CTPP May 2002

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

57 participants
76 discussions

RE: [CTPP] USA Today article on drive alone commute (long post)

by Mike Willett

The article does not mention two things that may be reasons for declining car-pooling and transit shares. One is personal security and the other is ability of people to work at home by computer which did not exist in 1990 to the extent is does today. The overwhelming reason however has to be convenience and private space. I don't have a baseball team. Mike Willett, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer Yavapai County, Arizona -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Purvis [mailto:CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 4:21 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] USA Today article on drive alone commute (long post) TO: CTPP-News Here's the link to today's USA Today article on driving alone in America. Of course, the Census Bureau hasn't yet released data for nine states and Puerto Rico (which are due out next week.) My bet is that Michigan (data not yet released) is still the #1 state in terms of drive alone share of total commute! http://www.usatoday.com/money/covers/2002-05-30-driving-alone.htm By the way, my old web site has 1990 data on state-level commute-to-work shares, at: http://home.earthlink.net/~clpurvis/metrodat/ and, more specifically: http://home.earthlink.net/~clpurvis/metrodat/statec5.htm Reading this USA Today article reminds me of a book that I just read - - "Damn Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians and Activists" by Joel Best, UC Press, 2001. Recommended reading. Excellent for critical thinking about the statistics that media and others use. Which brings me to my point about lies and statistics in the USA Today article. I'll try to be brief. 1. USA Today states that the drive alone commute share in the San Francisco metro area declined from 73 percent in 1990 to 68 percent in 2000. The 2000 figure is accurate at 68.0 percent. On the other hand, our 1990 drive alone commute share was 68.2 percent. So, our overall drive alone commute share declined from 68.2 percent to 68.0 percent. (This is nice, but not "wow"!) 2. USA Today claims that "Many transportation officials, planners and environmentalists have concluded that carpooling lanes don't help reduce traffic." Well, this is pretty shaky journalism. Like, who or what's the source of this information? Alan, is this from you? You're cited in the next paragraph! I will agree that the USA Today article is entertaining, though the blending of factual information with anecdotal commutes is getting to be tiring. Some more quips and quotes from the USA Today article: 1. "Forty minutes in the car may be the equivalent of the bubble bath" 2. "There is more to life than quality time in your car, no matter how great your sound system is" 3. "The car is often the last refuge of smokers....California law prohibits all smoking in workplaces, including offices, stores and restaurants." (Note that California prohibits smoking in bars, as well. However, we do allow you to smoke inside your own home, even in your own bubble bath!) 4. "Consumers of audio books listen to them on average 4.4 hours a week in their cars, compared with 1.1 hours on mass transit, according to the Audio Publishers Association." (Gotta wonder who's answering these surveys!) On the plus side, the USA Today's graphics are pretty darned good. Chuck Purvis Cranky Because My Baseball Team is 24-27. *********************************************** Charles L. Purvis, AICP Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst Metropolitan Transportation Commission 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607-4700 (510) 464-7731 (office) (510) 464-7848 (fax) www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/ Census WWW: http://census.mtc.ca.gov/ ***********************************************

23 years, 2 months

RE: [CTPP] USA Today article on drive alone commute (long post)

