ctpp-news September 2006

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

8 participants
14 discussions

RE: [CTPP] October 3 is the next scheduled release of ACStables including WORKPLACE GEOGRAPHY

by Murakami, Elaine

Two items regarding the Oct 3 release: 1. The population threshold for table release in 2005 ACS is "65,000 population." The Census Bureau made a decision that for the tables FOR WORKPLACE GEOGRAPHY, they would use the same geographic units based on RESIDENCE geography that met the 65,000 population threshold. That is, for example if County A had a population of 70,000 residents, they would include a WORKPLACE GEOGRAPHY table for County A, without setting a threshold for count of workers. 2. What geographic detail will be included in the WORKPLACE GEOGRAPHY tables. My earlier email had an error (which Chuck Purvis' email corrected). So, please note that PLACE level tabulations "FOR WORKPLACE GEOGRAPHY" WILL be included, not just STATE and COUNTY. The table titles will say "FOR WORKPLACE GEOGRAPHY". Try not to get too confused! B08008 shows RESIDENCE geography (table released August 29) by "Place of Work". Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning

18 years, 1 month

RE: [CTPP] October 3 is the next scheduled release of ACStablesincluding PLACE OF WORK!

by Chuck Purvis

Alan: The Census Bureau's approach to embargoing data appears inconsistent. They put an embargo on the ACS data released August 15th and October 3rd (next Tuesday), but not on the data released August 29th. For the August 29th release (detailed socio-economic data by area of residence) everybody had a whack at it the morning of 8/29. And as far as I know, our State Data Center network doesn't have early access to any of the embargoed ACS data. In 2002, the State Data Center network, and some (or many?) of the "vetted" affiliates, DID have early access to the embargoed Census 2000 SF3 databases. We were given passwords to access the Bureau's FTP site on 8/21/02, for the California SF3 data that was embargoed until 8/27/02. We had to sign a "Access to Embargo Data and Secure Server Agreement" with the Census Bureau Liaision office before we were granted the secret password. This worked out well because we were able to roll out completed data comparisons (to the public, to our government partners, to the media) on the day the embargo was lifted. We all should see what USA Today finds out about ACS in next Tuesday's paper. Paul Overberg of USA Today does a very good job at census reporting. My guess is that it will be on housing prices and housing affordability. Perhaps household income, but income is a minefield because of inflation adjustments, reference period, and differing respondent perception of income, decennial census vs ACS. I prefer the approach without any embargo. Everybody, including university researchers, state data centers, the media, the pundits, the feds * should all get equal access at the same time. What we're doing is preparing table shells to drop in 2005 data. Here's what we're focusing on: * Total Housing Units by County: 2000-2005 (compare to indy estimates of housing units) * Households by Vehicles Available by County: 1960-2005 * Total Household Vehicles and Vehicles per Household, by County: 1960-2005 * Workers by Means of Transportation to Work, by County-of-Work: 19??-2005 * Workers by Industry of Worker, by County-of-Work: 2000-2005 * Workers by Class of Worker, by County-of-Work: 2000-2005 * Householders by Age, by County-of-Residence: 1990-2005 (for our synthetic population analyses) At least that's what we're planning for next Tuesday morning. Tuesday afternoon we'll compute statistical significance measures. Tuesday night, baseball. Chuck Purvis, MTC >>> "Alan Pisarski" <alanpisarski(a)alanpisarski.com> 09/29/06 5:27 AM >>> This follows from their press approach on most things - not a transportation thing. It gives press time to prepare stories on release date - standard procedure on most press activities in govt. I believe that they also make the data available early on an embargoed basis to State Data Centers (Elaine -yes?) I have been berated in the past by AASHTO State press people for not giving them the data when I see it on an embargoed basis and obviously that would be the last time I ever saw it if I spread it around. By the way I should have said that USA Today will do something if there is something newsworthy there to do. With the annual stuff one never knows whether there may be anything to get excited about. Alan PS received copies from printers today of Commuting in America III taadahh! From: Polzin, Steve [mailto:polzin@cutr.usf.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 8:52 AM To: Alan Pisarski; Murakami, Elaine; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Cc: Srinivasan, Nanda Subject: RE: [CTPP] October 3 is the next scheduled release of ACStablesincluding PLACE OF WORK! Who in the world made the decision that the media should get the data before the professional community? Seems strange to me. Steven E. Polzin, Ph.D. Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 Fowler Ave., CUT100 Tampa, FL 33620-5375 813-974-9849 (w) 813-416-7517 (c) polzin(a)cutr.usf.edu

