CTPP

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

5 participants
3069 discussions

[CTPP] Congressional hearing on consequences of eliminating the ACS & Economic Census

by Ed Christopher

I got this email from friend Terri Ann at the The Census Project ------------- Good evening, Census Project colleagues. A brief follow-up to Phil Sparks' earlier memo regarding the Joint Economic Committee hearing scheduled for June 19, to review the consequences of eliminating the Census Bureau's American Community Survey and Economic Census. 1. Below is a hearing notice from congressional staff. As Phil mentioned, the hearing is open to the public, and we urge census/ACS stakeholders in the Washington, DC area to attend, to demonstrate interest in and concern about this issue. 2. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), House Democrat on this bipartisan (evenly divided), bicameral committee, will preside over the hearing. Rep. Maloney has invited stakeholder organizations to submit testimony "for the hearing record." For those unfamiliar with this procedure, a committee may include, in the official hearing record, statements from interested parties who did not testify at the hearing. The statement should be directly relevant to the topic of the hearing. While it usually can be of any length, I suggest statements between one and five pages only (single or double spaced), concise and to the point, demonstrating concrete consequences to your organization, members, or constituency of eliminating these vital, core Census Bureau programs. Statements should bear the title, committee name, and date of the hearing at the top. The first sentence or two should indicate in some fashion that you are submitting the statement for the hearing record (and appreciate the opportunity to do so!). Here's an example: Written Statement of Americans for Census Data, Inc. Submitted for the Hearing Record "The Economic Impact of Ending or Reducing Funding for the American Community Survey and Other Government Statistics" Joint Economic Committee Congress of the United States June 19, 2012 It is appropriate to begin your statement by addressing the senior committee members from both parties (whether or not they are in attendance): "Congresswoman Maloney (presiding), Chairman Casey, Vice Chairman Brady, Senator DeMint, and Rep. Hinchey: Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement for the official hearing record, expressing [name of organization]'s deep concern about the proposed elimination of the Census Bureau's American Community Survey and the possible cancellation of the 2012 Economic Census due to insufficient funding in fiscal year 2013." (Of course, feel free to address one or the other or both of those specific Census Bureau programs, based on the focus and work of your organization or institution.) You may submit all statements electronically to the Office of Rep. Carolyn Maloney, attn: Elizabeth Darnall, at <Elizabeth.Darnall(a)mail.house.gov>. Be sure to include a clear subject matter line for Elizabeth: "Statement for the Hearing Record in Support of the ACS/Economic Census" (or something similar). You should send statements to Elizabeth no later than close of business on Monday, June 18. (Sorry for the short notice, but that's how things work on the Hill!) Those of you with state and local organizations/institutions should consider sending a copy of your statement, with a brief cover note/email of explanation, to your own representatives and senators, to let them know of your continued concern about and interest in this issue. Terri Ann Co-Director, The Census Project Terri Ann Lowenthal | Consultant | TerriAnn2K(a)aol.com (h/o) 203-353-4364 | (c) 202-258-2425 --------------------------------------------------------------- CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE Hearing Announcement A hearing before the Joint Economic Committee will be held on Tuesday, June 19, 2012, at 2:30 p.m., in room 210 of the Cannon House Office Building. WHAT: Hearing on The Economic Impact of Ending or Reducing Funding for the American Community Survey and other Government Statistics WHO: Mr. Kenneth Simonson, Chief Economist, The Associated General Contractors of America and Vice President, National Association for Business Economists, Washington, DC The Honorable Vincent P. Barabba, Former Director of the Census Bureau (1973-1976; 1979-1981) and Current Chairman, Market Insight Corporation Capitola, CA The Honorable Keith Hall, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center at George Mason University and former Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Arlington, Virginia The Honorable Grant D. Aldonas, Principal Managing Director, Split Rock International, Washington, DC WHEN: 2:30 p.m., Tuesday, June 19, 2012 WHERE: 210 Cannon House Office Building Representative Carolyn B. Maloney presiding. -- Ed Christopher FHWA Resource Center Planning Team 4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600 Matteson, IL 60443 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (C)

