ctpp-news

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

2560 discussions

Re: [CTPP] What Geographic Summary Levels will be included in CTPP?

by Javier MINJARES

We would be interested in the ZCTA level and MPO Study Area. Javier Minjares Senior Regional Planner Southern California Association of Governments

24 years, 3 months

What Geographic Summary Levels will be included in CTPP?

by Elaine Murakami

Chuck Purvis asked the question last week. Here is a list of our current plan. WE WANT YOUR INPUT on the additional geographic levels. Some are only possible for RESIDENCE-based tables. Whether you want them or not, please provide us with your feedback! Maybe since the GIS capabilities and experience are so much better now than 10 years ago, no one needs to have these levels included in the file, since you and your staff can aggregate them from TAZ or Block groups directly. You can reply either to me directly (elaine.murakami(a)fhwa.dot.gov) or you can post to the listserv (ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net) Here are the basic levels, but not the detailed information. State State-County State-County-MCD (in selected states) State-County-Place (2,500+) State-Place (2,500+) State-County-Combined Zone -- Combined zones are limited to combinations of tracts or TAZs. They will be defined by the State DOTs (if they choose to do so) and are intended to assist Statewide travel demand models, where the small TAZs of an MPO are too detailed for Statewide applications. State-County-Tract * Tracts will be included, even in areas with TAZs. State-County-Tract-Block Group* State-County-TAZ * *The smallest unit of tabulated geography can be TAZ, Block Group, or Tract Possible levels (if there is any interest) For the 3 geographic levels listed below, we would like to know if there is any interest in having these included for RESIDENCE tables. Because of workplace geocoding difficulties, we cannot use these geographic levels for WORKPLACE or FLOW tabulations. 1. ZCTA (ZipCode Tabulation Area) This is an approximation of a Zipcode boundary. 2. PUMA (Public Use Microdata Area) These are areas with a minimum of 100,000 population based on tract or place boundaries. 3. Urbanized Area (areas with more than 50,000 population with the required density level) For the 2 geographic levels listed below, it is likely that the Census Bureau could include these for RESIDENCE and WORKPLACE tables. 1. CTPP Region: This will be defined by each MPO. It will be one or more whole counties submitted by the MPO as constituting their CTPP region. Totals for the sum of the counties included in the CTPP Region will be a separate summary level for the RESIDENCE and WORKPLACE tables. The FLOW tabulation will include the smallest unit of geography for each county. All counties are not required to have the same unit, e.g. 3 counties may use TAZ, and 1 county may use tracts. TAZs can be used only if they have been defined in the TAZ-UP process. 2. MPO Study Area: This is a list of TAZs (by county) or tracts (by county) to be submitted by an MPO for which RESIDENCE AND WORKPLACE tables can be prepared. Totals for the sum of these TAZs (or tracts) will be a separate summary level for the RESIDENCE and WORKPLACE tables. This special geography is provided as a convenience. An MPO planning area might not include whole counties, but we required TAZs to be defined across an entire county. By adding this summary level, a total that does not extend to county boundaries can be easily found on the CTPP file.

24 years, 3 months

RE: [CTPP] What Geographic Summary Levels will be included in CTP P?

