CTPP December 1998

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

14 participants
19 discussions

by Murakami

I recently got a flyer for this one-day conference. What will it cover: Background, structure, content, and new products and "why NAICS is better" The good news is that it is FREE and includes lunch. The bad news is that it is on January 14, 1999, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. which conflicts with TRB. It is here in Washington, D.C. at the Reagan Building, near the Federal Triangle Metro stop. You MUST reserve a space by responding to the Census Bureau at FAX 301-457-1343. For questions, please call Jeanette Mon at 301-457-3126.

26 years, 7 months

[CTPP] Re: CTPP 2000 TAZ Update Program

by phillip_a_salopek＠ccmail.census.gov

Bob: I will attempt to answer your questions, and distribute my response to you, to a number of individuals, and to the CTPP news group on the off chance that others may have similar concerns. Here goes. 1) The effect of participation in the TAZ update program on the CTPP data that will be available is simple. If you want any TAZ level data out of the 2000 CTPP, you must participate in the TAZ update program. If you want CTPP data only for standard census geography, either tracts or block groups (you choose which one), then you don't need to participate in the TAZ update program. You asked about CTPP data available on the Internet. Right now, we don't know if there will be any CTPP data available over the internet. We are currently discussing the design, content, products, etc. of the 2000 CTPP with DOT. (For general information and updates you might want to join the CTPP news group, ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net. Instructions for subscribing may be found at the URL http://www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census. Note that there is lots of other interesting stuff presented there, courtesy of Ed Christopher of the Chicago Area Transportation Study and others.) Anyway, what we do know is that there won't be CTPP data, nor any commuter flow data, nor any specific workplace data, available through the Census Bureau's decennial web access, once called the Data Access and Distribution System (DADS) but now known as the American FactFinder. Flow data, or any data tabulated by workplace instead of by residence, has been determined to be out of scope for American FactFinder. In our discussions with DOT we have outlined a 2000 CTPP that would consist of a Statewide Element and an Urban Element. Each element would contain a set of residence-based tables, a set of workplace-based tables, and a set of origin by destination tables. These sets of tables will be standard for all areas. Our assumption is that for a whole state in the statewide element or for an MPO area in the urban element, the volume of data would be too great to ask people to download it over the net. So we think we will distribute the 2000 CTPP on CD (or some other high capacity medium) again. This time, however, we will provide the access software ourselves and deliver just one integrated product, data and software at the same time. However, DOT has indicated (and I agree) that it would be nice to be able to have some kind of data on demand system available for CTPP customers over the net. But this is still just an idea at this point. We don't know if it's feasible, how expensive it would be to develop, how it would work, etc. We'll try to keep people posted on the status; right now we've agreed to look into what it would entail, but have not promised to provide such functionality as part of the CTPP. 2) I'm not the best person to ask what standard geography will be available from American FactFinder. I'm not sure the decision has been made yet. I would guess that you'll be able to retrieve anything that has been released on a summary tape file. This would imply that you could get individual data items for tracts and block groups of residence. It sounds like there may be some multi-variable crosses that will be available for tracts, but not for BGs (too much detail for the finer geography). In general, there could be some differences like this in what data are available based on the size of an area, but I think this would be the only criterion. As I noted above, there won't be CTPP data available, nor any flow data, nor data by place of work from American FactFinder. There will probably be recodes like worked in same county, diff. county, diff state, etc. I don't know what the current plans are for data on demand over the net through American FactFinder. They might accept specs for custom tallies from PUMS, but this would be for large geographic units. I don't know if there will be any facility for doing custom tables from the full sample (i.e., not PUMS). Even if you wanted TAZ of residence only (no flows or at-work data) I don't know if TAZ is a piece of geography that will be supported. It could be, because we intend to provide it on the internal files we use for tabulations, but that doesn't mean they'll make it available over the net on demand. I see on the Census web site that questions about 2000 are supposed to be directed to 2000usa(a)census.gov. You could try this and see what you get. I'd be interested in seeing their reply. 