Sorry, I was not clear with regard to the losses in transit share - I
only implied that transit was not able to capture its share of overall
growth in person trips in several metropolitan areas. Was that a
surprise for planners?
On another note, commute time would have been even higher if it were not
for the declining transit share as a percentage. And auto-ownership may
have peaked too - as the increases are not as apparent as from
1980-1990.
Here is the data I was looking at for both carpool & transit.
Thanks.
Viplav Putta
INCOG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
City
Carpool Percent
Transit Percent
Year 2000
Year 1990
Change
Year 2000
year 1990
Change
1
Tulsa
13.10
11.41
1.69
1.20
1.59
-0.39
2
Oklahoma City
13.10
12.80
0.30
1.00
1.07
-0.07
3
Austin
13.90
13.33
0.57
4.50
5.08
-0.58
4
Wichita
10.20
10.57
-0.37
0.80
1.24
-0.44
5
Tucson
15.70
14.83
0.87
3.50
4.19
-0.69
6
Omaha
11.10
12.22
-1.12
1.90
3.23
-1.33
7
Albuqureque
12.50
12.14
0.36
1.70
1.97
-0.27
8
Syracuse
13.70
13.68
0.02
7.00
10.84
-3.84
1
Kansas City
16.80
16.36
0.44
1.50
2.60
-1.10
2
Houston
15.90
15.50
0.40
5.90
6.52
-0.62
3
Dallas
17.80
15.16
2.64
5.50
6.66
-1.16
4
San Antonio
15.20
15.46
-0.26
3.80
4.92
-1.12
5
Phoenix
17.40
15.13
2.27
3.30
3.30
0.00
6
Atlanta
12.40
11.60
0.80
15.00
19.96
-4.96
7
Chicago
14.50
14.81
-0.31
26.10
29.71
-3.61
8
Portland
11.90
12.88
-0.98
12.30
11.05
1.25
9
Los Angeles
14.70
15.37
-0.67
10.20
10.54
-0.34
10
San Francisco
10.80
11.49
-0.69
31.10
33.52
-2.42
CMSA
1
Tulsa
12.60
12.54
0.06
0.70
0.92
-0.22
2
Oklahoma City
12.00
13.30
-1.30
0.60
0.68
-0.08
3
Austin
13.70
13.91
-0.21
2.60
3.07
-0.47
4
Wichita
9.70
10.89
-1.19
0.60
0.87
-0.27
5
Tucson
14.70
15.03
-0.33
2.50
3.15
-0.65
6
Omaha
10.20
11.76
-1.56
1.20
2.05
-0.85
7
Albuqureque
13.30
12.77
0.53
1.30
1.74
-0.44
8
Syracuse
10.20
12.45
-2.25
2.00
3.54
-1.54
1
Kansas City (KS Part)
9.30
12.52
-3.22
0.60
2.14
-1.54
2
Houston
14.20
14.57
-0.37
3.30
3.78
-0.48
3
Dallas
14.00
13.81
0.19
1.80
2.35
-0.55
4
San Antonio
14.70
14.76
-0.06
2.90
3.67
-0.77
5
Phoenix
15.30
14.37
0.93
2.00
2.13
-0.13
6
Atlanta
13.60
12.74
0.86
3.70
4.71
-1.01
7
Chicago (IL Part)
11.00
11.96
-0.96
12.30
13.66
-1.36
8
Portland (OR part)
12.20
12.28
-0.08
6.20
5.42
0.78
9
Los Angeles
15.20
15.45
-0.25
4.70
4.56
0.14
10
San Francisco
12.90
13.01
-0.11
9.50
9.29
0.21
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
To obtain profile data from the CB website, you have two options
1. You can download all of the data for VA from the FTP site at:
http://www2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/100_and_sample_profile/Virginia/
You will have to add headers to the csv files.
2. Search for the Demographic profile (pdf format) from
http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/pct/pctProfile.pl
I found all the MSA data for VA through the search option.
Thanks
Nanda Srinivasan
>>> APICKARD(a)hrpdc.org 05/29/02 03:38PM >>>
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
I would guess that you are not seeing a switch from transit to carpool --
but rather the effect of new growth in the suburbs, poor transit and more
carpooling, while the transit served areas may not have declined in
percentage use, but are a smaller part of your region.
