I found that if you change the extension of the unzipped files to a .csv
extension, then you can use ACCESS 2000. ACCESS 97 will work as well, but
it does have a few more kinks.
C.Robert Houston
GIS Planner
City of Tyler
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Off: (903) 531-1175
Fax: (903) 531-1170
Carol Palmoski wrote:
> Does anyone know what conversion software can be used to convert the.upl files to a usable software. I am having problems converting them using the procedures given the Census?
>
> Carol K. Palmoski
> Lancaster County Planning Commission
> 50 North Duke Street
> Lancaster, Pa 17608
> e-mail: palmoski(a)co.lancaster.pa.us
Sounds a lot like what I observed with the 1990 Census block data for
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County, North Carolina, primarily in recently
developed areas. In that instance, I was comparing the census data to
recently collected field data and current aerial photography. Where
discrepancies existed, it was fairly easy to imagine that our data
collectors could have missed units, however, there were many instances
where the census indicated dwelling units in clearly undeveloped areas (no
buildings). Well established older neighborhoods, appeared to be very
accurate. The County-wide figures, likewise, were in fairly close
agreement with our local data.
This seems to be common based on my limited experience. Unfortunately, I
have no direct experience with the 2000 census, and although I understand
there are discrepancies with our 2000 data, we will probably not mount a
serious challenge because of our negative experience with the 1990
challenge.
Mark Wilkes, PE, AICP
Director of Transportation Planning
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
tmank@tompkins-co
.org To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Sent by: cc:
owner-ctpp-news@c Subject: [CTPP] census dorm errors
hrispy.net
06/05/2001 10:42
AM
I wanted to pass this on to the listserv:
I work for the Tompkins County Planning Department in Upsate, NY.
When I first looked at the Block level populations this year, I noticed
numerous discrepancies, which turned out to be dorm population
counts which were incorrectly georeferenced. We have 2
universities here in Ithaca, NY, Cornell University and Ithaca
College. In our case, the entire dorm population for Cornell (5,700
students) was put in ONE BLOCK - not in the 14 blcoks where the
dorms are actually located. For example, a block that had a 1990
population of 1100 now has a 2000 pop of 2 and a block that had a
1990 pop of 110 now has a 2000 pop of 5882. For Ithaca College,
the dorm population was placed all in 1 block, not in the 4 blocks
where the dorms are actually located. To make things more
complicated, the Cornell Block discrepancies go across municipal
boundaries (from the City of Ithaca to the Town of Ithaca) and
across four of our current Legislative Districts [see attachement
with PDF map].
When I brought this up to the Regional Census Geography dept in
Boston, they were not that surprised and said they were seeing this
all over the country. The New York State Data Center in Albany
says they have had this complaint all over New York State.
In any case, we have noted the dorm capacities and redistributed
the block populations as we think they should be and will submit for
a change through the Census Bureau's Question Resolution
Program, which starts in July. We also have gone ahead with our
2001 Reapportionment for Tompkins County pending the Census
Bureau's approval of the changes.
My questions are:
1) How many of the MPOs are experiencing the same problem?
2) I am concerned that we can estimate the Census errors and
change the Block populations, but ONLY THE CENSUS Bureau
knows the exact number of students who were in those dorms and
their ATTRIBUTES. Only the Census can move those attributes -
i.e. those 5,700 student incomes and journey-to-work responses,
etc. It seems to me that all the long form data that comes out next
year will be skewed - unless they deal with this issue. Which will
probably only happen if the issue is as wide spread as I have been
made to believe.
So what are you all seeing in this regard?
Tom Mank
Planning Analyst
Tompkins County Planning Department
The following section of this message contains a file attachment
prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any another MIME-compliant system,
you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.
---- File information -----------
File: 00bloc~1.pdf
Date: 19 Apr 2001, 5:42
Size: 398342 bytes.
Type: Unknown
(See attached file: 00bloc~1.pdf)
2000 Census downloads, including the ZCTA geography (in shapefile or Arcview
format) can be found at the site below.
