CTPP

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

5 participants
3069 discussions

[CTPP] Errors in Demographic Profiles (long post)

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP-News FR: Chuck Purvis I've taken the liberty and snipped a set of state data center listserv discussions related to the census Demographic Profiles. These e-mail discussions are from the past week, with most recent discussions first. Basically, the weighted and expanded "long form" profile data show discrepancies with the "short form" profile/PL94-171/SF-1 datasets, especially for VERY small places less than 2,500 population. NOTE that for the upcoming CTPP tabulations the minimum PLACE-LEVEL population threshhold is 2,500 persons....(Correct me if I'm wrong.) Cheers, Chuck Purvis, MTC **************************************************************************************** Your point about the 2,500 person cutoff for places in 1990 is a good one. Those of us with many small towns noticed similar differences in 1990. For example, when I looked at Nebraska towns with less than 2,500 persons in 1990, the mean absolute percent error comparing STF3 to STF1 was 5.7%. In 2000, for towns less than 2,500, it was 6.7 %. However if I threw out 2 towns with populations of 10 and 11, the MAPE becomes comparable at 5.9%. The mean absolute deviation for 1990 was about 10 persons, and for 2000 it was about 12 persons. Based on this quick and dirty analysis, it looks like the estimation problem may have worsened somewhat between 1990 and 2000, but it is not new to the 2000 census. Jerry Deichert Center for Public Affairs Research University of Nebraska at Omaha 6001 Dodge Street Omaha, NE 68182 **************************************************************************************** I wonder if this a result of the Bureau's use of Counties as the primary sampling unit to determine the weights for population and housing counts on the sample data. In 1990, they used areas (counties, MCDs, places, and census tracts) over a relatively small population threshold (I think 2,500). Leonard M. Gaines, Ph.D. Research Specialist Empire State Development e-mail: lgaines(a)empire.state.ny.us Empire State Development & NY State Data Center Web Sites: http://www.empire.state.ny.us **************************************************************************************** In New Jersey, most discrepancies between SF1 and SF3 were found in CDPs. The differences between the 100% and sample population counts were as high as 38.1% in Diamond Beach CDP (218 vs. 135) and 31.4% in Vista Center CDP (541 vs. 711). Other than the CDPs, only 7 (out of 566) municipalities had 5% or more differences in population or housing unit counts. Pine Valley Borough had the largest discrepancies (20% in population, 66.7% in housing units). All except one are tiny municipalities with less than 600 residents. Sen-Yuan Wu New Jersey Department of Labor ************************************************************************************* Ken Darga has also documented DP discrepancies in Michigan. The Bureau is now aware of these problems and looking into the cause. Linda [Gage, California State Data Center] *************************************************************************************** John - Thank you for the work on this. I am going to forward to the FSCPE listserve as well. It is interesting in that even a smaller community down the road from which is even smaller looks numerically better. If anyone wants to see the article that came out on Searchlight and a lesson on dealing with the press check http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/Jul-29-Mon-2002/news/19282077.html [from Jeff Hardcastle, University of Nevada, Reno] ************************************************************************************* There appear to be some problems with this. We ran a test with our DP datasets, comparing the 100% and sample counts for all places. The summary report can be viewed at http://mcdc2.missouri.edu/pub/data/sf3prof/check_totpops.pdf . The biggest problem, in terms of pct difference in the counts, is definitely in the very small places. There are 593 places in the country where the difference was 25% or more and 566 of these were for places with 500 people or less. The report also includes a listing of these 593 places, sorted by state and descending Pct Difference. The winner of the worst sample estimate award is Blacksville CDP, Ga. They had a 100% count of 4 people, but the sample estimate was 52. John Blodgett OSEDA - Office of Social & Economic Data Analysis U. of Missouri Outreach and Extension blodgettj(a)umsystem.edu URL: http://oseda.missouri.edu/jgb/ ************************************************************************************* I am not sure if this has happened to states for the Demographic Profiles that include SF1 and SF3 data but in Nevada's case there are serious problems that suggest that the whole set of profiles needs to be reviewed for errors. These errors appear to be more than standard sampling and response errors. During a quick review counties look better than places however it appears that there may be geocoding errores in the sample data. There also appears to be differences in what the sample data is weighted against. The place that brought this to my attention was Searchlight NV where the DP-1 pop is 576 and the housing unit count is 444. On DP-2 through 4 the pop is 768 and the unit count is 595. A 33% and a 34% difference respectively. The way I tumbled to this was that a reporter had seen that Searchlight had no native Nevadans living there. He went to Searchlight and interviewed people and found that most of them if not all were natives. (Searchlight is an old mining down south of Las Vegas and in the middle of very open country.) Is this kind of error being found elsewhere? Jeff Hardcastle (775) 784-6353 Phone (775) 784-4337 Fax jhardcas(a)unr.edu e-mail "shifts happen" http://publicconversations.org/ *************************************************************************************

