Another reason North Carolina's case may have been strong was because of
the large number of military personnel assigned to N.C. bases, maintaining a
residences there, and yet stationed out of the country, were not counted in
the census and should have been. Being from N.C. and having lived in Utah
for 10 years, I was supportive of North Carolina's case.
Mike Willett
Transportation Planning
Yavapai County, Arizona
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Dienstfrey [mailto:S.DIENSTFREY(a)srbi.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 11:12 AM
To: APDUMEM(a)apdu.org; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net;
diane.paoni(a)dot.state.wi.us; Elaine.Murakami(a)fhwa.dot.gov;
pbecker(a)umich.edu
Subject: Re: [APDU] RE: [CTPP] Immigrants and redistricting
The Utah case raises another matter. I suspect that had Utah taken the
resources they devoted to their legal case and put them into the LUCA
program they would have found enough additional address to get the 435th
seat.
Stephen Dienstfrey
Schulman, Ronca, & Bucuvalas, Inc
(301) 608-3883
>>> Patty Becker <pbecker(a)umich.edu> 10/30/03 12:59PM >>>
At 10:01 AM 10/30/2003 -0600, Paoni, Diane wrote:
Although I find the issue of the impact of including the population of
immigrants whose status does not allow them to vote into the reapportionment
process intriguing, some details in the article didn't seem right so I
looked at the report online (http://www.cis.org/circle.html). Take a look
at this quote from the report regarding the study's methodology: "To measure
the political effect of immigration, we removed illegals, non-citizens, or
the entire foreign-born population from each stateâ|"s population and then
recalculated the allocation of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives."
As I'm sure most of the folks on this list serve know, foreign born
population is not a good equivalent for immigrants who are counted in the
Census but can't vote.
In case you don't know, unlike what's implied in the news article Elaine
forwarded, naturalized US citizens can vote.
Diane Paoni
WisDOT Bureau of Planning
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Of course naturalized citizens can vote. I encourage readers to download
and read the report yourselves; it's only 8 pages. They did the
calculations based on eliminating three different groups from the
apportionment count: (1) illegal aliens, (2) non-citizens, (3) the
foreign-born. Obviously the latter is irrelevant and its inclusion, in my
opinion, is only for purposes of fanning the flames of the sponsoring
organization. I am also unclear on how they knew which non-citizens in the
census were illegal, since that's not an item on the questionnaire
(!) Apparently they used some INS estimates.
This all really comes down to the meaning of residence, for purposes of
inclusion in the census and the population count for reapportionment. As
such, it is highly political and who's on what side depends on who stands
to gain or lose. North Carolina beat out Utah for the 435th seat. The
report says that's because of counting the illegal aliens in NC. The
lawsuit Utah brought all the way to the Supreme Court, trying to change
this result and failing, argued that the young Mormon missionaries who are
abroad should be counted in Utah's population, which would then
(arithmetically) have given them the seat.
My personal view is that residence means living within the boundaries of
the 50 states and the District of Columia (although the DC population does
not count in executing the apportionment formula). This means that
non-citizens are counted and that people living abroad are not, whether
they're military or civilians. I say all this even though I'm from
Michigan, which according to the report lost its 16th seat because of the
counting of illegal aliens. People are people, they need services and they
need representation.
Patty Becker
>ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
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
_______________________________________________
APDUmem mailing list
APDUmem(a)apdu.orghttp://apdu.org/mailman/listinfo/apdumem_apdu.org
At 10:01 AM 10/30/2003 -0600, Paoni, Diane wrote:
Although I find the issue of the impact of including the population of
immigrants whose status does not allow them to vote into the reapportionment
process intriguing, some details in the article didn't seem right so I
looked at the report online (http://www.cis.org/circle.html). Take a look
at this quote from the report regarding the study's methodology: "To measure
the political effect of immigration, we removed illegals, non-citizens, or
the entire foreign-born population from each stateâ¬"s population and then
recalculated the allocation of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives."
As I'm sure most of the folks on this list serve know, foreign born
population is not a good equivalent for immigrants who are counted in the
Census but can't vote.
In case you don't know, unlike what's implied in the news article Elaine
forwarded, naturalized US citizens can vote.
Diane Paoni
WisDOT Bureau of Planning
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Of course naturalized citizens can vote. I encourage readers to download
and read the report yourselves; it's only 8 pages. They did the
calculations based on eliminating three different groups from the
apportionment count: (1) illegal aliens, (2) non-citizens, (3) the
foreign-born. Obviously the latter is irrelevant and its inclusion, in my
opinion, is only for purposes of fanning the flames of the sponsoring
organization. I am also unclear on how they knew which non-citizens in the
census were illegal, since that's not an item on the questionnaire
(!) Apparently they used some INS estimates.