by Don R. Vest

I personally thought the USA Today article was informative, if not unbiased. As a journalistic end, I believe objective reporting is an elusive, if not unattainable goal. About all that can be expected is that information will be presented that documents a significant event or social trend. In this sense, the USA Today article, like many of those that appear in mass-market 'news'-oriented magazines was interesting. As one who does not drive, or car-pool, it was useful in presenting information about the lifestyle of what appears to be a significant segment of the population. In that sense it broadened my mental horizons. Now to my point about mass-transit. Barring a radical change in technology, I don't think that it will ever be a palatable alternative for most people. I live in a small metropolitan area where bus service is the only available mass-transportation. To cite an example from several months ago, I had to take most of a day in order to take care of four relatively routine errands, which required that I use the community's bus system. Even with good connections, it required six hours, of which probably two were devoted to the actual errands. Which brings me to my second point (not road-rage but pedestrian-rage). I don't know if it's typical of other communities, but the behavior of motorists towards pedestrians is rude in the extreme--from parking in bus stops to practically running you over when crossing a street. The precedent can be found in the Middle Ages, when knights were the only people with horses, and the peasantry was forced to walk. The horse gave the 5 percent of the population who had one the freedom to splash mud on whoever they chose. The only difference now is that 95 percent of the population with vehicles has the luxury to be rude, and the other five percent who don't have to put up with it. So to my final point, to all of you knights (and ladies) of the road, enjoy your commute to work, and please show some consideration to those who don't drive and have either to walk or depend on public transportation. Be grateful to the freedom that the automobile has given you, and be considerate enough to use it responsibly. There--I got it off my chest--I feel better. Don Vest City of Pueblo CO Dept. of Planning & Development -----Original Message----- From: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net [mailto:owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net]On Behalf Of Tom Reinauer Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 7:06 AM To: Chuck Purvis; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] USA Today article on drive alone commute (long post) The mistake on the 1990 figure for the San Fran metro area I consider a minor problem compared to one-sided stories (depending on the intent of a particular article) or the misinterpretation and/or misunderstanding of the data. Wait until local and national newspapers start delving into more detailed statistics. I suspect that even with careful explanation from planners, it will often be twisted and hardly helpful. Content because my baseball team is 35-15. Tom Reinauer, Transportation Director Southern Maine RPC 21 Bradeen St. Suite 304 Springvale, ME 04083 (207)324-2952 FAX -2958 treinauer(a)server.eddmaine.org www.smrpc.maine.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Purvis" <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov> To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 7:21 PM Subject: [CTPP] USA Today article on drive alone commute (long post) > TO: CTPP-News > > Here's the link to today's USA Today article on driving alone in America. Of course, the Census Bureau hasn't yet released data for nine states and Puerto Rico (which are due out next week.) My bet is that Michigan (data not yet released) is still the #1 state in terms of drive alone share of total commute! > > http://www.usatoday.com/money/covers/2002-05-30-driving-alone.htm > > By the way, my old web site has 1990 data on state-level commute-to-work shares, at: > > http://home.earthlink.net/~clpurvis/metrodat/ > > and, more specifically: > > http://home.earthlink.net/~clpurvis/metrodat/statec5.htm > > Reading this USA Today article reminds me of a book that I just read - - "Damn Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians and Activists" by Joel Best, UC Press, 2001. Recommended reading. Excellent for critical thinking about the statistics that media and others use. > > Which brings me to my point about lies and statistics in the USA Today article. I'll try to be brief. > > 1. USA Today states that the drive alone commute share in the San Francisco metro area declined from 73 percent in 1990 to 68 percent in 2000. The 2000 figure is accurate at 68.0 percent. On the other hand, our 1990 drive alone commute share was 68.2 percent. So, our overall drive alone commute share declined from 68.2 percent to 68.0 percent. (This is nice, but not "wow"!) > > 2. USA Today claims that "Many transportation officials, planners and environmentalists have concluded that carpooling lanes don't help reduce traffic." Well, this is pretty shaky journalism. Like, who or what's the source of this information? Alan, is this from you? You're cited in the next paragraph! > > I will agree that the USA Today article is entertaining, though the blending of factual information with anecdotal commutes is getting to be tiring. > > Some more quips and quotes from the USA Today article: > > 1. "Forty minutes in the car may be the equivalent of the bubble bath" > 2. "There is more to life than quality time in your car, no matter how great your sound system is" > 3. "The car is often the last refuge of smokers....California law prohibits all smoking in workplaces, including offices, stores and restaurants." (Note that California prohibits smoking in bars, as well. However, we do allow you to smoke inside your own home, even in your own bubble bath!) > 4. "Consumers of audio books listen to them on average 4.4 hours a week in their cars, compared with 1.1 hours on mass transit, according to the Audio Publishers Association." (Gotta wonder who's answering these surveys!) > > On the plus side, the USA Today's graphics are pretty darned good. > > Chuck Purvis > Cranky Because My Baseball Team is 24-27. > > *********************************************** > Charles L. Purvis, AICP > Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst > Metropolitan Transportation Commission > 101 Eighth Street > Oakland, CA 94607-4700 > (510) 464-7731 (office) > (510) 464-7848 (fax) > www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/ > Census WWW: http://census.mtc.ca.gov/ > ***********************************************

