RE: [CTPP] Please help your data community re: PUMAs

I need to correct my earlier statements regarding the Kansas and Missouri State Data Centers. My staff brought to my attention that we were, indeed, offered a chance to comment. However, the timeframe allowed by the SDCs - approximately 30 days - was insufficient for us to bring together the region's planners together to review the proposed boundaries, as we had done for the 1990 PUMA definitions. Consequently, we were unable to ensure the methods and objectives used to define PUMAs in the Kansas and Missouri parts or our region were consistent, and the 2000 PUMAs that resulted aren't as useful for regional planning purposes as they could have been. Because we have been in contact with the Kansas and Missouri State Data Centers earlier in the process than in 2000, we should have sufficient time for the needed review of the 2010 PUMA boundaries. Frank Frank Lenk Director of Research Services Mid-America Regional Council 600 Broadway, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64105 www.marc.org 816.474.4240 flenk(a)marc.org 816.701.8237 -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Graham, Todd Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 12:32 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] Please help your data community re: PUMAs Hi all-- Yesterday I read through the Proposed PUMA Criteria and Guidelines. Census Bureau is taking comments, now thru Feb 28, on the rules for drawing new PUMA boundaries. http://www.census.gov/geo/puma/2010_puma_guidelines.pdf Highlights: * PUMAs must have at least 100,000 population per Census 2010 enumeration. * The basic building blocks of vintage 2010 PUMAs will be counties and contiguous groupings of tracts. * Cities are no longer building blocks -- you have to build up from groupings of tracts. My take: The new rules are all reasonable. The 3rd point above may be controversial, but it seems justified. (It's discussed in the Bureau's document.) That being the case, Metropolitan Council is not going to submit any formal comments to the Bureau. If any of YOU are going to comment -- comments due Feb 28 -- I encourage your support of section IV B of the document, which allows "grandfathering" of vintage 2000 PUMAs with non-contiguous pieces. That's a reasonable and considerate allowance by the Bureau. Elaine-- You asked about the quality of MPO relationships with Census State Liaisons (usually the State Demographer). Metropolitan Council is a regional government, MPO, and SDC network member. And I think we have a great relationship with the Minnesota State Demographer. No complaints. Hope your year is off to a good start. Cheers. ________________________ Todd Graham Principal Forecaster Metropolitan Council 390 Robert Street North Saint Paul, MN 55101 ph: 651/602-1322 email: todd.graham(a)metc.state.mn.us in: www.linkedin.com/in/toddgraham web: www.metrocouncil.org ________________________ ________________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov [Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 6:17 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] Please help your data community re: PUMAs I am getting anecdotal remarks about whether or not SDCs have been open to working with the transportation data community, e.g. State DOTs and MPOs, about PUMA delineation. I think that if a few of you could provide some EXAMPLES of GOOD working relationships, maybe we can reduce the problems in the next round. Some questions to consider: After 2000, how did the SDC do outreach with the data community to get input into PUMA delineation? What are the SDCs' plans for outreach for the next round? Has the MPO or the State DOT participated in the SDC program as an affiliate? Did the transportation data community participate in the 2010 Census tract delineation? State's Data Center contact list: http://www.census.gov/sdc/network.html You don't have to write a book, just a couple of paragraphs would still be helpful! Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460 _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news