This all really comes down to the meaning of residence, for purposes of
inclusion in the census and the population count for reapportionment. As
such, it is highly political and who's on what side depends on who stands
to gain or lose. North Carolina beat out Utah for the 435th seat. The
report says that's because of counting the illegal aliens in NC. The
lawsuit Utah brought all the way to the Supreme Court, trying to change
this result and failing, argued that the young Mormon missionaries who are
abroad should be counted in Utah's population, which would then
(arithmetically) have given them the seat.
My personal view is that residence means living within the boundaries of
the 50 states and the District of Columia (although the DC population does
not count in executing the apportionment formula). This means that
non-citizens are counted and that people living abroad are not, whether
they're military or civilians. I say all this even though I'm from
Michigan, which according to the report lost its 16th seat because of the
counting of illegal aliens. People are people, they need services and they
need representation.
Patty Becker
>ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
I wanted to expound a bit on Nanda's earlier message concerning the
availability of ASCII files for Part 1 of CTPP 2000.
The Census Bureau made the flat ASCII files of the CTPP data for Part 1
available only to MPOs and State DOTs, so they could review the files
before volume CD production began. We have not made a public release of
the Part 1 data yet. We are in the process of correcting the errors
identified during the review and will rerun the entire Part 1 dataset. We
will then do volume CD production and the CDs with the data and the user
software will be available to the general public through the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics website (www.bts.gov). At that point, ASCII
versions of the data will also be available to the general public through
my office for a fee of $50 per CD-Rom. We will attempt to bundle the
states geographically where possible.
Currently we expect to make the final Part 1 data available in either
December 2003 or January 2004. We are now pushing to get the initial run
of Part 2 to the MPOs and State DOTs for their review. Once that review is
complete, we will make any corrections necessary and then Part 2 will be
available to the public in the same manner as Part 1. If you have any
questions, please contact Phil Salopek or Clara Reschovsky at 301-763-2454.
The Utah case raises another matter. I suspect that had Utah taken the resources they devoted to their legal case and put them into the LUCA program they would have found enough additional address to get the 435th seat.
Stephen Dienstfrey
Schulman, Ronca, & Bucuvalas, Inc
(301) 608-3883
>>> Patty Becker <pbecker(a)umich.edu> 10/30/03 12:59PM >>>
At 10:01 AM 10/30/2003 -0600, Paoni, Diane wrote:
Although I find the issue of the impact of including the population of
immigrants whose status does not allow them to vote into the reapportionment
process intriguing, some details in the article didn't seem right so I
looked at the report online (http://www.cis.org/circle.html). Take a look
at this quote from the report regarding the study's methodology: "To measure
the political effect of immigration, we removed illegals, non-citizens, or
the entire foreign-born population from each stateâ|"s population and then
recalculated the allocation of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives."
As I'm sure most of the folks on this list serve know, foreign born
population is not a good equivalent for immigrants who are counted in the
Census but can't vote.
In case you don't know, unlike what's implied in the news article Elaine
forwarded, naturalized US citizens can vote.
Diane Paoni
WisDOT Bureau of Planning
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Of course naturalized citizens can vote. I encourage readers to download
and read the report yourselves; it's only 8 pages. They did the
calculations based on eliminating three different groups from the
apportionment count: (1) illegal aliens, (2) non-citizens, (3) the
foreign-born. Obviously the latter is irrelevant and its inclusion, in my
opinion, is only for purposes of fanning the flames of the sponsoring
organization. I am also unclear on how they knew which non-citizens in the
census were illegal, since that's not an item on the questionnaire
(!) Apparently they used some INS estimates.
This all really comes down to the meaning of residence, for purposes of
inclusion in the census and the population count for reapportionment. As
such, it is highly political and who's on what side depends on who stands
to gain or lose. North Carolina beat out Utah for the 435th seat. The
report says that's because of counting the illegal aliens in NC. The
lawsuit Utah brought all the way to the Supreme Court, trying to change
this result and failing, argued that the young Mormon missionaries who are
abroad should be counted in Utah's population, which would then
(arithmetically) have given them the seat.
