The traffic congestion/delay data is from an analysis that the Texas
Transportation Institute does every year for the largest metropolitan
areas. They use data that the states submit for the HPMS. The
methodology is fairly crude (e.g., highway capacities are national
averages, ITS/TDM, etc. isn't factored in, etc.). There was an article I
saw where the Washington State DOT decided to stop contributing money
for the study, because of these and other limitations. The only way to
get a more accurate estimate of actual congestion is through a regional
travel model.
>>> ed christopher <edc(a)berwyned.com> 07/02/02 10:05PM >>>
the short answer is that the ctpp will not get you even close to a
comparable
number. the census asks usual travel time to work which is not delay.
the long answer...one thing that might be of interest to look at would
be the
ranking of travel time and where the three areas of interest lay in
respect to
each other. you could do that now with the census data that is already
released
and on the census bureau's factfinder site
http://factfinder.census.gov/. once
the
ctpp comes out you could also look at either the mean or median travel
time by
means of transportation to work by time leaving home for work and zero
in on
just the auto trips by time of day. i am assuming that the delay
measure you
speak of is only auto trips as opposed to all modes. for a look at
what tables
will be available in the ctpp head to
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/content.htm.
(but keep in mind that this is only another number and not directly
comparable
to your delay value nor should it be considered a surrogate.)
i can't think of any other census data that will get you to delay but i
am sure
if
i missed something someone else will chime in.
"Spring, Jon R." wrote:
> 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
Zia,
Here in South Dakota, we are in the process of adjusting our existing FHWA
adjusted urban area boundaries to incorporate the 2000 Census Bureau
boundaries for all of our cities over 5000 population. Since we also
haven't seen anything other than the proposals out on FHWA's website, we are
assuming that Chapter 4 (Urban Area Boundaries) from the 1991 FHWA
Federal-Aid Policy Guide is still valid for use in functional
classification, HPMS data reporting and funding distributions for FY2003.
While I have the soapbox, I'll paraphrase the discussion's we have had with
our MPO's on the Census urban boundary issue. With the Census Bureau's new
boundary determination procedure being based upon population density, the
new census urban boundary is designed to show where urban dwelling people
live and not necessarily where they work or shop. In areas where the land
uses are more spread out & separated, like in our state, this leads to the
2000 Census urban boundary omitting large portions of the industrial &
commercial areas that are located on the edges of the city. For counting
people where they live (which is one of their primary jobs), the Census
Bureau's procedure works fine. However, from a transportation system
viewpoint, to go exclusively with the Census Bureau's boundary would exclude
a large portion of the transportation related urban area, which needs to not
only include the areas of where people live, but also where people work and
transportation systems that the connect those areas. In light of this, we
feel that the Census urban boundary is to be used as the base for the FHWA
adjusted urban area boundary but not exclusively as the boundary.
Maintaining the 1991 guidelines to accomplish this would be acceptable to
us.
Steven Gramm, P.E.
Data Analysis Engineer / Engineering Supervisor
SDDOT - Planning & Programs
700 E. Broadway
Pierre, SD 57501
(605)773-6641
Steve.gramm(a)state.sd.us <mailto:Steve.gramm@state.sd.us>
-----Original Message-----
From: Kazimi, Zia [mailto:zkazimi@state.mt.us]
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 5:40 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
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
The Journey-to-Work and Migration Statistics Branch of Population Division
at the Census Bureau has a new phone number. The 3-digit exchange has
changed and the new number is 301-763-2454. This is the number to use to
reach Phil Salopek, Celia Boertlein, Fabian Sanchez, Clara Reschovsky,
Bonny Berkner, Carol Faber, Jason Schachter, and Sylvia Geter.
At the request of our users and the general public, ESRI has prepared the 2000 Urban Areas as downloadable shapefiles from the Geography Network, http://www.geographynetwork.com.
If you are an existing user of the TIGER 2000 shapefile download service http://www.geographynetwork.com/data/tiger2000/index.html, simply login and choose a U.S. state. Y ou will find "Urban Areas 2000" as an additional layer in the "Select by Layer" dropdown list.
If you are not familiar with the TIGER 2000 shapefile download service and would like to become a user, simply navigate your Web browser to http://www.geographynetwork.com/data/tiger2000/tiger_register.cfm and register. ESRI has prepared a helpful procedures document on how to use this FREE service. This document can be found at http://www.censuswatch.com/census2000_download2.pdf
We hope you find this service to be helpful in your community planning efforts. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please feel free to contact us at censuswatch(a)esri.com
Best Regards,
Census Watch Support Team
To unsubscribe from the Tiger 2000 list, please click http://gis.esri.com/talisma/obmtracking.cfm?URL=http://gis.esri.com/newslet….