CTPP

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

5 participants
3069 discussions

[CTPP] CTPP Training in Redding, CA, on February 10, 2014 - Census Transportation Planning Package

by Weinberger Penelope

Hi All, A free training session is offered by AASHTO and FHWA on the Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP), and sponsored by the Shasta Regional Transportation Agency There are just a few slots left! What: Free CTPP training When: Monday February 10, 2014 8:30 am - 4:30 pm Where: Shasta College Downtown Redding Campus – Room 8113, 1400 Market Street, Redding, CA 96001 RSVP email to Sean Tiedgen: stiedgen(a)srta.ca.gov by Thursday, February 6, 2014. Space is limited! Only 14 seats remaining and will be filled on a “first come, first serve” The CTPP is a set of special tabulations designed by transportation planners using data from the Census Bureau. The most current release of CTPP data comes from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey (ACS) sample, and includes data from small geographic units such as census tracts and transportation analysis zones (TAZs). The CTPP is a unique census product providing data relating to the journey to work, including travel mode, number of household vehicles, demographic variables, employment status, income and poverty information, life cycle, and many other characteristics. Data tables for home and work locations, and worker flow (home-to-work) are available. A rough agenda for the full-day training session is below: ● Introductions and welcome ● Introduction to the CTPP ● ACS questionnaire: paper exercise ● Data issues ● Break ● Data issues continued ● Find the CTPP table: paper exercise ● Lunch ● Software tour ● Profile exercise: software exercise ● Results of profile exercise ● Wrap up Computers will be provided. _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

11 years, 6 months

Re: [CTPP] female daytime population

by Liang.Long.CTR＠dot.gov

Hi, Bob LODES Does not include self-employed (approx. 10% of workers). We have done some comparisons among LEHD, ACS and CPS in terms of employment data. Here is the link: Please go to the third article: Counting Workers: Comparison of Employment Data for CPS, ACS and LODES http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/ctpp/status_report/sr100113.… There is also another article of “Comparing Commuting Flows between CTPP and LODES” http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/ctpp/status_report/sr1213.pdf But I never got a chance to investigate employment by age and gender using LODES. ACS PUMS data are good source if you are looking for employment information by age and gender as they provide ages in one year increment. Also, some of the employment status questions were modified in 2008, resulting in ACS employment estimates which are better matched with the CPS labor force estimates. But of course, you can only get this information down to PUMA level (100,000 population thresholds). Hope this helps. Liang ________________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] on behalf of Robert Shull [rshull(a)transportmodeler.com] Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 12:54 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population Thanks Ed and Liang, I had understood that Steve was trying to get adult "daytime" female population by census tract. The WAC data appears to have both some age group stratifications and gender. I meant to ask about the use of the LEHD data as a question to see how it compares with the CTPP/ACS approach. With previous experience we have found that the gender fields do not sum to the total employment values, so there is missing data in the LEHD also. But, could it be a more complete dataset and could it give a better estimate? Has anyone else checked this for other areas? Also, although the age groups are 29 and younger, 30 to 54, and 54 and older, could it be assumed that most of the employees, even in the 29 and younger age group could be classified as "adult" ? Thanks! Bob Robert Shull, PE President Eco Resource Management Systems Inc. PO Box 1850 Vashon, WA 98070 206.414.8751 rshull(a)transportmodeler.com<mailto:rshull(a)transportmodeler.com> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:29 AM, <Liang.Long.CTR(a)dot.gov<mailto:Liang.Long.CTR(a)dot.gov>> wrote: Hi, Bob Sorry that I didn’t make my explanation clear in the first email. LODES does have flows and they have flows by age and flows by gender. But similar to CTPP, they don’t have two way tabulations, flows by age and gender. I was hitting “send” button too quickly for the first email. Actually, as part of