CTPP July 2002

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

28 participants
36 discussions

RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters...Impact of Rail Lines etc

by Gardner

Peter Foote's responses are excellent. Although I suspect the smaller metros have had such an increase in choice riders, because the congestion and parking cost incentives are not as strong. Very good point about the impact of prepaid fare media -- day passes, monthly passes, etc. -- boosting off-peak ridership. Prepaid fares help level the playing field between cars and transit. Drivers behave as if the marginal cost of an additonal trip or mile is zero; unlimited-ride passes induce the same behavior in transit users. -----Original Message----- From: Peter J. Foote [mailto:pfoote(a)transitchicago.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:34 PM To: Mark Schlappi; 'Chuck Purvis'; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Cc: dstuart(a)transitchicago.com; mpatzloff(a)transitchicago.com Subject: Re: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters...Impact of Rail Lines etc The impact of a new rail line, branch or extension on a system's unlinked trip count depends upon many factors. In general terms, the implementation of rail systems should generate new unlinked trips because they tend by nature to draw new customers, including suburban men, out of their cars. This is especially true when parking fees in the CBD are high. Links can be lost however, when rail route design allows former bus riders to save one or more transfers previously made on their commute. CTA's Orange line (running diagonally across the grid SW from the Chicago's Loop) which opened 10/31/93, was a bonanza for Pace suburban bus ridership for routes connecting to CTA at Midway airport. The line exceeded CTA ridership expectations in part due to high suburban ridership, but also resulted in some lost linked trips (not individuals) between bus routes - and of course a substantial shift from bus to rail. Limited stop express services can add individuals overall but eliminate the need for some transfers when they cross over route ends. The X49 for example, eliminated some transfers (unlinked trips) between routes 49A and 49, however ridership increases and customer satisfaction rose far more than trips lost. In Chicago, it is more likely that increases in off-peak discretionary riding by electronic pass users (30 and 7 day rolling pass markets have grown substantially since the were re-introduced in the Winter of 1998) are responsible for a portion of this shift. New York of course had tremendous ridership growth when the eliminated the 2nd fare required to move from bus to rail when their Metro Card was used. Check with them, but my guess would be that they have also had big boosts in off-peak riding, etc stimulated by having pre-paid media available. DC's Smart Card probably generates many new rides as well. Could the impact of just these 3 systems be enough to cause an increase in trips with no new net gain in riders? Once you have a farecard, even a money card rather than a pass, you are much more inclined to hop on a bus or train to take a trip. Discounting and the impact of lowered average fares on ridership through the use of these fare instruments may also be a factor. The issue of whether census data questions are complete enough to extract true mode splits (raised in another thread) is a valid one, especially when respondents are asked about an entire previous week is a valid one. BUT, I also think that it is unrealistic to expect more from the Census that can reasonably be expected. Reconfiguration of a rail line can cause losses. When the Dan Ryan/Lake and Howard/Englewood/Jackson Park were realigned 2/1993 to connect the busy South and North branches in the Red Line and less busy South and West branches as the Green Line many transfers which had been recorded as unlinked trips were eliminated with no real reduction in persons (average trip lengths expanded). Reconstruction of a rail line can also cause losses. The decision to close the Green line for reconstruction rather than single track in 1/1994 resulted in bus and offset gains made by the new Orange Line rail. The impacts of service changes are often complex. It likely that changes in auto ownership and transit riding frequency among fairly frequent customers over the decade are also an important of the story. It is also very difficult to make assessments of persons using a system from unlinked trip counts. This