CTPP

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

5 participants
3069 discussions

[CTPP] State and MSA comparison data, 1990-2000

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP-News Many thanks to Nanda Srinivasan of the FHWA in preparing MSA- and state-level comparisons, 1990-2000, of selected census journey-to-work characteristics. Point your web browser to our FTP site at: ftp://ftp.abag.ca.gov/pub/mtc/census2000/DP2-4/National/ What's new is the state-level comparison, in EXCEL work book format. Data file name is: StateCompare1.xls What's revised is the MSA-level comparison, also in EXCEL workbook format. Data file name is: msacomparison.xls I've uploaded these files to our agency's FTP site for the convenience of the community. Happy Fourth of July! 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

[CTPP] Average number of hours spent per year by rush hour drivers

by Spring

Recent articles in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, etc. have stated that the average number of delay hours spent per year by rush hour drivers is 62 hours in the US and 136 in Los Angeles. There is an interest in comparing Anchorage to these national statistics. Is this information available through the CTPP or another census database? I would appreciate any help? Jon Spring Senior Transportation Planner Municipality of Anchorage Traffic Department springjr(a)ci.anchorage.ak.us (907) 343-7994 -----Original Message----- From: Kazimi, Zia [mailto:zkazimi(a)state.mt.us] Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 2:40 PM To: Ctpp-news Subject: [CTPP] FAQ's I was wondering how other states are dealing with FHWA's quazi-official (all I've seen are the FAQ's on their website) implementation guidelines applying 2000 Census data to urban areas. I haven't seen anything from FHWA similar to what the US Bureau of Census put out in the March 15, 2002 Federal Register. Are we to assume that these Internet site FAQ's take precedence over what currently exists under USC Title 23? FHWA guidelines have been known to change depending on public input. The bottom line is, we need to start identifying our urban boundaries (deadlines are coming up - e.g. HPMS) and yet, I don't believe we have a clear mandate on how to proceed. Is this just a backdoor approach without going through a formal process or am I missing something? I would appreciate any thoughts on this. Thanks. Zia Kazimi Urban Planning Montana Department of Transportation

23 years, 1 month

Re: [CTPP] Average number of hours spent per year by rush hour drivers

by William Schaefer

The traffic congestion/delay data is from an analysis that the Texas Transportation Institute does every year for the largest metropolitan areas. They use data that the states submit for the HPMS. The methodology is fairly crude (e.g., highway capacities are national averages, ITS/TDM, etc. isn't factored in, etc.). There was an article I saw where the Washington State DOT decided to stop contributing money for the study, because of these and other limitations. The only way to get a more accurate estimate of actual congestion is through a regional travel model. >>> ed christopher <edc(a)berwyned.com> 07/02/02 10:05PM >>> the short answer is that the ctpp will not get you even close to a comparable number. the census asks usual travel time to work which is not delay. the long answer...one thing that might be of interest to look at would be the ranking of travel time and where the three areas of interest lay in respect to each other. you could do that now with the census data that is already released and on the census bureau's factfinder site http://factfinder.census.gov/. once the ctpp comes out you could also look at either the mean or median travel time by means of transportation to work by time leaving home for work and zero in on just the auto trips by time of day. i am assuming that the delay measure you speak of is only auto trips as opposed to all modes. for a look at what tables will be available in the ctpp head to http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/content.htm. (but keep in mind that this is only another number and not directly comparable to your delay value nor should it be considered a surrogate.) i can't think of any other census data that will get you to delay but i am sure if i missed something someone else will chime in. "Spring, Jon R." wrote: > Recent articles in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, etc. have stated > that the average number of delay hours spent per year by rush hour drivers > is 62 hours in the US and 136 in Los Angeles. There is an interest in > comparing Anchorage to these national statistics. Is this information > available through the CTPP or another census database? > I would appreciate any help? > > Jon Spring > Senior Transportation Planner > Municipality of Anchorage > Traffic Department > springjr(a)ci.anchorage.ak.us > (907) 343-7994

