ctpp-news

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

2560 discussions

by Ed Christopher

I got this from long time friend Terri Ann Lowenthal who has been my expert contact to Census Legislative issues. Terri Ann is a consultant for the Census Project and below is what the latest is on the ACS and Census Bureau cuts. ----------------------------- Thursday, May 10 @ 11:30PM Census Project colleagues: A quick update now that the House has passed its version of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill. First, in the chaos over the votes to make ACS response voluntary and then eliminate the survey entirely, we missed another amendment, sponsored by Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL), that shifted $20M from the Periodic Censuses account to a Justice Department local law enforcement program. That's on top of the $4 million cut through the Lynch amendment. Combined with the Appropriations Committee cut to the Periodics account, the Census Bureau says (in the new Bloomberg BusinessWeek article below) that the Economic Census is at risk again, as is planning for the 2020 Census. With regard to the vote to eliminate the ACS entirely, I know some folks think that the final C-J-S funding bill would never include such a provision. That is probably correct, but it also is possible (and, I am told, the Census Bureau fears) that the vote will be used as a bargaining chip in conference. House Republicans will agree to fund the ACS if conferees make response voluntary. And if that happens, the Census Bureau obviously won't have the additional funds ($60M???) needed to ensure reliable small area data, so stakeholders will lose census tract data and possibly more. The situation is not good, folks, despite the fact that it appears right now that members of the House (all of them!) were playing politics with the census. The Census Project is drafting a sign-on letter to all Senators, expressing strong (STRONG!) opposition both to the House funding cuts and, of course, the votes to make the ACS voluntary and then eliminate the survey. We will circulate the letter sometime on Friday. If the Senate takes up the Commerce Appropriations bill next week, we will have to put a short deadline on it again. If consideration is put off until after Memorial Day, as some are now saying, then we have extra time. Unlike past sign-on letters, we will try to get a very large number of organizational (not individual) signers from the national, state, and local level, and will list them all simply alphabetically. If you have state and local affiliates that want to get more involved (in addition to signing the letter), please refer them first to the Census Project website. They can look at past letters and fact sheets, as well as the blog, for basic information on the key issues at hand. We (at the Census Project) are pedaling as fast as we can but are having a hard time keeping up with requests for background information and strategic advice this week. This is a modestly funded project, so please be patient with us. Thanks for all you are doing to step up to the plate in support of the Census Bureau's programs and reliable data to guide policymaking and resource allocation. There is no question the Census Bureau needs to contain the cost of the 2020 Census, but pulling the rug out from under them makes that goal less reachable. Terri Ann Terri Ann Lowenthal | Consultant | TerriAnn2K(a)aol.com (h/o) 203-353-4364 | (c) 202-258-2425 --------------------------------------------------------------- Bloomberg BusinessWeek (on-line) Economics Killing the American Community Survey Blinds Business By Matthew Philips on May 10, 2012 Last week we wrote about how funding for economic data-gathering agencies such as the U.S. Census Bureau was under threat from House Republicans looking for ways to cut spending. Apparently, they mean business. On May 9 the House voted to kill the American Community Survey, which collects data on some 3 million households each year and is the largest survey next to the decennial census. The ACS—which has a long bipartisan history, including its funding in the mid-1990s and full implementation in 2005—provides data that help determine how more than $400 billion in federal and state funds are spent annually. Businesses also rely heavily on it to do such things as decide where to build new stores, hire new employees, and get valuable insights on consumer spending habits. Check out this video of Target (TGT) executives talking about how much they use ACS data. Initially, it looked like the House might simply repealthe survey’s mandatory requirement, something the Census Bureau has said would just make it more expensive since they’d have to send more agents into the field to collect the data manually, rather than being able to legally require people who receive the survey to fill it out. Representative Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) went a step further, leading the charge to dismantle the ACS entirely on the grounds that it’s unconstitutional. Webster gained his seat as part of the 2010 Tea Party revolution that won Republicans control of the House. Apress release on his website criticizes the ACS for invading people’s privacy by requiring them to answer questions such as what time they leave for work, how long their commute is, and whether they need help going shopping. Those who receive a survey and fail to respond are subject to fines of as much as $5,000. The fight over cutting funds for data-gathering agencies has opened up a rift in the deficit-hawk crowd. A handful of organizations that generally support big fiscal spending cuts have voiced their support for fully funding the three main data-gathering agencies: Census, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The Chamber of Commerce, for example, strongly advocates funding them, since its members rely so much on the information they provide on basic things such as household spending, per capita income, and population estimates. The ACS is of particular value to them, says Martin Regalia, Commerce’s chief economist. “It is especially important to some of our bigger members for trying to understand geographic distinctions and other granularity in the economy.” Tom Beers, executive director of the National Association of Business Economists, says that without good economic data, businesses would be “flying blind.” He adds: “You end up in a guessing game about what’s going on in the economy. The types of losses that result are far worse than what you end up spending to fund these surveys.” Webster says ending the ACS could save $2.5 billion over the next decade. Asked to respond to concerns from the business community over the impact of stopping the ACS, Webster’s communications staff referred me to his comments on the House floor, which don’t address those concerns. Proponents of the ACS argue that the survey is particularly important since it forms the basis of so much other data. “The loss of the American Community Survey will cause chaos and inefficiency in the operations of business and government in the U.S.,” says Andrew Reamer. In 2010, Reamer published a report for the Brookings Institution measuring the overall impact of the ACS. In a statement released on May 10, the Census Bureau said eliminating the ACS would “mark the first time in the country’s history that we would not collect and share vital economic and demographic measures of the country. These cuts would also keep us from conducting the 2012 economic census. Eliminating the American Community Survey would make it extremely difficult if not impossible to contain the costs of the 2020 census.” Contacted last week, economists at conservative think tanks Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation all expressed support for the data-gathering agencies since all three rely heavily on the statistics they produce to study the economy. “Those agencies are essential,” says Phillip Swagel, an economist and nonresident scholar at AEI. “The data they provide really tell us what’s going on in the economy. This shouldn’t be a political issue.” Philips is an associate editor for Bloomberg Businessweek. -- Ed Christopher 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) FHWA RC-TST-PLN 4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600 Matteson, IL 60443