13 years, 2 months

[CTPP] Friday July 13 at 1:00 -2:30 p.m. Eastern " Deep Linking with Census AFF"

by Elaine.Murakami＠dot.gov

Deep Linking is a way to access material by using pointers (or bookmarks). As an example, some tutorials on deep linking explain how to link to a specific time within a YouTube video, but in our case, we are going to learn how to build URLs that you can use in a website, or for doing quick queries to ACS tabulations without using the AFF interface. If you understand the text below, you do not need this webinar. If it looks like gobbledygook, you might consider attending! factfinder2.census.gov/bkmk/table/version/lang/program/dataset/product [/geo_id[|geo_id]*][/codetype~code[|code]*]* We will have 2 presentations: Mara Kaminowitz, Baltimore Metropolitan Council: Introduction to Deep Links Eric Kramer, Pima Association of Governments: Overview of the AFF2 Deep Linking Database Tool We will have plenty of time for questions and answers. We will use my regular CTPP room, without requiring reservations. https://connectdot.connectsolutions.com/ctpp1 This room hold 100 people. Please enter as a "guest" and type in your name. 1-888-675-2535 pc = 5860415# Let's have a good learning experience on Friday the 13th of July. For those of you who prefer learning by reading a manual, I am re-posting the link to the manual! http://factfinder2.census.gov/legacy/AFF_deep_linking_guide.pdf Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460 (in Seattle)

13 years, 2 months

Re: [CTPP] ACS/CTPP vs LEHD

by Graham

Reading the documentation of the two data resources: always a good place to start. At regional or state level of summary, totally different data frames is your main issue: a. Census ACS counts workers through a household survey, relying on individually-provided info on work. Many kinds of work are counted, including self-employment and occasional casual work. b. Meanwhile, the LED uses the data frame of BLS QCEW, counting wage & salary jobs that are "covered" by the Unemployment Insurance system. In Minnesota, over 20% of BEA-counted jobs (a broader employment concept) are outside of this frame, are *not* covered, and thus not counted in LED. At local level, there are still other issues: a. How well can Census ACS represent job locations? b. And does the LED program move its workplace locations around on the map, in order to obscure exact location? Hope that helps. Good luck. Todd Graham | Principal Forecaster Metropolitan Council | 390 North Robert Street | Saint Paul, MN 55101 tel: 1+651-602-1322 | fax: 1+651-602-1674 | e: todd.graham(a)metc.state.mn.us<mailto:todd.graham(a)metc.state.mn.us> in: www.linkedin.com/in/toddgraham<http://www.linkedin.com/in/toddgraham> Visit www.metrocouncil.org/data<http://www.metrocouncil.org/data> for the latest in regional information. From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Lindeman, Nicholas (MPO) Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 3:22 PM To: 'ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net' Subject: [CTPP] ACS/CTPP vs LEHD I've sent the following query to both the ACS and CTPP but have not (yet) received a response. I was hoping someone on the mailing list might be able to provide assistance. I've been working with Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)in On the Map. Specifically worker inflow/outflow analysis at the county level. I've discovered that there is a significant difference between the LEHD data and ACS Place of Work data from the 2008-10 3-Year ACS product. I've found that for the Middle Tennessee (Nashville) region the % of workers residing outside their home county is nearly 17 percentage points higher in the LEHD data than in the ACS data. Please see the attached table. I've been tasked with determining the reason(s) for this difference. Any assistance you can provide would be greatly appreciated Thank you, Nick Lindeman Nicholas Lindeman Economic & Systems Data Analyst Nashville Area MPO 800 2nd Ave. S. P.O. Box 196300 Nashville, TN 37219-6300 (615) 862-7198 lindeman(a)nashvillempo.org<mailto:lindeman(a)nashvillempo.org> http://www.nashvillempo.org<http://www.nashvillempo.org/> ________________________________ This email is intended to be read only by the intended recipient. This email may be legally privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination of this email or any attachments is strictly prohibited, and you should refrain from reading this email or examining any attachments. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email and any attachments.

13 years, 2 months

[CTPP] Phillip Cox/D04/Caltrans/CAGov is out of the office.

by Phillip Cox

I will be out of the office starting 06/08/2012 and will not return until 06/11/2012. David Lea will be acting Branch Chief.

