Sorry for interject with another Census 2000 related question:
According to the newly released Census 2000 Urbanized Area data, Los
Angels - Long Beach - Santa Ana, CA is the most densely populated urban
area in the United States with 7,068 persons per square mile.
True or False?
Well, we fought the UZA definition and lost. Now we have to explain the
ill-defined term and make some sense out of this new ranking by
density.
By the way, Chicago, IL - IN is the second largest Urbanized Area by
Land Area.
>>> "Alan E. Pisarski" <PISARSKI(a)ix.netcom.com> 07/08/02 01:17PM >>>
MY GREAT CONCERN IS THAT WE WILL HAVE FOUR DATA SETS BY NEXT YEAR - THE
C2SS
FOR 2000, THE CENSUS JTW FOR 2000, THE NEW ACS-SS01 SURVEY AND THE
NPTS -everyone will be able to pick their favorite and spin forever as
Ed
says. We must understand the linkages and differences or we will
expire.
AEP
----- Original Message -----
From: ed christopher <edc(a)berwyned.com>
Cc: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with
Ridership
Statistics
> Chris I thought your comment about the census data being flawed was a
bit
strong and way off the point of what Chuck was raising
> here. You and Ken may have your beef with arguing for specific
projects
but I believe what Chuck was doing was trying to get folks to
> begin thinking how we can reconcile the differences between the
various
data sets. I don't think that arguing about the integrity of
> the data--one versus the other is really the way to go. I am sure
that
most transit ridership count programs have their own warts.
> This is why planners need to understand what is behind the numbers
they
use and stay away from working the "spin" game. To complicate
> this even more, toss in a household travel survey and several transit
on
board surveys and the mix becomes all that more interesting.
>
> Wouldn't it serve the planning community better to fully understand
and
quantify the differences between the data sets? We know there
> is variability in peoples travel.
>
> Now here is a wild thought (although I say it tongue-in-check). Maybe
the
people who take transit one or two days a week or for part
> of their trip are doing it for altruistic reasons. Since they know
transit may get short shifted they overlook their auto travel and
> say they used transit most of the time on their census form. Its
just a
thought.
>
> As for Chucks comments I believe that he was actually searching to
gain a
better understanding into the trip purpose side of mode
> split issue. Is the the work trip declining in its mode share? The
answer of course in not in any census data.
>
> Forinash.Christopher(a)epamail.epa.gov wrote:
>
> > Isn't another piece of the explanation that the Census doesn't
actually
> > measure trip-making as we typically define it? The Census
mode-to-work
> > question is an odd thing -- see
> > http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d02p.pdf questions 23a&b. The
Census
> > day was 4/1/2000, and it asks "how did this person usually get to
work
> > LAST WEEK?", and requires a one-mode answer (with "most distance"
the
> > criteria for choosing main mode). So for a number of individuals
and
> > families with whome I am anecdotally familiar, you don't count
transit
> > even if you use it quite a bit. If you walk to transit to and from
work
> > 2 days a week and drive the others, you don't report transit. If
you
> > carpool to a parking location and then take transit to your office
every
> > day, you don't report transit. If you drive from Loudoun County VA
to
> > the Vienna METRO to downtown Washington DC every day, you don't
report
> > transit. So aren't the Census numbers ALWAYS going to be biased
toward
> > the "dominant" mode (unless everyone does the same thing every
single
> > day)? As others have posted, there are other reasons for
disagreement
> > between Census travel trends and all other sources, but this is
clearly
> > one.
> >
> > Lots of people seek smart growth locations for home and work
> > specifically to have access to transportation choices. That
doesn't
> > mean that every day, or even the majority of days, they won't
drive. I
> > ranted a bit about this a couple weeks ago in response to Ken
Orski's
> > flippant post to a thread started by Chuck Purvis. Using these
flawed
> > Census numbers to argue for further depriving people of
transportation
> > choices is completely outdated thinking.
> >
> > Chris.
> > ------------------------------------
> > Christopher V. Forinash
> > U.S. EPA: Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
> > 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW (MC 1808), Washington DC 20460
> > (Delivery: 401 M St. SW, #WT-1013D)
> > 202-260-5044 vox 0174 fax; forinash.christopher(a)epa.gov
> > ------------------------------------
> > Development, Community & Environment Division:
> > http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth
> > A partner in the Smart Growth Network: http://www.smartgrowth.org
> >
> >
> > "Gardner, John
> > F" To: 'Chuck
Purvis'
<CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov>, ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
> > <GardnerJF(a)dot.s cc:
> > tate.sc.us> Subject: RE: [CTPP]
Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership St atistics
> > Sent by:
> > owner-ctpp-news@
> > chrispy.net
> >
> >
> > 07/08/2002 08:14
> > AM
> >
> >
> >
> > Another explanation for the growth in total unlinked passenger
trips,
> > while
> > total transit commuters remained stable, is the shift toward rail
> > transit by
> > many of the growing transit systems. In many cases, light rail
replaced
> > express bus service. The express bus collected people in their
> > neighborhoods or at a park and ride lot and was a "one-seat" trip.
