ctpp-news

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

2560 discussions

Start a nNew thread

Diana Portillo is out of the office.

by Diana Portillo

I will be out of the office starting 04/24/2009 and will not return until 04/28/2009.

15 years, 8 months

Did you miss the PUMS and IPUMS web-training session held on April 16?

by Elaine.Murakami＠dot.gov

Hi Everyone- We had a really nice training session a little over a week ago to learn about using the University of Minnesota IPUMS. This system provides a user-friendly way for you to run tabulations, regressions using the Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) from the decennial Censuses, and the American Community Survey. The training provided an excellent start to filtering (limited the sample based on values of different variable), recoding values, and creating new variables. You can do a lot without having a statistical software package on your own computer. Of course, the PUMS have very limited geography, but the benefit is that you can use many different variables in your table definition. You are not limited to the tables pre-defined by the Census Bureau. I had only a limited number of slots for the April 16 session, but Gary Thomas at TTI recorded the session for us: here is the link. http://fhwa.na3.acrobat.com/p25106595/ Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460

15 years, 8 months

Census News Brief

by Ed Christopher

April 22, 2009 PRESIDENT ANNOUNCES NOMINATION FOR COMMERCE POST OVERSEEING CENSUS President Obama announced his intent to nominate Dr. Rebecca M. Blank, a member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors in the Clinton Administration, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs. The Under Secretary oversees the Commerce Department’s Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA), which houses the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The post requires Senate confirmation; the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will hold the confirmation hearing. Dr. Blank currently is the Robert S. Kerr Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC. Prior to that appointment last summer, Dr. Blank was Dean of the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan and co-director of the National Poverty Center. She previously taught economics at Princeton, Northwestern, and Michigan. According to a White House statement, Dr. Blank’s research has “focused on the interactions between the macroeconomy, government policy, and the behavior and well-being of American families.” Her work at Brookings has focused on expanding research on education, labor markets, and changing demography to inform public policy. She is the author of several books, including It Takes A Nation: A New Agenda for Fighting Poverty (1997), which won the Richard A. Lester Prize for the Outstanding Book in Labor Economics and Industrial Relations. Dr. Blank holds a doctorate in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a bachelor’s degree in economics from the University of Minnesota. Support for Groves nomination: As the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs prepares for a confirmation hearing to consider the nomination of Dr. Robert Groves to be the next Census Director, a number of stakeholders have expressed their support for the candidate to committee leaders. In a letter to Chairman Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) urging quick committee action on the nomination, six former directors of the U.S. Census Bureau, who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations, described Dr. Groves as “one of the half dozen most highly regarded survey research methodologists not only in the United States but in the world.” (The full letter is available on The Census Project web site at http://www.thecensusproject.org/CP-Groves-Lieberman-April09.pdf.) Stakeholder organizations participating in The Census Project also sent a letter of support for the nominee. Signers include the U.S. Conference of Mayors, American Planning Association, Organization of Chinese Americans, Consortium of Social Science Associations, and Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. (Go to http://www.thecensusproject.org/CP-Groves-Carper-April09.pdf for a copy of the full letter.) The committee has not yet posted a date for the confirmation hearing. New information on “hard to count” areas available for stakeholders: The Census Project has posted several new tables on its web site (www.thecensusproject.org, Fact Sheets) showing the number and percent of people living in so-called “hard-to-count” areas by State, as well as the 50 counties with the largest number of people living in hard-to-count areas and the highest percent of their populations in these areas. The new Fact Sheets explain how the Census Bureau defines hard-to-count areas; the analyses are based on 2000 census data from the Census Bureau’s 2010 Census Planning Database, which the agency is using to target outreach, promotion, and other resources in communities that are at greater risk of an undercount. Editor’s note: The April 2, 2009 (Issue #2) Census News Brief said that, “the 1990 census was not adjusted for congressional apportionment and redistricting and the allocation of federal program funds.” The sentence should have read, “… the Census Bureau did not adjust the 1990 census for congressional apportionment and redistricting and allocation of federal program funds.” During the 1990s, the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) decided to use adjusted 1990 population counts to calibrate the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey conducted by the Census Bureau for BLS. The CPS is the primary source of government information on labor force characteristics, producing estimates of employment, unemployment, earnings, and other key indicators – some through frequent supplemental questions -- that might be used in formulas to allocate federal funds. Census News Briefs are prepared by Terri Ann Lowenthal, an independent legislative and policy consultant working with a wide range of census stakeholders to promote an accurate 2010 census. All views expressed in the News Briefs are solely those of the author. Please direct questions about the information in this News Brief to Ms. Lowenthal at TerriAnn2K(a)aol.com. Please feel free to circulate this document to other interested individuals and organizations and to reprint any or all of the information. Previous Census News Briefs are posted on the Census Project web site, at www.thecensusproject.org. -- Ed Christopher 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) FHWA RC-TST-PLN 19900 Governors Dr Olympia Fields, IL 60461

