I just received this from Terriann regarding the current Census omnibus
spending bill.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Census funding news
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:53:44 EST
From: Terriann2K(a)aol.com
To: Terriann2K(a)aol.com
Hello, census stakeholders.I have good news to report with regard to
funding for the American Community Survey (ACS) in fiscal year 2005, but
also some cautions with regard to overall funding for the Census
Bureau. In addition, Congress has addressed concerns about proposed
changes in the race question. Please bear in mind that the $388 billion
omnibus spending bill Congress is considering today was printed late
yesterday and is not widely available yet, so we haven't seen all of the
language. (Yes, Congress is voting on a massive spending bill that most
Members have barely seen. It's a little scary!) I will send out any
clarifications in funding levels as they become available in the coming
days. Apparently, all non-defense federal programs will be subject to a
0.75 percent across-the-board cut, and I do not yet know specifically
how that will affect the numbers cited below. The omnibus spending bill
that includes funding for the Commerce Department (and most other
non-defense/non-homeland security federal agencies) allocates $146
million ($146M) for the ACS, the amount provided in the House bill.
That is $19M below the request of $165M, which means that group quarters
(e.g. college dorms, military barracks, nursing homes, etc.) will not be
included in the ACS in 2005. The bill also includes roughly $82M for the
MAF/TIGER enhancements program (part of 2010 census funding), about $3M
less than requested. Funding for Periodic Censuses and Programs is about
$54M below the budget request of $608M. The Periodics account includes
decennial census planning (2010 redesign, the ACS, and MAF/TIGER
improvements), as well as demographic estimates (e.g. intercensal pop
estimates, Demographic Analysis) and the Economic Census and Census of
Governments, among other programs. So 2010 census redesign and/or other
programs in this account will have to bear the brunt of the cut. Funding
for the second main Bureau account, Salaries and Expenses, is reportedly
$22M below the budget request of $220M. This account funds ongoing
statistical programs and surveys that measure social, economic, and
demographic characteristics. Finally, Congress included legislative
language that essentially requires the Census Bureau to include a "Some
Other Race" category in the race question. As many of you know, Census
has been testing a revised race question that drops Some Other Race from
the categories. I really think that the letters of support many of you
sent to Congress in recent weeks, in support of ACS funding, made a
difference. (A big thank you to David McMillen, House Government
Committee minority staff, for coordinating receipt and delivery of those
letters to key appropriators.) The letters let Congress know that a
broad range of stakeholders were very interested in this program. I
leave you with a final thought: We were successful in securing funding
for the ACS this year, but the fight is not over and it is not smooth
sailing from here. Given the tight federal budget situation, the Census
Bureau made out reasonably well. It's overall funding level apparently
is $130M over fiscal year 2004 (it had requested an increase of about
$204M). But the federal budget will continue to get tighter for the
forseeable future, and any whittling of ACS funding from year to year is
likely to affect sample size and the reliability of small area and small
population estimates. Remember that ACS funding barely survived a vote
on the House floor last July, competing in an amendment with a popular
program for community policing. If the House had cut ACS funding, there
would have been nothing to negotiate in conference. The long term
challenge for the Census Bureau, in light of ACS funding, is to contain
the cost of a 2010 census that does not include a long form. I wish you
all a happy and safe Thanksgiving!Terri Ann Terri Ann Lowenthal
Legislative & Policy Consultant
Washington, DC 20024
***************************
My name is John Meaker and I have been on
this list since the last TRB meeting in
January, but I don't believe I have posted
yet.
I am working on a Master's Thesis and as
part of that I need to conduct a survey
comparing two methods of displaying travel
time.
If you would like to help please visit:
http://24.242.128.21/maps/
Thanks in advance for your help.
--
John Meaker
MESSAGE RECEIVED 8:30 this morning, from Linda Gage via SDC listserv:
The correct fax number for David McMillen is 202-226-2508 (Not 2608).
***********************************************************************
I'm forwarding Linda Gage's original e-mail from Friday, 10/8/04. The
formatting is better in her original.
**************************************************************
Charles L. Purvis, AICP
Principal Transportation Planner/Analyst
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4700
(510) 464-7731 (office)
(510) 464-7848 (fax)
www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
Census WWW: http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/
**************************************************************
I'm forwarding this message from Linda Gage, chief of our California
State Data Center. This message was sent to the State Data Center
listserv this past Friday afternoon (10/8/04).
Chuck Purvis
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Dear Colleagues,
Recently reports have indicated that funding for the full launch of the
American Community Survey is uncertain. The Census Bureau director will
terminate the ACS if sufficient funding is not forthcoming in the 2005
budget. So far, the House has recommended $146 million and the Senate
appropriators allocated $64 million. Anything less than $142 million
will result in the ACS being cancelled.
The congressional conference committee to determine 2005 funding will
begin very soon. We asked what we could do to help. Letting key
members know of the value of the ACS to your organization and local
governments can help. Please mail the letters to the appropriate
Representatives and Senators. However, to assure that the staff has the
information during the conference, please fax a copy to David McMillen
at 202-225-2608 and they will be delivered to the appropriate members.
