TO: CTPP-News
Here's the link to today's USA Today article on driving alone in America. Of course, the Census Bureau hasn't yet released data for nine states and Puerto Rico (which are due out next week.) My bet is that Michigan (data not yet released) is still the #1 state in terms of drive alone share of total commute!
http://www.usatoday.com/money/covers/2002-05-30-driving-alone.htm
By the way, my old web site has 1990 data on state-level commute-to-work shares, at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~clpurvis/metrodat/
and, more specifically:
http://home.earthlink.net/~clpurvis/metrodat/statec5.htm
Reading this USA Today article reminds me of a book that I just read - - "Damn Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians and Activists" by Joel Best, UC Press, 2001. Recommended reading. Excellent for critical thinking about the statistics that media and others use.
Which brings me to my point about lies and statistics in the USA Today article. I'll try to be brief.
1. USA Today states that the drive alone commute share in the San Francisco metro area declined from 73 percent in 1990 to 68 percent in 2000. The 2000 figure is accurate at 68.0 percent. On the other hand, our 1990 drive alone commute share was 68.2 percent. So, our overall drive alone commute share declined from 68.2 percent to 68.0 percent. (This is nice, but not "wow"!)
2. USA Today claims that "Many transportation officials, planners and environmentalists have concluded that carpooling lanes don't help reduce traffic." Well, this is pretty shaky journalism. Like, who or what's the source of this information? Alan, is this from you? You're cited in the next paragraph!
I will agree that the USA Today article is entertaining, though the blending of factual information with anecdotal commutes is getting to be tiring.
Some more quips and quotes from the USA Today article:
1. "Forty minutes in the car may be the equivalent of the bubble bath"
2. "There is more to life than quality time in your car, no matter how great your sound system is"
3. "The car is often the last refuge of smokers....California law prohibits all smoking in workplaces, including offices, stores and restaurants." (Note that California prohibits smoking in bars, as well. However, we do allow you to smoke inside your own home, even in your own bubble bath!)
4. "Consumers of audio books listen to them on average 4.4 hours a week in their cars, compared with 1.1 hours on mass transit, according to the Audio Publishers Association." (Gotta wonder who's answering these surveys!)
On the plus side, the USA Today's graphics are pretty darned good.
Chuck Purvis
Cranky Because My Baseball Team is 24-27.
***********************************************
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/
***********************************************
John
I am happy to answer your questions regarding the criteria as applied to
the Greenville area, but I will leave to the transportation community the
answers/responses to your questions concerning Rock Hill area. In
addition, if anyone has specific questions concerning the delineation of
their urbanized area, please send those questions direcly to us at :
ua(a)geo.census.gov
You are correct in that we created two separate UAs (Greenville and
Mauldin-Simpsonville) because the criteria specify that they be separated
if their point of contiguity is no greater than a point-to-point connection
or if a hop or jump is needed to connect the areas. These criteria only
are applied where the two areas have an initial core population of 50,000
or greater, therefore, it is not applied between UA-UC or UC-UC.
With regards to the separation of the Greenville UA and the Clemson UC, the
two areas were not linked because both areas had jumped along the same road
connection between the two areas, and the distance along the remaining road
connection that separates the areas was more than 0.5 miles (more than a
permitted hop connection), requiring an addtional jump connection, which
the criteria do not permit.
Again, please let me recommend, that if you have specific questions
regarding the delineation of UAs or UCs in your area, such as the above
questions regarding Greenville/Clemson, please send them directly to us at:
ua(a)geo.census.gov.
Dave Aultman
Geography Division
U.S. Census Bureau
(301) 457-1099
"Gardner, John F"
<GardnerJF(a)dot.st To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
ate.sc.us> cc:
Sent by: Subject: [CTPP] Urban/Rural criteria
owner-ctpp-news(a)c
hrispy.net
05/31/2002 09:28
AM
Perhaps someone with Census can answer these two questions.
The new urban/rural classification method had some interesting results in
South Carolina. One of our UAs (Greenville) was split into two UAs, with a
very narrow band of "rural" area (along the I-85 corridor, where there's
little or no population in the blocks adjacent to the freeway) dividing the
new Mauldin-Simpsonville UA from the Greenville UA, which it was part of in
1990. I assume that the two UAs were not combined because contiguity could
only have been achieved with a "hop" connection, and the urban/rural
classification rule specifies that otherwise separate UAs won't be combined
using a "hop". 1) Is that correct? And, 2) does the "no hop" rule
apply
for UA-UC combinations and UC-UC combinations? We have what appears to be
a
single block discontiguity between the Greenville UA and Clemson UC, also.
