Week in Review: September 5, 2025 - with Melissa Santos

Seattle Moves Forward with Surveillance Expansion Despite Lack of Pilot Data, Raises Federal Access Concerns from Hacks & Wonks

“As Florida plans to end all vaccine mandates, Western states form vaccine alliance” by Nada Hassanein from Stateline

“As WA districts curb phone use, Seattle lets schools decide” by Melissa Santos from Axios

“Washington schools boost safety tech through phone alerts, cameras” by Drew Mikkelsen from King5

“Firefighters question leaders’ role in Washington immigration raid” by Alex Brown from Stateline

“'Build the damn trains': Seattle transit advocates urge progress on light rail extensions despite massive funding gap” by Helen Smith from King5

“Facing Financial Headwinds, Harrell Stumps for West Seattle, Ballard Light Rail” by Ryan Packer from The Urbanist

“Waymo’s autonomous vehicles will hit Seattle streets this week” by Josh Cohen from Cascade PBS

Find stories that Crystal is reading here

Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here

[00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work, with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it.

If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I spoke with Amy Sundberg from The Urbanist about how Seattle City Council is poised to expand the city's surveillance pilot program before fully evaluating its effectiveness, raising concerns about federal access to the data amid heightened enforcement targeting immigration, abortion, and gender-affirming care.

Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows, where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Seattle Axios reporter, Melissa Santos. Hey! 

[00:01:07] Melissa Santos: Hello - good to be back. 

[00:01:09] Crystal Fincher: Good to have you back. Well, we have got a few things to talk about this week. Amid news of Florida saying that they're going to end mandates for all of their childhood vaccines, which has caused a lot of concern - has many people, many health care experts, concerned about what this means, the detrimental impacts on health - Washington, Oregon, and California have made an announcement that they're forming an alliance to counter this. What did they say, and what will this mean for residents on the West Coast? 

[00:01:46] Melissa Santos: Well, the governors are saying that they are going to develop their own vaccine recommendations - very different from what we just were talking about happening in Florida. And - really is a response to the CDC just sort of changing its vaccine policies or shifting in a new direction on that. And I really think our states here are saying - Well, we think vaccines are effective, and we still think they're an important part of our public health policy. I'm not exactly sure what it will look like exactly, but it's just a very big contrast to Kennedy and others on the federal level saying that vaccines are - actually, this was the Surgeon General who said that vaccine mandates are wrong and immoral. That's not something we were going to hear in our state, for certain. And we have a fairly - we haven't been seeing a huge increase in exemptions for vaccine requirements for school-aged kids. It's kind of about the level it was several years ago, at this point, when I checked on the data. So it's not like we're seeing this huge increase like some states are. So I also think that's reflective of our public policy. When it was 2019 or so, we eliminated the personal exemption for school vaccine requirements. This was in response to a big measles outbreak in Clark County, I believe it was - partly, that was part of what it was. And so now it is a little harder to get a vaccine exemption. You can't just say in our state - I don't want one. You have to at least have a medical or religious exemption - those still exist. And we've seen a little bit of an uptick in religious exemptions that I saw. But relatively, we're still seeing 95% of incoming kindergartners or so, get their vaccines. And I don't know if that'll change going forward. But I think that in this environment of vaccine hesitancy, our states are saying - No, we want to hold that line. And that's kind of what we're doing here. 

[00:03:39] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and it seems like they're focusing on information first and foremost. There have been a few states that have taken this approach across the country. Colorado recently made an announcement going a little bit further, talking about potentially purchasing vaccines straight from the manufacturer - making those available, mandating that they're covered on publicly funded health plans, not private health plans. I don't think we've heard about any implications for what may or may not be covered, if there are differences between recommendations on the West Coast and what we're getting from federal officials in the CDC. Is that correct? 

