CTPP

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

3075 discussions

Re: [CTPP] Sign our open letter to Census Bureau leadership about ACS data

by Benjamin Gruswitz

Apologies, that last email wasn't meant to be directed to this group. What I DID want to pass along, if some had not seen it, was this update <https://ipums.org/changes-to-census-bureau-data-products> on the topic of differential privacy. It appears the push back from the IPUMS community and others lead to a Census Bureau decision to delay implementation for the ACS until 2025. Ben Gruswitz, AICP | Senior Planner (Pronouns: he/him) Office of Long-Range Planning Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 190 N Independence Mall West, 8th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106-1520 <https://www.google.com/maps/place/Delaware+Valley+Regional+Planning+Commiss…> 215.238.2882 | www.dvrpc.org Subscribe <https://app.e2ma.net/app2/audience/signup/1808352/1403728/> | Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/DVRPC> | Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/DVRPC> | Instagram <http://www.instagram.com/DVRPC> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/delaware-valley-regional-planning-commission> | YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEU8UI5_iGkVypHP93b5jLA> [image: DVRPC] <https://www.dvrpc.org/> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 3:31 PM Benjamin Gruswitz <bgruswitz(a)dvrpc.org> wrote: > Thanks, I was so confused. > > Ben Gruswitz, AICP | Senior Planner > (Pronouns: he/him) > Office of Long-Range Planning > Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission > 190 N Independence Mall West, 8th Floor > Philadelphia, PA 19106-1520 > <https://www.google.com/maps/place/Delaware+Valley+Regional+Planning+Commiss…> > 215.238.2882 | www.dvrpc.org > Subscribe <https://app.e2ma.net/app2/audience/signup/1808352/1403728/> | > Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/DVRPC> | Twitter > <http://www.twitter.com/DVRPC> | Instagram > <http://www.instagram.com/DVRPC> | LinkedIn > <http://www.linkedin.com/company/delaware-valley-regional-planning-commission> > | YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEU8UI5_iGkVypHP93b5jLA> > > [image: DVRPC] <https://www.dvrpc.org/> > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:51 PM Ed Christopher <edc(a)berwyned.com> wrote: > >> There may be some who are interested in this. I apologize if it has >> already crossed your desk. >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: Sign our open letter to Census Bureau leadership about ACS data >> Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 16:05:03 +0000 >> From: Steven Ruggles <ipums(a)umn.edu> <ipums(a)umn.edu> >> Reply-To: Steven Ruggles <ipums(a)umn.edu> <ipums(a)umn.edu> >> To: edc(a)berwyned.com >> >> *IPUMS Census and Survey Data * >> Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser >> <https://ipums.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=775cbf39c77535e784cdfd6f9&i…> >> . >> >> Dear IPUMS User, >> >> I know many of you have been following developments in Census 2020 and >> the proposed citizenship questions. Several sessions at the Population >> Association of America (PAA) covered many aspects of Census 2020 planning >> and were well-attended with lively discussions. I’m writing to you today >> about plans for the American Community Survey (ACS). Please join me in >> asking the Census Bureau to clarify their plans for ACS disclosure >> avoidance control and dissemination. We want to protect the usability of >> the important public use data that we all use in our work. >> >> *Here's the short version: please sign our open letter >> <https://ipums.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=775cbf39c77535e784cdfd6f9&i…> >> to the Census Bureau asking for transparency in changes to the ACS*. For >> the long version, please keep reading and visit our webpage on this topic >> <https://ipums.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=775cbf39c77535e784cdfd6f9&i…> >> . >> >> The Census Bureau is planning an extensive revision of procedures for >> ensuring the confidentiality of public use data, based on a method known as >> "differential privacy." The new disclosure avoidance system will rely on >> injecting noise into the data, and the new procedures may reduce or even >> eliminate the usability of public use data for many common research and >> policy applications. For more information, see our recent working paper >> <https://ipums.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=775cbf39c77535e784cdfd6f9&i…> >> and forthcoming article >> <https://ipums.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=775cbf39c77535e784cdfd6f9&i…> >> . >> >> The American Community Survey (ACS) is the single most important >> statistical source in the social sciences. They generate 9,000 articles a >> year, and a new paper appears about every hour. If these data become >> unusable, unreliable or available only through restricted-access >> environments because of the new confidentiality measures, that would have >> profound consequences across many areas of demographic, economic, and >> policy research. >> >> Acknowledging the importance of the ACS data, we are seeking >> clarification and engagement with the research community from the Census >> Bureau. Our open letter >> <https://ipums.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=775cbf39c77535e784cdfd6f9&i…> >> requests: >> >> 1. A public timeline for changes to the ACS summary files and >> microdata. >> 2. Engagement with the research community in advance of any changes. >> 3. Public versions of new noise-infused ACS summary files and >> microdata for 2005-2017 so that researchers can assess their usefulness by >> replicating existing studies. >> >> If you support these requests, please sign our letter >> <https://ipums.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=775cbf39c77535e784cdfd6f9&i…> >> . >> >> Thank you, >> >> Steven Ruggles >> IPUMS Director >> Regents Professor of History and Population Studies >> IPUMS >> <https://ipums.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=775cbf39c77535e784cdfd6f9&i…> >> | University of Minnesota >> <https://ipums.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=775cbf39c77535e784cdfd6f9&i…> >> >> *Copyright © 2019 University of Minnesota, All rights reserved.* >> >> *Our mailing address is:* >> IPUMS >> 225 19th Ave South >> Minneapolis, MN 55455 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>

