ctpp-news

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

2560 discussions

Re: [CTPP] Proposed Urbanized Definition and New MPOs/TMAs

by Murakami, Elaine <FHWA>

23 USC 134 "Designation of Metropolitan Planning Organizations" uses the Census Bureau definition of urbanized areas for determination of MPOs and TMAs. This is why we have tried to keep everyone informed about the Census Bureau's proposed revisions to the criteria for defining Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters. The Census Bureau received a lot of comments to their Fed Reg notice(s), and will publish the final criteria in January. The Census Bureau still plans to publish a list of urbanized areas (and the population for the UAs) in mid-March 2002. FHWA and FTA intend to use these new UAs for FY2003 fund apportionment. (this information was conveyed in the Dec 21, 2000 memo signed by Cindy Burbank and Charlotte Adams). Everyone should keep in mind that the urbanized area is NOT the same as the metropolitan planning area, as the planning area should "encompass at least the existing urbanized area and the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period, and may encompass the entire metropolitan statistical area...as defined by the Bureau of the Census." >>> millef1(a)mail.modot.state.mo.us 12/07/01 16:54 PM >>> I have heard that FHWA is putting a decision on hold on how it will use the new urbanized area definiton for HPMS data. Has there been any change in the proposed use of the definition in the designation of MPOs and TMAs? Frank O. Miller, AICP Senior Transportation Planner Missouri Department of Transportation - District 8

24 years, 3 months

Will there even be a CTPP?

by ed christopher

Attached is an article that will appear in the upcoming "Status Report" newsletter. It describes the state of affairs surrounding an issue which many of us know as disclosure review. Disclosure review is an internal Census Bureau process that looks at all Census related data products to make sure that an individual respondent cannot be identified through analysis of the data. Before the development of the CTPP can advance, the Census Bureau's Disclosure Review Board must approve the product. Exactly where this will end up and what the final CTPP will look like after the DRB process is over, is not totally known. Because of the importance of this to so many, lets keep the discussion on the listserve. When responding make sure to have the listserve address, ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net, in the 'to" line of your email. (if you are having trouble opening the document please do not hesitate to call. it is an .rtf format which tends to be email friendly) -------- 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)

24 years, 3 months

JTW profile sheets from C2SS

by Murakami, Elaine (TRO-10)

On behalf of the CTPP Working Group, Nanda Srinivasan, Ed Christopher and Elaine Murakami, prepared these sample Journey to Work profiles using the American Community Survey C2SS data files. http://www.trbcensus.com/c2ss/profiles.html Because the C2SS samples are small, the geographic reporting units are large and the error is relatively large (compared to decennial census long form data). Nonetheless, it is data from 2000, available now, and will probably give you a good idea of what to expect from Summary File 3. For some transportation focused statewide summaries of C2SS visit the parent page at http://www.TRBcensus.com/c2ss.html We are very interested in knowing about YOUR analysis with the C2SS data files or other American Community Survey products. Please share your analysis with the CTPP listserv by sending an email to ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net We are also interested in reports from Census 2000 Summary File 1 that you may have posted on your agency webpages. We will compile a list and include it on the CTPP webpage. Please send the web addresses to Nanda at nanda.srinivasan(a)fhwa.dot.gov Elaine Murakami, FHWA

24 years, 3 months

more on what the acs may or may not give us

by ed christopher

thanks jeff for the info. i am sure many on the list will find it interesting. i especially liked the part about the confidentiality thresholds--especially since there is no hard evidence of how one can disclose an individual other than some assertions by census staff. Subject: Re: [CTPP] Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:03:52 EST From: StarkRPC(a)aol.com To: edc(a)berwyned.com Mr. Christopher, I had the opportunity to attend one of the 12 regional census press conferences concerning C2SS and ACS held Nov. 14th and 15th around the county. Due to the embargoed nature of the data and some of the briefing materials I waited until today to send this. If you feel this information is useful to the list-serve, please post it. Officials did confirm that "small geographic areas" are indeed census tracts. It will probably take the full four year cycle (2004-2008) to produce this level of geography. I also asked whether or not BG' s or TAZ's would be a possibility in the future. The response was that the Census Bureau would "most likely" continue to support the planning community with special tabulations, with the added disclaimer "if confidentiality thresholds are met." Considering the size of the sample and also the size of many TAZ's I wonder what our chances are. The press conference seemed to have the tone of a pitch for Congressional funding. If funded ($137 million/year) data for areas less than 20,000 won't be available until 2008. It seems to me at least that it will be a stretch to get BG or TAZ level data for 2010. Many major newspapers have stories on the release of C2SS today. Read a couple to get a feel for what others think. My comments can be found in the local section of www.cantonrep.com. Jeff Dotson, Sr. Planner Stark County Regional Planning Commission/ Area Transportation Study (330) 451-7402 starkrpc(a)aol.com www.starkrpc.org

