ctpp-news May 2002

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

57 participants
76 discussions

JTW trend 1990-2000 (FYI.)

by Putta, Viplava

Sorry, I was not clear with regard to the losses in transit share - I only implied that transit was not able to capture its share of overall growth in person trips in several metropolitan areas. Was that a surprise for planners? On another note, commute time would have been even higher if it were not for the declining transit share as a percentage. And auto-ownership may have peaked too - as the increases are not as apparent as from 1980-1990. Here is the data I was looking at for both carpool & transit. Thanks. Viplav Putta INCOG ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ City Carpool Percent Transit Percent Year 2000 Year 1990 Change Year 2000 year 1990 Change 1 Tulsa 13.10 11.41 1.69 1.20 1.59 -0.39 2 Oklahoma City 13.10 12.80 0.30 1.00 1.07 -0.07 3 Austin 13.90 13.33 0.57 4.50 5.08 -0.58 4 Wichita 10.20 10.57 -0.37 0.80 1.24 -0.44 5 Tucson 15.70 14.83 0.87 3.50 4.19 -0.69 6 Omaha 11.10 12.22 -1.12 1.90 3.23 -1.33 7 Albuqureque 12.50 12.14 0.36 1.70 1.97 -0.27 8 Syracuse 13.70 13.68 0.02 7.00 10.84 -3.84 1 Kansas City 16.80 16.36 0.44 1.50 2.60 -1.10 2 Houston 15.90 15.50 0.40 5.90 6.52 -0.62 3 Dallas 17.80 15.16 2.64 5.50 6.66 -1.16 4 San Antonio 15.20 15.46 -0.26 3.80 4.92 -1.12 5 Phoenix 17.40 15.13 2.27 3.30 3.30 0.00 6 Atlanta 12.40 11.60 0.80 15.00 19.96 -4.96 7 Chicago 14.50 14.81 -0.31 26.10 29.71 -3.61 8 Portland 11.90 12.88 -0.98 12.30 11.05 1.25 9 Los Angeles 14.70 15.37 -0.67 10.20 10.54 -0.34 10 San Francisco 10.80 11.49 -0.69 31.10 33.52 -2.42 CMSA 1 Tulsa 12.60 12.54 0.06 0.70 0.92 -0.22 2 Oklahoma City 12.00 13.30 -1.30 0.60 0.68 -0.08 3 Austin 13.70 13.91 -0.21 2.60 3.07 -0.47 4 Wichita 9.70 10.89 -1.19 0.60 0.87 -0.27 5 Tucson 14.70 15.03 -0.33 2.50 3.15 -0.65 6 Omaha 10.20 11.76 -1.56 1.20 2.05 -0.85 7 Albuqureque 13.30 12.77 0.53 1.30 1.74 -0.44 8 Syracuse 10.20 12.45 -2.25 2.00 3.54 -1.54 1 Kansas City (KS Part) 9.30 12.52 -3.22 0.60 2.14 -1.54 2 Houston 14.20 14.57 -0.37 3.30 3.78 -0.48 3 Dallas 14.00 13.81 0.19 1.80 2.35 -0.55 4 San Antonio 14.70 14.76 -0.06 2.90 3.67 -0.77 5 Phoenix 15.30 14.37 0.93 2.00 2.13 -0.13 6 Atlanta 13.60 12.74 0.86 3.70 4.71 -1.01 7 Chicago (IL Part) 11.00 11.96 -0.96 12.30 13.66 -1.36 8 Portland (OR part) 12.20 12.28 -0.08 6.20 5.42 0.78 9 Los Angeles 15.20 15.45 -0.25 4.70 4.56 0.14 10 San Francisco 12.90 13.01 -0.11 9.50 9.29 0.21

21 years, 11 months

2000 demo. profiles: 100% data

by Andrew PICKARD

Why is it that some of the 2000 Demographic Profile summaries currently being released include summaries for metro areas in addition to statewide summaries? As an example, Illinois includes summaries for the state, Cook County, and Chicago City. Yet Georgia only includes a state report (you might expect Atlanta to have a summary). I am specifically interested in metro areas of Virginia. The web page I am referring to is http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/demoprofiles.html Thanks for the help. Andrew Pickard Senior Transportation Engineer Hampton Roads Planning District Commission 723 Woodlake Drive Chesapeake, VA 23320 Phone: (757) 420-8300 Fax: (757) 523-4881 E-mail: apickard(a)hrpdc.org Web: www.hrpdc.org

