Public Comments for 02/05/2026 Transportation - Innovations (Ad Hoc)
HB200 - Transit Entities, certain; funding and administration.
I strongly support HB 200, because it would advance transit access for Virginians and boost economic opportunity for our working class, while simultaneously addressing environmental costs (air quality impacts) and social injustices (high expense of car ownership).
HB582 - Autonomous truck-mounted attenuators; pilot program authorized.
HB908 - Towing advisory boards; changes membership.
HB936 - Parking violations; enforcement by certain counties, pilot program, sunset.
HB1003 - Transportation network companies; establishes minimum compensation rates, civil penalty.
Written testimony in favor of HB 1003.
On behalf of Chamber of Progress – a tech industry association supporting public policies to build a more inclusive society in which all people benefit from technological advancements – I respectfully urge you to oppose HB 1003, which risks raising prices for Virginia riders, reducing earning opportunities for drivers, and threatening rideshare access for the communities that need it most.
Chair & Members of the Committee: I submit this written comment in support of HB1003 on behalf of Virginia rideshare drivers. Over recent years rideshare drivers have experienced substantial decline in net earnings after Uber & Lyft have switched to upfront fares model instead of time & distance model. Passenger fares & platform fees have increased. While companies frequently cite gross pay figures, Those numbers do not reflect the true costs drivers must absorb. In Virginia, the total cost of operating a vehicle for rideshare purposes including fuel, maintenance, repairs, tires, insurance & depreciation ranges approx. $0.65 to $0.75/ mile, depending on vehicle type & market conditions. Many rides share trips compensate at or below this cost, before accounting for unpaid waiting time, dead miles, traffic delays or labor. In effect drivers subsidize rides with personal vehicle equity and assume financial risks that no other transportation provider is expected to bear. HB1003 Represents a necessary step toward: 1) Increased transparency in rideshare compensation. 2) Economic sustainability for drivers. 3) Long-term reliability of Virginia’s transportation network. 4) Reduced dependence on public assistance among working drivers. The concerns raised by the drivers are supported by a recent groundbreaking research project by Columbia Business School researchers https:Sherman.medium.com/how-uber-became-a-csh-generating-machine-ef78e7a97230 I am attaching two pdf documents from Lyft showing their rate chart & costs for driving from 2024. I respectfully urge the committee to support HB1003 and recognize that sustainable driver pay is in the best interest of Virginia’s residents, workforce & economy. Respectfully Submitted, Sanjiv Vashist Virginia Rideshare Driver.
See attachment.
HB1124 - Autonomous vehicles; operation, requirements, civil penalties, reports.
Chair and Members of the Committee: I respectfully oppose HB 1124 as introduced because it risks foreclosing near-term, practical innovations that improve public transit access, especially first-mile/last-mile connections for people who cannot easily reach bus and rail service. 1) HB 1124 effectively bans driverless first-mile/last-mile shuttles on public roads. The bill requires a “human operator… physically present in the autonomous vehicle” who can monitor, intervene, and take control, including stopping the vehicle. That requirement may be workable for long-haul services, but it defeats the core value proposition of automated shuttles designed for short, low-speed, geofenced trips. It would prevent public agencies and partners from deploying driverless, ADA-supportive neighborhood circulators, station connectors, and campus-to-transit shuttles. 2) First-mile/last-mile is an accessibility and equity issue, not a novelty. Many riders, especially older adults, people with disabilities, and those without access to a car, face barriers reaching fixed-route transit. Automated shuttles can provide reliable, low-speed connections where sidewalks are incomplete, hills are steep, or crossings are challenging. Blocking these deployments risks worsening access gaps rather than improving them. 3) The bill’s one-size-fits-all approach could raise costs and reduce service. Requiring an in-vehicle human operator for every automated shuttle trip adds recurring labor costs and undermines the affordability of short-distance operations. For transit agencies already facing constrained budgets, this would force a trade-off: either abandon innovative connector service or cut existing routes/frequency to pay for staffing. That is the opposite of what Virginia should encourage. 4) Virginia should regulate for safety without prohibiting innovation. Safety is paramount, and autonomous operations should meet all applicable federal vehicle safety requirements and robust state safety standards. But HB 1124 goes further by embedding an in-vehicle operator mandate that eliminates the option of driverless, low-speed, geofenced deployments—even where those deployments may be appropriate and well-regulated. 5) Recommended path forward. Rather than an outright in-vehicle operator requirement, Virginia should: Allow limited, well-defined first-mile/last-mile deployments (e.g., low-speed, geofenced routes, defined ODD, strong remote monitoring and incident response). Require transparent safety plans, data reporting, and coordination with local governments and transit agencies. Provide an approval/permit framework for pilot programs with clear performance and safety benchmarks. Request: Please oppose HB 1124 as introduced, or amend it to explicitly preserve the ability of transit agencies and local partners to implement driverless first-mile/last-mile shuttle solutions under a rigorous safety and oversight framework. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Please find my written comments urging caution when considering this far-reaching legislation that would effectively ban the commercial use of fully autonomous vehicles.