My personal view is that residence means living within the boundaries of
the 50 states and the District of Columia (although the DC population does
not count in executing the apportionment formula). This means that
non-citizens are counted and that people living abroad are not, whether
they're military or civilians. I say all this even though I'm from
Michigan, which according to the report lost its 16th seat because of the
counting of illegal aliens. People are people, they need services and they
need representation.
Patty Becker
>ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
_______________________________________________
APDUmem mailing list
APDUmem(a)apdu.orghttp://apdu.org/mailman/listinfo/apdumem_apdu.org
Lance,
I think Elaine did not notice that you are not from an MPO or State DOT.
The Census Bureau released "evaluation" copies of Part 1 of CTPP 2000 to MPOs and State DOTs in July-August 2003. Because you belong to an academic institution, you can request a copy of the Part 1 CD-ROM for your area from the local MPO or the state DOT. As Elaine pointed out, we found errors in some of the tables for Part 1. Census Bureau will be correcting all the errors, and releasing final Part 1 CDs, after they complete production of Part 2 data.
Both for Part 1 and Part 2, We are NOT providing the FLAT ASCII (or any other format) files on an FTP site, because the data are very large. This is why we want you to request a CD-ROM containing the FLAT ASCII files from the Census Bureau, once the finals are ready (Clara Reschovsky e:mail: clara.a.reschovsky(a)census.gov phone-301-763-2454). For agencies other than MPOs, and State DOTs, the Census Bureau may charge a processing fee for the CDs.
Please note that the CTPP Access Tool allows you to "batch export" tables into flat ASCII files (along with data dictionary/README files that explain the data formats). If you have questions on how to perform this, please call/e-mail me (please make sure these e-mails are addressed to me and not the whole listserve).
Thank you
Nanda Srinivasan
202-366-5021
-----Original Message-----
From: Huntley, Lance [mailto:HuntleyL(a)umsystem.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 4:33 PM
To: Murakami, Elaine
Cc: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: RE: [CTPP] ASCII files and status update
Are the CTPP 2000 Part 2 Files going to be shipped out in cd-rom format,
or will there be FTP access to the data?
-----Original Message-----
From: Murakami, Elaine [mailto:Elaine.Murakami(a)fhwa.dot.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 3:08 PM
To: Huntley, Lance
Cc: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: RE: [CTPP] ASCII files and status update
To request a FLAT ASCII version of the data, please direct your request
to Clara Reschovsky at the Census Bureau. clara.a.reschovsky(a)census.gov
phone 301-763-2454.
Please note, the Census Bureau has recently found several errors in the
CTPP Part 1 data files. Phil Salopek will be posting a list of the
problematic tables, and geographic summary levels VERY SOON. Many of
the errors will have a neglible effect, however, Table 1-80 all the
cells are incorrectly labeled, and in Table 1-106 the median travel time
was incorrectly tabulated. However, I have asked the Census Bureau to
get the Part 2 data files out first, before FINALIZING the Part 1
datasets with the corrections.
We NOW expect CTPP 2000 Part 2 files to begin release before
Thanksgiving, running through the end of calendar 2003, using
approximately the same priority as for the Part 1 files (States with
very large population and fastest growth areas released first).
-----Original Message-----
From: Huntley, Lance [mailto:HuntleyL(a)umsystem.edu]
Sent: Wed 10/29/2003 2:48 PM
To:
Cc: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: RE: [CTPP] Metro Area Pop 1990-2000
When can we expect to be able to download the official CTPP2000
data
from an ftp site in flat ascii format? And will there be a
reference
file to indicate what the variables/headers are comprising the
columns
in the ascii format? On the CTPP beta cd I am using I couldn't
see
variable descriptions on the flat ascii files -- no variable
headers, or
relationship field and file! The flat ascii format for multiple
states
is what we typically access from the bureau when we put together
our
data and geography files. And since we have to deal with a
three state
area, a one-stop file location has always been the best way for
us to
get our data.
Are the CTPP 2000 Part 2 Files going to be shipped out in cd-rom format,
or will there be FTP access to the data?
-----Original Message-----
From: Murakami, Elaine [mailto:Elaine.Murakami(a)fhwa.dot.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 3:08 PM
To: Huntley, Lance
Cc: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: RE: [CTPP] ASCII files and status update
To request a FLAT ASCII version of the data, please direct your request
to Clara Reschovsky at the Census Bureau. clara.a.reschovsky(a)census.gov
phone 301-763-2454.
