CTPP February 2011

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

30 participants
24 discussions

RE: [CTPP] Proposed Criteria and Guidelines for PUMAs responses are due FEB 28

by Elaine.Murakami＠dot.gov

Dear Everyone -- I am just re-iterating Mike's note. Some of the reasons that we want the transportation community to pay attention to PUMA criteria are: a. For Census 2000, the participation of transportation agencies in the PUMA delineation process was spotty, and therefore, the PUMAs defined in coordination with the CB's State Data Center program often were not useful for transportation planning, e.g. a county might be broken up into City A, City B and "rest of County" which looked like a cookie with 2 holes. The proposed criteria is to use census tracts and counties as the building blocks. b. PUMAs used to be primarily used with the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), but PUMAs are now an important tabulation geography which meet the Census Bureau's threshold for annual reporting from the American Community Survey. Since counties and places often do not meet the 1-year threshold of 65,000 population, using PUMAs provides a geographic coverage without holes. I hope you will take this opportunity to provide your thoughts to the Census Bureau. And, when the actual delineation occurs, I hope that you will work together with your State's Data Center. http://www.census.gov/sdc/network.html Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460 -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of michael.r.ratcliffe(a)census.gov Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 12:27 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] Proposed Criteria and Guidelines for PUMAs for the 2010Census and the ACS Proposed Criteria and Guidelines for Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) for the 2010 Census and the American Community Survey The Census Bureau announces publication of the "Proposed Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) Criteria and Guidelines for the 2010 Census and American Community Survey" available on the Census Bureau’s website at http://www.census.gov/geo/puma/puma2010.html . The Census Bureau is seeking public comment on these proposed criteria and guidelines. Comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the criteria should be submitted in writing, no later than February 28, 2011 to Timothy Trainor, Chief, Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233-7400. The Census Bureau's 2010 PUMAs will be used to present 2010 Census decennial Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) data, American Community Survey (ACS) PUMS data, and ACS estimates. PUMA delineations are subject to population threshold, specific building block geography, geographic nesting, and PUMA contiguity criteria. Proposed changes for 2010 PUMAs include: § Only one level of PUMA geography will be delineated (comparable to the 5-percent PUMAs for Census 2000). § Each PUMA must have a population of at least 100,000 persons at the time it is delineated, and must maintain a minimum population of 100,000 throughout the decade. § Each PUMA-county part must meet a minimum population threshold of 2,400 persons. § Counties and census tracts will be the only geographic “building blocks” for 2010 PUMAs. Additional information about the history of PUMAs, as well as summaries of the proposed changes are available on the Census Bureau's website at http://www.census.gov/geo/puma/puma2010.html . To obtain further information concerning the Census Bureau’s proposed 2010 PUMA criteria, please contact Vincent Osier, Chief, Geographic Standards and Criteria Branch, Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau, via e-mail at vincent.osier(a)census.gov or by telephone at 301-763-3056. Michael R. Ratcliffe Assistant Division Chief, Geocartographic Products and Criteria Geography Division U.S. Census Bureau 4600 Silver Hill Road/ MS-7400 Washington, DC 20233-7400 301-763-8977 michael.r.ratcliffe(a)census.gov

13 years, 2 months

[CTPP] Job announcement for Madison, WI MPO Planner/Modeler

by Schaefer

The Madison Area Transportation Planning Board, the MPO for the Madison, WI Area, is seeking a transportation planner/modeler. The general responsibilities are listed below: Transportation Planner/Modeler: Responsible professional urban and regional transportation planning work supporting the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Madison area. The position is responsible for the operation and maintenance of a regional travel demand forecast model for generating traffic and transit use forecasts; preparing socioeconomic data forecasts and assembling and analyzing data for transportation planning and modeling purposes; providing assistance with the preparation of multi-modal transportation plans, reports and studies; providing assistance with the annual update to the Transportation Improvement Program; and assistance in providing staff support to the MPO policy board and MPO advisory committees. Work is performed under general supervision. The following is a link to the job announcement on the City of Madison Human Resources' website. The City staffs the MPO. Please direct any questions to City HR. http://www.cityofmadison.com/employment/employmentListingDetails.cfm?Id=588 Bill Schaefer, Transportation Planning Manager Madison Area Transportation Planning Board - An MPO 121 S. Pinckney St., #400 Madison, WI 53703 PH: (608) 266-9115 FAX: (608) 261-9967 Email: wschaefer(a)cityofmadison.com www.MadisonAreaMPO.org

