FYI--Besides the 2009 Tiger Files it looks like we will have the new
2010 Files before the 2010 Block population counts come out in around
March of 2011. This is good news. Just yesterday I was in a meeting
where the question came up.
The Census Bureau has released 2009 TIGER/Line Shapefiles today.
Available here: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/
This will be the last public release of TIGER data until early 2011.
This early 2011 release will include all of the updated 2010 tabulation
geography that serves as the geographic framework for 2010 Census data
tabulations (including the new 2010 Census tracts, block groups, blocks,
voting districts, and much more). Around the same time as this 2011
geospatial data release, Census will be releasing the tabular data
with 2010 Census population counts down to the Census block level. See
the attached document for more information, including changes under
consideration and a request for input.
4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600
Matteson, IL 60443
TRB’s Committee on Travel Survey Methods (ABJ40) has developed the
transportation community's* first-ever wiki-style On-line Travel Survey
Manual* with details on *virtually everything transportation survey
developers & survey managers need to know*. Please visit *
http://www.travelsurveymanual.org** *to get a sense of the *25 extensive
chapters*, covering all types of transportation surveys, including
household, visitor, parking, freight & establishment surveys; stated
preference and qualitative surveys; GPS-based designs and data expansion;
survey costs and quality control. The newly developed *Appendix provides
high-quality samples* of RFPs, diary forms, and other field materials.
This document represents an overhaul and update of the 1996 USDOT and EPA
manual prepared by Cambridge Systematics (thank you to Kevin Tierney!), with
major contributions from TRB’s recent NCHRP Report 571 “Standardized
Procedures for Personal Travel Surveys” (thank you to Peter Stopher &
This document is the result of hard work and long hours by *nearly 100
volunteers*. *Thank you to everyone who participated in this effort*.
Of course, a wiki-style project means that no one is “in charge” of checking
all contents (unlike a contract, where the PI is responsible). There are
many ways that this document can be improved, including corrections and
updates, and we would love your editing contributions!
We want to keep this document up to date, especially with field materials,
such as samples of RFPs, respondent diaries, and CATI scripts. With the
advent of so many computer-based surveys, we hope survey crews will capture
(via video images) & upload computer screen survey interfaces.
We hope that you will find this document useful, and we look forward to your
help improving and updating it. For permission *to edit chapters*, please
contact Lei Zhang (lei(a)umd.edu) or* *Krishnan Viswanathan (
kviswanathan(a)camsys.com), so that they can provide you the appropriate login
Please pass the word along.
Thanks so much,
Kara Kockelman, Krishnan Viswanathan, Elaine Murakami, Lei Zhang, Kevin
Tierney & the rest of the Travel Survey Manual Gang
-- Our apologies for cross-posting! --
Dear CTPP Community,
This is an opportunity for your input on the upcoming CTPP based on
5-year ACS 2006-2010!
This message contains colored highlighting, if you cannot see it, please
view the message in HTML (if possible).
Please download the attached spreadsheet, mark it as appropriate
according to the instructions and information below, and return it
attached to an email directly to me by Friday, May 7th, 2010
pweinberger(a)aashto.org (Please do not reply to the whole list with your
marked attached spreadsheet, for that will create a version control
The attached spreadsheet is a proposed table list to submit to the
Census Bureau for special tabulations based on the 5-year ACS, it is
derived from the Census Bureau's Disclosure Review Board's approved CTPP
from 3-year ACS data table list.
For large area geography, we plan to keep the table list the same as the
current 3-year table list (the spreadsheet, as if there were no
For small area geography (tract, TAZ, and block group), we are proposing
to eliminate many of the tables with 3-way cross-tabulations, or 2-way
cross-tabulations with more than 40 cells because we suspect they will
contain very little or no data. We have highlighted the tables proposed
for deletion at small geography in BLUE. Please identify any
highlighted tables you feel are important to keep, and not be eliminated
by placing a mark in the specified column and row.
Alternatively, if you see tables that are not marked for deletion at
small geography please feel free to let me know there is no need for
those tables, it would be a waste of resources to generate data that is
essentially useless to the transportation planning community.
The number of classifications in each variable may need to be reduced to
pass the CB's criteria and some of those tables have been highlighted in
pink, we are including this information to start thinking about the ways
variable groups can collapse.
For the ACS 2006-2010 five-year data and the 2010 Census Tracts, there
is projected to be, on average, a little over 4000 residents per tract,
and approximately 120 household records and 150 worker records in the
The 5-year data has no lower bound for place size. Tables that include
Means of Transportation still require 3 unweighted records per each
category of Means of Transportation category to avoid suppression.
There is no rule yet in place for maximum number of cells per table, a
number has been discussed, but not decided upon.
If you have questions please do not hesitate to email them to me.
Thanks in advance for your help!