15 years, 8 months

RE: Comparison of ACS 1-year, ACS 3-year & Annual Estimates

by Graham, Todd

Frank, Elaine, Pete and others all gave spot-on assessments. Thank you! I'm a frequent ACS PUMS user -- so I'll contribute what I've noticed as I've compared ACS PUMS 1-Year datasets vs ACS PUMS 3-Year. The microdata at record-level should be almost identical. You should see the same numbers of records, and also almost identical data taken from respondent questionnaires. One exception would be: where the coding of responses has changed (for example, the coding of "YearBuilt" changed after 2005). Beyond that - another exception - Bureau-assigned data elements could change. Most notably, you can detect slight adjustments to the weights applied to individual household and person records. This happens for the reason described by Pete - the updating of annual population totals. Whether you're working with PUMS or summary data, the Bureau's tweaking of annual population totals should be fairly small... for now... The really big series break will be in 2011 - when the decennial Census reveals just how far off those annual estimates have been, which should cascade over into a re-benchmarking of ACS 1-Year, 3-Year, and 5-Year tables published in Fall 2011. Consider: The Census Bureau has estimated Minnesota's 2007 population at 5,182,000. Meanwhile, the Minnesota State Demographer and Metropolitan Council also publish annual estimates (our official numbers for State government purposes), putting Minnesota's 2007 population at 5,263,000, or 1.6% higher. This is not a small discrepancy - and I strongly suspect that the Bureau's efforts to make everything fit leads to seriously unreliable housing occupancy (vacancy) rates in a lot of counties and cities. Can I ask: Do FSCPE analysts in other states see similar discrepancies between the Bureau's annual estimates and "alternative" (State Demographer) annual estimates or annual projections?? Very curious to know. -- Todd Graham Metropolitan Council Research 651/602-1322

15 years, 8 months

Comparison of ACS 1-year, ACS 3-year & Annual Estimates

by Frank Lenk

The attached spreadsheet was prepared by my staff, showing the comparison in total county-level population between the 2007 ACS 1-year estimates, the 2007 ACS 3-year estimates and the Census Bureau's July 1, 2007 population estimates by county. The latter are supposed to be the official population estimates to which ACS is controlled. And, based on the attached spreadsheet, this appears to be true for (most) counties in the 1-year estimates. But the total population in the 3-year ACS estimates is systematically biased downwards from the total population in the 1-year ACS estimates and/or the official estimates. Does anyone have a good idea why? There is some vague language about differences in weighting in the Census Bureau's documentation, but I can't find a satisfying explanation. I do notice that the faster a county is growing the bigger the discrepancy between the 3-year and 1-year estimates of total population. This suggests that the 3-year estimates are being controlled to an average of the 3 years of official total population estimates (2005, 2006 and 2007). But my understanding is that the3- year ACS estimates are not averaged. Instead, they a represent a single sample taken over a 3-year period. My expectation, then, is that this sample would be expanded to the same population as the 1-year estimates - The 3-year and 1-year estimates are, after all, identified by the same year (2007) while a 3-year estimate based on a 3-year moving average would be closer to 2006's 1-year estimate. Any help in clarifying this issue would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Frank Frank Lenk Director of Research Services Mid-America Regional Council 600 Broadway, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64105 www.marc.org 816.474.4240 flenk(a)marc.org 816.701.8237

