i believe next spring is the target. after the review of the criteria posted today, census will go back and do its thing. FHWA put a memo out on this that can be found at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/c2000mem.htm
it begins to answer some of the "what if i am a new mpo" questions.
Cliff Davidson wrote:
> Ed, as a small MPO expecting an expanded urbanized area, our local governments are very interested in "when" the urbanized area boundaries will be designated. Do you have a target date for Colorado on your radar screens yet?
>
> Thanks for keeping us current on CTPP and Census matters. We sincerely appreciate the updates.
>
> Cliff Davidson, Director
> Mesa County Regional Transportation Planning Office
> P.O. Box 20,000-5093
> Grand Junction, CO 81502-5093
> (970) 255-7188
> (970) 244-1769 (FAX)
>
> >>> ed christopher <berwyned(a)mcs.com> 03/28 11:22 AM >>>
> Today the Census Bureau published the criteria it plans on using to
> describe urbanized area boundaries. There is a text version and PDF
> online. The PDF version has some graphics that are not in the text.
> Below is the URL for the PDF. I have also included the short URL to the
> NARA site incase the long link doesn't work. I am sure once we have had
> a chance to wade through this there will be some discussion. By the way,
> comments are due by April 27, 2001
>
> http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/frwebgate.access.gpo.…
>
> http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/index.html#top
>
> --
> Ed Christopher
> Bureau of Transportation Statistics
> U.S. Department of Transportation
> 400 Seventh Street SW
> Washington DC 20590
> 202-366-0412
Today the Census Bureau published the criteria it plans on using to
describe urbanized area boundaries. There is a text version and PDF
online. The PDF version has some graphics that are not in the text.
Below is the URL for the PDF. I have also included the short URL to the
NARA site incase the long link doesn't work. I am sure once we have had
a chance to wade through this there will be some discussion. By the way,
comments are due by April 27, 2001
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/frwebgate.access.gpo.…http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/index.html#top
--
Ed Christopher
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street SW
Washington DC 20590
202-366-0412
Attached please find a SAS program that originated
from census.gov/redistricting but was revised to be
more user friendly.
Many thanks to the Census Bureau for putting the
shell up on the web.
SAS users may find this version more functional,
i.e. variable names with meaning and numeric
variable formats.
This works for Kansas but may be easily
modified for any state.
The drop statements may need to be
revised for your SAS application.
The file was created with KeditW v1.5.
Enjoy!
Michael Stover
Research Team
The Planning Commission
Tampa, FL
> <<KS all 3.sas>>
>
From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org>
Commerce Secretary Chooses Unadjusted Census Data
After Census Bureau Recommends Against Statistical Correction
Expert Panel Cites Lack of Time To Complete Analysis;
Confirms Net and Differential Undercounts in Census 2000
Plus: Reaction from Members of Congress and Stakeholders;
Los Angeles Pursues Court Challenge to 'No Adjustment' Decision.
Relying on advice from a Census Bureau committee established last fall
under a federal rule issued by his predecessor, Secretary of Commerce
Donald Evans last week decided to release unadjusted census population
counts to the states for "the purpose and only the purpose of
redistricting." The Secretary said in his March 6th announcement that
he followed an "open, reasonable and fair" process and "took full
account of the views of experts."
On March 1, a committee of twelve senior Census Bureau professionals
recommended the release of unadjusted census numbers to the states for
redistricting purposes. Acting Census Bureau Director William Barron
Jr., who as the agency's Deputy Director also serves on the Executive
Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy (ESCAP), transmitted the
recommendation, in which he concurred, and accompanying report to
Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans. In accepting the report's findings,
the Secretary called the recommendation "correct and prudent." He also
praised the Bureau's staff, saying, "You set ambitious goals and you
exceeded them."
"We have achieved a quality count," Secretary Evans said, calling Census
2000 "the most accurate census ever," with "the lowest undercount [and]
the smallest differentials in history by far." Based on the results of
its Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) survey, the Census Bureau
reported a net national undercount of 1.2 percent, or 3.3 million
people. It has not yet reported the total numbers of people missed
(omissions) and counted twice or wrongly included (erroneous
enumerations), which offset each other to calculate the net national
undercount. The net undercount in 1990, measured by a similar though
smaller quality-check survey, was 1.6 percent, or 4 million people. The
Bureau reported an undercount of 1.2 percent, or 2.8 million people, in
the 1980 census, based on its independent demographic estimate of the
population.