23 years

[CTPP] Reminder: TRB Poster session call for materials

by Robert Sicko

We're down to the last few days to accept materials for the proposed poster session. I would like to encourage all to seriously consider this unique opportunity to share your analytical methodologies and findings with others who will be using released and soon to be released census products. SF3 will provide ample data for a wide range of analysis. Ideally, the analyses would combine both tabular and spatial representation of the current data as well as the ability to analyze the historical changes found from previous census releases. Please feel free to share your thoughts about the types of analysis you may want to see, related to transportation planning, environmental justice, etc.... Thanks for your support. Previous transmittal..... Attached is a "poster" session call for materials that the TRB subcommittee on Census Data for Transportation Planning has issued. The subcommittee is offering individuals the opportunity to show off the innovative and creative ways they are presenting, analyzing and displaying their census data. If you are doing something with your data that you want to show others this poster session is for you. If you know others doing "innovative and creative" work with their data please pass this along to them.

23 years

[CTPP] MPO listserv?

by Elaine Murakami

For lack of another electronic forum, the CTPP listserv has become a place for people to discuss MPO issues unrelated to Census data. However, we would like to keep the CTPP listserv focused on CTPP and Census data. Alex Taft, the Executive Director of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO), has graciously offered to open up their listserv to non-members, since some non-members already belong. Information from AMPO follows: " The list serve is also a vehicle for networking among AMPO members. If you are seeking advice from your peers or spreading information that will be useful to other MPOs, you can send a message directly to everyone on the list. · If you wish to send your own message to subscribers of the list-serve, use the address: ampo(a)scpp.ubalt.edu. To send such a message, do not use the majordomo address that you used to subscribe to the list. · If you are sending documents as part of your message to subscribers, it is preferable to cut-and-paste text directly into your e-mail; other subscribers may not have the appropriate program to download attachments. · If you ever want to subscribe to this mailing list, send a request to majordomo(a)scpp.ubalt.edu and type the following command in the body of your message: subscribe ampo or from another account: subscribe ampo <address name> There is a confirmation step following this. · If you want to know who has subscribed to the list, send a request to majordomo(a)scpp.ubalt.edu and type the following command in the body of your message: who ampo · If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, send a request to majordomo(a)scpp.ubalt.edu and type the following command in the body of your message: unsubscribe ampo or from another account: unsubscribe ampo <address name> Please contact DeLania Hardy at dhardy(a)ampo.org with any questions. And again, welcome to the AMPO list-serve."

23 years

[CTPP] SF3 update

by ed christopher

i just pulled this off a census bureau press release. looks like the SF3s will be starting to roll. ======== Earlier this month, the Census Bureau delayed the release of the Summary File 3 (SF3) for the state of Vermont after identifying a potential problem with the data. In accordance with our long-standing commitment to quality, we have revised the schedule for releasing the SF3 files for Vermont, Delaware, New York, New Jersey and West Virginia and will now release these state files for embargoed access on Wednesday, July 31, 2002, for public release on Tuesday, August 6, 2002.

