CTPP June 2002

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

41 participants
49 discussions

[CTPP] 2000 JTW DATA for MSAs: Differences between 1990 and 2000

by Nanda Srinivasan

FROM ELAINE MURAKAMI (FHWA), and NANDA SRINIVASAN Attached is some analysis and data based on the 2000 Census data for 49 large MSAs (Population > 1 million). The national average for travel time was 25.5 minutes, up about 3 minutes from 22.4 minutes in 1990. Nationally, drove alone increased from 73.2 to 75.7. Transit declined from 5.3% to 4.7%. Carpooling declined from 13.4 (1990) to 12.2 (2000). Thank you! Nanda Srinivasan

21 years, 11 months

[CTPP] Census JTW

by Putta

Yes, carpooling went down drastically from 1980-90 and obviously not as dramatic from 1990-2000. We had over 23% JTW trips by carpool in 1980 Nationwide! 1990 it was down to just over 13% (Nationwide). I would argue that given the economic condition in 1990 (beaten down) vs. 2000 (just when the .com bubble was to burst but still upbeat) - losses in carpooling and transit are not as significant. Comparing 1995 NPTS and Census 2000 I have the following to offer: * Trip chaining (the part that goes with JTW) is up during 1990s (NPTS) * Huge buy-in in favor of 'flex schedules' during 1990s has essentially marginalized the significance of JTW (there was a drop of more than 5% from 1990 to 1995 in peak hour trip starts in our case) * Each trip taken by transit would have a front end and a back end trip - (park & ride or ride & walk) - Census asks for only one mode that covered most of the distance (is comparable to 1990) thereby undercounting all other trips; * Vehicle occupancy rate for HBW is a little bit different from what JTW indicates for the same reason as above - our HBW VOR is less than what census shows (Tulsa) Another factor - I have noticed with NPTS is - Women as a percent of peak hour commuting public is higher than for men (13.6% men vs. 19.7% women in 1995 for Tulsa). It could be because women tend to keep more regular hours than men. May be 'Rideshare' programs should focus on Women-only carpools as a potential market share. Whatever it may be, we might notice with CTPP an increase in share of women in commuting during peak hours - to somewhat contributing to the erosion in transit patronage, decline in carpooling and increase in commute times. Viplav Putta INCOG