18 years, 1 month

October 3 is the next scheduled release of ACS tables including PLACE OF WORK!

by Murakami, Elaine

How time flies! Just when you thought you were getting a handle on the journey-to-work data from the 2005 ACS, the next round of data will released! The next set will include Place of Work tabulations. From the CTPP world, these are like "CTPP Part 2" tables, where the tabulation is by place-of-work, rather than place-of-residence. Since the 2005 ACS included ALL counties in the sample, the place-of-work tabulations should look much better than the 2004 ACS place-of-work tabulations (about one-third of counties were included in the sample). Don't forget: 1. 2005 ACS does not include Group Quarters population. That is, areas with large military installations and/or college dormitories should expect considerable differences when comparing to Census 2000 results. 2. The data are collected over all 12 months, therefore areas with seasonal shifts are likely to see the greatest differences when comparing to Census 2000 results. Good luck! Nanda Srinivasan, Ed Christopher and I are trying to wrap up our new Profile sheets using the 2005 ACS Place-of-Residence tables, but we have had a lot of work on calculating Margins of Error and incorporating the results into the tables. Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460 (in Seattle)

18 years, 1 month

Re: [CTPP] October 3 is the next scheduled release of ACStablesincluding PLACE OF WORK!

by ed christopher

This has always been the issue. The press gets the data early as embargoed and then the transportation folks get torpedoed and don't have a chance to respond because they haven't seen the data. Case in point. The Atlanta Journal Constitution ran an article about one county leading the nation with a 51 minute travel time. Well after the story broke Joel North from GDOT and Nandu Srinivasan used PUMs to learn the data looked funny. There were way too many 150 minute type commutes. The data did not make sense and with sampling things can happen. Elaine Murakami then found out from Phil that indeed something was wrong. The CB had a bad coder survey taker at the front end, going through retraining and trying to figure out how to deal with the data.. The point however, is if the "public agency" transportation community had the data when the press had it we may have been able to inform what became a very misleading article. Another point--People do need to look at the data. I have playing with the rank of all 775 counties that have data by their mean travel time. American Factfinder has a lot on it. The article can be found at (You do have to register for a fee) 51.6 MINUTES :Commute time report stumps Coweta officials Date: September 7, 2006 http://nl.newsbank.com/nojavascript.html Land of the long commute: Georgia is No. 1 in counties with time-wasting trips to work. The sprawl makes homes affordable, but the crawl drives down the quality of life. Date: August 31, 2006 http://nl.newsbank.com/nojavascript.html Alan Pisarski wrote: > USA Today has the data and is planning a fairly major play on the release > date. AEP > _____ > > From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] > On Behalf Of Murakami, Elaine > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:46 PM > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > Subject: [CTPP] October 3 is the next scheduled release of ACS > tablesincluding PLACE OF WORK! > > How time flies! Just when you thought you were getting a handle on the > journey-to-work data from the 2005 ACS, the next round of data will > released! The next set will include Place of Work tabulations. >From the > CTPP world, these are like "CTPP Part 2" tables, where the tabulation is by > place-of-work, rather than place-of-residence. Since the 2005 ACS included > ALL counties in the sample, the place-of-work tabulations should look much > better than the 2004 ACS place-of-work tabulations (about one-third of > counties were included in the sample). > > Don't forget: > > 1. 2005 ACS does not include Group Quarters population. That is, areas > with large military installations and/or college dormitories should expect > considerable differences when comparing to Census 2000 results. > > 2. The data are collected over all 12 months, therefore areas with seasonal > shifts are likely to see the greatest differences when comparing to Census > 2000 results. > > Good luck! Nanda Srinivasan, Ed Christopher and I are trying to wrap up our > new Profile sheets using the 2005 ACS Place-of-Residence tables, but we have > had a lot of work on calculating Margins of Error and incorporating the > results into the tables. > > Elaine Murakami > FHWA Office of Planning > 206-220-4460 (in Seattle) -- Ed Christopher FHWA Resource Center 19900 Governors Drive Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461 708-283-3534 (v) 708-283-3501 (f) 708-574-8131 (cell)

