ctpp-news

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

2560 discussions

Start a nNew thread

2004 ACS Data Release

by Thabet Zakaria

2004 ACS Data Release by Thabet Zakaria dated September 12, 2005 is resubmitted in PDF.

19 years, 4 months

RE: [Bay Area Census] American Community Survey 2004 Data is now available

by Chuck Purvis

Jeffrey: [I'm cross-posting my message to the national census-transportation listserv] You raise important points: 1. How does the Census Bureau weight & expand the American Community Survey? Do they weight it to match sub-county "control totals"? 2. How will formula allocation programs (HUD, HHS, DOT) utilize American Community Survey in allocating funds to local jurisdictions? How will formula allocation programs handle the higher standard errors, and confidence intervals, associated with the ACS? Answers: 1. The Census Bureau, to the best of my knowledge, uses counties as the finest geographic level for expanding and weighting ACS data. They do not use sub-county or place-level control totals (e.g., like they did with the weighting of decennial long form data to match decennial short form control totals). The "control totals" the Census Bureau uses are the state-federal cooperative population estimates program, which produces data on TOTAL population by age by sex by race/hispanic status. (How the Bureau adjusts these county-level population estimates to remove the group quarters population, I don't know.) Again, this is all to the best of my knowledge. For example, our State Department of Finance reports the population for Alameda County, in 2004, as 1,497,000. If we assume the same 1.9% of Alameda County's population of group quarters, then this means about 1,469,000 persons-in-households in Alameda County in 2004. The ACS measures 1,427,827 household persons in Alameda County, a difference of 4.7%. Why this difference? The pop estimates that the Bureau is using are perhaps different (?) than the pop estimates that the California DOF released this past May. To state that the weighting and expansion of American Community Survey data is an "issue" is a gross understatement. It's a really, really big issue. 2. In terms of the question "how will allocation formulas be affected by ACS?" This is really a very, very significant issue and honestly, I don't know. For example, the president recently signed the federal transportation reauthorization bill (SAFETEA-LU). There are two formula programs based on the distribution of DISABLED persons (for the "New Freedom Program") and the number of PERSONS BELOW THE 150% POVERTY LEVEL (for the Jobs Access-for-Reverse Commuting - - JARC Program), based on urbanized area population. Right now, the only urbanized area data on disabled population and poverty population is from the decennial census. So, to allocate data NOW, the USDOT would need to rely on Census 2000 data. When data is available from the 2005-2007 ACS (3-year accumulation of data), down to the SMALL URBANIZED AREAS (50,000 to 65,000 population), the USDOT MAY CHOOSE TO USE THE ACS 3-YEAR DATA TO ALLOCATE JARC & New Freedom funds....Hopefully the 3-year ACS data is less jumpy & jittery than the one-year data we've seen over the past four years. (An additional point to make is that the disability data from the decennial census isn't that good. The disability data from the ACS should be a much better indicator of disability levels.) The other example, probably more near and dear to city planner's hearts, is the allocation of community development block grant (CDBG) funds based on census-tract level estimates of poverty (?) population. I think the funding agency will have to at least look at using the five-year accumulation of ACS data, but I'm concerned (as are many others) about the "bright line" rules that regulate whether an area does or doesn't receive CDBG funds. [I am out of my element & comfort zone when talking about CDBG fund allocations. If there's a HUD-Census user forum that discusses these issues, that would be great information to share. Here is a link to a 2002 vintage HUD report on the ACS. I haven't read it yet: http://www.huduser.org/publications/polleg/acs.html I've heard comments from the Census Bureau folks that the ACS data is best for "characteristics, not counts" but the Bureau will need to realize that we data users want it all: both characteristics (shares, rates & proportions) and counts (# of persons below poverty level, # of disabled, # of zero-vehicle households, # of transit commuters, etc.) My strongest recommendation is to "cross-validate" the ACS data with other, local administrative data. The best cross-validation, at a city level, will be to compare the citywide total housing unit estimate from the ACS against the City's own records on total units.... This is a long-winded "I don't know" response. 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/ ************************************************************** >>> JPLevin(a)oaklandnet.com 09/01/05 6:21 PM >>> This new ACS data raises a lot of questions for us. It shows our 2004 population as 365,266 with lower/upper bounds of 338,601 and 391,931 Our 2000 population was over 399,000. Even subtracting out the 7,000 or so households in group quarters (who aren't counted in the ACS), this would give us 392,000 in 2000, but only 365,266 in 2004, despite a significant increase in our housing stock and by all indications an increase in population. Department of Finance estimate is 411,319 for 2004 and 412,318. Does anyone else have similar problems? This kind of undercounting can cost cities a LOT of money. _________________________________ Jeffrey P. Levin (jplevin(a)oaklandnet.com) Housing Policy & Programs Coordinator City of Oakland/Community & Economic Development Agency 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 5th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 510/238-3501 FAX: 510/238-3691 http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/hcd

