CTPP January 2014

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

24 participants
41 discussions

Re: [CTPP] FW: Census Bureau News -- Census Bureau Media Advisory Commuting Products to be Embargoed

by Colson

The link is http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/news_conferences/commuting… -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Byrnes Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 7:39 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] FW: Census Bureau News -- Census Bureau Media Advisory Commuting Products to be Embargoed Looking for download site for the co - to co JTW flow data released last night. Please provide link to site. Kevin Byrnes, AICP GWRC -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Chuck Imbrogno Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 4:58 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] FW: Census Bureau News -- Census Bureau Media Advisory Commuting Products to be Embargoed Apologies to all. Meant to forward to folks in-house. Hit "send" before changing the "recipients" field. Chuck Imbrogno -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Imbrogno Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 4:11 PM To: 'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net' Subject: RE: [CTPP] Census Bureau News -- Census Bureau Media Advisory Commuting Products to be Embargoed Shannon, Chuck: FYI - See bottom of this e-mail chain for the "Media Advisory" from the Census Bureau regarding the Commuter Flow data that Tom Fontaine asked about earlier today. Data was "embargoed" by the Census Bureau. Available to the media at noon today, but not released publicly to everyone else (including us) until midnight tonight. Bob Schwartz should be downloading the file sometime in the morning. Chuck Imbrogno -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Graham, Todd Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 7:32 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] Census Bureau News -- Census Bureau Media Advisory Commuting Products to be Embargoed Census Bureau wil be releasing data and reports on commuting patterns next week. If you have Census PIO embargo access, you'll be able to dig into it as early as Monday afternoon. This is a new product -- so I'm not sure how the data will be structured -- anyone know? Enjoy. --Todd Graham Metropolitan Council Research ________________________________________ From: U.S. Census Bureau [census(a)subscriptions.census.gov] Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 9:54 AM Subject: Census Bureau News -- **Census Bureau Media Advisory** Commuting Products to be Embargoed FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2013 Public Information Office CB13-39 301-763-3030 email: <pio(a)census.gov> ***CENSUS BUREAU MEDIA ADVISORY*** Commuting Products to be Embargoed The U.S. Census Bureau's Public Information Office will offer an embargo period next week for members of the media to view a series of commuting products. Statistics will be available for every county in the U.S. showing the number of workers that commute in or out and which counties those commuters travel to and from. Additional reports and tables, based on statistics from the American Community Survey, examine U.S. residents traveling across county and state lines to work. Specifically, the products present U.S. workers who have commutes of 60 minutes or longer and workers who have "mega commutes" of at least 90 minutes and 50 miles. Statistics will also be available for every county in the U.S. that show the number of workers that commute into or out of the county and which counties those commuters travel to and from. The reports and tables will be posted to the Census Bureau's embargo site at noon EST Monday, March 4. The public release will be at 12:01 a.m. EST Tuesday, March 5. Wire and distribution services are prohibited from distributing embargoed news releases and data files to subscribers before the public release date and time. If you are interested in scheduling a radio interview on Tuesday, March 5, please contact the U.S. Census Bureau Public Information Office at 301-763-3030. _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

11 years, 2 months

Re: [CTPP] CTPP Training at SACOG (Sacramento, CA) on February 13, 2014 - Census Transportation Planning Package