LODES, residence information is provided. Liang ________________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net> [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net>] on behalf of Robert Shull [rshull(a)transportmodeler.com<mailto:rshull(a)transportmodeler.com>] Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:42 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Cc: u0719944(a)utah.edu<mailto:u0719944(a)utah.edu>; medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com>; tyler.larson(a)utah.edu<mailto:tyler.larson(a)utah.edu> Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population How would this compare with using LEHD? Thanks, Bob Robert Shull, PE President Eco Resource Management Systems Inc. PO Box 1850 Vashon, WA 98070 206.414.8751<tel:206.414.8751> rshull(a)transportmodeler.com<mailto:rshull(a)transportmodeler.com><mailto:rshull(a)transportmodeler.com<mailto:rshull(a)transportmodeler.com>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:37 AM, <Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov<mailto:Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov><mailto:Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov<mailto:Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov>>> wrote: I didn't manage to send my response last night. I suggest you use the ACS PUMS To run a 4-way cross tab of industry and occupation by age and sex. The geography is limited to residential geography at Puma level. -----Original Message----- From: Long, Liang CTR (FHWA) Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:28 AM Eastern Standard Time To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net><mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>> Cc: u0719944(a)utah.edu<mailto:u0719944(a)utah.edu><mailto:u0719944(a)utah.edu<mailto:u0719944(a)utah.edu>>; medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com><mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com>>; tyler.larson(a)utah.edu<mailto:tyler.larson(a)utah.edu><mailto:tyler.larson(a)utah.edu<mailto:tyler.larson(a)utah.edu>> Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population Hi, Steve Your methodology is totally fine with me. I wish we had the cross table of sex by age for workers for both Part 1 and Part 2, so you can get measures of female workers for 40 years up. Liang ________________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net><mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net>> [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net><mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net>>] on behalf of Steven Farber [Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu<mailto:Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu><mailto:Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu<mailto:Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu>>] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:49 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net><mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>> Cc: SEAN CASEY REID; TYLER JOSEPH LARSON; Kevin A Henry (medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com><mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com>>) Subject: [CTPP] female daytime population We are trying to come up with an estimate of adult “daytime” female population for each census tract in Salt Lake City. Intuitively, for a census tract, A, this estimate is: (the number of women who have a workplace in A) plus (the number of women live in A) minus (the number of working women who live in A). >From the 5-year CTPP, we will use tables A20211, A101203, and A11600 for the three terms in the above calculation. We will only calculate the measure for women 16 years and older (although ideally we’d like to have a measure for just 40 years and up). Can anyone from this list provide me with feedback about this methodology? Are there any big issues that I need to be aware of? Is there a better way to be doing this? In the end, we would like a daytime measure of the female population in order to calculate mammography accessibility metrics. Many thanks for your comments. Steve Steven Farber, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Geography University of Utah http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com<http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com/> _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net><mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>> https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net><mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>> https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