3) If an MPO does not participate in TAZ-UP, we will ask them to choose tracts or block groups as their smallest geographic unit in the 2000 CTPP. 4) I'm not sure I understand this question. In the Urban Element, the MPOs choices are taz (if you've participated in TAZ-UP), tract, or BG. You'll have to pick one. 5) Our assumption so far has been that MPOs will have the choice described above for urban element geography. This would only cover the counties situated in the MPO areas. However, all counties would be included in the statewide element and there would be summary levels for counties and places of say 2,500 or more residents in the statewide element (as in the 1990 CTPP). Massachusetts (as well as some other New England states) may be an exception in that the whole state may be covered by MPOs (RPAs in Mass) and therefore the whole state may be included in the urban element at the taz, or tract, or block group level. 6) The Census Bureau's policy is that the most detailed level of geography we will show for sample (long form) data is the block group. That is why MPOs can choose between BGs and tracts for their CTPP. In the past we have treated TAZs as BG-like units and provided sample data for TAZs in the CTPP as well. There seems to be more concern for 2000 within the Census Bureau that BGs, and by implication BG-like units, may be too small to support some of the large (in terms of number of cells) tables created for them in the past. 7) Again, I'm not sure what you are asking. In standard census data products like STF3A on CD-ROM the entire hierarchy is available, from Block Group to whole state totals. In printed reports, totals for places above some size cutoff are usually available. There have also been printed data available in the past for census tracts by residence, but I don't know if that will happen for 2000. In the CTPP, you pick one of the three as your most detailed level. 8) Even if an MPO, or region, or county used TAZs in the 1990 CTPP and those TAZs were inserted into TIGER, and they think they don't want to make any changes to the boundaries, they still have to participate in the TAZ-UP program if they want TAZ data from the CTPP in 2000. It is entirely possible that some of the lines used as TAZ boundaries in 1990 will not be available for use in 2000, so boundaries will need to be adjusted. But in addition, for 2000 there will be many more lines that will be eligible to be used for TAZ boundaries, since MPOs won't be constrained to build them up from census tabulation blocks. This means it should be easier for the MPO to approximate the true TAZ boundaries than it has been in the past. Sorry this has run on so long. Please call me at (301) 457-2454 if I've missed the boat and failed to clearly answer your questions. --Phil ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: CTPP 2000 TAZ Update Program Author: "Frey-DPW Bob" <Bob.Frey(a)state.ma.us> at SMTP-GATEWAY Date: 11/30/1998 3:36 PM Hello Phil: Bob Frey from the Massachusetts Highway Department here. We have had several discussions concerning CTPP in past years, and I'm hoping you can help again. Todd Blair suggested I contact you to get some further clarification regarding the TAZ Update program: 1) Will TAZ update participation status have any effect on what CTPP data will be available on the internet, or will a standard set of reports be available for all areas? 2) And what standard census geography will be available on the internet, and does this differ depending on the area? 3) If an MPO choses not to participate in the program, what is the default delineation for 2000 CTPP data (census tracts, block groups, or 1990 TAZ boundaries)? 4) In this situation, would block groups be available to every area anyway? 5) If not, will the CTPP data be available only to the level of tracts for rural areas, and down to block groups for urbanized areas? 6) Exactly what determines the lowest level of census geography available for the data in a given region? 7) Program participation aside, how can I determine what will be available throughout Massachusetts in terms of tracts/block groups? 8) If a region/county wants to keep their 1990 TAZs without changes, do they still need to participate in the TAZ Update Program to confirm this? If you could get back to me soon by phone or e-mail I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Bob Frey MassHighway Planning (617)973-7449 bob.frey(a)state.ma.us

