9 Feb
2011
9 Feb
'11
11:14 a.m.
Hello all:
Just thought I'd chime in my thoughts on PUMA delineation.
I was with the San Francisco Bay Area MPO up until 2009, and we had a very good,
collaborative relationship with our State Data Center and our Regional Data Center (the
COG for the region), and various parties interested in this subject.
We basically assembled our 2000 PUMAs as simple aggregations of census tracts. We convened
a small group of interested county and city planners, and even had a UC Berkeley planning
professor attend (and provide excellent comments). We did the GIS work, provided options,
and decided as a group how to define our Census 2000 PUMAs. This was accepted by our SDC
and the Census Bureau.
I believe the SDC in California worked with all of the Regional Data Centers (RDCs) and
Affiliate Data Centers (ADCs) to define the PUMAs for all of California. It worked well
here in the Bay Area; can't comment on elsewhere in the state.
Some thoughts on the 2010 PUMAs:
1. The rules to define PUMAs as aggregations of census tracts makes it easy to get started
now (or April 1st, when the final sets of PL 94-171 data become available).
2. MPOs should be a part of the regional data center / affiliate data center program in
their state(s).
3. The role is to provide options on PUMA delineation (keep the 2000 PUMAs with minor
adjustments to be consistent with 2010 tracts; re-split fast growing counties; etc.)
4. The role is to be open, inclusive, and serve as a "convener" of interested
parties.
5. These PUMAs need to serve the broad regional interest for improved socio-economic
analyses.
6. PUMAs are not just for Public Microdata Data Sample (PUMS) analyses; they are now
"standard" summary levels included in the Census Bureau's reporting of data
from the ACS. So, more folks will take an interest in their delineation.
By the way, retirement is GREAT! It really beats the alternative!
Chuck Purvis
(formerly with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the SF Bay Area)
On Jan 19, 2011, at 4:17 PM, <Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov>
<Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov> wrote:
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