B 26-0328

July 13, 2025
                                   Statement of Introduction
                  Vehicular Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act of 2025
  Today, along with Councilmembers Allen, Lewis George, and Frumin, I am introducing the
“Vehicular Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act of 2025”, which will make special events, open
streets, pedestrian zones, and other planned temporary road closures in the District both safer and easier
to implement.
  The District of Columbia, more than almost any city in the world, hosts events major and minor
that either require or would benefit from the closure of roadways. Unfortunately, D.C.’s current practice
for street closures manages to simultaneously be the most expensive, the least clear, and the least safe.
  This legislation directs HSEMA to set clear safety and anti-terrorism standards for street closure
barriers, which will also ensure that special events and District agencies are covered by federal
Homeland Security liability protections. In addition to improving barrier safety, clearer street closure
procedures may help free up staff resources at MPD, DPW, and other public safety agencies to do what
they do best. The bill includes exemptions for certain types of roadways and events to ensure that our
public safety agencies can maintain flexibility and responsiveness.
  Currently, there is no clear guidance on the vehicle-stopping or crash rating standard for barriers
to close a street in the District of Columbia. The Mayor’s Special Events Task Group has published a
“Special Events Planning Guide”, which is largely silent on this matter, except to require that “all event
organizers completely barricade roadways with barriers capable of stopping an oncoming vehicle.” As to
the type of barrier, there is no further elaboration in the planning guide other than the following:
  “[A]ppropriate public safety measures that would prevent any other vehicles from entering the
  confines of the event area. Required measures may include, but are not limited to, the use of
  barriers, appropriate blocking vehicles, or both.”
   “In rare instances, Type III water-filled traffic barriers may be appropriate.”
   The two most common means of closing a street for events in the District are “blocking vehicles”
– often DPW plow trucks or vehicles meant for other purposes – and concrete jersey barriers. Neither
was designed to protect against direct vehicle ramming incidents. Jersey barriers, for instance, were
designed for “shallow-angle” collisions on highway medians, not head-on collisions.
   One objective assessment of a barrier’s effectiveness is the ASTM International “Dynamic
Penetration Rating”, which measures the penetration distance of a threat vehicle of a given weight
moving at a given rate of speed through the barrier line. The District’s typical means of closing a road to
traffic are not properly rated by such a standard – putting residents and visitors regularly at risk.
   ASIS International, an organization of public and private sector security professionals, makes
this point very clear:
   “The bottom line is that barriers without an ASTM crash rating cannot be relied upon to provide
   adequate protection against a vehicle ramming incident. Non-rated barriers, like steel pipes
   filled with concrete or large concrete planters, provide a false sense of protection, leading
   customers, employees, visitors, and the general public to believe they are safe from such
   incidents when, in reality, they remain at risk.”
   Notably, neither jersey barriers nor “blocking vehicles” are certified as a “Qualified Anti-
Terrorism Technology” by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – a designation established in the
SAFETY Act of 2002 for devices designed and crash-tested for direct vehicle impact. In addition to
being more effective at stopping a vehicle, barriers certified under the SAFETY Act provide “risk
mitigation through liability protections...as well as affordability of insurance and appropriate levels of
liability insurance.”
   The effects of these shortcomings are far-reaching. Our road closure difficulties are one reason
why D.C. continues to lag behind in implementation of open streets and other pedestrian activations
compared to peer cities. In a city full of bollards that give us comfort, yet shouldn’t, it’s critical that the
District adopt standards that will in fact keep residents and visitors safe from vehicular terrorism.
Improving our road closure procedures will support the District’s efforts to create thriving and attractive
public spaces.
_____________________________  _____________________________
Councilmember Charles Allen  Councilmember Brianne K. Nadeau
_____________________________  _____________________________
Councilmember Janeese Lewis George  Councilmember Matthew Frumin
                                              A BILL
                                   _________________________
                     IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
                                   _________________________
1   To require the establishment of safety standards for roadway barriers used during temporary
2street closures, and to ensure that barriers used for street closures are covered by the
3litigation management protections of Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technology as certified
4by the United States Department of Homeland Security.