13 years, 2 months

Re: [CTPP] ACS/CTPP vs. LEHD (Spear, Bruce)

by Alan

Speaking of lumpy flows: my first survey in NY (a 1% hh face to face survey) generated a commuter coming to Manhattan every day down the Hudson in a canoe! So every morning from my window at tri-state I watched for the flotilla of 100 canoes that the survey expected - it never showed up. From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Bruce Spear Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 9:28 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] ACS/CTPP vs. LEHD (Spear, Bruce) Hi Nick, In addition to what Todd mentioned, we found a few other factors that are likely to create differences in the ACS vs. LED totals. 1. The ACS is based on a relatively small sample (~ 2.5% per year) of all households nationwide, but this sample is expanded based on county population to produce the totals you see. The problem is that low frequency events such as work trips between distance zones are unlikely to be captured in a small sample. When the sample is expanded, the low frequency trips are still zero, while trips between zones that were sampled must be given a higher weight to match the county population totals. As a result, the ACS flows look a lot lumpier than the LED flows, which do capture the low frequency home and work locations. 2. The ACS only asks about a worker's primary job, while the LED captures all workers and employers for covered trips. Therefore the LED picks up flows of workers with secondary jobs. 3. Many of the very long distance commutes picked up in the LED are probably people who are on temporary assignment, living away from their reported place of residence (as far as their federal tax return is concerned), or weekend commuters who live in an apartment during the week and travel home on weekends. There are far too many of these folks reported in the LED and even in the 2000 CTPP for it to simply be data error. I suggest you read the final report we did for NCHRP 8-36, 98, title Improving Employment Data for Transportation Planning. The report presents the findings from a study we did that examines the differences between CTPP and LED data, and contains some interesting and useful tables that compare differences at the state, county, and even Census Tract levels of geography. You can download a copy of the report from the TRB website at the following URL: <http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP08-36(98)_FR.pdf> http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP08-36(98)_FR.pdf Bruce D. Spear, PhD Cambridge Systematics Inc. 100 Cambridgepark Drive, Suite 400 Cambridge, MA 02140 tel 617-234-0417 fax 617-354-1542 bspear(a)camsys.com www.camsys.com From: ctpp-news-request(a)chrispy.net To: ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net Date: 06/06/2012 05:31 PM Subject: ctpp-news Digest, Vol 100, Issue 4 Sent by: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net _____ Send ctpp-news mailing list submissions to ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit <http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news> http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ctpp-news-request(a)ryoko.chrispy.net You can reach the person managing the list at ctpp-news-owner(a)ryoko.chrispy.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ctpp-news digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: ACS/CTPP vs LEHD (Graham, Todd) 2. Re: ACS/CTPP vs LEHD (Kim, Kyeongsu (DOT)) ----- Message from "Graham, Todd" <todd.graham(a)metc.state.mn.us> on Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:11:25 -0500 ----- To: "'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net'" <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>, "'lindeman(a)nashvillempo.org'" <lindeman(a)nashvillempo.org> Subject: Re: [CTPP] ACS/CTPP vs LEHD Reading the documentation of the two data resources: always a good place to start. At regional or state level of summary, totally different data frames is your main issue: a. Census ACS counts workers through a household survey, relying on individually-provided info on work. Many kinds of work are counted, including self-employment and occasional casual work. b. Meanwhile, the LED uses the data frame of BLS QCEW, counting wage & salary jobs that are "covered" by the Unemployment Insurance system. In Minnesota, over 20% of BEA-counted jobs (a broader employment concept) are outside of this frame, are *not* covered, and thus not counted in LED. At local level, there are still other issues: a. How well can Census ACS represent job locations? b. And does the LED program move its workplace locations around on the map, in order to obscure exact location? Hope that helps. Good luck. Todd Graham | Principal Forecaster Metropolitan Council | 390 North Robert Street | Saint Paul, MN 55101 tel: 1+651-602-1322 | fax: 