CTPP June 2011

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

17 participants
18 discussions

[CTPP] Join us for "CTPP Data Access Software Basics"

by Weinberger

Hi all, Please join us for CTPP Software Basics on one of the three dates below. Seating is limited and first come first serve. This is a basic introduction to the CTPP data access software and functionality. You will learn how to register/log in, how to access a table, how to manipulate data, or move/swap dimensions within a table, how to download the data and more. If you like, you may first go to: http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/3yrdas.aspx and click on “take me to the data” to create a user profile and “poke around” a bit. Register and bring your questions to one of the three trainings below. See you there. Penelope Weinberger CTPP Program Manager AASHTO 202-624-3556 http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx <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. <http://img.gotomeeting.com/g2mimages/1x1.gif> <http://www1.gotomeeting.com/g2w/images/61220428935832225/embed.jpg> CTPP Data Access Software Basics A guided tour through the CTPP Based on three year ACS, including software demo and Q&A Register for a session now by clicking a date below: Wed, May 4, 2011 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM EDT <https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/209058312> Mon, May 16, 2011 3:30 PM - 4:30 PM EDT <https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/999583609> Thu, Jun 2, 2011 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM EDT <https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/899536416> Once registered you will receive an email confirming your registration with information you need to join the Webinar. System Requirements PC-based attendees Required: Windows® 7, Vista, XP or 2003 Server Macintosh®-based attendees Required: Mac OS® X 10.4.11 (Tiger®) or newer <http://img.gotomeeting.com/g2mimages/1x1.gif>

13 years, 11 months

RE: [CTPP] IPF macro?

by Elaine.Murakami＠dot.gov

Here is the challenge! I do not know how to do IPF, but I know that many of you out there can do it! Attached are: ACS B08101 ; ACS B08006 for Maricopa County Arizona. You can ignore the MOE cells for this IPF challenge. Also attached is a 3-way tabulation using IPUMS for Maricopa County AZ. All are using 2009 ACS. You will note that carpool is not broken out, as the question is really in 2 parts (what mode, and then how many people), so this table could be re-done by creating a carpool variable, if you wanted. We have an archived webinar on using IPUMS, if you are interested in making your own tabs using ACS PUMS. http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/webinardirectory.aspx Elaine -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Erlbaum, Nathan (DOT) Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 11:42 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] 2010 Data Release Watch Noted below is a question and a response that appeared on the list serve earlier today and that suggests a solution method to creating data that almost exists but is needed. I am reposting this to the list serve, because I believe that this might be a worthwhile effort for someone who is adept and familiar with IPF to provide a valuable resources to the CTPP community in much the same way the ACS MOE spreadsheets have evolved to explain how to deal with this statistical concept in an easy to use way for the practitioner. Recently there was a post to the listserve by Jonnette Kreideweis about the Census Conference in California and the call for papers. There was also a recent post about the Planning Methods Conference. A spreadsheet that would answer the question posed is potentially a good basis for a paper. Further it helps share skills with the larger practitioner community based upon solutions and techniques that others have implemented. When presented and discussed on a listserve then many more people perhaps those who might never consider this as an option may now have a solution to the very same problem or may move on to adapt the method to other analysis areas. I want to encourage anyone who has the time to give it a try, maybe a student can use this to apply what they have learned, or a modeler can cannibalize something he/she has already used, many may benefit from you efforts. ---------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Erlbaum Associate Transportation Analyst Office of Policy, Planning & Performance New York State Department of Transportation 50 Wolf Road, 6th Floor Albany, New York 12232 (Tel) 518.457.2967 (Fax) 518.457.4944 (E-mail) nerlbaum(a)dot.state.ny.us (Web) www.nysdot.gov >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marcus Wigan wrote: > ed > > a terribly simple question > > How best to do age group by gender by travel on the CTTP! > best > marc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Christopher's response: Unfortunately, there is no clean way to get Age by Gender by Mode (Means of travel), that I know about, directly out of the current 3-year CTPP data product nor the Standard Census ACS products for that matter. However, there are some options that will get you close but they will take a little work. Option 1. In CTPP take table 12201 ( Age by Mode to work) and table 11203 (Age by Sex/gender)and run an IPF (Iterative Proportional Fitting-fratar) routine between the two tables to get what you want. At least I think it will work. Option 2. Do the same with standard ACS product tables B08006 (Sex by Mode) and B08101 (Mode by Age). If you go this route I think these tables may even exist in the 5-year ACS so you could do it at smaller than Places over 20K population geography. Option 3. Just make your table using the PUMS data but you would be limited to geographical areas of over 100K people. Over the years we has suggested that people use an IPF routine to make tables that might not exist in the various data products. I would be interested in hearing if anyone has actually done it. Have you?

