Sunday, March 30, 2014


I'm surprised there has not been more coverage of what may be the bigger energy story impacting Pittsburgh these days, namely the unprecedented flows of oil by rail through the city center. But PG/PublicSource has this today.1960s-era rail cars hauling crude oil badly need makeover as accidents multiply. The thing is, we really have no idea how much oil is traveling through Pittsburgh by rail. Rail data, as I've mentioned in the past, is highly proprietary unlike much other transportation data.  In the article there is an explanation for the lack of public information:
Railway officials don't reveal their routes for hazardous materials for security reasons, and aren't required to by law. However, a state official said Bakken crude does come through Pittsburgh on the way to Philadelphia.
So we have a confirmation that there exists oil traveling by rail through Pittsburgh. About the limit of the disclosure there it seems.

But that explanation does not prevent more data being available elsewhere. The story does not mention that per PlanPhilly: Philadelphia to gain access to real-time CSX freight data. Thus the obvious question. Is anyone in Western Pennsylvania able to access the same real-time data.  I bet if we had cursory information on the flow of oil by rail through Pittsburgh, it would more than compare to the flow through Philadelphia. This all may be a bigger issue here than in Philly when you think about it, especially when you look at all the rail lines through out city center (if you are ever at Eastside look over the fence to see just how close.)

Think I am worrying about low probability events. How low is low? We are coming up on an anniversary of a rail accident that once forced the evacuation of much of Pittsburgh's East End. Really is something to at least plan for in the here and now.

But back to the data Philadelphia is (going to?) get.  When the same data is needed here, it won't be the time to figure out the best way to get it.  That adage to plan now applies to data as much as everything else, maybe more so.

Create a Link


Saturday, March 29, 2014

Not voting with their feet

Just in case you doubt Pittsburgh's continuing demographic exceptionalism, this one figure pretty much says it all. The important point is that much, if not all of that, is a legacy in the making over several decades, if not longer.

Create a Link


Friday, March 28, 2014

Voting with their feet

No, not done yet, but let's look beyond Pittsburgh.

It has been more than a decade since the Renz Well began the Marcellus Shale play in Pennsylvania. It is at least marginally fair to start asking what the long term impacts of shale development will be on Pennsylvania.

Many have been expecting this seminal shift in long term growth for the regions supporting the bulk of shale development in Pennsylvania.  Folks have been studying the potential impacts on everything from school enrollments, to housing, infrastructure and more that were all anticipated to come from the population gains. But what are the current population trends in the areas of Pennsylvania where shale development has been the most intense?

Looking at the latest data, here is the net domestic migration over most recent three years for the 10 counties. that are most active in the Marcellus Shale play in Pennsylvania.  For sure, correlation does not imply causality.  The shift toward more negative migration in most every county in this list is on par with statewide trends in Pennsylvania. Still, compared to the rapid and migration-driven population gains of other energy plays in the U.S., the latest data is sure lacking any evidence of similar trends in Pennsylvania. This is at least one datapoint saying that all this shale development does not insulate these counties from broader statewide trends.For most of these counties the turnaround has been dramatic. Migration gains in Bradford, Tioga, Lycoming and Fayette counties have become losses, while net migration decreased in 5 other counties among the top 10 shale counties. Only Armstrong county on this list had a higher net migration estimate in 2012-3 than it had two years earlier.

Finally, I'll point out many of these counties are not the largest of places. It would not take a large flow of new folks moving in to be noticeable in the numbers immediately.

Net Domestic Migration by County,  2011-2012 compared to 2012-2013
10 Top Counties in the Pennsylvania Shale Play (Source)

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Bradford County 359 -263 -552
Washington County 790 750 235
Tioga County 375 174 -134
Susquehanna County -252 -337 -356
Lycoming County 555 548 -639
Greene County -141 -307 -203
Westmoreland County 728 -96 220
Fayette County 101 -15 -261
Butler County 625 357 254
Armstrong County -123 -95 -39

Create a Link


Thursday, March 27, 2014

To Parse

A minor, but not completely inconsequential point.  Net migration for the Pittsburgh MSA was revised up a bit for the previous two years.  I've made the incremental change the darker green in the updated graphic below. +276 for the 2011-2012 period and +174 for the 2010-2011 period. 

But the trend in net migration (international+domestic) for the region works out to this:

The breakout for the +3,368 net migration for the MSA is +590 net domestic migration (movement within US) and +2,778 net international migration.  So you can say in a sense that international immigration is responsible for most of our ability to bring in more people than are leaving.

