January 25, 1999
SUPREME COURT DECISION ON CENSUS IS ISSUED TODAY
The Supreme Court today ruled 5-4 against the use of
statistical sampling for narrow purposes of reapportionment,
the distribution of seats in the U.S. House of
Representatives among the states. But the Court noted that
the Census Act as amended "now requires the Secretary to use
statistical sampling in assembling the myriad demographic
data that are collected in connection with the decennial
census." (p. 21)
The full text of the Court's ruling in Department of
Commerce v. House of Representatives can be found on the
World Wide Web at
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-404.ZS.html
Further information and reactions will be released as they
become available with a full News Alert later today.
Census Bureau Releases Dress Rehearsal Results
Plan for Census without Sampling Sent to Congress
The Census Bureau released the first set of population
counts from its Census Dress Rehearsal conducted last year
in Sacramento, CA; Columbia, SC, and surrounding areas; and
the Menominee American Indian Reservation, WI. Following
the schedule required by law for the decennial census, the
Bureau published totals for each of the sites within nine
months of the dress rehearsal Census Day in late April.
More detailed population numbers and related socio-economic
information will be available later this year.
The population of Sacramento, where the Bureau executed its
original Census 2000 plan that includes sampling and
statistical methods, was 403,313. The Bureau also reported
that without the use of sampling methods, the count would
have been 349,197 (a difference of 54,116). The quality
check survey (called a post enumeration survey, or PES)
measured a net undercount of 6.3 percent, or 25,572 people,
which was corrected with scientific techniques to reach the
final count. Other uses of sampling and statistical
estimation added 28,544 (7.1 percent of the citys total
population) to the count, as well. The Bureaus 1998
funding bill included a provision sought by sampling
opponents that requires the agency to publish at least two
sets of census counts, produced with and without the use of
statistical methods.
The Bureau also implemented its original census plan in
Menominee County, WI, home to an American Indian reservation
of the same name. The site-level count was 4,738, 3.0
percent (or 143 people) more than the 4,595 people counted
without using statistical methods. The Bureau plans to
visit all unresponsive households on Indian reservations,
instead of conducting follow-up visits on a sample basis,
but it will conduct the quality check survey in these areas
in order to adjust for undercounts. According to the PES
conducted in 1990, that census missed more than 12 percent
of American Indians living on reservations.
In the Columbia, SC, area, the Bureau conducted the dress
rehearsal using only traditional census methods and reported
a population total of 662,140. The Bureau administered a
post-census survey to measure accuracy but has not yet
reported the results of that quality check.
More information about the dress rehearsal is available on
the Bureaus web site, at
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/date.html.
"Traditional" census plan released: The Census Bureau has
sent to Congress a plan for the 2000 census that does not
include sampling and statistical methods to finish the count
of unresponsive households or to correct undercount and
overcounts measured by a post-census survey. The plan is
based on four broad strategies, three of which mirror the
strategies developed for the original census design that
includes some sampling: building partnerships, simplifying
the census process, and using state-of-the-art technology to
improve efficiency and accuracy. The fourth strategy
using "special techniques to improve coverage" replaces
"us[ing] statistical methods" in the original plan.
The Bureau has been preparing to implement two census plans
since the fall of 1998, when Congress tacked such a
requirement onto the agencys annual funding bill. In its
"traditional" census plan, the Bureau says that improvements
to the 1990 census design will "enhance the quality of
Census 2000". However, it also concludes that, "consistent
with the judgements of most other experts in this area, [a]
census using statistical methods would be more accurate
generally, succeed in reducing the differential undercount
of minorities and children, and be more cost-effective than
the alternative."
The traditional plan calls for expanded operations
associated with the direct counting effort, such as opening
more local census offices (520 v. 476 under the original
plan) and hiring more enumerators (not quantified in new
plan). More enumerators will be needed to follow-up with
all households, not just a sample, which do not respond by
mail. Enumerators also will visit all housing units
identified as vacant or nonexistent by the Postal Service,
instead of the sample follow-up originally planned. And
instead of a quality check survey to provide the basis for
correcting undercounts and overcounts using statistical
methods, the Bureau will employ "coverage improvement"
operations to try and increase accuracy. After the
follow-up phase is completed, census workers will
double-check housing units that were listed as vacant by
enumerators on a previous visit, but which did not have an
undeliverable postal address. They also will visit all
households for which a questionnaire returned by mail was
not filled out or was subsequently lost. The alternative
plan includes a post enumeration survey to measure the
accuracy of the counts, but those results will not be used
to correct the official figures.
