Ed,
I'm not quite sure what is meant by the following statement from your
messge below: "All of these
geographies could be aggregated to PUMAs if desired by the MPO/State.
And of course, all zones would have to nest within counties."
I assume by "all of these geographies" you mean tracts and block groups.
If so, it is correct that tracts and block groups generally will aggregate
to PUMAs. "Generally" is the operative word here because PUMAs generally
are defined using either tracts or counties as "building blocks." Since
block groups nest within tracts, which nest within counties, there usually
is a nice, neat relationship between block groups, tracts, counties, and
PUMAs. The exception is when a PUMA follows the boundary of a principal
city of a metropolitan statistical area. In that situation, block groups
and tracts will not aggregate to the PUMA. This situation tends to be the
exception rather than the rule.
The Census Bureau has not developed plans for updating PUMA boundaries for
2010. That said, at this time I don't foresee any substantive changes to
the way in which PUMAs are delineated.
Mike Ratcliffe
______________________________________
Michael R. Ratcliffe
Chief, Geographic Standards and Criteria Branch
Geography Division
U.S. Census Bureau
301-763-8977
michael.r.ratcliffe(a)census.gov
ed christopher
<edc(a)berwyned.com
> To
Sent by: ctpp-news maillist
ctpp-news-bounces <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>
@chrispy.net cc
Subject
03/07/2007 01:38 [CTPP] TAZ Update
PM
Last October Elaine Murakami posted an email to this listserve
(http://www.chrispy.net/pipermail/ctpp-news/2006-October/001517.html)
updating folks on the discussions that are underway between FHWA and the
Census Bureau (CB) Geography Division regarding the definition of new
TAZs to be used for the 5-year special tabulation of the ACS data.
Since that time further progress has been made. It looks like MPOs and
State DOTs would be working on their TAZs toward the end of 2008 and
early 2009 with TAZs being submitted in the middle of 2009. This is
important because many areas are already preparing their work programs
to cover this time frame. Exactly, how much work will be involved is
not yet known.
The plan (desire) is to use a GIS-based approach similar to that used
for the TAZ definition for the CTPP2000. We would like a system that
does not require special licensing of GIS software and is user friendly
much like the TAZ-UP effort used for CTPP2000. As an historic note, the
TAZ-UP program for CTPP2000 was developed as an add-on to ArcView 3.1
and required users to have a licensed version of ArcView.
Currently, FHWA staff has asked the CB to plan for the software to
create three levels of TAZs that nest within each other. The smallest
is a base TAZ that would be similar to the traditional small area
geography TAZs used in 2000 and 1990 . The next size, or medium sized
TAZs, would be aggregates of the base TAZs (about 4,000 population) and
the larger size (about 20,000 population) TAZs would be aggregates of
the medium TAZs. This is very akin to Blocks being aggregated to Block
Groups and then Block Groups being aggregated to Tracts. All of these
geographies could be aggregated to PUMAs if desired by the MPO/State.
And of course, all zones would have to nest within counties.
There are still quite a few details to be fleshed out but for now it is
important to recognize that some staff time on the part of the MPOs and
States will be required if an area wishes to define TAZs. Updates to
these activities will be posted on this listserve and in quarterly
Status Report newsletter which can be found online at
http://www.trbcensus.com/ or http://www.dot.gov/ctpp
--
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)
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
Mike--Thanks for clearing that up. I am glad that you pointed this
out. You explained it far better than I ever could.
michael.r.ratcliffe(a)census.gov wrote:
>
> Ed,
>
> I'm not quite sure what is meant by the following statement from your
> messge below: "All of these geographies could be aggregated to PUMAs
> if desired by the MPO/State. And of course, all zones would have to
> nest within counties."
>
> I assume by "all of these geographies" you mean tracts and block groups.
> If so, it is correct that tracts and block groups generally will aggregate
> to PUMAs. "Generally" is the operative word here because PUMAs generally
> are defined using either tracts or counties as "building blocks." Since
> block groups nest within tracts, which nest within counties, there usually
> is a nice, neat relationship between block groups, tracts, counties, and
> PUMAs. The exception is when a PUMA follows the boundary of a principal
> city of a metropolitan statistical area. In that situation, block groups
> and tracts will not aggregate to the PUMA. This situation tends to be the
> exception rather than the rule.
>
> The Census Bureau has not developed plans for updating PUMA boundaries for
> 2010. That said, at this time I don't foresee any substantive changes to
> the way in which PUMAs are delineated.
>
> Mike Ratcliffe
> ______________________________________
> Michael R. Ratcliffe
> Chief, Geographic Standards and Criteria Branch
> Geography Division
> U.S. Census Bureau
> 301-763-8977
> michael.r.ratcliffe(a)census.gov
>
>
> From: ed christopher
> To: ctpp-news maillist
>
> Last October Elaine Murakami posted an email to this listserve
> (http://www.chrispy.net/pipermail/ctpp-news/2006-October/001517.html)
> updating folks on the discussions that are underway between FHWA and the
> Census Bureau (CB) Geography Division regarding the definition of new
> TAZs to be used for the 5-year special tabulation of the ACS data.
