10 Nov
2008
10 Nov
'08
1:37 p.m.
Elaine and Ed,
Thank you very much for your answers. They are very helpful.
One more question on this issue. In Eric's explanation- "Using a factor
of 1.5, 1,000 employees would generate 1,500 HBW trips; then you'd need
to divide by two to approximate a CTPP-derived home-to-work trip, giving
you 750 trips." Does he mean comparing "750 trip" to the "CTPP
workers"
?
Thanks a lot!
Binbin
-----Original Message-----
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net
[mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of
ctpp-news-request(a)chrispy.net
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 12:00 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: ctpp-news Digest, Vol 57, Issue 2
Send ctpp-news mailing list submissions to
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ctpp-news-request(a)chrispy.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
ctpp-news-owner(a)chrispy.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ctpp-news digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: ctpp-news Digest, Vol 57, Issue 1 (Out Of Office Auto
Message) (John Posey)
2. RE: A Question - work flow vs. HBW trip rate (Murakami, Elaine)
3. Re: A Question - work flow vs. HBW trip rate (Ed Christopher)
4. Quick TAZ Update (Ed Christopher)
5. Diana Portillo is out of the office. (Diana Portillo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 12:04:59 -0600
From: "John Posey" <john.posey(a)ewgateway.org>
Subject: [CTPP] Re: ctpp-news Digest, Vol 57, Issue 1 (Out Of Office
Auto Message)
To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>
Message-ID: <s9142ef8.080(a)nws-ewg4.ewgateway.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
I will be out of the office until November 17. Please contact Hilary
Perkins if you need assistance before then.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 11:27:29 -0800
From: "Murakami, Elaine" <Elaine.Murakami(a)fhwa.dot.gov>
Subject: RE: [CTPP] A Question - work flow vs. HBW trip rate
To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>
Message-ID:
<195CBC4D6D4C1547BFCE1198D7D6633977AA51(a)fhxwa4.fhwa1.fhwa.dot.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Yes, the CTPP 2000 uses the Census 2000 and provides a count of WORKERS
AT WORK. Workers at work is generally at least 10 percent lower than
employment or jobs. Also, the Census 2000 allows a response for only 1
job per worker. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/ctppatwork.htm
NCHRP 365 used results from regional household travel surveys AND the
1990 NPTS. (Page 23)
You might want to take a look at the NHTS transferability project that
FHWA completed a few years ago.
http://nhts.ornl.gov/tools.shtml
The work was done by Oak Ridge National Labs and uses the 2001 NHTS
data, and estimates total person trips, total vehicle trips, and trips
by purpose at the tract level. You need to understand how trip
purpose is coded. I glanced at results for census tracts in one county
in Washington State and HBW were about 12% of total trips. Let's say
that the overall average number of household trips is 9 or 10, then 12%
would be 1.1 to 1.2. The transferability project provides trips rates
by household size and vehicle availability.
However, it is very important to understand that a trip from WORK to
SHOP, and then SHOP to HOME, would not be included as a WORK to HOME
(with 1 stop) in the count of HBW trips.
This is why, using the concept of TOURS and TRIP CHAINING has become
increasingly used in travel demand models. The links below are to Nancy
McGuckin's papers (2001 NHTS and 1995 NPTS) on trip chaining:
http://www.travelbehavior.us/projects_files/Trip%20Chaining%20Trends%20i
n%20the%20US%20TRB%20paper%2005-1716%20(2).pdf
http://nhts.ornl.gov/1995/Doc/Chain2.pdf
Hope this helps.
Elaine Murakami
FHWA Office of Planning
_____
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net
[mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Binbin Chen
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 2:18 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: [CTPP] A Question - work flow vs. HBW trip rate
Hi,
I'm new in using CTPP data, and am a little confused about the work flow
CTPP provided and work trip.
Basically, CTPP counts workers, not trip. Then can it be used to compute
HBW trip per household? For example, assume 1.5 trips/worker
(NCHRP#365), HBW trip/HH = 1.5*workers/household numbers ?
And How can CTPP work flow compare to NHTS HBW trip rate?
I highly appreciate your help!
Best,
Binbin
10 Nov
10 Nov
2:17 p.m.
New subject: educational attainment by place of work
We are trying to understand the relationship between the location of
well-paying jobs and resident income. In particular, our urban core has
the largest concentration of job, a large fraction of which are
well-paid, while surrounding the job centers are areas that have high
concentration of poverty, especially minority poverty. We suspect this
has something to do with a skills mismatch between the jobs and the
residents, which we can test for those who are employed by looking at
occupation of workers vs occupation of residents. But if we wanted to
expand our examination of the skill mismatch to the unemployed by
looking at, say, educational attainment of the residents vs. the
workers, we find we cannot because there is no data on educational
attainment by place of work in the 2000 CTPP.