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/zt.html
Thanks,
Michael D. Nichols, P.E.
Virginia Department of Transportation
Transportation Planning Division
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Telephone (804) 786-0998
Fax (804) 225-4785
Email: nichols_md(a)vdot.state.va.us
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse Jacobs [mailto:jjacobs@avcog.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 8:23 AM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: [CTPP] ZCTA data
Hi folks
would someone be able to send me a link to the spot where one can download
ZCTA geography? I had it once but cant seem to find it or get back there..
Jesse Jacobs
Transportation Planner/GIS Coordinator
AVCOG, 125 Manley RD, Auburn, ME 04210
Phone (207) 783-9186
Faxx (207) 783-5211
e-mail jjacobs(a)avcog.org
The Abilene(Texas)MPO noted similar problems when the redistricting data was
first released. The entire population of two state prisons was pasted into
one tiny block on the wrong side of a road in the wrong census tract and in
the wrong CTPP TAZ. Two separate Assistant Division Chiefs for the Bureau of
the Census told me that the error would not be fixed. One said that they
were encountering problems like it "all over the country."
We are now stuck with an entire special place census tract with a reported
population of 2, and 4,550 institutionalized persons reportedly living in a
small area which is an open field. I was told at the recent TRB conference
that this error may be able to be adusted for the CTPP special tabulation,
although not for any mainstream data products.
Another problem occurred when the entire institutionalized population of
another special place census tract was arbitrarily pasted into one small
block, although not one where any of the people are actually housed.
Fortunately it is still in the correct CTPP TAZ. It does, however,
adversely affect the urbanized area under the proposed criteria by
incorrectly showing a substantial populated area as completely unpopulated,
with the result that most of it would be left outside the UA and prevent
further hops.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net [mailto:owner-ctpp-news@chrispy.net]On
Behalf Of tmank(a)tompkins-co.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:42 AM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: [CTPP] census dorm errors
I wanted to pass this on to the listserv:
I work for the Tompkins County Planning Department in Upsate, NY.
When I first looked at the Block level populations this year, I noticed
numerous discrepancies, which turned out to be dorm population
counts which were incorrectly georeferenced. We have 2
universities here in Ithaca, NY, Cornell University and Ithaca
College. In our case, the entire dorm population for Cornell (5,700
students) was put in ONE BLOCK - not in the 14 blcoks where the
dorms are actually located. For example, a block that had a 1990
population of 1100 now has a 2000 pop of 2 and a block that had a
1990 pop of 110 now has a 2000 pop of 5882. For Ithaca College,
the dorm population was placed all in 1 block, not in the 4 blocks
where the dorms are actually located. To make things more
complicated, the Cornell Block discrepancies go across municipal
boundaries (from the City of Ithaca to the Town of Ithaca) and
across four of our current Legislative Districts [see attachement
with PDF map].
When I brought this up to the Regional Census Geography dept in
Boston, they were not that surprised and said they were seeing this
all over the country. The New York State Data Center in Albany
says they have had this complaint all over New York State.
In any case, we have noted the dorm capacities and redistributed
the block populations as we think they should be and will submit for
a change through the Census Bureau's Question Resolution
Program, which starts in July. We also have gone ahead with our
2001 Reapportionment for Tompkins County pending the Census
Bureau's approval of the changes.
My questions are:
1) How many of the MPOs are experiencing the same problem?
2) I am concerned that we can estimate the Census errors and
change the Block populations, but ONLY THE CENSUS Bureau
knows the exact number of students who were in those dorms and
their ATTRIBUTES. Only the Census can move those attributes -
i.e. those 5,700 student incomes and journey-to-work responses,
etc. It seems to me that all the long form data that comes out next
year will be skewed - unless they deal with this issue. Which will
probably only happen if the issue is as wide spread as I have been
made to believe.
So what are you all seeing in this regard?
Tom Mank
Planning Analyst
Tompkins County Planning Department
The City of Berkeley has reported to me that they have gone block by block through the PL data. According to those counts the dorms at Berkeley were half empty. That is most definitely not the case.
