CTPP

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

3075 discussions

Re: [CTPP] Call for Beta Testers/Feedback on Census Bureau Options: 2020 Block Group/Tract Delineation Update

by Benjamin Gruswitz

Just a reminder to get your comments in by tomorrow if you would like to provide your feedback on the PSAP options described below. Thanks to all who've submitted comments so far! Again, you can see what others have submitted by submitting a blank form on your end. I believe we have 5-6 comments by this point. Ben *Ben Gruswitz, AICP *|* Senior Planner* Office of Long-Range Planning Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 190 N Independence Mall West, 8th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106-1520 215.238.2882 <http:/#> | bgruswitz(a)dvrpc.org <http:/#> www.dvrpc.org On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:50 PM Benjamin Gruswitz <bgruswitz(a)dvrpc.org> wrote: > All, > > > > Thank you to all who submitted comments seeking to update the rules for > block group and census tract delineation for the 2020 Census Participant > Statistical Areas Program (PSAP). The transportation planning community’s > submissions were substantial and the Census Bureau is interested in finding > a solution to our needs while working within their own limits to ensure > standards for survey data quality and privacy concerns. > > > > The Census Bureau has distilled comments relating to combining > residence-based and workplace-based delineations into three options and has > asked us to give feedback on how workable these options may be. Two of them > seem more plausible for the Census Bureau’s final ruling on 2020 PSAP > criteria, but may be more limiting than transportation planners would > desire. We are seeking people willing to test out these options with their > own geographies. We’d like to know whether one option is more workable or > preferable than the others--and why. Do some options work better for > single-use geographies but not as well for mixed-use? Do they work better > or worse than how your TAZs are currently delineated? > > > > We will use this survey form (https://goo.gl/forms/SgHrqne2NhGjUsEr2) to > collect comments about folks’ observations when testing the options. Time > is limited, as the Census Bureau has only this summer to finalize how PSAP > 2020 will work. *If you’re willing to test one or more of these options > in a sampling of your communities and workplaces, we must receive your > feedback by June 20.* If you’d like to view others’ comments before or > after submitting your own, scroll to the bottom (leaving the form blank) > and press submit. You will have the opportunity to see your own answers > after submitting and to revise your response, if desired. > > > > One of the key differences--highlighted in the options below--between the > needs of the ACS and the CTPP special tabulation is that the ACS does not > report workplace geography below county subdivision or census designated > place. CTPP will continue to seek workplace and journey-to-work flows by > tract--and in post 2020 releases--block group. It may be desirable for CTPP > data quality to see workplace-based geographies with employment counts high > enough to get a reasonable samples of workers at smaller geographies, but > the Census Bureau has no need for ACS reporting to see block groups meet a > minimum threshold of employment--especially when it comes from a local > source they have no way of verifying. In other words, the CTPP Oversight > Board’s recommended comments of a minimum threshold for employment for > block groups and tracts (on par with population minimum thresholds for > those geographies) may be good practice for delineating to get better > workplace data in the CTPP, but may not be necessary from the Census > Bureau’s perspective. > > > > Please try these criteria for delineation on your current geography and > add your comments to the google sheet > > > > *Option A: Employment thresholds where population or housing is not > present* > > This scenario gives priority to population or housing units for > delineating standard block groups (min: 600 people or 240 housing units; > max: 3000 people or 1200 housing units) and tracts (min: 1200 people or 480 > housing units; max: 8000 people or 3200 housing units). If an area was > devoid of population or housing, that area could be delineated by a minimum > threshold of 600 employees per block group and 1200 per tract. Special Use > block groups and tract criteria would stay the same (Within an urban area: > min. 1 square mile; Outside an urban area: min. 10 square miles). > > > > *Option B: Only need one threshold met--population, housing or employment* > > This scenario allows for some presence of population or housing that may > or may not meet a minimum threshold, as long as it meets an employment > minimum of 600 jobs in block groups or 1200 in tracts. Conversely, it > allows for population of 600-3000 in block groups or 1200-8000 in tracts > without meeting a 600 or 1200 job threshold, respectively. Special Use > block groups and tract criteria would stay the same. This is seen as a very > unlikely option from the Census point of view because it would degrade > resident sample sizes to a point where disclosure would be a real concern. > > > > *Option C: Special use block groups and tracts have no minimum area > criteria - no employment thresholds* > > Rather than seeking employment thresholds, removing the square mileage > criteria of the special use block groups and special use tracts would allow > agencies to define non-residential land in whatever way they want. If there > is no presence of population or housing units, non-residential land-uses > could be carved up by block group and tract boundary rules (see below info > on boundary rules below). Those concerned with achieving a minimum sample > size of workers at workplace may opt to consider employment counts while > delineating, but would not need to report this as justification for where > proposed tract and block group boundaries are delineated. Residential areas > would follow current standard block and standard tract population/housing > unit thresholds. > > > > *What PSAP guidance says on boundary line features:* > > For tracts, beyond using governmental (County, reservation or MCD [where > applicable]), or “permanent natural and constructed features, such as > roads, shorelines, rivers, perennial streams and canals, railroad tracks, > or above-ground high-tension power lines”, the federal register allows: > “boundaries of large parks, forests, airports, penitentiaries/prisons, > and/or military installations, provided the boundaries are clearly marked > or easily recognized in the field in imagery and on the ground.” Barring > all that, it says: “When acceptable visible and governmental boundary > features are not available for use as census tract boundaries, the Census > Bureau may, at its discretion, approve other nonstandard visible features, > such as major ridgelines, above-ground pipelines, intermittent streams, or > fence lines. The Census Bureau may also accept, on a case-by-case basis, > relatively short stretches of boundaries of selected nonstandard and > potentially nonvisible features, such as cadastral and parcel boundaries or > the straight-line extensions or other lines-of-sight between acceptable > visible features.” More details here: > https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/02/15/2018-02625/census-trac… > > > For block groups, the same can be said, with the addition that any block > group “nest” within its “parent” census tract. More details here: > https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/02/15/2018-02624/block-group… > > > We've very appreciative of any feedback you can give on this important > matter. Thank you in advance! > > *Ben Gruswitz, AICP *|* Senior Planner* > Office of Long-Range Planning > Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission > 190 N Independence Mall West, 8th Floor > Philadelphia, PA 19106-1520 > 215.238.2882 <http:/#> | bgruswitz(a)dvrpc.org <http:/#> > > www.dvrpc.org > >