Might this be remedied in the 2010 CTPP?
Frank Lenk
Director of Research Services
Mid-America Regional Council
600 Broadway, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64105
www.marc.org
816.474.4240
flenk(a)marc.org
816.701.8237
7:15 p.m.
New subject: educational attainment by place of work
Frank--good catch. Not only are there no Part 2 (workplace) tables on
educational attainment there are not any Part 1 educational attainment
tables either. I just looked at the draft tables we have been talking
about for ACS and educational attainment was not there. I will
certainly bring it up but make sure to keep it on your mind the next
time we are talking about table content.
As far as your current issue, will PUMs help? The geography is really
big (100,000 people) but it might help.
Frank Lenk wrote:
We are trying to understand the relationship between
the location of
well-paying jobs and resident income. In particular, our urban core has
the largest concentration of job, a large fraction of which are
well-paid, while surrounding the job centers are areas that have high
concentration of poverty, especially minority poverty. We suspect this
has something to do with a skills mismatch between the jobs and the
residents, which we can test for those who are employed by looking at
occupation of workers vs occupation of residents. But if we wanted to
expand our examination of the skill mismatch to the unemployed by
looking at, say, educational attainment of the residents vs. the
workers, we find we cannot because there is no data on educational
attainment by place of work in the 2000 CTPP.
Might this be remedied in the 2010 CTPP?
Frank Lenk
Director of Research Services
Mid-America Regional Council
600 Broadway, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64105
www.marc.org
816.474.4240
flenk(a)marc.org
816.701.8237
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
--
Ed Christopher
708-283-3534 (V)
708-574-8131 (cell)
FHWA RC-TST-PLN
19900 Governors Dr
Olympia Fields, IL 60461
11 Nov
11 Nov
8:12 a.m.
New subject: educational attainment by place of work
Ed -
Actually, I tried PUMS first. The problem is the 100,000 population size
criterion apparently must hold for workers as well as residents. While
each PUMA is designed to have at least 100,000 residents, they are not
designed to have also 100,000 workers. Consequently, the Census Bureau
aggregates PUMAS when it reports PUMA of work. PUMAs are already the
largest possible usable size for this analysis. Aggregates of PUMAs
make the areas too large to infer any kind of influence of space/place
on income, at least in my estimation.
Frank
Frank Lenk
Director of Research Services
Mid-America Regional Council
-----Original Message-----
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net
[mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Ed Christopher
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 7:16 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] educational attainment by place of work
Frank--good catch. Not only are there no Part 2 (workplace) tables on
educational attainment there are not any Part 1 educational attainment
tables either. I just looked at the draft tables we have been talking
about for ACS and educational attainment was not there. I will
certainly bring it up but make sure to keep it on your mind the next
time we are talking about table content.
As far as your current issue, will PUMs help? The geography is really
big (100,000 people) but it might help.
Frank Lenk wrote:
We are trying to understand the relationship between
the location of
well-paying jobs and resident income. In particular, our urban core
has
the largest concentration of job, a large fraction of
which are
well-paid, while surrounding the job centers are areas that have high
concentration of poverty, especially minority poverty. We suspect this
has something to do with a skills mismatch between the jobs and the
residents, which we can test for those who are employed by looking at
occupation of workers vs occupation of residents. But if we wanted to
expand our examination of the skill mismatch to the unemployed by
looking at, say, educational attainment of the residents vs. the
workers, we find we cannot because there is no data on educational
attainment by place of work in the 2000 CTPP.
Might this be remedied in the 2010 CTPP?
Frank Lenk
Director of Research Services
Mid-America Regional Council
600 Broadway, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64105
www.marc.org
816.474.4240
flenk(a)marc.org
816.701.8237
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
--
Ed Christopher
708-283-3534 (V)
708-574-8131 (cell)
FHWA RC-TST-PLN
19900 Governors Dr
Olympia Fields, IL 60461
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
9:25 a.m.
New subject: educational attainment by place of work
You are right and I also forgot that with PUMS you get the PUMA of
residence but on the work side it is the county of work.
Frank Lenk wrote:
Ed -
Actually, I tried PUMS first. The problem is the 100,000 population size
criterion apparently must hold for workers as well as residents. While
each PUMA is designed to have at least 100,000 residents, they are not
designed to have also 100,000 workers. Consequently, the Census Bureau
aggregates PUMAS when it reports PUMA of work. PUMAs are already the
largest possible usable size for this analysis. Aggregates of PUMAs
make the areas too large to infer any kind of influence of space/place
on income, at least in my estimation.
