Hi Everyone,
I am looking to find the most up to date CTPP disks. Can you please direct me to the contact person to obtain these? Thanks!
Angie Byrne
Transportation Planner
Western Arkansas Planning & Development District
Bi-State Metropolitan Planning Organization
1109 S. 16th Street
P.O. Box 2067
Fort Smith AR, 72902
Office: 479-785-2651
Fax: 479-785-1964
abyrne(a)wapdd.org
-----Original Message-----
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net
[mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net]On Behalf Of Tom Reinauer
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:56 AM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: [CTPP] RE: CTPP Update - Another Question
Hi there,
I addition to Bill's questions below, I'd like to find out what if any
processes are underway or planned to better coordinate the
definition/establishment of the Fed urbanized areas with transportation
planning and funding (maybe coord between the Census Bureau, FTA and
FHWA).
It has always appeared that the UZA boundaries are established with no
consideration for transportation, but transportation funding is based on
UZA boundaries and the pop/lane miles/etc. within them. In Maine, for
example, the Maine Mall area is huge and probably be biggest traffic
generation area in the state. However, since no on lives there (certain
teenagers not withstanding), it is not included in the UZA. Nor is the
Portland Jetport, etc.
Although some "smoothing" often occurs in the UAZ boundaries, large
areas such as these usually are not incorporated. Any thoughts? --Tom
Tom Reinauer, Transportation Director
Southern Maine RPC & Kittery Area MPO
21 Bradeen St. Suite 304
Springvale, ME 04083
(207)324-2952 Ext. 18
(207)324-2958 fax
treinauer(a)smrpc.org
www.smrpc.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Moore [mailto:bmoore@pueblo.us]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:16 PM
To: 'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net'
Subject: CTPP Update - Another Question
This may not pertain directly to the CTPP, but is another 2010 Census
issue that may (again) have some significant effects on MPOs. At this
point, I don't think I've seen any discussions of the definitions or
criteria that will be used to define the various land areas comprising
an Urban Area.
Will they be the same as those used in the 2000 Census or are there also
plans to change some or all of them? How will the Census UA standards
handle annexations of vacant land into incorporated cities? (i.e. Will
the UA boundaries automatically adjust to the new corporate limits, or
will the population, distance, and density criteria "override" the
legal/institutional changes?) What about so-called "lariat" or
"flagpole" annexations in states where these are legal?
I'd appreciate any early insights anyone may have about this issue.
Bill Moore
MPO Administrator
Pueblo MPO/TPR
This e-mail transmission (including any attachments) contains
information that is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you received this e-mail
in error, we request that you contact us immediately by telephone or
return e-mail, and that you delete this message from your computer. If
you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly
prohibited.
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
Dear Everyone:
During the CTPP webinars held in May and June, and additional
discussions passed along from the State Data Center listserv, questions
about Income and Poverty from the American Community Survey were raised.
We asked CB staff for help and they have provided these links. In the
interest of time, I am passing them along to the listserv, although I
have not read most of them myself.
If we have specific questions, we can ask Ed Welniak at the CB for
assistance.
Also, if you have a recommendation for an NCHRP 08-36 research project
(AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning)
http://www.trb.org/trbnet/projectdisplay.asp?projectid=909 , please send
your 1-page research idea to Jonette Kreideweis
Jonette.kreideweis(a)dot.state.mn.us
There are 2 current NCHRP 08-36 projects related to ACS in progress.
See tasks 71 and 81 in the list above.
When to use various demographic household survey data:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2007/guidance_acs_cps.htmhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/description.html
Comparing the ACS to the CPS, "Evaluation of Income Estimates"
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/Evaluation_of_Income_Estimates31
207.doc
Split panel test using previous 12 month and previous calendar year as
reference periods:
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/AdvMeth/Papers/ACS/Paper16.htm
Another paper from 2003 ASA meetings --
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/ACS/ASA_nelson.pdf
Bruce Webster's most recent ASA paper comparing CPS and ACS income using
exact match data:
(See attached file: Webster 2007 ASA CPS-ACS Paper.doc)
Census: Subject definitions:
"For several reasons, the income data shown in census tabulations are
not directly comparable with those that may be obtained from statistical
summaries of income tax returns. Income, as defined for federal tax
purposes, differs somewhat from the Census Bureau concept. Moreover, the
coverage of income tax statistics is different because of the exemptions
of people having small amounts of income and the inclusion of net
capital gains in tax returns. Furthermore, members of some families file
separate returns and others file joint returns; consequently, the income
reporting unit is not consistently either a family or a person."