14 years, 2 months

[CTPP] More on 2010 Census Summary File 1

by Elaine.Murakami＠dot.gov

On Thursday, July 7 , the U.S. Census Bureau will release a 2010 Census Summary File 1 Microsoft Access table shell. The table shell will provide an easier way to access Summary File 1 information from the Census Bureau's FTP site http://www2.census.gov/census_2010/04-Summary_File_1/. Instructions for how to use the shell and work with the information will also be included in the .zip file. Some of the tables in Summary File 1 of interest to transportation planners include: P12 Sex by Age (23 age categories) P14 Sex by Age (Single years 0-19) P19 Household size and type by presence of children (19 cells) P28 Household type and Household size (16 cells) P42 Group Quarters by GQ Type (10 cells) H3 Housing Units H12 Average Household Size by Housing Tenure (own/rent) For more information on which states have been released, please see: http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/summary-file-1.html Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460

14 years, 2 months

[CTPP] 2010 Data Release Watch

by Ed Christopher

Next week the Census Bureau is poised to release the local-level 2010 Census population counts for Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota and Tennessee. Based on a quick and cursory review that leaves only MI, SC, WV, NY, MA, NH,ME,RI and PR. http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/ -- Ed Christopher 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) FHWA RC-TST-PLN 4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600 Matteson, IL 60443

14 years, 2 months

RE: [CTPP] RE: TAZ delineation update

by Weinberger

The reasoning behind TADs at 20,000 is so there will be a full layer coverage of three year ACS data. The ACS is released at specific geographies depending on how many years are being released. For 3 - year ACS data, the population threshold for smallest geography is 20,000. If you delineate your TADs smaller than 20,000, data will not be reported for them in three year data sets and we will have the "swiss cheese" coverage we currently have. -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net on behalf of John M. Sharp - ACOG Sent: Tue 6/28/2011 1:37 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] RE: TAZ delineation update Being a little slow on the TAZs. However, a question on the TADs. What do we lose (data wise) if we have some TADs that total only 15,000, rather than the 20,000? Thanks, John From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 2:49 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] TAZ delineation update Over 100 agencies have ALREADY submitted their files to the Census Bureau Geography Division, with at least 10 agencies submitting files today (June 16). The CB GEO staff have found that the TAZ files look pretty good, and although there are some TAZs that look "too small" these are often in areas with parks or water areas. They also said that the TADs look VERY good, with very good adherence to the 20,000 population threshold. Thank you to everyone! I know the rest of you who are participating in the program are working very hard to complete this task. Getting the TAZ and TAD into Census TIGER is one step for the CTPP 5-year tabulation. This tabulation will use ACS records from 2006-2010. AASHTO is expected to submit the 5-year table list to the Census Bureau's Disclosure Review Board this July. Re: TAZ, don't call me :), please call the Census Bureau Geography Division at 301-763-1099. Email: geo.taz.list(a)census.gov<mailto:geo.taz.list(a)census.gov> Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460

14 years, 3 months

Re: [CTPP] Proprietary Employer Data -- Comments on the various providers?