The Bureau also has decided to accept census responses via
the Internet, regardless of the final census design. This
option will be available only for households receiving the
short form (respondents must provide an identification
number printed on the form they receive at home) and only in
English.
The Bureau noted that its "Census 2000 Operational Plan
Using Traditional Census-Taking Methods" may change as a
result of congressional funding decisions or evaluations of
last years dress rehearsal. The original Census 2000
plan, unveiled in February 1996, has also been modified over
time based on recommendations from the Bureaus advisory
committees and outside evaluators such as the Commerce
Departments Inspector General and National Academy of
Sciences panels.
Congressional field hearings continue: The House Committee
on Government Reform will hold a field hearing in Phoenix,
AZ, on January 29, to examine "community based approaches
for a better enumeration." A primary focus will be efforts
to improve the count of American Indians living on
reservations. According to the post-enumeration survey
conducted as part of the 1990 census, the undercount for
this population was over 12 percent. The hearing will be
held in the Phoenix City Council Chambers, 200 West
Jefferson St., starting at 2:00 p.m. The panels census
subcommittee held its first field hearing in Miami last
December. (The committee has not formally organized its
subcommittees for the 106th Congress.)
Congressional committee assignments: The House and Senate
continue to fill seats on committees and subcommittees that
oversee and fund the census. Because of space
considerations, we will provide that information in a
separate News Alert later this week.
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>. Please direct all
requests to receive News Alerts, and all changes in
address/phone/fax/e-mail, to Census 2000 at
<Census2000(a)ccmc.org> or 202/326-8700. Please feel free to
circulate this information to colleagues and other
interested individuals.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999
From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org>
Changes in House Leadership May Affect Census Oversight;
Census Subcommittee Given Reprieve
Also: What's In Store for 1999?
The recent changes in the Republican leadership of the U.S.
House of Representatives could affect Congressional
monitoring of final preparations for the 2000 census. With
the ascension of Rep. J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) to the
Speaker's position, plans to shift oversight of the census
to an internal watchdog committee have been scrapped. (See
December14, 1998 News Alert for background.) Instead, the
Subcommittee on the Census will continue its work as part of
the renamed Committee on Government Reform (previously the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight). Rep. Dan
Miller (R-FL) and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) are expected
to continue as the subcommittee's chairman and ranking
minority member, respectively, but Republicans have proposed
reducing the panel's membership to four Republicans and two
Democrats, down from a 5 - 3 split last year. Final
decisions on the subcommittee's structure and membership
will be made when the full committee holds its
organizational meeting.
Hastert, a member of the census subcommittee when it was
created a year ago, was sworn-in as Speaker when the 106th
Congress convened yesterday. The new Speaker also chaired
the House panel overseeing the census in 1997. He has been
a strong critic of the Census Bureau's plan to use
statistical sampling methods in the 2000 census and has
raised concerns about the effect of the census long form on
response rates.
Looking ahead in 1999: As the Census Bureau makes final
preparations for the 2000 census, here are some key
activities and decisions that stakeholders can expect in the
coming months:
* Census budget: The President will submit
his budget request for Fiscal Year 2000 to Congress in early
February. The Census Bureau's original plan calls for
about $2.1 billion for census operations next year.
Congress and the President also must agree on how the Census
Bureau can spend the remainder of this year's $1.027
allocation after June 15, 1999, the deadline set for a final
decision on the use of sampling.
* Congressional oversight: The House and
Senate committees responsible for overseeing census
activities must still reorganize for the new Congress. The
House Subcommittee on the Census has announced tentative
plans for a field hearing in Phoenix, AZ, in late January.
* Legal challenges to sampling: The Supreme
Court is expected to issue a decision in the spring in two
cases challenging the use of sampling in the census. The
plaintiffs in U.S. House of Representatives v. U.S.
Department of Commerce and Glavin v. Clinton contend that
the Census Act and the Constitution prohibit sampling to
determine the State population totals used to apportion
seats in Congress. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments
in both cases on November 30.