19 years, 4 months

Transportation Variables Ranking - ACS 2004

by Chuck Purvis

[NOTE: This e-mail is best viewed in HTML format.] This may be of interest to CTPP-News subscribers. It summarizes some of the places & county ranking data for means of transportation and travel times to work, from the ACS2004, with focus on the SF Bay Area. I've included the "Top Ten Counties & Places." San Francisco Bay Area Rankings 2004 American Community Survey, U.S. Census BureauAugust 30, 2005 The Census Bureau's 2004 American Community Survey (ACS) data was released 8/30/05. Data is available for places, counties, metropolitan areas and states of over 250,000 population. Data collected in calendar year 2005 will be published in summer 2006, for areas of greater than 65,000 total population. I. Places Greater than 250,000 Total Population The San Francisco Bay Area has three cities greater than 250,000 population:San Jose: 874,000San Francisco: 725,000Oakland: 365,000. A. Mean Commute Travel Time, Home-to-Work (Large Cities) San Francisco resident commuters reported an average commute of 28.7 minutes from home-to-work in 2004. This ranks ninth in the U.S. among large cities, 250,000+ population.Oakland resident commuters reported an average commute of 28.4 minutes from home-to-work in 2004. This ranks tenth in the U.S. among large cities, and is statistically the same as San Francisco.San Jose resident commuters reported an average commute of 24.6 minutes from home-to-work in 2004. This ranks 24th, out of the 70 cities with population 250,000+. San Jose's commute time is very similar to other cities such as Seattle, Portland, Atlanta and Dallas.New York City ranks first in the nation with an average home-to-work commute time of 38.4 minutes. New York is followed by Chicago (35.0 minutes), Philadelphia (33.7 minutes), Newark (32.3 minutes) and Los Angeles (30.0 minutes). Large U.S. Cities Ranked by Travel Time to Work, 2004RankPlace Mean Time1New York city, NY38.42Chicago city, IL35.03Philadelphia city, PA33.74Newark city, NJ32.35Los Angeles city, CA30.06Stockton city, CA29.37Boston city, MA29.07Riverside city, CA29.09San Francisco city, CA28.710Oakland city, CA28.424San Jose city, CA24.6 B. Public Transit Share of Commute-to-Work ("Commute Mode Share") (Large Cities) San Francisco City ranks fourth among United States large cities in transit share for the journey-to-work, with 29.6 percent of commuters using transit in their daily commute.Oakland ranks eighth in the United States in transit share, with 22.3 percent of commuters using transit in their daily commutes.San Jose ranks 49th out of 70 large U.S. cities, with 2.2 percent of commuters using transit in their home-to-work commutes.New York City ranks first in the nation in terms of transit share of commute, at 53.2 percent of commuters taking transit to work. New York is followed by Washington, DC (33.7 percent), Boston (31.8 percent) and San Francisco.The transit commute share in the United States in 2004 is 4.6 percent. The transit commute share for California resident workers is 4.8 percent. Large U.S. Cities Ranked by Transit Share in Journey-to-Work, 2004RankPlace Percent Transit1New York city, NY53.22Washington city, DC33.63Boston city, MA31.84San Francisco city, CA29.65Philadelphia city, PA27.06Newark