The change on travel time is unusually large compared with previous 10-yr
periods (in most cities) - suggests a methodological problem, or change.
The larger increase in VMT is normal -- suburban growth - faster travel
means more distance (VMT) possible in the same time.
Keith Lawton
At 02:20 PM 5/28/02 -0500, Putta, Viplava wrote:
>In looking at the journey to work data at all three levels (place,
>county and MSA level) for the Tulsa MSA, in short we observed the
>following -
>
>1.
>A slight increase in commute time - between 7% & 8% from 1990 (as
>opposed to 16-20% increase in VMT over the same period).
>
>2.
>With regard to the mode of transportation - Carpool showed an increase
>over '90 levels (1.4%) and transit commute trips declined. Several
>cities we looked at for comparison purposes showed similar trend.
>
>3.
>Almost no increase in car ownership is also observed (percent households
>with 0, 1 and 2 plus cars remained same from 1990 to 2000).
>
>Possibly all of these are somewhat related - has anyone come up with
>this prediction with regard to an increase in carpooling over the past
>decade (any papers published or presented)? Is this a confirmed
>reversal in trend from 70s to 80s and 90s?
>
>I guess part of my question is to do with if transit's loss is carpools'
>gain?
>
>Viplav Putta
>Transportation Planning Division
>INCOG
We observed that it's important to recognize that the percentages do not
represent numbers of rides, i.e. even though transit commute trips may have
declined, the NUMBER of trips may actually have increased. Our transit
commute mode percentage increased from 1.00 to 2.5 percent, while the
NUMBERS of rides between 1990 and 2000 increased from 341,598 to 499,417--a
46.2% increase.
-----Original Message-----
From: Putta, Viplava [mailto:vputta(a)incog.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 12:20 PM
To: ctpp-news maillist
Subject: [CTPP] Journey to Work data
In looking at the journey to work data at all three levels (place,
county and MSA level) for the Tulsa MSA, in short we observed the
following -
1.
A slight increase in commute time - between 7% & 8% from 1990 (as
opposed to 16-20% increase in VMT over the same period).
2.
With regard to the mode of transportation - Carpool showed an increase
over '90 levels (1.4%) and transit commute trips declined. Several
cities we looked at for comparison purposes showed similar trend.
3.
Almost no increase in car ownership is also observed (percent households
with 0, 1 and 2 plus cars remained same from 1990 to 2000).
Possibly all of these are somewhat related - has anyone come up with
this prediction with regard to an increase in carpooling over the past
decade (any papers published or presented)? Is this a confirmed
reversal in trend from 70s to 80s and 90s?
I guess part of my question is to do with if transit's loss is carpools'
gain?
Viplav Putta
Transportation Planning Division
INCOG
We have started looking at several large cities and fast growing cities for which the Profiles have been released. We are seeing slight declines (%) in carpooling, and slight increases in driving alone (%) . Transit shares seem to be about the same.
The most important difference from 1990 to 2000 that we have noticed is the large increase in travel time. We are seeing 4 minutes increases in average travel time across the board for both the large cities and the fast growing cities. About ½ minute of this increase may be attributable to the difference in "top coding" travel time, from 99 minutes in 1990 to 200 minutes in 2000.
As data for additional States are released, we will compile our results and post to the listserv. We are planning to add Metro Area analysis in addition to examining cities.
Elaine Murakami, FHWA
In looking at the journey to work data at all three levels (place,
county and MSA level) for the Tulsa MSA, in short we observed the
following -
1.
A slight increase in commute time - between 7% & 8% from 1990 (as
opposed to 16-20% increase in VMT over the same period).
2.
With regard to the mode of transportation - Carpool showed an increase
over '90 levels (1.4%) and transit commute trips declined. Several
cities we looked at for comparison purposes showed similar trend.
3.
Almost no increase in car ownership is also observed (percent households
with 0, 1 and 2 plus cars remained same from 1990 to 2000).
Possibly all of these are somewhat related - has anyone come up with
this prediction with regard to an increase in carpooling over the past
decade (any papers published or presented)? Is this a confirmed
reversal in trend from 70s to 80s and 90s?
I guess part of my question is to do with if transit's loss is carpools'
gain?
Viplav Putta
Transportation Planning Division
INCOG
Bob,
Last week , the 2000 boundary files part of the web site posted a file
ua99_d00. It appears to be a generalized version of the urban areas. Was
this a previous version or does this represent the official 2000 Census
urban areas? It is a different file name than in your email.
