So, part of the issue is that, in Seattle, the question of "can self-driving cars replace mass transit infrastructure?" has political implications right now. Th

So, part of the issue is that, in Seattle, the question of "can self-driving cars replace mass transit infrastructure?" has political implications right now. The article didn't really mention it, but I think that's because it's the Seattle Times, so they would assume that readers are familiar with the background context. To explain: after the usual [0] decade of planning, Seattle's regional transit authority has a $50 billion expansion plan (including more rail and bus service) finalized, and it is coming up for a vote shortly. One of the arguments that the opposition brings up a lot is, "we don't need ST3 because self-driving cars will take care of the transit problems." A counter-argument made by supporters of the plan (including me), is that since Seattle is already snarled with traffic (average commute times have doubled since 2010, and it's only expected to get worse), the burden of proof is on these people to show that self-driving cars can replace mass transit, and so far they haven't done so. Without specifically accusing you (I don't know if you know anything about this situation), I will say that the suggestion of "we should wait and see" is very similar to the concern trolling that has been used by a lot of ST3 opponents to try and derail the project. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_process