Subject: Census News Brief #10
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:13:58 EDT
National Research Council Panel Urges More Informed Planning for 2010
Census;
Census Funding Clears House Of Reps Intact;
House Subcommittee Hears Strong Support;
New Cost Estimate, for ACS; and more.
In its third report, issued last month, the National Research Councils
Panel on Research on Future Census Methods urged the Census Bureau to
complete evaluations of Census 2000 quickly in order to assess more
fully the costs and benefits of design options for 2010. The science
panel also expressed concern about the direction of plans to update and
improve the Master Address File (MAF), which represents the universe for
household enumeration.
The panel, chaired by Dr. Benjamin King, was established to review early
planning for the 2010 count. Its second interim report (the panel
previously published a letter report, as well) focuses primarily on
modernization of the Census Bureaus geographic databases and on
development of a technical infrastructure for the 2010 census.
The Census Bureau often describes its 2010 census planning strategy as a
three-legged stool comprised of (1) MAF/TIGER Enhancements Program;
(2) replacement of the census long form with an on-going American
Community Survey; and (3) early integrated planning for a short
form-only census. The Academy panel cited early integrated planning as
perhaps the one [component] most crucial to a successful 2010 census
and, in some respects, the hardest to accomplish. It noted that the
technical infrastructure for the census, needed to develop a logical
design process for 2010, was functional but developed at high cost and
high risk, without adequate time for development and testing for Census
2000. The panel said it was strongly impressed by early efforts to
reengineer the design process and encouraged the bureau to develop
comprehensive business process models for 2010 quickly, and to appoint a
system architect for the census. (Technical infrastructure refers
primarily to software programs and computer and telecommunications
systems that support census operations.)
The panel also evaluated plans to modernize the Census Bureaus
geographic database, called TIGER (Topologically Integrated Geographic
Encoding Reference System), and comprehensive housing list (MAF), for
the 2010 census. The report is generally supportive of the Bureaus
efforts to realign features in TIGER. The plausibility of the
realignment timetable would be bolstered considerably, the panel
suggested, by a detailed work plan that includes a schedule for updating
county information, and by specifying a process for detecting geographic
changes once the initial updating is completed.
The report is far more critical of proposals to improve the Master
Address File. The modernization program, the panel concluded, falls
seriously short with respect to the MAF, and is lacking a comprehensive
plan to add new addresses, identify duplicates, and generally ensure a
complete and accurate list. The Census Bureaus current strategy shows
signs of repeating costly errors from the 2000 experience, the panel
wrote, noting that despite using the Postal Services Delivery Sequence
File and instituting a pre-census local review of address lists, the
Bureau conducted a costly, 100-percent block canvass of addresses before
Census 2000. The panel recommended that the Census Bureau clarify how
it will improve the accuracy of the MAF, including how it will apply its
experiences from the 2000 census; appoint a coordinator to oversee MAF
development and maintenance; specify plans for local partnerships, with
an emphasis on improved communication and incentives for local sharing
of information; and strengthen the role of evaluations in developing
plans to update the MAF for 2010.
The report also contains initial feedback on the American Community
Survey (ACS). The panel encouraged Congress to fully fund the ACS over
the long term, while also noting statistical issues that required
further research, including the weighting and estimation scheme and the
relative accuracy of ACS and long form data.
Overall, the panel concluded that the strategy for the 2010 census
needs to be more fully informed by cost-benefit analyses of different
approaches. To date, the panel wrote, the plan for the 2010 census
has been presented to the panel with little supporting analysis.
The National Research Council (NRC) is the principal operating agency of
The National Academy of Sciences and The National Academy of
Engineering. The census panel was constituted by the NRCs Committee on
National Statistics. The report, Planning the 2010 Census: Second
Interim Report, is available on the National Academies Press website at
http://www.nap.edu. The panel will complete its work and issue a final
report at the end of the year.
Census funding update: By a vote of 400 21, the U.S. House of
Representatives passed a $41.2 billion spending measure that includes
funding for the Census Bureau, before adjourning for its August break.
The Fiscal Year 2004 (FY04) Commerce, Justice, and State, The Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations bill (H.R. 2799) allocates the full
$662 million for Census Bureau programs requested by President Bush.