CTPP Program Manager
It's just as bad to not make a plan as to blindly follow the one you
Omaha-Council Bluffs was a 2009 NHTS add-on area. You should be able to get good estimates of auto occupancy for all trip purposes. If you have questions, contact me and I can help you.
Travel Behavior Analyst
by Sabula, Julianne Ruth (Engineering-Const Planner II)
I am passing on a question from one of our strategic planners. "Where
can I find data on Mode of transportation for work trips by county,
travel time to work by county, number of commuters by community/city,
and carpool commuter activity by community/city?" If anyone knows where
to find this information (state of Utah), please let me know.
Utah Transit Authority
Engineering and Construction Planner II
669 West 200 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
w. (801) 237-1973
c. (801) 867-5203
Hi Everyone - We are in the sign-off process for the next issue of the
CTPP Status Report. It will probably be several weeks before it is
approved for distribution! Anyway, I happened to be looking at the
INDEX of articles http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/srindex.htm so I thought
I would post some links to some "oldies but goodies."
"CTPP Workers at Work compared to Other Employment Estimates"
"Reconciling Total Employment (jobs) and Worker-at-Work"
Also, we got a question for which the easiest answer was to use CTPP
2000 Part 2 data (despite its age) at the census tract level. The
CTPP2000 Part 2 data are available via BTS, both in Transtats and by
ordering CDs http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/2000dataprod.htm
HOWEVER, one of the easiest ways to access this data at the tract level
is to use the Univ of WI-Milwaukee "drill downs"
As the ACS standard tabulations now include some workplace tabulations,
I don't know if UWM plans to update with ACS 2005-2009 data when the CB
releases the first 5-year ACS product (anticipated in December 2010).
More current data using QCEW and other administrative records would be
to use the LEHD On The Map data, but would require downloading block
level data and accumulating the blocks into tract summaries.
FHWA Office of Planning
Thanks to all who responded. I've summarized, paraphrased and quoted below possible reasons below and added a few comments as appropriate:
1. Other modes such as bicycling, motorcycles and motor scooters. (I think these are covered by the data in 20068 ACS table B08141 so they are not likely the source of the problem.)
2. Leased, not owned, autos treated not counted as vehicles "kept for use by members of this household" (This would be a misinterpretation of the ACS question but stranger things have happened. Other types of respondent errors could be in play here as well.)
3. Problem with data imputed by the Census Bureau for non-responders.
4. Using a company car on loan, a zip car a neighbors car, a parent's car or another car sharing service. (ZipCar is popular in Cambridge but I doubt that would cover too many people. Company cars might explain some but again seems an unlikely explanation for almost 700 commutes out of 48,600. Garaging a car not registered in Cambridge is difficult as we require a resident permit for on street parking and off street parking spaces are few and expensive. Over 60% of the housing stock is rentals, often with no dedicated parking space included in the rent.)
5. Non-standard work week such as travel to a conference. (This might be a not insignificant source. I've always been surprised by the number of local residents who JTW data shows as "commuting to work" in California.)
6. Based on the 2009 NHTS, the ACS result seems reasonable. In the 2009 NHTS (weighted results), 12% of persons in zero-vehicle households who travelled to work "last week", did so in a vehicle with one person in it. This works out to be 500k people out of 4,260k.
7. This phenomenon shows up in NHTS as well and appears to be a very real result of the fact that some share of folks used borrowed cars for travel. It may be a young adult who doesn't own a car but has one available from dad, folks renting, folks borrowing etc. In consumer expenditure surveys non-car owning households also have non trival auto related expenses for travel. It is not uncommon for non-car households to travel more PMT in SOV than on transit. In consumer expenditure surveys non-car owning households also have non trival auto related expenses for travel.
Thanks to all for your help!
I'm hoping someone can help me address this question from a colleague. He put together a table from the 2006-2008 ACS showing mode of journey to work by vehicles owned and came up with surprisingly large numbers who do not won a car yet drive alone to work. No doubt, there are a few people who fit this category but my guess is that this largely is the result of either people misunderstanding the question or some sort of coding problem. Here is an excerpt from his email ( the Cambridge here is Cambridge, Massachusetts):
I'm looking at ACS data and specifically at cities and percent workers have no car available. From that I'm then looking to see how those workers get to work.
The attached worksheet shows my work. What is strange is that it shows for Cambridge that 6.6% of people without a car available drove alone to work. The percent is similar to Boston. And NYC has 3.4% of workers with No vehicles available driving alone to work.
So, the question is, how can someone without a vehicle drive to work alone? Do you have any ideas on this? It could be someone doesn't own a vehicle, but drives a friend's car to work. Or has no car of their own, but uses a company car to get to work. But seems like a high number for this.
Can anyone shed any light on this?
Planning Information Manager
Cambridge Community Development Dept.
Cambridge, MA. 02139
617/349-4656 FAX 617/349-4669 TTY 617/349-4621
email => ccook(a)cambridgema.gov
web site => <http://www.cambridgema.gov/~CDD/>