by Jack Pascoli

Elaine, West Virginia as a whole participated in the TAZUP program and the whole state is covered. If all of the available data can be tabulated by TAZ it would be very helpful to us. Jack Pascoli -----Original Message----- From: Elaine Murakami [mailto:Elaine.Murakami@igate.fhwa.dot.gov] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 4:16 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] What Geographic Summary Levels will be included in CTPP? Chuck Purvis asked the question last week. Here is a list of our current plan. WE WANT YOUR INPUT on the additional geographic levels. Some are only possible for RESIDENCE-based tables. Whether you want them or not, please provide us with your feedback! Maybe since the GIS capabilities and experience are so much better now than 10 years ago, no one needs to have these levels included in the file, since you and your staff can aggregate them from TAZ or Block groups directly. You can reply either to me directly (elaine.murakami(a)fhwa.dot.gov) or you can post to the listserv (ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net) Here are the basic levels, but not the detailed information. State State-County State-County-MCD (in selected states) State-County-Place (2,500+) State-Place (2,500+) State-County-Combined Zone -- Combined zones are limited to combinations of tracts or TAZs. They will be defined by the State DOTs (if they choose to do so) and are intended to assist Statewide travel demand models, where the small TAZs of an MPO are too detailed for Statewide applications. State-County-Tract * Tracts will be included, even in areas with TAZs. State-County-Tract-Block Group* State-County-TAZ * *The smallest unit of tabulated geography can be TAZ, Block Group, or Tract Possible levels (if there is any interest) For the 3 geographic levels listed below, we would like to know if there is any interest in having these included for RESIDENCE tables. Because of workplace geocoding difficulties, we cannot use these geographic levels for WORKPLACE or FLOW tabulations. 1. ZCTA (ZipCode Tabulation Area) This is an approximation of a Zipcode boundary. 2. PUMA (Public Use Microdata Area) These are areas with a minimum of 100,000 population based on tract or place boundaries. 3. Urbanized Area (areas with more than 50,000 population with the required density level) For the 2 geographic levels listed below, it is likely that the Census Bureau could include these for RESIDENCE and WORKPLACE tables. 1. CTPP Region: This will be defined by each MPO. It will be one or more whole counties submitted by the MPO as constituting their CTPP region. Totals for the sum of the counties included in the CTPP Region will be a separate summary level for the RESIDENCE and WORKPLACE tables. The FLOW tabulation will include the smallest unit of geography for each county. All counties are not required to have the same unit, e.g. 3 counties may use TAZ, and 1 county may use tracts. TAZs can be used only if they have been defined in the TAZ-UP process. 2. MPO Study Area: This is a list of TAZs (by county) or tracts (by county) to be submitted by an MPO for which RESIDENCE AND WORKPLACE tables can be prepared. Totals for the sum of these TAZs (or tracts) will be a separate summary level for the RESIDENCE and WORKPLACE tables. This special geography is provided as a convenience. An MPO planning area might not include whole counties, but we required TAZs to be defined across an entire county. By adding this summary level, a total that does not extend to county boundaries can be easily found on the CTPP file.

24 years, 3 months

response to JAN1602 FR notice on ACS

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP-News; Bay Area Census Listserv I've posted on our agency's web site our response to the January 16, 2002 Federal Register notice regarding the Census Bureau's plans to replace the 2010 Long Form with the American Community Survey. This is provided for information purposes for those working on their own responses to the FR notice, and others interested in ACS issues. The link is: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/datamart/census/MTCACSResponse.htm Or, visit the MTC home page at: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/ and follow the navigation bar links to the MTC DataMart, then the Census Page. Responses to this FR notice are due March 18th, and I understand that e-mail submittals to the Department of Commerce are encouraged. (See the 1/16/02 FR notice for e-mail information.) cheers, Chuck Purvis (On vacation March 11-18, and I will be computer-free... ;-) *********************************************** 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, 3 months