Elaine Murakami
FHWA Office of Planning
206-220-4460
On May 21 and June 4 members of the CTPP team conducted a series of
webinars to help bring our community up-to-speed on several of the CTPP
activities. The slides from these presentations can be downloaded from
our webinar room at http://fhwa.acrobat.com/ctpp1 (enter as a guest) and
the responses to many of the questions asked during the meetings are
presented below. If folks have additional questions please feel free to
post them to the list serve and someone on the CTPP team will attempt to
answer them.
CTPP Webinar - Questions and Answers
Question: Will the 3-year CTPP data product based on ACS include tables
by race and household income?
Response: Yes but the best source for information on race will still be
the Census Bureau's standard ACS tabulations found on American
FactFinder (http://factfinder.census.gov/). The 3-year CTPP proposed
tables for parts 1 and 2 include a few tables with the variable
"minority status." Also, there are various tables with the variables -
Income, Poverty Status and Worker Earnings that will be available.
Please note that Poverty Status is a calculated variable based on
household income, family size, number of children and number of family
members over the age of 65.
Question: Since the new CTPP products will be based on data collected
over 3 years (or 5 years), to which year will the income be adjusted?
Response: Income will be adjusted to the last year of the survey
period. For the first 3-year product all incomes will adjusted to
2007.
Question: Is there data available on zero car households? If yes, what
geography level is it available?
Response: Yes, there will be information available for zero car
households in both the 3-year CTPP data product and as part of the
standard Census products. The data will be available for geographic
areas greater than 20,000 residents.
Question: Slides 6 & 7 of the DRB presentation show different
percentages of data lost due to DRB rules, why is that?
Response: Slide 6 showed the number of workers lost while slide 7
showed the number of origin-destination pairs lost. The point is that
when thresholds were applied to CTPP Part 3 data as was the case with
the 2000 data, many folks looked at the loss of workers as being
significant but more surprising was actual loss of individual O-D
pairs. All in all table thresholds devastated the part 3 flow data.
Question: 2005 ACS data doesn't have information on Group Quarters, but
the 2006 and 2007 do. How is this being handled in the 3-year 2007 ACS
products?
Response: The Group Quarter data available for 2 years (2006 and 2007)
will be reweighed to account for the missing year.
Question: Will the variable - Means of Transportation to Work have walk
and bike modes combined? Also, what about taxi, bus and other?
Response: Regarding the 3-year CTPP data product there are multiple
category lists for the variable - Means of Transportation to Work.
There are a few tables all 17 modes plus the total are shown separately
but then there are many others where walk and bike have been collapsed
together. A great deal of the detail on the mode variable is in the
hands of the Census Bureau's disclosure Review Board. Currently they
have proposed some very tight restrictions on the proposed 3-year CTPP
tables. Please see http://trbcensus.com/drb/ for more
Question: Do you have anything on the TAZ definition timeframe that you
can share with the group?
Response: Please see our Status Report newsletter for the latest
http://www.TRBcensus.com/newsltr/sr052008.pdf.
Question: Can you talk about the difference in income between ACS and
Long Form?
Response: In Census 2000, the question was asked during April for the
previous year, 1999. Because April is so close to IRS annual return
data it was felt that "good" income data was being collected because it
was fresh in people's minds. However, for the ACS the same questions
are asked, but the respondent could be getting the survey during any
month of year (depending on when she/he received the form). This
reported income is then adjusted to the current year (year of
tabulation) based on CPI. There are several issues with this with the
largest being that at anytime during the year most people do not how
much money they made in the last 12 months. Needless to say the income
question is messy.
Question: Poverty rates seem discontinuous, higher. Any ideas why?
Response: Yes, they are discontinuous. Hopefully they will look better
with the 3-year ACS data products.
Question: If the DRB is so strict with its rules then why bother with
new TAZs?
Response: We hope that the DRB will relax its rules but having TAZs
that correspond to the ACS data release products (65,000 pop TAZs,
20,000 pop TAZs and small TAZs) will help us in the future all sorts of
data products. Having geography match the data release seems to make
good sense so that we can at least get complete coverage (wall-to-wall)
within a region.
Question: What are the implications of rising fuel prices on travel
choices on mode to work? Has anybody thought about it, especially with
aggregating 3 years worth of data? Since the ACS asks about "usual"
mode, it could still miss modes used only part of the time.
Response: The 3 year ACS trend data might look a lot different than the
2000 data. This might be a good research question.
Question: Is the category list for the variable - occupation being
consolidated?
Response: No, DRB has not asked us to collapse the variables - industry
or occupation.
Question: Is anybody planning to write to Congress about the DRB issue?