1+651-602-1674 | e: <mailto:todd.graham(a)metc.state.mn.us> todd.graham(a)metc.state.mn.us in: <http://www.linkedin.com/in/toddgraham> www.linkedin.com/in/toddgraham Visit <http://www.metrocouncil.org/data> www.metrocouncil.org/data for the latest in regional information. From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ <mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net> mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Lindeman, Nicholas (MPO) Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 3:22 PM To: 'ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net' Subject: [CTPP] ACS/CTPP vs LEHD I've sent the following query to both the ACS and CTPP but have not (yet) received a response. I was hoping someone on the mailing list might be able to provide assistance. I've been working with Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)in On the Map. Specifically worker inflow/outflow analysis at the county level. I've discovered that there is a significant difference between the LEHD data and ACS Place of Work data from the 2008-10 3-Year ACS product. I've found that for the Middle Tennessee (Nashville) region the % of workers residing outside their home county is nearly 17 percentage points higher in the LEHD data than in the ACS data. Please see the attached table. I've been tasked with determining the reason(s) for this difference. Any assistance you can provide would be greatly appreciated Thank you, Nick Lindeman Nicholas Lindeman Economic & Systems Data Analyst Nashville Area MPO 800 2nd Ave. S. P.O. Box 196300 Nashville, TN 37219-6300 (615) 862-7198 <mailto:lindeman(a)nashvillempo.org> lindeman(a)nashvillempo.org <http://www.nashvillempo.org/> http://www.nashvillempo.org _____ This email is intended to be read only by the intended recipient. This email may be legally privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination of this email or any attachments is strictly prohibited, and you should refrain from reading this email or examining any attachments. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email and any attachments. ----- Message from "Kim, Kyeongsu (DOT)" <kkim(a)dot.state.ny.us> on Wed, 6 Jun 2012 17:00:13 -0400 ----- To: "ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net" <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Subject: Re: [CTPP] ACS/CTPP vs LEHD Hi Nick, The difference comes from different data sample. As you know, ACS estimates are based on the survey samples. The upcoming 5 year CTPP will be based on same samples. On the other hand, the LEHD incorporates diverse datasets. There exists possibility of having significant difference between ACS and LEHD. I believe, however, Census Bureau tries to minimize the gap. FYI, please find the link that NYCDOT under Nathan Erlbaum (who just left us in April) examined. <https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/policy-and-strategy/darb/dai-unit/ttss/ctt p_acs> https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/policy-and-strategy/darb/dai-unit/ttss/cttp _acs Hope this help, Kyeongsu Kim Census and Travel Survey NY Metropolitan Transportation Council 199 Water Street 22nd fl New York, NY 10038 kkim(a)dot.state.ny.us 1-212-383-7233 From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ <mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net> mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Lindeman, Nicholas (MPO) Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 4:22 PM To: 'ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net' Subject: [CTPP] ACS/CTPP vs LEHD I've sent the following query to both the ACS and CTPP but have not (yet) received a response. I was hoping someone on the mailing list might be able to provide assistance. I've been working with Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)in On the Map. Specifically worker inflow/outflow analysis at the county level. I've discovered that there is a significant difference between the LEHD data and ACS Place of Work data from the 2008-10 3-Year ACS product. I've found that for the Middle Tennessee (Nashville) region the % of workers residing outside their home county is nearly 17 percentage points higher in the LEHD data than in the ACS data. Please see the attached table. I've been tasked with determining the reason(s) for this difference. Any assistance you can provide would be greatly appreciated Thank you, Nick Lindeman Nicholas Lindeman Economic & Systems Data Analyst Nashville Area MPO 800 2nd Ave. S. P.O. Box 196300 Nashville, TN 37219-6300 (615) 862-7198 <mailto:lindeman(a)nashvillempo.org> lindeman(a)nashvillempo.org <http://www.nashvillempo.org/> http://www.nashvillempo.org _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net <http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news> http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

