German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseMeasure R… by the numbers
Contributed by calwatch on November 5th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
With the County Registrar of Voters posting its statement of votes cast by community, I’ll channel my inner Chuck Todd and go through how Measure R did, by the numbers.
- Out of the larger cities, West Hollywood had a superlative turnout for Measure R, with 84% of the vote. But Lynwood, South Gate, Bell, Santa Monica, Maywood, Huntington Park, Bell Gardens, and Cudahy all scored more than 75% for Measure R.
- Out of the Los Angeles council districts, District 1 (Reyes), 4 (La Bonge), and 13 (Garcetti) did the best, with the Hollywood/Echo Park district of Eric Garcetti pulling in 81% of the vote. Together, these Central Los Angeles districts voted four-to-one for the measure.
- The two Los Angeles City Council districts where Measure R failed were 12 (Greig Smith’s northwest San Fernando Valley) and 3 (Dennis Zine’s southwest San Fernando Valley).
- The only city where Measure R failed to get a majority? La Habra Heights, which has more in common with Orange County than LA County.
- Even the gated cities turned in good results: Rolling Hills pulled in 51%, Bradbury pulled in 55%, and Hidden Hills with 61% of the vote. This is significant since the gated cities have little or no public roads to use their Local Return share on. Avalon had 63% say yes, while the unincorporated community of Topanga, whose only public transit operates literally two months out of the year, gave 74% of their votes to the yes column.
- The Antelope Valley didn’t all vote no. Palmdale had 61% and Lancaster 56% voting yes, while Quartz Hill voted 46% in favor for the measure. Santa Clarita pulled in 53% for the measure, and Castaic turned in 54%
- Cities served by the Gold Line turned in about 60% for the measure, while cities served by the Wilshire subway pulled in 76% (Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and LA Council Districts 4, 5, 10, and 11).
- Out of the cities of the opponents, Bill Bogaard’s Pasadena turned in 69% for the measure. Gary Delong’s district in Long Beach turned in 57% for Measure R, seven points less than Long Beach as a whole, while George Hunter’s Pomona council district turned in 71% for the measure, higher than the 68% yes vote for the city as a whole. Ara Najarian’s Glendale pulled in 64% of the vote for the measure, the same as John Fasana’s Duarte. For the entire City of Los Angeles, 72% voted for the tax increase.
You can play with the numbers here.
Discussion
You can leave a response, or trackback. You can also subscribe to the comments feed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
Looks like an across the board rejection of politicians that thought they could grandstand on this issue.
I’m glad to see that this passed, and I’m also glad to see that it looks like California’s Congressional delegation is trying to intervene in this AIG circus by making the Federal Government the guarantor instead, as I understand it - we may be able to dodge both bullets at once, I’d hate to see R have to go towards bailing out AIG.
What are people’s thoughts/concern level on the uncounted provisional ballots? I’m still keeping my optimism somewhat guarded. How about anyone else?
Steve Hymon doesn’t seem to worry about that, Andy.
Thanks for that, Heather. It puts my mind at ease a little more.
I follow elections religiously and I agree with Hymon… sure, anything is possible, but the likelihood of that changing the results is vastly low at this point.
I am really amazed that measure R passed. California income tax rates are already high, our sales tax was one of the highest in the country and now it is even higher. On top of that the govenor wants to raise the state sales tax another 1.5 percent. That would make LA’s sales tax 10.25%! These rates will certainly make buying big ticket items much more difficult. Think about the sales tax you will have to pay on a new car!
Let’s reduce some of the government overhead for a change!
And, for the record - I drive from Sherman Oaks to Pasadena for work everyday and I used to drive from SO to El Segundo everyday for work so I know how bad traffic is.
You’re at the wrong site if you’re looking for sympathy on that argument. Most of us support the tax increase not the for the highway improvements but for the mass transit improvements the Measure promises.
Our argument goes more like this:
[...] Measure R Strong Almost Everywhere (Bottleneck Blog, MetroRider) [...]
I think the Governor delievered the Measure R supporters a huge favor. If he announced a planned sales tax increase on Monday instead of Thursday, it certainly could have caused support for the measure to erode. As close as it was, an early announcement by Arnold to raise the state sales tax could have killed measure R.
