The Census Bureau, Geography Division has been receiving questions from
participating agencies on where to submit the completed TAZ equivalency file
and the supporting documentation. The EF needs to be submitted to the Census
Bureau Web Site, and the supporting documentation mailed to the Regional
Census Liason.
Attached are two documents that will be of assistance in answering those
questions.
Please look at frequently asked questions section at
http://www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census/ for anwers to several questions raised so
far.
Thank You,
Nanda Srinivasan
From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org>
Commerce Spending Bill Moves Forward With Full Funding for Census 2000
A House-Senate conference committee completed negotiations earlier this
week on the fiscal year 2000 (FY00) spending bill covering the Census
Bureau. The Commerce, Justice, and State, The Judiciary and Related
Agencies Appropriations bill (H.R. 2670) allocates about $4.5 billion
for Census 2000, the amount requested by the Clinton Administration and
included in the House version of the measure. The Senate had allocated
only $2.8 billion in its version. The $4.5 billion is considered
"emergency spending," a designation first made by House appropriators
that removes those funds from tight discretionary program spending
limits set in previous budget agreements.
The House and Senate are expected to vote on the 'conference report'
this week before sending it to the President for his signature or
veto. (The text of the conference bill and related 'report language'
explaining the intent of lawmakers is in House Report 106-398.)
Congress passed a second temporary funding bill (called a Continuing
Resolution) yesterday to keep federal agencies operating past the
October 21st deadline in the first stopgap bill. The President has
signed only five of the thirteen annual Federal funding bills since the
start of fiscal year 2000 on October 1. He is expected to sign the
second Continuing Resolution while budget negotiations continue between
the White House and congressional leaders.
The conference agreement on the Commerce spending bill retains a
provision in the House bill that requires the Census Bureau to obtain
approval from Congress to shift funds between decennial census
activities. The bill divides the $4.5 billion for Census 2000 among
broad categories of census operations, such as advertising and
promotion, field data collection, and data processing. In an October
15th letter to House Census Subcommittee Chairman Dan Miller (R-FL),
Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt called the reprogramming
requirement "a dramatic departure from past practices" and said that
significant delays in approving requests to transfer money could
"compromise" census operations. "Decisions must be made quickly and
frequently adjusted to adapt to ever-changing conditions in the field,"
Dr. Prewitt wrote. The director said that in previous spending bills,
Congress has only required reprogramming notice and approval to shift
funds between different agency programs.
Advertising campaign launch: The Census Bureau will publicly launch the
Census 2000 paid advertising campaign at a ceremony in Washington, D.C.
on October 27. Our last News Alert (October 12) included an earlier
tentative date for the event of October 28.
Questions about the information contained in this News Alert may be
directed to TerriAnn Lowenthal at 202/484-2270 or, by e-mail at
terriann2k(a)aol.com. For copies of previous News Alerts and other
information, use our web site www.census2000.org
<http://www.census2000.org>. Please direct all requests to receive News
Alerts, and all changes in address/phone/fax/e-mail, to the Census 2000
Initiative at Census2000(a)ccmc.org. or 202/326-8700. Please feel free to
circulate this information to colleagues and other interested
individuals.
The following information was passed on to me by Valerie Murdock of the Census
Bureau, Geography Division.
Sketch Maps and Supporting Documentation for
the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) program
The Census Bureau has been receiving TAZ sketch maps from participants that do
not provide adequate information. It is very important that participants
adhere to the guidelines documented on pages 5 of 10 in the Reference section,
of the TAZ-UP manual to ensure that the Regional Census Center (RCC) staff can
clearly interpret and digitize the 2000 TAZ boundaries. If the required
information is missing from sketch maps the RCC staff may not be able to
clearly interpret the participant*s intentions. This might result in the
desired features not being held as 2000 TAZ boundaries. Only submit sketch
maps when a feature you wish to use as a 2000 TAZ boundary is missing from the
TIGER/Line 1998 file or when you wish to reclassify a feature by changing it*s
Census Feature Classification Code. Do not submit shape files, electronic
files, or local maps in lieu of sketch maps.When adding/reclassifying a
boundary feature to be included in the TIGER data base, all sketch maps should
be annotated with:
1)The name or identification of the added/reclassified feature, such as
*Johnson Blvd* or *creek;*
2)The Census 2000 TAZ boundary and Census 2000 TAZ codes that are using this
feature;
3)The entire feature, not just the portion of the feature that is used as a
Census 2000 TAZ boundary;
4)The state and county codes; and
All polygons split by added TAZ boundary features must contain *PPPPPP* TAZ
code in the TAZ equivalency file. The actual TAZ boundaries and codes for
these split polygons are to be annotated on the sketch maps.
In addition, all added features must currently exist. Do not submit planned
roads unless the right-of-way is cleared. All street feature update requests
to be used as TAZ boundaries must include documentation that proves that they
exist. The RCC geographers may request current aerial photography or
satellite imagery to verify new features being requested.All nonstreet feature
requests for TAZ boundaries are subject to the concurrence of the regional
census center (RCC) geographers.