13 years, 2 months

Re: [CTPP] ACS/CTPP vs LEHD

by Elaine.Murakami＠dot.gov

Hello Nick - Your results are not unusual, and the CTPP listserv has had discussions about this in the past. You can search the archives. http://www.chrispy.net/pipermail/ctpp-news/ You might want to read the article from Jan 2011 CTPP Status report by Nathan Erbaum (recently deceased). http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/ctpp/status_report/sr0111.cfm Also, Bruce Spear from Cambridge Systematics completed the NCHRP project mentioned in Nathan's article. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP08-36(98)_FR.pdf Bruce recently did a webinar for the Census Bureau and perhaps he can share the link to the recording (I assume it was recorded). Finally, just last week, the LEHD project said they had added FEDERAL employment to their database, but I have not checked it yet to see if it makes sense. Previous to this latest release, federal employment was NOT included. I hope that several of you on the CTPP listserv will be taking the time to examine specific locations in your own area, e.g. major federal office buildings, major military installations, that have impacted the utility of the LEHD without requiring a lot of edits and corrections. Also, as you know, the LEHD uses state QCEW and MWR reports, so it does not include self-employed. Self-employed are estimated to be nearly 10 percent of workers, and more likely to work from home (which accounts for shorter commute trip length). We have found in the past that school districts and other local governmental agencies may not distribute their workers to actual worksites and often report only one main address. This occurred in Illinois, where all state workers were assigned to Springfield as their workplace location, but this was a long time ago, and may have been subsequently corrected. There is a separate listserv for LEHD which you could try to post your query. This page, which I have not updated in a long time, include a link to the listserv. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/lehd/ Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460 (in Seattle) From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Lindeman, Nicholas (MPO) Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 1:22 PM To: 'ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net' Subject: [CTPP] ACS/CTPP vs LEHD I've sent the following query to both the ACS and CTPP but have not (yet) received a response. I was hoping someone on the mailing list might be able to provide assistance. I've been working with Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)in On the Map. Specifically worker inflow/outflow analysis at the county level. I've discovered that there is a significant difference between the LEHD data and ACS Place of Work data from the 2008-10 3-Year ACS product. I've found that for the Middle Tennessee (Nashville) region the % of workers residing outside their home county is nearly 17 percentage points higher in the LEHD data than in the ACS data. Please see the attached table. I've been tasked with determining the reason(s) for this difference. Any assistance you can provide would be greatly appreciated Thank you, Nick Lindeman Nicholas Lindeman Economic & Systems Data Analyst Nashville Area MPO 800 2nd Ave. S. P.O. Box 196300 Nashville, TN 37219-6300 (615) 862-7198 lindeman(a)nashvillempo.org<mailto:lindeman(a)nashvillempo.org> http://www.nashvillempo.org<http://www.nashvillempo.org/>

13 years, 2 months

Re: [CTPP] ACS/CTPP vs. LEHD (Spear, Bruce)

