Re: [CTPP] female daytime population

Hi, Bob Sorry that I didn’t make my explanation clear in the first email. LODES does have flows and they have flows by age and flows by gender. But similar to CTPP, they don’t have two way tabulations, flows by age and gender. I was hitting “send” button too quickly for the first email. Actually, as part of LODES, residence information is provided. Liang ________________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] on behalf of Robert Shull [rshull(a)transportmodeler.com] Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:42 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Cc: u0719944(a)utah.edu; medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com; tyler.larson(a)utah.edu Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population How would this compare with using LEHD? Thanks, Bob Robert Shull, PE President Eco Resource Management Systems Inc. PO Box 1850 Vashon, WA 98070 206.414.8751 rshull@transportmodeler.com<mailto:rshull@transportmodeler.com> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:37 AM, &lt;Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov&lt;mailtomailto: Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov&gt;&gt; wrote: I didn't manage to send my response last night. I suggest you use the ACS PUMS To run a 4-way cross tab of industry and occupation by age and sex. The geography is limited to residential geography at Puma level. -----Original Message----- From: Long, Liang CTR (FHWA) Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:28 AM Eastern Standard Time To: ctpp-news@chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news@chrispy.net> Cc: u0719944@utah.edu<mailto:u0719944@utah.edu>; medicalgeography@yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography@yahoo.com>; tyler.larson@utah.edu<mailto:tyler.larson@utah.edu> Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population Hi, Steve Your methodology is totally fine with me. I wish we had the cross table of sex by age for workers for both Part 1 and Part 2, so you can get measures of female workers for 40 years up. Liang ________________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net> [ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net>] on behalf of Steven Farber [Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu&lt;mailtolto: Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu&gt;] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:49 PM To: ctpp-news@chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news@chrispy.net> Cc: SEAN CASEY REID; TYLER JOSEPH LARSON; Kevin A Henry ( medicalgeography@yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography@yahoo.com>) Subject: [CTPP] female daytime population We are trying to come up with an estimate of adult “daytime” female population for each census tract in Salt Lake City. Intuitively, for a census tract, A, this estimate is: (the number of women who have a workplace in A) plus (the number of women live in A) minus (the number of working women who live in A). the three terms in the above calculation. We will only calculate the measure for women 16 years and older (although ideally we’d like to have a measure for just 40 years and up). Can anyone from this list provide me with feedback about this methodology? Are there any big issues that I need to be aware of? Is there a better way to be doing this? In the end, we would like a daytime measure of the female population in order to calculate mammography accessibility metrics. Many thanks for your comments. Steve Steven Farber, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Geography University of Utah http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com<http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com/> _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news@chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news@chrispy.net> https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news@chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news@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