But here is a factoid to ponder. Only 11 of Pennsylvania's 67 counties had positive net domestic migration estimated for the most recent year (2012-2013).  Of those 11 counties, 4 were in the Pittsburgh MSA. Here are all the counties in PA with net positive domestic migration and the estimate.  Beaver County doing almost as well as Butler, which is worth looking at some more. But at the end of the day, only Cumberland County in south central PA is really attracting a palpable flow of folks moving in from elsewhere in the US. Is this surprising?

Beaver County +210
Butler County +254
Cumberland County +922
Chester County +355
Clinton County +124
Franklin County +57
Forest County  +20
Jefferson County +74
Snyder County +76
Washington County +235
Westmoreland County +220

Create a Link



So here is what I said on Monday
Whether the region's total population is increasing is another story.  Natural population decline continues and will offset any small positive net migration into the region.  So the overall population change is going to be awfully close to zero. 
Drumroll...   the Pittsburgh region's population decreased between 2012 and 2013, but by a total of....   152.   Works out to 0.00005% of the region's total population of 2.36 million. Remember this is an estimate, so within any reasonable range of error, just about as close to zero as is meaningful.

Now is that good or bad? No growth = bad to some for sure. A classic half full or half empty kind of argument for Pittsburgh in context. No growth is still a relatively positive story for a region that has declined in population virtually every year since forever. The real positive angle on this is that net migration for the region was again positive. So we have made it to at least a 6th straight year of positive net migration into the region. That must be some kind of record for the region over the last century give or take. And with the population decline coming from the excess of deaths over births over the most recent year, and gains in new folks moving here, we are in a sense getting 'younger,' albeit pretty slowly.

Also, and more importantly. Don't overinterpret the low net migration number. It does not mean there is nobody moving into the region. It means the flows in and the flows out are nearly balanced.  There still are likely on the order of 40K more people moving into the region every year, just as there are a slightly lower number moving out. So still plenty of new folks around every year.

Note the Census Bureau's own press release on this describes the data just released with this lede: Energy Boom Fuels Rapid Population Growth in Parts of Great Plains.  Is there a comparable population boom across Pennsylvania because of shale development here? Look at the map of growth across the nation and you just can't draw any comparison between Pennsylvania and any of the other energy-driven economies in the US. Seems to me there is a story for someone to look into more. You can look at the data yourself and draw some conclusions.

More to follow, of course. And next week I may put out my guess on what to expect for the city of Pittsburgh's population estimate for 2013 which we will not learn for a couple more months.

Create a Link


Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Wikipedia Journalists

I'm surprised nobody has done this yet. I've create a Wikipedia category for Journalists from Pennsylvania.  Just a start, but go add the appropriate tag ("[Journalists from Pennsylvania]") to all the other folks who should be included and the category page will update automatically. I've started with just a few. Maybe a homework assignment @andrewconte can give his students.  Really I wanted to create a category for [Journalists from Pittsburgh], but I am not sure the Wikipedia gnomes would allow that, yet.

Just checking in on one of the last Wikipedia pages I created. I bet there is more to be added to the Steps of Pittsburgh. Maybe some categories? Longest steps?

Create a Link


Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Remember transit Tuesday?

A regular Tuesday post on transit was once a staple here, have not had much to say in awhile..  But back  when I did have a regular Transit Tuesday post, the transit vision for the county was still semi-officially embodied in the illustration below. So not that long ago really. Is any of this vision left? With the exception on one spur of BRT being worked on, is any of this vision even being mentioned in passing. Seriously, any of it?

But we have moved on past Maglev.. I think? That only took 30 years of $$$  This reminds me it is about time for an AVRR story in the news. 

Create a Link


Monday, March 24, 2014

En entendant data

We are waiting on county and MSA level data for 2013 to be released later this week.  So the big question is whether net migration into the Pittsburgh region is going to be positive for one more year.  Maybe not.  We have already learned the estimates at the state level and that trend looks like this.