7 years, 3 months

[CTPP] CTPP Data Conference Write-up

by Ed Christopher

Just released by the Transportation Research Board was the proceedings of a national conference on applying Census Data for Transportation Planning. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec233.pdf Last November, well over 100 transportation data users came together in Kansas City Missouri to share experiences with the use of Census data, including new techniques for integrating different data sets for use in transportation planning and decision making. The conference provided an opportunity for participants to discuss opportunities, limitations, and challenges involved in using Census data, data available from the private sector, and data from global positioning systems and other technologies. Finally, participants were able to discuss research and training needs associated with applying Census data and data from other sources to transportation planning and decision making. I encourage anyone with an interest in data and transportation planning to take a look at the conference proceedings. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec233.pdf -- Ed Christopher Transportation Planning Consultant 708-269-5237

7 years, 4 months

[CTPP] Call for Beta Testers/Feedback on Census Bureau Options: 2020 Block Group/Tract Delineation Update

by Benjamin Gruswitz

All, Thank you to all who submitted comments seeking to update the rules for block group and census tract delineation for the 2020 Census Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP). The transportation planning community’s submissions were substantial and the Census Bureau is interested in finding a solution to our needs while working within their own limits to ensure standards for survey data quality and privacy concerns. The Census Bureau has distilled comments relating to combining residence-based and workplace-based delineations into three options and has asked us to give feedback on how workable these options may be. Two of them seem more plausible for the Census Bureau’s final ruling on 2020 PSAP criteria, but may be more limiting than transportation planners would desire. We are seeking people willing to test out these options with their own geographies. We’d like to know whether one option is more workable or preferable than the others--and why. Do some options work better for single-use geographies but not as well for mixed-use? Do they work better or worse than how your TAZs are currently delineated? We will use this survey form (https://goo.gl/forms/SgHrqne2NhGjUsEr2) to collect comments about folks’ observations when testing the options. Time is limited, as the Census Bureau has only this summer to finalize how PSAP 2020 will work. *If you’re willing to test one or more of these options in a sampling of your communities and workplaces, we must receive your feedback by June 20.* If you’d like to view others’ comments before or after submitting your own, scroll to the bottom (leaving the form blank) and press submit. You will have the opportunity to see your own answers after submitting and to revise your response, if desired. One of the key differences--highlighted in the options below--between the needs of the ACS and the CTPP special tabulation is that the ACS does not report workplace geography below county subdivision or census designated place. CTPP will continue to seek workplace and journey-to-work flows by tract--and in post 2020 releases--block group. It may be desirable for CTPP data quality to see workplace-based geographies with employment counts high enough to get a reasonable samples of workers at smaller geographies, but the Census Bureau has no need for ACS reporting to see block groups meet a minimum threshold of employment--especially when it comes from a local source they have no way of verifying. In other words, the CTPP Oversight Board’s recommended comments of a minimum threshold for employment for block groups and tracts (on par with population minimum thresholds for those geographies) may be good practice for delineating to get better workplace data in the CTPP, but may not be necessary from the Census Bureau’s perspective. Please try these criteria for delineation on your current geography and add your comments to the google sheet *Option A: Employment thresholds where population or housing is not present* This scenario gives priority to population or housing units for delineating standard block groups (min: 600 people or 240 housing units; max: 3000 people or 1200 housing units) and tracts (min: 1200 people or 480 housing units; max: 8000 people or 3200 housing units). If an area was devoid of population or housing, that area could be delineated by a minimum threshold of 600 employees per block group and 1200 per tract. Special Use block groups and tract criteria would stay the same (Within an urban area: min. 1 square mile; Outside an urban area: min. 10 square miles). *Option B: Only need one threshold met--population, housing or employment* This scenario allows for some presence of population or housing that may or may not meet a minimum threshold, as long as it meets an employment minimum of 600 jobs in block groups or 1200 in tracts. Conversely, it allows for population of 600-3000 in block groups or 1200-8000 in tracts without meeting a 600 or 1200 job threshold, respectively. Special Use block groups and tract criteria would stay the same. This is seen as a very unlikely option from the Census point of view because it would degrade resident sample sizes to a point where disclosure would be a real concern. *Option C: Special use block groups and tracts have no minimum area criteria - no employment thresholds* Rather than seeking employment thresholds, removing the square mileage criteria of the special use block groups and special use tracts would allow agencies to define non-residential land in whatever way they want. If there is no presence of population or housing units, non-residential land-uses could be carved up by block group and tract boundary rules (see below info on boundary rules below). Those concerned with achieving a minimum sample size of workers at workplace may opt to consider employment counts while delineating, but would not need to report this as justification for where proposed tract and block group boundaries are delineated. Residential areas would follow current standard block and standard tract population/housing unit thresholds. *What PSAP guidance says on boundary line features:* For tracts, beyond using governmental (County, reservation or MCD [where applicable]), or “permanent natural and constructed features, such as roads, shorelines, rivers, perennial streams and canals, railroad tracks, or above-ground high-tension power lines”, the federal register allows: “boundaries of large parks, forests, airports, penitentiaries/prisons, and/or military installations, provided the boundaries are clearly marked or easily recognized in the field in imagery and on the ground.” Barring all that, it says: “When acceptable visible and governmental boundary features are not available for use as census tract boundaries, the Census Bureau may, at its discretion, approve other nonstandard visible features, such as major ridgelines, above-ground pipelines, intermittent streams, or fence lines. The Census Bureau may also accept, on a case-by-case basis, relatively short stretches of boundaries of selected nonstandard and potentially nonvisible features, such as cadastral and parcel boundaries or the straight-line extensions or other lines-of-sight between acceptable visible features.” More details here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/02/15/2018-02625/census-trac… For block groups, the same can be said, with the addition that any block group “nest” within its “parent” census tract. More details here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/02/15/2018-02624/block-group… We've very appreciative of any feedback you can give on this important matter. Thank you in advance! *Ben Gruswitz, AICP *|* Senior Planner* Office of Long-Range Planning Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 190 N Independence Mall West, 8th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106-1520 215.238.2882 <http:/#> | bgruswitz(a)dvrpc.org <http:/#> www.dvrpc.org