23 years

[CTPP] TCRP Survey Available At The TCRP Online Website

by Peter J. Foote

If you have an interest in the development and dissemination of Transit Cooperative Research Project (TCRP) problem statements and reports you may wish to take their online survey at: http://www.tcrponline.org/ The survey invitation should pop up when you go to the site. If you are not interested in this just delete this message. Peter J. Foote PFoote(a)TransitChicago.com Market Research/Resource Planning Planning Division Chicago Transit Authority 120 N. Racine Avenue Chicago, IL 60607 (312) 733-7000 x 6840 (Voice) (312) 432 - 7108 (Fax) **************************************************************************** **************************************************************************** ******************************************* Unless otherwise stated, the views expressed are those of the author and not those of the Chicago Transit Authority. **************************************************************************** **************************************************************************** ******************************************* http://www.TransitChicago.com CTA CUSTOMER SERVICE HOTLINE 1-888-YOUR-CTA RTA Travel Information 836-7000

23 years

Re: [CTPP] Forwarded Message: Update of State Data Center meeting with Census

by phillip.a.salopek＠census.gov

The message is confusing because they have confused two separate products. There is both a county-to-county migration dataset and a county-to-county commuting dataset. Both are projected to be released by the end of the year (December '02). The commuting file will be very similar to the 1990 STF-S5 product that is now up on the census web site. (From the census home page, www.census.gov, click on "J" in the Subjects A to Z index, then on the link to "Journey to work and Place of Work Data," and then on the link to "1990 County-to-County Worker Flow Files," or go directly to http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/jtw_workerflow.html. The migration file will be quite different from previous censuses, consisting of a suite of smaller, more manageable files than we have produced in the past. --Phil "Chuck Purvis" <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.g To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> ov> cc: Sent by: Subject: [CTPP] Forwarded Message: Update of owner-ctpp-news(a)c State Data Center meeting with Census hrispy.net 07/19/2002 11:35 AM TO: CTPP-News This is a message from the State Data Center (SDC) steering committee regarding a recent meeting with the Census Liaision Office (CLO). What is notable is the delay in the release of SF3, as well as discussions about the Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) between the State Data Centers and the Census Bureau. This is encouraging, that is, the interest of the State Data Center folks in the CTPP. Another point is that the Census Bureau will purportedly provide: "County to County migration (Journey to Work), Dec '02" (The word "Migration" is confusing. What I think is meant is that the county-to-county total workers commuting matrix, not by means of transportation, will be released in December 2002. This is similar - - I hope - - to the same type of file that was released December 1992. Can J-T-W Branch clarify this particular product?) Chuck Purvis, MTC **** Message from SDC listserv ******************************************* The SDC/BIDC steering committee met with CLO and other Bureau staff last week. This is the first of several brief updates on products, program updates and items of concern: High priority products in the pipeline: SF3 is under intense scrutiny. The Census Bureau is attempting to make sure that the files are accurate before releasing. Instead of releasing VT alone several states are being reviewed and may be released together. A Voting District File has also been given top priority and is scheduled for release in early Aug. via federal register. Congress amended the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Title 42, United States Code, 1973 et seq. (See Public Law102-344.) Among other changes, the minority language assistance provision set forth in Section 203 of the Act was extended to August 6, 2007. The geography will be states and counties or county equivalents (MCD states) and American Indian Areas (ANVSA's etc.). Other products of interest with tentative release dates: LandView V August '02 (first counties avail) MARS August '02 EEO, June-July '03 Census Transportation Planning Package, The Census Bureau will deliver the residence based file to the Amer. Assn. of State Hghwy & Transportation Officials and DOT ) Oct-Dec '02; Census will deliver the work place and commuter flow state files to ASHTO and DOT beginning in Apr '03. ASHTO and DOT will will decide on public release dates. County to County migration (Journey to Work), Dec '02 Other items of interest: The Summary File 2 PCT 5 Household Population by sex by age (for race and Hispanic/Latino) table will be regeneraterated for each person in the household (to be comparable with 1990 SF2). This will be done after the Census Bureau completes the processing of the Summary File 3 data. Renee Jefferson-Copeland will send an inquiry to the leads to determine the level of GEO each state needs and, if the SDC uses this table to produce state level population estimates and projections, the date they would need the new table. Abnormalities in the DP3 unemployment for areas with high concentrations of group quarters are being investigated, but may take a while to determine the true cause. TIGER/Master Address File update to realign to true coordinates; contract awarded with expectation of completing all counties by '07 Please contact me or any other steering committee member if you have any questions. Jane Jane Traynham Maryland Department of Planning MD State Data Center 301 West Preston St. Baltimore, MD 21201 ******** end of message from SDC listserv ************************************ *********************************************** Charles L. Purvis, AICP Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst Metropolitan Transportation Commission 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607-4700 (510) 464-7731 (office) (510) 464-7848 (fax) www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/ Census WWW: http://census.mtc.ca.gov/ ***********************************************