6 years, 1 month

[CTPP] Fwd: Sign our open letter to Census Bureau leadership about ACS data

by Ed Christopher

There may be some who are interested in this. I apologize if it has already crossed your desk. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Sign our open letter to Census Bureau leadership about ACS data Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 16:05:03 +0000 From: Steven Ruggles <ipums(a)umn.edu> Reply-To: Steven Ruggles <ipums(a)umn.edu> To: edc(a)berwyned.com IPUMS Census and Survey Data *IPUMS Census and Survey Data * Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser <https://ipums.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=775cbf39c77535e784cdfd6f9&i…>. Dear IPUMS User, I know many of you have been following developments in Census 2020 and the proposed citizenship questions. Several sessions at the Population Association of America (PAA) covered many aspects of Census 2020 planning and were well-attended with lively discussions. I’m writing to you today about plans for the American Community Survey (ACS). Please join me in asking the Census Bureau to clarify their plans for ACS disclosure avoidance control and dissemination. We want to protect the usability of the important public use data that we all use in our work. *Here's the short version: please sign our open letter <https://ipums.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=775cbf39c77535e784cdfd6f9&i…> to the Census Bureau asking for transparency in changes to the ACS*. For the long version, please keep reading and visit our webpage on this topic <https://ipums.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=775cbf39c77535e784cdfd6f9&i…>. The Census Bureau is planning an extensive revision of procedures for ensuring the confidentiality of public use data, based on a method known as "differential privacy." The new disclosure avoidance system will rely on injecting noise into the data, and the new procedures may reduce or even eliminate the usability of public use data for many common research and policy applications. For more information, see our recent working paper <https://ipums.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=775cbf39c77535e784cdfd6f9&i…> and forthcoming article <https://ipums.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=775cbf39c77535e784cdfd6f9&i…>. The American Community Survey (ACS) is the single most important statistical source in the social sciences. They generate 9,000 articles a year, and a new paper appears about every hour. If these data become unusable, unreliable or available only through restricted-access environments because of the new confidentiality measures, that would have profound consequences across many areas of demographic, economic, and policy research. Acknowledging the importance of the ACS data, we are seeking clarification and engagement with the research community from the Census Bureau. Our open letter <https://ipums.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=775cbf39c77535e784cdfd6f9&i…> requests: 1. A public timeline for changes to the ACS summary files and microdata. 2. Engagement with the research community in advance of any changes. 3. Public versions of new noise-infused ACS summary files and microdata for 2005-2017 so that researchers can assess their usefulness by replicating existing studies. If you support these requests, please sign our letter <https://ipums.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=775cbf39c77535e784cdfd6f9&i…>. Thank you, Steven Ruggles IPUMS Director Regents Professor of History and Population Studies IPUMS <https://ipums.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=775cbf39c77535e784cdfd6f9&i…> | University of Minnesota <https://ipums.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=775cbf39c77535e784cdfd6f9&i…> /Copyright © 2019 University of Minnesota, All rights reserved./ *Our mailing address is:* IPUMS 225 19th Ave South Minneapolis, MN 55455