7 years, 4 months

Re: [CTPP] PSAP / TAZ Update from CTPP Oversight Board

by Michael R Ratcliffe

All, To clarify: The Census Bureau's initial contact regarding participation in the 2020 Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) has been to those organizations that were the primary participants in the 2010 PSAP, asking if they wanted to continue on as the primary participant for 2020. This helps facilitate continuity from one decade to another. If the 2010 participant accepts the invitation for 2020, then other interested groups and individuals are encouraged to work with and through the primary participant. If the 2010 participant declines for 2020, then we will be looking for another organization, within the same geographic area, with whom to partner for the 2020 PSAP review and update block groups, census tracts, census designated places, and (in selected states) census county divisions. At this time, geographers in the Census Bureau's Regional Census Centers are compiling the list of other groups that might be able to serve as a primary participant should the 2010 PSAP participant decline for 2020. Michael Ratcliffe Asst. Division Chief, Geographic Standards, Criteria, Research, and Quality Geography Division U.S. Census Bureau Office 301.763.8977 Cell 202.253.3449 Michael.r.ratcliffe(a)census.gov census.gov<http://www.census.gov/> Connect with us on Social Media<http://www.census.gov/about/contact-us/social_media.html> ________________________________ From: ctpp-news <ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net> on behalf of Patricia Becker <pbecker(a)umich.edu> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 3:33 PM To: ctpp Subject: Re: [CTPP] PSAP / TAZ Update from CTPP Oversight Board I believe the SDC leads/state demographers are compiling these lists for their states. I know they were asked to do so, and I had a conversation with Eric Guthrie here in Michigan about PSAP in the SEMCOG region. Patty Becker On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Tom Faella <tfaella(a)lacrossecounty.org<mailto:tfaella(a)lacrossecounty.org>> wrote: Good afternoon CTPP news participants, As a member of the CTPP Oversight Board, I’m sending you this update and invitation for you to contact one of your regional Census Bureau regional geographers if you would like to be invited to be a PSAP participant for your area: PSA / TAZ Update (State DOTs, MPOs and RPCs) In January the AASHTO CTPP Oversight Board implemented a policy change stating that Census Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) would no longer be part of any future special data tabulation data requests. Instead Census Block Groups would result in the smallest geographic level at which the data would be requested. To help MPOs and states align their planning zones with Census related geography those interested are strongly encouraged to participate in the Census program that allows users to work on the design of the small area geography in their area through the Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP). The Census Bureau is currently compiling its list of PSAP participants. To get on the list to be invited to be a participant, state DOTs and MPOs should contact their Census Bureau regional geographer and let them know that you want to be invited to participate and get on the invitation list. The effort, in most states is being led by the state’s Data Center and their affiliates so it is important for MPOs and state DOTs make sure they are included. To find out which Census Region you are in look