Now, a general question for the list:
The Rock Hill, SC UA lost a significant part of its 1990 urban area to
Charlotte, NC. Transportation planning for the portion of the Rock Hill UA
that was "lost" to Charlotte is currently handled by the Rock Hill MPO.
This creates some interesting and potentially troublesome planning and
political issues. Has anyone else had a similar experience, where part of
a
small UA was "absorbed" by an adjacent larger one?
John Gardner, AICP
SCDOT Office of Planning
PO Box 191
Columbia, SC 29202-0191
(803) 737 - 1444
gardnerjf(a)dot.state.sc.us
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Bash [mailto:jbash(a)uic.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 5:31 PM
To: Patty Becker
Cc: Andrew PICKARD; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] 2000 demo. profiles: 100% data
CMSA/MSA/PMSA are in the text file. I'm 99% sure that the Chicago PMSA was
also a PDF profile but I don't want to dig into the 91meg zipped profiles
for Illinois right now to find out:-) Of course only the portion of
MSA/CMSA within a state is reported. There is supposed to be a national
file out eventually with the full CMSAs.
jim b
On Wed, 29 May 2002, Patty Becker wrote:
> I don't think we're going to get tables for CMSA/MSA/PMSAs. Nothing on
an
> MA basis has been released to date, as far as I know. All states should
> have the data for cities (places) and counties, but they have been coming
> out on a flow basis and they may be getting states up before they get the
> substate areas.
>
> The last sets of the data, including Michigan and Ohio, are to be
released
> on June 4,and I hope all the tables are up on the web site by the end of
> next week.
>
> Patty Becker
>
>
> At 03:39 PM 05/29/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> >Why is it that some of the 2000 Demographic Profile summaries currently
> >being released include summaries for metro areas in addition to
statewide
> >summaries? As an example, Illinois includes summaries for the state,
Cook
> >County, and Chicago City. Yet Georgia only includes a state report (you
> >might expect Atlanta to have a summary). I am specifically interested
in
> >metro areas of Virginia. The web page I am referring to is
> >http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/demoprofiles.html
> >Thanks for the help.
> >
> >Andrew Pickard
> >Senior Transportation Engineer
> >Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
> >723 Woodlake Drive
> >Chesapeake, VA 23320
> >Phone: (757) 420-8300 Fax: (757) 523-4881
> >E-mail: apickard(a)hrpdc.org
> >Web: www.hrpdc.org
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
> 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
>
A strange response, unless you believe oil dependence, autombile emissions,
excess land consumption, farmland loss, and habitat fragmentation are not
important issues. If human convenience is more important than those issues
(or if I'm just imagining that those are sprawl-related issues), then sprawl
is a good thing.
-----Original Message-----
From: Putta, Viplava [mailto:vputta(a)incog.org]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 9:15 AM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: RE: [CTPP] USA Today article on drive alone commute
Sometimes what we intend to say looks way different in print (from the same
USA Today article). But it brings a paradox to the front about sprawl:
"As development spreads out across the region, the density of travel along a
particular route downtown decreases and the opportunities for ride-sharing
go down," said Dougherty, who works on transportation issues in the
Philadelphia region. "That's another problem of suburban sprawl."
------------------
Since when carpooling became a solution for sprawl? If congestion (density
of travel) went down, is that a problem? And if sprawl is responsible for
alleviating that problem then that must be a good thing!!
My 2 cents.
Viplav Putta
INCOG
Perhaps someone with Census can answer these two questions.
The new urban/rural classification method had some interesting results in
South Carolina. One of our UAs (Greenville) was split into two UAs, with a
very narrow band of "rural" area (along the I-85 corridor, where there's
little or no population in the blocks adjacent to the freeway) dividing the
new Mauldin-Simpsonville UA from the Greenville UA, which it was part of in
1990. I assume that the two UAs were not combined because contiguity could
only have been achieved with a "hop" connection, and the urban/rural
classification rule specifies that otherwise separate UAs won't be combined
using a "hop". 1) Is that correct? And, 2) does the "no hop" rule apply
for UA-UC combinations and UC-UC combinations? We have what appears to be a
single block discontiguity between the Greenville UA and Clemson UC, also.
Now, a general question for the list:
The Rock Hill, SC UA lost a significant part of its 1990 urban area to
Charlotte, NC. Transportation planning for the portion of the Rock Hill UA
that was "lost" to Charlotte is currently handled by the Rock Hill MPO.
This creates some interesting and potentially troublesome planning and
political issues. Has anyone else had a similar experience, where part of a
small UA was "absorbed" by an adjacent larger one?