13 years, 3 months

[CTPP] American FactFinder2

by Jonathan Lupton

Thanks to everybody who offered tips yesterday. I'm glad I'm not the only one who is confused by FactFinder2. Let me share a few things I learned today as I prepared for my state's data release: 1. The Census Bureau is glad to help. The CTPP list serve put me in touch with somebody at the Bureau who did the kindness of offering help with factfinder2. Use the following numbers: Census training: 301-763-4308, or, if they're busy/overwhelmed with calls, you can call their call center at 800-923-8282. Apparently even the call center staff have the capability to walk you through factfinder2. 2. With Census Bureau help, I have done some cursory work in FactFinder2, and can bring down basic data, but not yet refined data. My summary opinion, after a half day of fiddling with it, as that with proper training FF2 is probably a marvelous tool, far superior to FF1. It allows you to create nice summary PDFs, and the download into Excel is smoother with less clutter. It will soon have the capability for downloading into other software types, and you can still go with the old standbys like .csv files. 3. The dark side, however, is that it can turn into a "hall of mirrors" pretty fast, as you dig for detailed data. I know where I'm going for a while, then suddenly something doesn't make sense, and I'm surrounded by apparitions that look real but are actually impenetrable reflecting walls. 4. A knowledgeable person candidly told me that he / she suspects the reason the SDC's haven't given much help so far is that they aren't yet fully confident with FF2 themselves, so they're not rushing to offer training in it. 5. The FTP process is also pretty daunting. My thanks to Mara Kaminowitz, who recommended downloading the FTP for one of the states that is already out, and practicing on it. I'm still struggling with Virginia, my chosen sample state; it's been a slog but I think I'm beginning to make sense of it. If you do the FTP download, don't forget to also download the related PDFs with instructions and background information. Again, thanks everybody for your help. As a data user, I find it comforting to know I'm not alone in these troubles! Jonathan Lupton Metroplan Little Rock, Arkansas

13 years, 3 months

[CTPP] FactFinder2

by Jonathan Lupton

Is anybody else having trouble using FactFinder2? My state, Arkansas, is due for Census 2010 figures this week. I have tried to familiarize myself with FactFinder2, but cannot get much out of it. The actual product DOES NOT work the way the tutorial says it should. My agency will fall back on FTP downloading as our only source if necessary, of course. I hope we don't have to switch to FTP for everything! Our state data center had no help, nor any plans for training seminars, etc., when I called about this matter. Any tips, thoughts, reflections from other data users? Jonathan Lupton Metroplan Little Rock Arkansas

13 years, 3 months

Re: [CTPP] RE: "Backing out" MOE

by Kevin Tierney

The Census Bureau suggests an approximation for calculating standard errors (MOE/1.645) for estimate differences (see link below). http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/Statistical_Test… The calculation for differences is the same as for aggregations (As Liang noted, the standard error increase whenever you combine estimates regardless of whether you are combining them or differencing them). Regards to all. ________________________________ From: Louis Pino <LPino(a)drcog.org> To: "ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net" <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Sent: Fri, February 4, 2011 3:54:14 PM Subject: [CTPP] RE: "Backing out" MOE Thank you for the replies, but I guess my question was not clear. I know how to create the MOEs for the aggregated data, but I am wondering how to calculate the MOE when the estimate is derived by taking the difference of the muni totals from the county totals to get the unincorporated piece of the county. Thanks again, Louis -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of ctpp-news-request(a)chrispy.net Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 11:00 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: ctpp-news Digest, Vol 84, Issue 11 Send ctpp-news mailing list submissions to ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ctpp-news-request(a)chrispy.net You can reach the person managing the list at ctpp-news-owner(a)chrispy.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ctpp-news digest..." Today's Topics: 1. RE: "Backing out" MOE (Liang.Long(a)dot.gov) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 12:42:47 -0500 From: <Liang.Long(a)dot.gov> Subject: RE: [CTPP] "Backing out" MOE To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>, <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Cc: Pweinberger(a)aashto.org Message-ID: <D8D5EBA50E89CE4C934608AB7EC21CA5E0FB09(a)OSTMAIL03VS4.ad.dot.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 9106 bytes Desc: image001.gif Url : http://ryoko.chrispy.net/pipermail/ctpp-news/attachments/20110204/eaa1ceec/…