Rail
> > often involves a transfer from a feeder bus to the train, so a trip
that
> > formerly counted as one unlinked passenger trip now counts as two.
A
> > better
> > measure would be "linked trips" (excludes transfers) when making
this
> > comparison, but I don't believe they are reported.
> >
> > John Gardner, AICP
> > SCDOT Office of Planning
> > PO Box 191
> > Columbia, SC 29202-0191
> > (803) 737 - 1444
> > gardnerjf(a)dot.state.sc.us
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chuck Purvis [mailto:CPurvis@mtc.ca.gov]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 6:36 PM
> > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
> > Subject: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with
Ridership
> > Statistics
> >
> > To: CTPP-News
> >
> > One of the interesting journey-to-work results is the lack of
change, at
> > the
> > NATIONAL level, in the total number of transit commuters. The US
had
> > 6,069,589 transit commuters according to the 1990 Census, and
6,067,703
> > transit commuters according to the 2000 Census, a 0.03 percent
decrease.
> > (On
> > the other hand, the US transit commute SHARE declined from 5.3
percent
> > in
> > 1990 to 4.7 percent in 2000.)
> >
> > This compares to national transit ridership statistics which show a
6.4
> > percent increase in annual unlinked passenger trips comparing 1990
to
> > 2000.
> > (Source is APTA's 2002 Public Transportation Fact Book, Table 26.)
The
> > APTA
> > book (I would assume based on FTA-collected ridership statistics)
shows
> > annual unlinked public transit trips increasing from 8,799 million
trips
> > in
> > 1990 to 9,363 million trips in 2000 (the 2000 numbers are
preliminary,
> > according to the 2002 APTA Fact Book).
> >
> > So, an issue is how to reconcile a 0.0 percent change in national
> > transit
> > commuters with a 6.4 percent increase in national transit
ridership.
> >
> > A plausible explanation is that the work trip share of public
> > transportation
> > trips has declined since 1990. According to the 1990 NPTS, 42.6
percent
> > of
> > public transportation person trips are for the purpose of "earning
a
> > living"
> > (NPTS Databook, Vol. 1, Table 4.40).
> >
> > So, I can calculate that about 3,748 million unlinked transit
boardings
> > (in
> > 1990) are "work trips" and that this might decline to about 3,747
> > million
> > unlinked transit boarding "work trips", in 2000. This means that
perhaps
> > 40
> > percent of year 2000 transit boardings are work trips (3,747 /
9,363),
> > which
> > is quite plausible at the national level.
> >
> > The story might be that the national number of transit work trips,
1990
> > to
> > 2000, has remained fairly stable, and that, at least at the
national
> > level,
> > the growth in transit is attributable to non-work travel.
> >
> > The data question is: is information available from either the 1995
NPTS
> > or
> > the 2001 NHTS that can corroborate this possible trend - - a
decline in
> > the
> > work purpose share for public transportation trips?
> >
> > Also, who has attempted to reconcile their change in regional
transit
> > commuters with their own transit ridership statistics? What would
be
> > most
> > helpful is any comparisons of on-board surveys or household travel
> > surveys
> > that show any changes in the trip purpose mix for transit trips.
> >
> > (Other larger issues still loom in terms of the
plausibility/fixability
> > of
> > the Census data. We are very concerned about the overall LOW
numbers of
> > TOTAL commuters and employed residents we're seeing in the 2000
Census
> > in
> > our region....)
> >
> > Wishing a Safe & Sane Happy Fourth of July to All!
> >
> > Chuck Purvis
> >
> > ***********************************************
> > Charles L. Purvis, AICP
> > Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst
> > Metropolitan Transportation Commission
> > 101 Eighth Street
> > Oakland, CA 94607-4700
> > (510) 464-7731 (office)
> > (510) 464-7848 (fax)
> > www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
> > Census WWW: http://census.mtc.ca.gov/
> > ***********************************************
>
> --
> 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)
>
>
>
Sweson Yang, AICP
Chief Transportation Planner
Indianapolis Metro Planning Organization
200 E. Washington St., Suite 1841
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 327-5137t co
CTPP list, Ed, and others who gently chided me off list for calling the
Census data "flawed" --
I agree that I poorly though out the comment where I called the Census
data flawed, and we are all indebted to the hard work of our FHWA
colleagues, Chuck, and many others for making sure the Census even has
transportation questions!
The technical point I was trying to make is that looking at the CTPP
worker-flow, usual-mode information as "tripmaking" isn't right. It's
clearly useful, and one of the few national snapshots we have that
develops some decent work travel information. Like all our other data
sources though, it's clearly limited. Not "wrong", not "flawed", but
you've probably noticed it gets trumpeted in the media because it's "the
Census" and any number of other more travel-focused surveys like NHTS or
FTA ridership numbers get a small mention in paragraph 13.