[00:04:19] Melissa Santos: I'm really not clear that this three-state thing would really affect what's covered and what's not - I still think that happens at the federal level, unless I'm mistaken. And so that's why I still have a few questions about what this really means, in a way. But because - I just don't know that anyone's going to be looking at anyone other than the CDC and the federal government when it comes to what insurance will cover, what will be provided through insurance specifically and coverage factors. I do think it's something we've done before in Washington - is try and stockpile some of the abortion drugs that were at risk due to changing policies and judicial rulings. So ordering vaccines - I could see us taking that step. I don't know that, though, that anything that we do at a state level - I bet people are looking at this right now for the Legislature coming up in January. But I just don't know that we will be able to affect what's covered by the insurance companies ourselves. That's an outstanding question, I guess I still have. 

[00:05:18] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think it's definitely an outstanding question here locally. Some other states have been able to find some ways - at least for people on public plans or through public health, to impact some of that. But really unclear that they can have any power over private insurers - how they make their calculations based on the federal recommendations on what's covered. I think this is likely early in the partnership. And because of all of the recent news that we're hearing - not only from Florida, but from the recent departure of several high-level officials at the CDC, much-covered staff walkout that recently happened - there's a lot of concern that evidence-based information is no longer prioritized in the way that it was, may not be available at all to the public. And so it seems like, for at least this initial bit of information, they're saying - We're going to make sure, to the best of our ability, that evidence-based recommendations make it to the public, that we are communicating that from a public health perspective. And I think we're going to need to stay tuned to figure out what that means for health coverage, what that might mean for the state directly purchasing from manufacturers various vaccines. But I think it is, has been news that has been welcomed by a lot of people who were very concerned to hear that no more vaccinations are going to be mandated in Florida, wondering how many other states might follow suit, and hearing a lot of concerning, frankly, misinformation from Robert F. Kennedy, who is leading this entire effort. So we will stay tuned to see what happens further there.

Now, I want to also talk about school! School is starting. Lots of people are heading back to school. I just got done with a school drop-off this morning, right before we are recording this. School in the city of Seattle started this week. Kindergarten starts next week in the city of Seattle. But one thing that lots of families, lots of districts are contending with is what to do about all of the cell phones that students have. It's been a challenging problem. Why has this been a problem that has motivated districts to act? 

[00:07:47] Melissa Santos: I think teachers really have been noticing distractions from phones - and younger and younger over time. We've seen from the teachers' unions nationally - talking about that this is a problem, especially in high school, but it's creeping younger and younger. And we have various research that does suggest that phones can be a problem. It honestly is a little complex on the research front, because there are some advantages to kids of a certain age - I'm talking more like teenagers, not elementary school kids - have phones. But there's also these dangers of social media and just people, kids sort of getting sucked up into that and having it affect their mental health even at school, even in the hallways, even outside of class time. Even for schools that have policies that say you can't take out your phone in class, kids are on their phone in the bathroom, they're on the phone in the lunchroom. And some people are afraid that that's contributing to cyberbullying at school, even on school hours, through phones, while things are happening in the hallways, or even just mentally taking kids into a bad place if they check in on social media. And maybe it's not bullying, but affecting their mental health through the day, even if they aren't allowed to use them in class.

So school districts are taking various approaches to this. Some, like Seattle, is still letting schools decide individually how they do it, which I guess - you know, I have a kindergartner starting next week, and I was just kind of relieved that his principal just sent out an email saying - No smartwatches, no phones. I mean, this is elementary school. I feel like that's pretty reasonable. I know that there are a lot of parents that would like that, including my husband - I think he liked the idea of having a tracker watch or something on our kid. And I think that even those I worry with the young kids can be distracting - at least for my student, maybe not for all students. But I think there's some flexibility for how that can be worked. But what we're seeing - this debate is, do we just have kids put their phones away in a pouch at the start of the day? Some Seattle schools do that already. And I think some districts are just requiring that as well, so you can't even access it during passing time. This is the case at some - at least a couple of middle schools in Seattle, probably some others - that are using these Yondr packets where you have to put them in, and it can only be opened, I believe, at the end of the day. And I think a staff member has to assist with it. I haven't seen this in action because I do not have a middle or high school student who'd be doing this. But that does seem like another thing that teachers have to do. But it's probably better than having the phone police all through class. So there's that option. Others - I think Garfield and Nathan Hale High schools, for instance - do allow you, and this is in Seattle, to have your phone as a student, just during passing periods and just during lunch.

