CTPP August 2002

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

23 participants
27 discussions

Re: [CTPP] Has anybody downloaded SF3 by BG??

by Peter H. Van Demark

Kevin: >Now that the Census has released SF3, does the LIST know of way to download >(at once) all of the Block Group SF3 data for a county, or do I have to >download each Tract individually and merge them? The structure of SF 3 is one header file plus 76 (!) data files, none with more that 250 fields, to handle the 16,520 fields in the 405 tables for Census Tracts and above. There are "only" 5558 fields in 281 tables for Block Groups. Each file has all summary levels mixed together, so you have to search each file that has the tables you want to look for the block groups or other areas you want. TransCAD and Maptitude users have it a lot easier. TransCAD users get the SF 3 Data CD for their state free as part of their maintenance agreement, plus the State Data CD with Block Group and other boundaries for their state. Maptitude users (or TransCAD users that want other states) can buy these CDs for $195 each. Nationwide Census Tracts, ZCTAs, counties, MSAs, etc. come with both TransCAD and Maptitude. The SF3 Data CDs have all 77 files merged, then split into each summary level: Block Groups, Census Tracts, etc. With the Table Chooser for SF 3, an add-in to TransCAD and Maptitude, you can easily pick the geography and tables that you want, and output a geographic file (with the tables attached) or just a tabular file. SF 3 Data CDs are being released as the Census Bureau releases the states. 12 states are out, and seven more are due tomorrow. For more information, please visit (http://www.caliper.com/DataCDs/SF3DataCD.htm). Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Van Demark Director of GIS Products and Training Phone: 617-527-4700 Caliper Corporation Fax: 617-527-5113 1172 Beacon Street E-mail: peter(a)caliper.com Newton MA 02461-9926 Web site: http://www.caliper.com

22 years, 11 months

[CTPP] Re: FHWA Urban Area boundaries

by SRTC GIS

Thank you to all that answered my question. Hopefully, Washington State DOT will follow the same procedure as they did after the 1990 census. Eric Johnson Spokane Regional Transportation Council

22 years, 11 months

Re: [CTPP] Has anybody downloaded SF3 by BG??

by Nanda Srinivasan

I used the CB FTP site (http://www2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/Summary_File_3/) for the data: The SF 3 files are built on the same lines as the previous releases (SF 1 and PL data). The package consists of one GEOGRAPHIC file, and 76 data files. The process I used to convert the data into a GIS (in my case Arcview) is: 1. Downloaded the shape file for BGs from the ESRI website at www.geographynetwork.com 2. Downloaded the geography file, and the datafiles from the Census Bureau FTP site at: http://www2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/Summary_File_3/ 3. Opened these files in MS Access. If you want detailed instructions, please refer to http://www2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/Summary_File_3/0README_SF3.doc OR http://www.census.gov/support/SF3ASCII.html There is also a specific website to help you open the data in MS Access. Please refer to: http://www.census.gov/support/2000/SF3/ 4. Exported the database into DBF, and connected to the Arcview shapefile downloaded in step 1. Steps 2, and 3 are the only "problem" areas to most users. The Census Bureau is providing LIVE online support, and telephonic support to accomplish these steps. For online support, please visit: http://www.census.gov/support/SF3ASCII.html and click on the GREEN BOX with the title "LIVE HELP". The telephonic and e-mail contact information is: 301-457-1324 Voice 301-457-1296 Fax TechSupp(a)Census.gov If you need more help on the Arcview/GIS side (steps 1, and 4), please refer to the FHWA Census Issues website note on SF 1 data. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/sf1.htm The steps are almost the same, the difference is that in the case of SF1, the data was at the level of census blocks, most of SF 3 data is at the level of Block Groups. Hope the above is of use! Thanks Nanda Srinivasan >>> kharrison(a)sarpc.org 08/19/02 10:34AM >>> Now that the Census has released SF3, does the LIST know of way to download (at once) all of the Block Group SF3 data for a county, or do I have to download each Tract individually and merge them? Has anybody downloaded SF3 by BG from Census or American Fact Finder?? Kevin Harrison South Alabama Regional Planning Commission 651 Church St Mobile, AL 36602 251.433.6541