So you see that net domestic outmigration from Pennsylvania nearly doubled between the 2011-12 period and 2012-2013 period. That is by definition a number that includes what is happening here. If I had to speculate, net domestic migration for the Pittsburgh region is going to awfully close to zero, or balanced flows in vs. flows out, but would not be surprised by a small negative number.  With small but positive net international migration (net international migration is virtually always positive) we might keep with the trend and be able to say more folks are moving in than moving out, but it will be close. Whether the region's total population is increasing is another story.  Natural population decline continues and will offset any small positive net migration into the region.  So the overall population change is going to be awfully close to zero. We might talk more about whether migration or population change is positive or negative, but really I suspect the overall characterization for both will be pretty even.

Create a Link


Sunday, March 23, 2014

Fracking the lede

So here is a headline from yesterday: Pennsylvania a leader in manufacturing job growth, mayors report findsNo reason to let any inconvenient data get it the way of that, at least as it regards to Pittsburgh. Here is the Pittsburgh trend in manufacturing employment.

The actual article is not as disingenuous as the title. The reporting is all about a report on "energy-intensive" industries with only a loose extrapolation to what is going on here. One line is this:
"Sectors showing potential for growth in Pittsburgh include fabricated metals manufacturing, with jobs expected to grow 1.4 percent annually to 16,606 by 2020," (emphasis added)

So that word 'potential' is awfully important in context there. Look again at the latest data, not a sign of any of that growth yet, at least not here. I know folks so want to believe, but we have not yet taken the big hits on that time series to be caused by the full and final layoffs at Horseheads among others. So the real headline in the very same article relevant to Pittsburgh is the line that says this:
"Employment in iron and steel is forecast to contract by 0.9 percent annually in Pittsburgh through 2020." (again emphasis added)
So the very report being reported on is saying that Pittsburgh's core manufacturing industry is predicted to decline steadily into the future is almost written off. That pessimistic forecast is likely even taking into account the positive and indirect impact being anticipated because of energy costs. Never has such a dour prediction been so lost in a headline. I think that is called burying the lede?

In fact... if you really need to see how unsupportable the jump is from growth in shale development to (local at the very least) manufacturing prognostication.  The very latest data dump has this for the recent employment trends by industry in Pittsburgh.  Check out the bookends of this chart, but at least note that local manufacturing employment is by far the laggard and at -2.3% job decline over the year, plummeting like a rock despite the relatively rapid growth in mining employment.  Pittsburgh manufacturing would have to expand by 25+% just to get back to the level of employment it had when the Renz well was first dropped. 

And to not be misled by the percentages.  The high % growth in mining and logging employment represents +600 jobs over the year. The manufacturing job loss in the region is -2,100 jobs over the same time.  So if you were a mfg worker looking to jump over to mining, there are a lot more of you than there are net new jobs, even if that is what is happening within the labor force.  I have a hypothesis that a lot of local jobs showing up in mining and logging are not exactly blue collar jobs, but a story for another day. 

By the way... was there any resolution to the debate over whether it is spelled fracking or fracing

Create a Link


Saturday, March 22, 2014

One ping only please

Three folks who understand the miasmic nexus of health care, business and politics (and apparently socks) in Pittsburgh far better than the rest of us are Kris Mamula, Bill Toland and Jon Delano and all three were cavorting for a whole hour on PCN on Friday. You can watch a full hour of their discussion online.Probably the most complete (and calmest) primer you can get on the state of all such things presently.

Of course people will often ask me similar questions over what I think of all that is happening in the local heath care biz. It really is an unanswerable question. If forced, the only answer I have is that long ago provided by the genius of John Cleese and co.

Create a Link


Friday, March 21, 2014

Not carless 'burgh

Reading this story on carless households in the Wall Street Journal yesterday: Detroit's Broken Buses Vex a Broke City - Bankruptcy Means Cold Waits, Hot Tempers for Residents in Need of a Ride

My obvious compulsions forced me to look up comparable data for the city of Pittsburgh on carless households.  Unlike most of the cities cited in the WSJ article, the city of Pittsburgh appears to have had a decrease both in the total number of carless households, and also in the proportion of total households that are carless.  Goes against a lot of narratives I suppose, but what I compile from two years of data from the ACS:

Total households = 130,504
Carless households = 33,521
or 25.8%

Total households = 131,513
Carless households = 31,409
or 23.9%

Of course, the other counterintuitive factoid is that the household count is up.  Not by much, and probably not a significant difference.  The decrease in carless households is just a bit more than the margin or error and probably should not be written off. Impact of Port Authority route cuts? Big story across the nation is how much transit ridership has been going up over the last several years.  Here?