is part of why NTD average trip length calculations and passenger miles estimations are important. Peter J. Foote PFoote(a)TransitChicago.com Market Research/Resource Planning Planning Division Chicago Transit Authority 120 N. Racine Avenue Chicago, IL 60607 (312) 733-7000 x 6840 (Voice) (312) 432 - 7108 (Fax) **************************************************************************** **************************************************************************** ******************************************* Unless otherwise stated, the views expressed are those of the author and not those of the Chicago Transit Authority. **************************************************************************** **************************************************************************** ******************************************* http://www.TransitChicago.com CTA CUSTOMER SERVICE HOTLINE 1-888-YOUR-CTA RTA Travel Information 836-7000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Schlappi" <Schlappi(a)mag.maricopa.gov> To: "'Chuck Purvis'" <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov>; <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 6:01 PM Subject: RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership Statistics > Is there a possibility that changing route structures, with more rail, have > caused more unlinked trips? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chuck Purvis [mailto:CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov] > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 3:36 PM > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > Subject: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership > Statistics > > > To: CTPP-News > > One of the interesting journey-to-work results is the lack of change, at the > NATIONAL level, in the total number of transit commuters. The US had > 6,069,589 transit commuters according to the 1990 Census, and 6,067,703 > transit commuters according to the 2000 Census, a 0.03 percent decrease. (On > the other hand, the US transit commute SHARE declined from 5.3 percent in > 1990 to 4.7 percent in 2000.) > > This compares to national transit ridership statistics which show a 6.4 > percent increase in annual unlinked passenger trips comparing 1990 to 2000. > (Source is APTA's 2002 Public Transportation Fact Book, Table 26.) The APTA > book (I would assume based on FTA-collected ridership statistics) shows > annual unlinked public transit trips increasing from 8,799 million trips in > 1990 to 9,363 million trips in 2000 (the 2000 numbers are preliminary, > according to the 2002 APTA Fact Book). > > So, an issue is how to reconcile a 0.0 percent change in national transit > commuters with a 6.4 percent increase in national transit ridership. > > A plausible explanation is that the work trip share of public transportation > trips has declined since 1990. According to the 1990 NPTS, 42.6 percent of > public transportation person trips are for the purpose of "earning a living" > (NPTS Databook, Vol. 1, Table 4.40). > > So, I can calculate that about 3,748 million unlinked transit boardings (in > 1990) are "work trips" and that this might decline to about 3,747 million > unlinked transit boarding "work trips", in 2000. This means that perhaps 40 > percent of year 2000 transit boardings are work trips (3,747 / 9,363), which > is quite plausible at the national level. > > The story might be that the national number of transit work trips, 1990 to > 2000, has remained fairly stable, and that, at least at the national level, > the growth in transit is attributable to non-work travel. > > The data question is: is information available from either the 1995 NPTS or > the 2001 NHTS that can corroborate this possible trend - - a decline in the > work purpose share for public transportation trips? > > Also, who has attempted to reconcile their change in regional transit > commuters with their own transit ridership statistics? What would be most > helpful is any comparisons of on-board surveys or household travel surveys > that show any changes in the trip purpose mix for transit trips. > > (Other larger issues still loom in terms of the plausibility/fixability of > the Census data. We are very concerned about the overall LOW numbers of > TOTAL commuters and employed residents we're seeing in the 2000 Census in > our region....) > > Wishing a Safe & Sane Happy Fourth of July to All! > > Chuck Purvis > > > *********************************************** > 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