But there's no district-wide policy, in Seattle, at least. And that surprised me a little bit because the state Superintendent's Office in Washington did do a survey recently, and it found that 71% of districts do have some sort of policy, or said they were going to have a policy district-wide in place starting at least this fall. Some of them adopted it years ago, but would have something in place this fall. And Seattle's still looking at what to do. They told me they were gathering feedback this fall. They plan to have what they call a decision paper ready, with options by December. And that, though - it was kind of funny, because I was like, Oh, I should mention they're doing this decision paper thing. But that really just means they're going to talk about it and then still bring it to the board sometime next year, maybe to talk about potentially something. So I really don't know that that's that concrete, right? I mean, they're going through a policy process, but it seems a little late to me. This has been years of this being a problem in schools. And I don't totally understand the logic of having it be school by school, honestly. Because all schools, I think, are dealing with the same issues. So I think it's challenging. I'm just learning about the politics of school things. Different parent groups are different, and I guess there's pressures there. I think that teachers often prefer - a lot of things, it's like - Let us figure it out for our students. Makes sense. But I don't know that phone policies is that. 

[00:11:35] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, you know, it's really interesting. I think for the majority of people - certainly for school staff people, for educators, and I think many parents, if not most parents - are generally comfortable, particularly in elementary and middle school, with just a no-phone policy during the day. Having it locked away, only accessible either before or after school. I have heard concerns from some parents that they feel it's a critical safety tool that they want their kids to have, and bringing up a concern that many parents have about what if violence occurs at the school. And there have been instances in Seattle schools, certainly nationwide, that we've all seen that there have been tragedies, whether it's an in-school related event or immediately off the grounds that cause a lockdown. And parents wanting to communicate, to be able to communicate with their kids in that instance. Have you heard that as a reason for some of this longer process? 

[00:12:40] Melissa Santos: I do think that's the main reason I've heard nationally. I don't know that that's - I haven't been as in tune with high school parents, maybe, about whether that's the concern they have. It'd be helpful if the district would be a little more communicative with me on this topic. I assume they're hearing those things because nationwide that has been the main concern - We want to stay in touch with our kids. And some of it, I think because we've had so many gun tragedies in schools, parents are really like - This could be my last message I ever communicate with my kid, and I don't want to miss that because of a no-phone policy. I think there's an emotional part of that, too. And that's very real. That what if your kid is in one of these active shooter situations, which have become more common than I think anyone would like. And then you could have had that last message with them if, God forbid, something happened to them and you didn't have that opportunity. I honestly feel, because I don't know really, that the phones themselves are aiding safety as much as you might think in the moment. It's also possible they could be keeping kids from following instructions from teachers that they need to follow, other safety protocols. But that desperate, wanting connection for our kids when we think they could be in a terribly unsafe situation or are at risk of that is real - and that's hard to argue against in a way.

But we are seeing other things implemented - like panic buttons is a thing that statewide schools are implementing for the teachers to be able to use to alert if there is some sort of active shooter threat. That's something we even have a state law about now - about districts being required to install safety devices and emergency response plans with police - under this law passed earlier this year that's going into effect over the next few months here. And I think maybe that can help address that concern a little, because certainly, if people are locked in a classroom, some communication out about what's happening, if there's an active shooter, certainly can be valuable. But I think that there's just an emotional pull. We hear about these awful school shootings with kids, and it's just like - What if I didn't get a chance, and I could have had that chance, to talk to my kid in those last moments and I didn't have it? I think that's part of what complicates this more than actually phones increasing safety itself.

[00:14:48] Crystal Fincher: Yep, I think that's right. Well, we will continue to stay tuned there and follow your reporting as you seek more answers from Seattle Public Schools and follow up with what's happening in the rest of the state.

