Spatial variations in support for metropolitan infrastructure planning: A comparative analysis of rail-transit voting behavior in the Portland and Seattle metropolitan areas (Oregon, Washington)

Suburbanization in the United States has been accompanied by the political fragmentation of urban structures and spatial variations of local characteristics. Intergovernmental conflict is common in those urban structures, which makes managing the regional planning process difficult for metropolitan planners. Rail-transit planners have also experienced problems, since public support of rail-transit varies among local cities.; Local support is a critical element of successful regional governance. Characteristics of local support for rail transit, therefore, should not be simplified and associated spatial variations deserve detailed analysis. The objectives of this study are to examine the levels and determining factors of rail-transit support and to illustrate the spatial variations within metropolitan regions and across regions.; The study area includes two metropolitan regions in the northwestern United States: Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington. The determinants and their spatial variations are discussed through analyses of rail-transit election results and census data. Descriptive, correlation, and regression analyses are used.; The level of support for rail-transit is lower in the suburbs than in the central cities of both regions. Seattle, which is politically more, fragmented, and has less rail-transit experience, shows larger differences than Portland. In Portland the level of education of voters (public-regardingness) is the predominant determinant of rail-transit support, while in Seattle both the level of education and the distance to stations (self-interest) are determinants.; Two components of policy implication in regional governance are suggested. First, the lesser degree of differences in rail-transit support between the central city and suburbs of Portland implies the importance of a regional approach in addressing local spatial variations. Second, the findings for the determinants of rail-transit support provide planners with alternative strategies for public education regarding rail-transit planning and regionalism.