* Advisory committees: The 2000 Census
Advisory Committee to the Secretary of Commerce will issue
its final report in mid-February. The report is expected to
include recommendations on the outreach and promotion
campaign, hiring efforts, and the use of sampling to
supplement traditional counting methods.
* Census Monitoring Board: The Board has not
yet announced plans for future meetings or hearings. By
law, it must submit reports to Congress by February 1 and
April 1, 1999, and semi-annually thereafter until its sunset
in September 2001.
* National Academy of Sciences panels: The
Panel to Evaluate Alternative Census Methodologies, chaired
by Dr. Keith Rust of Westat, Inc., is expected to issue its
final report in a month or so. The new Panel to Review the
2000 Census, chaired by former Bureau of Labor Statistics
Commissioner Janet Norwood, will continue to monitor and
evaluate final design decisions and implementation.
* Race and ethnic data: The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) is expected by March to issue
draft guidelines for tabulating multiple responses to the
question about race in the census and other federal
surveys. OMB revised the official standards for collecting
racial data in October 1997, allowing respondents to report
more than one race but rejecting a proposal to add a new
"multiracial" category.
Congressional hearings (continued): In the final News Alert
of 1998, we provided an initial report on the House census
subcommittee's first field hearing, held in Miami on
December 10. Local officials and community-based
organizations also made the following recommendations to
improve the census process in their testimony before the
panel.
Rep. Carrie P. Meek (D-FL) urged passage of legislation she
introduced in the last Congress to allow recipients of
Federal benefits or pensions to work in temporary census
positions without losing their benefits as a result of the
income they earn in those jobs. Other witnesses
representing historically hard-to-count populations endorsed
Rep. Meek's proposal as a way to promote the hiring of
enumerators who live in the neighborhoods they will
canvass. Many of the witnesses noted that immigrants, who
make up a majority of the Miami area's population, are more
likely to fear giving information about themselves to the
government. They urged the Census Bureau to stress the
confidentiality of census responses in its promotional
campaign.
The Alliance for Aging, Inc. noted that non-traditional
housing arrangements may result in an undercount of
low-income elderly people. A leader in South Florida's large
Haitian-American community cited fear of government
authorities, overcrowded housing conditions, and lack of
English proficiency as significant factors that contributed
to an undercount of Haitians in 1990. This witness
emphasized the need for educational materials in Creole and
Spanish, the importance of hiring enumerators who speak
Creole and are trusted in the community, and the allocation
of funds to begin census outreach efforts in 1999.
Nearly all of the witnesses said that despite their
recommendations for improved outreach and operational
enhancements, they support the use of scientific sampling to
reduce the disproportionate undercount of minorities and the
poor. Rep. Meek called a census design that doesn't include
sampling "a rickety, out-dated, baroquely complex approach
to counting people door-to-door." However, Dario Moreno,
Associate Professor of Political Science at Florida
International University, said that statistical methods
could invite "politicization" of the results by ignoring
local demographic differences in designing the sample to
measure the undercount. He urged the Census Bureau to work
closely with local organizations that serve immigrants and
undertake a "massive foreign-language public education
program" as a way to reduce the undercount.
Media watch: On January 11, National Public Radio will
broadcast a live interview with Census Bureau Director
Kenneth Prewitt on the Diane Rehm Show. The program is
broadcast weekdays at 10:00 a.m. EST from WAMU/88.5 FM in
Washington, D.C., and is carried on many NPR stations across
the country (see the WAMU web site for a list of stations).
Dr. Prewitt will discuss current issues related to the 2000
census. Listeners may call 1-800-433-8850 to ask questions
or comment during the program.
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>. Please direct all
requests to receive News Alerts, and all changes in
address/phone/fax/e-mail, to Census 2000 at
<Census2000(a)ccmc.org> or 202/326-8700. Please feel free to
circulate this information to colleagues and other
interested individuals.
2nd Annual ESRI Federal User Group Meeting
Call for Presentations
April 29-30, 1999
National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
YOU MAKE IT HAPPEN!
An important component of a user group meeting is the exchange of
information among users. Many years of GIS experience are collectively
shared and disseminated through presentations for users by other users.