> Since that time further progress has been made. It looks like MPOs and
> State DOTs would be working on their TAZs toward the end of 2008 and
> early 2009 with TAZs being submitted in the middle of 2009. This is
> important because many areas are already preparing their work programs
> to cover this time frame. Exactly, how much work will be involved is
> not yet known.
>
> The plan (desire) is to use a GIS-based approach similar to that used
> for the TAZ definition for the CTPP2000. We would like a system that
> does not require special licensing of GIS software and is user friendly
> much like the TAZ-UP effort used for CTPP2000. As an historic note, the
> TAZ-UP program for CTPP2000 was developed as an add-on to ArcView 3.1
> and required users to have a licensed version of ArcView.
>
> Currently, FHWA staff has asked the CB to plan for the software to
> create three levels of TAZs that nest within each other. The smallest
> is a base TAZ that would be similar to the traditional “small area
> geographyâ€{WP12,157} TAZs used in 2000 and 1990 . The next size, or medium sized
> TAZs, would be aggregates of the base TAZs (about 4,000 population) and
> the larger size (about 20,000 population) TAZs would be aggregates of
> the medium TAZs. This is very akin to Blocks being aggregated to Block
> Groups and then Block Groups being aggregated to Tracts. All of these
> geographies could be aggregated to PUMAs if desired by the MPO/State.
> And of course, all zones would have to nest within counties.
>
> There are still quite a few details to be fleshed out but for now it is
> important to recognize that some staff time on the part of the MPOs and
> States will be required if an area wishes to define TAZs. Updates to
> these activities will be posted on this listserve and in quarterly
> “Status Reportâ€{WP12,157} newsletter which can be found online at
> http://www.trbcensus.com/ or http://www.dot.gov/ctpp
>
> --
> 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)
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
Ed,
I'm not quite sure what is meant by the following statement from your
messge below: "All of these
geographies could be aggregated to PUMAs if desired by the MPO/State.
And of course, all zones would have to nest within counties."
I assume by "all of these geographies" you mean tracts and block groups.
If so, it is correct that tracts and block groups generally will aggregate
to PUMAs. "Generally" is the operative word here because PUMAs generally
are defined using either tracts or counties as "building blocks." Since
block groups nest within tracts, which nest within counties, there usually
is a nice, neat relationship between block groups, tracts, counties, and
PUMAs. The exception is when a PUMA follows the boundary of a principal
city of a metropolitan statistical area. In that situation, block groups
and tracts will not aggregate to the PUMA. This situation tends to be the
exception rather than the rule.
The Census Bureau has not developed plans for updating PUMA boundaries for
2010. That said, at this time I don't foresee any substantive changes to
the way in which PUMAs are delineated.
Mike Ratcliffe
______________________________________
Michael R. Ratcliffe
Chief, Geographic Standards and Criteria Branch
Geography Division
U.S. Census Bureau
301-763-8977
michael.r.ratcliffe(a)census.gov
ed christopher
<edc(a)berwyned.com
> To
Sent by: ctpp-news maillist
ctpp-news-bounces <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>
@chrispy.net cc
Subject
03/07/2007 01:38 [CTPP] TAZ Update
PM
Last October Elaine Murakami posted an email to this listserve
(http://www.chrispy.net/pipermail/ctpp-news/2006-October/001517.html)
updating folks on the discussions that are underway between FHWA and the
Census Bureau (CB) Geography Division regarding the definition of new
TAZs to be used for the 5-year special tabulation of the ACS data.
Since that time further progress has been made. It looks like MPOs and
State DOTs would be working on their TAZs toward the end of 2008 and
early 2009 with TAZs being submitted in the middle of 2009. This is
important because many areas are already preparing their work programs
to cover this time frame. Exactly, how much work will be involved is
not yet known.
The plan (desire) is to use a GIS-based approach similar to that used
for the TAZ definition for the CTPP2000. We would like a system that
does not require special licensing of GIS software and is user friendly
much like the TAZ-UP effort used for CTPP2000. As an historic note, the
TAZ-UP program for CTPP2000 was developed as an add-on to ArcView 3.1
and required users to have a licensed version of ArcView.
Currently, FHWA staff has asked the CB to plan for the software to
create three levels of TAZs that nest within each other. The smallest
is a base TAZ that would be similar to the traditional small area
geography TAZs used in 2000 and 1990 . The next size, or medium sized
TAZs, would be aggregates of the base TAZs (about 4,000 population) and
the larger size (about 20,000 population) TAZs would be aggregates of
the medium TAZs. This is very akin to Blocks being aggregated to Block
Groups and then Block Groups being aggregated to Tracts. All of these
geographies could be aggregated to PUMAs if desired by the MPO/State.
And of course, all zones would have to nest within counties.
There are still quite a few details to be fleshed out but for now it is
important to recognize that some staff time on the part of the MPOs and
States will be required if an area wishes to define TAZs. Updates to
these activities will be posted on this listserve and in quarterly
Status Report newsletter which can be found online at
http://www.trbcensus.com/ or http://www.dot.gov/ctpp
--
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)
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
Last October Elaine Murakami posted an email to this listserve
(http://www.chrispy.net/pipermail/ctpp-news/2006-October/001517.html)
updating folks on the discussions that are underway between FHWA and the
Census Bureau (CB) Geography Division regarding the definition of new
TAZs to be used for the 5-year special tabulation of the ACS data.