by Patty Becker

Tim, Have you considered using the state UA system's employer file? That's what SEMCOG uses here in southeast Michigan. They used be be called ES-202 files, but the name may have changed. You'd have to do the geocoding yourself, of course, but that should be do-able. Supposedly those files are establishment based, and I'd think that in MA they would at least be broken down to municipality since county doesn't mean much there. It's definitely worth looking into. Patty Becker At 03:15 PM 6/28/2011, you wrote: >Content-Language: en-US >Content-Type: multipart/related; > >boundary="_004_7A162EBB5533B64089B6065D4D0C925C1344475340MailVM1admapc_"; > type="multipart/alternative" > >I have managed to assemble some funding to >acquire employer data for our 164-municipality >transportation modeling region in Eastern MA, >and I am wondering if any of you have comments >on the accuracy and utility of the various >proprietary employer data sources currently >available. I have been in conversations with >two major providers (InfoGroup and Dun & >Bradstreet) and have received sample files for >certain zip codes, but it is hard to assess the >accuracy or completeness of either sample. > >Im wondering if anybody can offer insight on >working with such data, and whether you have >suggestions on choosing a vendor. We will be >using it primarily to determine employment by >sector at very fine geographies (250m or 1km >grid cells) for land use planning and >analysis. Some concerns we have already >identified include: branch vs. headquarters >employment, public sector employment, paper >companies and verification, and the accuracy of >the goecoded location that accompanies each record. > >Any thoughts are appreciated. Feel free to >reply off-list if concerned about publicly >trumpeting or bashing somebodys product. > >Thanks, >Tim Reardon > >___________________________________________ >Timothy G. Reardon -- Senior Regional Planner >Metropolitan Area Planning Council >60 Temple Place | Boston, MA 02111 >617-451-2770 x2011 ><mailto:treardon(a)mapc.org>treardon(a)mapc.org >Small logo for email > >Say it with a map! Find data and bring it alive >at <www.MetroBostonDataCommon.htm>www.MetroBostonDataCommon.org! > > > > >---------- >Please be advised that the Massachusetts >Secretary of State considers e-mail to be a >public record, and therefore subject to the >Massachusetts Public Records Law, M.G.L. c. 66 § 10. > > >_______________________________________________ >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

14 years, 3 months

RE: [CTPP] Proprietary Employer Data -- Comments on the variousproviders?

by Jackie Eastwood

Dan, We, too, use InfoUSA, and I have found that if you have a dataset that includes both the "individual" and "firm" records for a hospital, for example, you can get rid of the duplication by deleting the "individual" records. If you're like us, you need both types in the dataset so that you don't lose some of your small business owners like chiropractors, dentists, and the like not associated with a hospital. As far as the geocoding, we have some businesses plotted 6 miles from their physical location. I think this will improve as Infogroup moves to geocoding to the parcel instead of the address range. But for the time being, there's lots of clean-up. I think that will be the case with data from any source. Jackie Eastwood Transportation Planner La Crosse Area Planning Committee 400 4th St N, Room 2300 La Crosse, WI 54601 PH: 608.785.6141 From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Seidensticker, Dan Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 3:40 PM To: 'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net' Subject: RE: [CTPP] Proprietary Employer Data -- Comments on the variousproviders? Tim, We have used InfoUSA the last few years. It looks very similar to the InfoGroup product. You've mentioned the problems we also have run into with InfoUSA. There is double counting in the public sector (an employee counted under a department also counted under the agency total). There were a few branch vs. headquarter issues, but it was actually in pretty good shape. We culled through the largest employers looking for suspicious employee totals and duplicate employers. The result was the total employment being reduced by 4.5%, but we still think it is about 10% too high. I am unsure on the source InfoUSA used for geocoding addresses (never did get a clear answer from InfoUSA on that) but it was significantly different than our GIS base mapping in a few areas. So, some manual clean up was needed to move employers to the correct side of a street. Also, about 3% of the employers were geocoded to a ZIP code centroid (these included PO boxes and other addresses InfoUSA was unable to geocode). We were able to geocode about half of these. I'm also interested in hearing from others experiences with these proprietary data sets. Thanks. Dan Seidensticker From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Reardon , Tim Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 2:15 PM To: 'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net' Subject: [CTPP] Proprietary Employer Data -- Comments on the various providers? I have managed to assemble some funding to acquire employer data for our 164-municipality transportation modeling region in Eastern MA, and I am wondering if any of you have comments on the accuracy and utility of the various proprietary employer data sources currently available. I have been in conversations with two major providers (InfoGroup and Dun & Bradstreet) and have received sample files for certain zip codes, but it is hard to assess the accuracy or completeness of either sample. I'm wondering if anybody can offer insight on working with such data, and whether you have suggestions on choosing a vendor. We will be using it primarily to determine employment by sector at very fine geographies (250m or 1km grid cells) for land use planning and analysis. Some concerns we have already identified include: branch vs. headquarters employment, public sector employment, "paper companies" and verification, and the accuracy of the goecoded location that accompanies each record. Any thoughts are appreciated. Feel free to reply off-list if concerned about publicly trumpeting or bashing somebody's product. Thanks, Tim Reardon ___________________________________________ Timothy G. Reardon -- Senior Regional Planner Metropolitan Area Planning Council 60 Temple Place | Boston, MA 02111 617-451-2770 x2011 treardon(a)mapc.org Say it with a map! Find data and bring it alive at www.MetroBostonDataCommon.org! ________________________________ Please be advised that the Massachusetts Secretary of State considers e-mail to be a public record, and therefore subject to the Massachusetts Public Records Law, M.G.L. c. 66 § 10. PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL This e-mail and attachments are intended for the addressed recipient only. If you are not the correct recipient please notify the sender of the delivery error and delete this message. Improper disclosure, copying, distribution, retransmission, or use of information from this e-mail is Prohibited, and may result in liability and damages for misuse of this information.