Trust me, I understand that the transportation profession needs to be
able to tease out the important information from a wide variety of data
sources. I was/am trying to contribute to that by pointing out one
reason for the discrepancy that Chuck's thread identified, then I went
and turned it into a mini-rant. No more, I promise!
(thread deleted, as it was getting really long!)
Chris.
------------------------------------
Christopher V. Forinash
U.S. EPA: Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW (MC 1808), Washington DC 20460
(Delivery: 401 M St. SW, #WT-1013D)
202-260-5044 vox 0174 fax; forinash.christopher(a)epa.gov
------------------------------------
Development, Community & Environment Division:
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth
A partner in the Smart Growth Network: http://www.smartgrowth.org
Isn't another piece of the explanation that the Census doesn't actually
measure trip-making as we typically define it? The Census mode-to-work
question is an odd thing -- see
http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d02p.pdf questions 23a&b. The Census
day was 4/1/2000, and it asks "how did this person usually get to work
LAST WEEK?", and requires a one-mode answer (with "most distance" the
criteria for choosing main mode). So for a number of individuals and
families with whome I am anecdotally familiar, you don't count transit
even if you use it quite a bit. If you walk to transit to and from work
2 days a week and drive the others, you don't report transit. If you
carpool to a parking location and then take transit to your office every
day, you don't report transit. If you drive from Loudoun County VA to
the Vienna METRO to downtown Washington DC every day, you don't report
transit. So aren't the Census numbers ALWAYS going to be biased toward
the "dominant" mode (unless everyone does the same thing every single
day)? As others have posted, there are other reasons for disagreement
between Census travel trends and all other sources, but this is clearly
one.
Lots of people seek smart growth locations for home and work
specifically to have access to transportation choices. That doesn't
mean that every day, or even the majority of days, they won't drive. I
ranted a bit about this a couple weeks ago in response to Ken Orski's
flippant post to a thread started by Chuck Purvis. Using these flawed
Census numbers to argue for further depriving people of transportation
choices is completely outdated thinking.
Chris.
------------------------------------
Christopher V. Forinash
U.S. EPA: Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW (MC 1808), Washington DC 20460
(Delivery: 401 M St. SW, #WT-1013D)
202-260-5044 vox 0174 fax; forinash.christopher(a)epa.gov
------------------------------------
Development, Community & Environment Division:
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth
A partner in the Smart Growth Network: http://www.smartgrowth.org
"Gardner, John
F" To: 'Chuck Purvis' <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov>, ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
<GardnerJF(a)dot.s cc:
tate.sc.us> Subject: RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership St atistics
Sent by:
owner-ctpp-news@
chrispy.net
07/08/2002 08:14
AM
Another explanation for the growth in total unlinked passenger trips,
while
total transit commuters remained stable, is the shift toward rail
transit by
many of the growing transit systems. In many cases, light rail replaced
express bus service. The express bus collected people in their
neighborhoods or at a park and ride lot and was a "one-seat" trip. Rail
often involves a transfer from a feeder bus to the train, so a trip that
formerly counted as one unlinked passenger trip now counts as two. A
better
measure would be "linked trips" (excludes transfers) when making this
comparison, but I don't believe they are reported.
John Gardner, AICP
SCDOT Office of Planning
PO Box 191
Columbia, SC 29202-0191
(803) 737 - 1444
gardnerjf(a)dot.state.sc.us
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Purvis [mailto:CPurvis@mtc.ca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 6:36 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership
Statistics
To: CTPP-News
One of the interesting journey-to-work results is the lack of change, at
the
NATIONAL level, in the total number of transit commuters. The US had
6,069,589 transit commuters according to the 1990 Census, and 6,067,703
transit commuters according to the 2000 Census, a 0.03 percent decrease.
(On
the other hand, the US transit commute SHARE declined from 5.3 percent
in
1990 to 4.7 percent in 2000.)
This compares to national transit ridership statistics which show a 6.4
percent increase in annual unlinked passenger trips comparing 1990 to
2000.
(Source is APTA's 2002 Public Transportation Fact Book, Table 26.) The
APTA
book (I would assume based on FTA-collected ridership statistics) shows
annual unlinked public transit trips increasing from 8,799 million trips
in
1990 to 9,363 million trips in 2000 (the 2000 numbers are preliminary,
according to the 2002 APTA Fact Book).
So, an issue is how to reconcile a 0.0 percent change in national
transit
commuters with a 6.4 percent increase in national transit ridership.
A plausible explanation is that the work trip share of public
transportation
trips has declined since 1990. According to the 1990 NPTS, 42.6 percent
of
public transportation person trips are for the purpose of "earning a
living"
(NPTS Databook, Vol. 1, Table 4.40).
So, I can calculate that about 3,748 million unlinked transit boardings
(in
1990) are "work trips" and that this might decline to about 3,747
million
unlinked transit boarding "work trips", in 2000. This means that perhaps
40
percent of year 2000 transit boardings are work trips (3,747 / 9,363),
which
is quite plausible at the national level.
