CTPP October 2006

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

9 participants
15 discussions

[CTPP] We Need you Help---PLEASE Comment

by Ed Christopher

This past summer I worked with several TRANSIT planners and developed a research problem statement calling for a "guidebook on using ACS and other census data for transit planning." The official tittle is #32 Census Data for Transit Systems Planning (07-H-03). The problem statement was submitted to the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) of the National Academies of Sciences (TCRP-http://www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf) In trying to find out the status of the proposal I just learned that of all the projects submitted, 41 have passed the initial screening phase and have been recommended for funding consideration. Of the 41 projects, about 10 will be selected and COMMENTS are being sought from the community at large. On October 10-20 the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee will meet to select the FY07 problem statements. Specifically, comments are sought on the following aspects of the individual problem statements: 1) the merits of the problem statement and 2) any ongoing work of which you are aware that would create a potential duplication of effort. Your comments would then be made available to the TOPS Committee at the October meeting. Comments will be accepted through Sunday, October 15, 2006. To submit comments, send an email to tcrp(a)nas.edu with the subject "Comments on Problem Statements." Be sure to identify the problem statement(s) being commented on. Here is the URL to the 41 problem statements and further information on call for comments. http://www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf/reference/boilerplate/Attachments/$file/200… Feel free to call me with any questions, etc. But most of all please comment. -- Ed Christopher 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) FHWA RC-TST-PLN 19900 Governors Dr Olympia Fields, IL 60461