21 years, 11 months

Re: [CTPP] 2000 demo. profiles: 100% data

by Srinivasan, Nanda <FHWA>

To obtain profile data from the CB website, you have two options 1. You can download all of the data for VA from the FTP site at: http://www2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/100_and_sample_profile/Virginia/ You will have to add headers to the csv files. 2. Search for the Demographic profile (pdf format) from http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/pct/pctProfile.pl I found all the MSA data for VA through the search option. Thanks Nanda Srinivasan >>> APICKARD(a)hrpdc.org 05/29/02 03:38PM >>> Why is it that some of the 2000 Demographic Profile summaries currently being released include summaries for metro areas in addition to statewide summaries? As an example, Illinois includes summaries for the state, Cook County, and Chicago City. Yet Georgia only includes a state report (you might expect Atlanta to have a summary). I am specifically interested in metro areas of Virginia. The web page I am referring to is http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/demoprofiles.html Thanks for the help. Andrew Pickard Senior Transportation Engineer Hampton Roads Planning District Commission 723 Woodlake Drive Chesapeake, VA 23320 Phone: (757) 420-8300 Fax: (757) 523-4881 E-mail: apickard(a)hrpdc.org Web: www.hrpdc.org

21 years, 11 months

Re: [CTPP] Journey to Work data

by Keith Lawton

I would guess that you are not seeing a switch from transit to carpool -- but rather the effect of new growth in the suburbs, poor transit and more carpooling, while the transit served areas may not have declined in percentage use, but are a smaller part of your region. The change on travel time is unusually large compared with previous 10-yr periods (in most cities) - suggests a methodological problem, or change. The larger increase in VMT is normal -- suburban growth - faster travel means more distance (VMT) possible in the same time. Keith Lawton At 02:20 PM 5/28/02 -0500, Putta, Viplava wrote: >In looking at the journey to work data at all three levels (place, >county and MSA level) for the Tulsa MSA, in short we observed the >following - > >1. >A slight increase in commute time - between 7% & 8% from 1990 (as >opposed to 16-20% increase in VMT over the same period). > >2. >With regard to the mode of transportation - Carpool showed an increase >over '90 levels (1.4%) and transit commute trips declined. Several >cities we looked at for comparison purposes showed similar trend. > >3. >Almost no increase in car ownership is also observed (percent households >with 0, 1 and 2 plus cars remained same from 1990 to 2000). > >Possibly all of these are somewhat related - has anyone come up with >this prediction with regard to an increase in carpooling over the past >decade (any papers published or presented)? Is this a confirmed >reversal in trend from 70s to 80s and 90s? > >I guess part of my question is to do with if transit's loss is carpools' >gain? > >Viplav Putta >Transportation Planning Division >INCOG

21 years, 11 months

RE: [CTPP] Journey to Work data

by Barrett, Bernadette

We observed that it's important to recognize that the percentages do not represent numbers of rides, i.e. even though transit commute trips may have declined, the NUMBER of trips may actually have increased. Our transit commute mode percentage increased from 1.00 to 2.5 percent, while the NUMBERS of rides between 1990 and 2000 increased from 341,598 to 499,417--a 46.2% increase. -----Original Message----- From: Putta, Viplava [mailto:vputta@incog.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 12:20 PM To: ctpp-news maillist Subject: [CTPP] Journey to Work data In looking at the journey to work data at all three levels (place, county and MSA level) for the Tulsa MSA, in short we observed the following - 1. A slight increase in commute time - between 7% & 8% from 1990 (as opposed to 16-20% increase in VMT over the same period). 2. With regard to the mode of transportation - Carpool showed an increase over '90 levels (1.4%) and transit commute trips declined. Several cities we looked at for comparison purposes showed similar trend. 3. Almost no increase in car ownership is also observed (percent households with 0, 1 and 2 plus cars remained same from 1990 to 2000). Possibly all of these are somewhat related - has anyone come up with this prediction with regard to an increase in carpooling over the past decade (any papers published or presented)? Is this a confirmed reversal in trend from 70s to 80s and 90s? I guess part of my question is to do with if transit's loss is carpools' gain? Viplav Putta Transportation Planning Division INCOG

21 years, 11 months

JTW trend data

by Elaine Murakami

We have started looking at several large cities and fast growing cities for which the Profiles have been released. We are seeing slight declines (%) in carpooling, and slight increases in driving alone (%) . Transit shares seem to be about the same. The most important difference from 1990 to 2000 that we have noticed is the large increase in travel time. We are seeing 4 minutes increases in average travel time across the board for both the large cities and the fast growing cities. About ½ minute of this increase may be attributable to the difference in "top coding" travel time, from 99 minutes in 1990 to 200 minutes in 2000. As data for additional States are released, we will compile our results and post to the listserv. We are planning to add Metro Area analysis in addition to examining cities. Elaine Murakami, FHWA

21 years, 11 months

Journey to Work data

by Putta, Viplava

In looking at the journey to work data at all three levels (place, county and MSA level) for the Tulsa MSA, in short we observed the following - 1. A slight increase in commute time - between 7% & 8% from 1990 (as opposed to 16-20% increase in VMT over the same period). 2. With regard to the mode of transportation - Carpool showed an increase over '90 levels (1.4%) and transit commute trips declined. Several cities we looked at for comparison purposes showed similar trend. 3. Almost no increase in car ownership is also observed (percent households with 0, 1 and 2 plus cars remained same from 1990 to 2000). Possibly all of these are somewhat related - has anyone come up with this prediction with regard to an increase in carpooling over the past decade (any papers published or presented)? Is this a confirmed reversal in trend from 70s to 80s and 90s? I guess part of my question is to do with if transit's loss is carpools' gain? Viplav Putta Transportation Planning Division INCOG

