CTPP

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

5 participants
3069 discussions

[CTPP] FYI: Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Tabulation

by Srinivasan

This is a special tabulation similar to the CTPP, prepared by the Census Bureau using the decennial census long form data. It is paid for by a consortium of four Federal agencies, consisting of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of Labor (DOL), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). For information on how to order a copy of the product, please visit: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/eeoindex/page_c.html. The CD-ROM costs $235. A section of the data can also be accessed on-line at http://www.census.gov/eeo2000/index.html. For technical questions, please contact Mai Weismantle (Mai.Anne.Weismantle(a)census.gov), or Katie Earle (Katharine.M.Earle(a)census.gov) Phone: 301-763-3239. The EEO tabulation includes tables by residence, workplace, and by flow between home and work. However, there are many important differences between the CTPP and the EEO file. The EEO tabulation has very detailed information on occupations, education, and industry. The smallest geographic reporting is for places with populations of 50,000 or more. The data set consists of 24 separate files. The files are delineated as follows: · Residence tables: Files 1 through 7. The tabulations are presented for the civilian labor force 16 years and older · Flow tables: Files 8 through 19 The tabulations are presented for a central worksite (county or place of 50,000 or more population) showing the flow to that worksite of workers from up to nine individual counties, places, or balance of counties. The data are shown for civilian workers 16 years and older · Workplace tables: Files 20 through 24 The tabulations are presented for civilian workers 16 years and older. Some differences between the CTPP and EEO file are: 1. The EE0 dataset contains much fewer geographic summary levels than CTPP. Moreover, geography is limited to counties, and places of population 50,000 or more. 2. The EEO dataset provides information only on civilian employment. Civilian Workers differs from Workers-at-Work in CTPP. CTPP 2000 includes workers in the armed-forces. 3. The EE0 tabulation is based only on the standard coding procedure. For CTPP 2000, two allocation procedures were applied to improve workplace geocoding to tract and block detail. 4. Only the TOP 9 geographies are shown in the flow tabulation for any geographic summary level. All the remaining flows are shown in a residual flow category. 5. In addition to rounding, a threshold of 50 is required for any flow to show the records in the table. Additionally if an individual cell value is less than 3, then it is suppressed. Nanda Srinivasan

21 years, 7 months

[CTPP] Delays in Release of CTPP 2000 Part 2 (Data by place of work)

by phillip.a.salopek＠census.gov

We are experiencing delays in distributing Part 2 of CTPP 2000. While our initial run of all states was completed and shipped to the vendors at the end of October, we were not able to begin shipping CDs during November as we hoped. A minor modification (adding an introductory screen) is being made to the CTPP Access Tool (CAT) software. The purpose is to direct users to either Part 1 or Part 2, and to keep the Parts' files separate on the hard drive. In addition, during the vendors' processing it was determined that changes were needed to accommodate records with incomplete place of work geography. These are cases where place of work tract, block group, or taz were not completely filled during geocoding or place of work allocation. These records will have the tract and block group fields filled with 9s, and the taz code field filled with zeros. This occurs mostly in outlying, less developed areas, but has to be handled in some manner by the CAT software. Changes to handle these records are underway and we expect to receive a new version of the software incorporating both types of changes around Dec. 15. We will be trying to complete our testing of the new software by Dec. 19. If any problems are found it is unlikely that we will have a final version of the software before Christmas. Even if our testing goes well and no major problems are found, the likelihood that we will be able to begin distributing Part 2 this month is slight, and would only be a few states. The majority of the Part 2 CDs will be distributed in January 2004. The Part 2 delays also push out the availability of Part 3, the origin by destination flow data. More significant changes will be required to the software to handle the flow records, and while the vendor will begin this work in early January, I expect it to continue into February. Therefore I do not think Part 3 will be available until March 2004. I apologize for these continuing delays and missed delivery dates. I know it creates problems for you and your agencies. We will try to do what we can here to minimize any further delays and get Parts 2 and 3 out in the next three months. Thank you for your patience. Phillip Salopek Chief, Journey to Work and Migration Statistics Branch Population Division

21 years, 8 months

[CTPP] Listserv archives...

by Chris Parrinello

One other thing I should have emphasized is that the archives of the listserv are now located at this URL: http://www.chrispy.net/pipermail/ctpp-news/ The archives are divided up by month and also can be displayed by subject, thread, date and author. The URL for the archives is also available off of the list information page whose URL is at the bottom of each mail message you receive from the listserv. Just as a note, I will be changing the www.chrispy.net webserver to redirect from http://www.chrispy.net/ctpp-news to the new archives sometime after Thanksgiving. New posts to the listserv will not appear in the old archives. Thanks, Chris

21 years, 8 months

[CTPP] Listserv changes...

