FHWA Planning developed a report on how to convert the "usual/last week" data
from CTPP to a "yesterday" measure typically used in household travel surveys.
The report uses NPTS to do the conversion, so I would imagine it would be a
useful source for you. I believe the name of the report is "Conversion
Factors for CTPP Data" or something like that. I would contact Sheldon Edner
at 202-366-4066 or someone on his team. I believe his email is
sheldon.edner(a)fhwa.dot.gov, and I am copying him on this.
>>> ekarsi(a)usc.edu 02/26/01 10:16PM >>>
I'm interested in combining npts and census data for 1990.
Can anyone direct me to studies or sources on this? studies that
have done this or sources that explain how to do it- I appreciate
School of Policy, Planning and Development
University of Southern California
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Hoekstra, Jay wrote:
> Will the data fields for Stf 1, data by block level, be the same as they
> were in the 1990 census? Or can anyone tell me where to find out. I have
> looked through the Census web site.
From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org>
Commerce Secretary Reclaims Final Say Over Adjustment Decision, As
Census Bureau Issues;
Preliminary Undercount Estimates;
Plus: Census Monitoring Board Presidential Members Discuss Undercount
House Census Subcommittee Gets New Members;
Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans on Friday rescinded a federal rule
giving the Census Bureau director final authority to decide whether to
release statistically corrected census numbers to the states for
redistricting and other purposes. In a statement quoted by the
Associated Press, the Secretary said, "I believe the decision-making
authority for the 2000 Census should reside with the person selected by
the President, approved by the U.S. Senate and accountable to the
people." A formal announcement of the Secretary's action has not yet
been published in the Federal Register. Relying on an opinion it sought
from the Justice Department, the Commerce Department did not provide a
formal notice and comment period for the new rule because it said the
changes only addressed internal organizational matters.
The rule, proposed last spring and put in place last October after a
45-day public comment period, established a committee of twelve
"distinguished senior career [Census Bureau] professionals" to review
the operational and technical aspects of the procedures for measuring
census accuracy and correcting under- and overcounts in the first set of
population numbers. The Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy
(ESCAP) was charged with issuing a written report, which would be made
public, recommending whether the director should release statistically
adjusted data. If the director declined to adopt a committee
recommendation in favor of adjustment, the rule required the Census
Bureau to release the adjusted data. "A.C.E." is the Accuracy and
Coverage Evaluation program, which includes a quality-check survey of
A Commerce Department spokesperson said Secretary Evans would seek
advice from experts at the Census Bureau before deciding in early March
whether to release adjusted numbers. It is unclear if the Bureau will
give the Secretary a written report, or if its recommendation will be
made public. However, under the new rule, the Census Bureau would not
reveal the adjusted numbers if the Secretary decides against their use.
Five former Census Bureau directors supported delegating the adjustment
decision to the head of the Bureau. Dr. Barbara Everitt Bryant, who led
the agency during the 1990 census during the first Bush Administration,
noted last summer that despite the move to paid advertising and efforts
to simplify the questionnaires, it is "not possible to count everybody"
without the use of sampling. In proposing the rule, the Census Bureau
said the adjustment decision "turns entirely on operational and
methodological implementation within the expertise of the Bureau of the
Census," and that review by the Commerce Secretary would "create the
appearance" that "non-scientific considerations" played a role in the
In 1980, the Commerce Secretary formally delegated a similar decision on
whether to use sampling methods to correct the census undercount to the
Census Bureau director. That delegation of authority was rescinded
before the 1990 census, when controversy over an adjustment led to a
lawsuit by the City of New York and dozens of other localities. In
1991, Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher decided not to adjust the 1990
census counts, despite a recommendation to do so by Director Bryant.
Legislators and representatives of stakeholder organizations who support
the use of scientific methods to correct undercounts in the census
criticized the Bush Administration for revoking the delegation of
decision-making authority. Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-MO), the House
Minority Leader, called on President Bush to meet with congressional
leaders to discuss the Administration's position on census adjustment.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), a member of the House census oversight
subcommittee, said President Bush "has chosen to prioritize politics
over people." Gilbert F. Casellas, co-chair of the eight-member Census
Monitoring Board who was appointed by President Clinton, said he was
"appalled" by the decision. "If we allow the substitution of sound
science for the calculus of partisan advantage, we will rob millions of
Americans of their basic civil rights," Mr. Casellas said in a
statement. Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights, said that if the Secretary overrules the
recommendation of the Census Bureau's professional staff, "it would mark
a triumph of politics over fairness." However, Rep. Dan Miller (R-FL),
chairman of the House census panel, told the Associated Press that he
strongly supported the Secretary's decision "to revoke the illegal rule
that attempted to bypass the Congress...".
