What Can Taiwan Learn from Seattle's Seven Priorities for Autonomous Vehicle Development?

車未來 2025-06-20

As autonomous vehicle (AV) technology moves closer to commercial deployment, cities around the world face the challenge of incorporating this innovative technology into their public transportation systems while maintaining fairness and safety. Seattle, Washington, is attempting to take a different approach. Instead of allowing policies to be shaped solely by technical experts or industry stakeholders, the city has chosen to begin with its citizens—engaging diverse communities in the policy-making process and aiming to develop a truly human-centered AV integration plan. In doing so, it has introduced seven key priorities for AV development. This article explores what lessons Taiwan might draw from Seattle's approach as it charts its own path in autonomous mobility.

In the summer of last year, the Seattle Department of Transportation (DOT) established the Autonomous Vehicle Inclusive Planning Cohort, comprising individuals from marginalized groups, including people with disabilities, communities of color, low-income families, immigrants, and older adults. In collaboration with the University of Oregon, the cohort produced a comprehensive report offering clear direction for the city's AV policy development. At the core of the report are seven priority areas: transportation equity, social justice, workforce transition, safety oversight, data governance, environmental sustainability, and public engagement.

The report emphasized that the city must ensure AV accessibility for all, especially for people with disabilities and low-income residents. This includes pricing structures, the proportion of accessible vehicles, and the geographic coverage of services—all of which should prioritize the real needs of vulnerable populations. It also stressed that AV operators must publish safety data, undergo third-party evaluations, and establish clear accountability mechanisms to build public trust. Additionally, the report advised that as AV technology displaces traditional driving jobs, the city should collaborate with educational institutions to create retraining and reemployment programs, allowing workers to transition smoothly into the new economy.

The working group further recommended that all AV-related policies in Seattle be subject to systematic racial equity analysis to prevent exacerbating existing inequalities. As the city facilitates industry growth, it should also consider spatial planning issues—avoiding the concentration of vehicle storage facilities in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods, which could further diminish their available space and living conditions. The city must also set concrete mechanisms for data sharing and governance, requiring operators to provide operational data so that government agencies can monitor trends, manage risks, and adapt policies in a timely manner.

Beyond institutional design, the city of Seattle places great importance on communication and education with its residents. The municipal government continues to host community briefings and educational programs to increase public understanding and trust in AV technology. Although the community advisory work has concluded, the city remains in close contact with participating members, regularly updating them on legislative developments and industry trends. The Seattle DOT has made it clear that in this wave of technological transformation, local governments not only deserve a seat at the table—they must actively represent public interests and guide policy in ways that serve their communities.

Seen in this light, Seattle’s approach offers valuable insights for Taiwan, which is also actively developing AV technologies. First and foremost, whether in promoting transportation technologies or shaping relevant policies, it is essential to include the voices of underrepresented groups. Taiwan’s AV development has so far been largely driven by industry players and focused on testing and operations. More attention should be given to the actual needs of Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, and rural residents. If Taiwan can emulate Seattle by institutionalizing community advisory groups, policy advancement would likely benefit from stronger legitimacy and public support.

Second, Seattle’s emphasis on workforce transition reminds us to take seriously the impact of industry transformation on employment. Taiwan has a large number of taxi and delivery drivers who may face unemployment as AVs become more widespread. Establishing proactive training and education programs will help reduce social resistance and exclusion while also cultivating local talent for the emerging smart transportation sector.

Lastly, Seattle’s requirement for data transparency and regulatory compliance underscores the importance of government leadership in technological governance. Taiwan could develop an open and transparent data platform that enables local governments and research institutions to participate in decision-making, thereby laying a more robust foundation for AV policy development.

In summary, Seattle's initiatives provide a model of governance that seeks to balance technological innovation with social equity. As Taiwan designs its future smart transportation policies, incorporating principles of human-centeredness, fairness, and sustainability could help ensure that autonomous vehicle technology truly enhances quality of life and promotes societal well-being.