ctpp-news July 2002

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

28 participants
35 discussions

Re: [CTPP] Average number of hours spent per year by rush hour drivers

by William Schaefer

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

21 years, 9 months

RE: [CTPP] FAQ's

by Steve.Gramm＠state.sd.us

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

21 years, 9 months

FAQ's

by Kazimi, Zia

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

21 years, 9 months

New phone number for Census Journey-to-Work Branch

by phillip.a.salopek＠census.gov

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.

21 years, 9 months

Urban Areas Available on Geography Network as Shapefiles (FREE Download).

by Direct ESRI

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….

21 years, 9 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 July 2002