Since that time further progress has been made. It looks like MPOs and
State DOTs would be working on their TAZs toward the end of 2008 and
early 2009 with TAZs being submitted in the middle of 2009. This is
important because many areas are already preparing their work programs
to cover this time frame. Exactly, how much work will be involved is
not yet known.
The plan (desire) is to use a GIS-based approach similar to that used
for the TAZ definition for the CTPP2000. We would like a system that
does not require special licensing of GIS software and is user friendly
much like the TAZ-UP effort used for CTPP2000. As an historic note, the
TAZ-UP program for CTPP2000 was developed as an add-on to ArcView 3.1
and required users to have a licensed version of ArcView.
Currently, FHWA staff has asked the CB to plan for the software to
create three levels of TAZs that nest within each other. The smallest
is a base TAZ that would be similar to the traditional small area
geography TAZs used in 2000 and 1990 . The next size, or medium sized
TAZs, would be aggregates of the base TAZs (about 4,000 population) and
the larger size (about 20,000 population) TAZs would be aggregates of
the medium TAZs. This is very akin to Blocks being aggregated to Block
Groups and then Block Groups being aggregated to Tracts. All of these
geographies could be aggregated to PUMAs if desired by the MPO/State.
And of course, all zones would have to nest within counties.
There are still quite a few details to be fleshed out but for now it is
important to recognize that some staff time on the part of the MPOs and
States will be required if an area wishes to define TAZs. Updates to
these activities will be posted on this listserve and in quarterly
Status Report newsletter which can be found online at
http://www.trbcensus.com/ or http://www.dot.gov/ctpp
--
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)
What I did was to allocate uncoded in proportion to the observed
distribution. The bureau had a far more sophisticated approach than that. So
in the cook case a huge proportion of the Cook county unknowns would become
Cook to Cook.
Alan E. Pisarski
6501 Waterway Drive
Falls Church Va. 22044
703 941-4257
alanpisarski(a)alanpisarski.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net]
On Behalf Of siim soot
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 5:11 PM
To: Ed Christopher
Cc: ctpp-news maillist; siim soot
Subject: Re: [CTPP] New Website--Old Data
In the 1970 Chicago UTPP approximately 60% of the
work locations were geocoded to TAZs with 10%
assigned to ZIP code areas, 10% to city, 10% to
county with the remainder identified as not reported.
The Census provided the 'best' geography available.
We made a considerable effort to assign all the trips to
TAZs but these files are no longer available.
Regarding county-to-county flows it would be reasonable to
expect that the TAZ, ZIP and city destinations were assigned
to the appropriate county. One can only guess what was done
with the ca 10% not reported data.
Siim Sööt
On Thu, February 22, 2007 3:41 pm, Ed Christopher wrote:
> Chuck--If I understand you I could almost conclude that in the Chicago
> numbers that have been in play over 3 decades that we took the "place of
> work not reported" for our resident workers and counted them as internal
> flows. But that could not have happened. First the same pattern
> exists all the counties I checked. Cook to Cook, Dupage, Kane, Lake,
> Will and McHenry. The 1970 BEA numbers are low. It could be that our
> 1970 UTPP numbers were tweaked and if they were originally in the
> neighborhood of the BEA numbers I could see why. I need to check out
> that path as well.
>
> Chuck how do your 1970 numbers compare? Are they more in line with
> BEAs? Does anyone else have their 1970 CTPP numbers how do they
> compare?
>
> To give you an idea of magnitude here is what I am looking at for 1970.
>
> BEA----------UTPP
> 1,931,034----2,105,178 Cook to Cook
> 27,104---32624 Cook to Dupage
> 5,403---9,056 Cook to Kane
> 8,888---18,624 Cook to Lake
> 698---951 Cook to McHenry
> 3,853---4,299 Cook to Will
>
> I also have 43,076 Cook to elsewhere but I didn't add up all the BEA
> elsewheres.
>
> I also looked at DuPage to all the other counties and the same pattern
> prevailed.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [CTPP] New Website--Old Data
> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:33:57 -0800
> From: "Chuck Purvis" <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov>
> To: "Ed Christopher" <edc(a)berwyned.com>,"ctpp-news maillist"
> <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>
>
> Hi Ed:
>
> The 1970 Census data on the BEA website shows a separate row, at the
> very end of each county's table, for "place of work not reported". So,
> Cook County Illinois has 181,911 resident workers with place-of-work not
> reported, in 1970. Part of the mystery is solved.
>
> I believe all of the "standard" 1970 Census tabulations did NOTdo
> place-of-work allocation (imputation), so we would always see the "not
> reported" data for any county, place or tract.
>
> The 1970 Urban Transportation Package (UTP) probably had some
> allocation (imputation) procedure to allocate the "not reported"
> area-of-work to whatever geographies were used after the 1970 Census.