15 years, 8 months

RE: [CTPP] CTPP 3-year table request "The is also none univariate table with all 18 modes"

by Teresa Chapman

Is it supposed to be none univariate table? or one univariate table? Thanks >>> MHARMON(a)SLOCOG.org 4/20/2009 1:24:50 PM >>> Can someone help me understand what the text quoted above is supposed to say? Thank you, -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Ed Christopher Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 7:29 AM To: ctpp-news maillist Subject: [CTPP] CTPP 3-year table request Earlier this month the AASHTO CTPP Oversight Board submitted a request for a special tabulation of 3-year ACS tables. For those who might not remember, just over a year ago the Oversight Board submitted a similar request that met with some harsh disclosure and suppression rules. After an appeal of the rules failed, the Oversight Board set up a subcommittee to develop a new request that hopefully would be more favorably received by the Census Bureau's Disclosure Review Board. It was believed that now that the disclosure proofing rules are known it would be possible to design data tables that would yield the maximum utility possible while still adhering to the rules. A copy of the new table request letter and tables can be found at the following locations respectively.http://trbcensus.com/aashto/docs/CTPP_3-year_table_request.pdf… One of the major differences of the new request from last year's is that modes used to go to work have been collapsed. In 2008 we were asking for crosstabs using 5, 8 and 11 modes. With the 2009 request we are asking for 3, 5, 6 and 10 modes. In addition to the collapsed modes the number of variables crossed with "Means of Transportation to Work" has been reduced from about 17 to 5. The 5 variables include travel time to work, household income, vehicles available, age and time leaving home to go to work. Of course it will not be known which tables will pass the disclosure rules until we actually see the tables. The is also none univariate table with all 18 modes. When reviewing the potential tables do not forget that the 3-year ACS is only for areas with more than 20,000 residents. The Census Bureau and their Disclosure Review Board (DRB) are currently reviewing the proposal and the Oversight Board is hopeful that it will be approved. Once the DRB is OK with the proposal it will pass over to the ACS Office and they will prepare a cost estimate after which a final decision by the Oversight Board will be made. -- Ed Christopher708-283-3534 (V)708-574-8131 (cell) FHWA RC-TST-PLN19900 Governors DrOlympia Fields, IL 60461 _______________________________________________ctpp-news mailing listctpp-news@chrispy.nethttp://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

15 years, 8 months

CTPP 3-year table request

by Ed Christopher

Earlier this month the AASHTO CTPP Oversight Board submitted a request for a special tabulation of 3-year ACS tables. For those who might not remember, just over a year ago the Oversight Board submitted a similar request that met with some harsh disclosure and suppression rules. After an appeal of the rules failed, the Oversight Board set up a subcommittee to develop a new request that hopefully would be more favorably received by the Census Bureau's Disclosure Review Board. It was believed that now that the disclosure proofing rules are known it would be possible to design data tables that would yield the maximum utility possible while still adhering to the rules. A copy of the new table request letter and tables can be found at the following locations respectively. http://trbcensus.com/aashto/docs/CTPP_3-year_table_request.pdf http://trbcensus.com/aashto/docs/CTPPtables-09apr01-1.xls One of the major differences of the new request from last year’s is that modes used to go to work have been collapsed. In 2008 we were asking for crosstabs using 5, 8 and 11 modes. With the 2009 request we are asking for 3, 5, 6 and 10 modes. In addition to the collapsed modes the number of variables crossed with “Means of Transportation to Work” has been reduced from about 17 to 5. The 5 variables include travel time to work, household income, vehicles available, age and time leaving home to go to work. Of course it will not be known which tables will pass the disclosure rules until we actually see the tables. The is also none univariate table with all 18 modes. When reviewing the potential tables do not forget that the 3-year ACS is only for areas with more than 20,000 residents. The Census Bureau and their Disclosure Review Board (DRB) are currently reviewing the proposal and the Oversight Board is hopeful that it will be approved. Once the DRB is OK with the proposal it will pass over to the ACS Office and they will prepare a cost estimate after which a final decision by the Oversight Board will be made. -- Ed Christopher 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) FHWA RC-TST-PLN 19900 Governors Dr Olympia Fields, IL 60461

