Recent urban calamities in the United States glaringly exhibit a "mobility deficit" that is the culmination of inequitable planning decisions made in North American metropolitan areas over the past several decades. The power of an ideology that situates urban mobility overwhelmingly as a privatized practice remains one of the most pressing obstacles to urban social justice.
Contests over public goods remain at the forefront of urban political battles in nearly every major city in the United States. The spatial location of the good can play an instrumental role in understanding the contours and outcomes of such conflicts. The authors explore a particular case—voting for a growth-related development project, the monorail, by referendum in the city of Seattle—and examine how a grassroots campaign successfully mobilized voters by targeting both their particularistic and collective interests. The authors conduct analysis at the precinct level and use spatial tools of analysis and ecological inference, finding that voter support for the monorail stemmed from the location of the proposed route and the campaign's progressive appeals to environmental, social justice, and high tech concerns. Although cost overruns ultimately derailed construction of the monorail in 2005, when passed in 2002, the monorail was the most expensive infrastructure project in Seattle's history.