The 1999 ESRI Federal User Group Meeting is a unique opportunity for you
to meet with other ESRI federal users to discuss important issues and
exchange information on how GIS technology can help solve complex problems
within your industry.
We would like to invite you to share your GIS project or application. If
you are interested in giving a presentation or demonstration of your
federal GIS project or application, please send us the information listed
below via e-mail to dpaxson(a)esri.com <mailto:dpaxson(a)esri.com> or FAX to
909-307-3074 to Dana Paxson, no later than Friday, February 5, 1999.
Name:
Organization:
Phone:
FAX:
E-mail:
Presentation Description:
More details on the meeting will follow in the next month. We look forward
to seeing you in Washington, D.C.!
Todd Rogers
Federal Business Development
<mailto:Trogers(a)esri.com> Trogers(a)esri.com
2070 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 180
Vienna, VA 22182-2536
Tel 703-506-9515 Fax 703-506-9514
Nathan and the CTPP newsgroup:
A few comments on Nathan's 12/9/98 posting.
First, we hear what you are saying, Nathan, regarding your interest in
NYSDOT in getting block group data, over and above what the MPOs receive.
We are trying to see how we might accomodate this; we'll keep everyone
posted through this newsgroup on the progress.
Secondly, however, I have to point out that a number of the assumptions you
have regarding the production of the CTPP and its relation to STF3 are just
plain wrong. The CTPP is --NOT--repeat NOT-- part of STF3. The CTPP is
programmed by a different group of people, at a different time, independently
of anything done for STF3. The only thing they have in common is that they
both use the same source file, our internal sample edited detail file.
We formatted the CTPP to look like STF3 to make it easier for people who
were accustomed to using Bureau summary tape files. But the whole idea
behind the CTPP is that it is CUSTOM (read non-standard) content for
CUSTOM geography. The content is tailored to transportation planning uses
and consists of much more detailed cross-tabulations than the single
variable distributions found on STF3.
Even if the Bureau produced a workplace-based STF3 as you suggest (an idea
which has been rejected in the past), my understanding is that the content
would still be lacking for transportation planning uses. So while this is
a legitimate issue for people interested in place of work data generally,
it's not really a CTPP issue.
On the other hand, although we make the CTPP content available for
standard Census geographic units like tracts or block groups, most MPOs
choose to have the data created for TAZs, a non-standard or custom
geographic unit. So even if the content of STF3 was more detailed (which
for 2000, it will not be) the geography wouldn't be as useful for
transportation planners and there would still be a need for a CTPP. So it
seems to me that there's really little point in talking about STF3 in
relation to CTPP. They aren't related.
Similarly, there is no standard census product that provides
county-to-county work flows. The file produced in December of 1992 that
Chuck mentioned (STF-S-5) was again a special tabulation done out of this
office for a number of customers, one of which was BEA whom I believe
produces the REIS CD you mentioned. (In other words, if we don't produce
the special tab, there is no data for them to put on their CD.)
This product lacks the means of transportation, travel time, and peak/off
peak information provided in CTPP Parts 3 and C, which I assume
transportation planners generally find to be valuable. This product was
produced by the CTPP programmers (again having nothing to do with STF3) and
would have been done considerably later, IF AT ALL, had it relied on
non-CTPP staff. Yes, it probably delayed the first releases of CTPP by a
few months, but as Chuck indicated, it was a product that was used by the
transportation planning community as well as others like BEA, BLS, etc.
For 2000, I assume that as in the past, there will not be a county commuter
flow product created as a standard product. If sponsors are found for such
a product, then the likelihood that it will be created is increased. My own
opinion is that if such a tabulation is going to be produced, we should try
to broaden its scope and include characteristics of the commuters between
counties, not just counts. I think this would make the product more
marketable to a larger audience. However, it would also likely increase the
size and complexity of the dataset.
We might also consider producing commuting flows for lower-level geography
(say, places above a certain size), as part of such a product, but I haven't
really seen the demand for this. I'd be inclined to say that what we do in
the statewide CTPP for place-level flows is sufficient.
