From: Marie Bousfield [mailto:mbousfield@rcn.com] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:34 AM To: Murakami, Elaine (FHWA) Subject: RE: [CTPP] Please help your data community re: PUMAs Hi Elaine, I defined the pumas by myself and gave the definitions to Sue Ebetsch (SDC) and to Cats for their comments. No changes were proposed. Sue had prepared a file layout so she could paste Chicago into her Illinois file. There are some census tracts that are split by the city boundary. I have forgotten if pumas allow partial census tracts. I kept the same puma boundary definitions that were used in 1970, 1980, and 1990 because for me it was important to have: 1. No change over time so that one can calculate change. 2. That the pumas observe existing smaller geographies such as neighborhoods and community areas. 3. For statistical reasons, that the pumas be as homogeneous as possible. The pumas were important for preparing the 2030 forecasts. Max Dieber from the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission prepared the forecast and used among other things a socio economic model. He used the pumas for the geographic unit. Pumas were just the right size, not too small and not too big and they came with consistent data. I foresee that the CTPP and the pumas will be more important in 2010 than before because economic development has become so much more important. Marie -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Marie Bousfield Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 7:26 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] Please help your data community re: PUMAs 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