Incoming query to CTPP:
1. The Size of TAZ : In your TAZ-UP manual(4-6) we have been told that "there
are no minimum size criteria for TAZs for CTPP 2000 . ... however, that census
data may be suppressed to protect confidentiality if a TAZ is too small."
What do you mean "too small"? Could your give us a number (or a range) of
RESIDENTS and WORKERS refers to this definition?
You provided us 1990 historical mean number/range for RESIDENTS and WORKERS
per TAZ. It seems that we have great flexibility to set our own criteria for
defining the size of TAZs for CTPP 2000.
To avoid possible problems caused by this ambiguity, we prefer to have a clear
criteria number or range from you.
Do you have any suggestion for us to dealing with those TAZs that
have mixed land use? Another words, if a TAZ has both RESIDENTS and WORKERS in
it, should we use RESIDENTS or WORKERS to define our TAZs?
-----------------
Response from Elaine Murakami, FHWA
The text on page 4-6 of the TAZ-UP manual is the best we can do. There is NO
strict criteria. What is NOT going to work is for each block to be it's own
TAZ. However, there are cases in large urban downtown areas where a large
building (let's say it has more than 1000 workers, but no residents) is one
block and it makes sense for this block to be its own TAZ.
There may be special situations where a TAZ has less than 400 workers or 400
residents, but we would use 400 as a target MINIMUM. Preferably, the minimum
should be closer to 600, since we are planning for the CTPP tabulations to
have 2-way and 3-way cross tabulations, and if there are too many cells in the
cross-tab, we will run into a greater likelihood that data could be
suppressed.
Areas with mixed land use, I would still use 400 as the minimum for either
workers or residents, that is, having 200 residents and 200 workers is still
going to cause a problem.
Incoming query to CTPP:
1. The Size of TAZ : In your TAZ-UP manual(4-6) we have been told that "there
are no minimum size criteria for TAZs for CTPP 2000 . ... however, that census
data may be suppressed to protect confidentiality if a TAZ is too small."
What do you mean "too small"? Could your give us a number (or a range) of
RESIDENTS and WORKERS refers to this definition?
You provided us 1990 historical mean number/range for RESIDENTS and WORKERS
per TAZ. It seems that we have great flexibility to set our own criteria for
defining the size of TAZs for CTPP 2000.
To avoid possible problems caused by this ambiguity, we prefer to have a clear
criteria number or range from you.
Do you have any suggestion for us to dealing with those TAZs that
have mixed land use? Another words, if a TAZ has both RESIDENTS and WORKERS in
it, should we use RESIDENTS or WORKERS to define our TAZs?
-----------------
Response from Elaine Murakami, FHWA
-------incoming query---------
We have updated the TAZ for our MPO area using Arc/Info and Tiger92 lines.
They don't exactly overlay the Tiger98 lines. Would ya'll mind if we just
sent you those polygons in Arc export format and skipped the TAZ-UP software
process?
----------RESPONSE------
Sorry. You MUST use TIGER/Line 98. CTPP is a CENSUS program, and we are
limited to using what the Census Bureau tells us. If you read the reference
section (pages 7-8), it tells you the "equivalency file" that the Census
Bureau needs--it requires the CENID and POLYID from TIGER/Line 98.
You can use ArcInfo, and bring in TIGER/Line 98, and write a lovely AML to do
the work for you. If you do this, please let others on the CTPP listserve
know. Maybe someone else can benefit ! You DO NOT HAVE TO USE TAZ-UP!!!!
Hello to all subscribers of ctpp-news.
My name is Nanda Srinivasan. I am trying to learn about the 2000 census
effort, particularly in relation to the Census Transportation Planning data.
I have a Masters in Transportation planning with two years of experience in
GIS issues.
I look forward to contributing to the on-going discussions regarding the
2000 CTPP.
Thank You
Nanda Srinivasan
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org>
Senate Funders Not Ready to Allocate Extra Money for Census
The Senate Appropriations Committee has declined to grant
the Administration's request for an additional $1.723
billion to implement its revised Census 2000 plan. At a
committee meeting yesterday, the panel allocated only $2.789
billion for census operations in fiscal year 2000 (FY2000),
which begins on October 1, instead of the $4.512 billion the
Administration now says it needs to conduct the decennial
count. In a report explaining the funding measure, the
committee said the 2000 census is still "at risk of
failure."
Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), who chairs the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, and the
Judiciary, said he would schedule hearings to review the
request for more census funds. The counterpart House
subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY), has not
announced its plans for considering the FY2000 funding
bill. In his government-wide budget submitted to Congress
last February, the President requested $2.789 billion for
the census in FY2000. The original request was developed
before a January Supreme Court ruling forced the Census
Bureau to drop one proposed use of statistical sampling, in
order to compile state population totals for congressional
apportionment without sampling methods.
The President sent a revised Census 2000 budget to Congress
earlier this week, asking for $4.512 billion to conduct the
census next year. The Census Bureau said much of the extra
money is needed to pay for the added cost of visiting all
households that do not mail back a census form. The Bureau
estimates it will need 860,000 temporary workers during peak
census operations. The follow-up operation is expected to
take about 10 weeks, four more than originally planned.
In its report, the Senate Appropriations Committee also
"directed" the Census Bureau to count all American citizens
living overseas in the 2000 census. However, House Census
Subcommittee Chairman Dan Miller (R-FL) said at a June 9
hearing of his panel that the Census Bureau should find a
way to include overseas Americans in the census starting in
2010. In addition to reviewing a proposal to count
Americans living abroad, the House subcommittee discussed
proposals to change the way military personnel stationed in
the U.S. and certain prisoners are counted. The Census 2000
Initiative will provide a more complete summary of the June
9 hearing next week.
Special News Alert update: We have updated the Special News
Alert on census jobs distributed on June 8, to reflect
recent changes to the Census Bureau's operational plan. The
updated version is posted on the home page of our Web site
at <http://www.census2000.org>.
Questions about the information contained in this News Alert
may be directed to TerriAnn Lowenthal at 202/484-2270 or, by
e-mail at terriann2k(a)aol.com. For copies of previous News
Alerts and other information, visit ourWeb site
www.census2000.org <http://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.
From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org>
Administration Spells Out Need for Extra Census Funds
As Senate Appropriators Meet to Consider Fiscal Year 2000 Request
President Clinton has sent to Congress specific proposals to revise his
original fiscal year 2000 (FY2000) budget request for the 2000 census
and several other federal programs. In a written statement, the
President said the Census Bureau needs $1.723 billion more than his
original request of $2.78 billion next year to count the population
without relying on statistical sampling. The President cited a January
Supreme Court ruling that federal law bars such methods for purposes of
congressional apportionment. The extra money brings the total FY2000
budget request for Census 2000 to $4.5 billion. The Senate
appropriations committee is scheduled to consider the funding bill
today.
The bulk of the extra $1.7 billion is needed for non-response follow-up,
when census enumerators visit households that don't mail back their
census forms. In order to comply with the Supreme Court decision,
enumerators must visit all 45 million households the Bureau estimates
will not mail back a questionnaire. The increased field workload will
cost an extra $1.45 billion. This amount includes money to hire more
temporary workers and extend their training; a recheck of an estimated
7.6 million housing units reported as vacant, as well interviews to
gather information missing from returned questionnaires; enhanced
procedures for counting people who have no usual residence at soup
kitchens and shelters; and a pre-census quality check of rural areas
without city-style addresses.
The additional funds also will cover more supplies, materials,
telephones, and other infrastructure needs to support a larger workforce
(+$234 million); keeping the four data processing centers open longer to
accommodate the expanded field operation (+$102 million); additional
advertising and promotion, including more materials for schools,
nonprofit groups, and local governments (+$88 million); and several
other new efforts to improve address lists and data collection. The
Bureau says it will save $214 million by reducing the size of the
post-census quality check survey (called the Accuracy and Coverage
Evaluation program) from 750,000 households under its original plan to
300,000 households.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), co-chair of the Congressional Census Caucus
and the senior Democrat on the House census oversight panel, said the
President's revised Census 2000 budget request represented a "true
lose-lose proposition." Taxpayers must pay more, she said, "for a less
accurate count."
Coincidentally, the President also asked for additional FY2000 funds for
several other programs covered under the same budget account that covers
the Census Bureau. The $2.5 billion worth of changes in the
Administration's total FY2000 budget request includes an extra $264
million for improved security at U.S. embassies overseas and $230 for
the Immigration and Naturalization Service's detention and deportation
program. The State Department and the Justice Department (which houses
the INS) must compete for funds against other activities covered under
the Commerce, Justice, and State, The Judiciary, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill. The Census Bureau is an agency of the Commerce
Department. The President proposed to pay for the $2.5 billion he
requested by accelerating a 1997 tax change affecting individuals with
annual incomes over $150,000 and by slowing federal payments to the
states for "welfare to work" programs.
