Nameplay.org recently gathered census demographic data for the US, so I thought I'd aggregate some of the data in a table and share it with you guys! These are the top ten names per sex that are predominantly used by a certain race/ethnicity according to the 2020 US census. All recorded instances of a name in the table are at least 70% dominated by the given race/ethnicity. This data is for all ages, not just babies.

Asian American Boy Names	Asian American Girl Names	Black American Boy Names	Black American Girl Names	Hispanic/Latino American Boy Names	Hispanic/Latino American Girl Names	White American Boy Names	White American Girl Names
Muhammad	Priya	Willie	Willie	Jose	Maria	James	Mary
Arjun	Riya	Reginald	Latoya	Juan	Rosa	John	Elizabeth
Ayaan	Anjali	Tyrone	Essie	Carlos	Carmen	Robert	Patricia
Aarav	Mai	Darius	Ebony	Luis	Camila	Michael	Jennifer
Syed	Shreya	Malik	Diamond	Angel	Ana	William	Linda
Vihaan	Diya	Sylvester	Latasha	Jesus	Angel	David	Barbara
Nikhil	Saanvi	Jermaine	Imani	Oscar	Adriana	Joseph	Margaret
Aditya	Neha	Cedric	Tamika	Manuel	Angelica	Richard	Susan
Ishaan	Meera	Roosevelt	Latonya	Miguel	Genesis	Charles	Dorothy
Rishi	Ananya	Terrell	Miracle	Edgar	Gabriela	Thomas	Sarah

If you want to view more, you can go to https://nameplay.org/list/by-name-attribute and scroll all the way down to "demographic concentration".

What a pain! Feel lucky if you did not receive this.

Inspired by a recent post referring to the "NJ metro area", this map shows to which Core Based Statistical Areas (all Metropolitan Statistical Areas [MSAs] in this case) the counties of New Jersey belong, as defined by the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB). We can argue about whether or not we like belonging to one metro area or argue over the criteria used to determine the assignments... but the definitions themselves aren't really up for debate.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) are determined by the OMB using census data to identify a central, densely populated urban core and surrounding counties with high economic/social integration (based on commuting patterns). A CBSA must have at least one urban area of at least 10,000 population. CBSAs are defined at the county level.

My area has been selected as a testing ground for a new census. Estimated completion time is forty (40) minutes and a response is "required by law". Given the length of time required to complete it, I can only imagine how invasive the questions will likely be.

All answers are "confidential", but given the recent DOGE data breeches of our personal information, I am very leery of disclosing much beyond the bare minimum, as you can imagine.

Should I refuse to complete the questionnaire, a representative could be summoned to my abode for in-person information collection. At the moment, I am considering only answering questions I'm comfortable with, but beyond that, I'm reluctant to divulge intimate details of my existence.

What is the best way to respond to this situation?

TLDR: I made some maps showing population density and transit.

Description of Maps:

Population data is from the 2020 Census, transit data is from Pittsburgh Regional Transit (PRT) via the Western Pennsylvania Regional Data Center (WPRDC), and the water data is from Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access (PASDA).

Population density is calculated at the Census Block level and in the last map at the Census Tract level (multiple blocks in a tract) using the 2020 Census population and land area. A Census Block generally lines up with what would be considered a city block. The colors of the Census Blocks are assigned by color with lighter being more dense. Only Census Blocks with more than 3 people / acre are filled in. For conversion, there are 640 acres in a square mile. As a reference point, Shadyside has an average of 26 people/acre or 16,640 people / sq. mile. Note that the scale is logarithmic to not make everything outside of Oakland look empty.

Transit frequency is determined in terms of weekly trips (e.g., P1 travels its route 95 times per weekday, 66 times on Saturday, and 45 times on Sunday for a total of 586 times per week). More frequent routes are denoted by wider lines. Note that this is PRT data and does not include routes from other providers such as Westmoreland Transit Authority.

Map 1 - Population Density + Transit in Pittsburgh's busiest areas.

Map 2 - Population Density + Transit in Pittsburgh and surrounding communities.

Map 3 - Population Density + Transit in Allegheny County

Map 4 - Population Density Alone in Allegheny County

Map 5 - Population Density (at the Census Tract level) and Fixed-Link Transit Routes in Allegheny County

Discussion:

Density and Transit Viability

Density and transit are inextricably linked; there needs to be enough people in the walkshed of a stop or station for people to use that mode of transportation. Note that with double the density there are double the people and double the destinations which means four times as many matchings. More riders means more frequency makes financial sense and in turn better service can attract even more riders. Thus, minimum densities are needed for various types of transit (e.g., more density is needed to justify the costs of a train compared to a bus).