23 years, 1 month

[CTPP] Forwarded Message: Update of State Data Center meeting with Census

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP-News This is a message from the State Data Center (SDC) steering committee regarding a recent meeting with the Census Liaision Office (CLO). What is notable is the delay in the release of SF3, as well as discussions about the Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) between the State Data Centers and the Census Bureau. This is encouraging, that is, the interest of the State Data Center folks in the CTPP. Another point is that the Census Bureau will purportedly provide: "County to County migration (Journey to Work), Dec '02" (The word "Migration" is confusing. What I think is meant is that the county-to-county total workers commuting matrix, not by means of transportation, will be released in December 2002. This is similar - - I hope - - to the same type of file that was released December 1992. Can J-T-W Branch clarify this particular product?) Chuck Purvis, MTC **** Message from SDC listserv ******************************************* The SDC/BIDC steering committee met with CLO and other Bureau staff last week. This is the first of several brief updates on products, program updates and items of concern: High priority products in the pipeline: SF3 is under intense scrutiny. The Census Bureau is attempting to make sure that the files are accurate before releasing. Instead of releasing VT alone several states are being reviewed and may be released together. A Voting District File has also been given top priority and is scheduled for release in early Aug. via federal register. Congress amended the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Title 42, United States Code, 1973 et seq. (See Public Law102-344.) Among other changes, the minority language assistance provision set forth in Section 203 of the Act was extended to August 6, 2007. The geography will be states and counties or county equivalents (MCD states) and American Indian Areas (ANVSA's etc.). Other products of interest with tentative release dates: LandView V August '02 (first counties avail) MARS August '02 EEO, June-July '03 Census Transportation Planning Package, The Census Bureau will deliver the residence based file to the Amer. Assn. of State Hghwy & Transportation Officials and DOT ) Oct-Dec '02; Census will deliver the work place and commuter flow state files to ASHTO and DOT beginning in Apr '03. ASHTO and DOT will will decide on public release dates. County to County migration (Journey to Work), Dec '02 Other items of interest: The Summary File 2 PCT 5 Household Population by sex by age (for race and Hispanic/Latino) table will be regeneraterated for each person in the household (to be comparable with 1990 SF2). This will be done after the Census Bureau completes the processing of the Summary File 3 data. Renee Jefferson-Copeland will send an inquiry to the leads to determine the level of GEO each state needs and, if the SDC uses this table to produce state level population estimates and projections, the date they would need the new table. Abnormalities in the DP3 unemployment for areas with high concentrations of group quarters are being investigated, but may take a while to determine the true cause. TIGER/Master Address File update to realign to true coordinates; contract awarded with expectation of completing all counties by '07 Please contact me or any other steering committee member if you have any questions. Jane Jane Traynham Maryland Department of Planning MD State Data Center 301 West Preston St. Baltimore, MD 21201 ******** end of message from SDC listserv ************************************ *********************************************** Charles L. Purvis, AICP Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst Metropolitan Transportation Commission 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607-4700 (510) 464-7731 (office) (510) 464-7848 (fax) www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/ Census WWW: http://census.mtc.ca.gov/ ***********************************************

23 years, 1 month

[CTPP] Year 2000 Census Employment and Journey to Work Data

by Margaret Shaw

CTPP_news(a)chrispynet0.wpd

23 years, 1 month

[CTPP] [Fwd: Re: "The Truth About Transit", Baltimore Sun, July 12, 2002]

by C Kenneth Orski

Here is a colleague of mine challenging the validity of the 2000 Census data on transit ridership. I am not a statistician and have no way of assessing the soundness of his claims. Can anybody help me? Ken Orski -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: "The Truth About Transit", Baltimore Sun, July 12, 2002 Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:48:00 -0400 From:"Tom Downs" <tdowns(a)ursp.umd.edu> To: <korski(a)erols.com> C Kenneth Orski wrote: > > You should read this... and ponder > http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.transit12jul12.story?c… ======================= I would be glad to ponder the following:The survey data, census long form, is increasingly viewed as biased in its results (response rates of less than 20% in many regions, language biased in an age of immigrants, poverty biased, and generally reflective of a white middle class data set)The data does not reflect the fact that journey to work is about 20% of trips and declining. Do we care about the explosion in "other trips" and transit's role in them? We also have no clue as to what is happening to pedestrian trips...Tom Downs ################################################################# ################################################################# ################################################################# ##### ##### ##### ################################################################# ################################################################# #################################################################

