Cliff--The geocoding issue that was mentioned is not affecting or part
of your issue. That is a whole different issue.
As to what you are seeing in Cambridge I still do not have an answer for
the Part 3 income tables (B303100 and B303201) but I think we could be
getting close to figuring it out. I just checked the numbers for my town
which is much smaller and has no Group Quarters. That means that I
should get consistent numbers across all the Part 3 tables which I did
except for the income tables. BTW, my town of Berwyn IL has a total of
2,600 internal worker flows, people living and working in Berwyn. Of
course tables A302100 and A302103 (total workers and worker by mode)
gave me 2,595 workers but we know that difference is due to disclosure
proofing. Now on to the income table. Typically the cells in a CTPP
table will not add up to the total because the totals are rounded
independently of the cells (more disclosure proofing). However they
would never be as far off as we are seeing. In checking my town's Part 3
income tables I discovered that the cells added to the total number I
was expecting (2,600) while the total was published at 4,000. The
question now becomes what does the total represent? Whatever it is looks
to be systematic which means we will be able to figure it out. More
digging needed though.
On 8/12/2019 11:22 AM, Cook, Cliff wrote:
Dara
Thank you for these materials. They are very helpful. After taking a
closer look at the CTPP flow tables we are still left with a question
about why the components of certain tables do not add up to the table
total. For example when we filter for Cambridge, MA as both residence
and workplace, the “Total” shown in Table B303100 is 37,500 while the
component cells add up to 22,470. This problem appears in all the
part 3 tables whose universe is household workers. (We do not see a
similar issue in all tables based purely in worker characteristics,
regardless of living arrangement. Those seem to consistently sum to
27,725.)
Can anyone shed light on why the table components to sum to the sum
stated in the table?
Thanks
Cliff Cook
*Clifford Cook
Senior Planning Information Manager*
Cambridge Community Development Department
344 Broadway, Cambridge, MA. 02139
cid:image001.png@01CF4355.A65408C0 <https://www.facebook.com/CDDat344>
cid:image002.jpg@01CF4357.3478C720 <https://twitter.com/cddat344>
cid:image010.jpg@01CF4357.3478C720 <http://instagram.com/cddat344>
*www.cambridgema.gov/CDD* <http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD.aspx>**
ccook(a)cambridgema.gov <mailto:ccook@cambridgema.gov>
M: 8:30-8:00 T-Th: 8:30-5:00 F: 8:30-Noon
617/349-4656
617/349-4669 FAX
617/349-4621 TTY
*From:* Dara Goldberg (DCP) <DGoldberg(a)planning.nyc.gov>
*Sent:* Monday, August 12, 2019 11:13 AM
*To:* Cook, Cliff <ccook(a)cambridgema.gov>
*Cc:* Werner, Bailey <bwerner(a)cambridgema.gov>ov>; Le Zhang (DCP)
<LZHANG(a)planning.nyc.gov>
*Subject:* RE: 2012-16 CTPP Question about Counts
Hello Cliff,
The reason the flows are off is because the CTPP methodology for
reporting geographies below the county level has been revised for this
release (though AASHTO has yet to release documentation stating such).
Missing records for smaller geographies are no longer imputed for
Parts 2 and 3, therefore, tracts/places will no longer add to
counties, nor will they have complete counts. This has resulted in a
“truer” data set, albeit with missing records. Part 1 remains the same
(i.e. “complete”), because it represents ACS data at place of
residence. I’ve attached a memo summarizing the challenges with the
new release.
My colleague Le, who I have CC’d, put together the attached
presentation explaining this issue, which we shared with our MPO
members a couple of months ago. Le will be presenting this to the CTPP
oversight board in Arkansas next week. Unfortunately, there was no
documentation released accounting for the methodological change, and
we believe transportation planners will rely on the current release to
have a “complete” count as the prior releases had. Therefore, this
release is not comparable to the prior releases for smaller geographies.
In the meantime, we have assumed a proportional allocation to account
for missing records (though this of course introduces a bias into the
results – also covered in Le’s presentation).
Hopefully this helps! Happy to answer any questions you might have.
