ctpp-news November 2001

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

10 participants
12 discussions

more on what the acs may or may not give us

by ed christopher

thanks jeff for the info. i am sure many on the list will find it interesting. i especially liked the part about the confidentiality thresholds--especially since there is no hard evidence of how one can disclose an individual other than some assertions by census staff. Subject: Re: [CTPP] Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:03:52 EST From: StarkRPC(a)aol.com To: edc(a)berwyned.com Mr. Christopher, I had the opportunity to attend one of the 12 regional census press conferences concerning C2SS and ACS held Nov. 14th and 15th around the county. Due to the embargoed nature of the data and some of the briefing materials I waited until today to send this. If you feel this information is useful to the list-serve, please post it. Officials did confirm that "small geographic areas" are indeed census tracts. It will probably take the full four year cycle (2004-2008) to produce this level of geography. I also asked whether or not BG' s or TAZ's would be a possibility in the future. The response was that the Census Bureau would "most likely" continue to support the planning community with special tabulations, with the added disclaimer "if confidentiality thresholds are met." Considering the size of the sample and also the size of many TAZ's I wonder what our chances are. The press conference seemed to have the tone of a pitch for Congressional funding. If funded ($137 million/year) data for areas less than 20,000 won't be available until 2008. It seems to me at least that it will be a stretch to get BG or TAZ level data for 2010. Many major newspapers have stories on the release of C2SS today. Read a couple to get a feel for what others think. My comments can be found in the local section of www.cantonrep.com. Jeff Dotson, Sr. Planner Stark County Regional Planning Commission/ Area Transportation Study (330) 451-7402 starkrpc(a)aol.com www.starkrpc.org

23 years

RE: [CTPP] more on what the acs may or may not give us

by Bill.Austin＠ci.wilmington.nc.us

I wholeheartedly agree with Ms. Brennan's assessment. I would also take it one step further to say that the vast majority of the data from census programs are not delivered in a timely enough fashion to be truly useful. The most use I have gotten out of Census data is as a check on our own data collection or projections. It would be much more useful to limit the number of questions asked and to provide the responses in a timely fashion than to ask all of the questions I have seen in the past. Bill Austin, AICP Greater Wilmington Urban Area MPO "Laureen Brennan" <lbrennanompo@hawa To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> ii.rr.com> cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: [CTPP] more on what the acs owner-ctpp-news@ch may or may not give us rispy.net 11/21/01 06:25 PM Please respond to lbrennanompo Dear Mr. Christopher: What is the purpose of the ACS, and C2SS? Is the purpose to collect data for the sake of collecting data or seeing if the data can be collected, or is the purpose to collect usable data? If it is to collect data for data's sake, then $137m a year is a waste of money. If the purpose is to collect usable data, it should be collected and distributed at a level that is usable -- blocks, block groups, TAZs. Collecting estimates at the tract level is a waste of time and money for most users. By the time you manipulate the data and try to disaggregate it, you might as well take a guess and forget about the ACS/C2SS. If Congress wants the users to base their decisions on the data collected by the ACS and/or the census, then the ACS/Census should collect data that can be used to make decisions. For instance, (just one example) how are you going to determine Title VI and Environmental Justice neighborhoods using Tract level information? We need a Secretary of Home Data. Laureen Brennan -----Original Message----- From: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net [mailto:owner-ctpp-news@chrispy.net]On Behalf Of ed christopher Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 5:01 PM To: ctpp-news maillist Subject: [CTPP] more on what the acs may or may not give us thanks jeff for the info. i am sure many on the list will find it interesting. i especially liked the part about the confidentiality thresholds--especially since there is no hard evidence of how one can disclose an individual other than some assertions by census staff. Subject: Re: [CTPP] Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:03:52 EST From: StarkRPC(a)aol.com To: edc(a)berwyned.com Mr. Christopher, I had the opportunity to attend one of the 12 regional census press conferences concerning C2SS and ACS held Nov. 14th and 15th around the county. Due to the embargoed nature of the data and some of the briefing materials I waited until today to send this. If you feel this information is useful to the list-serve, please post it. Officials did confirm that "small geographic areas" are indeed census tracts. It will probably take the full four year cycle (2004-2008) to produce this level of geography. I also asked whether or not BG' s or TAZ's would be a possibility in the future. The response was that the Census Bureau would "most likely" continue to support the planning community with special tabulations, with the added disclaimer "if confidentiality thresholds are met." Considering the size of the sample and also the size of many TAZ's I wonder what our chances are. The press conference seemed to have the tone of a pitch for Congressional funding. If funded ($137 million/year) data for areas less than 20,000 won't be available until 2008. It seems to me at least that it will be a stretch to get BG or TAZ level data for 2010. Many major newspapers have stories on the release of C2SS today. Read a couple to get a feel for what others think. My comments can be found in the local section of www.cantonrep.com. Jeff Dotson, Sr. Planner Stark County Regional Planning Commission/ Area Transportation Study (330) 451-7402 starkrpc(a)aol.com www.starkrpc.org

