Todd (and others)
Thanks for the background. Let me say that the census estimates are highly useful, and that’s partly why this concerns me so. Yes, I make local estimates based on our own data sources but the Census estimates are a mighty helpful cross-check. They were especially accurate during the 2000-2010 period within my region, even better than during 1990-2000, which is why any change in methodology concerns me.
If you need support (strength in numbers) when addressing this, please let me know. I’m strung between a lot of priorities so when the next November review comes around please send out a message with triple explanation points or some other extreme measure to get my attention.
Jonathan Lupton
Metroplan
From: ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Graham, Todd
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 11:03 AM
To: ctpp-news@chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] Census pop estimates
Jonathan, others—
Usually each November, FSCPE state participants are asked to review and comment on minor-civil-division-level housing stock changes (units permitted, demolitions if known, etc). We take this seriously here, and have found the State Demographer staff and Census Bureau staff to be receptive to our review and data submissions during the 2009 estimates cycle, and prior years.
FSCPE state participants learned last November that Census Bureau had decided to depart from their usual annual estimates methodology – there were no housing stock changes for us to review. Rodger Johnson at the Bureau basically said: We’re doing trend extrapolation for 2011 estimates cycle.
I’m not sure if this was because the CB staff considered the CY 2010 building permits data to be disappointing (?) – or some other reason. Whatever the case, this led to what Jonathan and Patty observe: within any county, most places in the county have the same growth rate.
I think they’d do well bringing back the minor-civil-division-level housing stock changes in the 2012 estimates cycle.
Todd Graham | Principal Forecaster
Metropolitan Council | 390 North Robert Street | Saint Paul, MN 55101
tel: 1+651-602-1322 | fax: 1+651-602-1674 | e: todd.graham@metc.state.mn.us
in: www.linkedin.com/in/toddgraham
Visit www.metrocouncil.org/data for the latest in regional information.
From: ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Jonathan Lupton
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 8:54 AM
To: ctpp-news@chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] Census pop estimates
I just wanted to chime in with this discussion. In my region (Little Rock AR MSA) it’s clear that the city estimates are heavily driven by census county estimates. The estimates for the largest five cities in our central county all show 0.9% growth 2010-2011. This is absurd; these five cities varied in the 2000-2010 interval between outright decline in one case and 63 percent growth in another. The building permits and all other local evidence suggests that they are not all growing at 0.9 percent in unison.
Therefore I express my agreement that there’s something very wrong with the place/MCD estimates released on July 1. Since these estimates are fundamentally misleading, they are worse than nothing at all.
Jonathan Lupton
From: ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of wendell cox
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 5:20 PM
To: ctpp-news@chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] Census pop estimates
That is a crucial question that needs to be answered.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Patty Becker <pbecker@umich.edu> wrote:
Gee, I hope not. But it's very unclear what's going on. Loud protests might help.
At 05:42 PM 7/2/2012, wendell cox wrote:
Will this be their approach in future year estimates as well?
Best regards
Wendell Cox
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Patty Becker <pbecker@umich.edu> wrote:
The bottom line here is that the Census Bureau has abandoned its previous methods for calculating the subcounty estimates. For 2011, they basically carried the county % change in household population down to the sub-county units (MCDs and places), apparently holding the GQ pop count the same as the 2010 count (most of the time).
In my personal view, coming from a strong MCD state, it would have been better if they had just not done 2011 estimates at all.
Patty Becker
At 08:57 AM 7/2/2012, Ed Christopher wrote:
This is an interesting article Wendell Cox sent me from a friend of
friend. We all remember when the Census Bureau changed from using
county based estimates to using sub-county estimates in 2009 which are
then used to factor and weight the ACS. I had thought the process of
going from a county to a sub-county was a little more sophisticated but
maybe its not.
http://www.urbanophile.com/2012/06/30/misreferencing-misoverestimated-population-by-chris-briem/
--
Ed Christopher
708-283-3534 (V)
708-574-8131 (cell)
FHWA RC-TST-PLN
4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600
Matteson, IL 60443
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
http://ryoko.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
This email is intended to be read only by the intended recipient. This email may be legally privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination of this email or any attachments is strictly prohibited, and you should refrain from reading this email or examining any attachments. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email and any attachments.