Measure J unofficial results

The final unoffiicial results were posted by the Registrar within the past hour. With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Measure J is nearly two percentage points shy of the two-thirds threshold needed for passage. It appears about 889,000 fewer people cast a vote in the Measure J election than in the Measure R election in 2008.

J Votes Percent
J – MTA SALES TAX CONTINUANCE – YES 1,367,357 64.72
NO 745,310 35.28

Registration 4,593,621
Precincts Reporting 4,993
Total Precincts 4,993
% Precincts Reporting 100

 

11 replies

  1. It is really a shame that this didn’t pass. It would have directly addressed the main problem with the development of the transit network, which is that it’s just not happening fast enough. It’s hard for people to get excited about projects that will be done in 30 or 40 years.

    Like

  2. I think the how Measure R passed as a one time chance, but less people voting for Measure J show that more people gave Metro a chance, but it’s not something that Metro can keep coming back with additional Measures to keep extending it over and over again.

    We got a lot of things done with Measure R. But at the same time we also lost the attention to keep up with the maintenance on the Blue Line. It’s frequently riddled with delays, breakdowns, and the many stations are feeding grounds for illegal activities and are in disgusting shape with the smell of urine.

    And many have cited valid and credible resources here on The Source that Metro has not been doing everything they could be doing to come up with more revenues on their own. In the end, they too are stuck within their conservative mindset that “it has always been this way so there’s no need to fix how Metro does its business.”

    There are other alternatives than just extending taxes to keep Metro projects alive. If that means making some serious reforms and changes to the way Metro conducts its business to increase revenue, then it has to be done.

    Like

    • Hi Phantom Commuter;

      The subway is still the subway — a heavy rail project. And Metro’s long-range plan remains in effect, with the project to be built in three phases with the following projected completion dates — La Cienega in 2023, Century City 2026 and Westwood by 2036.

      Steve Hymon
      Editor, The Source

      Like

  3. What really blows is this clearly passed with a majority. Unfortunately, that silly 67% clause from prop 13 blocks it by arbitrarily changing the rules of the game. I don’t even understand how it’s legal… even prop 13 didn’t get 67% approval at the ballots (or even the 64% that measure j got last night).

    Like

  4. Although 100% of the precincts have reported, the County Website indicates that almost 450,000 vote by mail ballots were cast and these are not yet included in the totals. It looks like only the 2,368,283 ballots physically cast at a polling precinct are included in the above numbers. Using the above numbers (2,112,667 votes on J divided by 2,368,283) thats about 90 of the ballots cast, casting a vote on J.

    If we take the same percentage with regard to the 448,470 mail in ballots, thats 403,623 ballots still to be counted for a total of 2,516,290 votes cast. 66% of that number is 1,660,752, meaning 293,395 of mail in ballots would need to be “yes” or about 73% of the votes still to be counted. In the end it’s going to depend on how those mail in voters go.

    Like

  5. There was a few main problems as to why this didn’t pass. 1) There was little to no promotion about Measure J from Metro. In 2008, there was a lot more advertising and more press about Measure R. Where/why did that not happen in 2012 with J? 2) There was a lot of misinformation and lies spread by Beverly Hills, Crenshaw Subway Coalition and the BRU. There were no service cuts due to Measure R, it was due to the state raid of Transit Operating Assistance and the expiration of the BRU’s Consent Decree with Metro. I wish those two things were addressed and disappointed in the lack of advertising by Metro.

    We need another enthusiastic supporter of Metro to chair the Board. Having Antonovich there is a buzzkill. We need another Antonio to rally the troops and push another future Measure. It’s best to probably wait until 2020 when people see more progress with rail projects. By that time, the Expo Line, Foothill Gold Line, Crenshaw Line and hopefully the Connector and westside subway are nearing completion or just opening. When people see more progress and more people use the system then there will be more compassion and advocacy for greater rail projects in LA.

    Like

  6. I’ve always believed that R was pushed over the top by the L.A. Times, which at the time was running the “Bottleneck Blog” by that Hymon guy (whatever happened to him?). Measure R was in the paper pretty much every day for weeks.

    What percentage of voters were even aware of J before seeing it on the ballot? How many understood the implications of loan money?

    Like

  7. I’m one to vote yes for transit, but this time I voted no because I didn’t like the graph on mta.net showing that only 35% of the tax revenue would go towards trains. If they had a Measure that 100% went towards building trains then I would vote for it.

    Like

  8. There was lack of insight and knowledge for many of the voters about what Measure J could do for transportation in the county.

    An example of this is that in the last couple of years Metro has cut bus service hours partly to move resources over from the lower demand lines to the most heavily used lines. This makes sense for efficiency; why would you want to have lines that are so crowded that people cannot get on a bus and yet you have other bus lines where there are only a handful of people riding them or the service is duplicating what other lines do? But, this made it look as though increasing amounts of rail lines caused bus service to be reduced.

    Metro tends to put ight-rail in where old rail right-of-ways are. This makes it a lot less costly and more politically viable to buy this available space rather than having to buy up houses or businesses along a more densely populated route. This can also lead to a problem of light-rail, or BRT, going in where there is less transit dependency which tend to be higher income areas where the proportion of people of color would be a smaller part of the population. Examples of this would be the Expo Line alignment and the Orange Line. It wouldn’t make any sense for a transit agency to deliberately spend a lot of resources on areas that would have little use for their services. Its cost and availability of land, or existing rail lines that caused these choices, not bias towards one segment of the population.

    The Red/Purple subway is an exception to this. But, it costs at least four times more per mile to dig a tunnel for rail compared to putting in a surface rail line. This can only be financially viable in densely populated areas, or in the case of North Hollywood, to get past a hillside obstacle.

    Like

  9. Well what I don’t understand is why Proposition 30 passes with just over 50 percent of the vote and Measure J requires 66.7%. They both explicitly raise taxes. Can someone please explain?

    Like