15 years, 8 months

Re: [CTPP] Re: ctpp-news Digest, Vol 62, Issue 9

by Patty Becker

I agree completely. We use tracts only (1) in thematic maps with broad categories, or (2) for aggregation. This goes for all uses of ACS data, not just CTPP. Patty Becker At 07:50 PM 4/16/2009, you wrote: >Todd Graham makes all the right points. CTPP is statistically very >thin (and IMO not usable at any fine granularity such as CT, let alone TAZ). > >Keith > >On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 1:16 PM, ><<mailto:ctpp-news-request@chrispy.net>ctpp-news-request(a)chrispy.net> wrote: >Send ctpp-news mailing list submissions to > <mailto:ctpp-news@chrispy.net>ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > ><http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news>http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > <mailto:ctpp-news-request@chrispy.net>ctpp-news-request(a)chrispy.net > >You can reach the person managing the list at > <mailto:ctpp-news-owner@chrispy.net>ctpp-news-owner(a)chrispy.net > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of ctpp-news digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. RE: RE: Census Bureau Federal Register Notice on New > DataDisclosure Restrictions (Michael Moan) > 2. remove (Brian Raimondo) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:42:30 -0400 >From: "Michael Moan" <<mailto:MMoan@doa.ri.gov>MMoan(a)doa.ri.gov> >Subject: RE: [CTPP] RE: Census Bureau Federal Register Notice on New > DataDisclosure Restrictions >To: <<mailto:ctpp-news@chrispy.net>ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> >Message-ID: <<mailto:s9e5f27d.037@ri.gov>s9e5f27d.037(a)ri.gov> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > >Yes this is too much and one of the reasons I opted out last time. > > > >>> <mailto:JSabula@rideuta.com>JSabula(a)rideuta.com 4/15/2009 1:38 PM >>> >Is there a way to reply just to the person you are conversing with? I >would rather access these messages on the discussion board if I'm >interested than empty my inbox once an hour. > >Julianne Sabula >Utah Transit Authority > > >-----Original Message----- >From: <mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net>ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net >[mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Agnello, Paul >Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:22 AM >To: Ed Christopher; Graham, Todd; Penny Weinberger; ><mailto:ctpp-news@chrispy.net>ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net >Cc: Memmott, Jeff <RITA>; ><mailto:kcooper@dot.state.nv.us>kcooper(a)dot.state.nv.us; ><mailto:amy.thomas@ky.gov>amy.thomas(a)ky.gov; ><mailto:robbins@wsdot.wa.gov>robbins(a)wsdot.wa.gov; Murakami,Elaine; ><mailto:ayalew.adamu@dot.ca.gov>ayalew.adamu(a)dot.ca.gov; ><mailto:sandy.beaupre@dot.state.wi.us>sandy.beaupre(a)dot.state.wi.us; ><mailto:willimasjs@dot.state.al.us>willimasjs(a)dot.state.al.us; ><mailto:bobbi.retzlaff@dot.state.wi.us>bobbi.retzlaff(a)dot.state.wi.us; ><mailto:dhardy@ampo.org>dhardy(a)ampo.org; ><mailto:nerlbaum@dot.state.ny.us>nerlbaum(a)dot.state.ny.us; ><mailto:donna.weaver@po.state.ct.us>donna.weaver(a)po.state.ct.us; ><mailto:pleasantmd@scdot.org>pleasantmd(a)scdot.org; ><mailto:huiwei.shen@dot.state.fl.us>huiwei.shen(a)dot.state.fl.us; ><mailto:kmiller@njtpa.org>kmiller(a)njtpa.org; ><mailto:rdenbow@ampo.org>rdenbow(a)ampo.org; ><mailto:Ron.fields@arkansashighways.com>Ron.fields(a)arkansashighways.com; ><mailto:jonette.kreideweis@dot.state.mn.us>jonette.kreideweis(a)dot.state.mn.us; ><mailto:nsrinivasan@nas.edu>nsrinivasan(a)nas.edu; ><mailto:phil.mescher@dot.state.ia.us>phil.mescher(a)dot.state.ia.us; >Curling,Samuel F.; Weiner,Ed <OST>; >Pickard, Andy,P.E.; ><mailto:virginia.porta@arkansashighways.com>virginia.porta(a)arkansashighways.com; >Tambellini, >Rick L.; Fred(a)NARC.org >Subject: [CTPP] RE: Census Bureau Federal Register Notice on New >DataDisclosure Restrictions > > >From a state planning perspective, I think it is very disappointing >(whether it is due to new tighter disclosure rules or the statistical >reliability issue) that it appears that states and MPOs will not have >the same quality of CTPP data available in 2010 as in 2000 and previous >census