Census Bureau releases preliminary A.C.E. results: The Census Bureau has
released preliminary results from its Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation
survey, giving a first though sketchy glimpse of Census 2000 accuracy.
The preliminary findings show low and high estimates of net undercounts
or overcounts in percentages for selected groupings, including race and
ethnicity (Hispanic or Latino), gender, age, and owner or renter status.
In testimony before the House Census Subcommittee on February 14, Acting
Bureau Director William Barron said the early A.C.E. findings "indicate
that the census was not only an operational success but was also
successful in improving coverage of the population and in reducing the
undercounts for some population groups." He emphasized that Bureau
staff are still reviewing detailed information to evaluate the quality
of the census and the A.C.E. survey, and determine if a statistical
adjustment would improve the accuracy of the data.
The early A.C.E. results show that the net national undercount ranges
from 0.96 percent to 1.40 percent, below the 1.6 percent net undercount
measured by the 'post enumeration survey' in 1990. However, the Bureau
did not release information on the number of people actually missed or
erroneously included in the census, or on the geographic distribution of
those miscounts, figures that would indicate the full extent of the
undercount and its geographic impact. While the net undercount (or
overcount) estimates also indicate improved coverage of many race and
ethnic groups over 1990, the disproportionate undercount of people of
color (called the "differential undercount") appears to have persisted.
Following historic patterns, Census 2000 was far more likely to miss
renters than homeowners. The net undercount of children (under age 18)
was lower than in 1990, but breakdowns by race were not reported.
Dr. Barron recounted several factors that he said "contributed to a
significant improvement in coverage" in Census 2000, including an
extensive marketing and advertising campaign, successful hiring and
retention of temporary staff, timely quality check programs, and
state-of-the-art data processing technology. He also praised the
American people for their cooperation and the efforts of census workers
and partner organizations.
In a written statement, Commerce Secretary Evans said the estimates
"confirm" that Census 2000 was the most accurate in history.
Subcommittee Chairman Dan Miller (R-FL) called the preliminary A.C.E.
results "good news" that negated the need for a statistical adjustment
of the census. Census 2000, he said, is "the best census ever." Rep.
Carolyn Maloney cautioned against drawing conclusions about the accuracy
of the count without knowing how many people were missed and where they
live. "They think that missing millions of Americans is good enough,"
she said of sampling opponents. "It shouldn't be and it's not."
The preliminary A.C.E. results can be found on the Census Bureau's web
site at: <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/cb01cn03.html>.
Census Monitoring Board update: The Presidential Members of the Census
Monitoring Board held a forum in Washington, DC on February 20 to
discuss a series of reports they commissioned on the consequences of a
census undercount. The authors of several of the studies joined three
of the Board's four Presidential appointees to present the highlights of
their findings at the National Press Club. Using data from the 1990
census, which was not adjusted using scientific methods, the researchers
evaluated the policy implications of the undercount in areas such as
transportation planning, access to health care and hospital location,
assistance for poor children, urban planning, and services for American
Indians. "These studies," Board Co-Chair Gilbert Casellas said,
"present overwhelming evidence that the undercount, if not corrected,
will have damaging effects at every level of our society."
Presidential Board Member Lorraine Green said the accuracy of the census
affected both representational rights and the fair allocation of federal
funds. Commenting on recent suggestions by some sampling critics that
statistically corrected census numbers should be used to distribute
program funds but not for congressional and legislative redistricting,
Ms. Green said, "[A]ny suggestion that adjusted numbers are somehow more
accurate for one purpose, but not another, is nothing more than a modern
day separate-but-equal solution." Board Member Everett Ehrlich, Under
Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs in the Clinton
Administration, warned of "a stolen census" if Commerce Secretary Evans
declined to correct the census numbers in the face of a recommendation
to do so by Census Bureau staff.