13 years, 3 months

[CTPP] RE: "Backing out" MOE

by Louis Pino

Thank you for the replies, but I guess my question was not clear. I know how to create the MOEs for the aggregated data, but I am wondering how to calculate the MOE when the estimate is derived by taking the difference of the muni totals from the county totals to get the unincorporated piece of the county. Thanks again, Louis -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of ctpp-news-request(a)chrispy.net Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 11:00 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: ctpp-news Digest, Vol 84, Issue 11 Send ctpp-news mailing list submissions to ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ctpp-news-request(a)chrispy.net You can reach the person managing the list at ctpp-news-owner(a)chrispy.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ctpp-news digest..." Today's Topics: 1. RE: "Backing out" MOE (Liang.Long(a)dot.gov) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 12:42:47 -0500 From: <Liang.Long(a)dot.gov> Subject: RE: [CTPP] "Backing out" MOE To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>, <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Cc: Pweinberger(a)aashto.org Message-ID: <D8D5EBA50E89CE4C934608AB7EC21CA5E0FB09(a)OSTMAIL03VS4.ad.dot.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Skipped content of type multipart/alternative

13 years, 3 months

RE: [CTPP] "Backing out" MOE

by Liang.Long＠dot.gov

Hi, Louis To calculate the MPO for aggregated count data, you just take the square root of sum of the squared MOEs for each component estimate. Liang Long Federal Highway Administration Room 74-440 1200 New Jersey, SE Washington, DC 20590 tel 202 366 6971 fax 202 493 2198 e-mail liang.long(a)dot.gov <mailto:liang.long(a)dot.gov> ________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net on behalf of Louis Pino Sent: Thu 2/3/2011 3:38 PM To: 'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net' Subject: [CTPP] "Backing out" MOE Hello- I am working with the five year ACS data, and we are trying to create profiles for the unincorporated portions of the county. My question(s) is: If I sum up the estimates for all the municipalities in their respective county can I simply take the difference from the county total and call it the unincorporated part? If so, how do you obtain the MOE for this number? Can you "back out" the MOE from the adjusted (square root of the sum)muni MOEs and the county MOE? Or do I have to aggregate block group data for these areas? Thanks in advance for your help! Louis Pino| Socioeconomic Analyst | Customer Resource and Support Direct 303.480.6000 | Fax 303.480.6790 2008_DRCOG_Email_Bussiness_Card<https://webmail3.dot.gov/exchange/Liang.Long/Drafts/RE:%20[CTPP]%20%22Backi…> SolarSignature <http://solarmap.drcog.org/> Try out DRCOG's new tool to check solar energy savings potential at http://solarmap.drcog.org <http://solarmap.drcog.org/>

13 years, 3 months

[CTPP] "Backing out" MOE

by Louis Pino

Hello- I am working with the five year ACS data, and we are trying to create profiles for the unincorporated portions of the county. My question(s) is: If I sum up the estimates for all the municipalities in their respective county can I simply take the difference from the county total and call it the unincorporated part? If so, how do you obtain the MOE for this number? Can you "back out" the MOE from the adjusted (square root of the sum)muni MOEs and the county MOE? Or do I have to aggregate block group data for these areas? Thanks in advance for your help! Louis Pino| Socioeconomic Analyst | Customer Resource and Support Direct 303.480.6000 | Fax 303.480.6790 [cid:image001.gif(a)01CBC3A7.A3224D00] [cid:image002.jpg(a)01CBC3A7.A3224D00]<http://solarmap.drcog.org/> Try out DRCOG's new tool to check solar energy savings potential at http://solarmap.drcog.org<http://solarmap.drcog.org/>