ACS and Decennial Census

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP-News RE: ACS and Decennial Census I'm forwarding this extensive message from John Blodgett of the Missouri State Data Center (forwarded from the State Data Center listserv.) Chuck Purvis, MTC ***** John Blodgett's e-mail: *************************************************************************** Let me just throw in a few other issues that noone has mentioned yet in this discussion regarding the ACS as a replacement for the decennial long form. These are issues that are built into the ACS design, and have nothing to do with any possible problems with implementation or subtle differences in the way questions are asked, etc. (In the software development world, this would like a distinction between a "bug" and a "feature". These are features of ACS that we will probably all have to learn to live with.) They mostly have to do with the universes being measured by the 2 surveys (decennial vs ACS), and with the joys of moving averages. The universes of these 2 surveys are not really the same. The differences that bother me have to do with the time dimension. The census looks at the population on a single day, April 1 of the census year. ACS looks at the population for all months of the year, and in the case of smaller geographic areas, will be based on a "moving average" or persons living there over a period of 2 or more years. For geographic areas such as states, metro areas, large cities and counties, this will probably not be such a big difference. But for smaller areas, and especially for small areas with "seasonal" populations, there will be major differences. 1. For example: A (real) census tract here in Boone County, Mo (Columbia) has about 3000 people living there according to sf1. They all live in group quarters -- dormitories. That is what was counted on April 1, 2000. But ACS would not count such persons on a single day. They would instead be using data based on 60 months of surveys over 5 years. A good guess is that at least 20% of these students would be living somewhere else during the summer months, or during the various academic break periods occurring throughout the year. The ACS is going to count people at their resdidence on some day in Jan, July or August -- whenever they are conducting the survey. If 20% of the students, on average, are not there on any given day of the year then we have a builtin mismatch. We will simply not have sample characteristics of the 3000 people counted in the census from the ACS. This is not a mistake, it's a "feature" of the ACS. Just like the new race detail is a "feature" of the 2k census and makes it impossible to compare race data from early censuses. Live with it. (Not only do we not have sample characteristics of the population, we no longer can talk about "the" population of this census tract. We have the census count of 4-1-2000, but we also have a moving-average estimate from ACS. This applies not just to the census tract, but also to the county and city. There will be significant differences in these numbers for college towns and resort areas.) 2. The "moving average" feature of the ACS is not a bad way to go as long as the area being described is relatively stable over the period of the averaging. The data will only be really bad for the areas where it would be most interesting. The Bureau has indicated they will probably do some kind of over-sampling in areas perceived as undergoing rapid change, but for now that's a pig in a polk. Another aspect of the moving average problem is that of "moving geography". How do we get characteristics for those jurisdictions that operate in "Continuous Annexation" mode? When I get my data in 2008 for the city of Ashland, MO based on data collected in 2003-2007 is it all going to be for the then-current (2008) city boundaries? So then when I get another set in 2009, will they have to once again "move the chains" so that I can get fresh data for the previous year for the current year boundaries? (Complicated, isn't it? We have data over time, for a geographic entity that is changing over time. Really tough to pin things down. And fairly impossible to do any kind of analysis that may involve trends for the city based on their incorporated limits over time. Very messy. Even if it could be done, could it be explained?) This problem also pertains to ZIP/ZCTA areas and school districts. Not that we can expect those to be published. 3. I am concerned about the possible proliferation of alternative versions of sample data. The ACS folks have announced their plan to publish data for areas based on their population size. Areas of 65,000+ get new data each year based on a single year of ACS survey results, while areas somewhat smaller will get data based on a 2 or 3 or 4-year moving average. A question arises as to what the "best" numbers are for an area (and also as to whether we'll be given a choice). What if my county of 70,000 gets data published in 2008 based on households sampled in 2007. But I want to look at the characteristics of single hispanic mothers in the county, and this sub-population is small enough that the single-year estimates are garbage. So can I also get a 5-year moving average for the county that will have smaller std errors, but which could be misleading if there was a dramatic shift in the subpopulation being studied over the period? Since the Bureau will, by then, be publishing data down to the BG level, I guess I could do my own custom aggregation of the bg data even if I could not get it directly & easily from the Bureau. That's a little extra work, but some people will not see it as a big deal (others definitely will.) What really bothers me about this is the "flexibility factor" -- I think I see that there will be many ways to answer the same question. Right now, if someone asks me what the poverty rate is for a county I can tell them we don't really know except for the numbers collected at the last census, or you can take your chances with the SAIPE estimates. But in the era of ACS data I can tell them we only have estimates for some counties so far, and for those we have several versions we can get, based on the number of years of data we use to do the estimate. And then the user says, "use the numbers that yield the highest value (or lowest) value" so I can use those in my grant application". Uh oh. (paragraph #s are just for ease of reference.) John Blodgett OSEDA - Office of Social & Economic Data Analysis U. of Missouri Outreach and Extension 626 Clark Hall - UMC Columbia, MO 65211 (573) 882-2727 blodgettj(a)umsystem.edu <mailto:blodgettj@umsystem.edu>