city, NJ25.57Chicago city, IL23.68Oakland city, CA22.39Baltimore city, MD20.510Pittsburgh city, PA19.449San Jose city, CA2.2 II. Counties Greater than 250,000 Total Population The San Francisco Bay Area has seven counties with a year 2004 population greater than 250,000:Alameda: 1,428,000Contra Costa: 998,000San Francisco: 725,000San Mateo: 689,000Santa Clara: 1,656,000Solano: 397,000Sonoma: 456,000 Marin and Napa Counties are not reported separately in the 2004 ACS, but will be reported separately beginning with the release of the 2005 ACS in summer 2006. A. Mean Commute Travel Time, Home-to-Work (Large Counties) Contra Costa County resident commuters reported the longest commute duration in the Bay Area, at 32.2 minutes per one-way home-to-work commute. Contra Costa ranks 15th in the nation in terms of large U.S. Counties (236 total counties, greater than 250,000 population).Solano County ranks second in the Bay Area, and 18th in the nation, in term of longest commute durations, at 31.4 minutes per one-way commute.Santa Clara County resident commuters reported the shortest commute durations among large Bay Area counties, at 23.7 minutes per one-way commute. Santa Clara ranks 125th out of 236 large U.S. counties.The average commute time in the United States in 2004 is 24.7 minutes. The average commute time for California resident workers is 27.1 minutes. Large U.S. Counties Ranked by Travel Time to Work, 2004RankCounty Average Time1Queens County, NY41.22Bronx County, NY40.63Kings County, NY40.34Prince William County, VA39.45Richmond County, NY39.26McHenry County, IL34.67Orange County, NY34.28Monmouth County, NJ34.09Philadelphia County, PA33.710Montgomery County, MD33.311Prince George's County, MD33.215Contra Costa County, CA32.218Solano County, CA31.448San Francisco County, CA28.761Alameda County, CA27.5101Sonoma County, CA25.1115San Mateo County, CA24.2125Santa Clara County, CA23.7 B. Public Transit Share of Commute-to-Work ("Commute Mode Share") (Large Counties) San Francisco County residents workers ranked seventh of the nation's 236 counties in terms of transit share for the journey-to-work, in year 2004, at 29.6 percent transit commute.Alameda County ranked 19th in the U.S. in 2004 transit commute share at 12.2 percent.Contra Costa County ranked 30th in the U.S. in 2004 transit commute share at 9.1 percent.San Mateo County ranked 37th in the U.S. in 2004 transit commute share at 8.3 percent.The U.S. Counties with the largest 2004 transit commute share are Bronx County and Kings County (Brooklyn) at 57.9 percent. New York County (Manhattan) ranks third in the U.S. at 56.0 percent. Large U.S. Counties Ranked by Transit Share in Journey-to-Work, 2004RankCounty Percent Transit 1Bronx County, NY57.9 1Kings County, NY57.9 3New York County, NY56.0 4Queens County, NY49.5 5Hudson County, NJ40.0 6District of Columbia, DC33.6 7San Francisco County, CA29.6 8Suffolk County, MA29.4 9Philadelphia County, PA27.0 10Richmond County, NY25.0 19Alameda County, CA12.2 30Contra Costa County, CA9.1 37San Mateo County, CA8.3 102Santa Clara County, CA2.6 102Solano County, CA2.6129Sonoma County, CA1.9 ************************************************************** 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/ **************************************************************