by Hoctor Mulmat

I don’t know the schedule, but the contact person is Penelope Weinberger (pweinberger(a)aashto.org). Darlanne Hoctor Mulmat Applied Research Division - Criminal Justice/Public Policy San Diego Association of Governments 619-699-7326 From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Jason Gillow Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 7:46 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] CTPP Training at SACOG (Sacramento, CA) on February 13, 2014 - Census Transportation Planning Package Hello Would anyone know if there would be this kind of training in Ohio in 2014 or in the future? Thanks Jason Jason Gillow Research/Planning Coordinator Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission 73 Progress Drive Waverly, OH 45690-1196 Phone: 740-947-2853 Fax: 740-947-3468 www.ovrdc.org<http://www.ovrdc.org> Email: jgillow(a)ovrdc.org<mailto:jgillow(a)ovrdc.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 Tina Glover Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:11 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Subject: Re: [CTPP] CTPP Training at SACOG (Sacramento, CA) on February 13, 2014 - Census Transportation Planning Package CORRECTION, The training will be on Thursday February 13, 2014 (not Monday) Thanks! Tina Glover >>> "Tina Glover" <TGlover(a)sacog.org<mailto:TGlover(a)sacog.org>> 1/21/2014 3:44 PM >>> Hi Penelope, In keeping with the flurry of other CTPP announced workshops, could you send my announcement out below? Thanks! Tina ________________________________________________________________________________________ A free training session is offered by AASHTO and FHWA on the Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP), and sponsored by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) There are just a few slots left! What: Free CTPP training When: Monday, February 13, 2014 8:30 am - 4:30 pm Where: SACOG Board Room, 1415 L Street, Suite 300, Sacramento CA 95814 RSVP email, with 'CTPP workshop' in the Subject line, to Tina Glover: TGlover(a)sacog.org<mailto:TGlover(a)sacog.org> The CTPP is a set of special tabulations designed by transportation planners using data from the Census Bureau. The most current release of CTPP data comes from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey (ACS) sample, and includes data from small geographic units such as census tracts and transportation analysis zones (TAZs). The CTPP is a unique census product providing data relating to the journey to work, including travel mode, number of household vehicles, demographic variables, employment status, income and poverty information, life cycle, and many other characteristics. Data tables for home and work locations, and worker flow (home-to-work) are available. A rough agenda for the full-day training session is below: ● Introductions and welcome ● Introduction to the CTPP ● ACS questionnaire: paper exercise ● Data issues ● Break ● Data issues continued ● Find the CTPP table: paper exercise ● Lunch ● Software tour ● Profile exercise: software exercise ● Results of profile exercise ● Wrap up Please register by sending the participant's name and contact information in an e-mail to: Tina Glover: TGlover(a)sacog.org<mailto:TGlover(a)sacog.org>. Space is limited. Please RSVP ASAP! The afternoon session will include training on the new CTPP software. Only a few computers will be provided, so bring a laptop to participate hands-on in this exercise. Sharing personal computers is also an option. Please ensure that your laptop is fully charged, _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

11 years, 6 months

Re: [CTPP] CTPP Training at SACOG (Sacramento, CA) on February 13, 2014 - Census Transportation Planning Package

by Tina Glover

Hi Penelope, In keeping with the flurry of other CTPP announced workshops, could you send my announcement out below? Thanks! Tina ________________________________________________________________________________________ A free training session is offered by AASHTO and FHWA on the Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP), and sponsored by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) There are just a few slots left! What: Free CTPP training When: Monday, February 13, 2014 8:30 am - 4:30 pm Where: SACOG Board Room, 1415 L Street, Suite 300, Sacramento CA 95814 RSVP email, with 'CTPP workshop' in the Subject line, to Tina Glover: TGlover(a)sacog.org The CTPP is a set of special tabulations designed by transportation planners using data from the Census Bureau. The most current release of CTPP data comes from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey (ACS) sample, and includes data from small geographic units such as census tracts and transportation analysis zones (TAZs). The CTPP is a unique census product providing data relating to the journey to work, including travel mode, number of household vehicles, demographic variables, employment status, income and poverty information, life cycle, and many other characteristics. Data tables for home and work locations, and worker flow (home-to-work) are available. A rough agenda for the full-day training session is below: * Introductions and welcome * Introduction to the CTPP * ACS questionnaire: paper exercise * Data issues * Break * Data issues continued * Find the CTPP table: paper exercise * Lunch * Software tour * Profile exercise: software exercise * Results of profile exercise * Wrap up Please register by sending the participant's name and contact information in an e-mail to: Tina Glover: TGlover(a)sacog.org. Space is limited. Please RSVP ASAP! The afternoon session will include training on the new CTPP software. Only a few computers will be provided, so bring a laptop to participate hands-on in this exercise. Sharing personal computers is also an option. Please ensure that your laptop is fully charged, _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