The White House said in a Statement of Administration Policy that it
supported passage of the bill, and appreciates the full funding of
Census Bureau programs, but that it had several concerns about specific
provisions of H.R. 2799. The administration urged legislators to
restore $10 million cut from the Presidents request for the Commerce
Departments Economic and Statistics Administration, which houses the
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Only one provision of the mammoth
bill, which would block implementation of a controversial Federal
Communications Commission rule on media ownership, drew a veto threat.
The Senate delayed consideration of a Commerce spending bill until after
the August congressional recess. Congress resumes legislative work on
September 3. For details on Census Bureau and BEA funding in H.R. 2799,
see the July 10 and July 21 Census News Briefs.
House panel hears testimony in support of the ACS: The House
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations, and the Census held an oversight hearing in May to review
plans for the proposed American Community Survey. It was the panels
first hearing on Census Bureau programs since its creation as part of
the Government Reform Committee early in the 108th Congress. Rep.
William Lacy Clay (D-MO), the subcommittees top Democrat, is the only
panel member with previous service on a census oversight subcommittee.
In opening remarks, Chairman Adam Putnam (R-FL) noted the Census
Bureaus historical efforts to meet the continually changing needs of
our Nation for timely, quality data, and said Congress must now
consider another significant evolution: replacing the traditional
census long form with the ACS. To win support for ACS funding in
Congress, the chairman said, the agency must show that the ACS will
eliminate duplicative surveys at the Census Bureau, thereby saving
money. I simply would find it unbelievable that no surveys could be
eliminated when the ACS is fully implemented, the congressman said.
Chairman Putnam also pointed to privacy as another significant issue the
Census Bureau must address. The challenge, he said, is to obtain the
information that is needed to make informed decisions while at the same
time respecting the privacy rights of the public. While noting that
the Census Bureau benefits from the most protective privacy law on the
books, the congressman challenged the agency to explore new and
innovative ways to solicit voluntary cooperation from the public. The
bureau is evaluating a test conducted earlier this year at the request
of Congress, comparing the effects of mandatory versus voluntary
response on the cost and quality of ACS data.
Rep. Clay said he remains concerned about the quality of data the ACS
will produce and about adequate funding, as well as the long-term cost
of the ACS. He noted that the delayed start of the ACS would allow
stakeholders to evaluate additional years of data from test sites and
the national sample. The Census Bureau plans to release data tables
from the 2002 Supplementary Survey and test sites this fall.
The subcommittee heard testimony from the Under Secretary of Commerce
for Economic Affairs, the Census Bureau director, and a panel of five
witnesses representing a range of census data users. Under Secretary
Kathleen Cooper said the ACS will revolutionize the way we take the
census and meet the nations data needs. She described the survey as a
well-developed program that is at full implementation in 31 test
sites across the country and producing consistently high quality data
from these sites and a national Supplementary Survey of 700,000
households. Dr. Cooper reminded panel members that the content of the
ACS questionnaire is essentially the same as the census long form it is
designed to replace, because the Census Bureau must still meet federal
programmatic requirements for data. Director C. Louis Kincannon noted
that about $200 billion a year in federal program funds is distributed
on the basis of census data.
Referring to the revised plan to launch the ACS nationwide in the final
quarter of Fiscal Year 2004, Mr. Kincannon said tract level data from
the survey would be published in 2010, two years before it would be
available if the 2010 census included a traditional long form. The
first characteristics data, for places of 65,000 or more persons, would
be available starting in 2006, based on the first full year of data
collected in 2005. Mr. Kincannon acknowledged that tract level
estimates from the ACS would be subject to higher sampling error than
similar census long form data, because the five-year aggregates used to
produce ACS tract data involve a smaller overall sample (15 million
households over five years) than the long form (roughly 20 million
households). Sampling error, the director said, would be offset by
more complete responses [to the survey] that the permanent staff of
field representatives will collect during telephone and in-person
follow-up interviews to unresponsive households.
A re-engineered 2010 census that includes only a short form, with the
ACS replacing the long form, and a modernized address and mapping
system, will cost $11.2 billion, Mr. Kincannon told the subcommittee. A
traditional census plan would cost at least $12 billion, he said. In
response to a question from Chairman Putnam, the director said the
annual cost of a fully implemented ACS could be $165 million. Previous
estimates submitted to the census oversight subcommittee in April 2001
pegged the cost of the ACS at $131 million for the first year, which
under the original implementation plan would have included only nine
months of field follow-up visits, the most costly part of the survey.