23 years, 2 months

Re: [CTPP] USA Today article on drive alone commute

by Rob CASE

It appears to me that Dougherty (below) was stating that the farther out one moves from the urban core, the less likely it is that vehicles are heading downtown (even on roadways heading downtown). (The multitude of destinations makes carpooling difficult.) This has nothing to do with the total density of vehicles on the roadways in question; it simply has to do with where they are headed. "As development spreads out across the region, the density of travel along a particular route downtown decreases and the opportunities for ride-sharing go down," said Dougherty, who works on transportation issues in the Philadelphia region. "That's another problem of suburban sprawl." Have a good weekend. Rob Robert B. Case, PE, PTOE Principal Transportation Engineer Hampton Roads Planning District Commission 723 Woodlake Dr., Chesapeake, Va. 23320 voice:757-420-8300; fax:757-523-4881 rcase(a)hrpdc.org

23 years, 2 months

Re: [CTPP] USA Today article on drive alone commute (long post)

by Sam.Granato＠dot.state.oh.us

Don't any of you guys know about the specialized voice recognition software that the media uses? Say you give a 10-word answer to a reporter's question. The program than generates all 10-factorial word combinations and runs them through what cynics might call the Sensationalism Index. More seriously, don't waste time worrying about "careful explanations" to reporters (unless it's going out live). Like you, reporters have a chain of command to answer to. Refer them to whichever Census field office you never deal with and enjoy your "day off" from the media's glare. Sam Granato Ohio DOT, Office of Technical Services 1980 W. Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43223 Phone: 614-644-6796, Fax: 614-752-8646 "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." Anais Nin "Alan E. Pisarski" <PISARSKI(a)ix.netcom.com> Sent by: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net 05/31/02 11:48 AM To: "Tom Reinauer" <treinauer(a)edd.uct.usm.maine.edu>, "Chuck Purvis" <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov>, <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> cc: Subject: Re: [CTPP] USA Today article on drive alone commute (long post) Chuck: re your questions: I noticed the 90 boo boo (I AM ASTONISHED AT THE FACT THAT LA AND SF ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL TO 90 IN MODE SHARE - LIKE SOMEONE MADE IT UP) When I cited these data to Larry Dahms - he considered it a moral victory if 2000 shares stayed at 90 levels. No I wasn't the source re the carpooling citation. Yes I'll bet that Michigan especially Detroit will "win" the SOV sweepstakes again. I always ask reporters where they get these anecdotal commuters from. There must be a secret file somewhere of the longest commuters, etc. It all comes from reporting 101 where they tell them to make it a human interest story. In the case of Haya El Nasser, who is a very competent analyst, she was led to this story instead of the standard national trends story by the many anecdotal responses she got describing the positives of commuting solo. I get it also from people on talk shows - but what a sample is people who call in to talk shows, or listen to them - or talk on them - like me. A lot of it these days is NPR talk shows. AEP ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Reinauer <treinauer(a)edd.uct.usm.maine.edu> To: Chuck Purvis <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov>; <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 9:05 AM Subject: Re: [CTPP] USA Today article on drive alone commute (long post) > The mistake on the 1990 figure for the San Fran metro area I consider a > minor problem compared to one-sided stories (depending on the intent of a > particular article) or the misinterpretation and/or misunderstanding of the > data. > Wait until local and national newspapers start delving into more detailed > statistics. I suspect that even with