23 years, 1 month

TRB Sepecial Workshop

by ed christopher

For those going to the Transportation Research Board's Annual meetings this January (http://www4.trb.org/trb/annual.nsf) the subcommittee on Census Data for Transportation Planning is holding a special Sunday workshop entitled "Census Data, Beyond 2000". The workshop will take place on Sunday January 13, 2002 in the Lincoln West room of the Hilton Hotel from 8:30 AM to 12:00 PM. As you may know the Census Bureau is requesting funding to begin the full implementation of the American Community Survey (ACS) in 2003. Since the ACS is intended to take the place of the decennial census long form, this workshop will serve as a forum to update the transportation community on the status of the ACS program, the outlook for implementation, and recent research efforts to begin the process of replacing the long form data with continuous measurement in transportation planning and research. At the same time, this workshop is deigned to inform officials and policy makers of the needs and issues as seen by the transportation community. Potential users of the ACS will be provided an opportunity to voice concerns, raise questions, and formulate a research agenda that will serve to ensure a smooth transition from the long form to the ACS. -- Ed Christopher Metropolitan Activities Midwest Resource Center Federal Highway Administration 19900 Governors Drive Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461 708-283-3534 (V) 708-283-3501 (F)

23 years, 1 month

Re: Posting a Question to the CTPP List

by ed christopher

just send it to ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net if you post from an address that is not the one you subscribed from it might take a half day of so to hit the list. we have a somewhat manual system for checking what gets caught by the spam blocker. Scott Ferry wrote: > Greetings: Could you please tell me how to post a question to the CTPP > list? Many thanks. Scott FerryTransportation PlannerRegional > Intergovernmental CouncilSouth Charleston, WV

23 years, 1 month

RE: [CTPP] Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS

by Larry Mugler

Just like TAZs, census tracts were created at the request of data users. They were first defined for the 1910 Census for the 8 largest cities. They were requested by a clergyman in New York City so that they could do a better job of providing social services to the poor. Here at the Denver MPO, we have been the agency to coordinate the update of tract definitions and boundaries since the 1970 Census. That gives us the opportunity to make them as consistent with TAZs as the criteria allow. Larry Mugler DRCOG -----Original Message----- From: Mehta, Jamsheed [mailto:MEHTA_J@ci.wichita.ks.us] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 3:04 PM To: 'ed christopher'; 'ctpp-news maillist' Subject: RE: [CTPP] Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS Its my understanding that "Tracts" are based on population criteria (minimum, optimal, and maximum number of persons). TAZs may be too small in some cases to fit the "tract" definition, or may not have any population at all. . . Jamsheed Mehta, AICP Chief Planner, Transportation Division Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Department Tel: (316) 268-4457 Fax: (316) 268-4390 e-mail: mehta_j(a)ci.wichita.ks.us -----Original Message----- From: ed christopher [mailto:edc@berwyned.com] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 3:37 PM To: 'ctpp-news maillist' Subject: Re: [CTPP] Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS since patty raised the issue of tracts, i have often wondered why do we have tracts? why don't we have a zonal system in urban areas that is created by the public data users--something like TAZs. in many areas the TAZs are developed by a collection agencies with planning and data responsibilities. if memory serves me tracts were historically a creation of the census bureau which is a data collector. TAZs are a product of regional planning organizations (which happen to have transportation responsibilities) which are data users. Patty Becker wrote: > Again, please feel free to post this to the list serve if you wish. > > My clear understanding is that "small area" means tract. I don't think > anyone thinks the 60 month data will be good enough for block groups. > > If TAZs are tract equivalent, then the data should be as good as for > tracts. For heavy attractor TAZs which are split below tract level, the > transportation community has to negotiate with the bureau for a special tab > to deliver all TAZs. The data should support the tab > adequately, Meanwhile, of course, someone is going to have to be > responsible (MPO by MPO and state by state) for keeping the geocoding file > up to date! > > No one knows whether these 60 month data are going to "feel right." Only > time will tell. But in any event the CTPP users will have data equivalent > to that for all users who use tracts. Meanwhile, we still have all these > hurdles in Congress, etc. etc. > > Patty Becker --- Ed Christopher Metropolitan Specialist Midwest Resource Center Federal Highway Administration 19900 Governors Drive Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461 708-283-3534 (V) 708-283-3501 (F)