13 years, 3 months

RE: [CTPP] 2000 and 2006-08 work trip comparison question

by Graham

Hi Frank-- Hope the new year is treating you well. You asked what you're missing: How is the 3-year or 5-year window *not* like a moving average? Some of the moving parts changing from year to year are the control totals and, as result, the weights (expansion factor) that would be attached to any given household found in the 5 annual sub-samples that comprise the period sample. The population control totals come an exogenous, completely-outside-the-survey-itself, annual estimation model. And in our region, Mpls-St Paul, CB badly underestimated the top-line population totals during early and mid-decade. I think they realized it (oops), and they've been trying to make up ground ever since. Also pertaining to control totals, there may be a time-series disruption for small areas with the vintage 2009 data. CB transitioned from having county-level control totals to having sub-county control totals. And that's likely to cause weird time-series breaks for some cities where population was previously under- (or over-)estimated. ... Expect more fun this Fall, when vintage 2010 ACS are re-benchmarked to 2010 Census Enumeration ________________________ Todd Graham Principal Forecaster Metropolitan Council 390 Robert Street North Saint Paul, MN 55101 ph: 651/602-1322 email: todd.graham(a)metc.state.mn.us in: www.linkedin.com/in/toddgraham web: www.metrocouncil.org ________________________ ________________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Frank Lenk [FLENK(a)MARC.ORG] Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 10:34 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] 2000 and 2006-08 work trip comparison question. Call me dense, but I don’t see how this problem is any different than working with moving averages. I mean, I do understand that this data is not an average but a period estimate. Still, the issues created by dropping the first year of the period and adding the last year as the data series moves forward in time seems the same to me. What am I not understanding properly? Frank Frank Lenk Director of Research Services Mid-America Regional Council 600 Broadway, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64105 www.marc.org<http://www.marc.org> 816.474.4240 flenk(a)marc.org<mailto:flenk(a)marc.org> 816.701.8237 From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Patty Becker Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 3:17 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] 2000 and 2006-08 work trip comparison question. If you see the point about the problem of comparing overlapping 3 year ACS estimates, it gets even worse with consecutive 5 year numbers, in which 4 of the 5 years are the same data. Personally, I think there's a strong argument for releasing 5 year data only twice a decade, by definition non-overlapping. We may get to that point in a couple of years. Patty Becker At 03:53 PM 2/1/2011, you wrote: Frank-I totally agree and I would like to see the statisticians get involved and think about this. People are going to compare overlapping periods and we have to get smart about how to deal with this. As for why some say we should not compare overlapping years the story goes like this. If you have 2006 to 2008 data and 2007 to 2009 data you would have two overlapping years. According to the logic you would in fact only be comparing the first year 2006 to the last year 2009 as the middle two years would cancel themselves out. While this sounds logical on the surface there has to be a way to deal with overlapping 5-year periods or it doesn't make sense to have an ACS. I am not sure if anyone would out right admit it but is anyone designing performance measures or other regional metrics calling for tracking annual multi-year period estimates at tracts or places? Frank Lenk wrote: I would also be interested in a more detailed explanation of why we should not compare overlapping period estimates. From a practical standpoint, people are going to do it anyway, especially the press. What do we need to know - other than the inherent issues of what is a statistically significant vs. insignificant change and the fact that ACS was designed to examine characteristics of the population rather than its level - to be able to correct naïve interpretations of easily calculated tract-level year-to-year differences in the estimates of things like poverty rate, unemployment rate, educational attainment rates, etc.? What is a correct interpretation of these differences? Frank Frank Lenk Director of Research Services Mid-America Regional Council 600 Broadway, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64105 www.marc.org<http://www.marc.org/> < http://www.marc.org<http://www.marc.org/>> 816.474.4240 flenk(a)marc.org< mailto:flenk(a)marc.org> 816.701.8237 From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Kendra Watkins Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:05 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] 2000 and 2006-08 work trip comparison question. This is interesting. I recall hearing this guidance in the past. However on the Census website on the ACS page it specifically states; "Generally, you can compare American Community Survey (ACS) 3-year and 5-year estimates with Census 2000 data. There are differences in the universe, question wording, residence rules, reference periods, and the way in which the data are tabulated which can impact comparability." The qualifier in the second sentence addresses the conflict (different methods, time periods etc) but I can't find anywhere on the ACS pages where the Census recommends we not compare ACS to decennial Census. And when I search by subject the Journey to Work topic states that I can 'Compare' it to the 2000 Census. It does specifically state not to compare overlapping years on multiyear estimates. Kendra Watkins Senior Data Analyst Mid-Region Council of Governments 809 Copper Ave. NW Albuquerque, NM 87102 Phone: (505)724-3601 Fax: (505)247-1753 Email: kwatkins(a)mrcog-nm.gov< mailto:tgaudette(a)mrcog-nm.gov> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Weinberger, Penelope Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 8:41 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] 2000 and 2006-08 work trip comparison question. The CB does not recommend comparing an ACS based data set to a CB Long Form based data set. The 2000 data represent a point in time estimate, the ACS data represent a period estimate. Furthermore, the Census Bureau recommends not comparing period estimates with overlapping years. Penelope Weinberger CTPP Program Manager AASHTO 202-624-3556 http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx It's just as bad to not make a plan as to blindly follow the one you already have. From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Seidensticker, Dan Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 4:18 PM To: (ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net) Subject: [CTPP] 2000 and 2006-08 work trip comparison question. We downloaded the2006-2008 ACS county-to-county worker flow for Dane County, Wisconsin from http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/3yrdas.aspx. The question we now have...can that data be compared to the county-to-county 2000 CTPP work trips to determine any statistically significant increase/decrease? If so, how would one calculate the margin of error? Dan Seidensticker GIS Specialist Madison Area Transportation Planning Board: A Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) City of Madison Planning Unit 121 S. Pinckney Street, Suite 400 Madison, WI 53703 Voice: 608-266-9119 Fax: 608-261-9967 Email: dseidensticker(a)cityofmadison.com< mailto:dseidensticker(a)cityofmadison.com> www.MadisonAreaMPO.org<http://www.madisonareampo.org/> < http://www.madisonareampo.org/> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news -- Ed Christopher 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) FHWA RC-TST-PLN 4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600 Matteson, IL 60443 _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

