CTPP May 2013

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

32 participants
40 discussions

[CTPP] Public Access to Federally-Supported Research and Development Data and Publications: Two Planning Meetings

by Krishnan Viswanathan

Apologies for the cross-posting. This meeting/webcast is tomorrow and Friday and invites comments on access to data and publications and thought it might interest members of these lists.The data portion is tomorrow and the day after and the publication portion was yesterday and today. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/CurrentProjects/DBASSE_082378#.UZ… Krishnan

12 years, 2 months

[CTPP] does anyone know if the 2013 1-year ACS data will use the 2010 MSA definitions?

by Nancy Reger

Does anyone know if the 2012 ACS 1-year estimates to be released in September will be using the new 2013 MSA definitions? Thanks, Nancy Nancy Reger | nreger(a)morpc.org Deputy Director, Transportation | Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission T: 614.233.4154 | | F: 614.233.4254 111 Liberty Street, Suite 100 | Columbus, OH 43215 [cid:image001.png(a)01CE5161.9ED57570]<http://www.morpc.org/> [cid:image002.png(a)01CE5161.9ED57570] <http://www.facebook.com/morpc> [cid:image003.jpg(a)01CE5161.9ED57570] <http://www.twitter.com/morpc>

12 years, 2 months

Re: [CTPP] ACS: Means of Transportation Categories

by Gorski

My staff general agrees with Alan Pisarski' s comment below that the third option should include railroad and long distance commuter rail, but for a different reason. If the question is left as shown in Ken Cervenka' s message we think the few people in Michigan who take Amtrak may be confused because they probably don't think of it as "long distance commuter rail". [cid:image001.jpg(a)01CE514B.D6E6F3A0]<https://www.research.net/s/ZKC9H99> Susan A. Gorski, Section Manager Statewide & Urban Travel Analysis Section Michigan Department of Transportation Van Wagoner Building - B340 425 W. Ottawa Street P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 E-mail: gorskis(a)michigan.gov<blocked::mailto:gorskis(a)michigan.gov> phone: 517-335-2958 cell: 517-243-0734 fax: 517-373-9255 From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of wendell cox Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:13AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] ACS: Means of Transportation Categories Havn't been in this discussion... but this issue with respect to railroad is, in my view, irrelevant with respect to carrier. An Amtrak commuter from Baltimore is, from a transportation perspective, no different than a MARC commuter, for example. Hope the question can be framed to make that clear. Could have the same problem, obviously, especially in the Phila, and Boston areas. On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:22 AM, <alanpisarski(a)alanpisarski.com<mailto:alanpisarski(a)alanpisarski.com>> wrote: Ken: re Railroad I would make it both railroad and long distance commuter rail service. people in Balt take Amtrak to DC as well as MARC. use a comma. Alan -----Original Message----- From: Ken.Cervenka(a)dot.gov<mailto:Ken.Cervenka(a)dot.gov> [mailto:Ken.Cervenka(a)dot.gov<mailto:Ken.Cervenka(a)dot.gov>] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 07:59 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Subject: [CTPP] ACS: Means of Transportation Categories Hello Tom and all, Agencies must send justification for proposed revisions or new content to OMB and the Census Bureau by June 14, 2013. The intent is for U.S. DOT (via BTS) to formally submit the ?please include light rail? request. Based on various discussions that have taken place (particularly those on this listserv), here are the (current) proposed modifications to the three rail transit categories in the Means of Transportation Question 31 (with all other modal groups to be unchanged): __ 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: long-distance commuter service (a change from the current ?Railroad?) Assuming OMB approves a ?cognitive testing? program, the exact wording of whatever eventually goes ?final? will of course depend on the test results. I sure don?t want to stretch this out to the point of missing the June 14 deadline, but it may be useful to subject this to another round of public vetting on the CTPP listserv. So: what do you all think? Ken Cervenka FTA Office of Planning and Environment From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net> [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net>] On Behalf Of TMarchwinski(a)njtransit.com<mailto:TMarchwinski(a)njtransit.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:38 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Subject: Re: [CTPP] County Commuting Flows Penelope- I found this email from a few months ago, and would like to let you know that NJT uses CTPP 3 year data to show broad county to county flows for Trans-Hudson transit planning. We used the 2006-08 data to show trends since 2000 in where commuting to Manhattan and other key areas has changed. We also saw that there was a shift to bus and rail commuting, vs. auto for this market in most counties. The 3 year is helpful for understanding broad trends, and specific changes. I noticed with the 5 year flow data at the county level that we saw changes related to the Great Recession. Since the 5 year data has the 3 year data imbedded as part of the 5 year data, I have looked at