The eight-member Census Monitoring Board was established in 1997 to
monitor preparations for and implementation of the 2000 census. The
congressional Republican leadership, and President Clinton, in
consultation with Democratic leaders in Congress, each appointed four
members. The Board will operate through September 2001.
The studies commissioned by the Presidential Members are available on
their web site at www.cmbp.gov <http://www.cmbp.gov>. The Board's
Congressional Members maintain their own web site at www.cmbc.gov
New assignments on House Census Subcommittee: The House Committee on
Government Reform has assigned members to its Subcommittee on the Census
for the 107th Congress. The panel's line-up features several new
members on both sides of the aisle:
Subcommittee on the Census
Committee on Government Reform
114 O'Neill House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(107th Congress Membership)
Dan Miller (FL), Chairman
Chris Cannon (UT)
Mark E. Souder (IN)
Bob Barr (GA)
Ranking Minority Member
Carolyn B. Maloney (NY)
William L. "Lacy" Clay, Jr. (MO)
Danny K. Davis (IL)
Rep. Clay is a freshman legislator who won the St. Louis district
vacated by his father, William L. Clay, a former chairman of the
now-defunct Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, which had
jurisdiction over the census. Rep. Maloney relinquished the senior
Democratic position on the panel to take the ranking slot on a Financial
Services subcommittee. Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) and Rep. Henry Waxman
(D-CA) continue in their respective roles as chairman and ranking
minority member of the full Committee on Government Reform.
Census Advisory Committee meetings set for March: The Census Bureau's
Race and Ethnic Advisory Committees will meet on March 14, 2001 (11:30
am - 5:00 pm) to review Census 2000 evaluations and convene working
group discussions on plans for the 2010 census and the American
Community Survey. On March 15 (8:30 am - 5:15 pm), the five committees
will meet jointly with the Census Advisory Committee of Professional
Associations and the Commerce Department's Decennial Census Advisory
Committee, to discuss the findings of the Census Bureau's Executive
Steering Committee on the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Policy
(ESCAP). The Decennial Census Advisory Committee will continue its
meeting on March 16 (8:30 am -- 1:30 pm), with presentations by Bureau
staff on Census 2000 evaluation plans and working group sessions.
All of the meetings will take place at the Doubletree Hotel, 300 Army
Navy Drive, Arlington, VA, and are open to the public.
Census data products update: In response to requests from data users,
the Census Bureau has decided to release housing unit counts for
functioning governmental units (states, cities, American Indian
reservations, etc.) during May 2001. The Bureau had planned the first
release of housing unit counts as part of Summary File 1 (SF-1), which
will be available on a flow basis from June through September 2001 on
the Internet. SF-1 will provide data down to the census block or tract
levels, and will include occupancy status and owner/renter status, among
other population and housing characteristics.
Questions about the information contained in this News Alert may be
directed to Terri Ann Lowenthal at 202/484-2270 or, by e-mail at
<mailto:email@example.com>. For copies of previous News Alerts and
other information, use our web site www.census2000.org
<http://www.census2000.org>. Please direct all requests to receive News
Alerts, and all changes in address/phone/fax/e-mail, to the Census 2000
Initiative at <mailto:Census2000@ccmc.org> or 202/326-8700. Please feel
free to circulate this information to colleagues and other interested
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street SW
Washington DC 20590
More details of this upcoming conference, together with registration details and forms, can now be found at our website at www.its.usyd.edu.au/conferences_main.htm Please visit the site and complete the registration materials if you are planning on attending.
Registration deadline is May 1.
Please let me know if you have any questions about the conference that are not answered on the web site.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Prof. Peter Stopher
Professor of Transport Planning
Institute of Transport Studies, C37
The University of Sydney
Phone: +61 (0)2 9351 0010
Fax: +61 (0)2 9351 0088
Mobile: +61 (0)4 3864 4430
3 Torrens Place
Cromer, NSW 2099
Phone: +61 2 9972 9283
Office/Fax: +61 2 9981 1284
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
TO: CTPP listserv recipients:
Your IMMEDIATE help is needed!
At the meeting of our Transportation Research Board (TRB)
Subcommittee on Census Data for Transportation Planning (A1D08-1)
this past month, we discussed issues relating to keeping, deleting,
or adding new questions to the 2003-and-beyond versions of the
American Community Survey (ACS) questionnaire. As many of you are
aware, the ACS is intended as the eventual replacement to the
decennial census long form.