cycles. Particularly since states are paying considerably more >for the next CTPP than for 2000. Virginia's share more than tripled in >cost from 2000 to 2010. I agree with the earlier point that if states >are paying for the special tabulations, there should not be these new >disclosure restrictions governing the release of the data. I am not >clear on why the disclosure restrictions are even an issue since I am >not aware of any past disclosure issues with the 2000 or prior CTPP and >mining CTPP data would not appear to be a particularly effective way for >someone to try to find out personal info. about someone else. If this is >such an issue, why was it not a problem in the past? > >While it may be too late to fix the problems associated with data >quality/content for the next CTPP, I'm wondering if there are ways that >the ACS sample could be increased with additional federal and/or state >support in the future so that this statistical reliability issue could >be addressed, perhaps in a process similar to the way NHTS is done, or >perhaps CTPP data needs to come from a different source long term if the >ACS data is not reliable enough to meet state and metropolitan planning >needs. > >Decision makers increasingly want to see more robust technical tools >and analysis which to support planning analysis which requires more >detailed data at the small area from sources such as ACS, CTPP, NHTS, >etc., and major conferences, e.g., TRB, and federal agencies have >supported better data for transportation planning for years. Therefore, >from a state perspective, the Census Bureau's proposed policy change run >counter, not only to prevailing trends, but to the policies from other >federal transportation agencies. > > >------------------------------------------- >Paul T. Agnello >Travel Demand Modeling Manager >Virginia Department of Transportation >Transportation & Mobility Planning Division >1401 East Broad Street Telephone (804) 786-2531 >Richmond, Virginia 23219-2000 Fax (804) 225-4785 >E-mail: mailto:paul.agnello@VDOT.Virginia.gov >Website: <http://www.virginiadot.org/>http://www.virginiadot.org/ >* CONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVACY NOTICE - The documents included in this >transmission may contain information that is confidential and/or legally >privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or >agent responsible for delivering the information to the intended >recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, >distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of these >documents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this document in >error, please notify the sender immediately to arrange for return or >destruction of these documents. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ed Christopher [mailto:edc@berwyned.com] >Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:07 AM >To: Graham, Todd; Penny Weinberger >Cc: Murakami, Elaine; Agnello, Paul; ><mailto:banningag@michigan.gov>banningag(a)michigan.gov; ><mailto:sandy.beaupre@dot.state.wi.us>sandy.beaupre(a)dot.state.wi.us; ><mailto:kcooper@dot.state.nv.us>kcooper(a)dot.state.nv.us; ><mailto:jonette.kreideweis@dot.state.mn.us>jonette.kreideweis(a)dot.state.mn.us; ><mailto:phil.mescher@dot.state.ia.us>phil.mescher(a)dot.state.ia.us; ><mailto:ayalew.adamu@dot.ca.gov>ayalew.adamu(a)dot.ca.gov; ><mailto:pleasantmd@scdot.org>pleasantmd(a)scdot.org; ><mailto:virginia.porta@arkansashighways.com>virginia.porta(a)arkansashighways.com; ><mailto:bobbi.retzlaff@dot.state.wi.us>bobbi.retzlaff(a)dot.state.wi.us; ><mailto:robbins@wsdot.wa.gov>robbins(a)wsdot.wa.gov; ><mailto:huiwei.shen@dot.state.fl.us>huiwei.shen(a)dot.state.fl.us; ><mailto:amy.thomas@ky.gov>amy.thomas(a)ky.gov; ><mailto:donna.weaver@po.state.ct.us>donna.weaver(a)po.state.ct.us; ><mailto:willimasjs@dot.state.al.us>willimasjs(a)dot.state.al.us; ><mailto:sharon.ju@h-gac.com>sharon.ju(a)h-gac.com; ><mailto:kmiller@njtpa.org>kmiller(a)njtpa.org; Pickard, Andy, P.E.; ><mailto:creschovsky@mwcog.org>creschovsky(a)mwcog.org; ><mailto:grousseau@atlantaregional.com>grousseau(a)atlantaregional.com; >Fred(a)NARC.org; ><mailto:rdenbow@ampo.org>rdenbow(a)ampo.org; ><mailto:dhardy@ampo.org>dhardy(a)ampo.org; ><mailto:rmccready@aashto.org>rmccready(a)aashto.org; Memmott, >Jeff <RITA>; <mailto:nsrinivasan@nas.edu>nsrinivasan(a)nas.edu; >Weiner, Ed <OST>; ><mailto:Ron.fields@arkansashighways.com>Ron.fields(a)arkansashighways.com; ><mailto:nerlbaum@dot.state.ny.us>nerlbaum(a)dot.state.ny.us >Subject: Re: Census Bureau Federal Register Notice on New Data >Disclosure Restrictions > >Todd--You should have posted to the full CTPP listserve. You make all > >good points that people need to think about. One point of >clarification >is that the AASHTO CTPP Oversight Board has sent a new proposal of >tables over to the CB for 3-year data and in fact the mode to work >questions are rolled up. I believe the largest roll-up is 3 modes: >auto, other and total. I took on the task of posting the new tables to > >the Listserve but haven't done so yet. The tables are still fresh off > >the press and I will not be able to get to it till Thursday. > >One point that is missed in all of this is that with the 3-year data we > >are talking about a zone system with 20,000 people per zone. That is >the size of 7 or so tracts. Pretty big when you are talking about >planning within a region. Even though you are right about the >statistical quality of the data the CB is not telling us there is a >statistical reason for suppressing the data. They are basing it solely > >on disclosure requirements. Disclosure requirements and arguments that > > can not be proven. Another point that is missed is that the old long > >form data suffered from the same relative thinness at the tract, block > >group and TAZ level. At those levels of geography many of the same >tables that are not passing the disclosure rules now would not have >passed then. Yes, the data today is a little thinner but that has >never >been the issue. > >One last point is that CTPP has always been a special tabulation and if > >you push the issue far enough logic should dictate that someone >purchasing a special tabulation should be allowed to buy whatever data > >they want no matter how crappy it is. In 1980 the CB used to sell us >the data with a "caveat emptor" sticker on it. > >Putting all the cards on the table does point to why synthetic data for > >small area analysis is so important. Unfortunately there are not only > >statistical issues of methodology to deal with but also practical >issues >of political acceptance within the community. > >Graham, Todd wrote: > > State and MPO colleagues-- > > > > Discussions about Census data disclosure have been making the rounds. > I wanted to share a few thoughts with the SCOP Census Data Work >Group... > > > > Re: protecting the individual confidentiality of respondents. True, >the Bureau itself is standing this up as their decision basis (it's a >legally powerful position). But I think the larger, latent, real concern >among the Bureau statisticians is statistical reliability. > > > > We know ACS sampling is thin (1 in 8 households surveyed, 60-65% >response rates?) and temporally spread out... And we know there will be >large numbers of individual data cells in the planned CTPP-from-ACS >tabs where estimates would be based on just 1 or 2 respondents. As a >statistician, I really don't like this. Resulting estimates are not >robust. (There's great uncertainty around whether the 1 or 2 survey >respondents should represent 10-20 other people - or perhaps, by freak >luck, the 1 or 2 persons are unique. There is real probability of 1 or 2 >respondents being *not* representative.) This is particularly true in >the most highly-detailed crosstabs. Hundreds of cells in a table *will* >result in many cells with small numbers. > > > > I know some members of SCOP have been drafting comments in response >to the Fed Register Notice. Some of these comments will make emphatic >proposals that we must have fully populated CTPP tables. I worry that >this line of reasoning won't have much traction at Census Bureau... >And really, do we believe that any numbers (regardless of statistical >reliability) are better than no numbers? > > > > As a statistician, I disagree - and I think there are creative >alternatives that are viable: (1) SCOP and Census Data Workgroup have >discussed data synthesis techniques to simulate or synthesize the >desired details. Or (2), a