CTPP

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

5 participants
3069 discussions

[CTPP] Leon Kotecki is out of the office.

by Leon.Kotecki＠mymanatee.org

I will be out of the office starting 07/14/2008 and will not return until 08/15/2008. I will respond to your message when I return.

17 years, 1 month

[CTPP] Travel Modeling RFP

by Zakaria

The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) plans on undertaking an ambitious effort to improve its travel modeling process. DVRPC plans on upgrading its software package, hardware, models, and data management process. As part of this effort, DVRPC is requesting proposals from qualified consultants for assistance in upgrading its travel demand modeling process. Please see the attached request for proposals (RFP) for more details. We look forward to receiving your proposals on this matter Thabet Zakaria Deputy Director, Technical Services Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Phone: (215) 238-2885 Email: tzakaria(a)dvrpc.org Fax: (215) 592-9125

17 years, 1 month

[CTPP] ACS standard tables "08" is the key for journey-to-work

by Murakami

Just a reminder to everyone that when you use the ACS standard tables from American FactFinder, for the tables on "journey to work" both for residence geography and workplace geography, "08" is the key. B08xxx; C08xxx; GCT08xxx, S08xxx, etc. Michelle Jiles' article (pages 4 and 5) from the January 2008 issue of the CTPP Status Report http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/status.htm includes more detail. Elaine Murakami 206-220-4460

