CTPP May 2013

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

32 participants
40 discussions

Re: [CTPP] Census 2010 - student count ?

by hprawiranata mitcrpc.org

If you see on my screenshot (table on the right), how can CB put population number but no houses ? On residential areas I checked randomly (20-30 samples), the CB block level data is correct or close, census block said 12 houses and my parcel data shows the same number. I have to create new aggregate based on zip from block data for calculating number of vehicle per household (I got sanitized (name and address removed) vehicle registrations only zip for location). University, Colleges are not included (special generators). I just found out strange campus population at block level and I'm wondering the implications. For block group (wide campus area), it does not include block with high population (dorms) and it is wrong. Hary On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 3:23 PM, <Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov> wrote: > Hary – do you think that the Census Bureau put the 25 dormitories in > the wrong location? Did you look at nearby blocks and block groups?**** > > ** ** > > Elaine Murakami**** > > 206-220-4460**** > > ** ** > > *From:* ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto: > ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] *On Behalf Of *hprawiranata mitcrpc.org > *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:43 PM > *To:* ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > *Subject:* [CTPP] Census 2010 - student count ?**** > > ** ** > > I have not checked other campus area population counted by census 2010 but > this number is very large (and hope not double counted by their parents), > 10,688.**** > > ** ** > > And there are only 3 houses on the campus area based on the census block > result, I know: 1 president's house, 1 chapel , and... don't know the 3rd > but there are 25 dorms not counted. And the house location is not right, or > a block with population data but no house... as my boss said, a lot of > people live at MSU tunnel.**** > > ** ** > > If attachment is not allowed: zip code 48825, MSU campus area on census > 2010, total block population: 10688, number of houses:3 .. and based on > campus data students live on campus (residence hall) is about 15000 (the > nation’s largest single-campus residence hall system !)**** > > ** ** > > Any comments ?**** > > ** ** > > Hary**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net > http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news > >

12 years, 2 months

Re: [CTPP] Census 2010 - student count ?

by Elaine.Murakami＠dot.gov

Hary - do you think that the Census Bureau put the 25 dormitories in the wrong location? Did you look at nearby blocks and block groups? Elaine Murakami 206-220-4460 From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of hprawiranata mitcrpc.org Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:43 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] Census 2010 - student count ? I have not checked other campus area population counted by census 2010 but this number is very large (and hope not double counted by their parents), 10,688. And there are only 3 houses on the campus area based on the census block result, I know: 1 president's house, 1 chapel , and... don't know the 3rd but there are 25 dorms not counted. And the house location is not right, or a block with population data but no house... as my boss said, a lot of people live at MSU tunnel. If attachment is not allowed: zip code 48825, MSU campus area on census 2010, total block population: 10688, number of houses:3 .. and based on campus data students live on campus (residence hall) is about 15000 (the nation's largest single-campus residence hall system !) Any comments ? Hary

12 years, 2 months

Re: [CTPP] Census 2010 - student count ?

by Patricia Becker

It may be that all the dorms got geocoded to the University's residence hall office. Wouldn't be the first time that happened. Extremely annoying! Patty Becker On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:43 PM, hprawiranata mitcrpc.org < hprawiranata(a)mitcrpc.org> wrote: > I have not checked other campus area population counted by census 2010 but > this number is very large (and hope not double counted by their parents), > 10,688. > > And there are only 3 houses on the campus area based on the census block > result, I know: 1 president's house, 1 chapel , and... don't know the 3rd > but there are 25 dorms not counted. And the house location is not right, or > a block with population data but no house... as my boss said, a lot of > people live at MSU tunnel. > > If attachment is not allowed: zip code 48825, MSU campus area on census > 2010, total block population: 10688, number of houses:3 .. and based on > campus data students live on campus (residence hall) is about 15000 (the > nation’s largest single-campus residence hall system !) > > Any comments ? > > Hary > > > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > 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

12 years, 2 months

[CTPP] I did not make Google Talk invitation!

by hprawiranata mitcrpc.org

I did not make Google Talk invitation to everyone here! This is the problem when our office is using Gmail system and Google take over my email. Sorry, Hary