21 years, 11 months

Re: [CTPP] Census JTW

by Tony_Van_Haagen＠dot.ca.gov

I fully agree that the largest MPOs due to their large and heterogeneous populations and the distribution of this population over a large area have often the greatest difficulties in collecting good data. The data collection process is by far the most difficult and challenging aspect of the transportation modeling process and certainly not the most attractive part to work on for modelers. Tony Van Haagen Caltrans, Los Angeles Tony Van Haagen Sam.Granato(a)dot.state.oh.us(a)chrispy.net on 06/04/2002 06:29:04 AM Sent by: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net To: Ed Herlihy <ed.herlihy(a)comcast.net> cc: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net, owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] Census JTW Mr. Herlihy, Why pick on the smaller MPOs? From what I've seen around the country, the most "invalid" models are predominantly in the largest metro areas (with the worst one - in terms of documented traffic assignment error - from the agency in YOUR metro area). Where's the proof that the extensive data collection done in the largest MPOs actually helps? 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 Ed Herlihy <ed.herlihy(a)comcast.net To: > ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Sent by: cc: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy Subject: .net Re: [CTPP] Census JTW 06/04/02 06:35 AM Folks: As a transportation modeler and one who is constantly looking for good data that will help us better calibrate and validate our forecasting procedures, the early review of the CTPP macro data and the trends are of course interesting and an exciting preview of what is about to come. What I would hope, however, is that before jumping to lots of conclusions about what has happened and what is most likely to happen in the future, we would continue to organize and plan for the release and use of the data at the TAZ level in our MSA's and provide guidance (and support) to those who maintain the models in these areas on how to use the data to re-validate (and improve) the local forecasting models, especially in smaller MSA's. I know that there are several superb analysts on this list (and the TMIP list too) and that for many of the larger MSA's, that such a detailed validation plan and process is in place and ready to go. I wonder, in some cases, for some of the smaller or new UA.s and even some of these newer UC's, that when the CTPP detailed data is finally released, whether the time and resources will be spent to look at the data at the community and also the corridor/TAZ level and then to see if the existing forecast models that are up and running need fine tuning, and whether they are demonstrating consistency (validity) in the forecast mode for the Year 2000. Also, as we all are seeing very clearly, the non-work travel purpose continues to have an increasing impact on our system needs. So, I am also curious to know if there is has been a defined process in the smaller jurisdictions to improve data collection efforts for these non work travel modes, as well. It is my hope that with the raft of local governmental fiscal constraints that such important and vital data collection efforts were not cut back too much, if at all possible. Ed Herlihy Transportation Consultant Reston VA. ----- Original Message ----- From: Alan E. Pisarski To: Putta, Viplava ; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [CTPP] Census JTW There is a chart in CIA II that shows that women lag about a 1/2 later than men nationwide on average. It will be interesting to see what has happened to that distrib since. AEP ----- Original Message ----- From: Putta, Viplava To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 4:26 PM Subject: [CTPP] Census JTW Yes, carpooling went down drastically from 1980-90 and obviously not as dramatic from 1990-2000. We had over 23% JTW trips by carpool in 1980 Nationwide! 1990 it was down to just over 13% (Nationwide). I would argue that given the economic condition in 1990 (beaten down) vs. 2000 (just when the .com bubble was to burst but still upbeat) - losses in carpooling and transit are not as significant. Comparing 1995 NPTS and Census 2000 I have the following to offer: · Trip chaining (the part that goes with JTW) is up during 1990s (NPTS) · Huge buy-in in favor of 'flex schedules' during 1990s has essentially marginalized the significance of JTW (there was a drop of more than 5% from 1990 to 1995 in peak hour trip starts in our case) · Each trip taken by transit would have a front end and a back end trip ? (park & ride or ride & walk) ? Census asks for only one mode that covered most of the distance (is comparable to 1990) thereby undercounting all other trips; · Vehicle occupancy rate for HBW is a little bit different from what JTW indicates for the same reason as above ? our HBW VOR is less than what census shows (Tulsa) Another factor ? I have noticed with NPTS is ? Women as a percent of peak hour commuting public is higher than for men (13.6% men vs. 19.7% women in 1995 for Tulsa). It could be because women tend to keep more regular hours than men. May be 'Rideshare' programs should focus on Women-only carpools as a potential market share. Whatever it may be, we might notice with CTPP an increase in share of women in commuting during peak hours ? to somewhat contributing to the erosion in transit patronage, decline in carpooling and increase in commute times. Viplav Putta INCOG

21 years, 11 months

Re: [CTPP] Census JTW

by Sam.Granato＠dot.state.oh.us

Mr. Herlihy, Why pick on the smaller MPOs? From what I've seen around the country, the most "invalid" models are predominantly in the largest metro areas (with the worst one - in terms of documented traffic assignment error - from the agency in YOUR metro area). Where's the proof that the extensive data collection done in the largest MPOs actually helps? 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 Ed Herlihy <ed.herlihy(a)comcast.net> Sent by: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net 06/04/02 06:35 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net cc: Subject: Re: [CTPP] Census JTW Folks: As a transportation modeler and one who is constantly looking for good data that will help us better calibrate and validate our forecasting procedures, the early review of the CTPP macro data and the trends are of course interesting and an exciting preview of what is about to come. What I would hope, however, is that before jumping to lots of conclusions about what has happened and what is most likely to happen in the future, we would continue to organize and plan for the release and use of the data at the TAZ level in our MSA's and provide guidance (and support) to those who maintain the models in these areas on how to use the data to re-validate (and improve) the local forecasting models, especially in smaller MSA's. I know that there are several superb analysts on this list (and the TMIP list too) and that for many of the larger MSA's, that such a detailed validation plan and process is in place and ready to go. I wonder, in some cases, for some of the smaller or new UA.s and even some of these newer UC's, that when the CTPP detailed data is finally released, whether the time and resources will be spent to look at the data at the community and also the corridor/TAZ level and then to see if the existing forecast models that are up and running need fine tuning, and whether they are demonstrating consistency (validity) in the forecast mode for the Year 2000. Also, as we all are seeing very clearly, the non-work travel purpose continues to have an increasing impact on our system needs. So, I am also curious to know if there is has been a defined process in the smaller jurisdictions to improve data collection efforts for these non work travel modes, as well. It is my hope that with the raft of local governmental fiscal constraints that such important and vital data collection efforts were not cut back too much, if at all possible. Ed Herlihy Transportation Consultant Reston VA. ----- Original Message ----- From: Alan E. Pisarski To: Putta, Viplava ; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [CTPP] Census JTW There is a chart in CIA II that shows that women lag about a 1/2 later than men nationwide on average. It will be interesting to see what has happened to that distrib since. AEP ----- Original Message ----- From: Putta, Viplava To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 4:26 PM Subject: [CTPP] Census JTW Yes, carpooling went down drastically from 1980-90 and obviously not as dramatic from 1990-2000. We had over 23% JTW trips by carpool in 1980 Nationwide! 1990 it was down to just over 13% (Nationwide). I would argue that given the economic condition in 1990 (beaten down) vs. 2000 (just when the .com bubble was to burst but still upbeat) - losses in carpooling and transit are not as significant. Comparing 1995 NPTS and Census 2000 I have the following to offer: · Trip chaining (the part that goes with JTW) is up during 1990s (NPTS) · Huge buy-in in favor of 'flex schedules' during 1990s has essentially marginalized the significance of JTW (there was a drop of more than 5% from 1990 to 1995 in peak hour trip starts in our case) · Each trip taken by transit would have a front end and a back end trip ? (park & ride or ride & walk) ? Census asks for only one mode that covered most of the distance (is comparable to 1990) thereby undercounting all other trips; · Vehicle occupancy rate for HBW is a little bit different from what JTW indicates for the same reason as above ? our HBW VOR is less than what census shows (Tulsa) Another factor ? I have noticed with NPTS is ? Women as a percent of peak hour commuting public is higher than for men (13.6% men vs. 19.7% women in 1995 for Tulsa). It could be because women tend to keep more regular hours than men. May be 'Rideshare' programs should focus on Women-only carpools as a potential market share. Whatever it may be, we might notice with CTPP an increase in share of women in commuting during peak hours ? to somewhat contributing to the erosion in transit patronage, decline in carpooling and increase in commute times. Viplav Putta INCOG