Five witnesses presented the views of data users in state and local
government, business, and demographic research for a variety of
applications. All expressed support for the ACS and offered examples of
how annual estimates of social and economic characteristics would
improve decision-making for the data users they represented. Thomas
Reardon, Executive Director of the Fulton County Partnership,
McConnellsburg, Pennsylvania, discussed how annual data from the ACS
test site in his county helped the organization accurately estimate and
distribute flu vaccines for their small rural community. [T]he more
information we have about the people we serve, the more efficient we can
be with the resources we have to help them, Mr. Reardon testified.
Joseph Salvo, Director, Population Division, New York City Department of
City Planning, called the ACS a continuous barometer of the social and
economic condition of the nations communities. Noting that the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks diminished the usefulness of Census
2000 long form data for broad sections of the city, Dr. Salvo emphasized
the importance of current information for the cost-effective delivery of
government services. He also said the ACS would collect more accurate
information on population and neighborhood characteristics than the
census long form, citing successful follow-up interviews with
unresponsive households in the ACS Bronx test site, where a significant
number of households failed to complete long forms in Census 2000.
Joan Naymark, Director of Research and Planning for Target Corporation,
presented the views of business and industry data users as a
representative of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Naymark said the
ACS is vital to economic development and wise government and business
decision-making. She described Targets use of census data to locate
new stores and remodel existing ones, to offer merchandise and
advertising to match neighborhood characteristics, and to plan for work
force needs. Ms. Naymark said the ACS would provide more accurate data
than the census long form because of its timeliness, and she urged
Congress to fund full implementation of the ACS over the long term.
Ken Hodges, Director of Demography, Claritas, told subcommittee members
that, Support and even enthusiasm for the ACS are growing in the
private sector, for whom frequent data at the neighborhood level is a
top priority. Mr. Hodges acknowledged some concerns about the quality
of ACS estimates (including coverage of the population in group
quarters), but said many of the concerns also applied to the census,
and that the ACS offered greater opportunity to improve the reliability
of the data. Mr. Richard Ogburn, Principal Planner, South Florida
Regional Planning Council, testified that the ACS would support the
more effective allocation of scarce public resources through improved
assessment of need and better targeting of resources. He noted that
South Floridas population grew by 21 percent in each of the last two
decades. Without more timely data from the ACS, Mr. Ogburn said, local
governments and businesses must divert programmatic resources to collect
information on local characteristics. The Council analyzes area trends
and conditions to support land use and natural resource planning,
emergency preparedness, transportation, affordable housing, and other
important services, Mr. Ogburn told the panel.
House Democrats question no-adjustment decision for 2010: In a letter
to the current and former top Democrats on the House census oversight
subcommittee, Census Bureau Director C. Louis Kincannon reaffirmed his
agencys decision not to plan for a statistical adjustment of the 2010
census for reapportionment and redistricting purposes. Instead, Mr.
Kincannon wrote, the bureau would evaluate coverage improvement programs
used in Census 2000 that had a positive influence on the differential
undercount, to see if they can further reduce the gap in accuracy
between the count of Whites and of racial and ethnic minorities in
2010. Census 2000 programs that yielded a higher percentage of
enumerations of historically undercounted groups included the Be
Counted Program, Service-Based Enumeration (e.g. soup kitchens, homeless
shelters), Coverage Improvement Follow-up, and the Update/Enumerate and
Urban Update/Leave operations, the director said.
Rep. William Clay and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) wrote to Mr. Kincannon
in May, saying they were surprised by his announcement at a National
Academy of Sciences census panel meeting that the Census Bureau would
not statistically correct the 2010 census numbers used for congressional
apportionment and redistricting. The decision, the legislators wrote,
is the only aspect of the 2010 design that has been finalized. Reps.
Clay and Maloney noted that the undercount of African Americans was
three percent higher than the undercount of non-Hispanic Whites in 2000
only a modest improvement, they said, from the 3.9 percent
differential undercount in the 1990 census. The legislators asked
about the Census Bureaus plans to measure the accuracy of the 2010
census and to correct for overcounting.