23 years, 1 month

RE: [CTPP] FAQ's

by Steve.Gramm＠state.sd.us

Zia, Here in South Dakota, we are in the process of adjusting our existing FHWA adjusted urban area boundaries to incorporate the 2000 Census Bureau boundaries for all of our cities over 5000 population. Since we also haven't seen anything other than the proposals out on FHWA's website, we are assuming that Chapter 4 (Urban Area Boundaries) from the 1991 FHWA Federal-Aid Policy Guide is still valid for use in functional classification, HPMS data reporting and funding distributions for FY2003. While I have the soapbox, I'll paraphrase the discussion's we have had with our MPO's on the Census urban boundary issue. With the Census Bureau's new boundary determination procedure being based upon population density, the new census urban boundary is designed to show where urban dwelling people live and not necessarily where they work or shop. In areas where the land uses are more spread out & separated, like in our state, this leads to the 2000 Census urban boundary omitting large portions of the industrial & commercial areas that are located on the edges of the city. For counting people where they live (which is one of their primary jobs), the Census Bureau's procedure works fine. However, from a transportation system viewpoint, to go exclusively with the Census Bureau's boundary would exclude a large portion of the transportation related urban area, which needs to not only include the areas of where people live, but also where people work and transportation systems that the connect those areas. In light of this, we feel that the Census urban boundary is to be used as the base for the FHWA adjusted urban area boundary but not exclusively as the boundary. Maintaining the 1991 guidelines to accomplish this would be acceptable to us. Steven Gramm, P.E. Data Analysis Engineer / Engineering Supervisor SDDOT - Planning & Programs 700 E. Broadway Pierre, SD 57501 (605)773-6641 Steve.gramm(a)state.sd.us <mailto:Steve.gramm(a)state.sd.us> -----Original Message----- From: Kazimi, Zia [mailto:zkazimi(a)state.mt.us] Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 5:40 PM To: Ctpp-news Subject: [CTPP] FAQ's I was wondering how other states are dealing with FHWA's quazi-official (all I've seen are the FAQ's on their website) implementation guidelines applying 2000 Census data to urban areas. I haven't seen anything from FHWA similar to what the US Bureau of Census put out in the March 15, 2002 Federal Register. Are we to assume that these Internet site FAQ's take precedence over what currently exists under USC Title 23? FHWA guidelines have been known to change depending on public input. The bottom line is, we need to start identifying our urban boundaries (deadlines are coming up - e.g. HPMS) and yet, I don't believe we have a clear mandate on how to proceed. Is this just a backdoor approach without going through a formal process or am I missing something? I would appreciate any thoughts on this. Thanks. Zia Kazimi Urban Planning Montana Department of Transportation

23 years, 1 month

[CTPP] FAQ's

by Kazimi

I was wondering how other states are dealing with FHWA's quazi-official (all I've seen are the FAQ's on their website) implementation guidelines applying 2000 Census data to urban areas. I haven't seen anything from FHWA similar to what the US Bureau of Census put out in the March 15, 2002 Federal Register. Are we to assume that these Internet site FAQ's take precedence over what currently exists under USC Title 23? FHWA guidelines have been known to change depending on public input. The bottom line is, we need to start identifying our urban boundaries (deadlines are coming up - e.g. HPMS) and yet, I don't believe we have a clear mandate on how to proceed. Is this just a backdoor approach without going through a formal process or am I missing something? I would appreciate any thoughts on this. Thanks. Zia Kazimi Urban Planning Montana Department of Transportation

23 years, 1 month

[CTPP] New phone number for Census Journey-to-Work Branch

by phillip.a.salopek＠census.gov

The Journey-to-Work and Migration Statistics Branch of Population Division at the Census Bureau has a new phone number. The 3-digit exchange has changed and the new number is 301-763-2454. This is the number to use to reach Phil Salopek, Celia Boertlein, Fabian Sanchez, Clara Reschovsky, Bonny Berkner, Carol Faber, Jason Schachter, and Sylvia Geter.