22 years, 11 months

[CTPP] FHWA Urban Area boundaries

by SRTC GIS

Does anyone know when the FHWA will decide on whether it is going to use the Census defined UAB or allow the development of modified ones by MPO's? I comparing Spokane County, WA 2000 Census UAs with our FHWA adopted UAB, there's some quite significant differences, such as the river flowing through the middle of the UA is non-urban, which splits the main UA into two parts (and theoretically makes the bridges across the river subject to rural funding programs instead of urban.) Thanks for any information that develops. Eric Johnson GIS Supervisor Spokane Regional Transportation Council

22 years, 11 months

RE: [CTPP] Adjusted Urbanized Area

by Putta

I have to add one more question to my previous list: should the state consider the population of revised/adjusted urbanized area for STP-UZA allocation? It (the Adjusted UZA) might be strictly for HPMS purpose only as most would suggest. Thank you everyone. I am sending this also to the MPO List - as some MPO experts may shed some more light on the practice. (for those on the MPO list: my original question was to do with: the State with co-operation from the MPOs shall fix urbanized area boundaries (smoothing out is the term used often) - for HPMS or other purposes). Following responses are self-explanatory. Viplav Putta INCOG ---------------------------------------- Nancy: I got the following responses on the issue of smoothing, which may help others (-VP): --------------------------------------------- Glen Ahlert [gahlert(a)swfrpc.org] The only guidance available from FHWA on this dates from 1991, and still contains a number of obsolete references. It will also leave a lot of your questions unanswered, I suspect. You can download it at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov//////legsregs/directives/fapg/g406300.htm. You might also want to talk to Bob Diogo (bdiogo(a)swfrpc.org) in this office, who has been trying to develop smoothed urbanized area and urban cluster boundaries for this area, about what he has learned and how he's gone about it. ----------------------------------------------- John Coil [jcoil(a)drcog.org] The FHWA requirement for smoothing urbanized areas (or creating transportation urban areas) was focused as an MPO function in 1975, 1983 and 1992. The MPOs needed to define the transportation urban areas and then the urban and rural functional classification to determine which roads were eligible for federal-aid secondary (rural) and federal-aid urban (urban) funding based on the 1974 Federal-aid Highway Act. The MPOs paid little attention to the HPMS data reporting requirements. With the advent of ISTEA in 1992, the need for transportation urban areas declined to just billboard locations, HPMS data reporting and speed limit controls. Since, the Census urbanized boundary now controls billboard locations and the speed controls have been removed. The only remaining need for transportation urban area definitions is the HPMS data reporting requirement. BUT, I think FHWA and many MPOs would like to have a consistent set of transportation urban areas for mapping and other planning functions. I do not know about the MPO interests in Oklahoma, but Denver MPO has no real interest in the urbanized/ transportation urban data reporting. We need data by the TMA to meet our Congressional transportation planning requirements. The 1990 Clean Air Act and ISTEA changed the geography we use in our planning and air quality conformity process. It is too bad that FHWA did not immediately change the HMPS data reporting requirements to match federal law. ---------------------------------------------------------- Mitchell, Steve R. [Steve.Mitchell(a)ahtd.state.ar.us] Go to the following link (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/faqa2cdt.htm#20 ) for information and contacts on the urbanized area boundary smoothing. It was a very big deal after the 1990 Census and ISTEA because there was a nation-wide functional reclassification of the entire roadway network. Back then there was guidance and workshops to help with the process. The FHWA Division offices (states) are now responsible for assisting the states and the information given out is very fragmented and confusing for everyone, not just those who haven't done it before. The information I have has never given a finite limit to the amount of adjustment...just that everyone involved must agree that it is reasonable. The smoothing affects what is classified as urban and rural by the State and Federal government which affects many things they do and could affect funding. The smoothing may be done for all areas classified as urban, not just urbanized areas above 200,000 population. The smoothing is supposed to be done in cooperation with the MPO in large areas. Make suggestions to your DOT as you think appropriate to make data management easier -----------------------------------------------------

