3 Jun
2003
3 Jun
'03
3:40 p.m.
can't this side chatter be done on personal emails and not the list serve. i am
really getting sick of all these emails.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sirota, Stuart
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 3:08 PM
Subject: RE: [CTPP] RE: County-to-county worker flow data, 2000
Alan - But you've already given us your answer: "stay and commute", right?
So what questions are you asking of the data that have not already been answered?
Inquiring minds want to know. :)
Stu Sirota
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Baltimore, Maryland
-----Original Message-----
From: ALAN E. PISARSKI [mailto:pisarski@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 3:37 PM
To: Sirota, Stuart; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] RE: County-to-county worker flow data, 2000
DOCTRINE RAISES ITS HEAD BEFORE THE ANSWERS ARE IN. THANKYOU. Alan Pisarski
----- Original Message -----
From: Sirota, Stuart
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 3:07 PM
Subject: RE: [CTPP] RE: County-to-county worker flow data, 2000
The 2000 CTPP simply confirms what any 6 year old buckled into the back seat of a
minivan can plainly see: Americans are being compelled to spend ever-greater amounts of
time in cars, over longer distances. The reasons for this unsustainable trend, which are
the resulting nexus of land use policy, transportation policy, societal and economic
forces, have been well documented. Now that the data is in, what will we as planners do
with it?:
a) Continue to recommend projects and policies that perpetuate the status quo
trendline?
b) Develop tools that provide alternative choices?
You decide.
Stu Sirota
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Baltimore, Maryland
-----Original Message-----
From: William Knight [mailto:wknight@ccmpo.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 12:02 PM
To: 'ALAN E. PISARSKI'; 'Sam Granato'
Cc: 'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net'
Subject: RE: [CTPP] RE: County-to-county worker flow data, 2000
This all is a familiar phenomenon in the Burlington, VT area. Housing in the
county is sky rocketing in costs and people are moving out to adjacent and even further
away. Commutes are getting longer.
William L Knight, Executive Director
Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
30 Kimball Avenue
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 660-4071, Ext. 228
(802) 660-4079 Fax
wknight(a)ccmpo.org
www.ccmpo.org
-----Original Message-----
From: ALAN E. PISARSKI [mailto:pisarski@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:50 AM
To: Sam Granato
Cc: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] RE: County-to-county worker flow data, 2000
All good thoughts. We saw this in New Hampshire also - the family home that is
rich in sentiment but cant get much on the market vs a suburban house you cant afford.
Answer: Stay and commute. Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Granato
To: ALAN E. PISARSKI
Cc: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [CTPP] RE: County-to-county worker flow data, 2000
I had already noted for Wheeling model development that commuting to counties in
Pennsylvania doubled from 1990 to 2000! But to address the general point, seems
there's two trends at work - in stagnant regional economies, workers try to avoid
moving when by choice or force they take that more distant job (in addition to all the
"rural community" issues, what kind of price would you get for your house in a
stagnant or declining economy?). And in booming regions, the cost of buying a new house
becomes the problem. Lack of space and "gov'mint regulation" are the
usually-cited culprits, but maybe we've also gotten to the point where NIMBYism and
the "growth controls" it leads to are having an impact in the imbalance between
housing supply and demand.
Sam Granato
Ohio DOT, Office of Technical Services
1980 W. Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43223
Phone: 614-644-6796, Fax: 614-752-8646
"The solution to congestion is to put private business in charge of
building roads and the government in charge of building cars." Will Rogers
"ALAN E. PISARSKI" <pisarski(a)ix.netcom.com>
Sent by: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
06/03/03 08:07 AM
To: "Hartgen, David"
<dthartge(a)email.uncc.edu>du>, <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>
cc: <Elaine.Murakami(a)fhwa.dot.gov>
Subject: Re: [CTPP] RE: County-to-county worker flow data,
2000
Dave: This has seen rather dramatic change nationally. Of the 13.2 million
new commuters more than half were intercounty, 6.7 meg; raising the share of
intercounty from to 23.9% to 26.7%. Some states have seen explosions in
this area. Ohio, Va. etc. A lot of this can be an accidental product of
geog. (East vs West States) but there is something else going on -- much of
it I believe is rural workers heading to the metro suburbs for work. Note W
Va had largest increase in trav times - that wasn't congestion in
Wheeling.Also think of the car plants in the south. I recall someone saying
that all but 3 of the 104 counties in Ky sent workers to the Georgetown car
plant. I intend to spend a lot of time on this in Commuting in America
III. I will look forward to your work - and steal from it shamelessly.
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hartgen, David" <dthartge(a)email.uncc.edu>
To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>
Cc: <Elaine.Murakami(a)fhwa.dot.gov>
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 2:39 PM
Subject: [CTPP] RE: County-to-county worker flow data, 2000
Colleagues, Elaine Murakami at FHWA has suggested I
contact you. I
am working on a county-to-county work flow analysis for North Carolina's
100
counties, and am interested to know if anyone is/has
done something
similar
for cities or for other states or US regions. The
issues we are addressing
are:
1. Has inter-county commuting increased as a share of trips, VMT, and fuel
use since 1990?
2. What percent of state travel and fuel use is in intra- and inter-county
commuting? Is it a declining or increasing share?
My student (Ellen Cervera) has completed the first phase of her
work, for 2000, and is beginning the 1990 analysis. Her problem involves
computing, for all NC co-to-co flows (100*100), the % of vehicle trips
(adjusted for carpooling), the % of VMT (using a distance matrix and 20 %
road circuituity), and % of fuel use (using weighted fuel rates from Hy
Statistics VM-1) that is inter-co versus intra-co; also these %'s as a
function of total state use, and changes in these %'s from 1990 to 2000.
The
effects are hypothesized to be compensating: that is,
trips are getting
longer and the % of travel that is inter-county is increasing, but fuel
use
is declining per mile, so the magnitude of fuel use in
inter-county may be
stable or declining over time. My modeling system is TransDAD
(http://www.caliper.com)
Anyone working on a similar problem with the 2000 county-to-county
data? We would appreciate receiving materials at this location or at fax
704-687-3442.
Thanks
Prof. David T. Hartgen
UNC Charlotte
704-687-4308