23 years, 1 month

[CTPP] Urban Areas Available on Geography Network as Shapefiles (FREE Download).

by Direct ESRI

At the request of our users and the general public, ESRI has prepared the 2000 Urban Areas as downloadable shapefiles from the Geography Network, http://www.geographynetwork.com. If you are an existing user of the TIGER 2000 shapefile download service http://www.geographynetwork.com/data/tiger2000/index.html, simply login and choose a U.S. state. Y ou will find "Urban Areas 2000" as an additional layer in the "Select by Layer" dropdown list. If you are not familiar with the TIGER 2000 shapefile download service and would like to become a user, simply navigate your Web browser to http://www.geographynetwork.com/data/tiger2000/tiger_register.cfm and register. ESRI has prepared a helpful procedures document on how to use this FREE service. This document can be found at http://www.censuswatch.com/census2000_download2.pdf We hope you find this service to be helpful in your community planning efforts. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please feel free to contact us at censuswatch(a)esri.com Best Regards, Census Watch Support Team To unsubscribe from the Tiger 2000 list, please click http://gis.esri.com/talisma/obmtracking.cfm?URL=http://gis.esri.com/newslet….

23 years, 1 month

[CTPP] Pareto Interpolation

by Daryl Scott

I previously requested help calculating median family income using the Pareto Interpolation. I appreciate the replies. The attached spreadsheet contains the median family income for towns in South Western Connecticut. The top table shows the values calculated by Pareto Interpolation, and the bottom table illustrates the values calculated by Linear Interpolation. I also calculated the percentage difference between the calculated values and the official Census figures. I confirmed that the difference between the Pareto figures and the Census figures are most likely due to the fact that the Census Bureau calculates median value based upon more detailed distribution information than it releases to the public. Notice that the Pareto calculations are sometimes higher and lower than the official figures, but the linear calculations are higher. Most likely this observation is because Pareto uses a logarithmic curve rather than a straight line. (There may be a few instances where the Pareto figure would be higher than linear.) In addition, the Pareto calculations tend to be more accurate than the Linear ones. I believe the spreadsheet provides a good way to estimate median income values for regions that are not tabulated by the Census. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. I am not a statistician, and I only have a limited understanding of the formulas. Good luck, Daryl -- Daryl Scott South Western Regional Planning Agency Stamford Government Center 888 Washington Blvd., 3rd Floor Stamford, CT 06901 Tel: (203) 316-5190 Fax: (203) 316-4995 E-mail: dscott(a)swrpa.org

