CTPP March 2007

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

6 participants
11 discussions

[CTPP] Intercensal Pop Estimates; USDOT population-based funding allocations

by Chuck Purvis

To: CTPP-News This week the Census Bureau released their intercensal population estimates: county- and state-level estimates for 7/1/2006. press release: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/009756… pop estimates page: http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/ Our press picked this up, and focused somewhat on the discrepancies between our California State Government's population estimates, and the Census Bureau's estimates. The story is here: http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_5503254 I was quoted in the paper, and made bold comments that the intercensal population estimates were NOT used in transportation funding formula. I needed to do some background research, because I was uncertain if intercensal population estimates are used in allocating USDOT funds. (From my discussions with staff, it's based on UZA population, lane-miles, bridge repair needs, VMT, etc.) My conclusions (hopefully correct), were that most (?) USDOT population formula programs are based on total population values at the urbanized area (UZA) level, not at county-level. And given that the Census Bureau's intercensal estimates are published only at the county and state level, and never (yet) at the UZA level, the USDOT funding allocations would necessarily be based on decennial (year 2000) population counts. So, my question to our Feds and other knowledgeable policy wonks is, are USDOT funds allocated based on intercensal population estimates, or not? (If some funds ARE allocated based on "current" population counts, from the Census pop estimates program, then I owe a call of apology to my city desk reporter....) Thanks in advance! Chuck Purvis ************************************************************** Charles L. Purvis, AICP Principal Transportation Planner/Analyst Metropolitan Transportation Commission 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607-4700 (510) 817-5755 (office) (510) 817-7848 (fax) cpurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov (e-mail) www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/ **************************************************************

18 years, 4 months

[CTPP] SENIOR TRAVEL DEMAND MODELER POSTING--Please Forward Post or Announce

by Paul Hamilton

SENIOR TRAVEL DEMAND MODELER The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, located in Michigan=s state capital, is seeking a technically oriented professional transportation planner for the position of Senior Modeler. Requires strong skills, experience and training related to travel demand modeling. The successful candidate will have technical and analytical skills in many of the following areas: * Directly applying, updating and maintaining traffic forecasting models, such as TRANPLAN, TRANSCAD or other packages. * Developing and applying socioeconomic forecasting and/or land use models to prepare population and employment forecasts. * Air quality conformity/emissions analysis. * Familiarity with GIS, census data, highway capacity analysis and other traffic engineering studies, preparing long range transportation plans, corridor and sub-regional studies. * Working knowledge of spreadsheets, relational data bases and computer graphics packages. Programming in at least one advanced language preferred. Requirements: Bachelor=s in planning, engineering or related field. Four years of progressively responsible experience in directly applying travel demand models, preparing socioeconomic forecasts and air quality conformity/emissions modeling. Masters preferred and may substitute for two years of experience. Excellent writing and public communications skills required. Salary Range: $46,739 - $60,956 commensurate with skills and experience. Excellent benefits include employer paid family coverage for health, dental and eye care, plus pension, holidays, vacation and sick leave. Resume To: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission 913 W. Holmes Rd., Suite 201 Lansing, MI 48910 phamilton(a)mitcrpc.org Position open until filled. *An Equal Opportunity Employer* Paul T. Hamilton, Chief Planner Tri-County Regional Planning Commission 913 W. Holmes Road, Ste. 201 Lansing, MI 48910 517.393.0342 (phone) 517.393.4424 (fax) tritrans(a)acd.net (email 1) phamilton(a)mitcrpc.org (email 2) www.mitcrpc.org (web)

