehicle
that way. So the ride -- the av companies
have instituted in the app so that you can toot the horn from
the app. So that really makes it easier
to find the vehicle. So finding the vehicle through
the auditory meth thougod where touch the thing works pretty
well. The dropoff can be trickier.
but it isn't necessarily harder than when we have maybe a ride
share where there's a language barrier or just a person who is
not necessarily very helpful. I took two ride shares to get
here. I will take two ride shares to
get home, to go to union station.
not sure -- they let you off all kinds of places and blind people
use travel skills to help find where they need to go.
so afrwe don't have to have specialized places.
but if there are specialized pickup and dropoff places, they
don't have to happen but they are helpful.
>> all right. And mr. Neuzil, anything you
want to add to that? >> I'm familiar with the mac
trying to coax the d.c. Into assessing where they could have
pickup/dropoff zones on the core blocks in d.c. Where it's very
crowded. And I think that would be
helpful to avoid the double parking and to avoid pulling
into a dangerous crosswalk at corner of a block.
but yes, I have a lot of trouble finding my vehicles.
negotiating with the driver, where you are?
and they tell me, I'm in the red car, and I don't see a red car.
I don't see. So it's tricky.
it's perpetually tricky. >> can I add to that as well?
>> sure, miss norman. >> yeah, thank you.
I worry an it w little bit. I live on connecticut avenue,
and it's a commercial strip. And they have to double park,
and also, there might be multiple, you know -- there are
multiple waymos or teslas at the same time.
I would worry a bit about being left off in a travel lane of
connecticut avenue. So I think we would have to
adjust some of that for commercial or busy business
areas. I wonder how that would work.
>> okay. Got it.
all right, well, I appreciate it.
I appreciate that panel for all your testimony recommendations.
thank you very much, and we will follow up with each of you as
needed. Thank you.
>> thank you. >> all right, let me call the
next panel of witnesses. I have emma cleveland, the state
and local political coordinator with amalgamated transit union,
joining us online. Brian wivell, the director of
special projects amalgamated transit union local 689, and
crystal middleton, member seiu local 32bj, and jaime contreras.
>> emma will not be yojoining u today.
>> I thought she was online? >> oh, is she?
>> all right, and then contreras, and crystal
middleton? >> yeah --
>> you're right. Helen, we had you lowered down.
okay. We got you not.
okay, now, brian. >> sounds good.
thank you very much. My name is brian wivell.
by way of introductions, we represent about 16,000 transit
workers and retirees throughout the dmv area.
you can see the full testimony that we submitted written.
but just to cover a bunch of points raised in the several
hours of the hearing and the several hours that additional
points will be raised, I will go and try to summarize some of
those. I want to say, part of the
reason why this whole debate is going on, a lot of us are
recognizing this is not simply about the future of robo taxis.
this is not about waymo and lyft and tmcs in the region.
this is setting a precedent for the large scale operations.
and the precedent we hope is that that takes care of workers
and ensures that I have a safe, just transition to other
employment or that the employment is protected.
and as we look at this bill, there are definitely steps,
clear intention taking to pay attention to the issue.
but we think there needs to be more.
so I think it was funny that it was brought up earlier, a ref
fence to automated checkout and tellers and cashiers.
if anyone thinks that the consumer experience is improved
by a removal of a large number of clerks from stores, I think
they lying to you. We have to recognize they are --
by their own admission of the uber and lyft, there are
thousands of workers in region that work more than 20 hours a
week doing ride share work. That is thousands of people that
may lose their employment in this industry if we do not
correctly set up the infrastructure and the
incentives for this. Additionalty.
speaking as a public transit worker union, we saw it as a
public transit in one vehicle. If you look at the way that land
use has been shaped and development has been shaped by
the transportation technology. We had an era where people had
to live near where they worked because they walked there.
and then you had horses and streetcars and buses.
and with each one of the changes, it changed the way that
people lived around where they were able to work.
and as we consider allowing a technology that will allow
someone to do a 30 to 45-minute drive without having to talk to
a single human being and they can work the entire time, we are
going to work sprawl on a level we have never seen before, and I
think it's abonti-thetical to t goals.
and most of the issues found have been because of the under
regulation of transporatitation network companies.
and we actually share the concerns.
that is because they are provided to the absolute minimum
legal level necessary to provide those services.
and if you want to get the high qualify transit that doesn't
require calling in 24 hours in advance, if you want the transit
that doesn't require staying in a three-quarter mile catch zone,
it requires spending to make that possible.
and we have extreme concerns about d.c.'s road peculiarity.
it's said that autonomous vehicles, they might be able to
detect a pedestrian, but can they detect an elephant.
if they see an object they cannot trained to see, there are
weird protest activities that involve marionettes.
and they do 340,000 on a metro bus on a day.
we are talking and scales of magnitude where this is not
truly the fully tested system they claim.
now, additionally, I want to end on good job creation.
good job creation is the responsibility of the council,
adds I'm sure you know. If I want these to be good jobs,
the council has to mandate they are created as good jobs.
labor peace requirements and retraining in joint labor
management apprenticeship. Not just saying we have waymo
university. We need the retraining programs
to go through joint labor management programs.
int ultimately, this is going to
did on a level we have not seen yet.
thank you. >> thank you very much.
and then, for seiu, did you have an order you want to go in?
okay, I have crystal middleton, and helen marren, and mr.
contreras? >> good afternoon.
my name is jaime contreras. I oversee the dmv and represent
22,000 airplane workers, commercial office workers and
thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important bill.
this autonomous bill cannot pass as it lacks the kinds of guide
rails necessary so that the new technology would actually
benefit the residents of washington, d.c. And workers
instead of hurting them. Instead, the legislation will
send, as you heard from other testimony, it will send money
that should go in the pockets of d.c. Residents out of our
communities into silicon valley meta corporations.
we believe that it's -- it lacks protections for working people
and it reminds us as a union of another bill that destroyed
unimaginable number of jobs in our country, con nafta.
if the passes legislation, your legacy will be introduced in
that massive threat that jobs in the city, and our economy.
no city on the east coast, not baltimore, not philadelphia, not
new york, not boston, no city has done this, and you must not
be the first one on the east coast to do such a thing.
avs threatten to destroy the jobs of thousands of workers
across the district. Not only ride share drivers but
taxi drivers and truck drivers and public transit workers, as
you heard in the previous testimony.
this is what we are seeing in other cities.
in san francisco, waymo had 30% of all the ride share market in
20 months. And in most cities where
autonomous vehicles are introduced, driver way is
already declining. Now, this wages not only go to
drivers but they stay in the communities, paying rent, and
purchasing in local businesses, investing in families and
funding public services. Many are immigrants and
communities of color. And the economy has left behind.
supplementing jobs that don't pay enough or juggling care
giving and require flexible schedules.
these are people who will be severely harmed if we pull their
jobs from under them to benefit high-tech organizations.
let me be clear, we are not opposited
opposited to innovation in the union.
but it has to strengthen public public services and it has to
protect people. But with any innovation, we must
also ask who sthanands to benef and who stands to lose when we
introduce this type of legislation in the community?
who benefits? Who loses?
d.c. Is a union town fueled by working people.
we answer our neighbors, the truckers and shop workers who
sheep our shelves stocked. The ride share drivers who get
to us to where we need to go and the first responders who show up
at a moment's knnotice. It's up to us, the working
people of washington, d.c., to decide when and how to introduce
technology in the community and allow -- and allow it to shape
our lives. It shouldn't be silicon valley
ek extiecutives. It should be us.
and they roll out needs to have trang protectors for workers.
cities like san francisco and phoenix did not have a chance to
create guardrails around the commercial robo taxis and they
are struggling in the industry. This bill calls for a study of
the impacts on the taxi and ride share sfindustries and the jobs
those jobs create. And also, supposedly creates a
front for the workers. And at the same time, the
extraordinarily authorizes -- the mass use of robo taxis
blindly without waiting for the results of the study without
understanding the impacts of finally, dc does not need
to follow that path. It must not follow that path. We can chart a
different course and need strong measures that protect drivers in
the city and everything they contribute to our economy. Until
those are included, we ask that you reject this dangerous
legislation. Thank you very much.
>> thank you very much. Ms. Middleton now.
>> hello. How you doing? I'm krista middleton. I was born and
raised in dc and work in the district as a special police
officer. I also drive for uber and lyft. I am a mother and a
grandmother. Recently I've had to drive for you caner and lyft
more frequently to support my family due to the skyrocketing
bills and expenses. I used to be able to get overtime at my
full-time job as a special police officer in the district,
but now that has been cut due to federal budget cuts. Ride share
has provided me the flexibility to earn extra income, which I
need with my children and my grandchildren that rely on me.
every day I finish my nine-hour shift as a special police
officer in the district, I still get in my car and do a ride
share driving anywhere from 4-6 hours per day to make money just
to stay afloat. This income supports my weekly groceries and
essentials for my family. I cannot understand why when dc is
in the middle of an unemployment crisis the council is
considering bringing waymo, a company that will put thousands
of drivers like myself, out of work and devastate the local
economy. When drivers lose income, our whole local economy
suffers. Gas stations, car washes, convenient stores,
restaurants, et cetera. We depend on those things just as
well as they depend on us to support those local businesses.
row bo taxis also -- robotaxis don't pay taxes. They don't
raise families here, they don't vote, they don't make judgment
calls when someone is in trouble. This isn't just a
public safety issue, it's all about profit. Profits not
getting reinvested in the district but instead going
straight to silicon valley. But it's not just about the economy,
it is about people. I as a driver, I always help people on
a daily basis in my regular job and in ride sharing. Including
those coming from hospitals, blind or deaf passengers that
need assistance and people with special needs through metro
access. Sometimes passengers, especially elderly passengers,
tell me that I am the only person that they've actually
spoken to that day. I've received multiple requests for
women leaving events that want women drives to safely take them
to their homes from events. Row bo taxis will not do any of
that. I would like to extend this sincere invitation to any
council member to join me on the shift behind the wheel so you
can see yourself and how human, you know, providing a human
service is ibram valuable service to your community. I
support technology and innovation and people are
skeptical. People were skeptical of you caner and lyft when they
started, but they created new job ntsb area and new way of
working. But driverless cars like waymo are different. They
don't create a opportunity for our neighbors. They just erase
it. For ride share opportunities
vanish in dc, we'll struggle to make ends meet. The shift
towards robotaxi benefits only a few ceo in silicon valley and
harming many in the district. Thank you for hearing my
testimony. >> thank you very much.
>> good afternoon. I'm helen rainer, and I worked in war dc
for over 20 years. -- washington dc for over 20 years. A proud
member of sciu-3 # 2bj. In addition to my full-time job,
I've been driving for uber and lyft through the dc metro area
since 2019. The income I earn from driving helps me make ends
meet and support my family without the extra income, I
honestly adopt know where I would be. -- don't know where I
would be. If autonomous vehicles are allowed to operate in dc.
drivers like me would lose rides and see our earnings decline,
which we're already fighting. That would have a serious
financial impact on me and my family. We cannot rush to bring
autonomous vehicles into our city without first making sure
they truly benefit the people that live and work here, not
just the companies drying them. I'm also deeply concerned about
the safety issues autonomous vehicles have already had in
other cities. There's been reports of crashes, traffic
disruptions and situations where they fail to respond properly to
pedestrians, cyclists and other drives. As a mother, those
concerns hit especially close to home. I work near day care
centers and young children are often on crowded sidewalks and
in crossing some of the busiest intersections in the cities. How
can we be certain a driverless vehicle will recognize and
safely respond to children in these situations. Our city is
not ready for autonomous vehicles like waymo. They
threaten the livelihoods of hard working people like me, while
also raising serious public safety concerns. One thing were
signs of human trafficking and I don't see where waymo is able to
do that when we are out there talking to people, seeing
people, sometimes we have people who are going through mental
distress and all the professional and stypes we're
the one there is to talk them off the ledge. I urge you to put
the people of dc by protecting our jo jobs and ensuring the
streets are safe and allowing autonomous vehicles here. Thank
you for your time and consideration.
>> thank you very much. Let me start. We met maybe a month or
so ago. At the time atu shared a memo outlines several
recommendations would it be fair to say it would be fair to say
these are the recommendations? >> slightly expanded and updated
testimony included additional two or three.
>> I'll make sure. I'm not going to have time to go through every
single one and there's a couple I want to ask you about on the
record to make sure we went through. I think your first one
for example was vehicles require ago cdl should not be included.
I think we keep using the phrase "robotaxi."
>> correct. >> the common assumption we're
all saying is passenger vehicle, not freight vehicle, but your
recommendation is make is ex-police it. And cdl be one way
to do that? >> correct. [inaudible] vehicle
position any vehicle over 10 pol driver's license and
transferring hazardous materials should not be proactively
permitted by this type of legislation.
>> I would 100% agree with you and I have no concept in my mind
allowing hazardous materials through and fair point, not
explicitly saying that. >> rather on the safe side.
>> I hear you. I hear you. One of the recommendation recomm re-
recommendation hades to do with remote operations system
requirement. Anyone not that deep, there's remote workers
with the ability to actually help operate the vehicle
remotely. >> correct.
>> your recommendation is any remote worker should have taken
and passed dc's driver's test. >> correct.
>> are we aware of examples where there's a remote operator
operating a vehicle in a different jurisdiction --
>> we are aware of examples because waymo had to deal with
incident where remote operations facilities located in the
philippines. Goal with propose amendment would be if you're
going to be doing a remote operator assistance moving
vehicles on dc streets, you should probably have a dc
driver's license. >> okay. Common sense there.
really interesting point you kind of phrased as a backstop
for the vmt. Obviously the district of columbia, we're not
a huge location. A trip that might take a long amount of time
is not actually traveling a long distance so you're
recommendation is considering the vehicle hours traveled in
other words to take into consideration the distance not
long but time maybe? >> it's a good comparison back
to old days of taxis and you were waiting and not moving and
all of a sudden a switch would flip in the number would still
keep increasing for the amount that you were getting charged
but it would go into wait time. Part of the issue is obviously
your proposal around vmt is dealing with the fact elect
trick vehicles not paying gas tax and fund this system we're
paying for collectively but the issue with vmt is like you said,
it's -- this is a district of 1. Not a lot of distance to travel.
the vmt you're collecting might not be sufficient to offset the
congestion effects of these vehicles. So if you're going to
mitigate congestion to mitigate the fact these vehicles might be
everywhere, which is a major concern of a public transit
union, we propose a vehicle hours traveled as backstop
measure to make sure that basically whenever is the higher
of the two would be what the district ultimately collects.
>> got it. Thank you. We'll take a look at
that after the hearing too. Not hitting every one of the points
but the other to ask you while you're here, the intention
around the transit incentive program is all right, big claims
are made and saying I'm not going to pick on one. The
operator will say no, we really connect people to transit. Use
our capital one example earlier there's hubs of act and I have
the enlivening to that. What you're saying is make sure it
work when is you use the transit system.
>> the fear would be that people are using avs to substitute what
could have been public transit trips and call this dismissively
avs as anti-public transit. They're moving people
potentially into single combined effect wan seizure disorders
vehicles and take up more of the roadway and being less of a
public transit option thees the way to prevent any type of
transit incentive program or discounts being offered is make
sure the perk taps their card and -- person taps their card
and takes a trip. It risks subsidizing a nice trip to
capital one arena. >> exactly. Again, that's why we
hold a hearing on bills, cha you're describing is the intent
of legislation. >> yes, definitely.
>> hearings help us narrow down and get precise with the
language. >> okay, that's helpful. Mr
mr. Cantraras. This bill does not represent you caner and lyft
drivers; correct? >> not in dc.
>> got pointed. Not just in dc. Where do they represent yber and
lyft? >> boston. Massachusetts.
>> all right. And part of the conversation has also been
talking about a labor piece, when you say that do you mean I
respect and recognize saying if the bill is moving forward, not
advocating for the bill. If the bill moves forward, your
recommendation is labor piece for things like fleet
maintenance for all workers with autonomous vehicle operator. Are
you going beyond that also to other labor piece. Help me
understand what you mean a bit more about what hawkeyes you're
recommending when it comes to having a labor peace agreement?
>> we believe if this goes forward at some point, whatever
small number of jobs created should be good jobs, good union
jobs with benefits, good wages and worker protection and, yes,
at some point we would want those jobs to be covered by
labor piece and also uber and lyft. They also need to do right
by their workers who work for them. Right now those are
considered independent contractors and have no benefits
whatsoever and they're 1099 employees basically. It should
be pretty broad who is covered. >> that's incredibly important
point in that you caner and lyft take about 50% out of every --
uber and lyft take about 50% of every ride into their pocket and
drivers don't have health insurance, retirement or
benefits. They're independent contractors. One thing that the
legislation is attempting to do and again, acknowledging you're
not supportive of the element here and have the revenue
getting generated and goes back to try and help a workforce that
will be impacted, displaced. I said early on, no no one should
say "if" workers are impacted. It's "when." I can think about
the fact that I don't get a newspaper on my doorstep
anymore. I read it din tally. Doesn't mean that -- digitally.
doesn't mean it's a negative thing. I like to get my news in
a digital format but somebody somewhere was impacted with that
transition; right? We want to move towards more clean energy
creation. Probably mean as cole miner similar pacted and
different technology innovation has impacts and try to set up
ability for 50% of the funds going into some type of, and
leave it intentionally vague to start with to get the feedback,
some type of fund to help with workforce transition and
everything from direct compensation to people that lose
their jobs. Could be everything from workforce transition and
workforce training. What are ways that you think the council
can best try to get ideas, feedback, recommendation around
ways to be impactful touchdown catch so that funds generated
actually -- impactful so that funds generated can be helpful
for workers? >> you're right. Automation has
never been good for workers. That's bottom line what it is.
whether you're working in a grocery store or toll booth;
right, those jobs are no longer -- or almost extinct. Our
position is that if there's a study, we should let the study
go forward and not rush into bringing avs into our city
before the study findings are public to all of us. That's our
position as a union and we're not opposed to innovation. But
it has to benefit the public and it has to benefit workers in
whatever small number of jobs created, they should be good
union jobs. >> okay. Your recommendation is
while the legislation requires this st study to help inform wht
we do with the fund and what the impacts will be, your
recommendation is essentially trying to tie that report to any
permit being issued. Am I hearing that correct?
>> say that again, the last part of your question.
>> am I hearing your recommendation while the reports
in the legislation, am I hearing you correctly that your
recommendation is don't allow a permit move forward until it's
been completed? >> correct, yes. That is
correct. We also sent you a set of recommendations if you are --
once a study comes out, are you going to move forward with any
legislation like this? We send you some recommendations that I
think would be useful for a few discussions as well.
>> okay. Devil's advocate here. We've been waiting for a ddot
report for quite a long time. There's a concern that if we tie
something and say we have to wait for a report to get done,
one strategy is that report sits on the shelf and never moves
forward. I don't think a report should take that long to be able
to come up with -- needs to be done right and don't take that
long. One could be the report is done by a certain deadline to
ensure it's completed. I have a hunch that the incoming mayor in
january will not sit on a report like this. That's one way to
look at it to think about what that could be.
>> okay. Yeah. We agree. I think that's the impact of people it's
going to hurt. >> people excited about
autonomous vehicles and believe it opens up inexpert witness for
them. -- independence for them and people say I think it'll be
a negative impact for us. I said at the opening, I don't find
much ambivalence around this and people are really in support or
opposition and we want to get feedback to see what we can do
so the testimony is really helpful. And it is a lot of
balancing that we're trying to do. Your advice and
recommendations even if not supporting the overall bill and
say if it's coming, these are the things we believe need to
take place. I think that makes whatever decision we make a
better one. Appreciate it. >> appreciate it.
thank you. >> thank you all very much.
appreciate your testimony. We move to our next panel. I've got
jessica kelly with the teamsters local 639. Another speaker with
teamsters 639 and thomas doyle state director of national
teamster brothers. Jessica is not here, okay.
>> good afternoon. Thank you. >> aa or as de good afternoon. E
ready. >> thank you for allowing me to
speak. I'm demoni. Ups driver with teamsters local 639 and
here not just as a individual but representative of tens of
thousands of drivers in the district of columbia who keep
our economy moving. As a ups driver, I play an essential role
in district supply chain. Every day I safely deliver packages to
homes and businesses across our situate this work is more than a
job. It's a career that provides a fair wage, supports my family,
and enables me to contribute to our community. I'm a proud
teamster. This union secured a livelihood that many district
residents rely on and it's helped create a middle class
backbone for our economy. Replacing my job with driverless
vehicle would not only put the district at risk, it would
undermine the middle class that sustains local as much ass,
schools and neighborhoods. There are clear real world
implications behind tech enthusiasm. Jobs and local
economy, driverless vehicles threaten tens of thousands of
driving jobs in our district and ripple through related sectors.
maintenance fuelling and logistic coordination and route
planning. Working people lose good jobs, consumer spending
declines and small businesses suffer and tax revenue shrink
hurting public services we all rely on. Driveless technology is
still maturing even with testing and autonomous systems must
navigate unpredictable urban environments. Construction zones
and weather in dense districts like dc, the reality on the
ground includes pedestrian cyclists and cannot be
replicated overnight. It depends on reliable delivery network to
keep essential flowing and more thanes, holidays and
disruptions. Over reliance on automation without robust human
backup creates single points of failures affecting families and
businesses alike. Ups drivers and other front line workers
operate under establish safety wage and benefits, protections
negotiated through a collective bargaining allowing driverless
vehicles to replace the roles and risks eroding a hard one and
protection that protects workers safety and -- professional
drivers bring expertise in route optimization security and
customer service which translates into newer damaged
goods, better last mile experiences and higher overall
exhibitor seizure doverall -- e. Technology cannot guarantee
these outcomes and scale without these investments and human
oversight. Waymo has demonstrated impressive
sameabilities in controlled scenarios and specialized routes
and real world urban deployment faced extensive testing,
regulatory scuteny and on going safety questions. Claps of
seemless wide scale replacement of drivers and not full scope of
trial and educate failures and continued need for human
monitors and operators in many settings. Even when autonomous
systems perform well, complexity in urban driving means
accountability. Who's responsible for the errors?
maintenance, insurance, and incident responses? These
questions remain unsettled in many jurisdictions and require
thoughtful policy design to protect the workers and public.
large scale substitution of driving jobs with autonomous
vehicles would demand massive capital charging infrastructure,
maintenance equal system and continuous software updates and
labor disruption is real and rushed rollout leaving without a
viable transitional path. What I'm asking today, protect the
jobs in the district, do not eliminate driverless roles
without timeless plans for workers including retraining,
income support, and opportunities to move into a
higher wage role with transportation and logistic
sectors. Embrace responsible and innovation. Encourage policy
that prioritize road safety, accountability and resilience
while ensuring workers and their families aren't left behind.
innovation should lift communities not hollow out the
middle class. Require meaningful stakeholder engagement before
approval pilot programs are scaleups of autonomous delivery
and require row customer consultation with labor, small
businesses and community representatives, public safety
and economic stability should guide any deployment decisions.
I want us to demand clear criteria for deployment and if
it's pursued, insist of transparent milestones, safety
audits and metrics that protect workers, customers and
taxpayers. Ensure robust transition framework any move
towards atomization and guarantee a clear path to
affordable, stable path for current drivers and related
workers. That you can't and urge you to oppose measures that
threaten these livelihoods and support policies and preserve
and create good family sustaining jobs for district
residents. >> thank you.
>> my name is thomas doyle. Serve as state program director
for the international brotherhood of teamsters here in
the district of columbia. Local 639 represents about 900
remembers across the dmv. Nationwide teamsters represent
1.3 million members that operate every classification of vehicle
from large 18 wheelers which we're historically known for to
ambulances, school buses, garage and recycling, receptacle
vehicles. It is our members that have to face the consequences of
what the deployment of the vehicles look like in the real
world scenarios and I want to thank you for holding it
hearing. It has a bill that will have tremendous impact on lives
of the members. Our members here in the district of columbia
live, work and raise their families and each start their
workday by turning the key in an ignition. These teamsters and
all professional drivers are relevant stakeholders who's
concerns need heard when examining this bill, we thank
you for that opportunity today. I want to be perfectly clear
that the teamsters do not oppose new technology that would make
our road safer. . Over the years our drivers trained and adapted
to work in vehicles that are equipped with emergency brakes,
lane de-portanovature, tools, speed limiters, electronic
logging devic devices and more. However, this legislation as
currently written would give the green light to autonomous
vehicles of any size and weight, and I understand your intent is
not that but as a union, the contract language of what matter
same for the legislative hearts and happy to work with you
trying to address that. Of the most pressing issues we've
identified in the legislation, the statement that a permit tee
can dispatch autonomous vehicles for the transportation of goods,
this comments the district conflict of livelihoods of
thousands of members across the dmv making homes and delivers
across the district. Team stares keep the grocery stores stocked
at giant foods and keeping our community connected and
accessible across all eight words. Freight drivers and
deliver to hospitals and dc public schools and thousands of
small businesses and our ups members in the ha familiar brown
uniforms deliver long awaited packages to our doors. Each one
of the members has comprehensive health
each one of these members has benefits and take-home
family-sustaining wages. As a union, we must treat
legislation as an immediate and direct threat to jobs.
we urge the members of the committee to continue bringing
relevant stakeholders together, professional drivers, including
teamsters members, public, law enforcement, and small
businesses across the district that will face impact before we
push unproven vehicles onto our roadway.
it is important to note this legislative session, every
single legislature that had the opportunity to expand av
operation in their state has decided to wait.
we believe there is no reason to rush the deployment of these
vehicles in a broad reaching bill.