Please note, the Census Bureau has recently found several errors in the
CTPP Part 1 data files. Phil Salopek will be posting a list of the
problematic tables, and geographic summary levels VERY SOON. Many of
the errors will have a neglible effect, however, Table 1-80 all the
cells are incorrectly labeled, and in Table 1-106 the median travel time
was incorrectly tabulated. However, I have asked the Census Bureau to
get the Part 2 data files out first, before FINALIZING the Part 1
datasets with the corrections.
We NOW expect CTPP 2000 Part 2 files to begin release before
Thanksgiving, running through the end of calendar 2003, using
approximately the same priority as for the Part 1 files (States with
very large population and fastest growth areas released first).
-----Original Message-----
From: Huntley, Lance [mailto:HuntleyL(a)umsystem.edu]
Sent: Wed 10/29/2003 2:48 PM
To:
Cc: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: RE: [CTPP] Metro Area Pop 1990-2000
When can we expect to be able to download the official CTPP2000
data
from an ftp site in flat ascii format? And will there be a
reference
file to indicate what the variables/headers are comprising the
columns
in the ascii format? On the CTPP beta cd I am using I couldn't
see
variable descriptions on the flat ascii files -- no variable
headers, or
relationship field and file! The flat ascii format for multiple
states
is what we typically access from the bureau when we put together
our
data and geography files. And since we have to deal with a
three state
area, a one-stop file location has always been the best way for
us to
get our data.
To request a FLAT ASCII version of the data, please direct your request to Clara Reschovsky at the Census Bureau. clara.a.reschovsky(a)census.gov phone 301-763-2454.
Please note, the Census Bureau has recently found several errors in the CTPP Part 1 data files. Phil Salopek will be posting a list of the problematic tables, and geographic summary levels VERY SOON. Many of the errors will have a neglible effect, however, Table 1-80 all the cells are incorrectly labeled, and in Table 1-106 the median travel time was incorrectly tabulated. However, I have asked the Census Bureau to get the Part 2 data files out first, before FINALIZING the Part 1 datasets with the corrections.
We NOW expect CTPP 2000 Part 2 files to begin release before Thanksgiving, running through the end of calendar 2003, using approximately the same priority as for the Part 1 files (States with very large population and fastest growth areas released first).
-----Original Message-----
From: Huntley, Lance [mailto:HuntleyL(a)umsystem.edu]
Sent: Wed 10/29/2003 2:48 PM
To:
Cc: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: RE: [CTPP] Metro Area Pop 1990-2000
When can we expect to be able to download the official CTPP2000 data
from an ftp site in flat ascii format? And will there be a reference
file to indicate what the variables/headers are comprising the columns
in the ascii format? On the CTPP beta cd I am using I couldn't see
variable descriptions on the flat ascii files -- no variable headers, or
relationship field and file! The flat ascii format for multiple states
is what we typically access from the bureau when we put together our
data and geography files. And since we have to deal with a three state
area, a one-stop file location has always been the best way for us to
get our data.
When can we expect to be able to download the official CTPP2000 data
from an ftp site in flat ascii format? And will there be a reference
file to indicate what the variables/headers are comprising the columns
in the ascii format? On the CTPP beta cd I am using I couldn't see
variable descriptions on the flat ascii files -- no variable headers, or
relationship field and file! The flat ascii format for multiple states
is what we typically access from the bureau when we put together our
data and geography files. And since we have to deal with a three state
area, a one-stop file location has always been the best way for us to
get our data.
-----Original Message-----
From: ed christopher [mailto:edc(a)berwyned.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 1:03 PM
Cc: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] Metro Area Pop 1990-2000
its the journey to work trends report which is on the MTC website at
ftp://ftp.abag.ca.gov/pub/mtc/census2000/JTW_Trends/Report.htm
Kirk Brethauer wrote:
> Hey All -
>
> I recall someone had distributed an Excel file (from their website?)
> with demographics for the US Metro Areas.
>
> I think the file had 1990 & 2000 pop, % change, and journey to work
> (alone, carpool, transit) and % change for each. I'm doing a little
> research, and wanted to check some figures.
>
> Appreciate any help that can be offered. Thank in advance,
>
> ***********************************************
> W. Kirk Brethauer, Information Systems Director
> The Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission
> Regional Enterprise Tower
> 425 Sixth Avenue, Suite 2500
> Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1852
> TEL (412) 391-5590, x 347
> FAX (412) 391-9160
> kbrethauer(a)spc9.org
> www.spcregion.org
> ***********************************************
--
Ed Christopher
Planning Activities
Resource Center
Federal Highway Administration
19900 Governors Drive
Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461
708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell)
708-283-3501 (F)