26 years, 7 months

[CTPP] TAZs and BBSP (Block Boundary Suggestion Program)

by phillip_a_salopek＠ccmail.census.gov

____________________________ Forward Header ________________________________ Subject: 2000 CTPP TAZ-UP Author: Don Burrell <DBURRELL(a)oki.org> at SMTP-GATEWAY Date: 11/25/98 5:12 PM The Journey-to-work and FHWA folks are currently working on a program to prepare the CTPP TAZ geography in advance of the census, specifically by next summer. This is to be done using a program called TAZ-UP, TIGER/Line 99 and ArcView GIS software. Today, I shipped the results of the 2000 Census Statistical Areas Review process for 2 of the Cincinnati area counties to the Detroit regional office. This work, which is underway throughout the country, has identified census tract and block group boundary changes to be used for the 2000 census. Having just now put 2 + 2 together, my question is whether or not the Bureau will have our new local recommendations for census boundary changes in the TIGER/Line 99 file that is to be shipped to us for the TAZ-UP work? OKI plans to revise many of our TAZ boundaries to conform to the 2000 census geography. It would be helpful to have the 2000 census geography shown. Don Burrell OH-KY-IN Regional Council of Govmts. ____________________________________________________________________________ Response from P. Salopek Don: I could not answer this question on my own, so I spoke with Bob LaMacchia in Geography Division of the Census Bureau. The first point is that for the TAZ-UP program, TIGER/Line 98 will be the base, not T/L 99. T/L 98 will NOT include the local recommendations for block boundaries that you just submitted. Bob L. says that the verification phase for both programs will occur at the same time. This means that the T/L 99 that I guess participants in both activities will receive to review will contain both the new TAZ boundaries and the new block boundaries (collection blocks, not tabulation blocks). One point to remember is that in defining TAZs for 2000 you will not be constrained to build them from blocks, since blocks won't be defined yet. You will in fact have a wider array of lines/features to use as TAZ boundaries than has been available in the past. We think this is an improvement and should allow closer approximation to true TAZ boundaries. --Phil