the difference between the 5 year and 3 year data to surmise changes between 2008 and 2010. I know statistically this may not be totally accurate, but we have seen a drop in total work trips from some counties from the 3 year to the 5 year data, and some increases in others. The numbers made sense because close in, more urban counties still increased the number of work trips to Manhattan, while mostly further out areas which were hit hard in the recession by defaults, and aging population showed a decline compared to 3 year data, but still an increase compared to 2000. The new procedure to make CTPP continue as a research project is a good one. Also I am happy to see Light Rail will be tested for inclusion in the Census. I brought this up back in 2007/2008 with Elaine Murakami of FHWA who was supportive, but we could not get FTA interested. I had and extensive conversation and email exchange with FTA on this issue (Ken Cervanka), and was involved in an online debate on this. My understanding is that the census will not allow an increase in the number of modes, but will allow Light Rail to be added. The issue was how do you classify all of the other modes, and my point was that railroad should be changed to commuter or regional rail (including Intercity), then there was bus; Light rail , Trolley, or streetcar; subway or elevated; and then Ferry I believe. Can you tell me of the status of when Light Rail will be tested, and also how it will be shown, as a separate mode, or with trolley or streetcar (which is where it belongs in my opinion). Some of the federal types wanted streetcar as a separate mode, which I did not believe made sense given its small amount of ridership, and also the fact that its more like light rail and Light Rail is much bigger in usage. Thanks for any information you can provide. Thomas Marchwinski Senior Director, Forecasting and Research NJ Transit, Newark, NJ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net> [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Weinberger, Penelope Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:54 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Subject: Re: [CTPP] County Commuting Flows As Liang said, the next CTPP is due in mid 2013. It will be based on five year ACS from 2006 ? 2010 and include small area data. In answer to the larger question; the CTPP program at AASHTO was recently transformed to an ongoing technical services program. As you rightly point out, this follows the change at CB to an ongoing survey methodology. The CTPP is historically user directed and wishes to continue to be so. So I have two things to throw out there: One, please share the value of the program with your decision makers ? when we come for funding, help them get to yes! Two, please let me know how you have used the three year data and if it is useful to have along with the planned five year data ? the difference between the sets is the three year is more frequent, while the five year covers all geography. Thanks! Penelope Z. Weinberger CTPP Program Manager AASHTO 202-624-3556<tel:202-624-3556> ctpp.transportation.org<http://ctpp.transportation.org> From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net> [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Estersohn Dan Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 9:55 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Subject: [CTPP] County Commuting Flows Is there any information about production of the CTTP or the county-to-county commuting flows more than once every ten years? Since they are based on the annual ACS there is an opportunity for more frequent updates than in the past. What are the current plans? Dan Estersohn Senior Demographer [cid:image002.jpg(a)01CE514B.D6E6F3A0] Arbitron Inc 9705 Patuxent Woods Drive Columbia, MD 21046 410-312-8434<tel:410-312-8434> Dan.Estersohn(a)Arbitron.com<mailto:Dan.Estersohn(a)Arbitron.com> _______________________________________________ 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 -- -- Wendell Cox +1.618 632 8507 Demographia | Wendell Cox Consultancy - St. Louis Missouri-Illinois MSA Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris Contributing Editor newgeography.com<http://www.newgeography.com/> www.demographia.com<http://www.demographia.com> | www.publicpurpose.com<http://www.publicpurpose.com> | www.rentalcartours.net<http://www.rentalcartours.net> BOOKS & PUBLICATIONS War on the Dream demographia.com/wod1.pdf<http://www.demographia.com/wod1.pdf> International Housing Affordability Survey demographia.com/dhi.pdf<http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf> The Wal-Mart Revolution (with Richard Vedder) Demographia World Urban Areas demographia.com/worldua.pdf<http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf>

12 years, 2 months

Re: [CTPP] ACS: Means of Transportation Categories

by alanpisarski＠alanpisarski.com

I wasn't suggesting there was a difference. I am concerned that respondents might think there is. Just as "I don't take light rail I take a trolley" forces us to show both. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: wendell cox <demographia(a)gmail.com> Sender: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 12:12:46 To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Reply-To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] ACS: Means of Transportation Categories _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