You also mention that Census geographic units should always be available as
a summary level. Well, this is your opinion and you're entitled to it, BUT,
I think it's a rather narrow view. First, I think the evidence indicates
that this is a minority view in the transportation planning community. In
1980 we produced something called Part V of the UTPP which was data by block
group of work, even where the rest of the package was tabulated for TAZs. I
know of very few people who used these data. In 1990 we did something
similar, producing Part 7 of the CTPP in all urban packages which was data
by tract of work. Use of Part 7 has been isolated at best. So it is clear
to me that TAZs are of primary importance and there is little demand for
standard census geography summaries as you suggest.
I have comments on some of the other points you made, but this is too long
already, so I'll end here. But I encourage you and others to continue to
voice your sentiments and concerns. We may not always agree, nor be able to
implement your suggestions, but we will listen and try to make improvements.
--Phil
an archive version of the ctpp news is now available at
http://www.chrispy.net/ctpp-news/
it is not glamorous but it does the job. for those like me
that do not store book marks very well, you can find the
link on our web site on the page that talks about the mail
list. here is the direct link to that page
http://www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census/maillist.html
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998
From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org>
House Leaders Consider Shifting Census Oversight to Internal
Watchdog Committee
Monitoring Board, House Panel Continue Hearings
House Republican leaders are considering a proposal to
transfer jurisdiction over the census to the House Oversight
Committee, which is responsible for congressional office
budgets, campaign finance reform and contested elections,
and operations of the House generally. The pending change
was reported last week by the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll
Call and confirmed by lawmakers and staff aides who work on
census issues. Under the proposal, the Subcommittee on the
Census of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee,
created a year ago, would be eliminated.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), the senior Democrat on the
census subcommittee, strongly criticized the proposed
shift. "The Leadership felt their control on this issue
slipping away. People are becoming more aware of their ploy
to be sure America's minorities remain anonymous," Rep.
Maloney said in a written statement. She accused Republican
leaders of "burying the Census issue in a paper pushing
committee." Census Subcommittee Chairman Dan Miller (R-FL)
has not yet issued a statement. He and Rep. Maloney were
presiding over a hearing in Miami, FL, last Thursday to
examine local efforts in support of the census.
The House Oversight Committee has six Republican and three
Democratic members; the Government Reform panel's current
party ratio is 24 to 19, plus one Independent. Chaired by
Rep. William M. Thomas (R-CA), the Oversight panel has no
subcommittees. The committee's senior Democrat in the 105th
Congress, Rep. Sam Gejdenson (D-CT), is leaving the panel.
Roll Call also reports that Republican leaders might change
the panel's name back to the Committee on House
Administration, the title used when Democrats were in the
majority.
Responsibility for overseeing Census Bureau activities in
the House of Representatives has shifted several times in
recent years. Prior to 1995, the Subcommittee on Census and
Population (later called the Subcommittee on Census,
Statistics, and Postal Personnel) of the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service had jurisdiction over the Census
Bureau and broader issues related to the Federal statistical
system. The entire committee was eliminated when
Republicans assumed the majority in 1995, and jurisdiction
over the census was handed to the Subcommittee on National
Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice of a
revamped Government Reform panel. The national security
subcommittee was chaired by former-Rep. William Zeliff
(R-NH) in the 104th Congress, and then by Rep. J. Dennis
Hastert (R-IL) for the first year of the 105th Congress.
Republican leaders created the new census subcommittee at
the start of 1998 and named Rep. Miller as chairman. It is
unclear whether the House Oversight Committee would monitor
all Census Bureau activities and other data issues or just
the 2000 census. Another subcommittee under the Government
Reform panel has been examining changes to the Federal rules
governing the collection of racial and ethnic data.
Monitoring Board continues hearings: The Census Monitoring
Board will hold a hearing in Sacramento, CA, on December 16,
to discuss the nearly-completed census dress rehearsal.
Sacramento was one of three sites where the Census Bureau
conducted a dry-run of census operations this year. Under a
congressional directive to prepare for two census designs,
the Bureau carried out its original plan in Sacramento,
which included sampling to complete follow-up visits to
unresponsive households and a post-census quality check
survey to measure and correct under-and overcounts. The
Board's hearing will take place from 8:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.,
in the City of Sacramento Council Chambers, 915 "I" Street.
The meeting is open to the public.
