This came out today from the Census Bureau for the media...
Summary File 3 (SF3): Census 2000
Contains detailed sample data, which is the information compiled from
the questions asked on the census long-form questionnaire. Population
items include social, economic and housing characteristics. There are
813 unique tables 484 population tables and 329 housing tables.
Geography runs from the national level down to block groups and census
tract levels. These data will be released on a flow-basis from the end
of June through September 2002. The first state scheduled for release is
Vermont. (Tentatively scheduled for release in two weeks.)
Attached is a "poster" session call for materials that the TRB
subcommittee on Census Data for Transportation Planning has issued. The
subcommittee is offering individuals the opportunity to show off the
innovative and creative ways they are presenting, analyzing and
displaying their census data. If you are doing something with your data
that you want to show others this poster session is for you. If you
know others doing "innovative and creative" work with their data please
pass this along to them.
Midwest Resource Center
Federal Highway Administration
19900 Governors Drive
Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461
I received a very nice and informative phone call from Dave Aultman at
Census, and an explanation of the difference in definitions which occurred
between 1990 and 2000, among other things dropping the civil limits of
"places." Thank you again, Dave.
With that, I am now sure that we have the right UA boundaries and we can
proceed with redefining our "3C" area.
Bill Moore, Pueblo MPO
I was looking at a comparison of our 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 Urban Area
boundary maps and I noticed what appears to be an anomaly to me. (Please
don't laugh out loud at the following questions, I was off playing economist
and academician for some 20 years between stints in transportation. :-)
Why isn't the entire area within the City Limits included in the Urban Area
in 2000, when it was in the previous three Censuses? Is this a definitional
change that was adopted between 1990 and 2000? If so, what was the
rationale for changing?
I thought that at least heuristically I understood the 2000 system to be the
central city, plus areas such as clusters (connected by hops, etc.) meeting
defined population-density requirements; but the map we have before us shows
several areas within the City Limits which are not included in the Urban
Area boundary. Am I missing something (other than the obvious lack of
detailed knowledge :-) in another definition somewhere? Do other
jurisdictions have the same problem/issue?
I would appreciate any help anyone can provide...
Bill Moore, M.ITE, Senior Transportation Planner
PACOG - Pueblo MPO - c/o City of Pueblo
Department of Community Development
211 E. D Street, P.O. Box 1427
Pueblo, CO 81003
Phone: (719) 583-4485 FAX: (719) 543-0572
Probably Microsoft Access is more than adequate for handling the demographic profile information. However, I wanted to practice manipulating the the demographic profile i <<dp_profiles_oracle.zip>> nformation in Oracle to prepare myself for the Summary File 3 release. The attached zip file contains files for creating and loading the demographic profile tables into Oracle.
I loaded CT first, and then loaded NY and NJ. It would be easy for me to modify the files and load the national summary tables as well. Because of my process, the control files are different for NY and NJ because I was appending the data to an existing populated table. Oracle users will most likely need to edit the files to change the paths and file names. I added ".txt" to the batch files so that anti-virus software does strip the attachments and I do not get hate mail from system administrators. I also changed my userid information for obvious reasons.
South Western Regional Planning Agency
Stamford Government Center
888 Washington Blvd., 3rd Floor
Stamford, CT 06901
Tel: (203) 316-5190
Fax: (203) 316-4995
There is an article on JTW in Great Falls Tribune (if you are collecting
stories on Census 2000 coverage):
Other than me adding to the speculation that it may just be as easy to
walk during winter months than to shovel snow, wait for the car to heat
up or even wait for roadways to clear and drive in snow/sleet - people
in those Northern States may have adopted to living closer to work -
following excerpt is from the above article:
Montanans' willingness to walk may reflect the short distances most have
to travel to their jobs, even in a state of 147,000 square miles. About
9 percent live five minutes or less from work, more than twice the
national average of almost 4 percent.
A third of Montanans travel fewer than 10 minutes to their jobs and 71
percent get to work in less than 20 minutes. Only three states had a
higher percentage of commuters with such short trips.
With his portrait of Pablo Picasso "looking" over his shoulder, artist
Tom Gilleon puts a finishing touch on a painting at his home studio west
of Cascade Tuesday. The Picasso portrait is for a Canadian client making
a mosaic of 100 famous faces.
My response is to the listserv since I think it may be useful to other analysts looking at their own state.
My now favorite site is at:
I examined the PDF profiles for both Anchorage and the State of Alaska, and you are right:
Anchorage = 2.7 percent walk to work (131,228 total workers at work)
Alaska = 7.3 percent walk to work (290,597 total workers at work)
Not Anchorage = 11.2 percent walk to work (159,369 total workers at work)
(BTW, "Not Anchorage" is not a place, but a residual calculation ;-) It's then not to your surprise that the majority of the walk commuters in Alaska reside outside of Anchorage.
The bottom line is that state rankings are cool, but the within state variations are the items of interest to your Governor, your State Transportation Commissioner, etc.
cheers, Chuck Purvis
>>> "Spring, Jon R." <SpringJR(a)ci.anchorage.ak.us> 06/05/02 10:45AM >>>I am at a loss to
explain why the walk to work rate is so high in Alaska. Anchorage, which
makes up nearly half of the State's population, isn't especially known for
its dense compact development. The remainder of Alaskan towns are much
smaller than Anchorage and are no doubt much more walkable. It would be
interesting to diaagregate the walk to work figures for Alaska in order to
determine its source.
I think that if people choose to reply to the individual and not to the
listserve that it would cut down on the traffic.
From: MBrienzo(a)ci.lincoln.ne.us [mailto:MBrienzo@ci.lincoln.ne.us]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 12:06 PM
To: Peter H. Van Demark
Cc: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net; owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] Great getting the CTPP News
When can it be implemented?
"Peter H. Van
Demark" To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
m> Subject: Re: [CTPP] Great
getting the CTPP News
>Perhaps there could be one listserv for announcements only (which does not
>permit replies/group discussion) and another listserv for those of us who
>want the "garbage" that goes along with it.
I think the "garbage" that Carol is referring to is all the extra,
unnecessary text. Notice how I just clipped out the portion of your e-mail
that I am reacting to. I think that is what she wants us all to do.
Peter Van Demark
Director of GIS Products and Training Phone: 617-527-4700
Caliper Corporation Fax: 617-527-5113
1172 Beacon Street E-mail: peter(a)caliper.com
Newton MA 02461-9926 Web site: http://www.caliper.com