ctpp-news November 2011

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

15 participants
14 discussions

1980 UTPP & 2006-2008 CTPP data

by Nicholas K Tulach

Hi, I apologize if this has been covered before, but i tried searching the archive with no success. Does anyone know if a repository is available with 1980 UTPP? If not, any other ideas for sources of employment data at place of employment aggregated at the place or UZA level from 1980- or 1990-present? I've tried Zip Code Business Patterns and REIS, but neither were fruitful. Finally, are CTPP ACS 2006-2008 available at place/UZA level? Where can i download them from? I can't seem to figure out the AASHTO web tool for accessing raw data. Thanks, nick

13 years

2006-2010 ACS Technical documentation in advance of embargo

by Jon Hallas

I am interested in whether technical documentation will be provided for 2006-2010 ACS 5-year estimates in advance of the embargo period. Tables and macros found in the following links were provided for 2005-2009 ACS: http://www2.census.gov/acs2005_2009_5yr/summaryfile/ with details such as Sequence_Number_and_Table_Number_Lookup.xls http://www2.census.gov/acs2005_2009_5yr/summaryfile/UserTools/ including macros. Also, could these macros be used for the new data? http://www2.census.gov/acs2005_2009_5yr/summaryfile/ ACS2009_5-Year_TableShells.xls<http://www2.census.gov/acs2005_2009_5yr/summaryfile/ACS2009_5-Year_TableShe…> provided table shells Finally, when would the documentation to be available? If the documentation was available well ahead of the embargo, we could be ready for the data. More of our time could be spent preparing analyses for questions we anticipate from the media. Thank you. -Jon A. Jon Hallas, AICP Associate Planner Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning 233 S. Wacker Dr. Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60606 jhallas(a)cmap.illinois.gov<mailto:jhallas@cmap.illinois.gov> (312) 386-8764 The information contained in this communication is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and to others authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby (a) notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or taking any action, with respect to the content of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful, and are (b) kindly requested to inform the sender immediately and to destroy any copies. The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning is neither liable for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its receipt. This message has been scanned for viruses and other harmful content upon transmission.

13 years

Data Ferrett and Advanced AFF2 webinar: Monday, Dec 19 at 1:00 - 3:00 p.m. EASTERN

by Elaine.Murakami＠dot.gov

SAVE the DATE. I have requested webinar space for another census data software session, this time focusing on Data Ferrett. Michelle Jiles from the Census Bureau who conducted the training session on October 11 on AFF2 will be our trainer again. I will send out another post to the listserv when NHI provides a url link to register. Just in case you missed the Oct 11 session, the link to the recording is: http://fhwa.adobeconnect.com/p79zmtvx89g/ The materials distributed during the webinar can be downloaded from the "Census and AFF Resources" area. As noted in my post to the TMIP listserv today, AFF2 does NOT provide access to Block Group data. In AFF2, the smallest geographic unit is tract geography, which makes Data Ferrett as a data access tool more important. ACS Block Group data are also available using the ACS Summary Files. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/summary_file/ Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460 (in Seattle)

13 years

CTPP Request for Proposals

by Weinberger, Penelope

Request for Proposals Commuting in America IV The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) invites proposers to submit proposals responding to a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Census Transportation Planning Products (CTPP) Program Commuting in America (CIA) IV project. Responses to this RFP are due January 10, 2012 To download the RFP go to: http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/proposalcia.aspx

13 years

LEHD 2010

by mkaminowitz＠baltometro.org

Does anyone know of the 2010 LED/OnTheMap 6 is still scheduled to come out next month, and if it will really include federal employees? Mara Mara Kaminowitz GIS Analyst ......................................................................... Baltimore Metropolitan Council Offices at McHenry Row 1500 Whetstone Way Suite 300 Baltimore, MD 21230 410-732-0500 ext. 1030 <mailto:mkaminowitz@baltometro.org> mkaminowitz(a)baltometro.org <http://www.baltometro.org/> www.baltometro.org _____ Confidentiality Statement This message may contain legally privileged and confidential information that is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient, taking any action based on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. Please immediately notify the sender if you have received this message in error.