18 years, 4 months

[CTPP] Improving web-based GIS access to CTPP2000 Part 3 flow data

by Murakami

Dear everyone- Besides learning that we need a "CTPP 2000 FAQs" that I posted yesterday, another thing I learned during Nandu's absence was that CTPP2000 Part 3 data is STILL confusing and sometimes difficult, despite what we consider improvements in data accessibility over time. There are 2 main ways to get the CTPP2000 Part 3 data. 1. On the CD's with the .ivt formats. Extracting data when the data are on multiple CDs is difficult. Directions for how to extract the data under these conditions are at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/appxp.htm 2. From the BTS TranStats webpage. http://www.transtats.bts.gov/databases.asp?Mode_ID=3&Mode_Desc=Highway&S ubject_ID2=0 I am interested in improving access to the CTPP2000 Part 3 data using a web-based GIS approach, and recently got a small project approved by FHWA. I would like YOUR IDEAS! When we designed the CTPP2000 Access Tool (CAT), we made sure that exporting to .shp files was included, but it was really up to individual users to create analytic maps. Now that web-based GIS is more robust, maybe it is time to use this technology for CTPP2000, and then it will be ready for the next CTPP based on ACS. (Note: based on a spreadsheet from AASHTO dated 2/28/07, 37 states have submitted commitment forms for the next CTPP). HERE ARE MY QUESTIONS: 1. What are desired features in a CTPP2000 Part 3 web-based GIS? 2. What kinds of mapping capabilities would be useful? 3. What kinds of tabulations would be useful? (e.g. counting workers by means of transportation to work by set radii distances from a specific TAZ or tract?) 4. Would the ability to compare CTPP2000 with LEHD "on the map" 2004 data be useful? Some of my thoughts (to get you started): I like the user interface for the LEHD "on the map" program, as it allows users to select origins and destinations, it creates tables for number of workers within defined radii, it creates other "standard" reports for aggregated geographic units. The LEHD data uses QCEW (previously called ES-202) and federal administrative records and sophisticated disclosure proofing routines that create synthetic data for home-to-work flow pair. The quality of the underlying QCEW data varies widely by state. Nonetheless, I like the user interface. http://lehdmap.dsd.census.gov/ Under e-learning there is a tutorial. http://lehd.dsd.census.gov/led/ A new version of "on the map" software is expected any day now, along with the first release of 2004 data for selected states. Judy Clark from the City of Bellevue created some thematic maps using the CTPP 2000 Part 3 data. This happens to be data with King County Census Tract 228.03 (Microsoft headquarters) as the work destination, because I live in Seattle and thought it would be fun to use as an example. One map shows number of workers, and the other shows workers per acre. The first map (number of workers) doesn't account for the variation in the land area of each tract. The map using "per acre" is reflecting different land use (more condo and apartment than single family homes, and lot sizes for single family homes). Another graph I like is one that Steve Raney from Cities21 did as part of his EPA project in the SF Bay Area. http://www.cities21.org/BABPC/ See .xls file above. The budget from FHWA is limited, so I can't promise that all your ideas will be incorporated into whatever we do. But, I look forward to hearing your ideas. Thanks in advance. Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460 (in Seattle)

18 years, 4 months

[CTPP] CTPP Helpful Hints document

by Murakami

While Nandu was on vacation in India for the month of February, I had to provide CTPP Technical Support. For the most part, I think I helped people, and I apologize to those who I could not help! I also learned that some "basic" information has been conveyed over the past several years via the CTPP Status Report and via the CTPP listserv, but not compiled anywhere. Here is our first DRAFT. We will add it to the USDOT CTPP webpage, and update it regularly. On behalf of your CTPP team: Elaine Murakami, FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460