13 years, 9 months

Re: [CTPP] Census Funding

by Gyanesh Lama

Could anyone please shed light on the reason for eliminating ACS? I was disappointed with the fact that Decennial Census got rid of the Long Form. ACS is good because it is annual, but it is not as precise for smaller geographies (e.g. block) as Decennial Census. If smaller geography is not the main purpose of the ACS, then there are already many population level surveys that collect data on demographics and economy. What we need is both: ACS and the Long Form on the Decennial Census, and no less. Gyanesh Lama, Ph.D. EAST-WEST GATEWAY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS One Memorial Drive, Ste. 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102-2451 Ph: 314-421-4220 Fx: 314-231-6120 >>> Ed Christopher <edc(a)berwyned.com> 05/11/2012 8:03 AM >>> I got this from long time friend Terri Ann Lowenthal who has been my expert contact to Census Legislative issues. Terri Ann is a consultant for the Census Project and below is what the latest is on the ACS and Census Bureau cuts. ----------------------------- Thursday, May 10 @ 11:30PM Census Project colleagues: A quick update now that the House has passed its version of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill. First, in the chaos over the votes to make ACS response voluntary and then eliminate the survey entirely, we missed another amendment, sponsored by Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL), that shifted $20M from the Periodic Censuses account to a Justice Department local law enforcement program. That's on top of the $4 million cut through the Lynch amendment. Combined with the Appropriations Committee cut to the Periodics account, the Census Bureau says (in the new Bloomberg BusinessWeek article below) that the Economic Census is at risk again, as is planning for the 2020 Census. With regard to the vote to eliminate the ACS entirely, I know some folks think that the final C-J-S funding bill would never include such a provision. That is probably correct, but it also is possible (and, I am told, the Census Bureau fears) that the vote will be used as a bargaining chip in conference. House Republicans will agree to fund the ACS if conferees make response voluntary. And if that happens, the Census Bureau obviously won't have the additional funds ($60M???) needed to ensure reliable small area data, so stakeholders will lose census tract data and possibly more. The situation is not good, folks, despite the fact that it appears right now that members of the House (all of them!) were playing politics with the census. The Census Project is drafting a sign-on letter to all Senators, expressing strong (STRONG!) opposition both to the House funding cuts and, of course, the votes to make the ACS voluntary and then eliminate the survey. We will circulate the letter sometime on Friday. If the Senate takes up the Commerce Appropriations bill next week, we will have to put a short deadline on it again. If consideration is put off until after Memorial Day, as some are now saying, then we have extra time. Unlike past sign-on letters, we will try to get a very large number of organizational (not individual) signers from the national, state, and local level, and will list them all simply alphabetically. If you have state and local affiliates that want to get more involved (in addition to signing the letter), please refer them first to the Census Project website. They can look at past letters and fact sheets, as well as the blog, for basic information on the key issues at hand. We (at the Census Project) are pedaling as fast as we can but are having a hard time keeping up with requests for background information and strategic advice this week. This is a modestly funded project, so please be patient with us. Thanks for all you are doing to step up to the plate in support of the Census Bureau's programs and reliable data to guide policymaking and resource allocation. There is no question the Census Bureau needs to contain the cost of the 2020 Census, but pulling the rug out from under them makes that goal less reachable. Terri Ann Terri Ann Lowenthal | Consultant | TerriAnn2K(a)aol.com (h/o) 203-353-4364 | (c) 202-258-2425 --------------------------------------------------------------- Bloomberg BusinessWeek (on-line) Economics Killing the American Community Survey Blinds Business By Matthew Philips on May 10, 2012 Last week we wrote about how funding for economic data-gathering agencies such as the U.S. Census Bureau was under threat from House