Wanted to update folks on a story that we talked about last week that was pretty concerning, where firefighters on the firelines were detained by federal immigration authorities - which was unusual, odd, and frowned upon from people near and far, from firefighters, Congressional members, local legislators, huge outcry from the community. Fighting a very active fire that at that time was only 13% contained, was the biggest fire in Washington state. This fire, I believe, is still burning a week later. Why were immigration authorities in such a remote location seeking to detain people actively fighting a fire? was a big question. We received more reporting throughout this past week that seemed to indicate that a number of firefighters believe that this was an inside job, that leaders within the firefighting group led them to remote areas specifically to be met and detained by these authorities. Very concerning to hear. What does it look like unfolded? 

[00:16:24] Melissa Santos: Well, I thought it was really interesting - in this reporting from Stateline, they spoke to a dozen firefighters, staffers, contractors familiar with this incident. And those folks were saying they thought the top officials assigned to the fire, sent the crews to that remote location under false pretenses, so that federal agents could check their immigration status. And so this was - I didn't really think about that when I saw the reporting, because it was just kind of surprising initially that you'd go to an active fireline and do immigration enforcement there when there's plenty of other areas to do it, and there are plenty of other areas where it's happening. That just seemed like an unusual place to go, in that sense. But the people who are on the inside of this saying - Hey, they wouldn't have known where to go, unless one of our people told them - is a little surprising to me. And I guess we don't have 100% proof that that's the case, but we're talking about people who've been working - a wildland fire chief was quoted, who served more than 30 years with the forest service, saying - There's no way that the wildfire management team could not have been involved with this, because it just logistically would be really difficult. So then that does create ripple effects when we're trying to make sure we have well-staffed crews to fight these fires, which are becoming more common over the past decades or so. People are wondering - if they go on a fire with the team, if that could happen to them, is one of the things that some of these folks who are familiar with us are saying. And so I don't know - that seems like it could have a negative effect on recruiting people to go if they don't have trust. Even if your immigration status is not in doubt, for instance - if you don't have trust of your leaders to not rat out people on your team, that might not be a good feeling for some people. You know, I mean, it was smoky yesterday over the Puget Sound, I believe, still from this fire. We're still having effects from this. There might be some others, too, but we're still seeing effects from fires and from fires raging in the state currently, even where we don't have them burning right next to our homes. And I don't think anyone wants to see the sky smoked up or people having to evacuate their houses. And that requires strong firefighting crews and planning and coordination - and trust, I assume - with the people who are organizing those efforts. And I just, I could see how that could be undermined by an operation like this. And I'm hoping there's some clarity provided about exactly how this happened and whether it's going to continue to happen. 

[00:19:00] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And it really was incredible reporting by Stateline. But, to your point, it appears that they were led by a team, Team 7, from California. There were two, out of several crews that were responding with several other crews - but two crews that happened to be predominantly Hispanic crews were reassigned to a remote area that was different from other crews. That they were told they were going to be cutting up or clearing some wood. They got there and found out that it was actually wood from a private organization. It wasn't like it was trees waiting to be cut down. So they just waited there because they're like - We don't know that we're even able to touch these things. This is private property. This is private wood. We don't even know if we can cut it off. So they're like - We just need to wait for instructions. And then federal authorities show up at a remote location that several firefighters, who were very tenured, said that the only way those authorities would have, one, known to go there and been able to actually physically get there, would have been with the assistance of leadership in that fire. And then following that incident - and seemed to be like a really minor pretext for them - even being able to show up to examine everybody's citizenship or immigration papers. And then, the day after, the leadership of this team was rotated out. So a lot of times you'll see, even in movies and undercover stings, as soon as the operation happens - boom, they're out. And people are going - Oh, isn't that a coincidence that, as soon as federal authorities get involved, these people disappear.

