Yes. I tried to alert the community about the lack of this data a few weeks ago, apparently no one was listening. This is the response I received on the listserve form Ed Christopher regarding my query on this on March 18th Nancy Reger, MORPC His response references a reply from Penelope Weinberger: ----------------- Disability * There will be 5 new detailed tables, only published in the 2009 ACS1-year data products. * The disability question was modified in 2008, representing a conceptual and empirical break from earlier years of the ACS. The Census Bureau does not recommend any comparisons to disability data from the 2007 ACS and earlier. The new tables include 1. Work Experience by Disability Status and Type (1 tables) 2. Age by Ratio of Income to Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months by Disability Status and Type (2 tables) 3. Age by Disability Status by Health Insurance Coverage Status (3 tables) ------------------ Weinberger, Penelope wrote: > From: ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net > To: ctpp-news@chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news@chrispy.net > Email: nreger@morpc.org<mailto:nreger@morpc.org From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Michael Moan Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 7:11 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] RE: disability status Is this indeed true? Michael C. Moan, Principal Planner Office of Statewide Planning Division of Planning Department of Administration One Capitol Hill Providence, RI 02908 4012221236>>> Planning Department &lt;PlanningDepartment(a)countyofberks.com&gt; 4/1/2011 12:10 PM >>I don’t know of any useful solutions; however, I just hope that the kind Environmental Justice folks at FHWA and FTA are aware of this situation when we they hammer our Benefits and Burdens Analysis documents during the 4-year MPO Certification Review. Michael D. Golembiewski Transportation Modeler BERKS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 633 Court Street FL 14 Reading, PA 19601 Ph: 610 478-6300 ext 6304 Fax: 610 478-6316 e-mail: mgolembiewski@countyofberks.com<mailto:mgolembiewski@countyofberks.comWeb: http://www.co.berks.pa.us/dept/planning Note: The comments on and attachment to this e-mail are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, your are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the original message, any attachment(s) and copies. Thank you for your cooperation. From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Kendra Watkins Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 11:35 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Cc: Caerllion Thomas Subject: [CTPP] disability status If I have this right, changes in the disability status question from the Census means that small area disability data (bg and tract) will not be available until 2013. Among other things, this variable is key for transit planning. Are there any suggestions or creative solutions regarding to this problem or will we be mapping 2000 data for several more years? Kendra Watkins Senior Data Analyst Mid-Region Council of Governments 809 Copper Ave. NW Albuquerque, NM 87102 Phone: (505)724-3601 Fax: (505)247-1753 Email: kwatkins@mrcog-nm.gov<mailto:tgaudette@mrcog-nm.gov

Hello all, Disability data are not available in the 5-Year 2005-2009 ACS or the 3-Year 2006-2008 ACS due to changes in the disability questions in 2008. See this paper: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/2008ACS_disability.pdf There are disability data available for the 2008 and 2009 1-Year ACS estimates for the U.S., states, and geographic areas of 65,000 or more population. Additional questions can be directed to the Health and Disability Statistics Branch of the U.S. Census Bureau at 301-763-3243. ________________________ Melanie A. Rapino, Ph.D. Journey-to-Work & Migration Statistics Branch, HHES U.S. Census Bureau From: "Ed Christopher" &lt;edc(a)berwyned.com&gt; To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Date: 04/04/2011 11:12 AM Subject: RE: [CTPP] RE: disability status Sent by: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net For more on the disability issues see... http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/disability.html this conceptual does mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net]> mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] kind the for the mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] transit -- Ed Christopher FHWA Resource Center Planning Team 4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600 Matteson, IL 60443 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (C) _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

