6 Jun
2016
6 Jun
'16
2:30 p.m.
Vince--agreed. My concern with suppressing flows is that you are loosing a legitimate flow
pair. It would be different if we knew if the missing zonal pair was suppressed versus a
true zero. In all of this I do have a question. For the travel modeler is an OD pair with
no trips the same as one that might have a high MOE and possibly suppressed (if it would
ever become a common practice)? Another question I have would be, are the number flow
pairs ever used of any value. I am not thinking about the magnitude of the flow, which we
know is important, but just that the CTPP shows activity between an origin and
destination?
Ed Christopher
On Jun 6, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Vince Bernardin
<Vince.Bernardin(a)rsginc.com> wrote:
Perhaps Ed’s comment is only meant in reference to this tool, in which case, I would
agree with it. However, in a broader sense, while I agree that for the vast majority of
practical planning applications, MOEs/CVs are not used and in many cases that’s fine, it
might be better if we did use or at least consider them in some contexts. For example, if
CTPP flows are being used for validation of trip distribution or destination (work
location) choice models, it could be worth considering whether the modeled flows are
within a certain confidence interval, or for an ODME application, where CTPP flows are
used as part of a seed, the MOEs/CVs might be used to help inform min/max allowable
values/deviation from the seed (which most ODME methods allow and are good practice).
Again, this isn’t common practice, but perhaps it would be better if we moved in this
direction.
Vince
…………………………………………………….
VINCENT L BERNARDIN, PhD
Director
RSG
2709 Washington Ave., Suite 9 | Evansville, IN 47714
o 812.200.2351 | m 812.459.3500
www.rsginc.com
…………………………………………………….
<image001.jpg>
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of
Ed Christopher
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 5:36 PM
To: mark(a)tallysports.com; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] CTPP animation map (Not CTPP, actually)
Thanks Mark for the changes. When I get the time I will write my missive on why it is
important to have flow data without any suppression and why MOEs/CVs do not matter for OD
pairs when it comes to transportation planning--unless others on this list want to comment
on it.
Great product Mark!
Ed Christopher
On Jun 3, 2016, at 2:29 PM, Mark Evans <mark(a)mobyus.com> wrote:
I added a couple of new things. Now, when you move the distance criteria down to 0, it
will include commuters that commute within the tract. The dot won't move (obviously),
but it will show and the numbers will be included in the totals. Thus, if you select
"ALL" for distance and "ALL" for CV you will get the full info for the
county. Performance may (by which I mean definitely WILL) suffer, but the numbers will be
there and the animation might be acceptable.
Also, it is not really visible at all, but if you place the cursor over the map and click
(not on a dot) and hold the mouse button for a full second, the map will enter a
"drag" mode that will let you click again and move it around. It is still a bit
clunky (and the dots disappear, making a bit harder to see where you wanted to move it.)
When you finish dragging the map, or if you move the cursor outside the map, the dots will
reappear.
Hope this helps. I might add a few more things. Any suggestions are welcome. Cheers.
Mark
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Weinberger Penelope <pweinberger(a)aashto.org>
wrote:
We are anticipating the next Tract to Tract (and all the other geographies) data set in
late 2018/early 2019, to be based on the 2011 – 2016 ACS.
Penelope Z. Weinberger
CTPP Program Manager
AASHTO
202-624-3556
ctpp.transportation.org
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of
Ginger Dykaar
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 11:31 AM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] CTPP animation map (Not CTPP, actually)
Hi Penelope,
I have made some suggestions to Mark for how to make his commute flow tool show how all
the commuters can be accounted for. He has already made some changes and plans to make
some more. He has included an “ALL” button so that all lengths of commutes can be shown if
choose and not just up to 300 miles, and an “ALL” button for the CV (and not just
<100%). He said he would add the source of the data to the text and he may map the
intratract commutes as well since it is helpful to visualize all the within county
commutes. Do you know when the next set of tract to tract flow data will be available as
he is willing to update when available.
Thank you,
Ginger
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
<image001.jpg>
<image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005.png>
Ginger Dykaar, Transportation Planner
Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission
1523 Pacific Avenue | Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Direct 831.460.3213 | Main Office 831.460.3200
Watsonville Satellite Office 831.768.3205
Follow our social networks for the latest RTC news
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of
Weinberger Penelope
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 6:17 AM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] CTPP animation map (Not CTPP, actually)
Turns out internal (intra-tract) flows are not reported. This should account for nearly
all the missing workers.
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of
Marchwinski, Thomas
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 10:26 AM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] CTPP animation map (Not CTPP, actually)
They may only be mapping those flows that have enough records so there is not an imputed
or suppressed O-D pair, which would mean sometimes up to 50% of the records do not have
flows, so its missing half of the flows. Those show up as 0 workers due to suppression.
Tom Marchwinski
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of
Weinberger Penelope
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 10:12 AM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] CTPP animation map (Not CTPP, actually)
I would be cautious, just did a quick check, it says ACS, but unsourced as to what ACS
(I’m guessing 2009 – 2013 county to county flows – otherwise OD pairs are very tricky),
also looking at just Montgomery county and DC, and expanding the tool to its maximum range
(zero to 293 miles) it’s missing about half the total workers in each of those. Also,
tracts are referenced, but that set is not reported at tract. I welcome your thoughts.
Penelope Z. Weinberger
CTPP Program Manager
AASHTO
202-624-3556
ctpp.transportation.org
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of
Nancy Reger
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 4:08 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: [CTPP] CTPP animation map
Check out this CTPP animation map – we didn’t make it. It’s very cool, wish we had-
http://bigbytes.mobyus.com/commute.aspx
Nancy Reger, AICP
Director, Data & Mapping | Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission
T: 614.233.4154 | M: 614.228.2663 | nreger(a)morpc.org
111 Liberty Street, Suite 100 | Columbus, OH 43215
<image006.png> <image007.gif> <image008.gif>
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news