Patricia Perry
I wanted to pass this on to the listserv:
I work for the Tompkins County Planning Department in Upsate, NY.
When I first looked at the Block level populations this year, I noticed
numerous discrepancies, which turned out to be dorm population
counts which were incorrectly georeferenced. We have 2
universities here in Ithaca, NY, Cornell University and Ithaca
College. In our case, the entire dorm population for Cornell (5,700
students) was put in ONE BLOCK - not in the 14 blcoks where the
dorms are actually located. For example, a block that had a 1990
population of 1100 now has a 2000 pop of 2 and a block that had a
1990 pop of 110 now has a 2000 pop of 5882. For Ithaca College,
the dorm population was placed all in 1 block, not in the 4 blocks
where the dorms are actually located. To make things more
complicated, the Cornell Block discrepancies go across municipal
boundaries (from the City of Ithaca to the Town of Ithaca) and
across four of our current Legislative Districts [see attachement
with PDF map].
When I brought this up to the Regional Census Geography dept in
Boston, they were not that surprised and said they were seeing this
all over the country. The New York State Data Center in Albany
says they have had this complaint all over New York State.
In any case, we have noted the dorm capacities and redistributed
the block populations as we think they should be and will submit for
a change through the Census Bureau's Question Resolution
Program, which starts in July. We also have gone ahead with our
2001 Reapportionment for Tompkins County pending the Census
Bureau's approval of the changes.
My questions are:
1) How many of the MPOs are experiencing the same problem?
2) I am concerned that we can estimate the Census errors and
change the Block populations, but ONLY THE CENSUS Bureau
knows the exact number of students who were in those dorms and
their ATTRIBUTES. Only the Census can move those attributes -
i.e. those 5,700 student incomes and journey-to-work responses,
etc. It seems to me that all the long form data that comes out next
year will be skewed - unless they deal with this issue. Which will
probably only happen if the issue is as wide spread as I have been
made to believe.
So what are you all seeing in this regard?
Tom Mank
Planning Analyst
Tompkins County Planning Department
The following section of this message contains a file attachment
prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any another MIME-compliant system,
you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.
---- File information -----------
File: 00bloc~1.pdf
Date: 19 Apr 2001, 5:42
Size: 398342 bytes.
Type: Unknown
From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org>
Census 2000 Legal Challenges Continue:
Texas Counties File Suit; Democratic Reps Seek Adjusted Numbers
Plus: Hearing Planned on American Community Survey;
Congressional and Administration updates; and more.
Two Texas counties filed a lawsuit on May 10, challenging the accuracy
of their population counts from Census 2000. Cameron and Hidalgo
Counties, located in the Rio Grande Valley, contend the unadjusted
numbers issued in March for their jurisdictions reflect an undercount of
tens of thousands of people and will deprive them of their "fair and
intended share of federal funding and [skew] the allocation of
revenues."
Cameron County believes its official population count of 335,227 is off
by about 22,000 people; Hidalgo County says its population figure should
be about 56,000 higher than the reported 569,463. The counties claim
that Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans violated the Administrative
Procedures Act by revoking, without notice or a comment period, a
federal rule delegating to the Census Bureau director authority for the
decision on whether to release statistically adjusted census numbers.
They also allege that the Census Bureau's recommendation to release
unadjusted numbers, which the Secretary adopted, was based on "the
mistaken belief that... unadjusted data should be released unless [the
Census Bureau] could conclude to a certainty and beyond doubt that
adjusted data would be more accurate." Applying this "wrong standard"
disregards a Census Act mandate to use statistically adjusted data "if
it is feasible," the plaintiffs contend. The counties also assert that
the disproportionate undercount of Hispanics in the census "arbitrarily
discriminates" among population groups in violation of the
Constitution's equal protection clause.
The plaintiffs asked the court to declare the adjusted numbers to be the
"official census data for federal funding purposes" and to order the
release of the data. The plaintiffs include nearly three dozen cities
located within the two counties, and the County Judges of Cameron and
Hidalgo. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas (Case No. B-01-082).