18 years, 1 month

Re: [CTPP] October 3 is the next scheduled release of ACS tables including PLACE OF WORK!

by Chuck Purvis

In response to my own question: what are the geographic levels for the "area-of-work" tabulations, scheduled for release next Tuesday, October 3rd, the answer is on the American Factfinder site, here: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/users_guide/index.htm download the file: ACS 2005 Data_Product Geographic Restriction (xls) The answer is: State, County, County subdivisions (12 MCD states only), Place, Metro Areas (CBSA, metro/micro, principal city, NECTA division, etc. or summary levels 040, 050, 060,160, 330, 310, 312, 314, 335, 350, 352, and 355) So, no, we won't get PUMAs or Congressional Districts. C >>> "Murakami, Elaine" <Elaine.Murakami(a)fhwa.dot.gov> 09/26/06 4:46 PM >>> How time flies! Just when you thought you were getting a handle on the journey-to-work data from the 2005 ACS, the next round of data will released! The next set will include Place of Work tabulations. From the CTPP world, these are like "CTPP Part 2" tables, where the tabulation is by place-of-work, rather than place-of-residence. Since the 2005 ACS included ALL counties in the sample, the place-of-work tabulations should look much better than the 2004 ACS place-of-work tabulations (about one-third of counties were included in the sample). Don't forget: 1. 2005 ACS does not include Group Quarters population. That is, areas with large military installations and/or college dormitories should expect considerable differences when comparing to Census 2000 results. 2. The data are collected over all 12 months, therefore areas with seasonal shifts are likely to see the greatest differences when comparing to Census 2000 results. Good luck! Nanda Srinivasan, Ed Christopher and I are trying to wrap up our new Profile sheets using the 2005 ACS Place-of-Residence tables, but we have had a lot of work on calculating Margins of Error and incorporating the results into the tables. Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460 (in Seattle)

18 years, 1 month

group quarters workers

by Andrew PICKARD

fyi. Here's some stats on the Hampton Roads area of Virginia relating to group quarters workers from the 2000 Census. This is relevant to the 2005 ACS data because it gives us an idea of what we are missing. I'm sure that the impact of not inlcuding group quarters is greater here than for many other areas. But if you did a similar check, I wouldn't mind seeing the results for your area. Thanks. 2000 GQ workers 27,795 group quarters (gq) workers in 2000; this is 3.7% of all workers in the region. 2000 Mode All workers Household workers GQ workers Drove alone 78.9% 80.9 26.3 Carpool 12.1 12.0 14.9 Pub Trans 1.7 1.7 2.6 Bike/walk 3.0 1.9 31.0 Work at home 2.7 2.3 13.1 Other 1.6 1.2 11.9 So, just including the HH workers raises the % Drove Alone by +2.0% and decreases the Bike/walk by -1.1%. 2000 Travel Time to Work [calc'd via 2000 5% PUMS for the Virginia portion of our MSA] All workers: 23.9 minutes Household workers: 24.2 GQ workers: 14.8 So, just including the HH workers raises the travel time to work by +0.3 minutes. Andy Pickard, P.E. Senior Transportation Engineer Hampton Roads Planning District Commission 723 Woodlake Drive Chesapeake, VA. 23320 Phone: 757.420.8300 Fax: 757.523.4881 apickard(a)hrpdc.org www.hrpdc.org