careful explanation from planners, it > will often be twisted and hardly helpful. > Content because my baseball team is 35-15. > > Tom Reinauer, Transportation Director > Southern Maine RPC > 21 Bradeen St. Suite 304 > Springvale, ME 04083 > (207)324-2952 > FAX -2958 > treinauer(a)server.eddmaine.org > www.smrpc.maine.org > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chuck Purvis" <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov> > To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 7:21 PM > Subject: [CTPP] USA Today article on drive alone commute (long post) > > > > TO: CTPP-News > > > > Here's the link to today's USA Today article on driving alone in America. > Of course, the Census Bureau hasn't yet released data for nine states and > Puerto Rico (which are due out next week.) My bet is that Michigan (data not > yet released) is still the #1 state in terms of drive alone share of total > commute! > > > > http://www.usatoday.com/money/covers/2002-05-30-driving-alone.htm > > > > By the way, my old web site has 1990 data on state-level commute-to-work > shares, at: > > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~clpurvis/metrodat/ > > > > and, more specifically: > > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~clpurvis/metrodat/statec5.htm > > > > Reading this USA Today article reminds me of a book that I just read - - > "Damn Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians > and Activists" by Joel Best, UC Press, 2001. Recommended reading. Excellent > for critical thinking about the statistics that media and others use. > > > > Which brings me to my point about lies and statistics in the USA Today > article. I'll try to be brief. > > > > 1. USA Today states that the drive alone commute share in the San > Francisco metro area declined from 73 percent in 1990 to 68 percent in 2000. > The 2000 figure is accurate at 68.0 percent. On the other hand, our 1990 > drive alone commute share was 68.2 percent. So, our overall drive alone > commute share declined from 68.2 percent to 68.0 percent. (This is nice, but > not "wow"!) > > > > 2. USA Today claims that "Many transportation officials, planners and > environmentalists have concluded that carpooling lanes don't help reduce > traffic." Well, this is pretty shaky journalism. Like, who or what's the > source of this information? Alan, is this from you? You're cited in the next > paragraph! > > > > I will agree that the USA Today article is entertaining, though the > blending of factual information with anecdotal commutes is getting to be > tiring. > > > > Some more quips and quotes from the USA Today article: > > > > 1. "Forty minutes in the car may be the equivalent of the bubble bath" > > 2. "There is more to life than quality time in your car, no matter how > great your sound system is" > > 3. "The car is often the last refuge of smokers....California law > prohibits all smoking in workplaces, including offices, stores and > restaurants." (Note that California prohibits smoking in bars, as well. > However, we do allow you to smoke inside your own home, even in your own > bubble bath!) > > 4. "Consumers of audio books listen to them on average 4.4 hours a week in > their cars, compared with 1.1 hours on mass transit, according to the Audio > Publishers Association." (Gotta wonder who's answering these surveys!) > > > > On the plus side, the USA Today's graphics are pretty darned good. > > > > Chuck Purvis > > Cranky Because My Baseball Team is 24-27. > > > > *********************************************** > > Charles L. Purvis, AICP > > Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst > > Metropolitan Transportation Commission > > 101 Eighth Street > > Oakland, CA 94607-4700 > > (510) 464-7731 (office) > > (510) 464-7848 (fax) > > www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/ > > Census WWW: http://census.mtc.ca.gov/ > > *********************************************** >

23 years, 2 months

[CTPP] USA Today article on drive alone commute (long post)

