ctpp-news

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

2560 discussions

by Chuck Purvis (MTC)

Al: I'm responding to you and the CTPP-News listserv, since these effect many different folks. My hopes are that the Census Bureau or USDOT staff can corroborate or correct me as needed. 1. The TIGER files *can't* be corrected as part of this WORK-UP project. So, if the TIGER/ArcView files are missing key streets, or address ranges on streets, then I think the best solution is to code to the closest available block-face. The idea is to get the employer location accurately coded to the nearest census block. Once the Census Bureau is able to geocode to the nearest block, then they will be able to aggregate to the CTPP Travel Analysis Zones created as part of TAZ-UP. If, on the other hand, the employer is within a large new subdivision that *isn't* included in the current set of TIGER/ArcView files, then I don't know what happens. I haven't come across this problem, though I have had problems with streets-without-address ranges. 2. The alias street name problem is one I've been battling with as early as this morning. The TIGER file will probably have the older name (e.g., North Main Street), but the "newcomers" to the area may be used to the new street name (e.g., Last Chance Gulch). [This is very common in the City of San Francisco where they rename streets after famous labor leaders or writers, e.g., Army Street is now Cesar Chavez Street, Ivy Street is now Lech Walesa St., Stark St. is now Jack Kerouac Alley, etc.] In answering Census 2000, respondents will use what they want (North Main or Last Chance Gulch). Maybe the Census Bureau Geography Division has a "street name alias file" that can be used for improved workplace coding???? (If not, they should!) My recommendation may be to add duplicate employer records that have the alias street name, e.g., if the employer record provided by the Census Bureau is Joe's Bar & Grill, 100 North Main Street, then I would add a new record (at the same precise geocoded location) as: Joe's Bar & Grill, 100 Last Chance Gulch. (Now, if there were 500 establishments along this Last Chance Gulch, then I'd have second thoughts about adding alias employer records.) Strategy: I've been working on WORK-UP for the past week, and I've completed initial work on five of my nine counties. In the Bay Area we have 300 thousand geocoded employer locations, and 32,800 un-geocoded employer locations. Of the 32,800 ungeocoded, 1,102 are for employers of 50+ employees. In my large counties, I'm only reviewing the ungeocoded for the 50+ employees (10+ employees in Napa County). The goal in my initial work is to "eliminate the big red dots" (ungeocoded workplaces of 50+). I'm also reviewing *all* of the geocoded records for large (250+ or 500+) employers to make sure they're in the right locations. They mostly are, though there were some problems (UCBerkeley was located in downtown Berkeley instead of on the campus; Marine World USA amusement park was on the wrong side of the road....) And some of the research is actually kind of fun (finding the correct location for Domaine Chandon & Niebaum-Coppola wineries; "Skywalker Sound" in Marin County....) Unfortunately, a lot of the ungeocoded records are shopping centers (they're a real mess.) So, my first phase strategy is to correct the ungeocoded large employers (10+ or 50+ employees); and to review the existing geocoding for very large employers (250+ or 500+). I haven't yet devised a second phase strategy. 3. My question: would it be useful to include the acronym of the employer in the employer name alias fielf? For example, I doubt that our friends at AASHTO will fill in American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, but rather just use AASHTO.... Chuck Purvis, MTC > Hi Chuck, We are working on the Work-Up assignment. We have run > into a number of problems that we need guidance with. One problem > is that we are finding road segments in the tiger line files that > do not have a to and from address or zip code coded into them, > thus they are unable to be located. Another problem is that some > of the addresses are on streets that are not in the tiger line > files as a segment. And a third problem is that some of the > streets actually have two (2) different names, i.e. some people > think they are N Main and others think it is Last Chance Gulch. > What makes some of these problems persistent is that the ArcView > file does not allow for editing. The buttons are turned off or > greyed out/invisible. What is the silver bullet strategy that we > need to follow on this assignment. Thank you. > > Al V. ******************************************************* e-mail: cpurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov Chuck Purvis, AICP Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst, Planning Section Metropolitan Transportation Commission 101 Eighth Street, Oakland, CA 94607-4700 (510) 464-7731 (voice) (510) 464-7848 (fax) WWW: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/ MTC DataMart: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/datamart/ MTC FTP Site: ftp://ftp.abag.ca.gov/pub/mtc/planning/ *******************************************************