I think one of the complicating factors is there are so many entities and agencies involved with the coordination and overseeing of a fire response - so federal authorities, our state Department of Natural Resources, those of other states that have people responding. And so it's even complicated - who to even go to that ultimately has answers, is a complication here. So I just, it's really concerning. As you say, we don't know what effect this is going to have on our ability to respond effectively to put out fires. People don't trust their leadership. If people believe that they may be hassled by immigration authorities - even if they're citizens - no one wants to sign up for that. Some of these firefighters are volunteers. Department of Natural Resources partners with and utilizes some incarcerated firefighters. If you have a criminal justice history, are you going to be signing up to be interrogated by other authorities? It just seems very short-sighted that we are potentially hampering our ability to fight fires that are only getting worse as time goes on. So very troubling to hear, on top of so many other enforcement issues that we're hearing about from the federal level. We'll continue to follow that.

Now, I want to talk about an issue that Mayor Bruce Harrell had a press conference about earlier this week, talking about light rail cost overruns and him wanting to make sure all of the partners involved in getting light rail to West Seattle and Ballard continue to push forward. Why are there cost overruns? And what was Mayor Harrell's message to others? 

[00:22:43] Melissa Santos: Well, we've been seeing this with all sorts of road projects - all construction projects, highway projects, too - over the last several years. There's been a lot of cost increases, with inflation, supply costs, labor costs. And then also delays cost a lot of money, partly because of those factors. So the mayor and other officials representing Seattle, like County Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda was there, were saying we need to do these projects in the core. We cannot risk not having light rail to Ballard or West Seattle if we want the whole system to function properly. That means we can't focus on getting to Tacoma and Everett and not do these projects in the middle. I don't think anyone was saying - Let's screw Tacoma, or screw Everett. But they're saying that in order for the whole system to function, and really for the region to have the transit it needs, the stations in Ballard and West Seattle also need to go forward. And we cannot sacrifice those because of this $20 to $30 billion shortfall for Sound Transit 3's planned projects.

[00:23:45] Crystal Fincher: Now, what is causing this shortfall? 

[00:23:48] Melissa Santos: There's projected increases in operating costs, and then there's decreases in revenue that Sound Transit collects. And some of this, I really do think there's been a lot of cost overruns for just materials - that's been a huge throughline for basically all construction projects since the pandemic. That's been a huge factor. Sometimes, not always, tariff costs are contributing to difficulties getting supplies - that's been sometimes a challenge. I don't know what factor that is here for Sound Transit. But also, I do think there have been planning delays. And when you have those inflationary costs coming up, when you say - Well, let's consider a new station over here or over here. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, I feel like the Mayor and Dow Constantine were both talking about alternative stations as well, from what Sound Transit was already considering. Considering options is great, but it does add a lot of time sometimes, and I think it did in this case. So a year or two can translate into a billion dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars easily on a project like this. And we're talking about many stations here for which those kind of conversations are happening. So, yeah, delays are a factor. And when you have inflation and supply costs going up and labor costs going up, any year-long delay can really add a lot to the cost of a project. 

[00:25:08] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. Now, Mayor Harrell wasn't alone in this plea. He was joined by King County Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, by the Executive Director of Transportation Choices Coalition Kirk Hovenkotter - really, all making a plea, saying that light rail is not only popular, but it's necessary for a modern, growing city. And that there really is no replacement. And this is an absolutely necessary element for the growth and health of the region. Does Sound Transit seem like they're feeling the same kind of push to continue? Or how are they beginning to navigate through this major funding shortfall? 

[00:25:55] Melissa Santos: I think that there's been debate on the board, which is what prompted this press conference in Seattle. Some members from more suburban areas on the Sound Transit board, when talking about the shortfall, have been saying - It's really important we focus on getting that spine to Everett and Tacoma done. And they're really worried - some of those board members - about somehow not getting to those further out areas, because cost overruns in Seattle are so high. So that's been the tension point, and it's been a tension point over the last two, three years. Really, honestly, since the start of Sound Transit. I covered news in Tacoma for a long time, and the concern among Pierce County folks that we wouldn't really get the light rail for real after all these years, but we still would be paying for it, was very tangible in 2016, when Pierce County didn't actually approve Sound Transit 3 - just the county itself. So kind of all of those longstanding fears and concerns about how this will work and whether Seattle's projects will get prioritized above the suburbs, and not even suburbs - Everett and Tacoma are huge now, they also need transit - those are all coming up now. And I think the Mayor and all these King County officials standing together to say - We cannot backtrack on the Seattle projects - is kind of to counter some of what was coming from some of the suburban Sound Transit board members expressing their concerns that they wouldn't get the light rail. So I don't know how they're going to respond to that - Sound Transit as an organization as a whole. I think when you have that big of a budget problem, there's a lot of options and there's going to be a lot more discussions about how to deal with it. And this was Seattle folks putting their foot down, saying - You can't just not build our stuff.