12 years, 2 months

Re: [CTPP] ACS: Means of Transportation Categories

by alanpisarski＠alanpisarski.com

Ken: re Railroad I would make it both railroad and long distance commuter rail service. people in Balt take Amtrak to DC as well as MARC. use a comma. Alan -----Original Message----- From: Ken.Cervenka(a)dot.gov [mailto:Ken.Cervenka(a)dot.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 07:59 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] ACS: Means of Transportation Categories Hello Tom and all, Agencies must send justification for proposed revisions or new content to OMB and the Census Bureau by June 14, 2013. The intent is for U.S. DOT (via BTS) to formally submit the ?please include light rail? request. Based on various discussions that have taken place (particularly those on this listserv), here are the (current) proposed modifications to the three rail transit categories in the Means of Transportation Question 31 (with all other modal groups to be unchanged): __ 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: long-distance commuter service (a change from the current ?Railroad?) Assuming OMB approves a ?cognitive testing? program, the exact wording of whatever eventually goes ?final? will of course depend on the test results. I sure don?t want to stretch this out to the point of missing the June 14 deadline, but it may be useful to subject this to another round of public vetting on the CTPP listserv. So: what do you all think? 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 TMarchwinski(a)njtransit.com Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:38 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] County Commuting Flows Penelope- I found this email from a few months ago, and would like to let you know that NJT uses CTPP 3 year data to show broad county to county flows for Trans-Hudson transit planning. We used the 2006-08 data to show trends since 2000 in where commuting to Manhattan and other key areas has changed. We also saw that there was a shift to bus and rail commuting, vs. auto for this market in most counties. The 3 year is helpful for understanding broad trends, and specific changes. I noticed with the 5 year flow data at the county level that we saw changes related to the Great Recession. Since the 5 year data has the 3 year data imbedded as part of the 5 year data, I have looked at the difference between the 5 year and 3 year data to surmise changes between 2008 and 2010. I know statistically this may not be totally accurate, but we have seen a drop in total work trips from some counties from the 3 year to the 5 year data, and some increases in others. The numbers made sense because close in, more urban counties still increased the number of work trips to Manhattan, while mostly further out areas which were hit hard in the recession by defaults, and aging population showed a decline compared to 3 year data, but still an increase compared to 2000. The new procedure to make CTPP continue as a research project is a good one. Also I am happy to see Light Rail will be tested for inclusion in the Census. I brought this up back in 2007/2008 with Elaine Murakami of FHWA who was supportive, but we could not get FTA interested. I had and extensive conversation and email exchange with FTA on this issue (Ken Cervanka), and was involved in an online debate on this. My understanding is that the census will not allow an increase in the number of modes, but will allow Light Rail to be added. The issue was how do you classify all of the other modes, and my point was that railroad should be changed to commuter or regional rail (including Intercity), then there was bus; Light rail , Trolley, or streetcar; subway or elevated; and then Ferry I believe. Can you tell me of the status of when Light Rail will be tested, and also how it will be shown, as a separate mode, or with trolley or streetcar (which is where it belongs in my opinion). Some of the federal types wanted streetcar as a separate mode, which I did not believe made sense given its small amount of ridership, and also the fact that its more like light rail and Light Rail is much bigger in usage. Thanks for any information you can provide. Thomas Marchwinski Senior Director, Forecasting and Research NJ Transit, Newark, NJ From:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net]On Behalf Of Weinberger, Penelope Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:54 AM To:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] County Commuting Flows As Liang said, the next CTPP is due in mid 2013. It will be based on five year ACS from 2006 ? 2010 and include small area data. In answer to the larger question; the CTPP program at AASHTO was recently transformed to an ongoing technical services program. As you rightly point out, this follows the change at CB to an ongoing survey methodology. The CTPP is historically user directed and wishes to continue to be so. So I have two things to throw out there: One, please share the value of the program with your decision makers ? when we come for funding, help them get to yes! Two, please let me know how you have used the three year data and if it is useful to have along with the planned five year data ? the difference between the sets is the three year is more frequent, while the five year covers all geography. Thanks! Penelope Z. Weinberger CTPP Program Manager AASHTO 202-624-3556 ctpp.transportation.org From:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net]On Behalf Of Estersohn Dan Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 9:55 PM To:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] County Commuting Flows Is there any information about production of the CTTP or the county-to-county commuting flows more than once every ten years? Since they are based on the annual ACS there is an opportunity for more frequent updates than in the past. What are the current plans? Dan Estersohn Senior Demographer Arbitron Inc 9705 Patuxent Woods Drive Columbia, MD 21046 410-312-8434 Dan.Estersohn(a)Arbitron.com