I think the experience our members around the country bring
forward is part of the reason many legislatures have decided
to wait. I appreciated you mentioning
earlier we have an expectation these vehicles should be better
than a human driver. The track record we have seen is
they are not meeting the standard of being better.
there are many videos circulating of these
vehicles crossing with arms deployed.
drivers in the san francisco area have reported firsthand
these vehicles are interfering with doing their job.
collecting garbage is a very dangerous job.
you are exposed to carcinogens. You are on the streets every
single day. These vehicles block trash
receptacles in alleyways. It causes delays.
who is the first person he hears about garbage not being picked
up? It is the city council.
we want to thank you for having us all here today.
we would like to have the opportunity to answer any
questions you may have. Chair allen: thank you both very
much. A couple of quick questions.
you heard me mention the totality of our conversations
around what people call robotaxis, the new passenger
service. Fair point, the legislation is
not precise with that. Understandably, that could be
interpreted to mean it could be too expensive -- expansive.
the intent was talking about passenger travel.
if the cdl language helps give us the position we need, we can
report on that after the hearing.
if the intent you mentioned, it is not freight vehicles.
you mentioned the language around transportation of goods.
we can work around the precision of that.
the idea was talking about, I am getting in and I have my
groceries from the grocery store, where I have my meal with
me. It is not an 18-wheeler of goods
we are transporting. We can work afterwards on that.
I would be curious, and mr. Petron-king, you might be the
best to answer this, we have some in the testing phase now.
two companies have been testing in the district for a while.
have you had them come down the street or had any interaction?
it sounds like your colleagues have.
I'm curious if you have had any of that?
mr. Petron-king: have I witnessed waymo try to deliver
or just seen it on my route? Yes, I have seen them on the
route, just driving around, not doing anything, just driving
around. Chair allen: have you had any
negative interactions or seen them not know what to do?
mr. Petron-king: other than stopping and waiting for a long
time for them to decide to do, I have seen that.
I have seen them in pause mode trying to figure out what the
next step is. Chair allen: ok, and that is in
the middle of the street? Mr. Petron-king: yes, waiting
for the waymo to decide what it wants to do at the intersection.
I have witnessed that personally.
chair allen: ok, that is helpful.
the other piece, you don't have to answer right now, you can
also follow-up, part of what we are trying to do is should the
bill move forward, 50% of the revenue generated is set up any
work workforce fund to help support workers either with
retraining, again, could be direct compensation to a
displaced worker, any thoughts or ideas you may have about what
would make the most benefit out of a fund like that?
you can also get back to us on any recommendations you might
have. Mr. Petron-king: I think it
would be beneficial the actual fund be used for what it is
there for. We can come up with funds all
day, does not mean it will get to the people that need it.
chair allen: I think I would underscore the family-sustaining
wages and benefits members take-home we view as a
replaceable at this time. Mr. Doyle the intention of the
fund, we appreciate. For many drivers that ups, these
are lifelong careers. We think it will take more than
just a fund to replace such a career.
we would like to work with you to make sure the fund is
accessible to our members or any professional driver facing
replacement by technology. Chair allen: thank you.
just to make it very clear, ups, fedex delivery, that kind of
delivery is not in this legislation.
the language could be more precise.
thank you. I appreciate it.
thank you both very much. Let me move to our next panel.
this will be a combination of people here in person and some
online. I have reem rayef, project
manager with the washington metropolitan area transit
authority. Laura miller brooks, director of
transportation and infrastructure, federal city
council. Seth grimes, washington
organizer of the washington area bicyclist association.
cheryle adams, public witness. And cheryl cort who is the d.c.
and prince george's county policy director at the coalition
for smarter growth who I think is online.
all right, excellent. 3:00, we are getting there.
thank you all very much. Reem, we will start with you if
you are ready. Ms. Rayef: thank you for the
opportunity to testify. Metro is proud to move the
district on our transit service and our purpose is to provide
great service to the region. The district is a transit-first
city. This is because of the work of
legislators like yourself who provide metro with the funds and
policy environment we need. Our streetscapes of
transit-oriented development and bike lanes and sidewalks tell
the story of city leadership that understands the importance
of it. We believe this bill lazor the
groundwork for thoughtfully integrating -- we believe that
this bill lays the groundwork for thoughtfully integrating av
's into the district. Limit interruption through the
framework. Enforced bus stops of the most
important. They support buses to move
through traffic congestion so they can remain on schedule and
avoid bunching and gapping and ensure that people can safely
get on and off the bus. Investments in camera enforced
bus lanes and transit signal priority have meant faster
trips. Introducing av's has the
potential to exacerbate the trend of traffic congestion and
slowing bus service. Av operators must credibly
demonstrate their ability and intention to complete trips
without impeding bus lanes and bus stops through the plan.
at minimum, the plan should outline how commercial operators
will collaborate with metro to ingest data about our bus
service on an ongoing basis. Operators should program
vehicles to abide by d.c.'s parking and driving restrictions
without exception. It should establish pathways by
which they communicate regarding detours due to construction and
other deviations for standard bus service.
number two, support future planning and transit first
policies. Metro and ddot are reliant on
close elaboration and data transparency to enable
decision-making. Understanding when av trips are
in demand, how they contribute to congestion, how they interact
with the curbside and conflict with other modes of transit will
enable implementing agencies to learn about mobility needs in
the district and make wise investments.
sharing trip level data could provide the basis for a
partnership facilitating smooth av trips for people who want to
use metrorail but do not have good options to get to the
nearest station for example. Partnerships like this are
reliant on ongoing transparency and agreements.
this legislation should make the av's legal operation contingent
on trip level data to accurately understand the impact on
congestion and more. With these two adjustments in
place, we believe d.c. Could be the first city in the u.s. With
a clear perspective of how they should fit into city needs.
av operators state their intention is not to replace
transit trips. Only 2.8% of the population were
19,000 residents live more than a quarter-mile from a bus stop.
expensive coverage is thanks to this counsel ongoing investment
in transit. We appreciate the inclusion of
metro in the decision. We are no strangers to
innovation. We are modernizing the system to
improve efficiency and appreciate the potential for
street-level safety improvements that could come from vehicle
automation. Safer vehicles that rigidly
abide by traffic laws have the potential to improve bus
operation. We look forward to operating
great transit service in a district that balances the needs
of all. Thank you for the opportunity to
comment and I would welcome any questions.
chair allen: thank you very much.
next, we will turn to laura miller brooks.
>> I serve as the director of transportation and
infrastructure for the federal city council.
I'm here to testify today on behalf of federal city council's
250 trustees, civic and business leaders deeply invested in the
long-term success of the district and its residents.
federal city council applauds councilmember allen for
introducing and the members for cosponsoring the amendment act
of 2026. This thoughtful, evidence-based
bill properly positions the district to transition from
autonomous vehicle testing to deployment with the goals of
enhancing traffic safety and consumer choice across all eight
boards. Embracing smart city technology
is a proven economic multiplier and its adoption is more
important now. As the district incorporates
structural disruptions, now is the time for d.c. To embrace new
industries and advance technologies to diversify our
economy. This bill is an opportunity not
only to improve daily mobility but to ensure d.c.'s
competitiveness as a global hub for next-generation industries.
in the past, the district was a national leader in urban
mobility and transportation innovation.
yet in recent years, we have lost some of our last year.
with u.s. Department of transportation headquartered
here and congress, the city is naturally positioned to showcase
transportation innovation on the national and global stage.
this legislation thanks to your leadership signals d.c. Is
actively pivoting toward the future and is again ready to be
positioned as a national leader. While the current draft provides
a solid foundation for the district to be a leader on av
policy, specific provisions regarding taxation and timing of
deployment may stifle very aspects and goals of this
legislation focused on equity,, growth and innovation.
to ensure the technology can scale successively, operate
reliably, and remain accessible to all, we recommend the
following minor adjustments but important adjustments.
the vehicle miles traveled 10x tax threatens to increase cost
and price out lower income residents.
we recommend replacing this with a cap fee that mirrors the local
gas tax rate or at least has parity with delivery trips.
the shift from fleet caps to performance milestones, the
proposed 200-vehicle fleet cap may artificially constrain the
ability to meet the demand of the market and could create
unreliable wait times and restrict service availability,
disproportionately harming residents.
finally, we request that you remove the 2028 pay to ride
moratorium. This legislation currently
blocks paid rides until january of 2028.
we recommend removing this and allowing any commercial service
ready to launch to launch as soon as operators meet all of
the stringent safety needs the legislation outlines.
federal city council applauds your leadership to introduce
this act and we are confident the district's agencies will be
able to deliver these programs effectively and make sure we are
serving residents with the maximum benefit of commercial
autonomous vehicle technology. I welcome any questions you may
have and thank you again for hosting this important forum to
provide us with the opportunity. Chair allen: thank you very
much. Seth grimes.
mr. Grimes: I am seth grimes representing the washington area
bicyclist association. You will not hear a statement
that opposes or supports the legislation.
you will not hear a line by line analysis of changes.
instead, you will hear a statement of our values, shared
values. My organization's concerns and
steps we believe will address those concerns as embodied in
the legislation you have introduced.
thank you.
the association envisions a just and sustainable region where
walking, biking, and transit are the best ways to get around.
these are the greenest, most affordable, and most helpful way
to travel in washington, d.c. They are often also the fastest
due to backed up traffic on frequently congested streets.
they are also not the safest. 22 individuals have died on d.c.
streets in 2028 pedestrians, one scooter rider, and one bike
rider. It is an artifact of the
transportation system that focuses on vehicles and
prioritizes them over transit and active transportation.
overreliance on cars backed up traffic and slows surface
transit. The bill would set rules that
govern the widespread deployment of a new type of commercial
vehicle, more specifically a new type of driver to the district
streets. We applaud the legislation's
cautious approach that covers multiple dimensions including
safety, congestion, and environmental impacts, equitable
access across all eight words, and for persons with
disabilities, and av's repercussions for utilization
and workers. Av's must improve the
transportation system for everyone and regulators need to
ensure av profitability is tied to advancing public interest.
the council should advance a legal regulatory and
accountability framework that ensures av deployments
demonstrably achieve the following criteria when
operating on district streets. I will offer these in bullet
form except for the last couple. Av should improve safety.
they should reduce emissions. They should reduce car ownership
and have a neutral or positive impact on transit ridership.
access to for higher av's -- for -higher av's must be equitable.
there must be strict liability for manufacturers and fleet
operators. There should be uniform
operations across the district especially coordinated as these
are deployed in other districts and there should be transparency
about operations. Regulations should include
mandatory transparency about algorithms, external
verification the code prioritizes safety for
vulnerable road users and adheres to traffic and parking
regulations overspeed and rider convenience 100% of
the time with appropriate enforcement tools.
finally, there should be transparency affecting back.
legislation should require public mandatory reporting about
trips, safety issues, emissions, and impacts on transit
ridership. Without these factors, av's just
exacerbate the challenges of our car-dependent transportation
system while putting gig workers out of work.
on the safety front, we endorse families for safe streets
criteria that where they operate they must be at least 10 times
safer than human drivers on average across the operational
design domains and never worse than human drivers.
noting again that 22 individuals have died on d.c. Streets in
2026, we cite the statement that the standard must not be as safe
as human drivers, it must be to set us on a trajectory toward
eliminating traffic deaths. That is what commercial has
achieved and what we must require of av's.
we call for a tiered traffic alliance framework that
escalates regulatory intervention up to the
revocation of operating authorization when they
accumulate persistent violations.
this applies to passing stock school buses and crossing
crosswalks and parking in a bike lane which is illegal in the
district, even if the violations do not cause measurable harm.
where there is harm, manufacturers and operators must
be held liable. Thank you very much for this
opportunity to share waba's views on this important
legislation. Chair allen: thank you very
much, mr. Grimes. Next, let me turn to cheryle
adams. Ms. Adams: good afternoon.
my name is cheryle adams. I live in ward 6 and I serve on
the d.c. Pedestrian advisory council.
today, I am testifying as a private resident regarding bill
26-0684. 33 years ago, I was struck by a
vehicle while waiting to cross an intersection in downtown d.c.
that near fatal incident fundamentally changed my life
and drove me to pedestrian safety advocacy.
while av technology aims to reduce hair -- human error,
technology is never objective. Without explicit safety
oversight, it risks turning our neighborhoods into unsupervised
corporate testing grounds. Our streets are filled with
children, parents with strollers , elderly pedestrians, physical
and sensory impaired pedestrians, tourists darting
out between parked cars, and crowds crossing active
intersections. While the bill takes positive
regulatory steps, it contains a critical gap.
it fails to require rigorous real-world adverse weather and
edge case testing data before deployment.
companies must prove to ddot how the sensors perform in dense
fog, heavy d.c. Rainstorms, and dark intersections, and exactly
how the algorithms react when a child steps off a curb.
when an av fails, a vulnerable pedestrian pays the ultimate
price. The asymmetry of risk is
staggering. Between january and july of this
year alone, d.c. Vision zero data shows the district has
already lost seven pedestrians with 42 major injuries and over
300 minor injuries. Nationally, recent data reveals
the ongoing volatility of this technology.
just this year, a waymo av struck a child near a school in
santa monica. A software flock triggered a
massive recall. And recent outages in san
francisco and lane errors in los angeles caused several
intersection gridlocks. We cannot build public safety
policy on self-reported corporate metrics.
I urge the council to strengthen it by embedding five
nonnegotiable mandates. Require independent real-world
d.c. Testing prior to any deployment.
mandate continuous safety updates and standardized vehicle
to pedestrian communication interfaces.
eradicate ghost vehicle congestion by heavily penalizing
empty cruising. Protect public space from
chaotic passenger drop-offs. And enforce strict separate
oversight of level five driverless systems versus
driver-assisted software. Let us measure the success of
bill 26-0684 not by corporate revenue generated but by human
lives protected. Thank you, and I welcome your
questions. .
chair allen: thank you very much.
last on the panel, let me turn to cheryl cort joining us
online. Ms. Cort: I am representing the
coalition for smarter growth. To advocate for -- week advocate
for the most sustainable way for the d.c. Region to grow and
provide opportunities for all. The district coalition for
smarter growth supports bill 26-0684, in particular the
important provisions for recording operations and safety
data including miles, tax, supporting public transit,
serving all eight words, and user interface for individuals
with disabilities. We believe autonomous vehicles
have the intention to improve roadway safety and provide
additional transportation options for persons without a
car or who are unable to drive, especially in areas with limited
transit options, av and that's also have the potential to
degrade our cities and towns by adding more traffic and control
of public streets and curb space to unaccountable private
companies. We appreciate that this bill
seeks to address these issues. The district of columbia must
manage av's to support adopted district policy.
excuse me. To support district policy that
prioritizes people over vehicles.
for instance, policies such as design and manage public space
and space along the roadway to be people focused promoting
livability and public health and sustainability, safety, and
place making. Multiple studies have concluded
unregulated av's would be -- would have major impacts on
traffic volumes. A recent synthesis of 26 studies
found av adoption would increase total city traffic volumes by
over 5%. This increase is enough to jam
up key intersections in busy urban corridors.
in 2020, the d.c. Study likewise found congestion would rise
significantly without strong policy measures like congestion
pricing. Av legislation must discourage
excess traffic, support transit, help travelers with
disabilities, and ensure accountability and transparency
by av companies, lest we return to this specific provisions in
the bill we support and urge the council to move forward strongly
regulating this emerging technology.
thank you. Chair allen: thank you very
much. Appreciate everyone's testimony
here. Let me start here.
I was going to ask you about the partnership.
the bill directs av operators to partner where riders could
receive discounts for trips that connect to public transit.
I am not looking for a discount to get you close to transit, it
has to be on transit. Do you agree the only way that
makes sense is if we are actually connecting you to
transit, it has to be connected to that in some way?
I think I saw your head nodding when talking about this.
does not make sense that it has to be connected in a meaningful
way, not just that you get close to a metro station?
ms. Rayef: I think that is correct.
I think it points to the urgency of securing really good
datasharing agreements in addition to being able to
confirm somebody tapped their card after taking a waymo trip
to a metro station. Getting good data transparency
agreements from waymo or whatever av operator it is,
sharing trip level data about where these trips are coming
from and where they are going. Chair allen: could you say more
about that? What does that look like in
terms of getting that kind of agreement?
is it the expectation the trip level data is being shared with
ddot who is then sharing it with you?
is it the av sharing it directly?
ms. Rayef: as an example, my understanding is they share trip
level data with the department of motor vehicles which shares
them with ddot. We have an mou with ddot and can
receive that trip level data. It really informs how we plan
our service. We have used bill 26-0684 --
uber and lyft data to model what trips will look like at r.f.k.
based on what occurs at gametime at the stadium.
we have also examined use to areas near the yellow and green
line to help us understand what trips are happening that really
should be yellow and green line trips.
we make significant use of the data we got from tnt's to plan
and adjust our service where needed.
securing something like that trip level data shared with ddot
we could access through an mou is important for us to
understand the impact of av operators on our service.
chair allen: ok, got it.
-- chair allen: got it. So building off of that is the
way to go? >> correct.
I don't know if ddot is speaking later but there is an issue with
the level of granularity of data provided by tnc's.
we would like to see something even more granular so we
understand someone is taking a trip, not from the plaza area
but the plaza station exit. Chair allen: that is helpful.
you made a great point around the message you are making for
bus riders in transit, everything we do there is to
move more reliably, save money, save time.
have you had a chance to see what the experience has been in
other cities that also have a transit system, none of which
are nearly as good of -- as hours of course, and running an
automated vehicle? Are we seeing friction points
that already exist? Is there something we can point
to to inform how to draft hours? >> I would have to get back to
you. We have discussed with other
transit operators in cities including san francisco their
experience of operating around autonomous vehicles, primarily
when av trips replace transit trips.
they have reported insufficient data about the impacts to their
service again, another reason why sharing is important, to
understand the level of interaction between bus service
and av trips as well as av trips.
chair allen: that is important to look at.
we will do everything. My metro trip to work this
morning was fast, easy, relatively cheap.
I could count on it and I was here.
if I had gotten into an uber, lyft, or potential av, it would
cost more, take longer. I think our transit system is
the best way to get around so I don't know why it would ever
replace my trip on transit with an autonomous vehicle.
it will take more out of my pocket and take longer.
at the same time we want that data to help show what it looks
like. So we hear you on that.
laura miller brooks, thank you for your testimony.
let me dig in with you a bit. One part of your testimony.
if I understood you said the vmt could raise costs on low income
riders taking autonomous vehicles.
the autonomous vehicle companies are today owned by tesla, owned
by amazon and alphabet, also known as google.
I'm not convinced that they are doing all of this because they
really want to lower costs for riders.
let's just be honest, there was a lot of money to be made in
this space. So these are movers looking to
get into a market, test new technology because they see what
they think is a strong business plan.
in addition to solving different transportation problems.
I think vmt is very important in terms of both being able to help
focus on a gas tax these fleets would not be paying, but also
our goal around avoiding deadheading, avoiding other
costs. Why would I eliminate vmt?
ms. Brooks: great question. I think your bill does a great
job stating outfront you are here to help consumer choice for
the district so our goals are very much aligned in the
testimony. The vmt as currently written
would be just for autonomous vehicle trips so you have a lot
of other trips occurring in the district, private owned
vehicles, tnc's, deliveries. Personally I think the spirit of
your vmt capturing the cost of that trip is fair but you would
want to see that be implemented across the market in a way that
daniel florez earlier brought up the gas tax, but I think even
concerns as we look, when you have both the cap and the vmt
tax, the deadheading question is yet to be seen on how much
these vehicles have to -- chair allen: I think the cap
conversation, at least for me, I'm able to hear that
conversation easier. I think logically it can make
some sense. We are trying to strike the
right balance but in terms of, if we say it is a cap of 200 but
also you have to meet these minimum thresholds, you have to
have, time has to be equitable across all eight wards.
I can hear the argument that says you may have the cap too
low to achieve other policy goals so that will be an area we
will take a look at following the hearing to say how do you
strike the right balance. Ms. Brooks: back when I was at
lime, in the early days of deploying scooters when we had a
limited fleet of vehicles and trying to get coverage in all
eight wards and providing a trip, capital bikeshare is even
more expensive these days than 2018, 2019.
I agree everybody is here to make money, this is a top tnc
market for uber lyft. And we are seeing that in san
francisco so I think the question is, if the goal is
consumer choice, making sure the vmt tax is applied in a way that
is both getting to your climate and equity goals but not
impacting the consumer choice element that is core to the
bill. Chair allen: thank you.
mr. Grimes, thank you for your testimony.
hopefully you heard when I talked to av operators, both
said when I asked, does your program treat parking in the
bike lane as you can't do it, it is not allowed, and both said
yes. That is something we will work
on to make sure the language in the bill is precise.
you having your recommendation and it seems consistent with the
families for safe streets ,tiered escalation approach.
we had an earlier conversation. If it runs a red light, it is
not supposed to be programmed to do that.
so if we see these safety elements or blocking a bike lane
you want to see a tiered escalation to fix the system so
it does not happen again or if you are not taking those
actions, there are [indiscernible]
risks. Did I hear you correctly when
you testify to that? Mr. Grimes: excuse me, as I
answer your question by bringing up a different program or the
a pilot program with amazon for
cargo e-quads for last mile delivery out of a distribution
hub in southwest and wmata has received a number of violation
notices from residents taking pictures of the vehicles parked
in bike lanes and weave a very good relationship with ddot, and
ddot is working with amazon. Part of their pilot agreement is
they will not have vehicles parked in bike lanes.
they are doing it anyway. I got around very quickly today
as you did. I observed a fedex truck parked
in a bike lane on l street, of course illegally.
we know these operators do that and will continue to do that.
we would hate to see another set of operators -- I won't mention
companies, the ones talking to you today, cavalierly disobey
the laws they know exist in the name of expediency.
it is more than just parking and bike lanes were blocking bus
lanes. It is also occupying commercial
loading zones. We hear over and over again
concerns from business improvement districts and
businesses about the lack of loading solutions, for their
vehicles to park in bike lanes. We need holistic solutions.