24 years, 3 months

RE: [CTPP] more on what the acs may or may not give us

by Bill.Austin＠ci.wilmington.nc.us

I wholeheartedly agree with Ms. Brennan's assessment. I would also take it one step further to say that the vast majority of the data from census programs are not delivered in a timely enough fashion to be truly useful. The most use I have gotten out of Census data is as a check on our own data collection or projections. It would be much more useful to limit the number of questions asked and to provide the responses in a timely fashion than to ask all of the questions I have seen in the past. Bill Austin, AICP Greater Wilmington Urban Area MPO "Laureen Brennan" <lbrennanompo@hawa To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> ii.rr.com> cc: Sent by: Subject: RE: [CTPP] more on what the acs owner-ctpp-news@ch may or may not give us rispy.net 11/21/01 06:25 PM Please respond to lbrennanompo Dear Mr. Christopher: What is the purpose of the ACS, and C2SS? Is the purpose to collect data for the sake of collecting data or seeing if the data can be collected, or is the purpose to collect usable data? If it is to collect data for data's sake, then $137m a year is a waste of money. If the purpose is to collect usable data, it should be collected and distributed at a level that is usable -- blocks, block groups, TAZs. Collecting estimates at the tract level is a waste of time and money for most users. By the time you manipulate the data and try to disaggregate it, you might as well take a guess and forget about the ACS/C2SS. If Congress wants the users to base their decisions on the data collected by the ACS and/or the census, then the ACS/Census should collect data that can be used to make decisions. For instance, (just one example) how are you going to determine Title VI and Environmental Justice neighborhoods using Tract level information? We need a Secretary of Home Data. Laureen Brennan -----Original Message----- From: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net [mailto:owner-ctpp-news@chrispy.net]On Behalf Of ed christopher Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 5:01 PM To: ctpp-news maillist Subject: [CTPP] more on what the acs may or may not give us thanks jeff for the info. i am sure many on the list will find it interesting. i especially liked the part about the confidentiality thresholds--especially since there is no hard evidence of how one can disclose an individual other than some assertions by census staff. Subject: Re: [CTPP] Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:03:52 EST From: StarkRPC(a)aol.com To: edc(a)berwyned.com Mr. Christopher, I had the opportunity to attend one of the 12 regional census press conferences concerning C2SS and ACS held Nov. 14th and 15th around the county. Due to the embargoed nature of the data and some of the briefing materials I waited until today to send this. If you feel this information is useful to the list-serve, please post it. Officials did confirm that "small geographic areas" are indeed census tracts. It will probably take the full four year cycle (2004-2008) to produce this level of geography. I also asked whether or not BG' s or TAZ's would be a possibility in the future. The response was that the Census Bureau would "most likely" continue to support the planning community with special tabulations, with the added disclaimer "if confidentiality thresholds are met." Considering the size of the sample and also the size of many TAZ's I wonder what our chances are. The press conference seemed to have the tone of a pitch for Congressional funding. If funded ($137 million/year) data for areas less than 20,000 won't be available until 2008. It seems to me at least that it will be a stretch to get BG or TAZ level data for 2010. Many major newspapers have stories on the release of C2SS today. Read a couple to get a feel for what others think. My comments can be found in the local section of www.cantonrep.com. Jeff Dotson, Sr. Planner Stark County Regional Planning Commission/ Area Transportation Study (330) 451-7402 starkrpc(a)aol.com www.starkrpc.org

24 years, 3 months

TRB Sepecial Workshop

by ed christopher

For those going to the Transportation Research Board's Annual meetings this January (http://www4.trb.org/trb/annual.nsf) the subcommittee on Census Data for Transportation Planning is holding a special Sunday workshop entitled "Census Data, Beyond 2000". The workshop will take place on Sunday January 13, 2002 in the Lincoln West room of the Hilton Hotel from 8:30 AM to 12:00 PM. As you may know the Census Bureau is requesting funding to begin the full implementation of the American Community Survey (ACS) in 2003. Since the ACS is intended to take the place of the decennial census long form, this workshop will serve as a forum to update the transportation community on the status of the ACS program, the outlook for implementation, and recent research efforts to begin the process of replacing the long form data with continuous measurement in transportation planning and research. At the same time, this workshop is deigned to inform officials and policy makers of the needs and issues as seen by the transportation community. Potential users of the ACS will be provided an opportunity to voice concerns, raise questions, and formulate a research agenda that will serve to ensure a smooth transition from the long form to the ACS. -- 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)