Republicans looking for ways to cut spending. Apparently, they mean business. On May 9 the House voted to kill the American Community Survey, which collects data on some 3 million households each year and is the largest survey next to the decennial census. The ACS—which has a long bipartisan history, including its funding in the mid-1990s and full implementation in 2005—provides data that help determine how more than $400 billion in federal and state funds are spent annually. Businesses also rely heavily on it to do such things as decide where to build new stores, hire new employees, and get valuable insights on consumer spending habits. Check out this video of Target (TGT) executives talking about how much they use ACS data. Initially, it looked like the House might simply repealthe survey’s mandatory requirement, something the Census Bureau has said would just make it more expensive since they’d have to send more agents into the field to collect the data manually, rather than being able to legally require people who receive the survey to fill it out. Representative Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) went a step further, leading the charge to dismantle the ACS entirely on the grounds that it’s unconstitutional. Webster gained his seat as part of the 2010 Tea Party revolution that won Republicans control of the House. Apress release on his website criticizes the ACS for invading people’s privacy by requiring them to answer questions such as what time they leave for work, how long their commute is, and whether they need help going shopping. Those who receive a survey and fail to respond are subject to fines of as much as $5,000. The fight over cutting funds for data-gathering agencies has opened up a rift in the deficit-hawk crowd. A handful of organizations that generally support big fiscal spending cuts have voiced their support for fully funding the three main data-gathering agencies: Census, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The Chamber of Commerce, for example, strongly advocates funding them, since its members rely so much on the information they provide on basic things such as household spending, per capita income, and population estimates. The ACS is of particular value to them, says Martin Regalia, Commerce’s chief economist. “It is especially important to some of our bigger members for trying to understand geographic distinctions and other granularity in the economy.” Tom Beers, executive director of the National Association of Business Economists, says that without good economic data, businesses would be “flying blind.” He adds: “You end up in a guessing game about what’s going on in the economy. The types of losses that result are far worse than what you end up spending to fund these surveys.” Webster says ending the ACS could save $2.5 billion over the next decade. Asked to respond to concerns from the business community over the impact of stopping the ACS, Webster’s communications staff referred me to his comments on the House floor, which don’t address those concerns. Proponents of the ACS argue that the survey is particularly important since it forms the basis of so much other data. “The loss of the American Community Survey will cause chaos and inefficiency in the operations of business and government in the U.S.,” says Andrew Reamer. In 2010, Reamer published a report for the Brookings Institution measuring the overall impact of the ACS. In a statement released on May 10, the Census Bureau said eliminating the ACS would “mark the first time in the country’s history that we would not collect and share vital economic and demographic measures of the country. These cuts would also keep us from conducting the 2012 economic census. Eliminating the American Community Survey would make it extremely difficult if not impossible to contain the costs of the 2020 census.” Contacted last week, economists at conservative think tanks Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation all expressed support for the data-gathering agencies since all three rely heavily on the statistics they produce to study the economy. “Those agencies are essential,” says Phillip Swagel, an economist and nonresident scholar at AEI. “The data they provide really tell us what’s going on in the economy. This shouldn’t be a political issue.” Philips is an associate editor for Bloomberg Businessweek. -- Ed Christopher 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) FHWA RC-TST-PLN 4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600 Matteson, IL 60443