Regards,
DARA GOLDBERG
SENIOR PLANNER | REGIONAL PLANNING DIVISION
NYC DEPT. OF CITY PLANNING
120 BROADWAY, 31^st FLOOR• NEW YORK, NY 10271
212-720-3312 I _DGOLDBERG(a)planning.nyc.gov
<mailto:DGOLDBERG@planning.nyc.gov>_
http://www.nyc.gov/planning
<https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fplanning&data=02%7C01%7Cccook%40cambridgema.gov%7C225e93e7cb454c1f6bdc08d71f378948%7Cc06a8be784794d73b35193bc9ba8295c%7C0%7C0%7C637012196064249729&sdata=6L2DWAyhkbEvYR3E1VtXNvMU8G4XOGWjSv2xrJSQ7MQ%3D&reserved=0>
__
*From:* ctpp-news [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] *On Behalf Of
*Cook, Cliff
*Sent:* Monday, August 12, 2019 10:58 AM
*To:* ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net <mailto:ctpp-news@chrispy.net>
*Cc:* Werner, Bailey <bwerner(a)cambridgema.gov
<mailto:bwerner@cambridgema.gov>>
*Subject:* [CTPP] 2012-16 CTPP Question about Counts
To All
We are working to collect information about the resident labor force
in Cambridge, Massachusetts. We set the residence as the State-Place
of Cambridge city, MA, and the workplace as POW State-Place of
Cambridge city, MA.
The numbers in the CTPP Flows tables are not adding up as expected.
Table A304100 – Total workers (1) (Workers 16 years and over) provides
an estimate of _27,725_ (MOE 847), whereas Table B303100 – Household
income in the past 12 months (2016$) (9) (Workers 16 years and over in
households) provides a total estimate of _37,300_ (MOE 2,054).
Furthermore, when we add up the count of workers in each income
bracket in Table B303100 they sum to _22,470_.
I could understand if the total number of resident workers 16 and
older in households was smaller than total workers over 16, but we
cannot make sense of how the reverse could be true. It also doesn’t
explain why the sum of all categories is smaller than the listed
total. Could data suppression account for this? That would seem
unlikely at the level of a city of our size. Could the results be due
to data suppression at smaller geographic levels having a ripple
effect on a larger geo? I understand workers with an unclear or
imprecise work address are excluded from the flow data. Are these
issues a result of that screening or is this a different type of issue?
Interestingly, the numbers make sense as expected when we look at the
Residence tables for the same geography. Table A102101 – Total workers
(1) (Workers 16 years and over) provides an estimate of 61,925 (MOE
1,008) and Table A103100 – Total Workers in households (1) (Workers 16
years and over in households) estimates 54,195 (MOE 1,075).
Any help on interpreting our resident labor force stats is appreciated.
Cliff Cook
*Clifford Cook
Senior Planning Information Manager*
Cambridge Community Development Department
344 Broadway, Cambridge, MA. 02139
cid:image001.png@01CF4355.A65408C0<https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FCDDat344&data=02%7C01%7Cccook%40cambridgema.gov%7C225e93e7cb454c1f6bdc08d71f378948%7Cc06a8be784794d73b35193bc9ba8295c%7C0%7C0%7C637012196064259721&sdata=i4W6ViGrEYPd620E3GVY6WViKJFAPzJnL%2F1wVQTNrE0%3D&reserved=0>cid:image002.jpg@01CF4357.3478C720<https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fcddat344&data=02%7C01%7Cccook%40cambridgema.gov%7C225e93e7cb454c1f6bdc08d71f378948%7Cc06a8be784794d73b35193bc9ba8295c%7C0%7C0%7C637012196064259721&sdata=gLgufUFSBSPCMGLvBw%2B0bfoUmW5Tsj8Mibdb%2FU5Ki1w%3D&reserved=0>cid:image010.jpg@01CF4357.3478C720<https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Finstagram.com%2Fcddat344&data=02%7C01%7Cccook%40cambridgema.gov%7C225e93e7cb454c1f6bdc08d71f378948%7Cc06a8be784794d73b35193bc9ba8295c%7C0%7C0%7C637012196064259721&sdata=B7UF2DBtj5WtkbrXXdgEwuEJ8HwvBn1km3L2y9MJjm4%3D&reserved=0>
*www.cambridgema.gov/CDD*<https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cambridgema.gov%2FCDD.aspx&data=02%7C01%7Cccook%40cambridgema.gov%7C225e93e7cb454c1f6bdc08d71f378948%7Cc06a8be784794d73b35193bc9ba8295c%7C0%7C0%7C637012196064269719&sdata=6jh1uKqKK7FnT38dB2aQ1O2rq3gJJZSPmEp24QgI8KU%3D&reserved=0>**
ccook@cambridgema.gov<mailto:ccook@cambridgema.gov>
M: 8:30-8:00 T-Th: 8:30-5:00 F: 8:30-Noon
617/349-4656
617/349-4669 FAX
617/349-4621 TTY
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news