12 years, 2 months

[CTPP] ACS: Means of Transportation Categories

by Ken.Cervenka＠dot.gov

Hello Tom and all, Agencies must send justification for proposed revisions or new content to OMB and the Census Bureau by June 14, 2013. The intent is for U.S. DOT (via BTS) to formally submit the "please include light rail" request. Based on various discussions that have taken place (particularly those on this listserv), here are the (current) proposed modifications to the three rail transit categories in the Means of Transportation Question 31 (with all other modal groups to be unchanged): __ 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: long-distance commuter service (a change from the current "Railroad") Assuming OMB approves a "cognitive testing" program, the exact wording of whatever eventually goes "final" will of course depend on the test results. I sure don't want to stretch this out to the point of missing the June 14 deadline, but it may be useful to subject this to another round of public vetting on the CTPP listserv. So: what do you all think? 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 TMarchwinski(a)njtransit.com Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:38 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] County Commuting Flows Penelope- I found this email from a few months ago, and would like to let you know that NJT uses CTPP 3 year data to show broad county to county flows for Trans-Hudson transit planning. We used the 2006-08 data to show trends since 2000 in where commuting to Manhattan and other key areas has changed. We also saw that there was a shift to bus and rail commuting, vs. auto for this market in most counties. The 3 year is helpful for understanding broad trends, and specific changes. I noticed with the 5 year flow data at the county level that we saw changes related to the Great Recession. Since the 5 year data has the 3 year data imbedded as part of the 5 year data, I have looked at the difference between the 5 year and 3 year data to surmise changes between 2008 and 2010. I know statistically this may not be totally accurate, but we have seen a drop in total work trips from some counties from the 3 year to the 5 year data, and some increases in others. The numbers made sense because close in, more urban counties still increased the number of work trips to Manhattan, while mostly further out areas which were hit hard in the recession by defaults, and aging population showed a decline compared to 3 year data, but still an increase compared to 2000. The new procedure to make CTPP continue as a research project is a good one. Also I am happy to see Light Rail will be tested for inclusion in the Census. I brought this up back in 2007/2008 with Elaine Murakami of FHWA who was supportive, but we could not get FTA interested. I had and extensive conversation and email exchange with FTA on this issue (Ken Cervanka), and was involved in an online debate on this. My understanding is that the census will not allow an increase in the number of modes, but will allow Light Rail to be added. The issue was how do you classify all of the other modes, and my point was that railroad should be changed to commuter or regional rail (including Intercity), then there was bus; Light rail , Trolley, or streetcar; subway or elevated; and then Ferry I believe. Can you tell me of the status of when Light Rail will be tested, and also how it will be shown, as a separate mode, or with trolley or streetcar (which is where it belongs in my opinion). Some of the federal types wanted streetcar as a separate mode, which I did not believe made sense given its small amount of ridership, and also the fact that its more like light rail and Light Rail is much bigger in usage. Thanks for any information you can provide. Thomas Marchwinski Senior Director, Forecasting and Research NJ Transit, Newark, NJ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net> [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Weinberger, Penelope Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:54 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Subject: Re: [CTPP] County Commuting Flows As Liang said, the next CTPP is due in mid 2013. It will be based on five year ACS from 2006 - 2010 and include small area data. In answer to the larger question; the CTPP program at AASHTO was recently transformed to an ongoing technical services program. As you rightly point out, this follows the change at CB to an ongoing survey methodology. The CTPP is historically user directed and wishes to continue to be so. So I have two things to throw out there: One, please share the value of the program with your decision makers - when we come for funding, help them get to yes! Two, please let me know how you have used the three year data and if it is useful to have along with the planned five year data - the difference between the sets is the three year is more frequent, while the five year covers all geography. Thanks! Penelope Z. Weinberger CTPP Program Manager AASHTO 202-624-3556 ctpp.transportation.org From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net> [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Estersohn Dan Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 9:55 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Subject: [CTPP] County Commuting Flows Is there any information about production of the CTTP or the county-to-county commuting flows more than once every ten years? Since they are based on the annual ACS there is an opportunity for more frequent updates than in the past. What are the current plans? Dan Estersohn Senior Demographer [cid:image001.jpg(a)01CE50D8.E18F5C70] Arbitron Inc 9705 Patuxent Woods Drive Columbia, MD 21046 410-312-8434 Dan.Estersohn(a)Arbitron.com<mailto:Dan.Estersohn(a)Arbitron.com>