17 years, 1 month

Re: [CTPP] RE: Census Bureau urbanized areas; urban/rural classification

by John Hodges-Copple

Thanks Michael, good explanation (and I appreciate you taking the time to compose it). the one that was a "gotcha" for us in 2000, as you note, was dropping the inclusion of a whole incorporated place. I understand how that allowed areas that were on the incorporated fringe but very low density to be rightfully dropped from being defined as urban, but it also dropped (as you also rightly note) the clearly "urban" office and retail centers that, in our case, have grown up around the Research Triangle Park (and the Park itself). So I am intrigued with the possibility of Point Number 1 in your Considerations for 2010 of using some kind of place of work measure to capture these. Consider us strong supporters of doing so. John Hodges-Copple, Planning Director Triangle J Council of Governments PO Box 12276 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 919-558-9320 johnhc(a)tjcog.org www.tjcog.org ----- Original Message ----- From: <michael.r.ratcliffe(a)census.gov> To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Cc: <joseph.l.marinucci(a)census.gov>; "Vince Osier" <vincent.osier(a)census.gov>; <emmanuel.mbobi(a)census.gov>; <timothy.f.trainor(a)census.gov>; <kevin.j.hawley(a)census.gov> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 5:11 PM Subject: Re: [CTPP] RE: Census Bureau urbanized areas;urban/rural classification > Apologies for the long message, but the various e-mails to this list > regarding Census Bureau urbanized areas seem to necessitate (in my mind at > least) some historical background about the Census Bureau's urban/rural > classification and urban area definitions. If you're not interested in > the > background and history, skip to the bottom of this message. > > Purpose of the Census Bureau's Urban/Rural Classification > > The Census Bureau defines urban areas solely to provide statistical data > for urban and rural population and housing. Ever since the Census Bureau > began distinguishing between urban and rural territory (urban places were > first identified officially in 1910), the definition of "urban" has been > based on decennial census counts of residential population and residential > population density (with the exception of the delineation of urbanized > areas for the 1950 census, which relied upon housing unit density). The > Census Bureau has never attempted to take into account daytime population > or worker counts when delineating urban places, urbanized areas, or urban > clusters. This is probably the appropriate place to also point out that > the Census Bureau defines urban areas and rural solely for the purpose of > tabulating and presenting Census Bureau statistical data. Urbanized areas > and urban clusters are not defined for non-statistical purposes (for > instance, determining transportation funding); any organization using the > Census Bureau's urban area definitions for non-statistical, programmatic > purposes should take into consideration the specific needs of the program, > the relationship between those needs and the Census Bureau's urban/rural > concept, criteria, and delineation methodology, and make appropriate > modifications. It is also worth noting that, despite the Census Bureau's > statement that urbanized areas are defined solely for statistical > purposes, > a number of federal agency programs use our definitions as the basis for > implementing funding programs and determining qualification for > participation in programs. In addition to transportation programs, a > number of health programs, urban and rural development and economic > assistance programs, and environmental protection programs, rely upon the > Census Bureau's urban/rural definitions. If criteria and delineation > methodologies had to take into account all of the disparate uses of Census > Bureau urban area definitions, the classification would soon become > meaningless. > > Background and History > > Over the course of nearly 100 years of defining "urban," the Census Bureau > has introduced conceptual and methodological changes to ensure that the > urban/rural classification keeps pace with changes in settlement patterns, > as well as to changes in theoretical approaches to interpreting and > understanding the growth of urban areas. Periodic review of the > urban/rural classification and criteria ensures its continued usefulness > and relevance for statistical data tabulation and analysis, and ensures > that the delineation process utilizes the best possible data, procedures, > and methodologies. Prior to the 1950 census, the Census Bureau defined > "urban" as any population, housing, and territory located within > incorporated places of 2,500 or more population. That approach to > defining > "urban" is by far the easiest, simplest, and most straightforward to > implement, requiring no calculation of population density; no need to > understand and account for actual settlement patterns on the ground; and > no > need to consider densely settled populations existing outside incorporated > municipalities. For much of the first half of the 20th century, that > definition was adequate for defining "urban" and "rural" in the United > States, but by no means accurate. > > Increasing suburbanization, particularly outside the boundaries of large > incorporated municipalities, led to the adoption of the urbanized area > concept for the 1950 census. In adopting this concept, Census Bureau > geographers and demographers formally recognized that densely settled > communities existed outside the boundaries of large incorporated > municipalities, and were just as "urban" as densely settled population > inside incorporated place boundaries. Given the nature of available > technology for calculating and mapping density (basically, planimeters and > paper maps), delineation of urbanized areas was limited to cities of > 50,000 > or more population and their surrounding territory; the geographic units > used to analyse settlment patterns were enumeration districts, but to > facilitate and ease the delineation process, each place was analysed as a > single unit-- that is, the overall density of the place was calculated and > if it met the minimum threshold, it was included in