-- Key Findings --

1

• -- Key Findings --
• Using ACS Data in Transportation Planning
  Applications
• Daytona Beach, Florida
• May 10 -11, 2007

2
Participants
State DOTs AASHTOs CalTrans FL DOT GA
DOT IA DOT NY DOT VA DOT WI
DOT MN DOT TX DOT
MPOs Atlanta (ARC) Oklahoma City (ACOG)
Detroit (SEMCOG) Daytona Beach (VCMPO) Hartford
(CRCOG) Minneapolis (MetCouncil) Houston (H-GAC)
San Diego (SanDAG) San Francisco (MTC)
Consultants AECOM Alan Pisarski Cambridge
Systematics Louis Berger Group MKC Associates
Feds FHWA FTA RITA / BTS RITA / Vople Census
Bureau
Academia Texas TTI Univ. of Iowa Univ. South
Florida CUTR
3
General Format
Two Half Days 40 Participants 4 Key Note
Speakers Seven Case Study Modules 1. Population
Estimates 2. Demographic Indicators and
Trends 3. Workers and Employment Data 4. Travel
Time, Mode Split, Modeling, Flows 5. Transit
applications and New Starts 6. Dealing with
Geography 7. Open Discussion and Comments Update
on CTPP Program Wrap-up Presentation and
Discussion
4
Key Findings

• Strong Demand for Transportation Data
  Products from Census Data
• CTPP 2000 is widely used
• Sample size is large (compared to local surveys)
• Response rates are high
• There is no direct cost for the data for local
  applications
• Strong Support for Transportation Data Products
  from ACS
• Standardized national resource

5
Key Findings (contd)

• Uncertainty has Surrounded Transportation Data
  Products
• Funding for the ACS has been uncertain
• Funding for the ACS transportation data
  tabulations has been uncertain
• Funding for the next National Household Travel
  Survey (NHTS) has been uncertain
• Understanding the American Community Survey
• In the early stages of understanding the nature
  of the potential applications of the ACS

6
Key Findings (contd)

• ACS a Critical Source of Zone-to-Zone Flows
• Unique characteristics of the CTPP 2000
• Fundamental to calibrating regional models
• ACS sample and data suppression raise concerns
  about ACS flow data for smaller geographies
• Could LEHD On-The-Map data and ACS data be fused
  to develop a richer understanding of trip
  distribution?
• ACS and Transit
• Sample size limits transit applications of ACS
  NOW
• Transit benefits from ACS use in regional model
  calibration and policy analysis
• Usual mode versus actual mode requires
  caution when using the ACS transit mode data

7
Key Findings (contd)

• Administrative Issues
• Array of participants creates uncertainty
  regarding roles and responsibilities
• No clear institutional or legislative mandate
• Need for partnership commitment from the states,
  MPOs, regions, US DOT and AASHTO to serve as the
  forum for coordination of actions, decisions, and
  communications

8
Key Findings (contd)

• ACS Evolution and Integration with Other Data
  Sources
• Research and applications experiences will need
  to be developed and shared
• Resources are required to support the ongoing
  evolution of ACS applications to extend its value
  and support the planning community

9
Key Findings (contd)

• Training/Capacity Building with ACS
• Web-based products may be useful to complement
  hands-on training
• User community has benefited from on-demand
  CTPP 2000 technical support
• Framing and Communicating ACS results
• Different ACS applications have different
  requirements in terms of accuracy and precision
• Users benefit from using multiple data sources,
  multiple analysis methods and integration of
  finding with theoretical and anecdotal linkages
  to the topic being addressed

10
Key Findings (contd)

• Next Steps in Securing Transportation Data
  Products from ACS
• AASHTO establishing a ACS board of directors
• Need consensus work program including
• technical tasks
• prioritization
• identification of critical dates and deadlines
• assignment of responsibility
• establishment of communications protocols
• staffing for execution

11
Key Findings (contd)

• ACS is Part of the Knowledge Foundation for Sound
  Planning and Policy Analysis
• ACS remains critical to transportation planning
• Cost for this data are increasingly modest in
  contrast to infrastructure costs that have risen
  dramatically
• The need for well informed decisions is even more
  critical in an era of tight resources