ctpp-news

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

2560 discussions

RE: [CTPP] US States Rankings for Means of Transportation to Work

by Don Burrell

Chris's points about the last week of March survey period is also why the bicycle mode is likely to be underreported. March isn't prime biking weather in these parts, and even I only bike to work 25% of the time (unless its bike to work week or I get the long form census survey). Keep in mind that the 2000 Census Supplemental Survey was taken over a year's time and will have different and maybe more realistic JTW info. I will be comparing the 2 sources. Don Burrell, Senior Planner Bicycle / Pedestrian Coordinator OKI Regional Council of Governments 801-B West Eighth St. Suite 400 Cincinnati, OH 45203-1607 513-621-6300 513-621-9325 - fax dburrell(a)oki.org <mailto:dburrell@oki.org> <A bicycle is an instrument for playing the road> -----Original Message----- From: Forinash.Christopher(a)epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Forinash.Christopher@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 9:50 AM To: dsaladino(a)swrpc.org Cc: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] US States Rankings for Means of Transportation to Work Hey David and list, Keep in mind the Census date is 4/1/2000, and the question (if I remember correctly) asks for usual main mode to work over the past week. That's one of the flaw's with using CTPP/JTW for much more than "hmmm" factoids, and is clearly a reason why transit shares show up so much lower than other observations reveal. For example, I don't take transit to work every day, but I do so at least once a week, and sometimes for the trip to and not from, etc. Chris.

24 years

RE: [CTPP] US States Rankings for Means of Transportation to Work

by Haila Maze

I would be interested to see a comparison of the rate of pedestrian fatalities for states compared with walk-to-work share. (As a estimation of the relative safety/suitability of an area for this sort of endeavor.) I had heard somewhere that the rate of pedestrian fatalities was higher for Atlanta than for New York City, despite the fact that many more people walked in NYC. -----Original Message----- From: David Saladino [mailto:dsaladino@swrpc.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 8:51 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] US States Rankings for Means of Transportation to Work It is interesting to note that 4 of the top 5 walk-to-work states are northern (i.e. cold) states. While the bottom two are southern states. I would have thought it would be the other way around. Any thoughts about why this is? Income, sidewalk connectivity, climate?? Dave -----Original Message----- From: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 4:49 PM To: Chuck Purvis; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net <snip> ***Top/Bottom States in Walk-to-Work Commute Share US 2.9% District of Columbia 11.8% Alaska 7.3% New York 6.2% Vermont 5.5% Montana 5.5% ... Tennessee 1.5% Alabama 1.3%

24 years

RE: [CTPP] US States Rankings for Means of Transportation to Work

by millef1＠mail.modot.state.mo.us

Density/land use pattern was my first thought, and I think it is a significant contributor. But does it explain why Alaska and Montana are near the top? Frank Miller Senior Transportation Planner Missouri Department of Transportation - Springfield Area District MarkWilkes(a)thempc.org on 06/05/2002 08:10:47 AM To: dsaladino(a)swrpc.org cc: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net, owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net(bcc: Frank O Miller/D8/MODOT) Subject: RE: [CTPP] US States Rankings for Means of Transportation to Work Density/land use practices and climate???? Mark Wilkes, PE, AICP Director of Transportation Planning Chatham Urban Transportation Study Chatham County-Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission P.O. Box 8246, 110 East State Street Savannah, GA 31412-8246 wilkesm(a)thempc.org tel. (912) 651-1451 fax (912) 651-1480 "David Saladino" <dsaladino@swrpc. To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> org> cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: [CTPP] US States Rankings for Means of Transportation to owner-ctpp-news@c Work hrispy.net 06/05/02 08:51 AM Please respond to dsaladino It is interesting to note that 4 of the top 5 walk-to-work states are northern (i.e. cold) states. While the bottom two are southern states. I would have thought it would be the other way around. Any thoughts about why this is? Income, sidewalk connectivity, climate?? Dave -----Original Message----- From: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 4:49 PM To: Chuck Purvis; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net <snip> ***Top/Bottom States in Walk-to-Work Commute Share US 2.9% District of Columbia 11.8% Alaska 7.3% New York 6.2% Vermont 5.5% Montana 5.5% ... Tennessee 1.5% Alabama 1.3%

24 years

re lack of walking in the south.

by Robert Houston

Ever walked in Texas in the dead heat of August? C. Robert Houston GIS Planner City of Tyler 423 W Ferguson Tyler, Tx. 75702 (903) 531-1175 FAX: (903) 531-1170

