Mark Bradley writes: 'a more useful way of asking it [Journey to Work] would be to first ask how often they typically commute to an out of home workplace, and then, if that response is once per month or more, ask what mode they use most often to get to work.' I'm right there with you, Mark: wishing for this. Since we have not had that... our regional planning agency, Met Council of the Twin Cities just did it ourselves. We began asking, years ago, about the frequency of work-from-home on our Travel Behavior Inventory (TBI) and Household Survey. (I'm preaching to the choir of course: Mark and RSG been primary contractors to the Mpls-St Paul TBI.) So, this is a side-observation: I compared our 2021 TBI stats with 2021 ACS survey stats. The two surveys come to similar (not statistically different) findings. They validate one another. Here are the numbers: From Met Council's Travel Behavior Inventory, 2021 wave: we find 35% of Mpls-St Paul employed persons work-from-home, some amount, 1-7 days/week. We asked the number of days - we have that. That's crucial because transportation planners want to know the commute trips reduction impact of work-from-home. (And real estate planners and retail planners want the floor-space demand reduction or downtown foot-traffic reduction impacts.) You can get that with a weighted calculation: Count fulltime @100% + 4 days/wk @80% + 2 or 3 days/wk @50% + 1 day/wk @ 20%. Easy. I said above: 35% of Mpls-St Paul employed persons work-from-home some amount... and using the full-time or part-time details, the commute trips reduction impact calculates to 24% (FTE). And that 24% is not significantly different from the ACS statistic: 1-year ACS (2021) finds that 26% of Mpls-St Paul MSA workers work-from-home (or say they do). I love when a validation comparison come together! Maybe this finding is useful in making the case to USCB: that ACS should ask about weekly frequency of work-from-home. I hope they'll listen. CTPP is still around: a partnership between AASHTO, US DOT, and USCB. I hope CTPP board will write a letter during this comment period, emphasizing that remote-work is a big, here-to-stay dynamic - and we need the added detail. --Todd Graham Todd Graham Pronouns: he/him/his Principal Forecaster Metropolitan Council Community Development From: mark_bradley=cox.net@mg.tmip.org<mailto:mark_bradley=cox.net@mg.tmip.org> <mark_bradley=cox.net@mg.tmip.org<mailto:mark_bradley=cox.net@mg.tmip.org>> On Behalf Of qevisefas Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 2:12 PM To: TMIP <tmip@mg.tmip.org<mailto:tmip@mg.tmip.org>> Subject: Re: [TMIP] New proposed ACS question on Electric Vehicles You don't often get email from mark_bradley@cox.net<mailto:mark_bradley@cox.net>. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> Hello, Krishnan One of the most often used data items in ACS is the usual mode to work. I think the most important change to the ACS would be to update that question to get a better idea of teleworking. Right now "work at home" is an all-or-nothing response category, and for people who "usually" work from home but sometimes commute, there is no data on what mode they use. I think a more useful way of asking it would be to first ask how often they typically commute to an out of home workplace, and then, if that response is once per month or more, ask what mode they use most often to get to work. Or, if they want to maximize backwards compatibility, they could just follow up the existing usual mode to work question with the question on how frequently they commute, although that still wouldn't get the usual commute mode for people who usually (but not always) work from home....which describes a lot more people these days compared to before the pandemic. To me, this would be more useful than an extra question about distance of EV trips. I do think the question about EV charging ability would be nice, although I think most people put in the charging infrastructure when they first buy an EV, so it is more important whether people who do NOT currently own an EV could put in the infrastructure if they wanted to. Cheers, Mark Bradley RSG On Oct 20, 2023 8:13 AM, krishnan <krisviswanathan@GMAIL.COM<mailto:krisviswanathan@GMAIL.COM>> wrote: Apologies for cross-posting but CB is revising the ACS and requesting comments. Hansi Lo Wang reports that the Census Bureau is proposing to add questions about psychosocial and cognitive disabilities, electric vehicles, solar panels and sewage disposal to its American Community Survey starting in 2025 and inviting comments. Federal register notice: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/20/2023-23249/agency-i...… Of particular relevance to the transportation community is this question about EVs. While the CB is concerned about respondent burden and adding more additional questions can cause other existing questions to be removed, I think that the EV question can be enhanced by asking but charging availability (at home, out of home) and if the EV is used mainly for local (less than 50 mile) trips or long distance trips too. Wonder if it might be worthwhile for the transportation community to organize a signed comment from AASHTO/DOTs on the EV question with suggested revisions? *"Electric Vehicles-This new question asks if there are plug-in electric vehicles kept at the housing unit. By adding this question, we will be able to provide data to stakeholders to project future energy sources, infrastructure, and consumer needs for the growing popularity of electric vehicles. The ACS and the PRCS would be the only data source at the housing unit level to adequately inform these projections."* Krishnan -- Full post: https://tmip.org/content/new-proposed-acs-question-electric-vehicles Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/14071 -- Full post: https://tmip.org/content/new-proposed-acs-question-electric-vehicles Manage my subscriptions: https://tmip.org/mailinglist Stop emails for this post: https://tmip.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/14071