Measure J results updated again; yes votes rise to 65.33 percent

Here are the latest Measure J results, posted a few minutes ago the Los Angeles County Registrar.

According to the Registar, 130,063 ballots were added to the election results today. It appears of those, 112,383 cast a vote in the Measure J election. That brings the estimated total still to be counted to 215,991 ballots, according to the Registrar.

Measure J needs two-thirds voter approval to pass. As we’ve said the last two weeks, it’s possible but unlikely due to two issues: 1) of the remaining votes to be counted, it’s unlikely all of them cast votes for or against Measure J, and; 2) Of the ballots remaining, it’s likely that at least 75 percent of them would need to be ‘yes’ votes for Measure J to pass.

The news release from the Registrar is posted after the jump.

November 6, 2012 Presidential General Election
FOURTH BALLOT COUNT UPDATE

Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk (RR/CC) Dean C. Logan
announced the following updated semifinal results as of today, November 20,
2012.

The update includes 130,063 ballots processed since election night consisting of
97,878 Vote by Mail ballots and 32,185 Precinct ballots, which includes
Provisional ballots. For vote totals on specific contests, please visit lavote.net.
This brings the updated estimate to approximately 215,991 ballots to be
processed.

Please remember that these results are subject to change throughout the
canvass period. The next official update is scheduled for Friday, November 23,
2012 at 1 p.m. All results and updates will be posted online as they become
available.

Please see our Updated Canvass Schedule that includes new tally dates and
times online at http://www.lavote.net.

The mission of the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk is to serve Los Angeles
County by providing essential records management and election services in a
fair, accessible and transparent manner. For more information, visit
http://www.lavote.net.
#

16 replies

  1. Just because you see someone walk through the turnstyle, does not mean they have not paid the fare. There are too many different passes and transfers for common citizens to assume this; let alone care. Also, farebox would never cover the cost of building new projects, so that should stope being mentioned as well. Nice try at looking for scapegoat, but you’re probably the type that gives me dirty looks after I transfer from Metrolink because there is an assumption that I have not paid. Wrong. Hopefully measure J gets the votes it needs to succeed, but if not we still have a lot of good projects that are in the works.

    Like

  2. If turnstiles and fare gates were “not efficient” why do majority of successful transit agencies all over the world use them?

    NYC Subway?
    Boston MBTA?
    SF BART?
    Tokyo JR Lines and Subways?
    Seoul Metro?
    Taipei Metro?
    HKMRT?
    Singapore SMRT?
    London Underground?

    People should actually check into how other transit agencies around the world are run.

    Get everyone onboard with TAP and lock the gates. Anyone still not using TAP, screw them, that’s their problem. If they don’t like it, they can just adopt TAP. We should not be held hostage to the problem of fare evasion and budget shortfalls because another agency doesn’t want to adopt TAP.

    Like

  3. I’m all for measure J passing and really hope it does. I’m aware that fares alone would not finance a brand new line, I was just making a nod to the obvious lost revenue in fare evasion. However, I do believe it would eventually bring in extra money for Metro to do other upkeep projects. I understand the concern between riders transferring from Metrolink to Metro (I used to do that all time and probably looked like I wasn’t paying either). I wish Metrolink would get on TAP. Other than Metrolink, what else isn’t TAP based that would cause others to think they are not paying when they really have? Thanks for the article Matthew. I still really wish we had locked turnstiles, even with the 16 years it’d take for them to be profitable. Fares have gone up 25 cents since that was written and we have a whole new line in operation, which leads me to believe it may take less time to reach profitability. 5 million in lost revenue in 2009 means there is probably more lost now since ridership has gone up. Just as importantly, I believe it would help discourage riders like the homeless who the ride the train endlessly, the panhandlers, the people who piss on seats (I’ve seen it), those who destroy Metro property or deface it (who hasn’t seen it?), the people who take dumps on the platforms (seen it too) and the others who frequent the train to rob others (seen many cellphones fly out of people’s hands). If you are going to literally take a dump on the service this city is providing at least pay for it! If LA was going to spend the money to put in turnstiles at places where it is a free for all (like Expo), they should look at what Atlanta has: turnstiles that make it really difficult for people to go over or under (they look more like gates that reach the floor and are too tall to jump). Locking the gates would make other’s daily commutes more enjoyable and less disgusting. Plus, it’d free up Metro security to actually provide security and not just inspect fares. The LA times reported Metro crime is up. With the recent Blue line shooting, the bus rape, the bus driver’s murder, and the death of an elderly passenger who was assaulted, I think we need more security and less fare inspection.

    Like

  4. I’m a big fan of The Transport Politic, but the article int hat link is pretty poorly researched. It makes three highly dubious assumptions:

    1) It takes at face value Metro’s own estimate that fare evasion is only at 6%. I ride the Red Line everyday between Universal City and Pershing Square. I can say definitively that well over 6% of riders are walking through the turnstiles w/o paying. Neither of these stations have transferring passengers from Metrolink or other Metro rail lines. They are flat out no paying, and the % is much closer to 20-30%, if not more, than 6%.

    2) It doesn’t account for the likelihood of significantly increased ridership on existing lines as the network really begins to come into shape. We’ve already seen the opening of the Expo line lead to a spike in Blue line ridership. Enhancements such as Expo Phase 2, Gold line phase 2 and the Downtown Connector are likely to drive ridership on the existing lines even further.

    3) It doesn’t account for the increasing cost of fare evasion due to the high likelihood of increased fare pricing, and therefore the increasingly high cost of each avoided fare.

    Turnstiles are a no-brainer for LA Metro as soon as the TAP card situation can be figured out. Sort of pathetic they’ve been unable to do so thus far. Very much a 2nd rate transit system until such times as you can use a 21st century product to simply and easily navigate it.

    Like

  5. Everything is a mess here from TAP to maintenance to security. Politicians only care about pet projects and care nothing about running Metro on a day to day basis.

    We need to kick the politicians from running Metro. Nothing will ever get done when we have politicians who never ride the system and have absolutely no idea whats wrong with it or how to run them being at the helm of the board.

    Like