In his June 30th response, Director Kincannon said his comments at the
National Academy
confirms a widely held and often articulated conclusion based on an
exhaustive analysis of the post-census survey in Census 2000. The
Census Bureau learned that it could not both carry out an accuracy
measurement survey and analyze the results in time to meet the legal
deadline for delivering redistricting data to states, Mr. Kincannon
said. The bureau also has concluded that science is insufficiently
advanced to allow making statistical adjustment of a successful
decennial census in which the percentage of error is presumed to be so
small that adjustment would introduce as much or more error than it
fixes.
In addition to coverage improvement programs to improve accuracy, the
Census Bureau is looking at ways to clarify who should be included on
the census form, the director noted. Better presentation of residence
rules and an undercount detection question to identify households
where some residents may have tenuous attachments, are under
consideration. The bureau also is researching why the census
double-counts people and housing units. Improving and measuring
overall coverage and differential coverage in the census are primary
goals of the 2010 census, Mr. Kincannon wrote.
Upcoming news: The Census Bureau is expected to release the results of
a test of voluntary versus mandatory response to the American Community
Survey in the coming days. The test, conducted at the request of
Congress, took place over the course of several months earlier this
year. Congress asked the Bureau to assess the consequences of making
response to the survey voluntary. Response to the census (short and
long forms) is required by law. We will report on the results of the
evaluation when they become available.
Upcoming meetings: The next Decennial Census Advisory Committee meeting
will be October 9 10, 2003. The five Race and Ethnic Advisory
Committees will meet jointly October 1 - 3, 2003. The Census Bureau has
not yet published agendas for the meetings.
-----------------------
Census News Briefs are prepared by Terri Ann Lowenthal, an independent
consultant in Washington, DC. Please direct questions about the
information in this News Brief to Ms. Lowenthal at 202/484-3067 or by
e-mail at terriann2k(a)aol.com. Thank you to the Communications Consortium
Media Center for posting the News Briefs on the Census 2000 Initiative
web site, at www.census2000.org. Please feel free to circulate this
information to colleagues and other interested individuals.
--
Ed Christopher
Planning Specialist
Resource Center
Federal Highway Administration
19900 Governors Drive
Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461
708-283-3534 (V)
708-574-8131 (cell)
As of 8/27/03, 5-percent PUMS data for 20 states has been released.
Scheduled for release next Wednesday, 9/3/03, are: Arizona, California, Delaware,
Georgia, North & South Carolina, Tennessee and Warshington.
Census Bureau has not published a "look ahead" for data to be released either 9/17 or
9/24.
Also, the correspondence tables between residence area PUMAs (Public Use Microdata Areas)
and place-of-work PUMAS (POWPUMA5), is included in Appendix N, available on the web site
cited below.
*********
More information from the State Data Center listserv, on states scheduled for release on 9/10:
FYI...
The Public Use Microdata Sample files for Colorado, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin will
be released to the public on September 10, 2003 at 12:01 AM. There is no
embargo period for these data.
The data can be accessed on 9/10/03 at:
http://www2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/PUMS/FivePercent/ftp://ftp2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/PUMS/FivePercent/
The PUMS files will be released on a weekly basis through September 2003.
********
C. Purvis, MTC
Attention: Everyone evaluating CTPP Part 1 data:
I have noticed that most of the staff evaluating the data are only looking at their LOWEST GEOGRAPHIC LEVEL (E.g.: block groups, and TAZs). We are noticing some errors for a few areas at other levels of geography (e.g.: MPO region, MSA/CMSA etc.)
While looking at the lowest geographic level is an excellent idea, please make sure you evaluate the data for other coarser levels (E.g.: Tract, MPO Region, and County). Please report any data issues/comments to me.
E-mail: Nanda.srinivasan(a)fhwa.dot.gov, Phone: 202-366-5021.
Thank you
Nanda Srinivasan
Attention: All MPOs and State DOTs
On August 21, 2003, Census Bureau (CB) completed mailing out Part 1 data for all the states. The CB is getting ready to finalize, and start mass-production of the Part 1 CDs. After the data are finalized, the CTPP Part 1 will be made available to the general public through the Bureau of Transportation Statistics webpage. We encourage you to examine the data for which you are familiar to determine if there are any systematic errors.
For most states, the deadline for agencies to send comments on their Part 1 dataset is September 15, 2003.
States where agencies can send their comments back by October 1, 2003 include:
Alabama
Arkansas
Connecticut
Hawaii
Kansas
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
New Hampshire
Oklahoma
For agencies in South Carolina, and Kentucky, the deadline is October 6, 2003.