John Gardner, AICP
SCDOT Office of Planning
PO Box 191
Columbia, SC 29202-0191
(803) 737 - 1444
gardnerjf(a)dot.state.sc.us
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Bash [mailto:jbash(a)uic.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 5:31 PM
To: Patty Becker
Cc: Andrew PICKARD; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] 2000 demo. profiles: 100% data
CMSA/MSA/PMSA are in the text file. I'm 99% sure that the Chicago PMSA was
also a PDF profile but I don't want to dig into the 91meg zipped profiles
for Illinois right now to find out:-) Of course only the portion of
MSA/CMSA within a state is reported. There is supposed to be a national
file out eventually with the full CMSAs.
jim b
On Wed, 29 May 2002, Patty Becker wrote:
> I don't think we're going to get tables for CMSA/MSA/PMSAs. Nothing on an
> MA basis has been released to date, as far as I know. All states should
> have the data for cities (places) and counties, but they have been coming
> out on a flow basis and they may be getting states up before they get the
> substate areas.
>
> The last sets of the data, including Michigan and Ohio, are to be
released
> on June 4,and I hope all the tables are up on the web site by the end of
> next week.
>
> Patty Becker
>
>
> At 03:39 PM 05/29/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> >Why is it that some of the 2000 Demographic Profile summaries currently
> >being released include summaries for metro areas in addition to statewide
> >summaries? As an example, Illinois includes summaries for the state,
Cook
> >County, and Chicago City. Yet Georgia only includes a state report (you
> >might expect Atlanta to have a summary). I am specifically interested in
> >metro areas of Virginia. The web page I am referring to is
> >http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/demoprofiles.html
> >Thanks for the help.
> >
> >Andrew Pickard
> >Senior Transportation Engineer
> >Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
> >723 Woodlake Drive
> >Chesapeake, VA 23320
> >Phone: (757) 420-8300 Fax: (757) 523-4881
> >E-mail: apickard(a)hrpdc.org
> >Web: www.hrpdc.org
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
> 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
>
Sometimes what we intend to say looks way different in print (from the
same USA Today article). But it brings a paradox to the front about
sprawl:
"As development spreads out across the region, the density of travel
along a particular route downtown decreases and the opportunities for
ride-sharing go down," said Dougherty, who works on transportation
issues in the Philadelphia region. "That's another problem of suburban
sprawl."
------------------
Since when carpooling became a solution for sprawl? If congestion
(density of travel) went down, is that a problem? And if sprawl is
responsible for alleviating that problem then that must be a good
thing!!
My 2 cents.
Viplav Putta
INCOG
Sorry, I was not clear with regard to the losses in transit share - I
only implied that transit was not able to capture its share of overall
growth in person trips in several metropolitan areas. Was that a
surprise for planners?
On another note, commute time would have been even higher if it were not
for the declining transit share as a percentage. And auto-ownership may
have peaked too - as the increases are not as apparent as from
1980-1990.
Here is the data I was looking at for both carpool & transit.
Thanks.
Viplav Putta
INCOG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
City
Carpool Percent
Transit Percent
Year 2000
Year 1990
Change
Year 2000
year 1990
Change
1
Tulsa
13.10
11.41
1.69
1.20
1.59
-0.39
2
Oklahoma City
13.10
12.80
0.30
1.00
1.07
-0.07
3
Austin
13.90
13.33
0.57
4.50
5.08
-0.58
4
Wichita
10.20
10.57
-0.37
0.80
1.24
-0.44
5
Tucson
15.70
14.83
0.87
3.50
4.19
-0.69
6
Omaha
11.10
12.22
-1.12
1.90
3.23
-1.33
7
Albuqureque
12.50
12.14
0.36
1.70
1.97
-0.27
8
Syracuse
13.70
13.68
0.02
7.00
10.84
-3.84
1
Kansas City
16.80
16.36
0.44
1.50
2.60
-1.10
2
Houston
15.90
15.50
0.40
5.90
6.52
-0.62
3
Dallas
17.80
15.16
2.64
5.50
6.66
-1.16
4
San Antonio
15.20
15.46
-0.26
3.80
4.92
-1.12
5
Phoenix
17.40
15.13
2.27
3.30
3.30
0.00
6
Atlanta
12.40
11.60
0.80
15.00
19.96
-4.96
7
Chicago
14.50
14.81
-0.31
26.10
29.71
-3.61
8
Portland
11.90
12.88
-0.98
12.30
11.05
1.25
9
Los Angeles
14.70
15.37
-0.67
10.20
10.54
-0.34
10
San Francisco
10.80
11.49
-0.69
31.10
33.52
-2.42
CMSA
1
Tulsa
12.60
12.54
0.06