11 years, 6 months

Re: [CTPP] UPDATE 2010 Census Block-Level Data is Changed SF1-P1

by Geoff Olson

The values match one those "(rXXXXX)" parts are removed. I called Census this morning and they informed me that those are footnotes for values that have been revised due to a CQR. I thought that all CQR data was kept separate and I'm not quite sure why it has to be in the same field as the count value and not a separate field. So the important thing to know is that the text file that's included with the downloaded data shows those footnotes and their corrected counts. All those footnotes must be removed from the cell before that data can be used. Thank you, Geoff Olson Transportation Planner Bi-State Regional Commission 1504 3rd Ave. P.O. Box 3368 Rock Island, IL 61204 (309) 793-6302 ext. 151 -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Liang.Long.CTR(a)dot.gov Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:37 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] UPDATE 2010 Census Block-Level Data is Changed SF1-P1 Hi, Geoff Thanks for sharing your experience with us. When you mentioned that two data sources are off by 696 people, is this caused by rvalues included data? Or even after cleaning up rvalue cells, two datasets are still off by 696? Thanks, Liang ________________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] on behalf of Geoff Olson [golson(a)bistateonline.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:25 PM To: 'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net' Subject: Re: [CTPP] UPDATE 2010 Census Block-Level Data is Changed SF1-P1 I compared our data downloaded in 2011 to the recent data and there are fields in the data from FactFinder2 that have non-numeric characters in the data values. So for the 3 county are that our MPO is in, the count difference was off by 696 people (SF-1 P1). Here is what the data looks like, so please be aware that other data may have the same issue. This is just a small sample, sorted to have the "#VALUE!" cells at the top. The "2011" Blocks are the data we downloaded in 2011 and the "2014" Blocks are the data I downloaded just now. The values are there, but those r values are also included in the data. "2011" Block POP_TOT "2014" Blocks D001 ID Match 2011_2014_diff 171610241012049 167 171610241012049 167(r49517) Yay #VALUE! 171610241012050 78 171610241012050 78(r49518) Yay #VALUE! 171610241012051 86 171610241012051 86(r39321) Yay #VALUE! 171610241012056 135 171610241012056 135(r49515) Yay #VALUE! 171610241012057 3 171610241012057 3(r39322) Yay #VALUE! 171610241012079 51 171610241012079 51(r39318) Yay #VALUE! 171610241023013 17 171610241023013 17(r49516) Yay #VALUE! 191630130001018 90 191630130001018 90(r39585) Yay #VALUE! 191630130001020 48 191630130001020 48(r39586) Yay #VALUE! 191630130001024 19 191630130001024 19(r39587) Yay #VALUE! 191630135001037 2 191630135001037 2(r39591) Yay #VALUE! 170730301001000 0 170730301001000 0 Yay 0 170730301001001 0 170730301001001 0 Yay 0 170730301001002 0 170730301001002 0 Yay 0 170730301001003 0 170730301001003 0 Yay 0 170730301001004 0 170730301001004 0 Yay 0 170730301001005 0 170730301001005 0 Yay 0 170730301001006 0 170730301001006 0 Yay 0 170730301001007 0 170730301001007 0 Yay 0 170730301001008 0 170730301001008 0 Yay 0 170730301001009 0 170730301001009 0 Yay 0 170730301001010 219 170730301001010 219 Yay 0 170730301001011 43 170730301001011 43 Yay 0 170730301001012 64 170730301001012 64 Yay 0 170730301001013 70 170730301001013 70 Yay 0 170730301001014 0 170730301001014 0 Yay 0 170730301001015 0 170730301001015 0 Yay 0 I hope this helps someone else. Thank you, Geoff Olson Transportation Planner Bi-State Regional Commission 1504 3rd Ave. P.O. Box 3368 Rock Island, IL 61204 (309) 793-6302 ext. 151 -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Geoff Olson Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:52 AM To: 'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net' Subject: [CTPP] 2010 Census Block-Level Data is Changed SF1-P1 Our MPO has been working on getting Census block data aggregated to TAZ levels and we noticed that Census data that was downloaded when 2010 Census data was released does not match 2010 Census Data that was downloaded today. We've done various checks between the two tables (SF1-P1), and the sums are different. Our MPA population count with the older data is 297,986 and the sum the new data is showing us is 297,290. We did check this with ESRI's Community Analyst and it agrees with the older data that our MPA should have a Census 2010 population of 297,986. Is there a reason when Census data might change? If the P1 data has changed, then I'm wondering if other Census data might be different too. Thank you, Geoff Olson Transportation Planner Bi-State Regional Commission 1504 3rd Ave. P.O. Box 3368 Rock Island, IL 61204 (309) 793-6302 ext. 151 This email and all attachments are intended only for the listed recipient(s). This message may contain confidential or privileged information only for use by the listed recipient(s). Do not forward, post or otherwise disclose the contents of this email without the permission of the sender. If you received this message in error, please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Bi-State Regional Commission accepts no responsibility for any damages caused by this message, including those related to viruses or malware. _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news This email and all attachments are intended only for the listed recipient(s). This message may contain confidential or privileged information only for use by the listed recipient(s). Do not forward, post or otherwise disclose the contents of this email without the permission of the sender. If you received this message in error, please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Bi-State Regional Commission accepts no responsibility for any damages caused by this message, including those related to viruses or malware. This email and all attachments are intended only for the listed recipient(s). This message may contain confidential or privileged information only for use by the listed recipient(s). Do not forward, post or otherwise disclose the contents of this email without the permission of the sender. If you received this message in error, please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Bi-State Regional Commission accepts no responsibility for any damages caused by this message, including those related to viruses or malware. _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news This email and all attachments are intended only for the listed recipient(s). This message may contain confidential or privileged information only for use by the listed recipient(s). Do not forward, post or otherwise disclose the contents of this email without the permission of the sender. If you received this message in error, please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Bi-State Regional Commission accepts no responsibility for any damages caused by this message, including those related to viruses or malware.