Secretary Evans and the U.S. Department of Commerce are the named
defendants.
Democratic Reps go to court for adjusted numbers: Sixteen Democratic
members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government
Reform, which has jurisdiction over the census, filed a lawsuit on May
21 against
Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans, to compel release of the
statistically adjusted census population numbers. Rep. Henry Waxman
(D-CA) (the committee's senior Democrat), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO)
(ranking Democrat on the Census Subcommittee), and Rep. Carolyn Maloney
(D-NY) (a member and former ranking Democrat on the Census Subcommittee)
are leading the legal challenge.
The lawmakers are seeking the adjusted numbers under a 1928 federal
statute, called the "Seven Member Rule," that gives any seven members of
the House Committee on Government Reform special access to federal
records. "There is no valid reason for the Bush Administration to
withhold this data from members of Congress or the public," Rep. Waxman
said in announcing the court action. Rep. Clay accused the
Administration of "playing politics with the census data."
The representatives noted that the unadjusted data released in March
fails to account for more than six million Americans missed in Census
2000 and that the adjusted numbers could be used to allocate more than
$185 billion in federal grants each year. "The American taxpayers paid
for [the adjusted data], they deserve to see it," Rep. Maloney said.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, which recently dismissed a legal challenge by Los Angeles
and other municipalities to Secretary Evans' decision to release
unadjusted census data to the states for redistricting purposes. The
congressional plaintiffs said it is the first lawsuit brought under the
Seven Member Rule.
The Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF), a conservative Atlanta-based
organization, issued a statement calling the lawsuit "a senseless waste
of court time and public money." SLF President Phil Kent said "[t]he
courts have spoken on this matter" and that he was confident the
"misguided band of politicos would lose this battle". SLF spearheaded a
legal challenge to the Census 2000 plan that resulted in a 1999 U.S.
Supreme Court decision barring the use of statistical sampling methods
to derive the population counts for congressional apportionment.
Los Angeles appeals dismissal of adjustment lawsuit: Los Angeles and
several other cities and counties from across the country have asked the
U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to review a lower court's dismissal
of their lawsuit challenging the Commerce Secretary's decision to
release unadjusted census data to the states last March.
In an April 26th decision, U.S. District Court Judge Gary A. Feess ruled
that Secretary Evans' decision did not violate §195 of Title 13, United
States Code (the Census Act) because "the Secretary's actions are
consistent with a permissible construction of the statute." Judge Feess
concluded that "the paramount objective of the Census Act is accuracy in
counting population" and that "substantial evidence supports the Census
Bureau's recommendation against adjustment."
Brian Currey of O'Melveny & Myers, the law firm handling the plaintiffs'
case, said the Appeals Court "will take a fresh look at the statutes and
case law... and we believe it will rule in our favor."
Congressional hearing scheduled: The House Subcommittee on the Census
will hold a hearing on the status of planning for the Census Bureau's
American Community Survey (ACS). The panel will review the survey's
cost, coverage of less populous areas and smaller population groups,
questionnaire content, operational requirements, and other relevant
issues. The hearing is scheduled for June 13, at 2:00 pm, in room 2203
Rayburn House Office Building. The subcommittee has not yet announced a
complete witness list. This is the Census Subcommittee's second
oversight hearing on the ACS; the first was held last summer.
Commerce Under Secretary confirmed: Dr. Kathleen B. Cooper, President
Bush's nominee to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs,
was confirmed by the Senate on May 25. The Under Secretary heads up the
Commerce Department's Economic and Statistics Administration (ESA),
which houses the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Prior to her nomination, Dr. Cooper served as chief economist at Exxon
Mobil Corporation.
Senate committee changes expected: Committees and subcommittees in the
United States Senate will likely have new chairpersons and ranking
minority members when Congress reconvenes next week after its Memorial
Day recess.
