CTPP June 2018

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

3 participants
4 discussions

[CTPP] National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) Data for Transportation Applications Workshop

by Krishnan Viswanathan

Apologies for cross-posting. The NHTS Workshop will be held on Aug 8th and 9th. Come learn about the 2017 NHTS, hear about interesting applications using the data, and understand how changes in the transportation landscape are influencing travel behavior and travel patterns. Advance registration ends on *July 8th* and more details of the workshop are here: http://www.cvent.com/events/national-household-travel-survey-nhts-data-for-… A link to the program is here: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/Conferences/2018/NHTS/Program.pdf Look forward to seeing you at the workshop. Sincerely, Krishnan -- Krishnan Viswanathan

5 years, 10 months

Re: [CTPP] Call for Beta Testers/Feedback on Census Bureau Options: 2020 Block Group/Tract Delineation Update

by Benjamin Gruswitz

Just a reminder to get your comments in by tomorrow if you would like to provide your feedback on the PSAP options described below. Thanks to all who've submitted comments so far! Again, you can see what others have submitted by submitting a blank form on your end. I believe we have 5-6 comments by this point. Ben *Ben Gruswitz, AICP *|* Senior Planner* Office of Long-Range Planning Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 190 N Independence Mall West, 8th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106-1520 215.238.2882 <http:/#> | bgruswitz(a)dvrpc.org <http:/#> www.dvrpc.org On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:50 PM Benjamin Gruswitz <bgruswitz(a)dvrpc.org> wrote: > All, > > > > Thank you to all who submitted comments seeking to update the rules for > block group and census tract delineation for the 2020 Census Participant > Statistical Areas Program (PSAP). The transportation planning community’s > submissions were substantial and the Census Bureau is interested in finding > a solution to our needs while working within their own limits to ensure > standards for survey data quality and privacy concerns. > > > > The Census Bureau has distilled comments relating to combining > residence-based and workplace-based delineations into three options and has > asked us to give feedback on how workable these options may be. Two of them > seem more plausible for the Census Bureau’s final ruling on 2020 PSAP > criteria, but may be more limiting than transportation planners would > desire. We are seeking people willing to test out these options with their > own geographies. We’d like to know whether one option is more workable or > preferable than the others--and why. Do some options work better for > single-use geographies but not as well for mixed-use? Do they work better > or worse than how your TAZs are currently delineated? > > > > We will use this survey form (https://goo.gl/forms/SgHrqne2NhGjUsEr2) to > collect comments about folks’ observations when testing the options. Time > is limited, as the Census Bureau has only this summer to finalize how PSAP > 2020 will work. *If you’re willing to test one or more of these options > in a sampling of your communities and workplaces, we must receive your > feedback by June 20.* If you’d like to view others’ comments before or > after submitting your own, scroll to the bottom (leaving the form blank) > and press submit. You will have the opportunity to see your own answers > after submitting and to revise your response, if desired. > > > > One of the key differences--highlighted in the options below--between the > needs of the ACS and the CTPP special tabulation is that the ACS does not > report workplace geography below county subdivision or census designated > place. CTPP will continue to seek workplace and journey-to-work flows by > tract--and in post 2020 releases--block group. It may be desirable for CTPP > data quality to see workplace-based geographies with employment counts high > enough to get a reasonable samples of workers at smaller geographies, but > the Census Bureau has no need for ACS reporting to see block groups meet a > minimum threshold of employment--especially when it comes from a local > source they have no way of verifying. In other words, the CTPP Oversight > Board’s recommended comments of a minimum threshold for employment for > block groups and tracts (on par with population minimum thresholds