12 years, 2 months

Re: [CTPP] County Commuting Flows

by TMarchwinski＠njtransit.com

Penelope- I found this email from a few months ago, and would like to let you know that NJT uses CTPP 3 year data to show broad county to county flows for Trans-Hudson transit planning. We used the 2006-08 data to show trends since 2000 in where commuting to Manhattan and other key areas has changed. We also saw that there was a shift to bus and rail commuting, vs. auto for this market in most counties. The 3 year is helpful for understanding broad trends, and specific changes. I noticed with the 5 year flow data at the county level that we saw changes related to the Great Recession. Since the 5 year data has the 3 year data imbedded as part of the 5 year data, I have looked at the difference between the 5 year and 3 year data to surmise changes between 2008 and 2010. I know statistically this may not be totally accurate, but we have seen a drop in total work trips from some counties from the 3 year to the 5 year data, and some increases in others. The numbers made sense because close in, more urban counties still increased the number of work trips to Manhattan, while mostly further out areas which were hit hard in the recession by defaults, and aging population showed a decline compared to 3 year data, but still an increase compared to 2000. The new procedure to make CTPP continue as a research project is a good one. Also I am happy to see Light Rail will be tested for inclusion in the Census. I brought this up back in 2007/2008 with Elaine Murakami of FHWA who was supportive, but we could not get FTA interested. I had and extensive conversation and email exchange with FTA on this issue (Ken Cervanka), and was involved in an online debate on this. My understanding is that the census will not allow an increase in the number of modes, but will allow Light Rail to be added. The issue was how do you classify all of the other modes, and my point was that railroad should be changed to commuter or regional rail (including Intercity), then there was bus; Light rail , Trolley, or streetcar; subway or elevated; and then Ferry I believe. Can you tell me of the status of when Light Rail will be tested, and also how it will be shown, as a separate mode, or with trolley or streetcar (which is where it belongs in my opinion). Some of the federal types wanted streetcar as a separate mode, which I did not believe made sense given its small amount of ridership, and also the fact that its more like light rail and Light Rail is much bigger in usage. Thanks for any information you can provide. Thomas Marchwinski Senior Director, Forecasting and Research NJ Transit, Newark, NJ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Weinberger, Penelope Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:54 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] County Commuting Flows As Liang said, the next CTPP is due in mid 2013. It will be based on five year ACS from 2006 - 2010 and include small area data. In answer to the larger question; the CTPP program at AASHTO was recently transformed to an ongoing technical services program. As you rightly point out, this follows the change at CB to an ongoing survey methodology. The CTPP is historically user directed and wishes to continue to be so. So I have two things to throw out there: One, please share the value of the program with your decision makers - when we come for funding, help them get to yes! Two, please let me know how you have used the three year data and if it is useful to have along with the planned five year data - the difference between the sets is the three year is more frequent, while the five year covers all geography. Thanks! Penelope Z. Weinberger CTPP Program Manager AASHTO 202-624-3556 ctpp.transportation.org From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net> [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Estersohn Dan Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 9:55 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Subject: [CTPP] County Commuting Flows Is there any information about production of the CTTP or the county-to-county commuting flows more than once every ten years? Since they are based on the annual ACS there is an opportunity for more frequent updates than in the past. What are the current plans? Dan Estersohn Senior Demographer [cid:image001.jpg(a)01CE50B0.A55D89C0] Arbitron Inc 9705 Patuxent Woods Drive Columbia, MD 21046 410-312-8434 Dan.Estersohn(a)Arbitron.com<mailto:Dan.Estersohn(a)Arbitron.com>