Frank
Frank Lenk
Director of Research Services
Mid-America Regional Council
-----Original Message-----
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net
[mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Ed Christopher
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 7:16 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] educational attainment by place of work
Frank--good catch. Not only are there no Part 2 (workplace) tables on
educational attainment there are not any Part 1 educational attainment
tables either. I just looked at the draft tables we have been talking
about for ACS and educational attainment was not there. I will
certainly bring it up but make sure to keep it on your mind the next
time we are talking about table content.
As far as your current issue, will PUMs help? The geography is really
big (100,000 people) but it might help.
Frank Lenk wrote:
--
Ed Christopher
708-283-3534 (V)
708-574-8131 (cell)
FHWA RC-TST-PLN
19900 Governors Dr
Olympia Fields, IL 60461
We are trying to understand the relationship
between the location of
well-paying jobs and resident income. In particular, our urban core
has
the largest concentration of job, a large
fraction of which are
well-paid, while surrounding the job centers are areas that have high
concentration of poverty, especially minority poverty. We suspect this
has something to do with a skills mismatch between the jobs and the
residents, which we can test for those who are employed by looking at
occupation of workers vs occupation of residents. But if we wanted to
expand our examination of the skill mismatch to the unemployed by
looking at, say, educational attainment of the residents vs. the
workers, we find we cannot because there is no data on educational
attainment by place of work in the 2000 CTPP.
Might this be remedied in the 2010 CTPP?
Frank Lenk
Director of Research Services
Mid-America Regional Council
600 Broadway, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64105
www.marc.org
816.474.4240
flenk(a)marc.org
816.701.8237
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
9:43 a.m.
New subject: educational attainment by place of work
There seems to be a very sound relationship between rising income and rising
trip length to work. This almost seems incongruous assuming that the higher
income person would presumably be able to afford to live closer by, if they
chose. There are lots of reasons for this. If higher income workers can
live anywhere they want then they can optimized a whole array of things not
just distance to work. Also high income jobs tend to be specialized and
concentrated in contrast to working at starbucks where the closest one is 5
minutes away and there is zero reward for working at any other starbucks
farther away.
Alan E. Pisarski
6501 Waterway Drive
Falls Church Va. 22044
703 941-4257
alanpisarski(a)alanpisarski.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net]
On Behalf Of Ed Christopher
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 10:26 AM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] educational attainment by place of work
You are right and I also forgot that with PUMS you get the PUMA of
residence but on the work side it is the county of work.
Frank Lenk wrote:
Ed -
Actually, I tried PUMS first. The problem is the 100,000 population size
criterion apparently must hold for workers as well as residents. While
each PUMA is designed to have at least 100,000 residents, they are not
designed to have also 100,000 workers. Consequently, the Census Bureau
aggregates PUMAS when it reports PUMA of work. PUMAs are already the
largest possible usable size for this analysis. Aggregates of PUMAs
make the areas too large to infer any kind of influence of space/place
on income, at least in my estimation.
Frank
Frank Lenk
Director of Research Services
Mid-America Regional Council
-----Original Message-----
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net
[mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Ed Christopher
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 7:16 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] educational attainment by place of work
Frank--good catch. Not only are there no Part 2 (workplace) tables on
educational attainment there are not any Part 1 educational attainment
tables either. I just looked at the draft tables we have been talking
about for ACS and educational attainment was not there. I will
certainly bring it up but make sure to keep it on your mind the next
time we are talking about table content.
As far as your current issue, will PUMs help? The geography is really
big (100,000 people) but it might help.
Frank Lenk wrote:
--
Ed Christopher
708-283-3534 (V)
708-574-8131 (cell)
FHWA RC-TST-PLN
19900 Governors Dr
Olympia Fields, IL 60461
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
We are trying to understand the relationship
between the location of
well-paying jobs and resident income. In particular, our urban core
has
the largest concentration of job, a large
fraction of which are
well-paid, while surrounding the job centers are areas that have high
concentration of poverty, especially minority poverty. We suspect this
has something to do with a skills mismatch between the jobs and the
residents, which we can test for those who are employed by looking at
occupation of workers vs occupation of residents. But if we wanted to
expand our examination of the skill mismatch to the unemployed by
looking at, say, educational attainment of the residents vs. the
workers, we find we cannot because there is no data on educational
attainment by place of work in the 2000 CTPP.
Might this be remedied in the 2010 CTPP?
Frank Lenk
Director of Research Services
Mid-America Regional Council
600 Broadway, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64105
www.marc.org
816.474.4240
flenk(a)marc.org
816.701.8237
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
5655
days inactive
5656
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Alan Pisarski -
Binbin Chen -
Ed Christopher -
Frank Lenk