its entirety in the > urbanized area. "Urban" outside urbanized areas was still defined as any > place (unincorporated "Census Designated Places" were now included along > with incorporated places) with a population of at least 2,500. > > Starting with the 1960 census and continuing through the 1990 census, the > Census Bureau made a number of enhancements to the methodology and > criteria > for defining urbanized areas, but the basic definition of "urban" remained > in place: urbanized areas of 50,000 or more population defined on the > basis (for the most part) of population density; and urban places of 2,500 > or more population located outside urbanized areas. Enhancements > included: > > 1) relaxation, and eventual elimination, of minimum population criteria > for > places that formed the "starting point" for delineation of an urbanized > area; > 2) identification of "extended cities"-- incorporated places containing > substantial amounts of very low density (less than 100 people per square > mile) territory, which were divided into urban and rural components; > 3) for the 1990 census, interactive analysis of population density > patterns > at the census block level, or by groups of blocks (known as "analysis > units" and not to be confused with block groups) using Census > Bureau-developed delineation software. This allowed greater flexibility > when analysing and defining urbanized areas, as opposed to using > enumeration districts and other measurement units defined prior to data > tabulation; > 4) qualification of places for inclusion in an urbanized area based on > the > existence of a densely populated "core" containing at least 50% of the > place's population. > > Changes for Census 2000 > > The Census Bureau adopted two substantial changes to its urban/rural > classification for Census 2000. These included: > > 1) Defining urban clusters of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people > using the same residential population density-based criteria as applied to > urbanized areas. As a result of this change, the Census Bureau no longer > identified "urban places located outside urbanized areas." > > 2) Ignoring incorporated place and census designated place boundaries > when > defining urbanized areas and urban clusters. Implementation of this > change > meant that low density, obviously rural territory that happened to be > located inside place boundaries (due to annexation, perhaps) no longer, > necessarily qualified for inclusion in an urban area. However, it also > means that non-residential urban land uses located inside a place's > boundary and located on the edge of an urban area may not necessarily be > located in an urbanized area or urban cluster (as several people on this > thread have pointed out). > > These two changes provided for a consistent approach to defining urban > areas throughout the United States. Taking place boundaries into account > in previous decades resulted in the inclusion of low density territory and > population within urbanized areas when the place as a whole met minimum > population density requirements, and excluded densely settled population > when the place as a whole fell below minimum density requirements. Also, > the lack of a density-based approach for defining urban areas of less than > 50,000 people resulted in underbounding of urban areas where densely > settled populations existed outside place boundaries. States in which > annexation had lagged behind expansion of densely settled areas, or in > which communities of 2,500 up to 50,000 were not incorporated or were not > defined as census designated places, were most affected by the adoption of > density-based urban clusters. The attached paper describes the changes > adopted for Census 2000 and the effect on delineation of urban areas. > > Adoption of density-based approach for defining "urban" at all levels > required a change in methodology. The Census Bureau's Geography Division > did not possess sufficient resources to have geographers interactively > review and delineate thousands of potential urban areas in 2000 (for the > 1990 urbanized area program, approximately 50 geographers at headquarters > and the regional offices spent six months interactively reviewing > population density patterns for 600 potential urbanized areas, resulting > in > 405 qualifying urbanized areas). Therefore, successful and timely > completion of the Census 2000 urban area program required an automated > approach to delineation. Compared to previous decades' urban area > definition programs, development of automated software that resulted in > definitions that were reasonably consistent with previous decades > definitions, was hardly the easiest and most straightforward approach. > But, it did offer the advantage of consistency. Compared to previous > decades in which individual geographers applied and interpreted > delineation > criteria when analysing and defining urbanized areas in the portions of > the > country assigned to them, the automated delineation software applied the > criteria evenly and consistently throughout the United States, Puerto > Rico, > and the Island Areas. > > Considerations for 2010 and/or Beyond > > Although it is too early to discuss potential criteria for defining > urbanized areas and urban clusters for the 2010 Census, we can identify a > few issues that staff are currently researching: > > 1) We are investigating the potential for use ofplace of work data to > identify areas with low residential population densities, but relatively > high worker densities, to augment delineation based on residential > density. > > 2) We are reviewing the availability and applicability of nationwide > datasets containing land use/land cover information. While we have > recognized the desirability of using land use/land cover data when > delineating urbanized areas, we have been hampered by the lack of a > consistent, comprehensive data set for the U.S. in which the reference > date > for the data is relatively consistent and is relatively close in time to > Census Day (in other words, we don't want to use old data, nor do we want > to use data calibrated to different dates for various parts of the > country). For the Census 2000 urban area delineation program, we did > make > use of a