> This is a guess. I don't have extensive records of the 1970 process. [I
> do have the "Urban Transportation Factbook" published by the American
> Institute of Planners and the Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Assocation,
> in 1974, but it appears to be based on standard census tabulations, not
> the UTP....?] Perhaps the answers are hidden in the Census Bureau (maybe
> Phil can find the info before he retires next Friday? Or perhaps the
> answers are in the archives - - JJ McDonnell's papers, or Alan
> Pisarski's office....Perhaps some information is in the TRB Special
> Report #145 (the 1973 Albuquerque Census conference.)
>
> Happy hunting,
>
> Chuck
> **************************************************************
> Charles L. Purvis, AICP
> Principal Transportation Planner/Analyst
> Metropolitan Transportation Commission
> 101 Eighth Street
> Oakland, CA 94607-4700
> (510) 817-5755 (office) [new, 8/1/05]
> (510) 817-7848 (fax) [new, 8/1/05]
> www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
> Census WWW: http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/
> **************************************************************
>
>>>> Ed Christopher <edc(a)berwyned.com> 02/21/07 8:40 PM >>>
> Our friends (who I do not know) at the Bureau of Economic Analysis who
> do the Regional Economic Accounts revamped their historic (1970, 1980,
> 1990 and 2000) Journey to Work (JTW) data base and put a nice search
> engine to it. For years I have sent people to the BEA sight for JTW
> flows but with the new search engine and the 2000 data it is so easy to
> use. For 2000 they have added flows by major industry at the county
> level and by minor industry at the state level. You really need to
> check it out. http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/jtw/
>
> But then there is the nagging issue. Why do my historic CTPP/UTPP
> numbers and BEA not match. In 1970 and 1980 the two sources look to be
> off in different directions, but for 1990 they match and for 2000 it
> looks like a small rounding difference. Getting into the detail,
> attached is a comparison of the BEA/CTPP-UTPP numbers for Cook county
> IL, specifically the Cook to Cook flows. In 1980 BEA is about 2K higher
> out of 2M, but in 1970 BEA is in the neighborhood of 200K low. I know
> this keeps coming up, but why? Is the pattern the same around the
> country, BEA is high in 1980 and low in 1970? At some point we may need
> to reconcile all this and pick one series or the other. Since I have
> been tracking the Chicago region numbers
> (http://www.berwyned.com/papers/co2cochgo.pdf) for quite some time this
> has always been a nagging headache.
>
> How do all the numbers compare in your counties? Does anyone remember
> why the 70s and 80s might not match?
> --
> Ed Christopher
> 708-283-3534 (V)
> 708-574-8131 (cell)
>
> FHWA RC-TST-PLN
> 19900 Governors Dr
> Olympia Fields, IL 60461
>
--
Siim Sööt
Urban Transportation Center
University of Illinois at Chicago
312-996-2666
Homepage: www.uic.edu/~siim
Home: 678 Foxdale, Winnetka IL 60093-1950
847-446-7560 home
847-372-7560 cell
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
What I did was to allocate uncoded in proportion to the observed
distribution. The bureau had a far more sophisticated approach than that. So
in the cook case a huge proportion of the Cook county unknowns would become
Cook to Cook.
Alan E. Pisarski
6501 Waterway Drive
Falls Church Va. 22044
703 941-4257
alanpisarski(a)alanpisarski.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net]
On Behalf Of siim soot
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 5:11 PM
To: Ed Christopher
Cc: ctpp-news maillist; siim soot
Subject: Re: [CTPP] New Website--Old Data
In the 1970 Chicago UTPP approximately 60% of the
work locations were geocoded to TAZs with 10%
assigned to ZIP code areas, 10% to city, 10% to
county with the remainder identified as not reported.
The Census provided the 'best' geography available.
We made a considerable effort to assign all the trips to
TAZs but these files are no longer available.
Regarding county-to-county flows it would be reasonable to
expect that the TAZ, ZIP and city destinations were assigned
to the appropriate county. One can only guess what was done
with the ca 10% not reported data.
Siim Sööt
On Thu, February 22, 2007 3:41 pm, Ed Christopher wrote:
> Chuck--If I understand you I could almost conclude that in the Chicago
> numbers that have been in play over 3 decades that we took the "place of
> work not reported" for our resident workers and counted them as internal
> flows. But that could not have happened. First the same pattern
> exists all the counties I checked. Cook to Cook, Dupage, Kane, Lake,
> Will and McHenry. The 1970 BEA numbers are low. It could be that our
> 1970 UTPP numbers were tweaked and if they were originally in the
> neighborhood of the BEA numbers I could see why. I need to check out
> that path as well.
>
> Chuck how do your 1970 numbers compare? Are they more in line with
> BEAs? Does anyone else have their 1970 CTPP numbers how do they
> compare?
>
> To give you an idea of magnitude here is what I am looking at for 1970.
>
> BEA----------UTPP
> 1,931,034----2,105,178 Cook to Cook
> 27,104---32624 Cook to Dupage
> 5,403---9,056 Cook to Kane
> 8,888---18,624 Cook to Lake
> 698---951 Cook to McHenry
> 3,853---4,299 Cook to Will
>
> I also have 43,076 Cook to elsewhere but I didn't add up all the BEA
> elsewheres.