See attachment.
As a blind No.VA resident, I am strongly against driverless vehicles coming into our state without important liability and insurance considerations first being worked out.
On behalf of Chamber of Progress, a tech industry association supporting public policies to build a society in which all people benefit from technological advances, I respectfully urge you to oppose HB 1124, which would require a human operator to be physically present in all commercial autonomous vehicle operations, undermining innovation and delaying proven safety benefits.
My name is Mike Godino. I reside at 301 Claybrook Drive in Waynesboro, VA 22980. here in the valley, we have very limited transportation and I am legally blind; therefore, I need and will access all options available to get from here to there. I oppose HR1125 as my inability to read the DMV eye chart prevents me from acquiring a driver's license in the state of Virginia. HR1125 requires the passenger has a driver's license. this requirement would disenfranchise my consideration to travel independently. forcing me to travel with a licensed driver. This requirement is as futile as not having a vehicle here in the valley thus leaving me without a reliable ride. I do however support HR1124 for the simple fact it would offer me more options of getting around. Since losing my vision in 1992, I have learned to trust technology and the benefits it can provide. Please pass HR1124 offering people who are blind more transportation options. Thank you, Mike Godino 540-471-8116
Please accept the attached testimony on behalf of the R Street Institute in opposition to HB1124.
HB1125 - Automated driving systems; requirements for operation, civil penalties, report.
Obviously, there are citizens that were born with or developed severe vision impairmentsat a very young age that driving was a luxury that simply was off the table. Others drove for perhaps many years prior to losing all or a substantial portion of their vision and may not have bothered to benew the driver's license. However, all-in-all they still need to get around and often want the autonomy of getting places with always relying on family and friends. I do not understand the requirement of a driver's license as call for in HB1124 but if it is simply for ID reasons in case of an accident where a person is unable to respond, why can't proof of identification suffice? That could include one of a multitude of items.
Please accept the attached written remarks in support of HB 1125 on behalf of the R Street Institute.
As a blind No.VA resident, I am strongly against driverless vehicles coming into our state without important liability and insurance considerations first being worked out.
On behalf of Chamber of Progress, a tech industry association supporting public policies to build a society in which all people benefit from technological advances, I respectfully urge you to support HB 1125, which establishes a clear, statewide framework for the safe deployment of autonomous vehicles in Virginia.
My name is Mike Godino. I reside at 301 Claybrook Drive in Waynesboro, VA 22980. here in the valley, we have very limited transportation and I am legally blind; therefore, I need and will access all options available to get from here to there. I oppose HR1125 as my inability to read the DMV eye chart prevents me from acquiring a driver's license in the state of Virginia. HR1125 requires the passenger has a driver's license. this requirement would disenfranchise my consideration to travel independently. forcing me to travel with a licensed driver. This requirement is as futile as not having a vehicle here in the valley thus leaving me without a reliable ride. I do however support HR1124 for the simple fact it would offer me more options of getting around. Since losing my vision in 1992, I have learned to trust technology and the benefits it can provide. Please pass HR1124 offering people who are blind more transportation options. Thank you, Mike Godino 540-471-8116
HB1231 - Commonwealth Aviation Fund; changes allocation amounts.