13 years, 1 month

FW: Presentations now available online for the Using Census Data for Transportation Applications Conference

by Weinberger, Penelope

In case you couldn't join us in Irvine... Penelope Weinberger CTPP Program Manager AASHTO 202-624-3556 http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx <http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx> It's just as bad to not make a plan as to blindly follow the one you already have. From: Hubersberger, Jaclyn [mailto:JHubersberger@nas.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 4:33 PM To: Hubersberger, Jaclyn Subject: Presentations now available online for the Using Census Data for Transportation Applications Conference Dear Conference Participants: Thank you for attending the Using Census Data for Transportation Applications Conference that took place October 24-27, 2011 at the Beckman Center on the UC-Irvine campus. Presentations have been posted on the conference website: http://www.trb.org/conferences/Census2011.aspx, under the "Presentations" tab. Your participation was much appreciated and I look forward to seeing you at future TRB events! Regards, Jaclyn Hubersberger Senior Program Associate Transportation Research Board of the National Academies 500 Fifth Street NW Keck WS#431 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 334-3119 www.TRB.org

13 years, 1 month

Census Bureau looking for opinions on ZCTA tabulations for ACS. DUE November 30

by Elaine.Murakami＠dot.gov

This message was sent to the Census Bureau State Data Center participants, and Nathan Erlbaum of New York State DOT thought it should be shared with CTPP: ------- As you can see from the attached email exchange, the ACS ZCTA data is being threatened due to the current budget situation. My personal sense of the situation is that if we show support for these data there is no guarantee that they will be produced, but if don’t show a need for them they definitely will not be there. If these data are important for you, please respond to Scott Boggess (Scott.Boggess(a)census.gov <mailto:Scott.Boggess@census.gov> ) directly by November 30, 2011. It would also help our program if you copied the listserv on your response. Your comments might prompt others to realize a need for these data. Thank you. Leonard M. Gaines, Ph.D. | Program Research Specialist Empire State Development -------- In its Federal Register Notice on the 5-year ACS data products, the Bureau announced that it would begin to produce 5-year ACS data for ZCTAs (Zip Code Tabulation Areas) beginning with the 2007-2011 ACS data due out next year. Both the decision to add ZCTAs as well as what data products to produce for ZCTAs is now coming under increased scrutiny given the current budget climate. I have been asked to reach out to data users to see whether and how they would use ACS ZCTA data and what products, if any, they would like to see produced for ZCTAs (detailed tables? profiles? subject tables?). Please respond directly to me and feel free to share this request with others in the user community. Thanks, Scott Scott Boggess Chief, ACS Coordination Staff Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division 301.763.6167

13 years, 1 month

Open Position - Transportation Planner / Travel Demand Modeler

by Chuck Imbrogno

The Southwestern Pennsylvania Corporation (SPC) located in Pittsburgh, PA currently has an opening for a Transportation Planner who is seeking a rewarding career supporting community transportation and economic development programs. Responsibilities include, but are not limited to: * Compiling, organizing and analyzing data for transportation and air quality programs; * Building or modifying models needed for forecasting and testing data; * Participating in traffic forecasting studies; * Providing regional transit agencies with current data. Qualifications include: * A bachelor's degree in planning, mathematics or closely related field; * Ability to integrate and analyze data, including statistical model estimation; * Demonstrated experience in developing and using forecasting and/or regional transportation demand models; * Solid understanding of GIS and data analysis software; * Strong analytical, communication and technical writing skills. Knowledge of REMI economic development analysis model applications and working in a professional team environment to update and evaluate federal/state transportation programs is desirable. Competitive salary and excellent benefit package provided. For more information about the Southwestern Pennsylvania Corporation and how we make an impact on our region, go to www.spcregion.org <http://www.spcregion.org> . Email responses preferred. Send letter of interest, resume and salary requirements to: Debbie Tritsch Human Resources Coordinator Southwestern Pennsylvania Corporation 425 Sixth Avenue, Suite 2500 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 dtritsch(a)spcregion.org Equal Opportunity Employer

