ctpp-news March 2003

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

42 participants
55 discussions

Re: [CTPP] How can I get more detailed CTPP 2000 files?

by George Petrek

Me too! George Petrek Engineering Spec III TPP, Traffic Analysis Section P.O. Box 149217 Austin, TX 78714-9217 phone: (512) 486-5140 fax: (512) 486-5153 e-mail: gpetrek(a)dot.state.tx.us >>> <Michaels.Harvey(a)epamail.epa.gov> 3/10/03 7:03:16 AM >>> The 1990 Journey to Work files from http://www.transtats.bts.gov/ has worker trips specified by mode of transport, including how many people are in a carpool, which enables me to figure out the actual car traffic. The 2000 data from http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting.html only seems to have total numbers of workers, not their modes of transport. Does anyone know where I can get the more detailed information that I was able to get from the 1990 data? Thank you. Harvey Michaels U.S.EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality Assessment and Standards Division 734-214-4184

21 years, 9 months

Census 2000 County-To-County Worker Flow Files

by Peter H. Van Demark

Dear Transportation Colleague: The Census 2000 County-To-County Worker Flow Files have just been released. These data contain the number of workers 16 years old and over who commute to work. The counts give the number of workers traveling within or between counties in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, plus travel to workplaces outside the U.S., such as Puerto Rico or a foreign country. If you or others simply want to inspect and/or query the data, you can use a web mapping application at (http://www.caliper.com/countytocounty). This application of TransCAD for the Web creates desire lines and produces tables for any selected county. Currently only flows of 50 workers or more in or out of the county are shown, to reduce clutter. If you are a TransCAD user, we made it easy for you to obtain these data. We converted it to a TransCAD matrix that you can download at (http://www.caliper.com/download/2kresco_us_mtx.zip). The ZIP archive is 644KB, and the unarchived matrix will be 42.2MB. The rows are the residence counties, and the columns are the workplace counties (and workplaces outside the U.S.). The row and column IDs are the FIPS codes for the counties (and workplaces outside the U.S.) as integers. The one matrix in the file contains the number of workers 16 years old and over who commute to work. The ZIP archive also contains a matrix view that you can use to start working with the matrix quickly, based on the medium-resolution county geographic file (ccCounty_M.CDF); make sure that you have that geographic file open as a map layer before opening the matrix view. The matrix view uses a formula field called CountyNum, created with the formula S2I(County), to label the matrix with the county names. You can also use this formula field as the ID field when you use the Tools-Geographic Analysis-Desire Lines command to create desire lines between selected counties. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us by e-mail at info(a)caliper.com or by phone at 617-527-4700. Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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

21 years, 9 months

LAT article: "Census Data on Traffic Questioned"

by forinash.christopher＠epamail.epa.gov

FYI -- http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=la%2Dme%2Dtraffic… %2Fnews%2Flocal Census Data on Traffic Questioned By Scott Martelle and Dan Weikel Times Staff Writers March 9, 2003 Southern California planners and demographers are questioning census data on the region's commuting patterns released last week -- a concern that hints at broader problems with some census estimates. The numbers released Thursday counted residents by where they live and work to measure commuting patterns. They were derived from data collected in the 2000 census long form, an extensive questionnaire filled out by about one of every six households in the country. The data indicated a continuing and dramatic decrease in the number of people commuting to Los Angeles from surrounding counties -- an erosion of Los Angeles' decades-long standing as the region's economic heart. While the trend toward increased economic independence in Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties is unquestioned, census estimates of employment levels and commuter patterns conflict sharply with established jobs surveys and regional transportation studies. The question confronting demographers now is, if census conclusions about Southern California employment and commuter patterns are wrong, what other census conclusions are off kilter? ..... ------------------------------------ Christopher V. Forinash U.S. EPA: Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW (MC 1808T), Washington DC 20460 Tel 202-566-2842; Fax 566-2868; Email 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

21 years, 9 months

RE: [CTPP] How can I get more detailed CTPP 2000 files?