The story might be that the national number of transit work trips, 1990
to
2000, has remained fairly stable, and that, at least at the national
level,
the growth in transit is attributable to non-work travel.
The data question is: is information available from either the 1995 NPTS
or
the 2001 NHTS that can corroborate this possible trend - - a decline in
the
work purpose share for public transportation trips?
Also, who has attempted to reconcile their change in regional transit
commuters with their own transit ridership statistics? What would be
most
helpful is any comparisons of on-board surveys or household travel
surveys
that show any changes in the trip purpose mix for transit trips.
(Other larger issues still loom in terms of the plausibility/fixability
of
the Census data. We are very concerned about the overall LOW numbers of
TOTAL commuters and employed residents we're seeing in the 2000 Census
in
our region....)
Wishing a Safe & Sane Happy Fourth of July to All!
Chuck Purvis
***********************************************
Charles L. Purvis, AICP
Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4700
(510) 464-7731 (office)
(510) 464-7848 (fax)
www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
Census WWW: http://census.mtc.ca.gov/
***********************************************
The Florida Transit Information System, developed for the Florida DOT by
Florida International University, has the capacity to analyze the National
Transit Database back to 1984. I ran a little spreadsheet showing transit
ridership, system by system, in 1990 and 2000.
(See attached file: nationwide ridership 1990 and 2000.xls)
I can think of may reasons for the apparent difference between ridership
growth as reported by operators, and the stagnation in the census. Several
have been mentioned, the limitation of the census question to work trips,
and to the most common means of travel seem to me the biggest contributors
to the discrepancy. Someone mentioned the substitution of one transit mode
for another. Our system can make that analysis, but it will take me some
more time. Mode substitution does not seem to be a big factor in Florida.
Tara Bartee
Public Transit Office
850-414-4520
David Abrams
<dabrams(a)mrgcog.o To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
rg> cc:
Sent by: Subject: RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit
owner-ctpp-news@c Commuters with Ridership St atistics
hrispy.net
07/08/02 12:05 PM
It seems that it would be helpful to know the extent, if at all, that urban
areas have cut back transit routes and service post 1990 due to budget cuts
and/or low ridership. Is there data on this?
Dave Abrams
Information Services Manager
Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments
Albuquerque, New Mexico
-----Original Message-----
From: Forinash.Christopher(a)epamail.epa.gov
[mailto:Forinash.Christopher@epamail.epa.gov]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 7:26 AM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership St
atistics
Isn't another piece of the explanation that the Census doesn't actually
measure trip-making as we typically define it? The Census mode-to-work
question is an odd thing -- see
http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d02p.pdf questions 23a&b. The Census
day was 4/1/2000, and it asks "how did this person usually get to work
LAST WEEK?", and requires a one-mode answer (with "most distance" the
criteria for choosing main mode). So for a number of individuals and
families with whome I am anecdotally familiar, you don't count transit
even if you use it quite a bit. If you walk to transit to and from work
2 days a week and drive the others, you don't report transit. If you
carpool to a parking location and then take transit to your office every
day, you don't report transit. If you drive from Loudoun County VA to
the Vienna METRO to downtown Washington DC every day, you don't report
transit. So aren't the Census numbers ALWAYS going to be biased toward
the "dominant" mode (unless everyone does the same thing every single
day)? As others have posted, there are other reasons for disagreement
between Census travel trends and all other sources, but this is clearly
one.
Lots of people seek smart growth locations for home and work
specifically to have access to transportation choices. That doesn't
mean that every day, or even the majority of days, they won't drive. I
ranted a bit about this a couple weeks ago in response to Ken Orski's
flippant post to a thread started by Chuck Purvis. Using these flawed
Census numbers to argue for further depriving people of transportation
choices is completely outdated thinking.
Chris.
------------------------------------
Christopher V. Forinash
U.S. EPA: Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW (MC 1808), Washington DC 20460
(Delivery: 401 M St. SW, #WT-1013D)
202-260-5044 vox 0174 fax; forinash.christopher(a)epa.gov
------------------------------------
Development, Community & Environment Division:
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth
A partner in the Smart Growth Network: http://www.smartgrowth.org
"Gardner, John
F" To: 'Chuck Purvis'
<CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov>, ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
<GardnerJF(a)dot.s cc:
tate.sc.us> Subject: RE: [CTPP]
Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership St atistics
Sent by:
owner-ctpp-news@
chrispy.net
07/08/2002 08:14
AM
Another explanation for the growth in total unlinked passenger trips,
while
total transit commuters remained stable, is the shift toward rail
transit by
many of the growing transit systems. In many cases, light rail replaced
express bus service. The express bus collected people in their
neighborhoods or at a park and ride lot and was a "one-seat" trip. Rail
often involves a transfer from a feeder bus to the train, so a trip that
formerly counted as one unlinked passenger trip now counts as two. A
better
measure would be "linked trips" (excludes transfers) when making this
comparison, but I don't believe they are reported.