by Chris Parrinello

Hello all, This message should serve as a test of the new ctpp-news listserv software. We have decided to migrate from majordomo to Mailman (http://www.list.org/) as the listserv software in order to allow easier access to list archives, the ability of members to subscribe to list via a digest instead of of a non-batched version of the list and some better administrative stuff that will make our lives a little easier to maintain this list. The address to email the list is still the same (ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net) but to make changes to your subscription (including unsubscribing, changing to digest version, etc.), you should follow this link: http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news and scroll down to the bottom of the page and enter your email address in the box below the "To change your subscription..." text. You will need a password to make changes so click on the Email My Password to Me button and your mailing list password will be mailed to you. Let me know if you have any questions or problems. Thanks, Chris

21 years, 8 months

[CTPP] Journey to Work Trends 1960-2000

by Corey Hull

21 years, 9 months

[CTPP] Errata for Part 1 of CTPP 2000 (Data by Place of Residence)

by phillip.a.salopek＠census.gov

The review of the initial release of Part 1 of CTPP 2000 is complete. The errors that were identified are listed in the document entitled Errata for CTPP Part 1. The errata file also includes general notes about the data that answer some of the more frequently asked questions, as well as copies of two data notes from the Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF3) regarding comparing sample (long form) estimates with Census 2000 hundred percent data from sources like Summary File 1. The direct link to the errata file is http://www.trbcensus.com/articles/part1errata.pdf. You can also find the file by going to the TRB Subcommittee on Census Data for Transportation Planning at http://www.TRBcensus.com/ and clicking on Notes and News under the Site Navigation heading. Then under the Census-Related Notes and Articles heading click on the link to Errata for CTPP Part 1.

21 years, 9 months

[CTPP] Census News Brief

by ed christopher

November 14, 2003 Senate Tries, Fails to Complete Action on FY04 Commerce Appropriations Bill Plus: Revised Census 2000 Population Totals Give N.C. and Utah Heartburn. Earlier this week, the U.S. Senate started and then stopped consideration of the Fiscal Year 2004 Commerce, Justice, and State, The Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, as unrelated disputes between Republicans and Democrats delayed the chambers regular business. It now appears that House and Senate negotiators will try to iron out differences between the House-passed version and Senate Appropriations Committee version of the bill. The compromise measure could later be rolled into a catch-all spending bill for Fiscal Year 2004 (FY04), which began October 1. The Commerce spending bill contains funding for the Census Bureau. The Senate committee bill appropriates $550.9 million for Census Bureau programs, $111 million less than the Bush Administration requested. In a Statement of Administration Policy issued this week, the White House urged the Senate to restore full funding for the Census Bureau. This reduction would severely impact the Economic Census, the 2010 Census reengineering effort, and other important activities to improve the availability and quality of our Nations key economic, social, and demographic statistics, the Administration warned. The Senate Appropriations Committee passed its version of the spending bill (S. 1585) in September, but several controversial provisions unrelated to the census have slowed progress on the legislation. Senior White House advisers said they would recommend a presidential veto if the final Commerce-Justice-State bill contains three provisions in the Senate committee bill that the Administration strongly opposes. Those provisions relate to a new Federal Communications Commission rule on media ownership, foreign aid for family planning groups that distribute information on abortion, and contracting out certain crime prevention and control activities at the Justice Department. The U.S. House of Representatives, which approved its version of the bill (H.R. 2799) last summer, allocated $662 for Census Bureau activities, the amount requested by the President. Roughly $260 million of that amount would fund the three main components of the Bureaus 2010 census planning strategy: Reengineering the census design; updating the Master Address File and digital geographic maps; and replacing the traditional long form with the American Community Survey (ACS). At a Decennial Census Advisory Committee meeting in October, Director C. Louis Kincannon said the Census Bureau would launch the ACS nationwide late next year as planned, even if Congress does not approve all of the money requested for agency programs. The Bureau instead would consider scaling back a major field test and an overseas enumeration test in 2004, and slow the pace of fixing misaligned features in the TIGER map database. Last week, Congress passed a third temporary funding bill, as it continues to debate FY04 federal agency spending bills. The so-called Continuing Resolution extends funding at Fiscal Year 2003 levels through November 21, for agencies whose FY04 appropriations bills have not been signed into law. The current fiscal year began on October 1. Apportionment would narrow, not change, under revised census counts: Changes in state population totals resulting from the Census 2000 Count Question Resolution (CQR) program would have increased the likelihood that Utah would have gained a fourth seat in Congress and North Carolina would not have picked up a 13th seat, but the apportionment outcome ultimately would not have changed. The Census Bureau informed Congress on September 30, the closing date of the CQR program, that a duplication problem at University of North Carolina dormitories resulted in an overcount of 2,673 in Chapel Hill. Bureau officials said some students mistakenly received, and then mailed back, census forms; dormitories are counted with assistance from university officials under the group quarters program. According to an analysis of the revised state population totals prepared by the Congressional Research Service (an arm of the Library of Congress), the margin for the 435th seat in the U.S. House of Representatives would narrow substantially based on the revised numbers from CQR. North Carolina would still win a 13th seat, with 309 persons to spare, instead of the 3,084-person margin calculated using the official state population figures. Utah would miss gaining a fourth seat by 87 instead of 855 persons. The North Carolina mistake was the largest discovered through the CQR program, which gave local, state, and Tribal officials an opportunity to challenge Census 2000 housing unit and group quarters counts. The Census Bureau did not collect any new information in the field during CQR. Nationwide, the CQR program added or subtracted 7,183 persons from the state population totals issued immediately following the census, resulting in a net change of 1,427 to the apportionment population. Missouri had the largest gain (+1,472); Utah picked up 29 people. Utahs three House members reiterated their belief that the state deserved another congressional district, calling the newly discovered duplicates an egregious error and saying they intend to do everything possible to get the new seat. Utah filed two unsuccessful lawsuits after the 2000 census, claiming it was entitled to a fourth seat in Congress. One case challenged a statistical technique known as imputation, which assumes the existence and characteristics of some people who are not counted on a census form or in person. The other claimed that private American citizens, such as Mormon missionaries, living abroad during the census should have been counted for apportionment purposes. Members of the armed forces and federal civilian employees stationed overseas were included in the state apportionment totals. 2004 Census Advisory Committee meetings announced: The Census Bureaus five Race and Ethnic Advisory Committees (REACs, which represent the African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Hispanic, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander populations) will meet jointly on May 5 7 and November 8 10, 2004. The Commerce Departments Decennial Census Advisory Committee (DCAC) will meet on April 29 30, and October 28 29, 2004. The Census Bureau has not yet announced a location for the meetings. Census News Briefs are prepared by Terri Ann Lowenthal, an independent consultant in Washington, DC. Please direct questions about the information in this News Brief to Ms. Lowenthal at 202/484-3067 or by e-mail at TerriAnn2K(a)aol.com. Please feel free to circulate this document to other interested individuals and organizations. The Communications Consortium Media Center (CCMC) has posted News Briefs through April 2003 on the Census 2000 Initiative web site, at www.census2000.org. If you would like copies of Census News Briefs distributed after April 2003, please contact Ms. Lowenthal directly. -- Ed Christopher Planning Specialist Resource Center Federal Highway Administration 19900 Governors Drive Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell)

