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@chrispy.net [ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] on behalf of Robert Shull [rshull@transportmodeler.com]
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:42 AM
To: ctpp-news@chrispy.net
Cc: u0719944@utah.edu; medicalgeography@yahoo.com; tyler.larson@utah.edu
Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population
How would this compare with using LEHD?rshull@transportmodeler.com<mailto:rshull@transportmodeler.com>
Thanks,
Bob
Robert Shull, PE
President
Eco Resource Management Systems Inc.
PO Box 1850
Vashon, WA 98070
206.414.8751
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:37 AM, <Elaine.Murakami@dot.gov<mailto:Elaine.Murakami@dot.gov>> 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>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@geog.utah.edu<mailto:Steven.Farber@geog.utah.edu>]
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
________________________________________
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:49 PMTo: 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 populationctpp-news@chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news@chrispy.net>
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).
>From the 5-year CTPP, we will use tables A20211, A101203, and A11600 for 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
https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-newsctpp-news@chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news@chrispy.net>
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news@chrispy.net
https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news