9 Nov
2011
9 Nov
'11
4:04 p.m.
This is time critical. If you have a response for us, please reply
immediately to pbecker(a)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(a)umich.edu
9 Nov
9 Nov
5:14 p.m.
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(a)nctcog.org
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of
Patty Becker
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 4:05 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Cc: dargak(a)michigan.gov
Subject: [CTPP] PUMAs
This is time critical. If you have a response for us, please reply immediately to
pbecker(a)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(a)umich.edu
10 Nov
10 Nov
6:23 p.m.
Can someone provide me with the projection or the coordinate system for the Census polygon
files at this late in the day? Must reproject something. Cant find on web site
6:39 p.m.
Hi, Jim: Here's the projection for the tracts shape file:
Geographic Coordinate System: GCS_North_American_1983
Datum: D_North_American_1983
Prime Meridian: Greenwich
Angular Unit: Degree
Nancy Gemignani
California State Census Data Center
Demographic Research Unit
(916) 327-0103 ext 2550
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of
Jim Schoeffling
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 4:23 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: RE: [CTPP] PUMAs
Can someone provide me with the projection or the coordinate system for the Census polygon
files at this late in the day? Must reproject something. Cant find on web site
9 Nov
9 Nov
5:29 p.m.
Hi Patty-
Yes, we have one of these situations as well. I've been calling this the "corner
problem": two suburban tracts, all alone in a corner of Hennepin County, and
surrounded by city of Minneapolis and county boundaries. We want to group the suburban
tracts with other suburban tracts in the same county - but it would be a non-contiguous
grouping.
I've spoken with our State Demographer and am waiting for response. Hoping to request
"grandfathering" of the PUMA of 10 years ago; and this is something we expect
the Bureau will allow.
Todd Graham * Principal Forecaster
Metropolitan Council * 390 Robert Street North * Saint Paul, MN 55101
1+651-602-1322 (tel) * 1+651-602-1674 (fax) *
todd.graham@metc.state.mn.us<mailto:libby.starling@metc.state.mn.us> (e-mail)
www.linkedin.com/in/toddgraham (linkedin)
Visit www.metrocouncil.org/data for the latest in regional information.
ü Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of
Patty Becker
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 4:05 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Cc: dargak(a)michigan.gov
Subject: [CTPP] PUMAs
This is time critical. If you have a response for us, please reply immediately to
pbecker(a)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(a)umich.edu
4745
days inactive
4747
days old
5 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Arash Mirzaei -
Gemignani, Nancy -
Graham, Todd -
Jim Schoeffling -
michael.r.ratcliffe＠census.gov -
Patty Becker