Now there is some talk and the Mayor sort of indicated - the Seattle mayor - that he might be supportive of not building as expansive of a system in Seattle, which - because the tunnel to Ballard is a cost issue, I guess I will say. So, I mean, there was some talk - and this is me kind of digging in my transit brain, because I haven't been following this as closely - but can we just have one tunnel instead of two for Seattle? is sort of an ongoing discussion about potentially dealing with this. And the Mayor, at least, seemed like he was open to discussing that. And the concern is that would create capacity challenges down the road. Like, maybe if we don't build that tunnel to get to Ballard, then we're all kind of sharing a tunnel, then we won't be able to have the same frequency of trains. So those are the kind of concerns that are now being juggled. And I'm not sure that support is wide among all Seattle officials for not building the tunnel to Ballard or sharing a tunnel - however that would look. But that's one of the options that has been floated, which the Mayor at least has indicated - Maybe, oh, okay, maybe something like that. But we'd have to at least build it - is his stance. 

[00:28:51] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. Like you said, very different opinions on that Sound Transit board. We recently got the news that a few new stations, the Star Lake, Kent Des Moines Road, and Federal Way stations are going to be opening late this year - I believe it's December 6th. But I think we got a snippet of a representative opinion from many of the more suburban Sound Transit board members' thinking, where Pete von Reichbauer, a King County Councilmember, former Federal Way City Councilmember - but he's from Federal Way - had a bit of a cheeky response, saying, We're happy this is finally coming. We've been paying for it the entire time and are just now getting it. And I think - from within Seattle, I think some people may not fully appreciate how much that has stung some people in suburbs. To have been paying for light rail from the very beginning, from when the very first stations opened in Seattle - and then because of prior cost overruns, had delays in the timeline for when their stations were going to be open. And so then feeling like we're sending our tax dollars, it's not like we don't recognize the value of light rail, it's not that we don't want it all. But we are paying for it and we want to see something. And when costs get cut, we seem to be the ones who pay the biggest price. And I think that's also something that needs to be contended with. I think they need to figure out a way to build this entire timeline. Mayor Harrell, several others certainly have talked about looking for ways to accelerate this. The time that these projects take contributes to their costs, so trying to find ways to shorten timelines, to many people, can only help. I hope that happens for all of the planned openings and expansions. But $22 billion is nothing to shake a stick at. It's pretty major. So we'll see how this unfolds over time.

Now, the final thing I want to talk about today was news that Waymo's autonomous vehicles will actually hit Seattle streets this week. What should Seattle residents be on the lookout for? What is this deployment involving?

[00:31:21] Melissa Santos: So one of the things - I thought the article from Cascade PBS covered this very well - there will be drivers. I think that is important for residents to know. There will be people driving the cars, at least for now. It's sort of a precursor to eventually having really autonomous vehicles that don't have drivers, maybe down the road. But they're supposed to be gathering information. They're supposed to be doing the groundwork to eventually have really autonomous vehicles sometime at an unspecified point in the future. But right now, there should be someone behind the wheel. 

[00:31:55] Crystal Fincher: What cities is this going to be happening in? 

