TO: CTPP listserv recipients:
Your IMMEDIATE help is needed!
At the meeting of our Transportation Research Board (TRB)
Subcommittee on Census Data for Transportation Planning (A1D08-1)
this past month, we discussed issues relating to keeping, deleting,
or adding new questions to the 2003-and-beyond versions of the
American Community Survey (ACS) questionnaire. As many of you are
aware, the ACS is intended as the eventual replacement to the
decennial census long form.
One of the census questions, that is being questioned (i.e.,
congressmen have apparently heard complaints that the question is
intrusive or threatening), is item #24a on the current long form:
"What time did this person usually leave home to go to work LAST
WEEK?" (Question #24b is "How many minutes did it usually take this
person to get from home to work LAST WEEK?")
The "time-of-departure" question first appeared on the 1990 Census
long form. The "work trip duration" question has been with us since
the 1980 Census.
The focus of our current inquiry is the time-of-departure question,
*NOT* the work trip duration question.
At our subcommittee meeting, I volunteered to assemble either a
"white paper," "discussion paper" or "point/counterpoint" discussion
on the use and value of the census time-of-departure question in
transportation planning.
Rather than clutter up this valuable listserv with detailed responses
to this issue, I would ask that folks "reply" to me
(cpurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov) and I will compile responses and re-send all
responses to this listserv (which may, in turn, set off a new round
of dialogue?) (Unsigned responses will be considered anonymous, if
you prefer.)
Questions regarding this "time-of-departure-from-home-to-work" are:
1. Who used this particular data from the 1990 Census, and how and
why it was used?
2. Are there questions that could be substituted that would be less
"intrusive" (e.g., time-of-arrival-at-work?)
3. What are the implications of deleting this question of
time-of-departure?
4. What other questions should be added (or deleted) to the American
Community Survey to meet the needs of transportation analysis?
(Generally I would prefer that we ask the last question -- new
questions to ask in the Upcoming Census -- at our typical mid-decade
Census-Transportation Conference that we've had in 1973, 1984, 1994
and 1996. This type of conference is very useful for face-to-face
discussions of census issues important to the transportation planning
& data community. We may agree or disagree on issues, but at least
we have a forum to discuss adding, deleting, or modifying census
questions in the hopes of gleaning better information.
Unfortunately, the tenor at the Census Bureau and Congress is
apparently towards restricting and constricting the ACS form, rather
than improving or expanding it. Content determination is based more
on politics and what's written into law rather than what's needed.
This is my perspective from way out here on the West Coast. End of
soapbox.)
I am uncertain when our subcommittee's "white paper" on this census
departure time question is needed. Our need is to provide this
information to our colleagues at the US Department of Transportation
and the Census Bureau to understand some of the voices of the
transportation community. I would hope to have this somewhat rushed
effort completed by 2/28/01.
MANY THANKS for your help in advance!
Chuck Purvis,
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
&
Chair, TRB Committee on Urban Transportation Data & Information
Systems.
*******************************************************
e-mail: cpurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov
Chuck Purvis, AICP
Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst, Planning Section
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street, Oakland, CA 94607-4700
(510) 464-7731 (voice) (510) 464-7848 (fax)
WWW: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
MTC DataMart: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/datamart/
MTC FTP Site: ftp://ftp.abag.ca.gov/pub/mtc/planning/
*******************************************************
Population totals by County and lower levels of geography will be released
during March in the Census 2000 Redistricting (Public Law 94- 171) Summary
Files. Data from these files will be available in the American FactFinder
on the Census Bureau's internet home page (www.census.gov). What you may
have seen on the home page are the population counts by State.
The Census 2000 Product Overview and Schedule
http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/products.html details when, and in what
format, the various data will be released.
If you have any questions on availability of Census 2000 data products,
please contact Customer Services at 301-457-4100.
Ian Millett
Geographic Areas Branch
Geography Division
US Census Bureau
"Gardner, John F"
<GardnerJF(a)dot.st To: "'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net'" <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>
ate.sc.us> cc:
Sent by: Subject: [CTPP] County Population totals for 2000
owner-ctpp-news(a)c
hrispy.net
02/14/2001 09:49
AM
Can anyone tell me where to find County population totals for 2000? Have
they been released yet? We've looked and can't find it on the census
website. I thought I had seen these numbers release.
I'm sure Jay found what he was looking for by now, but for anyone else
needing data for Census urbanized areas, it is available on the American
Factfinder. At the Factfinder main page, click on "Data Sets". Then choose
one of the Decennial Census data sets (of course, right now only the 1990
STF1 & STF3 are available). This brings up a window which allows you to see
a list of available tables or to enter the table number directly. The next
screen prompts for the geography. In the "Select the type of area" pulldown
menu, urbanized area is one of the choices. Hope this is helpful to someone.