Mr. Purvis- EJ populations include disabled, elderly, minority, Hispanic and low income; and in Columbus we've added 0-car households as an extra for our analysis. The disabled population is most definitely an EJ population. Nancy Nancy Reger, AICP Deputy Director, Transportation Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission 111 Liberty St, Ste 100 Columbus OH 43215 Phone: (614) 233-4154 Email: nreger(a)morpc.org From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Charles Purvis Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 11:04 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] RE: disability status Michael, and others: I'm not at all certain that this is true: my recall of "environmental justice" is that it relates to "low income" and "minority" populations, and NOT to other groups such as the "disabled" or "seniors" or "children"..... I think we need clarification from Ed or Elaine on this particular issue. Nonetheless, the elderly and disabled communities within your regions and states will be particularly interested in data from the ACS related to changes in disability questions. My recommendation would be to carefully document the changes in the disability questions over the lifespan of the decennial census, and the American Community Survey. Then, to analyze the "one-year" ACS data for your region/state using the "2007" vintage ACS disability questions; compared to the "2008-to-current" vintage ACS disability questions, knowing that the questions (and responses) have changed between 2007 and 2008. Depend as much as possible on Census Bureau published research on the Disability questions, be it from Census Bureau working papers or professional papers at the Population Association of America, ASA, etc. Exactly "why" did the Census Bureau change the questions, etc. It will be impossible to say anything about "changes" in the number of disabled persons, even between 2007 and 2008, due to questionnaire changes. It's just best to be upfront with your clientele to show how the ACS questions have changed, and how they impact the responses. And, it would also be useful to use the PUMS to understand the overlap between minority, low income, elderly and disabled. The tricky element is how to define "low income" (100% or 200% of poverty level, other methods?). Just some thoughts. Chuck Purvis retired :) San Francisco Bay Area *************************** On Apr 4, 2011, at 4:11 AM, Michael Moan wrote: Is this indeed true? Michael C. Moan, Principal Planner Office of Statewide Planning Division of Planning Department of Administration One Capitol Hill Providence, RI 02908 4012221236>>> Planning Department <PlanningDepartment@countyofberks.com<mailto:PlanningDepartment@countyofberks.com>> 4/1/2011 12:10 PM >>> I don't know of any useful solutions; however, I just hope that the kind Environmental Justice folks at FHWA and FTA are aware of this situation when we they hammer our Benefits and Burdens Analysis documents during the 4-year MPO Certification Review. Michael D. Golembiewski Transportation Modeler

Ms. Reger: I am curious to know the reason and assumptions for including zero car household as an EJ population. Is car ownership a choice decision? Birat Pandey, PE Senior Transportation Engineer/Modeler Baltimore Metropolitan Council Offices @ McHenry Row 1500 Whetstone Way, Suite 300 Baltimore, MD 21230 Ph: 410-732-0500 x1050 <mailto:bpandey@baltometro.org> bpandey(a)baltometro.org <http://www.baltometro.org> www.baltometro.org _____ From: Nancy Reger [mailto:Nreger@morpc.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:43 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Cc: Jason Kaper Subject: RE: [CTPP] RE: disability status Mr. Purvis- EJ populations include disabled, elderly, minority, Hispanic and low income; and in Columbus we've added 0-car households as an extra for our analysis. The disabled population is most definitely an EJ population. Nancy Nancy Reger, AICP Deputy Director, Transportation Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission 111 Liberty St, Ste 100 Columbus OH 43215 Phone: (614) 233-4154 Email: nreger(a)morpc.org From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Charles Purvis Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 11:04 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] RE: disability status Michael, and others: I'm not at all certain that this is true: my recall of "environmental justice" is that it relates to "low income" and "minority" populations, and NOT to other groups such as the "disabled" or "seniors" or "children"..... I think we need clarification from Ed or Elaine on this particular issue. Nonetheless, the elderly and disabled communities within your regions and states will be particularly interested in data from the ACS related to changes in disability questions. My recommendation would be to carefully document the changes in the disability questions over the lifespan of the decennial census, and the American Community Survey. Then, to analyze the "one-year" ACS data for your region/state using the "2007" vintage ACS disability questions; compared to the "2008-to-current" vintage ACS disability questions, knowing that the questions (and responses) have changed between 2007 and 2008. Depend as much as possible on Census Bureau published research on the Disability questions, be it from Census Bureau working papers or professional papers at the Population Association of America, ASA, etc. Exactly "why" did the Census Bureau change the questions, etc. It will be impossible to say anything about "changes" in the number of disabled persons, even between 2007 and 2008, due to questionnaire changes. It's just best to be upfront with your clientele to show how the ACS questions have changed, and how they impact the responses. And, it would also be useful to use the PUMS to understand the overlap between minority, low income, elderly and disabled. The tricky element is how to define "low income" (100% or 200% of poverty level, other methods?). Just some thoughts. Chuck Purvis retired :) San Francisco Bay Area *************************** On Apr 4, 2011, at 4:11 AM, Michael Moan wrote: Is this indeed true? Michael C. Moan, Principal Planner Office of Statewide Planning Division of Planning Department of Administration One Capitol Hill Providence, RI 02908 4012221236>>> Planning Department &lt;PlanningDepartment(a)countyofberks.com&gt; 4/1/2011 12:10 PM >>> I don't know of any useful solutions; however, I just hope that the kind Environmental Justice folks at FHWA and FTA are aware of this situation when we they hammer our Benefits and Burdens Analysis documents during the 4-year MPO Certification Review. Michael D. Golembiewski Transportation Modeler