Re: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters...Impact of Rail Lines etc

by Peter J. Foote

The impact of a new rail line, branch or extension on a system's unlinked trip count depends upon many factors. In general terms, the implementation of rail systems should generate new unlinked trips because they tend by nature to draw new customers, including suburban men, out of their cars. This is especially true when parking fees in the CBD are high. Links can be lost however, when rail route design allows former bus riders to save one or more transfers previously made on their commute. CTA's Orange line (running diagonally across the grid SW from the Chicago's Loop) which opened 10/31/93, was a bonanza for Pace suburban bus ridership for routes connecting to CTA at Midway airport. The line exceeded CTA ridership expectations in part due to high suburban ridership, but also resulted in some lost linked trips (not individuals) between bus routes - and of course a substantial shift from bus to rail. Limited stop express services can add individuals overall but eliminate the need for some transfers when they cross over route ends. The X49 for example, eliminated some transfers (unlinked trips) between routes 49A and 49, however ridership increases and customer satisfaction rose far more than trips lost. In Chicago, it is more likely that increases in off-peak discretionary riding by electronic pass users (30 and 7 day rolling pass markets have grown substantially since the were re-introduced in the Winter of 1998) are responsible for a portion of this shift. New York of course had tremendous ridership growth when the eliminated the 2nd fare required to move from bus to rail when their Metro Card was used. Check with them, but my guess would be that they have also had big boosts in off-peak riding, etc stimulated by having pre-paid media available. DC's Smart Card probably generates many new rides as well. Could the impact of just these 3 systems be enough to cause an increase in trips with no new net gain in riders? Once you have a farecard, even a money card rather than a pass, you are much more inclined to hop on a bus or train to take a trip. Discounting and the impact of lowered average fares on ridership through the use of these fare instruments may also be a factor. The issue of whether census data questions are complete enough to extract true mode splits (raised in another thread) is a valid one, especially when respondents are asked about an entire previous week is a valid one. BUT, I also think that it is unrealistic to expect more from the Census that can reasonably be expected. Reconfiguration of a rail line can cause losses. When the Dan Ryan/Lake and Howard/Englewood/Jackson Park were realigned 2/1993 to connect the busy South and North branches in the Red Line and less busy South and West branches as the Green Line many transfers which had been recorded as unlinked trips were eliminated with no real reduction in persons (average trip lengths expanded). Reconstruction of a rail line can also cause losses. The decision to close the Green line for reconstruction rather than single track in 1/1994 resulted in bus and offset gains made by the new Orange Line rail. The impacts of service changes are often complex. It likely that changes in auto ownership and transit riding frequency among fairly frequent customers over the decade are also an important of the story. It is also very difficult to make assessments of persons using a system from unlinked trip counts. This is part of why NTD average trip length calculations and passenger miles estimations are important. Peter J. Foote PFoote(a)TransitChicago.com Market Research/Resource Planning Planning Division Chicago Transit Authority 120 N. Racine Avenue Chicago, IL 60607 (312) 733-7000 x 6840 (Voice) (312) 432 - 7108 (Fax) **************************************************************************** **************************************************************************** ******************************************* Unless otherwise stated, the views expressed are those of the author and not those of the Chicago Transit Authority. **************************************************************************** **************************************************************************** ******************************************* http://www.TransitChicago.com CTA CUSTOMER SERVICE HOTLINE 1-888-YOUR-CTA RTA Travel Information 836-7000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Schlappi" <Schlappi(a)mag.maricopa.gov> To: "'Chuck Purvis'" <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov>; <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 6:01 PM Subject: RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership Statistics > Is there a possibility that changing route structures, with more rail, have > caused more unlinked trips? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chuck Purvis [mailto:CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov] > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 3:36 PM > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > Subject: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership > Statistics > > > To: CTPP-News > > One of the interesting journey-to-work results is the lack of change, at the > NATIONAL level, in the total number of transit commuters. The US had > 6,069,589 transit commuters according to the 1990 Census, and 6,067,703 > transit commuters according to the 2000 Census, a 0.03 percent decrease. (On > the other hand, the US transit commute SHARE declined from 5.3 percent in > 1990 to 4.7 percent in 2000.) > > This compares to national transit ridership statistics which show a 6.4 > percent increase in annual unlinked passenger trips comparing 1990 to 2000. > (Source is APTA's 2002 Public Transportation Fact Book, Table 26.) The APTA > book (I would assume based on FTA-collected ridership statistics) shows > annual unlinked public transit trips increasing from 8,799 million trips in > 1990 to 9,363 million trips in 2000 (the 2000 numbers are preliminary, > according to the 2002 APTA Fact Book). > > So, an issue is how to reconcile a 0.0 percent change in national transit > commuters with a 6.4 percent increase in national transit ridership. > > A plausible explanation is that the work trip share of public transportation > trips has declined since 1990. According to the 1990 NPTS, 42.6 percent of > public transportation person trips are for the purpose of "earning a living" > (NPTS Databook, Vol. 1, Table 4.40). > > So, I can calculate that about 3,748 million unlinked transit boardings (in > 1990) are "work trips" and that this might decline to about 3,747 million > unlinked transit boarding "work trips", in 2000. This means that perhaps 40 > percent of year 2000 transit boardings are work trips (3,747 / 9,363), which > is quite plausible at the national level. > > The story might be that the national number of transit work trips, 1990 to > 2000, has remained fairly stable, and that, at least at the national level, > the growth in transit is attributable to non-work travel. > > The data question is: is information available from either the 1995 NPTS or > the 2001 NHTS that can corroborate this possible trend - - a decline in the > work purpose share for public transportation trips? > > Also, who has attempted to reconcile their change in regional transit > commuters with their own transit ridership statistics? What would be most > helpful is any comparisons of on-board surveys or household travel surveys > that show any changes in the trip purpose mix for transit trips. > > (Other larger issues still loom in terms of the plausibility/fixability of > the Census data. We are very concerned about the overall LOW numbers of > TOTAL commuters and employed residents we're seeing in the 2000 Census in > our region....) > > Wishing a Safe & Sane Happy Fourth of July to All! > > Chuck Purvis > > > *********************************************** > 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

RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership S tatistics

by Gardner

Additional possible reasons for the APTA/FTA reported growth in total ridership vs. unchanged census count of transit commuters: 1) Because transit is losing mode share, one assumes the remaining users are more transit dependent than in 1990 and therefore more likely to use transit for ALL trips, not just work trips. 2) Aging of the population results in long-term riders continuing to ride, but no longer making work trips (retired). 3) ADA accessibility requirements have made transit more accessible to disabled persons, whose riding pattern may include a smaller than average proportion of work trips. 4) Most transit systems now use electronic fareboxes that improve passenger count reliability; fewer systems had these in 1990. Some undercounting of passengers may have occurred previously -- drivers had to punch mechanical counters, or even less reliable methods were used. Some of the reported growth in total ridership may result from more accurate passenger counts. -----Original Message----- From: ed christopher [mailto:edc(a)berwyned.com] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 1:33 PM Cc: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership Statistics As for Chucks comments I believe that he was actually searching to gain a better understanding into the trip purpose side of mode split issue. Is the the work trip declining in its mode share? The answer of course in not in any census data.

23 years

RE: [CTPP] Changes in Workers per HH and Vehicles per HH (long post)

by Chuck Purvis

David raises good points about moonlighting and average HH size.... 1. "Moonlighting" data is collected for the Bureau of Labor Statistics as part of the Current Population Survey. I recall an article in the BLS journal "Monthly Labor Review" from several years ago, and it is available online at: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1997/03/art1abs.htm Also, some interesting time use articles in the current edition of the Monthly Labor Review, at: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/mlrhome.htm In a nutshell, moonlighting rates (multiple job holding rates) have fluctuated both upwards and downwards since they began collecting the data in 1970. It looks like they're fairly stable in the early 1990s, at about 6.2 to 6.4 percent of employed persons with more than one job. I still think it's very plausible that this moonlighting rate increased between 1996-2000 in response to our economic boom and a slow growth in our labor force. And I would definitely agree that understanding the multiple job holding is important in reconciling job growth with labor force growth. By the way, the census journey-to-work is basically about the principal or main (or is it "usual") job reported by the census respondent, not all jobs that a respondent may have. So, workers at place of work ARE NOT an estimate of total employment, but are LOWER than "true" total employment because of a) weekly absenteeism; and b) moonlighting jobs held by 6.0 percent or so of workers. Moonlighting data can also be extracted from HH travel surveys by examining the extent of multiple locations for work activities, if not by collecting data such as a simple tally of the number of paid jobs held by each person in the household. 2. Yes, average household size in the US declined from 2.63 p/hh in 1990 to 2.59 p/hh in 2000. What I'm suspecting, looking at population age 16+, age 16-64, and age 65+, and civilian employed by sex, is that the MALE labor force participation rates ARE LEVELLING OFF, if NOT LOWER, for selected age cohorts. This is a guess based on the growth in female civilian employed (14.4%) which is faster than the growth in male civilian employed (10.2%). Chuck >>> David Abrams <dabrams(a)mrgcog.org> 07/08/02 03:27PM >>> >>We are thinking that there may be a major increase in persons working two jobs. If this is more widespread than Albuquerque it could have considerable consequences. To my knowledge there is not data collected on workers working multiple wage jobs. >>A question for Chuck Purvis: Did you control for the change in household size when you compared the workers to households ratios for 1990 and 2000.