for > those geographies) may be good practice for delineating to get better > workplace data in the CTPP, but may not be necessary from the Census > Bureau’s perspective. > > > > Please try these criteria for delineation on your current geography and > add your comments to the google sheet > > > > *Option A: Employment thresholds where population or housing is not > present* > > This scenario gives priority to population or housing units for > delineating standard block groups (min: 600 people or 240 housing units; > max: 3000 people or 1200 housing units) and tracts (min: 1200 people or 480 > housing units; max: 8000 people or 3200 housing units). If an area was > devoid of population or housing, that area could be delineated by a minimum > threshold of 600 employees per block group and 1200 per tract. Special Use > block groups and tract criteria would stay the same (Within an urban area: > min. 1 square mile; Outside an urban area: min. 10 square miles). > > > > *Option B: Only need one threshold met--population, housing or employment* > > This scenario allows for some presence of population or housing that may > or may not meet a minimum threshold, as long as it meets an employment > minimum of 600 jobs in block groups or 1200 in tracts. Conversely, it > allows for population of 600-3000 in block groups or 1200-8000 in tracts > without meeting a 600 or 1200 job threshold, respectively. Special Use > block groups and tract criteria would stay the same. This is seen as a very > unlikely option from the Census point of view because it would degrade > resident sample sizes to a point where disclosure would be a real concern. > > > > *Option C: Special use block groups and tracts have no minimum area > criteria - no employment thresholds* > > Rather than seeking employment thresholds, removing the square mileage > criteria of the special use block groups and special use tracts would allow > agencies to define non-residential land in whatever way they want. If there > is no presence of population or housing units, non-residential land-uses > could be carved up by block group and tract boundary rules (see below info > on boundary rules below). Those concerned with achieving a minimum sample > size of workers at workplace may opt to consider employment counts while > delineating, but would not need to report this as justification for where > proposed tract and block group boundaries are delineated. Residential areas > would follow current standard block and standard tract population/housing > unit thresholds. > > > > *What PSAP guidance says on boundary line features:* > > For tracts, beyond using governmental (County, reservation or MCD [where > applicable]), or “permanent natural and constructed features, such as > roads, shorelines, rivers, perennial streams and canals, railroad tracks, > or above-ground high-tension power lines”, the federal register allows: > “boundaries of large parks, forests, airports, penitentiaries/prisons, > and/or military installations, provided the boundaries are clearly marked > or easily recognized in the field in imagery and on the ground.” Barring > all that, it says: “When acceptable visible and governmental boundary > features are not available for use as census tract boundaries, the Census > Bureau may, at its discretion, approve other nonstandard visible features, > such as major ridgelines, above-ground pipelines, intermittent streams, or > fence lines. The Census Bureau may also accept, on a case-by-case basis, > relatively short stretches of boundaries of selected nonstandard and > potentially nonvisible features, such as cadastral and parcel boundaries or > the straight-line extensions or other lines-of-sight between acceptable > visible features.” More details here: > https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/02/15/2018-02625/census-trac… > > > For block groups, the same can be said, with the addition that any block > group “nest” within its “parent” census tract. More details here: > https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/02/15/2018-02624/block-group… > > > We've very appreciative of any feedback you can give on this important > matter. Thank you in advance! > > *Ben Gruswitz, AICP *|* Senior Planner* > Office of Long-Range Planning > Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission > 190 N Independence Mall West, 8th Floor > Philadelphia, PA 19106-1520 > 215.238.2882 <http:/#> | bgruswitz(a)dvrpc.org <http:/#> > > www.dvrpc.org > >