26 years, 7 months

[CTPP] NEWS ALERT

by ed c

December 4, 1998 Supreme Court Weighs Legal, Constitutional Issues in Census Sampling Cases Justices Question Role of Judiciary in Settling Sampling Dispute Monitoring Board Reviews Use of Administrative Records in Census The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments November 30 in two lawsuits challenging the use of sampling and statistical estimation in the census. The Justices heard presentations from Solicitor General Seth Waxman, arguing on behalf of the Administration; Maureen Mahoney, with the firm of Latham & Watkins, representing the U.S. House of Representatives; and Michael Carvin, with the firm of Cooper, Carvin, & Rosenthal, representing Matthew Glavin and other private plaintiffs. The Court had agreed to consider both cases after two separate three-judge district court panels ruled earlier this year that the Census Act prohibits sampling to derive the population counts used for congressional re-apportionment. Some highlights of the hearing in the cases of U.S. House of Representatives v. U.S. Department of Commerce and Glavin v. Clinton: * Several Justices were skeptical about the legal authority of the House of Representatives to sue the Executive branch to force a particular action that Congress could not bring about by enacting a law. Justice Scalia said that the Judicial branch should not be asked to resolve a political dispute between the other two branches. He prompted laughter by suggesting that Congress could threaten to withhold funds for the census or even White House operations until the Administration agreed with its position on sampling. * There was less discussion about the legal standing of individuals and counties to file suit in the Glavin case. However, there was some confusion about whether these private parties must show that their States were likely to lose a congressional seat if sampling were used, in order to establish probable harm or injury from the Census Bureau's plan for 2000. There was also confusion over whether critics of the Bureau's plan believed that the law and Constitution barred sampling only for congressional apportionment or for other purposes as well. Justice Ginsburg noted that the use of sampling to produce census numbers for redistricting and the allocation of Federal aid was not an issue before the Court. However, Ms. Mahoney argued that sampling could not be used to count the population for any purpose, including congressional redistricting and Federal funds distribution. The Secretary of Commerce's authority to use sampling in taking a decennial census, she said, is limited to the collection of demographic and economic data on the traditional long form. * The Justices appeared to be divided about whether sampling and other statistical methods could be used to improve a direct counting effort. Justice O'Connor said that most people would think that the words "actual enumeration" in the Constitution meant a one-by-one count. She later challenged the House counsel's description of the Census Bureau's plan as an effort to count only 90 percent of the population, noting that 100 percent of households would receive a census form. Justice Stevens asked what census takers would do if there were a building with many undocumented residents who were afraid to answer the door and provide information. In the face of evidence that people lived there, must the census taker write down "zero," the Justice asked, even though "one" would be closer to the truth? Ms. Mahoney said that the count for those households must be "zero," which she said was preferable to guessing, prompting Justice Breyer to ask whether that was the policy even if the lights went on and off at night. Many observers believe the Court will issue a ruling by next spring; technically, the Justices have until the end of the term (late June or the beginning of July) to reach a decision. Monitoring Board examines administrative records: The Census Monitoring Board debated whether administrative records could be used to reduce the disproportionate undercount of racial minorities in the 2000 census at a November 23 hearing at Census Bureau headquarters. Republican co-chair Kenneth Blackwell said in opening remarks that he believes the Bureau can use Federal, State and local program databases, such as Medicaid files, to add targeted, hard-to-count populations to the census. Dr. John Czajka, a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel reviewing census methods, was the only non-Bureau witness. Dr. Czajka discussed the quality and content of government databases, and said records must be pulled from many sources in order to compile the basic information collected in the census. For example, tax returns and other information maintained by the Internal Revenue Service could be linked with social security records to gain more demographic data. Dr. Czajka said that further research was needed to overcome several deficiencies in the data from administrative databases that make their use problematic for census purposes. Those problems include the lack of a physical address (e.g., a post office box); the time lag between point of collection and Census Day; the inclusion of people who have died or the omission of recent births in some record sets; and missing demographic variables needed for the census (such as race, marital status, and relationship of householders). Databases also are most likely to leave out young people in their late teens and early twenties and noncitizens, he noted. Dr. Czajka concluded that administrative records could not be used to add people to the 2000 count. Three previous efforts to rely on such records to add to the census "blew up on the launch pad," he told the Board. He urged the Census Bureau to spearhead a research effort to address deficiencies, as well as privacy and confidentiality issues, and also noted that current law may prohibit the disclosure of some records for census purposes. Senior Census Bureau staff testifying before the Monitoring Board said that the Bureau would have to verify the information contained in administrative databases before adding those people to the census count. They noted, for example, that about 16 percent of all Americans move each year, while much higher proportions of harder-to-count groups like renters change residences, making field verification of administrative records necessary. The Bureau plans an extensive research effort to determine if government databases can be used to count the population in future censuses, the staff said. Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt said the agency is not opposed to using administrative records in the census. "The bureau would use any method we thought would make the count better," he said. There were no witnesses supporting the use of administrative records to add people to the 2000 census. At the conclusion of the meeting, co-chair Blackwell said Republican Board members did not want the Bureau to rely on methods that haven't worked in the past if the Supreme Court "outlawed" sampling, and they urged the Bureau to pursue the use of program databases to address the differential undercount. The Board's next hearing is on December 16 in Sacramento, CA, one of the three dress-rehearsal sites. Census Advisory Committee considers recommendations: At its last meeting of the year, members of the 2000 Census Advisory Committee reviewed a draft of the panel's final report, which it will present to the Secretary of Commerce next February. The report will include key recommendations on the importance of partnerships with local governments and community-based stakeholders, effective field operations, the use of scientific and statistical methods, and the availability of census data products. Administrative note: You can find an archive of recent and past News Alerts at the Census 2000 Initiative Web site, www.census2000.org http://www.census2000.org. Questions about the information contained in this News Alert may be directed to TerriAnn Lowenthal at (202) 484-2270 or, by e-mail at terriann2k(a)aol.com. Please direct all requests to receive News Alerts, and all changes in address/phone/fax/e-mail, to Census 2000 at Census2000(a)ccmc.org or 202/326-8700. Please feel free to circulate this information to colleagues and other interested individuals.