I'm sorry, you're fully aware of that in your aiming toward. The
district transportation needs we need especially to make sure
new operations cannot degrade the situation.
yes, tiered enforcement, you know how to implement that, as
does ddot. Chair allen: thank you.
real fast, ms. Adams, your recommendation on pedestrian
intent interfaces, can you just say a little more about an
example of what that means and then I will turn to
councilmember lewis george. Ms. Adams: that would be
something similar to, while we do currently have walk signs.
if there were some sort of integration in av's that were
keywords like pedestrians crossing, for example, at the
barn dance at seventh and aphis street.
if there was some sort of warning that says the barn
dance. Is in effect ava -- av's in all directions
must stop. There needs to be some sort of
interfacing between the av's and whatever the hub is that would
be in that area to just provide some sort of notification that
this is a pedestrian crossing, it is stopping traffic in all
directions, including diagonally.
and that there is some type of mechanism indicating to all.
for example, if there were four robotaxis on seventh and h on
all four intersections, if they are all there at the same time
there is an interfacing that lets people know there are four
robotaxis in place that must stop when pedestrians are all
crossing at one time. For example, the barn dance at h
and 7th street. There would be some sort of
mechanism, and some type of keywords that these robotaxis
are being programmed with that lets them know in that specific
area, it is pedestrian-dense and there is a barn dance there.
chair allen: thank you. Councilmember lewis george,
welcome back. Councilmember lewis-george:
thank you. I want to start with wmata.
is it ms.rayef? Thank you so much.
how does wmata view its relationship with autonomous
vehicles? Ms. Rayef: I think we see the
district is a place with a lot of different mobility needs and
see ourselves as part of a tapestry of mobility solutions
in the region including cars, rideshare, bikeshare and so on.
our chief interest is in making sure av trips do not replace
transit trips and we don't see significant declines in
ridership and increases in congestion that make it harder
to run our bus service. That is why we want good data
about where av trips are happening, the extent to which
they are running along our rail lines, our major bus lines.
and it is why we want good assurances from the av operators
they will provide strict laws that keep cars out of our bus
lanes and away from our bus stops.
that is super important because the quality of our bus service,
which we are constantly working to improve, is completely
dependent on how congested our streets are and the extent to
which our buses have clear lanes and clear bus stops in which to
operate. And when we have cars that block
bus lanes and bus stops which happens all the time, we get
bunching and delays, and at our bus stops in particular when
stopped by vehicles they can't get to the curbside which makes
it impossible for the drivers to lower the ramp, the wheelchair
ramp, for a wheelchair user or a stroller pusher, or anybody who
needs the smooth transition onto the bus, can't get onto the bus
anymore. Making sure all cars stay out of
our bus lanes and bus stops is a chief priority.
councilmember lewis-george: with that, as we agreed in our line
on continuing to strengthen our bus network in the district, how
does wmata see itself working aggressively to protecting our
dedicated bus lanes and insuring those projects are successful in
making our public transit the fastest and most reliable way to
move around the district and region?
ms. Rayef: the council has been an amazing partner in providing
resources for us to improve our bus service and we know we have
a lot of friends on counsel who want to burp -- council who want
to provide us the resources. A program which enables us to
use cameras on our buses to supply tickets to drivers
locking our bus lanes is an essential provision that allows
us to enforce our bus lanes and something enabled by legislation
which really is essential to those bus lanes making a
difference for bus riders. Councilmember lewis-george: is
wmata planning on experimenting with autonomous vehicle
technology in the metrobus, metro access or maintenance
piece? Ms. Rayef: I can't speak to
that, but can get back to you. Councilmember lewis-george: is
there any things the council can ensure as part of this
legislation will ensure some of the data collection necessary
for wmata to continue to achieve its goals?
ms. Rayef: I think ensuring the data collection provisions, the
data required to be shared with ddot, making sure that is
airtight and really provides a granular information such that
we can see if a trip is ending, not in southern dupont circle,
but on a specific corner, so we understand exactly where trip is
beginning and ending and what curbside use looks like.
that is essential central and ensuring the information is
protective of privacy while also being sufficiently useful.
councilmember lewis-george: thank you, I appreciate that.
mr. Grimes, thank you for speaking about the issues with
vehicles parked in bike lanes. I know you spoke a little about
the tiered approach. I also wanted to make sure some
of the concerns we have heard from pedestrians about ways we
can continue as a district to ensure both our pedestrians and
bikes are able to continue to be the primary users of roadways
and prioritized in safety. Mr. Grimes: thank you p would as
I mentioned at the start of my testimony, they aim to make sure
those who are walking -- they operate extensively.
we are sensitive to concerns about bicyclists on sidewalks
outside of the central business district.
it is undesirable that bikes, especially as we get more bike
riders on sidewalks and scooters we need a separation of
infrastructure. One of my key messages is we
appreciate innovation in all forms includng the introduction
of autonomous vehicles, but have to ensure there is continued,
sufficient, robust funding for infrastructure improvements that
support transit, that support walking, and use of mobility
devices, and the support bicycling that separate
different modes appropriately across the district.
enforcement is important but design of infrastructure is
essential. Councilmember lewis-george:
laura, I spoke a little earlier on the first panel about how --
there are things we can do as a city and things we must do
regionally in order for this to be successful.
what would have to happen on a regional level for us to be
successful in moving towards this happening in the d.c. Area?
ms. Brooks: great question. The city council is focused on
the district and federal relationship.
this is a great opportunity because virginia rail did not
pass legislation this year and also for us to set the standard
with the areas where we can for a working, productive
relationship with the federal government.
there is expressed interest here.
the district being proactive, taking the opportunity to show
we understand all the externalities that might be
risks and show how we and our incredible staff are able to
overcome that, work with our transit agency and set the
standard is a huge opportunity for setting the benchmark for
the region. There is coordination with
airports. Obviously that is something
councilmember allen noted, but there are other ways in which
the region -- I think cog has been focused on how to cultivate
jurisdictional conversations that happened once state-level
legislation is passed. D.c. Being both a state in a
city and having the federal apparatus where we can make that
proactive is a unique moment. I'm excited this registration
rises to that opportunity. Councilmember lewis-george: what
is the federal landscape regarding this technology and
legislation? Where does the federal city
council see both democrats and republicans in the house and
senate fall on the issue currently?
ms. Brooks: I'm not an expert and I can get back to you on
that but I will say, what I'm aware of and conversations were
this is come up, that I have been part of, usdmt is
incredibly interested in this. Secretary duffy mentioned this
in his hearing. This continues to be an issue
that house oversight republicans are aware of.
so if there is a world in which this could be a productive olive
branch to the federal government in a world where they are
looking at taking away red light cameras, and we could talk about
automation in a productive way, and keeping some of the many
ways in which we are using automated enforcement to clear
bus lanes, to keep roads safe, this is an opportunity to
proactively meet them where we are seeing negative movement
from congressional stakeholders on other issues.
councilmember lewis-george: thank you.
chair allen: thank you everybody for your testimony on this
panel. Next I will move to panel 10,
colin mortimer from dmv new liberals joining us online.
alex baca d.c. Policy director with greater greater washington.
margaret durkin, executive director for pennsylvania and
the mid-atlantic region with technet.
and david alpert, public witness.
going to go ahead because I have two empty seats.
david zipper, public witness and colleen hawkinson, executive
director of the d.c. Bid council pair would I will pull you up
because I have two seats. Colin mortimer, why don't you
kick us off, then we will go to alex baca, margaret durkin and
then -- and colleen after that. >> my name is colin mortimer and
I'm testifying on behalf of the dmv new liberals.
where the washington area chapter of pragmatic liberal
neighbors across the district, maryland and virginia organizing
for innovation, growth, safety and cities built for people.
thank you for moving this bill in a fraud political moment and
for sitting through nine hours of testimony to do it.
we testify today in strong support of bill bill 26-0684
with two amendments raising the 200 vehicle cap.
san francisco is served by 1000 and moving the january 2028
launch date ahead. We don't need to speculate on
how safe waymo is or other autonomous vehicles.
in the vast majority of situations waymo has proven to
be safe, reliable and predictable.
waymo has driven over 170 miles behind the wheel, fewer crashes
than human drivers and larger reduction still for pedestrians
and cyclists. The last technology with this
potential to bend the curve on road safety was the airbag which
saved 50,000 american lives. In the past five years more than
200 people have died on district streets paired rarely does the
council have the opportunity to vote on a bill that will save so
many lives, and prevent so many deaths in the future, like the
ones we have suffered in recent years.
I my daily capital bikeshare rider, on connecticut avenue
every day. Still waiting for my bike lane
and I want to thank the council and chairman allen for making
cyclists such an important part of the conversation and ensuring
autonomous vehicles can continue to prioritize cyclists.
at the end of the day I've cycled in los angeles, san
francisco, I've seen how autonomous vehicles interact
around me and how human drivers interact around me on
connecticut avenue each day paradise he people changing
lanes without signaling, making illegal turns on red, watching
youtube videos will driving. This all happened last week, by
the way. Driver errors and distracted
driving of the reason people die on the road and waymo doesn't do
that. Yes last fall waymo passed a
school bus in boston and we have seen unfortunate incidents
across the country but with waymo we are able to do updates,
train the cars to do better, ensure mistakes never happen
again. Autonomous vehicles can be
regulated like airplanes were one mistake ensures similar
incidents never happen again. Airplanes are far and away the
safest way to travel in the entire world.
we can do the same with automobiles.
on jobs it is somewhat of an ironic stroke of luck that 14
years ago to the day the council had the uber amendment to
protect taxi drivers from rideshare.
now we're being asked to protect rideshare from what comes next.
we didn't band the automobile to save the stable hands, we built
better jobs on top of it. This next leap forward will be
no different in this bill fund ensures displaced workers will
receive more protection than they ever had for any
technological innovation before. Autonomous vehicles are cutting
into this region come of this bill decides whether they arrive
on the district's terms. One day I think we will look
back on humans piloting two tons of steel the same way we look
back on the frequency of airplane crashes in the mid-20th
century. I am for this bill and I'm open
to any questions or follow-ups you may have.
thank you. Chair allen: thank you.
let me turn to alex baca. Good afternoon.
ms.baca: good afternoon, thank you for having me.
I'm speaking on behalf of greater greater washington where
I serve as policy director. We find this flawed in its
conceptualization of the means by which the district should
regulate for higher autonomous vehicles and do not think it
mitigates their negative externalities.
the bill puts the department of transportation in charge of
regulation of av's. I understand why to this
committee it is an advantage. Should this bill pass here you
get to be the committee jurisdiction.
I know this is a salient issue, a lot of prominent commentators
have said a lot about how we need to do something about this
as soon as possible lest we stifle innovation in private
industry but no operator is suggesting personal autonomous
vehicles are immediately forthcoming paired the matter at
hand is one of carriers for higher --for hire.
we struggle to see a compelling reason for assigning av's to
ddot. The district is on the back foot
with tnc's. Uber begged cities for
permission rather than from permission to operate.
we were in this room talking about this with other folks as
well. We are running back the tape a
little bit in a bizarre way I never expected.
but right now the district does not require tnc's to identify
operators or share real-time data and do not have to complete
safety checks. On light taxis, their fares are
not regulated and their fleets do not have to require
wheelchair accessible vehicles. There is the process of
appraising whether this system is serving residents and
visitors. Meantime autonomous vehicles and
their operators are stepping in to generous breach.
more importantly to us as urbanists, av's are just cars in
the district is not good at managing cars regardless of who
or what is driving them and that makes this the worse place to
visit and travel. Congestion makes this last
result -- reliable and safe. Those who drive when they could
take transit, walk or bike make it harder for those who need to
drive or be driven. We have advocated for fewer
trips by car since2008. District policy and politics is
not that divergent from my stance.
no candidate for office here in response to a questionnaire has
ever indicated they would like more trips by car.
av's will result in more trips by car.
the district's report recommends road pricing as an antidote.
we wished there had been an opportunity during fy 27 budget
negotiations for options including road pricing.
without a holistic understanding of how curbside management,
parking and road access policies can work together, not
necessarily solely to contribute to the district coffers but make
sure the environment is a safe, healthy and enjoyable one.
my testimony includes some asks, but none as specific as we have
heard fromatu, the trial lawyers and excellent witnesses
on panel. I do defer to them as well to
d.c. Families for safe streets and want to reaffirm what they
have to say. Ultimately, and I appreciate
councilmember allen recognizing this in your opening remarks,
there is not a need to rush to pass legislation, regulating
av's. I do want to urge we enable
broad regulatory powers that allow the district to pivot as
needed when new pressures emerge.
I don't think concerns today were anti-av or anti-innovation.
it is broadly understood av's are coming.
this is a fast-changing space. We did not get tmc regulations
perfect in 2012 and have taken time before visiting them.
legislation passed so we can see that av's are operating here
sooner is not likely to age well.
cars regardless of driven by people or robots may benefit
some but they are to the -- they are not to the public good and
we need fewer of them in the district.
chair allen: thank you. >> good afternoon.
my name is margaret durkin, I'm the mid-atlantic executive
director for technet. Thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to speak on bill 26-0684.
we believe autonomous vehicles bring tremendous societal
benefits and provide access to transportation for those with
disabilities or those who can drive themselves.
I will note technet is a membership organization so we
have a sizable amount of members in the autonomous vehicle space
and concerns in speaking on today are those I've been made
aware of. First and foremost we are
concerned about the high application fees.
the bill as drafted has a one million-dollar initial permit
fee with a $500,000 subsequent fee as well as a post approval
500 fee. This is out of step with other
states that enacted authorizing av legislation.
california charges $3600 for testing application and $3275
for deployment application. In new york city the annual fee
is $5,000. We believe these high fees will
set a harmful precedent and discourage av investment and
deployment in the district. We are also concerned about the
prohibition on permitees and customers agreeing to real and
potential liability as a condition for service.
prohibiting arbitration agreements would be a first in
the nation requirement and lead to potential costly litigation.
regarding accident reporting environment -- requirements we
believe the eight hour window is burdensome.
our members are required to report crashes to the national
highway traffic safety administration per their
standing general order and this bill requires the submission and
we believe it is adequate and interoperable with other
jurisdictions. We request this eight hour
window of reporting in the bill be removed.
regarding rules and the bill we believe rules in any
jurisdiction can run far afield of the underlying statutes and
request provision to promulgate rules and regulations be removed
. Finally the proposed vehicle
miles traveled tax, $.15 per mile.
technet as an organization works to ensure tax structures create
a level playing field I miss $.15 tax on commercial av
operators will place a non-very burden on a merging industry in
the district. Thank you for your time and I'm
happy to take any questions. Chair allen: thank you very
much. David alpert I don't believe he
is here so if you can join us later we will bring him to eyed
other -- another panel. >> good afternoon, chairman
allen and members of the committee.
thank you for allowing me to speak him I'm the president and
ceo of the navy improvement district business.
thank you for allowing me to testify.
I will not read the text of my testimony that I will submit, I
will just speak to a couple points I wanted to share in this
discussion. I will start with, the district
has a long history of maintaining strong public
oversight. Through leadership of ddot and
other agencies, successful partnerships for delivery, and
transportation infrastructure, systems and services.
car sharing and bike sharing, the nation's largest smart curb
management. They have improved quality of
life in the district. I believe av's can be the next
chapter in that tradition. In my opinion the relevant
question is not whether or not av technology is coming because
it is already here. The question is whether the
district can help shape it in a way that advances safety,
equity, accessibility and public benefit.
I support this bill because it takes a measured and thoughtful
approach and establishes a phased deployment strategy,
requires planning and safety provisions to ensure equitable
access across all eight wards for residents with disabilities
and recognizes the importance of supporting public transit and
helping workers adapt to changes in the transportation sector I
would further encourage ddot to leverage a partnership first
created by the southwest bid and now in part with the navy yard
to become a national testbed for new technology, public-private
partnerships and services. We have been doing that for
several years and stand ready to partner with the city when you
move forward with this. The bid can help the district
compare and evaluate outcomes, service equity and impacts on
congestion which can lead to smarter policy decisions at the
beginning and as we make changes .
finally as a former ddot director I want to offer this
perspective, for services that touch district residents,
education is essential and key. I will share some perspectives
today reflect the we have not told people about this
experience enough. I encourage you to do that not
only for public officials, for city agencies, but for the
users, employees, future employees and anybody who will
be impacted by this. It is coming and we need to
explain to people how it works, how it doesn't work, things to
be concerned about and things we have data and factor support
whether or not it works. Av technology is new, very
different and it will be disruptive to the status quo.
education engagement will be essential for managing.
disruption can be ok because we learned and got better and have
done things better than in the past so I think this bill
positions the district to lead and not react, to ensure
innovation serves the public interest.
thank you for your consideration.
I'm happy to take any questions you might have.
chair allen: thank you. Colleen hawkinson.
ms. Hawkinson: good afternoon, chair allen and members of the
committee. My name is colleen hawkinson and
I'm testifying on behalf of the d.c. Bid council which unites 13
business improvement districts to champion ride -- vibrant
mixed-use neighborhoods paired we applaud council member alan
for introducing and councilmembers pinto and frumin
for cosponsoring the autonomous vehicle deployment authorization
act of 2026. This legislation marks a pivotal
moment in the district's 14 year regulatory journey by building
upon frameworks established by the council in 2012 and 2020.
this thoughtful evidence-based bill positions the district to
transition from av testing to commercial deployment.
years of rigorous on road operations, millions of driven
miles and exhaustive data collection have proven av
technology is no longer experimental.
commercial av deployment aligned seamlessly with the district
core goals of safety, equity and economic growth.
regarding safety, av technology removes human error from the
equation resulting in 94% fewer severe or fatal crashes, 93%
fewer pedestrian injuries and 84% fewer bicyclist injuries
compared to human drivers. Av's do not discriminate based
on -- do not discriminate. Furthermore, operators have
mapped every ward in d.c. To ensure equitable access.
fleet operations require a robust local footprint, industry
leaders are already investing in d.c. By crating stable, good
paying jobs in vehicle maintenance and logistics.
while the current draft provides a strong foundation, specific
provisions risk stifling the very innovation, equity and
growth the bill aims to achieve. We recommend the following
adjustments. Remove the 2028 paid ride
moratorium allowing commercial service to launch as soon as
operators meet all stringent district safety and operational
benchmarks. The shift from fleet caps to
performance milestones. The proposed 200 vehicle fleet
cap will provide -- create -- will disproportionately harm
residents. The council should allow fleets
to scale dynamically based on proven safety milestones.
and the vehicle miles traveled tax we have heard about we
recommend replacing the vmt tax with a capped fee that mirrors
the local gas tax. Embracing city technology is a
proven economic multiplier and its adoption is more critical
now than ever. As the district navigates
structural economic disruptions, particularly the long-term
shrinking of the federal government footprint, now is the
time for d.c. To embrace new industries and advanced
technologies to diversify our economy.
we already have blueprints through two existing innovation
districts, the penn west and mobility innovation district.
the former initiative is managed and operated by the golden
triangle bid and the latter is a collaboration by the southwest
and navy yard bids. With few refinements this bill
is number two not only to improve daily mobility but
firmly secure d.c.'s competitiveness is a resilient,
self-sustaining global hub by incorporating next-generation
industries into our ecosystem. Thank you for your leadership
and the opportunity to testify. I'm happy to answer questions.
chair allen: thank you all. Mr. Mortimer, I don't think we
have a copy of your testimony. If you have not already -- I
don't think you have, so if you would submit your testimony,
that way it becomes part of the record.
that would be helpful. Mr. Mortimer: happy to do so.
chair allen: did you have any -- I heard your support for the
legislation. Where there any recommendations
or changes you were advocating? Or are you just testifying to
say the council needs to move forward with this?
mr. Mortimer: yes, top of my testimony I stayed in my support
for the bill and my desire to see the council remove the 200
car cap, to have one more similar to san francisco, 1004
similarly sized city and move forward with the 2028 launch
date. Chair allen: thank you.
let me touch base on that quickly and ms. Hawkinson we are
happy to take a look at the date after the hearing.
part of the reason the 2028 date is selected, let's play
hypotheticals. If legislation were to move
forward this fall aftertwo readings and a mayor signature
on the always lovely congressional review, best case
scenario, the law's effective date be sometime next spring,
maybe late spring and ddot having to issue the next round
of permits they will go through the process to do all the
different checks they have to do so january 1, 2028.
it may be feels like a far-off date, but on a legislative
timeline I would be hard-pressed that anyone could get done
before that. We will take a look at it to see
if there are any spaces. I do think there is a decent
point made around the 200 cap for introduced legislation.
I'm not sure mr. Mortimer I would go all the way to 1000,
but from 200 if one of our policy goals is we want to have
equitable distribution serving all neighborhoods across the
city you could make a strong argument that if you only have
200 you will have a hard time being able to manage that.
the flipside to a cap is, this is new technology, it is disrupt
the, so we want to take a tiered approach as we phase in this new
technology in our city. You are not the only ones who
raised that over the course of the hearing so it is one we will
look at and see where the numbers are.
I don't know if 1000 is the right number but we have heard
200 may cut against other policy goals we are trying to achieve
so I appreciate that. Baca, I hear your point of hired
vehicles versus ddot. We will have ddot and the
department of hired vehicles here to have a conversation and
if the will is at some point what this moves into a
commercial operation, happy to have that conversation.
you mentioned specifics of recommendations and based on
your testimony it sounds like you would a chance to look
atatu's. There are a lot of them,
thoughtful stuff. Where there any you specifically
wanted to highlight as your top one or two you thought were
best? >> sure, I appreciate the reef
amy -- reframing of vmt, we have talked a little about it.
I'm very supportive of it in theory.
the dial needs to be turned up a little.
it is not just av's. It should be all tnc's.
maybe vmt's. The district is very small.
this is intentionally on how are we going to reduce congestion?
the potential benefits we heard are not going to be realized if
people are sitting in traffic. We are closely aligned with atu,
really appreciate the work they have put into this but I would
emphasize I don't think the vmt charges may be not the right
modality and we need to figure out not necessarily for revenue
purposes but congestion reduction purposes how we will
handle this and there is a separate conversation to be had
about curbside which we have not been able to figure out and that
is really critical for ddot. If I could apply ddot energy
anywhere I would love for it to be to a comprehensive curbside
management program. We are not where we need to be
to prepare for the deployment of av's.
chair allen: curbside management is what I was good to bring in
with meca and the navy yard. We had conversations around a
very dense environments, a lot of foot traffic and it is a
challenge to manage curbside throughout the navy yard bid.
I went to the ballgame saturday, was smart enough to know, don't
dare try to drive there so my son and I biked down, we had a
great experience as we do. The bike valley was not as full
as it normally is. The curbside's were jampacked.
double parked. And when we think about if
somebody were to say I would encourage them to take metro or
take a bike but somebody may say let me get an av to go to the
ballgame. I don't know where the vehicle
would pull over. As you think about managing and
working with different stakeholders around the curbside
space what are tips or advice you have for ddot to think about
curbside management as a former ddot director? >> you can craft
the most elegant solution but if you can't enforce it, doesn't
exist. The challenge is the capacity of
ddot to enforce regulations. We say the outcome goal is x.
we want you to bring your technology, solutions to achieve
that outcome and give room for solutions.
over the many years I've been around ddot, this issue of
enforcement has been a sticking point.
we don't have the bodies, we don't have the coverage we need
to protect a neighborhood or support the experience people
want so I do think this is the type of idea where even as it
relates to road charging or curbside enforcement, technology
is a powerful multiplier and expander of the enforcement
capability. That keeps people honest.
if you know there are consequences and value attached
with that choice you will factor it in verses, we all play the
numbers. I think I can get down there and
they may or may not enforce it. Chair allen: we have very
specific rules about for-hire vehicles around the ballpark.
should the same rules apply for any av operator that needs to
align with department of for-hire vehicle rules around
picking up and dropping off? >> I have a perspective on this.
when we drafted the plan for nats park we identified places
to drop off vehicles and bicycles to park at the stadium.
we just don't enforce it. Chair allen: I do see some.
>> consistently. Chair allen: I do see
enforcement from time to time. >> consistently.
if you know, you're a driver that ever tried the park in a
dense urban environment to take the risk if you know there is
certainty of the price being levied, you make a different
decision. Chair allen: ms. Durkin, was
going to ask you. Trying to follow your
recommendation around, we should not have the reporting
requirement around a crash or collision within eight hours
because -- correct me if I did not follow you correctly,
because there is a requirement, it would be redundant, did I
hear that correctly? Ms. Durkin: correct.
eight hours after a crash we believe that would be burdensome
remember companies to get that information in.
we would rather it be reported m totsa, and the bill follow that
per the standing order. Chair allen: what is the
timeline for that report? Ms. Durkin: I believe it is 24
hours but I will have to get back to you.
chair allen: does ntsa call up ddot and let them know about the
report? Ms. Durkin: I will check on that
process. Chair allen: wouldn't it be in
my self-interest as a local government, to know about a
crash or collision as soon as possible, and I don't entirely
trust ntsa to contact local d.c. But we have a vested interest in
knowing a crash or collision took place so we can look at how
do you help align reporting. 24 hours feels too long from a
local perspective. I'm also not sure if that is 24
business hours were real hours. Ms. Durkin: I will find out the
specifics and get back to you. Chair allen: from a local
perspective we have a vested interest in knowing as quickly
as possible if there is a crash or collision.
if there are ways that type of reporting can align so we are
not making operators go in different directions, I'm for
it, but also don't want to sacrifice that we have things
reported to the district if I don't know that federal dot and
ntsa will come back to us. Ms. Durkin: we will take a look
at it. Chair allen: thank you all for
your testimony, appreciate it. Let's move to our next panel of
witnesses. I've got theanc commissioner
eric heller from anc 4c07 who is joining us online.
samuel littauer. We had joe bishop-henchman but
he said he is not able to make it.
faith gibson hubbard, interim president and ceo of greater
washington urban league. >> she is supposed to be online.
chair allen: anwar saleem, executive director of h street
main street. Aman george, public witness.
rachelle nigro, who I do believe is online.
so I will promote you online. Michael cohen, public witness.
he is also online. Is greg rogers here, founder and
executive director of the innovation majority?
ok, online. Ms. Talitha washington, exec
live director of the center for applied data science and in a
lytic? Talitha, come on up.
>> she is joining online, too. Chair allen: I might stop there.
for this panel we have two witnesses in person, several
online so commissioner eric heller I see you are online and
ready to go so why don't I turn it over to you for your
testimony. Thank you for joining us.
mr. Heller: absolutely. Good afternoon chair allen and
fellow councilmembers, think you for the opportunity to testify
before the committee. My name is eric heller, I'm the
anc commissioner for district anc 4c07.
I'm pleased to testify on behalf of our anc 4c07 commission.
I'm testifying in support of the autonomous vehicle deployment
authorization act of 2026. This position is rooted in the
underlying problem I think we should focus on solving which
is, how do we reduce the number of deaths, injuries and acute
injuries to moderate -- motorists and bicyclist.
the pros and cons of autonomous vehicles follow from that
framing. Every day around 8:00 a.m. Until
5:30 p.m. I watch hampshire avenue and quincy southwest
becoming a game of chance, drivers going through when a
cyclist is trying to curve, scooters jumping curbs.
I reported this to ddot for almost four years and many
neighbors have as well and this is just one anecdote that plays
out across the district. Those human driven interactions
are the most dangerous thing on that street, not autonomous
vehicles. That said, at meetings my
neighbors are not sold on driverless vehicle technology
and their concerns deserve to be addressed and allayed.
they point to other topics raised in this forum, vehicles
disabled in a power outage, and when a machine fails around
children, no press release will erase that fear.
the mechanism, all of these concerns deserve responses in
conversation, the mechanism that matters for kids and other
vulnerable residents is, an autonomous vehicle, unlike
humans, does not drink, text, speed through a yellow light, or
get impatient about being late for work at a crosswalk.
those are human behaviors that kill pedestrians, children and
vulnerable residents every year. On the plus side, this bill
introduces solid requirements around miles and testing,
capping the fleet size, giving ddot a number of abilities to
permit operators creating unreasonable risk and that is
grounded in evidence-based oversight.
recognizing different community members have different concerns
and assumptions about driverless vehicles, I ask our neighbors
and would ask anyone who wants to understand the capabilities
and limitations of the technology to do one thing I've
done. It was eye-opening, and that is
riding one. This is by no way an
endorsement. It is because you cannot judge
these systems from a hearing room or social media.
you don't grasp the problem or how these technologies handle
these complex interactions on the streets, outside of
real-world experience. Beyond autonomous vehicles,
history is rife with these learnings from experienced,
whether it is automated elevators, trusting route
planning and google maps, automated train signaling.
the trust and automation comes from direct experience.
this think said, the bill has room for improvement.
what our commission would ask his five specific provisions to
be added. First, at real-time
transparency. While the bill makes them report
crashes and disabling events the ddot, require that it is made
public, spatially mapped, so they concert -- search of the
data, available to the public the moment it reaches the
agency. Second, an automatic standdown,
any crash triggers immediate suspension for no shorter than
30 days pending full investigation.
third is public findings. Make sure findings of
investigations are released to the public, not distilled into a
press release after the cars are back on the road.
fourth, protect civil liberties. We recognize each vehicle has a
robot camera and its footage can be subpoenaed and residents
deserve to know when that happens.
we recommend requiring each operator to publish an
aggregated monthly report of all law enforcement requests for
footage data, regardless of the agency that is outsourced from.
fifth and final is funding the agency to do the work.
this bill hands ddot a ton of responsibilities, they are
already on a tight budget. Oversight not appropriately
staffed becomes oversight in name only.
it should not become the operators at the publix risk.
