Re: [CTPP] : County-to-county worker flow data, 200"edc@berwyned.com".GWIA.East_Dom0

here's an excepts from my brief article from 'the core of the rust belt' (Youngstown, Ohio). In 1970 only 700 workers from the Mahoning Valley worked in Geauga County, now 4,000 do. Cuyahoga County drew only 668 workers from the region in 1970 now 3,093 make this daily commute. Portage and Summit Counties each gained 1,700 'Valley' workers over the last 30 years and the 'Valley' commuters headed for Columbiana County doubled from 2,141 to 4,028. Pennsylvania has also become a popular place of work. About 1,900 more people go over the State line to work than did in 1970; this is a change of 38%. The good news is that more employable people still make the Mahoning Valley (core of the rust belt) their home base. They pay their property taxes here and for the most part they still shop locally. The bad news is that more local income taxes go elsewhere. And there's a lot more traffic out even in communities that aren't experiencing growth. it would be nice to see or hear more about "who has done what" with their county flow data. linked below is a piece i worked on focused on the chicago area. one of the things that we here enjoy looking at, are the flows that come into a county (imports), the ones that go out (exports) and the ones that never leave (retains). analyzing how these trend overtime certainly gives one a fuller appreciation of the dynamics of our work travel and urban form. in 30 years we have seen the character of an area (at the county level) change and go from a collection of "bedroom communities" (exporter) to an area that is self sustaining (importer and retainer) in its balance of trips. it will be fun to look at this in more geographic detail "if and when" we ever get our flow data. http://www.berwyned.com/papers/co2cochgo.pdf danielle.cervantes(a)uniontrib.com wrote: CTPP I