22 years, 11 months

RE: [CTPP] Adjusted Urbanized Area

by Kazimi

Hello Viplava. Here in Montana we had some of the same questions you have. In particular, we had trouble reconciling new Census definitions (Federal Register/Vol.67, No. 51 - March 15, 2002) with what currently exists in USC Titles 23 and 49 relating to urban areas. My understanding is that FHWA is looking into this and will provide further guidance on establishing urban boundaries and the "smoothing" criteria states can use relating to census blocks and urban clusters. With respect to establishing urbanized boundaries, FHWA HQ has asked that we follow the same federal-aid policy guidelines used for the 1990 census. These guidelines (Chapter 4 - Urban area Boundaries) can be found at the link attached below. You will note that the urbanized boundaries under these guidelines CAN encompass fringe areas having residential, commercial, industrial, transportation terminals, and national defense significance if they lie within a reasonable distance (no qualifications on what this distance can be). One of the goals for Census 200 was to bring the urban area criteria back to a single set of rules and eliminate any subjectivity in delineating the new UA and UC census boundaries. I don't know if this is the same goal FHWA has in designating urban and urbanized boundaries - especially if we use the 1990 criteria. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov//////legsregs/directives/fapg/g406300.htm -----Original Message----- From: Putta, Viplava [mailto:vputta(a)incog.org] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1:53 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] Adjusted Urbanized Area "The Federal Highway Administration approves adjusted urbanized-area boundaries that include the census-defined Urbanized Area plus transportation centers, shopping centers, major places of employment, satellite communities and other major trip generators near the edge of the Urbanized Area, including development expected to be in place shortly." Our state (Oklahoma) is conducting this exercise currently with all towns in Oklahoma. I am trying to find out more about this practice. Can someone point me to the federal register/the directive related to this? - Is the sole purpose here is to get the HPMS representation right or should we know more about the usage in apportionment. - What are the limits of such 'smoothening' the urbanized area by the above definition? - Is this intended for all towns/cities (both in and outside of the TMA?) - When the DOT 'smoothen' the boundary I assume they should include block group if they decide to go out and any other parameters one should be aware of? Thanks. Viplav Putta INCOG

22 years, 11 months

RE: [CTPP] Adjusted Urbanized Area: Viplav Putta Inquiry

by 596 - Michael Leblanc

Hello Viplav Putta: I have attached a copy of the federal register that has the control totals (the population within the urban area) for all of the mpo areas in the US. It also describe each urban area and what happened to it. This is a text file; you can get a better looking pdf by search for this reference in google: [Docket Number 010209034-2084-04] You will have to download the most recent tiger map and find all of the urban area census blocks. These block's population should total to the control total that is listed in the attached document. Go to Census bureau site. I have no idea what smoothing is; basically if a block touches another block with a common boundary or a common corner (!!!!!), its in the urban area. You can quickly get odd shaped urban area that have no relation to reality, but that's the rules. Good luck. Mike LeBlanc, AICP, Planner II Lafayette Consolidated Government Traffic and Transportation Dept. Lafayette, Louisiana -----Original Message----- From: 941 - Mike Hollier [mailto:mhollier(a)lafayettegov.com] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:33 PM To: Mike LeBlanc Subject: Fw: [CTPP] Adjusted Urbanized Area Mike - - - You might want to pass your experience on to this guy. Mike H. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Putta, Viplava" <vputta(a)incog.org> To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:52 PM Subject: [CTPP] Adjusted Urbanized Area > "The Federal Highway Administration approves adjusted urbanized-area > boundaries that include the census-defined Urbanized Area plus > transportation centers, shopping centers, major places of employment, > satellite communities and other major trip generators near the edge of > the Urbanized Area, including development expected to be in place > shortly." > > Our state (Oklahoma) is conducting this exercise currently with all > towns in Oklahoma. I am trying to find out more about this practice. > > Can someone point me to the federal register/the directive related to > this? > > - Is the sole purpose here is to get the HPMS representation right or > should we know more about the usage in apportionment. > > - What are the limits of such 'smoothening' the urbanized area by the > above definition? > > - Is this intended for all towns/cities (both in and outside of the > TMA?) > > - When the DOT 'smoothen' the boundary I assume they should include > block group if they decide to go out and any other parameters one should > be aware of? > > Thanks. > > Viplav Putta > INCOG >