You can write a single letter addressed to both Representatives, and a
second letter addressed to both Senators. However, four copies should
be mailed.
The addresses are:
Rep. Frank R. Wolf
Rep. Jose E. Serrano
Chairman,
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
State, Judiciary, and Related Agencies
State, Judiciary, and Related Agencies
H-309, The Capitol
1016 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6017
Washington, DC 20515-6860
On the Senate side, letters should go to:
Senator Judd Gregg
Senator Ernest F. Hollings
Chairman
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
State, and the Judiciary
State, and the Judiciary
S-146A, The Capitol
123 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6027 20515
Greetings,
As part of our work on the ACS, FHWA (Ed Christopher) has asked me, to
provide an overview of work conducted using ACS data. I will present the
results at the TRB Annual Meeting in Washington (Tuesday, January 11, 2005,
3:45-5:30, near the end of the session). Please forward anything that
might be appropriate or contact me either by e-mail or by phone
(312-996-2666).
I would also appreciate if you could forward this e-mail to anyone who is
not part of the CTPP listserve but may have used ACS data.
I thank you in advance in disseminating and/or responding to this request.
Siim Sööt
Director Emeritus Urban Transportation
Center, University of Illinois at Chicago
412 South Peoria Street, MC 357 Chicago IL 60607
Phone 312-996-2666 Fax 312-413-0006
e-mail siim(a)uic.edu UTC homepage:
http://www.utc.uic.edu
Home: 678 Foxdale, Winnetka IL 60093-1950, Personal Homepage
http://www.uic.edu/~siim
Phone 847-446-7560 Fax 847-446-7450 Cell 847-372-7560
Thanks to all that responded and to Nanda for taking the time to call me!
Kevin
Kevin L. Doyle, AICP
Assistant Transportation Planner
Johnson County Council of Governments
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-356-5253
319-356-5217 [FAX]
www.jccog.org
Kevin,
You can print a map using the software, but you have to create a map layout first.
To create a map layout:
1. On the mapping component screen, Click on File - Map Layout.
2. Change your page size to anything you want. Enter a title for the map, and check the box that says:
"Fit the map to the current page size."
3. Click on Finish.
To print the Map click on File - Print - Map layout. Route the map to a printer.
Thanks
Nanda
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Doyle [mailto:Kevin-Doyle@iowa-city.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 1:06 PM
To: 'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net'
Subject: [CTPP] Printing a TAZ map
Is there a "easy" way to print out the TAZ map in the CTPP software? I've
been cutting and pasting from screen prints... Or is available from another
source/place?
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin L. Doyle, AICP
Assistant Transportation Planner
Johnson County Council of Governments
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-356-5253
319-356-5217 [FAX]
www.jccog.org
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
Is there a "easy" way to print out the TAZ map in the CTPP software? I've
been cutting and pasting from screen prints... Or is available from another
source/place?
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin L. Doyle, AICP
Assistant Transportation Planner
Johnson County Council of Governments
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-356-5253
319-356-5217 [FAX]
www.jccog.org
The order form for Part 1 CDs is now available on-line on the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics web site. Please direct all requests for Part
1 CDs to https://www.bts.gov/pdc/index.xml
Click on CTPP 2000.
Ed Christopher
Joe: In New Jersey, we have looked at a limited set of data for Jersey City, Newark, a few other areas, and NJ trips to Manhattan. One thing you may have to do is make sure you have corrected for the census coding as "0" any tract to tract movements where there are only 2 or less long form surveys returned. We found that in downtown Jersey City, if we did not do this, we lost almost 60% of the number of trips using tract to tract, especially reverse Trans-Hudson trips. There are procedures, including dividing two tables dealing with total travel time by mode that will get you the correct (at least from the census) number of JTW trips. In looking at NJ, most counties seemed to be low by about 10% compared to the census, which I understand is the normal correction that should be applied to census data since it only includes the primary or first job, and does not correct for persons not reporting to work that day. You also have a lot of business trips to areas of Manhattan for most of a week, so you will find a lot of workers coming from states outside the immediate 4 state area that commutes to Manhattan. Call me at 973-491-7751 or E-Mail me and we can give you further details. Do you have access to Part 3 tables for suburban NY to Manhattan JTW trips?
-----Original Message-----
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Murakami, Elaine
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 7:02 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: [CTPP] CTPP Part 2 data for New York City
The note below is from Joe Salvo, who is a very active member of the Census Bureau State Data Center (SDC) network, but not a CTPP listserv member:
We have taken a close look at the counts of total workers from the 1990 and 2000 CTPP Part 2 at the Census Tract level. There seems to be an unusual amount of volatility, with double-digit percent increases and declines. (And, it is not a function of small bases, as many of the tracts showing large increases/declines have several thousand workers.)
We have mapped the changes and, with the exception of two or three areas, these "ups and downs" seem almost randomly distributed.
Has anyone else compared 1990 and 2000 CTPP data for small areas?
Joe Salvo
NYC Department of City Planning
jsalvo(a)planning.nyc.gov
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