John Gardner, AICP
SCDOT Office of Planning
PO Box 191
Columbia, SC 29202-0191
(803) 737 - 1444
gardnerjf(a)dot.state.sc.us
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Purvis [mailto:CPurvis@mtc.ca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 6:36 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership
Statistics
To: CTPP-News
One of the interesting journey-to-work results is the lack of change, at
the
NATIONAL level, in the total number of transit commuters. The US had
6,069,589 transit commuters according to the 1990 Census, and 6,067,703
transit commuters according to the 2000 Census, a 0.03 percent decrease.
(On
the other hand, the US transit commute SHARE declined from 5.3 percent
in
1990 to 4.7 percent in 2000.)
This compares to national transit ridership statistics which show a 6.4
percent increase in annual unlinked passenger trips comparing 1990 to
2000.
(Source is APTA's 2002 Public Transportation Fact Book, Table 26.) The
APTA
book (I would assume based on FTA-collected ridership statistics) shows
annual unlinked public transit trips increasing from 8,799 million trips
in
1990 to 9,363 million trips in 2000 (the 2000 numbers are preliminary,
according to the 2002 APTA Fact Book).
So, an issue is how to reconcile a 0.0 percent change in national
transit
commuters with a 6.4 percent increase in national transit ridership.
A plausible explanation is that the work trip share of public
transportation
trips has declined since 1990. According to the 1990 NPTS, 42.6 percent
of
public transportation person trips are for the purpose of "earning a
living"
(NPTS Databook, Vol. 1, Table 4.40).
So, I can calculate that about 3,748 million unlinked transit boardings
(in
1990) are "work trips" and that this might decline to about 3,747
million
unlinked transit boarding "work trips", in 2000. This means that perhaps
40
percent of year 2000 transit boardings are work trips (3,747 / 9,363),
which
is quite plausible at the national level.
The story might be that the national number of transit work trips, 1990
to
2000, has remained fairly stable, and that, at least at the national
level,
the growth in transit is attributable to non-work travel.
The data question is: is information available from either the 1995 NPTS
or
the 2001 NHTS that can corroborate this possible trend - - a decline in
the
work purpose share for public transportation trips?
Also, who has attempted to reconcile their change in regional transit
commuters with their own transit ridership statistics? What would be
most
helpful is any comparisons of on-board surveys or household travel
surveys
that show any changes in the trip purpose mix for transit trips.
(Other larger issues still loom in terms of the plausibility/fixability
of
the Census data. We are very concerned about the overall LOW numbers of
TOTAL commuters and employed residents we're seeing in the 2000 Census
in
our region....)
Wishing a Safe & Sane Happy Fourth of July to All!
Chuck Purvis
***********************************************
Charles L. Purvis, AICP
Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4700
(510) 464-7731 (office)
(510) 464-7848 (fax)
www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
Census WWW: http://census.mtc.ca.gov/
***********************************************
It seems that it would be helpful to know the extent, if at all, that urban
areas have cut back transit routes and service post 1990 due to budget cuts
and/or low ridership. Is there data on this?
Dave Abrams
Information Services Manager
Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments
Albuquerque, New Mexico
-----Original Message-----
From: Forinash.Christopher(a)epamail.epa.gov
[mailto:Forinash.Christopher@epamail.epa.gov]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 7:26 AM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership St
atistics
Isn't another piece of the explanation that the Census doesn't actually
measure trip-making as we typically define it? The Census mode-to-work
question is an odd thing -- see
http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d02p.pdf questions 23a&b. The Census
day was 4/1/2000, and it asks "how did this person usually get to work
LAST WEEK?", and requires a one-mode answer (with "most distance" the
criteria for choosing main mode). So for a number of individuals and
families with whome I am anecdotally familiar, you don't count transit
even if you use it quite a bit. If you walk to transit to and from work
2 days a week and drive the others, you don't report transit. If you
carpool to a parking location and then take transit to your office every
day, you don't report transit. If you drive from Loudoun County VA to
the Vienna METRO to downtown Washington DC every day, you don't report
transit. So aren't the Census numbers ALWAYS going to be biased toward
the "dominant" mode (unless everyone does the same thing every single
day)? As others have posted, there are other reasons for disagreement
between Census travel trends and all other sources, but this is clearly
one.
Lots of people seek smart growth locations for home and work
specifically to have access to transportation choices. That doesn't
mean that every day, or even the majority of days, they won't drive. I
ranted a bit about this a couple weeks ago in response to Ken Orski's
flippant post to a thread started by Chuck Purvis. Using these flawed
Census numbers to argue for further depriving people of transportation
choices is completely outdated thinking.
Chris.