13 years, 10 months

Housing Units Data from the Census

by McClelland, Kaine

We are in the process of updating our 2000 Statewide Traffic Model here in Nebraska with the 2010 Census Data we received back from the Census Bureau. We delineated TAZ's for the state's counties in the spring of 2011. The old 2000 Census Data that was used in the Statewide Model for Nebraska back 10 years ago showed an attribute data field known as "Housing Units". Is this data no longer available through the Census? Our information that we received back contains a "workers" attribute but nothing about individual housing units. Thanks Kaine McClelland Nebraska Department of Roads Transportation Planner 1400 Highway 2 Lincoln, NE 68509 Phone: 402-479-3937

13 years, 10 months

AFF2 Deep Linking application

by Eric Kramer

Hi all, Here is a database application for those interested in creating "Deep Links" to tables on AFF2. The attached MS Access database features a form programmed in VBA to assemble Deep Links to the American Factfinder 2. You will have to allow VBA macros or else MS Access will disable the program. The application is a work in progress so if you are handy with VBA feel free to improve it. Use the dropdown menus to select the program, dataset, table and geography of interest. The "Category" menu is optional and serves to filter tables in the "Table" menu. After the menu selections are ready, click the "Add Components" button. The hyperlink will appear in the textbox below. Caveat: AFF2 may not have some of the menu items and some are only be available for specific summary levels. As data is released in the future (annual ACS, SF2, etc.), new records will have to be added the database tables that reference the proper bookmarking codes and aliases (for menu items). Multiple geographies (same summary level) for a single table may be added to the hyperlink (e.g. a second county) by clicking the "Add Components" button without resetting the link. Individual census tracts may be added using the 6 digit FIPS number (use a comma delimiter for multiple tracts). Currently the database can create links to decennial census and ACS tables at the State, County, and Tract summary levels. The database has places for Arizona only. To add more places to the menu, go to the "Places" table in the "Data" group and append your place records following the table template. The AFF deep linking guide was helpful in designing this program, but I also resorted to AFF2 bookmarks to determine correct coding and syntax for some tables and datasets. Have fun! ____________________________ Eric W. Kramer, Ph.D., AICP Senior Land-Use Modeler PAG_logotype 177 N. Church Ave, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 792-1093 x506 (tel) (520) 620-6981 (fax) www.pagnet.org ekramer(a)pagnet.org

13 years, 10 months

[Fwd: Census sign-on letter to Senate]

by Ed Christopher

FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Census sign-on letter to Senate Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 15:01:36 -0400 From: Terri Ann Lowenthal <terriann2k(a)AOL.COM> Reply-To: Terri Ann Lowenthal <terriann2k(a)AOL.COM> To: <CENSUS-PROJECT(a)MAIL.AMSTAT.ORG> 5/11/12 @ 3:00PM Census Project colleagues: A quick note to encourage everyone to let their affiliates at the state and local levels, as well as other potential census data supporters, about this sign-on letter. We will accept all relevant organizational (not individual) signers, including university departments. I am attaching the letter once again in the event your organization is not on the CCMC Census Project e-mail list. Please note that we will slightly tweak the letter before finalizing. There a couple of typos; we will add a reference to the use of citizenship data for redistricting; and we will tweak the language referring to bilingual voting assistance based on suggestions on experts in the field. We will not make any substantive changes, don't worry. Thanks again for all of your work on such short notice. In the meantime, please see the Census Bureau director's blog on this issue (www.census.gov). And look for some press coverage on-line today and in the weekend newspapers, including the New York Times. Have a good weekend. Terri Ann *Terri Ann Lowenthal* | Consultant | TerriAnn2K(a)aol.com (h/o) 203-353-4364 | (c) 202-258-2425 ---------------------------------------------------------- -- Ed Christopher 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) FHWA RC-TST-PLN 4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600 Matteson, IL 60443