25 years, 11 months

RE: [CTPP] Experimental Census Forms

by Granato, Sam

My apologies for a inference based on recent news plus an April 1 check of the "scoreboard" which showed your state far behind not only the national average but also the other confederate states. A more recent check indicates this gap is now mostly erased. Is that bad news? This'll teach me to try catching up to my e-mail on weekends - not only am I even more unprofessional than usual then, but quite forgetful i.e. I completely forgot that the j-to-work question is used for the formal definition of MSA's. But beyond that it does concern me a bit that the Census web site cited in other responses seems to have more "assists in" and "used by" than specific Congressional directives tied to specific Census questions. The former is something all us planner types understand, but not by most of the people we serve. (That is not intended to demean the hard work that Ed Christopher and others have put in keeping transportation visible in the long form - perhaps if I were in a larger metro area and/or CAAA non-compliant I would understand much better the needs.) > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Wilkinson [SMTP:JDWilkin@grpc.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 9:52 AM > To: Granato, Sam > Subject: Re: [CTPP] Experimental Census Forms > > Sam Granato: > > My senator IS majority leader. Was your remark intended > to stigmatize us Mississippians as even more lacking in desire > to fill out questionnaires than the average American? If it was, > wouldn't that really make us more American than the homogenized > variety? The truth is that there is still some resistance to the idea > of collaboration 130-plus years into the occupation. > >

25 years, 11 months

RE: [CTPP] Experimental Census Forms

by Granato, Sam

My aforementioned relative would definitely have gone over the edge if she had a request for her Social Security number as well. Can someone explain the rationale for this before those of us on the local end start catching flak as well? Thanks to Mr. Castagneri for posting some talking points on the basis for the long-form questions - our letters to the editor here similarly "truncate" the citizenry's obligations. Does anyone know the specific requirement for asking the journey-to-work question (when as well as where), vehicles owned, and other transportation-related questions? I don't. And thanks to Ms. Murakami for the link to the Census "scoreboard." It's quite instructive in pointing out that (unless your senator is Majority leader) we are quite homogenized in this country in our desire (or lack thereof) to fill out questionnaires in spite of our regional reputations. (Out west, even the land of the Freemen has the same response rate as the state with an outbreak of long form envy.) Though I suppose such state-level averages do mask some important distinctions within our society. Sam Granato A thought for the day: "Whine for those who can't." - Ian Shoales > -----Original Message----- > From: klamberton(a)pagnet.org [SMTP:klamberton@pagnet.org] > Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 8:42 AM > To: Ed Christopher; ctpp-news maillist > Subject: [CTPP] Experimental Census Forms > > At 09:31 AM 3/31/00 -0500, Ed Christopher wrote: > >anyone along the CTPP listserve get a copy of one these very special > >forms. It is my understanding that you would know the difference since > >it also asks for your SSN. If anyone knows more information about this > >experiemnet please pass the information along.- > > If this is an actual program I find this very alarming. We are having > enough problems explaining the American Community Survey which is out here > in Pima County, AZ without having another form - espcially one asking for > SSN. We have been doing informational peices for our elderly population > explaining how to know a form is the real one and not a elder fraud scam > and one of the facts we use is that no Census form will ask for SSN or ask > for money. Appreciate any information on this that can be forwarded- KLL > Karen L. Lamberton > Transportation Planner > 177 N. Church Ave., Suite 501 > Tucson, AZ 85701 > > (520) 628-5313

