I'm not sure if this is the right place to mail this. I've lost most of
my email addresses so I'm sending this request here for lack of any
other place to send it. Could you please add the following email to the
mailing list:
jhoffpauer(a)metroplan.org
Thanks
A. Skaggs
I know that this may not be terribly pertinent to those doing single metro areas but at the state and national levels there is this bit of weirdness in the data in which we have multiple central cities in an msa - so a trip from one of these (Rockville Md. ) to another (Arlington or Fredericksburg) is tabbed as a central city to central city trip. For Commuting in America purposes we had to retabulate the files so that there would be comparable data from 80 to 90 - thus ending the central city renaissance of 1990. Now 2000 has a similar attribute. Question: Is there a list of the central cities in each msa/pmsa/cmsa? Wash DC had five last time I think. The message is or ought to be that Some central cities are more central than others!
AEP
My apologies for cross-postings!
Below, please find the web address for a series of case studies of the administrative, policy, and technical development of a metropolitan transportation planning practice, as experienced by 10 (only 8 are posted so far) active Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) that were designated subsequent to the 1990 Census.
Bonneville, ID
Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization, Utah
Dover/Kent, DE
Flagstaff, AZ
Fredricksburg, VA
Hernando County, FL
Ithaca-Thompkins, NY
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments , CA
www.mcb.fhwa.dot.gov/technical.html
These materials may be especially helpful to those areas which have now been designated Urbanized Areas based on the Census 2000 results.
This effort was completed under contract to the Federal Transit Administration. Questions may be addressed to Robin Mayhew at 202-366-1454 or robin.mayhew(a)fta.dot.gov
Yours truly, for better information dissemination,
Elaine Murakami, Federal Highway Administration
Note: this message is for staff of State Departments of Transportation and
Metropolitan
Planning Organizations. Other recipients may disregard and delete this
message.
Just over a week ago, this office sent email messages to the people on our
contact
list representing each State Department of Transportation and each
metropolitan planning
organization. We had spoken on the phone with most of the State DOTs
before sending the
email, but did not attempt to contact the approximately 340 MPOs. The
purpose of the
message was to gather information we need to produce Part 1 of CTPP 2000,
the place of
residence tables.
>From the State DOTs, we need to find out which detailed level of geography
they want us
to tabulate in Part 1 for each county in their state. From the MPOs, we
need to find out
which counties (minor civil divisions in the six New England states) they
want us to
tabulate in Part 1 as part of their MPO region. We then also need to have
the MPOs tell
us which detailed level of geography they want us to tabulate in each of
the counties
making up their area.
We would like to point out that we will tabulate at least one level of
detailed geography
for every county. Therefore an MPO will have access to detailed data even
for counties that are not contained in their MPO region. This is a change
from the 1990 CTPP, when only counties that were part of an MPO had data
tabulated at the tract or TAZ level. We are creating data for the MPO
region as a convenience, so you won't have to sum up the individual
counties yourself. However, the CTPP Access Tool software will allow you
to browse or manipulate data for whatever collection of geography you want.
So if you want to add to or subtract from the counties in your MPO region
you will be able to do so with the
software, and the data for all the counties will be available for your use.
Note that this information is for CTPP 2000 Part 1 tables, i.e., data by
place of residence. We are not asking about tabulating origin-destination
flows in Part 3 of CTPP 2000. We will cross that bridge later.
So, if you are in a State DOT and involved with CTPP 2000, you should have
received a
message about this topic from this office. If not, please call us at
301-763-2454 and
ask to talk to Fabian Sanchez, Clara Reschovsky, or Phil Salopek.
If you are in an MPO and involved with CTPP 2000 you may also have received
a message on
this topic from our office. However, some State DOTs are coordinating this
activity, so
not every MPO was sent an email. We ask any MPOs that have not heard
anything about this
issue to first contact their State DOT, to see if the State DOT is taking
care of it. If
the State is not handling it and the MPO has not been contacted by us, it
may be because
our contact list is out of date. In this case we ask the MPO to call
301-763-2454 and
talk with Fabian Sanchez, Clara Reschovsky, or Phil Salopek. Thank You.
Phil Salopek
Chief, Journey-to-Work and Migration Statistics Branch
Population Division
U.S. Census Bureau
Census 2000
Summary File 1 (SF1) Final National File: Same as SF1 advance national
file released nearly one year ago except that the final national file
also
contains urban/rural data. (Tentatively scheduled for release in two
weeks.)
A question was directed to me yesterday for which I had no answer.
Since I usually have an answer for everything (right or wrong), it left
me feeling incomplete. So I'm posting it here in the hopes that someone
may help me out.
We were wondering what we will get from the Census Bureau in the form
of the CTPP as it relates to the TAZ system in our region. We defined
TAZs for not only our 7-county jurisdictional area but for an additional
13 contiguous counties in the hopes that we can receive a bit more
information on commutes in the whole Minneapolis-St. Paul region.
Adjacent to us is the St. Cloud, MN MSA, a metro area of over 200,000.