I recognize I'm over my time. Thank you, happy to answer any
questions you have. Chair allen: thank you,
commissioner. Next let me turn to faith gibson
hubbard who is also joining us online.
ms. Hubbard: good afternoon, chairperson allen, members of
the committee and staff. It is my pleasure to testify
virtually on behalf of the greater washington urban league.
my name is dr. Faith gibson hubbard and I serve as interim
president and ceo. For almost 90 years the greater
washington urban league has worked to advance mobility,
strengthen families and expand opportunity and address racial
and economic disparities across the district of columbia and
this region. Every day through our community
cares model we strengthen financial empowerment, workforce
development, entrepreneurship, housing.
we see residents working to build stability and a better
future for themselves and their families.
we know how critical transportation can be to a
family or a resident's ability to access opportunity throughout
the city and region. That is why this legislation is
so important to us. For us it is not simply the lens
of policy itself, but around whether or not this policy will
expand economic opportunity and strengthen pathways to
opportunity for those who have been furthest from opportunity
for so long. That is the way we see this
legislation. We believe autonomous vehicle
technology has tremendous potential in the city and while
it can be thoughtfully implemented and strengthen
transit it has to also create greater opportunity, access jobs
and meaningful investments in the district and that is what we
care most about.
that is why the question before us is whether or not the
question comes before us. The question is will the benefit
broadly be shared in and many times, it is not.
as someone who lives in part of the city where metro is not
easily accessible, and as a parent of a child who takes
public transit to and from school every day and summer
camp, I understand how important reliable transportation can be.
especially for residents like me where transportation is not a
meter of convenience, but it's a different of accessing
opportunity. So for this legislation, we are
very interested in how autonomous vehicles strengthen
the first and last mile connections for residents.
how will it improve access to jobs and serve as a compliment
to public transit, rather than replacing it.
reporting that we have seen have shown how it can strengthen the
local hiring and partnerships with many of the programs we
love and enjoy. A district resident should not
be simply a rider in the economy.
but we should be able to maintain it, build it, manage it
and benefit from it in all the ways.
that is why at gwul, we believe that career pathways, local
hiring and apen trisship opportunities have to be central
to the conversation. While the overall direction of
the legislation is something that we are excited about, we
believe that there are three important changes that we hope
that the committee will continue to look at.
first, to adopt an equitable approach and residents who rely
on ride-sharing services to access jobs, child care, grocery
stores and other essentials. Second, to replace the wait cap
with a performance-based model tied with safety, service and
equity outcome so that residents can have reliable access, and
third, that it's more explicit -- that it's more of a
hybrid transportation through networks, while supporting work
force continuity and easterning opportunities for drivers for
other ride hailing services. Finally, reencourage strong
accountability manages, wait times and local hiring, work
force participate, and equitable hiring across the district.
we look forward to the success of the legislation measured by
how many vehicles are on the street, but also the opportunity
and pathways it creates for driktd residents.
we know the technology cannot create an opportunity.
but that intentional policy does.
and many times, we have policy that starts intentional and
moves in a different direction. I have submitted detailed
testimony for the record and respectfully ask to continue to
be a part of the conversation, like many of the others who have
testified here today. Again, thank you so much for the
opportunity, and I welcome any questions you might have.
>> excellent. Thank you very much.
next, we turn to anwar saleem who is here in person.
sorry, mr. Saleem. Can you push the button.
>> good afternoon, chairman allen and members of the
committee. My name is anwar saleem, and I'm
exk executive director of h street
main street. And a former transportation
professional with moda. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today on bill 26-684. I have submitted my written
testimony for the record. This evening, I would like to
briefly highlight what I believe are the four principles that
should guide the district for autonomous vehicles.
safety, access, opportunity and equity.
for safety, publy confidence is essential.
residents need to know that av vehicles safely operate along
pedestrians, children, and people are disabilities.
public trust will often determine whether this
technology succeeds. Secondly is access.
transportation is connecting people to opportunity.
it connects people to jobs, and they work in the computers.
and as director of main street, I see it connects with the local
businesses, and how they spend time in the local districts.
I don't see and it provides a safe transportation option.
particularly during evenings and special events.
I also believe that there is an exciting opportunity for
thoughtful public private partnerships to introduce people
to autonomous mobility, and encouraging them to discover
neighbors like minnesota avenue, and colleges like georgetown and
more. It should be more than a way to
get somewhere. It should connect people to
businesses, restaurants and entrepreneurs that make
neighborhoods unique. Third, opportunity.
before leading h street main street, I began as a bus
cleaner, and a deezal mechanic. It taught me that transportation
systems don't just move people. They create careers.
when I recently toured the operations, I saw many
opportunities reflected in modern transportation.
from fleet operations, maintenance, technology, lodge
igsices, facility, safety and technology again.
through h street main street, we pay approximately 100 interns
each year to work for the programs to expose them to
artificial intelligence, and I believe the district has an
opportunity to connect the young people to careers supporting
future mobility. Finally, equity.
one of the most important things is it emphasizes on comparable
rate times. Innovation should not be limited
to a few neighborhoods. Every resident should have an
opportunity to get options regardless of where they live.
chairman, throughout my career, I have learned to every major
transportation investment has a power to shape communities.
my hope is that autonomous mobility will do more than move
people. It will expand opportunity,
strengthen neighborhood quarters and help prepare the next
generation of washingtonians. The future should not arrive in
washington. It should create opportunities
to participate in building it. As often said, I will say I many
times, it isn't about moving vehicles.
it's about moving communities forward.
thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
>> thank you very much. Next, let me turn to aman george
who is joining us online. >> hi.
thank you, chairman allen. My name is aman george.
I'm a former neighborhood advisory commissioner.
I'm a frequent driver, bicyclist and pedestrian in the city.
and the father of two young children who get to and from
school and daycare by bike most days.
like many people, I'm hopeful that av adoption will make the
streets less chaotic and dangerous.
but, I believe that as a district begins to welcome avs
on the streets to operate at scale, it needs to exercise
tighter control of the companies.
once the companies are operating in the district, it's going to
be very difficult to adjust to be more strict, even when they
are demonstrating to do so. I'm concerned that a huge amount
of training experience found in the vehicles come from places
that are more centric where cars are allowed to dominate the
roads where they don't have to share the space.
and what works on an arizona road may not on our street.
waymo effectively acknowledged this morning, it programs the
vehicles to block bike lanes to prioritize the expoorerience of
waymo customers. Er don't think they should be
allowed to pick and choose which laws to follow, when they are
choosing not to follow the rules.
if av companies are given the flexibility over safety, a lot
of the safety improvements may not come to pass.
I think the act is not as strong as it should be, and prohibiting
the local traffic and parking laws, and I would like to see it
changed before I support the bill.
some provisions which could require av companies to disclose
the conditions they chose to violate the parking laws and
keep the city updated when that changes.
another place to make modifications is 3a2f, not to
make effort to idle in the travel lane.
I prer fehr to see stronger language prohibiting them to
stop in bike lanes or crosswalks, or if necessary, to
serve customers with mobility impairments.
I lould like to see enforcement efforts have to content against
the biggest companies on the planet lobbying against them.
transportation will look different in d.c. When they have
to fight against google rather than a civic association.
leaving enforcement totally up to lower agencies creates
vulnerability for the regulatory scheme.
the council should allow private citizens to seek relief locally
for the violations. Thanks.
>> thank you very much. Next, let me turn to rachelle
nigro. Good afternoon.
>> good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify. My name is rachelle nigro, and
I'm speaking as a resident of washington, d.c., not as a
commissioner. I'm here today to support
autonomous vehicle amendsment act of 2026.
this bill finally moves the district from years on of a
stalled pilot program and to real, regulated frame work that
prioritizes safety, transparency and accountability.
the bill's introduction notes that autonomous vehicles present
an opportunity to improve traffic safety, and proponents
claim it's safer than the average human driver.
national data backs this up. Autonomous systems have a lower
crash rate per mile in dense urban environments where
distraction and human error dominate collisions.
I also want to speak from personal experience.
I own a tesla equipped with full self-driving super vised.
while it's not the same as a level four or level 5 autonomous
vehicle, it is part of the same family.
it is level 2, and I share my data with tesla.
the car drives daily in the district, including new york
avenue, 395, 295, and areas like navy yard with many pedestrians.
it is rare that I need to disengage.
the system handles lane centering, turns and complex
intersections with a sifrp lmpl outperms many human drivers.
all qualified companies, includes tesla, should have an
opportunity to deploy vehicles in the district, provided they
meet safety reporting and requirements in the legislation.
the truth is, d.c. Is falling behind.
cities like phoenix, san francisco, los angeles and las
vegas already have commercial autonomous vehicle service
operating. I'm headed to las vegas soon,
and will not he has ssitate to there.
d.c. Should be a leidner this, not a lagger.
the bill's guardrail's 250,000 miles of safe testing in d.c.,
first respondser interaction plans, and live coverage, and
strict quarterly reporting are the strongest in the country.
in short, this legislation is a safety first, accountability
first frame work that positions d.c. To finally enter the 21st
century. Autonomous vehicles can make the
roads safer and more predictable.
I have been on the hearing since 9:00 a.m., and I can tell you
the avs will save lives. I use it every day, and it is --
the bike lanes, tesla, what I use, it follows the rules of the
road. Thank you very much.
>> thank you very much. Miss nigro.
let's go to michael kcohen who s joining us online.
>> my name is michael cohen and I'm a d.c. Parent, and the
commissioner -- in which oversees parts of manor park,
and tacoma. I'm testifying in my personal
capacity in the amendsment act of 2026.
and again, just testifying in my own capacity.
last night, imcame in contact with ha car accident.
a driver crossed the double yellow to pass an oncoming
vehicle off the road enter on a neighbor's property.
inside the car was a parent and several children.
no one was hurt, but that is by luck.
no was was on the sidewalk, no one was walking a dog or pushing
a stroller. And a fence stopped the car
before it reached the neighbor's living room.
I walk that sidewalk every day. We shouldn't have to rely on
luck when it comes to safety. I want to be clear.
I support the bill. I want to see autonomous
vehicles in the district. And they don't cross a double
yellow line, and it's not replying to a text message.
but communities have to have a voice when it comes to feign
structure, and it doesn't abstract from me, and the road
is on contract for a bike share. And workers coming to me abouts
the conditions they work in. And neighbors come to me about
employee behavior in the blocks, enough that neighbors have
called the police. I have raised the concerns to
every channel. My point is that this isn't a
company behaving badly. When the residents call the
alarm, there is no reaction. Not that anyone responds.
that is a design problem, and something that the committee can
fix before the first av facility opens here in the district.
so I -- first act, I'm hoping the committee will -- public
comment on permitting the decisions regarding av
infrastructure, charging sites and maintenance facilities.
seconds, I would love to see the bill give notice before a
facility, is sited in a neighborhood.
where the people -- the constituents call first, so let
us be useful in the front end, instead of cleeaning up the bac
end. And let's hold ddot accountable
and instead of giving authority. My neighbors know what the
agency is going to keep them safe.
the bill seems to hold companies to a high standard when it comes
to reporting. Shut do the same for ddot, the
agency overseeing themg. Thank you again for the time.
and happy to answer any questions.
>> thank you very much, sir. Next, greg rogers.
>> excellent, thank you very much.
chair personnel and members of the committee on transportation
and the environment. I really appreciate you holding
today's hearing on the topic. My name is greg rogers, the
founder and executive director of the innovation majority, to
fights to ensure that technology tangibly improves life in
communities. I spent over a decade in
transportation policy on the hill, in think tanks, in policy
groups at waymo and neuro, and even a former ride share driver.
so I have firsthand experience the challenges of providing
rides on the streets and look, I will say it plainly.
this is the most robust and rigorous aen to mouse vehicle
bill I have seen in the past decade at the local, state --
local or state levels. It is absolutely the most
ambitious in terms on of addressing terms of safety,
sustainability, issues of equity, and issues of investing
in the work force and investing in the local economy.
I do want to name what makes the zeh bait so hard.
chair allen, people tend to be on one side of the other.
and after my time in the industry, I think of autonomous
vehicles as the policy version of the inkblot test.
people look and see one of two things.
they see their hopes on accounts of being realized on safer
streets and independence for neighbors.
or they see every fear in frustration with the
transportation system and the politics and the economy as it
exists today. And it's put on one technology.
but the reality is going to work is somewhere in between.
and the policy choices we make today and throughout the year,
hopefully if the bill is passed, it's going to shape the future
of the technology, and if we want to steer towards the
benefits instead of the fears, we have to focus on the
regulation and simple policymaking, rather than
getting dragged in to the what ifs, when the status quo is
koszing us more in terms of lives lost, and people who can't
access jobs today, and of course, we're looking at how we
connect the economy in the challenging economy for all of
us. I do want to say I was honestly
puzzled to hear testimony today, to see if it reduces road
safety. It is exactly the opposite.
it gives them hours to take action.
and when I look at avs, I know if they are going to be safer.
because avs are going to help to reduce the distracted, reckless
drivers who I have to keep safe every single day, and day to
day, based on hundreds of millions of mieles, it shows thy
will continue to get better. I want to say, I know there are
doubts so let's walk through a few mechanisms.
pressure points. When a human driver crashes, we
might get a police report at best.
but an economy with an av permit would have to submit at crash
report every quarter to operate in the district.
number two, insurance coverage. A human driver is required to
carry about $25,000 of bodily injury coverage.
this bill requires them to cover $5 million of coverage.
that is 200 times more than people driving in d.c.
and unsafe behavior. Our region has one of the
highest rates of hit and run crashes in the region.
and most actually involve a hit and run according to a recent
aaa report. One of the tragedies occurred at
3:00 a.m. This morning. A human driver hit and killed a
person. And hit and run.
and they are searching for the driver.
this bill has a process and the oversight authority for
behaviors and respond to incidents and the authority to
suspend and revoke a permit. And I wish to share more of my
thoughts on the written testimony of my thoughts.
but the structure of a tmc with all the drivers, we are
optimizing for the economics of the vehicles, completely
different story. We have a few recommendations
for improvements we will send over.
but I want to thank you for your work on the issue, and the
ambitious scope of the bill and moving this discussion forward.
thank you. >> thank you very much.
and then, last -- talitha washington here in person.
>> chairman allen and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony on the autonomous vehicle act of
2026. My name is talitha washington,
and I co-chair the president's advisory council.
my testimony is offered for information and educational
purposes. I am not appearing as an
advocate for or against the legislation, nor after I
presents on behalf of howard university.
rather, I hope to share my perspective as the district
considers the next face of autonomous vehicle activity.
the question before us is larger than whether a vehicle can drive
itself. It is how emerging technologies
can be understood and evaluated. I would like to highlight
research, data. First, research can help us
understand how autonomous vehicles operate in a complex
environment. Howard university has promoted
safety. A tier 1 university
transportation center supported by the u.s. Department of
transportation. Through this work, howard
researchers studied transportation safety, human
machine interaction, travel behavior, demand modeling and
human systems. This reenfoinforces an importan
point. They involve human behavior,
infrastructure, accessibility, public safety and trust.
questions involves construction zones, changing roadway
conditions, communication with remote operators and
interactions with pedestrians and cycles will require
continued evaluation. Second, data can support
evidence-based decisionmaking. With aproempropriate privacy, a
protections, it may be examined with crash records, land use
information, and demographic information and community input.
it may provide greater insight in safety, mobility,
accessibility and operational outcomes across different
neighborhoods and population. Third, autonomous vehicles
create opportunities to strengthen the work force.
this emerging ecosystem will require expertise across
mathematics, artificial intelligence, transportation,
the social and behavioral sciences and public policy.
as transportation becomes increasin
increasingly connected, automated and data driven, the
work force and future generations of professionals
will need to understand not only how they function but how they
affect the communities where people live, work, learn and
travel. In closing, I'm not here to
recommend a particular policy outcome.
rather, I hope to provide connection to may inform future
discussions. The district is long a place for
ink innovation, public safety, and
knowledge to come together to address complex challenges.
the future of transportation will be shape bid advances in
technology and also our ability to understand the advances,
prepare people to work alongside them and use evidence to inform
decisions. As the technologies continue to
evolve, our shared goals should be to ensure that technological
progress translates to safer streets, greater opportunities
and more access for all residents.
thank you for the opportunity to testify.
>> thank you. Thanks to everybody on the
panel. I have a few questions.
mr. Saleem and faith gibson hubbard, both of you talked and
jobs. And I think it's -- we talked
about this a lot today. There is economic opportunity
that is an option here. That will be jobs that do get
created. And I also said, it will be a
disrupter in the work force, and there will be other jobs that
people have today that will be impacted.
we heard earlier from folks that are in drive-sharing space right
now who are opposed to this. They are concerned what it means
for their jobs. Both of you are people who work
hard and are thoughtful for the work force development in job
creation. In what ways are you looking
about the disruptive effect or the loss or change in jobs that
people will have and some of the strategies we take to help
people, either from a work force training or other ways to help
support working folks who very likely will have an impact, if
they have in this driving space. >> you know, I listened to
earlier testimony where a young lady spoke about -- she is a
young -- in security, and she was working part time job.
and if you look at what waymo have done and a good example, in
atlanta. Which my granddaughter is in
school in phoenix. They are taking uber drivers and
giving them full-time jobs. That is really reasonable, where
they don't have to work two jobs.
they pay them a decent salary. And the same thing with -- if
you look at d.c. For a good example, folks who may not have
jobs may not have a skill set to a certain degree, just like with
metro, when I first started. You could go in there with
maintenance and you have the ability to work your way up
without going to school. And I think waymo will provide
the studenopportunities. You can end up in customer
support, and fleet maintenance, and next thing you know, you are
a technician, and waymo pays you a decent salary.
a real good salary. When I first started, it was a
low level salary as a cleaner. And I left there, and I was a
lead mechanic leading inspections and providing a good
platform by my house at an early age.
and I think the same opportunity will afford other people the
same opportunity. >> thank you.
miss gibson hubbard. >> yeah, thank you so much for
the question. I was looking this weekend and I
did get a chance to be in a waymo.
and it is quite the experience. I think about jobs.
I want to make sure that we're not just talking about the jobs
that are on the lower end of the spectrum that will make it
harder for district residents to stay in the district of
columbia, but the spectrum around -- again, like I said,
the building, the maintaining, the deployments, the technology
of it all. And someone who has a middle
school- school-aged child, they are
talking about areas of interest in technology.
and so thinking about how to partner with public schools with
emerging areas of industry. And adult public charter schools
that can help residents be ready for the jobs that are available.
and a highlight in my testimony, around parameters ensuring there
is local hiring and training for folks to be ready with jobs.
we have done things with abr appren
apprenticeship, and investment council, and the greater
washington urban league. We have programs here with
entrepreneurship and other career pathways that we would
like to be a part of those experiences in making sure that
district residents are ready for the jobs and the contractual
opportunities. It's not just folks coming here
and opportunity. But we are building and
creating. And youth employment program,
organizations like the greater washington urban league.
the public charter schools for adults and many, many others
will help us ensure that the opportunities are really focused
on washingtonians, and those who have been not as close to the
opportunity. I do think that this, as mr.
saleem just mentioned, I think it will provide great
opportunities for those who have been just drivers for other
opportunities for them to expand their careers.
but I think again, making sure they are partnering with
organizations that can help them to be thoughtful about the work
force creation, and making should you it's good for
district residents. >> thank you very much for that.
I appreciate it. Let me turn to amman george.
I appreciate your testimony. And you talked about ways to
strengthen legislation to make it stronger for traffic safety.
earlier today, I had waymo representatives and tesla here,
I asked two of the questions. If it's an anton mutonomous veh
you can set it to not exceed the speed limit, correct?
and waymo said yes. I was startled that tesla said,
unless the flow of traffic have going faster.
that shouldn't count. You should set the speed limit.
I also asked about the bike infrastructure.
can you set it to make sure it does not go in at like lane?
and waymo said, correct, it will no go in a bike lane.
so there are ways we can make it clear that -- I think that is an
important part of managing our roadway in a way that -- as we
had the conversation earlier today.
it feels like it was ten hours ago.
but we're not looking for somewhere to be safer than the
worst driver. That is a low bar.
this has to be safer than the safest driver, and that accident
our expectation. I think you laid out specific
rec recommendations which I
appreciated. >> I am saying, that is what --
not block the bike lanes. But rather, they are excited to
continue the conversation about curb side access, which is not
an answer to that question. But I think, you know, if
they're willing to make that -- make those sorts of commitments,
I think you're right. Our goal should be that the cars
are rigorously rule following, and if the rules need to change,
that is a question for the council, and not for the
companies to take upon themse
themselves by programming the cars to comply with the laws
they like and not with the laws they don't.
and the ways to strengthen the bill, I suggested a few where I
think that language could be a little more explicit and clear.
I think it would be worth, like I said, having part of the
licensing process to involve the companies proactively disclosing
the situations where the cars are programmed not to follow
existing traffic rules. I think that is not part of the
application, but I think that is a reasonable ask from this city,
and any others that is considering licensing the
companies. To the extent that there can be
enforceable mechanisms to allow private citizens to allow them
to go straight to court when the companies are regularly
violating the traffic laws, rather than leaving it to what
seems to be a multi-step administrative process.
that would be helpful. I really do fear a world in
which our regulators can be captured by the biggest
companies in the world. >> I will say, at least in the
room, I heard it differently in the conversation around
programming it not -- you know, having the program not be such
that it is going to pick and choose the rules to follow.
and I specifically asked about blocking a bike lane.
I think what we talked and, I had a conversation earlier about
how do you distinguish between the precise language around not
exceeding the speed limit, not parking in a bike lane.
but the same time, in the same way that I expect the uber of
lyft driver to double park in front of my home when I'm
getting in and out. There is a reasonable stan sdar
there. And finding the lane between the
precision, and what most passengers expect that you will
going to pick up and drop off in front of my house and double
park for a moment. But certainly something we will
go back to. I don't want to have a system
that is -- maybe we are following the laws today.
and maybe we're not. That is the promise of this.
that it can be safe. We will follow up on that.
miss nigro, you scared me when you talked about how you have
your tesla drive you around town.
we had an interesting conversation today.
tesla will offer you something that they say is level 2, but in
reality, it's level 3. If you are driving around -- we
will follow up later. If you have your tesla driving
you around tuown making turns, e will follow up.
>> me and the hundreds of other people that are using it in the
city. >> yeah f you are doing it
illegally, I don't think you are intending to.
let's not get in ourselves in trouble here in the hearing.
>> they told me that is the level 2.
>> that is the trick. They like to tell people what a
level 2 is, but in fact you are going to level 3.
we are going to make sure we are not going to get new trouble
here. But I appreciate your support
for the overall legislation. And I think you're overall point
you are trying to make, you have confidence in a safe experience.
and you see that safety kind of as one of the big driving
factors here. >> it is my number one point.
from my perspective, I use it every day in the city.
and I also use it up and down the east coast and in new york
city where there is even more pedestrians.
so it is impressive. It updates continuously.
all the time, frankly. I have to be honest with you.
and there's not a hesitation with me because I would not put
myself or any of my passengers in jeopardy.
so I use the phrase very pro ped december d
-- pedestrian. I will stop on a dime when
someone steps in a crosswalk. >> I appreciate you sharing your
hypothetical level 3 operations up and down the east coast.
we will follow up afterwards too.
I want to -- let's see, michael cohen.
can you say more? I think you mentioned you were
recommending more public comment.
and I want to make sure you understood which section -- you
think we should have more public comment.
and you talked about having the ancs being notified about a
facility cited. Maybe -- say a little more about
what you mean by that. >> yeah, I mean, I think one of
the challenges I have seen -- and I'm relating this to a lyft
motivated location that is in my single-member district.
but there's not really a lot -- there's not really a good
mechanism in order to report or place concerns under concerns --
you know, ddot has been responsive, but there's in a
good way for residents to report -- this is -- charging
the maintenance depots and that sort of thing.
I think there is an opportunity to get things right when it
comes to -- when it comes to putting this -- the locations in
the district. So that is really what I'm
looking for. An opportunity for the
residents, and ancs to be able to say, hey, something's off at
this charging station or something is off.
I witnessed poor business practices, whatever.
I want to report that to ddot. I want to report to the city of
having a mechanism to do that. It's really what I'm after.
>> got it. Okay.
happy to follow-up more on that too.
I guess, trying to strike the right balance, between what do
we put -- I don't think an anc -- I love my ancs.
I don't think it's an approval process for citing.
that would have me concerned we may never get to a decision.
but at the same time, making sure you, neighbors, others, if
you are seeing something that is not correct, that there is a
clear outlet for that. Maybe we can follow up after to
big deeper in that. And mr. Rogers, I appreciate
your testimony. I take it as a compliment.
briefly, are there any specific weaknesses in the legislation
that you think need though be addressed or other things that
are highlighted throughout the day that you need to make sure
they can continuing to get attention?