21 years, 11 months

Re: [CTPP] Census JTW

by Murakami

One item that we can't see right now from the Census profiles is differences by gender in the JTW. Historically women have had shorter distance and time commutes than men. Women were more likely to take jobs closer to home and took care of children and other household responsiblities. I am wondering if some of the increase in overall travel times might be an indication that women are making employment location choices more similarly to men. We'll have to wait for CTPP to do this analysis!

21 years, 11 months

Re: [CTPP] Michigan #1 in Drive Alone Share

by phillip.a.salopek＠census.gov

I'm surprised at you Alan. I'd certainly never bet against Michigan. --Phil "Alan E. Pisarski" To: "Chuck Purvis" <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov>, <PISARSKI(a)ix.netc <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> om.com> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: [CTPP] Michigan #1 in Drive Alone owner-ctpp-news(a)c Share hrispy.net 06/03/2002 02:22 PM THE SMART MONIES ON WYOMING. AEP ----- Original Message ----- From: Chuck Purvis <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov> To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 1:06 PM Subject: [CTPP] Michigan #1 in Drive Alone Share > TO: CTPP-News > > It looks like Michigan is still the number one state in the union in terms of share of commuters driving alone to work. Data released this morning (6/3/02) shows that the Michigan drive alone share is 83.2 percent (compares to 81.5 percent in 1990.) Today's data release also shows Ohio with a very high drive alone share, at 82.8 percent (comparing to 80.3 percent in 1990). I don't think any states have drive alone shares higher than Michigan or Ohio, but we're still missing data for five states (Arkansas, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming). That data will be out about 1:00 PM Eastern time on Tuesday, along with US totals. > > Very good article on increasing commute times in this past Friday's Christian Science Monitor: > > http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0531/p01s01-ussc.html > > Alan Pisarski, Tim Lomax and the usual suspects are interviewed. Interesting to note that the Monitor didn't fall into the trap of reporting on anecdotal commutes. I'll be interested in how the Wall Street Journal and the Monitor and other national papers handle this information once the balance of data is released Tuesday.... > > Alan: what's this about a 12 percent drop in Virginia carpooling? > > Re-cap of other relevant Census sites: > > Press release site for demographic profiles: > http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/demoprofiles.html > > Best gateway to acquire demographic profiles in PDF format: > http://censtats.census.gov/pub/Profiles.shtml > > FTP site for the Demographic Profile datasets: > http://www2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/100_and_sample_profile/ > > (I'll be looking at the "All States" sub-directory to have all national, state, metro area and place-level data perhaps by Tuesday?) > > Metropolitan Data Shack (site with selected 1990 Census data for all 284 metro areas and 50 states) > http://home.earthlink.net/~clpurvis/metrodat/ > > Chuck Purvis, MTC > 27-28. >