by Bruce Spear

Hi Nick, In addition to what Todd mentioned, we found a few other factors that are likely to create differences in the ACS vs. LED totals. The ACS is based on a relatively small sample (~ 2.5% per year) of all households nationwide, but this sample is expanded based on county population to produce the totals you see. The problem is that low frequency events such as work trips between distance zones are unlikely to be captured in a small sample. When the sample is expanded, the low frequency trips are still zero, while trips between zones that were sampled must be given a higher weight to match the county population totals. As a result, the ACS flows look a lot lumpier than the LED flows, which do capture the low frequency home and work locations. The ACS only asks about a worker's primary job, while the LED captures all workers and employers for covered trips. Therefore the LED picks up flows of workers with secondary jobs. Many of the very long distance commutes picked up in the LED are probably people who are on temporary assignment, living away from their reported place of residence (as far as their federal tax return is concerned), or weekend commuters who live in an apartment during the week and travel home on weekends. There are far too many of these folks reported in the LED and even in the 2000 CTPP for it to simply be data error. I suggest you read the final report we did for NCHRP 8-36, 98, title Improving Employment Data for Transportation Planning. The report presents the findings from a study we did that examines the differences between CTPP and LED data, and contains some interesting and useful tables that compare differences at the state, county, and even Census Tract levels of geography. You can download a copy of the report from the TRB website at the following URL: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP08-36(98)_FR.pdf Bruce D. Spear, PhD Cambridge Systematics Inc. 100 Cambridgepark Drive, Suite 400 Cambridge, MA 02140 tel 617-234-0417 fax 617-354-1542 bspear(a)camsys.com www.camsys.com From: ctpp-news-request(a)chrispy.net To: ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net Date: 06/06/2012 05:31 PM Subject: ctpp-news Digest, Vol 100, Issue 4 Sent by: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net Send ctpp-news mailing list submissions to ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ctpp-news-request(a)ryoko.chrispy.net You can reach the person managing the list at ctpp-news-owner(a)ryoko.chrispy.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ctpp-news digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: ACS/CTPP vs LEHD (Graham, Todd) 2. Re: ACS/CTPP vs LEHD (Kim, Kyeongsu (DOT)) ----- Message from "Graham, Todd" <todd.graham(a)metc.state.mn.us> on Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:11:25 -0500 ----- To: "'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net'" <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>, "'lindeman(a)nashvillempo.org'" <lindeman(a)nashvillempo.org> Subject: Re: [CTPP] ACS/CTPP vs LEHD Reading the documentation of the two data resources: always a good place to start. At regional or state level of summary, totally different data frames is your main issue: a. Census ACS counts workers through a household survey, relying on individually-provided info on work. Many kinds of work are counted, including self-employment and occasional casual work. b. Meanwhile, the LED uses the data frame of BLS QCEW, counting wage & salary jobs that are ?covered? by the Unemployment Insurance system. In Minnesota, over 20% of BEA-counted jobs (a broader employment concept) are outside of this frame, are *not* covered, and thus not counted in LED. At local level, there are still other issues: a. How well can Census ACS represent job locations? b. And does the LED program move its workplace locations around on the map, in order to obscure exact location? Hope that helps. Good luck. Todd Graham | Principal Forecaster Metropolitan Council | 390 North Robert Street | Saint Paul, MN 55101 tel: 1+651-602-1322 | fax: 1+651-602-1674 | e: todd.graham(a)metc.state.mn.us in: www.linkedin.com/in/toddgraham Visit www.metrocouncil.org/data for the latest in regional information. From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Lindeman, Nicholas (MPO) Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 3:22 PM To: 'ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net' Subject: [CTPP] ACS/CTPP vs LEHD I?ve sent the following query to both the ACS and CTPP but have not (yet) received a response. I was hoping someone on the mailing list might be able to provide assistance. I?ve been working with Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)in On the Map. Specifically worker inflow/outflow analysis at the county level. I?ve discovered that there is a significant difference between the LEHD data and ACS Place of Work data from the 2008-10 3-Year ACS product. I've found that for the Middle Tennessee (Nashville) region the % of workers residing outside their home county is nearly 17 percentage points higher in the LEHD data than in the ACS data. Please see the attached table. I've been tasked with determining the reason(s) for this difference. Any assistance you can provide would be greatly appreciated Thank you, Nick Lindeman Nicholas Lindeman Economic & Systems Data Analyst Nashville Area MPO 800 2nd Ave. S. P.O. Box 196300 Nashville, TN 37219-6300 (615) 862-7198 lindeman(a)nashvillempo.org http://www.nashvillempo.org This email is intended to be read only by the intended recipient. This email may be legally privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination of this email or any attachments is strictly prohibited, and you should refrain from reading this email or examining any attachments. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email and any attachments. ----- Message from "Kim, Kyeongsu (DOT)" <kkim(a)dot.state.ny.us> on Wed, 6 Jun 2012 17:00:13 -0400 ----- To: "ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net" <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Subject: Re: [CTPP] ACS/CTPP vs LEHD Hi Nick, The difference comes from different data sample. As you know, ACS estimates are based on the survey samples. The upcoming 5 year CTPP will be based on same samples. On the other hand, the LEHD incorporates diverse datasets. There exists possibility of having significant difference between ACS and LEHD. I believe, however, Census Bureau tries to minimize the gap. FYI, please find the link that NYCDOT under Nathan Erlbaum (who just left us in April) examined. https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/policy-and-strategy/darb/dai-unit/ttss/ctt… Hope this help, Kyeongsu Kim Census and Travel Survey NY Metropolitan Transportation Council 199 Water Street 22nd fl New York, NY 10038 kkim(a)dot.state.ny.us 1-212-383-7233 From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Lindeman, Nicholas (MPO) Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 4:22 PM To: 'ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net' Subject: [CTPP] ACS/CTPP vs LEHD I?ve sent the following query to both the ACS and CTPP but have not (yet) received a response. I was hoping someone on the mailing list might be able to provide assistance. I?ve been working with Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)in On the Map. Specifically worker inflow/outflow analysis at the county level. I?ve discovered that there is a significant difference between the LEHD data and ACS Place of Work data from the 2008-10 3-Year ACS product. I've found that for the Middle Tennessee (Nashville) region the % of workers residing outside their home county is nearly 17 percentage points higher in the LEHD data than in the ACS data. Please see the attached table. I've been tasked with determining the reason(s) for this difference. Any assistance you can provide would be greatly appreciated Thank you, Nick Lindeman Nicholas Lindeman Economic & Systems Data Analyst Nashville Area MPO 800 2nd Ave. S. P.O. Box 196300 Nashville, TN 37219-6300 (615) 862-7198 lindeman(a)nashvillempo.org http://www.nashvillempo.org _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