19 years, 4 months

American Community Survey 2004 is now available

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP-News The Census Bureau released the 2004 American Community Survey data on Tuesday, August 30th. The Bureau had a kickoff news conference on "Income, Poverty & Health Insurance Coverage" on Tuesday morning. ACS data is available on the American Factfinder, at: http://factfinder.census.gov/ Data from the 2004 ACS is available for most geographic areas of 250,000+ population, including: states, counties, places, congressional districts, CMSAs, PMSAs, MSAs (old metro definitions), county subdivisions (in 3 states). The American Factfinder (AFF) appears to be changing on a day-by-day basis. Yesterday morning we were able to access the 2004 ACS "data profiles" and the "multi-year profiles." After we returned from lunch, they were gone. Hopefully the Bureau is working on it and will restore those "profiles" ASAP. They're extremely important for understanding significance of change from one year to the next. The "profile" series is a group of four data highlight reports: demographic, social, economic and housing. The AFF "Ranking Tables" are apparently the same as previous years' releases. A very nice feature is the ability to click on a row / geographic area of interest, and see which areas are "not significantly different" than the area you selected. This can be very useful when characterizing your community, e.g., the commute time of San Jose resident workers is very similar to the commute times for residents of Atlanta, Dallas, San Diego, .... New to the 2004 ACS data, in AFF, are "Subject Tables." This is apparently a work in progress; only subject tables for the U.S. national level for income and poverty are available as of 8/31/05, 8:00 AM. Also new to the 2004 ACS data access in American Factfinder are "Thematic Maps." Right now these are state-level thematic (choropleth) maps for about 80 different themes. It look likes they're setting this up for the eventual production of online maps perhaps for more detailed geographic areas like counties or metro areas. The "Detailed Tables" in the 2004 ACS edition of American Factfinder are greatly expanded from the 2003 ACS and previous years' versions. For example, Table B08006 provides "sex of workers by means of transportation to work" These are the DETAILED means of transportation (including bicycle, carpool level, transit sub-modes"). (The 2003 ACS table, P047, didn't have the workers by sex breakout, or the detailed carpool levels.) To my pleasant surprise, the 2004 ACS PUMS data (Public Use Microdata Sample) was available the first day of release. Data is available in CSV and SAS formats. I'm having some problems with the SAS files, but I'll work that out with our IT people or the Census Bureau. So, there's plenty of work & analysis to do, so just get to it! Chuck Purvis, MTC

19 years, 4 months

More on 2004 ACS data release

by Murakami, Elaine

Things to keep in mind when using the ACS 2004 tabulations just released. The new table designs are those that should be in place for the 2005 ACS. There will be many "CTPP-like" tables as part of the "subject" tables. ACS went into "full implementation" of data collection in January 2005. In 2004, the ACS data collection was limited to 1203 counties (approximately 1/3 of total U.S. counties) and these counties are biased toward those with more than 250,000 population. See map and list of counties for 2003 ACS data collection: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/SBasics/county02.htm BE CAREFUL if you are planning to make comparisons with 2000 Census data. The NCHRP 08-48 project will include information on "bridging" between 2000 Census data and ACS, but it is not yet available. It is better to compare ACS 2000 to ACS 2004 data (apples to apples), as is done in the multi-year profile sheet that Chuck Purvis mentioned. "Journey to work" characteristics are included in the Economic page. Other differences: The 2004 ACS does not include group quarters population. ACS collects data over all twelve months of the year and has different residence rules than decennial census. Therefore, areas with high seasonal population variation are more likely to see differences between decennial and ACS results. General differences: Average journey-to-work travel times are about 1 minute lower in ACS than in Census 2000. For example: U.S. Total Census 2000: 25.5 minutes Census 2000 (1203 counties) : 25.1 minutes ACS 2000 : 24.4 minutes This chart shows the ACS average travel time for the U.S. total. Year LowBound UpBound Estimate 2000 24.2 24.6 24.4 2001 24.1 24.5 24.3 2002 24.2 24.6 24.4 2003 24.2 24.4 24.3 2004 24.6 24.8 24.7 The decennial census also reported a greater proportion of households without vehicles. U.S. Total Census 2000: 10.2 percent Census 2000 (1203 counties): 10.5 percent ACS 2000: 9.4 percent The decennial census consistently has more workers who select "carpool" as their mode to work. U.S. Total Census 2000: 12.2 percent carpool Census 2000 (1203 counties): 11.9 percent carpool ACS 2000: 11.2 percent carpool We examined these same characteristics for 6 test ACS counties (which had larger sample sizes than the national sample), with similar results. The "new" table added that I like is B08134 "Means of Transportation by Travel Time" which is MUCH more useful than the table from previous ACS tabulation which had "public transit" and "Other" as the 2 means of transportation categories. This version has 8 detailed means of transportation, and 9 categories of travel time. The Census Bureau told the AASHTO SCOP Census Data Working Group (chaired by Jonette Kreideweis) at the August 22 meeting, that they would include tabulations by PLACE OF WORK from ACS as part of their standard product. Hurrah! These tables were shared as DRAFT with the CTPP listserv in May and presented at the TRB Census Conference in Irvine. Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning

19 years, 4 months

RE: [CTPP] county-to-county flows vs. ES202, BEA county control totals

by Murakami, Elaine

Dear Norm: You should probably take a look at the Souleyrette et al article in TRR 1768, 2001. "Applications of State Employment Data to Transportation Planning" Also, Wende Mix and Phil Fulton prepared a poster at the recent TRB Census Conference (May 2005) where both ES-202 and Census data were used. She has a full paper available and I believe she has submitted it for review to TRB for Jan 2006. The biggest problems have been: ES-202 files do not require multiple site businesses to report specific workplace locations. Some states are better than others. For example, MN is considered excellent (LEHD project by Census Bureau). One estimate is that 40% of employment is by businesses with multiple sites. ES-202 file may lack a physical workplace location (e.g. PO Box, or location of office responsible for employment records) "Personnel Supply" companies have become increasingly larger shares of total employment, and employees of these companies will not have their specific work location captured, only the office of where they were hired. On the Census side: Approximately 25 percent of workplace locations were imputed. The Census Long Form went to 1:6 households nationwide, so it is a sample survey, not a universe. Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460 -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net]On Behalf Of Norm Marshall Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 11:41 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] county-to-county flows vs. ES202, BEA county control totals I am comparing CTPP 2000 county-to-county flows vs. travel demand model for a mid-sized region. There are a number of complicating issues, including: Census work trip may not be made every day Census work tour may be coded as other than home-based-work (HBW) trips in trip-based model Census only records one commute for workers with more than one job In trying to massage the data to be as consistent as possible, I also reviewed ES-202 and BEA county employment data. The BEA totals including proprietors are very high, but the BEA wage and salary totals are reasonably consistent with ES-202 data, i.e. consistently higher as they include non-covered employment including government. However, the CTPP flow data are not particularly consistent with ES-202 and BEA, i.e. some counties appear to attract more commuters than indicated by ES-202 and BEA, and other counties attract less than ES-202 and BEA (after adjusting so the totals are the same). Have others observed similar discrepancies? Does anyone have advice for reconciling these datasets? Norm Marshall

19 years, 4 months

county-to-county flows vs. ES202, BEA county control totals

by Norm Marshall

I am comparing CTPP 2000 county-to-county flows vs. travel demand model for a mid-sized region. There are a number of complicating issues, including: Census work trip may not be made every day Census work tour may be coded as other than home-based-work (HBW) trips in trip-based model Census only records one commute for workers with more than one job In trying to massage the data to be as consistent as possible, I also reviewed ES-202 and BEA county employment data. The BEA totals including proprietors are very high, but the BEA wage and salary totals are reasonably consistent with ES-202 data, i.e. consistently higher as they include non-covered employment including government. However, the CTPP flow data are not particularly consistent with ES-202 and BEA, i.e. some counties appear to attract more commuters than indicated by ES-202 and BEA, and other counties attract less than ES-202 and BEA (after adjusting so the totals are the same). Have others observed similar discrepancies? Does anyone have advice for reconciling these datasets? Norm Marshall

