ctpp-news

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

2560 discussions

RE: [CTPP] Changes in Workers per HH and Vehicles per HH (long po st)

by David Abrams

Albuquerque (not one of your 36 largest MSAs) also had a decline in workers per household from 1.235 to 1.188. We looked at the employment number compared to the employment data coming from the Department of Labor. We found that the number of workers (326,775) was somewhat less than the NMDOL estimate of Nonagricultural Employment (354,883). The NonAg number does not count agricultural or self-employment both of which are included in the number of workers (employed residents). In 1990, the number of workers reported by the Census exceeded the estimate of NonAg employment. We are thinking that there may be a major increase in persons working two jobs. If this is more widespread than Albuquerque it could have considerable consequences. To my knowledge there is not data collected on workers working multiple wage jobs. A question for Chuck Purvis: Did you control for the change in household size when you compared the workers to households ratios for 1990 and 2000. Dave Abrams Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments

22 years, 6 months

Changes in Workers per HH and Vehicles per HH (long post)

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP-News Okay, I'm starting a new thread on a new topic. This is related to the national and metropolitan area changes in employed residents per household, and vehicles per household. IF AND WHEN responding to my message, please "snip out" my very long message. What caught us by surprise in our region was a DECLINING number of workers per household, 1990 to 2000. (We were predicting that employed residents per household would increase from 1.40 in 1990 to 1.45 in 2000, instead, the Census 2000 shows us at 1.37 workers per household! This trend in workers/HH also explains to a certain extent our under-prediction of zero-vehicle households: we expected our zero-vehicle HH share to decrease from 10.3 to 9.3 percent; instead, it decreased only from 10.3% in 1990 to 10.0% in 2000.) NATIONALLY, the number of employed residents / household declined from 1.28 in 1990 to 1.24 in 2000. (Note: employed residents also includes workers residing in group quarters / military barracks, so it's not exactly workers in households, it's workers divided by households. Employed residents is defined as the civilian employed plus armed forces.) National Data: Year Households Employed Residents EMPRES/HH 1990 91,947,410 117,390,130 1.277 2000 105,480,101 130,873,649 1.241 Of the 36 largest metropolitan planning organizations in the US (population > 1 million), 30 show DECREASING workers/household, 1990-2000, and only 6 show INCREASING workers/household. Those with an increase: Salt Lake City (1.40 to 1.51), Denver (1.33 to 1.36), Portland (1.29 to 1.31), Phoenix (1.26 to 1.27), Pittsburgh (1.10 to 1.11), and Tampa-St. Pete (1.07 to 1.08). Washington, DC (1.533 to 1.400) and Miami (1.31 to 1.19) show the LARGEST DECREASE in workers per household. Why? I don't know. (I wish I knew what was going on. Eventually, with the SF3 and PUMS datasets we will be able to understand which, if any, age-sex cohorts are showing increasing or decreasing labor force participation rates....) Question: are there any other databases (CPS, AHS, ACS, etc.) that can be used to corroborate this trend in decreasing workers per household? ************************************************ In terms of vehicles per household, and vehicles in household, the national census-based statistics are: Year Households Households-in-Vehicles Vehicles/Household 1990 91,947,410 153,701,085 1.67 2000 105,480,101 177,459,681 1.68 (I assumed 3.35 vehicles per 3+ vehicle household, based on 1990 Census data on vehicles/3+ vehicle household. The 177.5 million household vehicles is probably accurate, plus-or-minus 1.0 million. The 1990 HH vehicles is from the CTPP/SE.) Census data shows a 15.5 percent increase in household vehicles, 1990 to 2000. THIS COMPARES TO NATIONAL VEHICLE REGISTRATION DATA available on FHWA's Office of Highway Information Management web site: Private AND Commercial Vehicle Registrations (excluded Publicly-owned vehicles) Year Autos Trucks Auto+Truck 1990 132,164,330 53,101,089 185,265,419 2000 132,247,286 85,004,999 217,252,285 % Change 0.01% +60.1% +17.3% So, the 15.5 percent increase in household vehicles, US, is somewhat consistent with a 17.3 percent increase in private-plus-commercial vehicle registrations. And as should be expected the Census-based HH vehicles is between the total auto registrations, and total auto+truck registrations. (Unfortunately, the Census data at our regional level don't reconcile with our California DMV registration trends. The Census suggests a 8.5 percent increase in household vehicles in the SF Bay Area, compared to a 12 to 14 percent increase in auto+truck registrations. "County Registrations Are Problematic"....) Census Trends in V/HH and share of HH with zero-vehicles: 17 of the 36 largest MPOs in the US show declining vehicles per household between 1990 and 2000. Vehicles per household range from a low in the New York region (NYMTC, 1.01 to 0.98 vehicle/HH) to a high in Salt Lake City (WFRC, 1.91 increasing to 1.95). 8 of the 36 largest MPOs show INCREASES in the share of households with zero vehicles. NYMTC (New York) leads the way with 40.6% (1990) to 41.0% (2000) zero-vehicle HH share. Other MPOs showing increases in the share of zero-vehicle households: Newark (13.2 to 13.5%), Los Angeles (8.7 to 10.1%), Las Vegas (8.0 to 9.5%), San Diego (7.7 to 8.0%), Seattle (7.6 to 7.9%), Sacramento (7.4 to 7.8%), and Phoenix (6.9 to 7.0%). It's fascinating looking at these WEST COAST metropolitan areas that show INCREASING SHARE OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH ZERO VEHICLES....Who are these households, and what's their story? (Stay tuned, we need the PUMS to dig down to see what's up!) (In terms of this MPO database I'm working on, I'm re-organizing it and will post it on our FTP in the next few days. Given the issues with changing county composition of MSAs and CMSAs, I've gone back to the original county-level CTPP/SE data from the 1990 Census, and the county-level data file from the Census 2000 DP234, to re-construct MPO-compatible tables. I am doing this a) because I can and who's going to stop me?; b) it's helpful to AMPO; and c) I'm interested if data is just screwy for my region, or screwy on a nationwide basis or for other MPOs.) That's about all I have for now. Cheers, Chuck Purvis *********************************************** Charles L. Purvis, AICP Senior 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://census.mtc.ca.gov/ ***********************************************