19 years

Re: [CTPP] CTPP Discussion Issues

by ed christopher

Zak--I hope that it is OK that I am responding to the whole list serve. For the 5-year product the thinking is that it could be similar to prior data releases (2000, 1990 and 1980). However, you are right the disclosure rules played havoc with several of the 2000 tables. Since we can't get rid of the disclosure rules that is why you are hearing so much talk about the potential for some synthesized data. I totally agree that larger zonal data aggregations really will not do much for transit. In all honesty it would help if the transit planning community could assert itself and become a little more engaged at the front end of the process. There was (is) a TCRP proposal in the hopper seeking to do a guidebook for transit planning using various census data products but I have not heard how it came out in the selection process. I believe that the committee that picks the projects was to meet sometime in the middle of September. Maybe someone on this knows the status. In thinking about all of this (and showing my age) I keep hearing Mick Jagger inside my head saying "you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you'll find you get what you need" Thanks for the post "Zakaria, Thabet" wrote: > Hi Ed: > > Excellent CTPP discussion issues. However, I have several questions and > comments for your consideration. Are we going to have TAZ-to-TAZ data in > 2010-2011, similar to Part III of the 2000 package? If yes, are the data > going to be subject to the CB's disclosure avoidance process? As you > know, the loss of data due to the threshold requirement in 2000 was > significant and the data became totally useless. TAZ-to-TAZ data are > required for most projects in transportation planning. Geographic units > larger than TAZs, such as the 20,000 population per zone, super zones or > large districts would not provide the data needed to plan individual > transportation facilities, such as transit routes. > > According to the ACS program, only the five-year transportation data > products at the zonal level would be useful. The one-year products would > be useful after 2010 because of previous accumulation of data. Based on > our evaluation of 2005 ACS data, the first 3-year product (2005, 2006 > and 2007) would be useful for geographic units larger than 65,000 > population threshold per zone, not 20,000 as proposed by the CB. The > 2005 ACS sample was not large enough to even produce accurate estimates > for all means of transportation to work for Gloucester County, NJ > (277,000 people). > > Thabet Zakaria > Deputy Director, Technical Services > Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission > Phone: 215-238-2885 > Email: tzakaria(a)dvrpc.org > Fax: 215-592-9125 > > -----Original Message----- > From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net > [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of ed christopher > Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 11:19 AM > To: ctpp-news maillist > Subject: [CTPP] CTPP Discussion Issues > > During the past few months I have received several questions regarding > the need for small area, Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ), data from the > American Community Survey (ACS) so I thought I would provide an update. > > GENERAL UPDATE ON CTPP > > There are two groups that are working on census data needs for the > transportation community. > > First there is the long-standing CTPP Working Group that meets monthly > and has been responsible for the content of the 1980, 1990 and 2000 data > packages. Although the precise membership of this working group has > changed over time it has generally been made up of US DOT staff, Census > Bureau (CB) staff, Dave Clawson from AASHTO, and members of > Transportation Research Board (TRB) committees. The work of the CTPP > Working Group tends to focus on the highly technical aspects of the > data. Since 1997, this group has met at least once a month and has been > chaired by Elaine Murakami of FHWA. > > Working in concert with the CTPP Working Group, the AASHTO Standing > Committee on Planning (SCOP) last August (2005) initiated a broader > based Committee called the SCOP Census Work Group. Jonette Kreideweis > of the Minnesota DOT chairs this group. Its main focus has been on > issues that transportation planners need to know to use the ACS and it > has been instrumental in recognizing that a "family" of new data > products will be needed. In June the Work Group proposed a pooled-fund > project that includes data products, research, training, and technical > support. The pooled-fund is currently before SCOP and I hope that it > will be approved by AASHTO in October. The pooled-fund builds upon the > experience gained from the 1990 and 2000 pooled-fund projects and > details on it can be found on the TRB Subcommittee on Census Data > website at http://trbcensus.com/SCOP/ > > TAZ DEFINITION for ACS > > 1. Will MPOs and State DOTs be asked to submit new