Create a Link


Thursday, March 20, 2014

Smart fellow that Fred Rogers

On this, the anniversary of Fred Rogers' birth in 1928, I just realized that he was smart enough to never himself infringe on the copyright of the Happy Birthday song.

Create a Link


Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Migration on my mind

Since going back like forever* in Pittsburgh there has been an annual wonkish obsession in this town.  I used to fight it and argue against over-interpreting each annual update of data, but let's go with the flow this cycle. The Census gnomes have recently announced when they will next release the latest round of population estimates for counties and metro areas and counties across the nation.  When? That will be a week from tomorrow when we learn data for 2013.

So break out your slide rules and strap in. It invariably generates a round of gnashing or guffawing , depending on what the data says. But what has the data been saying of late? I still encounter folks who just can't believe the basic factoid that more people are moving into the Pittsburgh region than are moving out. To be precise, net migration into the region is positive. We will the latest annual stats on estimated net migration, but also annual births and deaths, which if you add it all up gives an estimate for regional (and county) population growth or decline.

The thing that really is hard to believe for most is that we have already recorded 5** straight years of positive migration. We will learn next week is that trend has extended to a sixth straight year. That extend the streak to the middle of 2013.  If the trend extended to the present, we are almost through our 7th straight year.  I honestly have tried to parse  this out, but can't figure how far you have to go back in history for such an extended period of positive migration for Pittsburgh. Even when the region was last

Here is what the census has said about the trend in population migration impacting the Pittsburgh metro region. 

So Thursday next week.....  BRACE FOR COLLISION!


* 1997 is like forever for millennials, which I presume make up the modal readership here.

** There was no comparable data released for the 2009-2010 period which lead into the 2010 Census.  At one point the census folks briefly released a dataset which included all the intercensal years between 2000 and 2010, but it was retracted. Nonetheless, based on the trend and other data I infer that net migration for the missing year was positive as were the years both prior and subsequent.

Create a Link


Tuesday, March 18, 2014

87 months... and counting

With the latest dump of regional labor force data today, the unemployment rate for the Pittsburgh region has dropped to 3/10ths of a percent to 6.0% for January 2014. We are now 87 months since the local unemployment rate has been higher than the national unemployment rate. So my relative unemployment metric now looks like this.

addendum. If you want another parse to the data today. Over last two months the regional unemployment rate has dropped 6/10ths of a percent.  That has not happened in 16 years.  If the answer is people dropping out of the labor force, then why is local labor force participation so high?

But as happens at the beginning of the year, lots of benchmark revisions of past data as well.

Create a Link


Monday, March 17, 2014

To (not) Fly

I am a little surprised by the muted coverage over the sudden departure of the pseudo-acting head of the Allegheny County Airport Authority. If you look back over time at the energy and effort put into the airport as a nexus (I was going to use the word 'hub,' but thought better of it) of regional economic development, this must be like the most important job in all of Southwestern Pennsylvania. But Friday afternoon news is... well.. Friday afternoon news. Monday, as always, starts a new work-week. 

Don't worry too much about Mr. Penrod in the long run. If recent history is a guide, he will wind up with a (possibly better paying) job elsewhere in the future. 

For sure the airport has been challenged to keep flight service for some time now, but whose fault is that? The state was taking the lead pushing a plan to get more flights via PIT to other Pennsylvania airports. The state as in folks in Harrisburg, or so I read. Supposedly this was one of all those sure-thing spin-offs of natural gas development across the state. In fact there has been developments in flight service at smaller Pennsylvania airports of late, but it isn't working out as envisioned. In northeast PA, recently expanded service for Scranton, PA was via Atlanta. New service for Erie, PA was to Chicago.The state's plan does not seem to be working so of course it must make sense to fire the local guy.

But flight service is one thing, the real food fight is already underway over how to make fungible all of the shale development cash to come to the airport. Finding a way to get around the general FAA rules that want airport generated revenues to remain at the airport may be the real center of gravity at the airport these days.  If you parse out what fraction of the county's budget is really discretionary, I wonder how it compares to the potential new cash we are talking about. Anyone?

So what can we justify using airport revenues for in a way that accrues back to the county's budget. That is the question.  I am only partial to WWVB's plan for a multimodal transportation center Downtown near the corner of Grant and Liberty.  Nobody ever thought of that before. (We really have a different definition of multi-modal in this town)

To Fly, btw... still the best documentary.