13 years, 10 months

Analyzing historical geospatial Census data to assist in forecasting TAZ socioeconomic data

by Benito Perez

All, Good morning. Wanted to solicit ideas, tools, resources that others may be aware of in analyzing historical census data to develop growth trends that can be used in forecasting socioeconomic data for our travel demand model's traffic analysis zones (TAZs). Thoughts? At this point I have gathered Census tract geospatial data for our region (Hampton Roads) as far back as 1960, Census Block Group geospatial data from 1990 onwards, and Census Block geospatial data from 2000 onwards. The hope is to do a geospatial analysis with these data sets to geospatially identify growth patterns across our region. Thanks for your time in your thoughts on this. I'll be cross-posting this on the TMIP listserv as well. [Description: Description: Description: HRTPO logo - small] Benito O. Pérez, AICP Transportation Engineer Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization The Regional Building 723 Woodlake Drive Chesapeake Virginia 23320 bperez(a)hrpdcva.gov<mailto:bperez@hrpdcva.gov>| http://www.hrtpo.org<http://www.hrtpo.org/>| Phone: 757.420.8300 | Fax: 757.523.4881 All email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and to the Virginia Public Records Act, which may result in monitoring and disclosure to third parties, including law enforcement.

13 years, 10 months

CTPP Status Report

by Ed Christopher

The May 2012 issue of the newsletter the "CTPP Status Report" is now posted at http://www.trbcensus.com/ The direct link to it is http://www.trbcensus.com/newsltr/sr0512.pdf -- Ed Christopher 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) FHWA RC-TST-PLN 4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600 Matteson, IL 60443

13 years, 10 months

how to JOIN the CTPP listserv

by Elaine.Murakami＠dot.gov

Please share this with your colleagues. Some of you have been forwarded messages from CTPP listserv, but are not members of the list itself. You must be a member to post to the list. Here is the link to JOIN, or change your listserv settings: http://www.trbcensus.com/maillist.html This page includes a link to the archive of messages. I highly recommend that you read the posts related to DEEP LINKING with ACS tables from Mara Kaminowitz. We will have a short webinar on Deep Linking in the near future. Thanks again for your interest in CTPP and Census data issues. And a big Thank You again to Ed Christopher who set up the listserv in the first place! Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460 (in Seattle)

13 years, 10 months

Re: [CTPP] due by April 30: ACS Program Review

by Patty Becker

This just illustrates the effort that all data intermediaries (those who help others access and use the data) need to go to with Congress. Call your Rep. and express your views! Patty Becker At 11:52 AM 5/10/2012, you wrote: >Content-Language: en-US >Content-Type: multipart/related; > >boundary="_004_FF2CCB68E19616409E046FD48592C54F0537B1B1DDDFW1MBX02mex0_"; > type="multipart/alternative" > >No more ACS? The House doesnt like it.. > > > >John Sharp >Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01C8E746.B2403B20 > >Program Coordinator >Transportation & Planning Services >Association of Central Oklahoma Governments ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia C. (Patty) Becker 248/354-6520 APB Associates/SEMCC FAX 248/354-6645 28300 Franklin Road Home 248/355-2428 Southfield, MI 48034 pbecker(a)umich.edu

13 years, 10 months

House votes to prohibit funding for ACS

by Weinberger, Penelope

Yesterday evening the house approved in a roll call vote an amendment to H.R. 5326 (Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013) to end funding for the ACS. It is unlikely that this action will go further (the senate is unlikely to follow suit). But it sure is a wake up call. H.AMDT.1077 (A044) Amends: H.R.5326 <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR05326:> Sponsor: Rep Webster, Daniel <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d112&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@ 4((@1(Rep+Webster++Daniel))+02002))> [FL-8] (offered 5/9/2012) AMENDMENT PURPOSE: An amendment to prohibit the use of funds to conduct the survey, conducted by the Secretary of Commerce, commonly referred to as the "American Community Survey". STATUS: 5/9/2012 4:49pm: Amendment (A044) offered by Mr. Webster. 5/9/2012 6:51pm: On agreeing to the Webster amendment (A044) Agreed to by recorded vote: 232 - 190 (Roll no. 232 <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/%20http:/clerk.house.gov/evs/2012 /roll232.xml> ). Penelope Weinberger CTPP Program Manager AASHTO 202-624-3556 http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx <http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx> It's just as bad to not make a plan as to blindly follow the one you already have.

13 years, 10 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