Successful Routes

From the maps, it is obvious to see why certain routes are successful and others aren't. The single route that carries the most passengers is the 51 Carrick with a weekday average of 5485 in FY 2025. This is more than the P1 with 4941 and about the same as the Blue and Silver T routes combined. This success is because the 51 travels through the middle of the relatively dense corridor to the east of the T and has high frequency with about 600 trips per week on the inner part. Similarly, the Red line is more popular the Blue or Silver because there are more people around the stations. The Library Line won't get many riders unless people drive to the station. Similarly the East Busway is more popular than the West Busway.

Service Gaps and Expansion

These maps can be thought of in the context of the Bus Line Redesign as well as possible system expansions. For example, Brighton Heights, Bellevue, Avalon, and Emsworth form a corridor on the North Side that could be a larger ridership basis with improved transit. From the T + Busways map of the county, it is an obvious outlier in terms of density and lack of fixed link transit. Munhall and Homestead (not Waterfront part) also receive pretty poor service (presumably because McKeesport to Homestead Grays Bridge is faster on Duquesne Blvd than Main St. The center of McKeesport also doesn't receive great service. Another corridor is Lawrenceville to the Waterfront which is currently served by the 64. In the redesign there are plans to extend this route to Millvale which makes sense looking at the first map. It might even make sense to bump frequency higher than every 30 minutes or continue the route to Homestead and Munhall which have a low service level.

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)

One approach to combining density and transit that has gained momentum in the past few decades is transit-oriented development (TOD). This means increasing density around existing transit stations. By increasing the percentage of people and destinations around stations, transit ridership increases. People traveling by transit can improve land utilization, and avoid expensive car infrastructure upgrades such as road widening. The best examples of TOD are in DC and Virginia with Seattle and New Jersey also having well-established programs. PRT is pursuing TOD through their Building-on-the-East-Busway (BOTEB) program, look at East Liberty today, and they have started planning elsewhere such as Carnegie on the West Busway and Dormont on the Red line. A design that they currently have but don't have the funding for yet is South Hills Junction. South Hills Junction makes a lot of sense as with all of the T lines, the frequency is 16 trains per hour at peak times. Similarly, an area that I think could use TOD, but for which there is no plan is the intersection of the 3 lines in Castle Shannon which is currently underutilized land. Partly due to topography, but the land utilization around the T stations isn't very good. Increasing TOD on the T lines, could add a lot of value.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

The BRT from Oakland to Downtown makes a lot of sense. Oakland continues to grow as a jobs destination and in population. Many buses from the East End going towards Downtown go through Oakland forming a funnel with a frequent transit corridor between Oakland and Downtown. A single bus route is able to serve both destinations. As a result, the 61A/B/C/D and 71A/B/C/D together carry about 25k passengers per day which is about 20% of PRT's ridership. One of the key goals of the BRT is to move the buses faster. Not only will this get passengers to their destination faster, but by reducing the time that the route takes, the same frequency can be provided with fewer buses (or increased frequency with the same number of buses).

Gondola

Another transit expansion that makes sense for Pittsburgh is a gondola. Key developing areas are the Strip District (looks empty on maps here but population has doubled to 3300 since 2020 Census and is forecast to reach 10,000 within the next decade), Oakland (a few cranes in the area at any given time), and Hazelwood Green (just started developing but has already received half a billion in investments). Connecting these areas via a gondola would be a much quicker trip and also connects Hill District residents to these job centers. The gondola continuing to vacant city-owned land in Arlington Heights and St Clair could enable transit-oriented development for these isolated hilltops and a continuation to Mt Oliver would mean that Mt Oliver residents and 51 users would have fast, frequent transit access to many city destinations and job centers. Another factor is that we can see from the maps that many routes in the East End run east to west. A north to south gondola enables no wait transfers between these many routes without traveling all the way downtown.

Conclusions

Overall, density and transit go together. These maps can help get a sense of which dense areas could use additional transit, which sparse areas it would be prudent to not offer transit, and where we can put additional density around existing transit.

Local mayors, iwi groups and health experts are among those pushing MPs to reconsider a controversial shake-up of the census, suggesting smaller minority ethnic and rural communities would become “effectively invisible” under the new model.

Last year the coalition Government announced plans to abandon the five-yearly count because of rising costs and problems with data collection, instead relying on administrative data already collected by government agencies and an annual survey of a subset of the population.

The proposal has attracted criticism from some who fear it will reduce the reliability of government statistics and associated spending – a concern traversed as Parliament’s justice committee heard from a first tranche of submitters on Tuesday.

Newsroom link