6 years, 1 month

[CTPP] FW: 2012-16 CTPP Question about Counts

by Cook

Dara Thank you for these materials. They are very helpful. After taking a closer look at the CTPP flow tables we are still left with a question about why the components of certain tables do not add up to the table total. For example when we filter for Cambridge, MA as both residence and workplace, the "Total" shown in Table B303100 is 37,500 while the component cells add up to 22,470. This problem appears in all the part 3 tables whose universe is household workers. (We do not see a similar issue in all tables based purely in worker characteristics, regardless of living arrangement. Those seem to consistently sum to 27,725.) Can anyone shed light on why the table components to sum to the sum stated in the table? Thanks Cliff Cook Clifford Cook Senior Planning Information Manager Cambridge Community Development Department 344 Broadway, Cambridge, MA. 02139 [cid:image001.png(a)01CF4355.A65408C0] <https://www.facebook.com/CDDat344> [cid:image002.jpg(a)01CF4357.3478C720] <https://twitter.com/cddat344> [cid:image010.jpg(a)01CF4357.3478C720] <http://instagram.com/cddat344> www.cambridgema.gov/CDD<http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD.aspx> ccook(a)cambridgema.gov<mailto:ccook(a)cambridgema.gov> M: 8:30-8:00 T-Th: 8:30-5:00 F: 8:30-Noon 617/349-4656 617/349-4669 FAX 617/349-4621 TTY From: Dara Goldberg (DCP) <DGoldberg(a)planning.nyc.gov> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 11:13 AM To: Cook, Cliff <ccook(a)cambridgema.gov> Cc: Werner, Bailey <bwerner(a)cambridgema.gov>; Le Zhang (DCP) <LZHANG(a)planning.nyc.gov> Subject: RE: 2012-16 CTPP Question about Counts Hello Cliff, The reason the flows are off is because the CTPP methodology for reporting geographies below the county level has been revised for this release (though AASHTO has yet to release documentation stating such). Missing records for smaller geographies are no longer imputed for Parts 2 and 3, therefore, tracts/places will no longer add to counties, nor will they have complete counts. This has resulted in a "truer" data set, albeit with missing records. Part 1 remains the same (i.e. "complete"), because it represents ACS data at place of residence. I've attached a memo summarizing the challenges with the new release. My colleague Le, who I have CC'd, put together the attached presentation explaining this issue, which we shared with our MPO members a couple of months ago. Le will be presenting this to the CTPP oversight board in Arkansas next week. Unfortunately, there was no documentation released accounting for the methodological change, and we believe transportation planners will rely on the current release to have a "complete" count as the prior releases had. Therefore, this release is not comparable to the prior releases for smaller geographies. In the meantime, we have assumed a proportional allocation to account for missing records (though this of course introduces a bias into the results - also covered in Le's presentation). Hopefully this helps! Happy to answer any questions you might have. Regards, DARA GOLDBERG SENIOR PLANNER | REGIONAL PLANNING DIVISION NYC DEPT. OF CITY PLANNING 120 BROADWAY, 31st FLOOR * NEW YORK, NY 10271 212-720-3312 I DGOLDBERG(a)planning.nyc.gov<mailto:DGOLDBERG(a)planning.nyc.gov> http://www.nyc.gov/planning<https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.go…> From: ctpp-news [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Cook, Cliff Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 10:58 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Cc: Werner, Bailey <bwerner(a)cambridgema.gov<mailto:bwerner(a)cambridgema.gov>> Subject: [CTPP] 2012-16 CTPP Question about Counts To All We are working to collect information about the resident labor force in Cambridge, Massachusetts. We set the residence as the State-Place of Cambridge city, MA, and the workplace as POW State-Place of Cambridge city, MA. The numbers in the CTPP Flows tables are not adding up as expected. Table A304100 - Total workers (1) (Workers 16 years and over) provides an estimate of 27,725 (MOE 847), whereas Table B303100 - Household income in the past 12 months (2016$) (9) (Workers 16 years and over in households) provides a total estimate of 37,300 (MOE 2,054). Furthermore, when we add up the count of workers in each income bracket in Table B303100 they sum to 22,470. I could understand if the total number of resident workers 16 and older in households was smaller than total workers over 16, but we cannot make sense of how the reverse could be true. It also doesn't explain why the sum of all categories is smaller than the listed total. Could data suppression account for this? That would seem unlikely at the level of a city of our size. Could the results be due to data suppression at smaller geographic levels having a ripple effect on a larger geo? I understand workers with an unclear or imprecise work address are excluded from the flow data. Are these issues a result of that screening or is this a different type of issue? Interestingly, the numbers make sense as expected when we look at the Residence tables for the same geography. Table A102101 - Total workers (1) (Workers 16 years and over) provides an estimate of 61,925 (MOE 1,008) and Table A103100 - Total Workers in households (1) (Workers 16 years and over in households) estimates 54,195 (MOE 1,075). Any help on interpreting our resident labor force stats is appreciated. Cliff Cook Clifford Cook Senior Planning Information Manager Cambridge Community Development Department 344 Broadway, Cambridge, MA. 02139 [cid:image001.png(a)01CF4355.A65408C0] <https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.faceb…> [cid:image002.jpg(a)01CF4357.3478C720] <https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.c…> [cid:image010.jpg(a)01CF4357.3478C720] <https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Finstagram.…> www.cambridgema.gov/CDD<https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cambri…> ccook(a)cambridgema.gov<mailto:ccook(a)cambridgema.gov> M: 8:30-8:00 T-Th: 8:30-5:00 F: 8:30-Noon 617/349-4656 617/349-4669 FAX 617/349-4621 TTY

