The list of tables for the 2006 ACS is set. The 2006 ACS included Group
The CB will be defining the 2007 ACS STANDARD table set in Fall 2007.
The 2005-2007 ACS will be the first time an accumulated 3-year data from
ACS will be available.
Nathan Erlbaum of New York State DOT has asked USDOT to request a
univariate table of workers by INDUSTRY for workplace geography, because
he is finding that a count of workers by 3-digit NAICS is very useful
for estimating truck traffic. There are currently a couple of tables
with INDUSTRY in the standard ACS table set, but they are
cross-tabulated with MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK, and therefore more
likely to be suppressed or collapsed.
There are also some tables for residence geography of B24030: SEX by
INDUSTRY, and B24040: SEX by INDUSTRY for full-time, year-round civilian
employed, which might address Nathan's wish to have a parallel table at
So, please take the time to examine the current 2005 ACS table
While the CB does not want to be inundated with many new table requests,
I am taking this opportunity to ask you (the transportation data user
community) for your input. This way, we can submit ONE coordinated
request to the CB. We also expect the new CTPP to include a 3-year CTPP
SPECIAL TABULATION from ACS, so if your table request is not added to
the CB's STANDARD set, we can consider it for the CTPP set!
Thanks in advance for your input! We have organized a National Data
Workshop on Sunday, May 6 at 2 p.m. at the TRB Transportation Planning
Applications Conference in Daytona Beach. We will be covering both CTPP
and NHTS. See you there!
FHWA Office of Planning
206-220-4460 (in Seattle)
The "long awaited" Federal Register notice dealing with the proposed
criteria for defining Tracts and Block Groups has been released. See
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Publication of proposed criteria for tracts, block groups,
CDPs, and CCDs
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 15:02:12 -0400
I am pleased to announce that the proposed criteria for census tracts,
block groups, CDPs, and CCDs was published today in the Federal
Register. Could you send a message to the CTPP folks and anyone else
you can think of in the transportation community announcing publication
of the notices? I am including text for your use in the message (see
below and also attached).
The Census Bureau has published proposed criteria for census tracts,
block groups, census designated places (CDPs), and census county
divisions (CCDs defined in 22 states as the statistical equivalents of
minor civil divisions) for the 2010 Census in the Federal Register on
April 6, 2007. All interested individuals and organizations are invited
to review and comment, as appropriate, on the proposed criteria for
these statistical areas. Each of the Federal Register notices is
available on the Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/psap2010/psapcriteria.html as well as via
the Federal Register's website at http://www.gpoacess.gov/fr/index.html.
General information about the 2010 Participant Statistical Areas Program
is available on the Census Bureau's website at
Requests for additional information about these statistical areas as
well as copies of the proposed criteria Federal Register notices should
be directed to Michael Ratcliffe, Chief, Geographic Standards and
Criteria Branch, Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau, via e-mail at
geo.psap.list(a)census.gov or telephone at 301-763-3056.
Comments on the proposed criteria for these statistical areas should be
provided in writing to the Director, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H001,
Mail Stop 0100, Washington, DC 20233-0001. Written comments must be
submitted on or before July 5, 2007.
In summary, the proposed changes to the criteria for census tracts,
block groups, CDPs, and CCDs are:
-Lower the minimum population threshold for most tracts to 1,200.
-Housing units counts may be used in addition to meet tract thresholds.
-All types of populated tracts should meet the same thresholds.
-Wherever possible census tracts should conform to American Indian
-Special tracts may be created for large special land use areas without
housing units or population.
-Increase the minimum population threshold to 1,200.
-Housing units counts may be used to meet block group thresholds.
-All types of populated block groups must meet the same threshold.
-Wherever possible block groups should conform to American Indian
-Special BGs may be created for large special land use areas without
housing units or population.
-A CDP cannot have zero population and zero housing units.
-A CDP cannot be coextensive with a governmentally active minor civil
division (i.e., town, township, charter township, plantation). This
change will reduce redundancy in place and county subdivision data
tabulations for the following states: Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, and Wisconsin.
-A CDP must represent a single, distinct community. A CDP that
represents multiple, distinct communities, and the hyphenated name
typically assigned to represent such CDPs, will not be permitted.
Exceptions will be made for communities whose identities have merged and
which both names commonly are used together.
-The Census Bureau is questioning whether to retain or eliminate CCDs
as geographic entities. If eliminated, CCDs would not be replaced by
other sub-county geographic entities.
Over the next few weeks, I would like to get feedback on census/CTPP
website (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/index.htm) and other
related websites from the users who have obtained data from these sites
and used them for different purposes. Our objectives are to know what
the users do and don't like about the sites, what is confusing, what
should be added to make it more useful and user friendly.
I'll like to perform this task in two steps:
* Get feedback from the users who have used these sites. Please
email me what you like, don't like, what is confusing, if any, and
suggestions to improve it.
* Form a small committee of 5/6 users from different
organizations and discuss the comments from the users and also walk
through the websites via conference calls and MacroMedia BREEZE
Please send me an email with your comments and let me know if you are
interested to serve in the committee.
Nazrul Islam, FTA
This week the Census Bureau released their intercensal population
estimates: county- and state-level estimates for 7/1/2006.
pop estimates page:
Our press picked this up, and focused somewhat on the discrepancies
between our California State Government's population estimates, and the
Census Bureau's estimates. The story is here:
I was quoted in the paper, and made bold comments that the intercensal
population estimates were NOT used in transportation funding formula.
I needed to do some background research, because I was uncertain if
intercensal population estimates are used in allocating USDOT funds.
(From my discussions with staff, it's based on UZA population,
lane-miles, bridge repair needs, VMT, etc.) My conclusions (hopefully
correct), were that most (?) USDOT population formula programs are based
on total population values at the urbanized area (UZA) level, not at
county-level. And given that the Census Bureau's intercensal estimates
are published only at the county and state level, and never (yet) at the
UZA level, the USDOT funding allocations would necessarily be based on
decennial (year 2000) population counts.
So, my question to our Feds and other knowledgeable policy wonks is,
are USDOT funds allocated based on intercensal population estimates, or
not? (If some funds ARE allocated based on "current" population counts,
from the Census pop estimates program, then I owe a call of apology to
my city desk reporter....)
Thanks in advance!
Charles L. Purvis, AICP
Principal Transportation Planner/Analyst
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4700
(510) 817-5755 (office)
(510) 817-7848 (fax)