10 Dec
1998
10 Dec
'98
5:20 p.m.
below is a dialogue that has been going on that i believe would
be of interest to the entire ctpp mail list. it is extremely
topical because just today Elaine Murakami called to remind me
that i need to get something written up regarding our survey of
several trb committees regarding the content (tables) of the ctpp
package. here is a web page that presents some preliminary work
in that area. don did remind me of an early product that even we
in chicago used (stf s-5).
http://www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census/notes/content.html
needless to say any comments folks have on content for the ctpp
(the tables) would be appreciated. i also recommend that you post
your comments to the list
ed christopher
------------------------------------------------
Don,
Let me see what I can answer right now and what has to go into
the hopper:
Place of work outside SMSA of residence. This needs a
further
breakdown. Our Cincinnati area is a 13 co. CMSA so the data for
"outside each pmsa" doesn't tell me if
the worker is in the
other
pmsa. Similarly, we are adjacent to the Dayton msa
and I
can't
tell if the workers are coming to or from there. The
county and
major city breakouts in this table are also valuable.
(CBD?)
These concerns apply mainly to the standard tabulations. I
strongly recommend that the STF-S-5 commuter tabulations
be prepared again for nation-wide county to county work
trip commuting. I actually depend on
these for my regional in and out commuting and, consequently,
the regional net employment.
I think the work flows have to come from the county to county
file, and I would assume that will be repeated. It will make
sure it's on our list. Actually, I was never aware of it as a
formally named product (STF5?) but I did have a copy of it for
Michigan counties. The issue of grouping counties as areas on
the CTPP has to be fought out within the transportation planning
community.
Another issue is continuation of the non-motorized
travel modes
of biking and walking along with working at home.
(Assuming
that transit and carpool modes will be continued.) These are
becoming more important in our region as we deal with air
quality conformity, congestion reduction and sprawl.
Bicycle, Walked, and Worked at home are on the census dress
rehearsal questionnaire, which means that unless something very
unusual and unlikely happens, they will be on the 2000 long form.
Once the data are collected, it's really up to the transportation
planning community to decide how they will be tabulated on the
CTPP. Also, you are going to have more opportunity to do your
own tabulations via the Internet, so if you need
something special you will probably be able to do it (albeit for
a fee), or pay someone to do it for you.
Finally, an issue that I am assuming will be fixed
with the
2000 CTPP is place of work coverage in the suburban
and rural areas of our metro area. In 1990, less than half
of a county's workers were 'assigned' to a TAZ of work
in three of the 8 counties in our MSA.
With nationwide TIGER coverage, I believe that all workplaces
with street addresses are to be coded to tract/block. This of
course permits their assignment to TAZ. The question is what
happens with the inadequate workplace address entries on the
census. You might want to talk to Phil Salopek about their plans
on this. In 1980 Phil Fulton devised an elaborate allocation
algorithm which fixed a lot of the problems in these data for
workplaces inside the urbanized area, and with the full TIGER
coverage the algorithm can be run for everywhere. However, if
you have some major workplaces in the more rural counties that
don't have addresses and that you want to be sure are coded
correctly, you may be able to provide some workplace name
information to the Bureau to assist
with this.
And that brings to mind another final issue. In 1990,
our CMSA
and MPO included the same 8 counties. In 1993, five more
counties were added to the CMSA, but not to our MPO
planning area. Therefore, our 2000 CTPP
will not include the added CMSA counties. Does this matter?
The CMSA and the MPO don't have anything to do with each other,
really. The CMSA is defined under OMB rules (now under review
for possible significant changes; a federal register notice is
due very soon); there can be a considerable amount of politics in
the MSA/PMSA/CMSA designations because a lot of people think "the
bigger the better" which makes for larger CMSAs. If you're not
planning for the additional 5 counties, you probably don't need
the CTPP for them. Besides, won't some other MPO have it (if the
5 counties are their own PMSA, they probably have some MPO
coverage somewhere).
Thanks for asking!
Hope this helps!
(copied to Ed Christopher)
Ed, if you want to post this to the list, please feel free.
=============================
Patricia C. (Patty) Becker 313/535-2077
APB Associates/SEMCC FAX 313/535-3556
17321 Telegraph #204 Home 248/355-2428
Detroit, MI 48219 pbecker(a)umich.edu