RE: A correction. [CTPP] Help determine our request to US Census Bureau for CTPPSpecial Tabulations based on ACS 5-year (2006-2010) Data

Please disregard the original email and go with this one instead, the chief difference being that there is no "three unweighted records for Means of Transportation (MOT) rule" since we have only five variables we are crossing with MOT. Penelope Weinberger CTPP Program Manager AASHTO 202-624-3556 http://ctpp.transportation.org/home/default.htm <http://www.transportation.org> It's just as bad to not make a plan as to blindly follow the one you already have. ________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Weinberger, Penelope Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 3:45 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] Help determine our request to US Census Bureau for CTPPSpecial Tabulations based on ACS 5-year (2006-2010) Data Dear CTPP Community, This is an opportunity for your input on the upcoming CTPP based on 5-year ACS 2006-2010! This message contains colored highlighting, if you cannot see it, please view the message in HTML (if possible). Please download the attached spreadsheet, mark it as appropriate according to the instructions and information below, and return it attached to an email directly to me by Friday, May 7th, 2010 pweinberger(a)aashto.org (Please do not reply to the whole list with your marked attached spreadsheet, for that will create a version control nightmare!) The attached spreadsheet is a proposed table list to submit to the Census Bureau for special tabulations based on the 5-year ACS, it is derived from the Census Bureau's Disclosure Review Board's approved CTPP from 3-year ACS data table list. For large area geography, we plan to keep the table list the same as the current 3-year table list (the spreadsheet, as if there were no highlighting). For small area geography (tract, TAZ, and block group), we are proposing to eliminate many of the tables with 3-way cross-tabulations, or 2-way cross-tabulations with more than 40 cells because we suspect they will contain very little or no data. We have highlighted the tables proposed for deletion at small geography in BLUE. Please identify any highlighted tables you feel are important to keep, and not be eliminated by placing a mark in the specified column and row. Alternatively, if you see tables that are not marked for deletion at small geography please feel free to let me know there is no need for those tables, it would be a waste of resources to generate data that is essentially useless to the transportation planning community. The number of classifications in each variable may need to be reduced to pass the CB's criteria and some of those tables have been highlighted in pink, we are including this information to start thinking about the ways variable groups can collapse. For the ACS 2006-2010 five-year data and the 2010 Census Tracts, there is projected to be, on average, a little over 4000 residents per tract, and approximately 120 household records and 150 worker records in the unweighted sample. There are general special tab rules that apply to all tabs, which are not CTPP specific. For instance, all aggregates and averages require 3 unweighted cases in the CELL. The 5-year data has no lower bound for place size. There is no rule yet in place for maximum number of cells per table, a number has been discussed, but not decided upon. If you have questions please do not hesitate to email them to me. Thanks in advance for your help! Penelope Weinberger CTPP Program Manager AASHTO 202-624-3556 http://ctpp.transportation.org/home/default.htm <http://www.transportation.org> It's just as bad to not make a plan as to blindly follow the one you already have.