here. https://www.census.gov/regions. At the end of this email is a list, by region of the Census geographers to contact. A copy and explanation of the Oversight Board TAZ policy can be found here. http://ctpp.transportation.org/Documents/CTPP%20Policy%20Change%20Announcem… In May a webinar was held for the transportation planning community explaining the policy and introducing the PSAP program. The recording of the webinar can be seen here. http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/Small-Geography-Data-Reporting-Webinar… First Name Last Name Region Title Email Cynthia Gillham New York Geographic Specialist cynthia.h.gillham(a)2020census.gov<mailto:cynthia.h.gillham(a)2020census.gov> William Adams New York Geographer william.w.adams(a)2020census.gov<mailto:william.w.adams(a)2020census.gov> Trent Berger New York Geographic Specialist trent.a.berger(a)2020census.gov<mailto:trent.a.berger(a)2020census.gov> Zoe Ritter New York Coordinator zoe.e.ritter(a)2020census.gov<mailto:zoe.e.ritter(a)2020census.gov> Robert Stabs Philadelphia Geographic Specialist robert.a.stabs(a)2020census.gov<mailto:robert.a.stabs(a)2020census.gov> Craig Best Chicago Geographer craig.duane.best(a)census.gov<mailto:craig.duane.best(a)census.gov> Linda Gray Chicago Geographer linda.k.gray(a)2020census.gov<mailto:linda.k.gray(a)2020census.gov> Cynthia Garlington Chicago Geographic Specialist cynthia.e.garlington(a)2020census.gov<mailto:cynthia.e.garlington(a)2020census.gov> James Coyle Chicago Geographic Specialist james.j.coyle(a)2020census.gov<mailto:james.j.coyle(a)2020census.gov> Noelle Thomas Chicago Geographer noelle.thomas(a)2020census.gov<mailto:noelle.thomas(a)2020census.gov> Mark Stevens Chicago Geographic Specialist mark.j.stevens(a)2020census.gov<mailto:mark.j.stevens(a)2020census.gov> David Cline Atlanta Geographer david.m.cline(a)census.gov<mailto:david.m.cline(a)census.gov> William Curry Atlanta Geographer william.i.curry.ii(a)2020census.gov<mailto:william.i.curry.ii(a)2020census.gov> Joanna Pitsikoulis Atlanta Geographer joanna.c.pitsikoulis(a)census.gov<mailto:joanna.c.pitsikoulis(a)census.gov> Elizabeth Vetter Atlanta Geographic Specialist elizabeth.vetter(a)2020census.gov<mailto:elizabeth.vetter(a)2020census.gov> Audrea Bailey Atlanta Geographic Specialist audrea.m.bailey(a)2020census.gov<mailto:audrea.m.bailey(a)2020census.gov> Dorothy McKinney Denver Geographic Specialist dorothy.a.mckinney(a)2020census.gov<mailto:dorothy.a.mckinney(a)2020census.gov> Richard Campbell Los Angeles Geographer richard.t.campbell(a)census.gov<mailto:richard.t.campbell(a)census.gov> Thank you, Tom Faella Executive Director, La Crosse Area Planning Committee (LAPC) La Crosse County Administrative Center 212 6th Street North, Room 1200 La Crosse, WI 54601 (608) 785-5977 www.LAPC.org<http://www.LAPC.org> tfaella(a)lacrossecounty.org<mailto:tfaella(a)lacrossecounty.org> PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL This e-mail and attachments are intended for the addressed recipient only. If you are not the correct recipient please notify the sender of the delivery error and delete this message. Improper disclosure, copying, distribution, retransmission, or use of information from this e-mail is Prohibited, and may result in liability and damages for misuse of this information. _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news -- Patricia C. (Patty) Becker APB Associates/Southeast Michigan Census Council (SEMCC) 28300 Franklin Rd, Southfield, MI 48034 office: 248-354-6520 home:248-355-2428 pbecker(a)umich.edu<mailto:pbecker(a)umich.edu>