------------------------------------
Christopher V. Forinash
U.S. EPA: Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW (MC 1808), Washington DC 20460
(Delivery: 401 M St. SW, #WT-1013D)
202-260-5044 vox 0174 fax; forinash.christopher(a)epa.gov
------------------------------------
Development, Community & Environment Division:
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth
A partner in the Smart Growth Network: http://www.smartgrowth.org
"Gardner, John
F" To: 'Chuck Purvis'
<CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov>, ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
<GardnerJF(a)dot.s cc:
tate.sc.us> Subject: RE: [CTPP]
Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership St atistics
Sent by:
owner-ctpp-news@
chrispy.net
07/08/2002 08:14
AM
Another explanation for the growth in total unlinked passenger trips,
while
total transit commuters remained stable, is the shift toward rail
transit by
many of the growing transit systems. In many cases, light rail replaced
express bus service. The express bus collected people in their
neighborhoods or at a park and ride lot and was a "one-seat" trip. Rail
often involves a transfer from a feeder bus to the train, so a trip that
formerly counted as one unlinked passenger trip now counts as two. A
better
measure would be "linked trips" (excludes transfers) when making this
comparison, but I don't believe they are reported.
John Gardner, AICP
SCDOT Office of Planning
PO Box 191
Columbia, SC 29202-0191
(803) 737 - 1444
gardnerjf(a)dot.state.sc.us
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Purvis [mailto:CPurvis@mtc.ca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 6:36 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership
Statistics
To: CTPP-News
One of the interesting journey-to-work results is the lack of change, at
the
NATIONAL level, in the total number of transit commuters. The US had
6,069,589 transit commuters according to the 1990 Census, and 6,067,703
transit commuters according to the 2000 Census, a 0.03 percent decrease.
(On
the other hand, the US transit commute SHARE declined from 5.3 percent
in
1990 to 4.7 percent in 2000.)
This compares to national transit ridership statistics which show a 6.4
percent increase in annual unlinked passenger trips comparing 1990 to
2000.
(Source is APTA's 2002 Public Transportation Fact Book, Table 26.) The
APTA
book (I would assume based on FTA-collected ridership statistics) shows
annual unlinked public transit trips increasing from 8,799 million trips
in
1990 to 9,363 million trips in 2000 (the 2000 numbers are preliminary,
according to the 2002 APTA Fact Book).
So, an issue is how to reconcile a 0.0 percent change in national
transit
commuters with a 6.4 percent increase in national transit ridership.
A plausible explanation is that the work trip share of public
transportation
trips has declined since 1990. According to the 1990 NPTS, 42.6 percent
of
public transportation person trips are for the purpose of "earning a
living"
(NPTS Databook, Vol. 1, Table 4.40).
So, I can calculate that about 3,748 million unlinked transit boardings
(in
1990) are "work trips" and that this might decline to about 3,747
million
unlinked transit boarding "work trips", in 2000. This means that perhaps
40
percent of year 2000 transit boardings are work trips (3,747 / 9,363),
which
is quite plausible at the national level.
The story might be that the national number of transit work trips, 1990
to
2000, has remained fairly stable, and that, at least at the national
level,
the growth in transit is attributable to non-work travel.
The data question is: is information available from either the 1995 NPTS
or
the 2001 NHTS that can corroborate this possible trend - - a decline in
the
work purpose share for public transportation trips?
Also, who has attempted to reconcile their change in regional transit
commuters with their own transit ridership statistics? What would be
most
helpful is any comparisons of on-board surveys or household travel
surveys
that show any changes in the trip purpose mix for transit trips.
(Other larger issues still loom in terms of the plausibility/fixability
of
the Census data. We are very concerned about the overall LOW numbers of
TOTAL commuters and employed residents we're seeing in the 2000 Census
in
our region....)
Wishing a Safe & Sane Happy Fourth of July to All!
Chuck Purvis
***********************************************
Charles L. Purvis, AICP
Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4700
(510) 464-7731 (office)
(510) 464-7848 (fax)
www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
Census WWW: http://census.mtc.ca.gov/
***********************************************
Another explanation for the growth in total unlinked passenger trips, while
total transit commuters remained stable, is the shift toward rail transit by
many of the growing transit systems. In many cases, light rail replaced
express bus service. The express bus collected people in their
neighborhoods or at a park and ride lot and was a "one-seat" trip. Rail
often involves a transfer from a feeder bus to the train, so a trip that
formerly counted as one unlinked passenger trip now counts as two. A better
measure would be "linked trips" (excludes transfers) when making this
comparison, but I don't believe they are reported.
John Gardner, AICP
SCDOT Office of Planning
PO Box 191
Columbia, SC 29202-0191
(803) 737 - 1444
gardnerjf(a)dot.state.sc.us
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Purvis [mailto:CPurvis@mtc.ca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 6:36 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership
Statistics
To: CTPP-News
One of the interesting journey-to-work results is the lack of change, at the
NATIONAL level, in the total number of transit commuters. The US had
6,069,589 transit commuters according to the 1990 Census, and 6,067,703
transit commuters according to the 2000 Census, a 0.03 percent decrease. (On
the other hand, the US transit commute SHARE declined from 5.3 percent in
1990 to 4.7 percent in 2000.)