22 years, 6 months

Re: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership Statistics

by Sweson Yang

Sorry for interject with another Census 2000 related question: According to the newly released Census 2000 Urbanized Area data, Los Angels - Long Beach - Santa Ana, CA is the most densely populated urban area in the United States with 7,068 persons per square mile. True or False? Well, we fought the UZA definition and lost. Now we have to explain the ill-defined term and make some sense out of this new ranking by density. By the way, Chicago, IL - IN is the second largest Urbanized Area by Land Area. >>> "Alan E. Pisarski" <PISARSKI(a)ix.netcom.com> 07/08/02 01:17PM >>> MY GREAT CONCERN IS THAT WE WILL HAVE FOUR DATA SETS BY NEXT YEAR - THE C2SS FOR 2000, THE CENSUS JTW FOR 2000, THE NEW ACS-SS01 SURVEY AND THE NPTS -everyone will be able to pick their favorite and spin forever as Ed says. We must understand the linkages and differences or we will expire. AEP ----- Original Message ----- From: ed christopher <edc(a)berwyned.com> Cc: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 1:33 PM Subject: Re: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership Statistics > Chris I thought your comment about the census data being flawed was a bit strong and way off the point of what Chuck was raising > here. You and Ken may have your beef with arguing for specific projects but I believe what Chuck was doing was trying to get folks to > begin thinking how we can reconcile the differences between the various data sets. I don't think that arguing about the integrity of > the data--one versus the other is really the way to go. I am sure that most transit ridership count programs have their own warts. > This is why planners need to understand what is behind the numbers they use and stay away from working the "spin" game. To complicate > this even more, toss in a household travel survey and several transit on board surveys and the mix becomes all that more interesting. > > Wouldn't it serve the planning community better to fully understand and quantify the differences between the data sets? We know there > is variability in peoples travel. > > Now here is a wild thought (although I say it tongue-in-check). Maybe the people who take transit one or two days a week or for part > of their trip are doing it for altruistic reasons. Since they know transit may get short shifted they overlook their auto travel and > say they used transit most of the time on their census form. Its just a thought. > > As for Chucks comments I believe that he was actually searching to gain a better understanding into the trip purpose side of mode > split issue. Is the the work trip declining in its mode share? The answer of course in not in any census data. > > Forinash.Christopher(a)epamail.epa.gov wrote: > > > Isn't another piece of the explanation that the Census doesn't actually > > measure trip-making as we typically define it? The Census mode-to-work > > question is an odd thing -- see > > http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d02p.pdf questions 23a&b. The Census > > day was 4/1/2000, and it asks "how did this person usually get to work > > LAST WEEK?", and requires a one-mode answer (with "most distance" the > > criteria for choosing main mode). So for a number of individuals and > > families with whome I am anecdotally familiar, you don't count transit > > even if you use it quite a bit. If you walk to transit to and from work > > 2 days a week and drive the others, you don't report transit. If you > > carpool to a parking location and then take transit to your office every > > day, you don't report transit. If you drive from Loudoun County VA to > > the Vienna METRO to downtown Washington DC every day, you don't report > > transit. So aren't the Census numbers ALWAYS going to be biased toward > > the "dominant" mode (unless everyone does the same thing every single > > day)? As others have posted, there are other reasons for disagreement > > between Census travel trends and all other sources, but this is clearly > > one. > > > > Lots of people seek smart growth locations for home and work > > specifically to have access to transportation choices. That doesn't > > mean that every day, or even the majority of days, they won't drive. I > > ranted a bit about this a couple weeks ago in response to Ken Orski's > > flippant post to a thread started by Chuck Purvis. Using these flawed > > Census numbers to argue for further depriving people of transportation > > choices is completely outdated thinking. > > > > Chris. > > ------------------------------------ > > Christopher V. Forinash > > U.S. EPA: Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation > > 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW (MC 1808), Washington DC 20460 > > (Delivery: 401 M St. SW, #WT-1013D) > > 202-260-5044 vox 0174 fax; forinash.christopher(a)epa.gov > > ------------------------------------ > > Development, Community & Environment Division: > > http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth > > A partner in the Smart Growth Network: http://www.smartgrowth.org > > > > > > "Gardner, John > > F" To: 'Chuck Purvis' <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov>, ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > > <GardnerJF(a)dot.s cc: > > tate.sc.us> Subject: RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership St atistics > > Sent by: > > owner-ctpp-news@ > > chrispy.net > > > > > > 07/08/2002 08:14 > > AM > > > > > > > > Another explanation for the growth in total unlinked passenger trips, > > while > > total transit commuters remained stable, is the shift toward rail > > transit by > > many of the growing transit systems. In many cases, light rail replaced > > express bus service. The express bus collected people in their > > neighborhoods or at a park and ride lot and was a "one-seat" trip. Rail > > often involves a transfer from a feeder bus to the train, so a trip that > > formerly counted as one unlinked passenger trip now