Congressional hearings continue: The House Subcommittee on
the Census held a hearing in Miami, FL, last Thursday to
discuss ideas from local officials and community
organizations on how to ensure an accurate census.
According to a December 11 article in The Miami Herald,
witnesses from community-based organizations and Rep. Carrie
Meek (D-FL) told the lawmakers that statistical methods must
be used in addition to the traditional mail and door-to-door
counting. Rep. Maloney praised a letter in support of the
Census Bureau's 2000 plan signed by nearly two-dozen local
groups including the Urban League, the Alliance for Aging,
the Haitian American Foundation, and the Miami-Dade County
Hispanic Advisory Board. Chairman Miller said that more
aggressive promotion could improve the accuracy of the
census and noted that two Federal district courts concluded
this summer that sampling was unlawful.
At a press conference earlier in the week, Miami-Dade County
Mayor Alex Penelas announced the formation of a Complete
Count Committee to oversee and coordinate local activities
in support of the 2000 census. Mayor Penelas said the
area's net undercount of 70,000 in 1990 "shortchanged" the
community. "For a successful Census that includes everyone,
we need to use statistical techniques such as sampling," he
noted. The Mayor was joined by representatives of community
organizations including the NAACP, American Association of
University Women, Organization of Chinese Americans, and
Cuban American National Council, Inc. All of the groups
stressed the importance of census participation in their
communities and voiced support for the use of sampling to
supplement the direct counting effort.
The subcommittee plans additional field hearings to discuss
ideas from local officials and community-based organizations
on improving the census process. At the December 3 - 4
meeting of the 2000 Census Advisory Committee, Chairman
Miller's staff announced sessions in Phoenix, AZ, on January
28, and Los Angeles, CA, several days later. The hearings
were disclosed before word of the subcommittee's possible
elimination became public.
Congressional committee assignments: Republican and
Democratic lawmakers continued to make committee assignments
in anticipation of the start of the 106th Congress on
January 6. Three new Senators will join the Committee on
Governmental Affairs, which oversees the census: Sen. Judd
Gregg (R-NH), who also chairs the appropriations
subcommittee responsible for the Census Bureau's budget, and
freshmen Senators George Voinovich (R-OH) and John Edwards
(D-NC). The new committee members will replace Senators Sam
Brownback (R-KS) and Don Nickles (R-OK) and retiring Sen.
John Glenn (D-OH), the panel's senior Democrat.
The Census 2000 Initiative will publish a roster of all
congressional committees with responsibility for census
funding and oversight after the 106th Congress convenes and
panel assignments are complete.
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>. Please direct all
requests to receive News Alerts, and all changes in
address/phone/fax/e-mail, to Census 2000 at
<Census2000(a)ccmc.org> or 202/326-8700. Please feel free to
circulate this information to colleagues and other
interested individuals.
if you have ever looked at the table headings they are sometimes very
difficult to figure out what they actually contain. For instance, if you
want the JTW number of workers by mode there really isn't a table
heading for this. JTW is part C and table C1 is time to work. Its heading
is "Time leaving home to go to work-total and peak period by means of
transportation to work"...universe workers 16+ who did not work at
home. Each cell contains the number of workers, not the time they spent
going to work by that mode; the table coordinates tell you that the table
contains 2 tables sequentially first coordinates 1,1 to 1,19 contain the
total and then the peak period with table coordinates 2,1 to 2,19.
Table headings should be immediately intuitive!!!!!
What needs to be done is that the table headings for C1 must say what
the table contains:" workers, leaving home to work by mode of travel;
daily and peak period" universe of workers 16+ who did not work at
home. This way you immediately know the contents are workers all day
and peak period
Get an English teacher to write or review the headings, the products
produced by Census are written in Census Jargon which at best is
unclear because it tries to be overly precise and interpretation can be
very tough even knowing what you are reading.