24 years, 3 months

Re: Posting a Question to the CTPP List

by ed christopher

just send it to ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net if you post from an address that is not the one you subscribed from it might take a half day of so to hit the list. we have a somewhat manual system for checking what gets caught by the spam blocker. Scott Ferry wrote: > Greetings: Could you please tell me how to post a question to the CTPP > list? Many thanks. Scott FerryTransportation PlannerRegional > Intergovernmental CouncilSouth Charleston, WV

24 years, 3 months

RE: [CTPP] Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS

by Larry Mugler

Just like TAZs, census tracts were created at the request of data users. They were first defined for the 1910 Census for the 8 largest cities. They were requested by a clergyman in New York City so that they could do a better job of providing social services to the poor. Here at the Denver MPO, we have been the agency to coordinate the update of tract definitions and boundaries since the 1970 Census. That gives us the opportunity to make them as consistent with TAZs as the criteria allow. Larry Mugler DRCOG -----Original Message----- From: Mehta, Jamsheed [mailto:MEHTA_J@ci.wichita.ks.us] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 3:04 PM To: 'ed christopher'; 'ctpp-news maillist' Subject: RE: [CTPP] Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS Its my understanding that "Tracts" are based on population criteria (minimum, optimal, and maximum number of persons). TAZs may be too small in some cases to fit the "tract" definition, or may not have any population at all. . . Jamsheed Mehta, AICP Chief Planner, Transportation Division Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Department Tel: (316) 268-4457 Fax: (316) 268-4390 e-mail: mehta_j(a)ci.wichita.ks.us -----Original Message----- From: ed christopher [mailto:edc@berwyned.com] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 3:37 PM To: 'ctpp-news maillist' Subject: Re: [CTPP] Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS since patty raised the issue of tracts, i have often wondered why do we have tracts? why don't we have a zonal system in urban areas that is created by the public data users--something like TAZs. in many areas the TAZs are developed by a collection agencies with planning and data responsibilities. if memory serves me tracts were historically a creation of the census bureau which is a data collector. TAZs are a product of regional planning organizations (which happen to have transportation responsibilities) which are data users. Patty Becker wrote: > Again, please feel free to post this to the list serve if you wish. > > My clear understanding is that "small area" means tract. I don't think > anyone thinks the 60 month data will be good enough for block groups. > > If TAZs are tract equivalent, then the data should be as good as for > tracts. For heavy attractor TAZs which are split below tract level, the > transportation community has to negotiate with the bureau for a special tab > to deliver all TAZs. The data should support the tab > adequately, Meanwhile, of course, someone is going to have to be > responsible (MPO by MPO and state by state) for keeping the geocoding file > up to date! > > No one knows whether these 60 month data are going to "feel right." Only > time will tell. But in any event the CTPP users will have data equivalent > to that for all users who use tracts. Meanwhile, we still have all these > hurdles in Congress, etc. etc. > > Patty Becker --- Ed Christopher Metropolitan Specialist Midwest Resource Center Federal Highway Administration 19900 Governors Drive Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461 708-283-3534 (V) 708-283-3501 (F)

24 years, 4 months

Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS

by Ed Herlihy (＠home.com)