counts as two. A > > better > > measure would be "linked trips" (excludes transfers) when making this > > comparison, but I don't believe they are reported. > > > > John Gardner, AICP > > SCDOT Office of Planning > > PO Box 191 > > Columbia, SC 29202-0191 > > (803) 737 - 1444 > > gardnerjf(a)dot.state.sc.us > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chuck Purvis [mailto:CPurvis@mtc.ca.gov] > > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 6:36 PM > > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > > Subject: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership > > Statistics > > > > To: CTPP-News > > > > One of the interesting journey-to-work results is the lack of change, at > > the > > NATIONAL level, in the total number of transit commuters. The US had > > 6,069,589 transit commuters according to the 1990 Census, and 6,067,703 > > transit commuters according to the 2000 Census, a 0.03 percent decrease. > > (On > > the other hand, the US transit commute SHARE declined from 5.3 percent > > in > > 1990 to 4.7 percent in 2000.) > > > > This compares to national transit ridership statistics which show a 6.4 > > percent increase in annual unlinked passenger trips comparing 1990 to > > 2000. > > (Source is APTA's 2002 Public Transportation Fact Book, Table 26.) The > > APTA > > book (I would assume based on FTA-collected ridership statistics) shows > > annual unlinked public transit trips increasing from 8,799 million trips > > in > > 1990 to 9,363 million trips in 2000 (the 2000 numbers are preliminary, > > according to the 2002 APTA Fact Book). > > > > So, an issue is how to reconcile a 0.0 percent change in national > > transit > > commuters with a 6.4 percent increase in national transit ridership. > > > > A plausible explanation is that the work trip share of public > > transportation > > trips has declined since 1990. According to the 1990 NPTS, 42.6 percent > > of > > public transportation person trips are for the purpose of "earning a > > living" > > (NPTS Databook, Vol. 1, Table 4.40). > > > > So, I can calculate that about 3,748 million unlinked transit boardings > > (in > > 1990) are "work trips" and that this might decline to about 3,747 > > million > > unlinked transit boarding "work trips", in 2000. This means that perhaps > > 40 > > percent of year 2000 transit boardings are work trips (3,747 / 9,363), > > which > > is quite plausible at the national level. > > > > The story might be that the national number of transit work trips, 1990 > > to > > 2000, has remained fairly stable, and that, at least at the national > > level, > > the growth in transit is attributable to non-work travel. > > > > The data question is: is information available from either the 1995 NPTS > > or > > the 2001 NHTS that can corroborate this possible trend - - a decline in > > the > > work purpose share for public transportation trips? > > > > Also, who has attempted to reconcile their change in regional transit > > commuters with their own transit ridership statistics? What would be > > most > > helpful is any comparisons of on-board surveys or household travel > > surveys > > that show any changes in the trip purpose mix for transit trips. > > > > (Other larger issues still loom in terms of the plausibility/fixability > > of > > the Census data. We are very concerned about the overall LOW numbers of > > TOTAL commuters and employed residents we're seeing in the 2000 Census > > in > > our region....) > > > > Wishing a Safe & Sane Happy Fourth of July to All! > > > > Chuck Purvis > > > > *********************************************** > > Charles L. Purvis, AICP > > Senior 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://census.mtc.ca.gov/ > > *********************************************** > > -- > Ed Christopher > Metropolitan Activities > Midwest Resource Center > Federal Highway Administration > 19900 Governors Drive > Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461 > 708-283-3534 (V) > 708-283-3501 (F) > > > Sweson Yang, AICP Chief Transportation Planner Indianapolis Metro Planning Organization 200 E. Washington St., Suite 1841 Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 327-5137t co

22 years, 6 months

Re: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership Statistics

by Forinash.Christopher＠epamail.epa.gov

CTPP list, Ed, and others who gently chided me off list for calling the Census data "flawed" -- I agree that I poorly though out the comment where I called the Census data flawed, and we are all indebted to the hard work of our FHWA colleagues, Chuck, and many others for making sure the Census even has transportation questions! The technical point I was trying to make is that looking at the CTPP worker-flow, usual-mode information as "tripmaking" isn't right. It's clearly useful, and one of the few national snapshots we have that develops some decent work travel information. Like all our other data sources though, it's clearly limited. Not "wrong", not "flawed", but you've probably noticed it gets trumpeted in the media because it's "the Census" and any number of other more travel-focused surveys like NHTS or FTA ridership numbers get a small mention in paragraph 13. Trust me, I understand that the transportation profession needs to be able to tease out the important information from a wide variety of data sources. I was/am trying to contribute to that by pointing out one reason for the discrepancy that Chuck's thread identified, then I went and turned it into a mini-rant. No more, I promise! (thread deleted, as it was getting really long!) Chris. ------------------------------------ Christopher V. Forinash U.S. EPA: Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW (MC 1808), Washington DC 20460 (Delivery: 401 M St. SW, #WT-1013D) 202-260-5044 vox 0174 fax; forinash.christopher(a)epa.gov ------------------------------------ Development, Community & Environment Division: http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth A partner in the Smart Growth Network: http://www.smartgrowth.org