6 years, 1 month

Re: [CTPP] 2012 - 2016 Transportation Profiles available Now -Update

by Bob Schwartz

Krishnan, I wanted the Excel or HTML for Indiana County in Pennsylvania but it is not on the list. Do you know why? From: ctpp-news [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Krishnan Viswanathan Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 2:52 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] 2012 - 2016 Transportation Profiles available Now -Update Hello All The 2012-2016 Transportation profiles are available now from the FHWA website here: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/american_community_survey/p… Krishnan On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 2:03 PM Krishnan Viswanathan <krisviswanathan(a)gmail.com> wrote: The 2012 - 2016 Transportation Profiles are available from the FHWA website here: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/american_community_survey/p… Thanks, Krishnan -- --

6 years, 1 month

[CTPP] LA Times Census Data Tools

by Krishnan Viswanathan

The LA Times Datadesk has a set of Census data tools that will be useful to members of this list. Available here: https://github.com/datadesk Krishnan

6 years, 1 month

Re: [CTPP] 2012 - 2016 Transportation Profiles available Now - Update

by Krishnan Viswanathan

Hello All The 2012-2016 Transportation profiles are available now from the FHWA website here: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/american_community_survey/p… Krishnan On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 2:03 PM Krishnan Viswanathan < krisviswanathan(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The 2012 - 2016 Transportation Profiles are available from the FHWA > website here: > https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/american_community_survey/p… > > Thanks, > Krishnan > > > > -- > --