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP-News Here's the link to today's USA Today article on driving alone in America. Of course, the Census Bureau hasn't yet released data for nine states and Puerto Rico (which are due out next week.) My bet is that Michigan (data not yet released) is still the #1 state in terms of drive alone share of total commute! http://www.usatoday.com/money/covers/2002-05-30-driving-alone.htm By the way, my old web site has 1990 data on state-level commute-to-work shares, at: http://home.earthlink.net/~clpurvis/metrodat/ and, more specifically: http://home.earthlink.net/~clpurvis/metrodat/statec5.htm Reading this USA Today article reminds me of a book that I just read - - "Damn Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians and Activists" by Joel Best, UC Press, 2001. Recommended reading. Excellent for critical thinking about the statistics that media and others use. Which brings me to my point about lies and statistics in the USA Today article. I'll try to be brief. 1. USA Today states that the drive alone commute share in the San Francisco metro area declined from 73 percent in 1990 to 68 percent in 2000. The 2000 figure is accurate at 68.0 percent. On the other hand, our 1990 drive alone commute share was 68.2 percent. So, our overall drive alone commute share declined from 68.2 percent to 68.0 percent. (This is nice, but not "wow"!) 2. USA Today claims that "Many transportation officials, planners and environmentalists have concluded that carpooling lanes don't help reduce traffic." Well, this is pretty shaky journalism. Like, who or what's the source of this information? Alan, is this from you? You're cited in the next paragraph! I will agree that the USA Today article is entertaining, though the blending of factual information with anecdotal commutes is getting to be tiring. Some more quips and quotes from the USA Today article: 1. "Forty minutes in the car may be the equivalent of the bubble bath" 2. "There is more to life than quality time in your car, no matter how great your sound system is" 3. "The car is often the last refuge of smokers....California law prohibits all smoking in workplaces, including offices, stores and restaurants." (Note that California prohibits smoking in bars, as well. However, we do allow you to smoke inside your own home, even in your own bubble bath!) 4. "Consumers of audio books listen to them on average 4.4 hours a week in their cars, compared with 1.1 hours on mass transit, according to the Audio Publishers Association." (Gotta wonder who's answering these surveys!) On the plus side, the USA Today's graphics are pretty darned good. Chuck Purvis Cranky Because My Baseball Team is 24-27. *********************************************** Charles L. Purvis, AICP Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst Metropolitan Transportation Commission 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607-4700 (510) 464-7731 (office) (510) 464-7848 (fax) www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/ Census WWW: http://census.mtc.ca.gov/ ***********************************************