Response: AASHTO SCOP is sending a letter to the Census Bureau to appeal
the DRB decision. As FHWA staff, we cannot contact Congress directly
but we know that many regional agencies do talk with their Congressional
delegations. It is somewhat ironic but many of the congressionally
mandated analysis like the FTA New Starts program and environmental
justice analysis all need data at a smaller geography level which will
be difficult to obtain with the DRB's current rules.
Question: We are relatively a new MPO and I have a CTPP 101 question.
As an MPO do we need to provide you any information, and what are our
sources of information regarding CTPP specifically regarding TAZs?
Response: The CTPP listserve is a good place for information regarding
ongoing CTPP related activities. The TAZ definition process is planned
for March/April of 2009 and it is recommended that MPO's allocate some
budget when preparing their work plans for FY 2009, especially for new
MPOs. The CTPP Status Report is also a good source of information. If
you have any particular questions please do not hesitate to contact
anyone one of us on the CTPP team.
Question: Somewhere it was noted the first CTPP ACS product would be
available in 2009 for areas of 20,000 or more for places and counties.
Response: Yes that is correct. We are still in the negotiation stage
regarding some DRB issues but this is our GOAL. This first CTPP product
would use 3 years of ACS
data.
Question: There was also a mention of TAZ level data also for 20,000
population threshold. However, I am not sure if this is included in the
first 3 year product for 2009, or whether the first TAZ level report
will not be available until 2012 with a 5 year product.
Response: To get "small" area geography like a TAZ or a census tract,
the census requires 5 years of ACS data. So, we are planning to wait for
2006 thru 2010 ACS data to incorporate 2010 Census geography and
weights, which we hope would be tabulated by 2012. This will likely
require some data synthesis before release. Because of the probability
that the data will be synthetic, we do not anticipate any population
threshold.
--
Ed Christopher
Resource Center Planning Team
Federal Highway Administration
19900 Governors Drive
Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461
708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell)
708-283-3501 (F)
Paul Mission will be out of the office starting June 27 and will return on July 8, 2008. If you need immediate assistance, please contact the office manager at SRPEDD. (508) 824-1367 info(a)srpedd.org.
Paul Mission will be out of the office starting June 27 and will return on July 8, 2008. If you need immediate assistance, please contact the office manager at SRPEDD. (508) 824-1367 info(a)srpedd.org.
Paul Mission will be out of the office starting June 27 and will return on July 8, 2008. If you need immediate assistance, please contact the office manager at SRPEDD. (508) 824-1367 info(a)srpedd.org.
Paul Mission will be out of the office starting June 27 and will return on July 8, 2008. If you need immediate assistance, please contact the office manager at SRPEDD. (508) 824-1367 info(a)srpedd.org.
Paul Mission will be out of the office starting June 27 and will return on July 8, 2008. If you need immediate assistance, please contact the office manager at SRPEDD. (508) 824-1367 info(a)srpedd.org.
Paul Mission will be out of the office starting June 27 and will return on July 8, 2008. If you need immediate assistance, please contact the office manager at SRPEDD. (508) 824-1367 info(a)srpedd.org.
Hold on, all - aren't we living in a time where "everyone and their little
brother" has a GIS? Nothing either existing now or proposed for the
future CTPP is going to prevent anyone from developing zones at whatever
level of geographic focus needed. You can use Census blocks or something
even smaller if you want and you're all set to geocode population,
housing, local data coded to street addresses and probably detailed
employment data (depending on the source you use). The only thing you
won't have at that level of geography is all the info from what the Census
used to call the "long form" that you'll just have to allocate down from
higher levels of geography like the county. (Which we all should have
been doing all along anyway given the high percentage of either missing or
inconsistent answers provided on these longer surveys.)
Sam Granato
Ohio DOT, Office of Technical Services
1980 W. Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43223
Phone: 614-644-6796, Fax: 614-752-8646
"Platitude: an idea that a) is admitted to be true by everyone, and b) is
not true." - H. L. Mencken
>From a small (~135,000 pop) MPO perspective, the implications of these
super-TAZs for travel demand modeling are devastating. If 65K, we would
have two TAZs; if 20K, we would have six or seven. Fortunately, we are
also an attainment area and are not mandated to do modeling at all;
however a new TMA with population of 200,000 would be so mandated and
would have a total of three or 10, respectively, so it would become
virtually impossible to do modeling for AQ conformity.
The four MPOs (howdy, Larry) along the Front Range are trying to develop
an integrated model for a population of ~3.5 million, so at 65K would
have only 54 TAZs, or at 20K only 175. The latter number is far less
than we now have (306) in the Pueblo MPO - the smallest of the four.
Bill Moore, MPO Administrator
PACOG MPO/TPR