In its recommendation, the ESCAP concluded that "there is considerable
evidence to support the use of adjusted data, and that Census 2000 and
A.C.E. operations were well designed and conducted." However, the
committee said it was "unable to conclude, based on the information
available at this time, that the adjusted Census 2000 data are more
accurate for redistricting." Further research, the panel said, is
"likely" to show that "adjustment based on the A.C.E. would result in
improved accuracy," and to confirm that Census 2000 reduced but did not
eliminate a net national undercount and a "differential" undercount of
minorities, renters, and children.
Dr. Barron noted in his memorandum of transmittal that the "primary
reason" for the conclusion is the "apparent inconsistency in population
growth over the decade as estimated by the A.C.E. and demographic
analysis." The committee could not explain the differences, which
"raise[s] the possibility of an unidentified error in the A.C.E.
estimate or Census 2000," in the time available, he said. The
demographic analysis figures are "significantly lower" than the
population as measured by the A.C.E. survey, the committee said. A.C.E.
is the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation program, which included a
quality-check survey of 314,000 households designed to measure under-
and overcounts in the census. Demographic analysis is an independent
estimate of the nation's population the Bureau produces based primarily
on birth, death, immigration, emigration, and Medicare records.
The ESCAP described the results of "quality measures" designed to
evaluate the relative accuracy of the adjusted and unadjusted numbers.
It concluded that while "the adjusted data are more accurate overall,"
it had concerns that merited further research, including a possibility
that the unadjusted data for counties with populations below 100,000
were more accurate. The ESCAP report and recommendation are posted on
the Census Bureau's web site at www.census.gov/dmd/www/escapreport.html.
Responding to questions from reporters at his March 6 press conference,
Secretary Evans said he was not sure whether he would release the
statistically adjusted numbers in the future, which might be used as the
basis for distributing federal program funds. Acting Director Barron,
who joined Mr. Evans in announcing the decision, said the Bureau would
have more information in six months from a supplemental census survey
fielded last summer as part of the American Community Survey
development, to help resolve the discrepancy between the Demographic
Analysis and A.C.E. estimates.
Reaction from Congress and stakeholder organizations: Members of
Congress with oversight responsibility for the census, the Census
Monitoring Board, and organizations involved in promoting an accurate
census reacted quickly to the ESCAP's findings and the Commerce
Secretary's final decision not to release statistically adjusted numbers
for redistricting.
Rep. Dan Miller (R-FL), chairman of the House Subcommittee on the
Census, "applaud[ed]" the Secretary's decision to release unadjusted
numbers, saying the "scientific hurdle of using sampling to improve the
accuracy of the census could not be met." The previous week, Rep.
Miller praised the ESCAP for "not [bending] to tremendous political
pressure to wrongly adjust the census. The Supreme Court "found
sampling illegal," the chairman said, the public "proved you can have a
great census using only an actual headcount," and the Census Bureau
determined "you can't make a great census any better" with scientific
methods. "Game. Set. Match." Chairman Miller
concluded. "The American people win."
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), a member (and former senior Democrat) of
the census oversight subcommittee, said the ESCAP recommendation meant
"millions of Americans had the clock run out on them." She called on
the Commerce Secretary to give the Census Bureau more time to complete
its evaluation of Census 2000 and to release the adjusted block level
data "for others to evaluate and scrutinize." "It is not enough for the
Bureau to tell the country they missed millions," the congresswoman
said. "They must design methods in the future which will accurately
count every American."
House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO), House Democratic Caucus
Chair Martin Frost (D-TX), and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), senior Democrat
on the House Government Reform Committee, issued a joint statement
urging the Bush Administration "to allow the professionals at the Census
Bureau to continue their work without interference." They said "the
number of errors in the 2000 census appears to be as high or higher than
in 1990," referring to the total number of people missed, counted twice,
or otherwise counted incorrectly in the census.