Census Monitoring Board news: The Presidential appointees of the Census
Monitoring Board sent an interim report to Congress yesterday "that
documents significant bipartisan support throughout the country for the
Census Bureau's plan" to correct undercounts and overcounts using
statistical sampling methods, according to a press release announcing
the report. The three members who issued the document (there is one
vacancy on the panel's Presidential side) compiled letters from state
and local officials in support of the Bureau's plan to conduct a
300,000-household post-enumeration survey to account for people missed
in the direct count. The report will be available on the Presidential
members' Web site www.cmbp.gov <http://www.cmbp.gov> in the near future.
Meanwhile, Kenneth Blackwell, the Board's Republican co-chair, said he
would not step down from the Board despite his appointment as chairman
of Steve Forbes's campaign for the presidency. In a June 3 letter,
House Census Subcommittee Chairman Dan Miller (R-FL) asked Mr. Blackwell
to resign, saying he was concerned about "the appearance of
incompatibility of the two roles." Calling Mr. Blackwell "a rising
star in our party," Rep. Miller accused Democrats of "politiciz[ing] the
census at every opportunity." He distinguished Mr. Blackwell's new
campaign position from the appointment of the Board's former Democratic
co-chair, Tony Coelho, as general chairman of Vice President Albert
Gore's presidential campaign, since Mr. Coelho would be "running the
[Gore campaign's] day-to-day operations." Mr. Coelho resigned from the
Board last month. Rep. Miller said that his call for Mr. Blackwell's
resignation "has more to do with politics than reality" because
"Democrats will use [Mr. Blackwell's campaign position] as a political
weapon to distract the public from the real problems with the 2000
census."
In his reply of June 3, Mr. Blackwell said he "left politics at the
door" in carrying out his Monitoring Board duties, and noted that the
Board had issued a joint report to Congress last April. "[I]t would be
counter-productive for me to abandon the process," Mr. Blackwell wrote.
"I am uniquely positioned to address the principal problem that exists
in the 2000 Census - counting real people where they actually live."
Not satisfied with Mr. Blackwell's decision to remain on the Board, Rep.
Carolyn Maloney wrote to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) this week, urging them to seek
the co-chairman's resignation. Senator Lott appointed two of the
Monitoring Board's eight members; Rep. Hastert's predecessor, former
Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), also named two members. The President
appointed four members and must now fill the vacancy left by Mr.
Coelho's resignation.
Upcoming news: The House Subcommittee on the Census held a hearing
yesterday to review several proposals affecting the way prisoners,
members of the armed forces, and Americans living overseas are counted
in the census. Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R-NY) advocated a "sense of the
Congress" resolution in support of counting all Americans living
overseas. The Census Bureau plans to count members of the armed forces,
federal civilian employees, and their dependents stationed overseas at
their "home of record," as it did in 1990, for purposes of congressional
apportionment only. Subcommittee member Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) urged the
Bureau to count military personnel stationed in the U.S. at their "home
of record" (the place where the service member enlisted), as well, at
least for apportionment purposes. The Bureau counts military personnel
at the place where they usually live and sleep at the time of the census
(called "usual place of residence"), a long-standing policy that
determines where all persons are counted.
Rep. Mark Green (R-WI) urged the subcommittee to consider his bill (H.R.
1632) to require that inmates serving their time in an out-of-state
facility be counted as residents of the state that pays more than half
the cost of their incarceration. The Census 2000 Initiative will
provide a more complete summary of the proceedings next week. The
Initiative also will report on a Justice Department memorandum
concerning the effect of a provision in the 1996 immigration reform law
on the confidentiality of citizenship or immigration data collected in
the census. Prepared at the request of the Commerce Department's
general counsel, the analysis concludes that a provision of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 does not
override section 9(a) of the Census Act (title 13, United States Code),
which protects individual census responses from all other government
agencies, the courts, and private individuals.
Questions about the information contained in this News Alert may be
directed to TerriAnn 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
<http://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.