22 years, 6 months

RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership St atistics

by Forinash.Christopher＠epamail.epa.gov

Isn't another piece of the explanation that the Census doesn't actually measure trip-making as we typically define it? The Census mode-to-work question is an odd thing -- see http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d02p.pdf questions 23a&b. The Census day was 4/1/2000, and it asks "how did this person usually get to work LAST WEEK?", and requires a one-mode answer (with "most distance" the criteria for choosing main mode). So for a number of individuals and families with whome I am anecdotally familiar, you don't count transit even if you use it quite a bit. If you walk to transit to and from work 2 days a week and drive the others, you don't report transit. If you carpool to a parking location and then take transit to your office every day, you don't report transit. If you drive from Loudoun County VA to the Vienna METRO to downtown Washington DC every day, you don't report transit. So aren't the Census numbers ALWAYS going to be biased toward the "dominant" mode (unless everyone does the same thing every single day)? As others have posted, there are other reasons for disagreement between Census travel trends and all other sources, but this is clearly one. Lots of people seek smart growth locations for home and work specifically to have access to transportation choices. That doesn't mean that every day, or even the majority of days, they won't drive. I ranted a bit about this a couple weeks ago in response to Ken Orski's flippant post to a thread started by Chuck Purvis. Using these flawed Census numbers to argue for further depriving people of transportation choices is completely outdated thinking. Chris. ------------------------------------ Christopher V. Forinash U.S. EPA: Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW (MC 1808), Washington DC 20460 (Delivery: 401 M St. SW, #WT-1013D) 202-260-5044 vox 0174 fax; forinash.christopher(a)epa.gov ------------------------------------ Development, Community & Environment Division: http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth A partner in the Smart Growth Network: http://www.smartgrowth.org "Gardner, John F" To: 'Chuck Purvis' <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov>, ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net <GardnerJF(a)dot.s cc: tate.sc.us> Subject: RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership St atistics Sent by: owner-ctpp-news@ chrispy.net 07/08/2002 08:14 AM Another explanation for the growth in total unlinked passenger trips, while total transit commuters remained stable, is the shift toward rail transit by many of the growing transit systems. In many cases, light rail replaced express bus service. The express bus collected people in their neighborhoods or at a park and ride lot and was a "one-seat" trip. Rail often involves a transfer from a feeder bus to the train, so a trip that formerly counted as one unlinked passenger trip now counts as two. A better measure would be "linked trips" (excludes transfers) when making this comparison, but I don't believe they are reported. John Gardner, AICP SCDOT Office of Planning PO Box 191 Columbia, SC 29202-0191 (803) 737 - 1444 gardnerjf(a)dot.state.sc.us -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Purvis [mailto:CPurvis@mtc.ca.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 6:36 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership Statistics To: CTPP-News One of the interesting journey-to-work results is the lack of change, at the NATIONAL level, in the total number of transit commuters. The US had 6,069,589 transit commuters according to the 1990 Census, and 6,067,703 transit commuters according to the 2000 Census, a 0.03 percent decrease. (On the other hand, the US transit commute SHARE declined from 5.3 percent in 1990 to 4.7 percent in 2000.) This compares to national transit ridership statistics which show a 6.4 percent increase in annual unlinked passenger trips comparing 1990 to 2000. (Source is APTA's 2002 Public Transportation Fact Book, Table 26.) The APTA book (I would assume based on FTA-collected ridership statistics) shows annual unlinked public transit trips increasing from 8,799 million trips in 1990 to 9,363 million trips in 2000 (the 2000 numbers are preliminary, according to the 2002 APTA Fact Book). So, an issue is how to reconcile a 0.0 percent change in national transit commuters with a 6.4 percent increase in national transit ridership. A plausible explanation is that the work trip share of public transportation trips has declined since 1990. According to the 1990 NPTS, 42.6 percent of public transportation person trips are for the purpose of "earning a living" (NPTS Databook, Vol. 1, Table 4.40). So, I can calculate that about 3,748 million unlinked transit boardings (in 1990) are "work trips" and that this might decline to about 3,747 million unlinked transit boarding "work trips", in 2000. This means that perhaps 40 percent of year 2000 transit boardings are work trips (3,747 / 9,363), which is quite plausible at the national level. The story might be that the national number of transit work trips, 1990 to 2000, has remained fairly stable, and that, at least at the national level, the growth in transit is attributable to non-work travel. The data question is: is information available from either the 1995 NPTS or the 2001 NHTS that can corroborate this possible trend - - a decline in the work purpose share for public transportation trips? Also, who has attempted to reconcile their change in regional transit commuters with their own transit ridership statistics? What would be most helpful is any comparisons of on-board surveys or household travel surveys that show any changes in the trip purpose mix for transit trips. (Other larger issues still loom in terms of the plausibility/fixability of the Census data. We are very concerned about the overall LOW numbers of TOTAL commuters and employed residents we're seeing in the 2000 Census in our region....) Wishing a Safe & Sane Happy Fourth of July to All! Chuck Purvis *********************************************** Charles L. Purvis, AICP Senior 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://census.mtc.ca.gov/ ***********************************************