23 years, 1 month

Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS

by Ed Herlihy (＠home.com)

----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Herlihy (@home.com)" <ed.herlihy(a)home.com> To: "ed christopher" <edc(a)berwyned.com> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [CTPP] Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS > I would be happy with tract level data if the JTW info provides some better > data on total retail versus non ratail jobs at the destination end of the > work trip. Localities have pretty good data on square footage by type but > have lots of trouble keeping up with small area job estimates. The jobs per > square foot estimates seem like a moving target these days > > I know the data is there, but I am not sure the CTPP or this new ACS tabs > will do a retail vs non-retail tabulation. > > I hope so, because of lot of forecasting models use jobs for work trip > attration estimates. > > Ed Herlihy > Transportation Consultant > Alexandria VA > 703-914-4850 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ed christopher" <edc(a)berwyned.com> > To: "'ctpp-news maillist'" <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:36 PM > Subject: Re: [CTPP] Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS > > > > since patty raised the issue of tracts, i have often wondered why do we > have tracts? why don't we > > have a zonal system in urban areas that is created by the public data > users--something like TAZs. in > > many areas the TAZs are developed by a collection agencies with planning > and data responsibilities. > > if memory serves me tracts were historically a creation of the census > bureau which is a data > > collector. TAZs are a product of regional planning organizations (which > happen to have > > transportation responsibilities) which are data users. > > > > Patty Becker wrote: > > > > > Again, please feel free to post this to the list serve if you wish. > > > > > > My clear understanding is that "small area" means tract. I don't think > > > anyone thinks the 60 month data will be good enough for block groups. > > > > > > If TAZs are tract equivalent, then the data should be as good as for > > > tracts. For heavy attractor TAZs which are split below tract level, the > > > transportation community has to negotiate with the bureau for a special > tab > > > to deliver all TAZs. The data should support the tab > > > adequately, Meanwhile, of course, someone is going to have to be > > > responsible (MPO by MPO and state by state) for keeping the geocoding > file > > > up to date! > > > > > > No one knows whether these 60 month data are going to "feel right." > Only > > > time will tell. But in any event the CTPP users will have data > equivalent > > > to that for all users who use tracts. Meanwhile, we still have all > these > > > hurdles in Congress, etc. etc. > > > > > > Patty Becker > > > > --- > > Ed Christopher > > Metropolitan Specialist > > Midwest Resource Center > > Federal Highway Administration > > 19900 Governors Drive > > Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461 > > 708-283-3534 (V) > > 708-283-3501 (F) > > > > >

