Boston and Seattle are on opposite sides of the country, and on opposite sides of how to deal with robotaxis.
As Tim Lee recently demonstrated, and as restacked in Changing Lanes, Boston's approach to robotaxis is naked protectionism. City councillor Julia Mejia declared her "strong opposition" to driverless vehicles, stating that permitting them creates "an opportunity for people to choose to not support humans." Boston makes no pretense of balance; the city's approach is oppositional by design, treating robotaxis as a threat to be blocked.
Seattle's approach is different. Seattle is doing things the traditional way; it's deliberate, thoughtful, and takes local interests into account. It's a model approach, and likely to be adopted by blue cities elsewhere.
Which is a shame, because in its own way, the Seattle approach is equally pernicious. Like Boston's, it's likely to do more harm than good.
To understand why, consider what Seattle actually did.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Changing Lanes to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.