Public Roundtable on Bill 26-684: Autonomous Vehicle Deployment Authorization Amendment Act of 2026 - July 13, 2026
Public Roundtable on Bill 26-684: Autonomous Vehicle Deployment Authorization Amendment Act of 2026 - July 13, 2026
The Committee on Transportation and the Environment, chaired by Councilmember Charles Allen, held a public roundtable on July 13, 2026, from 9:44 AM to 8:09 PM to discuss Bill 26-684, the Autonomous Vehicle Deployment Authorization Amendment Act of 2026. The bill establishes a framework for commercial autonomous vehicle (AV) deployment in the District of Columbia, including permitting, safety requirements, a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax, and workforce transition provisions. Over 80 witnesses testified across multiple panels, representing industry, disability advocates, labor unions, business groups, legal experts, and government agencies. Key issues included safety, equity, accessibility, workforce impacts, data transparency, and the appropriate regulatory structure.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Panel 1 (Industry): Waymo, Lyft, Tesla, and Uber testified. Waymo reported 300,000 miles of testing in DC with 25 vehicles and a 94% reduction in serious injury crashes across 220 million miles. Lyft and Uber advocated for hybrid network models allowing human drivers and AVs to operate on the same platform. Tesla raised concerns about the 180-day testing requirement, high permit fees ($1 million non-refundable application fee, $5 million operational permit fee), and the proposed 15-cent-per-mile VMT tax. Uber emphasized the need for service across all eight wards and accessibility requirements.
- Panel 2 (Business & Community): Chamber of Progress, Restaurant Association of Metropolitan Washington, Greater Washington Board of Trade, Monumental Sports & Entertainment, and DC Chamber of Commerce supported the bill with amendments to raise the 200-vehicle fleet cap, reduce the VMT tax, and remove the 2028 paid-ride moratorium.
- Panel 3 (Legal Experts): Professor Will Hubbard (University of Baltimore) supported the bill's definition of 'driver' for liability purposes. The Trial Lawyers Association (Drew LaFramboise, Christopher Nace) urged stronger enforcement mechanisms, including tiered penalties for traffic violations and mandatory data sharing for crash victims.
- Panel 4 (Disability Advocates): Kelly Mack, Heidi Case, CT Tyson, and others stressed that AV companies must provide wheelchair-accessible vehicles (WAVs) directly, not rely on existing inadequate taxi fleets. They called for mandated accessibility standards, reporting on wait times, and zero-tolerance anti-discrimination policies.
- Panel 5 (Blind & Low Vision): Claire Stanley (American Council of the Blind) and others highlighted the potential for AVs to eliminate discrimination by drivers against guide dogs. They urged the council to require accessible interfaces and external alerts for pedestrians.
- Panel 6 (Labor Unions): ATU Local 689, SEIU 32BJ, and Teamsters Local 639 expressed strong opposition to the bill without stronger worker protections. They cited potential job losses for 35,000+ rideshare drivers and called for a workforce impact study before deployment, labor peace agreements, and a transition fund with concrete benefits.
- Panel 7 (Transit & Urbanists): WAMATA, WABA, Federal City Council, and others emphasized data sharing, curbside management, and ensuring AVs do not obstruct bus lanes or bike lanes. WABA endorsed Families for Safe Streets' call for AVs to be at least 10 times safer than human drivers.
- Panel 8 (Additional Public Witnesses): Numerous residents shared personal stories of traffic violence and expressed cautious optimism about AVs, but urged strict safety rules, especially regarding speed limits and blocking bike lanes.
- Panel 9 (Government): DDOT, DFHV, and ODR testified. DDOT recommended a phased, gated approach to deployment, stronger data collection, and that personally owned AVs not be allowed at this stage. DFHV advocated for a unified regulatory framework for all for-hire vehicles, with AVs under DFHV's jurisdiction. ODR stressed that accessibility must be built into the permit process from the start, with enforceable requirements for wheelchair-accessible vehicles and multimodal alerts.
Discussion Items
- Safety Standards: Chair Allen pressed witnesses on whether AVs should be programmed to exceed speed limits or block bike lanes. Waymo stated its vehicles are programmed to obey speed limits except in emergency evasive maneuvers; Tesla indicated its vehicles may exceed the speed limit to match traffic flow, which drew concern.
- Fleet Caps and Equity: The 200-vehicle initial cap was debated. Several witnesses argued it would prevent equitable service across all eight wards, while others supported a phased rollout to manage risks.
- VMT Tax and Fees: The 15-cent-per-mile VMT tax and high permit fees were criticized by industry as out of step with other states. Chair Allen defended the tax as a tool to discourage deadheading and congestion and to replace gas tax revenue from electric fleets.
- Workforce Transition: Labor unions and some witnesses called for a pre-deployment impact study and dedicated funding for displaced workers. The bill currently assigns 50% of AV revenue to a workforce development fund, but details are vague.
- Accessibility: Multiple disability advocates argued that AV companies must provide wheelchair-accessible vehicles themselves, not outsource a referral. The council discussed requiring a percentage of accessible vehicles similar to the taxi fleet mandate.
- Data Transparency: Witnesses emphasized the need for granular trip-level data to monitor equity, congestion, and safety. WAMATA requested data-sharing agreements similar to those with TNCs.
Key Outcomes
- No votes were taken; the hearing was for public testimony and discussion.
- The record will remain open until July 27, 2026, for written testimony.