23 years, 1 month

RE: [CTPP] Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS

by Don Burrell

Why do we have tracts? Yes, ed, your memory is correct about the Bureau "creating" census tracts, but they relied on the recommendations of the local "Census Tract Committees" of data users to provide the boundaries. This is still the process for the decennial review of the tracts. (I worked on coordinating this review in the Cincinnati CMSA for 1990 and 2000.) But, we have census tracts mainly as geographically stable over time statistical analytical areas. Municipalities, enumeration districts and zip-codes, on the other hand, keep moving their boundaries. This is also the reason that we can split census tracts in growing areas, but that they need to nest to the same parent tract of the preceding census, and that the ID tract numbers are changed with suffixes so that it is obvious that the areas represented by the tract-split numbers aren't the same. My experience with TAZ's, again with the Cincinnati MPO, is that you wouldn't want to go there. We have just overhauled our tazs for 2000. Most changes are splits, but some aren't. They don't match tracts. And many are small enough to represent blocks in the CBD and major traffic generators (shopping centers, employers) with little or no resident population to disclose. Census tracts are good. Don Burrell, Senior Planner Bicycle / Pedestrian Coordinator (formerly data person) OKI Regional Council of Governments 801-B West Eighth St. Suite 400 Cincinnati, OH 45203-1607 513-621-6300 513-621-9325 - fax dburrell(a)oki.org <mailto:dburrell@oki.org> <A bicycle is an instrument for playing the road> -----Original Message----- From: ed christopher [mailto:edc@berwyned.com] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:37 PM To: 'ctpp-news maillist' Subject: Re: [CTPP] Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS since patty raised the issue of tracts, i have often wondered why do we have tracts? why don't we have a zonal system in urban areas that is created by the public data users--something like TAZs. in many areas the TAZs are developed by a collection agencies with planning and data responsibilities. if memory serves me tracts were historically a creation of the census bureau which is a data collector. TAZs are a product of regional planning organizations (which happen to have transportation responsibilities) which are data users. Patty Becker wrote: > Again, please feel free to post this to the list serve if you wish. > > My clear understanding is that "small area" means tract. I don't think > anyone thinks the 60 month data will be good enough for block groups. > > If TAZs are tract equivalent, then the data should be as good as for > tracts. For heavy attractor TAZs which are split below tract level, the > transportation community has to negotiate with the bureau for a special tab > to deliver all TAZs. The data should support the tab > adequately, Meanwhile, of course, someone is going to have to be > responsible (MPO by MPO and state by state) for keeping the geocoding file > up to date! > > No one knows whether these 60 month data are going to "feel right." Only > time will tell. But in any event the CTPP users will have data equivalent > to that for all users who use tracts. Meanwhile, we still have all these > hurdles in Congress, etc. etc. > > Patty Becker --- Ed Christopher Metropolitan Specialist Midwest Resource Center Federal Highway Administration 19900 Governors Drive Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461 708-283-3534 (V) 708-283-3501 (F)

23 years, 1 month

RE: [CTPP] Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS

by Mehta, Jamsheed

Its my understanding that "Tracts" are based on population criteria (minimum, optimal, and maximum number of persons). TAZs may be too small in some cases to fit the "tract" definition, or may not have any population at all. . . Jamsheed Mehta, AICP Chief Planner, Transportation Division Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Department Tel: (316) 268-4457 Fax: (316) 268-4390 e-mail: mehta_j(a)ci.wichita.ks.us -----Original Message----- From: ed christopher [mailto:edc@berwyned.com] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 3:37 PM To: 'ctpp-news maillist' Subject: Re: [CTPP] Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS since patty raised the issue of tracts, i have often wondered why do we have tracts? why don't we have a zonal system in urban areas that is created by the public data users--something like TAZs. in many areas the TAZs are developed by a collection agencies with planning and data responsibilities. if memory serves me tracts were historically a creation of the census bureau which is a data collector. TAZs are a product of regional planning organizations (which happen to have transportation responsibilities) which are data users. Patty Becker wrote: > Again, please feel free to post this to the list serve if you wish. > > My clear understanding is that "small area" means tract. I don't think > anyone thinks the 60 month data will be good enough for block groups. > > If TAZs are tract equivalent, then the data should be as good as for > tracts. For heavy attractor TAZs which are split below tract level, the > transportation community has to negotiate with the bureau for a special tab > to deliver all TAZs. The data should support the tab > adequately, Meanwhile, of course, someone is going to have to be > responsible (MPO by MPO and state by state) for keeping the geocoding file > up to date! > > No one knows whether these 60 month data are going to "feel right." Only > time will tell. But in any event the CTPP users will have data equivalent > to that for all users who use tracts. Meanwhile, we still have all these > hurdles in Congress, etc. etc. > > Patty Becker --- Ed Christopher Metropolitan Specialist Midwest Resource Center Federal Highway Administration 19900 Governors Drive Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461 708-283-3534 (V) 708-283-3501 (F)