23 years

RE: [CTPP] Changes in Workers per HH and Vehicles per HH (longpos t)

by David Abrams

Sorry, I messed up the transmission of my comment a few minutes ago. Let me send it again. It would appear that the aging of the population and also the labor force is an issue. If the number of households without workers due to retirement increases, the average of workers per households is likely to be affected. Dave

23 years

RE: [CTPP] Changes in Workers per HH and Vehicles per HH (longpos t)

by David Abrams

-----Original Message----- From: Alan E. Pisarski [mailto:PISARSKI(a)ix.netcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 11:24 AM To: Chuck Purvis; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] Changes in Workers per HH and Vehicles per HH (longpost) Chuck: A lot of good points. The main one is that census counts workers not jobs. I receive bulletins re multi job holding from BLS on an occasional basis. Yes, men's lf partic has been declining. The lf rate is rising per person is still rising I think, but because of the declining size of hh's the number per hh has stayed about the same. Vehicles per worker has been growing as well. Alan It would appear that the aging of the population and also the labor force is an issue. If the number of households without workers due to retirement increases, the average of workers per households is likely to be affected. Dave

23 years

Re: [CTPP] Changes in Workers per HH and Vehicles per HH (long post)

by Rob CASE

Workers/Households appears to be a very static statistic! According to "Journey-to-Work Trends in the United States and its Major Metropolitan Areas, 1960-1990" (FHWA, Nov. 1993, p. 2-2), the figure changed little over three decades 1960-1990: 1960: 1.22; 1970: 1.21; 1980: 1.20; 1990: 1.25. Given the large changes in household structure during this period (large increases in divorce, women in workforce), this consistency is very remarkable. I interpret the flat trend as a sign of a fundamental requirement for the support of a household. The figure Chuck reported for 2000 (1.24) continues the trend and is therefore not surprising to me. Therefore, I expect the statistic to stay in the 1.20 to 1.25 range for the foreseeable future. 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

RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership Statistics

by Elaine Murakami

Chris-- No survey is perfect but I wouldn't call the Census numbers "flawed." I believe that what you are saying is that unlinked transit trips are a different measure than worker flows from the Census questionnaire. In areas with wide transit choices such as the Washington, DC region, it is important for other data to be combined with Census data to check and verify results. For example, regional household travel surveys, on-board transit surveys, and park-and-ride surveys, are necessary to provide complete information about daily travel behavior. Because the Census Long Form goes to 1 in 8 addresses (on average in urban areas), the high sampling rate and high response rates result in data that is considered very high quality. While the Census questionnaire limits people to choose only one mode to work, and asks for "usual mode last week," the mode differences occur in both directions. People who usually drive alone may take the bus occasionally, but also people who usually take transit to work may drive alone or carpool to work. The 1995 NPTS data show that over 20 percent of workers who say they "usually" use transit either drove alone or carpooled on an assigned travel diary day. For workers who say they usually use a private vehicle to work, 0.3 percent say they used transit on an assigned travel diary day. (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/trvpatns.pdf, page 79 (p. 101 of the Acrobat pdf file) One story from the field collection of the 1995 NPTS was a woman who called because she was very upset that on her assigned travel day she had driven to school and then drove to the airport to pick up a friend. Her usual mode to school was by bicycle. She gave the telephone interviewer what her actual behavior had been, although she could have told us her "usual" commute and we would not have been the wiser. Some of us count ourselves "lucky" that the Journey to Work Questions were retained in the Census 2000, and are in the process of justifying the inclusion of these questions in the American Community Survey. The Census Bureau is recommending that the American Community Survey replace the Census Long Form, so the Census 2000 Long Form is considered the "last one." There have been suggestions to change the question on the Census surveys (decennial long form and the ACS) to allow for multiple modes, and to allow for different modes on different days, however, the chances of getting more "real estate" on the questionnaire are "slim to none." For capturing variability in daily travel behavior, I have been advocating multi-day diaries, but adding response burden to surveys that already have a low response rate is a difficult problem. Elaine Murakami Federal Highway Administration >>> Forinash.Christopher(a)epamail.epa.gov 07/08/02 09:30AM >>> ....So aren't the Census numbers ALWAYS going to be biased toward the "dominant" mode (unless everyone does the same thing every single day)? As others have posted, there are other reasons for disagreement between Census travel trends and all other sources, but this is clearly one. .... Using these flawed Census numbers to argue for further depriving people of transportation choices is completely outdated thinking. Chris. ------------------------------------ Christopher V. Forinash U.S. EPA: Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW (MC 1808), Washington DC 20460 (Delivery: 401 M St. SW, #WT-1013D) 202-260-5044 vox 0174 fax; forinash.christopher(a)epa.gov ------------------------------------ Development, Community & Environment Division: http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth A partner in the Smart Growth Network: http://www.smartgrowth.org

23 years

RE: [CTPP] Changes in Workers per HH and Vehicles per HH (long po st)

by David Abrams

Albuquerque (not one of your 36 largest MSAs) also had a decline in workers per household from 1.235 to 1.188. We looked at the employment number compared to the employment data coming from the Department of Labor. We found that the number of workers (326,775) was somewhat less than the NMDOL estimate of Nonagricultural Employment (354,883). The NonAg number does not count agricultural or self-employment both of which are included in the number of workers (employed residents). In 1990, the number of workers reported by the Census exceeded the estimate of NonAg employment. We are thinking that there may be a major increase in persons working two jobs. If this is more widespread than Albuquerque it could have considerable consequences. To my knowledge there is not data collected on workers working multiple wage jobs. A question for Chuck Purvis: Did you control for the change in household size when you compared the workers to households ratios for 1990 and 2000. Dave Abrams Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments

23 years

[CTPP] Changes in Workers per HH and Vehicles per HH (long post)