14 years, 3 months

[CTPP] Proprietary Employer Data -- Comments on the various providers -- PLEASE RE-SEND RESPONSES

by Reardon

Thanks to everyone who has replied both on- and off-list! Unfortunately, I cannot read any of the on-list responses, because they are scrubbed of content in the digest posting and on-line (I think this has to do with the logo image in my original post.) If you replied already, could you please send your comments to me directly or reply to this post? Thanks, Tim Reardon PS--this is what is coming through on the digest: Message: 1 Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:45:33 -0500 From: "Ju, Sharon" <sharon.ju(a)h-gac.com> Subject: RE: [CTPP] Proprietary Employer Data -- Comments on the various providers? To: "'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net'" <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Message-ID: <92A18DA6B8C8CB4C8E401DF64836AF6B5F813E5919(a)ntex03> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1760 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://ryoko.chrispy.net/pipermail/ctpp-news/attachments/20110628/48465d57/… ------------------------------ Message: 2 Etc... Please be advised that the Massachusetts Secretary of State considers e-mail to be a public record, and therefore subject to the Massachusetts Public Records Law, M.G.L. c. 66 § 10.

14 years, 3 months

RE: [CTPP] Proprietary Employer Data -- Comments on the variousproviders?

by Geoffrey Chiapella

Tim, I am currently working with the InfoGroup dataset for San Luis Obispo County (California Central Coast; population 270,000; 7 cities and the county, approximately 15,000 business records), as part of a regional land use and travel model improvement plan. As we are doing land use modeling at the parcel-level, we are in the process of linking employment point data to the parcel data. At the same time, our local/regional branch of CalFire is developing an address point shape file/database for the whole county. InfoGroup dataset includes LAT-LONG, so you are able to display data using coordinate data, however most employment points will not align with the correct parcel. However, they will likely align with the correct grid cell (whether 250m or 1km grid cell), based on the level of detail at which you're working. As we're working at a very fine level of detail here (parcel level), I'll spare you the details on fixing the alignment of business/employer points, except to say that we are linking the unique IDs of the address point dataset with the business/employer records. As far as the quality of the data, there are duplicate records to contend with. Some typical issues: · A business may have changed names over the years, but still stayed in business: you'll likely have two records for that single business; · Multiple address/business records for the one major university in the region, which indicate various university departments, special facilities, etc. (with the number of universities in the Greater Boston region, this could be a concern no matter what dataset you go with) · Multiple address/business records for places like medical offices, where a single medical office or practice may have a half-dozen (or many more) physicians, but it's really just one employment location; · A similar problem for hospitals: many business addresses that represent various departments of the medical facility, but it's really just one employment; · PO Boxes: Although no physical address may be associated with these data records, you can still rely on coordinate data to display these data points; · Non-standard addresses: difficult to geocode, but typically not a large percentage of the overall dataset; · Work at home: There is a field that indicates "at-home" businesses, so you may want to sort those out and handle them separately. You can geocode the dataset (or significant portions of the dataset) where you have good, standard addresses. Overall, the addresses associated with the data seem to be very good; unit or suite numbers are included as necessary. The fields for "SECONDARY_ADDRESS" seem to all be local physical addresses, whereas the fields for "PRIMARY_ADDRESS" seem to include some out-of-area addresses. Branch vs. HQ issue do not seem prevalent. Public employment data is rather shaky; probably best to rely on state-level "employment development department" or equivalent. I mentioned the address point file that is in progress in our