more conventional solution, more highly >aggregated ("rolled up") categorization in the CTPP-from-ACS tabs. What >SCOP requested in 2007 looks a lot like CTPP 2000 -- even though we knew >that ACS Survey sampling is thinner than Census 2000. > > > > Sorry to bring this up, but here goes: AASHTO SCOP should revisit >the CTPP-from-ACS design, reopen it for discussion, go back to the >drawing board, and consider more highly aggregated ("rolled up") >categorizations in the CTPP-from-ACS tabs. Do we really need 10 (or 17) >categories of mode of travel (can we live with fewer)? Do we really >need 25 categories of household income (can we live with fewer)? Do we >really need tabs with travel-start-time expressed in 15-minute >intervals?? > > > > I know there are sunken costs already. Still, my candid advice: >AASHTO SCOP and other funding partners in the CTPP need to take a deep >breath... and consider revising the special tabs requests. And Census >Bureau should cooperate and enable such a new plan. > > > > I understand that people are up-at-arms about this. (Census Bureau, >for their part, waited until 2008 to clearly signal that there would be >a tighter data disclosure regime than experienced in CTPP 2000...) But >the realpolitic is: Census Bureau statisticians have already decided >this matter -- isn't the Fed Register notice just a formality? -- and >from the standpoint of good statistical science, their decision is >right. > > > > -- Todd Graham > > > > > > > > ________________________ > > > > Todd Graham > > Principal Forecaster > > Metropolitan Council > > 390 Robert Street North > > Saint Paul, MN 55101 > > > > phone 651/602-1322 > > email <mailto:todd.graham@metc.state.mn.us>todd.graham(a)metc.state.mn.us > > web <http://www.metrocouncil.org>www.metrocouncil.org > > www.metrocouncil.org/metroarea/stats.htm > > ________________________ > > > > > > > >-- >Ed Christopher >708-283-3534 (V) >708-574-8131 (cell) > >FHWA RC-TST-PLN >19900 Governors Dr >Olympia Fields, IL 60461 > > >_______________________________________________ >ctpp-news mailing list ><mailto:ctpp-news@chrispy.net>ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net >http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news > >_______________________________________________ >ctpp-news mailing list ><mailto:ctpp-news@chrispy.net>ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net >http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:41:36 -0400 >From: "Brian Raimondo" <<mailto:braimondo@swfrpc.org>braimondo(a)swfrpc.org> >Subject: [CTPP] remove >To: <<mailto:ctpp-news@chrispy.net>ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> >Message-ID: > ><<mailto:51C7115D89DD7F4FA0D991DBE96511837493D9@exchange.corp.swfrpc.org>51C7115D89DD7F4FA0D991DBE96511837493D9(a)exchange.corp.swfrpc.org> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Please remove me from all the mailing lists. >

15 years, 8 months

5-year ACS Standard Products (Federal Register Notice)

by Ed Christopher

I just received a set of comments from the Michigan DOT and permission to post them. You can find them at http://trbcensus.com/acs/5-year_product/fed_register_03-06-2009/MIDOT.pdf -- Ed Christopher 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) FHWA Resource Center 19900 Governors Dr Olympia Fields, IL 60461

15 years, 8 months

5-year ACS Standard Products (Federal Register Notice)

by Ed Christopher

On April 20th the response is due back to the Census Bureau on the Federal Register Notice seeking comments on the proposed 5-year ACS Standard Products. The Notice can be found at http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/FedRegNotice_E9-4803.pdf Responding to the Notice the responses from both AASHTO and FHWA are posted at these locations respectively. http://trbcensus.com/aashto/docs/AASHTO_comments_5-year_ACS_products.pdf http://trbcensus.com/acs/5-year_product/fed_register_03-06-2009/FHWA.pdf If anyone else submitted comments and can share them please feel free to pass them along. -- Ed Christopher 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) FHWA RC-TST-PLN 19900 Governors Dr Olympia Fields, IL 60461

15 years, 8 months

Jump to page:

2025

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