One of the census questions, that is being questioned (i.e.,
congressmen have apparently heard complaints that the question is
intrusive or threatening), is item #24a on the current long form:
"What time did this person usually leave home to go to work LAST
WEEK?" (Question #24b is "How many minutes did it usually take this
person to get from home to work LAST WEEK?")
The "time-of-departure" question first appeared on the 1990 Census
long form. The "work trip duration" question has been with us since
the 1980 Census.
The focus of our current inquiry is the time-of-departure question,
*NOT* the work trip duration question.
At our subcommittee meeting, I volunteered to assemble either a
"white paper," "discussion paper" or "point/counterpoint" discussion
on the use and value of the census time-of-departure question in
Rather than clutter up this valuable listserv with detailed responses
to this issue, I would ask that folks "reply" to me
(cpurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov) and I will compile responses and re-send all
responses to this listserv (which may, in turn, set off a new round
of dialogue?) (Unsigned responses will be considered anonymous, if
Questions regarding this "time-of-departure-from-home-to-work" are:
1. Who used this particular data from the 1990 Census, and how and
why it was used?
2. Are there questions that could be substituted that would be less
"intrusive" (e.g., time-of-arrival-at-work?)
3. What are the implications of deleting this question of
4. What other questions should be added (or deleted) to the American
Community Survey to meet the needs of transportation analysis?
(Generally I would prefer that we ask the last question -- new
questions to ask in the Upcoming Census -- at our typical mid-decade
Census-Transportation Conference that we've had in 1973, 1984, 1994
and 1996. This type of conference is very useful for face-to-face
discussions of census issues important to the transportation planning
& data community. We may agree or disagree on issues, but at least
we have a forum to discuss adding, deleting, or modifying census
questions in the hopes of gleaning better information.
Unfortunately, the tenor at the Census Bureau and Congress is
apparently towards restricting and constricting the ACS form, rather
than improving or expanding it. Content determination is based more
on politics and what's written into law rather than what's needed.
This is my perspective from way out here on the West Coast. End of
I am uncertain when our subcommittee's "white paper" on this census
departure time question is needed. Our need is to provide this
information to our colleagues at the US Department of Transportation
and the Census Bureau to understand some of the voices of the
transportation community. I would hope to have this somewhat rushed
effort completed by 2/28/01.
MANY THANKS for your help in advance!
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Chair, TRB Committee on Urban Transportation Data & Information
Chuck Purvis, AICP
Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst, Planning Section
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street, Oakland, CA 94607-4700
(510) 464-7731 (voice) (510) 464-7848 (fax)
MTC DataMart: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/datamart/
MTC FTP Site: ftp://ftp.abag.ca.gov/pub/mtc/planning/
Population totals by County and lower levels of geography will be released
during March in the Census 2000 Redistricting (Public Law 94- 171) Summary
Files. Data from these files will be available in the American FactFinder
on the Census Bureau's internet home page (www.census.gov). What you may
have seen on the home page are the population counts by State.
The Census 2000 Product Overview and Schedule
http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/products.html details when, and in what
format, the various data will be released.
If you have any questions on availability of Census 2000 data products,
please contact Customer Services at 301-457-4100.
Geographic Areas Branch
US Census Bureau
"Gardner, John F"
<GardnerJF(a)dot.st To: "'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net'" <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>
Sent by: Subject: [CTPP] County Population totals for 2000
Can anyone tell me where to find County population totals for 2000? Have
they been released yet? We've looked and can't find it on the census
website. I thought I had seen these numbers release.
I'm sure Jay found what he was looking for by now, but for anyone else
needing data for Census urbanized areas, it is available on the American
Factfinder. At the Factfinder main page, click on "Data Sets". Then choose
one of the Decennial Census data sets (of course, right now only the 1990
STF1 & STF3 are available). This brings up a window which allows you to see
a list of available tables or to enter the table number directly. The next
screen prompts for the geography. In the "Select the type of area" pulldown
menu, urbanized area is one of the choices. Hope this is helpful to someone.