23 years, 1 month

Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS

by ed christopher

Elizabeth Hartmann wrote: > Hello, > I work in transportation planning, and we are currently evaluating data availability regarding the C2SS and the American Community Survey. I understand that the ACS will provide yearly info on population groups of 65,000 or more, and that for smaller areas, several years' data can be pooled to maximize reliability. > > Within this frame, at how fine a geographic level will this data be available? Currently, the decennial census provides data down to the block group level; will the C2SS and the ACS provide transportation data at this fine a level? > > Thank you! > Liz Hartmann, Ph.D. > Research Analysis Specialist > MNDOT:Office of Investment Management just to confirm what we spoke about on the phone. i cannot say with any certainty what the final geography will be with ACS nor even its content. as i noted, two efforts are underway within OBM. 1) to advise congress on the content and 2) on methodology (which impacts on geographic levels). how congress will respond is anyone's' guess. the mood in congress up to now has been to cut content and in january i am told the census issues will be moved over to another subcommittee that will have a chairman that is even more concerned about the questionnaire being "too" long. as far as getting ACS at a large scale geography (like the 65K areas) that should not be an issue. over the years we have been told that multiple years of ACS data can be pooled to produce small area summaries, but how small the areas will be and if this comes to pass, is not a done deal. most of the detail surrounding the ACS is still up in the air. in terms of the content, several of us within DOT have made our case to OMB on the importance and legal needs for the transportation related questions. i believe that right now OMB is review the information submitted by all the federal agencies and will reporting out on it sometime in the future--this is an issue we are following. i cross posted this to our ctpp-listserve for others who may have similar questions or who might be able to expound on any of the points raised. -- Ed Christopher Metropolitan Specialist Midwest Resource Center Federal Highway Administration 19900 Governors Drive Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461 708-283-3534 (V) 708-283-3501 (F)

23 years, 1 month

Re: [CTPP] Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS

by Patty Becker

Again, please feel free to post this to the list serve if you wish. My clear understanding is that "small area" means tract. I don't think anyone thinks the 60 month data will be good enough for block groups. If TAZs are tract equivalent, then the data should be as good as for tracts. For heavy attractor TAZs which are split below tract level, the transportation community has to negotiate with the bureau for a special tab to deliver all TAZs. The data should support the tab adequately, Meanwhile, of course, someone is going to have to be responsible (MPO by MPO and state by state) for keeping the geocoding file up to date! No one knows whether these 60 month data are going to "feel right." Only time will tell. But in any event the CTPP users will have data equivalent to that for all users who use tracts. Meanwhile, we still have all these hurdles in Congress, etc. etc. The C2Ss is separate from the ACS. There is no way that the number of cases will allow for TAZ level reporting, even if the 2000 and 2001 surveys are combined. Perhaps we can get combined data at the 100K level out of them next year. I would suggest, however, that the CTPP community keep a good handle on how the coding is proceeding for the C2SS--are they doing a good job of it? The ACS will be like the C2SS in this regard and if there are problems, it's important to be aware of them. Patty Becker At 02:05 PM 11/08/2001 -0600, ed christopher wrote: >Elizabeth and Ed-- (note, I am not posting this to the listserv, but Ed can >choose to post it if he wishes) > >At the current time, I believe that with the current plans for sampling for >the ACS, it would take 5 years of accumulated data (60 months) for the >Census Bureau to release small area data. However, if the sampling rate >decreases to any large extent, it is not clear what would happen to small >area data. To clarify Ed's earlier remarks, we do not know if "small area" >means census tract, or block group level geography. We are very concerned >about whether and how the transportation community will be able to generate >an "equivalent" to a CTPP file from the ACS, and if reporting by TAZ will be >possible or allowed. > >Elaine Murakami >Federal Highway Administration > >Keith Miller wrote: > > > According to the Census Bureau > > (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/ntc102901.html): > > > > "By 2004, the American Community Survey ... will produce estimates for > > geographic areas and population groups of 65,000 or more, and by 2008, for > > even the smallest areas and population groups in the country." > > > > Just what "the smallest areas and populations groups" means is anyone's > > guess, but it was my understanding that they're targeting the block-group > > level. But as Ed pointed out, this all depends on congress and funding... > > > > Also to address one point that Elizabeth asked in her original question, > > "will the C2SS and the ACS provide transportation data at this fine a level > > [block group]?" It is my understanding that the C2SS (Census 2000 > > Supplementary Survey) data will not be available for anything smaller than > > counties or cities with more than 250,000 residents. The sample size of the > > C2SS was not sufficient to support anything smaller than this. For the ACS, > > see above. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Keith Miller > > Principal Planner: GIS and Modeling > > North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, Inc. > > One Newark Center, 17th floor > > Newark, NJ 07102 > > 973-639-8444 > > kmiller(a)njtpa.org > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net [mailto:owner-ctpp-news@chrispy.net]On > > Behalf Of ed christopher > > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 4:43 PM > > To: Elizabeth Hartmann > > Cc: elaine (fta) murakami; ctpp-news maillist > > Subject: [CTPP] Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia C. (Patty) Becker 248/354-6520 APB Associates/SEMCC FAX 248/354-6645 28300 Franklin Road Home 248/355-2428 Southfield, MI 48034 pbecker(a)umich.edu

23 years, 1 month

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

ctpp-news November 2001