TAZs? > > Assuming that a new CTPP pooled-fund is approved by AASHTO, there will > be an opportunity to define new TAZs for CTPP data products. Questions > to be answered revolve around how many different TAZ systems should > there be, the cost for developing those systems and the mechanical > process for submitting them. To help define TAZs, discussions with the > CB's Geography Division are underway. > > 2. How will new TAZs be submitted to the Census Bureau (CB) and added > to TIGER? > > The CB has a contract with M-cubed and its subcontract Caliper > Corporation for software development to support the "Participant > Statistical Areas Program" (PSAP). The PSAP includes the tract and > block group definition process. The software being developed for this > program can be modified to accommodate TAZ, SuperTAZ or any other > geographic units that the transportation planning community would like > to have. As a result, it makes sense to have tract, block group, and > the TAZ definition efforts be a coordinated process. Of course the > development of any TAZs are premised on and would be paid for by the > pooled-fund. > > 3. When will the Census Bureau (CB) use the new TAZ definitions to > tabulate ACS data for CTPP? > > Since the CB PSAP to define track and block groups is focused on the > 2010 regular census, tabulations of ACS data issued in 2010 and after > would follow the new geographies. Any earlier products would use > existing 2000 geography. For example, the pooled-fund calls for > small-area tabulations from ACS data using a required 5-year period -- > 2005, '06, '07, '08 and '09. The data would not be released until > 2010-2011 and we have been assured that it would follow 2010 geography. > However, for our first 3-year product (2005, '06 and '07), we have to > use 2000 geographic units and meet the 20,000 population threshold per > zone. > > 4. What is the history of TAZ definition for CTPP? > > For the 1980 and 1990 data tabulations TAZs were restricted to 6 > characters and only one set of TAZs could be defined per region. The > data assigned to these TAZs represented an equivalency process where > MPOs were asked to let the CB know which blocks to assign to which TAZ. > Blocks could not be split and the TAZs really became an aggregation of > blocks and block groups. > > In 2000, a major improvement was made where the TAZs were defined early > and placed in the CB TIGER file. With the TAZs in TIGER the CB was then > able to put the actual data for the area the TAZ represented in the > predetermined TAZs. For the first time the "urban" TAZs became a unique > tabulation geography and not just an aggregation of Census geographical > units. While this new process was adopted for TAZs the equivalency > process remained for those areas that crated state-level TAZs. This was > due to size limitation of the TIGER record and other technical > processing issues. > > 5. WHAT are some items to consider? > > As we look toward the future and ACS related transportation data > products, further TIGER improvements are on the horizon. Inside the CB > the Geography Division is undergoing a major overhaul of its TIGER file > data base. Conceptually, TIGER is moving to something akin to a > relational data base and space limitations are a thing of the past. Not > only can we consider adding more characters to the TAZ field, we can > even talk about having different TAZ zone structures. Assuming the > AASHTO pooled-fund is approved, one of the first tasks will be to focus > on defining TAZs for inclusion into the new TIGER system. As a result, > we need to focus on what we want in terms of TAZs. > > Other items that are nearing the horizon concern the detail data tables > to be included in the various products. The pooled-fund is calling for > a one, three and five year transportation data product. However, before > we work on the specific details of the product design the pooled-fund > must first be approved and funded. > > As Chair of the TRB Urban Data Committee, the sponsoring committee of > the Census Data Subcommittee, I hope to see this list serve used as a > forum to feed these discussions. Currently we have over 550 subscribers > to this list, most who are the active census data users in their MPOs, > states, consulting firms and universities. > > Finally, if you have a question about any of this, please post it to the > list serve. We are at a critical time in terms of getting the > information out to our various users. So please share your comments, > questions and experiences. > > -- > Ed Christopher > Resource Center Planning Team > Federal Highway Administration > 19900 Governors Drive > Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461 > 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) > 708-283-3501 (F) > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news -- Ed Christopher Resource Center Planning Team Federal Highway Administration 19900 Governors Drive Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) 708-283-3501 (F)