>>> ed c <berwyned(a)mcs.com> 12/10/98 06:20pm >>>
below is a dialogue that has been going on that i believe would
be of interest to the entire ctpp mail list. it is extremely
topical because just today Elaine Murakami called to remind me
that i need to get something written up regarding our survey of
several trb committees regarding the content (tables) of the ctpp
package. here is a web page that presents some preliminary work
in that area. don did remind me of an early product that even we
in chicago used (stf s-5).
http://www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census/notes/content.html
needless to say any comments folks have on content for the ctpp
(the tables) would be appreciated. i also recommend that you post
your comments to the list
ed christopher
------------------------------------------------
Don,
Let me see what I can answer right now and what has to go into
the hopper:
> Place of work outside SMSA of residence. This needs a further
> breakdown. Our Cincinnati area is a 13 co. CMSA so the data for
> "outside each pmsa" doesn't tell me if the worker is in the
other
> pmsa. Similarly, we are adjacent to the Dayton msa and I
can't
> tell if the workers are coming to or from there. The county and
> major city breakouts in this table are also valuable. (CBD?)
> These concerns apply mainly to the standard tabulations. I
> strongly recommend that the STF-S-5 commuter tabulations
> be prepared again for nation-wide county to county work
> trip commuting. I actually depend on
> these for my regional in and out commuting and, consequently,
> the regional net employment.
I think the work flows have to come from the county to county
file, and I would assume that will be repeated. It will make
sure it's on our list. Actually, I was never aware of it as a
formally named product (STF5?) but I did have a copy of it for
Michigan counties. The issue of grouping counties as areas on
the CTPP has to be fought out within the transportation planning
community.
> Another issue is continuation of the non-motorized travel modes
> of biking and walking along with working at home. (Assuming
> that transit and carpool modes will be continued.) These are
> becoming more important in our region as we deal with air
> quality conformity, congestion reduction and sprawl.
Bicycle, Walked, and Worked at home are on the census dress
rehearsal questionnaire, which means that unless something very
unusual and unlikely happens, they will be on the 2000 long form.
Once the data are collected, it's really up to the transportation
planning community to decide how they will be tabulated on the
CTPP. Also, you are going to have more opportunity to do your
own tabulations via the Internet, so if you need
something special you will probably be able to do it (albeit for
a fee), or pay someone to do it for you.
> Finally, an issue that I am assuming will be fixed with the
> 2000 CTPP is place of work coverage in the suburban
> and rural areas of our metro area. In 1990, less than half
> of a county's workers were 'assigned' to a TAZ of work
> in three of the 8 counties in our MSA.
With nationwide TIGER coverage, I believe that all workplaces
with street addresses are to be coded to tract/block. This of
course permits their assignment to TAZ. The question is what
happens with the inadequate workplace address entries on the
census. You might want to talk to Phil Salopek about their plans
on this. In 1980 Phil Fulton devised an elaborate allocation
algorithm which fixed a lot of the problems in these data for
workplaces inside the urbanized area, and with the full TIGER
coverage the algorithm can be run for everywhere. However, if
you have some major workplaces in the more rural counties that
don't have addresses and that you want to be sure are coded
correctly, you may be able to provide some workplace name
information to the Bureau to assist
with this.
> And that brings to mind another final issue. In 1990, our CMSA
> and MPO included the same 8 counties. In 1993, five more
> counties were added to the CMSA, but not to our MPO
> planning area. Therefore, our 2000 CTPP
> will not include the added CMSA counties. Does this matter?
The CMSA and the MPO don't have anything to do with each other,
really. The CMSA is defined under OMB rules (now under review
for possible significant changes; a federal register notice is
due very soon); there can be a considerable amount of politics in
the MSA/PMSA/CMSA designations because a lot of people think "the
bigger the better" which makes for larger CMSAs. If you're not
planning for the additional 5 counties, you probably don't need
the CTPP for them. Besides, won't some other MPO have it (if the
5 counties are their own PMSA, they probably have some MPO
coverage somewhere).
> Thanks for asking!
Hope this helps!
> (copied to Ed Christopher)
Ed, if you want to post this to the list, please feel free.