Bill: Yeah no remorse from this angle. I have a car, it gets used for what it should be, recreational ass hauling at the track. Otherwise I’m stoked for California. Maybe it will eventually stop being a bad influence on the rest of the nation.
I’m quite appalled at the west Valley’s vote on Measure R; while the east San Fernando Valley (where I’m at) voted in favor. The west SFV will be getting a dedicated busway because of an existing ROW while the east SFV residents, who fill Metro Rapids 734, 761, and 724, will only get a bus lane or some oddball improvements. Still glad that the LA of the future will be easier to travel thanks to R no matter where one lives. We definitely need the Expo Line to Santa Monica and the Purple Line; however, judging by the 405 Sepulveda Pass traffic, I wonder what would be the proper mode to help move most of that traffic to transit? I would hold out hope for rail line as it would be a welcome project, but not for many decades.
I echo Mike’s comment: I’m glad Arnold waited until after the election to announce the additional sales tax increase to cover the shortfall. What will that put us at. . . 9.75% sales tax?
I also think a Sepulveda pass transit project is badly needed. The most useful would be a subway with stops at ventura/sepulveda and points north, and that connects to the extended purple line in Westwood, but that would involve A LOT of tunneling, and would be ridiculously expensive. A light rail along the center of the 405 might be worth while, but I don’t know how well those do going up long hills like that. Anyone who lives on the west side of the basin OR the valley knows what a bottleneck that pass is. For example, when returning from Long Beach to Sherman Oaks at rush hour, I can get from Long Beach all the way to the 10 in about 30 minutes, and the drive from the 10 over the pass to Ventura blvd can take another hour. It takes 2/3 of the time though it is only 1/3 of the distance.
Well, I guess I’m back, since I appear to be the person who can answer the most recent question …
When the Sepulveda Pass project was added to the Measure R project list, the presumption was that existing bus service would be restructured first to create a true express between the Valley and Westwood (rather than the existing kluge of local/Rapid/express service that takes an hour to get from Van Nuys to Wilshire Blvd.) and then begin construction of a light rail line through the Pass on a schedule that would have it opening at approximately the same date as the Purple Line extension to Westwood.
The question of how a light rail line would fare operationally through the Pass was asked of various experts, including some Caltrans engineers, and there will need to be a short segment in a tunnel through the Santa Monica Mountains underneath Mulholland Dr., because the 405 freeway does indeed operate at too steep a grade over that point for a light rail system to work.
So, not as much tunneling as a full subway, but a small amount of it.
Kymberleigh Richards:
So heavy rail has already been ruled out for the Sepulveda project? Seems to me that if we are going to tunnel (part of the way), we should be laying down heavy rail instead of light rail. The ridership for the Valley-Westwood line could surpass the Purple line if you think about the traffic patterns on the 405 right now…
Anybody who thinks this is tax is going to be temporary is either delusional or doesn’t know California history. I voted NO on this because we already have high sales tax in this city and it may go even higher if Arnold has his way.
I am favor of mass transit, but not if sales taxes are used to build more at the expense of FREEWAY improvments which haven’t been done in DECADES.
It is still a nail biter. Should the uncounted ballots split 60-40 or less in favor the measure slips below 2/3rds. That’s a likely ratio.
No, it is certainly not a “likely” ratio. It is a “possible”, but unlikely ratio for the reasons described by Juan, who included the following calculations on the Bottleneck Blog:
Dan you just went through exactly the same calculation and got the same trends and yet you object to my analysis? The “uncounted” ballots are likely to be less in favor as have all the recent ballots. It is still a nail biter. If some elections are so close that recounts are necessary then you can expect R to actually lose votes as questionable ballots are rejected en toto.
Thanks for the info Kymberleigh!
Sounds like a great rail line that has been talked about. . . but with that tunnel you mentioned, I’d imagine it would open much later than the purple-line westwood extension. But who’s to say, at this point, I suppose.
As for the bus service as it is:
Coming from Ventura/Sepulveda, the 761 takes 32-36 minutes to get to the Hilgard/Westholme stop at UCLA, which is where I get off. I always thought that was pretty good. It does stop at Mulholland, Getty and (sometimes) at Church, but I always find it pretty fast on the way south. The way north can be worse at rush hour, but I guess my point is that I can’t imagine an express bus system that does much better than the 761 already does. For that I’d imagine they’d have to have a bus-only lane on the 405 or something.