5 years, 10 months

[CTPP] CTPP Data Conference Write-up

by Ed Christopher

Just released by the Transportation Research Board was the proceedings of a national conference on applying Census Data for Transportation Planning. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec233.pdf Last November, well over 100 transportation data users came together in Kansas City Missouri to share experiences with the use of Census data, including new techniques for integrating different data sets for use in transportation planning and decision making. The conference provided an opportunity for participants to discuss opportunities, limitations, and challenges involved in using Census data, data available from the private sector, and data from global positioning systems and other technologies. Finally, participants were able to discuss research and training needs associated with applying Census data and data from other sources to transportation planning and decision making. I encourage anyone with an interest in data and transportation planning to take a look at the conference proceedings. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec233.pdf -- Ed Christopher Transportation Planning Consultant 708-269-5237

5 years, 10 months

[CTPP] Call for Beta Testers/Feedback on Census Bureau Options: 2020 Block Group/Tract Delineation Update

by Benjamin Gruswitz

All, Thank you to all who submitted comments seeking to update the rules for block group and census tract delineation for the 2020 Census Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP). The transportation planning community’s submissions were substantial and the Census Bureau is interested in finding a solution to our needs while working within their own limits to ensure standards for survey data quality and privacy concerns. The Census Bureau has distilled comments relating to combining residence-based and workplace-based delineations into three options and has asked us to give feedback on how workable these options may be. Two of them seem more plausible for the Census Bureau’s final ruling on 2020 PSAP criteria, but may be more limiting than transportation planners would desire. We are seeking people willing to test out these options with their own geographies. We’d like to know whether one option is more workable or preferable than the others--and why. Do some options work better for single-use geographies but not as well for mixed-use? Do they work better or worse than how your TAZs are currently delineated? We will use this survey form (https://goo.gl/forms/SgHrqne2NhGjUsEr2) to collect comments about folks’ observations when testing the options. Time is limited, as the Census Bureau has only this summer to finalize how PSAP 2020 will work. *If you’re willing to test one or more of these options in a sampling of your communities and workplaces, we must receive your feedback by June 20.* If you’d like to view others’ comments before or after submitting your own, scroll to the bottom (leaving the form blank) and press submit. You will have the opportunity to see your own answers after submitting and to revise your response, if desired. One of the key differences--highlighted in the options below--between the needs of the ACS and the CTPP special tabulation is that the ACS does not report workplace geography below county subdivision or census designated place. CTPP will continue to seek workplace and journey-to-work flows by tract--and in post 2020 releases--block group. It may be desirable for CTPP data quality to see workplace-based geographies with employment counts high enough to get a reasonable samples of workers at smaller geographies, but the Census Bureau has no need for ACS reporting to see block groups meet a minimum threshold of employment--especially when it comes from a local source they have no way of verifying. In other words, the CTPP Oversight Board’s recommended comments of a minimum threshold for employment for block groups and tracts (on par with population minimum thresholds for those geographies) may be good practice for delineating to get better workplace data in the CTPP, but may not be necessary from the Census Bureau’s perspective. Please try these criteria for delineation on your current geography and add your comments to the google sheet *Option A: Employment thresholds where population or housing is not present* This scenario gives priority to population or housing units for delineating standard block groups (min: 600 people or 240 housing units; max: 3000 people or 1200 housing units) and tracts (min: 1200 people or 480 housing units; max: 8000 people or 3200 housing units). If an area was devoid of population or housing, that area could be delineated by a minimum threshold of 600 employees per block group and 1200 per tract. Special Use block groups and tract criteria would stay the same (Within an urban area: min. 1 square mile; Outside an urban area: min. 10 square miles). *Option B: Only need one threshold met--population, housing or employment* This scenario allows for some presence of population or housing that may or may not meet a minimum threshold, as long as it meets an employment minimum of 600 jobs in block groups or 1200 in tracts. Conversely, it allows for population of 600-3000 in block groups or 1200-8000 in tracts without meeting a 600 or 1200 job threshold, respectively. Special Use block groups and tract criteria would stay the same. This is seen as a very unlikely option from the Census point of view because it would degrade resident sample sizes to a point where disclosure would be a real concern. *Option C: Special use block groups and tracts have no minimum area criteria - no employment thresholds* Rather than seeking employment thresholds, removing the square mileage criteria of the special use block groups and special use tracts would allow agencies to define non-residential land in whatever way they want. If there is no presence of population or housing units, non-residential land-uses could be carved up by block group and tract boundary rules (see below info on boundary rules below). Those concerned with achieving a minimum sample size of workers at workplace may opt to consider employment counts while delineating, but would not need to report this as justification for where proposed tract and block group boundaries are delineated. Residential areas would follow current standard block and standard tract population/housing unit thresholds. *What PSAP guidance says on boundary line features:* For tracts, beyond using governmental (County, reservation or MCD [where applicable]), or “permanent natural and constructed features, such as roads, shorelines, rivers, perennial streams and canals, railroad tracks, or above-ground high-tension power lines”, the federal register allows: “boundaries of large parks, forests, airports, penitentiaries/prisons, and/or military installations, provided the boundaries are clearly marked or easily recognized in the field in imagery and on the ground.” Barring all that, it says: “When acceptable visible and governmental boundary features are not available for use as census tract boundaries, the Census Bureau may, at its discretion, approve other nonstandard visible features, such as major ridgelines, above-ground pipelines, intermittent streams, or fence lines. The Census Bureau may also accept, on a case-by-case basis, relatively short stretches of boundaries of selected nonstandard and potentially nonvisible features, such as cadastral and parcel boundaries or the straight-line extensions or other lines-of-sight between acceptable visible features.” More details here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/02/15/2018-02625/census-trac… For block groups, the same can be said, with the addition that any block group “nest” within its “parent” census tract. More details here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/02/15/2018-02624/block-group… We've very appreciative of any feedback you can give on this important matter. Thank you in advance! *Ben Gruswitz, AICP *|* Senior Planner* Office of Long-Range Planning Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 190 N Independence Mall West, 8th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106-1520 215.238.2882 <http:/#> | bgruswitz(a)dvrpc.org <http:/#> www.dvrpc.org

5 years, 11 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

CTPP June 2018