>> well, thank you, mr. Chairman.
I do think that it is certainly an example of an excellent bill.
the fact is the bill -- say more, say more.
>> what's that? >> you are giving me a
compliment. I was saying, say more.
well, the fact of the matter is that back in 2016, 2017, I was
in a think tank that wrote some of the first recommendations on
the local and state and federal level.
and a lot of the things were given nine, ten years ago that
legislature picked up and put in a package.
looking at worker transition fund, and acknowledging the fact
of the matter is, it's going to take a long time for there to be
any displacement from the technology.
these things happen over the course of many, many, many years
when you look at scales of a fleet.
and more broadly, just looking, what is the future of urbanism
look like? A way that we can imagine when
something is new and better. If autonomous vehicles do make
it to where we can feel safer walking with kids and biking on
streets, you know, cyclists in san francisco and phoenix have
said as much, and that is incredible.
and the recommendations, one key point here is that it's not just
av avs are driven on the roads of
phoenix. Waymo, and other companies are
testing in london, which is a far more complex roadway system
than here, and also in japan and tokyo, and for us to think that
we are more complicated to tokyo.
look, I was a ride share driver here.
it ain't close to tokyo. And recommendations, I am happy
to see it discussed here. Our goals and the policy
mechanisms we use to achieve them conflict, and vehicle
crafts have been discussed on that front in terms how you have
to spread out a smaller fleet across more and more wards.
the sister organization of the innovation majority, the
innovation majority institute, did create an interactive
website, mobility mayor.com, where you can go and test out
this bill against hypothetical directions.
for how changing the fleet size could affect service needs
forward. We modeled it based upon recent
research based on density, and people in a ward, based on just
what we have seen so far in the data of av and ride share
appointments, what I would look like to scale up or down, to see
what the impacts will be. The it's a great way to help you
understand just what fleet caps do, and caps the number of
operators deal to how they deploy avs.
and I can stop there. I will have more thoughts on the
hybrid model as well. >> excellent.
I appreciate that. And happy to follow-up after the
hering as well to keep going, and I think we did see that
website. And the tool you created.
so thanks for helping put that together as well.
>> happy to hear. My pleasure.
>> and dr. Watson, I appreciate your testimony, and I know you
will follow up as we wrestle this with.
so a lot more witnesses. So I want to move to the next
panel as well. Thank you all very much.
next, let me call up zack reinstein who is online.
and david alpert who is also online.
michael petricone, senior vice pept of affairs of consumer
technology association. Jeb ory joining us online.
daift kasten. Anyone else?
we have cathy chase online. All right, let me check to see.
do I have abigail olvera here? Auguste rame?
come on up. Rameez tase?
all right. And hang with me.
I'm going to call a number more names.
corinna lathan here? Lucas pombo?
all right, come on up. Isaac wilkins?
all right, mr. Wilkins. All four chairs are filled now.
excellent. All right.
so we've got a couple folks online on zoom.
we have four people here. Perfect.
so zack reinstein, we will start with you when you're ready.
>> thanks, mr. Chair. I appreciate you holding this
hearing. I just want to say I'm here in
my personal capacity as a d.c. Resident who has used waymo in
phoenix and san francisco. As a trusted tester.
so I have been able to use it on the freeway when it was on the
freeway. My most impressive use of it,
when I was most impressed was in a costco parking lot and it
managed to navigate the hell that is a costco parking lot
very well. And I stopped and was incredibly
sensitive to all the pedestrians and children darting out and
carts. So any way, just incredible
technology. As a capital bike share user, I
find that the drivers in d.c. Are incredibly dangerous.
they are impatient and distracted driving.
I would much rather be dealing with an autonomous vehicle that
I know is programmed to stop at all stop signs and go the speed
limit and not try to run me off the road.
the only issue I ever had with waymos is that -- that they do
pull in bike leans occasionally. I heard from previous panelists
that you have taken that into account and will be ensuring
that waymo does not do that in the district, which I'm a huge,
huge fan of. I do agree with some of the
previous panelist that 200 vehicles is too few.
and I know you said that 1,000 might be too many.
so I think 500, 750 might be a good compromise to start with.
I do understand the time line laid out where you thought that
2028 might be the earliest. But I don't see why we have to
resign ourselves to 18 months from now to get everything taken
care of. I think maybe setting an
optimistic time line for next summer might be doable.
I would also highly encourage the council and staff to ride in
an autonomous vehicle if you haven't to better understand how
they perform on the road. My experience with them is
something but positive, and I look forward to having them in
the district. >> thank you very much.
next, let's turn to david alpert.
david, I think you're still on mute.
>> thank you. Chairperson allen, members of
the committee. My name is david alpert and I
support this bill and have a number of suggestions.
overall, the driblthistrict has opportunity to work with
companies to shape how the company operates in urban areas
such as d.c. They need to balance to ensure
that public policy has an active hand.
in 2019, ddot contracted with sustainable transportation,
which I led at the time to study the impact of avs.
the study concluded that avs are poised to provide benefits to
residents and businesses, including safety.
however, if unmanaged by public policy, avs have the potential
to cause significant harm as well.
increasing the vehicles travelled in the district by 60
to 100%. After all, the down side of a
long trip is far less when nobody has to drive.
if widespread public ownership of avs are fine, people may live
far from the city and endure long commutes since they can
work from the mobile offices all day or send vehicles circling
around in a lunch meeting. The bill today is not about
that, but taxi service brings harms.
so do av food deliveries. Something I want the bill to
address. I recommend the following
additions. First, require all avs to be
fully electric. The ones that are under testing
right now are fully electric. But we should ensure that is a
guarantee as more companies become part of the av
marketplace. Two, prohibit any company from
programming cars to break traffic rules.
you talked about this in the last panel and earlier in the
day. Current avs are law abiding but
also when there is a competitive market with many companies, one
might see an advantage to program vehicles to be
aggressive, to speed, to push through a yellow light or nose
through pedestrians. And tesla vehicles may already
do this. And three, ensure riders with
disabilities. That is discussed earlier.
and four, disclose the hail vehicles.
current law requires trip data to disclose.
av company be required to disclose all that now and in the
future. Five, clarify that may not stop
in crosswalks or bicycle lanes. And the bill right now says not
to stop in a travel lane. It could be miscon trued to say
the opposite, that it can stop in bicycle lanes if people don't
understand that travel lane includes bicycle lane.
allow ddot to prepare the curb sides for avs to prepare pickup
and dropoff zones. They must plan for a world of
rising construction -- congestion.
and shared lanes and congestion charges.
the counsel sill should continue to fund these and other
solutions. Thank you very much.
>> thank you very much. Appreciate that.
next, let me turn to michael petricone.
I may have mispronounced that. Please correct me.
all right. >> chairman allen and members on
of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. Claim allen, I appreciate
thoughtful leadership on the issue and the time and care you
have devolted on the hearing. Sitting through ten hours of
testimony shows commitment to getting to right.
I'm the senior vice president of consumer affairs and cta.
we represent 1200 companies from start yups and leading
innovators including autonomous vehicles.
autonomous vehicles are no long ear future technology.
they are already making roads safe interproviding benefits in
communities across the country. And I would like to associate
myself with a testimony with others I heard this afternoon
regarding the proven safety benefitsle and why the issue
malters. More than 40,000 americans lose
their lives on the roads, including 22 tragedies in d.c.
alone, and the overwhelming are caused by human error.
and autonomous vehicles are saving lives that encourage the
safe and rapid deployment. Av rz viewed as a trajs poration
innovation, they should be recognized as a public health
break through. They have an advance in public
safety since the air bag. Avs are expanding indianapoepen
for seniors and the potential to strengthen the district's
economy, and making it easier for residents, and tourists and
visitors to reach restaurants and hotels.
over the years, d.c. Positioned themselves as a leader, and
being one of the first jurisdictions to employ them to
demonstrate the district welcomes emerging technologies.
I have a strong personnel interest in this, as a
decades-long resident of d.c. My family and I walk, run, bike,
and scooter on the streets every day.
I want the neighborhoods to be as safe as possible, whether
someone is riding a bike, that is why they have technologies
that are reducing crashes and improving the quality of life.
I have used the streets with uber and waymo and my experience
is safe and posty. I also join the other witnesses
who encourage all the stake holders to please ride in an av.
like, when you can. Just so you can see what the
experience is line like. I think I will be education
alabama. And d.c. Has an opportunity to
be one of the leading communities.
we appreciate the council leadership in developing the
regulatory frame work. We support the objective for the
safety in the district. As drafted, however, this bill,
there are several provisions to make deployment more difficult
than in other leading jurisdictions and we believe the
bill can achieve the safety goals.
enencourage the committee to make targeted changes and
recognize the extensive testing that companies have accumulated
in other states. Keep costs low, and provide
clear liability standards. We urge you to support the full
range of autonomous applications including goods delivery and
autonomous trucking. The council showed the business
model agnostic and ensure they meet the bill standard, and have
the flexibility to deployment, and some business models, some
prefer direct, and others prefer hybrid.
a huge transportation break through will benefit all d.c.
residents. The district has an opportunity
to british one of the leading frame works for avs.
throughout the history, the district is a leidner inknow
investigation, and in has an opportunity to demonstrate that
leadership. Thank you for your leadership
and I look forward to making avs in d.c. A reality.
>> great. Thank you very much.
jeff ory is joining us own line. >> thank you very much, chairman
allen and members of the committee.
my name is jeb ory and I'm a resident of ward 6, and a parent
of two children, and I have been in the district for nearly 15
years. I want to commend you, chairman,
for bringing this bill up to the committee for this discussion,
because I think it's critically important.
and I think echoing some points we heard before, from michael,
we're always outside walk, biking, running, driving, and to
have that -- to have the opportunity to do that in a
safer way is something that I think everyone can embrace.
and autonomous vehicles have clearly demonstrated they are
much safer than vehicles that you or I drive.
waymo's data, respently published data, 94% fewer
crashes can fewer injuries. And 84% fewer cyclist injuries,
and hugely beneficial to our society.
but perhaps most importantly, what bringing in autonomous
vehicles in d.c. Would do was change how people think of d.c.
michael mentioned that we would be one of the leaders on the
east coast by embracing this, and I think that is something we
should very much lean into. There is an opportunity for d.c.
to be a light house for technology on the east coast,
and this is exactly how we do that.
I think this is an especially critical because we need to
offset so much of the federal job leoss that happened over th
last year with doge and things like that.
so there an opportunity to transform how people think about
d.c. I first took a waymo two years
ago in phoenix with my family. We stepped out of the airport.
and it was like walking to the future.
but that was two years ago, so it was an opportunity for us to
level up and meet the opportunity today.
there are a few things I think other people
-- there are ways to make this bill even more effective.
one, reducing taxes, the per mile tax and existing fees to
make rides 30% more expensive before a trip even starts, that
is one thing to put more money into people's pockets.
the second, lifting the vehicle cap.
200 seems to be an arbitrary or -- arbitrarily low number.
500 or 750. And the timing.
could we do this sooner than january 2028?
what do we need to spend that time for?
can we move more quickly to bring this technology and the
effect it will have into d.c. Much sooner?
thank you. Chair allen: thank you.
next we have cathy chase who I think is joining us online.
ms. Chase: I am. Its not letting my video --
there, perfect. Just checking, the timer says
three minutes. Do I get five?
chair allen: you do, we will adjust that here.
ms. Chase: thank you so much per good afternoon chair allen, and
members of the council paradigm kathy chase, president of
advocates for highway and auto safety headquartered in d.c.,
with the law enforcement, safety groups and insurance companies
and agents working to advance policy, laws and regulations to
prevent crashes, save lives, curb injuries and reduce
associated costs. Thank you for holding today's
hearing and the opportunity to testify on bill 26-0684, the
autonomous vehicle deployment authorization act of 2026.
I would like to say at the outset advocates is not for or
against the deployment of autonomous vehicles or av's.
our focus is on ensuring they are safe for all route users and
deliver on promised benefits including accessibility, equity,
preserving worker rights and ensuring sustainable
transportation among others. Currently av safety performance
on reliably are largely unknown to the public.
our main data sources arentsa's standing general order and the
media. According to data collected by
the sgo, there been 2574 crashes involving automated driving
systems oravs and396 with advanced driver assistance
systems through may 15, 20 26 these include if t9 crashes
resulting in an to -- in a fatality.
some are under investigation. From media sources we know ads
have caused crashes and consternation and of driven into
work zones, emergency responders and active police scenes and
over the july 4 holidayan ad drove into live fireworks with a
passenger on board and one caught on fire after driving
into fireworks and another caused massive congestion by
blocking a key parking area. Leaders have raised serious
safety concerns and this was done during a planned holiday
event. The district has numerous
similar planned events as well as many unique to the area such
as parades and protests resulting in road closures.
other cities have experienced av's illegally passing blocked
school buses and blocking ambulances responding to a mass
shooting. Last weekntsa issued a call to
action with numerous instances of av's that blocked of the
paths of ambulances and firefighters were failed to
respond to basic safety conditions like flashing lights,
flares, smoke, fire and traffic cones.
the letter noted quote an av that cannot safely interact with
first responders is a danger to the general public, unquote.
we agree. The collection of data is
essential to make informed policy decisions.
we cannot rely on claims by the av industry their vehicles will
be safed or than humans. Trust but verify.
av proponents claim they are safer because they don't get
tired, distracted or drive impaired.
while that may be true, there may be other types of. Crashes
that otherwise sober and alert and engaged drivers would avoid
av's, billion-dollar pieces of equipment with years of
research, should be compared to the best drivers, not the worst
or average drivers. In addition to comprehensive
data collection, and policy to safeguard operations, which must
include setting minimum safety standards, has not been set.
this inaction underscores the vital role of states, cities in
the district and taking action to protect road users and
informs our policy position against preemption on localities
poised to do so especially in the absence of robust federal
standards. With regards to bill 26-0684 we
submitted a letter with recommendations to improve the
level of safety including ddot should determine an appropriate
threshold for assessing ac risks, testing should be done in
an appropriate sampling of conditions and crash and
incident reporting and transparency should be approved.
any permit for driverless operation should be predicated
on safe operation during the testing phase that requires a
human operator. Similarly authorization for
commercial operations should be predicated on safe operations
were driverless testing. And, providing more information
regarding remote personnel and what safety deficiencies they
are addressing along with restrictions on the number of
vehicles an individual is managing and limits hours of
sources. Absent these protections we risk
the safety of road users and their acceptance of what av's
may be able to accomplish. In closing, advancing safety and
technological innovation must be compatible goals and not
trade-offs. Thank you.
chair allen: thank you next may turn to auguste rame.
>> I aim a resident and transitrider.
I work with metro dcpa. D.c. Voters made it clear in the
primaries they believe in the ability to build a better city.
this bill could not stray further from those beliefs.
it hands billion-dollar companies including lyft and ube
r -- to further underpay them and opens the door for av's to
replace drivers. A labor impact study has yet to
be traveled. It is insufficient.
what will thousands of workers who have so much to lose who
will lose their livelihoods say about this bill?
on equity it would let waymo serve only the wealthiest while
leaving behind those who have been ignored or punished.
councilmember allen, I'm glad to see the equity provision in your
bill, but how are these prohibitively expensive waymo
worth it for residents who have been underserved by transit for
decades by racist urban highways and suffer from violence,
insufficient transit coverage? How will it serve wheelchair
users who after years of advocacy don't have adequate
service? People in the city deserve so
much more than an unattainable price tag on freedom of
movement. You were here when uber first
came to the city. Any benefits will be for the few
and not the many. The impact of mass drop-offs
will be disastrous. More cars has never been the
solution. These driverless cars are
inaccessible and unaffordable and harm the region.
I urge this committee to work on condition pricing, to make buses
fast, frequent and free, and are working system for the working
class. If this committee feels it must
pass this legislation I urge it to work closely with advocates
and unions, policymakers, legislators, works and
operations. We deserve way more than waymo.
thank you. Chair allen: thank you very
much. Next I have lucas pombo.
>> hello. Good afternoon, chairman allen
and committee members, I'm lucas pombo, research fellow at a
think tank where I work on transportation policy, though
I'm testifying here in my personal capacity.
thank you for the opportunity to testify on this bill, the
autonomous vehicle deployment authorization act of 2026.
I will be submitting more detailed written testimony but
today I want to focus on the timeline of commercial av
permits. It I support the passage of this
bill but with changes. In 2020, the autonomous vehicle
testing program require ddot to submit a report on how to safely
deploy autonomous vehicles by october 2022, and to create a
testing framework and permitting process for autonomous vehicle
testing the district. For reasons still unclear ddot
submitted a report which included a report of testing
conditions in other places, but did not meet the required
recommendations and submitted that in april this year, almost
four years late. The av testing process and
permits didn't happen which is why they are in this one and I
would like to further add the proposed bill, this bill,
administrator bodies may need motivation to respond in timely
faction -- fashion to requirements.
the proposed bill states in the proposed amendment online 399,
if the office of an ministry to hearings fails to hold a hearing
within 90 days of a ddot determination, the appeal is
successful, enforcement action is automatically reversed.
it also requires ddot to extend testing permits if an applicant
rep -- has not received response in a timely fashion on line 174.
those mirror permitting best practices at federal and state
levels. In california the permit
streamlining act requires anybody issuing a development
permit to deem a permit complete or name deficiencies within 30
days. An department is deemed approved
after 60 or 180 days depending on the size of the permit if not
approved or denied. The federal communications
commission requires clocks with wireless providers able to take
governments to court if they failed to respond or denied new
wireless structures and reasonable amount of time.
62 -- 60 to 150 days. Ddot has a record that has -- I
asked this council to treat the creation of the permit process
the same way it treats the handling permits themselves.
if the district makes -- fails to make available a testing
permit then those activities should be presumed lawful
subject to all other statutory requirements of safety and
insurance and testing already written into -- written.
thank you for your time and I welcome questions or follow-ups.
chair allen: thank you. Isaac wilkins.
good afternoon-evening. >> I was under the impression I
had a little more time so I will try to get through this quickly.
good afternoon, chairperson alen and members of the committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify and willingness for the
committee to address this issue. My name is isaac wilkins, I,gig
economy driver and I have worked in the gig economy over six
years competing over 6000 rides. Across the district in many
regions in the country. My testimony is not about
whether autonomous vehicles should exist, but how government
-- government should govern technological transitions.
innovation can improve transportation.
my question is if the district has given the same level of
consideration to the people who will experience this
technological transition as it has to the technology itself.
first I remain concerned about safety.
while legislation contains significant provisions,
autonomous vehicles have experienced well publicized
incidents with emergency vehicle obstructions.
how will they respond when blocking an ambulance, or
officers responding to an emergency?
how will they safely navigate the unique traffic patterns,
pedestrian activity, construction zones and roadway
conditions that make d.c. Unlike any other city?
these are questions that deserve attention as commercial
deployment is considered. My second and biggest concern,
according to the data, approximately 35,000 gig workers
have received income from app-based platforms, $1.1
billion in economic activity. Despite this significant
contribution to the workforce fund, it is surprisingly
underdeveloped. The bill outlines broad goals
for workforce development like vocational planning and training
but few details regarding how workers will be supported.
more concerning, legislation directs ddot to publish a
support -- a report 180 days after commercial av deployment
begins. Workers should not have to wait
six months for the government to begin evaluating workforce
impacts. The question is not how we
respond to workforce displacement once it occurs.
how do we ensure workforce considerations are implemented
into the policy before deployment begins?
that question becomes more important when examining the
structure of the legislation, which establishes approximately
$30 million in application and permit fees with the district's
current five purchase bidding av operators with a reoccurring
$.15 vmt tax. My point is not the revenue,
rather the legislation carefully defines how revenue will be
generated while providing few implementation details regarding
how workforce development funds will support workers affected by
the transition. One question I continue to think
about is how the committee evaluated experiences of other
jurisdictions when developing this.
new york city oversees one of the largest for-hire
transportation systems, yet has taken a more cautious approach
to commercial av deployment. What lessons did the committee
draw from jurisdictions like new york city in determining the
district is prepared to move forward?
four quick questions. Did ddot conduct a work impact
analysis? How many at risk workers will be
affected? What workers or represented --
were workers representatives consulted?
how did the drive for-hire vehicle shape workforce
provisions of the bill? My recommendations are three.
first establish a permanent autonomous vehicle workforce
advisory task force composed of workforce drivers, av operators,
stakeholders. Second require ddot to have a
comprehensive workforce assessment and transition plan
before large-scale deployment, and third, dedicate a defined
percentage of workforce development fund revenues to
support current and future at risk workers through transition
assistance and worker specific benefits including paid sick
leave, minimum wage earning standards and other protections.
in closing I believe av's have a place in the future of
transportation, however the success of this legislation
should not be measured solely by whether av's operate safely or
efficiently. It should also be measured by
whether the district governs this transition in a way that
intentionally considers the people affected by it.
the district demonstrated it knows how to prepare technology
for deployment. The question is whether our
policymaking process gives equal consideration to the people
whose lives and livelihoods will be shaped by that transition.
innovation and worker rejection should advance together, not on
separate timelines. Thank you and I welcome
questions. Chair allen: thanks everybody
for your testimony. I might work backwards, think
you for your testimony. The introduced version of the
legislation, you rightly point out the workforce fund is broad,
intentionally so, actually. When we introduced it we wanted
to say, there is a fund. The actual implementation
details are the goal of holding a hearing is to get feedback.
those are the types of things we look for.
so I take your point but also want to say the limited -- the
limits are to be broad and get feedback from a lot of folks.
ddot legislation requiresddot and the department of for-hire
vehicles and others to come up with reports and recommendations
to help inform that. You are correct it is a little
open. That was a little intentional so
we can get feedback like yours and others to fill that out, so
when we move a committee print forward later, hopefully it will
reflect more details. So your recommendations are very
welcome at this stage. I will give you a chance if you
wanted to respond. Mr. Wilkins: I work in policy as
well. A little different.
I understand being broad because there are particulars to work
out. However, I think that the
district has not developed the infrastructure in regards to
regulations yet to be able to make this introduction to have
av's on the commercial side of things.
when we are talk about displacing 35,000 drivers with
such vague language around what a workforce fund -- if the
estimates are right you say $30 million the program is set to
have for the five different av operators we should have more
specifics around or I would hope to have more specifics around
what the fund will be dealing with because it is displacing a
lot of drivers. I think and I guess a follow-up
question would be, this -- would this be regulation?
if there was no workforce impact analysis done before the set
date for deployment what is the confidence residents should have
around this being a smooth transition?
chair allen: one recommendation from an earlier panel was the
workplace impact report we have in the bill should be pegged to
a date prior to permits being issued.
we are taking that to look at the order of things.
the intention was to have that, to bring in different
stakeholders to have a voice in shaping what that would look
like. They could come in prescriptive
language, regulations, different agencies.
it is a mix and that is why we hold a hearing to see what
people recommend. Your testimony is well-timed and
valuable. Mr. Wilkins: if I can, I
appreciate that you're taking the time to do that.
expressing a little concerned because there has been -- the
drive for-hire vehicle agency has made advancements in regards
to giving a solution to support the transition.
we now have carry for-hire operators under the jurisdiction
of the drive for-hire vehicle agency.
I think things are moving increasingly fast and not
considering the workers of the core part of this and I
understand the impact report and that is great but I think this
deserves detail like solutions. My question, and I won't belabor
this, I can put it in my comments I send, but when they
say vocational training what does that look like?
what are vocational trainings you have further gig workers
that are 65 and over? Not saying it is not possible
but recognize we are like kids sometimes, so engaged with a new
toy we don't recognize we have other problems to deal with.
I'm not sangamon against av's, but there needs to be a slow,
phased approach to consider the workers.
chair allen: I appreciate that. We had a lot of witnesses tell
me how slow we are moving, and how painful it is and it has to
move faster. Probably means we are about
right in terms of our timing of a bunch of folks tell me a going
too slow and some say too fast. All that is part of the feedback
we are getting. I would welcome your testimony
in writing to so we can add it to the record.
mr. Pombo, appreciate your testimony.
on one hand I like the idea of having that shot clock ticking
down for an agency to take action.
on the other, this is such a big deal, I would not be comfortable
with an idea where, if an agency does not get something done,
they automatically get a permit to operate.
I think the stakes are too high to allow that.
part of my job is oversight to make sure agencies are doing
what they are supposed to do. The spirit of what you are
recommending is keep compelling action but I think the specifics
of allowing a permit to move forward would make me very
uncomfortable. This is such a big deal I can't
just affirmatively let the permit go and start operation if
we don't have these pieces in place.
I will give you a chance to respond.
mr. Pombo: I definitely understand that and in part that
kind of is the philosophy behind shot clock's -- clocks.
you're more likely to do your job in a timely fashion of the
consequences for not doing that is something you don't want.
I understand as it pertains to ddot you would not want the shot
clock to expire and allow av's without the rules you would
want. If you are truly that
uncomfortable with that you would not want to have a shot
clock, I would like to see more guardrails are consequences for
ddot if they fail to do their job.
my concern is, given the last time this committee instructed
ddot to crate a permit, they did not create any permits.
I guess now there is a deadline to create a permit, but I think
any reasonable reading of the previous attempt to require
permits to be created would have been less than six years.
I'm not that consoled by, tell them a little harder to do their
jobs this time. At the end of the day, if there
is a private company doing something, you can find them and
pull their permits but no one can pull the permits for ddot.
