Read the full stored bill text
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.
1
A BILL
_________________________
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________
To require the establishment of safety standards for roadway barriers used during temporary 1
street closures, and to ensure that barriers used for street closures are covered by the 2
litigation management protections of Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technology as certified 3
by the United States Department of Homeland Security. 4
5
BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this 6
act may be cited as the “Vehicular Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act of 2025”. 7
Sec. 2. Title II of An Act To authorize the District of Columbia government to establish 8
an Office of Civil Defense, and for other purposes, effective March 14, 2007 (D.C. Law 16-262; 9
D.C. Official Code § 7-2231.01 et seq.) is amended by adding a new section 212 to read as 10
follows: 11
“Sec. 212. Roadway barrier safety standards. 12
_____________________________
Councilmember Charles Allen
_____________________________
Councilmember Brianne K. Nadeau
_____________________________
Councilmember Janeese Lewis George
_____________________________
Councilmember Matthew Frumin
2
“(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), any special event, as defined in 24 DCMR § 13
720.1, or other temporary event permitted by the Mayor requiring the closure of a public 14
roadway to vehicle traffic shall be subject to the requirements of this section. 15
“(b) The Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency shall, in consultation 16
with the District Department of Transportation (“DDOT”), promulgate rules to establish roadway 17
barrier standards for closure of a public roadway to vehicle traffic. 18
“(1) The standards shall: 19
“(A) Specify distinct, appropriate barrier standards for each road typology 20
as defined in the DDOT Functional Classification Map; 21
“(B) Include clear thresholds for the safety rating of standard barriers, as 22
measured by: 23
“(i) The Dynamic Penetration Rating as measured by the ASTM 24
International “Standard Test Method for Crash Testing of Vehicle Security Barriers” (ASTM 25
F2656), or any ASTM International standard that supercedes it; or 26
“(ii) Barricade types as prescribed by the current edition of the 27
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, Part 6, as approved by 28
the Federal Highway Administration; 29
“(C) For roadways classified as a collector or arterial, prioritze the use of 30
barriers that have attained certification as a Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technology by the United 31
States Department of Homeland Security, pursuant to the Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering 32
Effective Technologies Act of 2002, approved November 25, 2002 (116 Stat. 2238, 6 USC § 441 33
et seq.), as well as certification in favor of the government contractor defense, as defined in 34
section 863(d) of that Act; 35
3
“(D) Reduce the need for District employees to be deployed to special 36
events exclusively or primarily to effectuate closure of a roadway to vehicle traffic, as opposed 37
to performing other public safety functions; 38
“(E) Incorporate the following considerations: 39
“(i) Relevant crash test data and other metrics on the mitigation of 40
vehicle ramming attacks; 41
“(ii) The safety impacts of using motor vehicles as roadway 42
barriers; 43
“(iii) Best practices in roadway closure materials and procedures, 44
based on a review of peer jurisdictions. 45
“(2) The proposed rules shall be submitted to the Council for a 45-day period of 46
review, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays, and days of Council recess. If the Council 47
does not approve or disapprove the proposed rules, in whole or in part, by resolution within this 48
45-day review period, the proposed rules shall be deemed disapproved. 49
“(c) The Mayor shall not deny a permit for the temporary closure of a public roadway to 50
vehicle traffic based solely on the grounds of proposed roadway closure barriers, provided that 51
the proposed barriers meet standards established pursuant to subsection (b). 52
“(d) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (c), the following shall be exempt from the 53
requirements of this section: 54
“(1) Public right-of-way occupancy permits, as defined in 24 DCMR § 3400 et 55
seq., or any other public roadway closures necessary for construction, excavation, or public 56
space management; 57
4
“(2) Closure of a public roadway designated as a freeway, expressway, Interstate 58
Highway, or any bridges; 59
“(3) First Amendment activities that do not require the Mayor’s approval as a 60
special event; and 61
“(4) A National Special Security Event as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 3056 or other 62
event involving deployment of Federal law enforcement in coordination with the District.”. 63
Sec. 3. Fiscal impact statement. 64
The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement of the Budget Director as the fiscal impact 65
statement required by section 4a of the General Legislative Procedures Act of 1975, approved 66
October 16, 2006 (120 Stat. 2038; D.C. Official Code § 1-301.47a). 67
Sec. 4. Effective date. 68
This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the event of veto by the Mayor, 69
action by the Council to override the veto), and shall remain in effect for no longer than 90 days, 70
as provided for emergency acts of the Council of the District of Columbia in section 412(a) of 71
the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 788; D.C. 72
Official Code § 1-204.12(a)). 73