ctpp-news

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

2560 discussions

by Elaine.Murakami＠dot.gov

Someone from Massachusetts: Did you leave me a phone message? I did not get the correct phone number to return your call. The 2006-2008 CTPP does NOT have any places or towns with less than 20,000 population. The 20,000 population threshold is a rule established by the Census Bureau which limits the geographic units tabulated when 3 years of ACS are pulled together. The threshold for 1-year ACS tabulations is 65,000 population. After 5 years of accumulation, there is no geographic population threshold. Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460

14 years, 7 months

HUD's Data Shop in journal "Cityscape"

by Elaine.Murakami＠dot.gov

In case you are interested: HUD Call for Papers The Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Policy Development and Research publishes Cityscape <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=72024747&msgid=942971&act=ATR 8&c=364653&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huduser.org%2Fportal%2Fperiodica ls%2Fcityscape.html> , a scholarly journal, three times a year. Data Shop, a department of Cityscape, presents short articles or notes on the uses of data in housing and urban research. This feature introduces readers to new and overlooked data sources and to improved techniques in using well-known data. The emphasis is on sources and methods that analysts can use in their own work. Data Shop invites all interested users of such data to submit abstracts for papers by July 22, 2011 for consideration for the March 2012 issue. For more information and/or to submit an abstract, contact: Dav Vandenbroucke <mailto:david.a.vandenbroucke@hud.gov> Senior Economist U.S. Dept. HUD 202-402-5890

14 years, 8 months

PUMA Criteria

by Ed Christopher

I just received this form some of Census Bureau sources. I have not read it yet but you can bet that I will be bugging the MPO and state DOTs to make sure that they hook up with their State Data Centers and get involved in the process. --------------------- The Census Bureau published final criteria for Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) on July 5, 2011. The notice, "Final Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) Criteria and Guidelines for the 2010 Census and the American Community Survey," is available on the Census Bureau's website at: http://www.census.gov/geo/puma/puma2010.html. Questions and requests for further information should be addressed to the Geographic Standards and Criteria Branch, Geography Division, Census Bureau via e-mail at <geo.puma(a)census.gov> or telephone at 301-763-3056. -- Ed Christopher FHWA Resource Center Planning Team 4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600 Matteson, IL 60443 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (C)

14 years, 8 months

TAZ delineation update

by Elaine.Murakami＠dot.gov

Over 100 agencies have ALREADY submitted their files to the Census Bureau Geography Division, with at least 10 agencies submitting files today (June 16). The CB GEO staff have found that the TAZ files look pretty good, and although there are some TAZs that look "too small" these are often in areas with parks or water areas. They also said that the TADs look VERY good, with very good adherence to the 20,000 population threshold. Thank you to everyone! I know the rest of you who are participating in the program are working very hard to complete this task. Getting the TAZ and TAD into Census TIGER is one step for the CTPP 5-year tabulation. This tabulation will use ACS records from 2006-2010. AASHTO is expected to submit the 5-year table list to the Census Bureau's Disclosure Review Board this July. Re: TAZ, don't call me J, please call the Census Bureau Geography Division at 301-763-1099. Email: geo.taz.list(a)census.gov Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460

14 years, 8 months

Re: [CTPP] Proprietary Employer Data -- Comments on the various providers?