region, as it may be something to consider in your region: Is there a master address file for some or all of the region? If it does exist, more than likely the spatial alignment would be very good, and it may pay off to link the new dataset with a regional address point dataset. Feel free to follow-up with any questions. Thanks! Geoffrey Chiapella Transportation Planner San Luis Obispo Council of Governments 1114 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-5190 gchiapella(a)slocog.org Geoffrey Chiapella Transportation Planner San Luis Obispo Council of Governments 1114 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-5190 gchiapella(a)slocog.org From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Reardon , Tim Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 12:15 PM To: 'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net' Subject: [CTPP] Proprietary Employer Data -- Comments on the variousproviders? I have managed to assemble some funding to acquire employer data for our 164-municipality transportation modeling region in Eastern MA, and I am wondering if any of you have comments on the accuracy and utility of the various proprietary employer data sources currently available. I have been in conversations with two major providers (InfoGroup and Dun & Bradstreet) and have received sample files for certain zip codes, but it is hard to assess the accuracy or completeness of either sample. I'm wondering if anybody can offer insight on working with such data, and whether you have suggestions on choosing a vendor. We will be using it primarily to determine employment by sector at very fine geographies (250m or 1km grid cells) for land use planning and analysis. Some concerns we have already identified include: branch vs. headquarters employment, public sector employment, "paper companies" and verification, and the accuracy of the goecoded location that accompanies each record. Any thoughts are appreciated. Feel free to reply off-list if concerned about publicly trumpeting or bashing somebody's product. Thanks, Tim Reardon ___________________________________________ Timothy G. Reardon -- Senior Regional Planner Metropolitan Area Planning Council 60 Temple Place | Boston, MA 02111 617-451-2770 x2011 treardon(a)mapc.org Say it with a map! Find data and bring it alive at www.MetroBostonDataCommon.org! ________________________________ Please be advised that the Massachusetts Secretary of State considers e-mail to be a public record, and therefore subject to the Massachusetts Public Records Law, M.G.L. c. 66 § 10.

14 years, 3 months

[CTPP] Proprietary Employer Data -- Comments on the various providers?

by Reardon

I have managed to assemble some funding to acquire employer data for our 164-municipality transportation modeling region in Eastern MA, and I am wondering if any of you have comments on the accuracy and utility of the various proprietary employer data sources currently available. I have been in conversations with two major providers (InfoGroup and Dun & Bradstreet) and have received sample files for certain zip codes, but it is hard to assess the accuracy or completeness of either sample. I'm wondering if anybody can offer insight on working with such data, and whether you have suggestions on choosing a vendor. We will be using it primarily to determine employment by sector at very fine geographies (250m or 1km grid cells) for land use planning and analysis. Some concerns we have already identified include: branch vs. headquarters employment, public sector employment, "paper companies" and verification, and the accuracy of the goecoded location that accompanies each record. Any thoughts are appreciated. Feel free to reply off-list if concerned about publicly trumpeting or bashing somebody's product. Thanks, Tim Reardon ___________________________________________ Timothy G. Reardon -- Senior Regional Planner Metropolitan Area Planning Council 60 Temple Place | Boston, MA 02111 617-451-2770 x2011 treardon(a)mapc.org<mailto:treardon(a)mapc.org> [cid:image001.jpg(a)01CC35A5.2547A4F0] Say it with a map! Find data and bring it alive at www.MetroBostonDataCommon.org! ________________________________ Please be advised that the Massachusetts Secretary of State considers e-mail to be a public record, and therefore subject to the Massachusetts Public Records Law, M.G.L. c. 66 ? 10.

14 years, 3 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 June 2011