----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Herlihy (@home.com)" <ed.herlihy(a)home.com> To: "ed christopher" <edc(a)berwyned.com> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [CTPP] Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS > I would be happy with tract level data if the JTW info provides some better > data on total retail versus non ratail jobs at the destination end of the > work trip. Localities have pretty good data on square footage by type but > have lots of trouble keeping up with small area job estimates. The jobs per > square foot estimates seem like a moving target these days > > I know the data is there, but I am not sure the CTPP or this new ACS tabs > will do a retail vs non-retail tabulation. > > I hope so, because of lot of forecasting models use jobs for work trip > attration estimates. > > Ed Herlihy > Transportation Consultant > Alexandria VA > 703-914-4850 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ed christopher" <edc(a)berwyned.com> > To: "'ctpp-news maillist'" <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:36 PM > Subject: Re: [CTPP] Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS > > > > since patty raised the issue of tracts, i have often wondered why do we > have tracts? why don't we > > have a zonal system in urban areas that is created by the public data > users--something like TAZs. in > > many areas the TAZs are developed by a collection agencies with planning > and data responsibilities. > > if memory serves me tracts were historically a creation of the census > bureau which is a data > > collector. TAZs are a product of regional planning organizations (which > happen to have > > transportation responsibilities) which are data users. > > > > Patty Becker wrote: > > > > > Again, please feel free to post this to the list serve if you wish. > > > > > > My clear understanding is that "small area" means tract. I don't think > > > anyone thinks the 60 month data will be good enough for block groups. > > > > > > If TAZs are tract equivalent, then the data should be as good as for > > > tracts. For heavy attractor TAZs which are split below tract level, the > > > transportation community has to negotiate with the bureau for a special > tab > > > to deliver all TAZs. The data should support the tab > > > adequately, Meanwhile, of course, someone is going to have to be > > > responsible (MPO by MPO and state by state) for keeping the geocoding > file > > > up to date! > > > > > > No one knows whether these 60 month data are going to "feel right." > Only > > > time will tell. But in any event the CTPP users will have data > equivalent > > > to that for all users who use tracts. Meanwhile, we still have all > these > > > hurdles in Congress, etc. etc. > > > > > > Patty Becker > > > > --- > > Ed Christopher > > Metropolitan Specialist > > Midwest Resource Center > > Federal Highway Administration > > 19900 Governors Drive > > Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461 > > 708-283-3534 (V) > > 708-283-3501 (F) > > > > >

24 years, 4 months

RE: [CTPP] Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS

by Don Burrell

Why do we have tracts? Yes, ed, your memory is correct about the Bureau "creating" census tracts, but they relied on the recommendations of the local "Census Tract Committees" of data users to provide the boundaries. This is still the process for the decennial review of the tracts. (I worked on coordinating this review in the Cincinnati CMSA for 1990 and 2000.) But, we have census tracts mainly as geographically stable over time statistical analytical areas. Municipalities, enumeration districts and zip-codes, on the other hand, keep moving their boundaries. This is also the reason that we can split census tracts in growing areas, but that they need to nest to the same parent tract of the preceding census, and that the ID tract numbers are changed with suffixes so that it is obvious that the areas represented by the tract-split numbers aren't the same. My experience with TAZ's, again with the Cincinnati MPO, is that you wouldn't want to go there. We have just overhauled our tazs for 2000. Most changes are splits, but some aren't. They don't match tracts. And many are small enough to represent blocks in the CBD and major traffic generators (shopping centers, employers) with little or no resident population to disclose. Census tracts are good. Don Burrell, Senior Planner Bicycle / Pedestrian Coordinator (formerly data person) 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: ed christopher [mailto:edc@berwyned.com] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:37 PM To: 'ctpp-news maillist' Subject: Re: [CTPP] Re: Geographic coverage, C2SS & ACS since patty raised the issue of tracts, i have often wondered why do we have tracts? why don't we have a zonal system in urban areas that is created by the public data users--something like TAZs. in many areas the TAZs are developed by a collection agencies with planning and data responsibilities. if memory serves me tracts were historically a creation of the census bureau which is a data collector. TAZs are a product of regional planning organizations (which happen to have transportation responsibilities) which are data users. Patty Becker wrote: > Again, please feel free to post this to the list serve if you wish. > > My clear understanding is that "small area" means tract. I don't think > anyone thinks the 60 month data will be good enough for block groups. > > If TAZs are tract equivalent, then the data should be as good as for > tracts. For heavy attractor TAZs which are split below tract level, the > transportation community has to negotiate with the bureau for a special tab > to deliver all TAZs. The data should support the tab > adequately, Meanwhile, of course, someone is going to have to be > responsible (MPO by MPO and state by state) for keeping the geocoding file > up to date! > > No one knows whether these 60 month data are going to "feel right." Only > time will tell. But in any event the CTPP users will have data equivalent > to that for all users who use tracts. Meanwhile, we still have all these > hurdles in Congress, etc. etc. > > Patty Becker --- Ed Christopher Metropolitan Specialist Midwest Resource Center Federal Highway Administration 19900 Governors Drive Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461 708-283-3534 (V) 708-283-3501 (F)

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