by Patty Becker

Tim, Have you considered using the state UA system's employer file? That's what SEMCOG uses here in southeast Michigan. They used be be called ES-202 files, but the name may have changed. You'd have to do the geocoding yourself, of course, but that should be do-able. Supposedly those files are establishment based, and I'd think that in MA they would at least be broken down to municipality since county doesn't mean much there. It's definitely worth looking into. Patty Becker At 03:15 PM 6/28/2011, you wrote: >Content-Language: en-US >Content-Type: multipart/related; > >boundary="_004_7A162EBB5533B64089B6065D4D0C925C1344475340MailVM1admapc_"; > type="multipart/alternative" > >I have managed to assemble some funding to >acquire employer data for our 164-municipality >transportation modeling region in Eastern MA, >and I am wondering if any of you have comments >on the accuracy and utility of the various >proprietary employer data sources currently >available. I have been in conversations with >two major providers (InfoGroup and Dun & >Bradstreet) and have received sample files for >certain zip codes, but it is hard to assess the >accuracy or completeness of either sample. > >Im wondering if anybody can offer insight on >working with such data, and whether you have >suggestions on choosing a vendor. We will be >using it primarily to determine employment by >sector at very fine geographies (250m or 1km >grid cells) for land use planning and >analysis. Some concerns we have already >identified include: branch vs. headquarters >employment, public sector employment, paper >companies and verification, and the accuracy of >the goecoded location that accompanies each record. > >Any thoughts are appreciated. Feel free to >reply off-list if concerned about publicly >trumpeting or bashing somebodys product. > >Thanks, >Tim Reardon > >___________________________________________ >Timothy G. Reardon -- Senior Regional Planner >Metropolitan Area Planning Council >60 Temple Place | Boston, MA 02111 >617-451-2770 x2011 ><mailto:treardon@mapc.org>treardon(a)mapc.org >Small logo for email > >Say it with a map! Find data and bring it alive >at <www.MetroBostonDataCommon.htm>www.MetroBostonDataCommon.org! > > > > >---------- >Please be advised that the Massachusetts >Secretary of State considers e-mail to be a >public record, and therefore subject to the >Massachusetts Public Records Law, M.G.L. c. 66 § 10. > > >_______________________________________________ >ctpp-news mailing list >ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net >http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

14 years, 8 months

Proprietary Employer Data -- Comments on the various providers?

by Reardon , Tim

I have managed to assemble some funding to acquire employer data for our 164-municipality transportation modeling region in Eastern MA, and I am wondering if any of you have comments on the accuracy and utility of the various proprietary employer data sources currently available. I have been in conversations with two major providers (InfoGroup and Dun & Bradstreet) and have received sample files for certain zip codes, but it is hard to assess the accuracy or completeness of either sample. I'm wondering if anybody can offer insight on working with such data, and whether you have suggestions on choosing a vendor. We will be using it primarily to determine employment by sector at very fine geographies (250m or 1km grid cells) for land use planning and analysis. Some concerns we have already identified include: branch vs. headquarters employment, public sector employment, "paper companies" and verification, and the accuracy of the goecoded location that accompanies each record. Any thoughts are appreciated. Feel free to reply off-list if concerned about publicly trumpeting or bashing somebody's product. Thanks, Tim Reardon ___________________________________________ Timothy G. Reardon -- Senior Regional Planner Metropolitan Area Planning Council 60 Temple Place | Boston, MA 02111 617-451-2770 x2011 treardon(a)mapc.org<mailto:treardon@mapc.org> [cid:image001.jpg@01CC35A5.2547A4F0] Say it with a map! Find data and bring it alive at www.MetroBostonDataCommon.org! ________________________________ Please be advised that the Massachusetts Secretary of State considers e-mail to be a public record, and therefore subject to the Massachusetts Public Records Law, M.G.L. c. 66 ? 10.

14 years, 8 months

Proprietary Employer Data -- Comments on the various providers -- PLEASE RE-SEND RESPONSES

by Reardon , Tim

Thanks to everyone who has replied both on- and off-list! Unfortunately, I cannot read any of the on-list responses, because they are scrubbed of content in the digest posting and on-line (I think this has to do with the logo image in my original post.) If you replied already, could you please send your comments to me directly or reply to this post? Thanks, Tim Reardon PS--this is what is coming through on the digest: Message: 1 Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:45:33 -0500 From: "Ju, Sharon" <sharon.ju(a)h-gac.com> Subject: RE: [CTPP] Proprietary Employer Data -- Comments on the various providers? To: "'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net'" <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Message-ID: <92A18DA6B8C8CB4C8E401DF64836AF6B5F813E5919@ntex03> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1760 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://ryoko.chrispy.net/pipermail/ctpp-news/attachments/20110628/48465d57/… ------------------------------ Message: 2 Etc... Please be advised that the Massachusetts Secretary of State considers e-mail to be a public record, and therefore subject to the Massachusetts Public Records Law, M.G.L. c. 66 § 10.