6 years, 1 month

[CTPP] 2012-16 CTPP Question about Counts

by Cook

To All We are working to collect information about the resident labor force in Cambridge, Massachusetts. We set the residence as the State-Place of Cambridge city, MA, and the workplace as POW State-Place of Cambridge city, MA. The numbers in the CTPP Flows tables are not adding up as expected. Table A304100 - Total workers (1) (Workers 16 years and over) provides an estimate of 27,725 (MOE 847), whereas Table B303100 - Household income in the past 12 months (2016$) (9) (Workers 16 years and over in households) provides a total estimate of 37,300 (MOE 2,054). Furthermore, when we add up the count of workers in each income bracket in Table B303100 they sum to 22,470. I could understand if the total number of resident workers 16 and older in households was smaller than total workers over 16, but we cannot make sense of how the reverse could be true. It also doesn't explain why the sum of all categories is smaller than the listed total. Could data suppression account for this? That would seem unlikely at the level of a city of our size. Could the results be due to data suppression at smaller geographic levels having a ripple effect on a larger geo? I understand workers with an unclear or imprecise work address are excluded from the flow data. Are these issues a result of that screening or is this a different type of issue? Interestingly, the numbers make sense as expected when we look at the Residence tables for the same geography. Table A102101 - Total workers (1) (Workers 16 years and over) provides an estimate of 61,925 (MOE 1,008) and Table A103100 - Total Workers in households (1) (Workers 16 years and over in households) estimates 54,195 (MOE 1,075). Any help on interpreting our resident labor force stats is appreciated. Cliff Cook Clifford Cook Senior Planning Information Manager Cambridge Community Development Department 344 Broadway, Cambridge, MA. 02139 [cid:image001.png(a)01CF4355.A65408C0] <https://www.facebook.com/CDDat344> [cid:image002.jpg(a)01CF4357.3478C720] <https://twitter.com/cddat344> [cid:image010.jpg(a)01CF4357.3478C720] <http://instagram.com/cddat344> www.cambridgema.gov/CDD<http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD.aspx> ccook(a)cambridgema.gov<mailto:ccook(a)cambridgema.gov> M: 8:30-8:00 T-Th: 8:30-5:00 F: 8:30-Noon 617/349-4656 617/349-4669 FAX 617/349-4621 TTY

6 years, 1 month

[CTPP] CTPP Polygon Upload - need GIS savvy beta testers

by Weinberger Penelope

Dear CTPPers We are developing a polygon upload tool so you can upload your polygon and capture all geography that fits within it for all levels of geography. I am looking for some beta testers to test this new tool, please email me if interested. Thanks, Penelope Weinberger CTPP Program Manager AASHTO Ctpp.transportation.org

6 years, 2 months

[CTPP] Recall: CTPP Polygon Upload - need GIS savvy beta testers

by Hui Shen

Hui Shen would like to recall the message, "CTPP Polygon Upload - need GIS savvy beta testers".

6 years, 2 months

Re: [CTPP] 2012 - 2016 Transportation Profiles available Now

by Cook

While the State and County profiles are all there, the Place profiles disappear somewhere in Maryland. Also all places in the “New” and “North” states are just labeled as just New or North. No New Mexico or North Dakota. Cliff Cook Clifford Cook Senior Planning Information Manager Cambridge Community Development Department 344 Broadway, Cambridge, MA. 02139 [cid:image001.png(a)01CF4355.A65408C0] <https://www.facebook.com/CDDat344> [cid:image002.jpg(a)01CF4357.3478C720] <https://twitter.com/cddat344> [cid:image010.jpg(a)01CF4357.3478C720] <http://instagram.com/cddat344> www.cambridgema.gov/CDD<http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD.aspx> ccook(a)cambridgema.gov<mailto:ccook(a)cambridgema.gov> M: 8:30-8:00 T-Th: 8:30-5:00 F: 8:30-Noon 617/349-4656 617/349-4669 FAX 617/349-4621 TTY From: ctpp-news <ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net> On Behalf Of Krishnan Viswanathan Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 2:04 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] 2012 - 2016 Transportation Profiles available Now The 2012 - 2016 Transportation Profiles are available from the FHWA website here: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/american_community_survey/p…<https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fhwa.…> Thanks, Krishnan --

6 years, 2 months

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