Ben Williams, P.E.
Metropolitan Planning Specialist
Federal Highway Administration
Southern Resource Center
V (404) 562-3671
F (404) 562-3700
ben.williams(a)fhwa.dot.gov
Web Site
www.fhwa.dot.gov/resourcecenters/southern
>>> rlamacchia(a)geo.census.gov 05/24/02 03:43PM >>>
As many of you know, there was an error in the 1990 Urban/Rural
indicator in
the UA Census 2000 TIGER/Line files. We have recreated the files to
correct
for this error that affected 1094 counties. We will be uploading the
corrected files to our Internet site by the end of May (by the end of
next
week). Check the page at:
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tigerua/ua_tgr2k.html
==============================================================
We recently uploaded the generalized boundary files for UAs and UCs.
They
can be obtained from the following page:
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/ua2000.html
These files are generalized an not suitable for the determination of the
exact boundaries of the UAs and UCs.
==============================================================
We also will be making available from our web site a NATIONWIDE detailed
UA/UC boundary file in ArcView Shapefile (.shp) format to facilitate the
determination of Urbanized Area (UA) and Urban Cluster (UC) boundaries.
We
are aware of some users having difficulties finding up-to-date
conversion
applications to develop their own UA/UC boundaries from the UA Census
2000
TIGER/Line* files. The boundaries in these files are an exact match of
the
boundary details found in the UA Census 2000 TIGER/Line files. The
boundary
files were extracted from the Census Bureau's TIGER geographic database
for
use various internal Census Bureau projects and have been made available
here on an "as is" basis. Please note that this will be a very large
file
(over 31MB) and is nationwide in coverage. We do not have this file
available at any other geographic level. This file will be available by
the
end of next week from the following page:
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua_2k.html
Bob LaMacchia
Geography Division
U. S. Census Bureau
As many of you know, there was an error in the 1990 Urban/Rural indicator in
the UA Census 2000 TIGER/Line files. We have recreated the files to correct
for this error that affected 1094 counties. We will be uploading the
corrected files to our Internet site by the end of May (by the end of next
week). Check the page at:
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tigerua/ua_tgr2k.html
==============================================================
We recently uploaded the generalized boundary files for UAs and UCs. They
can be obtained from the following page:
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/ua2000.html
These files are generalized an not suitable for the determination of the
exact boundaries of the UAs and UCs.
==============================================================
We also will be making available from our web site a NATIONWIDE detailed
UA/UC boundary file in ArcView Shapefile (.shp) format to facilitate the
determination of Urbanized Area (UA) and Urban Cluster (UC) boundaries. We
are aware of some users having difficulties finding up-to-date conversion
applications to develop their own UA/UC boundaries from the UA Census 2000
TIGER/Line® files. The boundaries in these files are an exact match of the
boundary details found in the UA Census 2000 TIGER/Line files. The boundary
files were extracted from the Census Bureau's TIGER geographic database for
use various internal Census Bureau projects and have been made available
here on an "as is" basis. Please note that this will be a very large file
(over 31MB) and is nationwide in coverage. We do not have this file
available at any other geographic level. This file will be available by the
end of next week from the following page:
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua_2k.html
Bob LaMacchia
Geography Division
U. S. Census Bureau
Does anyone know if the census will continue to release files, including
the CTPP, in the SRC Allocate product format? We purchased the extended
product which allows the user to integrate census files with geography
in Arcview or MapInfo. A shape file can also be brought into Allocate
and used as custom geography; you can choose to create reports on the
shape file's polygons just as you could choose to select information
based on a census tract or place. The product makes producing a
standard or custom report easy and quick-literally in seconds. When we
used the product that came with the SF1 disk, we called SRC and found
the extended product was very cheap. I have not found a quicker or
easier method of retrieving census data, the GIS connection is a nice
bonus.
The company's websites:
http://www.freedemographics.comhttp://www.extendthereach.com
If anyone needs additional information, please call.
Kevin Ghirardi, MPO Administrator
Houma-Thibodaux Metropolitan Planning Organization
Post Office Box 1870
Gray, Louisiana 70359
ghirardi(a)scpdc.org
985-851-2900
985-851-4472 fax