14 years, 8 months

RE: [CTPP] Proprietary Employer Data -- Comments on the variousproviders?

by Geoffrey Chiapella

Tim, I am currently working with the InfoGroup dataset for San Luis Obispo County (California Central Coast; population 270,000; 7 cities and the county, approximately 15,000 business records), as part of a regional land use and travel model improvement plan. As we are doing land use modeling at the parcel-level, we are in the process of linking employment point data to the parcel data. At the same time, our local/regional branch of CalFire is developing an address point shape file/database for the whole county. InfoGroup dataset includes LAT-LONG, so you are able to display data using coordinate data, however most employment points will not align with the correct parcel. However, they will likely align with the correct grid cell (whether 250m or 1km grid cell), based on the level of detail at which you're working. As we're working at a very fine level of detail here (parcel level), I'll spare you the details on fixing the alignment of business/employer points, except to say that we are linking the unique IDs of the address point dataset with the business/employer records. As far as the quality of the data, there are duplicate records to contend with. Some typical issues: · A business may have changed names over the years, but still stayed in business: you'll likely have two records for that single business; · Multiple address/business records for the one major university in the region, which indicate various university departments, special facilities, etc. (with the number of universities in the Greater Boston region, this could be a concern no matter what dataset you go with) · Multiple address/business records for places like medical offices, where a single medical office or practice may have a half-dozen (or many more) physicians, but it's really just one employment location; · A similar problem for hospitals: many business addresses that represent various departments of the medical facility, but it's really just one employment; · PO Boxes: Although no physical address may be associated with these data records, you can still rely on coordinate data to display these data points; · Non-standard addresses: difficult to geocode, but typically not a large percentage of the overall dataset; · Work at home: There is a field that indicates "at-home" businesses, so you may want to sort those out and handle them separately. You can geocode the dataset (or significant portions of the dataset) where you have good, standard addresses. Overall, the addresses associated with the data seem to be very good; unit or suite numbers are included as necessary. The fields for "SECONDARY_ADDRESS" seem to all be local physical addresses, whereas the fields for "PRIMARY_ADDRESS" seem to include some out-of-area addresses. Branch vs. HQ issue do not seem prevalent. Public employment data is rather shaky; probably best to rely on state-level "employment development department" or equivalent. I mentioned the address point file that is in progress in our region, as it may be something to consider in your region: Is there a master address file for some or all of the region? If it does exist, more than likely the spatial alignment would be very good, and it may pay off to link the new dataset with a regional address point dataset. Feel free to follow-up with any questions. Thanks! Geoffrey Chiapella Transportation Planner San Luis Obispo Council of Governments 1114 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-5190 gchiapella(a)slocog.org Geoffrey Chiapella Transportation Planner San Luis Obispo Council of Governments 1114 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-5190 gchiapella(a)slocog.org From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Reardon , Tim Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 12:15 PM To: 'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net' Subject: [CTPP] Proprietary Employer Data -- Comments on the variousproviders? I have managed to assemble some funding to acquire employer data for our 164-municipality transportation modeling region in Eastern MA, and I am wondering if any of you have comments on the accuracy and utility of the various proprietary employer data sources currently available. I have been in conversations with two major providers (InfoGroup and Dun & Bradstreet) and have received sample files for certain zip codes, but it is hard to assess the accuracy or completeness of either sample. I'm wondering if anybody can offer insight on working with such data, and whether you have suggestions on choosing a vendor. We will be using it primarily to determine employment by sector at very fine geographies (250m or 1km grid cells) for land use planning and analysis. Some concerns we have already identified include: branch vs. headquarters employment, public sector employment, "paper companies" and verification, and the accuracy of the goecoded location that accompanies each record. Any thoughts are appreciated. Feel free to reply off-list if concerned about publicly trumpeting or bashing somebody's product. Thanks, Tim Reardon ___________________________________________ Timothy G. Reardon -- Senior Regional Planner Metropolitan Area Planning Council 60 Temple Place | Boston, MA 02111 617-451-2770 x2011 treardon(a)mapc.org Say it with a map! Find data and bring it alive at www.MetroBostonDataCommon.org! ________________________________ Please be advised that the Massachusetts Secretary of State considers e-mail to be a public record, and therefore subject to the Massachusetts Public Records Law, M.G.L. c. 66 § 10.

14 years, 8 months

Historic county-to-county flows

by Elaine.Murakami＠dot.gov

The CTPP group LOVES it when someone asks an interesting question. Today's interesting question is: Where can I get 1980 county-to-county flow data? The answer is: http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/jtw/ The 1980 UTPP was NOT a nationwide package, but individual MPOs and state DOTs contracted with the Census Bureau. Fortunately, BEA had a special tabulation nationwide for these flows. These are based on the 1980 Census "long form" sample. Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460

14 years, 8 months

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