The anticipated changes will result from Vermont Sen. James Jeffords'
decision to leave the Republican Party and become an Independent, giving
Democrats a 50-49-1 majority in the chamber. In Congress, the majority
party in each chamber holds the chairmanships of all committees and
subcommittees. The anticipated changes in committee leadership
described below are still subject to negotiations between the two
parties.
The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs has jurisdiction over the
Census Bureau's activities and the federal statistical system generally,
and would consider President Bush's nomination for Census Bureau
director. (No subcommittee of this committee has been assigned specific
responsibility for the Census Bureau.) Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT),
currently the committee's senior Democrat, is likely to become chairman,
taking over from Sen. Fred
Thompson (R-TN).
On the funding side, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) currently chairs the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, The Judiciary and Related
Agencies, of the Committee on Appropriations, which covers the Census
Bureau (part of the Commerce Department). The current ranking Democrat,
Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC) is likely to become chairman.
Questions about the information contained in this News Alert may be
directed to Terri Ann Lowenthal at 202/484-2270 or, by e-mail at
mailto:terriann2k@aol.com. For copies of previous News Alerts and other
information, use our web site www.census2000.org. Please direct all
requests to receive News Alerts, and all changes in
address/phone/fax/e-mail, to the Census 2000 Initiative at
mailto:Census2000@ccmc.org or 202/326-8700. Please feel free to
circulate this information to colleagues and other interested
individuals.
-----------
Ed Christopher
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street SW
Washington DC 20590
202-366-0412
I appreciate the link below for the hard-to-find components to include
in the 1990 profiles.
However, when I opened the file and started looking at it, I realized
that data for a number of the smaller towns in my region (Charleston, SC
MSA) were completely missing from the spreadsheet.
Does anyone know how I can track these down?
Thanks.
Haila R. Maze, Planner
Berkeley Charleston Dorchester Council of Governments
5290 Rivers Avenue, Suite 400
North Charleston, SC 29406
(843) 529-0400
(843) 529-0305 fax
-----Original Message-----
From: ed christopher [mailto:berwyned@mcs.com]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 10:07 AM
To: ctpp-news maillist
Subject: [CTPP] 1990 demographic profiles
i think i found the 1990 stuff comparable to the 2000 demographic
profiles that have been released at the place level. its on a state data
center web site at
http://www.sdcbidc.iupui.edu/Census_2000/census_2000.html
--
Ed Christopher
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street SW
Washington DC 20590
202-366-0412
Go to the Census Bureau home page, www.census.gov, then click on American
FactFinder. In the center of the screen you will see "Start with Basic
Facts". The drop down box next to the "Show me" label has the 1990 topics
as well as 2000 ones. Select an entry such as "Age and Sex" from the 1990
topics, select your geography, and then press "Go". The 1990 tables are
formatted to be comparable to the 2000 demographic profiles -- in fact the
only difference in the the title to the table is the "1990" in place of the
"2000". You also can go through the "Data Sets" button on the American
FactFinder page, the STF 1 (100%) files are shown at the bottom of the
table -- the demographic profile tables are called "Quick Tables". Again,
select geography, topic, etc.
Jim Bash
<jbash(a)uic.edu> To: ed christopher <berwyned(a)mcs.com>
Sent by: cc: ctpp-news maillist <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>
owner-ctpp-news@c Subject: Re: [CTPP] 1990 demographic profiles
hrispy.net
05/25/2001 12:08
PM
I think this is just the "hard to find" 1990 items that the Bureau
released in response to press requests (the SDCs only found these though a
journalist :-) There are 2 tables, from STF2 and STF4, I think. They
provide the comparable 1990 data that is not available in 1990 STF1 (for
examples, median age and own children).
Jim B
On Fri, 25 May 2001, ed christopher wrote:
> i think i found the 1990 stuff comparable to the 2000 demographic
> profiles that have been released at the place level. its on a state data
> center web site at
> http://www.sdcbidc.iupui.edu/Census_2000/census_2000.html
>
> --
> Ed Christopher
> Bureau of Transportation Statistics
> U.S. Department of Transportation
> 400 Seventh Street SW
> Washington DC 20590
> 202-366-0412
>
>