12 years, 2 months

[CTPP] Training Opportunity June 20, 2:30 eastern - CTPP Webinar - Snapshot 2013

by Weinberger

Hi All, Have you been wondering what your good friends over at the Census Transportation Planning Products Program have been doing lately? Well here is your opportunity to find out! The CTPP is hosting a webinar in anticipation of releasing our new data set in August 2013. This webinar will cover many interesting topics such as: Introduction to the current CTPP - Clara Reschovsky, MWCOG - CTPP Oversight Board member An overview of the CTPP program including current status, funding, outlook Data - Penelope Weinberger, AASHTO CTPP Program Manager with Liang Long, Cambridge Systematics Data products available from the program now, what's coming in the near future Training - Ed Christopher - FHWA Resource Center Training, what's available, how to get it Current Research - Phil Mescher, IA DOT - CTPP Oversight Board member research undertaken by the program you must (and may) register for this webinar, capacity is limited to 200, you may use voice over IP to participate, a phone number will also be provided. This webinar will be recorded for future viewing. This webinar may be eligible to provide AICP credit, we are working on that and will keep you posted. To register, go to: http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/webconference/web_conf_learner_reg.as… (you may have to copy and paste the whole link, if it breaks on your page) Penelope Z. Weinberger CTPP Program Manager AASHTO 202-624-3556 ctpp.transportation.org

12 years, 2 months

[CTPP] Census 2010 - student count ?

by hprawiranata mitcrpc.org

I have not checked other campus area population counted by census 2010 but this number is very large (and hope not double counted by their parents), 10,688. And there are only 3 houses on the campus area based on the census block result, I know: 1 president's house, 1 chapel , and... don't know the 3rd but there are 25 dorms not counted. And the house location is not right, or a block with population data but no house... as my boss said, a lot of people live at MSU tunnel. If attachment is not allowed: zip code 48825, MSU campus area on census 2010, total block population: 10688, number of houses:3 .. and based on campus data students live on campus (residence hall) is about 15000 (the nation’s largest single-campus residence hall system !) Any comments ? Hary

12 years, 2 months

[CTPP] hprawiranata has invited you to use Google Talk

by hprawiranata mitcrpc.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------ hprawiranata has invited you to sign up for Google Talk so you can talk to each other for free over your computers. To sign-up, go to: http://www.google.com/accounts/NewAccount?service=talk&sendvemail=true&skip… Google Talk is a downloadable Windows* application that offers: - Free calls over your computer anytime, from anywhere, and for as long as you want - A simple and intuitive user interface for sending instant messages or making calls--no clutter, pop-ups or ads - Superior voice quality through just a microphone and computer speaker - Fast file transfers with no restrictions on file type After signing-up, download Google Talk and sign in with your new Google Account username and password. You can then begin inviting anyone you want to talk to for free. Google Talk works with any computer speaker and microphone, such as the ones built-in to many PC laptops today, as well as with wired and wireless headsets and USB phones. Google Talk also works across all firewalls. Google Talk is still in beta. Just like with Gmail, we're working hard to add features and make improvements, so we might also ask for your comments and suggestions periodically. We appreciate your help in making it even better! Thanks, The Google Talk Team To learn more about Google Talk before signing up, visit: http://www.google.com/talk/about.html (If clicking the URLs in this message does not work, copy and paste them into the address bar of your browser). * Not a Windows user? No problem. You can also connect to the Google Talk service from any platform using third-party clients (http://www.google.com/talk/otherclients.html).