- Chair Allen stated the committee will work with stakeholders over the summer to refine the bill, including provisions on fleet caps, accessibility, workforce protections, and data reporting.
- DDOT committed to delivering its AV deployment report by the end of August 2026, which will inform the committee's next steps.
- The committee will consider a phased approach that includes testing, driverless testing with passengers, and gradual commercial deployment based on demonstrated safety and equity metrics.
Meeting Transcript
Recording in progress. Alright, good morning, everyone. I'm Charles Allen. I'm the Ward 6 Council member and chair of the Council's Committee on Transportation and the Environment. Today is Monday, July 13th, 2026, and we're meeting both in room 500 of historic John A. Wilson Building, as well as over the Zoom virtual platform. The time is now 944 a.m., and I'm calling to order this public round table of committee. Today's hearing is going to focus on Bill 26-684, the autonomous vehicle deployment authorization amendment act of 2026. I, along with counselors Pinto and Freuman introduced Bill 26-684 on May 1st, 2026. The bill is referred to the committee on May 5th, 2026. The advancement of autonomous vehicles is a watershed moment in the world of transportation. A V companies are offering rides in about 11 American cities, and you can bet that they all want to boast that they offer rides in the nation's capital. Given the advancements we've seen, I don't think it's a question of if AVs are coming, it's when and under what conditions and how they would work for our local roadways and our local economy. Despite what I see as the inevitability of this technology, I also don't want to rush the process by which these vehicles begin operating in the district just for the sake of it. At the same time, if my tenure as chair of the committee has shown me anything, it's that many, way too many human drivers cannot safely operate a motor vehicle. If there is a new transportation option that can save lives and prevent injuries, then we owe it to our residents to explore that option fully and with an open mind. Today, I believe we'll hear proponents of the technology argue that AVs improve traffic safety and consumer choice in the district. If structured the right way, AVs can also provide more equitable access to rideshare services as they can better accommodate some people with disabilities. In our previous hearing on autonomous vehicles, we heard directly from people who are blind or have low vision about the independence and transportation access the autonomous vehicles have provided. But the disability community is not a monolith. In more recent conversations, I've heard from a lot of people who use wheelchairs or experience other mobility challenges about potential shortcomings of autonomous vehicles and the need for regulations to ensure better service for that population. There are other legitimate concerns about autonomous vehicle deployment. The deployment of AVs on district roadways could exacerbate traffic congestion or increase demand for limited curbside space. It could draw riders away from public transit. Commercial AV operations will also compete with existing taxi, ride share, and delivery workers potentially displacing those jobs. Crashes or traffic violations involving AVs present novel questions regarding who's responsible for any resulting civil or legal liability, as well as potential privacy issues with reports of companies alerting authorities and observing rider behavior. And some people are just simply skeptical that AVs improve traffic safety based on recent incidents, including a recent fatality in Texas involving a Tesla. Other notable incidents include a power outage in San Francisco or reports of AVs driving into flood waters in Texas. But to be sure, I could make a list of crashes, injuries, and dumb or dangerous human driver decisions as well. Currently, the district only allows AV companies to engage in testing with a test operator physically present in the vehicle. That is, the vehicle is operating autonomously, but the human can take over the steering wheel at any moment. The District Department of Transportation has been tasked with developing a driverless testing permit for years now, but that progress is stalled. Bill 26-684, the autonomous vehicle deployment authorization amendment act of 2026 would pave the way for deployment of commercial AVs through an iterative process. Let me specifically walk through some of these provisions. First, it establishes a commercial autonomous vehicle program within DDOT that will issue commercial AV permits. Applicants must have a record of safe testing and must submit a first responder interaction plan that ensures law enforcement and emergency personnel can safely interact with AVs on the road, as well as a continuity of operations plan that explains how AVs will maintain operations or otherwise respond to challenges like power outages or network failures. It also creates a phase timeline for the deployment of commercial AVs. The bill sets deadlines by which DDOP must begin offering a driverless testing permit and a commercial AV permit. Until January 1, 2028, commercial AV operators' fleet size will be limited to 200 vehicles. After January 1, 2028, commercial AV operators can submit an on-demand vehicle network comprehensive plan that, if approved, will allow the operator to increase their fleet size. The comprehensive plan explains how the operator will lawfully park and store their vehicles, minimize passengerless vehicle trips and the associated traffic congestion, ensure riders from all eight wards have equitable access to AVs and develop a user interface that allows people with disabilities to request a ride. The bill also establishes clear rules for when an autonomous driving system can be engaged. The bill broadly allows for the use of level one and level two autonomous driving systems, which are driver assistance systems that still require the human driver to remain in control. The bill generally restricts the use of level three, four, and five systems except when an operator has received a permit for either commercial operations or testing. To ensure the district is aware of vehicles with semi or fully autonomous driving systems, manufacturers of levels three, four, and five systems must also register their products with DDOT. The bill also establishes a vehicle miles traveled tax. The bill establishes a vehicle miles traveled or VMT tax for commercial AV operators of 15 cents per mile. The VMT encourages AV operators to minimize passengerless operations and cirtuitous routing. I'm hoping today's conversation will include some discussions of how we can strengthen the VMT, whether it should replace some of the existing surcharges, and whether it should be extended for other four hire vehicles. The bill also improves public transit by investing a portion of the revenue collected from AV operations into public transit infrastructure and service investments.
openpublica.com