11 years, 6 months

Re: [CTPP] female daytime population

by Robert Shull

Thanks Ed and Liang, I had understood that Steve was trying to get adult "daytime" female population by census tract. The WAC data appears to have both some age group stratifications and gender. I meant to ask about the use of the LEHD data as a question to see how it compares with the CTPP/ACS approach. With previous experience we have found that the gender fields do not sum to the total employment values, so there is missing data in the LEHD also. But, could it be a more complete dataset and could it give a better estimate? Has anyone else checked this for other areas? Also, although the age groups are 29 and younger, 30 to 54, and 54 and older, could it be assumed that most of the employees, even in the 29 and younger age group could be classified as "adult" ? Thanks! Bob *Robert Shull, PE PresidentEco Resource Management Systems Inc.PO Box 1850Vashon, WA 98070206.414.8751 rshull(a)transportmodeler.com <rshull(a)transportmodeler.com>* On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:29 AM, <Liang.Long.CTR(a)dot.gov> wrote: > Hi, Bob > > Sorry that I didn’t make my explanation clear in the first email. > > LODES does have flows and they have flows by age and flows by gender. But > similar to CTPP, they don’t have two way tabulations, flows by age and > gender. > > I was hitting “send” button too quickly for the first email. Actually, as > part of LODES, residence information is provided. > > Liang > > > ________________________________________ > From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] on > behalf of Robert Shull [rshull(a)transportmodeler.com] > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:42 AM > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > Cc: u0719944(a)utah.edu; medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com; tyler.larson(a)utah.edu > Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population > > How would this compare with using LEHD? > > Thanks, > > Bob > > Robert Shull, PE > President > Eco Resource Management Systems Inc. > PO Box 1850 > Vashon, WA 98070 > 206.414.8751 > rshull(a)transportmodeler.com<mailto:rshull(a)transportmodeler.com> > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:37 AM, <Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov<mailto: > Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov>> wrote: > I didn't manage to send my response last night. I suggest you use the ACS > PUMS > To run a 4-way cross tab of industry and occupation by age and sex. The > geography is limited to residential geography at Puma level. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Long, Liang CTR (FHWA) > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:28 AM Eastern Standard Time > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > Cc: u0719944(a)utah.edu<mailto:u0719944(a)utah.edu>; > medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com>; > tyler.larson(a)utah.edu<mailto:tyler.larson(a)utah.edu> > Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population > > > Hi, Steve > > Your methodology is totally fine with me. > > I wish we had the cross table of sex by age for workers for both Part 1 > and Part 2, so you can get measures of female workers for 40 years up. > > Liang > ________________________________________ > From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net> > [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net>] on > behalf of Steven Farber [Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu<mailto: > Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu>] > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:49 PM > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > Cc: SEAN CASEY REID; TYLER JOSEPH LARSON; Kevin A Henry ( > medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com>) > Subject: [CTPP] female daytime population > > We are trying to come up with an estimate of adult “daytime” female > population for each census tract in Salt Lake City. > > Intuitively, for a census tract, A, this estimate is: (the number of > women who have a workplace in A) plus (the number of women live in A) minus > (the number of working women who live in A). > > >From the 5-year CTPP, we will use tables A20211, A101203, and A11600 for > the three terms in the above calculation. We will only calculate the > measure for women 16 years and older (although ideally we’d like to have a > measure for just 40 years and up). > > Can anyone from this list provide me with feedback about this methodology? > Are there any big issues that I need to be aware of? Is there a better way > to be doing this? > > In the end, we would like a daytime measure of the female population in > order to calculate mammography accessibility metrics. > > Many thanks for your comments. > > Steve > > Steven Farber, PhD > Assistant Professor > Department of Geography > University of Utah > http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com<http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com/> > > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news > > > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news >

11 years, 6 months

Re: [CTPP] female daytime population

by Liang.Long.CTR＠dot.gov

Hi, Bob Sorry that I didn’t make my explanation clear in the first email. LODES does have flows and they have flows by age and flows by gender. But similar to CTPP, they don’t have two way tabulations, flows by age and gender. I was hitting “send” button too quickly for the first email. Actually, as part of LODES, residence information is provided. Liang ________________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] on behalf of Robert Shull [rshull(a)transportmodeler.com] Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:42 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Cc: u0719944(a)utah.edu; medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com; tyler.larson(a)utah.edu Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population How would this compare with using LEHD? Thanks, Bob Robert Shull, PE President Eco Resource Management Systems Inc. PO Box 1850 Vashon, WA 98070 206.414.8751 rshull(a)transportmodeler.com<mailto:rshull(a)transportmodeler.com> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:37 AM, <Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov<mailto:Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov>> wrote: I didn't manage to send my response last night. I suggest you use the ACS PUMS To run a 4-way cross tab of industry and occupation by age and sex. The geography is limited to residential geography at Puma level. -----Original Message----- From: Long, Liang CTR (FHWA) Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:28 AM Eastern Standard Time To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Cc: u0719944(a)utah.edu<mailto:u0719944(a)utah.edu>; medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com>; tyler.larson(a)utah.edu<mailto:tyler.larson(a)utah.edu> Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population Hi, Steve Your methodology is totally fine with me. I wish we had the cross table of sex by age for workers for both Part 1 and Part 2, so you can get measures of female workers for 40 years up. Liang ________________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net> [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net>] on behalf of Steven Farber [Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu<mailto:Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu>] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:49 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Cc: SEAN CASEY REID; TYLER JOSEPH LARSON; Kevin A Henry (medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com>) Subject: [CTPP] female daytime population We are trying to come up with an estimate of adult “daytime” female population for each census tract in Salt Lake City. Intuitively, for a census tract, A, this estimate is: (the number of women who have a workplace in A) plus (the number of women live in A) minus (the number of working women who live in A). >From the 5-year CTPP, we will use tables A20211, A101203, and A11600 for the three terms in the above calculation. We will only calculate the measure for women 16 years and older (although ideally we’d like to have a measure for just 40 years and up). Can anyone from this list provide me with feedback about this methodology? Are there any big issues that I need to be aware of? Is there a better way to be doing this? In the end, we would like a daytime measure of the female population in order to calculate mammography accessibility metrics. Many thanks for your comments. Steve Steven Farber, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Geography University of Utah http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com<http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com/> _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