13 years, 1 month

PUMAs

by Patty Becker

This is time critical. If you have a response for us, please reply immediately to pbecker(a)umich.edu and/or to the list. We are having a big problem with PUMA delineation in Michigan because of the Census Bureau's rule that PUMAs must be contiguous. They apparently had this rule in the past, which is why we didn't catch it as a "change" in the regulations. However, they didn't enforce it, so we were able to have non-contiguous PUMAs where we needed them. Now they don't want to let us do it. The biggest reason, I believe, is that this time they're using software into which they've programmed the rule that requires contiguity. The City of Detroit has two enclave cities, plus six communities adjoining its eastern boundary. The rest of the county lies to the west of the city. These 8 communities used to be 1 PUMA, but they've shrunk below 100,000, and therefore would need territory added from elsewhere (in Wayne, their county, presumably). The main point is: we need PUMAs which together delineate Detroit exactly. Under the contiguity rule, that's impossible. We have another issue surrounding the City of Flint and Genesee,its county, where the other counties in the state planning/service area centered on Flint lie to either side of Genesee. Logically, these two counties would form one PUMA, while other PUMAs would be formed within the Genesee boundary. We used to have this arrangement. We need to know if any similar issues have come up in other states. If so, what are you doing about it? Please let us know immediately. Thanks much, Patty Becker ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia C. (Patty) Becker 248/354-6520 APB Associates/SEMCC FAX 248/354-6645 28300 Franklin Road Home 248/355-2428 Southfield, MI 48034 pbecker(a)umich.edu

13 years, 1 month

RE: [CTPP] PUMAs

by Patty Becker

Arash, Michigan is a "strong MCD state." We have lots of sub-county governments that are incorporated, plus many, many township governments that provide services. These political boundaries are very important here. In almost all instances, tract lines follow the MCD boundaries; thus, it's no problem to aggregate tracts to PUMAs keeping within the city limits. Patty Becker At 06:14 PM 11/9/2011, you wrote: >Content-Language: en-US >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > >boundary="_000_F189FB5B4920564CA566DDBD526B0BA8DB0D14C4D1COGMAILnctcog_" > >Patty, I am not really sure if having PUMAs that cross large city >boundaries cause any serious problems. Geographic continuity is a >good practice. The only use that PUMA can give you is having access >to household sample record as a whole in a large area. Affiliation >to city for 5% sample record does not reveal anything about the >city. As long as PUMAs are aggregation of Tracts, one can relate the >sample records to other tables and estimate expanded household >characteristics. It would be nice if aggregation of PUMAs would >become cities (for large ones) but that is fairly hard to achieve in general. > >Arash > >Arash Mirzaei, P.E. >Senior Program Manager >Model Development and Data Management >North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) >Tel: (817) 695-9261 >Fax: (817) 640-3028 >Email: amirzaei(a)nctcog.org > > > >From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net >[mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Patty Becker >Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 4:05 PM >To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net >Cc: dargak(a)michigan.gov >Subject: [CTPP] PUMAs > >This is time critical. If you have a response for us, please reply >immediately to pbecker(a)umich.edu and/or to the list. > >We are having a big problem with PUMA delineation in Michigan >because of the Census Bureau's rule that PUMAs must be contiguous. > >They apparently had this rule in the past, which is why we didn't >catch it as a "change" in the regulations. However, they didn't >enforce it, so we were able to have non-contiguous PUMAs where we >needed them. Now they don't want to let us do it. The biggest >reason, I believe, is that this time they're using software into >which they've programmed the rule that requires contiguity. > >The City of Detroit has two enclave cities, plus six communities >adjoining its eastern boundary. The rest of the county lies to the >west of the city. These 8 communities used to be 1 PUMA, but they've >shrunk below 100,000, and therefore would need territory added from >elsewhere (in Wayne, their county, presumably). The main point is: >we need PUMAs which together delineate Detroit exactly. Under the >contiguity rule, that's impossible. We have another issue >surrounding the City of Flint and Genesee,its county, where the >other counties in the state planning/service area centered on Flint >lie to either side of Genesee. Logically, these two counties would >form one PUMA, while other PUMAs would be formed within the Genesee >boundary. We used to have this arrangement. > >We need to know if any similar issues have come up in other states. >If so, what are you doing about it? Please let us know immediately. > >Thanks much, > >Patty Becker > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Patricia C. (Patty) Becker 248/354-6520 >APB Associates/SEMCC FAX 248/354-6645 >28300 Franklin Road Home 248/355-2428 >Southfield, MI 48034 pbecker(a)umich.edu >_______________________________________________ >ctpp-news mailing list >ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net >http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia C. (Patty) Becker 248/354-6520 APB Associates/SEMCC FAX 248/354-6645 28300 Franklin Road Home 248/355-2428 Southfield, MI 48034 pbecker(a)umich.edu

13 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 November 2011