7 years, 4 months

Re: [CTPP] PSAP / TAZ Update from CTPP Oversight Board

by Patricia Becker

I believe the SDC leads/state demographers are compiling these lists for their states. I know they were asked to do so, and I had a conversation with Eric Guthrie here in Michigan about PSAP in the SEMCOG region. Patty Becker On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Tom Faella <tfaella(a)lacrossecounty.org> wrote: > Good afternoon CTPP news participants, > > > > As a member of the CTPP Oversight Board, I’m sending you this update and > invitation for you to contact one of your regional Census Bureau regional > geographers if you would like to be invited to be a PSAP participant for > your area: > > > > PSA / TAZ Update (State DOTs, MPOs and RPCs) > > > > In January the AASHTO CTPP Oversight Board implemented a policy change > stating that Census Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) would no longer be part > of any future special data tabulation data requests. Instead Census Block > Groups would result in the smallest geographic level at which the data > would be requested. To help MPOs and states align their planning zones > with Census related geography those interested are strongly encouraged to > participate in the Census program that allows users to work on the design > of the small area geography in their area through the Participant > Statistical Areas Program (PSAP). > > > > The Census Bureau is currently compiling its list of PSAP participants. To > get on the list to be invited to be a participant, state DOTs and MPOs > should contact their Census Bureau regional geographer and let them know > that you want to be invited to participate and get on the invitation list. > The effort, in most states is being led by the state’s Data Center and > their affiliates so it is important for MPOs and state DOTs make sure they > are included. To find out which Census Region you are in look here. > https://www.census.gov/regions. At the end of this email is a list, by > region of the Census geographers to contact. > > > > A copy and explanation of the Oversight Board TAZ policy can be found here. > > http://ctpp.transportation.org/Documents/CTPP%20Policy% > 20Change%20Announcement%20Final2_22.pdf > > > > In May a webinar was held for the transportation planning community > explaining the policy and introducing the PSAP program. The recording of > the webinar can be seen here. http://ctpp.transportation. > org/Pages/Small-Geography-Data-Reporting-Webinar.aspx > > > > > > *First Name* > > *Last Name* > > *Region* > > *Title* > > *Email* > > Cynthia > > Gillham > > New York > > Geographic Specialist > > cynthia.h.gillham(a)2020census.gov > > William > > Adams > > New York > > Geographer > > william.w.adams(a)2020census.gov > > Trent > > Berger > > New York > > Geographic Specialist > > trent.a.berger(a)2020census.gov > > Zoe > > Ritter > > New York > > Coordinator > > zoe.e.ritter(a)2020census.gov > > Robert > > Stabs > > Philadelphia > > Geographic Specialist > > robert.a.stabs(a)2020census.gov > > Craig > > Best > > Chicago > > Geographer > > craig.duane.best(a)census.gov > > Linda > > Gray > > Chicago > > Geographer > > linda.k.gray(a)2020census.gov > > Cynthia > > Garlington > > Chicago > > Geographic Specialist > > cynthia.e.garlington(a)2020census.gov > > James > > Coyle > > Chicago > > Geographic Specialist > > james.j.coyle(a)2020census.gov > > Noelle > > Thomas > > Chicago > > Geographer > > noelle.thomas(a)2020census.gov > > Mark > > Stevens > > Chicago > > Geographic Specialist > > mark.j.stevens(a)2020census.gov > > David > > Cline > > Atlanta > > Geographer > > david.m.cline(a)census.gov > > William > > Curry > > Atlanta > > Geographer > > william.i.curry.ii(a)2020census.gov > > Joanna > > Pitsikoulis > > Atlanta > > Geographer > > joanna.c.pitsikoulis(a)census.gov > > Elizabeth > > Vetter > > Atlanta > > Geographic Specialist > > elizabeth.vetter(a)2020census.gov > > Audrea > > Bailey > > Atlanta > > Geographic Specialist > > audrea.m.bailey(a)2020census.gov > > Dorothy > > McKinney > > Denver > > Geographic Specialist > > dorothy.a.mckinney(a)2020census.gov > > Richard > > Campbell > > Los Angeles > > Geographer > > richard.t.campbell(a)census.gov > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > *Tom Faella* > Executive Director, La Crosse Area Planning Committee (LAPC) > > La Crosse County Administrative Center > 212 6th Street North, Room 1200 > La Crosse, WI 54601 > (608) 785-5977 > www.LAPC.org tfaella(a)lacrossecounty.org > > > > > > PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL > This e-mail and attachments are intended for the addressed recipient only. > If you are not the correct recipient please notify the sender of the delivery error and delete this message. Improper disclosure, copying, distribution, retransmission, or use of information from this e-mail is Prohibited, and may result in liability and damages for misuse of this information. > > > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news > > -- Patricia C. (Patty) Becker APB Associates/Southeast Michigan Census Council (SEMCC) 28300 Franklin Rd, Southfield, MI 48034 office: 248-354-6520 home:248-355-2428 pbecker(a)umich.edu