19 years

[CTPP] CTPP Discussion Issues

by ed christopher

During the past few months I have received several questions regarding the need for small area, Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ), data from the American Community Survey (ACS) so I thought I would provide an update. GENERAL UPDATE ON CTPP There are two groups that are working on census data needs for the transportation community. First there is the long-standing CTPP Working Group that meets monthly and has been responsible for the content of the 1980, 1990 and 2000 data packages. Although the precise membership of this working group has changed over time it has generally been made up of US DOT staff, Census Bureau (CB) staff, Dave Clawson from AASHTO, and members of Transportation Research Board (TRB) committees. The work of the CTPP Working Group tends to focus on the highly technical aspects of the data. Since 1997, this group has met at least once a month and has been chaired by Elaine Murakami of FHWA. Working in concert with the CTPP Working Group, the AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning (SCOP) last August (2005) initiated a broader based Committee called the SCOP Census Work Group. Jonette Kreideweis of the Minnesota DOT chairs this group. Its main focus has been on issues that transportation planners need to know to use the ACS and it has been instrumental in recognizing that a family of new data products will be needed. In June the Work Group proposed a pooled-fund project that includes data products, research, training, and technical support. The pooled-fund is currently before SCOP and I hope that it will be approved by AASHTO in October. The pooled-fund builds upon the experience gained from the 1990 and 2000 pooled-fund projects and details on it can be found on the TRB Subcommittee on Census Data website at http://trbcensus.com/SCOP/ TAZ DEFINITION for ACS 1. Will MPOs and State DOTs be asked to submit new TAZs? Assuming that a new CTPP pooled-fund is approved by AASHTO, there will be an opportunity to define new TAZs for CTPP data products. Questions to be answered revolve around how many different TAZ systems should there be, the cost for developing those systems and the mechanical process for submitting them. To help define TAZs, discussions with the CBs Geography Division are underway. 2. How will new TAZs be submitted to the Census Bureau (CB) and added to TIGER? The CB has a contract with M-cubed and its subcontract Caliper Corporation for software development to support the Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP). The PSAP includes the tract and block group definition process. The software being developed for this program can be modified to accommodate TAZ, SuperTAZ or any other geographic units that the transportation planning community would like to have. As a result, it makes sense to have tract, block group, and the TAZ definition efforts be a coordinated process. Of course the development of any TAZs are premised on and would be paid for by the pooled-fund. 3. When will the Census Bureau (CB) use the new TAZ definitions to tabulate ACS data for CTPP? Since the CB PSAP to define track and block groups is focused on the 2010 regular census, tabulations of ACS data issued in 2010 and after would follow the new geographies. Any earlier products would use existing 2000 geography. For example, the pooled-fund calls for small-area tabulations from ACS data using a required 5-year period -- 2005, 06, 07, 08 and 09. The data would not be released until 2010-2011 and we have been assured that it would follow 2010 geography. However, for our first 3-year product (2005, 06 and 07), we have to use 2000 geographic units and meet the 20,000 population threshold per zone. 4. What is the history of TAZ definition for CTPP? For the 1980 and 1990 data tabulations TAZs were restricted to 6 characters and only one set of TAZs could be defined per region. The data assigned to these TAZs represented an equivalency process where MPOs were asked to let the CB know which blocks to assign to which TAZ. Blocks could not be split and the TAZs really became an aggregation of blocks and block groups. In 2000, a major improvement was made where the TAZs were defined early and placed in the CB TIGER file. With the TAZs in TIGER the CB was then able to put the actual data for the area the TAZ represented in the predetermined TAZs. For the first time the urban TAZs became a unique tabulation geography and not just an aggregation of Census geographical units. While this new process was adopted for TAZs the equivalency process remained for those areas that crated state-level TAZs. This was due to size limitation of the TIGER record and other technical processing issues. 5. WHAT are some items to consider? As we look toward the future and ACS related transportation data products, further TIGER improvements are on the horizon. Inside the CB the Geography Division is undergoing a major overhaul of its TIGER file data base. Conceptually, TIGER is moving to something akin to a relational data base and space limitations are a thing of the past. Not only can we consider adding more characters to the TAZ field, we can even talk about having different TAZ zone structures. Assuming the AASHTO pooled-fund is approved, one of the first tasks will be to focus on defining TAZs for inclusion into the new TIGER system. As a result, we need to focus on what we want in terms of TAZs. Other items that are nearing the horizon concern the detail data tables to be included in the various products. The pooled-fund is calling for a one, three and five year transportation data product. However, before we work on the specific details of the product design the pooled-fund must first be approved and funded. As Chair of the TRB Urban Data Committee, the sponsoring committee of the Census Data Subcommittee, I hope to see this list serve used as a forum to feed these discussions. Currently we have over 550 subscribers to this list, most who are the active census data users in their MPOs, states, consulting firms and universities. Finally, if you have a question about any of this, please post it to the list serve. We are at a critical time in terms of getting the information out to our various users. So please share your comments, questions and experiences. -- Ed Christopher Resource Center Planning Team Federal Highway Administration 19900 Governors Drive Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) 708-283-3501 (F)

19 years

RE: [CTPP] October 3 is the next scheduled release ofACStablesincluding PLACE OF WORK!