On behalf of the Virginia Airport Operators Council (VAOC), which proudly represents the 66 public-use airports across the Commonwealth. Virginia’s airports are critical economic gateways, providing safe, secure, and efficient access to both our largest cities and our smallest communities. The VAOC is committed to ensuring that Virginia’s airport system remains commercially healthy and continues to safely serve the flying public. The VAOC strongly supports HB1231. This legislation makes permanent the improvements adopted in the last budget that significantly enhanced the administration of the Commonwealth Aviation Fund. The fund is vital to Virginia’s airport system, and its benefits to the Commonwealth have been substantial. As demonstrated in the Virginia Department of Aviation’s report, these changes have benefited airports statewide in a fair and equitable manner, while positioning the Commonwealth to remain responsive to the growing and evolving needs of its airports. We respectfully urge your favorable consideration and support of HB1231, and we look forward to its passage. Thank you for your time and consideration
HB1270 - Transportation network companies; publishing and disclosure requirements, delayed effective date.
Written testimony in favor of HB 1270.
Chair & Members of the Committee: I submit this written comment in support of HB1003 on behalf of Virginia rideshare drivers. Over recent years rideshare drivers have experienced substantial decline in net earnings after Uber & Lyft have switched to upfront fares model instead of time & distance model. Passenger fares & platform fees have increased. While companies frequently cite gross pay figures, Those numbers do not reflect the true costs drivers must absorb. In Virginia, the total cost of operating a vehicle for rideshare purposes including fuel, maintenance, repairs, tires, insurance & depreciation ranges approx. $0.65 to $0.75/ mile, depending on vehicle type & market conditions. Many rides share trips compensate at or below this cost, before accounting for unpaid waiting time, dead miles, traffic delays or labor. In effect drivers subsidize rides with personal vehicle equity and assume financial risks that no other transportation provider is expected to bear. HB1003 Represents a necessary step toward: 1) Increased transparency in rideshare compensation. 2) Economic sustainability for drivers. 3) Long-term reliability of Virginia’s transportation network. 4) Reduced dependence on public assistance among working drivers. The concerns raised by the drivers are supported by a recent groundbreaking research project by Columbia Business School researchers https:Sherman.medium.com/how-uber-became-a-csh-generating-machine-ef78e7a97230 I am attaching two pdf documents from Lyft showing their rate chart & costs for driving from 2024. I respectfully urge the committee to support HB1003 and recognize that sustainable driver pay is in the best interest of Virginia’s residents, workforce & economy. Respectfully Submitted, Sanjiv Vashist Virginia Rideshare Driver.
HB1273 - Transportation network companies; additional requirements, civil penalties.
HB1349 - Compression release engine brakes; localities to regulate use.
I support HB 1349 to use technology to address car and tractor trailer loud harassing NOISE LEVELS thru purposely modified exhaust systems which SERVES NO GOOD RATIONAL in modern day Virginia. Schools go into shut down emergency steps when a car exhaust system sounds like a gun shots that is purposely designed to mimick gun shots. Tractor Trailer exhaust systems when purposely modified to remove noise canceling parts of the exhaust system in conjunction with using ENGINE Brakes is a turning their trucks and dump trucks into "Weapons of Harassment" towards other drivers, home owners, businesses and schools. With the ports of Virginia Growth being a constant growth it is per State Police a increasing amount of tractor trailers from many other states bringing older versions of tractor trailers that do NOT have the 2015 to 2026 model year tractor trailers improved noise canceling devices in relation to Engine Brake use. Tractor trailers have the option to always use the quiet regular brakes as found on all vehicles, but many drivers choose the Engine Brake so save on wearing down of regular normal braking systems however the side effect is the LOUD BOOMING Blast wave for models 2014 and back to 1950's tractor trailers especially when the exhaust system is purposely modified.