FAA file containing information about the nation's largest > airports to help ensure that major airports were included in urbanized > areas when adjacent to qualifying territory. > > 3) We are investigating the potential use of digital elevation data to > identify steeply sloped areas that may offset urbanization. > > 4) We are investigating the potential use of housing unit density instead > of population density to facilitate intercensal updating of urban area > definitions. The American Community Survey has presented demographic > characteristics and population estimates for urbanized areas of 65,000 or > more people, and with the upcoming 3-year estimates, will produce data for > all urbanized areas as well as urban clusters of 20,000 or more > population. > These estimates are based on Census 2000 urban area boundaries, and do not > reflect urbanization that has occurred since 2000. > > We currently anticipate publishing potential criteria for defining > urbanized areas and urban clusters in Spring 2009. We are aware of the > transportation community's interest in the Census Bureau's urban area > classification, and will keep folks informed via the CTPP list as well as > other listserves and venues as work progresses. > > Mike Ratcliffe > > ______________________________________ > Michael R. Ratcliffe > Chief, Geographic Standards and Criteria Branch > Geography Division > U.S. Census Bureau > 4600 Silver Hill Road/ MS-7400 > Washington, DC 20233-7400 > 301-763-8977 > michael.r.ratcliffe(a)census.gov > > > > "John > Hodges-Copple" > <johnhc(a)tjcog.org To > > <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > Sent by: cc > ctpp-news-bounces > @chrispy.net Subject > Re: [CTPP] RE: CTPP Update - > Another Question > 07/01/2008 10:24 > AM > > > Please respond to > ctpp-news(a)chrispy > .net > > > > > > > I, too, hope UZA will receive more attention than last time. My > impression > > is that in 2000, Census moved away from considering several factors and > went > with what was easiest and most straightforward for Census, not what was > most > reflective of the reality on the ground; in essence they sacrificed > accuracy > for consistency and simplicity. In our region, that meant that the > Research > Triangle Park, with about 50,000 workers (but where no one lives with the > possible exception of some computer programmers with cots in their > cubicles) > is "not urban," nor are the surrounding office parks and the adjacent > Raleigh-Durham Airport, despite this agglomeration being the most > congested > > portion of our region. This hole in our region resulted in us having 2 > separate UZAs and corresponding MSAs (Raleigh and Durham) whereas we had > previously been one MSA. > > John Hodges-Copple, Planning Director > Triangle J Council of Governments > PO Box 12276 > Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 > 919-558-9320 > johnhc(a)tjcog.org > www.tjcog.org > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Reinauer" <treinauer(a)smrpc.org> > To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 9:56 AM > Subject: [CTPP] RE: CTPP Update - Another Question > > >> Hi there, >> I addition to Bill's questions below, I'd like to find out what if any >> processes are underway or planned to better coordinate the >> definition/establishment of the Fed urbanized areas with transportation >> planning and funding (maybe coord between the Census Bureau, FTA and >> FHWA). >> It has always appeared that the UZA boundaries are established with no >> consideration for transportation, but transportation funding is based on >> UZA boundaries and the pop/lane miles/etc. within them. In Maine, for >> example, the Maine Mall area is huge and probably be biggest traffic >> generation area in the state. However, since no on lives there (certain >> teenagers not withstanding), it is not included in the UZA. Nor is the >> Portland Jetport, etc. >> Although some "smoothing" often occurs in the UAZ boundaries, large >> areas such as these usually are not incorporated. Any thoughts? --Tom >> >> Tom Reinauer, Transportation Director >> Southern Maine RPC & Kittery Area MPO >> 21 Bradeen St. Suite 304 >> Springvale, ME 04083 >> (207)324-2952 Ext. 18 >> (207)324-2958 fax >> treinauer(a)smrpc.org >> www.smrpc.org >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bill Moore [mailto:bmoore(a)pueblo.us] >> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:16 PM >> To: 'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net' >> Subject: CTPP Update - Another Question >> >> >> This may not pertain directly to the CTPP, but is another 2010 Census >> issue that may (again) have some significant effects on MPOs. At this >> point, I don't think I've seen any discussions of the definitions or >> criteria that will be used to define the various land areas comprising >> an Urban Area. >> >> Will they be the same as those used in the 2000 Census or are there also >> plans to change some or all of them? How will the Census UA standards >> handle annexations of vacant land into incorporated cities? (i.e. Will >> the UA boundaries automatically adjust to the new corporate limits, or >> will the population, distance, and density criteria "override" the >> legal/institutional changes?) What about so-called "lariat" or >> "flagpole" annexations in states where these are legal? >> >> I'd appreciate any early insights anyone may have about this issue. >> >> Bill Moore >> MPO Administrator >> Pueblo MPO/TPR >> >> This e-mail transmission (including any attachments) contains >> information that is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is >> intended for the use of the addressee only. If you received this e-mail >> in error, we request that you contact us immediately by telephone or >> return e-mail, and that you delete this message from your computer. If >> you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that any >> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly >> prohibited. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ctpp-news mailing list >> ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net >> http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news >> > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news > > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news >

