ctpp-news

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

2560 discussions

by Ed Christopher

Where are we with Urbanized Areas? On Friday June 11, 2010 Federal Highway Administration in coordination with the Census Transportation Planning Products program will host a two hour webinar on the Census Bureau’s plans for defining new Urban Areas. These areas are important for transportation planning because of requirements for establishing MPOs and revisions to MPO boundaries, TMA designations, and roadway functional classification. This webinar is a follow on for those who could not attend a similar workshop held at the GIS-T Conference in West Virginia. In addition to discussing Urban Area boundary development, Census Bureau staff will discuss several other geographic related products and programs. Every 10 years following the decennial census the Census Bureau redefines Urban Areas. Urban Areas include both Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters. This webinar will begin promptly at 1:00 PM (Eastern) and run for 2 hours. It will include presentations along with time for question and answers. Topics covered will include: • A Brief Transportation Perspective on Census Geography, Ed Christopher (FHWA) • Discussion of the Proposed Urbanized Area Criteria, Mike Ratcliffe, Census Bureau Geography • Review of Census Geographic Area Programs and Products, Mike Ratcliffe, Census Bureau Space is limited and advanced preregistration is necessary. If you are unsure that you will attend please do not register. If more than one person from a site can share one computer connection that will help make space for others. The webinar will be recorded for those who miss it. To register go here and complete the form. http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/webconference/web_conf_learner_reg.as… If you have difficulty registering or have any question please let me (Ed Christopher) know edc(a)berwyned.com or 708-283-3534. -- Ed Christopher 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) FHWA RC-TST-PLN 4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600 Matteson, IL 60443

14 years, 8 months

What was the resolution on Rule 7 and Rule 6 filters for the ACS 5 year products and Means to Work?

by Michael Moan

What was the resolution on Rule 7 and Rule 6 filters for the ACS 5 year products and Means to Work? Michael C. Moan, Principal Planner Office of Statewide Planning Division of Planning Department of Administration One Capitol Hill Providence, RI 02908 4012221236

14 years, 8 months

Yes, CTPP enters the age of social networking!

by Weinberger, Penelope

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Census-Transportation-Planning-Products-CT PP/114473021912735 Check out our Facebook page, and click that you like us! Penelope Weinberger CTPP Program Manager AASHTO 202-624-3556 http://ctpp.transportation.org/home/default.htm <http://www.transportation.org> It's just as bad to not make a plan as to blindly follow the one you already have.

14 years, 8 months

Wiki-editable Travel Survey Manual (with example survey docs) open for business!

by Krishnan Viswanathan

Dear Colleagues: TRB’s Committee on Travel Survey Methods (ABJ40) has developed the transportation community's* first-ever wiki-style On-line Travel Survey Manual* with details on *virtually everything transportation survey developers & survey managers need to know*. Please visit * http://www.travelsurveymanual.org** *to get a sense of the *25 extensive chapters*, covering all types of transportation surveys, including household, visitor, parking, freight & establishment surveys; stated preference and qualitative surveys; GPS-based designs and data expansion; survey costs and quality control. The newly developed *Appendix provides high-quality samples* of RFPs, diary forms, and other field materials. This document represents an overhaul and update of the 1996 USDOT and EPA manual prepared by Cambridge Systematics (thank you to Kevin Tierney!), with major contributions from TRB’s recent NCHRP Report 571 “Standardized Procedures for Personal Travel Surveys” (thank you to Peter Stopher & team!). This document is the result of hard work and long hours by *nearly 100 volunteers*. *Thank you to everyone who participated in this effort*. Of course, a wiki-style project means that no one is “in charge” of checking all contents (unlike a contract, where the PI is responsible). There are many ways that this document can be improved, including corrections and updates, and we would love your editing contributions! We want to keep this document up to date, especially with field materials, such as samples of RFPs, respondent diaries, and CATI scripts. With the advent of so many computer-based surveys, we hope survey crews will capture (via video images) & upload computer screen survey interfaces. We hope that you will find this document useful, and we look forward to your help improving and updating it. For permission *to edit chapters*, please contact Lei Zhang (lei(a)umd.edu) or* *Krishnan Viswanathan ( kviswanathan(a)camsys.com), so that they can provide you the appropriate login information. Please pass the word along. Thanks so much, Kara Kockelman, Krishnan Viswanathan, Elaine Murakami, Lei Zhang, Kevin Tierney & the rest of the Travel Survey Manual Gang -- Our apologies for cross-posting! --

14 years, 8 months

experience using ACS 3 year data.

by Weinberger, Penelope

Hi! Who out there has experience (preferably with results) of using ACS 3-year data? Either respond directly to me or to the list. pweinberger(a)aashto.org Penelope Weinberger CTPP Program Manager AASHTO 202-624-3556 http://ctpp.transportation.org/home/default.htm <http://www.transportation.org> It's just as bad to not make a plan as to blindly follow the one you already have.

