Chris:
By the way, TransCAD users get one set of SF 1 and State Data CDs free, by
request, per license. There will a similar program for the SF 3 Data CDs,
when those data become available this summer.
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
Chris:
>When will 2000 census data be released for census geography (Tracts, block
>groups, blocks) for the state of Kansas and where do I find it?
The SF 1 (short form) data are already available. You can get the raw data
at the Census Bureau web site.
Caliper Corporation has two sets of Data CDs for use with its GIS products,
each with data organized by state. One set has the SF 1 tables and a Table
Chooser for easy access, and the other has all of the geographic files from
state to block boundaries. For more information on the SF 1 Data CDs visit
(http://www.caliper.com/DataCDs/SF1DataCD.htm), and for more information on
the State Data CDs, visit (http://www.caliper.com/DataCDs/StateDataCD2000.htm).
We will be producing SF 3 (long form) Data CDs, also by state, when those
data come out this summer. All of these Data CDs cost $195 each, plus shipping.
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
I used the following procedure to create the urbanized area GIS layer for the Bridgeport-Stamford-CT, NY urbanized area. Because I already had Census Blocks in my GIS system, I only wanted a table that would allow me to join the urbanized area information to the Census Blocks. Perhaps the following procedure and sample file will help others generate maps of the new urbanized areas. I am a busy person and apologize in advance for the hastily written directions.
* Download UA TIGER/Line files.
* Rename tgrxxxxxx.rta to tgrxxxxxxa.txt
* Rename tgrxxxxxx.rts to tgrxxxxxxs.txt <<ua2000_example.zip>>
* Rename tgrxxxxxx.rtc to tgrxxxxxxc.txt
*
* The xxxxxx is the state and county fips code.
*
* Open the Access file.
* Choose File -> Get External Data -> Import...
* Select the tgrxxxxxxa.txt text file and click the "Import" button.
* Click the "Advanced" Button.
* Click the "Specs..." Button.
* Choose the "Tgr09001a Import Specification"
* Click "OK".
* If you do not mind Access automatically inserting a primary key, simply click "Finish". Otherwise, work through the wizard and choose the appropriate options.
*
* Repeat the above process for the record type s and record type c files. Use the "Tgr09001c Import Specification" for tgrxxxxxxc.txt and "Record Type S Import Specification3" for the tgrxxxxxxs.txt.
*
* At this point, all the necessary information is now in Access.
* Copy the "UrbanRuralBlocks09005" query to a different name.
* Edit the query in SQL view and rename the table names to match the table names of the tables for one county.
Afterwards, display the query in datasheet view. At this point, I would compare the number of records in the table to the number of blocks in the cooresponding GIS layer. I would also check to make sure that the urbanized area names make sense. If there are any irregularities, you will need to correct mistakes in the query.
If the results are correct, then you can join the results to the Census Blocks in GIS software. The table can be exported to a dBase IV file or text file. In some cases, you can connect the Access database to the GIS software directly or through ODBC. Once the join is performed, you can perform spatial aggregation to get the anticlimactic urbanized area GIS layer.
Good luck,
Daryl Scott
--
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
We have similar issues in SC. You have some flexibility.
Key question is whether your population projections for your plan horizon
year produce the necessary densities for the [Saraland?] urban cluster to
become part of the [I assume it's Mobile] Urbanized Area, or will it remain
non-contiguous with Mobile? You may have to expand your population
projections to include all of Mobile County (or at least the UC in question)
to make a reasonable determination of that.
Your study area boundary has to include "the UZA(s) and the contiguous
geographic areas likely to become urbanized within the 20-year forecast
period covered by the transportation plan . . ." {23 CFR 450.306(a)}. So
if the urban cluster is "likely" to be part of the CONTIGUOUS Mobile
Urbanized Area (based on future population density) in 20 years, you should
include it in the MPO study area. If it doesn't become contiguous, you
don't have to include it, but you do have the flexibility to include as much
of the MSA as you want. You should also consider whether the UC will be
included in your nonattainment area, if that's an issue in Mobile.
Hope that helps. That's how we hope to evaluate new boundaries, by looking
at the projected population densities in areas being considered for
inclusion to be sure that the densities actually are urban and the area is
contiguous.
John Gardner, AICP
SCDOT Office of Planning
gardnerjf(a)dot.state.sc.us
-----Original Message-----
From: kharrison [mailto:kharrison(a)sarpc.org]
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 1:41 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: [CTPP] question to list regarding study area boundary.
I have a question regarding MPO study area boundary. Our existing MPO
covers 1 urban area. 3 miles from the new urban area boundary there is a
newly designated urban cluster. Our existing study area boundary bisects
the new urban cluster. We are looking at our options for expanding the MPO
study area boundary. Would we have to include the entire adjacent urban
cluster or can our study area be adjacent to or bisect the urban cluster?
Since by definition the MPO study area is supposed to include all the area
that will be urbanized within 25 years, can it exclude or bisect an adjacent
urban cluster?
Kevin Harrison
Transportation Planner
South Alabama Regional Planning Commission
651 Church St
Mobile, AL 36602
251.433.6541
I've heard a couple of references to 'smoothing' the urban area
boundaries. What is the policy and procedure on this issue??
Fernando de Aragon
ITCTC, Director
==================
==================
Fernando de Aragon, AICP
Director
Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council
121 E. Court St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
phone: 607-274-5570
fax: 607-274-5578
ITCTC(a)tompkins-co.orgwww.tompkins-co.org/itctc
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
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
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
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