22 years, 6 months

RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership St atistics

by tara.bartee＠dot.state.fl.us

The Florida Transit Information System, developed for the Florida DOT by Florida International University, has the capacity to analyze the National Transit Database back to 1984. I ran a little spreadsheet showing transit ridership, system by system, in 1990 and 2000. (See attached file: nationwide ridership 1990 and 2000.xls) I can think of may reasons for the apparent difference between ridership growth as reported by operators, and the stagnation in the census. Several have been mentioned, the limitation of the census question to work trips, and to the most common means of travel seem to me the biggest contributors to the discrepancy. Someone mentioned the substitution of one transit mode for another. Our system can make that analysis, but it will take me some more time. Mode substitution does not seem to be a big factor in Florida. Tara Bartee Public Transit Office 850-414-4520 David Abrams <dabrams(a)mrgcog.o To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net rg> cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit owner-ctpp-news@c Commuters with Ridership St atistics hrispy.net 07/08/02 12:05 PM It seems that it would be helpful to know the extent, if at all, that urban areas have cut back transit routes and service post 1990 due to budget cuts and/or low ridership. Is there data on this? Dave Abrams Information Services Manager Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments Albuquerque, New Mexico -----Original Message----- From: Forinash.Christopher(a)epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Forinash.Christopher@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 7:26 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership St atistics Isn't another piece of the explanation that the Census doesn't actually measure trip-making as we typically define it? The Census mode-to-work question is an odd thing -- see http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d02p.pdf questions 23a&b. The Census day was 4/1/2000, and it asks "how did this person usually get to work LAST WEEK?", and requires a one-mode answer (with "most distance" the criteria for choosing main mode). So for a number of individuals and families with whome I am anecdotally familiar, you don't count transit even if you use it quite a bit. If you walk to transit to and from work 2 days a week and drive the others, you don't report transit. If you carpool to a parking location and then take transit to your office every day, you don't report transit. If you drive from Loudoun County VA to the Vienna METRO to downtown Washington DC every day, you don't report transit. So aren't the Census numbers ALWAYS going to be biased toward the "dominant" mode (unless everyone does the same thing every single day)? As others have posted, there are other reasons for disagreement between Census travel trends and all other sources, but this is clearly one. Lots of people seek smart growth locations for home and work specifically to have access to transportation choices. That doesn't mean that every day, or even the majority of days, they won't drive. I ranted a bit about this a couple weeks ago in response to Ken Orski's flippant post to a thread started by Chuck Purvis. Using these flawed Census numbers to argue for further depriving people of transportation choices is completely outdated thinking. Chris. ------------------------------------ Christopher V. Forinash U.S. EPA: Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW (MC 1808), Washington DC 20460 (Delivery: 401 M St. SW, #WT-1013D) 202-260-5044 vox 0174 fax; forinash.christopher(a)epa.gov ------------------------------------ Development, Community & Environment Division: http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth A partner in the Smart Growth Network: http://www.smartgrowth.org "Gardner, John F" To: 'Chuck Purvis' <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov>, ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net <GardnerJF(a)dot.s cc: tate.sc.us> Subject: RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership St atistics Sent by: owner-ctpp-news@ chrispy.net 07/08/2002 08:14 AM Another explanation for the growth in total unlinked passenger trips, while total transit commuters remained stable, is the shift toward rail transit by many of the growing transit systems. In many cases, light rail replaced express bus service. The express bus collected people in their neighborhoods or at a park and ride lot and was a "one-seat" trip. Rail often involves a transfer from a feeder bus to the train, so a trip that formerly counted as one unlinked passenger trip now counts as two. A better measure would be "linked trips" (excludes transfers) when making this comparison, but I don't believe they are reported. John Gardner, AICP SCDOT Office of Planning PO Box 191 Columbia, SC 29202-0191 (803) 737 - 1444 gardnerjf(a)dot.state.sc.us -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Purvis [mailto:CPurvis@mtc.ca.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 6:36 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership Statistics To: CTPP-News One of the interesting journey-to-work results is the lack of change, at the NATIONAL level, in the total number of transit commuters. The US had 6,069,589 transit commuters according to the 1990 Census, and 6,067,703 transit commuters according to the 2000 Census, a 0.03 percent decrease. (On the other hand, the US transit commute SHARE declined from 5.3 percent in 1990 to 4.7 percent in 2000.) This compares to national transit ridership statistics which show a 6.4 percent increase in annual unlinked passenger trips comparing 1990 to 2000. (Source is APTA's 2002 Public Transportation Fact Book, Table 26.) The APTA book (I would assume based on FTA-collected ridership statistics) shows annual unlinked public transit trips increasing from 8,799 million trips in 1990 to 9,363 million trips in 2000 (the 2000 numbers are preliminary, according to the 2002 APTA Fact Book). So, an issue is how to reconcile a 0.0 percent change in national transit commuters with a 6.4 percent increase in national transit ridership. A plausible explanation is that the work trip share of public transportation trips has declined since 1990. According to the 1990 NPTS, 42.6 percent of public transportation person trips are for the purpose of "earning a living" (NPTS Databook, Vol. 1, Table 4.40). So, I can calculate that about 3,748 million unlinked transit boardings (in 1990) are "work trips" and that this might decline to about 3,747 million unlinked transit boarding "work trips", in 2000. This means that perhaps 40 percent of year 2000 transit boardings are work trips (3,747 / 9,363), which is quite plausible at the national level. The story might be that the national number of transit work trips, 1990 to 2000, has remained fairly stable, and that, at least at the national level, the growth in transit is attributable to non-work travel. The data question is: is information available from either the 1995 NPTS or the 2001 NHTS that can corroborate this possible trend - - a decline in the work purpose share for public transportation trips? Also, who has attempted to reconcile their change in regional transit commuters with their own transit ridership statistics? What would be most helpful is any comparisons of on-board surveys or household travel surveys that show any changes in the trip purpose mix for transit trips. (Other larger issues still loom in terms of the plausibility/fixability of the Census data. We are very concerned about the overall LOW numbers of TOTAL commuters and employed residents we're seeing in the 2000 Census in our region....) Wishing a Safe & Sane Happy Fourth of July to All! Chuck Purvis *********************************************** Charles L. Purvis, AICP Senior 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://census.mtc.ca.gov/ ***********************************************