[00:31:58] Melissa Santos: So they'll be having these in Kirkland and Bellevue, in addition to several neighborhoods in Seattle. And again, these are the Waymo drivers traveling around the Downtown core and through these neighborhoods. Waymo said this will be giving the vehicles "context" for where they'll operate. And, you know, it's just one of those things - I wish we were talking like normal words. Context is a great word. But I don't know what it means in this context, honestly. You know what I mean? Okay, so I mean, mapping - I don't totally get it. But in any case, they're still going to have drivers for now. You'd have to get a different permit to have really autonomous vehicles. And there still have been concerns in other cities, like San Francisco, where there have been some crashes of these actual robo-taxis that are really not driven by a person. And sometimes even things that are less problematic than crashes - like, the cars honking at each other throughout the night. These are things that still could bother residents. And if we go to that further automated future - and it probably would be a while away, I feel like nothing moves that quickly in Seattle for it to be happening in the next year - to have the actual automated no-driver Waymo cars. But, I mean, this is a first step. And this is Waymo saying that they want to do this in Seattle. And I think residents will have opinions about that - maybe good and bad going forward.

[00:33:21] Crystal Fincher: So, yeah, I think you hit those main points. And Seattle and Washington - they haven't yet allowed fully autonomous vehicle operations, so this is not happening anywhere in Washington state. And they're still working on creating their framework for how they're going to do that and how they're going to permit that. The City of Seattle said that they support "innovation that makes transportation safer, more efficient, and more accessible." And they "look forward to continuing the partnerships to ensure future services meet our transportation goals." Don't know that that is much of a concrete statement or what that- 

[00:33:55] Melissa Santos: I don't know what these statements from government officials mean when they give us stuff like that. It's like, why even - I'm not saying don't reply to us. I want people to reply to us, but what- 

[00:34:05] Crystal Fincher: It's the non-reply reply. It's - we don't have to provide firm answers.. Yeah, it clearly doesn't. It's a lot of words that don't convey much of anything, But I do hope that we hear some feedback from other regions, and we learn lessons from other regions. And certainly have heard feedback that there have been some hasty implementations, according to residents, public officials in some other areas. And while this is certainly an incredible technology, and we've come a long way - just the ability to do this so far - that the companies that want to deploy this are doing so for a profit. And we have seen some of these companies put profit above safety in some situations. And sometimes lax or lacking permitting processes that rely on the benevolence of these companies leave a lot to be desired. People say - Well, it'd be bad if they had a crash. There's no way they would allow that. And then finding information that in various circumstances that that doesn't hold up. And so, as the state and the city work through these - and all of the cities involved, Bellevue and Kirkland too - I hope that they're really hearing from residents and putting thought into making this safe first, understanding what the need and value actually is, what needs versus wants are, and moving forward responsibly and prudently. But we'll certainly continue to follow this. But again, we won't be seeing driverless vehicles anytime soon. That's not currently even allowed. They're going to be collecting data and kind of doing the preparing with actual drivers in the vehicles. But we will see some of those vehicles around with drivers in them.

[00:36:04] Melissa Santos: This is a bit of a tangent, but what benefit do these provide to, like a human being? This is my one question. I'm thinking about this - like, I don't - I know that there's a lot of arguments that, hey, humans crash their cars a lot. This is very true. Humans do crash cars. That definitely happens. But it's also a little easier to hold someone accountable. And there have been weird things that you feel like - you know, driving into a sinkhole, crashing into a fire truck - things that, hopefully, a human wouldn't do. I guess it could happen. It certainly could happen. But I don't know that, like - I guess I could be old-fashioned. I might want to hail a ride with a human person. I just don't know what - what is the benefit that's purported for, like, not having a driver? 

[00:36:42] Crystal Fincher: Melissa, there are some very important people that need to make some very important profit. 

[00:36:46] Melissa Santos: Okay. I just was like- you're like [laughter] - you know, sometimes I feel like because I don't cover tech exclusively at all. And I'm just kind of, I mean, what's-

[00:36:55] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I was being flip. I think initially you were on the right track. Some of this technology - if you just look at the potential of the technology - if it were to be used in its most benevolent way, in its most promising, responsible way - yeah, people are not safe drivers. We talk about traffic violence all the time. People are not safe drivers. We like to think so because we're actually in control of the vehicle when we're behind the wheel, so that sense of control and our confidence in ourselves makes us feel safe. But it's one of the most dangerous forms of transport that we have. And we see the evidence of that every single day on our roads. And so, in ideal conditions, with ideal technology - absolutely, they could potentially be safer than human drivers. And some of the stuff that some of the platform companies have made plain, like the ability to just hail at a whim. Elon Musk previously talked about - Oh, you can have your car work for you while you're sleeping, blah, blah, blah. Now, that seemed to be completely detached from reality. It is not happening anywhere. It doesn't look close to happening. But I think what people have learned through some of these pilots is that where the technology is today is far from ideal in order to get to that place.