We now have two new documents online. The first is a PowerPoint
presentation with embedded speaker notes. It discusses the status of
CTPP 2000 planning efforts with a focus on the TAZ-UP process. The
presentation was put together as a means of training folks interested in
the CTPP and TAZ-UP process. It is a good overview for both technical
staff and managers responsible for CTPP activities. It can be reached
through the TRB Census Subcommittee's webpage or downloaded directly at
http://members.xoom.com/berwyned/ctpp/ctpp0699.ppt (note: it is just
under 0.5 megabytes.)
Kudos to Elaine Murakami (FHWA) and Clara Reschovsky (Census) for the
content and Kevin Cross (BTS) for the production as well as the CTPP
Planning Group for its review efforts.
The second document is the technical manual for the TAZ-UP software and
process. It can also be found on the TAZ-UP software CD-ROM. The
document is in PDF format and was prepared by Election Data Services,
the consultant who designed the TAZ-UP software. The document can be
found through the TRB Census Subcommittee s web site or downloaded
directly from http://members.xoom.com/berwyned/ctpp/tazupdoc.pdf (note:
it is 6.5 megabytes.)
Both document are under the Subcommittees web site at
http://www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census/
under the "Committee Notes and Articles" button. If you have any
problems downloading these let me know.
ed christopher
berwyned(a)mcs.com
202-366-0412
Sam Granato wrote:
I have a question regarding 2000 CTPP data for counties that go "unclaimed"
by both MPO's and states regarding zone boundaries. Will data for those
counties continue to be in the statewide CTPP at the same level of geography
as in 1990 (by place over 2,500 for employment, by township and place over
2,500 for residence data)? Or would there be changes?
Elaine's response:
Our current plan is to have pretty much the same geographic levels as in 1990
CTPP, with the addition of something called "statewide TAZ".
So, that means,
For "state" level CTPP there will be
State
Metro Area
County
Place
State TAZ: We are still (!) struggling with this geographic unit, because of
the need to develop a way to provide equivalencies of urban TAZs (or census
tracts) to statewide TAZs in the metropolitan portions of the states, and the
possibility of some counties being composed of mostly urban TAZs and some
statewide TAZs in outlying areas.
For "urban" level CTPP there will be:
Region
MSA
Urbanized Area
Study Area
County
CBD
TAZ OR
Region-State-County-MCD-Place-Tract OR
Region-State-County-MCD-Place-Tract-Block Group
Below, please find a list of counties in TIGER/Line 98 which have errors which
are currently being corrected by the Census Bureau.
If you are planning to use any of these counties in your TAZ definition,
please contact Jamie Rosenson or Valerie Murdock at the Census Bureau (emails
listed below), to have them send you a replacement TIGER file.
email:
vmurdock(a)geo.census.govjrosenson(a)geo.census.gov
Alaska
02050 Bethel
02070 Dillingham
02150 Kodiak
02185 North Slope
02232 Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon
Arkansas
05007 Benton
California
06003 Alpine
06013 Contra Costa
Colorado
08001 Adams
08005 Arapahoe
08031 Denver
Florida
12043 Glades
Georgia
13083 Dade
13089 DeKalb
Kentucky
21081 Grant
21191 Pendleton
Maine
23005 Cumberland
23013 Knox
Minnesota
27037 Dakota
27061 Itasca
27163 Washington
Missouri
29019 Boone
29027 Callaway
29073 Gasconade
Montana
30007 Broadwater
30031 Gallatin
30067 Park
Nevada
32031 Washoe
New Jersey
34011 Cumberland
34029 Ocean
North Carolina (note: I think I have given all the NC info to CB already)
37057 Davidson
37059 Davie
37067 Forsyth
37081 Guilford
37097 Iredell
37169 Stokes
37197 Yadkin
Ohio
39007 Ashtabula
39055 Geauga
Oklahoma
40027 Cleveland
Oregon
41043 Linn
Pennsylvania
42077 Lehigh
42079 Luzerne
42095 Northampton
42131 Wyoming
South Carolina
45047 Greenwood
45059 Laurens
Texas
48185 Grimes
48261 Kenedy
48409 San Patricio
Vermont
50021 Rutland
Virginia
51013 Arlington
51031 Campbell
51153 Prince William
51520 Bristol
51650 Hampton
51700 Newport News
51830 Williamsburg
Washington
53031 Jefferson
Puerto Rico
72054 Florida