I support HB 55 and HB 1349 using 21st century camera and noise recording technology to support police in addressing loud and purposely modified exhaust systems on automobiles and Tractor Trailers that are harassing and dangerous to other drivers, Schools, home owners an businesses that can also trigger vehicle crashes. HB 1349 specifically addresses the Engine Brake Harassment Noise. Police simply cannot be present all the time where this abuse is taking place on a constant daily basis. HB 55 was originally written in 2025 to address automobile drivers who purposely modify their exhaust systems to SOUND exactly like LOUD gun fire causing schools to go into emergency lock down protocols where children hide under their desks and police are called. This disrupts schools in a way that becomes like being in a war zone due to our recent society of having school shootings with children and teachers murdered or maimed. The tractor trailer purposely modified exhaust stacks, or allowed to fall out of proper noise dampening calibrations per State Police Standards is NOT a gun fire sound, but a worse BOOMING Blast Wave Percussion wave that is both FELT physically and HEARD. It penetrates walls, doors and windows easily, and wakes adults and children up, disrupts home study for education and general turning their tractor trailers into "Weapons of Harassment" as the intent. In states like Montana, California, Colorado, etc.. they have laws with HIGHER fines and signs specifically posted to alert tractor trailer drivers that "ENGINE BRAKE (a.k.a Jake Brakes) Exhaust Mufflers Required" because the booming loud blast wave from miles away can trigger avalanches and rock slides. With the Ports of Virginia Booming growth for many years now that relies heavily on in state and out of state tractor trailers to deliver cargo to the inland marine port in Front Royal Virginia, and beyond in all directions, HB 1349 addresses the long term abuse on citizens public safety lives. From my research speaking with ex-tractor trailer drivers and diesel mechanics that understand the design of the Engine Brake this is what I am providing the committee members and other citizens reading this now: 1. Tractor Trailer model years 2015 to 2026 have automatic built in engine brake noise canceling devices. Model years 2014 and prior back to the 1950's tractor trailers DO NOT have this noise canceling engine brake technology and it apparently is expensive to implement. 2. Tractor Trailer drivers who choose to harass other drivers, schools, businesses and homeowners along the roads they use will purposely invest MONEY into removing the top exhaust muffler cap, widen the diameter of their exhaust stacks and remove internal exhaust stack baffling so when the engine jake brake is used its now is a "Weapon of Harassment". ALL trucker drivers regardless of model year have the OPTION To choose the regular QUIET braking system, or the ENGINE brakes. Engine Brakes DO NOT wear down as fast a quieter regular braking system, however it is because they were designed to be for EMERGENCY DOWN HILL heavy loads. HB 1349 is a smart bill, and can be be amended so that the Engine Brake can be used in a TRUE EMERGENCY situations requiring a quick slowing down or stopping in residential home areas along roads with proper signage posted. A law exists that protects truckers from being harassed, but they are allowed to harass other drivers and people in their homes.
On behalf of the Ashburn Village Community Association (AVCA), I am submitting testimony in strong support of HB 1120, which proposes the formation of a workgroup to examine and recommend updates to Virginia law regarding e‑bikes and other electric personal‑mobility devices. Our community has experienced a rapid increase in the use of e‑bikes, electric scooters, and similar devices with motors of 750 watts or more. While these technologies provide convenient and sustainable transportation options, they have also raised significant safety and property‑damage concerns, particularly when operated by minors or inexperienced users who may lack training or awareness of road rules. AVCA has observed unsafe operation by minors who often lack knowledge of traffic laws or proper safety equipment, reckless riding on streets, sidewalks, and trails that creates hazards for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists, and damage to common areas and landscaped spaces from off‑path riding or misuse. Additionally, law enforcement, including the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office, faces challenges in applying existing statutes to these devices because current laws are outdated, unclear, or insufficient. These devices often do not fit neatly into existing classifications for bicycles, mopeds, or motor vehicles, making it difficult to address unsafe behavior, establish age or licensing requirements, or issue citations that hold up legally. HB 1120 represents a necessary step forward. A formal workgroup that includes lawmakers, law‑enforcement agencies, community associations, safety experts, and industry representatives can develop clear, modernized, and enforceable standards. Such a group can identify appropriate age and training requirements, establish equipment and safety standards, define operational rules for roads, trails, and sidewalks, update device classifications to reflect today’s technology, and provide effective enforcement tools that law‑enforcement agencies can reliably apply. Updating Virginia’s legal framework in this way will promote safer use of e‑bikes and other electric mobility devices, protect residents, reduce property damage, and support responsible recreation. For these reasons, the Ashburn Village Community Association strongly supports HB 1120 and urges its passage. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. Mark Walker General Manager Ashburn Village Community Association
HB1469 - Transportation network company partners; requirements and background screening.