I wrote an article some time ago for the CTPP Status Report (April 2006) that discusses transit dependent populations (see link below). I was struggling with how to identify transit dependent populations in urban areas without double county (elderly disabled, elderly low-income, low income disabled, etc.). I came up with a very basic equation that subtracted the number of autos available by the number of auto drivers (16+). This helped define where transit dependent populations live regardless of income, age, disability, etc. This doesn't help identify choice riders like myself that live in the suburbs and just prefer to take the bus but it might be useful for those that are looking to create new or expand transit service in the more urban areas. http://www.trbcensus.com/newsltr/sr0406.pdf Todd Steiss Todd A. Steiss, AICP, GISP Senior Planner Parsons Brinckerhoff 121 West Trade Street, Suite 1950 Charlotte, NC 28202 Direct: 704-342-5411 Main: 704-342-5401 Mobile: 704-906-7706 Fax: 704-342-8472 Email: steiss(a)pbworld.com From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Planning Department Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 11:25 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] Disability Status (new thread) All: My apologies for opening such a can of worms with my reply regarding FHWA/FTA reviews of MPO Benefits & Burdens analysis documents. Many of you are aware of these issues, but I'd like to address some questions that have arisen, if I may... 'Environmental Justice' traces many of its origins to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which says that "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of race, color, or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program receiving Federal financial assistance." In 1994, then-President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898 that extends those rights by mandating that "Each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations." Furthermore, through various pieces of legislation and legislative guidance, the spirit and intent of Environmental Justice-if not the letter of the law--has been extended to other groups such as the elderly, those with Limited English Proficiency and those with disabilities (see the Americans with Disabilities Act). These issues are particularly pronounced in the transportation realm in that, through highway, transit, pedestrian and all other modes, movement affects ALL persons from ALL walks of life. We, as transportation practitioners, need to ensure that we are addressing these persons (note that the legislation specifically says "persons" and "populations", not "citizens") in our planning and programming. The question regarding vehicle ownership as a "protected class" under E.J. is interesting. While vehicle ownership for most of us is a choice, those with limited income and/or certain disabilities are, by virtue of their situations, precluded from vehicle ownership. For them, it is not a choice. In our MPO and, I suspect many MPO's, overlaying a map of low-income households with a map of zero-car households would show striking similarities. Very walkable and/or expensive cities like New York and Philadelphia have a wealth of transportation options that allow many residents a car-free lifestyle. Complete transit systems, ZipCar-like institutions, mixed use development (and redevelopment) all work in conjunction with each other to allow car-free CHOICES for residents. In many smaller cities, that lifestyle is not a choice but a function of circumstance. Sorry for the rant; please don't exorcise me from this list. The discussion is inspiring and useful! Back to DATA crunching... Michael D. Golembiewski Transportation Modeler BERKS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 633 Court Street FL 14 Reading, PA 19601 Ph: 610 478-6300 ext 6304 Fax: 610 478-6316 e-mail: mgolembiewski(a)countyofberks.com Web: http://www.co.berks.pa.us/dept/planning Note: The comments on and attachment to this e-mail are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, your are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the original message, any attachment(s) and copies. Thank you for your cooperation. ______________________________________________________________________ NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may contain confidential information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure, viewing, copying, alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or you are not an authorized recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this message and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies.