24 years

RE: [CTPP] US States Rankings for Means of Transportation to Work

by MarkWilkes＠thempc.org

Density/land use practices and climate???? Mark Wilkes, PE, AICP Director of Transportation Planning Chatham Urban Transportation Study Chatham County-Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission P.O. Box 8246, 110 East State Street Savannah, GA 31412-8246 wilkesm(a)thempc.org tel. (912) 651-1451 fax (912) 651-1480 "David Saladino" <dsaladino@swrpc. To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> org> cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: [CTPP] US States Rankings for Means of Transportation to owner-ctpp-news@c Work hrispy.net 06/05/02 08:51 AM Please respond to dsaladino It is interesting to note that 4 of the top 5 walk-to-work states are northern (i.e. cold) states. While the bottom two are southern states. I would have thought it would be the other way around. Any thoughts about why this is? Income, sidewalk connectivity, climate?? Dave -----Original Message----- From: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 4:49 PM To: Chuck Purvis; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net <snip> ***Top/Bottom States in Walk-to-Work Commute Share US 2.9% District of Columbia 11.8% Alaska 7.3% New York 6.2% Vermont 5.5% Montana 5.5% ... Tennessee 1.5% Alabama 1.3%

24 years

FHWA Data Analysis (Attachments are on FTP)

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP-News The following is the message from Nanda and Elaine. For some odd reason, their original message and it's attachments are lost in transit, so this is their message, and their 3 data/documentation files are now on our FTP site, at: ftp://ftp.abag.ca.gov/pub/mtc/census2000/DP2-4/National/ MSA data.doc msacomparison.xls geography_comparison.xls [Note: the geography_comparison.xls is VERY IMPORTANT, since the MSAs and CMSAs aren't necessarily consistent between the 1990 and 2000 Census. CLP] **************************************************************************** FROM ELAINE MURAKAMI (FHWA), and NANDA SRINIVASAN Attached is some analysis and data based on the 2000 Census data for 49 large MSAs (Population > 1 million). The national average for travel time was 25.5 minutes, up about 3 minutes from 22.4 minutes in 1990. Nationally, drove alone increased from 73.2 to 75.7. Transit declined from 5.3% to 4.7%. Carpooling declined from 13.4 (1990) to 12.2 (2000). Thank you! Nanda Srinivasan

24 years

Metro Area rankings

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP-News Ranking of 280 U.S. Metropolitan Areas by Commute Time, Census 2000 1. New York CMSA 34.0 2. Washington-Baltimore CMSA 31.7 3. Atlanta MSA 31.2 4. Chicago CMSA 31.0 5. San Juan (Puerto Rico) CMSA 30.8 6. San Francisco-San Jose CMSA 29.3 7. Stockton (Calif.) MSA 29.2 8. Los Angeles CMSA 29.1 9. Miami MSA 28.9 10. Houston CMSA 28.8 ... 271. Casper, WY 16.7 272. Abilene, TX 16.4 273. Cheyenne, WY 16.3 274. Rochester, MN 16.3 275. Fargo, ND 16.2 276. Bismarck, ND 16.1 277. Great Falls, MT 15.9 278. Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA 15.7 279.Dubuque, IA 15.5 280. Grand Forks, ND 15.1 ************************************************************************** Metro Area (All Metros) spreadsheet is available at: ftp://ftp.abag.ca.gov/pub/mtc/census2000/DP2-4/National/ filename: Metros-dp234-set1.xls *************************************************************************************** Message to Ed, our Moderator - - Nandu sent a 307 KB e-mail this morning that apparently didn't make it to the listserv. Nanda had me re-send it this afternoon about 2:36 PM pacific time, and my forwarded e-mail hasn't hit the listserv yet. Hopefully we haven't fouled up the listserv with these modestly size attachments!! - - Chuck, 3:06 PM pacific time. **************************************************************************************** *********************************************** 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/ ***********************************************

24 years

2000 JTW DATA for MSAs: Differences between 1990 and 2000

by Nanda Srinivasan

FROM ELAINE MURAKAMI (FHWA), and NANDA SRINIVASAN Attached is some analysis and data based on the 2000 Census data for 49 large MSAs (Population > 1 million). The national average for travel time was 25.5 minutes, up about 3 minutes from 22.4 minutes in 1990. Nationally, drove alone increased from 73.2 to 75.7. Transit declined from 5.3% to 4.7%. Carpooling declined from 13.4 (1990) to 12.2 (2000). Thank you! Nanda Srinivasan

24 years

Census JTW

by Putta, Viplava

Yes, carpooling went down drastically from 1980-90 and obviously not as dramatic from 1990-2000. We had over 23% JTW trips by carpool in 1980 Nationwide! 1990 it was down to just over 13% (Nationwide). I would argue that given the economic condition in 1990 (beaten down) vs. 2000 (just when the .com bubble was to burst but still upbeat) - losses in carpooling and transit are not as significant. Comparing 1995 NPTS and Census 2000 I have the following to offer: * Trip chaining (the part that goes with JTW) is up during 1990s (NPTS) * Huge buy-in in favor of 'flex schedules' during 1990s has essentially marginalized the significance of JTW (there was a drop of more than 5% from 1990 to 1995 in peak hour trip starts in our case) * Each trip taken by transit would have a front end and a back end trip - (park & ride or ride & walk) - Census asks for only one mode that covered most of the distance (is comparable to 1990) thereby undercounting all other trips; * Vehicle occupancy rate for HBW is a little bit different from what JTW indicates for the same reason as above - our HBW VOR is less than what census shows (Tulsa) Another factor - I have noticed with NPTS is - Women as a percent of peak hour commuting public is higher than for men (13.6% men vs. 19.7% women in 1995 for Tulsa). It could be because women tend to keep more regular hours than men. May be 'Rideshare' programs should focus on Women-only carpools as a potential market share. Whatever it may be, we might notice with CTPP an increase in share of women in commuting during peak hours - to somewhat contributing to the erosion in transit patronage, decline in carpooling and increase in commute times. Viplav Putta INCOG