Lori A. Kelsey
Transportation Planner
Kentuckiana Regional Planning & Development Agency (KIPDA)
11520 Commonwealth Drive
Louisville, Kentucky 40299
Phone: (502) 266-6084
Fax: (502) 266-5047
E-mail: Lori.Kelsey(a)mail.state.ky.us
Agency WWW site: http:\\www.kipda.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Hoekstra [SMTP:jhoek(a)gvmc.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 10:24 AM
> To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
> Subject: FW: [CTPP] population of urbanized area
>
> Here are some of the replies to my question about the source for the
> population of urbanized areas. These areas are not the standard
> metropolitan statistical areas, but the areas in and contiguous to cities
> where the population is 1000 people per square mile or more. (i hope that
> it is people not households). Sometimes it includes areas which are
> contiguous but do not have that population density, but are urbanized in
> other ways, for example an industrial district. And sometimes there may
> be
> a nearby noncontiguous area with that population density which is included
> also. We have an area like that in our metropolitan area. I am speaking
> from the memory of a generalist planner, so folks should check the
> official
> census definition which is fairly easy to find at the census website.
>
>
> STF1 has that data element. You were at the right place "census.gov".
> __________________________________________________________________________
>
> Please go to
> http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/ma99-03b.txt . The
> file shown can be down loaded to your disk.
> __________________________________________________________________________
> __
> __
> Jay -
>
> We eventually were able to track our urbanized area data through the
> Amercian Fact Finder site. The steps are not immediately obvious.
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> __
> _______
> Jay, try this site at Census.
> http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet
> __________________________________________________________________________
> __
> __
>
> STF1 has that data element. You were at the right place "census.gov".
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> __
> _
> Jay:
>
> The total population for the MSA is 688,399.
>
> The total population for the Grand Rapids Urbanized Area is 436,336.
>
> (I'm reading this from an old MTC publication based on the 8/16/91
> Census Bureau press release on Urbanized Area rankings. If I can
> find the e-versions of these old "Data Releases" I'll slap'em up on
> some web site. )
>
> Other data for all MSAs on my own web site at:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~clpurvis/metrodat/index.html
> http://home.earthlink.net/~clpurvis/metrodat/metroa1.htm
>
> Grand Rapids, MI MSA 688,399
> __________________________________________________________________________
> __
> _____
>
Can anyone tell me where to find County population totals for 2000? Have
they been released yet? We've looked and can't find it on the census
website. I thought I had seen these numbers released.
Here are some of the replies to my question about the source for the
population of urbanized areas. These areas are not the standard
metropolitan statistical areas, but the areas in and contiguous to cities
where the population is 1000 people per square mile or more. (i hope that
it is people not households). Sometimes it includes areas which are
contiguous but do not have that population density, but are urbanized in
other ways, for example an industrial district. And sometimes there may be
a nearby noncontiguous area with that population density which is included
also. We have an area like that in our metropolitan area. I am speaking
from the memory of a generalist planner, so folks should check the official
census definition which is fairly easy to find at the census website.
STF1 has that data element. You were at the right place "census.gov".
__________________________________________________________________________
Please go to
http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/ma99-03b.txt . The
file shown can be down loaded to your disk.
____________________________________________________________________________
__
Jay -
We eventually were able to track our urbanized area data through the
Amercian Fact Finder site. The steps are not immediately obvious.
____________________________________________________________________________
_______
Jay, try this site at Census.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet
____________________________________________________________________________
__
STF1 has that data element. You were at the right place "census.gov".
____________________________________________________________________________
_
Jay:
The total population for the MSA is 688,399.
The total population for the Grand Rapids Urbanized Area is 436,336.
(I'm reading this from an old MTC publication based on the 8/16/91
Census Bureau press release on Urbanized Area rankings. If I can
find the e-versions of these old "Data Releases" I'll slap'em up on
some web site. )
Other data for all MSAs on my own web site at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~clpurvis/metrodat/index.htmlhttp://home.earthlink.net/~clpurvis/metrodat/metroa1.htm
Grand Rapids, MI MSA 688,399
____________________________________________________________________________
_____
Someone asked me to forward to the listserv the responses I received to my
question. Thank you to you all for your many responses. I did receive the
exact number from some of you. Others suggested places at the census
website where I might find the number. I tried searching some of those but
still couldn't find it there. I will forward an agglomeration of some of
those suggestions next. Nevertheless the US Census provides. See the
attached excel file from Ryan Short which you may save for future reference.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Short [mailto:rshort(a)geo.census.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 2:36 PM
To: Valerie Murdock; Hoekstra, Jay
Subject: RE: [CTPP] population of urbanized area
I have enclosed an Excel spreadsheet that contains 1990 UA code, name,
population, area measurement, and population density figures. The Census
Bureau will be releasing its 2000 UA data in 2002.
-----Original Message-----
From: Valerie Murdock [mailto:vmurdock(a)geo.census.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 1:41 PM
To: jhoek(a)gvmc.org
Cc: Ryan L Short
Subject: RE: [CTPP] population of urbanized area
Jay,
I am forwarding your message to Ryan Short who is the UA person for
Geography Division. He will answer your question.