I would like more consequences that would be uncomfortable for
this committee or ddot or whoever to make sure we get the
permits we are asking for. Chair allen: I hear you and the
nature of the competing legislative and executive
co-competing branches of government are a constant
struggle, I hear you. Appreciate your testimony.
did you submit it? >> not yet but I will.
chair allen: to kathy chase, somebody has to make a
determination if av's can operate safely in the district
so your recommendation is they need some standard against which
we are measuring safety. We have this conversation
earlier today. What is the measurable,
quantitative thing we are saying this is safer than?
my point is I have a bunch of dangerous drivers on the road
right now and if my goal is to say are you safer than that
driver out there it is a pretty low bar.
if the promise is, these are going to be so safe, do have
thoughts on a requirement for av safety to be quantified in a way
they must exceed safety by 10 times, 100 times?
what is an objective and quantifiable metric you would be
recommending? Ms. Chase: it is a good question
and a difficult one to answer or it would have been answered
already. Chair allen: correct.
ms. Chase: our recommendation is for ddot to take the data of
crashes happening in the district and take away the
impaired, the distracted, the speeding crashes.
how does that driver perform and then it should exceed that
because at a minimum, autonomous vehicle companies are saying
their drivers don't drive while doing things humans do.
if the companies are claiming they are performing 93% better,
that should be a minimum if they are already doing that now.
chair allen: part of what we wrestle with is, what do we
specifically outline in legislation versus what do we
say to an agency that is supposed to have the expertise.
on the flipside, I don't think it is overly prescriptive at all
to say, you can allow autonomous vehicles to exceed the speed
limit. You cannot allow autonomous
vehicles to park in a bike lane or run through a crosswalk or a
stop sign. We can be prescriptive in some
of the ways, but I will have to work on this over the next
couple weeks and months around discretion between allowing an
agency to set regulations and how we define the safety.
ms. Chase: I agree with you and appreciate how thoughtful your
being, and listening to the input today.
we are more than glad to continue to work with you and
your staff in furtherance of our shared goal of making these as
safe as possible. Chair allen: thank you.
mr. Ory, thank you for your testimony.
some of your recommendations were consistent with what we
heard from a few people over the day.
especially when it comes to what should an initial fleet size be.
I think there has been a good conversation around, are we able
to achieve our overall policy goals with a fleet cap of 200 or
should that go up? There is a compelling argument
that 200 might mean you can't reach especially equitable
response times. Geographically across the entire
city with a fleet would we will take a look at that one.
I'm not convinced the vehicle miles tax will somehow be cost
prohibitive for entrance to the market place.
I think we have big companies that are pretty major
international corporations that want to see them operate in the
district. I'm not as compelled on that but
the fleet cap makes sense and the other pieces.
we are talking about amazon, tesla and google.
these are not tiny companies. Mr. Ory: fair, but everyone else
is riding, so those prices will get passed on.
I do think finding the right mix of price that would make it
possible for people to ride across the district is very
important. Your points about equity are
great. Av's can create opportunities
for people to tail these cars across the district in areas
that have been challenging to get, ubers, lyft, what not.
I think finding the right mix is important.
chair allen: david alpert, you had specific recommendations.
is your testimony already submitted?
I think we accidentally moved you into a different side.
will get you back. Mr. Petricone, thank you for
your testimony. You mentioned freight.
I am not prepared in this legislation to move toward
autonomous freight delivery. We are talking about ups and
fedex trucks, 18 wheelers. I don't think there has been any
testing of that in the district so I'm not comfortable with that
element paradigm more focused on the passenger vehicles thus far
but I take your point that you are looking at the bigger
picture. I think the introduced version
of the bill did not specify that so I think it is reasonable.
it is one of the areas we have to clean up and clarify because
I'm not prepared for freight. >> [indiscernible]
>> I know it is a process, a step-by-step process.
the goal come everybody's goal, is to realize the full economic
and public benefits of autonomous vehicle technology
and that includes all of the applications.
chair allen: possibly. I might not be there on all
applications. Mr. Alpert, sorry, we
excellently moved you. I've got you back.
you laid out a series of specific recommendations, I
appreciate it. Have you submitted your
testimony yet in writing? Mr. Alpert: yes, and I can
include graphs and more specifics on the submitted
testimony page. Chair allen: thank you.
I love graphs, appreciate it. I think the accessibility, you
highlighted that, is important. We had a good conversation with
several panels. I don't pretend that have -- to
have the exact solution yet so I think it is important.
>> tier earlier question about the freight, I was not
testifying about freight, but I did mention that in the past,
years ago people were talking about having the ability for an
autonomous pizza van to pull up. May be you punch in a code and
open it up. It seems no one is trying to
launch that now, but perhaps the legislation could speak to --
that is not yet legalized. 5, 10 years ago they were
talking about it. Chair allen: mr. Weinstein --
reinstein, thank you for testimony as well.
your comments echoed those of many today.
mr. Reinstein: yes, on the fleet size and bike lanes, as well as
trying to bring the timeline forward if possible.
you were pessimistic on that, but I like to be optimistic.
chair allen: I'm an optimistic guy, too.
my point was more realistic around the timeline from the
legislative calendar. Even if this council in the fall
votes to approve this, we go through two readings, have to
have the mayor sign it. For d.c. Laws, congress likes to
congress and does not meet often.
the congressional review period would take us into the spring if
not late spring before would become actual implemented law
which means your down to 8, 9 months for ddot and others to do
all the pieces. The january 1, 2028 is somewhat
of a realistic timeframe, as well as to provide certainty for
people because if anything, the last couple years around this
issue have been defined by uncertainty.
we will take a look at that. Your testimony echoes what we
have heard from a couple folks. So we will look at that.
mr. Reinstein: I would also like to echo one of the previous
panelist who said ddot was directed to give out some of
these permits by the executive branch and they didn't do that.
I don't know if there's a stronger way to compel them to.
I would really hate to see ddot sit on this again.
chair allen: thank you very much.
thank you everybody for your testimony today and appreciate
your time. Thank you.
let me turn to our next panel. I've got phillip wilcox.
amanda wilson. Cesar toledo, I think is joining
us online. Jennifer cooper.
john morris. Sol eure-raker.
nyah wilson. Brandon wu.
michael ludgardo. I think he is online.
jason odom. Dish a paris -- da'shai paris.
and heather foote, who I see right there.
ms. Foote, if you want to come up and grab a chair.
mr. Wilcox and then ms. Wilson. Mr. Wilcox we will start with
you when you are ready. Mr. Wilcox: thank you, chair
allen and members of the committee, I appreciate you
taking time to hear our testimonies.
my name is phillip wilcox and I recently wrote and published a
book called the future is autonomous which probably covers
companies in the u.s. And china to develop and deploy autonomous
vehicles. It also deals with the politics
at the local level, the d.c. Bill, laboratories of democracy
and at the federal level and the international space with china
in competition in that regard. Self-promotion aside, we have
heard a lot over the past 10 hours about the safety benefits
of av's. For example, av's, over 40,000
people a year are killed on road accidents in the u.s. And
whether you are for or against this bill we can agree it is
completely unacceptable and av's are never drunk, distracted or
drowsy so they have that benefit , but enough has been spoken
about that. I don't have much to add to
that. I became interested in av's in
2012 after an accident left me with low vision and I quickly
became aware of the lack of accessible, affordable and safe
transportation options for people with low vision in the
blind community as well as others.
we have learned about benefits from those in the blind and low
vision community that av companies have work to do with
people -- for people with vision impairments but I think av's
have the potential to offer people more freedom and
opportunities. For all of their educational,
career or social goals. Av's can also be used in
conjunction with public transit options for people like me who
do not live within walking distance of a metro station.
one example I've seen is from a metro station with an av shuttle
to a local shopping center, so that is one option for them to
connect people to the transit system.
the americans with disabilities act provides the baseline for
accessibility standards in the u.s., however, this is just the
base and not the ceiling. Av's have the potential to raise
the ceiling of what people can accomplish within their lives
with disabilities. Thank you very much and a look
forward to hearing some of your questions.
chair allen: thank you. Amanda wilson?
ms. Wilson: thank you council member allen, and to the
committee for the opportunity to speak.
I'm a resident of ward 4 and come here is a daily d.c.
cyclist to ask the committee for the deployment of autonomous
vehicles on d.c. Streets. Every day I see drivers
speeding, plowing through yellow and red lights with pedestrians
in the crosswalk and turning right on red even if a no right
turn on red sign is posted. Even though this is supposed to
be a citywide rule implemented years ago.
they speed past me within a few inches when d.c. Law requires
three feet passing distance. The other day I saw a driver and
suv speed aggressively pastor cyclist at a close distance
because she was upset the cyclist was using the road.
the angry driver was protected by 4000 pounds of metal.
we cyclists and pedestrians are not.
we are subject to the emotions of drivers who drive angry,
tired, desperate, stressed and even vengeful.
after more than 12 years cycling on d.c. Streets I'm convinced it
is the norm rather than the exception for drivers to push
their limits and break robles, especially if they know they are
not being watched, and there is not enough enforcement, and with
fatal consequences. Autonomous driving technology is
different. After getting familiar with this
technology at work, I learned it can be designed to follow
robles, see road users through 360 degree vision system and
keep a safe distance. It does not drive distracted or
drunk and best of all, does not bring a motion to driving.
I have also witnessed this firsthand driving bikes decides
waymo as it tested in d.c. This technology provides a
methodical and consistent predict ability that makes
cycling feel safer. We must make decisions based on
data. If data shows the promise of
increasing road safety, authorizing this technology
could be your is in the public interest.
as an active multimodal transit system user, I wanted to add, in
addition to being a cyclist I use metro and right healing
services. I would love to have the choice
of occasionally hailing an autonomous ride.
I would continue to use bikeshare and the metro.
now more than ever the dream of vision zero, no more traffic
fatalities, is within reach. Let's see how safe our roads can
be. Please authorize the deployment
of this potentially life-saving road safety technology.
I also support what the other witnesses have said regarding
cyclist safety. Thank you.
chair allen: thank you. Let me turn to cesar toledo, who
is joining us online I believe. Good afternoon.
mr. Toledo: good afternoon. Caesar toledo here.
good evening, I should say, councilmember allen.
I'm a member on the commission on poverty and a ward six
resident, here to express deep appreciation for your leadership
in safely bringing autonomous vehicles to d.c. Nice a bit in
my full testimony for the record and will summarize it as you
have had quite a lot of testimony today.
congrats to you and the team. As a child my relationship with
cars was defined by instability and fear.
that changed an av in 2024. My father was obsessed with
vehicles, which led to an unsustainable debt within our
family. My childhood was marked by the
terrifying reality of riding in vehicles with family members
under the influence. No one especially a child should
have to face the fear of putting their life into the hands of a
driver who should not be behind the wheel.
unfortunately that trauma shook my life.
in 2024, on the deployment for the harris campaign I was
introduced to waymo and became upset with that service.
I really enjoy the safety, the comfort.
I ranked as one of the top 3% riders for waymo nationwide that
year. For someone who grew up
terrified by the unpredictability of human
drivers, riding in a vehicle program to never drive drunk, be
distracted or enraged at drivers was informative.
several organizations represented communities
including mothers against drunk driving recognize the immense
potential of av's to limit human error.
now is the time to bring them to d.c.
for context I don't view this through an abstract lens.
I've biked more than 1500 miles across the district, log more
than 600 ride shares and ridden the former x2 bus for many
years. I have seen the best and worst
of our transit ecosystem. Lastly as you consider this
bill, I encourage d.c. Council to fund a universal initiative
similar to the one l.a. To support low income constituents.
and universal access to all transportation options.
everything from public transit from the city, to being able to
purchase bikes at a local shop, building a transportation
system. Thank you charles allen, for
your leadership. Appreciate your time and for
taking on this effort. Chair allen: thank you very
much. Let's turn to jennifer cooper
who I believe is online. Ms. Cooper: hi.
thank you councilmember allen, and everyone else for having a
very long day. My name is jennifer cooper, a
former resident of parkview where I lived a decade, recent
transplant to baltimore where I work as a nurse.
I'm affiliated with d.c. And baltimore chapters of the safe
streets though today my statements are my own.
I'm a nurse and former community journalist.
I have written about poverty in the u.s.
I know a few things about transportation in this country.
but I'm here today because in november2020 I was hit by an suv
while jogging. I was fortunate that they were
traveling less than 20 miles an hour.
I want to thank everyone for the time and energy they voted --
devoted to determining if av's are safe for our streets.
I want everyone to take a moment to appreciate being human
because our ability to think and move and act on our own is
slowly being taken away. I believe my statement is
important, but also eyes your screen and give them a, shrug
your shoulders, stretch and walk around.
our health is important and should be valued.
I understand the need to get ahead of technology and the
value of regulation. However this proposal falls
short and ignores the elephant in the room which is climate
change. As many stated today, av's will
increase energy production, use precious water supply and
increase the number of vehicles on the road.
further the testing timeline is too short, there is no public
comment nor environmental review and no guarantee of service for
those with disabilities. Those with disabilities often
need door to door service, not curb to curb service.
improved service for people disabilities won't happen
because of av's. It will happen with a commitment
by this council to value their life and contributions.
we found public transit is 70 times safer than private
vehicles. Despite the potential for
increased independence for some with disabilities it is too soon
to release technology onto our busy streets.
anything that increases the number of vehicles on the road
is associated with poor health outcomes.
we need more public transportation, not more private
vehicles. If companies want to release av
's on our streets they should start with shuttles, buses and
vans. According to the national
highway traffic association there were over 39,000 people
killed in crashes in 2024. But that same year there were
41,800, 2000 more, killed as a direct result of vehicle
pollution. When we talk about safety are
urged the council to look at the big picture.
it concerns me that this is viewed as a technology that
exists, so we must accept it. I don't support this bill
without substantial modifications including
environmental review. Once we release this technology
without due diligence it cannot be undone, so I urge you to take
the time necessary and do appreciate the time you are
taking. Thank you.
chair allen: thank you. Next, michael ludgardo who I
believe is also online. There we go.
mr. Ludgardo: good evening chairallen and members of the
committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify regarding bill 26-0684. My name is michael ludgardo.
I serve as the director philanthropy communications at
new futures d.c. Years ago they invested in my
future through a scholarship and advising.
that support helped me earn my college degree and return to the
organization where I now have the privilege of helping other
young adults pursue their educational and career
opportunities. For those unfamiliar with new
futures we are a washington, d.c. Based nonprofit that
invests in young adults with financial need by providing
scholarships, advising, career development, professional
connections, that help students earn degrees, complete
credentials and launch meaningful careers.
today they support 200 individuals and have over 410
alumni. Every individual we serve comes
from a household earning less than 80% of the district's
median income. Many are first-generation
college students balancing school, work and family response
abilities while pursuing opportunities to transform their
futures. While new futures is not a
transportation organization we see every day how transportation
affects mobility. We often say scholarship opens
doors but students also need to walk through the doors.
transportation is one of those critical links between
opportunity and success. Many district scholars live-in
in wards that historically experience disinvestment and
fewer pathways to opportunity. Others traveling to the district
for college or training, internships, advising
appointments, networking events and employment opportunities.
for students, convenient access to transportation, the
challenges not only the financial cost but the time and
opportunity. That gives less time to study,
work, care for family members or purchase a paid in career
building. Sometimes transportation
challenges become the reason they miss an advising
appointment, decline in internship or cannot take
advantage of a professional opportunity.
as the council considers bill 26-0684, we encourage continued
attention to how emerging technologies including
autonomous vehicles can complement existing options and
expand access to education, employment and community
resources. Transportation innovation alone
will not solve every barrier but when implemented thoughtfully,
it can become one tool to expand opportunity.
as someone who's own life changed because others invested
in my potential, I know success is built through many moments.
getting to class, meeting with an advisor, interviewing and
getting a career. When transportation barriers are
reduced, more adults can get to the opportunities that change
lives. Thank you.
chair allen: thank you. Heather foote, who is here in
person. Ms. Foote: I'm heather foote,
from ward 1, testifying in my own capacity.
I'm a public witness, but a member of the pedestrian
advisory council and my transportation options workshops
for older adults in wards seven and eight and spanish speakers
as well as participation in a disability senior group which
has met weekly since the advent of covid and several group
members have testified today. Thank you for tackling this
complex issue, chairman allen. Three issues require close
attention as the council considers legislation, rather
than after its passage. Detection, monitoring and wide
public awareness among all d.c. Residents.
as for detection others have spoken about adequate commercial
company testing and data collection to enable av's to
detect the widest range of movements and features.
detection must include infrastructure design and
traffic enforcement activity. It is vital and emergent av
program not set back the slowly won gains for pedestrian safety.
in my testimony for the record I raise three detection examples.
one is uncontrolled crosswalks, the second, rectangular rapid
flashing beacons,. And thethird is hawk signals
av's must recognize a pedestrian stepping into a crosswalk where
there is no traffic light has right-of-way over moving
vehicles. Te -- the pac has worked with
an npd sergeant. The imperative is all the more
critical for those who need wheelchairs and assisted
devices. As for rectangular rapid
flashing beacons, pedestrian caps to trigger small flashing
yellow lights, vehicles must cede to pedestrians.
ddot installed two such signals on adams and morgan, the second
where one was hit and dragged and killed when she crossed the
road. I'm encouraged to watch how
vehicles learn about and increasingly understand and
respect this pedestrian device in the third example is hock
signals. I think many in the room are
familiar with hock signals --hawk signals.
they have a video featuring a former and forthcoming member.
the second issue is monitoring. I look forward to the department
testimony, they have depth of experience in handling on-demand
vehicle compliance with d.c. Law.
such monitoring experience enables the agency to track and
address illegal behavior and scofflaws.
the key issue raised is, there should be -- whether there
should be a separate set of rules and regulations for av's,
or whether they should be regulated under across-the-board
rules for for-hire vehicles including av's.
under its current director the d fve has thought out those with
disabilities and work to incorporate and address concerns
raised in program planning. The final of my three issues is
public awareness among particular audiences.
I flagged the issue of d.c.'s growing senior population and
the vital need for proactive, audience appropriate handouts
now that leah with the district government is thinking around av
's. Rather than after the fact
downstream when legislation is passed.
the majority of adults I interact with do not track these
hearings nor do many know what the letters av might stand for
-- letters av might stand for. Government accountability to its
electorate includes timely information sharing.
then I go into the federal plane language initiative on how
government communication must be tailored to particular audiences
in ways that are accessible and understandable.
the potentially money mental, the advent of autonomous vehicle
s in the district is only the latest technology driven
transportation innovation to arrive on district roadways.
an important exercise would be to analyze issues and problems
that arose with the advent of tnc's, especially for older
adults and persons with disabilities.
some lessons learned can be found in testimony by other
witnesses in today's hearing. Finally in thinking the
committee for its valuable work in researching, preparing and
organizing this hearing, I want to flagged the welcome testimony
by a fellow pedestrian advisory council member cheryle adams, a
ward six resident who testified in the morning.
chair allen: thank you. Brandon wu has joined us, our
last public witness. Mr. Wu: good evening, council
member allen. I apologize for my tardiness in
being underdressed today. I'm speaking as a ward 1
resident, a transit rider, a capital bikeshare user and as
someone who really wants autonomous vehicles to be
implemented in a manner that is safe for me as a bike rider, and
prioritizes working people and equity in the district.
I'm here speaking on three areas, hoping the bill is
amended in those areas to ensure we have the strongest bill
possible if this were to pass out of committee and go to the
full council. On safety I would c1
on safety, I would echo the points made by families for safe
streets. Holding autonomous vehicles to
standard second to the aviation industry, such as requiring
autonomous vehicles be 10 times safer than human driven vehicles
on average, eventually scaling up to 100 times safer in all or
almost all operations. I think there should be a pulled
fund for eeev crashes to ensure that any victims of av traffic
five months can afford care. I would cite ephesus's white
paper for more details. Finally, I think the remote
operator should be passing d.c. Drivers tests, including the
d.c. Road skills tests, since current law does not
specifically outline them having to pass that test.
I think that needs to happen before any av's are on the road
without drivers. On the labor piece, I think this
could investigate impacts before rather than after, to
propose computer programs spending by using the av miles
traveled tax for the practice rather than after, and I think
we should be prohibiting entities funded by taxpayer
dollars from putting out reflects -- requests for
proposals to autonomous vehicles to protect union jobs.
on the equity piece, I think the provisions could be strengthened
to ensure we are protecting working-class communities,
especially black working-class communities destroyed by freeway
and other road construction projects, and writers who have
long been denied rideshare service through an accessible
vehicles. I think we should be subsidizing
av service for those who cannot be -- cannot afford it.
we should be mandating that robotaxis accommodate people in
wheelchairs and folks who rely on this for their travel, and
heavily fine permittees for not just on geography
but also on the basis of race, disability, and any other
protected class. I would also echo the multimodal
council's recommendations. Thank you for letting me
testify. I look forward to your
questions. >> thank you all very much.
I want to note several folks on this panel also shared stories
about being struck or injured. I know that is not something
that is always easy to talk about, so I appreciate that
several of you brought that up, share your own personal
experience. I think it is a reminder for all
of us that on our roads in d.c., any one of us is just one step
away from an injury or worse. Those of you who shared that, I
really appreciate that, because that is not easy to share.
when you are the last panel of the day after nine hours, we
have asked many of the questions along the course of the day, so
forgive me if we end up being a little bit brief, but I want to
touch on a couple of things. To brandon wu, you laid out
several recommendations, and I hope that you are submitting
your testimony for the record so you have that, but one thing you
said was the equity components of the legislation could be
stronger, so I was going to ask if you could elaborate more on
that. One of the things we are
attempting in the legislation, because right now, depending on
where you are, if you hail a new burger or lyft, you are going to
get very different wait times for that ride.
if you are in ward 1 or the outer edges of ward 8, you will
probably have a different experience.
with the legislation, we try to craft it in a way where the wait
times have to be equitable across the city so we do not see
any -- an av operator concentrate their vehicles in
one spot. What are other ways we can
decimate the equity? >> that is a fantastic question.
I think one is holding hearings east of the river, places we
have not had, meeting constituents where they are at
and hearing that the concerns with rideshare.
how have the wait times it been impacting you?
and listening to what they want. Some ridweers may just want bus
service every 10 to 15 minutes rather than 30 to 40 minutes.
I think raising the tax to provide a dedicated fund
allotted to achieve the visionary bus network could be a
very great way to ensure we do not use av's as the end-all
be-all. This should be we are expanding
transect access if we are going to legalize av's, but I have
concerns that with other witnesses and with folks you
have opinions on this legislation, they do not want to
pay that tax. I would say listening to
constituents on the ground and hearing what they have to say on
how their transit journeys can be improved is really critical.
it is a great start to work on lowering wait times, but I have
concerns about where we are going to put this parking lot
where all the av's are going to be at.
it's probably not going to be ward three or four, and I think
neighbors next to that parking lot are going to be
disproportionately impacted, so I think talking to those
constituents, holding hearings in their neighborhoods and
reaching out to them directly will be critical.
chair allen: I appreciate you bringing up the vehicle miles
traveled tax, which is intended to do two things.
one is these are electric vehicle fleets, which means
there is no gas tax paid, so we are losing that.
secondly, it is an attempt to help work on congestion.
we had people over the course of the day say it is going to pass
the costs along to low income riders.
I do not accept the perception that these companies are just
going to pass it on. One person said to do a portrait
fee. That will get passed on to the
rider, I guarantee you. But in many cities, a navy ride
is more than an uber or lyft bang ride.
they are going to be competing with other ride services that
are less expensive. I think it is in their interest
to put all these costs on it. I have not been convinced we
need to move away from a vehicle miles traveled tax.
it is a way we manage distance and advising congestion and
riderless travel. Can you talk about the
micro-availability initiative? >> the city of l.a. Has a
universal basic mobility initiatives supporting low
income residents with 150 dollars a month of financial
support through a mobile wallet to be able to access any and all
transportation options they would like to, really providing
that freedom, and universal access, everything from amtrak
cam track to being able to purchase stuff at bike stores,
there has been good research into showcasing some of the
positive impacts. One of the interesting facts is
that folks who actually were on that program, 15% of them
actually use metrobus or rail. Most of the benefits are being
used for everyday bus and transit.
thinking that is a unique model and initiative d.c. Could look
at to replicate using the funds that are being raised through
the bill. Chair allen: got it.
I agree with you. I tried a couple years ago
something called metro for d.c. So every d.c. Resident would
have $100 per month of metro benefit.
I think after january 2, we could come back to that.
but I think that in the same way that this committee worked with
our adult learner transit subsidy program, we increased it
from $70 per month to $100 per month.
it is definitely meaningful to a lot of our adult learners to
have the transportation costs for their education.
I like what you are saying. Let's have more conversations
about it to see what that looks like.
thank you. Ms. Wilson, I appreciate your
testimony. As a cyclist myself, I know
exactly what you are describing when you talk about driver
behavior and the unchecked sense of what happens there.
I think we have had a lot of conversation that over the
course of today, it is going to be important to be clear that
you can't convince me that these vehicles are safer than other
drivers if we don't have built into the language protections
for preventing av's from driving into bike lanes.
that is part of the ecosystem of our transit.
that is something we will definitely be working on.
your testimony was about other risks we have seen from other
humans that are driving aggressively.