23 years, 1 month

[CTPP] Census 2000 News Alert

by ed christopher

From: "Census2000" <census2000(a)ccmc.org> Supreme Court Upholds Imputation Method In Utah Apportionment Case In a close (5 4) decision issued this morning, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Census Bureaus use of imputation to count some people who census takers cannot reach through direct enumeration methods. Utah filed a lawsuit last spring, arguing that the statistical method violated both the Census Act and the Census Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and deprived it of a fourth congressional seat that instead went to North Carolina. North Carolina, which picked up a 13th congressional seat after the 2000 census, intervened in the case in support of the Census Bureau. The Supreme Court ruled that imputation does not violate either section 195 of title 13, United States Code (the Census Act), or the Constitutions requirement for an enumeration of the population every ten years for the purpose of congressional apportionment. Justice Stephen Breyer authored the majority opinion in Utah et al. v. Evans, Secretary of Commerce, et al. (01-714), in which Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined. Justice Sandra Day OConnor joined Parts I and II of the majority opinion, and filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Clarence Thomas also filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Anthony Kennedy joined. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion. Hot-deck imputation involves the use of scientific models to assign occupants (or vacancy status) to housing units from which a mailed questionnaire was not returned and census takers were unable to find any residents after six visits. The Census Bureau assigns the number of occupants based on information collected from a similar, nearby housing unit. Imputation added roughly 1.2 million people in 620,000 housing units (less than one-half of one percent of the national population) to the state population totals used for congressional apportionment. (For some households, imputation is used to fill in missing characteristics, such as race, or to add occupants who are not listed on a census form but for whom there is some evidence of residency. A National Academy of Sciences panel reported last fall that Census 2000 included 5.8 million imputations, a disproportionate number of which involved racial minorities, renters, and children.) The bureau first used the method in the 1960 census. Indiana unsuccessfully challenged the technique after the 1980 census, when it lost a House seat to Florida based on imputed population. In oral arguments before the Supreme Court on March 27, Utahs lead counsel, Thomas Lee, described imputation as a form of sampling that the Court struck down in 1999 (Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 526 U.S. 316). In the earlier case, a 54 majority of the Court ruled that the Census Act barred the use of sampling to compile the state population totals used for congressional apportionment. In todays ruling, the Court noted that imputation differs from sampling in several ways. Sampling involves extrapolating the characteristics of a large group of people from a small one, the Court wrote, while imputation seeks only to fill in missing data for particular housing units, using information from similar housing units that are not chosen randomly. The methodological differences place imputation outside the scope of section 195, which refers only to sampling (in quotations in the law), the majority concluded. The Court suggested that Congress knew about the use of imputation when it amended the Census Act in 1976 to prohibit sampling in deriving the apportionment counts, inferring that sampling, as used in the statute, was a term of art. The Court also held that hot-deck imputation does not violate Article I, section 2, of the Constitution (the Census Clause), which calls for a census every ten years in such manner as [Congress] shall by Law direct. The majority rejected Utahs contention that the Constitutions reference to an actual Enumeration requires the Census Bureau to count every person directly. Instead, the term actual referred to apportionment of the Third Congress (which would be seated after the first census was conducted), while apportionment of the First and Second Congresses was based on conjecture as to the population of the states then in existence, the Court said. The majority also pointed to other methods the Census Bureau has used since 1800 to add missing people to the count, including asking neighbors, landlords, and postal workers to supply information about households that failed to respond to the census. The Court said it was not deciding the precise methodological limits of the Census Clause. However, the use of imputation in this case was part of an effort to reach every household, represented methods of inference rather than statistical sampling, involved a tiny percent of the total population, was not likely to be subject to manipulation, and was an alternative to a far less accurate assessment of the population, and therefore did not exceed the Constitutions limits, the majority concluded. In addition, the Court rejected North Carolinas argument that Utah lacked legal standing to challenge imputation or other counting methods after the census was completed. North Carolina had asserted that statutes governing apportionment and the post-census certification of seats sent to each state do not allow revisions to be made. The Court said it found no intent to bar judicial relief if a state believes a serious error in the census led to an incorrect apportionment. Questions about the information contained in this News Alert may be directed to Terri Ann Lowenthal at 202/484-2270 or, by e-mail at <terriann2k(a)aol.com>. For copies of previous News Alerts and other information, use our web site www.census2000.org. Please direct all requests to receive News Alerts, and all changes in address/phone/fax/e-mail, to the Census 2000 Initiative at <Census2000(a)ccmc.org> or 202/326-8700. Please feel free to circulate this information to colleagues and other interested individuals.

23 years, 2 months

[CTPP] Pareto Interpolation

by Daryl Scott

I am trying to calculate the median income for a region using the Pareto Interpolation method like the Census Bureau. I cannot find the correct equation. If I did find it, I did not know how to convert it into an Excel formula. Does anyone have an Excel spreadsheet that has the necessary formulas for calculating medians using the Pareto Interpolation method? Thanks, Daryl -- Daryl Scott South Western Regional Planning Agency Stamford Government Center 888 Washington Blvd., 3rd Floor Stamford, CT 06901 Tel: (203) 316-5190 Fax: (203) 316-4995 E-mail: dscott(a)swrpa.org

23 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