7 years, 4 months

[CTPP] PSAP / TAZ Update from CTPP Oversight Board

by Tom Faella

Good afternoon CTPP news participants, As a member of the CTPP Oversight Board, I'm sending you this update and invitation for you to contact one of your regional Census Bureau regional geographers if you would like to be invited to be a PSAP participant for your area: PSA / TAZ Update (State DOTs, MPOs and RPCs) In January the AASHTO CTPP Oversight Board implemented a policy change stating that Census Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) would no longer be part of any future special data tabulation data requests. Instead Census Block Groups would result in the smallest geographic level at which the data would be requested. To help MPOs and states align their planning zones with Census related geography those interested are strongly encouraged to participate in the Census program that allows users to work on the design of the small area geography in their area through the Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP). The Census Bureau is currently compiling its list of PSAP participants. To get on the list to be invited to be a participant, state DOTs and MPOs should contact their Census Bureau regional geographer and let them know that you want to be invited to participate and get on the invitation list. The effort, in most states is being led by the state's Data Center and their affiliates so it is important for MPOs and state DOTs make sure they are included. To find out which Census Region you are in look here. https://www.census.gov/regions. At the end of this email is a list, by region of the Census geographers to contact. A copy and explanation of the Oversight Board TAZ policy can be found here. http://ctpp.transportation.org/Documents/CTPP%20Policy%20Change%20Announcem… In May a webinar was held for the transportation planning community explaining the policy and introducing the PSAP program. The recording of the webinar can be seen here. http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/Small-Geography-Data-Reporting-Webinar… First Name Last Name Region Title Email Cynthia Gillham New York Geographic Specialist cynthia.h.gillham(a)2020census.gov<mailto:cynthia.h.gillham(a)2020census.gov> William Adams New York Geographer william.w.adams(a)2020census.gov<mailto:william.w.adams(a)2020census.gov> Trent Berger New York Geographic Specialist trent.a.berger(a)2020census.gov<mailto:trent.a.berger(a)2020census.gov> Zoe Ritter New York Coordinator zoe.e.ritter(a)2020census.gov<mailto:zoe.e.ritter(a)2020census.gov> Robert Stabs Philadelphia Geographic Specialist robert.a.stabs(a)2020census.gov<mailto:robert.a.stabs(a)2020census.gov> Craig Best Chicago Geographer craig.duane.best(a)census.gov<mailto:craig.duane.best(a)census.gov> Linda Gray Chicago Geographer linda.k.gray(a)2020census.gov<mailto:linda.k.gray(a)2020census.gov> Cynthia Garlington Chicago Geographic Specialist cynthia.e.garlington(a)2020census.gov<mailto:cynthia.e.garlington(a)2020census.gov> James Coyle Chicago Geographic Specialist james.j.coyle(a)2020census.gov<mailto:james.j.coyle(a)2020census.gov> Noelle Thomas Chicago Geographer noelle.thomas(a)2020census.gov<mailto:noelle.thomas(a)2020census.gov> Mark Stevens Chicago Geographic Specialist mark.j.stevens(a)2020census.gov<mailto:mark.j.stevens(a)2020census.gov> David Cline Atlanta Geographer david.m.cline(a)census.gov<mailto:david.m.cline(a)census.gov> William Curry Atlanta Geographer william.i.curry.ii(a)2020census.gov<mailto:william.i.curry.ii(a)2020census.gov> Joanna