by Srinivasan, Nanda

Mike, I think you were looking at the detailed Part 3 (worker flows) for the 1990 CTPP in the Transtats website. For CTPP 2000, the part 3 tables do contain a table for workers by mode. Please visit http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/tables.htm for the specifications for CTPP 2000. Currently, Census Bureau (CB) is working hard to release part 1 (Residence end tables) for CTPP 2000. We are hoping that CB will release the part 3 tables in the latter part of 2003. Thank you Nanda Srinivasan -----Original Message----- From: GPETREK(a)dot.state.tx.us Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 10:38 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net; Michaels.Harvey(a)epamail.epa.gov Subject: Re: [CTPP] How can I get more detailed CTPP 2000 files? Me too! George Petrek Engineering Spec III TPP, Traffic Analysis Section P.O. Box 149217 Austin, TX 78714-9217 phone: (512) 486-5140 fax: (512) 486-5153 e-mail: gpetrek(a)dot.state.tx.us >>> <Michaels.Harvey(a)epamail.epa.gov> 3/10/03 7:03:16 AM >>> The 1990 Journey to Work files from http://www.transtats.bts.gov/ has worker trips specified by mode of transport, including how many people are in a carpool, which enables me to figure out the actual car traffic. The 2000 data from http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting.html only seems to have total numbers of workers, not their modes of transport. Does anyone know where I can get the more detailed information that I was able to get from the 1990 data? Thank you. Harvey Michaels U.S.EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality Assessment and Standards Division 734-214-4184

21 years, 9 months

How can I get more detailed CTPP 2000 files?

by Michaels.Harvey＠epamail.epa.gov

The 1990 Journey to Work files from http://www.transtats.bts.gov/ has worker trips specified by mode of transport, including how many people are in a carpool, which enables me to figure out the actual car traffic. The 2000 data from http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting.html only seems to have total numbers of workers, not their modes of transport. Does anyone know where I can get the more detailed information that I was able to get from the 1990 data? Thank you. Harvey Michaels U.S.EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality Assessment and Standards Division 734-214-4184

21 years, 9 months

RE: [CTPP] new data release?

by Srinivasan, Nanda

Haila, The flow data they are talking about is COUNTY-COUNTY Worker Flows. They will be available for public access at the CB website (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/journey.html) from noon on Wednesday, March 6, 2003. I think that the product is put on an "embargoed" website for the press to access it a bit earlier. Thanks Nanda Srinivasan -----Original Message----- From: HailaM(a)bcdcog.com Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:29 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] new data release? We just got a call from the local paper. They got a press release from the Census that states that the county-to-county worker flow data will be available as of midnight tonight (Tuesday). I went to the Census and the TRB websites and could find nothing about this, not even a copy of the press release. Does anyone know about this? Thanks. Haila Maze

21 years, 9 months

Military

by danielle.cervantes＠uniontrib.com

Nanda -- Thank you for explaining this so well. The military question has confounded me for days! I put the question out to the Census list serve, but this is by far the clearest answer I've read. Danielle Cervantes Research & Census Librarian San Diego Union-Tribune 619.718.5435 -----Original Message----- From: Srinivasan, Nanda [mailto:Nanda.Srinivasan@fhwa.dot.gov] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 9:33 AM To: hubsmtp.gwhub."vputta(a)incog.org"; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] new data release? Viplav, Here's an attempt to answer your question. Phil Salopek or anyone else can correct me if I am wrong. There are two reasons I can think of for the differences you have noted: 1. Total employed vs total workers. and 2. Workers WORKING in Tulsa MSA vs Workers LIVING in Tulsa MSA 1. Total employed vs total workers. I hope the numbers you have given me are the totals for WORKERS from SF 3 and the county-county worker flow files. If you picked employment status, then you could be off. The data on employment status are derived from questions 21 and 25 of the "long form." "Employed" is defined as all persons 16 years or older who were: a. at work. b.with a job but not at work. The CB considers the terms "employed" and "civilian employed" as exactly the same. People who volunteered to work (without pay), and people who worked for the armed forces are excluded from "Employed." "Workers", as used in Journey-to-work and CTPP, on the other hand, refers to: a.All those people 16 years or over who were AT WORK in the reference week. b.All people employed in the Armed Forces. 2. Workers WORKING in Tulsa MSA vs Workers LIVING in Tulsa MSA I hope you are comparing the number of workers LIVING in Tulsa MSA with the SF 3 results. If you totaled the commuter flow INTO Tulsa, you may have a difference between that and the total workers LIVING in Tulsa. If you are comparing County-County worker flows with SF3, please total the workers residing in Tulsa from the county-county worker flow table, and then compare the number to a table from SF3 that contains WORKERS (Eg: mode to work including worked at home). The numbers should be pretty close. CB corrected some errors in worker flows for some areas, but Tulsa is not one of those, per Phil. Thank you! Nanda Srinivasan -----Original Message----- From: vputta(a)incog.org Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:51 AM To: Srinivasan, Nanda; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] new data release? Thanks Nanda for the link. I just have one question though: The data is for Commuting to work employees in each county. Total employees who reported as commuters to work does not equal the total number employed in respective counties. Is this because of estimates resulting from sampling? Just to illustrate: for Tulsa County in Oklahoma, in 2000 - Total Employed in 2000 : 275,856 Commuting to Work (age 16 and over) : 271,055* *Employees who 'worked at home' are included in commuting to work for each county (271,055 is broken down by means of transportation to work that includes worked at home) Missing is about 4,801 (1.7%) - is this because of long-form sampling? Similar numbers are missing from other counties in our MSA. Thanks. Viplav Putta INCOG -----Original Message----- From: Srinivasan, Nanda [mailto:Nanda.Srinivasan@fhwa.dot.gov] Subject: RE: [CTPP] new data release? (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/journey.html) Nanda Srinivasan