17 years, 1 month

[CTPP] RE: CTPP Update - Another Question

by Tom Reinauer

Hi there, I addition to Bill's questions below, I'd like to find out what if any processes are underway or planned to better coordinate the definition/establishment of the Fed urbanized areas with transportation planning and funding (maybe coord between the Census Bureau, FTA and FHWA). It has always appeared that the UZA boundaries are established with no consideration for transportation, but transportation funding is based on UZA boundaries and the pop/lane miles/etc. within them. In Maine, for example, the Maine Mall area is huge and probably be biggest traffic generation area in the state. However, since no on lives there (certain teenagers not withstanding), it is not included in the UZA. Nor is the Portland Jetport, etc. Although some "smoothing" often occurs in the UAZ boundaries, large areas such as these usually are not incorporated. Any thoughts? --Tom Tom Reinauer, Transportation Director Southern Maine RPC & Kittery Area MPO 21 Bradeen St. Suite 304 Springvale, ME 04083 (207)324-2952 Ext. 18 (207)324-2958 fax treinauer(a)smrpc.org www.smrpc.org -----Original Message----- From: Bill Moore [mailto:bmoore(a)pueblo.us] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:16 PM To: 'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net' Subject: CTPP Update - Another Question This may not pertain directly to the CTPP, but is another 2010 Census issue that may (again) have some significant effects on MPOs. At this point, I don't think I've seen any discussions of the definitions or criteria that will be used to define the various land areas comprising an Urban Area. Will they be the same as those used in the 2000 Census or are there also plans to change some or all of them? How will the Census UA standards handle annexations of vacant land into incorporated cities? (i.e. Will the UA boundaries automatically adjust to the new corporate limits, or will the population, distance, and density criteria "override" the legal/institutional changes?) What about so-called "lariat" or "flagpole" annexations in states where these are legal? I'd appreciate any early insights anyone may have about this issue. Bill Moore MPO Administrator Pueblo MPO/TPR This e-mail transmission (including any attachments) contains information that is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you received this e-mail in error, we request that you contact us immediately by telephone or return e-mail, and that you delete this message from your computer. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.

17 years, 1 month

RE: [CTPP] RE: CTPP Update - Another Question

by Angie Byrne

Hi Everyone, I am looking to find the most up to date CTPP disks. Can you please direct me to the contact person to obtain these? Thanks! Angie Byrne Transportation Planner Western Arkansas Planning & Development District Bi-State Metropolitan Planning Organization 1109 S. 16th Street P.O. Box 2067 Fort Smith AR, 72902 Office: 479-785-2651 Fax: 479-785-1964 abyrne(a)wapdd.org -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net]On Behalf Of Tom Reinauer Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:56 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] RE: CTPP Update - Another Question Hi there, I addition to Bill's questions below, I'd like to find out what if any processes are underway or planned to better coordinate the definition/establishment of the Fed urbanized areas with transportation planning and funding (maybe coord between the Census Bureau, FTA and FHWA). It has always appeared that the UZA boundaries are established with no consideration for transportation, but transportation funding is based on UZA boundaries and the pop/lane miles/etc. within them. In Maine, for example, the Maine Mall area is huge and probably be biggest traffic generation area in the state. However, since no on lives there (certain teenagers not withstanding), it is not included in the UZA. Nor is the Portland Jetport, etc. Although some "smoothing" often occurs in the UAZ boundaries, large areas such as these usually are not incorporated. Any thoughts? --Tom Tom Reinauer, Transportation Director Southern Maine RPC & Kittery Area MPO 21 Bradeen St. Suite 304 Springvale, ME 04083 (207)324-2952 Ext. 18 (207)324-2958 fax treinauer(a)smrpc.org www.smrpc.org -----Original Message----- From: Bill Moore [mailto:bmoore(a)pueblo.us] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:16 PM To: 'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net' Subject: CTPP Update - Another Question This may not pertain directly to the CTPP, but is another 2010 Census issue that may (again) have some significant effects on MPOs. At this point, I don't think I've seen any discussions of the definitions or criteria that will be used to define the various land areas comprising an Urban Area. Will they be the same as those used in the 2000 Census or are there also plans to change some or all of them? How will the Census UA standards handle annexations of vacant land into incorporated cities? (i.e. Will the UA boundaries automatically adjust to the new corporate limits, or will the population, distance, and density criteria "override" the legal/institutional changes?) What about so-called "lariat" or "flagpole" annexations in states where these are legal? I'd appreciate any early insights anyone may have about this issue. Bill Moore MPO Administrator Pueblo MPO/TPR This e-mail transmission (including any attachments) contains information that is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you received this e-mail in error, we request that you contact us immediately by telephone or return e-mail, and that you delete this message from your computer. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