Thanks
Val Murdock
Geographic Areas Branch
Geography Division
Bureau of the Census
Washington, DC 20233
(301) 457-1099
vmurdock(a)geo.census.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net [mailto:owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net]On
Behalf Of Jay Hoekstra
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:07 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: [CTPP] population of urbanized area
I don't like to ask for information that I can find by just looking, but I
have looked all over the US Census web site and the BTS website for the -
population of urbanized areas, specifically the Grand Rapids, Michigan
urbanized area, 1990
But I cannot find it. Can anyone direct me to a source? Thanks. Jay
Hoekstra
I don't like to ask for information that I can find by just looking, but I
have looked all over the US Census web site and the BTS website for the -
population of urbanized areas, specifically the Grand Rapids, Michigan
urbanized area, 1990
But I cannot find it. Can anyone direct me to a source? Thanks. Jay
Hoekstra
Thank you all for your helpful answers, I have two or three exactly the
same answers and 6 references to sources. This is obviously the go to
listserv for tough census questions.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net [mailto:owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net]On
Behalf Of Jay Hoekstra
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:07 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: [CTPP] population of urbanized area
I don't like to ask for information that I can find by just looking, but I
have looked all over the US Census web site and the BTS website for the -
population of urbanized areas, specifically the Grand Rapids, Michigan
urbanized area, 1990
But I cannot find it. Can anyone direct me to a source? Thanks. Jay
Hoekstra
> Ed, I must admit I am a little confused. I thought the latest Supreme
> Court decision on this matter was that "sampling" (vs. counting) was
> not to be used in redistricting.
> What gives?
> bob
Bob--you are absolutely right. The Supreme Court found that sampling
could not be used in coming up with the total count of the population
for allocation of Congressional seats. That was already done. What was
left undecided was allowing the states to use adjusted counts for
figuring out their Congressional districts or for allocating money. Some
states I believe went ahead and passed their own laws and prohibited the
use of adjusted numbers for their own districts. I don't know off hand
which ones. Some others couldn't because their state laws had provisions
tied to civil rights laws that said the US Justice Department has to
review and rule on the action. The Justice Department has not made any
rulings until they see what undercounts might be. Virginia, I believe
is a state that has to wait for a Justice Department Ruling. They tried
to pass a law and I think someone took it to court. A much more detailed
explanation of the Virginia situation be found at
http://www.census2000.org/news/01/jan5.html
Some of the earlier newsletters on the census 2000 site get into more
detail than what I just tried to pull from my head. They are at
http://www.census2000.org/news/
Hope this helps to clarify what is getting to be a legally messy issue.
There are two articles on the back page of the February 8, 2001, Wall
Street Journal, worth looking at. They both deal with issues of
sampling and adjustments.
One is titled "Bush's Next Recount Battle: Should Census Tallies Be
Adjusted?. Below is a press release I receive relative to this article
from the Census 2000 group. The other article is titled "Asian
Americans Join Census Complaints, Calling for Adjustments via
'sampling'". If you have access to the Wall Street Journal give these
articles a look. (The Wall Street Journal is online at www.wsj.com
unfortunately you need an account to get to the back page articles.)
=================
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:35:48 -0500
From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org>
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE,
CONTACT: BEN CHEVAT, 202-225-7944
Maloney Slams Reports of White House "Private Promises" to Block use of
Accurate Census Data
NEW YORK, NY - After reading in the Wall Street Journal today that
President Bush has promised House Republicans that his administration
will block the use of corrected Census numbers in configuring
congressional districts throughout the country, Census Subcommittee
Ranking Member Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) released the following
statement:
The report states that Republicans on Capitol Hill insist, "The White
House has privately promised to block states from using sampled numbers
to redraw any of the nation's 435 congressional districts." In the
story, it was also reported that Missouri GOP Rep. Roy Blunt, Bush's
point person in Congress, went on to say he does "not believe there is
any reason," that the President would allow the use of "statistical
sampling," (WSJ, 02/08/01).
"If this report is true, President Bush is now in clear contradiction
with statements he made just days ago, when he told every Democratic
Member of Congress, in response to a question I posed on correcting the
Census undercount, 'I haven't been briefed on that,'" Maloney said
today. "When was the President briefed and when did he know it?"
Referring to the disenfranchisement of thousands of minority voters in
this fall's election in Florida, Maloney added, "This decision will make
Florida look like a case of petty theft."
"Even worse than the fact that millions of Americans must learn about
the Bush Administration's position on counting every American through
media reports of 'private promises,' is the fact that it has also now
been reported that the Bush team is relying on the counsel of top
Republican National Committee staff including 'redistricting guru' Tom
Hoffeler, in developing their Census strategy."
"President Bush's Republican Administration and colleagues are obviously
not worried about the consequences of deciding not to accurately count
America's historically undercounted Black, Hispanic, Asian and American
Indian populations, but I can guarantee they will be worried when
America's Black, Hispanic, Asian and American Indian populations learn
that the Bush Administration and their GOP cohorts have decided that
they don't count," Maloney concluded.
###