0.70
0.92
-0.22
2
Oklahoma City
12.00
13.30
-1.30
0.60
0.68
-0.08
3
Austin
13.70
13.91
-0.21
2.60
3.07
-0.47
4
Wichita
9.70
10.89
-1.19
0.60
0.87
-0.27
5
Tucson
14.70
15.03
-0.33
2.50
3.15
-0.65
6
Omaha
10.20
11.76
-1.56
1.20
2.05
-0.85
7
Albuqureque
13.30
12.77
0.53
1.30
1.74
-0.44
8
Syracuse
10.20
12.45
-2.25
2.00
3.54
-1.54
1
Kansas City (KS Part)
9.30
12.52
-3.22
0.60
2.14
-1.54
2
Houston
14.20
14.57
-0.37
3.30
3.78
-0.48
3
Dallas
14.00
13.81
0.19
1.80
2.35
-0.55
4
San Antonio
14.70
14.76
-0.06
2.90
3.67
-0.77
5
Phoenix
15.30
14.37
0.93
2.00
2.13
-0.13
6
Atlanta
13.60
12.74
0.86
3.70
4.71
-1.01
7
Chicago (IL Part)
11.00
11.96
-0.96
12.30
13.66
-1.36
8
Portland (OR part)
12.20
12.28
-0.08
6.20
5.42
0.78
9
Los Angeles
15.20
15.45
-0.25
4.70
4.56
0.14
10
San Francisco
12.90
13.01
-0.11
9.50
9.29
0.21
Why is it that some of the 2000 Demographic Profile summaries currently being released include summaries for metro areas in addition to statewide summaries? As an example, Illinois includes summaries for the state, Cook County, and Chicago City. Yet Georgia only includes a state report (you might expect Atlanta to have a summary). I am specifically interested in metro areas of Virginia. The web page I am referring to is
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/demoprofiles.html
Thanks for the help.
Andrew Pickard
Senior Transportation Engineer
Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
723 Woodlake Drive
Chesapeake, VA 23320
Phone: (757) 420-8300 Fax: (757) 523-4881
E-mail: apickard(a)hrpdc.org
Web: www.hrpdc.org
To obtain profile data from the CB website, you have two options
1. You can download all of the data for VA from the FTP site at:
http://www2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/100_and_sample_profile/Virginia/
You will have to add headers to the csv files.
2. Search for the Demographic profile (pdf format) from
http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/pct/pctProfile.pl
I found all the MSA data for VA through the search option.
Thanks
Nanda Srinivasan
>>> APICKARD(a)hrpdc.org 05/29/02 03:38PM >>>
Why is it that some of the 2000 Demographic Profile summaries currently
being released include summaries for metro areas in addition to
statewide summaries? As an example, Illinois includes summaries for the
state, Cook County, and Chicago City. Yet Georgia only includes a state
report (you might expect Atlanta to have a summary). I am specifically
interested in metro areas of Virginia. The web page I am referring to is
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/demoprofiles.html
Thanks for the help.
Andrew Pickard
Senior Transportation Engineer
Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
723 Woodlake Drive
Chesapeake, VA 23320
Phone: (757) 420-8300 Fax: (757) 523-4881
E-mail: apickard(a)hrpdc.org
Web: www.hrpdc.org
I would guess that you are not seeing a switch from transit to carpool --
but rather the effect of new growth in the suburbs, poor transit and more
carpooling, while the transit served areas may not have declined in
percentage use, but are a smaller part of your region.
The change on travel time is unusually large compared with previous 10-yr
periods (in most cities) - suggests a methodological problem, or change.
The larger increase in VMT is normal -- suburban growth - faster travel
means more distance (VMT) possible in the same time.
Keith Lawton
At 02:20 PM 5/28/02 -0500, Putta, Viplava wrote:
>In looking at the journey to work data at all three levels (place,
>county and MSA level) for the Tulsa MSA, in short we observed the
>following -
>
>1.
>A slight increase in commute time - between 7% & 8% from 1990 (as
>opposed to 16-20% increase in VMT over the same period).
>
>2.
>With regard to the mode of transportation - Carpool showed an increase
>over '90 levels (1.4%) and transit commute trips declined. Several
>cities we looked at for comparison purposes showed similar trend.
>
>3.
>Almost no increase in car ownership is also observed (percent households
>with 0, 1 and 2 plus cars remained same from 1990 to 2000).
>
>Possibly all of these are somewhat related - has anyone come up with
>this prediction with regard to an increase in carpooling over the past
>decade (any papers published or presented)? Is this a confirmed
>reversal in trend from 70s to 80s and 90s?
>
>I guess part of my question is to do with if transit's loss is carpools'
>gain?
>
>Viplav Putta
>Transportation Planning Division
>INCOG