25 years, 11 months

census testing

by Ed Christopher

anyone along the CTPP listserve get a copy of one these very special forms. It is my understanding that you would know the difference since it also asks for your SSN. If anyone knows more information about this experiemnet please pass the information along.--thanks (when responding make sure to hit respond all and respond to the list and not just just the author.) ======================= March 27, 2000 Dear Member of Congress: As you know, Census 2000 questionnaires have arrived at households throughout the country. Approximately 135,000 of these questionnaires will not be the standard Census forms, but will be part of the Census 2000 Testing and Experimentation Program. The results from this program will help guide post-2000 planning and testing for the 2010 Census, and provide useful information for the American Community Survey, as well as other census surveys and operations. Of these 135,000 questionnaires, approximately 93,000 are short forms and 42,000 are long forms. These forms are actual decennial questionnaires that contain design and content variation reflecting the design of those experiments included in this program. The appearance of these experimental forms in most cases is similar to the standard Census 2000 forms. The schedule for these experimental forms is concurrent with standard Census 2000 activities. Data capture and processing of experimental forms also is concurrent with the Census schedule, although experimental forms will be processed at one location, the National Processing Center in Jeffersonville, Indiana. An operator assistance program, similar to the Census 2000 Telephone Questionnaire Assistance, will also be in place to answer respondent questions on completing these forms. We bring this to your attention to answer any inquiries you may receive from your constituents on this matter. Please call Congressional Affairs at 301-457-2123 if you have any questions. Sincerely, signed Robin J. Bachman Chief, Congressional Affairs

25 years, 11 months

Census issues response rates by State, County, City

by Murakami, Elaine <FHWA>

http://rates.census.gov/index.html

25 years, 11 months

Re: [CTPP] Long form blues

by ed christopher

submission from [Vicki.L.Lewis(a)ccmail.census.gov] No change between 1990 and 2000, however, the sampling rate in rural areas is higher than non-rural areas as much as 1:2 ratio compared to the 1:6. So your chances of getting a long form if your "rural house" is truly in a "rural area " as defined by the Census Bureau was much higher. Lucky you! > Subject: Re: [CTPP] Long form blues > Has there been a change in the long-form sampling rate? > I have two residences (an inner-city condo, and a rural house), and managed to > get the long form at BOTH. Fortunately, I'm told I should only fill out one... > > /Steve Colman

25 years, 11 months

Re: [CTPP] Possible Issues Related to Census 2000 "Last Week"

by Bob Sicko

I guess I'll share my two cents.... Positve media attention overall. Since we have the 2nd worse congestion (see TTI report) we're more than happy to show that it takes about the same time to get around as it did ten years ago. We're more than proud to let Uncle Sam know we have a boatload of new millionaire's. As to where you usually work... well that is a bit of a problem... generally on Monday you start out at Microsoft, Tuesday you resign, Wednesday you start your own firm, Thursday, your so rich you don't know what to do and on Friday you retire.

25 years, 11 months

RE: [CTPP] Long form blues

by Granato, Sam

Attached FYI are responses I've been getting off the list to my "long form" question. I'll just respond to the second one and say that I'm sure that the folks at the Census Bureau are quite aware of how well the citizenry responds to surveys, and that they are also under alot of pressure from various interest groups -- including transportation planners -- to provide what has been succinctly described as "mo' data." *********************************** > recieved the long form at my house and it is a bugger to fill out. Will > probably take 3 or 4 days to complete. Real difficult stuff. *** > I received the long form in 1990 and this year. The 2000 long form is > much > more detailed and much longer than the 1990 form. I can understand why > people may refuse to complete it. This year's from goes way beyond > journey-to-work data and asks for information, such as annual utility > costs, > that many people do not track. It will take more than a couple of hours > research for me to provide accurate answers. The Census Bureau must have > forgotten that the average American head of household is not a bureaucrat. *** > there is a report on the subject. As I recall the decline in response > rates > was slight and not the basis for concern about non-response from > minorities. *** > It is strange that CTPP people would be complaining about the long form. > That whole program is dependent on it. > > All census data is confidential for 72 years. Then it is released for > historical research. In WWII the military asked the Census Bureau for the > location of Japanese. They were denied access. I have participated in > LUCA (Local Update Census Addresses). I have had to sign numerous > confidentiality agreements in order to receive the data files. These > files > contain nothing but addresses, no names or any other data. Yet it took an > act of congress to allow the Bureau to make these lists available to local > governments for review. I am expected to destroy all files and maps when > the review is finished. > > The long form may be a pain, but it provides much valuable information. > This may be the last census with a long form. If so, it is the end of > detailed data for small geography. *** > Our local weekly newspaper - with big circulation - is > pushing the invasion of privacy button with respect to > filling out the long form. Particularly on the income > questions. I received the long form and have to admit > that they have a point. I'll bet that 2000 returns will hit > an all time low response rate. *** > My understanding was that in 1990 the long-form response rate was not that > different from the short-form rate. I've had an earfull too. I'm sure > some of response results from an increased sensativity to privacy issues > over the past decade. My only response has been to gently encourage > people to fill out what they can. >