17 years, 1 month

[CTPP] Links to Documents on Income and Poverty from the CB

by Murakami

Dear Everyone: During the CTPP webinars held in May and June, and additional discussions passed along from the State Data Center listserv, questions about Income and Poverty from the American Community Survey were raised. We asked CB staff for help and they have provided these links. In the interest of time, I am passing them along to the listserv, although I have not read most of them myself. If we have specific questions, we can ask Ed Welniak at the CB for assistance. Also, if you have a recommendation for an NCHRP 08-36 research project (AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning) http://www.trb.org/trbnet/projectdisplay.asp?projectid=909 , please send your 1-page research idea to Jonette Kreideweis Jonette.kreideweis(a)dot.state.mn.us There are 2 current NCHRP 08-36 projects related to ACS in progress. See tasks 71 and 81 in the list above. When to use various demographic household survey data: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2007/guidance_acs_cps.htm http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/description.html Comparing the ACS to the CPS, "Evaluation of Income Estimates" http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/Evaluation_of_Income_Estimates31 207.doc Split panel test using previous 12 month and previous calendar year as reference periods: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/AdvMeth/Papers/ACS/Paper16.htm Another paper from 2003 ASA meetings -- http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/ACS/ASA_nelson.pdf Bruce Webster's most recent ASA paper comparing CPS and ACS income using exact match data: (See attached file: Webster 2007 ASA CPS-ACS Paper.doc) Census: Subject definitions: "For several reasons, the income data shown in census tabulations are not directly comparable with those that may be obtained from statistical summaries of income tax returns. Income, as defined for federal tax purposes, differs somewhat from the Census Bureau concept. Moreover, the coverage of income tax statistics is different because of the exemptions of people having small amounts of income and the inclusion of net capital gains in tax returns. Furthermore, members of some families file separate returns and others file joint returns; consequently, the income reporting unit is not consistently either a family or a person." Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460