18 years, 4 months

[CTPP] ACS table numbering and ACS tables to be deleted in 2006 processing

by Murakami

Dear everyone: I thought I would share some materials from Kin Koerber from the Census Bureau, and Phil Salopek (recently retired from the Census Bureau). ACS TABLE NAMING AND NUMBERING The first character in the table is a key to the type of the table. Subject S Several tables compiled together addressing a specific subject. Limited to areas with 1+ million population. Base or Detailed B These tables are used to create the Subject tables, but can be used independently. Collapsed C These tables are a smaller version of the Base tables with a reduced number of categories to reduce suppression. However, some tables may still be suppressed if the coefficient of variation among the cells is too high. Ranking R These tables sort the results based on individual values, for example, average travel time, or percent using transit as means of transportation to work. For 2005, these are given for State totals. Data Profiles --- There are 4 profile sheets: demographics, social, economic, housing, and 1 narrative document. The economic profile includes workers and commuting. Selected Population Profiles --- These are tables by race, ethnicity and ancestry. All the JTW and Place of Work tables begin with "08". As for the detailed (base) tables, there is somewhat of a pattern. Those beginning with B080 or C080 support the Subject Table S0801. Also included in that set are the Place of Work by metro/micro/non-metro or -micro tables (B08016-B08018/C08016-C08018). The latter are included with the others since S0801 uses the other Place of Work tables. However, S0801 does use some JTW tables. The workplace-based tables that parallel those detailed tables start with B084 or C084. The last two digits are the same for corresponding residence-based and workplace-based tables. The detailed tables that are used for the Means of Transportation Subject Table (S0802), are numbered starting with either B081 or C081. The workplace-based tables that parallel those detailed tables start with B085 or C085. The last two digits are the same for corresponding residence-based and workplace-based tables. The household data detailed tables that were requested by DOT and not used in any other products are numbered starting with either B082 or C082. These are: B08201: Household Size by Vehicles Available B08202: Household Size by Number of Workers B08203: Number of Workers by Vehicles Available The new one-dimensional JTW detailed tables will be numbered starting with either B083 or C083. The workplace-based tables that parallel those detailed tables will start with B086 or C086. The last two digits will be the same for corresponding residence-based and workplace-based tables. There will be holes in the numbering where tables are removed. 2005 ACS TABLES REMOVED FROM 2006 ACS TABULATION PLANS The CB's Journey to Work and Migration branch was asked to reduce the number of ACS standard tables for 2006 and beyond. >From the ACS website: these are the "journey to work" tables: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/acs-php/experienced_users_guide.php?acs_t opic=Journey+to+Work These are the "place of work" tables: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/acs-php/experienced_users_guide.php?acs_t opic=Place+of+Work There are the "vehicles available" tables: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/acs-php/experienced_users_guide.php?acs_t opic=Vehicles+Available' A univariate table of means of transportation to work (18 categories) has been added (see above). Here's the list of what was submitted for deletion. 1) Subject Table S0803. Retain subject tables S0801 (commuting characteristics by sex), S0802 (Means of Transportation (short list) by various characteristics such as age, race, sex, occupation and industry) but delete S0803 (worker characteristics crossed by sex). These subject tables are only produced for areas with 1 million+ population. 2) Mean travel time in S0802. Delete the mean travel time to work column from subject table S0802. To calculate the mean travel time, these "aggregate travel times" are needed, so by eliminating mean travel time from the subject table, 21 base tables/collapsed tables: B08102, B08106A through I (race/Hispanic repeats), B08112, B08114/C08114, B08120, B08123, B08125, B08127, B08129, B08138, B08142/C08142 can be eliminated. Some tables with travel time distributions remain e.g. B08012, B08134. 3) Means of Transportation by Marital Status : Delete the base tables, collapsed tables, and aggregate travel time table of Means of Transportation by Marital Status. These are tables B08115/C08115, B08515/C08515, and B08116/C08116. Also delete Marital Status from subject tables S0802 and S0804. This change deletes all the marital status by means of transportation data. 4) Means of Transportation by Educational Attainment Delete the base tables, collapsed tables, and aggregate travel time table of Means of Transportation by Educational Attainment. This is tables B08117/C08117, B08517/C08517, and B08118. Also delete Educational Attainment from subject tables S0802 and S0804. This removes all the educational attainment by means of transportation data. 5) Means of Transportation by Household Type There are only two categories of household type used in these tables: 1) Married couple family households and 2) Other households. Delete the base tables, collapsed tables, and aggregate travel time table of Means of Transportation by Household Type. These are tables B08139/C08139, B08539/C08539, and B08140. Also delete Household Type from subject tables S0802 and S0804. This removes all the household type by means of transportation data. Don't forget that we created our own profiles using the 2005 ACS results. These are available at: http://ctpp.transportation.org/home/default.htm and include some data from 1990 and 2000. Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460 (in Seattle)