25 years, 11 months

Long form blues

by Granato, Sam

Did anyone ever figure out from the '90 Census the difference in non-response rates between short-form and long-form households? I'm getting an earful from friends and relatives right now who got the long form. I'm starting to understand better the rationale for getting away from the long form toward the ACS (if in fact this was part of the rationale).

25 years, 11 months

Possible Issues Related to Census 2000 "Last Week"

by Chuck Purvis (MTC)

Dear CTPP-News people: Some friends and I had a dinner party yesterday, and 3 of 5 received the Census 2000 long form. Of course, I didn't get one, so I have "long form envy". Luckily for our region the press is picking up good stories about "long form envy" instead of the libertarian cr*p about invasion of privacy. And, yes, my friends had concerns about the level of research (in hours?!) needed to provide accurate answers about utility costs.... In Ron Tweedie's example, it may prove useful if the Census Bureau in coordination with the State Data Center could provide the local newspaper editor the reasons and rationale for collecting this long form data. If congestion and poverty are issues in your metropolitan area, then household income is an absolutely critical data need. And I do believe there are Census Bureau documents citing the chapter and verse of the US Code where each census data item is required. (It's somewhere on the Bureau's WWW site.) My concern right now is the interpretation by census respondents to the term "last week" (as used in our journey-to-work questions.) We have traditionally (incorrectly?) assumed that the term "last week" refers to the "census reference week" or the last week of March in 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Well, the Census Bureau mailed forms to all (or most) americans the week of March 13-17. So, is "last week" to be interpreted as the week before they received the form (March 6-10); the week before they fill out the form (either March 13-17, or this week -- March 20-24, or next week -- March 27-31)!!!! The answer is, probably yes, to all of the above. Yikes! People are (and should be?) mailing in their long forms *RIGHT NOW* and this "last week" ambiguity will be interesting. My thinking is that people will substitute an "unusual last week" with a "usual last week" if they want to provide "relevant" data to the Census Bureau. In my own situation, I was in Phoenix last week on vacation. This week I'm at home in Oakland. If I had a census long form, my inclination would be to delay answering the census until *next* week, when my "last week" commute pattern is more typical of my regular and usual commute pattern. My friend showed me her long form packet, and there were no apparent instructions to clarify what is "last week" or even *WHEN AM I SUPPOSED TO MAIL THIS BACK?* Given this ambiguity in terms of what is "last week," my recommendation to the USDOT, Census Bureau, State DOTs and MPOs is to start compilations of events of interest that may influence journey-to-work patterns in *all* of March 2000: 1. Weather conditions (daily clippings from the newspapers, and should report on natural events including quakes, floods, snowstorms, precipitation levels, sunny days, etc.); 2. Labor conditions (transit union strikes or slowdowns; other major labor events); 3. Gas Prices (we're now at $1.90 per gallon in the Bay Area, and rising! Also, surveys of other transportation costs such as tolls, fares, parking costs would be ideal to conduct this month and next.); 4. Road and Transit Network Status (important if new or expanded facilities are opened in early 2000). That's about it. Anybody else have ideas on things we should be monitoring for understanding "last week"? cheers, Chuck Purvis, MTC

25 years, 11 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