23 years, 1 month

RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters...Impact of Rail Lines etc

by Sam.Granato＠dot.state.oh.us

Try this out to guage the difference between survey answers and reality - ask a group of people if any of them take public transit, then ask them to show you their transit passes (daily, monthly, whatever). Someone in Chicago at least had the foresight to put the rail system in the freeway medians, so commuters stuck in rush-hour traffic can watch the trains at least appear to get to their destination faster than their car is. So no out-of-sight-out-of-mind problem that transit has most everywhere else. Sam Granato Ohio DOT, Office of Technical Services 1980 W. Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43223 Phone: 614-644-6796, Fax: 614-752-8646 "Men and nations will all eventually do the right thing - after first exhausting all the other alternatives." - Abba Eban "Gardner, John F" <GardnerJF(a)dot.state.sc.us> Sent by: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net 07/10/02 09:05 AM To: "'Peter J. Foote'" <pfoote(a)transitchicago.com>, ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net cc: Subject: RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters...Impact of Rail Lines etc Peter Foote's responses are excellent. Although I suspect the smaller metros have had such an increase in choice riders, because the congestion and parking cost incentives are not as strong. Very good point about the impact of prepaid fare media -- day passes, monthly passes, etc. -- boosting off-peak ridership. Prepaid fares help level the playing field between cars and transit. Drivers behave as if the marginal cost of an additonal trip or mile is zero; unlimited-ride passes induce the same behavior in transit users. -----Original Message----- From: Peter J. Foote [mailto:pfoote(a)transitchicago.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:34 PM To: Mark Schlappi; 'Chuck Purvis'; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Cc: dstuart(a)transitchicago.com; mpatzloff(a)transitchicago.com Subject: Re: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters...Impact of Rail Lines etc The impact of a new rail line, branch or extension on a system's unlinked trip count depends upon many factors. In general terms, the implementation of rail systems should generate new unlinked trips because they tend by nature to draw new customers, including suburban men, out of their cars. This is especially true when parking fees in the CBD are high. Links can be lost however, when rail route design allows former bus riders to save one or more transfers previously made on their commute. CTA's Orange line (running diagonally across the grid SW from the Chicago's Loop) which opened 10/31/93, was a bonanza for Pace suburban bus ridership for routes connecting to CTA at Midway airport. The line exceeded CTA ridership expectations in part due to high suburban ridership, but also resulted in some lost linked trips (not individuals) between bus routes - and of course a substantial shift from bus to rail. Limited stop express services can add individuals overall but eliminate the need for some transfers when they cross over route ends. The X49 for example, eliminated some transfers (unlinked trips) between routes 49A and 49, however ridership increases and customer satisfaction rose far more than trips lost. In Chicago, it is more likely that increases in off-peak discretionary riding by electronic pass users (30 and 7 day rolling pass markets have grown substantially since the were re-introduced in the Winter of 1998) are responsible for a portion of this shift. New York of course had tremendous ridership growth when the eliminated the 2nd fare required to move from bus to rail when their Metro Card was used. Check with them, but my guess would be that they have also had big boosts in off-peak riding, etc stimulated by having pre-paid media available. DC's Smart Card probably generates many new rides as well. Could the impact of just these 3 systems be enough to cause an increase in trips with no new net gain in riders? Once you have a farecard, even a money card rather than a pass, you are much more inclined to hop on a bus or train to take a trip. Discounting and the impact of lowered average fares on ridership through the use of these fare instruments may also be a factor. The issue of whether census data questions are complete enough to extract true mode splits (raised in another thread) is a valid one, especially when respondents are asked about an entire previous week is a valid one. BUT, I also think that it is unrealistic to expect more from the Census that can reasonably be expected. Reconfiguration of a rail line can cause losses. When the Dan Ryan/Lake and Howard/Englewood/Jackson Park were realigned 2/1993 to connect the busy South and North branches in the Red Line and less busy South and West branches as the Green Line many transfers which had been recorded as unlinked trips were eliminated with no real reduction in persons (average trip lengths expanded). Reconstruction of a rail line can also cause losses. The decision to close the Green line for reconstruction rather than single track in 1/1994 resulted in bus and offset