=============================
Patricia C. (Patty) Becker 313/535-2077
APB Associates/SEMCC FAX 313/535-3556
17321 Telegraph #204 Home 248/355-2428
Detroit, MI 48219 pbecker(a)umich.edu
below is a dialogue that has been going on that i believe would
be of interest to the entire ctpp mail list. it is extremely
topical because just today Elaine Murakami called to remind me
that i need to get something written up regarding our survey of
several trb committees regarding the content (tables) of the ctpp
package. here is a web page that presents some preliminary work
in that area. don did remind me of an early product that even we
in chicago used (stf s-5).
http://www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census/notes/content.html
needless to say any comments folks have on content for the ctpp
(the tables) would be appreciated. i also recommend that you post
your comments to the list
ed christopher
------------------------------------------------
Don,
Let me see what I can answer right now and what has to go into
the hopper:
> Place of work outside SMSA of residence. This needs a further
> breakdown. Our Cincinnati area is a 13 co. CMSA so the data for
> "outside each pmsa" doesn't tell me if the worker is in the
other
> pmsa. Similarly, we are adjacent to the Dayton msa and I
can't
> tell if the workers are coming to or from there. The county and
> major city breakouts in this table are also valuable. (CBD?)
> These concerns apply mainly to the standard tabulations. I
> strongly recommend that the STF-S-5 commuter tabulations
> be prepared again for nation-wide county to county work
> trip commuting. I actually depend on
> these for my regional in and out commuting and, consequently,
> the regional net employment.
I think the work flows have to come from the county to county
file, and I would assume that will be repeated. It will make
sure it's on our list. Actually, I was never aware of it as a
formally named product (STF5?) but I did have a copy of it for
Michigan counties. The issue of grouping counties as areas on
the CTPP has to be fought out within the transportation planning
community.
> Another issue is continuation of the non-motorized travel modes
> of biking and walking along with working at home. (Assuming
> that transit and carpool modes will be continued.) These are
> becoming more important in our region as we deal with air
> quality conformity, congestion reduction and sprawl.
Bicycle, Walked, and Worked at home are on the census dress
rehearsal questionnaire, which means that unless something very
unusual and unlikely happens, they will be on the 2000 long form.
Once the data are collected, it's really up to the transportation
planning community to decide how they will be tabulated on the
CTPP. Also, you are going to have more opportunity to do your
own tabulations via the Internet, so if you need
something special you will probably be able to do it (albeit for
a fee), or pay someone to do it for you.
> Finally, an issue that I am assuming will be fixed with the
> 2000 CTPP is place of work coverage in the suburban
> and rural areas of our metro area. In 1990, less than half
> of a county's workers were 'assigned' to a TAZ of work
> in three of the 8 counties in our MSA.
With nationwide TIGER coverage, I believe that all workplaces
with street addresses are to be coded to tract/block. This of
course permits their assignment to TAZ. The question is what
happens with the inadequate workplace address entries on the
census. You might want to talk to Phil Salopek about their plans
on this. In 1980 Phil Fulton devised an elaborate allocation
algorithm which fixed a lot of the problems in these data for
workplaces inside the urbanized area, and with the full TIGER
coverage the algorithm can be run for everywhere. However, if
you have some major workplaces in the more rural counties that
don't have addresses and that you want to be sure are coded
correctly, you may be able to provide some workplace name
information to the Bureau to assist
with this.
> And that brings to mind another final issue. In 1990, our CMSA
> and MPO included the same 8 counties. In 1993, five more
> counties were added to the CMSA, but not to our MPO
> planning area. Therefore, our 2000 CTPP
> will not include the added CMSA counties. Does this matter?
The CMSA and the MPO don't have anything to do with each other,
really. The CMSA is defined under OMB rules (now under review
for possible significant changes; a federal register notice is
due very soon); there can be a considerable amount of politics in
the MSA/PMSA/CMSA designations because a lot of people think "the
bigger the better" which makes for larger CMSAs. If you're not
planning for the additional 5 counties, you probably don't need
the CTPP for them. Besides, won't some other MPO have it (if the
5 counties are their own PMSA, they probably have some MPO
coverage somewhere).
> Thanks for asking!
Hope this helps!
> (copied to Ed Christopher)
Ed, if you want to post this to the list, please feel free.
=============================
Patricia C. (Patty) Becker 313/535-2077
APB Associates/SEMCC FAX 313/535-3556
17321 Telegraph #204 Home 248/355-2428
Detroit, MI 48219 pbecker(a)umich.edu
Greetings Ed Christopher:
Please place me on the CTPP e-mail list server so I can contribute to it
and view others correspondence.
Thanks,
Bob Frey
Massachusetts Highway Department
bob.frey(a)state.ma.us
