Gustavo:
Short answer is no. Long answer is: The place-of-work PUMA (public
use microdata area) in the 1990 Census PUMS *should* be
county-of-work, in the case of a multi-PUMA county. This is a little
disappointing, since we were originally hoping for PUMA-to-PUMA
commuter matrices that we could do wonderful things with.
The best you can get is a PUMA-to-County commuter matrix, stratified
by however you please. (We've done a lot of work with PUMA-to-County
data in terms of analyzing the income, means of transportation,
raceðnicity, occupation, sex, age, weight, etc., of "transbay
commuters" from the East Bay to San Francisco. Nothing published:
just backup factoids as part of our Bay Bridge congestion pricing
demo project.)
Let's me try to give you a hypothetical example. If your county, say,
Harris County, has PUMAs numbered 1801 through 1809, then the
PUMA-of-work code is most likely 1800 (equivalent to Harris
County-of-work.)
Recommend you do a frequency distribution of your POWPUMAs and this
logic should hold up. POWPUMAs will nest on your residence PUMAs.
I just reviewed the detailed PUMS documentation, and I can't find
reference to the issue of how POWPUMAs are coded.
One of the problems with PUMS is that PUMA-of-residence is *not*
included on the person records; they have to be merged in from the
housing unit records. (This is annoying!)
Hopefully Phil or Gloria (Census Bureau) will pitch in to correct
what I've stated. Or give Phil or Gloria a call.
(Gustavo: in your spare time, why don't you do a cross-tab of year of
immigration into US by means of transportation to work. Compare to
the Los Angeles data shown by Dowell Myers in his article in TRB
Conference Proceedings #13, Vol. 2. You may want to anticipate very
high transit shares for recent immigrants to the US; and lowest
transit shares for older immigrants or native born Americans. I
found very similar patterns in the Bay Area as for LA in terms of
this relationship. Policy conclusion is that recent immigrants to the
US are sustaining public transportation ridership in US metro
areas!!! PUMS is great stuff for this type of background research!)
Cheers,
Chuck Purvis
Hello everyone:
Does somebody knows if the geographical boundary for the 'puma'
field in the housing unit record correspond to the same geographical
unit for 'powpuma' field (place of work puma) in the person record?
If not, do you where to find equivalence table between county and
powpuma, or county and puma?
Thank you for your cooperation,
Gustavo A. Baez
Senior Transportation Planer
North Central Texas Council of Governments
Email: gbaez(a)nctcog.dst.tx.us
*******************************************************
e-mail: cpurvi(a)mtc.dst.ca.us *or* cpurvi(a)mtc.ca.gov
or cpurvis(a)mtc.dst.ca.us *or* cpurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov
Chuck Purvis, AICP
Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst, Planning Section
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street, Oakland, CA 94607-4700
(510) 464-7731 (voice) (510) 464-7848 (fax)
WWW:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/ (New Address: FEB1398)
MTC DataMart & InfoMart:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/facts_and_figures/datamart.htm
MTC FTP Site:
ftp://ftp.abag.ca.gov/pub/mtc/planning/
Personal WWW:
http://home.earthlink.net/~clpurvis/
*******************************************************