In the Senate
On Monday, March 16th, the Senate Transportation Committee heard several bills and received a presentation from the advisory council on Traffic Safety.
Chair Dibble presented his bill, SF 2971 known as the “Kayla’s HOPE Act,” which would require MnDOT to work with the Department of Health to identify bridges with a history of suicide deaths and develop criteria for when suicide prevention measures (like taller railings) should be built into bridge projects.
The committee also heard bills requiring those under 21 to complete driver education courses and creating a financial assistance program for those who have trouble paying for those programs.
Finally, the Advisory Council on Traffic Safety presented its 2025 report to the legislature, with safety data and progress reporting from across the state.
On Wednesday, March 18th, the Senate Transportation Committee heard four bills that will decide the future regulatory framework of Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAVs) in Minnesota. Unlike recent conversations in the House, where meaningful conversations on Waymo and other CAVs have stalled, the Senate Transportation Committee had broader discussions to ensure future policy frameworks don’t undercut the interests of Minnesotans across the state.
What Bills Did the Senate Hear?
The Senate heard four bills that outline various elements of automated vehicles.
The first two bills set out two different approaches to regulate Waymo and other similar vehicles, which will likely form the basis for whatever framework emerges from the legislature.
The first, SF 4010, held by Senator Johnson Stewart, is the Senate companion bill to the autonomous vehicles regulations bill heard in the House (HF 3513), which is led by Waymo’s lobbyists.
The second, SF 4168, held by Chair Dibble, presents a stronger, more thoughtful regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles that takes steps towards protecting workers, transit, and other local concerns.
Two additional bills were heard that add worker protections to the conversations on various frameworks.
SF 4014, led by Senator McEwen, requires a natural person to be present in the vehicle when a commercial vehicle over 10,001 pounds is operated by an automated driving system.
SF 4381, led by Senator Maye Quade, establishes an advisory board to study the impacts of the implementation of commercial autonomous vehicle operations on Minnesotans at large and workers across the state.
What Happened at the Committee Hearing?
The committee heard testimony from community members, labor leaders, rideshare, transit, and truck drivers, disability advocates, and industry representatives.
Many testifiers and advocates shared concern on mobility for the 1 in 3 Minnesotans who don’t or can’t drive and isolation from opportunity and daily life that our car-oriented system causes Minnesotans across the state. In our view, car dependence is part of the problem. Autonomous vehicles won’t solve it.
Other industry supporters spoke of their desire for loose regulations that give operators autonomy, preempt local governments from managing CAVs, reduce reporting and transparency requirements, self-certify safety results, and reduce liability for the company in case of accidents that cause death, injury, or property damage.
Our organization opposes deploying these systems on our streets. Since the legislative discussion focuses on regulatory frameworks, we support ensuring these conversations center on Minnesotans and communities most impacted by past and current transportation decisions—and thoughtfully set a high bar that prioritizes public benefit.
A meaningful regulatory framework should not operate as a blank check, supplant state or local authority and community voice, or presume deployment as the only goal.
The framework that emerges should set a high bar and rigorous conditions that only use-case models that truly benefit and protect Minnesotans, if any, can operate in our state.
We respectfully urged the committee to oppose SF 4010, the Waymo-led industry bill, and continue strengthening protections brought by Chair Dibble, Senator McEwen, and Senator Maye Quade in SF 4618, SF 4014, and SF 4381. Additionally, we will continue to have more thoughtful, public conversations on the impacts of connected and autonomous vehicles and keep transportation governance accountable to the people of Minnesota.
What Comes Next for CAVs?
The Senate laid the bills over for additional discussion, with a likely framework taking elements from the various bills. These bills will be brought back to the committee next week for a “mark-up” session, where elements from each bill will be packaged together and advanced as a single bill. This process will happen in the transportation committee on Wednesday, March 25th.
Our Streets believes that any autonomous vehicle framework in Minnesota must set a high bar — one that genuinely protects workers, strengthens transit, ensures accessibility, and gives local communities a meaningful role in regulating these systems. We support deliberate, inclusive policymaking over rushed action, which is why we’re advocating for continued stakeholder engagement and passage of a comprehensive regulatory package next session.
If companies like Waymo want to operate in Minnesota, they should be prepared to meet that standard, and even if a bill is passed, it regulates, not promotes, Waymo or other similar services from operating. We will work to ensure the framework is as strong as possible and continue to fight with allies to keep CAVs out of Minnesota.
In the House
On Tuesday, March 17th, Chair Brad Tabke (DFL, 54A) held the gavel in the House Transportation Committee.
This hearing covered a mix of transportation, veterans, and public safety topics. Bills addressed expanding benefits for Hmong Veterans of the Secret War in Laos, providing security services for certain state officials, and a broad transportation policy bill touching on crash reporting, legislative routes, and traffic signals that may serve as a vehicle bill.
Other measures would modify ignition interlock requirements, update excavation notice rules, authorize camera enforcement for transit and bike lane parking violations, and adjust surcharges on electric and hybrid vehicles based on weight.
On Wednesday, March 18th, Chair John Koznick (GOP, 57A) held the gavel in the House Transportation Committee.
The committee heard several bills, including Representative Olson’s bill to study suicide prevention barriers, the bipartisan complement to Chair Dibble’s bill.
There were also several agency bills heard and various technical changes and small provisions related to the State Patrol and Driver and Vehicle Services (DVS).
On MnDOT’s agency bills, found in HF3749, there are several key pieces to note.
MnDOT has been working to modify reporting requirements on many elements, especially those that govern major projects and other legislatively mandated reports. The agency stated that it costs them over $1 million each year to prepare the reports and are seeking to streamline those requirements.
However, legislators had concerns with the number of reports the agency wants to remove, stripping public accountability. We agree that the legislative reporting process is inaccessible and that communities need data published in accessible formats. However, the agency has not committed to a concrete approach for achieving this transparency.
The other red flag for Rep. Kraft (DFL, 46A) was the change in the agency’s definition of a “major project” to $30 million in the metro and $15 million in Greater Minnesota. Currently, the thresholds are $15 million in the metro and $5 million in Greater Minnesota. This threshold has not increased in many years, even as construction and other costs have increased significantly.
Our Streets is tracking the matter as it relates to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) mitigation legislation, which includes the definition of a major project in the law’s definition of a major highway project. Raising these thresholds would exempt more projects from oversight and emissions accountability.
While it seems unlikely that highway expansions would be able to advance—even with higher project thresholds—due to their extremely high cost and fiscal recklessness within the state transportation budget, Rep. Kraft and the DFL committee members blocked the amendment to include this provision in the agency bill. There isn’t much trust with GOP members around defense of the VMT law in the House, so it is strategic in that space to hold the line on any measure that relates to the law during this session.
Stay updated on legislative progress
We’ll let you know about action alerts, opportunities to testify, and other transportation-related legislative happenings.