21 years, 9 months

[CTPP] RE: N.C. vs. UTAH

by Mike Willett

Another reason North Carolina's case may have been strong was because of the large number of military personnel assigned to N.C. bases, maintaining a residences there, and yet stationed out of the country, were not counted in the census and should have been. Being from N.C. and having lived in Utah for 10 years, I was supportive of North Carolina's case. Mike Willett Transportation Planning Yavapai County, Arizona -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Dienstfrey [mailto:S.DIENSTFREY(a)srbi.com] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 11:12 AM To: APDUMEM(a)apdu.org; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net; diane.paoni(a)dot.state.wi.us; Elaine.Murakami(a)fhwa.dot.gov; pbecker(a)umich.edu Subject: Re: [APDU] RE: [CTPP] Immigrants and redistricting The Utah case raises another matter. I suspect that had Utah taken the resources they devoted to their legal case and put them into the LUCA program they would have found enough additional address to get the 435th seat. Stephen Dienstfrey Schulman, Ronca, & Bucuvalas, Inc (301) 608-3883 >>> Patty Becker <pbecker(a)umich.edu> 10/30/03 12:59PM >>> At 10:01 AM 10/30/2003 -0600, Paoni, Diane wrote: Although I find the issue of the impact of including the population of immigrants whose status does not allow them to vote into the reapportionment process intriguing, some details in the article didn't seem right so I looked at the report online (http://www.cis.org/circle.html). Take a look at this quote from the report regarding the study's methodology: "To measure the political effect of immigration, we removed illegals, non-citizens, or the entire foreign-born population from each stateâ|"s population and then recalculated the allocation of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives." As I'm sure most of the folks on this list serve know, foreign born population is not a good equivalent for immigrants who are counted in the Census but can't vote. In case you don't know, unlike what's implied in the news article Elaine forwarded, naturalized US citizens can vote. Diane Paoni WisDOT Bureau of Planning ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Of course naturalized citizens can vote. I encourage readers to download and read the report yourselves; it's only 8 pages. They did the calculations based on eliminating three different groups from the apportionment count: (1) illegal aliens, (2) non-citizens, (3) the foreign-born. Obviously the latter is irrelevant and its inclusion, in my opinion, is only for purposes of fanning the flames of the sponsoring organization. I am also unclear on how they knew which non-citizens in the census were illegal, since that's not an item on the questionnaire (!) Apparently they used some INS estimates. This all really comes down to the meaning of residence, for purposes of inclusion in the census and the population count for reapportionment. As such, it is highly political and who's on what side depends on who stands to gain or lose. North Carolina beat out Utah for the 435th seat. The report says that's because of counting the illegal aliens in NC. The lawsuit Utah brought all the way to the Supreme Court, trying to change this result and failing, argued that the young Mormon missionaries who are abroad should be counted in Utah's population, which would then (arithmetically) have given them the seat. My personal view is that residence means living within the boundaries of the 50 states and the District of Columia (although the DC population does not count in executing the apportionment formula). This means that non-citizens are counted and that people living abroad are not, whether they're military or civilians. I say all this even though I'm from Michigan, which according to the report lost its 16th seat because of the counting of illegal aliens. People are people, they need services and they need representation. Patty Becker >ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- Patricia C. (Patty) Becker 248/354-6520 APB Associates/SEMCC FAX 248/354-6645 28300 Franklin Road Home 248/355-2428 Southfield, MI 48034 pbecker(a)umich.edu _______________________________________________ APDUmem mailing list APDUmem(a)apdu.org http://apdu.org/mailman/listinfo/apdumem_apdu.org