24 years

Re: [CTPP] Census JTW

by Tony_Van_Haagen＠dot.ca.gov

I fully agree that the largest MPOs due to their large and heterogeneous populations and the distribution of this population over a large area have often the greatest difficulties in collecting good data. The data collection process is by far the most difficult and challenging aspect of the transportation modeling process and certainly not the most attractive part to work on for modelers. Tony Van Haagen Caltrans, Los Angeles Tony Van Haagen Sam.Granato@dot.state.oh.us@chrispy.net on 06/04/2002 06:29:04 AM Sent by: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net To: Ed Herlihy <ed.herlihy(a)comcast.net> cc: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net, owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] Census JTW Mr. Herlihy, Why pick on the smaller MPOs? From what I've seen around the country, the most "invalid" models are predominantly in the largest metro areas (with the worst one - in terms of documented traffic assignment error - from the agency in YOUR metro area). Where's the proof that the extensive data collection done in the largest MPOs actually helps? Sam Granato Ohio DOT, Office of Technical Services 1980 W. Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43223 Phone: 614-644-6796, Fax: 614-752-8646 "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." Anais Nin Ed Herlihy <ed.herlihy(a)comcast.net To: > ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Sent by: cc: owner-ctpp-news@chrispy Subject: .net Re: [CTPP] Census JTW 06/04/02 06:35 AM Folks: As a transportation modeler and one who is constantly looking for good data that will help us better calibrate and validate our forecasting procedures, the early review of the CTPP macro data and the trends are of course interesting and an exciting preview of what is about to come. What I would hope, however, is that before jumping to lots of conclusions about what has happened and what is most likely to happen in the future, we would continue to organize and plan for the release and use of the data at the TAZ level in our MSA's and provide guidance (and support) to those who maintain the models in these areas on how to use the data to re-validate (and improve) the local forecasting models, especially in smaller MSA's. I know that there are several superb analysts on this list (and the TMIP list too) and that for many of the larger MSA's, that such a detailed validation plan and process is in place and ready to go. I wonder, in some cases, for some of the smaller or new UA.s and even some of these newer UC's, that when the CTPP detailed data is finally released, whether the time and resources will be spent to look at the data at the community and also the corridor/TAZ level and then to see if the existing forecast models that are up and running need fine tuning, and whether they are demonstrating consistency (validity) in the forecast mode for the Year 2000. Also, as we all are seeing very clearly, the non-work travel purpose continues to have an increasing impact on our system needs. So, I am also curious to know if there is has been a defined process in the smaller jurisdictions to improve data collection efforts for these non work travel modes, as well. It is my hope that with the raft of local governmental fiscal constraints that such important and vital data collection efforts were not cut back too much, if at all possible. Ed Herlihy Transportation Consultant Reston VA. ----- Original Message ----- From: Alan E. Pisarski To: Putta, Viplava ; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [CTPP] Census JTW There is a chart in CIA II that shows that women lag about a 1/2 later than men nationwide on average. It will be interesting to see what has happened to that distrib since. AEP ----- Original Message ----- From: Putta, Viplava To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 4:26 PM Subject: [CTPP] Census JTW Yes, carpooling went down drastically from 1980-90 and obviously not as dramatic from 1990-2000. We had over 23% JTW trips by carpool in 1980 Nationwide! 1990 it was down to just over 13% (Nationwide). I would argue that given the economic condition in 1990 (beaten down) vs. 2000 (just when the .com bubble was to burst but still upbeat) - losses in carpooling and transit are not as significant. Comparing 1995 NPTS and Census 2000 I have the following to offer: · Trip chaining (the part that goes with JTW) is up during 1990s (NPTS) · Huge buy-in in favor of 'flex schedules' during 1990s has essentially marginalized the significance of JTW (there was a drop of more than 5% from 1990 to 1995 in peak hour trip starts in our case) · Each trip taken by transit would have a front end and a back end trip ? (park & ride or ride & walk) ? Census asks for only one mode that covered most of the distance (is comparable to 1990) thereby undercounting all other trips; · Vehicle occupancy rate for HBW is a little bit different from what JTW indicates for the same reason as above ? our HBW VOR is less than what census shows (Tulsa) Another factor ? I have noticed with NPTS is ? Women as a percent of peak hour commuting public is higher than for men (13.6% men vs. 19.7% women in 1995 for Tulsa). It could be because women tend to keep more regular hours than men. May be 'Rideshare' programs should focus on Women-only carpools as a potential market share. Whatever it may be, we might notice with CTPP an increase in share of women in commuting during peak hours ? to somewhat contributing to the erosion in transit patronage, decline in carpooling and increase in commute times. Viplav Putta INCOG

24 years

Jump to page:

2026

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