22 years, 6 months

RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership St atistics

by David Abrams

It seems that it would be helpful to know the extent, if at all, that urban areas have cut back transit routes and service post 1990 due to budget cuts and/or low ridership. Is there data on this? Dave Abrams Information Services Manager Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments Albuquerque, New Mexico -----Original Message----- From: Forinash.Christopher(a)epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Forinash.Christopher@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 7:26 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership St atistics Isn't another piece of the explanation that the Census doesn't actually measure trip-making as we typically define it? The Census mode-to-work question is an odd thing -- see http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d02p.pdf questions 23a&b. The Census day was 4/1/2000, and it asks "how did this person usually get to work LAST WEEK?", and requires a one-mode answer (with "most distance" the criteria for choosing main mode). So for a number of individuals and families with whome I am anecdotally familiar, you don't count transit even if you use it quite a bit. If you walk to transit to and from work 2 days a week and drive the others, you don't report transit. If you carpool to a parking location and then take transit to your office every day, you don't report transit. If you drive from Loudoun County VA to the Vienna METRO to downtown Washington DC every day, you don't report transit. So aren't the Census numbers ALWAYS going to be biased toward the "dominant" mode (unless everyone does the same thing every single day)? As others have posted, there are other reasons for disagreement between Census travel trends and all other sources, but this is clearly one. Lots of people seek smart growth locations for home and work specifically to have access to transportation choices. That doesn't mean that every day, or even the majority of days, they won't drive. I ranted a bit about this a couple weeks ago in response to Ken Orski's flippant post to a thread started by Chuck Purvis. Using these flawed Census numbers to argue for further depriving people of transportation choices is completely outdated thinking. Chris. ------------------------------------ Christopher V. Forinash U.S. EPA: Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW (MC 1808), Washington DC 20460 (Delivery: 401 M St. SW, #WT-1013D) 202-260-5044 vox 0174 fax; forinash.christopher(a)epa.gov ------------------------------------ Development, Community & Environment Division: http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth A partner in the Smart Growth Network: http://www.smartgrowth.org "Gardner, John F" To: 'Chuck Purvis' <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov>, ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net <GardnerJF(a)dot.s cc: tate.sc.us> Subject: RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership St atistics Sent by: owner-ctpp-news@ chrispy.net 07/08/2002 08:14 AM Another explanation for the growth in total unlinked passenger trips, while total transit commuters remained stable, is the shift toward rail transit by many of the growing transit systems. In many cases, light rail replaced express bus service. The express bus collected people in their neighborhoods or at a park and ride lot and was a "one-seat" trip. Rail often involves a transfer from a feeder bus to the train, so a trip that formerly counted as one unlinked passenger trip now counts as two. A better measure would be "linked trips" (excludes transfers) when making this comparison, but I don't believe they are reported. John Gardner, AICP SCDOT Office of Planning PO Box 191 Columbia, SC 29202-0191 (803) 737 - 1444 gardnerjf(a)dot.state.sc.us -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Purvis [mailto:CPurvis@mtc.ca.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 6:36 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership Statistics To: CTPP-News One of the interesting journey-to-work results is the lack of change, at the NATIONAL level, in the total number of transit commuters. The US had 6,069,589 transit commuters according to the 1990 Census, and 6,067,703 transit commuters according to the 2000 Census, a 0.03 percent decrease. (On the other hand, the US transit commute SHARE declined from 5.3 percent in 1990 to 4.7 percent in 2000.) This compares to national transit ridership statistics which show a 6.4 percent increase in annual unlinked passenger trips comparing 1990 to 2000. (Source is APTA's 2002 Public Transportation Fact Book, Table 26.) The APTA book (I would assume based on FTA-collected ridership statistics) shows annual unlinked public transit trips increasing from 8,799 million trips in 1990 to 9,363 million trips in 2000 (the 2000 numbers are preliminary, according to the 2002 APTA Fact Book). So, an issue is how to reconcile a 0.0 percent change in national transit commuters with a 6.4 percent increase in national transit ridership. A plausible explanation is that the work trip share of public transportation trips has declined since 1990. According to the 1990 NPTS, 42.6 percent of public transportation person trips are for the purpose of "earning a living" (NPTS Databook, Vol. 1, Table 4.40). So, I can calculate that about 3,748 million unlinked transit boardings (in 1990) are "work trips" and that this might decline to about 3,747 million unlinked transit boarding "work trips", in 2000. This means that perhaps 40 percent of year 2000 transit boardings are work trips (3,747 / 9,363), which is quite plausible at the national level. The story might be that the national number of transit work trips, 1990 to 2000, has remained fairly stable, and that, at least at the national level, the growth in transit is attributable to non-work travel. The data question is: is information available from either the 1995 NPTS or the 2001 NHTS that can corroborate this possible trend - - a decline in the work purpose share for public transportation trips? Also, who has attempted to reconcile their change in regional transit commuters with their own transit ridership statistics? What would be most helpful is any comparisons of on-board surveys or household travel surveys that show any changes in the trip purpose mix for transit trips. (Other larger issues still loom in terms of the plausibility/fixability of the Census data. We are very concerned about the overall LOW numbers of TOTAL commuters and employed residents we're seeing in the 2000 Census in our region....) Wishing a Safe & Sane Happy Fourth of July to All! Chuck Purvis *********************************************** Charles L. Purvis, AICP Senior 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://census.mtc.ca.gov/ ***********************************************