13 years, 3 months

[CTPP] 2010 Data is starting to roll out

by Ed Christopher

The Census Bureau has started to ship the local 2010 Census data. So far Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey and Virginia have been shipped. Next week Arkansas, Iowa, Indiana and Maryland are planned. To see what states have been shipped and which are next in line go to http://www.census.gov/rdo/data/2010_census_redistricting_data_pl_94-171_sum… According to the release program which is tied to redistricting the data is shipped to the state leadership and after confirmation of receipt which usually takes 24 hours the CB will issue a news release with five custom tables of data for the state. At that time, the full set of data will be available simultaneously via FTP download on the Redistricting Data Office page http://www.census.gov/rdo/data>. Then within 24 hours after release, the data will be posted on the CB's new American FactFinder site at http://factfinder2.census.gov. The data will include summaries of population totals, as well as data on race, Hispanic origin and voting age. These data will be presented for multiple geographies within the state, such as census blocks, tracts, voting districts, cities, counties and school districts. According to Public Law 94-171, the CB must provide redistricting data to the 50 states no later than April 1 of the year following the census. As a result, the CB is delivering the data state-by-state on a flow basis in February and March. All states will receive their data by April 1, 2011. -- Ed Christopher 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) FHWA RC-TST-PLN 4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600 Matteson, IL 60443

13 years, 3 months

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 February 2011