18 years, 4 months

Re: [CTPP] TAZ Update

by michael.r.ratcliffe＠census.gov

Ed, I'm not quite sure what is meant by the following statement from your messge below: "All of these geographies could be aggregated to PUMAs if desired by the MPO/State. And of course, all zones would have to nest within counties." I assume by "all of these geographies" you mean tracts and block groups. If so, it is correct that tracts and block groups generally will aggregate to PUMAs. "Generally" is the operative word here because PUMAs generally are defined using either tracts or counties as "building blocks." Since block groups nest within tracts, which nest within counties, there usually is a nice, neat relationship between block groups, tracts, counties, and PUMAs. The exception is when a PUMA follows the boundary of a principal city of a metropolitan statistical area. In that situation, block groups and tracts will not aggregate to the PUMA. This situation tends to be the exception rather than the rule. The Census Bureau has not developed plans for updating PUMA boundaries for 2010. That said, at this time I don't foresee any substantive changes to the way in which PUMAs are delineated. Mike Ratcliffe ______________________________________ Michael R. Ratcliffe Chief, Geographic Standards and Criteria Branch Geography Division U.S. Census Bureau 301-763-8977 michael.r.ratcliffe(a)census.gov ed christopher <edc(a)berwyned.com > To Sent by: ctpp-news maillist ctpp-news-bounces <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> @chrispy.net cc Subject 03/07/2007 01:38 [CTPP] TAZ Update PM Last October Elaine Murakami posted an email to this listserve (http://www.chrispy.net/pipermail/ctpp-news/2006-October/001517.html) updating folks on the discussions that are underway between FHWA and the Census Bureau (CB) Geography Division regarding the definition of new TAZs to be used for the 5-year special tabulation of the ACS data. Since that time further progress has been made. It looks like MPOs and State DOTs would be working on their TAZs toward the end of 2008 and early 2009 with TAZs being submitted in the middle of 2009. This is important because many areas are already preparing their work programs to cover this time frame. Exactly, how much work will be involved is not yet known. The plan (desire) is to use a GIS-based approach similar to that used for the TAZ definition for the CTPP2000. We would like a system that does not require special licensing of GIS software and is user friendly much like the TAZ-UP effort used for CTPP2000. As an historic note, the TAZ-UP program for CTPP2000 was developed as an add-on to ArcView 3.1 and required users to have a licensed version of ArcView. Currently, FHWA staff has asked the CB to plan for the software to create three levels of TAZs that nest within each other. The smallest is a base TAZ that would be similar to the traditional small area geography TAZs used in 2000 and 1990 . The next size, or medium sized TAZs, would be aggregates of the base TAZs (about 4,000 population) and the larger size (about 20,000 population) TAZs would be aggregates of the medium TAZs. This is very akin to Blocks being aggregated to Block Groups and then Block Groups being aggregated to Tracts. All of these geographies could be aggregated to PUMAs if desired by the MPO/State. And of course, all zones would have to nest within counties. There are still quite a few details to be fleshed out but for now it is important to recognize that some staff time on the part of the MPOs and States will be required if an area wishes to define TAZs. Updates to these activities will be posted on this listserve and in quarterly Status Report newsletter which can be found online at http://www.trbcensus.com/ or http://www.dot.gov/ctpp -- 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 _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

18 years, 4 months

Re: [CTPP] TAZ Update

by michael.r.ratcliffe＠census.gov

18 years, 4 months

Re: [CTPP] TAZ Update

by edc＠berwyned.com

Mike--Thanks for clearing that up. I am glad that you pointed this out. You explained it far better than I ever could. michael.r.ratcliffe(a)census.gov wrote: > > Ed, > > I'm not quite sure what is meant by the following statement from your > messge below: "All of these geographies could be aggregated to PUMAs > if desired by the MPO/State. And of course, all zones would have to > nest within counties." > > I assume by "all of these geographies" you mean tracts and block groups. > If so, it is correct that tracts and block groups generally will aggregate > to PUMAs. "Generally" is the operative word here because PUMAs generally > are defined using either tracts or counties as "building blocks." Since > block groups nest within tracts, which nest within counties, there usually > is a nice, neat relationship between block groups, tracts, counties, and > PUMAs. The exception is when a PUMA follows the boundary of a principal > city of a metropolitan statistical area. In that situation, block groups > and tracts will not aggregate to the PUMA. This situation tends to be the > exception rather than the rule. > > The Census Bureau has not developed plans for updating PUMA boundaries for > 2010. That said, at this time I don't foresee any substantive changes to > the way in which PUMAs are delineated. > > Mike Ratcliffe > ______________________________________ > Michael R. Ratcliffe > Chief, Geographic Standards and Criteria Branch > Geography Division > U.S. Census Bureau > 301-763-8977 > michael.r.ratcliffe(a)census.gov > > > From: ed christopher > To: ctpp-news maillist > > Last October Elaine Murakami posted an email to this listserve > (http://www.chrispy.net/pipermail/ctpp-news/2006-October/001517.html) > updating folks on the discussions that are underway between FHWA and the > Census Bureau (CB) Geography Division regarding the definition of new > TAZs to be used for the 5-year special tabulation of the ACS data. > Since that time further progress has been made. It looks like MPOs and > State DOTs would be working on their TAZs toward the end of 2008 and > early 2009 with TAZs being submitted in the middle of 2009. This is > important because many areas are already preparing their work programs > to cover this time frame. Exactly, how much work will be involved is > not yet known. > > The plan (desire) is to use a GIS-based approach similar to that used > for the TAZ definition for the CTPP2000. We would like a system that > does not require special licensing of GIS software and is user friendly > much like the TAZ-UP effort used for CTPP2000. As an historic note, the > TAZ-UP program for CTPP2000 was developed as an add-on to ArcView 3.1 > and required users to have a licensed version of ArcView. > > Currently, FHWA staff has asked the CB to plan for the software to > create three levels of TAZs that nest within each other. The smallest > is a base TAZ that would be similar to the traditional â€œsmall area > geographyâ€{WP12,157} TAZs used in 2000 and 1990 . The next size, or medium sized > TAZs, would be aggregates of the base TAZs (about 4,000 population) and > the larger size (about 20,000 population) TAZs would be aggregates of > the medium TAZs. This is very akin to Blocks being aggregated to Block > Groups and then Block Groups being aggregated to Tracts. All of these > geographies could be aggregated to PUMAs if desired by the MPO/State. > And of course, all zones would have to nest within counties. > > There are still quite a few details to be fleshed out but for now it is > important to recognize that some staff time on the part of the MPOs and > States will be required if an area wishes to define TAZs. Updates to > these activities will be posted on this listserve and in quarterly > â€œStatus Reportâ€{WP12,157} newsletter which can be found online at > http://www.trbcensus.com/ or http://www.dot.gov/ctpp > > -- > 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