22 years, 11 months

[CTPP] Adjusted Urbanized Area

by Putta

"The Federal Highway Administration approves adjusted urbanized-area boundaries that include the census-defined Urbanized Area plus transportation centers, shopping centers, major places of employment, satellite communities and other major trip generators near the edge of the Urbanized Area, including development expected to be in place shortly." Our state (Oklahoma) is conducting this exercise currently with all towns in Oklahoma. I am trying to find out more about this practice. Can someone point me to the federal register/the directive related to this? - Is the sole purpose here is to get the HPMS representation right or should we know more about the usage in apportionment. - What are the limits of such 'smoothening' the urbanized area by the above definition? - Is this intended for all towns/cities (both in and outside of the TMA?) - When the DOT 'smoothen' the boundary I assume they should include block group if they decide to go out and any other parameters one should be aware of? Thanks. Viplav Putta INCOG

22 years, 11 months

Re: [CTPP] TIP/STIP management application

by Steven.Bowman＠DOT.STATE.IA.US

The Iowa County Engineers Association Service Bureau (ICEASB) with the support of the Iowa Department of Transportation and the Iowa Research Board has developed such a project. Please visit the ICEASB website or contact Mr. De Vries. Contact: Steve De Vries 515.244.0779 http://cfapps.iceasb.org/DocumentLibrary/default.cfm Steven Bowman Iowa Dept. of Transportation 800 Lincoln Way Ames, Iowa 50010 Ph.515.239.1337 "Daryl Scott" <dscott(a)swrpa.org To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > cc: Sent by: Subject: [CTPP] TIP/STIP management application owner-ctpp-news(a)c hrispy.net 07/24/02 09:41 AM Do any transportation planners at MPOs use a TIP/STIP management application that they would highly recommend to other MPOs? The South Western Region Metropolitan Planning Organization has an outstanding contract with a consultant to develop an application to manage the TIP/STIP for the planning region. The application should be able to generate various reports designed for public officials and the general public, keep track of official decisions about projects, store important comments, and have some document management capabilities. I need to provide detailed application specifications to the consultants before they begin work. I hope to get some good ideas from members of this list serve. If you use an excellent TIP/STIP application, please send me some documentation about the program? Thank you in advance for your assistance. Regards, Daryl -- Daryl Scott South Western Regional Planning Agency Stamford Government Center 888 Washington Blvd., 3rd Floor Stamford, CT 06901 Tel: (203) 316-5190 Fax: (203) 316-4995 E-mail: dscott(a)swrpa.org

22 years, 11 months

[CTPP] Call for Abstracts: 2003 Conference on Transportation Planning Methods

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP-News; TMIP Listserv Abstracts for this TRB conference are due this Friday, August 16. Ninth Conference on the Application of Transportation Planning Methods Baton Rouge, LA, April 6-11, 2003 Conference website: http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRBConference/ Call for Abstracts (pdf format): http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRBConference/ConferenceDocuments/CallforAbstracts.… Send abstracts to Dick Walker of Portland Metro. His address is in the Call for Abstract PDF file. "The goal of the conference is to provide an outlet for new techniques and methods without the time lag associated with traditional journals and conferences. The program emphasizes practical, innovative, and timely technical and policy approaches to transportation planning."

22 years, 11 months

2025

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 August 2002