Measure J results, by map and by spreadsheet

There are still ballots from the Measure J election remaining to be counted, but we believe the results are unlikely to change. It’s always useful to know where support did and didn’t come from across sprawling Los Angeles County on any kind of transportation issue, so we spent some time yesterday assembling the following maps with the help of Metro Transportation Planner Marie Sullivan.

The map below is based on the results of the election posted early Wednesday by the Los Angeles County Registrar. Not surprisingly, support for Measure J was strongest in the more urbanized parts of Los Angeles County, where there is also the most transit service.

Click above to see larger.

The map below shows the final results of Measure R in 2008. Compared to the Measure J results, the most striking thing is there are fewer areas where support ran under 50 percent and there are more areas around the county where support was over 70 percent.

Click above to see larger.

The map below shows the difference in support between Measure J in 2012 and Measure R in 2008. There’s nothing here that isn’t obvious from this week’s election results: in most parts of the county the majority of voters supported J but overall support for J was less than it was for R.

Click above to see larger.

After the jump: the city-by-city breakdown of Measure J votes.

We know that many of you want to see city-by-city results given the many different viewpoints expressed on Measure R and Measure J by localities across L.A. County. The first list below shows how the Measure J vote went in each city of the county (pdf here).

Click above to see larger version.

Click above to see larger.

The following shows the difference in each city between the Measure R vote and Measure J vote (pdf here).

Click above to see larger.

Click above to see larger.

Related: The Source ponders Measure J’s loss at the polls

18 thoughts on “Measure J results, by map and by spreadsheet

  1. @JustAPerson: Tax-spendthrifts often fail to understand that there is only so much money to be had, and we’ve already spent way more than that – thus, borrowing 40 cents on every dollar.

    Much as I like rail projects, and voted for J, until we can see wise management of the public trust by the party in power, those of us who pay most of the taxes will occasionally disapprove of your wonderful dream.

  2. Cross post from La.streets.blog in my quest, turning crusade, to bring mass transit to North LA:

    A lot of talk about Beverly Hills. Beverly Hills had 10k votes and got 58% approval. 10K is about 0.5% of total Measure J votes. We should keep things in perspective. It is our obsession with 90210 that gives these small groups of people so much press. I would venture further and say it is our obsession with these pop-culture communities that permeates our decisions and causes us to spend a disproportional amount of our funds on those areas, thereby alienating others.

    For example, the City of LA was considered the stronghold of transit support but there were 4 council districts in the City of Los Angeles which had support below 2/3rds. Those districts cast 217K votes or about 10% of the total. One of those districts had support of 55%. That 55% district is #12 and had 72K votes or 7x what Beverly Hills had. I doubt that district 12 (northwest San Fernando Valley) cared about Beverly Hills High school’s underground parking lot, but still gave Measure J less approval then the people in the Beverly Hills School District did.

    3 of the 4 districts in the City of LA that did not support the Measure by 2/3rds were in the San Fernando Valley, and the Valley as a whole gave Measure J 63% approval. That is lower then the rest of the City of LA and lower then the County as a whole.

    Little attention is paid to the Valley but it represented about 1 in 8 voters (and I’m guessing that 1 in 8, or 12%, will go up after the absentee ballots are counted). Perhaps we should start thinking about what we can do to get people north of the hill on board, because the arguments of ‘less people driving in Westwood and more jobs helps everyone’ or ‘it is the Valley’s fault why they don’t have rail’ obviously isn’t working. The attention spent on Beverly Hills would be better used addressing even lower support in a vastly more electorally important area. Otherwise, future measures may similarly run into silent yet numerically crucial opposition.

    P.s. The 4th LA City district that didn’t support J by 2/3rds was in South LA.

  3. I am a little confused. Does half a cent in this case mean half a penny or half a percent because in some cases people refer to half a percent as half a cent and I want to be sure.

  4. @Fred
    “those of us who pay most of the taxes will occasionally disapprove of your wonderful dream.”
    1. It is not ‘my dream.’ I was just relaying some of the misinformation that I had witnessed coming from others.
    2. I think that I personally pay a higher amount of taxes than the median (or than the mean).
    3. I do not vote, because of specific religious convictions. Again, I was passing along observations.

    @SteveH: The “Notify me of follow-up comments by email” function has not seemed to be working for at least a couple of weeks. I liked when it was added. It really helped The Source to be a conversation.

  5. Hi Just a Person;

    I’ll look into the notify email issue early next week. Thanks for the heads up and sorry for any inconvenience!

    Steve Hymon
    Editor, The Source

  6. This was not promoted right. No one knew about it. Even the flyer was no clear.
    It was promoted to late.
    Put in on the March ballet. Promote it right and it will pass.
    It is a win win for the area.

  7. Those who proposed against Measure J, saying that in the past when building Western-Wilshire Station, low income residents in Western-Wilshire district apartments were forced to relocate , so that the location can be used for the Purple line Train Station. It happened while it was difficult to find affordable housing at that time in the neighborhood. So the eminence domain was effective in achieving the goal of the Metro projects, but was also very ruthless. Now, was that a true accusation? What kind of better assistance those low income residence could get if the measure J were to pass in the next round ?

Comments are closed.