14 years, 8 months

Help determine our request to US Census Bureau for CTPP Special Tabulations based on ACS 5-year (2006-2010) Data

by Weinberger, Penelope

Dear CTPP Community, This is an opportunity for your input on the upcoming CTPP based on 5-year ACS 2006-2010! This message contains colored highlighting, if you cannot see it, please view the message in HTML (if possible). Please download the attached spreadsheet, mark it as appropriate according to the instructions and information below, and return it attached to an email directly to me by Friday, May 7th, 2010 pweinberger(a)aashto.org (Please do not reply to the whole list with your marked attached spreadsheet, for that will create a version control nightmare!) The attached spreadsheet is a proposed table list to submit to the Census Bureau for special tabulations based on the 5-year ACS, it is derived from the Census Bureau's Disclosure Review Board's approved CTPP from 3-year ACS data table list. For large area geography, we plan to keep the table list the same as the current 3-year table list (the spreadsheet, as if there were no highlighting). For small area geography (tract, TAZ, and block group), we are proposing to eliminate many of the tables with 3-way cross-tabulations, or 2-way cross-tabulations with more than 40 cells because we suspect they will contain very little or no data. We have highlighted the tables proposed for deletion at small geography in BLUE. Please identify any highlighted tables you feel are important to keep, and not be eliminated by placing a mark in the specified column and row. Alternatively, if you see tables that are not marked for deletion at small geography please feel free to let me know there is no need for those tables, it would be a waste of resources to generate data that is essentially useless to the transportation planning community. The number of classifications in each variable may need to be reduced to pass the CB's criteria and some of those tables have been highlighted in pink, we are including this information to start thinking about the ways variable groups can collapse. For the ACS 2006-2010 five-year data and the 2010 Census Tracts, there is projected to be, on average, a little over 4000 residents per tract, and approximately 120 household records and 150 worker records in the unweighted sample. The 5-year data has no lower bound for place size. Tables that include Means of Transportation still require 3 unweighted records per each category of Means of Transportation category to avoid suppression. There is no rule yet in place for maximum number of cells per table, a number has been discussed, but not decided upon. If you have questions please do not hesitate to email them to me. Thanks in advance for your help! Penelope Weinberger CTPP Program Manager AASHTO 202-624-3556 http://ctpp.transportation.org/home/default.htm <http://www.transportation.org> It's just as bad to not make a plan as to blindly follow the one you already have.

14 years, 8 months

Auto Occupancy

by Nancy McGuckin

Omaha-Council Bluffs was a 2009 NHTS add-on area. You should be able to get good estimates of auto occupancy for all trip purposes. If you have questions, contact me and I can help you. Nancy McGuckin Travel Behavior Analyst (323) 257-5144 N_McGuckin(a)Rocketmail.com www.travelbehavior.us

14 years, 8 months

Data Source Question

by Sabula, Julianne Ruth (Engineering-Const Planner II)

I am passing on a question from one of our strategic planners. "Where can I find data on Mode of transportation for work trips by county, travel time to work by county, number of commuters by community/city, and carpool commuter activity by community/city?" If anyone knows where to find this information (state of Utah), please let me know. Thank you! Julianne Sabula Utah Transit Authority Engineering and Construction Planner II 669 West 200 South Salt Lake City, UT 84101 w. (801) 237-1973 c. (801) 867-5203 jsabula(a)rideuta.com