We support the intent of this bill and our members are working with the patron on minor technical edits.
HB55 - Noise abatement monitoring systems; local authority; civil penalties.
I support HB 55 to use technology to address car and tractor trailer loud harassing NOISE LEVELS thru purposely modified exhaust systems which SERVES NO GOOD RATIONAL in modern day Virginia. Schools go into shut down emergency steps when a car exhaust system sounds like a gun shots that is purposely designed to mimick gun shots. Tractor Trailer exhaust systems when purposely modified to remove noise canceling parts of the exhaust system in conjunction with using ENGINE Brakes is a turning their trucks and dump trucks into "Weapons of Harassment" towards other drivers, home owners, businesses and schools. With the ports of Virginia Growth being a constant growth it is per State Police a increasing amount of tractor trailers from many other states bringing older versions of tractor trailers that do NOT have the 2015 to 2026 model year tractor trailers improved noise canceling devices in relation to Engine Brake use. Tractor trailers have the option to always use the quiet regular brakes as found on all vehicles, but many drivers choose the Engine Brake so save on wearing down of regular normal braking systems however the side effect is the LOUD BOOMING Blast wave for models 2014 and back to 1950's tractor trailers especially when the exhaust system is purposely modified.
I support HB 55 and HB 1349 using 21st century camera and noise recording technology to support police in addressing loud and purposely modified exhaust systems on automobiles and Tractor Trailers that are harassing and dangerous to other drivers, Schools, home owners an businesses that can also trigger vehicle crashes. HB 1349 specifically addresses the Engine Brake Harassment Noise. Police simply cannot be present all the time where this abuse is taking place on a constant daily basis. HB 55 was originally written in 2025 to address automobile drivers who purposely modify their exhaust systems to SOUND exactly like LOUD gun fire causing schools to go into emergency lock down protocols where children hide under their desks and police are called. This disrupts schools in a way that becomes like being in a war zone due to our recent society of having school shootings with children and teachers murdered or maimed. The tractor trailer purposely modified exhaust stacks, or allowed to fall out of proper noise dampening calibrations per State Police Standards is NOT a gun fire sound, but a worse BOOMING Blast Wave Percussion wave that is both FELT physically and HEARD. It penetrates walls, doors and windows easily, and wakes adults and children up, disrupts home study for education and general turning their tractor trailers into "Weapons of Harassment" as the intent. In states like Montana, California, Colorado, etc.. they have laws with HIGHER fines and signs specifically posted to alert tractor trailer drivers that "ENGINE BRAKE (a.k.a Jake Brakes) Exhaust Mufflers Required" because the booming loud blast wave from miles away can trigger avalanches and rock slides. With the Ports of Virginia Booming growth for many years now that relies heavily on in state and out of state tractor trailers to deliver cargo to the inland marine port in Front Royal Virginia, and beyond in all directions, HB 1349 addresses the long term abuse on citizens public safety lives. From my research speaking with ex-tractor trailer drivers and diesel mechanics that understand the design of the Engine Brake this is what I am providing the committee members and other citizens reading this now: 1. Tractor Trailer model years 2015 to 2026 have automatic built in engine brake noise canceling devices. Model years 2014 and prior back to the 1950's tractor trailers DO NOT have this noise canceling engine brake technology and it apparently is expensive to implement. 2. Tractor Trailer drivers who choose to harass other drivers, schools, businesses and homeowners along the roads they use will purposely invest MONEY into removing the top exhaust muffler cap, widen the diameter of their exhaust stacks and remove internal exhaust stack baffling so when the engine jake brake is used its now is a "Weapon of Harassment". ALL trucker drivers regardless of model year have the OPTION To choose the regular QUIET braking system, or the ENGINE brakes. Engine Brakes DO NOT wear down as fast a quieter regular braking system, however it is because they were designed to be for EMERGENCY DOWN HILL heavy loads. HB 1349 is a smart bill, and can be be amended so that the Engine Brake can be used in a TRUE EMERGENCY situations requiring a quick slowing down or stopping in residential home areas along roads with proper signage posted. A law exists that protects truckers from being harassed, but they are allowed to harass other drivers and people in their homes.