CTPP August 2012

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

15 participants
8 discussions

Start a nNew thread

Re: [CTPP] Regional and Statewide Census Geodatabases

by John-Paul Hopman

11 years, 6 months

[CTPP] detailed age (block level) for population in quarters

by mkaminowitz＠baltometro.org

I have a request for detailed 2010 age data by block for the population in households (aka excluding group quarters). This data is available in SF1 and SF2 at the tract level but not block. It has to be blocks because I need to aggregate up to TAZ, and our TAZ's split tract and block group boundaries. Has anyone come across this data or found a way of estimating it? Group quarters also does not have detailed age groups so we can't just subtract. Mara Mara Kaminowitz, GISP GIS Analyst ......................................................................... Baltimore Metropolitan Council Offices at McHenry Row 1500 Whetstone Way Suite 300 Baltimore, MD 21230 410-732-0500 ext. 1030 <mailto:mkaminowitz(a)baltometro.org> mkaminowitz(a)baltometro.org <http://www.baltometro.org/> www.baltometro.org _____ Confidentiality Statement This message may contain legally privileged and confidential information that is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient, taking any action based on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. Please immediately notify the sender if you have received this message in error.

11 years, 8 months

Re: [CTPP] detailed age (block level) for population in quarters

by Kendra Watkins

Mara, I share in your frustration. I have run into the same issue trying to get block level detail on population in households by age, and also hit the wall trying to subtract out GQ's by age. In addition, Units in Structure at the block level would be a huge asset to planners. Block groups are too large and don't aggregate to zones. We are probably going to take block group level proportions and apply them to block data and then sum to zones. With single family & multi-family we can at least overlay land use information and estimate that way. Kendra Watkins Socioeconomic Program Manager Mid-Region Council of Governments 809 Copper NW, Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505)724-3601 From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Byrnes Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:55 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] detailed age (block level) for population in quarters See http://www.caliper.com/DataCDs/2010Blocks.htm $795 for national block-level dataset and corresponding block geography...saves a lot of data manipulation headaches! Kevin Byrnes GWRC From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of mkaminowitz(a)baltometro.org Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:16 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] detailed age (block level) for population in quarters I have a request for detailed 2010 age data by block for the population in households (aka excluding group quarters). This data is available in SF1 and SF2 at the tract level but not block. It has to be blocks because I need to aggregate up to TAZ, and our TAZ's split tract and block group boundaries. Has anyone come across this data or found a way of estimating it? Group quarters also does not have detailed age groups so we can't just subtract. Mara Mara Kaminowitz, GISP GIS Analyst ........................................................................ . Baltimore Metropolitan Council Offices at McHenry Row 1500 Whetstone Way Suite 300 Baltimore, MD 21230 410-732-0500 ext. 1030 mkaminowitz(a)baltometro.org <mailto:mkaminowitz(a)baltometro.org> www.baltometro.org <http://www.baltometro.org/> ________________________________ Confidentiality Statement This message may contain legally privileged and confidential information that is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient, taking any action based on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. Please immediately notify the sender if you have received this message in error.

11 years, 8 months

Re: [CTPP] comparing Census 2000 with 2006-2010 ACS results on Journey to Work

by Elaine.Murakami＠dot.gov

OOPS! I sent out the incorrect URL. The url I sent first was the one the IT people send to me for checking! Here is the correct link: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/ctpp/data_products/2000-2010… Elaine From: Murakami, Elaine (FHWA) Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 1:58 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: comparing Census 2000 with 2006-2010 ACS results on Journey to Work FHWA has created CTPP profile sheets using ACS 2006-2010 and Census 2010 data (these profiles will be published in the near future). Top 30 counties and places (cities and CDPs) with highest increases in Public Transportation, Walk and Bike are extracted from the profile sheets and the lists are available in this link: http://fhwatest.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/ctpp/data_products/2000… We limited the list to counties and places with 2010 Census population over 50,000. Because the ACS is a different survey, compared to the Census 2000 "long form", the results are not exactly comparable. But because trend analysis is important, we have developed these spreadsheets to give transportation planners a handy way to examine trends by including two time points and to look at the differences between Census 2000 results, and the 2006-2010 ACS. Differences to remember: 1. The 2006-2010 ACS is the compilation of survey over 60 months, and not a "point in time" like the decennial census. 2. Because the ACS covers all 12 months of the year, areas with seasonal population shifts, e.g. snowbirds, summer homes, and universities are likely to see the more differences than in other locations and reflect both the change is time, as well as change in survey methods. 3. ACS 5-year data are approximately one-half the sample size as the Census 2000 long form, therefore the MOE are much larger. The full list of counties and places with changes in Public Transportation, Walk and Bike can be found in Cambridge Systematics ftp site. ftp://ftp.camsys.com/clientsupport/CTPPdata/ , Username: 8305CTPP Password: 1900NJA >From your CTPP friends: Liang Long, Cambridge Systematics who is the CTPP Technical Support staff, and Elaine Murakami, FHWA Office of Planning