No, I don’t “object” to your analysis. Analyze away. I just do not agree with your assumption that the “likely” ratio will be 60-40 or less. The provisional ballots are going to be similar to the other election ballots which favor measure R more than the early absentee ballots.
Oh, boy, I sure can. The 761 gets bogged down in providing local service in the back end of Brentwood and Westwood. Turn that service over to a reconsituted MTA21 or turn it over to the Big Blue Bus, and rapid times would improve. I’d also split the Van Nuys Blvd. portion of the 761 off and have two stops in the Valley only (Orange Line and Ventura Blvd.) If there was demand, there could be a stop a Van Nusy Metrolink as well.
As of 5:00 p.m. today, the new numbers for Measure R are as follows.
YES 1,806,657 67.23%
NO 880,564 32.77%
No lost ground. Woo hoo!
I guess MTA will have to run the numbers on who makes up most of the ridership on the 761, but having ridden it for a few years now, I can tell you that, on the way north at ~6pm, there are a large number of people that board at Church Ln. That’s the only stop I could imagine you’re referring to when you say the back end of Brentwood. Most of those riders appear to be domestic help, if I may try my hand at profiling, and they clearly need to get from Brent/Westwood to the valley. There is a huge offloading of passengers at Ventura/Sepulveda, and Ventura/Van Nuys so I’d be all for an express service that starts at Van Nuys/Ventura, stops at Ventura/Sepulveda, and then doesn’t stop again until UCLA. . . but there would need to be another option to meet the demand of the large number of people going from Church Lane north.
I dunno. I guess I’m saying that any of the options you or I suggest on how to improve the 761 will probably require an additional bus line anyway that goes between the valley and west side, and I’m not sure that adding more buses on the same corridor will be all that helpful. I guess we’ll see.
That stop at Church Lane is a high transfer point because that’s the end of the BBB14. That route can be rather easily changed to link into a changed 761.
There probably does need to be a stop somewhere near Church Lane or the Getty and one up at Skirball.
Whatever is done to increase the speed and “rapid” nature of the 761 will probably result in upsetting someone.
Dan, sounds like you are asking for some type of super-rapid. Maybe what we need is a “961″ to supplement the 761.
961 could skip the local stops in the Valley and Church Ln in Brentwood and go straight to Westwood from Ventura Blvd
This topic has been discussed thoroughly in the forum, but I’d have a Rapid 961 with five stops only: (1) Expo Line (or Pico/Westwood until then); (2) Santa Monica Blvd./Westwood; (3) Wilshire/Westwood, (4) Ventura Blvd./Sepulveda. (5) Orange Line. (A sixth stop could be added at Van Nuys Metrolink if service would support it.)
I’d eliminate the 761 and have another to be determined line can do local service at Skirball, the Getty and Church Lane.
For the Sepulveda Pass, bus service should mirror what was done on the Cahuenga Pass before the red-line: One bus service that was local (between Universal City and Hollywood along Cauhuenga Bl E and W) and other services that were express (stayed along the 101).
In my view, the express line would travel non-stop from Ventura/Sepulveda to Sunset/Church via 405, then stop again at UCLA Ackerman Union, UCLA Med Ctr, Wilshire/Westwood, SM/Westwood, and Pico/Westwood. Notice that it would be a different routing in the Westwood area, by avoiding the longer routing along Sunset and Hilgard and traveling instead along the west side of UCLA’s campus.
The local line will travel from Ventura to Sunset via Sepulveda Blvd making stops at the Skirball, the Getty, and even local stops along Sepulveda that serve Bel Air Crest and Mountaingate. It would serve the same routing as the express line between Sunset/Church and Pico/Westwood (and would also have limited stops south of Sunset)
R - MTA SALES TAX -
YES 1,963,147 (67.65% )
NO 938,677 (32.35% )
———————-
Keep smiling all Measure R supporters. Friday’s total makes it better and better.
According to the L.A. Times Bottleneck Blog (which is folding into L.A. Now, so Metrorider is needed more than ever):
Woo hoo! With all the hurdles this had to overcome it truly makes me happy. Los Angeles has voted for and invested in its future.
[...] Bus Bench notes that the "usual suspects got bent over." Using numbers crunched at Metro Rider, Browne Molyneaux shows that voting for more transit doesn’t equal getting more transit. The [...]