12 years, 2 months

[CTPP] ACS: The Means of Transportation Question

by Ken.Cervenka＠dot.gov

Hello again! Rather than summarize all previous listserv emails and off-line discussions on this topic, I will instead present the latest set of desired changes to the three “rail transit” categories: __ Rail: light rail, streetcar, or trolley (a change from the current “Streetcar or trolley car”) __ Rail: subway or elevated (a change from the current “Subway or elevated”) __ Rail: commuter or long-distance railroad (a change from the current “Railroad”) I can’t state these are “official U.S. DOT recommendations” just yet, but we will need to either come to this decision in early June or identify something else (or just “give up” again, which is not what anyone of us want to do!) Other changes (e.g., additional transit and non-transit mode groups, some type of “list all modes used” question, a switch from the “usual” specification, etc. etc.) do have merit, but there is a strong consensus that adding complexity to a U.S. DOT recommendation could jeopardize the opportunity for ANY changes to be subjected to a formal “content change” test. I should also note that even if this is approved for a formal “content change” test, we don’t yet know, of course, the findings from those tests. If you work for a transit agency that operates multiple rail modes (or at least a “light rail” mode), or an MPO that covers a region with multiple rail modes, and you see value in your future planning if these changes were implemented, please send me an email (Ken.Cervenka(a)dot.gov<mailto:Ken.Cervenka(a)dot.gov>), or give me a call early next week (202/493-0512) and I will let you know how your interests can be recognized. For those who may want to review the full ACS question, with the proposed changes to the three “rail transit” modes included, I am showing below. ************************ 31. How did this person usually get to work LAST WEEK? If this person usually used more than one method of transportation during the trip, mark (X) the box of the one used for most of the distance. __ Car, truck, or van __ Bus or trolley bus __ Rail: light rail, streetcar, or trolley __ Rail: subway or elevated __ Rail: commuter or long-distance railroad __ Ferryboat __ Taxicab __ Motorcycle __ Bicycle __ Walked __ Worked at home __ Other method Ken Cervenka FTA Office of Planning and Environment 202/493-0512 p.s., I am sure everyone knows that Memorial Day is Monday, and let’s not ever under-estimate the value of the personal sacrifices that have been made.

12 years, 2 months

Re: [CTPP] The Case for ACS, the Economic Census, sampling and Federal data-gathering