Create a Link


Sunday, March 16, 2014

Topography is destiny

Yet another Pittsburgh hillside collapse in the morning news.  Maybe it is time to reinvigorate the City of Pittsburgh Hillsides Committee? I'll donate the image to the left as a logo.

Costly for sure, but one of those things far more costly to ignore. For more read:

An Ecological and Physical Investigation of Pittsburgh Hillsides
ECONOMICS REPORT to the City of Pittsburgh Hillsides Committee
Economics of Hillside Slope Development
November 30, 2004

Not just a city issue for sure.  Has anyone checked in of late on the status of the Kilbuck landslide site? Just be thankful that all happened before they completed the Walmart and something like that happened when occupied.

Create a Link


Saturday, March 15, 2014

They come to Pittsburgh

Some have asked for more than the latest count of Irish-born Pittsburgh residents.

Here are some estimates of foreign-born residents of the city of Pittsburgh reported in the 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Again, this is ACS based count data with pretty big margins of error. These are places of birth for the identified countries with the most foreign-born residents in the city of Pittsburgh.

 China 3,614
 India 2,974
 Italy 1,010
 Korea 1,010
 Japan 781
 Mexico 617
 United Kingdom  580
 Germany 526
 Canada 501
 Russia 451
 Poland 425
 Philippines 400
 Turkey 352
 Ukraine 311
 Nigeria 279
 Saudi Arabia 264
 Trinidad and Tobago 232
 Vietnam 220
 Colombia 216
 Jamaica 215

Lots have changed even from when Clarke was able to write this:

Create a Link


Friday, March 14, 2014

To vote, or not to vote

While I have to admit I do not have a definitive opinion on what is 'best' all around on this question of residency requirements for city workers, I am rather perplexed that a piece of city code can be thrown out merely by the fiat of a labor arbitration.  I must be missing something.

This goes beyond some century old piece of city administrative ephemera of course. There was this city referendum just a few months ago that set in stone Belgian block the longstanding requirement.  It passed overwhelmingly, with just under 80 percent of the vote, making it far more popular than even the library tax recently enacted within the city.

I am not sure this was ever parsed publicly, but if you go look at the referendum results by ward you get the following. Basically it was without opposition most anywhere with 'yes' votes ranging from a low of 72.6% to a high of over 90%.

I think the bigger question here is why the public so wants what the actual workers so oppose.  Just take a look at the results by ward:

Ward Yes No
1 90 28 76.3%
2 230 59 79.6%
3 236 38 86.1%
4 973 234 80.6%
5 597 103 85.3%
6 568 124 82.1%
7 1092 370 74.7%
8 1143 324 77.9%
9 1003 222 81.9%
10 1927 454 80.9%
11 1707 366 82.3%
12 680 82 89.2%
13 840 131 86.5%
14 4863 1439 77.2%
15 1509 340 81.6%
16 637 150 80.9%
17 514 125 80.4%
18 633 136 82.3%
19 3052 835 78.5%
20 1423 409 77.7%
21 318 34 90.3%
22 302 56 84.4%
23 246 43 85.1%
24 376 124 75.2%
25 306 55 84.8%
26 1026 258 79.9%
27 1228 332 78.7%
28 1026 348 74.7%
29 983 263 78.9%
30 283 58 83.0%
31 569 215 72.6%
32 687 246 73.6%

Create a Link


Thursday, March 13, 2014

if only Irish for a day

Yes, we will all be Irish for a day, but how much has changed in the city of Pittsburgh?

addendum (March15): Trib has this running Saturday Though scattered all over, Irish are region's 2nd-largest nationality

In 1910, over 18K residents of the city of Pittsburgh's population were literally born in Ireland. The number was actually down from over 23K a decade earlier. As of the latest data*, there are a grand total of 89 native born Irish residing within the city. Not a typo..  89 as in 100 minus 11. About the same number as those born in Peru (87) and a lot less than the number of those born in China writ large (3,614).

From a post a couple years ago, I have not updated the map, but what you get for the pattern of those claiming some Irish ancestry across Allegheny County. A map I add a marginal bit of green to myself. I bet this has not changed all that much of late.

Still...  see you at the parade!

* That would be the 2008-2012 American Community Survey. So yes, I reference a 'count,' having little else to go on an the % born in Ireland is too small a % to be meaningful.  The margin of error on the estimate of 89 folks born in Ireland? Plus or minus 60.

Create a Link


Wednesday, March 12, 2014


It is like the altitude profile for the Jackrabbit?