18 years, 4 months

Re: [CTPP] TAZ Update

by michael.r.ratcliffe＠census.gov

18 years, 4 months

Re: [CTPP] TAZ Update

by Ed Christopher

Mike--Thanks for clearing that up. I am glad that you pointed this out. You explained it far better than I ever could. michael.r.ratcliffe(a)census.gov wrote: > > Ed, > > I'm not quite sure what is meant by the following statement from your > messge below: "All of these geographies could be aggregated to PUMAs > if desired by the MPO/State. And of course, all zones would have to > nest within counties." > > I assume by "all of these geographies" you mean tracts and block groups. > If so, it is correct that tracts and block groups generally will aggregate > to PUMAs. "Generally" is the operative word here because PUMAs generally > are defined using either tracts or counties as "building blocks." Since > block groups nest within tracts, which nest within counties, there usually > is a nice, neat relationship between block groups, tracts, counties, and > PUMAs. The exception is when a PUMA follows the boundary of a principal > city of a metropolitan statistical area. In that situation, block groups > and tracts will not aggregate to the PUMA. This situation tends to be the > exception rather than the rule. > > The Census Bureau has not developed plans for updating PUMA boundaries for > 2010. That said, at this time I don't foresee any substantive changes to > the way in which PUMAs are delineated. > > Mike Ratcliffe > ______________________________________ > Michael R. Ratcliffe > Chief, Geographic Standards and Criteria Branch > Geography Division > U.S. Census Bureau > 301-763-8977 > michael.r.ratcliffe(a)census.gov > > > From: ed christopher > To: ctpp-news maillist > > Last October Elaine Murakami posted an email to this listserve > (http://www.chrispy.net/pipermail/ctpp-news/2006-October/001517.html) > updating folks on the discussions that are underway between FHWA and the > Census Bureau (CB) Geography Division regarding the definition of new > TAZs to be used for the 5-year special tabulation of the ACS data. > Since that time further progress has been made. It looks like MPOs and > State DOTs would be working on their TAZs toward the end of 2008 and > early 2009 with TAZs being submitted in the middle of 2009. This is > important because many areas are already preparing their work programs > to cover this time frame. Exactly, how much work will be involved is > not yet known. > > The plan (desire) is to use a GIS-based approach similar to that used > for the TAZ definition for the CTPP2000. We would like a system that > does not require special licensing of GIS software and is user friendly > much like the TAZ-UP effort used for CTPP2000. As an historic note, the > TAZ-UP program for CTPP2000 was developed as an add-on to ArcView 3.1 > and required users to have a licensed version of ArcView. > > Currently, FHWA staff has asked the CB to plan for the software to > create three levels of TAZs that nest within each other. The smallest > is a base TAZ that would be similar to the traditional âsmall area > geographyâ TAZs used in 2000 and 1990 . The next size, or medium sized > TAZs, would be aggregates of the base TAZs (about 4,000 population) and > the larger size (about 20,000 population) TAZs would be aggregates of > the medium TAZs. This is very akin to Blocks being aggregated to Block > Groups and then Block Groups being aggregated to Tracts. All of these > geographies could be aggregated to PUMAs if desired by the MPO/State. > And of course, all zones would have to nest within counties. > > There are still quite a few details to be fleshed out but for now it is > important to recognize that some staff time on the part of the MPOs and > States will be required if an area wishes to define TAZs. Updates to > these activities will be posted on this listserve and in quarterly > âStatus Reportâ newsletter which can be found online at > http://www.trbcensus.com/ or http://www.dot.gov/ctpp > > -- > 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)

18 years, 4 months

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 March 2007