RE: [CTPP] Data detail - ACS Data

Chuck... The nature of your presentation (looking back from 2012 to 2002 and reporting the good and the bad)may have hidden the great point that you make on 65,000+ issue. To be honest, the way you presented it led me to believe that the CB was going to allow the "districting" you are pushing for. You're right that the CB folks seemed interested, but there was little discussion on the issue. As to your comment about getting the presentations up on the website, I have finished my task of typing up the "minutes" of the workshop and will be working with others to summarize our findings/conclusions and have a package to put up on the web soon. I will keep all informed. It's been awhile since the list serve was such a buzz, great to see! -----Original Message----- From: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net [mailto:owner-ctpp-news@chrispy.net]On Behalf Of Chuck Purvis Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 4:58 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net; dabrams(a)mrgcog.org Subject: RE: [CTPP] Data detail - ACS Data Dave: You raise some excellent points, and I'll try to respond. Yes, what the CENSUS BUREAU means by areas of 65,000-plus population are places, counties, MSAs, etc., with at least 65,000+ total population. But consider the example of BIG CITY, say, BIG CITY in New Mexico with a current population of 448,607. Now, wouldn't YOU like to split this city into 6 "ACS Districts" of at least 65,000+ population, where you could then get ANNUAL DATA for each of these sub-city districts??? (I pitched this idea at our TRB "ACS Workshop" this past Sunday, January 13th. Census Bureau folks were interested - - didn't say yes, didn't say no to what I was pushing....) If we can define PUMAs of 100,000-plus population, then certainly we can also define ACS districts of 65,000-plus population? In terms of TAZ-to-TAZ commute flow data, it will be very necessary to aggregate five years of ACS data in order to get reliable, very small area (tract, taz) data. So, the first release of "very small area" data from the ACS should be 2008, to represent aggregated data from 2003-2007. Block groups. In terms of tract versus block group, I've only seen the Census Bureau publicly admit to providing tract-level data only. I don't recall us raising the block group issue at our ACS workshop, but the Census Bureau *was* saying that TAZ data would be available by 2008 (my USDOT colleagues should correct me if I'm wrong). Since TAZes are similar in size (population, employment-wise) to block groups, it would make sense to me that block group ACS data is released in 2008, as well. I totally agree with you about block group data being made available!!! I haven't seen any statistical research by Census Bureau staff that discusses the standard errors of census tract data versus standard error of block group data, based on 5-year accumulation of ACS data. What I have seen is the research that justifies the 65,000+ threshold and thresholds for other multi-year (2-year, 3-year, 4-year, 5-year) accumulation of ACS data (see ACS web page, paper by Chip Alexander on this particular issue.) Also, I don't think the Census Bureau has ruled out (or positively commited TO) multi-year products other than the five-year census tract data. So, we COULD see 2-year or 3-year or 4-year accumulation of data, if that's what the user community is REALLY after! Maybe with 6-year or 7-year accumulation of data we get "block groups"? Who knows? (And whether these multi-year tabs are FREE or COST-REIMBURSABLE is yet another issue in the "to be determined" column of issues.) Hopefully (sooner rather than later) our USDOT colleagues will post our powerpoint presentations from the TRB ACS workshop on our subcommittee's website (www.trbcensus.com). (nudge, nudge ;-) Chuck Purvis, MTC *********************************************** Charles L. Purvis, AICP Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst Metropolitan Transportation Commission 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607-4700 (510) 464-7731 (office) (510) 464-7848 (fax) www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/ Census WWW: http://census.mtc.ca.gov/ *********************************************** This sounds fairly reasonable, but I would like at least one clarification. You stated that there would be one-year tables for areas of 65,000 or more and two-year data for areas of 30,000 or more. Are these areas defined as places or counties? In the same paragraph you referred to a five-year cycle in a manner that implied that the CTPP was based on five years of data, is this a correct interpretation? I am also concerned that the minimum geographic level for sample data appears to be the tract. The block group level for sample data has been very valuable. Is it correct that we would lose block group level sample data? Dave Abrams Information Services Manager MRGCOG, Albuquerque, NM