This compares to national transit ridership statistics which show a 6.4
percent increase in annual unlinked passenger trips comparing 1990 to 2000.
(Source is APTA's 2002 Public Transportation Fact Book, Table 26.) The APTA
book (I would assume based on FTA-collected ridership statistics) shows
annual unlinked public transit trips increasing from 8,799 million trips in
1990 to 9,363 million trips in 2000 (the 2000 numbers are preliminary,
according to the 2002 APTA Fact Book).
So, an issue is how to reconcile a 0.0 percent change in national transit
commuters with a 6.4 percent increase in national transit ridership.
A plausible explanation is that the work trip share of public transportation
trips has declined since 1990. According to the 1990 NPTS, 42.6 percent of
public transportation person trips are for the purpose of "earning a living"
(NPTS Databook, Vol. 1, Table 4.40).
So, I can calculate that about 3,748 million unlinked transit boardings (in
1990) are "work trips" and that this might decline to about 3,747 million
unlinked transit boarding "work trips", in 2000. This means that perhaps 40
percent of year 2000 transit boardings are work trips (3,747 / 9,363), which
is quite plausible at the national level.
The story might be that the national number of transit work trips, 1990 to
2000, has remained fairly stable, and that, at least at the national level,
the growth in transit is attributable to non-work travel.
The data question is: is information available from either the 1995 NPTS or
the 2001 NHTS that can corroborate this possible trend - - a decline in the
work purpose share for public transportation trips?
Also, who has attempted to reconcile their change in regional transit
commuters with their own transit ridership statistics? What would be most
helpful is any comparisons of on-board surveys or household travel surveys
that show any changes in the trip purpose mix for transit trips.
(Other larger issues still loom in terms of the plausibility/fixability of
the Census data. We are very concerned about the overall LOW numbers of
TOTAL commuters and employed residents we're seeing in the 2000 Census in
our region....)
Wishing a Safe & Sane Happy Fourth of July to All!
Chuck Purvis
***********************************************
Charles L. Purvis, AICP
Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4700
(510) 464-7731 (office)
(510) 464-7848 (fax)
www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
Census WWW: http://census.mtc.ca.gov/
***********************************************
To: CTPP-News
One of the interesting journey-to-work results is the lack of change, at the NATIONAL level, in the total number of transit commuters. The US had 6,069,589 transit commuters according to the 1990 Census, and 6,067,703 transit commuters according to the 2000 Census, a 0.03 percent decrease. (On the other hand, the US transit commute SHARE declined from 5.3 percent in 1990 to 4.7 percent in 2000.)
This compares to national transit ridership statistics which show a 6.4 percent increase in annual unlinked passenger trips comparing 1990 to 2000. (Source is APTA's 2002 Public Transportation Fact Book, Table 26.) The APTA book (I would assume based on FTA-collected ridership statistics) shows annual unlinked public transit trips increasing from 8,799 million trips in 1990 to 9,363 million trips in 2000 (the 2000 numbers are preliminary, according to the 2002 APTA Fact Book).
So, an issue is how to reconcile a 0.0 percent change in national transit commuters with a 6.4 percent increase in national transit ridership.
A plausible explanation is that the work trip share of public transportation trips has declined since 1990. According to the 1990 NPTS, 42.6 percent of public transportation person trips are for the purpose of "earning a living" (NPTS Databook, Vol. 1, Table 4.40).
So, I can calculate that about 3,748 million unlinked transit boardings (in 1990) are "work trips" and that this might decline to about 3,747 million unlinked transit boarding "work trips", in 2000. This means that perhaps 40 percent of year 2000 transit boardings are work trips (3,747 / 9,363), which is quite plausible at the national level.
The story might be that the national number of transit work trips, 1990 to 2000, has remained fairly stable, and that, at least at the national level, the growth in transit is attributable to non-work travel.
The data question is: is information available from either the 1995 NPTS or the 2001 NHTS that can corroborate this possible trend - - a decline in the work purpose share for public transportation trips?
Also, who has attempted to reconcile their change in regional transit commuters with their own transit ridership statistics? What would be most helpful is any comparisons of on-board surveys or household travel surveys that show any changes in the trip purpose mix for transit trips.
(Other larger issues still loom in terms of the plausibility/fixability of the Census data. We are very concerned about the overall LOW numbers of TOTAL commuters and employed residents we're seeing in the 2000 Census in our region....)
Wishing a Safe & Sane Happy Fourth of July to All!