11 years, 6 months

Re: [CTPP] 2010 Census TAZs & Block Topology Errors

by Geoff Olson

Thank you, Liang. I do still have the files we sent to Census via the FTP upload and those boundaries all match. It's the TAZ files that are currently available for download that don't match blocks and are different than what we uploaded. Thank you, Geoff Olson Transportation Planner Bi-State Regional Commission 1504 3rd Ave. P.O. Box 3368 Rock Island, IL 61204 (309) 793-6302 ext. 151 -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Liang.Long.CTR(a)dot.gov Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:10 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] 2010 Census TAZs & Block Topology Errors Hi, Geoff In theory, the Census TAZs are built from blocks. We are talking with the Census Bureau staff on this issue and will get back to you asap. Thanks for your patience. Liang ________________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] on behalf of Geoff Olson [golson(a)bistateonline.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 9:50 AM To: 'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net' Subject: [CTPP] 2010 Census TAZs & Block Topology Errors Has anyone else come across instances where there is a topology error between the 2010 Census TAZ boundaries and the 2010 Census Block boundaries? We have a few places around our MPO boundary where these don't match up like they're supposed to. I didn't know if anyone else may have had this issue. Thank you, Geoff Olson Transportation Planner Bi-State Regional Commission 1504 3rd Ave. P.O. Box 3368 Rock Island, IL 61204 (309) 793-6302 ext. 151 This email and all attachments are intended only for the listed recipient(s). This message may contain confidential or privileged information only for use by the listed recipient(s). Do not forward, post or otherwise disclose the contents of this email without the permission of the sender. If you received this message in error, please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Bi-State Regional Commission accepts no responsibility for any damages caused by this message, including those related to viruses or malware. _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news This email and all attachments are intended only for the listed recipient(s). This message may contain confidential or privileged information only for use by the listed recipient(s). Do not forward, post or otherwise disclose the contents of this email without the permission of the sender. If you received this message in error, please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Bi-State Regional Commission accepts no responsibility for any damages caused by this message, including those related to viruses or malware.