22 years, 6 months

RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership St atistics

by Gardner, John F

Another explanation for the growth in total unlinked passenger trips, while total transit commuters remained stable, is the shift toward rail transit by many of the growing transit systems. In many cases, light rail replaced express bus service. The express bus collected people in their neighborhoods or at a park and ride lot and was a "one-seat" trip. Rail often involves a transfer from a feeder bus to the train, so a trip that formerly counted as one unlinked passenger trip now counts as two. A better measure would be "linked trips" (excludes transfers) when making this comparison, but I don't believe they are reported. John Gardner, AICP SCDOT Office of Planning PO Box 191 Columbia, SC 29202-0191 (803) 737 - 1444 gardnerjf(a)dot.state.sc.us -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Purvis [mailto:CPurvis@mtc.ca.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 6:36 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership Statistics To: CTPP-News One of the interesting journey-to-work results is the lack of change, at the NATIONAL level, in the total number of transit commuters. The US had 6,069,589 transit commuters according to the 1990 Census, and 6,067,703 transit commuters according to the 2000 Census, a 0.03 percent decrease. (On the other hand, the US transit commute SHARE declined from 5.3 percent in 1990 to 4.7 percent in 2000.) This compares to national transit ridership statistics which show a 6.4 percent increase in annual unlinked passenger trips comparing 1990 to 2000. (Source is APTA's 2002 Public Transportation Fact Book, Table 26.) The APTA book (I would assume based on FTA-collected ridership statistics) shows annual unlinked public transit trips increasing from 8,799 million trips in 1990 to 9,363 million trips in 2000 (the 2000 numbers are preliminary, according to the 2002 APTA Fact Book). So, an issue is how to reconcile a 0.0 percent change in national transit commuters with a 6.4 percent increase in national transit ridership. A plausible explanation is that the work trip share of public transportation trips has declined since 1990. According to the 1990 NPTS, 42.6 percent of public transportation person trips are for the purpose of "earning a living" (NPTS Databook, Vol. 1, Table 4.40). So, I can calculate that about 3,748 million unlinked transit boardings (in 1990) are "work trips" and that this might decline to about 3,747 million unlinked transit boarding "work trips", in 2000. This means that perhaps 40 percent of year 2000 transit boardings are work trips (3,747 / 9,363), which is quite plausible at the national level. The story might be that the national number of transit work trips, 1990 to 2000, has remained fairly stable, and that, at least at the national level, the growth in transit is attributable to non-work travel. The data question is: is information available from either the 1995 NPTS or the 2001 NHTS that can corroborate this possible trend - - a decline in the work purpose share for public transportation trips? Also, who has attempted to reconcile their change in regional transit commuters with their own transit ridership statistics? What would be most helpful is any comparisons of on-board surveys or household travel surveys that show any changes in the trip purpose mix for transit trips. (Other larger issues still loom in terms of the plausibility/fixability of the Census data. We are very concerned about the overall LOW numbers of TOTAL commuters and employed residents we're seeing in the 2000 Census in our region....) Wishing a Safe & Sane Happy Fourth of July to All! Chuck Purvis *********************************************** Charles L. Purvis, AICP Senior 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://census.mtc.ca.gov/ ***********************************************