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP-News Okay, I'm starting a new thread on a new topic. This is related to the national and metropolitan area changes in employed residents per household, and vehicles per household. IF AND WHEN responding to my message, please "snip out" my very long message. What caught us by surprise in our region was a DECLINING number of workers per household, 1990 to 2000. (We were predicting that employed residents per household would increase from 1.40 in 1990 to 1.45 in 2000, instead, the Census 2000 shows us at 1.37 workers per household! This trend in workers/HH also explains to a certain extent our under-prediction of zero-vehicle households: we expected our zero-vehicle HH share to decrease from 10.3 to 9.3 percent; instead, it decreased only from 10.3% in 1990 to 10.0% in 2000.) NATIONALLY, the number of employed residents / household declined from 1.28 in 1990 to 1.24 in 2000. (Note: employed residents also includes workers residing in group quarters / military barracks, so it's not exactly workers in households, it's workers divided by households. Employed residents is defined as the civilian employed plus armed forces.) National Data: Year Households Employed Residents EMPRES/HH 1990 91,947,410 117,390,130 1.277 2000 105,480,101 130,873,649 1.241 Of the 36 largest metropolitan planning organizations in the US (population > 1 million), 30 show DECREASING workers/household, 1990-2000, and only 6 show INCREASING workers/household. Those with an increase: Salt Lake City (1.40 to 1.51), Denver (1.33 to 1.36), Portland (1.29 to 1.31), Phoenix (1.26 to 1.27), Pittsburgh (1.10 to 1.11), and Tampa-St. Pete (1.07 to 1.08). Washington, DC (1.533 to 1.400) and Miami (1.31 to 1.19) show the LARGEST DECREASE in workers per household. Why? I don't know. (I wish I knew what was going on. Eventually, with the SF3 and PUMS datasets we will be able to understand which, if any, age-sex cohorts are showing increasing or decreasing labor force participation rates....) Question: are there any other databases (CPS, AHS, ACS, etc.) that can be used to corroborate this trend in decreasing workers per household? ************************************************ In terms of vehicles per household, and vehicles in household, the national census-based statistics are: Year Households Households-in-Vehicles Vehicles/Household 1990 91,947,410 153,701,085 1.67 2000 105,480,101 177,459,681 1.68 (I assumed 3.35 vehicles per 3+ vehicle household, based on 1990 Census data on vehicles/3+ vehicle household. The 177.5 million household vehicles is probably accurate, plus-or-minus 1.0 million. The 1990 HH vehicles is from the CTPP/SE.) Census data shows a 15.5 percent increase in household vehicles, 1990 to 2000. THIS COMPARES TO NATIONAL VEHICLE REGISTRATION DATA available on FHWA's Office of Highway Information Management web site: Private AND Commercial Vehicle Registrations (excluded Publicly-owned vehicles) Year Autos Trucks Auto+Truck 1990 132,164,330 53,101,089 185,265,419 2000 132,247,286 85,004,999 217,252,285 % Change 0.01% +60.1% +17.3% So, the 15.5 percent increase in household vehicles, US, is somewhat consistent with a 17.3 percent increase in private-plus-commercial vehicle registrations. And as should be expected the Census-based HH vehicles is between the total auto registrations, and total auto+truck registrations. (Unfortunately, the Census data at our regional level don't reconcile with our California DMV registration trends. The Census suggests a 8.5 percent increase in household vehicles in the SF Bay Area, compared to a 12 to 14 percent increase in auto+truck registrations. "County Registrations Are Problematic"....) Census Trends in V/HH and share of HH with zero-vehicles: 17 of the 36 largest MPOs in the US show declining vehicles per household between 1990 and 2000. Vehicles per household range from a low in the New York region (NYMTC, 1.01 to 0.98 vehicle/HH) to a high in Salt Lake City (WFRC, 1.91 increasing to 1.95). 8 of the 36 largest MPOs show INCREASES in the share of households with zero vehicles. NYMTC (New York) leads the way with 40.6% (1990) to 41.0% (2000) zero-vehicle HH share. Other MPOs showing increases in the share of zero-vehicle households: Newark (13.2 to 13.5%), Los Angeles (8.7 to 10.1%), Las Vegas (8.0 to 9.5%), San Diego (7.7 to 8.0%), Seattle (7.6 to 7.9%), Sacramento (7.4 to 7.8%), and Phoenix (6.9 to 7.0%). It's fascinating looking at these WEST COAST metropolitan areas that show INCREASING SHARE OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH ZERO VEHICLES....Who are these households, and what's their story? (Stay tuned, we need the PUMS to dig down to see what's up!) (In terms of this MPO database I'm working on, I'm re-organizing it and will post it on our FTP in the next few days. Given the issues with changing county composition of MSAs and CMSAs, I've gone back to the original county-level CTPP/SE data from the 1990 Census, and the county-level data file from the Census 2000 DP234, to re-construct MPO-compatible tables. I am doing this a) because I can and who's going to stop me?; b) it's helpful to AMPO; and c) I'm interested if data is just screwy for my region, or screwy on a nationwide basis or for other MPOs.) That's about all I have for now. Cheers, Chuck Purvis *********************************************** 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

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 July 2002