by Richard Lin

Dear Tom, Just ask the Census Bureau Data Users Division for qualifications to be included in the Pre-Embargo List. As I (as FSCPE and REAC members) know, many organizations such as SDC, FSCPE, news/press organizations, and many others are on the lists by signing a News Release Embargo Agreement. If you have very good reasons (representing many data users) to be included, you should pursue. Just get to the Embargo website from the Census Bureau's homepage and contact the person in charge. Good luck. ________________________________ Richard Lin, Ph.D. Demographer Colorado Department of Local Affairs Division of Local Government 1313 Sherman Street, Room 521 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303)866-4989 Fax:: (303)866-2660 richard.lin(a)state.co.us www.DOLA.Colorado.Gov >>> "Tom Reinauer" <treinauer(a)smrpc.org> 10/2/2006 7:35 AM >>> I agree with Ed. This is a problem, and I remember commenting about it extensively following the 2000 Census data started being released. Perhaps there's an opportunity to collectively ask the appropriate agency/agencies to see if there is a way that professionals can receive the data prior to or at the same time as the press. I have since forgotten about how/why this embargo thing occurs, but it would save us a lot of time explaining and correcting things after-the- fact. --Tom Tom Reinauer, Transportation Director Southern Maine RPC & Kittery Area MPO 21 Bradeen St. Suite 304 Springvale, ME 04083 (207)324-2952 Ext. 18 (207)324-2958 fax treinauer(a)smrpc.org www.smrpc.org -----Original Message----- From: ed christopher [mailto:edc(a)berwyned.com] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:11 AM To: Alan Pisarski Cc: Srinivasan, Nanda; ctpp-news maillist; 'Murakami,Elaine'; North,Joel; Phil Salopek Subject: Re: [CTPP] October 3 is the next scheduled release ofACStablesincluding PLACE OF WORK! This has always been the issue. The press gets the data early as embargoed and then the transportation folks get torpedoed and don't have a chance to respond because they haven't seen the data. Case in point. The Atlanta Journal Constitution ran an article about one county leading the nation with a 51 minute travel time. Well after the story broke Joel North from GDOT and Nandu Srinivasan used PUMs to learn the data looked funny. There were way too many 150 minute type commutes. The data did not make sense and with sampling things can happen. Elaine Murakami then found out from Phil that indeed something was wrong. The CB had a bad coder survey taker at the front end, going through retraining and trying to figure out how to deal with the data.. The point however, is if the "public agency" transportation community had the data when the press had it we may have been able to inform what became a very misleading article. Another point--People do need to look at the data. I have playing with the rank of all 775 counties that have data by their mean travel time. American Factfinder has a lot on it. The article can be found at (You do have to register for a fee) 51.6 MINUTES :Commute time report stumps Coweta officials Date: September 7, 2006 http://nl.newsbank.com/nojavascript.html Land of the long commute: Georgia is No. 1 in counties with time-wasting trips to work. The sprawl makes homes affordable, but the crawl drives down the quality of life. Date: August 31, 2006 http://nl.newsbank.com/nojavascript.html Alan Pisarski wrote: > USA Today has the data and is planning a fairly major play on the > release date. AEP > _____ > > From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net > [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] > On Behalf Of Murakami, Elaine > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:46 PM > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > Subject: [CTPP] October 3 is the next scheduled release of ACS > tablesincluding PLACE OF WORK! > > How time flies! Just when you thought you were getting a handle on > the journey-to-work data from the 2005 ACS, the next round of data > will released! The next set will include Place of Work tabulations. > >From the CTPP world, these are like "CTPP Part 2" tables, where the tabulation is by > place-of-work, rather than place-of-residence. Since the 2005 ACS included > ALL counties in the sample, the place-of-work tabulations should look > much better than the 2004 ACS place-of-work tabulations (about > one-third of counties were included in the sample). > > Don't forget: > > 1. 2005 ACS does not include Group Quarters population. That is, > areas with large military installations and/or college dormitories > should expect considerable differences when comparing to Census 2000 > results. > > 2. The data are collected over all 12 months, therefore areas with > seasonal shifts are likely to see the greatest differences when > comparing to Census 2000 results. > > Good luck! Nanda Srinivasan, Ed Christopher and I are trying to wrap > up our new Profile sheets using the 2005 ACS Place-of-Residence > tables, but we have had a lot of work on calculating Margins of Error > and incorporating the results into the tables. > > Elaine Murakami > FHWA Office of Planning > 206-220-4460 (in Seattle) -- Ed Christopher FHWA Resource Center 19900 Governors Drive Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461 708-283-3534 (v) 708-283-3501 (f) 708-574-8131 (cell) _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

19 years

RE: [CTPP] October 3 is the next scheduled release ofACStablesincluding PLACE OF WORK!