11 years, 6 months

Re: [CTPP] female daytime population

by Ed Christopher

Lehd now has age and sex for data in the 2009 to 2001 series. http://lehd.ces.census.gov/data/lodes/LODES7/LODESTechDoc7.0.pdf "Datasets for 2009-2011 contain additional variables (Race, Ethnicity, Education, and Sex) on the Residence file (RAC) and Workplace (WAC) files that are not available in other years of data. And datasets for 2011 contain further additional variables (Firm Age and Firm Size) on the WAC files." I haven't looked at any of this or played with it but it could be promising. On 1/27/2014 10:22 AM, Liang.Long.CTR(a)dot.gov wrote: > Hi, Bob > > LEHD doesn't have residence information. And I don't think LEHD provides employment data by age and gender either. > > Liang > ________________________________________ > From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] on behalf of Robert Shull [rshull(a)transportmodeler.com] > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:42 AM > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > Cc: u0719944(a)utah.edu; medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com; tyler.larson(a)utah.edu > Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population > > How would this compare with using LEHD? > > Thanks, > > Bob > > Robert Shull, PE > President > Eco Resource Management Systems Inc. > PO Box 1850 > Vashon, WA 98070 > 206.414.8751 > rshull(a)transportmodeler.com<mailto:rshull(a)transportmodeler.com> > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:37 AM, <Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov<mailto:Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov>> wrote: > I didn't manage to send my response last night. I suggest you use the ACS PUMS > To run a 4-way cross tab of industry and occupation by age and sex. The geography is limited to residential geography at Puma level. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Long, Liang CTR (FHWA) > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:28 AM Eastern Standard Time > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > Cc: u0719944(a)utah.edu<mailto:u0719944(a)utah.edu>; medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com>; tyler.larson(a)utah.edu<mailto:tyler.larson(a)utah.edu> > Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population > > > Hi, Steve > > Your methodology is totally fine with me. > > I wish we had the cross table of sex by age for workers for both Part 1 and Part 2, so you can get measures of female workers for 40 years up. > > Liang > ________________________________________ > From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net> [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net>] on behalf of Steven Farber [Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu<mailto:Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu>] > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:49 PM > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > Cc: SEAN CASEY REID; TYLER JOSEPH LARSON; Kevin A Henry (medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com>) > Subject: [CTPP] female daytime population > > We are trying to come up with an estimate of adult “daytime” female population for each census tract in Salt Lake City. > > Intuitively, for a census tract, A, this estimate is: (the number of women who have a workplace in A) plus (the number of women live in A) minus (the number of working women who live in A). > >>From the 5-year CTPP, we will use tables A20211, A101203, and A11600 for the three terms in the above calculation. We will only calculate the measure for women 16 years and older (although ideally we’d like to have a measure for just 40 years and up). > > Can anyone from this list provide me with feedback about this methodology? Are there any big issues that I need to be aware of? Is there a better way to be doing this? > > In the end, we would like a daytime measure of the female population in order to calculate mammography accessibility metrics. > > Many thanks for your comments. > > Steve > > Steven Farber, PhD > Assistant Professor > Department of Geography > University of Utah > http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com<http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com/> > > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news > > > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news > > -- Ed Christopher