26 years, 7 months

[CTPP] C E N S U S 2 0 0 0 B U L L E T I N

by ed c

Vol. 2 - No. 46 Dec. 4, 1998 A newly redesigned section of the Census Bureau's Internet site contains a storehouse of information about Census 2000 news and articles, plans and operations, promotional ideas, business opportunities and job postings. The United States Census 2000 page http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/2khome.htm is divided into the following six subsections: What's New; General Information; Partnerships and Promotion; Plans and Operations; Contracts and Procurement; and Jobs and Employment. With Census 2000 more than a year off, the Census 2000 section is still in the early stages of construction, but it already contains a wide array of information about the decennial census. Under What's New, links take the browser to a listing of Census 2000 news releases and drop-in articles that can be used in organizational newsletters or magazines. To be added in the future are partnership agreements with national media organizations, B-roll video clips for television stations, stock photos and the Census 2000 logo and taglines. The General Information subsection includes fact sheets on a variety of topics, reports on the census advisory committees, frequently asked questions, a glossary of acronyms, 1990 census data files and adjusted and unadjusted data from the 1990 census down to the census block level. Articles describing what partnership organizations, both governmental and nongovernmental, can do to promote the census, a list of partnership contacts at the Census Bureau headquarters and regional offices and a list of publications and articles fall under Partnerships and Promotion. The Plans and Operations heading contains the Census 2000 operational plan (April 1998), a report to the Congress, and discussions of sampling, address list development, congressional apportionment and legislative redistricting, as well as early reports on the Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal. Contracts and Procurement covers statements of need, requests for proposal, lists of bidders and other procurement information on Census 2000's major contracts: advertising services; automation infrastructure, data-capture services and data-capture system, data dissemination, laptop computer acquisition, telephone questionnaire assistance, etc. The job postings are for positions at headquarters and in the regional offices, at the data capture centers, the telephone centers and the National Processing Center in Jeffersonville, Ind. In the future, links to the Census Bureau's new data dissemination system, the American FactFinder, as well as to the American Community Survey and other Census 2000-related activities will be added to the Census 2000 page. For further information about this bulletin, contact J. Paul Wyatt of the Public Information Office on 301-457-3052 (fax: 301-457-3670; e-mail: pwyatt(a)census.gov).

26 years, 7 months

Re: [Re: [CTPP] defining TAZs]

by lmugler.drcog＠usa.net

Today, we in Denver received a telephone call from FHWA to obtain our contact information. Guess they have defined a Plan B and are calling MPOs directly. Larry Mugler owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net wrote: > SHS wrote: > > > Is every MPO supposed to receive the TAZ Update forms by now? If yes, we have > not received any yet. > > Memphis MPO > > I am cross posting this to the ctpp listserve because i think it is a broad > issue. > > Yes, it is my understanding that the introduction letter explaining the TAZ > update process and > soliciting some info, like agency contact went out in the beginning of October > to all the usdot > divisional offices. They were instructed to pass it to their state which inturn > was to pass it to the > MPOs. > > Right now all i can say is don't worry, you are not alone, and the originators > of the letter are on this > list serve. I don't want to make any recommendation like call Tom Mank of FHWA > since I do not (as yet) > know what plan B is. I can tell you that the MPO in northeastern Illinois has > not seen it yet either. I > just asked around the agency today and no one has seen it. > > ed christopher > director or information services > chicago area transportation study ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

26 years, 8 months

RE:[CTPP] TAZs and BBSP (Block Boundary Suggestion Program)