21 years, 9 months

RE: [CTPP] new data release?

by Putta, Viplava

Thanks. This is apparently the reason - we have a difference of about 1.4%. Anyone found a VB Script that will work with ARCGIS to map flows like Nanda suggested with TransCAD? Thanks. -viplav -----Original Message----- From: Don Burrell [mailto:DBURRELL@oki.org] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 2:58 PM To: Putta, Viplava; Srinivasan, Nanda; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] new data release? I got stuck on this difference the last time around (1990) and, with Bureau help, determined that the difference is due to employed workers who were not at work during the reference week, that is they were on vacation, sick leave or strike, and thus did not make work trips. I built in a 2% expansion factor into the county to county commuting data to compensate for this for our transportation modeling and for consistency purposes. Another anomaly are the REALLY long commuting trips where workers were working out of town, like thousands of miles away, for the reference week. Don Burrell, AICP, Senior Planner Bicycle / Pedestrian Coordinator (formerly demog-person) OKI Regional Council of Governments 801-B West Eighth St. Suite 400 Cincinnati, OH 45203-1607 513-621-6300 513-621-9325 - fax dburrell(a)oki.org <mailto:dburrell@oki.org> <A bicycle is an instrument for playing the road> -----Original Message----- From: Putta, Viplava [mailto:vputta@incog.org] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:56 AM To: Srinivasan, Nanda; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] new data release? Thanks Nanda for the link. I just have one question though: The data is for Commuting to work employees in each county. Total employees who reported as commuters to work does not equal the total number employed in respective counties. Is this because of estimates resulting from sampling? Just to illustrate: for Tulsa County in Oklahoma, in 2000 - Total Employed in 2000 : 275,856 Commuting to Work (age 16 and over) : 271,055* *Employees who 'worked at home' are included in commuting to work for each county (271,055 is broken down by means of transportation to work that includes worked at home) Missing is about 4,801 (1.7%) - is this because of long-form sampling? Similar numbers are missing from other counties in our MSA. Thanks. Viplav Putta INCOG -----Original Message----- From: Srinivasan, Nanda [mailto:Nanda.Srinivasan@fhwa.dot.gov] Subject: RE: [CTPP] new data release? (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/journey.html) Nanda Srinivasan

21 years, 9 months

RE: [CTPP] new data release?

by Don Burrell

I got stuck on this difference the last time around (1990) and, with Bureau help, determined that the difference is due to employed workers who were not at work during the reference week, that is they were on vacation, sick leave or strike, and thus did not make work trips. I built in a 2% expansion factor into the county to county commuting data to compensate for this for our transportation modeling and for consistency purposes. Another anomaly are the REALLY long commuting trips where workers were working out of town, like thousands of miles away, for the reference week. Don Burrell, AICP, Senior Planner Bicycle / Pedestrian Coordinator (formerly demog-person) OKI Regional Council of Governments 801-B West Eighth St. Suite 400 Cincinnati, OH 45203-1607 513-621-6300 513-621-9325 - fax dburrell(a)oki.org <mailto:dburrell@oki.org> <A bicycle is an instrument for playing the road> -----Original Message----- From: Putta, Viplava [mailto:vputta@incog.org] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:56 AM To: Srinivasan, Nanda; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] new data release? Thanks Nanda for the link. I just have one question though: The data is for Commuting to work employees in each county. Total employees who reported as commuters to work does not equal the total number employed in respective counties. Is this because of estimates resulting from sampling? Just to illustrate: for Tulsa County in Oklahoma, in 2000 - Total Employed in 2000 : 275,856 Commuting to Work (age 16 and over) : 271,055* *Employees who 'worked at home' are included in commuting to work for each county (271,055 is broken down by means of transportation to work that includes worked at home) Missing is about 4,801 (1.7%) - is this because of long-form sampling? Similar numbers are missing from other counties in our MSA. Thanks. Viplav Putta INCOG -----Original Message----- From: Srinivasan, Nanda [mailto:Nanda.Srinivasan@fhwa.dot.gov] Subject: RE: [CTPP] new data release? (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/journey.html) Nanda Srinivasan