21 years, 11 months

Re: [CTPP] UA Product Update

by Williams, Ben <FHWA>

Bob, Last week , the 2000 boundary files part of the web site posted a file ua99_d00. It appears to be a generalized version of the urban areas. Was this a previous version or does this represent the official 2000 Census urban areas? It is a different file name than in your email. Ben Williams, P.E. Metropolitan Planning Specialist Federal Highway Administration Southern Resource Center V (404) 562-3671 F (404) 562-3700 ben.williams(a)fhwa.dot.gov Web Site www.fhwa.dot.gov/resourcecenters/southern >>> rlamacchia(a)geo.census.gov 05/24/02 03:43PM >>> As many of you know, there was an error in the 1990 Urban/Rural indicator in the UA Census 2000 TIGER/Line files. We have recreated the files to correct for this error that affected 1094 counties. We will be uploading the corrected files to our Internet site by the end of May (by the end of next week). Check the page at: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tigerua/ua_tgr2k.html ============================================================== We recently uploaded the generalized boundary files for UAs and UCs. They can be obtained from the following page: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/ua2000.html These files are generalized an not suitable for the determination of the exact boundaries of the UAs and UCs. ============================================================== We also will be making available from our web site a NATIONWIDE detailed UA/UC boundary file in ArcView Shapefile (.shp) format to facilitate the determination of Urbanized Area (UA) and Urban Cluster (UC) boundaries. We are aware of some users having difficulties finding up-to-date conversion applications to develop their own UA/UC boundaries from the UA Census 2000 TIGER/Line* files. The boundaries in these files are an exact match of the boundary details found in the UA Census 2000 TIGER/Line files. The boundary files were extracted from the Census Bureau's TIGER geographic database for use various internal Census Bureau projects and have been made available here on an "as is" basis. Please note that this will be a very large file (over 31MB) and is nationwide in coverage. We do not have this file available at any other geographic level. This file will be available by the end of next week from the following page: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua_2k.html Bob LaMacchia Geography Division U. S. Census Bureau

21 years, 11 months

UA Product Update

by Robert LaMacchia

As many of you know, there was an error in the 1990 Urban/Rural indicator in the UA Census 2000 TIGER/Line files. We have recreated the files to correct for this error that affected 1094 counties. We will be uploading the corrected files to our Internet site by the end of May (by the end of next week). Check the page at: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tigerua/ua_tgr2k.html ============================================================== We recently uploaded the generalized boundary files for UAs and UCs. They can be obtained from the following page: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/ua2000.html These files are generalized an not suitable for the determination of the exact boundaries of the UAs and UCs. ============================================================== We also will be making available from our web site a NATIONWIDE detailed UA/UC boundary file in ArcView Shapefile (.shp) format to facilitate the determination of Urbanized Area (UA) and Urban Cluster (UC) boundaries. We are aware of some users having difficulties finding up-to-date conversion applications to develop their own UA/UC boundaries from the UA Census 2000 TIGER/Line® files. The boundaries in these files are an exact match of the boundary details found in the UA Census 2000 TIGER/Line files. The boundary files were extracted from the Census Bureau's TIGER geographic database for use various internal Census Bureau projects and have been made available here on an "as is" basis. Please note that this will be a very large file (over 31MB) and is nationwide in coverage. We do not have this file available at any other geographic level. This file will be available by the end of next week from the following page: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua_2k.html Bob LaMacchia Geography Division U. S. Census Bureau

21 years, 11 months

Future census file releases, will they use the SRC Allocate product?

by Kevin Ghirardi

Does anyone know if the census will continue to release files, including the CTPP, in the SRC Allocate product format? We purchased the extended product which allows the user to integrate census files with geography in Arcview or MapInfo. A shape file can also be brought into Allocate and used as custom geography; you can choose to create reports on the shape file's polygons just as you could choose to select information based on a census tract or place. The product makes producing a standard or custom report easy and quick-literally in seconds. When we used the product that came with the SF1 disk, we called SRC and found the extended product was very cheap. I have not found a quicker or easier method of retrieving census data, the GIS connection is a nice bonus. The company's websites: http://www.freedemographics.com http://www.extendthereach.com If anyone needs additional information, please call. Kevin Ghirardi, MPO Administrator Houma-Thibodaux Metropolitan Planning Organization Post Office Box 1870 Gray, Louisiana 70359 ghirardi(a)scpdc.org 985-851-2900 985-851-4472 fax

21 years, 11 months

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 May 2002