Hello, I realize the issues of data comparability (and--dare I say--data fusion) can be tough, but I think Wade White is on the right track. I used the following analogy many years ago, as part of a presentation at a transportation planning applications conference: if you have one watch, you think you know what time it is. If you have two watches and they don't show the same time, you become less certain as to what represents the truth. Consider the following scenario: detailed journey-to-work flows are available from the CTPP 2000, while county-to-county flows are available (at least for the larger counties) from the 3-year ACS. If both datasets represent the best available depiction of the "observed" in their respective years, does it make sense to use the latest county-to-county numbers as "control totals" for adjusting the older TAZ-to-TAZ (or tract-to-tract) flows to represent current detailed flows? Quite frankly it's not crystal clear how to answer that kind of question. In many cases the updated TAZ-to-TAZ flows might be just fine for most planning purposes, whereas in other cases such a straight-forward factoring approach could give a false level of confidence as to the true accuracy of the adjusted (synthesized) detailed flows. Perhaps the best that can ever be done when examining less-than-perfect datasets is to keep one's eyes open by first comparing the different datasets and then exploring possible explanations for the differences: what happens next depends on the findings of the exploration and what one wants to do with the data. Sounds like an area for some useful applied research! Ken Cervenka FTA Office of Planning and Environment Ken.Cervenka(a)dot.gov ________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net on behalf of Wade L. White Sent: Tue 2/1/2011 6:50 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] RE: ctpp-news Digest, Vol 83, Issue 32 Penny: I would chime in that my experience suggests all data and findings should be compared as the differences, whether due to methodology, underlying assumptions, or actual observed change can add great insight and "point the way" towards the answers desired. Such comparisons often highlight differences and should help analysts start to comprehend the weaknesses and strengths of data upon which they're building assumptions. It doesn't make one set of data more "right" than another, just a different perspective. I always ask "what does the comparison tell me?" Does the comparison yield differences and similarities I expect? Are the findings consistent with other "common wisdom"? If no, why not? For example, take a few very different data sources: the CTPP, ACS, NHTS, QCEW, IRS, D&B and InfoUSA. Each include very different ways of estimating employment. All are incomplete but paint part of the picture. Taken together, I can see patterns and weigh the relative strength of each one's methodology to meeting a specific need. How are part-time jobs treated? How about sole proprietors? How about workers with more than one job? Workers that work one day/week or month? 1099 workers? Volunteers? Seasonal workers? Military? Are there things missing, discounted or even double-counted in one vs. the other? Understanding Standard Error terms is one thing, understanding utility and suitability is quite another. Even trying to answer a simple question such as "how many jobs/workers are there at a given moment in time" doesn't have a simple answer or at least there isn't one dataset that will answer it depending on the definition of job/worker I'm looking for to meet a specific need. One "comparison" I was looking at in the 2000 vs. 2009 3 year data is a simple "relative order" of destination county in one dataset vs. the other (row-wise relative ranking). Comparing the 2009 3 Year data (off your wonderful website) vs. 2000 CTPP would seem to have merit. See below: <https://webmail3.dot.gov/exchange/Ken.Cervenka/Drafts/RE:%20[CTPP]%20RE:%20ctpp-news%20Digest,%20Vol%2083,%20Issue%2032.EML/1_multipart/image003.png> Are the changes consistent with what is known about the economic and development change in the area? Observed traffic flows (yet more data) and changes in the flows over time? What's missing or considered incompletely in each dataset? Do the differences in the dataset suggest I need to use them to inform decision-making differently. All fair and good comparisons (and questions) that help provide me some level of insight both into data differences and change. For a "real-world" comparison of two different dataset that has made a difference in understanding, think about the release and subsequent re-release of the NHTS based on comparisons made between its findings and the NTD for US transit ridership. The comparison highlighted additional considerations that would need to be included in the weighting process for NHTS. Without the comparison, the suitability of NHTS for certain transit analyses would be in question. The more comparisons we make and questions we ask the better the data gets and the better the understanding of its limitations. Of course, if we blindly use any data, caveat emptor. My 2 cents. W -----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: Monday, January 31, 2011 11:06 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: ctpp-news Digest, Vol 83, Issue 32 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: 2000 and 2006-08 work trip comparison question. (Weinberger, Penelope) 2. RE: 2000 and 2006-08 work trip comparison question. (Kendra Watkins) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:41:28 -0500 From: "Weinberger, Penelope" &lt;pweinberger(a)aashto.org&gt; Subject: RE: [CTPP] 2000 and 2006-08 work trip comparison question. To: &lt;ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net&gt; Message-ID: &lt;94A99461953E3341B89642B00D5C0B7D0705A4B4(a)AASHTO-MAIL.aashto.local&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The CB does not recommend comparing an ACS based data set to a CB Long Form based data set. The 2000 data represent a point in time estimate, the ACS data represent a period estimate. Furthermore, the Census Bureau recommends not comparing period estimates with overlapping years. Penelope Weinberger CTPP Program Manager AASHTO 202-624-3556 http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx <http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx> 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 Seidensticker, Dan Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 4:18 PM To: (ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net) Subject: [CTPP] 2000 and 2006-08 work trip comparison question. We downloaded the2006-2008 ACS county-to-county worker flow for Dane County, Wisconsin from http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/3yrdas.aspx. The question we now have...can that data be compared to the county-to-county 2000 CTPP work trips to determine any statistically significant increase/decrease? If so, how would one calculate the margin of error? Dan Seidensticker GIS Specialist Madison Area Transportation Planning Board: A Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) City of Madison Planning Unit 121 S. Pinckney Street, Suite 400 Madison, WI 53703 Voice: 608-266-9119 Fax: 608-261-9967 Email: dseidensticker(a)cityofmadison.com www.MadisonAreaMPO.org <http://www.madisonareampo.org/>