11 years, 6 months

Re: [CTPP] female daytime population

by Liang.Long.CTR＠dot.gov

Hi, Bob LEHD doesn't have residence information. And I don't think LEHD provides employment data by age and gender either. Liang ________________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] on behalf of Robert Shull [rshull(a)transportmodeler.com] Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:42 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Cc: u0719944(a)utah.edu; medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com; tyler.larson(a)utah.edu Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population How would this compare with using LEHD? Thanks, Bob Robert Shull, PE President Eco Resource Management Systems Inc. PO Box 1850 Vashon, WA 98070 206.414.8751 rshull(a)transportmodeler.com<mailto:rshull(a)transportmodeler.com> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:37 AM, <Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov<mailto:Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov>> wrote: I didn't manage to send my response last night. I suggest you use the ACS PUMS To run a 4-way cross tab of industry and occupation by age and sex. The geography is limited to residential geography at Puma level. -----Original Message----- From: Long, Liang CTR (FHWA) Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:28 AM Eastern Standard Time To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Cc: u0719944(a)utah.edu<mailto:u0719944(a)utah.edu>; medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com>; tyler.larson(a)utah.edu<mailto:tyler.larson(a)utah.edu> Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population Hi, Steve Your methodology is totally fine with me. I wish we had the cross table of sex by age for workers for both Part 1 and Part 2, so you can get measures of female workers for 40 years up. Liang ________________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net> [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net>] on behalf of Steven Farber [Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu<mailto:Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu>] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:49 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Cc: SEAN CASEY REID; TYLER JOSEPH LARSON; Kevin A Henry (medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com<mailto:medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com>) Subject: [CTPP] female daytime population We are trying to come up with an estimate of adult “daytime” female population for each census tract in Salt Lake City. Intuitively, for a census tract, A, this estimate is: (the number of women who have a workplace in A) plus (the number of women live in A) minus (the number of working women who live in A). >From the 5-year CTPP, we will use tables A20211, A101203, and A11600 for the three terms in the above calculation. We will only calculate the measure for women 16 years and older (although ideally we’d like to have a measure for just 40 years and up). Can anyone from this list provide me with feedback about this methodology? Are there any big issues that I need to be aware of? Is there a better way to be doing this? In the end, we would like a daytime measure of the female population in order to calculate mammography accessibility metrics. Many thanks for your comments. Steve Steven Farber, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Geography University of Utah http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com<http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com/> _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

11 years, 6 months

Re: [CTPP] female daytime population

by Robert Shull

How would this compare with using LEHD? Thanks, Bob *Robert Shull, PE PresidentEco Resource Management Systems Inc.PO Box 1850Vashon, WA 98070206.414.8751 rshull(a)transportmodeler.com <rshull(a)transportmodeler.com>* On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:37 AM, <Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov> wrote: > I didn't manage to send my response last night. I suggest you use the > ACS PUMS > To run a 4-way cross tab of industry and occupation by age and sex. The > geography is limited to residential geography at Puma level. > > > -----Original Message----- > *From: *Long, Liang CTR (FHWA) > *Sent: *Friday, January 24, 2014 11:28 AM Eastern Standard Time > *To: *ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > *Cc: *u0719944(a)utah.edu; medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com; tyler.larson(a)utah.edu > *Subject: *Re: [CTPP] female daytime population > > Hi, Steve > > Your methodology is totally fine with me. > > I wish we had the cross table of sex by age for workers for both Part 1 > and Part 2, so you can get measures of female workers for 40 years up. > > Liang > ________________________________________ > From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] on > behalf of Steven Farber [Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu] > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:49 PM > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > Cc: SEAN CASEY REID; TYLER JOSEPH LARSON; Kevin A Henry ( > medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com) > Subject: [CTPP] female daytime population > > We are trying to come up with an estimate of adult “daytime” female > population for each census tract in Salt Lake City. > > Intuitively, for a census tract, A, this estimate is: (the number of > women who have a workplace in A) plus (the number of women live in A) minus > (the number of working women who live in A). > > >From the 5-year CTPP, we will use tables A20211, A101203, and A11600 for > the three terms in the above calculation. We will only calculate the > measure for women 16 years and older (although ideally we’d like to have a > measure for just 40 years and up). > > Can anyone from this list provide me with feedback about this methodology? > Are there any big issues that I need to be aware of? Is there a better way > to be doing this? > > In the end, we would like a daytime measure of the female population in > order to calculate mammography accessibility metrics. > > Many thanks for your comments. > > Steve > > Steven Farber, PhD > Assistant Professor > Department of Geography > University of Utah > http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com<http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com/> > > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news > >