21 years, 9 months

RE: [CTPP] Immigrants and redistricting

by Patty Becker

At 10:01 AM 10/30/2003 -0600, Paoni, Diane wrote: Although I find the issue of the impact of including the population of immigrants whose status does not allow them to vote into the reapportionment process intriguing, some details in the article didn't seem right so I looked at the report online (http://www.cis.org/circle.html). Take a look at this quote from the report regarding the study's methodology: "To measure the political effect of immigration, we removed illegals, non-citizens, or the entire foreign-born population from each stateâ¬"s population and then recalculated the allocation of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives." As I'm sure most of the folks on this list serve know, foreign born population is not a good equivalent for immigrants who are counted in the Census but can't vote. In case you don't know, unlike what's implied in the news article Elaine forwarded, naturalized US citizens can vote. Diane Paoni WisDOT Bureau of Planning ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Of course naturalized citizens can vote. I encourage readers to download and read the report yourselves; it's only 8 pages. They did the calculations based on eliminating three different groups from the apportionment count: (1) illegal aliens, (2) non-citizens, (3) the foreign-born. Obviously the latter is irrelevant and its inclusion, in my opinion, is only for purposes of fanning the flames of the sponsoring organization. I am also unclear on how they knew which non-citizens in the census were illegal, since that's not an item on the questionnaire (!) Apparently they used some INS estimates. This all really comes down to the meaning of residence, for purposes of inclusion in the census and the population count for reapportionment. As such, it is highly political and who's on what side depends on who stands to gain or lose. North Carolina beat out Utah for the 435th seat. The report says that's because of counting the illegal aliens in NC. The lawsuit Utah brought all the way to the Supreme Court, trying to change this result and failing, argued that the young Mormon missionaries who are abroad should be counted in Utah's population, which would then (arithmetically) have given them the seat. My personal view is that residence means living within the boundaries of the 50 states and the District of Columia (although the DC population does not count in executing the apportionment formula). This means that non-citizens are counted and that people living abroad are not, whether they're military or civilians. I say all this even though I'm from Michigan, which according to the report lost its 16th seat because of the counting of illegal aliens. People are people, they need services and they need representation. Patty Becker >ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia C. (Patty) Becker 248/354-6520 APB Associates/SEMCC FAX 248/354-6645 28300 Franklin Road Home 248/355-2428 Southfield, MI 48034 pbecker(a)umich.edu

21 years, 9 months

[CTPP] CTPP 2000 Part 1 ASCII Files

by phillip.a.salopek＠census.gov

I wanted to expound a bit on Nanda's earlier message concerning the availability of ASCII files for Part 1 of CTPP 2000. The Census Bureau made the flat ASCII files of the CTPP data for Part 1 available only to MPOs and State DOTs, so they could review the files before volume CD production began. We have not made a public release of the Part 1 data yet. We are in the process of correcting the errors identified during the review and will rerun the entire Part 1 dataset. We will then do volume CD production and the CDs with the data and the user software will be available to the general public through the Bureau of Transportation Statistics website (www.bts.gov). At that point, ASCII versions of the data will also be available to the general public through my office for a fee of $50 per CD-Rom. We will attempt to bundle the states geographically where possible. Currently we expect to make the final Part 1 data available in either December 2003 or January 2004. We are now pushing to get the initial run of Part 2 to the MPOs and State DOTs for their review. Once that review is complete, we will make any corrections necessary and then Part 2 will be available to the public in the same manner as Part 1. If you have any questions, please contact Phil Salopek or Clara Reschovsky at 301-763-2454.

21 years, 9 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