Dear Everyone -- I am just re-iterating Mike's note. Some of the reasons that we want the transportation community to pay attention to PUMA criteria are: a. For Census 2000, the participation of transportation agencies in the PUMA delineation process was spotty, and therefore, the PUMAs defined in coordination with the CB's State Data Center program often were not useful for transportation planning, e.g. a county might be broken up into City A, City B and "rest of County" which looked like a cookie with 2 holes. The proposed criteria is to use census tracts and counties as the building blocks. b. PUMAs used to be primarily used with the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), but PUMAs are now an important tabulation geography which meet the Census Bureau's threshold for annual reporting from the American Community Survey. Since counties and places often do not meet the 1-year threshold of 65,000 population, using PUMAs provides a geographic coverage without holes. I hope you will take this opportunity to provide your thoughts to the Census Bureau. And, when the actual delineation occurs, I hope that you will work together with your State's Data Center. http://www.census.gov/sdc/network.html Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460 -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of michael.r.ratcliffe(a)census.gov Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 12:27 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] Proposed Criteria and Guidelines for PUMAs for the 2010Census and the ACS Proposed Criteria and Guidelines for Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) for the 2010 Census and the American Community Survey The Census Bureau announces publication of the "Proposed Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) Criteria and Guidelines for the 2010 Census and American Community Survey" available on the Census Bureau’s website at http://www.census.gov/geo/puma/puma2010.html . The Census Bureau is seeking public comment on these proposed criteria and guidelines. Comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the criteria should be submitted in writing, no later than February 28, 2011 to Timothy Trainor, Chief, Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233-7400. The Census Bureau's 2010 PUMAs will be used to present 2010 Census decennial Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) data, American Community Survey (ACS) PUMS data, and ACS estimates. PUMA delineations are subject to population threshold, specific building block geography, geographic nesting, and PUMA contiguity criteria. Proposed changes for 2010 PUMAs include: § Only one level of PUMA geography will be delineated (comparable to the 5-percent PUMAs for Census 2000). § Each PUMA must have a population of at least 100,000 persons at the time it is delineated, and must maintain a minimum population of 100,000 throughout the decade. § Each PUMA-county part must meet a minimum population threshold of 2,400 persons. § Counties and census tracts will be the only geographic “building blocks” for 2010 PUMAs. Additional information about the history of PUMAs, as well as summaries of the proposed changes are available on the Census Bureau's website at http://www.census.gov/geo/puma/puma2010.html . To obtain further information concerning the Census Bureau’s proposed 2010 PUMA criteria, please contact Vincent Osier, Chief, Geographic Standards and Criteria Branch, Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau, via e-mail at vincent.osier(a)census.gov or by telephone at 301-763-3056. 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

Elaine: I can categorically state that the Baltimore MPO has an excellent relationship with our State Data Center housed in the Maryland Department of Planning. The SDC reached out to MPOs in Maryland and the DC region (the Baltimore and Washington MPOs model the edge counties of each other's region. The SDC after the 2000 census set up a meeting with MPOs, county planning offices, libraries and other interested entities to discuss optimum configurations of PUMAs using aggregations of locally defined areas. In the case of our Baltimore MPO we used aggregations of our MPO developed Regional Planning Districts. We expect similar collaboration this time. We do a lot of work with PUMAs because we do very specialized tabulations using the PUMS files. We create special tabulations to help update and fine tune our travel demand model and we answer a number of special requests from outside agencies using the PUMS files. I am sure that there are additional examples of positive interactions between MPOs and SDCs. Dunbar Brooks Manager, Data Development Baltimore Metropolitan Council Offices @ McHenry Row 1500 Whetsone Way, Suite 300 Baltimore, Maryland 21230 Phone: 410-732-9574 Fax: 410-732-8248 ________________________________ Confidentiality Statement This message may contain legally privileged and confidential information that is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient, taking any action based on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. Please immediately notify the sender if you have received this message in error. -----Original Message----- From: Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov [mailto:Elaine.Murakami@dot.gov] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 7:17 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] Please help your data community re: PUMAs I am getting anecdotal remarks about whether or not SDCs have been open to working with the transportation data community, e.g. State DOTs and MPOs, about PUMA delineation. I think that if a few of you could provide some EXAMPLES of GOOD working relationships, maybe we can reduce the problems in the next round. Some questions to consider: After 2000, how did the SDC do outreach with the data community to get input into PUMA delineation? What are the SDCs' plans for outreach for the next round? Has the MPO or the State DOT participated in the SDC program as an affiliate? Did the transportation data community participate in the 2010 Census tract delineation? State's Data Center contact list: http://www.census.gov/sdc/network.html You don't have to write a book, just a couple of paragraphs would still be helpful! Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460 _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