14 years, 8 months

"Workers at Work" not equal to "employed" or "jobs"

by Elaine.Murakami＠dot.gov

Hi Everyone - We are in the sign-off process for the next issue of the CTPP Status Report. It will probably be several weeks before it is approved for distribution! Anyway, I happened to be looking at the INDEX of articles http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/srindex.htm so I thought I would post some links to some "oldies but goodies." "CTPP Workers at Work compared to Other Employment Estimates" http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/sr0104.htm "Reconciling Total Employment (jobs) and Worker-at-Work" http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/sr0503.htm Also, we got a question for which the easiest answer was to use CTPP 2000 Part 2 data (despite its age) at the census tract level. The CTPP2000 Part 2 data are available via BTS, both in Transtats and by ordering CDs http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/2000dataprod.htm HOWEVER, one of the easiest ways to access this data at the tract level is to use the Univ of WI-Milwaukee "drill downs" http://www4.uwm.edu/eti/drilldowns/index.html As the ACS standard tabulations now include some workplace tabulations, I don't know if UWM plans to update with ACS 2005-2009 data when the CB releases the first 5-year ACS product (anticipated in December 2010). More current data using QCEW and other administrative records would be to use the LEHD On The Map data, but would require downloading block level data and accumulating the blocks into tract summaries. Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460

14 years, 9 months

No Car but Drives to Work Alone

by Cook, Cliff

Thanks to all who responded. I've summarized, paraphrased and quoted below possible reasons below and added a few comments as appropriate: 1. Other modes such as bicycling, motorcycles and motor scooters. (I think these are covered by the data in 20068 ACS table B08141 so they are not likely the source of the problem.) 2. Leased, not owned, autos treated not counted as vehicles "kept for use by members of this household" (This would be a misinterpretation of the ACS question but stranger things have happened. Other types of respondent errors could be in play here as well.) 3. Problem with data imputed by the Census Bureau for non-responders. 4. Using a company car on loan, a zip car a neighbors car, a parent's car or another car sharing service. (ZipCar is popular in Cambridge but I doubt that would cover too many people. Company cars might explain some but again seems an unlikely explanation for almost 700 commutes out of 48,600. Garaging a car not registered in Cambridge is difficult as we require a resident permit for on street parking and off street parking spaces are few and expensive. Over 60% of the housing stock is rentals, often with no dedicated parking space included in the rent.) 5. Non-standard work week such as travel to a conference. (This might be a not insignificant source. I've always been surprised by the number of local residents who JTW data shows as "commuting to work" in California.) 6. Based on the 2009 NHTS, the ACS result seems reasonable. In the 2009 NHTS (weighted results), 12% of persons in zero-vehicle households who travelled to work "last week", did so in a vehicle with one person in it. This works out to be 500k people out of 4,260k. 7. This phenomenon shows up in NHTS as well and appears to be a very real result of the fact that some share of folks used borrowed cars for travel. It may be a young adult who doesn't own a car but has one available from dad, folks renting, folks borrowing etc. In consumer expenditure surveys non-car owning households also have non trival auto related expenses for travel. It is not uncommon for non-car households to travel more PMT in SOV than on transit. In consumer expenditure surveys non-car owning households also have non trival auto related expenses for travel. Thanks to all for your help! Cliff Cook ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Original post: I'm hoping someone can help me address this question from a colleague. He put together a table from the 2006-2008 ACS showing mode of journey to work by vehicles owned and came up with surprisingly large numbers who do not won a car yet drive alone to work. No doubt, there are a few people who fit this category but my guess is that this largely is the result of either people misunderstanding the question or some sort of coding problem. Here is an excerpt from his email ( the Cambridge here is Cambridge, Massachusetts): I'm looking at ACS data and specifically at cities and percent workers have no car available. From that I'm then looking to see how those workers get to work. The attached worksheet shows my work. What is strange is that it shows for Cambridge that 6.6% of people without a car available drove alone to work. The percent is similar to Boston. And NYC has 3.4% of workers with No vehicles available driving alone to work. So, the question is, how can someone without a vehicle drive to work alone? Do you have any ideas on this? It could be someone doesn't own a vehicle, but drives a friend's car to work. Or has no car of their own, but uses a company car to get to work. But seems like a high number for this. Can anyone shed any light on this? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clifford Cook Planning Information Manager Cambridge Community Development Dept. 344 Broadway Cambridge, MA. 02139 617/349-4656 FAX 617/349-4669 TTY 617/349-4621 email => ccook(a)cambridgema.gov web site => <http://www.cambridgema.gov/~CDD/>

14 years, 9 months

Jump to page:

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