by Alan Pisarski

I really feel we do bear some of the burden of proof here. We do a terrible job of making the case for data and for the big stuff in particular - so called general purpose data are soft in their clear applications - being implicit doesn't do it. Part of the issues is just grandstanding on the part of politicians, but a big part of it is we don't tell them what we do with the stuff. Have you ever had a cocktail party conversation about, say, "why do you need to know what time I leave for work?" We are in a societal situation today where: a.) There is great fear of govt snooping and a real lack of trust b.) A massive amount of big data observation c.) AND, the contrary crazy part, of some who will divulge just about everything on their facebook etc. site. d.) And don't forget the Bureau's unwillingness to publish much of the data they collect because of disclosure. Trust me with your money and your personal data just won't work anymore. We have to do our homework and do a far better job of making the case for the growing govt need for more and more data growing out of new mandates. Alan PS the Bureau is good but not close to being best or leader in World. Stats Canada, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Netherlands Bureau of Statistics are the real leaders and a bunch more. From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Ken.Cervenka(a)dot.gov Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:37 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] The Case for ACS, the Economic Census, sampling and Federal data-gathering Hi Jonathan, Some excellent observations, thanks for sharing. An example of one of the underlying strengths of CTPP is that even though CTPP 2000 flow data is now 13 years old, the journey-to-work data still represents the "best available" data across the country, for use in home-based work regional travel model validation checks. I am not referring to simple HBW trip length frequency checks (for which much smaller samples, e.g., the samples available from typical household surveys), I am talking about district-to-district checks of predicted versus observed HBW person trips by (let's say) 0-vehicle, 1-vehicle and 2+ vehicle socioeconomic groups. Yes, the "observed" data is getting old, but can be "fratared" with the growth rates in population and employment to be a reasonably good representation of "current year" HBW flows. Many people think travel forecasts are way off from reality because of problems with the mode choice model and/or traffic assignment procedures, but I wonder how often the real "problem" can be traced back to trip (or activity) generation and the prediction of the zone-to-zone person trip (or activity flow) tables! The next "best available" dataset of home-to-work commuter trips is going to be the next available "five-year" CTPP, that is now very close to a public release. There will of course be concerns that the overall number of raw records in the new "five-year" CTPP is a lot less than what was obtained in CTPP 2000, but all that really means, I think, is that one must be very careful to never rely on the actual TAZ-to-TAZ numbers: but still feel very confident with the prudent aggregation of TAZ-to-TAZ numbers into locally meaningful district-to-district totals. In regards to the national sample, the new CTPP will still be a pretty huge number of records, compared to just about anything else that is not some type of "private" purchasable database. It would be a shame if the about-to-be-released set of CTPP-based TAZ-to-TAZ flows is the last one ever produced. If the NHTS sample size could come anywhere close to the CTPP sample size, then maybe one wouldn't need the CTPP, but that is not going to ever happen. Ken Cervenka FTA Office of Planning and Environment From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Jonathan Lupton Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:36 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] The Case for ACS, the Economic Census, sampling and Federal data-gathering The loss of Census sampling (today the ACS), the Census of Agriculture, the Economic Census, etc., would be disastrous in so many ways I find it hard to believe anyone - even deeply partisan politicians - would advocate their demise. The small gain to the Federal government's bottom line would be undercut by huge (albeit hidden) losses to the private and public sectors. The loss would be especially acute for small businesses. 1. There can be no serious doubt that Federal sample products leverage their cost many times over in benefits to the economy. The benefits are so widespread, and so implicit, that the burden of proof must lie on anyone attempting to undo Federal data-gathering. And they will find no such proof. 2. The U.S. government has, in the past, set the world standard for data-gathering. The widespread availability of free, accurate data runs hand-in-hand with upholding the standard as the world's foremost democratic society. To surrender the ACS and related products is not just a bad idea, it is a retreat from leadership. 3. Answering ACS forms, or any other Federal questionnaire, is a matter of personal responsibility. To survive, democracy depends not just on the protection of personal rights; it also demands a sense of responsibility by its citizens. 4. I have never heard of anyone going to prison, or even being fined, for failing to provide data to Census takers. Everyone knows that there are people and businesses which refuse to cooperate; the practice of non-compliance is already tolerated. But compliance is the law, and this sets a tone of legality which allows the ACS and other projects to gather the necessary data. 5. If the data business becomes mostly private in nature, the cost of obtaining data will largely limit its availability to large corporations that could afford to purchase it, creating another disadvantage to small businesses and business start-ups. 6. Here in Little Rock we host one of the country's largest data-gathering agencies, the Acxiom Corporation. It's an open secret that Acxiom, and other companies like it, hold vast amounts of data about just about everybody. While Census data is protected by confidentiality laws, disturbingly intimate corporate data can be sold to the highest bidder. 7. While the anti-census anti-government lobby argues unconvincingly about government as "Big Brother," there is therefore another, less accountable version of "Big Brother," existing in secret corporate data-gathering. Such data could become the only basis for information about our society. Without Federal laws, and Executive and Congressional oversight, who could prevent this private data from being falsified? Without the credibility of ACS and related programs as a "cross-check," false information could be fed into the system, and could be manipulated by private power brokers. 8. Here in Little Rock we have a small spinoff company which has used Acxiom data to attempt census-like products. Around 2009, they privately gave me a total for the state's largest county (Pulaski) that disagreed with my careful estimates. They ended up being high by about 7 percent, compared with the Census 2010 count that appeared a few months later. My own estimate, based on housing records, was within 1 or 2 percent. A corporate representative thought their figures were inarguably correct; I thought their methods for counting people were flawed. Guess who was right. 9. Data-gathering by the Census Bureau and related agencies isn't perfect, but it has oversight through the democratic process. I'll trust a process that's been around since 1790 before I trust a private company that answers first to shareholders. It is my earnest hope that the effort to kill the ACS is so blatantly foolish that it will never make it to a vote by the U.S. Congress or Senate. I ask those who keep their ear to Congress to please keep the data community well-informed about this disturbing development. Jonathan Lupton AICP Research Planner Metroplan Little Rock, Arkansas 501-372-3300 __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 8345 (20130517) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 8350 (20130519) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com

12 years, 2 months

Re: [CTPP] Training Opportunity - CTPP2000 refresher webinar Wed.May 22, 2013 - 3:00 Eastern

by John-Paul Hopman

12 years, 2 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 May 2013