13 years, 2 months

Re: [CTPP] ACS/CTPP vs LEHD

by Kim

Hi Nick, The difference comes from different data sample. As you know, ACS estimates are based on the survey samples. The upcoming 5 year CTPP will be based on same samples. On the other hand, the LEHD incorporates diverse datasets. There exists possibility of having significant difference between ACS and LEHD. I believe, however, Census Bureau tries to minimize the gap. FYI, please find the link that NYCDOT under Nathan Erlbaum (who just left us in April) examined. https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/policy-and-strategy/darb/dai-unit/ttss/ctt… Hope this help, Kyeongsu Kim Census and Travel Survey NY Metropolitan Transportation Council 199 Water Street 22nd fl New York, NY 10038 kkim(a)dot.state.ny.us 1-212-383-7233 From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Lindeman, Nicholas (MPO) Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 4:22 PM To: 'ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net' Subject: [CTPP] ACS/CTPP vs LEHD I've sent the following query to both the ACS and CTPP but have not (yet) received a response. I was hoping someone on the mailing list might be able to provide assistance. I've been working with Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)in On the Map. Specifically worker inflow/outflow analysis at the county level. I've discovered that there is a significant difference between the LEHD data and ACS Place of Work data from the 2008-10 3-Year ACS product. I've found that for the Middle Tennessee (Nashville) region the % of workers residing outside their home county is nearly 17 percentage points higher in the LEHD data than in the ACS data. Please see the attached table. I've been tasked with determining the reason(s) for this difference. Any assistance you can provide would be greatly appreciated Thank you, Nick Lindeman Nicholas Lindeman Economic & Systems Data Analyst Nashville Area MPO 800 2nd Ave. S. P.O. Box 196300 Nashville, TN 37219-6300 (615) 862-7198 lindeman(a)nashvillempo.org<mailto:lindeman(a)nashvillempo.org> http://www.nashvillempo.org<http://www.nashvillempo.org/>

13 years, 2 months

[CTPP] ACS/CTPP vs LEHD

by Lindeman

I've sent the following query to both the ACS and CTPP but have not (yet) received a response. I was hoping someone on the mailing list might be able to provide assistance. I've been working with Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)in On the Map. Specifically worker inflow/outflow analysis at the county level. I've discovered that there is a significant difference between the LEHD data and ACS Place of Work data from the 2008-10 3-Year ACS product. I've found that for the Middle Tennessee (Nashville) region the % of workers residing outside their home county is nearly 17 percentage points higher in the LEHD data than in the ACS data. Please see the attached table. I've been tasked with determining the reason(s) for this difference. Any assistance you can provide would be greatly appreciated Thank you, Nick Lindeman Nicholas Lindeman Economic & Systems Data Analyst Nashville Area MPO 800 2nd Ave. S. P.O. Box 196300 Nashville, TN 37219-6300 (615) 862-7198 lindeman(a)nashvillempo.org<mailto:lindeman(a)nashvillempo.org> http://www.nashvillempo.org<http://www.nashvillempo.org/>