Pitsikoulis Atlanta Geographer joanna.c.pitsikoulis(a)census.gov<mailto:joanna.c.pitsikoulis(a)census.gov> Elizabeth Vetter Atlanta Geographic Specialist elizabeth.vetter(a)2020census.gov<mailto:elizabeth.vetter(a)2020census.gov> Audrea Bailey Atlanta Geographic Specialist audrea.m.bailey(a)2020census.gov<mailto:audrea.m.bailey(a)2020census.gov> Dorothy McKinney Denver Geographic Specialist dorothy.a.mckinney(a)2020census.gov<mailto:dorothy.a.mckinney(a)2020census.gov> Richard Campbell Los Angeles Geographer richard.t.campbell(a)census.gov<mailto:richard.t.campbell(a)census.gov> Thank you, Tom Faella Executive Director, La Crosse Area Planning Committee (LAPC) La Crosse County Administrative Center 212 6th Street North, Room 1200 La Crosse, WI 54601 (608) 785-5977 www.LAPC.org tfaella(a)lacrossecounty.org<mailto:tfaella(a)lacrossecounty.org> PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL This e-mail and attachments are intended for the addressed recipient only. If you are not the correct recipient please notify the sender of the delivery error and delete this message. Improper disclosure, copying, distribution, retransmission, or use of information from this e-mail is Prohibited, and may result in liability and damages for misuse of this information.

7 years, 4 months

[CTPP] personal income of persons-who-bike-to-work

by Rob Case

We're looking for PERSONAL income (not HOUSEHOLD income) of persons who bike to work. NHTS and Census apparently only have household income. Any idea where to look for this? Rob Case

7 years, 4 months

[CTPP] Job Posting

by Kara Greathouse

The Regional Intergovernmental Council (RIC) is accepting resumes for the position of Senior Transportation Planner. Applicants should be committed to public service and have a strong interest in research, data management, and transportation finance and programming. This position works with a variety of federal, state and local partners. The primary responsibility of this position will be maintaining and updating the region's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the work program of federally funded and regionally significant multimodal transportation projects. The person in this position will also play a significant role in the development of performance measures, grants management, and data management. The successful applicant must have strong written and oral communication skills, computer skills, computerized mapping skills, be detail oriented, and excellent at managing multiple projects. A Bachelor's Degree in planning, public service, geography, environmental sciences, or related field is preferred, but not required. Salary is commensurate with education and experience. Letters of interest and resumes should be submitted to Colt Sandoro, Executive Director at 315 D Street, South Charleston, WV 25303 or colt(a)wvregion3.org<mailto:colt(a)wvregion3.org>, no later than 4:00 p.m. May 25, 2018. The Regional Intergovernmental Council is an Equal Opportunity Employer, and does not discriminate based on race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, age, disability, political affiliation, color, marital status, sexual orientation, economic status or any other characteristic protected by law. Kara Greathouse Planning Director [Signature work-05_gold] 315 D Street . South Charleston, WV 25303 P:304-744-4258 F:304-744-2534 [facebook]<https://www.facebook.com/WVregion3/> [twitter] <https://twitter.com/WVregion3> www.wvregion3.org