gains made by the new Orange Line rail. The impacts of service changes are often complex. It likely that changes in auto ownership and transit riding frequency among fairly frequent customers over the decade are also an important of the story. It is also very difficult to make assessments of persons using a system from unlinked trip counts. This is part of why NTD average trip length calculations and passenger miles estimations are important. Peter J. Foote PFoote(a)TransitChicago.com Market Research/Resource Planning Planning Division Chicago Transit Authority 120 N. Racine Avenue Chicago, IL 60607 (312) 733-7000 x 6840 (Voice) (312) 432 - 7108 (Fax) **************************************************************************** **************************************************************************** ******************************************* Unless otherwise stated, the views expressed are those of the author and not those of the Chicago Transit Authority. **************************************************************************** **************************************************************************** ******************************************* http://www.TransitChicago.com CTA CUSTOMER SERVICE HOTLINE 1-888-YOUR-CTA RTA Travel Information 836-7000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Schlappi" <Schlappi(a)mag.maricopa.gov> To: "'Chuck Purvis'" <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov>; <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 6:01 PM Subject: RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership Statistics > Is there a possibility that changing route structures, with more rail, have > caused more unlinked trips? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chuck Purvis [mailto:CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov] > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 3:36 PM > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > Subject: [CTPP] Reconciling Census Transit Commuters with Ridership > Statistics > > > To: CTPP-News > > One of the interesting journey-to-work results is the lack of change, at the > NATIONAL level, in the total number of transit commuters. The US had > 6,069,589 transit commuters according to the 1990 Census, and 6,067,703 > transit commuters according to the 2000 Census, a 0.03 percent decrease. (On > the other hand, the US transit commute SHARE declined from 5.3 percent in > 1990 to 4.7 percent in 2000.) > > This compares to national transit ridership statistics which show a 6.4 > percent increase in annual unlinked passenger trips comparing 1990 to 2000. > (Source is APTA's 2002 Public Transportation Fact Book, Table 26.) The APTA > book (I would assume based on FTA-collected ridership statistics) shows > annual unlinked public transit trips increasing from 8,799 million trips in > 1990 to 9,363 million trips in 2000 (the 2000 numbers are preliminary, > according to the 2002 APTA Fact Book). > > So, an issue is how to reconcile a 0.0 percent change in national transit > commuters with a 6.4 percent increase in national transit ridership. > > A plausible explanation is that the work trip share of public transportation > trips has declined since 1990. According to the 1990 NPTS, 42.6 percent of > public transportation person trips are for the purpose of "earning a living" > (NPTS Databook, Vol. 1, Table 4.40). > > So, I can calculate that about 3,748 million unlinked transit boardings (in > 1990) are "work trips" and that this might decline to about 3,747 million > unlinked transit boarding "work trips", in 2000. This means that perhaps 40 > percent of year 2000 transit boardings are work trips (3,747 / 9,363), which > is quite plausible at the national level. > > The story might be that the national number of transit work trips, 1990 to > 2000, has remained fairly stable, and that, at least at the national level, > the growth in transit is attributable to non-work travel. > > The data question is: is information available from either the 1995 NPTS or > the 2001 NHTS that can corroborate this possible trend - - a decline in the > work purpose share for public transportation trips? > > Also, who has attempted to reconcile their change in regional transit > commuters with their own transit ridership statistics? What would be most > helpful is any comparisons of on-board surveys or household travel surveys > that show any changes in the trip purpose mix for transit trips. > > (Other larger issues still loom in terms of the plausibility/fixability of > the Census data. We are very concerned about the overall LOW numbers of > TOTAL commuters and employed residents we're seeing in the 2000 Census in > our region....) > > Wishing a Safe & Sane Happy Fourth of July to All! > > Chuck Purvis > > > *********************************************** > Charles L. Purvis, AICP > Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst > Metropolitan Transportation Commission > 101 Eighth Street > Oakland, CA 94607-4700 > (510) 464-7731 (office) > (510) 464-7848 (fax) > www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/ > Census WWW: http://census.mtc.ca.gov/ > *********************************************** >

23 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