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" <edc(a)berwyned.com> 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(a)chrispy.net]> mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] kind the for the mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)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(a)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(a)countyofberks.com<mailto:PlanningDepartment(a)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(a)baltometro.org> bpandey(a)baltometro.org <http://www.baltometro.org> www.baltometro.org _____ From: Nancy Reger [mailto:Nreger(a)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(a)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(a)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

The specific language in the EJ Executive Order 12898 specifies "....minority populations and low-income populations in the United States and its territories and possessions..." Adding other populations, including persons with disabilities, no vehicle households, or elderly may be at the discretion of each agency, but it does not change the official base on which data are collected. Source of quote: http://www.ejnet.org/ej/execorder.html Charles Trainor Principal Planner Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho 800 S. Industry Way, Suite 100 Merdian, Idaho 83642 208-855-2558 x232 office 208-855-2559 fax ctrainor(a)compassidaho.org From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Nancy Reger Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 7:43 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(a)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(a)countyofberks.com<mailto:PlanningDepartment(a)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 ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________

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(a)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

Jasper (and others)-- The Census Bureau has not yet issued final criteria for urban areas. We are hoping to publish final criteria this summer; the specific timing is dependent on convening a meeting of the Census Bureau's internal Statistical Areas Committee to review the recommendations for final criteria based on comments received in response to the proposed criteria we published last August. It has been difficult finding a date on which critical members of the Committee are available. We anticipate holding the meeting sometime between late-April and mid-May. In response to your statement below that "some urban areas from the previous delineation (2000) no longer exist," I want to be clear that the Census Bureau has not issued definitions or boundaries of urban areas based on 2010 census data. I am not sure whether you're referring to the result of your application of the proposed criteria with 2010 census data, or whether you're referring to the table of potential agglomerations that was included in the August 2010 Federal Register notice. The specific definitions of individual urban areas will not be known until we've applied 2010 census data with the final criteria. 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: Jason Kaper <Jkaper(a)morpc.org> To: "ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net" <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Date: 04/06/2011 11:32 AM Subject: [CTPP] 2010 Census Urban Area Criteria Sent by: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net 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: pic28583.gif)MORPC Logo tiny _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news