Many census stakeholder organizations expressed their disappointment at
Secretary Evans' decision and urged him to give the ESCAP more time to
determine if an adjusted census based on the A.C.E. results would be
more accurate. The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed
Officials Educational Fund (NALEO) said in a statement that the
unadjusted data "does not reflect the undercount of over three million
Americans," including more than a million Latinos. NALEO commended the
Census Bureau for "conducting a successful Census 2000" and urged the
Commerce Secretary to give the agency "time to offer the national the
most reliable data available," noting that many states will not start
redrawing political boundaries until later in the year. The Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) said the civil rights community is
"deeply disappointed" by the ESCAP recommendation and called on the
Bureau to release the adjusted data "for a full accounting" of the
census process. Noting the Census Bureau's ten year effort to address
the problem of undercounting, LCCR Executive Director Wade Henderson
said, "[T]his is a dark day in the nation's continued pursuit of equal
opportunity and social justice for all."
Members of the eight-member Census Monitoring Board also reacted to the
ESCAP recommendation and subsequent decision by Secretary Evans. Dr.
Everett Ehrlich, one of four members appointed by President Clinton,
said the Secretary "has chosen to overlook" the expert committee's
statement that it ran out of time to complete its evaluation. He
pointed to research conducted by Dr. Jeffrey Passel at the request of
the Board's Presidential appointees, which explained the discrepancy
between the Demographic Analysis estimate, the Census 2000 data, and the
A.C.E. results. Dr. Passel's analysis is available through the
Presidential Members web site at www.cmbp.gov.
Kenneth Blackwell, co-chair of the Monitoring Board for the members
appointed by the congressional Republican leadership, called the ESCAP
recommendation "the right decision." He pointed to a study of the 1990
adjustment methodology commissioned by the Board's congressional
appointees that "reinforced our concerns that statistical adjustment
would not accomplish much of what its supporters were promising." Board
Member A. ark Neuman credited the Census 2000 advertising campaign,
high mail-back rate, and nearly $7 billion appropriation for "a dramatic
reduction in the differential undercount." The Congressional Members
web site is www.cmbc.gov.
Legal challenges surrounding use of scientific sampling continue: Los
Angeles City Attorney Jim Hahn pressed forward with the city's challenge
to the decision to release unadjusted census numbers for redistricting.
The city amended its pending lawsuit against Secretary Evans' revocation
and revision last month of a federal rule giving the Census Bureau
director final say over whether to release statistically adjusted data.
Los Angeles, joined by several other counties, cities, and local
officials, filed its original legal challenge on February 21, claiming
that the Secretary violated the Administrative Procedures Act by not
providing for a 'notice and comment period' before rescinding the
original rule, which also would have required the Census Bureau to
release statistically corrected census figures even if the agency's
director decided against an adjustment.
A federal district court judge refused to grant a temporary restraining
order against the new Commerce Department rule and scheduled a March 5th
hearing to consider Los Angeles' request for a preliminary injunction to
stop the rule from taking effect while the court considered the merits
of the case. The plaintiffs dropped their request for a preliminary
injunction in order to review the ESCAP's report and recommendation
against releasing adjusted numbers for redistricting.
The amended complaint, filed on March 12, alleges that the Commerce
Secretary's decision to issue unadjusted numbers violates a Census Act
requirement to use "sampling" methods, "if he considers it feasible," in
compiling data for purposes other than congressional apportionment. We
believe that the Census Act creates a presumption that corrected census
data shall be used for all non-reapportionment purposes if there is a
finding by the Commerce Secretary that the use is feasible," Mr. Hahn
said in a written statement. Former Secretary William Daley concluded
last year that statistical sampling methods were feasible, Mr. Hahn
noted, "and nothing that the Commerce Secretary has said since then
refutes that finding."
Pointing to the Census Bureau's conclusion that it had run out of time
to resolve concerns about the A.C.E. estimates, Mr. Hahn said the April
1st deadline for transmitting redistricting data to the states was
"merely a procedural matter" not mandated by the Constitution. "[T]here
is simply too much at stake to allow an artificial deadline to stand in
the way of the most accurate census possible," he concluded.
Joining Los Angeles in its renewed legal effort are Los Angeles County;
the cities of San Francisco, San Jose, Inglewood, and Santa Clara in
California, Stamford (CT), San Antonio (TX), Albuquerque (NM), and
Toledo (OH); the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn and the Bronx;
several Los Angeles City Council members; California Lt. Gov. Cruz
Bustamante; the New York City Council and its Speaker, and the Bronx and
Manhattan Borough Presidents; and Toledo Mayor Carleton Finkbeiner.