Hello- I am currently updating urban area boundaries based on the proposed 2010 Urban Area Delineation criteria. I understand the final criteria will be available later this spring, I'm just looking to get a good estimate. I'm hoping someone can help me with a couple things: -I noticed with the new criteria, some urban areas from the previous delineation (2000) no longer exist. With the new criteria they are no longer considered urban area cores. I'm curious to know if any areas should be carried over from the 2000 delineation. The area in question is a city of about 16,000. -I also notice the 2010 criteria takes the National Land Cover Database into account. Would anyone happen to know what kind of criteria should be used regarding the NLCD? Any help is appreciated. Jason Kaper GIS Analyst Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission 111 Liberty Street Ste. 100 Columbus, OH 43215 (614)233-4111 [cid:image001.gif@01CBF449.4FA144B0]

I have spoken with the Geography Division staff with whom Mr. Harmon has been in contact. A clarification is necessary. The Census Bureau does not plan to grandfather all previously defined urban areas. Rather, we will propose that the final criteria for splitting large agglomerations use the boundaries of Census 2000 urbanized areas to determine where the split should occur. The result would be that urbanized areas defined for Census 2000 will continue to be urbanized areas for the 2010 Census. This proposal will be part of the final criteria presented to the Census Bureau's Statistical Areas Committee for review (see my previous message to the CTPP list). If you have any questions about urbanized area and urban cluster definitions for the 2010 census, or the final criteria for defining urban areas, please contact the Geographic Standards and Criteria Branch at 301-763-3056. Michael Ratcliffe ______________________________________ Michael R. Ratcliffe Assistant Division Chief, Geocartographic Products and Criteria Geography Division U.S. Census Bureau 4600 Silver Hill Road/ MS-7400 Washington, DC 20233-7400 301-763-8977 michael.r.ratcliffe(a)census.gov From: "Mike Harmon" &lt;MHARMON(a)slocog.org&gt; To: &lt;ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net&gt; Date: 04/06/2011 12:03 PM Subject: RE: [CTPP] 2010 Census Urban Area Criteria Sent by: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net I have been in contact with the Geography Division for several months now and have been informed that a proposal has been tentatively adopted to grandfather all previously identified Urban Areas. From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Jason Kaper Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 7:59 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] 2010 Census Urban Area Criteria Hello- I am currently updating urban area boundaries based on the proposed 2010 Urban Area Delineation criteria. I understand the final criteria will be available later this spring, I’m just looking to get a good estimate. I’m hoping someone can help me with a couple things: -I noticed with the new criteria, some urban areas from the previous delineation (2000) no longer exist. With the new criteria they are no longer considered urban area cores. I’m curious to know if any areas should be carried over from the 2000 delineation. The area in question is a city of about 16,000. -I also notice the 2010 criteria takes the National Land Cover Database into account. Would anyone happen to know what kind of criteria should be used regarding the NLCD? Any help is appreciated. Jason Kaper GIS Analyst Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission 111 Liberty Street Ste. 100 Columbus, OH 43215 (614)233-4111 (Embedded image moved to file: pic08419.gif)MORPC Logo tiny _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news