12 years, 2 months

Re: [CTPP] Congress and Killing Census Sample Surveys

by James Jacobs

Indeed, we've been tracking on the erosion of various US statistical programs over at Free Government Information (a blog by several govt information/data librarians). See for example: Fear, uncertainty, or doubt? Why the Census and ACS are critical to a well-functioning democracy http://freegovinfo.info/node/3715 Best, James Jacobs From: alanpisarski(a)alanpisarski.com Subject: Re: [CTPP] Congress and Killing Census Sample Surveys Date: May 13, 2013 4:42:25 AM PDT To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Reply-To: ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net Ed: this is what Duncan says in the statement you included. we in our profession should be smart enough to either support or refute this argument. Those who oppose Duncan?s legislation claim that our nation would miss out on vital economic data. Duncan objects to this contention, and believes there are other ways to gather information that does not involve harassing or threatening individuals to turn over personal data. ?As a former small business owner, I recognize that some economic data gathering is beneficial. However, it should be voluntary, industry driven, and not mandated by the government under penalty of law. I?m confident in our ability to develop innovative ways to gather information without harassing people, invading their privacy, or threatening them with fines. Americans are tired of too much government meddling in their daily lives.? -----Original Message----- From: Ed Christopher [mailto:edc(a)berwyned.com] Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 10:10 AM To: 'ctpp-news maillist' Subject: [CTPP] Congress and Killing Census Sample Surveys I got this from my Association of Public Data Users newsletter and thought the topic would be of interest to those on this list. Does anyone know of any MPOs, agencies or others who have contacted Congress to express their opinions on this? Either Pro? or Con? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: APDU Data Update Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 15:21:45 -0400 From: Association of Public Data Users (APDU) To: *New Bill Seeks to End Surveys* Ten Congressional representatives sponsor legislation to eliminate Department of Commerce-sponsored surveys. The bill would eliminate the Census of Agriculture, the Economic Census, Census of Government, any mid-decade Census surveys, and any survey (including the American Community Survey) using survey sampling that does not tie directly to the decennial census of population. View the actual bill here . The Bill was introduced in the House by Jeff Duncan of South Carolina. Find his views on the bill on his website here . Here are a few news stories and blogs who have reported on the bill: * A New GOP Bill Would Prevent the Government from Collecting Economic Data * Hero: Rep. Jeff Duncan (R:SC) * GOP Census Bill Would Eliminate America's Economic Indicators * 11 Republican Congressmen Are Sponsoring a Bill That Would End The Jobs Report and The GDP Report * GOP Proposal Would Eliminate Unemployment Numbers * The Insane War on the American Community Survey Isn't Over * Benefits of Census Surveys Outweigh Costs * BRILLIANT!! GOP Reveals Unique Solution to Unemployment! * Duncan, Other GOP Congressmen, Don't Like Census Questionnaire * Where Have I Heard This Before? (or, History Repeats Itself) We would greatly appreciate your feedback on how this bill might affect economic and workforce development efforts. Send feedback here . -- 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)ryoko.chrispy.nethttp://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp… -- James R. Jacobs Government Information Librarian 123D Green Library, Stanford University P: 650.862.9871 E: jrjacobs(a)stanford.edu AIM: LibrarianJames T: @freegovinfo W: freegovinfo.info lockss-usdocs.stanford.edu jonssonlib.stanford.edu "The art of research is the ability to look at the details, and see the passion." -- Daryl Zero, "The Zero Effect" (1998) ---------------------------------- This message may have been intercepted and read by U.S. government agencies including the FBI, CIA, and NSA without notice or warrant or knowledge of sender or recipient. (\ {|||8- (/