21 years, 9 months

RE: [CTPP] new data release?

by clara.a.reschovsky＠census.gov

Nandu is right. Employed persons is anybody who is a civilian with a job. Workers are anybody with a job who was at the job during the reference week (not sick or on vacation.) Our workers also includes military workers at domestic bases who were at work during the reference week. |---------+-------------------------------> | | "Srinivasan, Nanda" | | | <Nanda.Srinivasan@fh| | | wa.dot.gov> | | | Sent by: | | | owner-ctpp-news@chri| | | spy.net | | | | | | | | | 03/06/2003 12:32 PM | | | | |---------+-------------------------------> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: "hubsmtp.gwhub.\"vputta(a)incog.org\"" <IMCEAGWISE-hubsmtp+2Egwhub+2E+22vputta+40incog+2Eorg+22(a)fhwa.dot.gov>, | | <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> | | cc: | | Subject: RE: [CTPP] new data release? | >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Viplav, Here's an attempt to answer your question. Phil Salopek or anyone else can correct me if I am wrong. There are two reasons I can think of for the differences you have noted: 1. Total employed vs total workers. and 2. Workers WORKING in Tulsa MSA vs Workers LIVING in Tulsa MSA 1. Total employed vs total workers. I hope the numbers you have given me are the totals for WORKERS from SF 3 and the county-county worker flow files. If you picked employment status, then you could be off. The data on employment status are derived from questions 21 and 25 of the "long form." "Employed" is defined as all persons 16 years or older who were: a. at work. b.with a job but not at work. The CB considers the terms "employed" and "civilian employed" as exactly the same. People who volunteered to work (without pay), and people who worked for the armed forces are excluded from "Employed." "Workers", as used in Journey-to-work and CTPP, on the other hand, refers to: a.All those people 16 years or over who were AT WORK in the reference week. b.All people employed in the Armed Forces. 2. Workers WORKING in Tulsa MSA vs Workers LIVING in Tulsa MSA I hope you are comparing the number of workers LIVING in Tulsa MSA with the SF 3 results. If you totaled the commuter flow INTO Tulsa, you may have a difference between that and the total workers LIVING in Tulsa. If you are comparing County-County worker flows with SF3, please total the workers residing in Tulsa from the county-county worker flow table, and then compare the number to a table from SF3 that contains WORKERS (Eg: mode to work including worked at home). The numbers should be pretty close. CB corrected some errors in worker flows for some areas, but Tulsa is not one of those, per Phil. Thank you! Nanda Srinivasan -----Original Message----- From: vputta(a)incog.org Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:51 AM To: Srinivasan, Nanda; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] new data release? Thanks Nanda for the link. I just have one question though: The data is for Commuting to work employees in each county. Total employees who reported as commuters to work does not equal the total number employed in respective counties. Is this because of estimates resulting from sampling? Just to illustrate: for Tulsa County in Oklahoma, in 2000 - Total Employed in 2000 : 275,856 Commuting to Work (age 16 and over) : 271,055* *Employees who 'worked at home' are included in commuting to work for each county (271,055 is broken down by means of transportation to work that includes worked at home) Missing is about 4,801 (1.7%) - is this because of long-form sampling? Similar numbers are missing from other counties in our MSA. Thanks. Viplav Putta INCOG -----Original Message----- From: Srinivasan, Nanda [mailto:Nanda.Srinivasan@fhwa.dot.gov] Subject: RE: [CTPP] new data release? (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/journey.html) Nanda Srinivasan

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 March 2003