18 years, 1 month

RE: [CTPP] Has anyone examined the PUMA tabulations from 2005ACS?

by Murakami, Elaine

Hi Chuck and CTPP-listserv members: First, thank you to Chuck for his long post, and issues relating to counting workers using different sources. At the end of his email he wrote: " We would love to have data by PUMA-of-work, but I don't think that's coming this year....)" He is correct. The "Place of Work" tabulations to be released on October 3 will NOT have PUMA-of-work, because the standard workplace coding does not extend to detailed geography, but stops after STATE/COUNTY. That is, if sufficient information is provided by a respondent, the automated geocoding will include geocoding to census block. However, due to many factors, mostly attributable to "incomplete" responses, only about 75% of workplaces are sufficiently coded to small geography. (Since many PUMAs use census tract boundaries, the geocoding would need to be at least to tract geography.) Until a new workplace allocation program is developed and implemented, more detailed workplace geography will not be available for the remaining 25%. So, until that occurs, PUMA-of-work cannot be tabulated in the ACS. At the end of FY06, I was able to get a small research project (with FHWA funds) to work with the Census Bureau to explore improvements to the workplace allocation program that was implemented for CTPP2000. I don't know if the contract between the 2 agencies has been signed yet! However, this is exploratory research, and IMPLEMENTATION to the ACS data files would need to be covered by a future CTPP (assuming there is a new pooled fund for CTPP!). Elaine

18 years, 1 month

Re: [CTPP] Has anyone examined the PUMA tabulations from 2005 ACS?