>
> I also looked at DuPage to all the other counties and the same pattern
> prevailed.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [CTPP] New Website--Old Data
> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:33:57 -0800
> From: "Chuck Purvis" <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov>
> To: "Ed Christopher" <edc(a)berwyned.com>,"ctpp-news maillist"
> <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>
>
> Hi Ed:
>
> The 1970 Census data on the BEA website shows a separate row, at the
> very end of each county's table, for "place of work not reported". So,
> Cook County Illinois has 181,911 resident workers with place-of-work not
> reported, in 1970. Part of the mystery is solved.
>
> I believe all of the "standard" 1970 Census tabulations did NOTdo
> place-of-work allocation (imputation), so we would always see the "not
> reported" data for any county, place or tract.
>
> The 1970 Urban Transportation Package (UTP) probably had some
> allocation (imputation) procedure to allocate the "not reported"
> area-of-work to whatever geographies were used after the 1970 Census.
> This is a guess. I don't have extensive records of the 1970 process. [I
> do have the "Urban Transportation Factbook" published by the American
> Institute of Planners and the Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Assocation,
> in 1974, but it appears to be based on standard census tabulations, not
> the UTP....?] Perhaps the answers are hidden in the Census Bureau (maybe
> Phil can find the info before he retires next Friday? Or perhaps the
> answers are in the archives - - JJ McDonnell's papers, or Alan
> Pisarski's office....Perhaps some information is in the TRB Special
> Report #145 (the 1973 Albuquerque Census conference.)
>
> Happy hunting,
>
> Chuck
> **************************************************************
> Charles L. Purvis, AICP
> Principal Transportation Planner/Analyst
> Metropolitan Transportation Commission
> 101 Eighth Street
> Oakland, CA 94607-4700
> (510) 817-5755 (office) [new, 8/1/05]
> (510) 817-7848 (fax) [new, 8/1/05]
> www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
> Census WWW: http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/
> **************************************************************
>
>>>> Ed Christopher <edc(a)berwyned.com> 02/21/07 8:40 PM >>>
> Our friends (who I do not know) at the Bureau of Economic Analysis who
> do the Regional Economic Accounts revamped their historic (1970, 1980,
> 1990 and 2000) Journey to Work (JTW) data base and put a nice search
> engine to it. For years I have sent people to the BEA sight for JTW
> flows but with the new search engine and the 2000 data it is so easy to
> use. For 2000 they have added flows by major industry at the county
> level and by minor industry at the state level. You really need to
> check it out. http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/jtw/
>
> But then there is the nagging issue. Why do my historic CTPP/UTPP
> numbers and BEA not match. In 1970 and 1980 the two sources look to be
> off in different directions, but for 1990 they match and for 2000 it
> looks like a small rounding difference. Getting into the detail,
> attached is a comparison of the BEA/CTPP-UTPP numbers for Cook county
> IL, specifically the Cook to Cook flows. In 1980 BEA is about 2K higher
> out of 2M, but in 1970 BEA is in the neighborhood of 200K low. I know
> this keeps coming up, but why? Is the pattern the same around the
> country, BEA is high in 1980 and low in 1970? At some point we may need
> to reconcile all this and pick one series or the other. Since I have
> been tracking the Chicago region numbers
> (http://www.berwyned.com/papers/co2cochgo.pdf) for quite some time this
> has always been a nagging headache.
>
> How do all the numbers compare in your counties? Does anyone remember
> why the 70s and 80s might not match?
> --
> Ed Christopher
> 708-283-3534 (V)
> 708-574-8131 (cell)
>
> FHWA RC-TST-PLN
> 19900 Governors Dr
> Olympia Fields, IL 60461
>
--
Siim Sööt
Urban Transportation Center
University of Illinois at Chicago
312-996-2666
Homepage: www.uic.edu/~siim
Home: 678 Foxdale, Winnetka IL 60093-1950
847-446-7560 home
847-372-7560 cell
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
What I did was to allocate uncoded in proportion to the observed
distribution. The bureau had a far more sophisticated approach than that. So
in the cook case a huge proportion of the Cook county unknowns would become
Cook to Cook.
Alan E. Pisarski
6501 Waterway Drive
Falls Church Va. 22044
703 941-4257
alanpisarski(a)alanpisarski.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net]
On Behalf Of siim soot
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 5:11 PM
To: Ed Christopher
Cc: ctpp-news maillist; siim soot
Subject: Re: [CTPP] New Website--Old Data
In the 1970 Chicago UTPP approximately 60% of the
work locations were geocoded to TAZs with 10%
assigned to ZIP code areas, 10% to city, 10% to
county with the remainder identified as not reported.
The Census provided the 'best' geography available.
We made a considerable effort to assign all the trips to
TAZs but these files are no longer available.
Regarding county-to-county flows it would be reasonable to
expect that the TAZ, ZIP and city destinations were assigned
to the appropriate county. One can only guess what was done
with the ca 10% not reported data.
