Arash,
Michigan is a "strong MCD state." We have lots of
sub-county governments that are incorporated, plus many, many township
governments that provide services. These political boundaries are very
important here. In almost all instances, tract lines follow the MCD
boundaries; thus, it's no problem to aggregate tracts to PUMAs keeping
within the city limits.
Patty Becker
At 06:14 PM 11/9/2011, you wrote:
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_F189FB5B4920564CA566DDBD526B0BA8DB0D14C4D1COGMAILnctcog_"
Patty, I am not really sure if having PUMAs that cross large city
boundaries cause any serious problems. Geographic continuity is a good
practice. The only use that PUMA can give you is having access to
household sample record as a whole in a large area. Affiliation to city
for 5% sample record does not reveal anything about the city. As long as
PUMAs are aggregation of Tracts, one can relate the sample records to
other tables and estimate expanded household characteristics. It would be
nice if aggregation of PUMAs would become cities (for large ones) but
that is fairly hard to achieve in general.
Arash
Arash Mirzaei, P.E.
Senior Program Manager
Model Development and Data Management
North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)
Tel: (817) 695-9261
Fax: (817) 640-3028
Email: amirzaei@nctcog.org
From: ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net
[
mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Patty
Becker
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 4:05 PM
To: ctpp-news@chrispy.net
Cc: dargak@michigan.gov
Subject: [CTPP] PUMAs
This is time critical. If you have a response for us, please reply
immediately to pbecker@umich.edu and/or to the list.
We are having a big problem with PUMA delineation in Michigan because of
the Census Bureau's rule that PUMAs must be contiguous.
They apparently had this rule in the past, which is why we didn't catch
it as a "change" in the regulations. However, they didn't
enforce it, so we were able to have non-contiguous PUMAs where we needed
them. Now they don't want to let us do it. The biggest reason, I believe,
is that this time they're using software into which they've programmed
the rule that requires contiguity.
The City of Detroit has two enclave cities, plus six communities
adjoining its eastern boundary. The rest of the county lies to the west
of the city. These 8 communities used to be 1 PUMA, but they've shrunk
below 100,000, and therefore would need territory added from elsewhere
(in Wayne, their county, presumably). The main point is: we need
PUMAs which together delineate Detroit exactly. Under the contiguity
rule, that's impossible. We have another issue surrounding the City
of Flint and Genesee,its county, where the other counties in the state
planning/service area centered on Flint lie to either side of Genesee.
Logically, these two counties would form one PUMA, while other PUMAs
would be formed within the Genesee boundary. We used to have this
arrangement.
We need to know if any similar issues have come up in other states. If
so, what are you doing about it? Please let us know
immediately.
Thanks much,
Patty Becker
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia C. (Patty)
Becker 248/354-6520
APB Associates/SEMCC FAX
248/354-6645
28300 Franklin
Road
Home 248/355-2428
Southfield, MI
48034
pbecker@umich.edu
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news@chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia C. (Patty) Becker
248/354-6520
APB Associates/SEMCC FAX
248/354-6645
28300 Franklin
Road
Home 248/355-2428
Southfield, MI
48034
pbecker@umich.edu