11 years, 6 months

[CTPP] CTPP Training in Redding, CA, on February 10, 2014 - Census Transportation Planning Package

by Weinberger Penelope

Hi All, A free training session is offered by AASHTO and FHWA on the Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP), and sponsored by the Shasta Regional Transportation Agency There are just a few slots left! What: Free CTPP training When: Monday February 10, 2014 8:30 am - 4:30 pm Where: Shasta College Downtown Redding Campus – Room 8113, 1400 Market Street, Redding, CA 96001 RSVP email to Sean Tiedgen: stiedgen(a)srta.ca.gov by Thursday, February 6, 2014. Space is limited! Only 14 seats remaining and will be filled on a “first come, first serve” The CTPP is a set of special tabulations designed by transportation planners using data from the Census Bureau. The most current release of CTPP data comes from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey (ACS) sample, and includes data from small geographic units such as census tracts and transportation analysis zones (TAZs). The CTPP is a unique census product providing data relating to the journey to work, including travel mode, number of household vehicles, demographic variables, employment status, income and poverty information, life cycle, and many other characteristics. Data tables for home and work locations, and worker flow (home-to-work) are available. A rough agenda for the full-day training session is below: ● Introductions and welcome ● Introduction to the CTPP ● ACS questionnaire: paper exercise ● Data issues ● Break ● Data issues continued ● Find the CTPP table: paper exercise ● Lunch ● Software tour ● Profile exercise: software exercise ● Results of profile exercise ● Wrap up Computers will be provided. _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