Siim Sööt
On Thu, February 22, 2007 3:41 pm, Ed Christopher wrote:
> Chuck--If I understand you I could almost conclude that in the Chicago
> numbers that have been in play over 3 decades that we took the "place of
> work not reported" for our resident workers and counted them as internal
> flows. But that could not have happened. First the same pattern
> exists all the counties I checked. Cook to Cook, Dupage, Kane, Lake,
> Will and McHenry. The 1970 BEA numbers are low. It could be that our
> 1970 UTPP numbers were tweaked and if they were originally in the
> neighborhood of the BEA numbers I could see why. I need to check out
> that path as well.
>
> Chuck how do your 1970 numbers compare? Are they more in line with
> BEAs? Does anyone else have their 1970 CTPP numbers how do they
> compare?
>
> To give you an idea of magnitude here is what I am looking at for 1970.
>
> BEA----------UTPP
> 1,931,034----2,105,178 Cook to Cook
> 27,104---32624 Cook to Dupage
> 5,403---9,056 Cook to Kane
> 8,888---18,624 Cook to Lake
> 698---951 Cook to McHenry
> 3,853---4,299 Cook to Will
>
> I also have 43,076 Cook to elsewhere but I didn't add up all the BEA
> elsewheres.
>
> I also looked at DuPage to all the other counties and the same pattern
> prevailed.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [CTPP] New Website--Old Data
> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:33:57 -0800
> From: "Chuck Purvis" <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov>
> To: "Ed Christopher" <edc(a)berwyned.com>,"ctpp-news maillist"
> <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>
>
> Hi Ed:
>
> The 1970 Census data on the BEA website shows a separate row, at the
> very end of each county's table, for "place of work not reported". So,
> Cook County Illinois has 181,911 resident workers with place-of-work not
> reported, in 1970. Part of the mystery is solved.
>
> I believe all of the "standard" 1970 Census tabulations did NOTdo
> place-of-work allocation (imputation), so we would always see the "not
> reported" data for any county, place or tract.
>
> The 1970 Urban Transportation Package (UTP) probably had some
> allocation (imputation) procedure to allocate the "not reported"
> area-of-work to whatever geographies were used after the 1970 Census.
> This is a guess. I don't have extensive records of the 1970 process. [I
> do have the "Urban Transportation Factbook" published by the American
> Institute of Planners and the Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Assocation,
> in 1974, but it appears to be based on standard census tabulations, not
> the UTP....?] Perhaps the answers are hidden in the Census Bureau (maybe
> Phil can find the info before he retires next Friday? Or perhaps the
> answers are in the archives - - JJ McDonnell's papers, or Alan
> Pisarski's office....Perhaps some information is in the TRB Special
> Report #145 (the 1973 Albuquerque Census conference.)
>
> Happy hunting,
>
> Chuck
> **************************************************************
> Charles L. Purvis, AICP
> Principal Transportation Planner/Analyst
> Metropolitan Transportation Commission
> 101 Eighth Street
> Oakland, CA 94607-4700
> (510) 817-5755 (office) [new, 8/1/05]
> (510) 817-7848 (fax) [new, 8/1/05]
> www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
> Census WWW: http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/
> **************************************************************
>
>>>> Ed Christopher <edc(a)berwyned.com> 02/21/07 8:40 PM >>>
> Our friends (who I do not know) at the Bureau of Economic Analysis who
> do the Regional Economic Accounts revamped their historic (1970, 1980,
> 1990 and 2000) Journey to Work (JTW) data base and put a nice search
> engine to it. For years I have sent people to the BEA sight for JTW
> flows but with the new search engine and the 2000 data it is so easy to
> use. For 2000 they have added flows by major industry at the county
> level and by minor industry at the state level. You really need to
> check it out. http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/jtw/
>
> But then there is the nagging issue. Why do my historic CTPP/UTPP
> numbers and BEA not match. In 1970 and 1980 the two sources look to be
> off in different directions, but for 1990 they match and for 2000 it
> looks like a small rounding difference. Getting into the detail,
> attached is a comparison of the BEA/CTPP-UTPP numbers for Cook county
> IL, specifically the Cook to Cook flows. In 1980 BEA is about 2K higher
> out of 2M, but in 1970 BEA is in the neighborhood of 200K low. I know
> this keeps coming up, but why? Is the pattern the same around the
> country, BEA is high in 1980 and low in 1970? At some point we may need
> to reconcile all this and pick one series or the other. Since I have
> been tracking the Chicago region numbers
> (http://www.berwyned.com/papers/co2cochgo.pdf) for quite some time this
> has always been a nagging headache.
>
> How do all the numbers compare in your counties? Does anyone remember
> why the 70s and 80s might not match?
> --
> Ed Christopher
> 708-283-3534 (V)
> 708-574-8131 (cell)
>
> FHWA RC-TST-PLN
> 19900 Governors Dr
> Olympia Fields, IL 60461
>
--
Siim Sööt
Urban Transportation Center
University of Illinois at Chicago
312-996-2666
Homepage: www.uic.edu/~siim
Home: 678 Foxdale, Winnetka IL 60093-1950
847-446-7560 home
847-372-7560 cell
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
Chuck--If I understand you I could almost conclude that in the Chicago
numbers that have been in play over 3 decades that we took the "place of
work not reported" for our resident workers and counted them as internal
flows. But that could not have happened. First the same pattern
exists all the counties I checked. Cook to Cook, Dupage, Kane, Lake,
Will and McHenry. The 1970 BEA numbers are low. It could be that our
1970 UTPP numbers were tweaked and if they were originally in the
neighborhood of the BEA numbers I could see why. I need to check out
that path as well.