by Tom Reinauer

I agree with Ed. This is a problem, and I remember commenting about it extensively following the 2000 Census data started being released. Perhaps there's an opportunity to collectively ask the appropriate agency/agencies to see if there is a way that professionals can receive the data prior to or at the same time as the press. I have since forgotten about how/why this embargo thing occurs, but it would save us a lot of time explaining and correcting things after-the- fact. --Tom Tom Reinauer, Transportation Director Southern Maine RPC & Kittery Area MPO 21 Bradeen St. Suite 304 Springvale, ME 04083 (207)324-2952 Ext. 18 (207)324-2958 fax treinauer(a)smrpc.org www.smrpc.org -----Original Message----- From: ed christopher [mailto:edc(a)berwyned.com] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:11 AM To: Alan Pisarski Cc: Srinivasan, Nanda; ctpp-news maillist; 'Murakami,Elaine'; North,Joel; Phil Salopek Subject: Re: [CTPP] October 3 is the next scheduled release ofACStablesincluding PLACE OF WORK! This has always been the issue. The press gets the data early as embargoed and then the transportation folks get torpedoed and don't have a chance to respond because they haven't seen the data. Case in point. The Atlanta Journal Constitution ran an article about one county leading the nation with a 51 minute travel time. Well after the story broke Joel North from GDOT and Nandu Srinivasan used PUMs to learn the data looked funny. There were way too many 150 minute type commutes. The data did not make sense and with sampling things can happen. Elaine Murakami then found out from Phil that indeed something was wrong. The CB had a bad coder survey taker at the front end, going through retraining and trying to figure out how to deal with the data.. The point however, is if the "public agency" transportation community had the data when the press had it we may have been able to inform what became a very misleading article. Another point--People do need to look at the data. I have playing with the rank of all 775 counties that have data by their mean travel time. American Factfinder has a lot on it. The article can be found at (You do have to register for a fee) 51.6 MINUTES :Commute time report stumps Coweta officials Date: September 7, 2006 http://nl.newsbank.com/nojavascript.html Land of the long commute: Georgia is No. 1 in counties with time-wasting trips to work. The sprawl makes homes affordable, but the crawl drives down the quality of life. Date: August 31, 2006 http://nl.newsbank.com/nojavascript.html Alan Pisarski wrote: > USA Today has the data and is planning a fairly major play on the > release date. AEP > _____ > > From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net > [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] > On Behalf Of Murakami, Elaine > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:46 PM > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > Subject: [CTPP] October 3 is the next scheduled release of ACS > tablesincluding PLACE OF WORK! > > How time flies! Just when you thought you were getting a handle on > the journey-to-work data from the 2005 ACS, the next round of data > will released! The next set will include Place of Work tabulations. > >From the CTPP world, these are like "CTPP Part 2" tables, where the tabulation is by > place-of-work, rather than place-of-residence. Since the 2005 ACS included > ALL counties in the sample, the place-of-work tabulations should look > much better than the 2004 ACS place-of-work tabulations (about > one-third of counties were included in the sample). > > Don't forget: > > 1. 2005 ACS does not include Group Quarters population. That is, > areas with large military installations and/or college dormitories > should expect considerable differences when comparing to Census 2000 > results. > > 2. The data are collected over all 12 months, therefore areas with > seasonal shifts are likely to see the greatest differences when > comparing to Census 2000 results. > > Good luck! Nanda Srinivasan, Ed Christopher and I are trying to wrap > up our new Profile sheets using the 2005 ACS Place-of-Residence > tables, but we have had a lot of work on calculating Margins of Error > and incorporating the results into the tables. > > Elaine Murakami > FHWA Office of Planning > 206-220-4460 (in Seattle) -- Ed Christopher FHWA Resource Center 19900 Governors Drive Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461 708-283-3534 (v) 708-283-3501 (f) 708-574-8131 (cell) _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

19 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 October 2006