5
6BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this
7   act may be cited as the “Vehicular Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act of 2025”.
8Sec. 2. Title II of An Act To authorize the District of Columbia government to establish
9   an Office of Civil Defense, and for other purposes, effective March 14, 2007 (D.C. Law 16-262;
10   D.C. Official Code § 7-2231.01 et seq.) is amended by adding a new section 212 to read as
11   follows:
12“Sec. 212. Roadway barrier safety standards.
                                                      1
13“(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), any special event, as defined in 24 DCMR §
14 720.1, or other temporary event permitted by the Mayor requiring the closure of a public
15 roadway to vehicle traffic shall be subject to the requirements of this section.
16“(b) The Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency shall, in consultation
17 with the District Department of Transportation (“DDOT”), promulgate rules to establish roadway
18 barrier standards for closure of a public roadway to vehicle traffic.
19“(1) The standards shall:
20“(A) Specify distinct, appropriate barrier standards for each road typology
21 as defined in the DDOT Functional Classification Map;
22“(B) Include clear thresholds for the safety rating of standard barriers, as
23 measured by:
24“(i) The Dynamic Penetration Rating as measured by the ASTM
25 International “Standard Test Method for Crash Testing of Vehicle Security Barriers” (ASTM
26 F2656), or any ASTM International standard that supercedes it; or
27“(ii) Barricade types as prescribed by the current edition of the
28 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, Part 6, as approved by
29 the Federal Highway Administration;
30“(C) For roadways classified as a collector or arterial, prioritze the use of
31 barriers that have attained certification as a Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technology by the United
32 States Department of Homeland Security, pursuant to the Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering
33 Effective Technologies Act of 2002, approved November 25, 2002 (116 Stat. 2238, 6 USC § 441
34 et seq.), as well as certification in favor of the government contractor defense, as defined in
35 section 863(d) of that Act;
                                                     2
36“(D) Reduce the need for District employees to be deployed to special
37 events exclusively or primarily to effectuate closure of a roadway to vehicle traffic, as opposed
38 to performing other public safety functions;
39“(E) Incorporate the following considerations:
40“(i) Relevant crash test data and other metrics on the mitigation of
41 vehicle ramming attacks;
42“(ii) The safety impacts of using motor vehicles as roadway
43 barriers;
44“(iii) Best practices in roadway closure materials and procedures,
45 based on a review of peer jurisdictions.
46“(2) The proposed rules shall be submitted to the Council for a 45-day period of
47 review, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays, and days of Council recess. If the Council
48 does not approve or disapprove the proposed rules, in whole or in part, by resolution within this
49 45-day review period, the proposed rules shall be deemed disapproved.
50“(c) The Mayor shall not deny a permit for the temporary closure of a public roadway to
51 vehicle traffic based solely on the grounds of proposed roadway closure barriers, provided that
52 the proposed barriers meet standards established pursuant to subsection (b).
53“(d) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (c), the following shall be exempt from the
54 requirements of this section:
55“(1) Public right-of-way occupancy permits, as defined in 24 DCMR § 3400 et
56 seq., or any other public roadway closures necessary for construction, excavation, or public
57 space management;
                                                      3
58“(2) Closure of a public roadway designated as a freeway, expressway, Interstate
59 Highway, or any bridges;
60“(3) First Amendment activities that do not require the Mayor’s approval as a
61 special event; and
62“(4) A National Special Security Event as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 3056 or other
63 event involving deployment of Federal law enforcement in coordination with the District.”.
64Sec. 3. Fiscal impact statement.
65The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement of the Budget Director as the fiscal impact
66 statement required by section 4a of the General Legislative Procedures Act of 1975, approved
67 October 16, 2006 (120 Stat. 2038; D.C. Official Code § 1-301.47a).
68Sec. 4. Effective date.
69 This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the event of veto by the Mayor,
70 action by the Council to override the veto), and shall remain in effect for no longer than 90 days,
71 as provided for emergency acts of the Council of the District of Columbia in section 412(a) of
72 the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 788; D.C.
73 Official Code § 1-204.12(a)).
                                                     4