Chuck how do your 1970 numbers compare? Are they more in line with
BEAs? Does anyone else have their 1970 CTPP numbers how do they
compare?
To give you an idea of magnitude here is what I am looking at for 1970.
BEA----------UTPP
1,931,034----2,105,178 Cook to Cook
27,104---32624 Cook to Dupage
5,403---9,056 Cook to Kane
8,888---18,624 Cook to Lake
698---951 Cook to McHenry
3,853---4,299 Cook to Will
I also have 43,076 Cook to elsewhere but I didn't add up all the BEA
elsewheres.
I also looked at DuPage to all the other counties and the same pattern
prevailed.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [CTPP] New Website--Old Data
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:33:57 -0800
From: "Chuck Purvis" <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov>
To: "Ed Christopher" <edc(a)berwyned.com>,"ctpp-news maillist"
<ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>
Hi Ed:
The 1970 Census data on the BEA website shows a separate row, at the
very end of each county's table, for "place of work not reported". So,
Cook County Illinois has 181,911 resident workers with place-of-work not
reported, in 1970. Part of the mystery is solved.
I believe all of the "standard" 1970 Census tabulations did NOTdo
place-of-work allocation (imputation), so we would always see the "not
reported" data for any county, place or tract.
The 1970 Urban Transportation Package (UTP) probably had some
allocation (imputation) procedure to allocate the "not reported"
area-of-work to whatever geographies were used after the 1970 Census.
This is a guess. I don't have extensive records of the 1970 process. [I
do have the "Urban Transportation Factbook" published by the American
Institute of Planners and the Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Assocation,
in 1974, but it appears to be based on standard census tabulations, not
the UTP....?] Perhaps the answers are hidden in the Census Bureau (maybe
Phil can find the info before he retires next Friday? Or perhaps the
answers are in the archives - - JJ McDonnell's papers, or Alan
Pisarski's office....Perhaps some information is in the TRB Special
Report #145 (the 1973 Albuquerque Census conference.)
Happy hunting,
Chuck
**************************************************************
Charles L. Purvis, AICP
Principal Transportation Planner/Analyst
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4700
(510) 817-5755 (office) [new, 8/1/05]
(510) 817-7848 (fax) [new, 8/1/05]
www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
Census WWW: http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/
**************************************************************
>>> Ed Christopher <edc(a)berwyned.com> 02/21/07 8:40 PM >>>
Our friends (who I do not know) at the Bureau of Economic Analysis who
do the Regional Economic Accounts revamped their historic (1970, 1980,
1990 and 2000) Journey to Work (JTW) data base and put a nice search
engine to it. For years I have sent people to the BEA sight for JTW
flows but with the new search engine and the 2000 data it is so easy to
use. For 2000 they have added flows by major industry at the county
level and by minor industry at the state level. You really need to
check it out. http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/jtw/
But then there is the nagging issue. Why do my historic CTPP/UTPP
numbers and BEA not match. In 1970 and 1980 the two sources look to be
off in different directions, but for 1990 they match and for 2000 it
looks like a small rounding difference. Getting into the detail,
attached is a comparison of the BEA/CTPP-UTPP numbers for Cook county
IL, specifically the Cook to Cook flows. In 1980 BEA is about 2K higher
out of 2M, but in 1970 BEA is in the neighborhood of 200K low. I know
this keeps coming up, but why? Is the pattern the same around the
country, BEA is high in 1980 and low in 1970? At some point we may need
to reconcile all this and pick one series or the other. Since I have
been tracking the Chicago region numbers
(http://www.berwyned.com/papers/co2cochgo.pdf) for quite some time this
has always been a nagging headache.
How do all the numbers compare in your counties? Does anyone remember
why the 70s and 80s might not match?
--
Ed Christopher
708-283-3534 (V)
708-574-8131 (cell)
FHWA RC-TST-PLN
19900 Governors Dr
Olympia Fields, IL 60461
Hi Ed:
The 1970 Census data on the BEA website shows a separate row, at the
very end of each county's table, for "place of work not reported". So,
Cook County Illinois has 181,911 resident workers with place-of-work not
reported, in 1970. Part of the mystery is solved.
I believe all of the "standard" 1970 Census tabulations did NOTdo
place-of-work allocation (imputation), so we would always see the "not
reported" data for any county, place or tract.
The 1970 Urban Transportation Package (UTP) probably had some
allocation (imputation) procedure to allocate the "not reported"
area-of-work to whatever geographies were used after the 1970 Census.