Census Bureau starts sending redistricting data to the states: By law,
the Census Bureau must release block level population counts to the
states within one year of Census Day, which is set by law as April 1.
(The issuance of redistricting data is required by title 13, United
States Code, section 141(c)). The detailed data includes information on
race and Hispanic origin, and the voting age population (18 and over),
to facilitate the process of redrawing congressional and state
legislative districts in accordance with the Constitution's equal
representation clause and the federal Voting Rights Act. The Census
Bureau is releasing the block level data to the states this month on a
flow basis; data for New Jersey and Virginia were the first to be
released last Thursday. The data is available to the public through the
Bureau's American FactFinder at www.factfinder.census.gov. The Bureau
said the new data delivery system will allow it "to disseminate more
data to more users faster than in 1990," when 90 percent of the census
results were issued in print form.
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:terriann2k@aol.com. For copies of previous News Alerts and other
information, use our web site 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
individuals.
The Redistricting files are being released on a state by state basis by the Census Bureau. These files contain total population by race and latino origin, and population over the age of 18 by race and latino origin. The website is: http://www.census.gov/clo/www/redistricting.html. The data are released at block level. However, the geographic header includes a TAZ code, so that we can aggregate the data to a TAZ level. I tried to download the data, transfer them to a GIS, and aggregate the data to a TAZ level for a county, and state. I worked on Windows NT, however the process should work on Windows 95, 98, or 2000. For unix users, I have a small note at the bottom. Please note that this is *a* method. There may be far better methods than this. If you know of any other methods, or have written code to automate the transfer, please let us know.
Here are some general steps in a PC environment:
There are three files that need to be FTPed from the site for each state. I attempted to convert their files to a GIS Platform, specifically Arcview.
1. For any county or state download the shape file for block data from ESRI's website (http://www.geographynetwork.com/data/tiger2000/). Unzip these files, and keep them in a specially created folder. I created a folder called d:\VA_PL_Data, and saved the extracted shape files as 2000blocks.shp.
2. FTP the three redistricting files from the CB ftp site at http://www2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/redistricting_file--pl_94-171/
3. For example, for virginia, the geographic header file is vageo.upl.zip, and the data files are va00001.upl.zip and va00002.upl.zip
The files need a bit of massaging before import to Arcview.
Step a: The geographic header file is a flat ASCII file. The fields most of us are interested in are:
1. The State and County FIPS.
2. The Tract
3. The Block
4. The TAZ
To convert the flat file into something that can be used for linking fields, you will need to know where (or at which character) a record/field begins and ends. This can be obtained in chapter 2 (pages 16,17,18,19,20,21,22) of the file layout document (http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/pl94-171.pdf).
For example:
You can open the file in MS Access and specify exactly the 18th marker to the 25 marker for the "logical record" which is the key between the geographic header file and the data files.
The State and county FIPS are between the 29 and 34 markers.
The Tract is between the 55 and 61 marker. (Meaning that the record begins at 56 and is of 6 characters, so it ends at 61).
The block is between the 63 marker and the 67 marker.
The TAZ is between the 347th marker and the 353 marker.
Once the table is imported into Access, save it as a dbf file for import into Arcview. I called the geography file as va_geography.dbf and saved it in the folder d:\VA_PL_Data
Step b.
The data files are fairly straightforward to convert as they are comma delimited.
va00001.upl.zip: The file contains total population by race, and hispanic origin, and is in a convenient .csv format, and can be easily imported to access and converted to a dbf. The first field in this file is the "logical record key" - a field you can use for connecting the data with the geographic dbase file developed in step a. I named the data file as va_totalcounts.dbf and saved it in and saved it in the folder d:\VA_PL_Data.
va00002.upl.zip contains voting population (Age > 18) and is formatted in the same way as va00001.upl.zip.
You can import these into access and give them some headers that are more recognizable for you. Export these as DBF too.