Create a Link


Tuesday, March 11, 2014

More Bike Metrics

Some more bike metrics as we wish away the snow that is coming. Again the ACS designed to measure the characteristics of the population.  The proportion of workers commuting by bicycle is a characteristic.  So below is the same ACS data plotted over time shown as the prevalence of commuting by bicycle.

If you asked me which ACS estimates are most reliable, I have to go with the 5-year estimates with the smallest margins of error. See those estimates in orange which show a pretty steady progression. 

Data for the graph above is below. All data is for the city of Pittsburgh.
ACS Dataset Total Resident Workers                Bicycle Commuters     
2005 128,161 1,300 1.0%
2006 132,882 1,125 0.8%
2005-2007 130,490 1,288 1.0%
2007 128,408 1,382 1.1%
2006-2008 133,771 1,175 0.9%
2005-2009 144,054 1,609 1.1%
2008 138,832 1,069 0.8%
2007-2009 146,189 1,603 1.1%
2006-2010 141,987 1,692 1.2%
2009 147,314 1,995 1.4%
2008-2010 143,025 1,805 1.3%
2007-2011 141,493 1,850 1.3%
2010 138,929 2,267 1.6%
2009-2011 140,658 2,041 1.5%
2008-2012 142,577 1,893 1.3%
2011 135,738 1,894 1.4%
2010-2012 140,456 2,092 1.5%
2012 146,828 2,024 1.4%

Create a Link


Monday, March 10, 2014

Counting under uncertainty

Lots of Pittsburgh bicycling news of late.  Note the trifecta just today. PG: Pittsburgh will get help developing bike lanes. Trib:  Pittsburgh gets nonprofit help to build more bike lanes. PBT: Pittsburgh to add 5 miles of protected bike lanes. Though the most consequential in the long run was a bit of administrative ephemera that BikePittsburgh exec Scott Bricker has been appointed to the board of the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC). Maybe fodder for another day?

But bicycle riding is a great example to use in the proper use of data from the American Community Survey.  Ideally, the ACS should only be used to measure characteristics of a given population, and not be relied on to be the reference for the count of any particular group of the population.  That being said, many do use the ACS to report counts of many things,and even I fall into that trap on occasion, but I really ought not to.

What am I talking about?  The ACS is a sample survey program that for small populations, either in small geographies or small subgroups of a larger population, you really have to be aware of sample error. The program is not designed to be the reference count of the population and wonks out there realize that population counts from the Census Bureau's population estimates program are not the same as what you will get out of the ACS in most cases. Some like to pick and choose which data works best for them and you really need to be careful if you want to be objective.

So I ramble...  counting bicycle usage in Pittsburgh...  

So a routine metric in the city of Pittsburgh is bicycle usage.  A common question in the ACS and other programs is to ask your means of transportation to work, i.e. commuting.  Commuting is not the only reason to travel by bicycle. If you are a student getting to class, or shopping, or just riding to ride, you are not traveling to work and thus not captured in any data about commuting technically. But on the focused question of the trend in bicycle commuting in the city of Pittsburgh, you get a much better picture of the trends if you look collectively at the results from the American Community Survey over multiple years.  Relying on any one year of data, and just using the point estimate itself,  really will throw you off. Some years new data will imply a big jump, while some years will show decline on occasion.

So here is my graphic of the ACS estimates of the number of bicycle commuters residing in the city of Pittsburgh.  Note the actual estimate is not shown at all and the bars represent the range from the estimate + or - the reported margin of error. You get a far different feel for the trend when you look at the data like this, but for sure an upward trend.If I had just plotted the estimates by themselves (granted something the world does often, to include me) you give rise to an illusion of accuracy that is not there.  For those who are not ACS data users, basically the program reports data for different time periods. Some data is reported as an annual (1-year) average. Some data is reported over a 3-year average and some data is reported over a 5-year average. Here are all relevant data on the number of bicycle 'commuters' in all of the ACS datasets.

The uber parsing for those still reading is important as well. I probably should take 2005 out of the data because back then the ACS did not include group quarters in the data at all. So any students in dorms who were working and commuting by bike were not counted, so the trend is confused.  There have been other ongoing issues with measurement of the group quarters population population in the ACS program so it is logical to think some of the trend upward is attributed to better capturing of student/GQ populations. But a big topic that I am sure does not mitigate the overall trend.

Create a Link