Hi Everyone -
Hope you are having a wonderful summer!
Here is a small "helpful hints" document on using American FactFinder 2
with 2010 Census Summary File 1. Hope these 2 handouts are useful to
you.
Thank you to everyone who helped create and improve them: Linda Clark
at the Seattle Regional Office of the Census Bureau, Ed Christopher from
FHWA Resource Center, and Liang Long from Cambridge Systematics.
You don't have to use Census Bureau's American FactFinder 2. There are
other ways to get the Summary File 1 data. The August issue of the CTPP
Status Report includes a link to instructions of using the Microsoft
Access Table Shell, and the Missouri Census Data Center. We are
expecting final approval of the August issue any day now.
Elaine Murakami
FHWA Office of Planning
206-220-4460 (in Seattle)
TRB Conference "Using Census Data for Transportation Applications"
October 25- 27, 2011 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, CA
http://www.cvent.com/events/using-census-data-for-transportation-applica
tions-conference/event-summary-fecf178bb83a468d86c4d85de1a3bcbf.aspx
Also, the hotel block is open until Sept 24, but they may run out of
rooms, so an early reservation is recommended.
Elaine Murakami
FHWA Office of Planning
206-220-4460 (in Seattle)
Hello all,
I am finding discrepancies between population densities that I'm
calculating in ArcGIS using Census 2010 population data and the TIGER
geography shapefiles (in my case for the county and state level), and
population density numbers posted on Census websites. The discrepancy
is from the square mileage calculation, in particular. Does anyone know
if this is because water bodies are subtracted from the total square
mileage for the density calculation (or if there is another reason for
the discrepancy)?
Thank you,
Elizabeth
Elizabeth Hassett
Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council
100 Clinton Square
126 N. Salina Street, Suite 100
Syracuse, NY 13202
ehassett(a)smtcmpo.org
(P) 315-422-5716
(F) 315-422-7753
Hi all,
I have not been able to find any data on disabled populations in either
SF1 2010 or ACS 2009 5-year data, specifically at the block group and
tract levels. Does anyone know if disabled data indeed has not been
released within these geographies/datasets? If it has not, does anyone
know a good alternative for disabled data?
Thank you,
Elizabeth Hassett
Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council
100 Clinton Square
126 N. Salina Street, Suite 100
Syracuse, NY 13202
ehassett(a)smtcmpo.org
(P) 315-422-5716
(F) 315-422-7753
Hi all,
I have not been able to find any disability data at the tract-level,
either from ACS 2009 5-year data or anything else; does anyone know if
disability data is available at the tract-level, and if so, which data
set it would be in?
Thanks,
Elizabeth Hassett
Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council
100 Clinton Square
126 N. Salina Street, Suite 100
Syracuse, NY 13202
ehassett(a)smtcmpo.org
(P) 315-422-5716
(F) 315-422-7753
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.nethttp://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
We also have the same concern in Kansas City, where a Lee's Summit urbanized area was created mainly because a general aviation airport separated it from the Kansas City urbanized area. The city of Lee's Summit extends both north and south of this airport, so the northern part of the city is in one urbanized area while the southern part is in another. The originally proposed 2010 urbanized area criteria indicated the two areas would be recombined, as they had been in 1990. Most people here would agree that recombining the two provides a more accurate description of the areas pattern of urbanization.
Frank Lenk
Director of Research Services
Mid-America Regional Council
Kansas City, MO
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Mark Sattler
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 4:50 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: [CTPP] If you are interested in CB Urban Areas delineation
Our MPO policy committee took a position supporting the concept of the multiple urbanized areas within our region being agglomerated and were encouraged by the August 24, 2010 Federal Register notice indicating that the Census 2000 UAs (Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Denton-Lewisville, and McKinney) would potentially be combined. Therefore, we are disappointed and a bit confused by the August 4-5 listserv statements indicating that new criteria may have since been developed. Our policy officials have seen these discussions and are asking us to respond. Can you let us know what is going on with regard to these criteria and perhaps provide the rationale behind keeping the urbanized areas from 2000 (when the other criteria indicate that they should be combined)? Thanks.
We are likewise in the same situation here in Phoenix with the Phoenix-Mesa UA and Avondale UA (created from a split in 2000) being combined. We also provided comment during the public comment period for the Federal Register Notice supporting the agglomeration of the Phoenix-Mesa and Avondale UAs and not keeping the split from 2000.
I have an inquiry in to the Geographic Areas and Criteria branch of the Census Bureau in Washington regarding this issue and am waiting to hear back from them. I will be happy to report back any update that I get from them.
Thanks,
Jami
=============================
Jami Garrison, GISP
Socioeconomic Research Program Manager
Maricopa Association of Governments
302 N 1st Ave, Ste 300
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(602) 452-5006
jgarrison(a)azmag.gov<mailto:jgarrison(a)mag.maricopa.gov>
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Mark Sattler
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 2:50 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: [CTPP] If you are interested in CB Urban Areas delineation
Our MPO policy committee took a position supporting the concept of the multiple urbanized areas within our region being agglomerated and were encouraged by the August 24, 2010 Federal Register notice indicating that the Census 2000 UAs (Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Denton-Lewisville, and McKinney) would potentially be combined. Therefore, we are disappointed and a bit confused by the August 4-5 listserv statements indicating that new criteria may have since been developed. Our policy officials have seen these discussions and are asking us to respond. Can you let us know what is going on with regard to these criteria and perhaps provide the rationale behind keeping the urbanized areas from 2000 (when the other criteria indicate that they should be combined)? Thanks.
Our MPO policy committee took a position supporting the concept of the multiple urbanized areas within our region being agglomerated and were encouraged by the August 24, 2010 Federal Register notice indicating that the Census 2000 UAs (Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Denton-Lewisville, and McKinney) would potentially be combined. Therefore, we are disappointed and a bit confused by the August 4-5 listserv statements indicating that new criteria may have since been developed. Our policy officials have seen these discussions and are asking us to respond. Can you let us know what is going on with regard to these criteria and perhaps provide the rationale behind keeping the urbanized areas from 2000 (when the other criteria indicate that they should be combined)? Thanks.
I hope that you will consider submitting an abstract for the next Tools
of the Trade Conference. The conference will be held in Big Sky,
Montana, September 12-14, 2012. Abstracts are due October 1.
13th National Conference on Transportation Planning for Small and Medium
Sized Communities.
http://www.trbtoolsofthetrade.org/
I will be organizing a data workshop for the conference. Hope to see
you there!
Elaine Murakami
FHWA Office of Planning
206-220-4460 (in Seattle)
p.s. I think I will try to take a fly fishing lesson before I get
there!