11 years, 6 months

Re: [CTPP] female daytime population

by Elaine.Murakami＠dot.gov

I didn't manage to send my response last night. I suggest you use the ACS PUMS To run a 4-way cross tab of industry and occupation by age and sex. The geography is limited to residential geography at Puma level. -----Original Message----- From: Long, Liang CTR (FHWA) Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:28 AM Eastern Standard Time To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Cc: u0719944(a)utah.edu; medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com; tyler.larson(a)utah.edu Subject: Re: [CTPP] female daytime population Hi, Steve Your methodology is totally fine with me. I wish we had the cross table of sex by age for workers for both Part 1 and Part 2, so you can get measures of female workers for 40 years up. Liang ________________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] on behalf of Steven Farber [Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:49 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Cc: SEAN CASEY REID; TYLER JOSEPH LARSON; Kevin A Henry (medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com) Subject: [CTPP] female daytime population We are trying to come up with an estimate of adult “daytime” female population for each census tract in Salt Lake City. Intuitively, for a census tract, A, this estimate is: (the number of women who have a workplace in A) plus (the number of women live in A) minus (the number of working women who live in A). >From the 5-year CTPP, we will use tables A20211, A101203, and A11600 for the three terms in the above calculation. We will only calculate the measure for women 16 years and older (although ideally we’d like to have a measure for just 40 years and up). Can anyone from this list provide me with feedback about this methodology? Are there any big issues that I need to be aware of? Is there a better way to be doing this? In the end, we would like a daytime measure of the female population in order to calculate mammography accessibility metrics. Many thanks for your comments. Steve Steven Farber, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Geography University of Utah http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com<http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com/> _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net https://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

11 years, 6 months

Re: [CTPP] female daytime population

by Liang.Long.CTR＠dot.gov

Hi, Steve Your methodology is totally fine with me. I wish we had the cross table of sex by age for workers for both Part 1 and Part 2, so you can get measures of female workers for 40 years up. Liang ________________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] on behalf of Steven Farber [Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:49 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Cc: SEAN CASEY REID; TYLER JOSEPH LARSON; Kevin A Henry (medicalgeography(a)yahoo.com) Subject: [CTPP] female daytime population We are trying to come up with an estimate of adult “daytime” female population for each census tract in Salt Lake City. Intuitively, for a census tract, A, this estimate is: (the number of women who have a workplace in A) plus (the number of women live in A) minus (the number of working women who live in A). >From the 5-year CTPP, we will use tables A20211, A101203, and A11600 for the three terms in the above calculation. We will only calculate the measure for women 16 years and older (although ideally we’d like to have a measure for just 40 years and up). Can anyone from this list provide me with feedback about this methodology? Are there any big issues that I need to be aware of? Is there a better way to be doing this? In the end, we would like a daytime measure of the female population in order to calculate mammography accessibility metrics. Many thanks for your comments. Steve Steven Farber, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Geography University of Utah http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com<http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com/>

11 years, 6 months

Re: [CTPP] female daytime population

by Patricia Becker

I hope you're going to aggregate those tracts into some larger areas, because the margins of error on these estimates are going to be astronomical. Most tracts have fairly low workplace numbers because they are essentially residential and only have local businesses/schools/churches providing employment. Tracts with really large employment counts often have few residents, e.g. airports. Some tracts are low on both, e.g. large parks. It also depends on how good a job the local area has done at tracting and retracting every ten years. Good luck. Patty Becker On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Steven Farber <Steven.Farber(a)geog.utah.edu>wrote: > We are trying to come up with an estimate of adult “daytime” female > population for each census tract in Salt Lake City. > > > > Intuitively, for a census tract, A, this estimate is: (the number of > women who have a workplace in A) plus (the number of women live in A) minus > (the number of working women who live in A). > > > > From the 5-year CTPP, we will use tables A20211, A101203, and A11600 for > the three terms in the above calculation. We will only calculate the > measure for women 16 years and older (although ideally we’d like to have a > measure for just 40 years and up). > > > > Can anyone from this list provide me with feedback about this methodology? > Are there any big issues that I need to be aware of? Is there a better way > to be doing this? > > > > In the end, we would like a daytime measure of the female population in > order to calculate mammography accessibility metrics. > > > > Many thanks for your comments. > > > > Steve > > > > Steven Farber, PhD > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Geography > > University of Utah > > http://stevenfarber.wordpress.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

11 years, 6 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