7 years, 4 months

[CTPP] Senior Planner/Planning Analyst Posting for travel forecasting/data, at Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities

by Graham

Senior Planner/Planning Analyst Posting for travel forecasting/data, at Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities is seeking a Senior Planner/Planning Analyst position for travel behavior research and transportation forecasting. The application deadline is May 30. Please share in your networks. https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/metrocouncil/jobs/2071273/senior-pla… About us: We are the Metropolitan Council, the regional government for the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area. We plan 30 years ahead for the future of the metropolitan area and provide regional transportation, wastewater, and housing services. http://metrocouncil.org/About-Us/The-Council-Who-We-Are.aspx<http://about%20the%20metropolitan%20council/> We are committed to supporting a diverse workforce that reflects the communities we serve. About the Position: The Metropolitan Council is accepting applications for a Senior Planner OR a Planning Analyst (depending on qualifications) who will support transportation planning in the Minneapolis and St. Paul region through production of quality travel demand forecasts, supporting the development and update of travel demand forecasting models and tools, and through analysis of a variety of transportation data sources. There may be occasional travel within the Twin Cities metro, or from one Council site to another for business purposes. Full Salary Range for Senior Planner: $70,304 - $99,757 Full Salary Range for Planning Analyst: $76,024 - $107,848 Salary is based on the selected candidate's qualifications, our total compensation package, and internal pay structure. About the Division: Metropolitan Transportation Services conducts planning for the regional transportation system that includes highways, transit, aviation, freight, and bicycle and pedestrian connections. The Transportation Planning and Finance Team performs transportation planning for the region under the Council's role as the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization in the region. This work unit develops and implements the region's Transportation Policy Plan, Transportation Improvement Program, and Unified Planning Work Program. What you would do in this job: * Develop and update regional travel forecast models. * Prepare transportation forecasts as needed using regional model, other models, and available data to support comprehensive, regional, and corridor transportation planning. * Coordinate subcommittees as needed to ensure a coordinated, comprehensive, and inclusive planning process. * Analyze transportation data (including "big data") to support transportation planning and research. * Develop scopes of work for various levels of projects and guidance documents and manage assigned projects. * May oversee the work of planning staff, technicians, and student interns on project basis. * Serve as a transportation forecast and data resource and liaison to planners at the Council and around the region. https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/metrocouncil/jobs/2071273/senior-pla… PS: Metropolitan Council and MetroTransit also have a couple Data Scientist positions that are open now or soon will be. Check that same governmentjobs.com portal if interested. Regards, Todd Graham Metropolitan Council | Regional Policy and Research

7 years, 4 months

[CTPP] Reminder: Comment period for small geography closes May 16

by Weinberger Penelope

Hi All, A friendly reminder that the comment period for the federal register notice closes May 16th Please head on over to https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/02/15 to review the proposed criteria and submit your comments. Comments can be emailed to geo.psap.list(a)census.gov<mailto:geo.psap.list(a)census.gov> The CTPP shall submit the following comments for "Block Groups for the 2020 Census-Proposed Criteria" (83 FR 6937) and "Census Tracts for the 2020 Census-Proposed Criteria" (83 FR 6941): The Census Bureau should * Determine minimum employment thresholds needed to have an equivalent level of sampling validity as population thresholds have for both the block group and census tract levels; * If population sample size requirements are a reasonable sample size proxy for employment sample size needs, the minimum employment thresholds could be the same thresholds as population: block group - 600; census tract - 1,200; * Have no maximum employment threshold; * Add these employment thresholds as alternative criteria of the standard block group type or census tract type; * Allow PSAP participants to use their own local employment data to justify delineating within these thresholds; * Allow employment number to be reflective of 2010 to current year data, or projections for growth by approximately 2020. To review the policy change announcement referenced in the email below, go to: http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/Policy-Change-on-Small-Geography.aspx From: ctpp-news [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Weinberger Penelope Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 3:20 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Subject: [CTPP] CTPP Policy changes on small geography Importance: High Hello CTPP! The Census bureau has proposed criteria for geography for the 2020 census in the Federal Register. The criteria is open for comment until May 16, 2018. Click here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/02/15 and scroll to Census Bureau for the proposed criteria most relevant to you! (Census Block Groups, Census County Divisions and Equivalent Entities, Census Designated Places, and Census Tracts). The CTPP oversight board strongly urges you to read the notices, respond as appropriate, and get involved in the Participant Statistical Areas Process (PSAP), as custom small geography in the CTPP tabulation will be discontinued after the next tab. Please see attached memo. For info and updates visit: http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/Policy-Change-on-Small-Geography.aspx Penelope Weinberger Transportation Data Program Manager AASHTO

7 years, 5 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