They also defined a TAZ system that included a portion of Sherburne
County. Since the Census Bureau only allows one TAZ definition, we
created TAZs for only the remaining portion of Sherburne Co. Upon
submitting our TAZ definition using the TAZUP process to the Census
Bureau, that part of Sherburne Co. NOT defined by us was given a "ZZZZZZ
" label.
Now. When the CTPP is released, will we receive ONLY that area we
defined? OR... will we receive our defined area PLUS that segment
defined by St. Cloud? If we receive the whole package, can we also
obtain both metro areas as an interconnected TAZ system?
Anyone care to comment? There must be someone out there full of enough
bull like me to say a few words!!
Census Told to Show Adjusted Count
Wed Oct 9, 4:08 PM ET
By WILLIAM McCALL, Associated Press Writer
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - A federal appeals court Wednesday ruled that the Census Bureau must release its statistically adjusted count for every state, county and neighborhood in the United States.
Billions of dollars in government funding that is distributed according to population is potentially at stake in the dispute.
The Census Bureau has refused to release the adjusted numbers, contending the figures are unreliable and would cause political battles over federal funding. The bureau has instead been releasing only the population counts arrived at through census takers and questionnaires.
But a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the public is entitled to see the adjusted figures, too, under federal open-government law.
Congressional Democrats, minorities and big-city mayors have been pressing for the release of the numbers on the suspicion that large numbers of people were missed and that their districts were shortchanged federal, state and local funding because of it.
A 1999 U.S. Supreme Court ruling bars the use of adjusted numbers for reapportioning congressional seats,
but such data can be used for local districting purposes and for distributing federal grants.
A spokesman for the Justice Department, which represented the Census Bureau, did not immediately return a
call for comment.
After census takers and census questionnaires were sent out in 2000, the Census Bureau used mathematical formulas to estimate how many minorities, renters and other groups might have been missed in inner cities, rural areas and other places. Those figures are often called the "undercount."
Oregon state Sens. Susan Castillo and Margaret Carter, both Democrats, filed a Freedom of Information Act request to see the adjusted population figures. But the Census Bureau asked for an exception to the law.
In its ruling Wednesday, the appeals court upheld U.S. District Judge James A. Redden of Portland, who last November ordered the government to release the undercount.
The case marked the first time a federal judge had ruled that the adjusted 2000 counts for the entire country must be released.
I have had a request from an MPO for the FHWA course on travel Surveys. Agencies developing request for proposals for consultant surveys find this course is the most valuable.
Course Number: 151034A
Course Title: Development and Implementation of Travel Surveys
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Length (Days) CEU FEE
3 Days 1.8 Units $ 345 Per Participant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class Size: Minimum 20; Maximum 30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description:
The course provides transportation planners with information on the development and implementation of the most common types of travel surveys, including: household travel and activity, vehicle intercept, transit on-board, commercial vehicle, work place and establishment, special generator, hotel/visitor, and parking surveys. Much of the course material includes information from 'Travel Survey Manual,' published by the FHWA. The course is oriented toward those responsible for survey work and those who use the data collected such as modeling practitioners, however, it will not address travel demand modeling explicitly. In addition, the course provides guidance for avoiding common problems encountered in performing travel surveys. The goal of the course is to increase the quality of travel survey results and to promote the efficient utilization of data collection resources.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objective: Upon completion of the course, participants will be able to:
Recognize various types of travel surveys and identify principles behind each. Define the relationship of each survey to the travel forecasting process.
Develop and manage a process for implementing surveys in their local area.
Develop high quality request for proposals (RFP) for survey efforts, and effectively evaluate the proposals.
Identify emerging survey techniques and new technologies related to travel surveys.
Target Audience:
Metropolitan Planning Organization, State DOT and FHWA planning practitioners.
Since there are a limited number of MPOs conducting travel surveys at any given time it is hard to find a sponsor or enough students for a workshop. We are looking to find other potential students for the workshop. If there are enough, the Southern Resource Center may host a session.
Please let me know if you are interested, how many staff might attend and if there are geographic constraints to where you can go for it.
Ben Williams, P.E.
Metropolitan Planning Specialist
Federal Highway Administration
Southern Resource Center
V (404) 562-3671
F (404) 562-3700
ben.williams(a)fhwa.dot.gov
Web Site
www.fhwa.dot.gov/resourcecenters/southern
In case you all haven't heard, FHWA has revised their position on Census
Urban Boundaries. States now have the option of using either the Census
urban place or the Census urban cluster. As you know, there could be some
cases where an area might have 5,000 population using one definition but
less than 5,000 if they used the other. Whichever option is chosen, it
should be applied consistently throughout the state.
The September 27 issue of the "Census 2000 News Alert" reported on the
status to the American Community Survey as it relates to the current
appropriation actions in Congress. According to the report "the bureau
said it would be unable to implement the American Community Survey as
planned in FY03".
http://www.census2000.org/news/2002/sept27.html