24 years, 3 months

Status of UA Delineation

by Robert LaMacchia

We have received a number of questions about the timetable for the publication of the final criteria for the definition of Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters. We now expect to publish in the Federal Register the final criteria before mid March, 2002, and have the announcement of the Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters based on these criteria and the Census 2000 population totals by late March, 2002 or early April, 2002. As part of the GIS and Census workshop at GIS-T 2002 in Atlanta, we will be describing the automated process to delineate the UAs and UCs based on the final criteria. Please note that session 6.4 Census 2002 & TIGER Modernization in the preliminary program for GIS-T 2002 has been replaced by another topic, and the only formal discussion of the UA criteria will be at the GIS and Census Workshop Sunday afternoon. The Census Bureau plans to have an exhibit booth at GIS-T, so please stop by if you are not attending the workshop (or even if you do attend the workshop). Bob LaMacchia Geography Division U. S. Census Bureau 301-457-1022

24 years, 4 months

ACS commentary from the State Data Center listserv

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP Listserv: FR: Chuck Purvis, MTC RE: ACS commentary on the State Data Center listserv I just wanted to forward some messages circulating on the State Data Center listserv related to the ACS Federal Register Notice of 1/16/02. NOTE THAT THE CLOSING DATE FOR COMMENTS ON THE FR NOTICE IS MARCH 18!!! Especially useful and insightful are comments from Bob Scardamalia of the New York State Data Center. Chuck Purvis, MTC ********Scardamalia's comments: ****************************************************************** Makes one feel like they're trying to hold the locomotive at the station. I think there's a lot of enthusiasm about ACS and the prospect of more current economic and demographic data for small areas is sooo tempting. The reality check is that the benchmark tests with the 2000 Census were scaled back. We don't have good research results on how good ACS will be at the tract level or even for small places. It's already been pointed out that there are significant unanswered issues with the state level data let alone small area data. This doesn't even begin to look at questions about whether ACS can deliver data that the user community needs such as Journey to Work for small areas. We've got to wait for the first 5 year sample to get small area statistics to evaluate. If they are inadequate, there's no time left for a backup position. Even if Congress fully funds ACS, and the handwriting is on the wall for the 2010 long form, there needs to be more detailed research, data, and discussion out of the Bureau. There is a multitude of Census stakeholders who are anxious for improved data but who are very concerned about the lack of evaluation data that's available. Bob Scardamalia Empire State Development State Data Center Phone: (518) 292-5300 Fax: (518) 292-5806 E-mail: rscardamalia(a)empire.state.ny.us http:\\www.empire.state.ny.us\data_home.html > -----Original Message----- > From: jeff hardcastle [SMTP:jhardcas@UNR.EDU] > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 12:12 PM > To: SDC-L(a)WVNVM.WVNET.EDU > Subject: Re: Changes in statistical programs > > I too have concerns about the sample results so far even at the state > level. > Thanks for the reminder on this topic. > > Greg Perkins wrote: > > > To the Listserv: > > > > Does anyone have strong feelings about the two items listed in the > Federal > > Register of January 16th regarding requests for response by March 18, > 2002? > > One is about eliminating the long form in 2010 because of the start of > the > > American Community Survey. The other is about the Census of > Manufacturing > > proposed collection methodology change, specifically eliminating > paperwork > > for small firms and only getting the big firms to answer the survey. > > > > It seems to me that a decision to eliminate the long form may be a bit > hasty > > given the fact that it is not in use yet and not studied as to how > > accurately it will "estimate" data down to the tract level. Is there > any > > place on the Census web site that discusses this issue? Has anyone > compared > > C2SS 2000 with Census results for places? Maybe I am wrong and that the > > statistical survey has been studied. However, oftentimes, once surveys > are > > done by sample they are subject to being cut back by budget reductions. > In > > the most recent edition of Massachusetts Benchmarks ( in the Endnotes > > comment section) there is a discussion of the cutbacks in sample size > for > > the CPS in Massachusetts and how such problems are affecting labor force > > estimates. > > > > As for the manufacturing survey I don't have much of a formed opinion > but I > > notice that our most recent private sector manufacturing directory for > > Massachusetts may also be eliminating the smaller firms because they are > too > > difficult to contact and survey. Should this be of some concern? > > > > In our Policy Development and Research Department at the Boston > > Redevelopment Authority (an affiliate of MISER- the Massachusetts > Institute > > for Social and Economic Research- our SDC) we have been very concerned > over > > the years with the gradual cutback in statistical programs at the > Federal > > and State levels because of the need for quality and timely data. I can > > think of several cutbacks over the last twenty years that have > eliminated > > some statistics that were of use to us (the small areas estimates for > CBDs > > and other major retail centers in the Census of Retail Trade, the > monthly > > estimate of retail sales for major metropolitan areas, the BEA-OBERS > > projections, and more). I also wonder about the "privatization" of > other > > statistics such as the Leading Economic Indicators now done by the > > Conference Board. When we have to rely on private sector data we have > to be > > very concerned with who is producing it, what are their private > interests, > > is it academically peer-reviewed, is it "objective" and other questions. > > > > If these question spark a little debate either about the specific 2 > items in > > the Federal register or about the broader issue of statistical quality > and > > public funding please respond to me either on the listserve or directly. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Greg Perkins > > Assistant Director > > Policy Development and Research Department > > Boston Redevelopment Authority > > One City Hall Square > > Room 962 > > Boston, MA 02201-1007 > > > > Phone: 617-918-4411 > > Fax: 617-918-4461 > > e-mail: greg.perkins.bra(a)ci.boston.ma.us > *********************************************** 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, 4 months