11 years, 6 months

Re: [CTPP] female daytime population

by Liang.Long.CTR＠dot.gov

Hi, Bob LODES Does not include self-employed (approx. 10% of workers). We have done some comparisons among LEHD, ACS and CPS in terms of employment data. Here is the link: Please go to the third article: Counting Workers: Comparison of Employment Data for CPS, ACS and LODES http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/ctpp/status_report/sr100113.… There is also another article of “Comparing Commuting Flows between CTPP and LODES” http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/ctpp/status_report/sr1213.pdf But I never got a chance to investigate employment by age and gender using LODES. ACS PUMS data are good source if you are looking for employment information by age and gender as they provide ages in one year increment. Also, some of the employment status questions were modified in 2008, resulting in ACS employment estimates which are better matched with the CPS labor force estimates. But of course, you can only get this information down to PUMA level (100,000 population thresholds). Hope this helps. Liang ________________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] on behalf of Robert Shull [rshull(a)transportmodeler.com] Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 12:54 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population Thanks Ed and Liang, I had understood that Steve was trying to get adult "daytime" female population by census tract. The WAC data appears to have both some age group stratifications and gender. I meant to ask about the use of the LEHD data as a question to see how it compares with the CTPP/ACS approach. With previous experience we have found that the gender fields do not sum to the total employment values, so there is missing data in the LEHD also. But, could it be a more complete dataset and could it give a better estimate? Has anyone else checked this for other areas? Also, although the age groups are 29 and younger, 30 to 54, and 54 and older, could it be assumed that most of the employees, even in the 29 and younger age group could be classified as "adult" ? Thanks! Bob Robert Shull, PE President Eco Resource Management Systems Inc. PO Box 1850 Vashon, WA 98070 206.414.8751 rshull(a)transportmodeler.com<mailto:rshull(a)transportmodeler.com> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:29 AM, <Liang.Long.CTR(a)dot.gov<mailto:Liang.Long.CTR(a)dot.gov>> wrote: Hi, Bob Sorry that I didn’t make my explanation clear in the first email. LODES does have flows and they have flows by age and flows by gender. But similar to CTPP, they don’t have two way tabulations, flows by age and gender. I was hitting “send” button too quickly for the first email. Actually, as part of LODES, residence information is provided. Liang ________________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net> [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net>] on behalf of Robert Shull [rshull(a)transportmodeler.com<mailto:rshull(a)transportmodeler.com>] Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:42 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Cc: u0719944(a)utah.edu<mailto:u0719944(a)utah.edu>; medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com>; tyler.larson(a)utah.edu<mailto:tyler.larson(a)utah.edu> Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population How would this compare with using LEHD? Thanks, Bob Robert Shull, PE President Eco Resource Management Systems Inc. PO Box 1850 Vashon, WA 98070 206.414.8751<tel:206.414.8751> rshull(a)transportmodeler.com<mailto:rshull(a)transportmodeler.com><mailto:rshull(a)transportmodeler.com<mailto:rshull(a)transportmodeler.com>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:37 AM, <Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov<mailto:Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov><mailto:Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov<mailto:Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov>>> wrote: I didn't manage to send my response last night. I suggest you use the ACS PUMS To run a 4-way cross tab of industry and occupation by age and sex. The geography is limited to residential geography at Puma level. -----Original Message----- From: Long, Liang CTR (FHWA) Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:28 AM Eastern Standard Time To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net><mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>> Cc: u0719944(a)utah.edu<mailto:u0719944(a)utah.edu><mailto:u0719944(a)utah.edu<mailto:u0719944(a)utah.edu>>; medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com><mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com>>; tyler.larson(a)utah.edu<mailto:tyler.larson(a)utah.edu><mailto:tyler.larson(a)utah.edu<mailto:tyler.larson(a)utah.edu>> Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population Hi, Steve Your methodology is totally fine with me. I wish we had the cross table of sex by age for workers for both Part 1 and Part 2, so you can get measures of female workers for 40 years up. Liang ________________________________________ 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>> [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 Steven Farber [Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu<mailto:Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu><mailto:Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu<mailto:Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu>>] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:49 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net><mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>> Cc: SEAN CASEY REID; TYLER JOSEPH LARSON; Kevin A Henry (medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com><mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com>>) Subject: [CTPP] female daytime population We are trying to come up with an estimate of adult “daytime” female population for each census tract in Salt Lake City. Intuitively, for a census tract, A, this estimate is: (the number of women who have a workplace in A) plus (the number of women live in A) minus (the number of working women who live in A). >From the 5-year CTPP, we will use tables A20211, A101203, and A11600 for the three terms in the above calculation. We will only calculate the measure for women 16 years and older (although ideally we’d like to have a measure for just 40 years and up). Can anyone from this list provide me with feedback about this methodology? Are there any big issues that I need to be aware of? Is there a better way to be doing this? In the end, we would like a daytime measure of the female population in order to calculate mammography accessibility metrics. Many thanks for your comments. Steve Steven Farber, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Geography University of Utah http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com<http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com/> _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net><mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>> https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net><mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>> https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