by Chuck Purvis

Hi Elaine: This morning (9/27) we're presenting our "Map of the Month" to our policy board (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, MPO for the San Francisco Bay Area). This month's map of the month is "Change in Total Resident Workers, 2000 to 2005" based on data from Census 2000 and the 2005 American Community Survey. Data is mapped for the 54 PUMAs in our region, and the PUMAs are "clipped" to the urban/developed "footprint" to focus attention on the urban areas of the Bay Area. This is actually a very interesting map, showing increases in resident workers at the "edge" of our region (eastern Alameda & Contra Costa Counties; Vacaville in Solano County; Napa County), and significant decreases in the "information industry corridors" (northern San Mateo County; northwestern San Francisco - Richmond District); and "Silicon Valley." Very interesting patterns are emerging. The comparisons also show some unexpected increases in labor force: the south of Market / Potrero Hill area of the City of San Francisco; and our East Oakland PUMA. The problem is that the only year 2000 data we have, at the PUMA level, is from the decennial census, which significantly undercounts our labor force (compared to ACS, and compared to Bureau of Labor Statistics). So, our map, and this comparison, actually downplays the recession in our region. As I told our Executive Director, it's actually worse than it appears. In order to compare apples-to-apples-to-apples, we're examining the "civilian employed residents" from three data sources: Census 2000, ACS 2000 to 2005; and BLS's LAUS for 2000 to 2005; for our region; for California; and for the United States. Here's what we found for our region: Comparing Census 2000 to ACS 2005, our region lost 3.3 percent of our civilian employed residents, decreasing from 3.366 million to 3.254 million resident workers. Comparing ACS 2000 to ACS 2005, our region lost 5.7 percent of our civilian employed residents, decreasing from 3.451 million to 3.254 million resident workers. Comparing the BLS 2000 to BLS 2005, our region lost 7.0 percent of our civilian employed residents: 3.614 decreasing to 3.360. This is from the BLS's "Local Area Unemployment Statistics" (LAUS) program, and includes the non-institutional group quarters civilian employed. (ACS is strictly household workers, and we removed the GQ workers from Census 2000 to be comparable.) The issue -- at least in our region * is that the ACS data is closer to the independent estimate of employed labor force (Bureau of Labor Statistic's LAUS) than the decennial census. The concern with the decennial census is that we're getting very precise, yet inaccurate (biased) results. On the other hand, the decennial census is giving us fairly credible estimates of transit commuters, but we think it's undercounting the other non-transit commuters by a non-trivial amount. An interesting (annoying) discovery is that sometimes the data is suppressed for place-level AND PUMA-level geography, even for "collapsed" tables. For example, we like to use the Table C08006 (instead of it's base table: B08006) to obtain workers by means of transportation to work.So, there is no "collapsed" table data for one of my PUMAs, and one of my places, for this table. (We can use other tables to get "total workers" so at least our map-of-the-month has data for my too small PUMA....) Right now we're busy assembling table shells with historical census and ACS data, and getting ready to "drop in" the ACS 2005 data once it's released to the hoi polloi next Tuesday. My guess is that the "area of work" tabulations, expected next Tuesday, will exclude summary level data for PUMAs and Congressional Districts, and will only include places and counties with residential populations of 65,000+. (Please correct me if my guess is wrong. We would love to have data by PUMA-of-work, but I don't think that's coming this year....) Magic Number = 0. Chuck Purvis, MTC >>> "Murakami, Elaine" <Elaine.Murakami(a)fhwa.dot.gov> 09/25/06 2:09 PM >>> Dear Transportation Analysts: With the release of 2005 ACS, the Census Bureau has included PUMAs as a tabulation geography. You can use American FactFinder to access the PUMA tabulations. http://factfinder.census.gov <http://factfinder.census.gov/> The population threshold for tabulation from 1-year data accumulation from ACS is 65,000, so a PUMA, with a population threshold of 100,000 meets this requirement. This is mostly a benefit to very large counties (to be able to get sub-county tabulations), or areas with many small jurisdictions which fall under the 65,000 population threshold. Below is the link to the 5% PUMA maps. http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/puma5pct.htm Has anyone looked at the PUMA tabulations for their area yet? If so, please share your results with this listserv. Thanks in advance! Since PUMAs are being used as tabulation geography, there is more incentive for transportation planners to work with their State Data Centers when PUMAs are re-defined for the 2010 Census. Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460

18 years, 1 month

Has anyone examined the PUMA tabulations from 2005 ACS?

by Murakami, Elaine

Dear Transportation Analysts: With the release of 2005 ACS, the Census Bureau has included PUMAs as a tabulation geography. You can use American FactFinder to access the PUMA tabulations. http://factfinder.census.gov <http://factfinder.census.gov/> The population threshold for tabulation from 1-year data accumulation from ACS is 65,000, so a PUMA, with a population threshold of 100,000 meets this requirement. This is mostly a benefit to very large counties (to be able to get sub-county tabulations), or areas with many small jurisdictions which fall under the 65,000 population threshold. Below is the link to the 5% PUMA maps. http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/puma5pct.htm Has anyone looked at the PUMA tabulations for their area yet? If so, please share your results with this listserv. Thanks in advance! Since PUMAs are being used as tabulation geography, there is more incentive for transportation planners to work with their State Data Centers when PUMAs are re-defined for the 2010 Census. Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460

18 years, 1 month

Ten Things to Know About the ACS

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP-News This is a very useful page on the American Community Survey, posted by John Blodgettt of the Missouri SDC on the State Data Center listserv this morning. Chuck Purvis, MTC ********************************************************************************************************************************************************************** http://mcdc2.missouri.edu/pub/data/acs2005/Ten_things_to_know.shtml is a new web page that deals with various aspects of the ACS. John Blodgett Sr. Programmer/Data Analyst Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis Room 626 Clark Hall University of Missouri Columbia, MO 65211 (573) 884-2727 (573)884-4635 (FAX) blodgettj(a)umsystem.edu *********************************************************************************************************************************************************************

18 years, 1 month

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 September 2006