To send comments, or ask questions, please contact Nanda Srinivasan (Phone: 202-366-5021, email: Nanda.srinivasan(a)fhwa.dot.gov).
This week, the CTPP Part 1 CDs for AL, AR, CT, HI, KS, LA, MN, MS, MO, NH, and OK were mailed by the Census Bureau. As a reminder, it has been taking between a week and 2 weeks for most people to receive the CDs in the mail, even if they are being sent first-class. There are 2 remaining states: KY and SC, and they should be mailed next week.
We are going to conduct a small test of different mailing operations to see if we can identify where exactly the delay is occuring, so that when it is time to mail the CTPP Parts 2 and 3 CDs, we will not have the same problem!
Elaine Murakami
206-220-4460 in Seattle
This message may be relevant to folks who use the CTPP data on households by the number of workers in the household (e.g., Table 1-65 households by workers in household by vehicles available).
I've had a conversation with Phil Salopek (Census Bureau) about the definition of "households by workers in household" and I've confirmed this information by examining the 1% PUMS for my region.
The CTPP Access Tool program defines "workers in household" as "see the definition for workers" and "see the definition for households" which is frankly not that useful. This could be improved.
The CTPP documentation could be improved by providing a precise definition of "workers in household." It may not be what you think it is!!! The CTPP documentation is based on standard census documentation such as that from SF3. For example, the term "workers in families" is defined as the number of civilian employed with a job LAST YEAR (Question #30a on the census long form.)
It is clear that the CTPP data on "workers in household" is based on "workers at work during census reference week" and is NOT BASED ON "workers at work, plus workers with a job but not at work"
So, the values for "zero worker households" in the CTPP will include "households with no workers" PLUS it will include "households with worker(s), but the worker(s) are NOT at work LAST WEEK"
The CTPP shows 539,755 "zero worker households" in the Bay Area, at 21.9 percent of total households. The 1-percent PUMS data shows 514,617 "zero worker households" in the Bay Area, at 20.9 percent of total households. 1-percent PUMS data, using the CTPP definition of workers in households, shows 538,741 zero-worker households. This means that we have 25,000 households that have workers, but all of the workers in the household were not at work "last week" (they were all having fun watching spring training baseball....)
(For those using PUMS, the CTPP definition of workers in households is based on where ESR=1 or ESR=4, where ESR = employment status recode variable. The alternative definition of workers in households is based on where ESR=1, 2, 4, or 5, which includes the weekly absentees (ESR=2 and 5).
I am assuming that the Census Bureau will not change the CTPP 2000 data since it is consistent with the 1990 CTPP data.
My plan, for validation of our workers-in-household & vehicles-in-household model (WHHAO), is to depend on the 5-percent PUMS data to provide PUMA-level control totals, and to adjust the CTPP zone-level data (Part 1, Table 65) to match with the PUMS data.
Hope this helps,
Chuck Purvis, MTC
**************************************************************
Charles L. Purvis, AICP
Principal 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://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/
**************************************************************
This week, the Census Bureau mailed CDs to: IA, ME, MA, NE, PA, RI, SD, VT, WY
This leaves 14 states remaining, of which 8 are already in the duplication process and will probably be mailed early next week. The Census Bureau's goal is to complete the Part 1 release by August 15.
It is still taking from a week to 10 days for people to receive their copies in the mail, but we have asked the Census Bureau to investigate.
Many people are having problems with installing the software, but our computer whiz, Nanda Srinivasan is helping everyone out. 202-366-5021.
Just as a reminder: State DOTs and MPOs have a month to review the data and talk to the Census Bureau if they find data problems. After a month, the Census Bureau will finalize the data and provide copies for general public distribution via the USDOTs Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
We do not anticipate CTPP Parts 2 and 3 to be available until late Fall 2003 and into Winter 2004.
Elaine Murakami, FHWA
206-220-4460 in Seattle
To: CTPP-News and Urban Data Committee listserv
At our TRB committee's mid-year meeting this past month we discussed a proposed committee project "Commuting to Downtown." We are hoping to have several sets of analyses complete (or at least well under progress) by the January 2004 TRB annual meeting.