I appreciate it. At this point, I don't think I
have any further questions. I appreciate everyone's
testimony. For those of you who have not
yet submitted it to the record, please do that so we can get it
as part of the hearing today. Thank you all very much.
it has been nine straight hours since we have been in this
chair, so we are going to take a brief recess and moved to our
government witnesses next. I'm going to take a five minute
recess to stretch my legs and then we will reconvene.
the time is now 6:40 p.m., which is magically the time our new
director said we would be transitioning to the government
witnesses. He called that 10 hours ago.
we will take a brief recess at 6:40, then we will pick back up
with government witnesses.
>>>> it is now 6:47. We will be reconvening with our
government witnesses. Thank you for being here.
I'm going to read out -- I guess we will go in the order of
people of the list that works, but tell me if you have a plan
otherwise. We have stephanie with the
district department of transportation, john thomas,
jonathan rogers, the director of the department of four higher
vehicles, and peter stephan, interim director, office of
disability rights. Good to see you.
stephanie, are you kicking us off?
>> I am. >> all right.
good evening. >> I will turn it over to you.
good evening. I am the manager of the
innovation branch of the department of transportation.
I am a white woman with brown hair tied back wearing a beige
suit. On behalf of mayor muriel bowser
I am presenting testimony on the autonomous vehicles deployment
authorization amendment act of 2026.
ddot recognizes the highly complex nature of regulating
autonomous vehicles for a visa. Navies have the potential to
reshape urban mobility by optimizing traffic flow,
expanding access to underserved neighborhoods and expanding
mobility options for neighbors with disabilities.
but realizing these potential benefits requires making careful
policy choices. We also acknowledge this new
technology may bring workforce changes as we saw with new
models that upended the traditional taxi industry.
as a these interlocal marketplaces, there will be
trade-offs. New jobs will be created but
existing jobs maywhile this evot come at once, it is important we
consider these impacts now before a these are deployed at
scale. There are many lessons to be
learned from other jurisdictions as we consider the next steps
with a visa. In april, we released an av's
report on how states have regulated this new industry.
that report included recommendations on commercial av
deployment. This will be available later
this summer and will focus on agency roles and
responsibilities, how to enact a stage engaged role for
deployment, and recommendations for using legislation versus
regulations to govern av deployment.
turning to the bill at hand, the legislation would allow av's to
aa primarily for ridesharing in the district 3 multiple ddot
certifications -- a testing permit, a commercial deployment
permit, a right ailing certification, and registration
for personally owned davies -- personally owned av's.
the bill also creates a deployment fund with fees on av
companies. A key lesson learned from other
jurisdictions is the value of a staged and gated approach to av
deployment. The bill has only one stage,
requiring companies to test for 100 a.d. Days and over 250,000
miles before they apply for a permit.
we recommend this be changed from a statutory mandate to a
regulatory authorization so ddot can take into consideration
things like whether the testing miles are driverless, the
locations and circumstances of the testing miles, and what
would disqualify a company for moving to the next phase.
allowing companies to move through the steps without
significant consideration to what each step entails could
result in companies and the impact of district agencies
being unprepared for full-scale districtwide service.
similarly, general accountability provisions should
be included in the legislation with the details flushed out in
regulations. Finds are currently capped at
$1000 per offense, far less than our normal public space finds
that are progressive depending on the severity and whether it
is recurrent. Ddot also recommends the
legislation authorize restricting or geo-fencing 80's
for commercial -- for emergency situations.
the bill's suspension and revocation provisions raise
concerns about whether the district would be able to
effectively pull the permits of unsafe or uncooperative
operators. We are also concerned that the
bill allows personally owned davies to be registered in the
district. Ddot believes these should be
fleet operated rather than personally owned at this stage
of the technology's nascent sea. Non-fleet vehicles would be
difficult to regulate and ensure they are operating safely on our
roadways. And the technology self-driving
capabilities can be oversold to drivers, presenting a vehicle
hazard -- safety hazard for both the vehicle occupants and those
on the roadway. Finally, we see an opportunity
to improve data collection and standardization requirements for
all kinds of for higher services, which director rogers
spoke about at the june 26 round table and will speak about
today. We similarly hope that the fhp
can set their own standards for right hail and carrier services
as this within -- he within the regulatory scope.
thank you for the opportunity to testify.
I am available to answer questions you may have.
>> mr. Thomas, are you testifying separately or just
available for questions? Got it.
mr. Rogers, we will turn to you. >> I am jonathan rogers,
director of the department of for-hire vehicles.
I am a white male, brown hair, wearing a gray suit.
thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective on bill
26. The framework the district
establishes to govern for hire of thomas vehicles will have a
far-reaching impact on how we move in our city.
I'm glad we are here hearing from a range of stakeholders.
strive for safety, accessibility, and affordability
in the services we regulate. That includes for higher
services for passengers and the delivery of goods.
both of these activities are already happening in some
capacity in the district using autonomous technology.
whether these surfaces are operated by a human or are
automated, the actions of our agency will reflect our
commitment to safety, accessibility, and
affordability. This is why the burden to prove
safe, accessible, and affordable operations must be on av
operators. A graduated approach makes sense
for growth and deployment and passengers service in terms of
fleet size, operating on local streets versus highways, or
geographic requirements for service.
all phases of deployment must prioritize equity and
accessibility. Without specific requirements,
operators are likely to begin their service in neighborhoods
and with vehicles that are convenient for them instead of
filling gaps in mobility or adding wheelchair accessible
service to our transportation system.
while we expect many operators to utilize hybrid fleets that
are automated and human driven in the near term, it is
important to recognize and prepare for the adverse impacts
av's will have on transportation providers, such as the
district's taxis, which have demonstrated the most reliable
commitment to accessible service.
we must be honest with the public on the impacts av's will
have on our employment agencies and viability.
undoubtedly new jobs will be created, but av's are not a win
for everyone involved. Some will have reduced wages or
a drastically changed livelihood.
our responsibility to those whose livelihoods we regulate is
to be honest and upfront with them to be honest about the
impacts this industry will have on them.
that's not to mean we don't move forward with davies, but it
means we have honest conversations about the
trade-offs. Lastly, the district department
of transportation remains the expert on transportation
planning and operations, yet today many consequential
activities affecting our transportation network originate
in the for higher space. We permit, regulate, and enforce
them on the street. Court transportation issues such
as traffic congestion, mode shift, competition with public
transit, vehicle miles traveled, and environmental impact are all
already at play among the millions of annual trips right
your companies perform. Commercial autonomous services
have huge potential to affect these elements, just as the
original rideshare companies did when they arrived more than a
decade ago. Dfhv believes strongly in the
value of the conversations that took place last month among the
for hire industry. Many areas of potential reform
were identified and a holistic view of for higher services will
yield the most effective regulatory framework, creating a
silo with another unique set of rules would hinder regulation
and enforcement, burden operators, and slow mobility
benefits to the public. Rather than further fragment the
rules and regulations governing for higher service, there are
opportunities to align requirements, consolidate roles,
and make modifications were necessary.
thank you for the opportunity to testify.
I am happy to address any questions you may have at this
time. Chair allen: thank you, mr. Vice
director. Mr. Stephan.
>> good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to
share otr's perspective on the bill, the autonomous vehicle
deployment authorization amendment act of 2026.
I should add I am a middle aged white person with long curly
brown hair, dark suit, and yellow tie.
oh vr accepts the district's goal and recognizes this as an
opportunity to transform right hailing and mobility.
however, the bill as introduced does not ensure accessibility of
vehicles, rider and bystander safety alerts, or boarding.
it only addresses app accessibility.
these shortcomings must be addressed to ensure compliance
with the americans with disabilities act, the d.c. Human
rights act, and related disability rights laws.
otr recommends and plummeting communication requirements into
the permit framework at the outset, placing the department
of for hire vehicles in charge of creating a holistic set of
regulations pursuant to the bill to align requirements across all
for-hire services. Companies outsource accessible
rider requests to a small fleet of wheelchair accessible taxis
they made their operating or staff, so this regularly leaves
disabled riders with excessive wait times and lack of reliable
service, particularly after hours.
av's should not reproduce these inequities.
we have several recommendations to improve the bill.
first, require commercially deployed av's to provide the
same service standards for wheelchair riders and be
prepared for independent use for those with sensory or cognitive
disabilities. These may not be driverless at
first, but companies cannot just continue to rely on limited
taxicab based fleets. Concrete vehicle accessibility
requirements and timelines for av's to expand their fleet
provide the opportunity to add more vehicles to the for hire
industry. Av companies should report
regularly on rides requested, rights fulfilled, and wait times
for passengers with disabilities along with the date and time to
ensure equitable service. Second, require pedestrian and
passenger safety alerts. Vehicles must detect and
communicate externally with pedestrians who are blind and
low vision, deaf and hard of hearing, wheelchair riders,
people using service candles or mobility devices, and
they must provide multimodal inputs and alerts that indicate
arrival, movement, and pending departure.
the district department of transportation's recent av
policy research underscores the importance of accessible
operations and safety oversight. Third, acquiring reporting from
av companies on their testing with people with disabilities.
as part of the permit renewal and renewal processes to ensure
safety. Prior to deployment, av
companies must work at the district government -- with the
district government, but also the the multimodal service
advisory committee, other committees like that backpack
and the mayor's commission on disabilities to identify their
pickup and drop-off zones should be established.
these accessible locations help many different users with
disabilities so that people who are blind may know where they
are picked up and dropped off. These can also prevent lane
blocking. We recognize questions may be
raised about cost. Ada puts these on the businesses
as a cost of doing business. Accessibility is not cost
prohibitive when designed from the outset and phased in.
av's can and should expand independence for visitors and
residents who do not or choose not to drive.
it will increase opportunities by providing equitable access
across all the wards. Those outcomes will not
materialize if accessibility is left to chance.
it never has in the past. Odr respectfully urges the
committee to amend the bill so accessibility is guaranteed at
av's at the curb and throughout operations from day one.
we stand ready to ensure that district leads the nation in
transportation accessibility. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify. I am happy to address any
questions you may have. Chair allen: thank you all very
much. Throughout the day, we have
heard different witnesses -- I know you and your teams have
been paying attention to the testimony.
folks kind of would say d.c. Did not get it right with a burger
and lyft coming in, disrupting the marketplace, and really
learned our lessons from it. What with the executives want to
do differently if we view this as an opportunity to be
deliberate, to be intentional, to take a lot of actions before
something actually goes into effect?
what are some of the main criteria -- maybe this is for
ms. Dach and director rogers, but anybody please feel free to
jump in, but what are the main things you would want to say
looking back on that, here is how we would do this part of the
conversation differently? >> I can start.
it is not just a rival of the tmc's we are looking back on.
we are looking at our learnings from the arrival of car share,
whether it is point based or fixed based, how to be align the
curve to the use of that, how do we set up the structures.
we have also had the arrival of scooter and doc-based bikes.
we are also dealing with personnel delivery devices.
we have a whole range of technologies and emerging
options that have come into our space, and each of them has
brought us different lessons. Thinking through, in this case,
we have some of the unique opportunity that we see this one
coming and can prepare for it, but we also recognize the
dangers of this one are much higher.
something goes wrong when there is no human in the car to help
take over and there are problems with trying to rearrange things.
we recognize that once something moves to deployment, it is much
harder to pull back. That is something we have
learned from all of the modes. Once they are here, we have to
deal with them as they are. I will also say that every one
of those has gone through an iteration of regulation and
oversight in that process. So recognizing that this field
in particular is changing quite rapidly and we need to maintain
as much flexibility as possible as one of the key items we are
interested in, in taking from those past learnings and
figuring out how we set ourselves up to iterate
effectively so we can keep the pace without necessarily having
to come back. The second one would be not
missing out on asking for the data now.
with uber and lyft, we did not get the data.
that got negotiated. We have some dates are coming
in, but as we will talk about, it does not quite -- it does not
fit the need in full. There is a lack of specificity
that relate to the curbside management.
we do not know much about the workforce involved, and all of
these things could be fixed, but once the regime was set up, it
was very hard to change it. Essentially, start by asking for
a lot and pare down from there, but also maintain flex ability
as much as possible within the agencies, where we can pivot and
adjust within the authorization we received from counsel.
>> to add onto that, we do have the opportunity now to set a
high bar for what we require. I think that was a common theme
we heard from all sides of the conversation today that we
really want to ensure and we have the opportunity that there
can be a true benefit to what av passenger service would look
like. So why not require those things
that we really want to see? It is easy for me to think about
the comparison to what we do require with our public vehicles
for hire when it comes to public transportation, taxi side, and a
lot of conversations we had in the public works committee, and
it is such a stark contrast to what is required today on the
private rideshare side. I think it is something we
should not repeat. We can really set a high bar and
just make sure we are getting the benefit.
we heard a lot about the potential safety benefits and
equity benefits and mobility benefits, but those all did not
come to fruition with what we have seen the past decade with
the rideshare companies. My biggest target is to require
but I think we collectively are optimistic about for av
passenger chair allen: service. Chair allen: the data elements
echo -- we heard several businesses talk about it today.
you are right. In that regard, being clear
about what data do our agencies need, and we heard how ddot
helps agencies with their service planning when it comes
in. Mr. Thomas, did you have
anything you wanted to add? >> no, I would just add the
whole gated approach in keeping with working your way through
the testing phase and deployment and eventually going back to
testing when you have a change and going back to deployment and
having the flexibility to work between those two where we are
not just stop, we have the ability to slide back, test,
fixed, then go back. >> I would add, like I said
earlier, it should be a requirement that these companies
establish and accessible -- a wheelchair accessible fleet at
the outset. We saw what happened when that
was not required. Chair allen: you had that really
well. Thank you.
let me ask a couple of quick questions.
this will be a little bit of just current landscape.
how many aav operators, companies are currently
operating/testing in the district?
>> we have two current testing entities, way moe and -- waymo
and zoox. Zoox has less than 10.
they do consider that confidential information, so I
suggest that you asked them so I don't get in trouble for telling
you on public record. >> less than 10 feels vague
enough, but it gives us a sense of scale.
>> we also had three entities pass through and give
notification, but they are not actively testing right now.
>> got it. You mentioned that the second
report -- don't know if I'm using the right terminology here
-- is being published at the end of the summer.
the end of the summer could be a three month window.
I am not trying to bang the drum from why isn't it here yet, but
I do believe the quality of work and expertise that is going to
come from that report is incredibly important for us and
our policymaking and decision-making.
I was hopeful we would see it today because I believe the work
product is going to help the committee and the council do a
better job of crafting a final bill.
so if you say to me the end of the summer is labor day in
september, you are going to make it really hard on the council
because you know our schedule. We are in the second year of a
two year counsel period. If legislation is not moving
through by mid-october, it does not stand a chance from a
calendar perspective to get through the process.
what does the end of summer mean?
>> we had some slowdowns, but we also went back and did some
revisions and corrected some things and tightened it up.
end of summer I think is -- end of summer, not july.
as soon as possible, how is that?
but still have some cleanup to do, but we are really close --
we still have some cleanup to do, but we are really close.
we are ready to soon submit it for final approval and review.
>> end of august? I just want to be very upfront,
not just with you guys, but with the public, if it comes in
september to us, it is getting to the point where we are unable
to do much with it. I believe there is expertise
that is going to be in this report.
if there is a draft, I don't have to publish it, but we will
create a better product by having the benefit of that work
product. >> can we get back to you --
>> we are presaging the message on to people who understand the
rest of the flow. >> all right.
friday. Got it.
ok. Does this report take a look at,
for example, our ev charging infrastructure?
I'm curious how much you have been able to take a look at the
impact on our ev charging infrastructure.
every now and then, we get a complaint that sometimes the
operators are using probably accessible av chargers to the
detriment of residents that are trying to use that.
is that a component of what the report is looking at, and if
not, what are the elements you are seeing is part of the ev
infrastructure impacts? >> we are not digging in on the
question of where are the chargers.
we have been in conversation with doe e, who will be
submitting written testimony as well.
we are following this -- it's an evolving space that also has to
do with the regional aspects here, because it is very
possible that given our lack of industrial past, the
availability of the land needed for the scale of charging that
would come with deployment may not be entirely encompassed
within the district. So our understanding as some of
the companies are looking regionally for where they would
put their depots, and maybe smaller facilities here in the
district. I think that depends as well on
what happens in maryland and virginia with their legislation.
a range of impacts are possible, so we have not specifically dug
in on where you should put that, but we think the control of how
that happens aligns well with this idea of using agencies for
where they already are in the processes we have.
between the development review process and zoning, I think
there is opportunities to weigh in and think about what those
facilities might look like within the district.
but without knowing the nature of the types of fleets and the
scale and size of those fleets, it is difficult to answer the
question of what would we want. The report is focused on the
policy levers that you might employ to achieve the outcomes
you want. Lesson to the deep, deep weeds
of how should we get that specific outcome -- less into
the deep, deep weeds of how we should get that specific
outcome, but what do you require versus what should be enabled in
legislation so we can maintain flexibility, and that may come
down to the terms and conditions that apply to a permit rather
than being codified fully in the regulation.
the nuances of data reporting might not fully go into the
regulation. It might come through in the
specific definitions we require in the terms and conditions
because we have more flexibility to respond to changes there with
the broad framework set. We are trying to think about how
we fit this into what we already have so that we are not creating
something new but actually leveraging the structures in
place to support this. >> you probably heard over the
course of the day a number of things where we want to be
prescriptive and we want to legislate, but I also believe
some of what we want to be able to do is enable the agencies to
make regulations, because sometimes it is to my benefit to
be prescriptive, sometimes I actually am tying your hands by
being prescriptive in a way you cannot have that flexibility.
so I want to work with you to make sure we land that in the
right way. We have also talked about the
course of the day what is ddot, how do we navigate this.
ddot primary traffic safety roadway design, curbside
management, agency, when it comes to managing congestion or
parking spaces by those are efforts I want ddot to lead on
it. Similarly, I think that is
probably best positioned, holistically assessed how safely
at autonomous vehicles operate in the district.
also hearing your testimony on the business of regulating for
higher vehicle service, so our customer experience,
accessibility would be where for higher vehicles will take the
primary role. What agency responsibility is
currently delegated to ddot in this legislation?
have you, in your testimony, identified specific pieces that
say this should be in for-hire vehicles or this should be in
ddot? Marcus through the distinction
before you leave. >> I think the general idea,
looking at all use cases for autonomy, it is helpful to have
one central point of view, to your point about assessing
safety, determining operational impacts on roadways, and we
believe that should stay with ddot.
but when it comes to offering the service, that would be
ddot's response ability when it comes to a passenger for hire
services. There might be cases where
something is outside dfhv's oversight.
larger han 10 passengers is under different oversight.
so if some sort of micro-transit service were to come in that had
a 15 passenger vehicle, where does that fit in?
but ddot is not in the business as of -- the business of
overseeing that type of service. Really the autonomy generally
through ddot and the specific use cases with their appropriate
partners, if that makes sense. >> ok.
director rogers? >> I would agree with that.
I don't see our role changing much from what it is today in
terms of what we do on a regular basis to receive applications
for operating authority and review those applications,
monitor the company's performance on a daily basis,
due on the street enforcement, handle complaints from the
public, all those sorts of functions.
they're going to be things unique to the av version of
this, but that same role for her agency in just regulating and
enforcing the passengers service and if the delivery service
becomes autonomous as well. >> ok.
we moved into the conversation around phased deployment,
whatever term we want to use here.
your testimony recommends a more phased approach.
I think you said the legislation looks at one phase.
I feel like we are skipping the fact that we have a testing
phase. In my mind, it actually is
multiple phases to get there. I asked earlier today, for
example, when we were testing, is it just sheer number of
miles? Should it be testing certain
number of miles in each ward? Should there be requirements set
forth of there being a certain number of miles driven in
daylight in sunlight, in rain, in snow, or do we just trust
they say yeah, we have tried every condition?
how prescriptive do you think, just quickly on the testing
phase, are you currently, or do you believe we should be in
saying just because you drove every block in ward 8 does not
mean you actually tested effectively?
wayne mo -- waymo has 25 vehicles.
I guess I have seen all 25 on my own blog.
I don't know if they are coming up and down my block because
they are my block, but I think I have seen at least 25 in the
last month or two. How prescriptive do you believe
you should be in terms of how it looks to adequately test it?
>> I agree that not all miles are the same.
there is a certain amount of, do you have enough time, have you
encountered enough things? I don't have a prescriptive list
in the testing phase that would move someone from driver in
testing to driverless testing. But we are looking to make sure
that the indications are there that there is enough experience
that they can do that. In testing, there was an easier
opportunity than if we do move someone too quickly, we can also
pull them back. That makes them step to
deployment a little bit trickier, because once you get
there, it is trickier to pull them back.
but I think big things we are looking for is exposure to the
dashing of types of streets. It is possible we will see
people coming in and their operational design domain will
not include all roads in the district.
most of the passengers services are not testing on freeways, or
they might be testing, but they are not preparing to deploy on
freeways. We also could imagine a scenario
where someone comes in and says they need to have a centerline
on the road. This came up with the bus that
came through and tested that u.s. Dot helped bring in.
it needed lines. They did not want to drive it
down a road. We would not have sent in 1 --
down one of the local roads anyway.
there could be cases where someone is not able to do all of
that, so we want to see they have explored their plans own or
types of roadways enough and that they have -- their planned
zone or types of roadways enough and that they have encountered
things that will be problematic. If you are thinking about
operating downtown, have you encountered a protest?
they are going to happen. You're going to have to respond
to that. Have you encountered a
motorcade? We are working towards this idea
of enough laundry lists of key edge cases that may not be edge
here in the district but might be someplace else, and really
looking to identify that. I don't think we have a
threshold. It is partial company readiness
and making sure they had the operational infrastructure to
support the move towards that, and some real expectations of
what will happen once you are there, what will constitute not
doing a good job beyond the obvious safety concerns, but
vehicles getting stranded, do you have the infrastructure to
collect the people and the equipment to get your vehicle in
stock in a timely manner, or is he getting stuck in the roadway
and blocking traffic while you try to get a tow truck there?
trying to think about the balance.
some of that burden may become lower in the district, but we do
definitely think there will need to be a step through testing
because we are unique. >> by our count, it is at least
a three step facing. We have the driver in testing,
then we have the driver out testing, then we have the fleet
cap testing before full deployment.
is there additional steps you are recommending, or are you
just kind of looking at the tweaks within those phases?
>> I think we would add one more in the driver out testing.
the regulations we have proposed did recommend -- did allow for
testing with passengers or goods movement after a period of time
so that the first time they try to do the curbside pickup or
drop-off is not a deployment. We would like to have seen
evidence of how they are going to handle that in advance.
whatever use case they are working towards, that we could
see that before they get to full commercial activity, have they,
for a small group of services, not for fares, just for testing,
been able to demonstrate how they would do that so we have
some confidence when they say yes, we are not parking in bike
lanes or we have figured out to do the pickup and drop-off off
for passengers with disabilities, we can get to the
curb so they can unload at the curb ramp.
those are things they have actually shown us.
the other piece is that in deployment -- what you are
getting at with the fleet cap of 200 aligns with what we are
thinking, which is that you do not just completely launch your
service in full with every single vehicle you think you
might need, which is where we heard people asking for 1000
vehicles, like san francisco has.
we can think about how we get there, and I think the bill
envisions that, but if that is the appropriate number, which I
do not think we have a set number anyone is aiming for
right now, but starting with the smaller zone, that maybe the
whole district is ambitious, and that going from 25 vehicles
testing on the streets to 200 vehicles in one fell swoop that
are then trying to cover the whole district could be a lot.
trying to think about could we also set smaller launch in areas
where you start small built with small equity provisions built
into that so they are not just serving downtown but are
actually meeting the needs -- the transportation needs of our
population, and then build up from there so we increase the
fleet, we increase the service areas, but in a more stepwise
fashion so it is not all at once.
>> how many waymos operate in san francisco?
>> basically from san francisco into the south bay.
I think we have heard it is a thousand.
>> we can round, give or take. >> the california public
utilities commission does have the numbers on this.
california is one of the rare states where you do know the
numbers. >> the reason an approximate
number is important, if the intentional legislation with 200
, coming from 25 to 200 is a big step up.
hearing folks say let's have an initial cap of seven hundred 50,
that feels like you're close to the full operation anyway, and
if we believe a phased approach is the right one, that would
argue for something closer to 200.
the exact number, I'm not sure, but it is somewhere in that
ballpark. I do think there is an argument
that holds a little logic, which is if we are trying to have an
entire city wide equity in that delivery time, capping that at
200 will make it very hard to deliver that.
what I am hearing you say, it is more of a thought exercise right
now, is if you keep the 200, you might have to say, all right,
what is a different way that I am trying to measure equity or
have a zone approach so that I can both have enough that I can
achieve that policy goal but not dilute it so much that we have
set a goal that we cannot actually achieve.
am I hearing that correctly? >> yes.
you can put more of them in a smaller zone.
I think this is also an opportunity to make sure that
what they are promising they will be able to do and their
operational plans, so we can observe that without having to
watch the entire district, so that the issues that might arise
become clearer faster so we can kind of nip them in the but if
we are having problems. Where is trying to get to a
point where you have enough coverage for the whole district
does result in a very large starting fleet.
if something goes awry, that's a lot of vehicles to potentially
go awry with. >> ok.
we also heard, as we talked about this phased approach.
we heard folks say we need to go a lot faster than that.
for me, january 1, 20 28, well, it may sound like it is far
away. It is not very far away.
purely from a realistic standpoint of legislation, let's
assume for the sake of argument here a bill gets passed sometime
in the fall. Let's say it passes and the
mayor's signs it. Now we have to go through with
the congressional review. Congress is not in session when
they are off campaigning or before the midterm elections,
nor the holidays, so by the time you get through the
congressional review, it is easily late spring.
the effective date isn't even until the, which means you've
got eight months, may be, to get to january 1, 2020 eight, and
from an implementation agency, that sounds pretty ambitious.
how did you react to hearing testimony about saying got to
move faster than january 1, 2028.