17 years, 1 month

[CTPP] CTPP Update

by Ed Christopher

On May 21 and June 4 members of the CTPP team conducted a series of webinars to help bring our community up-to-speed on several of the CTPP activities. The slides from these presentations can be downloaded from our webinar room at http://fhwa.acrobat.com/ctpp1 (enter as a guest) and the responses to many of the questions asked during the meetings are presented below. If folks have additional questions please feel free to post them to the list serve and someone on the CTPP team will attempt to answer them. CTPP Webinar - Questions and Answers Question: Will the 3-year CTPP data product based on ACS include tables by race and household income? Response: Yes but the best source for information on race will still be the Census Bureau's standard ACS tabulations found on American FactFinder (http://factfinder.census.gov/). The 3-year CTPP proposed tables for parts 1 and 2 include a few tables with the variable "minority status." Also, there are various tables with the variables - Income, Poverty Status and Worker Earnings that will be available. Please note that Poverty Status is a calculated variable based on household income, family size, number of children and number of family members over the age of 65. Question: Since the new CTPP products will be based on data collected over 3 years (or 5 years), to which year will the income be adjusted? Response: Income will be adjusted to the last year of the survey period. For the first 3-year product all incomes will adjusted to 2007. Question: Is there data available on zero car households? If yes, what geography level is it available? Response: Yes, there will be information available for zero car households in both the 3-year CTPP data product and as part of the standard Census products. The data will be available for geographic areas greater than 20,000 residents. Question: Slides 6 & 7 of the DRB presentation show different percentages of data lost due to DRB rules, why is that? Response: Slide 6 showed the number of workers lost while slide 7 showed the number of origin-destination pairs lost. The point is that when thresholds were applied to CTPP Part 3 data as was the case with the 2000 data, many folks looked at the loss of workers as being significant but more surprising was actual loss of individual O-D pairs. All in all table thresholds devastated the part 3 flow data. Question: 2005 ACS data doesn't have information on Group Quarters, but the 2006 and 2007 do. How is this being handled in the 3-year 2007 ACS products? Response: The Group Quarter data available for 2 years (2006 and 2007) will be reweighed to account for the missing year. Question: Will the variable - Means of Transportation to Work have walk and bike modes combined? Also, what about taxi, bus and other? Response: Regarding the 3-year CTPP data product there are multiple category lists for the variable - Means of Transportation to Work. There are a few tables all 17 modes plus the total are shown separately but then there are many others where walk and bike have been collapsed together. A great deal of the detail on the mode variable is in the hands of the Census Bureau's disclosure Review Board. Currently they have proposed some very tight restrictions on the proposed 3-year CTPP tables. Please see http://trbcensus.com/drb/ for more Question: Do you have anything on the TAZ definition timeframe that you can share with the group? Response: Please see our Status Report newsletter for the latest http://www.TRBcensus.com/newsltr/sr052008.pdf. Question: Can you talk about the difference in income between ACS and Long Form? Response: In Census 2000, the question was asked during April for the previous year, 1999. Because April is so close to IRS annual return data it was felt that "good" income data was being collected because it was fresh in people's minds. However, for the ACS the same questions are asked, but the respondent could be getting the survey during any month of year (depending on when she/he received the form). This reported income is then adjusted to the current year (year of tabulation) based on CPI. There are several issues with this with the largest being that at anytime during the year most people do not how much money they made in the last 12 months. Needless to say the income question is messy. Question: Poverty rates seem discontinuous, higher. Any ideas why? Response: Yes, they are discontinuous. Hopefully they will look better with the 3-year ACS data products. Question: If the DRB is so strict with its rules then why bother with new TAZs? Response: We hope that the DRB will relax its rules but having TAZs that correspond to the ACS data release products (65,000 pop TAZs, 20,000 pop TAZs and small TAZs) will help us in the future all sorts of data products. Having geography match the data release seems to make good sense so that we can at least get complete coverage (wall-to-wall) within a region. Question: What are the implications of rising fuel prices on travel choices on mode to work? Has anybody thought about it, especially with aggregating 3 years worth of data? Since the ACS asks about "usual" mode, it could still miss modes used only part of the time. Response: The 3 year ACS trend data might look a lot different than the 2000 data. This might be a good research question. Question: Is the category list for the variable - occupation being consolidated? Response: No, DRB has not asked us to collapse the variables - industry or occupation. Question: Is anybody planning to write to Congress about the DRB issue? Response: AASHTO SCOP is sending a letter to the Census Bureau to appeal the DRB decision. As FHWA staff, we cannot contact Congress directly but we know that many regional agencies do talk with their Congressional delegations. It is somewhat ironic but many of the congressionally mandated analysis like the FTA New Starts program and environmental justice analysis all need data at a smaller geography level which will be difficult to obtain with the DRB's current rules. Question: We are relatively a new MPO and I have a CTPP 101 question. As an MPO do we need to provide you any information, and what are our sources of information regarding CTPP specifically regarding TAZs? Response: The CTPP listserve is a good place for information regarding ongoing CTPP related activities. The TAZ definition process is planned for March/April of 2009 and it is recommended that MPO's allocate some budget when preparing their work plans for FY 2009, especially for new MPOs. The CTPP Status Report is also a good source of information. If you have any particular questions please do not hesitate to contact anyone one of us on the CTPP team. Question: Somewhere it was noted the first CTPP ACS product would be available in 2009 for areas of 20,000 or more for places and counties. Response: Yes that is correct. We are still in the negotiation stage regarding some DRB issues but this is our GOAL. This first CTPP product would use 3 years of ACS data. Question: There was also a mention of TAZ level data also for 20,000 population threshold. However, I am not sure if this is included in the first 3 year product for 2009, or whether the first TAZ level report will not be available until 2012 with a 5 year product. Response: To get "small" area geography like a TAZ or a census tract, the census requires 5 years of ACS data. So, we are planning to wait for 2006 thru 2010 ACS data to incorporate 2010 Census geography and weights, which we hope would be tabulated by 2012. This will likely require some data synthesis before release. Because of the probability that the data will be synthetic, we do not anticipate any population threshold. -- Ed Christopher Resource Center Planning Team Federal Highway Administration 19900 Governors Drive Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) 708-283-3501 (F)

17 years, 1 month

RE: [CTPP] CTPP Update

by pmission＠srpedd.org

Paul Mission will be out of the office starting June 27 and will return on July 8, 2008. If you need immediate assistance, please contact the office manager at SRPEDD. (508) 824-1367 info(a)srpedd.org.

17 years, 1 month

RE: [CTPP] CTPP Update

by pmission＠srpedd.org

17 years, 1 month

Jump to page:

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