The use of puma level data differs greatly for rural areas where several counties are needed to make a puma to central cities that include several pumas. As a demographer for the City of Chicago, I used puma data regularly. Some years, a regional transportation agency (CATS) defined the pumas but in 2000 I did it. I felt that it was too important to the City’s planning department to leave this function to transportation planners. The SDC coordinator, Sue Ebetsch, was very helpful. All I want to say is that more than transportation planners have a stake in the puma definitions. Thanks for keeping the CTPP listserv public. Marie Bousfield Retired but still reading your emails -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 6:17 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] Please help your data community re: PUMAs I am getting anecdotal remarks about whether or not SDCs have been open to working with the transportation data community, e.g. State DOTs and MPOs, about PUMA delineation. I think that if a few of you could provide some EXAMPLES of GOOD working relationships, maybe we can reduce the problems in the next round. Some questions to consider: After 2000, how did the SDC do outreach with the data community to get input into PUMA delineation? What are the SDCs' plans for outreach for the next round? Has the MPO or the State DOT participated in the SDC program as an affiliate? Did the transportation data community participate in the 2010 Census tract delineation? State's Data Center contact list: http://www.census.gov/sdc/network.html You don't have to write a book, just a couple of paragraphs would still be helpful! Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460 _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

We are both the MPO and the SDC Affiliate for our area. The Washington State SDC asked us to propose how we wanted our PUMAs delineated. Our population in 2000 was only 207,355, so we were only creating two PUMAs. Also, there would only be one workplace PUMA, corresponding to the whole county. No matter how we might have divided the area, differentiated flows between the two PUMAs and the county as a whole would not have been of much transportation planning value. Realistically, the only choices available under the circumstances were an east-west split of the county, or an approximation of an urban-rural split (about 80% of the population lives in the northern third of the county, so a north-south split wasn’t practical). We decided to create one PUMA for the urban core, and the second for the remainder of the county. That creates a donut, but at least allows for tracking the significant differences in household characteristics for the two different PUMAs, using the custom crosstabs only available through PUMS. Pete Swensson, Senior Planner Thurston Regional Planning Council 2424 Heritage Ct. SW Olympia, WA 98502 (360) 741-2530 (direct line) (360) 956-7575 (main desk) (360) 956-7815 (fax) swenssp(a)trpc.org This e-mail and any attachments are for the use of the addressed individual. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify our systems manager. TRPC has taken responsible precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this e-mail, however we do not accept responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments. _____________________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 4:17 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] Please help your data community re: PUMAs I am getting anecdotal remarks about whether or not SDCs have been open to working with the transportation data community, e.g. State DOTs and MPOs, about PUMA delineation. I think that if a few of you could provide some EXAMPLES of GOOD working relationships, maybe we can reduce the problems in the next round. Some questions to consider: After 2000, how did the SDC do outreach with the data community to get input into PUMA delineation? What are the SDCs' plans for outreach for the next round? Has the MPO or the State DOT participated in the SDC program as an affiliate? Did the transportation data community participate in the 2010 Census tract delineation? State's Data Center contact list: http://www.census.gov/sdc/network.html You don't have to write a book, just a couple of paragraphs would still be helpful! Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460 _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