>> we are tracking at the way you are tracking it.
it would be 2028 or maybe the next quarter after that, but
that seems the quickest to be able to do it well at right.
I think that is the key to this. We want to get it right as much
as we can the first time, so rushing is not going to -- and
there is just gaetz we have to get through that we do not
control. >> ok.
I just think it is fair to the companies that are looking to
pilot or invest, as well as the public, we've got to be clear
eyed about what a time frame actually looks like.
>> one thing we have heard quite a bit is having a clear pathway
to deployment is what industry has indicated to us they are
looking for, that even if the time -- as long as they know
what is coming, that gives them more clarity for investing.
I would defer to them as to whether that is still in the
case, but in past conversations, that is what we have been told.
>> I think to be fair to companies, the uncertainty that
has existed for the last couple of years has been the biggest
part for them up, should I even be trying to invest here?
I am sure they always want to timeframe that is faster than we
can provide, but getting a pathway and certainty I do think
is a big deal and allows them to make better decision making what
they want to do. It is our job to say this is the
timeframe we can deliver. >> I would add I think some of
the potential negatives we have talked about today, whether that
is impact on current drivers, thinking through if there is a
limited geographic area that a launch happens, how do we
actually planned to make sure there is an equity benefit and a
transportation benefit, those things take time to plan, those
are not easy problems to solve. It makes the challenge more
difficult. >> safety obviously is supposed
to be a primary consideration here.
how would ddot propose measuring safety?
how would ddot go about assessing or how would you want
to assess, this is what you mean when we say save.
this is how we are determining or measuring against safety?
>> some of the -- we are not in this what format, we are not
comparing the national average of traffic fatalities.
we should be talking about the safety record of the
professional drivers in the for hire industry today.
those of the trips that are either going to be replaced or
augmented by autonomous passenger service.
it is that safety record -- >> you make a good point.
is that a quantifiable, knowable safety metric to measure
against? >> it brings me to the point of
-- millions and millions of trips more than the good data we
do have on the public vehicle for hire side.
we probably couldn't tell you exact vehicle miles traveled for
serious injury. I think it is interesting with
these fleets that will be owned by autonomous vehicle operators,
they actually have a lot more technology but a lot more
insight into when a crash happens so they can meet the bar
much easier than the argument that taxi companies could make
it too but uber and lyft have had for decades is we don't
employ those drivers, we don't own those vehicles, so it is
difficult for them to detect when a crash occurs, but that is
not going to be the case with the autonomous lead.
a really high bar from notification.
>> ok. >> I guess we thought about it
particularly in the testing phase, a big recommendation is
looking for the patterns in the behavior.
right now there are driver in -- there is a test operator in the
vehicle that can take over. We don't actually know the date
of when they are taking over or not, but understanding the
circumstances where there are interventions by the human.
if driverless testing will be the interventions by remote
assistance or the part where the vehicle needed to be rescued.
all of those, we are looking for a pattern of declining
intervention, that the vehicle is able to handle the context
more and more correctly. We also hopefully have a robust
network of automated safety cameras.
as we have had a lot of discussion today, I certainly
would argue that one of these vehicles setting off one of the
speed cameras will be highly problematic.
it is a pretty high bar. You've got a pass to set that
off if the vehicle is not going to go above the speed limit.
red light cameras, there's always a little bit of nuance,
and the vehicles have a tendency to hesitate a little bit more.
maybe there is a case where that gets sent off.
all fodder for conversation. But I think what we are looking
at is how do we use the monitoring systems we already
have in place and the data we will have for them to look for a
pattern of declining intervention such that it is
clear the vehicles are handling things well.
that said, this is also going to be an ongoing monitoring need.
the vehicles go through software updates.
things change around them. Do they have -- do they
understand what is going on with our construction?
have they made a change in the behavior changing?
having said the vehicle may past
this is something that will require ongoing monitoring, much
of the what if you do the driver tracking types of insurance,
like to drive safe and safe, the progressive snapshot -- whatever
the companies call their services.
that is an ongoing monitoring by the insurance company to say how
is your driving behavior doing? I think we have to think about
watching ev's in the same manner because it is the brain that is
in there that continues to evolve.
it is not that you get to be a fully fledged automated driving
system set loose and nothing changes again.
it is also understanding their safety structures and how they
are doing in making sure what they are putting up on the
street, there are verification processes such they can do that.
we need to be keeping some experts on retainer to help us
with advising in this process because there are changes going
on. Going to the conferences with
the manufacturers, it is a very complex process they are doing.
it is not a simple as saying don't break the speed limit.
there's a lot more into it. >> ok.
>> I will just add -- if they also change vehicle type, they
need to go back because that is a new vehicle with different
size and dimensions. There are a lot of factors that
will change. We cannot really collaborate
right up because they have a person behind the wheel.
once you can get out of that, we will understand how they are
doing, right? They say they are at 94%.
>> ok. Let me switch gears to a couple
other items. When it comes to restricting ads
development -- sorry, deployment, the bill requires
autonomous vehicles to register, which I think is what we want
otherwise we don't know that they are there.
does not necessarily permit the operation.
do you have any feedback on the limitations established, looking
at lines 94 through 95? Aviation into certain context.
and if that is overly specific, you can get back to me.
>> we will get back to you. >> ok.
I will break it down this way. Think about level one, level
two. I don't know if you were here
when one of her witnesses talked about -- if not actually level
three, sounded awfully close to operating level 3 three on the
roads in the district, which is not allowed.
what are your thoughts around vehicles equipped at level one
and level two? >> those are not autonomous
vehicles, to be clear. Those are advanced driver
specific systems. >> yes, but there are elements
of autonomous driving in level one and level two, right?
my vehicle right now -- I have a supergroup -- subaru forester.
I have two little eyeballs and it will be pet me if I go across
the alley. It slams on the brakes every now
and then because it thinks it is protecting me.
it is jarring for me but it is automated in terms of what it is
doing, right? I'm using a little bit of the
level 1, level 2 from the automation standpoint.
>> the society of automotive engineers, that standard does
define this. Level zero through -- zero is no
automation. There are automation features,
but those require that the human continue to be engaged, right?
the car slams on the brakes, which you will then override and
say, no, that is just tree branches.
they are very helpful features, they are great to have and we
are definitely facing a period where there are a lot of level
two vehicles that are being sold as level two plus plus, which is
the term that is being referred to.
the authors would remind you there is no two plus plus.
you are either two or three. The key distinction is whether
the driver needs to remain engaged the entire time.
the two's can do a lot. The three should mean you are
able to tune out almost entirely during when the car is doing the
driving. >> is that allowed in d.c. Now?
>> to completely tune up? No.
you need to stay engaged. There was only one company
marketing level three vehicles in the u.s.
mercedes heather drive pilot system in southern california
and over to lowe's vegas -- las vegas.
they are no longer selling that system.
everything being sold to consumers is a level 2 vehicle.
the human needs to pay attention.
the human cannot be impaired. Don't go to sleep, don't look at
your phone, watch what your car is doing.
>> at least right now, the regime we are in and the regime
ddot supports, correct me if I am wrong, level three system
should not be allowed to operate in the district for a private
vehicle? >> yes.
we think it should be fleet operated and in that context,
you will generally see people pushing for level four vehicles.
>> we have some conversation earlier today about remote
operators and about whether or not a remote operator should be
required to take the district driving test.
do you have any thoughts about that?
>> it is an interesting element here.
I would note there is a distinction between a remote
operator and a remote assistant. Almost all of the companies we
are dealing with only have remote assistants, which is that
the person remotely in most cases can drop breadcrumbs for
the vehicle, but when the actual movement of the vehicle occurs,
the automated driving system is still doing the driving,
maintaining situational awareness.
we are not supportive of remote driving.
we want the vehicle -- it is either the vehicle is driving or
the person in the vehicle is driving, not someone watching
through a camera, playing a videogame on our streets.
there are tele-operations companies that sit in that
space, and I think I would be safe saying we don't support the
idea of those coming in. >> do you think the legislation
needs to be specific about that? To be very clear what is a
remote operator, what is remote assistance, so we don't end up
with anyone trying to play games on how they are defining
different criteria? >> potentially.
I don't know the full -- it would be helpful to do a re-skim
of the market as to whether anyone is actually using remote
driving in the ads context. I would generally say that would
be fine. My only recommendation would be
to make sure -- if possible, reference the definitions that
are coming out of sae because they were built up within the
industry and a lot of clarity about what that term means in
the industry standard. >> what are the anticipated
staff needs for reviewing permits related to commercial
operations and monitoring compliance afterwards?
does ddot have all the existing staff you need to be able to
move into this and slacked -- and entire space, map out what
you think this entire staffing needs are?
>> yeah, we currently have stephanie and we have two other
dedicated positions. Obviously, as we learned where
this is going, we would definitely need to increase
that. Scale it on whether they will
have two companies, three companies, 200 vehicles out on
the street, 1000. As that scale builds, we will
need support to manage that. We are thinking about what that
looks like and understanding what the demand would be on us
are part of it and what we would need to do --
>> what does that look like for the department of vehicles?
>> I would say the same. It would be helpful to have a
better indication of the volume of activity we would need to do.
generally speaking, we are not overwhelmed currently with the
application and renewal process for our private for higher
operations. I would expect we would need a
slight increase in a position maybe, but there are not that
many private operators, what we call digital dispatch and
private business. It is not a high number today.
we could probably accommodate a few more applications a year.
>> then, do you have any thoughts or feedback on the
proposed either vmt costs or we also heard testimony about, not
necessarily vehicles miles traveled, but hours travel.
recognizing we are a compact base and may miles is not the
best way to measure that. Do you have any thoughts on
that? >> it is one we would like to
give more thought to. I will obnoxiously note there is
a program, report number 1165 which just came out.
I chaired the panel that produce that report.
it is about revenue related models for new mobility.
I think it is a great framework laid out that we would love to
chat through with you. A key thing is looking through
the objectives of what we are trying to achieve with the fees
we are imposing. I think there are some elements
of the fee that we think could be approached a bit differently.
the vmt has a straight gas tax replacement.
I am not sure the number we've got aligns with that but I don't
think the fee is one we are solely doing for the purposes of
the gas tax. We are using it to achieve other
objectives. Encouraging efficiency, dealing
with congestion. In that sense, it makes it more
administratively complex. As an agency, probably won't
want this perhaps. In terms of achieving the
objectives we all want for the system, I think thinking about
the nuances that can be applied within that.
is it looking differently at when and where the miles are
driven? Who is in the vehicle, what
types of services are being provided, and how do we use the
tools to incentivize the behavior we want as well as
dis-incentivize the negative impacts and negative
externalities? Whether that is some combination
of vehicle hours or miles, thought those were interesting
suggestions. I don't have a direct comment
right now but I think there's a lot to dig through.
>> I think it is another policy area and potential policy lever
that would benefit from being uniform across the for-hire
industry. We talked about that in the
public works committee. Focusing on the negative
externalities, you are trying to discourage.
something like a vmt or a miles or minutes maybe is probably a
better tool to do that than a per trip, whether it is a flat
fee like you pay for a taxi trip or a 6% gross receipt which I
think is probably the least directly tied to the behaviors
you want to change. I think having it uniform across
all these trips is the way to go.
>> all right. I was going to turn to you for a
little bit. We had a large amount of
conversation today around accessibility.
you have highlighted in your own testimony.
earlier today when we asked some of the operators how will you
help make sure you are creating wheelchair accessible vehicles,
one representative said we actually make -- we are working
on a purpose built vehicle. We're a technology company so we
don't actually build the cars and we can't find a way to make
it work. An unsatisfactory answer for
what we need and it's felt very familiar from a few years back.
you mentioned that essentially rideshare companies that don't
provide wheelchair accessible vehicles, they will just
outsource rides and that ends up a worse experience for everyone.
what does it look like just to say you don't have an option if
you want the permit to operate, you have to meet this?
I think you mentioned phasing. Is there a phased approach you
recommend, a best practice or model?
>> I think the northstar on this, you can refer back to the
ada and the d.c. Human rights act.
we are talking about equal service, equitable service
across the board. If you are providing a way time
of one minute for someone without a disability or does not
need a wheelchair accessible vehicle, we want to see
something similar to that for someone who does have a
wheelchair vehicle. I am not suggesting a fleet
size but parity in terms of service.
when we are talking about what is accessible for people.
to your point, yeah, we heard some company said they don't
produce the vehicles but we understand they are the ones
that are still providing this service to district residents
and visitors. I think they need to be held
responsible for acquiring those successful vehicles.
while we have heard previously from other testimony that there
are those autonomous vehicles that are accessible currently,
one company makes them at least, in the meantime, we are not
asking those be deployed immediately.
we can have drivers were operating wheelchair accessible
vehicles. I don't just want to emphasize
those either. We also are asking that these
vehicles be accessible for people who are blind or low
vision, people who are deaf or hard of hearing.
that requires multimodal input and communication devices.
we heard about that as well. I think when we talk about
phased-in approach, we are talking about parity in service,
is my thought. And I would be ok with that.
>> what is our current accessibility requirements?
>> in my opinion, they have barely any.
given what you noted, the bottom line can refer you elsewhere.
that is pretty much what lyft does.
uber is outsourcing it more. I second everything peter said.
it is just as difficult for a taxi company who does not
manufacture its own vehicles or own the vehicles to acquire or
try to make available a wheelchair accessible fleet just
on that particular point. Again, I think it is an area we
can reach higher. It is also another potential
role for a human to play in the near term.
where if you don't have the fully humanless technology to
secure a wheelchair and assist someone in and out of the
vehicle, all the other issues you might encounter, maybe that
is a former ride-share driver's role, something similar to what
they were doing as a gig employee.
so, I don't think it is something we should shy away
from. I do like thinking about the
performance-based metric. Very difficult for us to
quantify it in force. A fleet based metric.
you heard about loopholes that a vehicle could exist but not --
might not be doing much service. We don't measure it that way
anymore. We stepped up our game with a
taxi requirement to make sure she's actually -- it's actually
active. It is hard to measure the demand
and not punish companies for not doing a trip that was never
requested. We do think there are plenty of
people trying to get wheelchair accessible trips for higher and
so we are holding the only group of operators that are required
to do so, we are trying to hold them accountable and help them
through that. I think there are examples in
new york and other places where they are doing exactly what you
heard. They have a performance standard
and it is on par with the average for anyone else.
that is probably a better approach than trying to say you
need 20% of whatever number of vehicles is wheelchair
accessible. >> I want to add this is why
data recording is critical, both in the deployment and before
that when we were testing and permitting.
just to ensure that those wait times are not extremely long
like we've seen with tnc's. We have seen what doesn't work
which is outsourcing that demand to taxi fleets that have to
absorb that demand, which increases the wait times.
>> ok. Director, you mention something
in your testimony, I did not quite hear it or understand it.
I wrote it down. You talked about external
alerts. Can you maybe walk through what
you are describing? Were you saying the
recommendation is that autonomous vehicles need to have
some type of external alert for all rides?
I didn't quite follow. >> sure.
I think this comes from -- you see it already in electric
vehicles where they are operating below 25 -- 24 miles
per hour. They have an artificial sound so
people are aware. Even if they are not seeing the
vehicle, you know that vehicle is approaching.
whereas without that sound, they are virtually silent.
with all the competing noise, it can be sometimes hard to hear
where it is coming from. Things like that could be really
helpful. >> thank you, now I understand.
I was trying to follow and that makes total sense now.
and then, let's see -- let me go back to director rogers for a
moment. Beyond revenue generation, what
are the goals or incentives you think that fees or surcharges
should be trying to accomplish? We talked a lot about congestion
management, curbside management. What are the other goals other
than saying raise revenue? Using that revenue in a way to
achieve a policy goal. >> those are the two big ones.
usually, you think about the impact on the infrastructure,
the wear and tear that all those miles create.
I believe those were the ideas council had in mind when the law
was created. I just think the mechanism with
a flat 6% -- I guess it is not flat, but 6% trip per charge on
the gross receipts are not tied directly to those negative
externalities. If you are trying to reduce
environmental impact, emissions or traffic congestion, encourage
safety even, I think those are the big goals we've talked
about. To the extent that is the right
lever to do that, that is what we should be aiming for.
>> ok. >> I would also add things we
heard today that people are saying.
the late-night service of getting people home or when they
are coming off service work or third shifts.
also thinking about the linkages to transit.
heard some good ideas there but also just trying to imagine how
you might also use the fees as a way to incentivize certain
behaviors. In might be a lower fee in
order to encourage the availability of the system.
I think this is something that we somewhat learned in the car
share an example where we originally set the fees set
mostly to the cost of parking in a parking space for the entire
time they were using the curbside.
in the end, we realized those vehicles are also really
important part of a car free lifestyle.
it is car light. If it enables people to not own
their own personal vehicle ago from two cars to one car,
there's a benefit and the fees should not make it so difficult
for those vehicles to operate at a fleet size that makes it a
reasonable offering in the district.
I think there has been conversations around the
challenges of that and recognition the way that we
structure our fees also needs to reflect what the value of the
service that's being provided. >> ok.
director rogers, we heard the criticism of the initial fleet
capa at 200 in the proposed legislation.
for context, a sense of scope, what are the fleet sizes of our
major taxis in d.c. Or write your company's -- rideshare
companies? >> taxis probably don't give --
they are on the smaller side. We have around 1400 probably
registered taxis in the district that are active.
how often they drive or out on the street is probably a smaller
number daily. We don't have as precise data
from the ubers or lyfts of the world but it is significantly
higher than that. I think in our hearing last
month, I heard in the tens of thousands is sort of a daily
ballpark. >> we don't actually know that.
>> right. For wheelchair accessible trips,
they have to provide more vehicle information.
today, I cannot go through a list of these tag numbers are
all the ubers I know are operating, same for lyft.
I cannot tell -- which I will be double counting if someone
drives for both services. >> it is a really big problem.
the lack of data here is why I have some folks telling me there
are tens of thousands of goobers and -- ubers and lyfts
operating on the street today, or they could be double counting
and that's because we don't have the reporting requirements the
right way. >> it surely fluctuates but we
don't have access to that. >> ok.
some of the witnesses have also talked about does allowing
autonomous vehicles put more cars on the road overall?
we also heard witnesses who said at full deployment, san
francisco for example -- I think we heard witnesses say
essentially that has meant for everyone vehicle, autonomous
vehicle that is out, that is four drivers being impacted and
not making trips. Is that consistent with what
we've seen? Does that number makes sense or
line up at all with what you've seen as part of your review or
you have to wait until the end of the summer to find out?
>> we have to wait to see a bit more.
the review of that is largely already in the research report.
this is coming off of what we've heard from elsewhere but we are
watching the updated stats and data and research coming out of
california. This will essentially be coming
out of california. That is the only place getting
sufficient information to try to get a handle on this.
texas, we now know how many vehicles are deployed statewide
across multiple markets for any one company but it is very hard
without actual data reporting requirements to get anything.
we are really lacking data points on this one, even from
other jurisdictions that have it.
>> if for every autonomous vehicle, four drivers were no
longer driving. From a workforce perspective,
that would be deeply significant obviously and very disruptive
from a work point -- workforce standpoint.
if one autonomous vehicle means for cars removed from the
roadway, thenw autonomous vehicles are not actually adding
more cars to the roadway. We are in the position of trying
to think through what the varied and multifaceted policy goals we
are trying to achieve. That number jumped out to meet
as we are also concerned about adding to congestion.
>> yeah, I think trying to get a handle on what's going to adjust
and also the nature of the behavior that suggested, how
much are we seeing people who do this less than 20 hours a week
as a side activity versus people who do it more fully as their
day in and day out employment. We think more people do it on
the side, but how and when that behavior changes will affect
whether it actually impacts congestion.
I think in the discussions of the hybrid model, we've heard
that the benefit to having both autonomous and human driven
vehicles is that human driven vehicles can help fill the surge
demand in a way that is hard to scale your autonomous fleet.
this is the premise of what we have heard from uber and lyft.
that raises questions about how many trips are you actually
taking off during the peak period if that is when that
event is occurring? Because then we are just scaling
up to meet demand. But we didn't necessarily change
the number and that is when the workforce impacts become more
pronounced. >> ok.
>> I think at the root of all this is the pricing that these
operators choose to use. It may be obvious to me but the
big difference between the public vehicles for hire, the
fare is regulated. The taxis are not charging you
with if the meter is being used. That is a big change with uber
and lyft coming in a decade ago. Their prices were very low at
the beginning, so all these different side effects of that
-- like if that meant more trips where they are stealing trips
from transit. >> they are still a lot lower
than a taxi fare today, right? Kidding.
>> no, sir. Quite the opposite.
>> amazing how that happened. >> when it's busy, the surge
pricing, but taxis are not. We heard companies say they are
aiming for a certain price per mile.
I think if their goal is to be the cheapest transportation
option, they could do that if they want.
or they could ask -- they are asking don't put these fees, and
they will be passed along to the customer.
do you want to be a public vehicle for hire?
do you want to have your fair regulated?
that has a massive impact on employment upper groups --
opportunities, how many trips and how many miles.
>> you can call me skeptical if you want.
I just have a hard time believing a company-owned by a
trillionaire is really focused on the most affordable ride for
that working family in ward 8. There's a lot of money to be
made here. That is what these companies are
thinking about. Our goal is not to think through
solutions that benefit them. It is to think through what of
the policy goals we are trying to achieve, what connects our
residents and puts our city in the most advantageous and
possible, not chasing after something like that.
that is part of what we try to do throughout the day.
a couple more quick questions. It is a little after 8:00 so I
want to wrap this up, too. I lost my train of thought now.
in terms of the how prescriptive versus regulation, from a safety
perspective, did ddot have any, or anyone else, specifically
stating you cannot go above the speed limit?
specifically stating you cannot block a bike lane outside of
some exigent circumstances, like maybe you have to drop someone
off who has a mobility challenge, so there's a
temporary element. But making sure it is not
routine and will be very rare when it takes place.
should we put that into legislation so that it is very
clear and not a maybe we do our best to follow the law?
>> somebody on the policy team could correct me as I try to
remember what's actually in the law.
I know in the testing side, definitely have in the
regulations as proposed that you must follow the traffic laws.
I strongly suspect we picked that up straight from the
legislation. That is just mirroring over from
the code. The expectation would be set
there. I think the question is maybe
what gets put into -- how does that impact your ability to
continue to hold your permit? Does a pattern of noncompliance
lead to revocation? >> if our automated cameras
aren't going to capture speeding until you are over 10 miles per
hour, and if our tesla folks said, yeah, they can go over the
speed limit, just a with the flow of traffic, they still went
over the speed limit. But our tools will necessarily
capture that. Back to our issues around
reporting, very important that we have that system so you have
that type of reporting and enforcement.
otherwise, there are ways you can game the system to go above
the speed limit. I don't think if safety is the
name of the game, we are not supposed to allow that to
happen. Ok.
I think we have exhausted almost every question we can or I'm
exhausted at this point. And it think I missed that you
want to highlight before we wrap up?
>> I just want to stress the data point.
you cannot do a lot of things if we don't get good data.
otherwise, we are kind of guessing.
we need them to give us good data so we can keep them honest.
>> you have effectively talked about that is one of our key
lessons learned as well. If we are not learning some of
those lessons, that is us not figuring out how to do better
each time. >> just that we would be very
happy to continue the conversation and I encourage you
to take a look at our observation zone which we are
getting ready to kick off figuring out which side of the
tech will do with that. We are excited about
opportunities for public engagement and mobility
innovation district as part of that.
I think that will address some of the items we heard today.
with people asking for input and would welcome your engagement
since it covers ward six. >> I will echo the need for
data. I already talked about data for
testing and for reporting on wait times and trip completions.
I think also, working with -- like I mentioned, with the
companies in all phases on the data around her management and
understanding where those needs take place.
that benefits not only the autonomous vehicles, but also
tnc's and para transit. Those services need accessible
places the pickup up and drop off as well.
>> thank you. >> might as well add my closing
comments. I just think like you said,
aiming for a higher bar than we have today and requiring it, not
just hearing promises about that.
accessibility and equity. Then, I think allowing dfhv to
streamline what we can by having the functions we do in
regulating for hire service remained within her agency and
lastly, I think it is going to be a challenge to try to limit
the adverse impact to the current ride-share drivers
today. I think it's a little bit of
deja vu. We saw what happened to taxi
drivers over a decade ago. The company is coming --
companies coming and did not have them or their interests at
heart. So, we want to avoid that as
much as possible. If there is around two.
>> absolutely. I appreciate it.
we are closing in on our number 11 so I think we will wrap it
up. This will conclude the
committee's public hearing on bill 26-684.
I want to thank all of our public witnesses today who had
really great comments, questions and helped us flesh out what the
committee will be doing. Appreciate all of your testimony
as well. Got a note from her government
partners, so I appreciate that. I know you have family and
friends as well so thank you very much for being here.
as a reminder, the record for today's roundtable will close on
monday, july 27, 2026. You can submit written testimony
to the council's system until then.
no further business before the committee.
the time is now 8:09 p.m. And this public hearing is now
adjourned. Thank you, everyone.