23 years, 2 months

Re: [CTPP] Urban/Rural criteria

by david.r.aultman＠census.gov

John I am happy to answer your questions regarding the criteria as applied to the Greenville area, but I will leave to the transportation community the answers/responses to your questions concerning Rock Hill area. In addition, if anyone has specific questions concerning the delineation of their urbanized area, please send those questions direcly to us at : ua(a)geo.census.gov You are correct in that we created two separate UAs (Greenville and Mauldin-Simpsonville) because the criteria specify that they be separated if their point of contiguity is no greater than a point-to-point connection or if a hop or jump is needed to connect the areas. These criteria only are applied where the two areas have an initial core population of 50,000 or greater, therefore, it is not applied between UA-UC or UC-UC. With regards to the separation of the Greenville UA and the Clemson UC, the two areas were not linked because both areas had jumped along the same road connection between the two areas, and the distance along the remaining road connection that separates the areas was more than 0.5 miles (more than a permitted hop connection), requiring an addtional jump connection, which the criteria do not permit. Again, please let me recommend, that if you have specific questions regarding the delineation of UAs or UCs in your area, such as the above questions regarding Greenville/Clemson, please send them directly to us at: ua(a)geo.census.gov. Dave Aultman Geography Division U.S. Census Bureau (301) 457-1099 "Gardner, John F" <GardnerJF(a)dot.st To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net ate.sc.us> cc: Sent by: Subject: [CTPP] Urban/Rural criteria owner-ctpp-news(a)c hrispy.net 05/31/2002 09:28 AM Perhaps someone with Census can answer these two questions. The new urban/rural classification method had some interesting results in South Carolina. One of our UAs (Greenville) was split into two UAs, with a very narrow band of "rural" area (along the I-85 corridor, where there's little or no population in the blocks adjacent to the freeway) dividing the new Mauldin-Simpsonville UA from the Greenville UA, which it was part of in 1990. I assume that the two UAs were not combined because contiguity could only have been achieved with a "hop" connection, and the urban/rural classification rule specifies that otherwise separate UAs won't be combined using a "hop". 1) Is that correct? And, 2) does the "no hop" rule apply for UA-UC combinations and UC-UC combinations? We have what appears to be a single block discontiguity between the Greenville UA and Clemson UC, also. Now, a general question for the list: The Rock Hill, SC UA lost a significant part of its 1990 urban area to Charlotte, NC. Transportation planning for the portion of the Rock Hill UA that was "lost" to Charlotte is currently handled by the Rock Hill MPO. This creates some interesting and potentially troublesome planning and political issues. Has anyone else had a similar experience, where part of a small UA was "absorbed" by an adjacent larger one? John Gardner, AICP SCDOT Office of Planning PO Box 191 Columbia, SC 29202-0191 (803) 737 - 1444 gardnerjf(a)dot.state.sc.us -----Original Message----- From: Jim Bash [mailto:jbash(a)uic.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 5:31 PM To: Patty Becker Cc: Andrew PICKARD; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] 2000 demo. profiles: 100% data CMSA/MSA/PMSA are in the text file. I'm 99% sure that the Chicago PMSA was also a PDF profile but I don't want to dig into the 91meg zipped profiles for Illinois right now to find out:-) Of course only the portion of MSA/CMSA within a state is reported. There is supposed to be a national file out eventually with the full CMSAs. jim b On Wed, 29 May 2002, Patty Becker wrote: > I don't think we're going to get tables for CMSA/MSA/PMSAs. Nothing on an > MA basis has been released to date, as far as I know. All states should > have the data for cities (places) and counties, but they have been coming > out on a flow basis and they may be getting states up before they get the > substate areas. > > The last sets of the data, including Michigan and Ohio, are to be released > on June 4,and I hope all the tables are up on the web site by the end of > next week. > > Patty Becker > > > At 03:39 PM 05/29/2002 -0400, you wrote: > >Why is it that some of the 2000 Demographic Profile summaries currently > >being released include summaries for metro areas in addition to statewide > >summaries? As an example, Illinois includes summaries for the state, Cook > >County, and Chicago City. Yet Georgia only includes a state report (you > >might expect Atlanta to have a summary). I am specifically interested in > >metro areas of Virginia. The web page I am referring to is > >http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/demoprofiles.html > >Thanks for the help. > > > >Andrew Pickard > >Senior Transportation Engineer > >Hampton Roads Planning District Commission > >723 Woodlake Drive > >Chesapeake, VA 23320 > >Phone: (757) 420-8300 Fax: (757) 523-4881 > >E-mail: apickard(a)hrpdc.org > >Web: www.hrpdc.org > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- > Patricia C. (Patty) Becker 248/354-6520 > APB Associates/SEMCC FAX 248/354-6645 > 28300 Franklin Road Home 248/355-2428 > Southfield, MI 48034 pbecker(a)umich.edu >

23 years, 2 months

[CTPP] Tulare County contact

by Ted Smalley

Please change the contact from tsmalley(a)co.tulare.ca.us to Pford(a)co.tulare.ca.us Thank you for your assistance. Ted

23 years, 2 months

RE: [CTPP] USA Today article on drive alone commute

by Gardner

A strange response, unless you believe oil dependence, autombile emissions, excess land consumption, farmland loss, and habitat fragmentation are not important issues. If human convenience is more important than those issues (or if I'm just imagining that those are sprawl-related issues), then sprawl is a good thing. -----Original Message----- From: Putta, Viplava [mailto:vputta(a)incog.org] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 9:15 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] USA Today article on drive alone commute Sometimes what we intend to say looks way different in print (from the same USA Today article). But it brings a paradox to the front about sprawl: "As development spreads out across the region, the density of travel along a particular route downtown decreases and the opportunities for ride-sharing go down," said Dougherty, who works on transportation issues in the Philadelphia region. "That's another problem of suburban sprawl." ------------------ Since when carpooling became a solution for sprawl? If congestion (density of travel) went down, is that a problem? And if sprawl is responsible for alleviating that problem then that must be a good thing!! My 2 cents. Viplav Putta INCOG