The project abstract and the "protoype downtown maps and tables (San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland)" are posted here:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/trb/urban/commute/
The preface to this abstract reads:
"The United States has invested billions of dollars in transit and highways over the past several decades. One of the issues is measuring the success of transit investments in terms of transit market share. The purpose of this research is to analyze the changes in employment trends and transit commuting to central business districts (CBD) in the United States. The results of this research may point to the obvious: that transit does well in serving commuters working in downtown America, and that high levels of employment density are associated with the highest levels, shares and success stories related to transit commuting. Data from the decennial census is used to characterize workers at CBD-of-work in the largest cities in the United States. Data can be extracted from the various "journey-to-work" datasets including the 1970 Census Urban Transportation Package (UTP), the 1980 Census Urban Transportation Planning Package (UTPP), and the 1990 and 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP)."
Much of this analysis is dependent on new data from CTPP 2000, Part 2 (data by zone-of-work or tract-of-work), that none of us have, and we all hope to have before TRB 2004.
This project is intended as a voluntary effort by persons with best access to historical journey-to-work datasets, namely, the MPO staffs in large metropolitan areas. Eventually it would be great to have data for all CBDs in cities with population of 250,000+. My hope is that urban data committee members will be the most eager to participate (New York, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Seattle, San Francisco, Sacramento) and others have already voiced an interest (Atlanta.)
What can be started now is assembling historical journey-to-work data for your CBDs, and mapping of each CBD. Some of this may be tough to impossible, for example, the 1970 UTP or the 1980 UTPP for your area may not be archived or accessible. At the very least we would want to examine changes between 1990 and 2000. In addition, there may be university researchers who can pitch in to assemble and reduce the historical data, or to help on the cartography.
At the committee meeting we discussed the need to have "multiple definitions of CBDs" for the largest cities: e.g., the San Francisco financial district compared to the greater San Francisco CBD; the Chicago "loop" versus the greater downtown, etc.
Any persons interested in contributing to the project just drop me an e-mail.
That's about all for now!
Chuck Purvis, MTC
**************************************************************
Charles L. Purvis, AICP
Principal 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://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/
**************************************************************
TO: CTPP-NEWs
The following message was posted on the State Data Center Listserv this morning. The 5-percent PUMS data will probably be released over the next 6 weeks.
A couple of the provided links don't work. They might work tomorrow.
CP
*************************************************************************************************************************
The Public Use Microdata Sample files for Rhode Island, Vermont, and
Wyoming will be released to the public on August 6, 2003 at 12:01 AM.
There is no embargo period for these data.
The data can be accessed on 8/6/03 at:
http://www2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/PUMS/FivePercent/ftp://ftp2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/PUMS/FivePercent/
The PUMS tech doc in TXT format is on the Customer Liaison Office's
website at the following URL:
http://www.census.gov/sdc/www/pums.html
Chapter J-Equivalency files is forthcoming.
The PUMS files will be released on a weekly flow basis beginning this month
through September 2003. This is end date is subject to change. I do not
have a "look ahead" list of planned state releases at this time. I will
let you know when this information becomes available.
For more information on PUMS refer to the product description at:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/c2kproducts.html
CLO will provide the network with copies of the CD-ROMs for the leads,
coords, and affiliate organizations in each state during the August through
September time period.
Renée Jefferson-Copeland
Customer Liaison Office
Census Bureau
TO: CTPP-News
We have started a new web page that provides our local (San Francisco Bay Area) data users with access to the CTPP documentation, and data in GIS and CSV formats. The page is here:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/datamart/census/ctpp2000/
What can be very helpful to others in the country is the section of this page that provides links to ALL of the CTPP documentation that came on our California CD (received 7/9/03).
I also have links to the SAS programs provided by the Census Bureau, and my MTC SAS programs to extract data from these SAS databases.
I also constructed a new spreadsheet that lists all 11,444 variables in the CTPP Part 1 dataset, with the "SAS variable labels" provided by the Census Bureau as a column in the spreadsheet. It's 179 pages in length, but it may prove to come in handy....
We are uploading these CTPP documentation to our agency's web site, given the difficulties that federal agency staff have in uploading certain document types (PDF, XLS, DOC) to federal web sites.
Ed and I will also update the www.trbcensus.com web site to provide links to the CTPP documentation stored on our web site....
Hope this helps.
Chuck Purvis
**************************************************************
Charles L. Purvis, AICP
Principal 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://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/
**************************************************************