21 years, 11 months

[CTPP] Christian Science Monitor article

by Rob CASE

The Christian Science Monitor article (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0531/p01s01-ussc.html) included: "The change [increase in commute time], while it may stem in part from new data-gathering methods, is significant." Is the change in the range for long commutes the only change that was made in "data-gathering methods"? (What was the change in the range for long commutes (someone said the 1990 high-end range was 99+ minutes)? Since the 1990 long form simply asked how long, in minutes, is the commute (ie no ranges were included on the form), why didn't the Bureau just add up the total travel time and divide by the number of respondents?) Considering the fact that the total population of North Dakota did not change in the 1990's, I doubt that the actual rise in average commuting time was any where near the reported 22%. 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

21 years, 11 months

[CTPP] 1990-2000 MSA comparisons for several areas

by Elaine Murakami

MSA data: 1990-2000 comparison : Geographic differences in MSA definition. Elaine Murakami, FHWA and Nandu Srinivasan, CSI June 3, 2002 MSAs and PMSAs and CMSAs are defined by the Census Bureau for statistical reporting purposes. For information on definitions, please see http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metroarea.html MSAs used in this analysis use June 1999 definition. All the Census 2000 data will use this geographic definition. For a comparison between the 1990 and 2000 definition, please see the attached excel file (geography_comparison.xls). These changes in definitions are why some of the numbers for 1990 differ from those published in the "Journey to Work Trends" report published by FHWA in 1993. Average Travel Time to Work Historically, the New York City metropolitan area has had the longest average travel time to work. This remains true, with the average travel time of 34.0 minutes. In 1990, the MSAs with the longest travel times were: New York City (30.0 minutes); Washington, DC (28.2 minutes), and Chicago (27.9 minutes). In 2000, the MSAs with the longest travel time after NYC are: Washington, DC (31.7 minutes); Atlanta (31.2 minutes), and Chicago (31.0 minutes). Workers in Atlanta reported the largest increases since 1990, with an increase of 5.2 minutes. Means of Transportation to Work In most of these MSAs, there was a small increase in the proportion of workers driving alone, and a corresponding decrease in carpooling. Transit shares, in general, showed slight declines. The largest increase in the proportion of workers using transit for their journey-to-work was in the Las Vegas, NV MSA, where the transit share increased from 2.0 percent to 4.1 percent. Considering the very large increase in total population, the number of workers using transit in the Las Vegas MSA increased from 8,150 to 28,526. The number of workers using transit in MSAs with increases in the share using transit include: Boston, MA (from 237,463 to 261,862 workers); Portland, OR (from 41,023 to 63,126 workers); and Seattle, WA (from 91,391 to 119,919 workers). Vehicle Availability In general, the proportion of households without any vehicles in declining, and the proportion of households with 2 vehicles is increasing. However, in the Los Angeles MSA and the Las Vegas MSA, the proportion of households without vehicles has increased since 1990. States not included: The following States are not included in this analysis, even though the states had MSAs with population greater than one million: Arkansas Colorado Minnesotta Michigan Ohio Utah We will re-do the spreadsheet as the data for the remaining states are released. Enjoy!

21 years, 11 months

[CTPP] Michigan #1 in Drive Alone Share

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP-News It looks like Michigan is still the number one state in the union in terms of share of commuters driving alone to work. Data released this morning (6/3/02) shows that the Michigan drive alone share is 83.2 percent (compares to 81.5 percent in 1990.) Today's data release also shows Ohio with a very high drive alone share, at 82.8 percent (comparing to 80.3 percent in 1990). I don't think any states have drive alone shares higher than Michigan or Ohio, but we're still missing data for five states (Arkansas, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming). That data will be out about 1:00 PM Eastern time on Tuesday, along with US totals. Very good article on increasing commute times in this past Friday's Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0531/p01s01-ussc.html Alan Pisarski, Tim Lomax and the usual suspects are interviewed. Interesting to note that the Monitor didn't fall into the trap of reporting on anecdotal commutes. I'll be interested in how the Wall Street Journal and the Monitor and other national papers handle this information once the balance of data is released Tuesday.... Alan: what's this about a 12 percent drop in Virginia carpooling? Re-cap of other relevant Census sites: Press release site for demographic profiles: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/demoprofiles.html Best gateway to acquire demographic profiles in PDF format: http://censtats.census.gov/pub/Profiles.shtml FTP site for the Demographic Profile datasets: http://www2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/100_and_sample_profile/ (I'll be looking at the "All States" sub-directory to have all national, state, metro area and place-level data perhaps by Tuesday?) Metropolitan Data Shack (site with selected 1990 Census data for all 284 metro areas and 50 states) http://home.earthlink.net/~clpurvis/metrodat/ Chuck Purvis, MTC 27-28.

21 years, 11 months

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 June 2002