This is a guess. I don't have extensive records of the 1970 process. [I
do have the "Urban Transportation Factbook" published by the American
Institute of Planners and the Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Assocation,
in 1974, but it appears to be based on standard census tabulations, not
the UTP....?] Perhaps the answers are hidden in the Census Bureau (maybe
Phil can find the info before he retires next Friday? Or perhaps the
answers are in the archives - - JJ McDonnell's papers, or Alan
Pisarski's office....Perhaps some information is in the TRB Special
Report #145 (the 1973 Albuquerque Census conference.)
Happy hunting,
Chuck
**************************************************************
Charles L. Purvis, AICP
Principal Transportation Planner/Analyst
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4700
(510) 817-5755 (office) [new, 8/1/05]
(510) 817-7848 (fax) [new, 8/1/05]
www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
Census WWW: http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/
**************************************************************
>>> Ed Christopher <edc(a)berwyned.com> 02/21/07 8:40 PM >>>
Our friends (who I do not know) at the Bureau of Economic Analysis who
do the Regional Economic Accounts revamped their historic (1970, 1980,
1990 and 2000) Journey to Work (JTW) data base and put a nice search
engine to it. For years I have sent people to the BEA sight for JTW
flows but with the new search engine and the 2000 data it is so easy
to
use. For 2000 they have added flows by major industry at the county
level and by minor industry at the state level. You really need to
check it out. http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/jtw/
But then there is the nagging issue. Why do my historic CTPP/UTPP
numbers and BEA not match. In 1970 and 1980 the two sources look to
be
off in different directions, but for 1990 they match and for 2000 it
looks like a small rounding difference. Getting into the detail,
attached is a comparison of the BEA/CTPP-UTPP numbers for Cook county
IL, specifically the Cook to Cook flows. In 1980 BEA is about 2K
higher
out of 2M, but in 1970 BEA is in the neighborhood of 200K low. I know
this keeps coming up, but why? Is the pattern the same around the
country, BEA is high in 1980 and low in 1970? At some point we may
need
to reconcile all this and pick one series or the other. Since I have
been tracking the Chicago region numbers
(http://www.berwyned.com/papers/co2cochgo.pdf) for quite some time
this
has always been a nagging headache.
How do all the numbers compare in your counties? Does anyone remember
why the 70s and 80s might not match? (please reply to all)
--
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
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
Hi Ed:
The 1970 Census data on the BEA website shows a separate row, at the
very end of each county's table, for "place of work not reported". So,
Cook County Illinois has 181,911 resident workers with place-of-work not
reported, in 1970. Part of the mystery is solved.
I believe all of the "standard" 1970 Census tabulations did NOTdo
place-of-work allocation (imputation), so we would always see the "not
reported" data for any county, place or tract.
The 1970 Urban Transportation Package (UTP) probably had some
allocation (imputation) procedure to allocate the "not reported"
area-of-work to whatever geographies were used after the 1970 Census.
This is a guess. I don't have extensive records of the 1970 process. [I
do have the "Urban Transportation Factbook" published by the American
Institute of Planners and the Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Assocation,
in 1974, but it appears to be based on standard census tabulations, not
the UTP....?] Perhaps the answers are hidden in the Census Bureau (maybe
Phil can find the info before he retires next Friday? Or perhaps the
answers are in the archives - - JJ McDonnell's papers, or Alan
Pisarski's office....Perhaps some information is in the TRB Special
Report #145 (the 1973 Albuquerque Census conference.)
Happy hunting,
Chuck
**************************************************************
Charles L. Purvis, AICP
Principal Transportation Planner/Analyst
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4700
(510) 817-5755 (office) [new, 8/1/05]
(510) 817-7848 (fax) [new, 8/1/05]
www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
Census WWW: http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/
**************************************************************
>>> Ed Christopher <edc(a)berwyned.com> 02/21/07 8:40 PM >>>
Our friends (who I do not know) at the Bureau of Economic Analysis who
do the Regional Economic Accounts revamped their historic (1970, 1980,
1990 and 2000) Journey to Work (JTW) data base and put a nice search
engine to it. For years I have sent people to the BEA sight for JTW
flows but with the new search engine and the 2000 data it is so easy
to
use. For 2000 they have added flows by major industry at the county
level and by minor industry at the state level. You really need to
check it out. http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/jtw/
But then there is the nagging issue. Why do my historic CTPP/UTPP
numbers and BEA not match. In 1970 and 1980 the two sources look to
be
off in different directions, but for 1990 they match and for 2000 it
looks like a small rounding difference. Getting into the detail,
attached is a comparison of the BEA/CTPP-UTPP numbers for Cook county
IL, specifically the Cook to Cook flows. In 1980 BEA is about 2K
higher
out of 2M, but in 1970 BEA is in the neighborhood of 200K low. I know
this keeps coming up, but why? Is the pattern the same around the
country, BEA is high in 1980 and low in 1970? At some point we may
need
to reconcile all this and pick one series or the other. Since I have
been tracking the Chicago region numbers
(http://www.berwyned.com/papers/co2cochgo.pdf) for quite some time
this
has always been a nagging headache.
How do all the numbers compare in your counties? Does anyone remember
why the 70s and 80s might not match? (please reply to all)
--
Ed Christopher
708-283-3534 (V)
708-574-8131 (cell)
FHWA RC-TST-PLN
19900 Governors Dr
Olympia Fields, IL 60461