19 years, 4 months

Job Opportunity - NPTS

by Srinivasan, Nanda

FHWA is advertising for a GS 14 position on the NPTS (National Personal Travel Survey) project team. Duties include: - making recommendations regarding survey design, content, methodology, operations, dataset development and user interface - maintaining effective working relationships with survey sponsors, states and MPOs, national organizations, survey contractors and a large and diverse group of survey users - analyzing travel behavior trends, and - assuming some project management duties. We are seeking someone with household travel survey experience. You do not have to be a current or former federal employee to apply for this job. Salary range is $88,369 to $114,882. The position is located in Washington, DC (Yes, we know that housing costs are high in the Washington DC area, we live here.) For more information or to apply go to: <http://jobsearch.usajobs.opm.gov/a9fhwa.asp> click on Washington DC, and look for job announcement FHWA.HPL-2005-0016. The specific link is http://jobsearch.usajobs.opm.gov/getjob.asp?JobID=33409209&AVSDM=2005%2D08%… Susan Liss (NPTS Program Manager)

19 years, 4 months

Customer Satisfaction Survey for CTPP and other Census/ACS produc ts

by Clawson, Dave

AASHTO is seeking your feedback, input, and opinions on CTPP 2000 and other current and future census/ACS products. To gauge customer satisfaction, we designed a web-based survey posted at http://surveys.transportation.org/ctpp.htm <http://surveys.transportation.org/ctpp.htm> . Completing the survey should only take about 5 minutes of your time, but would help us immensely in forming our plans for the next suite of transportation related census/ACS products. We are requesting that you complete the survey by September 15, 2005. Thank you for your participation. Sincerely, Dave Clawson ______________________________________________ David H. Clawson Program Director for Policy and Planning AASHTO 202-624-5807 202-624-5806 FAX davidc(a)aashto.org

19 years, 4 months

RE: [CTPP] CTPP - Part 3 - summary level question

by Srinivasan, Nanda

Bob: You want to know how many workers working in downtown live in specific suburbs. I would go about it in a different way: 1. Select WORKPLACE - IN, the second option. 2. Select all the destination TAZs. 3. Select the general residence area = All workers in the state of MN? 4. Option a. Once the session is created, you can either export the data to an Excel spreadsheet, and then: i. Break the components of geography into the Residence, Work TAZ, and then ii. Query for the specific TAZs in the suburbia on the residence end. OR Option b. i. Click on the mapping engine, then click on the Data Analysis Tool. ii. Using the yellow selection tool, Select all the flows you want to aggregate between the downtown and the specific TAZs. iii. Highlight the tables you want to aggregate, and then click on the spreadsheet view within the Data Analysis Window. The aggregated answer will show-up on the sheet. Part 3 is going to cause some confusion in the minds of any user. Also, please note that tables 3-08 to 3-14 should not be accessed using the browser, use the TranStats website instead. If in doubt, please call/e-mail me. Thanks Nanda Srinivasan 202-366-5021 -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net]On Behalf Of Bob Paddock Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:45 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] CTPP - Part 3 - summary level question I just received the CDs for Part 3 of the 2000 CTPP and have attempted to follow the instructions on how to run through the various options. I have had problems trying to access different summary levels. On the bottom of page 1 of the instructions for working with Part3 it states: "First option button: "From RESIDENCE Geography out" -- click this radial button if you want to know the workplaces for residents in a particular area. For example, if you want to know where workers who live in Suburb A commute. Do they go downtown, or to the largest employer, or do they go all over the region." Since I would like to know how many workers living in specific suburbs actually work downtown, this appeared to be the way to go. HOWEVER, if I select the summary level for the place of residence, I cannot re-select the summary level for place of work. How can I get "downtown" as a work destination, which is at the TAZ level if the only summary level option available is "place"? Apparently I have to identify the TAZ for each place of resident in order to get TAZ of work. Yet I cannot identify TAZs of work - all I get to select is the county of work. So I get all TAZs in the county. Am I doing this incorrectly? Any thoughts? Bob _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

19 years, 5 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