by Dave Aultman

Hello out there in CTPP land, this is Dave Aultman in the Geography Division at the Census Bureau. I am involved in both the Census 2000 Participant Statistical Areas Program and the 2000 CTPP TAZ Update Program. I would like to pass on some information that will clarify the situation. 1. To confirm what Phil Salopek stated, participants in the 2000 TAZ program will receive 98 TIGER/Line files (not 99 TIGER/Line files) to do the initial delineation of the 2000 TAZs. These files WILL NOT CONTAIN THE APPROVED CENSUS 2000 STATISTICAL AREAS. These files are being created this month and next. At present the Census Bureau has received only a handful of Census 2000 statistical area plans. It is possible that some files may contain the approved statistical areas, but that number is very small. In almost every county the census tracts, block groups, CDPs, and CCDs that are contained in the 2000 area of the 98 TIGER/Line files are copies of the statistical areas used for the 1990 census, not the approved Census 2000 statistical areas. 2. Participants in the TAZ Program will receive 1999 TIGER/Line files in November and December 1999. These files WILL CONTAIN THE CENSUS 2000 STATISTICAL AREAS, and their 2000 TAZs. The Census Bureau is providing participants with these files to verify the capture and insertion of their TAZs. Participant can submit changes to 1) correct errors that the Census Bureau made, 2) make adjustments to TAZ boundaries that are affected by the changes to political boundaries, and 3) redefine their TAZs for purposes such as conforming to the Census 2000 statistical areas. Participants in the Census 2000 Participant Statistical Areas Program also will receive 1999 TIGER/Line files to do essentially the same verification of their statistical area boundaries. However, unlike the TAZ Verification, the Census Bureau WILL NOT accept wholesale changes of their statistical areas. We will limit particpant to making only a few changes that are not due to Census Bureau error or changes brought about by changes in polictical boundaries. Please contact me at (301) 457-1099 if you any questions or comments. On 12/2/98, phillip_a_salopek wrote: > ____________________________ Forward Header >________________________________ > Subject: 2000 CTPP TAZ-UP > Author: Don Burrell <DBURRELL(a)oki.org> at SMTP- >GATEWAY Date: 11/25/98 > 5:12 PM > > > The Journey-to-work and FHWA folks are currently >working on > a program to prepare the CTPP TAZ geography in >advance of the census, > specifically by next summer. This is to be done >using a program called > TAZ-UP, TIGER/Line 99 and ArcView GIS software. > > Today, I shipped the results of the 2000 Census >Statistical Areas Review > process for 2 of the Cincinnati area counties to >the Detroit regional > office. This work, which is underway throughout >the country, has identified > census tract and block group boundary changes to >be used for the 2000 > census. > > Having just now put 2 + 2 together, my question >is whether or not the Bureau > will have our new local recommendations for >census boundary changes in the > TIGER/Line 99 file that is to be shipped to us >for the TAZ-UP work? OKI > plans to revise many of our TAZ boundaries to >conform to the 2000 census > geography. It would be helpful to have the 2000 >census geography shown. > > Don Burrell > OH-KY-IN Regional Council of Govmts. > > _________________________________________________ >___________________________ > > Response from P. Salopek > > Don: > > I could not answer this question on my own, so I >spoke with Bob LaMacchia in > Geography Division of the Census Bureau. The >first point is that for the > TAZ-UP program, TIGER/Line 98 will be the base, >not T/L 99. T/L 98 will NOT > include the local recommendations for block >boundaries that you just > submitted. Bob L. says that the verification >phase for both programs will > occur at the same time. This means that the T/L >99 that I guess > participants in both activities will receive to >review will contain both the > new TAZ boundaries and the new block boundaries >(collection blocks, not > tabulation blocks). One point to remember is >that in defining TAZs for 2000 > you will not be constrained to build them from >blocks, since blocks won't be > defined yet. You will in fact have a wider array >of lines/features to use > as TAZ boundaries than has been available in the >past. We think this is an > improvement and should allow closer approximation >to true TAZ boundaries. > > --Phil > > > >RFC822 header >----------------------------------- > Return-Path: <owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > Received: from it-relay1.census.gov (it- >relay1.census.gov [148.129.126.70]) > by postal.geo.census.gov (8.8.8/8.8.6/2.6) >with ESMTP id SAA13862; > Wed, 2 Dec 1998 18:02:43 -0500 (EST) > Received: from info.census.gov (info.census.gov >[148.129.129.10]) > by it-relay1.census.gov (8.8.8/8.8.7/v2.5) >with ESMTP id SAA29738; > Wed, 2 Dec 1998 18:02:41 -0500 (EST) > Received: from ryoko.chrispy.net >(chrisp.pr.mcs.net [205.253.103.164]) > by info.census.gov (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP >id SAA03303; > Wed, 2 Dec 1998 18:02:28 -0500 (EST) > Received: (from daemon(a)localhost) > by ryoko.chrispy.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id >QAA16367 > for ctpp-news-list; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 16:25:57 >-0600 > Received: from info.census.gov (info.census.gov >[148.129.129.10]) > by ryoko.chrispy.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP >id QAA16364 > for <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 >16:25:52 -0600 > From: phillip_a_salopek(a)ccmail.census.gov > Received: from it-relay1.census.gov (inet- >gw.census.gov [148.129.129.8]) > by info.census.gov (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP >id RAA00920; > Wed, 2 Dec 1998 17:24:59 -0500 (EST) > Received: from smtp-gw1.census.gov (smtp- >gw1.census.gov [148.129.126.72]) > by it-relay1.census.gov (8.8.8/8.8.7/v2.5) >with SMTP id RAA27871; > Wed, 2 Dec 1998 17:24:58 -0500 (EST) > Received: from ccMail by smtp-gw1.census.gov >(ccMail Link to SMTP R8.20.00.25) > id AA912637553; Wed, 02 Dec 1998 17:25:53 - >0500 > Message-Id: <9812029126.AA912637553(a)smtp- >gw1.census.gov> > X-Mailer: ccMail Link to SMTP R8.20.00.25 > Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 17:23:58 -0500 > To: <dburrell(a)oki.org> > Cc: <berwyned(a)mcs.com>, <cpurvi(a)mtc.dst.ca.us>, ><ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>, > <elaine.murakami(a)fhwa.dot.gov>, ><jerry.everett(a)fhwa.dot.gov>, > <tom.mank(a)fhwa.dot.gov>, ><wende.oneill(a)bts.gov>, > <ernest_wilson_jr(a)ccmail.census.gov>, > <ernest_wilson_jr(a)ccmail.census.gov> > Subject: [CTPP] TAZs and BBSP (Block Boundary >Suggestion Program) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Content-Description: "cc:Mail Note Part" > Sender: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > Precedence: bulk > X-UIDL: 67fe04ab6870fff290b9497e1e47ed56 > >