Geographic Summary Levels for CTPP 2000?

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP-News We received an inquiry about "employment data" by zip code. That leads me to several questions: 1. Will the CTPP 2000 summary levels include ZCTAs? (Zip Code Tabulation Areas), for Parts 1 or 2? 2. Also, as a follow-up, will the CTPP-2000 summary levels include the 5% PUMAs (Public Use Microdata Areas)? 3. And, specifically, what ARE the geographic summary levels that will be released for the CTPP-2000 for parts 1, 2 and 3? Thanks in advance! Chuck Purvis, MTC *********************************************** 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, 4 months

census research for $$$

by ed christopher

The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy is soliciting proposals for papers that rely primarily on Census data to examine demographic, social, economic, and policy issues in metropolitan areas. The Census Bureau will begin releasing 2000 sample data in the summer of 2002. The Urban Center is producing a series of trend reports that will illustrate how urban and suburban America has changed in the last two decades. The Urban Center is particularly interested in brief, descriptive analyses that will be accessible to urban leaders, practitioners, researchers and the media on population, income, housing, employment, commuting and other trends using 2000 Census data and other appropriate years and datasets. Top priority will be given to proposals that are comparative across metropolitan areas (top 100), within metropolitan areas and across components of metro areas (i.e., central cities, suburbs, etc) and those that emphasize spatial patterns. Selected papers will be published in the Brookings Urban Center trend series. Proposals for research projects costing $1,500-$15,000 will be considered. to learn more http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/census/callforpapers.htm

24 years, 4 months

The American Community Survey: Review of the Results of the 2000 Census Supplementary Survey for the Delaware Valley Region

by Margaret Shaw

This e-mail is from: Thabet Zakaria, Ph.D Deputy Director Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 215-238-2885 e-mail: tzakaria(a)dvrpc.org Attached please find letter and two tables regarding the above. Thank you.

24 years, 4 months

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