And also, there is not a technology involved with this. There are different car companies using different methods and different technologies, and they vary. And some of them are better than others, but they all have their pros and cons. Particularly, they all have their different challenges. In some recent pilots with Tesla in Texas, there were several that were reported, like turning into whether it was a railway or on the wrong side of the road, not adequately recognizing the road markings and where they were supposed to be oriented on the road. So this is not a technology. It's a series of technologies that continues to evolve. And evolve doesn't always mean progress in a way that benefits the general public. It just means it changes. And in some ways, they have changed - has been positive. In some ways, they have changed - has not been. And then you talk about the motivations of the companies - and really, companies aren't formless entities, they're led by people - and so what are the motivations of these people who we have seen in other contexts? And in a lot of what we're seeing with tech leaders right now in various contexts gives people a lot of concern that they may not be putting the safety and well-being of regular, everyday people on the street and neighborhoods as their top priority.

So I think you ask a very, very good question, in that what is it that we're actually looking to deliver as a benefit to residents? This requires public permitting, meaning that there are supposed to be people who serve the public and are representing the public in saying that this should offer a benefit - for us to allow you to use public assets to create profit for these private entities, there should be some benefit for the public. And I don't know that that is very well defined, aside from press releases and these kind of very rosy, future-oriented hopes that don't necessarily reflect the reality that we see today. 

[00:40:27] Melissa Santos: I know that this is going probably over time, but one of the things that I thought was interesting when looking at automated vehicle studies a while ago - this was more for personally owned ones - but they have to go to a new place, right? So there was a period where we were thinking that this would also improve traffic because the cars could drive closer together safely - and then sort of ease traffic. But then, for instance, let's say you have a perfectly automated car, and it drives you to work. It has to drive back. There are some of those traffic things that look like they're harder to realize - if you have a fleet that's going from place to place, some of that might be alleviated. But there's a potential for it to put more cars on the road, and not necessarily a tool to relieve congestion - is one thing I kind of found by looking at research. 

[00:41:06] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. That seems to have been one of the big learnings from the pilots up until now - is that it does not alleviate traffic and, in fact, may make it worse. Because there are just, like you said, additional fleets of vehicles now on the road. And they aren't subsequently reducing a lot of other trips. And so there are a lot of people who are saying - Hey, if we're allowing use of the publicly funded right-of-way and permitting in a way that's going to allow profit from this, maybe we should be looking at technologies and utilizations that actually do reduce traffic and actually do improve travel times - which, in city cores is transit. And so big conversations about - Are we even inhibiting transit? This is a backdrop of a whole conversation about the Route 8, or the L8, as people talk about it - that has received a lot of news coverage lately. But this looks like it would likely make the 8 even later, instead of improving travel time. So there are certainly people who appreciate the novelty of it, who say - Hey, this is another option and a new technology. Isn't that a cool thing in and of itself? But it does have many impacts, and I think it's a necessary question to really understand and examine all of those impacts to determine what the most appropriate course for it is.

And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, September 5th, 2025. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng - and she's incredible and amazing, and you should all send her positive thoughts. Our insightful co-host today was Seattle Axios reporter Melissa Santos. You can find Melissa on Bluesky at @melissajsantos. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks, and you can follow me on Bluesky at @finchfrii, with three I's. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our midweek topical show delivered to your feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. And seriously, reviews - five-star reviews if you feel so motivated - really do help us. So please - if you haven't had an opportunity, please do that wherever you listen. And you can get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com.

Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.