Lori A. Kelsey
Kentuckiana Regional Planning & Development Agency (KIPDA)
11520 Commonwealth Drive
Louisville, Kentucky 40299
Phone: (502) 266-6084
Fax: (502) 266-5047
Agency WWW site: http:\\www.kipda.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Hoekstra [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 10:24 AM
> To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
> Subject: FW: [CTPP] population of urbanized area
> Here are some of the replies to my question about the source for the
> population of urbanized areas. These areas are not the standard
> metropolitan statistical areas, but the areas in and contiguous to cities
> where the population is 1000 people per square mile or more. (i hope that
> it is people not households). Sometimes it includes areas which are
> contiguous but do not have that population density, but are urbanized in
> other ways, for example an industrial district. And sometimes there may
> a nearby noncontiguous area with that population density which is included
> also. We have an area like that in our metropolitan area. I am speaking
> from the memory of a generalist planner, so folks should check the
> census definition which is fairly easy to find at the census website.
> STF1 has that data element. You were at the right place "census.gov".
> Please go to
> http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/ma99-03b.txt . The
> file shown can be down loaded to your disk.
> Jay -
> We eventually were able to track our urbanized area data through the
> Amercian Fact Finder site. The steps are not immediately obvious.
> Jay, try this site at Census.
> STF1 has that data element. You were at the right place "census.gov".
> The total population for the MSA is 688,399.
> The total population for the Grand Rapids Urbanized Area is 436,336.
> (I'm reading this from an old MTC publication based on the 8/16/91
> Census Bureau press release on Urbanized Area rankings. If I can
> find the e-versions of these old "Data Releases" I'll slap'em up on
> some web site. )
> Other data for all MSAs on my own web site at:
> Grand Rapids, MI MSA 688,399
Here are some of the replies to my question about the source for the
population of urbanized areas. These areas are not the standard
metropolitan statistical areas, but the areas in and contiguous to cities
where the population is 1000 people per square mile or more. (i hope that
it is people not households). Sometimes it includes areas which are
contiguous but do not have that population density, but are urbanized in
other ways, for example an industrial district. And sometimes there may be
a nearby noncontiguous area with that population density which is included
also. We have an area like that in our metropolitan area. I am speaking
from the memory of a generalist planner, so folks should check the official
census definition which is fairly easy to find at the census website.
STF1 has that data element. You were at the right place "census.gov".
Please go to
http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/ma99-03b.txt . The
file shown can be down loaded to your disk.
We eventually were able to track our urbanized area data through the
Amercian Fact Finder site. The steps are not immediately obvious.
Jay, try this site at Census.
STF1 has that data element. You were at the right place "census.gov".
The total population for the MSA is 688,399.
The total population for the Grand Rapids Urbanized Area is 436,336.
(I'm reading this from an old MTC publication based on the 8/16/91
Census Bureau press release on Urbanized Area rankings. If I can
find the e-versions of these old "Data Releases" I'll slap'em up on
some web site. )
Other data for all MSAs on my own web site at:
Grand Rapids, MI MSA 688,399
Someone asked me to forward to the listserv the responses I received to my
question. Thank you to you all for your many responses. I did receive the
exact number from some of you. Others suggested places at the census
website where I might find the number. I tried searching some of those but
still couldn't find it there. I will forward an agglomeration of some of
those suggestions next. Nevertheless the US Census provides. See the
attached excel file from Ryan Short which you may save for future reference.
From: Ryan Short [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 2:36 PM
To: Valerie Murdock; Hoekstra, Jay
Subject: RE: [CTPP] population of urbanized area
I have enclosed an Excel spreadsheet that contains 1990 UA code, name,
population, area measurement, and population density figures. The Census
Bureau will be releasing its 2000 UA data in 2002.
From: Valerie Murdock [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 1:41 PM
Cc: Ryan L Short
Subject: RE: [CTPP] population of urbanized area
I am forwarding your message to Ryan Short who is the UA person for
Geography Division. He will answer your question.
Geographic Areas Branch
Bureau of the Census
Washington, DC 20233
From: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net [mailto:email@example.com]On
Behalf Of Jay Hoekstra
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:07 PM
Subject: [CTPP] population of urbanized area
I don't like to ask for information that I can find by just looking, but I
have looked all over the US Census web site and the BTS website for the -
population of urbanized areas, specifically the Grand Rapids, Michigan
urbanized area, 1990
But I cannot find it. Can anyone direct me to a source? Thanks. Jay