26 years, 8 months

Re: [CTPP] defining TAZs

by ed c

SHS wrote: > Is every MPO supposed to receive the TAZ Update forms by now? If yes, we have not received any yet. > Memphis MPO I am cross posting this to the ctpp listserve because i think it is a broad issue. Yes, it is my understanding that the introduction letter explaining the TAZ update process and soliciting some info, like agency contact went out in the beginning of October to all the usdot divisional offices. They were instructed to pass it to their state which inturn was to pass it to the MPOs. Right now all i can say is don't worry, you are not alone, and the originators of the letter are on this list serve. I don't want to make any recommendation like call Tom Mank of FHWA since I do not (as yet) know what plan B is. I can tell you that the MPO in northeastern Illinois has not seen it yet either. I just asked around the agency today and no one has seen it. ed christopher director or information services chicago area transportation study

26 years, 8 months

[CTPP] C E N S U S 2 0 0 0 B U L L E T I N

by ed c

********** C E N S U S 2 0 0 0 B U L L E T I N ********** Vol. 2 - No. 45 Nov. 24, 1998 Citing a need to reduce the workload for "the large household followup" and expected overall coverage improvements, especially among hard-to-enumerate populations, the Census Bureau has decided to adopt a six-person questionnaire design. This will apply to both the short and long forms in the Census 2000 plan, which includes scientific sampling, and in an alternative plan, which calls for traditional census-taking methods. The Census Bureau anticipates that the change from a five-person to a six-person questionnaire for forms that are mailed out or delivered by enumerators to housing units for mailback will cut followup workload for large households in half. Planning estimates put the number of mailback households with seven or more persons at slightly more than 1 million households versus about 4 million households with six or more. The issue was revisited recently during discussions about ways that the Census Bureau might increase coverage in a census that does not include statistical sampling to supplement traditional methods. With deadlines for advertising printing specifications scheduled for October 1998, it was found to be more cost-effective to require six-person forms only, notwithstanding a final decision on sampling. The alternative would have necessitated printing two sets of questionnaires for the entire country, a prohibitive expense. Other advantages of the six-person questionnaire: --it retains the design initiatives developed in the commercially designed form to make an easy-to-complete, respondent-friendly questionnaire. --it can be introduced into the Census Bureau's basic system for data capture and mailback questionnaire processing without major disruption. --it provides for a slight positive advantage in the Integrated Coverage Measurement survey one of the components in the current sampling plan through more timely data capture of complete large households. --it reduces respondent burden by requiring six-person households to respond only once by using a mailback questionnaire designed for households with six persons, rather than one for five (which would have required additional reporting by the six-person households). Disadvantages of the six-person mailback questionnaire are few. Although followup is reduced by an estimated 50 percent, there are overall higher costs associated with the six-person mailback questionnaire due to the long form data capture method, which involves capture of each page regardless of the number of persons in the household. Also, the additional width of the short-form is another area of higher costs. Both, however, were considered to be relatively minor cost increases when balanced against data quality erosion and losses resulting from the two-stage enumeration for large households. For further information about Census 2000 Bulletins, contact J. Paul Wyatt of the Public Information Office on 301-457-3052 (fax: 301-457-3670; e-mail: pwyatt(a)census.gov).

26 years, 8 months

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

CTPP December 1998