I need to correct my earlier statements regarding the Kansas and Missouri State Data Centers. My staff brought to my attention that we were, indeed, offered a chance to comment. However, the timeframe allowed by the SDCs - approximately 30 days - was insufficient for us to bring together the region's planners together to review the proposed boundaries, as we had done for the 1990 PUMA definitions. Consequently, we were unable to ensure the methods and objectives used to define PUMAs in the Kansas and Missouri parts or our region were consistent, and the 2000 PUMAs that resulted aren't as useful for regional planning purposes as they could have been. Because we have been in contact with the Kansas and Missouri State Data Centers earlier in the process than in 2000, we should have sufficient time for the needed review of the 2010 PUMA boundaries. Frank Frank Lenk Director of Research Services Mid-America Regional Council 600 Broadway, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64105 www.marc.org 816.474.4240 flenk(a)marc.org 816.701.8237 -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Graham, Todd Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 12:32 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] Please help your data community re: PUMAs Hi all-- Yesterday I read through the Proposed PUMA Criteria and Guidelines. Census Bureau is taking comments, now thru Feb 28, on the rules for drawing new PUMA boundaries. http://www.census.gov/geo/puma/2010_puma_guidelines.pdf Highlights: * PUMAs must have at least 100,000 population per Census 2010 enumeration. * The basic building blocks of vintage 2010 PUMAs will be counties and contiguous groupings of tracts. * Cities are no longer building blocks -- you have to build up from groupings of tracts. My take: The new rules are all reasonable. The 3rd point above may be controversial, but it seems justified. (It's discussed in the Bureau's document.) That being the case, Metropolitan Council is not going to submit any formal comments to the Bureau. If any of YOU are going to comment -- comments due Feb 28 -- I encourage your support of section IV B of the document, which allows "grandfathering" of vintage 2000 PUMAs with non-contiguous pieces. That's a reasonable and considerate allowance by the Bureau. Elaine-- You asked about the quality of MPO relationships with Census State Liaisons (usually the State Demographer). Metropolitan Council is a regional government, MPO, and SDC network member. And I think we have a great relationship with the Minnesota State Demographer. No complaints. Hope your year is off to a good start. Cheers. ________________________ Todd Graham Principal Forecaster Metropolitan Council 390 Robert Street North Saint Paul, MN 55101 ph: 651/602-1322 email: todd.graham(a)metc.state.mn.us in: www.linkedin.com/in/toddgraham web: www.metrocouncil.org ________________________ ________________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov [Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 6:17 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] Please help your data community re: PUMAs I am getting anecdotal remarks about whether or not SDCs have been open to working with the transportation data community, e.g. State DOTs and MPOs, about PUMA delineation. I think that if a few of you could provide some EXAMPLES of GOOD working relationships, maybe we can reduce the problems in the next round. Some questions to consider: After 2000, how did the SDC do outreach with the data community to get input into PUMA delineation? What are the SDCs' plans for outreach for the next round? Has the MPO or the State DOT participated in the SDC program as an affiliate? Did the transportation data community participate in the 2010 Census tract delineation? State's Data Center contact list: http://www.census.gov/sdc/network.html You don't have to write a book, just a couple of paragraphs would still be helpful! Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460 _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

Ed: tell Chuck he doesn't quit the mob so easy. AEP -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Charles Purvis Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 12:15 PM To: CTPP-News CTPP-News Subject: Re: [CTPP] Please help your data community re: PUMAs Hello all: Just thought I'd chime in my thoughts on PUMA delineation. I was with the San Francisco Bay Area MPO up until 2009, and we had a very good, collaborative relationship with our State Data Center and our Regional Data Center (the COG for the region), and various parties interested in this subject. We basically assembled our 2000 PUMAs as simple aggregations of census tracts. We convened a small group of interested county and city planners, and even had a UC Berkeley planning professor attend (and provide excellent comments). We did the GIS work, provided options, and decided as a group how to define our Census 2000 PUMAs. This was accepted by our SDC and the Census Bureau. I believe the SDC in California worked with all of the Regional Data Centers (RDCs) and Affiliate Data Centers (ADCs) to define the PUMAs for all of California. It worked well here in the Bay Area; can't comment on elsewhere in the state. Some thoughts on the 2010 PUMAs: 1. The rules to define PUMAs as aggregations of census tracts makes it easy to get started now (or April 1st, when the final sets of PL 94-171 data become available). 2. MPOs should be a part of the regional data center / affiliate data center program in their state(s). 3. The role is to provide options on PUMA delineation (keep the 2000 PUMAs with minor adjustments to be consistent with 2010 tracts; re-split fast growing counties; etc.) 4. The role is to be open, inclusive, and serve as a "convener" of interested parties. 5. These PUMAs need to serve the broad regional interest for improved socio-economic analyses. 6. PUMAs are not just for Public Microdata Data Sample (PUMS) analyses; they are now "standard" summary levels included in the Census Bureau's reporting of data from the ACS. So, more folks will take an interest in their delineation. By the way, retirement is GREAT! It really beats the alternative! Chuck Purvis (formerly with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the SF Bay Area) On Jan 19, 2011, at 4:17 PM, <Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov> <Elaine.Murakami(a)dot.gov> wrote: working with the transportation data community, e.g. State DOTs and MPOs, about PUMA delineation. I think that if a few of you could provide some EXAMPLES of GOOD working relationships, maybe we can reduce the problems in the next round. input into PUMA delineation? affiliate? delineation? helpful! _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5859 (20110209) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5859 (20110209) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5860 (20110209) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com