22 years, 6 months

Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership Statistics

by Chuck Purvis

To: CTPP-News One of the interesting journey-to-work results is the lack of change, at the NATIONAL level, in the total number of transit commuters. The US had 6,069,589 transit commuters according to the 1990 Census, and 6,067,703 transit commuters according to the 2000 Census, a 0.03 percent decrease. (On the other hand, the US transit commute SHARE declined from 5.3 percent in 1990 to 4.7 percent in 2000.) This compares to national transit ridership statistics which show a 6.4 percent increase in annual unlinked passenger trips comparing 1990 to 2000. (Source is APTA's 2002 Public Transportation Fact Book, Table 26.) The APTA book (I would assume based on FTA-collected ridership statistics) shows annual unlinked public transit trips increasing from 8,799 million trips in 1990 to 9,363 million trips in 2000 (the 2000 numbers are preliminary, according to the 2002 APTA Fact Book). So, an issue is how to reconcile a 0.0 percent change in national transit commuters with a 6.4 percent increase in national transit ridership. A plausible explanation is that the work trip share of public transportation trips has declined since 1990. According to the 1990 NPTS, 42.6 percent of public transportation person trips are for the purpose of "earning a living" (NPTS Databook, Vol. 1, Table 4.40). So, I can calculate that about 3,748 million unlinked transit boardings (in 1990) are "work trips" and that this might decline to about 3,747 million unlinked transit boarding "work trips", in 2000. This means that perhaps 40 percent of year 2000 transit boardings are work trips (3,747 / 9,363), which is quite plausible at the national level. The story might be that the national number of transit work trips, 1990 to 2000, has remained fairly stable, and that, at least at the national level, the growth in transit is attributable to non-work travel. The data question is: is information available from either the 1995 NPTS or the 2001 NHTS that can corroborate this possible trend - - a decline in the work purpose share for public transportation trips? Also, who has attempted to reconcile their change in regional transit commuters with their own transit ridership statistics? What would be most helpful is any comparisons of on-board surveys or household travel surveys that show any changes in the trip purpose mix for transit trips. (Other larger issues still loom in terms of the plausibility/fixability of the Census data. We are very concerned about the overall LOW numbers of TOTAL commuters and employed residents we're seeing in the 2000 Census in our region....) Wishing a Safe & Sane Happy Fourth of July to All! Chuck Purvis *********************************************** Charles L. Purvis, AICP Senior 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://census.mtc.ca.gov/ ***********************************************

22 years, 6 months

RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership St atistics

by Mark Schlappi

Chuck, One of the other factors in Phoenix was the fares increased, which had the effect of dcreaseing the number of choice rides and leaving the people that had to take transit. It appeared the remaining riders tended to make more transfers in order to complete their trips. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Purvis [mailto:CPurvis@mtc.ca.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 3:36 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership Statistics To: CTPP-News One of the interesting journey-to-work results is the lack of change, at the NATIONAL level, in the total number of transit commuters. The US had 6,069,589 transit commuters according to the 1990 Census, and 6,067,703 transit commuters according to the 2000 Census, a 0.03 percent decrease. (On the other hand, the US transit commute SHARE declined from 5.3 percent in 1990 to 4.7 percent in 2000.) This compares to national transit ridership statistics which show a 6.4 percent increase in annual unlinked passenger trips comparing 1990 to 2000. (Source is APTA's 2002 Public Transportation Fact Book, Table 26.) The APTA book (I would assume based on FTA-collected ridership statistics) shows annual unlinked public transit trips increasing from 8,799 million trips in 1990 to 9,363 million trips in 2000 (the 2000 numbers are preliminary, according to the 2002 APTA Fact Book). So, an issue is how to reconcile a 0.0 percent change in national transit commuters with a 6.4 percent increase in national transit ridership. A plausible explanation is that the work trip share of public transportation trips has declined since 1990. According to the 1990 NPTS, 42.6 percent of public transportation person trips are for the purpose of "earning a living" (NPTS Databook, Vol. 1, Table 4.40). So, I can calculate that about 3,748 million unlinked transit boardings (in 1990) are "work trips" and that this might decline to about 3,747 million unlinked transit boarding "work trips", in 2000. This means that perhaps 40 percent of year 2000 transit boardings are work trips (3,747 / 9,363), which is quite plausible at the national level. The story might be that the national number of transit work trips, 1990 to 2000, has remained fairly stable, and that, at least at the national level, the growth in transit is attributable to non-work travel. The data question is: is information available from either the 1995 NPTS or the 2001 NHTS that can corroborate this possible trend - - a decline in the work purpose share for public transportation trips? Also, who has attempted to reconcile their change in regional transit commuters with their own transit ridership statistics? What would be most helpful is any comparisons of on-board surveys or household travel surveys that show any changes in the trip purpose mix for transit trips. (Other larger issues still loom in terms of the plausibility/fixability of the Census data. We are very concerned about the overall LOW numbers of TOTAL commuters and employed residents we're seeing in the 2000 Census in our region....) Wishing a Safe & Sane Happy Fourth of July to All! Chuck Purvis *********************************************** Charles L. Purvis, AICP Senior 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://census.mtc.ca.gov/ ***********************************************

22 years, 6 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