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
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
>
"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
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
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."
TO: CTPP-News, August 13, 2002
Summary File #3 (Long Form, Sample data) has been released for an additional six states plus the District of Columbia: Alabama, Colorado, District of Columbia, Maryland, Nebraska, Rhode Island and Utah.
Data released in the previous week include: Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Vermont and West Virginia.
SF3 data for an additional seven states are planned for release on 8/20/02: Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Oregon.
And, new information for tody: SF3 data will be released for seven states on 8/27/02: Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico and Ohio.
The following "Press Release" link will be updated by the Bureau over the next month to provide expected release dates for the remaining states.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/sumfile3.html
BE SURE TO DOWNLOAD THE SF3 DOCUMENTATION FROM THE ABOVE LINK.
For "power users" interested in SPSS and SAS code to work with these databases, visit the State Data Centers web site at:
http://www.sdcbidc.iupui.edu/Profiles/SF3/sf3.html
The 77 files that comprise each state's set of SF3 files is fairly intimidating, so I would recommend becoming friendly with American FactFinder when your state's data becomes available.
American Factfinder: http://factfinder.census.gov/
Chuck Purvis, MTC
***********************************************
Charles L. Purvis, AICP
Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4700
(510) 464-7731 (office)
(510) 464-7848 (fax)
www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
Census WWW: http://census.mtc.ca.gov/
***********************************************
The Census Bureau posts 1980, 1990, and 2000 data at http://www2.census.gov/. I found technical documentation for 1990 and 2000, but I was not able to find any documentation for 1980 data. Thus, I have not been able to incorporate the 1980 data yet. Does anyone know where I could find technical documentation for the 1980 data? Thanks, 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
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Garms [mailto:ajgarms(a)dmampo.org]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 3:56 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: [CTPP] Historical Census Data
We have been looking for historical census data and have had a difficult time. The data we are specifically looking for is population and housing information at the block level for 1990. But we would also like to find data from 1980 if possible. We are trying to look at some of the trends in our area that have changed over time. Part of the study area for one of the projects is in a rural area and data at block group and track levels are very broad and difficult to determine trends. If anyone has any suggestions on where we could find this data it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your help.
Thanks,
Adam J Garms
Transportation Planner
Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Merle Hay Centre
6200 Aurora Avenue, Suite 300W
Urbandale, IA 50322-2866
Telephone: 515.334.0075 ext. 202
Facsimile: 515.334.0098
AJGarms(a)dmampo.org
The travel behavior inventory conducted in the Denver region (1997) obtained
a count on the number of (paid and volunteer) jobs a person had. The data
implied about 7.5% of the employed household population had 2 or more jobs.
Some reported as many as 4 other jobs. While clerical employees were the
largest group with second jobs, none reported more than 1 additional job.
Those employed as "professionals" accounted for 46% of the employed with 2
or more other jobs (3+ totals jobs).
-----Original Message-----
From: David Abrams [mailto:dabrams(a)mrgcog.org]
Sent: July 08, 2002 4:28 PM
To: 'Chuck Purvis'; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: RE: [CTPP] Changes in Workers per HH and Vehicles per HH
(long po st)
Albuquerque (not one of your 36 largest MSAs) also had a decline in workers
per household from 1.235 to 1.188. We looked at the employment number
compared to the employment data coming from the Department of Labor. We
found that the number of workers (326,775) was somewhat less than the NMDOL
estimate of Nonagricultural Employment (354,883). The NonAg number does not
count agricultural or self-employment both of which are included in the
number of workers (employed residents). In 1990, the number of workers
reported by the Census exceeded the estimate of NonAg employment. We are
thinking that there may be a major increase in persons working two jobs. If
this is more widespread than Albuquerque it could have considerable
consequences. To my knowledge there is not data collected on workers
working multiple wage jobs.
A question for Chuck Purvis: Did you control for the change in household
size when you compared the workers to households ratios for 1990 and 2000.
Dave Abrams
Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments
We have been looking for historical census data and have had a difficult time. The data we are specifically looking for is population and housing information at the block level for 1990. But we would also like to find data from 1980 if possible. We are trying to look at some of the trends in our area that have changed over time. Part of the study area for one of the projects is in a rural area and data at block group and track levels are very broad and difficult to determine trends. If anyone has any suggestions on where we could find this data it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your help.
Thanks,
Adam J Garms
Transportation Planner
Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Merle Hay Centre
6200 Aurora Avenue, Suite 300W
Urbandale, IA 50322-2866
Telephone: 515.334.0075 ext. 202
Facsimile: 515.334.0098
AJGarms(a)dmampo.org
TO: CTPP-News
Summary File #3 ("Long Form" or "Sample" data) has been released for five U.S. states: Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Vermont and West Virginia.
SF3 data for seven more states are planned for release on 8/13/02: Alabama, Colorado, District of Columbia, Maryland, Nebraska, Rhode Island and Utah.
SF3 data for an additional seven states are planned for release on 8/20/02: Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Oregon.
The following "Press Release" link will be updated by the Bureau over the next month to provide expected release dates for the remaining states.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/sumfile3.html
Chuck Purvis, MTC
