1

The U.S. Department of Transportation published 2006-2010 tract-to-tract commute survey data (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/ctpp/data_products/2006-2010_tract_flows/).

The survey lists FIPS code for Tracts for which there is no record in the Census TIGER files: both in 2006 Census and 2010 Census.

Example of such Tract FIPS code:

state         | county        | tract  

 8            | 5             | 4952
 8            | 121           | 924200
 6            | 67            | 5510
 5            | 133           | 80300
 6            | 35            | 40303
 51           | 163           | 930200
 29           | 95            | 15500
 26           | 163           | 552800
 29           | 229           | 490300
 48           | 355           | 3305
 47           | 93            | 5905
 39           | 139           | 3100
 4            | 13            | 216831
 5            | 119           | 1502
 55           | 79            | 185900
 42           | 45            | 410700
 12           | 21            | 11302
 28           | 121           | 20207
 40           | 123           | 88600
 6            | 37            | 462302
 6            | 97            | 153804
 48           | 29            | 191413
 36           | 43            | 10701
 37           | 81            | 14410
 18           | 19            | 50804
 37           | 109           | 71001
 17           | 43            | 846003
 13           | 63            | 40520
 49           | 35            | 111906
 12           | 33            | 2602
 42           | 49            | 12300
 1            | 73            | 11109
 37           | 119           | 1508
 36           | 5             | 14702
 37           | 109           | 70201
 48           | 99            | 10504

There are roughly 20K such entries. Any idea as to which census data the DOT/ACS might be referring to?

In contracts, example of tract record that do match:

state         | county        | tract
 6            | 59            | 74004
 17           | 163           | 502404
 36           | 29            | 13800
 42           | 101           | 32100
 17           | 91            | 12200
 42           | 129           | 802002
 48           | 281           | 950100
 36           | 103           | 159300
 48           | 449           | 950100
 36           | 47            | 6300
 45           | 19            | 2003
 47           | 65            | 1900
 48           | 165           | 950100
 39           | 51            | 40900
 24           | 33            | 805602
 12           | 71            | 1502
 42           | 3             | 484500
 36           | 59            | 518204
 6            | 37            | 113213
 39           | 61            | 21506
 33           | 11            | 2902
 12           | 101           | 32500
 6            | 65            | 40303
 72           | 81            | 958000
 6            | 81            | 608800
 26           | 99            | 260800
 48           | 309           | 2600
 12           | 31            | 13902
 36           | 47            | 54700
 18           | 181           | 958400
 12           | 99            | 4702
 6            | 67            | 9619
 40           | 17            | 300500
 34           | 31            | 124900
 37           | 135           | 11800
 21           | 157           | 950600
  • Can you add more entries for your example, i.e. display additional data entry where there are records. If possible, provide screen shots. – whyzar Nov 20 '16 at 14:43
  • Hi whyzar, have added more records for tracts that do not match and so that do. This is comparing only with the 2006 census data (which I hope I am loading it correctly. see gis.stackexchange.com/questions/215733/…) – Sandeep Nov 20 '16 at 15:20
  • There may be not data to report for those Census Tract areas or perhaps the dataset you downloaded is a suppressed version to accommodate for the large size of the original data, ~350 gb – whyzar Nov 20 '16 at 15:35
  • I downloaded the census tiger files from here ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/tiger2006se. As far as I know this is the complete dataset. JUst to clarify, the tract numbers are missing from census tiger file and not from ACS commute survey. – Sandeep Nov 20 '16 at 15:50
  • For some reason, the tracts are from 2014 census even though the survey data is from 2006. – Sandeep Dec 1 '16 at 23:32
2

I just did a spot check of all the tracts that were said to be missing (such as GEOID's 08005004952 & 08121924200) using the 2010 Census Tract Shapefiles. I matched all 36 of your example tracts to an existing 2010 Census Tract. This makes sense for the Census Bureau, who always delineates geographic data according to the latest year of coverage. In this case, since the latest year of coverage was 2010, the information was delineated for the 2010 Census geographies which are very different from 2000 Census geographies.

Try using this shapefile to use for reference geographies.

In regards to your comment about the tracts being from 2014 census, that makes sense. The Census Tracts shapefile for 2014 are still delineated according to 2010 Census Tracts.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.