12 years, 2 months

Re: [CTPP] Congress and Killing Census Sample Surveys

by alanpisarski＠alanpisarski.com

Ed: this is what Duncan says in the statement you included. we in our profession should be smart enough to either support or refute this argument. Those who oppose Duncan?s legislation claim that our nation would miss out on vital economic data. Duncan objects to this contention, and believes there are other ways to gather information that does not involve harassing or threatening individuals to turn over personal data. ?As a former small business owner, I recognize that some economic data gathering is beneficial. However, it should be voluntary, industry driven, and not mandated by the government under penalty of law. I?m confident in our ability to develop innovative ways to gather information without harassing people, invading their privacy, or threatening them with fines. Americans are tired of too much government meddling in their daily lives.? -----Original Message----- From: Ed Christopher [mailto:edc(a)berwyned.com] Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 10:10 AM To: 'ctpp-news maillist' Subject: [CTPP] Congress and Killing Census Sample Surveys I got this from my Association of Public Data Users newsletter and thought the topic would be of interest to those on this list. Does anyone know of any MPOs, agencies or others who have contacted Congress to express their opinions on this? Either Pro? or Con?-------- Original Message --------Subject: APDU Data UpdateDate: Thu, 09 May 2013 15:21:45 -0400From: Association of Public Data Users (APDU) To: *New Bill Seeks to End Surveys*Ten Congressional representatives sponsor legislation to eliminateDepartment of Commerce-sponsored surveys. The bill would eliminate theCensus of Agriculture, the Economic Census, Census of Government, anymid-decade Census surveys, and any survey (including the AmericanCommunity Survey) using survey sampling that does not tie directly tothe decennial census of population. View the actual bill here.The Bill was introduced in the House by Jeff Duncan of South Carolina.Find his views on the bill on his website here.Here are a few news stories and blogs who have reported on the bill: * A New GOP Bill Would Prevent the Government from Collecting Economic Data * Hero: Rep. Jeff Duncan (R:SC) * GOP Census Bill Would Eliminate America's Economic Indicators * 11 Republican Congressmen Are Sponsoring a Bill That Would End The Jobs Report and The GDP Report * GOP Proposal Would Eliminate Unemployment Numbers * The Insane War on the American Community Survey Isn't Over * Benefits of Census Surveys Outweigh Costs * BRILLIANT!! GOP Reveals Unique Solution to Unemployment! * Duncan, Other GOP Congressmen, Don't Like Census Questionnaire * Where Have I Heard This Before? (or, History Repeats Itself)We would greatly appreciate your feedback on how this bill might affecteconomic and workforce development efforts. Send feedback here.-- Ed Christopher708-283-3534 (V)708-574-8131 (cell)FHWA RC-TST-PLN4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600Matteson, IL 60443_______________________________________________ctpp-news mailing listctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.nethttp://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/…

12 years, 2 months

[CTPP] Congress and Killing Census Sample Surveys

by Ed Christopher

I got this from my Association of Public Data Users newsletter and thought the topic would be of interest to those on this list. Does anyone know of any MPOs, agencies or others who have contacted Congress to express their opinions on this? Either Pro? or Con? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: APDU Data Update Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 15:21:45 -0400 From: Association of Public Data Users (APDU) <info(a)apdu.org> To: <edc(a)berwyned.com> <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=72024729&msgid=999617&act=DVOC&c=…> *New Bill Seeks to End Surveys* Ten Congressional representatives sponsor legislation to eliminate Department of Commerce-sponsored surveys. The bill would eliminate the Census of Agriculture, the Economic Census, Census of Government, any mid-decade Census surveys, and any survey (including the American Community Survey) using survey sampling that does not tie directly to the decennial census of population. View the actual bill here <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=72024729&msgid=999617&act=DVOC&c=…>. The Bill was introduced in the House by Jeff Duncan of South Carolina. Find his views on the bill on his website here <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=72024729&msgid=999617&act=DVOC&c=…>. Here are a few news stories and blogs who have reported on the bill: * A New GOP Bill Would Prevent the Government from Collecting Economic Data <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=72024729&msgid=999617&act=DVOC&c=…> * Hero: Rep. Jeff Duncan (R:SC) <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=72024729&msgid=999617&act=DVOC&c=…> * GOP Census Bill Would Eliminate America's Economic Indicators <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=72024729&msgid=999617&act=DVOC&c=…> * 11 Republican Congressmen Are Sponsoring a Bill That Would End The Jobs Report and The GDP Report <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=72024729&msgid=999617&act=DVOC&c=…> * GOP Proposal Would Eliminate Unemployment Numbers <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=72024729&msgid=999617&act=DVOC&c=…> * The Insane War on the American Community Survey Isn't Over <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=72024729&msgid=999617&act=DVOC&c=…> * Benefits of Census Surveys Outweigh Costs <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=72024729&msgid=999617&act=DVOC&c=…> * BRILLIANT!! GOP Reveals Unique Solution to Unemployment! <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=72024729&msgid=999617&act=DVOC&c=…> * Duncan, Other GOP Congressmen, Don't Like Census Questionnaire <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=72024729&msgid=999617&act=DVOC&c=…> * Where Have I Heard This Before? (or, History Repeats Itself) <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=72024729&msgid=999617&act=DVOC&c=…> We would greatly appreciate your feedback on how this bill might affect economic and workforce development efforts. Send feedback here <mailto:dfrutiger(a)crec.net?subject=Feeback%20on%20Surveys%20Bill>. -- Ed Christopher 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) FHWA RC-TST-PLN 4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600 Matteson, IL 60443

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