11 years, 6 months

Re: [CTPP] female daytime population

by Robert Shull

Thanks Ed and Liang, I had understood that Steve was trying to get adult "daytime" female population by census tract. The WAC data appears to have both some age group stratifications and gender. I meant to ask about the use of the LEHD data as a question to see how it compares with the CTPP/ACS approach. With previous experience we have found that the gender fields do not sum to the total employment values, so there is missing data in the LEHD also. But, could it be a more complete dataset and could it give a better estimate? Has anyone else checked this for other areas? Also, although the age groups are 29 and younger, 30 to 54, and 54 and older, could it be assumed that most of the employees, even in the 29 and younger age group could be classified as "adult" ? Thanks! Bob *Robert Shull, PE PresidentEco Resource Management Systems Inc.PO Box 1850Vashon, WA 98070206.414.8751 rshull(a)transportmodeler.com <rshull(a)transportmodeler.com>* On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:29 AM, <Liang.Long.CTR(a)dot.gov> wrote: > Hi, Bob > > Sorry that I didn’t make my explanation clear in the first email. > > LODES does have flows and they have flows by age and flows by gender. But > similar to CTPP, they don’t have two way tabulations, flows by age and > gender. > > I was hitting “send” button too quickly for the first email. Actually, as > part of LODES, residence information is provided. > > Liang > > > ________________________________________ > From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] on > behalf of Robert Shull [rshull(a)transportmodeler.com] > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:42 AM > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > Cc: u0719944(a)utah.edu; medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com; tyler.larson(a)utah.edu > Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population > > How would this compare with using LEHD? > > Thanks, > > Bob > > Robert Shull, PE > President > Eco Resource Management Systems Inc. > PO Box 1850 > Vashon, WA 98070 > 206.414.8751 > rshull(a)transportmodeler.com<mailto:rshull(a)transportmodeler.com> > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:37 AM, <Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov<mailto: > Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov>> wrote: > I didn't manage to send my response last night. I suggest you use the ACS > PUMS > To run a 4-way cross tab of industry and occupation by age and sex. The > geography is limited to residential geography at Puma level. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Long, Liang CTR (FHWA) > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:28 AM Eastern Standard Time > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > Cc: u0719944(a)utah.edu<mailto:u0719944(a)utah.edu>; > medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com>; > tyler.larson(a)utah.edu<mailto:tyler.larson(a)utah.edu> > Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population > > > Hi, Steve > > Your methodology is totally fine with me. > > I wish we had the cross table of sex by age for workers for both Part 1 > and Part 2, so you can get measures of female workers for 40 years up. > > Liang > ________________________________________ > From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net> > [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net>] on > behalf of Steven Farber [Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu<mailto: > Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu>] > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:49 PM > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > Cc: SEAN CASEY REID; TYLER JOSEPH LARSON; Kevin A Henry ( > medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com>) > Subject: [CTPP] female daytime population > > We are trying to come up with an estimate of adult “daytime” female > population for each census tract in Salt Lake City. > > Intuitively, for a census tract, A, this estimate is: (the number of > women who have a workplace in A) plus (the number of women live in A) minus > (the number of working women who live in A). > > >From the 5-year CTPP, we will use tables A20211, A101203, and A11600 for > the three terms in the above calculation. We will only calculate the > measure for women 16 years and older (although ideally we’d like to have a > measure for just 40 years and up). > > Can anyone from this list provide me with feedback about this methodology? > Are there any big issues that I need to be aware of? Is there a better way > to be doing this? > > In the end, we would like a daytime measure of the female population in > order to calculate mammography accessibility metrics. > > Many thanks for your comments. > > Steve > > Steven Farber, PhD > Assistant Professor > Department of Geography > University of Utah > http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com<http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com/> > > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news > > > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news >

11 years, 6 months

Re: [CTPP] female daytime population

by Liang.Long.CTR＠dot.gov

Hi, Bob Sorry that I didn’t make my explanation clear in the first email. LODES does have flows and they have flows by age and flows by gender. But similar to CTPP, they don’t have two way tabulations, flows by age and gender. I was hitting “send” button too quickly for the first email. Actually, as part of LODES, residence information is provided. Liang ________________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] on behalf of Robert Shull [rshull(a)transportmodeler.com] Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:42 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Cc: u0719944(a)utah.edu; medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com; tyler.larson(a)utah.edu Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population How would this compare with using LEHD? Thanks, Bob Robert Shull, PE President Eco Resource Management Systems Inc. PO Box 1850 Vashon, WA 98070 206.414.8751 rshull(a)transportmodeler.com<mailto:rshull(a)transportmodeler.com> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:37 AM, <Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov<mailto:Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov>> wrote: I didn't manage to send my response last night. I suggest you use the ACS PUMS To run a 4-way cross tab of industry and occupation by age and sex. The geography is limited to residential geography at Puma level. -----Original Message----- From: Long, Liang CTR (FHWA) Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:28 AM Eastern Standard Time To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Cc: u0719944(a)utah.edu<mailto:u0719944(a)utah.edu>; medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com>; tyler.larson(a)utah.edu<mailto:tyler.larson(a)utah.edu> Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population Hi, Steve Your methodology is totally fine with me. I wish we had the cross table of sex by age for workers for both Part 1 and Part 2, so you can get measures of female workers for 40 years up. Liang ________________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net> [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net>] on behalf of Steven Farber [Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu<mailto:Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu>] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:49 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Cc: SEAN CASEY REID; TYLER JOSEPH LARSON; Kevin A Henry (medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com>) Subject: [CTPP] female daytime population We are trying to come up with an estimate of adult “daytime” female population for each census tract in Salt Lake City. Intuitively, for a census tract, A, this estimate is: (the number of women who have a workplace in A) plus (the number of women live in A) minus (the number of working women who live in A). >From the 5-year CTPP, we will use tables A20211, A101203, and A11600 for the three terms in the above calculation. We will only calculate the measure for women 16 years and older (although ideally we’d like to have a measure for just 40 years and up). Can anyone from this list provide me with feedback about this methodology? Are there any big issues that I need to be aware of? Is there a better way to be doing this? In the end, we would like a daytime measure of the female population in order to calculate mammography accessibility metrics. Many thanks for your comments. Steve Steven Farber, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Geography University of Utah http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com<http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com/> _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