13 years, 2 months

[CTPP] NTD Urbanized Area

by John Voges

Today's Topics: 1. NTD Urbanized Area (John Voges) 2. NTD Urbanized Area (Earl Haugen) 3. Re: NTD Urbanized Area (Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I talked to our representative from NTD regarding which urbanized area number to use in the NTD reporting screen. He said that NTD determines the UZA population to be used for the transit reporting agency and that we don't determine that or input that data. He also said that the UZA numbers to be used by NTD will be available this fall sometime, around August or September. John Voges Sr. Transportation Planner Ocala/Marion TPO 352-629-8297 Message: 1 Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:41:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Earl Haugen <earl.haugen(a)theforksmpo.org> Subject: [CTPP] NTD Urbanized Area To: "ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net" <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Message-ID: <1338921662.52092.YahooMailNeo(a)web5710.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" beginning of an email from NTD regarding transit operators and 2010 urbanized areas: As most of you already know, the US Census Bureau has recently announced a new set of Urbanized Areas based on the results of the 2010 Decennial Census. Additionally, FTA is required by law to use these new Urbanized Areas for the Fiscal Year 2013 Apportionment, which will be based on NTD Report Year 2011 Data. We are expecting that the Census Bureau will very soon be releasing the final Urbanized Area Boundary maps from the 2010 Census. This e-mail is to provide you with additional information on how that process will work. Upon release the Census Boundary maps for the 2010 Census, each of you must identify which Urbanized Area (UZA) or Areas are served by your transit system. In addition, you will need to identify whether your transit systems services any rural or non-urbanized areas. An area is served by your transit system if you pick up passengers in that area. (Note: Some demand response systems allow passengers to travel to a particular location, but do not allow trip originations in that area. In this case, do not list these destinations as ?served? by your transit system.) Please note that you must identify all areas served by your system, regardless of whether or not you plan to allocate service data to those areas. Is this the same as the already released Census urbanized areas (what is new from what has already been released?)? Can we submit our Federal Aid Adjusted Urban Area instead? Or just stick to a Census define boundary of urbanized. Thanks ? Earl T. Haugen Executive Director GF-EGF MPO 701-746-2660 ________________________________ From: Ed Christopher <edc(a)berwyned.com> To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [CTPP] Urban Area Webinar Here is the link.? I just tried it so it is working. Again, make sure that you are entering the whole link. https://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/webconference/web_conf_learner_reg.a… James Greenstreet wrote: > I have tried repeatedly, and cannot get this link to work.? Please > re-send the full link out to us. > > Thanks, > > Jim Greenstreet > Kankakee County Planning Department > > -----Original Message----- > From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net > [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] > On Behalf Of Ed Christopher > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 12:03 PM > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > Subject: [CTPP] Urban Area Webinar > > On March 27, 2012 the Census Bureau released the list of new Urbanized > Areas and Urban Clusters.? For transportation related activities these > boundaries have broad and far reaching affects.? Recognizing that it > is impossible to address each individual situation and question > separately, staff from the Federal Highway Administration. Federal > Transit Administration, Census Bureau and others will conduct a 2-hour > webinar on Boundary Issues and Transportation. > > Participants in the webinar can expect to learn about the various > Transportation related boundaries, where and how they interact with > the federal programs and the steps that state and local agencies need > to take to address the boundary related requirements.? Time will be > allowed for questions and discussion, and additional resources will > also be made available for downloading. > > If you are interested in boundaries from a transportation perspective, > have a particular question or need to learn about them, this webinar is for you. > To make sure your questions get addressed you can send it send them to > ed.christopher(a)dot.gov up to the close of business the day before the > before the webinar, otherwise they will be handled on a first come > basis during the webinar. > > Space for the webinar is currently limited to 350 connections and > registration is mandatory, but free.? Folks who can share one > connection in a conference room setting are encouraged to do so.? The > webinar will be recorded with closed captioning.? Questions discussed > during the webinar will be used to update the Frequently Asked > Questions that FHWA maintains on the subject.? The FAQ can be found at > http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/urbanized_areas_and_mpo > _tma/f > aq/ > > The webinar will be > Friday, April 27, 2012 from 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM (Eastern Time) It is > open to everyone. > Register by? Clicking on the link below. > https://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/webconference/web_conf_learner_ > reg.as > px?webconfid=24316 > > > -- > Ed Christopher > FHWA Resource Center Planning Team > 4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600 > Matteson, IL? 60443 > > 708-283-3534 (V) > 708-574-8131 (C) > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net > http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net > http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news > -- Ed Christopher 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) FHWA RC-TST-PLN 4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600 Matteson, IL? 60443 _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

13 years, 2 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