23 years, 2 months

[CTPP] Urban/Rural criteria

by Gardner

Perhaps someone with Census can answer these two questions. The new urban/rural classification method had some interesting results in South Carolina. One of our UAs (Greenville) was split into two UAs, with a very narrow band of "rural" area (along the I-85 corridor, where there's little or no population in the blocks adjacent to the freeway) dividing the new Mauldin-Simpsonville UA from the Greenville UA, which it was part of in 1990. I assume that the two UAs were not combined because contiguity could only have been achieved with a "hop" connection, and the urban/rural classification rule specifies that otherwise separate UAs won't be combined using a "hop". 1) Is that correct? And, 2) does the "no hop" rule apply for UA-UC combinations and UC-UC combinations? We have what appears to be a single block discontiguity between the Greenville UA and Clemson UC, also. Now, a general question for the list: The Rock Hill, SC UA lost a significant part of its 1990 urban area to Charlotte, NC. Transportation planning for the portion of the Rock Hill UA that was "lost" to Charlotte is currently handled by the Rock Hill MPO. This creates some interesting and potentially troublesome planning and political issues. Has anyone else had a similar experience, where part of a small UA was "absorbed" by an adjacent larger one? John Gardner, AICP SCDOT Office of Planning PO Box 191 Columbia, SC 29202-0191 (803) 737 - 1444 gardnerjf(a)dot.state.sc.us -----Original Message----- From: Jim Bash [mailto:jbash(a)uic.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 5:31 PM To: Patty Becker Cc: Andrew PICKARD; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] 2000 demo. profiles: 100% data CMSA/MSA/PMSA are in the text file. I'm 99% sure that the Chicago PMSA was also a PDF profile but I don't want to dig into the 91meg zipped profiles for Illinois right now to find out:-) Of course only the portion of MSA/CMSA within a state is reported. There is supposed to be a national file out eventually with the full CMSAs. jim b On Wed, 29 May 2002, Patty Becker wrote: > I don't think we're going to get tables for CMSA/MSA/PMSAs. Nothing on an > MA basis has been released to date, as far as I know. All states should > have the data for cities (places) and counties, but they have been coming > out on a flow basis and they may be getting states up before they get the > substate areas. > > The last sets of the data, including Michigan and Ohio, are to be released > on June 4,and I hope all the tables are up on the web site by the end of > next week. > > Patty Becker > > > At 03:39 PM 05/29/2002 -0400, you wrote: > >Why is it that some of the 2000 Demographic Profile summaries currently > >being released include summaries for metro areas in addition to statewide > >summaries? As an example, Illinois includes summaries for the state, Cook > >County, and Chicago City. Yet Georgia only includes a state report (you > >might expect Atlanta to have a summary). I am specifically interested in > >metro areas of Virginia. The web page I am referring to is > >http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/demoprofiles.html > >Thanks for the help. > > > >Andrew Pickard > >Senior Transportation Engineer > >Hampton Roads Planning District Commission > >723 Woodlake Drive > >Chesapeake, VA 23320 > >Phone: (757) 420-8300 Fax: (757) 523-4881 > >E-mail: apickard(a)hrpdc.org > >Web: www.hrpdc.org > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- > Patricia C. (Patty) Becker 248/354-6520 > APB Associates/SEMCC FAX 248/354-6645 > 28300 Franklin Road Home 248/355-2428 > Southfield, MI 48034 pbecker(a)umich.edu >

23 years, 2 months

RE: [CTPP] USA Today article on drive alone commute

by Putta

Sometimes what we intend to say looks way different in print (from the same USA Today article). But it brings a paradox to the front about sprawl: "As development spreads out across the region, the density of travel along a particular route downtown decreases and the opportunities for ride-sharing go down," said Dougherty, who works on transportation issues in the Philadelphia region. "That's another problem of suburban sprawl." ------------------ Since when carpooling became a solution for sprawl? If congestion (density of travel) went down, is that a problem? And if sprawl is responsible for alleviating that problem then that must be a good thing!! My 2 cents. Viplav Putta INCOG

23 years, 2 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 May 2002