CTPP May 2002

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

57 participants
76 discussions

[CTPP] Impact of New UA definition to FTA funds

by Elaine Murakami

FTA has just posted a series of FAQs addressing many issues regarding 5307, 5310, 5311, and 5309 funds. It includes responses to questions regarding operating assistance in areas which were in urbanized areas below 200,000 which have now been incorporated into areas with 200,000 and over population. http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/planning/census/faq.html The web includes links to appropriate FTA staff regarding specific topics. Enjoy! Elaine Murakami FHWA

21 years, 11 months

RE: [CTPP] UZA's, UC's and Functional Classification

by Gardner

Would "smoothing" include eliminating the "holes" in doughnuts?? In SC, where sprawl is rampant, we have several instances where either 1) the urban area extends as narrow strips along several highway corridors and completely encloses a rural area; 2) two urban areas are separated by a very narrow strip of less than a mile (Greenville and the new "Mauldin-Simpsonville" UA); 3) urban areas or urban clusters are separated by a narrow gap (<1 mi.) in a major highway corridor. If the "smoothing" doesn't address all of these, we'll wind up with functional classifications that bounce repeatedly between urban and rural over a relatively short distance. John Gardner SCDOT Office of Planning -----Original Message----- From: Gorman, Robert <FHWA> [mailto:Robert.Gorman(a)fhwa.dot.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 2:05 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net; millef1(a)mail.modot.state.mo.us Subject: Re: [CTPP] UZA's, UC's and Functional Classification Our office has not developed a timetable for completing the functional reclassification. But now that the maps are available states should begin working on it. We do not intend to modify the Census boundaries. However, states and locals could propose smoothing the boundaries (provided that it includes everything that Census has included). We also provided some flexibility in our Addendum to the Functional Classification Manual to allow states to make the urban rural changes at the nearest logical point (road intersection) rather than between intersections. >>> millef1(a)mail.modot.state.mo.us 05/14/02 04:58PM >>> Now that we have new urbanized boundaries, does FHWA have a timetable for updating functional classification of roadways? Beyond the shift of the arterials between urban and rural, we have rural minor collectors that may need to be reclassified as an urban collector (and urban collector could easily be a rural major collector). Will FHWA modify the census definition of urban for functional classifications? I haven't seen a map or our areas yet, but I'm guessing there will be roadways with the urban-rural boundary split down the middle of the road. There are also areas with a very urban character that will likely be designated rural because there is no population density. Frank Miller Missouri Department of Transportation - District 8

21 years, 11 months

Re: [CTPP] UZA's, UC's and Functional Classification

by Gorman

Our office has not developed a timetable for completing the functional reclassification. But now that the maps are available states should begin working on it. We do not intend to modify the Census boundaries. However, states and locals could propose smoothing the boundaries (provided that it includes everything that Census has included). We also provided some flexibility in our Addendum to the Functional Classification Manual to allow states to make the urban rural changes at the nearest logical point (road intersection) rather than between intersections. >>> millef1(a)mail.modot.state.mo.us 05/14/02 04:58PM >>> Now that we have new urbanized boundaries, does FHWA have a timetable for updating functional classification of roadways? Beyond the shift of the arterials between urban and rural, we have rural minor collectors that may need to be reclassified as an urban collector (and urban collector could easily be a rural major collector). Will FHWA modify the census definition of urban for functional classifications? I haven't seen a map or our areas yet, but I'm guessing there will be roadways with the urban-rural boundary split down the middle of the road. There are also areas with a very urban character that will likely be designated rural because there is no population density. Frank Miller Missouri Department of Transportation - District 8

21 years, 11 months

RE: [CTPP] UA TIGER/Line files now available

by Sweson Yang

Dear Haila, In the interests of objectivity and consistency, the Census 2000 Urban Areas are no longer land use classifications. Parks and Industrial Areas are no longer "Urban". The Urbanized Area is a group of contiguous Census Blocks or Block Groups with high population density as defined by the Census Bureau's Geographic Information System called TIGER. "Rural" are areas of low density Census Blocks. I know it will be difficult to explain but we just have to deal with it. I hope this brief explanation helps. Cheers. Sweson Yang, AICP Chief Transportation Planner Indianapolis Metro Planning Organization 200 E. Washington St., Suite 1841 Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 327-5137

21 years, 11 months

[CTPP] UZA's, UC's and Functional Classification

by millef1＠mail.modot.state.mo.us

Now that we have new urbanized boundaries, does FHWA have a timetable for updating functional classification of roadways? Beyond the shift of the arterials between urban and rural, we have rural minor collectors that may need to be reclassified as an urban collector (and urban collector could easily be a rural major collector). Will FHWA modify the census definition of urban for functional classifications? I haven't seen a map or our areas yet, but I'm guessing there will be roadways with the urban-rural boundary split down the middle of the road. There are also areas with a very urban character that will likely be designated rural because there is no population density. Frank Miller Missouri Department of Transportation - District 8