I'm in a statisticians dream, but my nightmare..... Sonny Sanders, GISP Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization City of Jefferson - Department of Community Development's Planning and Transportation Services 320 E. McCarty St. Jefferson City, MO 65101 573-634-6439 www.jeffcitymo.org/campo [cid:image001.jpg@01CBAB61.4C0D2B60] ________________________________ From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Jason Gillow Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 3:28 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] RE: How to Combine Median Values for Multiple Areas Hello I had a similar issue median and average values, I had to contact the Census Bureau themselves to get an answer. Below was my question and their answer to me. I have attached a revised version of you table with what I think is the appropriate approximations of the MOE of means, medians and ratios. You should check to make sure I found them all. (See attached file: Ohio county spreadsheet.xlsx) Please note: 1. I have changed the concept of your medians. They are now the average median instead of the median of medians. I did this because it makes it easier to calculate the MOE. We get back to taking the square root of the sum of MOE^2 which is as given in the appendix you mention below. Except now we divide it by the squared number of estimates in the average. In this case 144 (or 12^2). The benefit of the shift is the MOE is much smaller than what you had initially. I have to warn you that it may be an underestimate since we have not adjusted for correlation between the estimates. 2. I noticed that the median values didn't change much with the shift and the new medians seem more in line with the distributions shown that are associated with the medians. 3. Your idea of taking the square root of the median MOE^2 is inventive, but all you did was assign an MOE from one of the other median estimates to selected median of the medians. 4. If you are unhappy with the concept change, you can go back to taking the median of medians, but I am suspicious that it isn't the truly overall median. As far as the median's MOE, it would be a lot of work using linear interpolation and you probably won't get anything useful. Instead just use the median's own MOE and not the median of the MOEs. This result does give an extremely conservative MOE so technically you cannot go wrong except it probably isn't useful. 5. Your average of the means concept was fine, but I made the same change to the MOE formula as I did for the medians. 6. I did check some of your count estimates and they seem to be calculated correctly. Again I want you to understand that what you and I are calculating here are approximations. They maybe overestimates or underestimates. But I feel they are better than what you had. Hopefully they will be useful. Karen E. King Supervisory Mathematical Statistician ACS Variance Estimation and Statistical Support Branch Decennial Statistical Studies Division U.S. Census Bureau Phone: 301 763-1974 From: Jason G Date: 12/30/2010 09:24 AM Subject: RE: Regarding question about summing estimates Hello Both questions refer to the same matter. I work for a regional planning commission that serves 12 counties in south central Ohio. I am developing a regional profile based off American Community Survey 5-year 2005-2009 data - profile tables. I am using the formulas referenced in http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/handbooks/ACSResearch.pdf in Appendix 3 on page A-14 under section "Calculating MOEs for Aggregated Count Data" to get the aggregate estimate and Margin of error (MOE) numbers for our region. I know this works with like "total household" category for example to get the aggregate estimate and its MOE. But the problem I have is calculating the aggregate estimate and its MOE for "Average household size", "median family income" and "Rental vacancy rate" for example. I have figured out the formulas for the aggregate estimates of these types, but I have trouble with the calculating the MOEs for these aggregate estimates for like "Average household size", "median family income" and "Rental vacancy rate" for example for the region. Attached is my main work table in Excel format for reference. The numbers in bolded red color are for the region I serve, and gray highlighted cells are the MOEs I had trouble with. What I need to know is the formulas for calculating the MOEs in the gray highlighted cells in my spreadsheet. Jason Gillow Research/Planning Specialist II Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission 9329 St Rt 220 E, Suite A Waverly, OH 45690 Phone: 740-947-2853 or 800-223-7491 (In Ohio) Fax: 740-947-3468 www.ovrdc.org Email: jgillow(a)ovrdc.org From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Cook, Cliff Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 1:24 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] How to Combine Median Values for Mutliple Areas I am looking for guidance on how to combine median income values for several census tracts into a single value and associated margin of error. I recall seeing something about this topic in an ACS document but cannot locate the information at this time. Any help would be appreciated. Cliff Cook ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clifford Cook Planning Information Manager Cambridge Community Development Dept. 344 Broadway Cambridge, MA. 02139 617/349-4656 FAX 617/349-4669 TTY 617/349-4621 email => ccook(a)cambridgema.gov web site => <http://www.cambridgema.gov/~CDD/> ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________