11 years, 8 months

[CTPP] comparing Census 2000 with 2006-2010 ACS results on Journey to Work

by Elaine.Murakami＠dot.gov

FHWA has created CTPP profile sheets using ACS 2006-2010 and Census 2010 data (these profiles will be published in the near future). Top 30 counties and places (cities and CDPs) with highest increases in Public Transportation, Walk and Bike are extracted from the profile sheets and the lists are available in this link: http://fhwatest.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/ctpp/data_products/2000… We limited the list to counties and places with 2010 Census population over 50,000. Because the ACS is a different survey, compared to the Census 2000 "long form", the results are not exactly comparable. But because trend analysis is important, we have developed these spreadsheets to give transportation planners a handy way to examine trends by including two time points and to look at the differences between Census 2000 results, and the 2006-2010 ACS. Differences to remember: 1. The 2006-2010 ACS is the compilation of survey over 60 months, and not a "point in time" like the decennial census. 2. Because the ACS covers all 12 months of the year, areas with seasonal population shifts, e.g. snowbirds, summer homes, and universities are likely to see the more differences than in other locations and reflect both the change is time, as well as change in survey methods. 3. ACS 5-year data are approximately one-half the sample size as the Census 2000 long form, therefore the MOE are much larger. The full list of counties and places with changes in Public Transportation, Walk and Bike can be found in Cambridge Systematics ftp site. ftp://ftp.camsys.com/clientsupport/CTPPdata/ , Username: 8305CTPP Password: 1900NJA >From your CTPP friends: Liang Long, Cambridge Systematics who is the CTPP Technical Support staff, and Elaine Murakami, FHWA Office of Planning

11 years, 8 months

Re: [CTPP] Income Data - Block Groups / Tracts

by Nancy Reger

Adam- agreed. The ACS quite honestly fall short for the needs of even a big MPO. It's the way of the future. Put your thinking cap on. Nancy Nancy Reger, AICP Deputy Director, Transportation MORPC 111 Liberty St. Ste. 100 Columbus, Ohio 43215 nreger(a)morpc.org 614-233-4154 From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Patricia Becker Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 11:27 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] Income Data - Block Groups / Tracts Adam, I just checked, and I see what you mean. You need to know, however, that the MOEs (margins of error, or sampling error) on individual income level summaries -- e.g. $50,000 to $64,999 -- would be so high for individual tracts that the data are really unusable. I recommend that you use median income levels instead. Patty Becker On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Adam Aull <aaull(a)cityofdanville.org<mailto:aaull(a)cityofdanville.org>> wrote: Good morning everyone. I need your help for a project our MPO has recently started. We are updating the HSTP and wanted to include income levels in our plan. We are a small MPO and so far have found that nearly all of the income data has been suppressed for our region. This includes both block groups and tracts in the American Community Survey 2006 -2010. I have found that numerous datasets have been suppressed. It's frustrating that MPOs are required to use Census data, but in smaller MPO regions the data is suppressed. Does anyone have any suggestions or solutions? Thanks. Adam Aull GIS Manager / DATS Director City of Danville 17 W. Main St. Danville, IL 61832 P: 217-431-2325<tel:217-431-2325> F: 217-431-2237<tel:217-431-2237> E: aaull(a)cityofdanville.org<mailto:aaull(a)cityofdanville.org> _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net> http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news -- Patricia C. (Patty) Becker APB Associates/Southeast Michigan Census Council (SEMCC) 28300 Franklin Rd, Southfield, MI 48034 office: 248-354-6520 home:248-355-2428 pbecker(a)umich.edu<mailto:pbecker(a)umich.edu>

11 years, 8 months

[CTPP] Phillip Cox/D04/Caltrans/CAGov is out of the office.

by Phillip Cox

I will be out of the office starting 08/21/2012 and will not return until 08/28/2012. Andrew Chin will be acting Branch Chief August 21 and 22. Derek Man will be acting Branch Chief August 23 through 27.

11 years, 8 months

[CTPP] SF1 API variable IDs

by Ennis

So I'm once again befuddled by the way the API handles variable IDs. I'm trying to retrieve data from table PCT20: "Group quarters population by group quarters type" from SF1. However the SF1 does not seem to follow the same variable formatting as the ACS 5-Year (it doesn't seem to use the _001E / _001M suffixes). In the example queries, the table "P001: total population" is retrieved using the ID 'P0010001'. Based on this I would've guessed that the 0001 designates the variable within the table in the same way that _001E does. However using this same style suffix on PCT20 results in an error. Does anyone know how these IDs are constructed? I haven't been able to find a variable list for SF1 that corresponds to this one<http://www.census.gov/developers/data/2010acs5_variables.xml>. Thanks much, Sam Ennis

11 years, 8 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 August 2012