21 years, 11 months

RE: [CTPP] UA TIGER/Line files now available

by Haila Maze

We have converted our 2000 urbanized area boundaries and examined them in ArcView. It appears that our urbanized area has shrunk in many areas compared with the 1990 Census urbanized area. There are declines particularly around less occupied areas (we have a lot of marshes here in Charleston) adjacent to and surrounded by urban areas. Some changes are harder to explain, particularly in rapidly developing parts of our region that moved from being "urban" to "rural" by Census definition. This came as somewhat of a surprise to us. We had calculated our boundaries based on the draft regs published last year, and the final ones look dramatically different for our region. Could anyone give a basic explanation of the change in philosophy between designating the 1990 and 2000 boundaries? As the region's MPO, we need a good explanation (suitable for the layperson) to tell our local folks, particularly in areas that have much more growth than they did 10 years ago but are now called "rural." Thanks. Haila R. Maze, AICP Senior Planner Berkeley Charleston Dorchester Council of Governments 5290 Rivers Avenue, Suite 400 North Charleston, SC 29406 (843) 529-0400 (843) 529-0305 fax -----Original Message----- From: Robert LaMacchia [mailto:robert.a.lamacchia(a)census.gov] Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 2:05 PM To: Ctpp-News Maillist Subject: [CTPP] UA TIGER/Line files now available The UA Census 2000 TIGER/Line files are now available at: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tigerua/ua_tgr2k.html <http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tigerua/ua_tgr2k.html> Bob LaMacchia Geography Division U. S. Census Bureau

21 years, 11 months

Re: [CTPP] Effective Date of New UAs

by Elizabeth Hartmann

The release of the new UAs has inspired a lot of questions about their effects on transportation planning and programming. The FHWA has a couple of good web pages on FAQs: Specifically for UZA and UC http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/faqa2cdt.htm And a couple of layers up, but a broader swatch of transportation planning http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/ Happy hunting! Liz Hartmann MnDot Office of Investment Management

21 years, 12 months

RE: [CTPP] Effective Date of New UAs

by Brian Lakeman

Elaine, Helpful stuff. Have you heard any date/timeframe for announcement of new/updated TMA boundaries? I would also appreciate it if you (or anyone else) can provide me with the basics on how the TMA update process will be carried out. I presume that it will be based on the new UZA boundaries, but I haven't seen anything on how the TMA boundaries will be modified to reflect the 2000 census numbers. Thanks. Brian Lakeman Genesee Transportation Council -----Original Message----- From: Elaine Murakami [mailto:Elaine.Murakami(a)igate.fhwa.dot.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 11:10 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net; wschaefer(a)ci.madison.wi.us Subject: Re: [CTPP] Effective Date of New UAs Here is response from Sheldon Edner of FHWA: The designation for all UZAs was effective upon publication by the Census Bureau. New TMAs (UZA over 200,000 for first time) are effective, for transportation planning purposes, upon designation by the Secretary of Transportation. Regarding the use of FTA funds, please contact FTA. Regarding STP attributable funding, FY 2003 funding will be apportioned to the States in October, 2002 and will provide the first STP attributable funding for new TMAs. If the newly designated UZAs were part of an MPO (which was a TMA) before the publication of the Census information, they were already eligible for STP funding. If they have become part of the MPO (TMA) for the first time, they are eligible to use STP funding as soon as (starting after October1, 2002) projects utilizing those funds are included in a plan and TIP. Communities do not apply to FHWA for these funds, they are available as a result of the MPO planning process and the inclusion of projects utilizing them in plans and TIPs. Funding is made available through the State DOT. Sheldon Edner FHWA Office of Metropolitan Planning

21 years, 12 months

[CTPP] Remove my name

by Duane R. Bentz

Please remove my name as I am no longer working for NDDOT in a planning related position. dbentz(a)nd.state.us Duane R. Bentz, PE Associate Staff North Dakota Department of Transportation May 14, 2002

21 years, 12 months

Re: [CTPP] Effective Date of New UAs

by Elaine Murakami

Here is response from Sheldon Edner of FHWA: The designation for all UZAs was effective upon publication by the Census Bureau. New TMAs (UZA over 200,000 for first time) are effective, for transportation planning purposes, upon designation by the Secretary of Transportation. Regarding the use of FTA funds, please contact FTA. Regarding STP attributable funding, FY 2003 funding will be apportioned to the States in October, 2002 and will provide the first STP attributable funding for new TMAs. If the newly designated UZAs were part of an MPO (which was a TMA) before the publication of the Census information, they were already eligible for STP funding. If they have become part of the MPO (TMA) for the first time, they are eligible to use STP funding as soon as (starting after October1, 2002) projects utilizing those funds are included in a plan and TIP. Communities do not apply to FHWA for these funds, they are available as a result of the MPO planning process and the inclusion of projects utilizing them in plans and TIPs. Funding is made available through the State DOT. Sheldon Edner FHWA Office of Metropolitan Planning

21 years, 12 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

CTPP May 2002