Step 4:
a. Open a new Arcview session, and add the block theme you downloaded in step 1 (in my case 2000blocks.shp) as a theme. Also, add the three tables developed in Step 3. You will notice you can "join" the geographic header file and the data files easily in Arcview. I needed only total population counts by race, so I had only two tables to join (va_geography.dbf, and va_totalcounts.dbf). I used "logical record field" as the key field to join the two tables.
b. However, the block theme obtained in step 1 (2000blocks.shp) has an attribute table where the state fips, county fips, tract, and block number are concatenated into a single field. So to join the shape file to the data file, we need to concatenate the fields containing the statefips, countyfips, tract, and block in the new va_totalcounts.pdf obtained in step 4a. This can be then connected to the corresponding field in "Attributes of 2000blocks.shp"
Once the data are in Arcview, you can turn on the geo-processing wizard and summarzie the data by TAZ, or by Tract easily.
File- extensions- click on geoprocessing wizard.
Then go to view and dissolve the block shape file on TAZ, Tract or anything else. This is the reason I added TAZ as an import item in step 3. You can add other fields you are interested in summation, or geography.
UNIX Users:
You can follow most of the steps outlined for PC users. You may have to save your files as comma delimited and import them as .txt files into Arcview. The steps that used Microsoft Access are basically far easier in a UNIX environment. For example, for the geographic header file, you can use shell scripts or simple "cut" and "paste" commands specifying the exact start and end points for fields (obtained from the file layout manual). The rest of the process must work.
Thank you!
Nanda Srinivasan
202-366-5021
TO CTPP-News listserv recipients
Census data users may be interested in knowing the Census Bureau's
tentative schedule for releasing PL 94-171 for the next couple of
weeks. Users may want to bookmark the following page as a fairly
quick gateway for obtaining redistricting (PL 94-171) data files:
http://www.census.gov/clo/www/redistricting.html
In particular, users may want to bookmark the FTP site where the raw
data files can be downloaded:
http://ftp2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/
"Power users" who may be using SAS to process the files should note
that the State Data Center network is sharing SAS input code on
their site at:
http://www.sdcbidc.iupui.edu/
In terms of TIGER files, all TIGER/Line Redistricting 2000 files are
available (except Puerto Rico) at:
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/rd_2ktiger/tgr2kweb.html
ESRI has converted all TIGER files into their proprietary "shape"
file format, and are offering all converted TIGER files for free at:
http://www.geographynetwork.com/data/tiger2000/
And lastly, UC Berkeley has some TIGER 2000 map layers available for
California in three different formats (ArcView, Maptitude and
MapInfo) available in two geographic projections (NAD 1927 and NAD
1983). A very nice arrangement for providing data files to external
users:
http://swdb.berkeley.edu/geography.html
cheers,
Chuck Purvis, MTC
**********************************************************
Data Tentatively Scheduled for Release Week of March 5*
Arkansas
Indiana
Louisiana
Mississippi
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin
Data Tentatively Scheduled for Release Week of March 12*
Alabama
Alaska
Delaware
Hawaii
Illinois
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
*The release dates are subject to change due to uncertainties in
processing. This means that states tentatively scheduled for
release may be delayed and states not listed could be released
without notice.
*************************************************************
*******************************************************
e-mail: cpurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov
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)
WWW: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
MTC DataMart: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/datamart/
MTC FTP Site: ftp://ftp.abag.ca.gov/pub/mtc/planning/
*******************************************************
TO: CTPP-News and TMIP Listservs
FR: Chuck Purvis, MTC
RE: U.S. Census Question on Departure Time from Home-to-Work
I want to thank folks for the 23 detailed responses to our 2/16/01
inquiry regarding the American Community Survey (ACS) question on
departure time from home-to-work.
I have compiled these detailed responses on a WWW page at our TRB
urban data committee web site:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/trb/urban/departure.htm
This web page prints out about 8 pages.
Generally speaking, the majority of the responses strongly favor
retaining the departure time from home-to-work on the upcoming
American Community Survey.
We will use this information as background for a committee white
paper on departure time.
Please e-mail me at cpurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov if any further questions or
comments.
Chuck Purvis, MTC
*******************************************************
e-mail: cpurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov
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)
WWW: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
MTC DataMart: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/datamart/
MTC FTP Site: ftp://ftp.abag.ca.gov/pub/mtc/planning/
*******************************************************
Hello Elif,
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.
Susan Liss
202-366-5060
>>> ekarsi(a)usc.edu 02/26/01 10:16PM >>>
Hi all,
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
your input.
Elif
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.
>