11 years, 6 months

Re: [CTPP] female daytime population

by Ed Christopher

Lehd now has age and sex for data in the 2009 to 2001 series. http://lehd.ces.census.gov/data/lodes/LODES7/LODESTechDoc7.0.pdf "Datasets for 2009-2011 contain additional variables (Race, Ethnicity, Education, and Sex) on the Residence file (RAC) and Workplace (WAC) files that are not available in other years of data. And datasets for 2011 contain further additional variables (Firm Age and Firm Size) on the WAC files." I haven't looked at any of this or played with it but it could be promising. On 1/27/2014 10:22 AM, Liang.Long.CTR(a)dot.gov wrote: > Hi, Bob > > LEHD doesn't have residence information. And I don't think LEHD provides employment data by age and gender either. > > Liang > ________________________________________ > From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] on behalf of Robert Shull [rshull(a)transportmodeler.com] > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:42 AM > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > Cc: u0719944(a)utah.edu; medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com; tyler.larson(a)utah.edu > Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population > > How would this compare with using LEHD? > > Thanks, > > Bob > > Robert Shull, PE > President > Eco Resource Management Systems Inc. > PO Box 1850 > Vashon, WA 98070 > 206.414.8751 > rshull(a)transportmodeler.com<mailto:rshull(a)transportmodeler.com> > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:37 AM, <Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov<mailto:Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov>> wrote: > I didn't manage to send my response last night. I suggest you use the ACS PUMS > To run a 4-way cross tab of industry and occupation by age and sex. The geography is limited to residential geography at Puma level. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Long, Liang CTR (FHWA) > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:28 AM Eastern Standard Time > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > Cc: u0719944(a)utah.edu<mailto:u0719944(a)utah.edu>; medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com>; tyler.larson(a)utah.edu<mailto:tyler.larson(a)utah.edu> > Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population > > > Hi, Steve > > Your methodology is totally fine with me. > > I wish we had the cross table of sex by age for workers for both Part 1 and Part 2, so you can get measures of female workers for 40 years up. > > Liang > ________________________________________ > From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net> [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net>] on behalf of Steven Farber [Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu<mailto:Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu>] > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:49 PM > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > Cc: SEAN CASEY REID; TYLER JOSEPH LARSON; Kevin A Henry (medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com>) > Subject: [CTPP] female daytime population > > We are trying to come up with an estimate of adult “daytime” female population for each census tract in Salt Lake City. > > Intuitively, for a census tract, A, this estimate is: (the number of women who have a workplace in A) plus (the number of women live in A) minus (the number of working women who live in A). > >>From the 5-year CTPP, we will use tables A20211, A101203, and A11600 for the three terms in the above calculation. We will only calculate the measure for women 16 years and older (although ideally we’d like to have a measure for just 40 years and up). > > Can anyone from this list provide me with feedback about this methodology? Are there any big issues that I need to be aware of? Is there a better way to be doing this? > > In the end, we would like a daytime measure of the female population in order to calculate mammography accessibility metrics. > > Many thanks for your comments. > > Steve > > Steven Farber, PhD > Assistant Professor > Department of Geography > University of Utah > http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com<http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com/> > > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news > > > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news > > -- Ed Christopher

11 years, 6 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 January 2014