Chuck Purvis
***********************************************
Charles L. Purvis, AICP
Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4700
(510) 464-7731 (office)
(510) 464-7848 (fax)
www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
Census WWW: http://census.mtc.ca.gov/
***********************************************
Chuck,
One of the other factors in Phoenix was the fares increased, which had the
effect of dcreaseing the number of choice rides and leaving the people that
had to take transit. It appeared the remaining riders tended to make more
transfers in order to complete their trips.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Purvis [mailto:CPurvis@mtc.ca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 3:36 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership
Statistics
To: CTPP-News
One of the interesting journey-to-work results is the lack of change, at the
NATIONAL level, in the total number of transit commuters. The US had
6,069,589 transit commuters according to the 1990 Census, and 6,067,703
transit commuters according to the 2000 Census, a 0.03 percent decrease. (On
the other hand, the US transit commute SHARE declined from 5.3 percent in
1990 to 4.7 percent in 2000.)
This compares to national transit ridership statistics which show a 6.4
percent increase in annual unlinked passenger trips comparing 1990 to 2000.
(Source is APTA's 2002 Public Transportation Fact Book, Table 26.) The APTA
book (I would assume based on FTA-collected ridership statistics) shows
annual unlinked public transit trips increasing from 8,799 million trips in
1990 to 9,363 million trips in 2000 (the 2000 numbers are preliminary,
according to the 2002 APTA Fact Book).
So, an issue is how to reconcile a 0.0 percent change in national transit
commuters with a 6.4 percent increase in national transit ridership.
A plausible explanation is that the work trip share of public transportation
trips has declined since 1990. According to the 1990 NPTS, 42.6 percent of
public transportation person trips are for the purpose of "earning a living"
(NPTS Databook, Vol. 1, Table 4.40).
So, I can calculate that about 3,748 million unlinked transit boardings (in
1990) are "work trips" and that this might decline to about 3,747 million
unlinked transit boarding "work trips", in 2000. This means that perhaps 40
percent of year 2000 transit boardings are work trips (3,747 / 9,363), which
is quite plausible at the national level.
The story might be that the national number of transit work trips, 1990 to
2000, has remained fairly stable, and that, at least at the national level,
the growth in transit is attributable to non-work travel.
The data question is: is information available from either the 1995 NPTS or
the 2001 NHTS that can corroborate this possible trend - - a decline in the
work purpose share for public transportation trips?
Also, who has attempted to reconcile their change in regional transit
commuters with their own transit ridership statistics? What would be most
helpful is any comparisons of on-board surveys or household travel surveys
that show any changes in the trip purpose mix for transit trips.
(Other larger issues still loom in terms of the plausibility/fixability of
the Census data. We are very concerned about the overall LOW numbers of
TOTAL commuters and employed residents we're seeing in the 2000 Census in
our region....)
Wishing a Safe & Sane Happy Fourth of July to All!
Chuck Purvis
***********************************************
Charles L. Purvis, AICP
Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4700
(510) 464-7731 (office)
(510) 464-7848 (fax)
www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
Census WWW: http://census.mtc.ca.gov/
***********************************************
TO: CTPP-News
Many thanks to Nanda Srinivasan of the FHWA in preparing MSA- and state-level comparisons, 1990-2000, of selected census journey-to-work characteristics.
Point your web browser to our FTP site at:
ftp://ftp.abag.ca.gov/pub/mtc/census2000/DP2-4/National/
What's new is the state-level comparison, in EXCEL work book format. Data file name is: StateCompare1.xls
What's revised is the MSA-level comparison, also in EXCEL workbook format. Data file name is: msacomparison.xls
I've uploaded these files to our agency's FTP site for the convenience of the community.
Happy Fourth of July!
Chuck Purvis
***********************************************
Charles L. Purvis, AICP
Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4700
(510) 464-7731 (office)
(510) 464-7848 (fax)
www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
Census WWW: http://census.mtc.ca.gov/
***********************************************
Recent articles in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, etc. have stated
that the average number of delay hours spent per year by rush hour drivers
is 62 hours in the US and 136 in Los Angeles. There is an interest in
comparing Anchorage to these national statistics. Is this information
available through the CTPP or another census database?
I would appreciate any help?
Jon Spring
Senior Transportation Planner
Municipality of Anchorage
Traffic Department
springjr(a)ci.anchorage.ak.us
(907) 343-7994
-----Original Message-----
From: Kazimi, Zia [mailto:zkazimi@state.mt.us]
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 2:40 PM
To: Ctpp-news
Subject: [CTPP] FAQ's
I was wondering how other states are dealing with FHWA's quazi-official (all
I've seen are the FAQ's on their website) implementation guidelines applying
2000 Census data to urban areas. I haven't seen anything from FHWA similar
to what the US Bureau of Census put out in the March 15, 2002 Federal
Register.
Are we to assume that these Internet site FAQ's take precedence over what
currently exists under USC Title 23? FHWA guidelines have been known to
change depending on public input. The bottom line is, we need to start
identifying our urban boundaries (deadlines are coming up - e.g. HPMS) and
yet, I don't believe we have a clear mandate on how to proceed. Is this
just a backdoor approach without going through a formal process or am I
missing something?
I would appreciate any thoughts on this. Thanks.
Zia Kazimi
Urban Planning
Montana Department of Transportation