From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org>
Lawmakers Highlight Bipartisan Support for Census 2000
As Bureau Prepares to Launch Promotional Campaign
Census Monitoring Board Issues Reports, Endorses Ad Campaign
The chairman and ranking minority member of a House panel that
oversees the census introduced a resolution that "recognizes the
importance of achieving a successful census in 2000 and encourages a
public partnership between Congress and the Census Bureau to promote
the decennial census," according to a letter sent to all
Representatives. Rep. Dan Miller (R-FL) and Rep. Carolyn Maloney
(D-NY) also invited Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt to brief
legislators this week on ways to promote the census in their
districts. The Members-only briefing will be followed by a press
conference outside the Capitol featuring the director and interested
lawmakers.
The Miller/Maloney 'sense of the Congress' resolution (House
Concurrent Resolution 193) highlights the importance of census
partnerships with state and local governments, civic organizations,
and community leaders, to encourage census participation. The bill
"reaffirms the spirit of cooperation that exists between Congress
and the Bureau of the Census with respect to achieving a successful
census." Since their appointment to the newly created Census
Subcommittee in 1998, Chairman Miller and Rep. Maloney have been on
opposite sides of the controversy over census methods. Rep. Miller
opposes the use of sampling while Rep. Maloney supports the Census
Bureau's plan to correct undercounts with statistical methods.
The press conference announcing the formation of a partnership
between Congress and the Census Bureau will take place on Wednesday,
October 13, at 12:30 p.m. on the 'House Triangle' (east plaza of the
Capitol Building).
Census Monitoring Board issues reports: The Census Monitoring Board
issued two reports recently, one reflecting the views of all panel
members, the other issued separately by the four members appointed
by the congressional Republican leadership. (There is one
Democratic vacancy on the Board, created when former co-chair Tony
Coelho resigned to head the Gore campaign. President Clinton has not
yet named a replacement.)
In its October 1st report to Congress, the full Board unanimously
endorsed the Census Bureau's paid advertising campaign, developed by
advertising agency Young & Rubicam. The campaign is "well
researched, well designed and is likely to achieve its objectives,"
the Board said. It noted that the advertising campaign is designed
to increase mail response to the census, not to eliminate the
disproportionate undercount of minorities and children that has
plagued previous censuses. Young & Rubicam subcontracted with four
firms to develop ads targeting minority communities.
The public awareness phase of the advertising campaign will begin in
November. (Print advertisements in the November issues of some
monthly magazines will hit newsstands in late October.) The Census
Bureau plans to unveil the ads publicly at an October 28th ceremony
in Washington, D.C. marking the official launch of Census 2000.
The four congressionally-appointed Board members issued a separate
report to Congress on September 30 entitled, "Unkept Promise:
Statistical Adjustment Fails to Eliminate Local Undercounts, as
Revealed by Evaluation of Severely Undercounted Blocks From the 1990
Census Plan." According to the report, "the ability of statistical
adjustment to correct the undercount has been wildly overstated."
Based on their analysis of the Post Enumeration Survey conducted
during the 1990 census, the Republican appointees concluded that
"[s] statistical adjustment will not correct large undercounts or
overcounts in small areas such as blocks and neighborhoods." In a
written statement, Rep. Carolyn Maloney called the report
"irrelevant," saying that the coverage evaluation program planned
for 2000 is more advanced than the 1990 version and that "for larger
areas, which are important for the allocation of program funds and
political representation, adjusted census data will be much more
accurate."
The Census Monitoring Board reports are available electronically at
www.cmbp.gov <http://www.cmbp.gov> (Presidential Members) and
www.cmbc.gov <http://www.cmbc.gov> (Congressional Members), or by
calling the Board's offices at 301/457-9900 (Presidential) or
301/457-5080 (Congressional). The Board, created in late 1997 as
part of the Census Bureau's annual funding bill, is required to
report to Congress at least once every six months. It is set to
expire in September 2001.
Census content update: The final version of the Fiscal Year 2000
Transportation Appropriations bill (H.R. 2084), approved by both the
House and Senate last week, includes a provision supporting the
collection of information on 'marital status' from all American
households on the 2000 census short form. President Clinton signed
the measure into law this weekend.
Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) offered the non-binding 'sense of the
Senate' language as an amendment when the Senate considered its
version of the spending bill in September. The provision states
that the Census Bureau "wrongfully decided" not to include a marital
status question on the short form sent to all households. In
explaining his amendment, Sen. Helms said, "Americans should be
disturbed that the U.S. Census Bureau obviously no longer regards
marriage as having any importance." The House did not vote
separately on the Helms language in adopting the House-Senate
conference committee version of the Transportation spending bill.
(Each chamber must approve 'conference bills' on an up or down vote
before sending a measure to the President for signature or veto;
amendments are not permitted.)
The census has asked about marital status since 1880. In 2000, the
information will be collected from a sample of households (one in
six) that receive the long form. The Census Bureau moved the
question to the long form after determining that federal agencies do
not need the data at the census block level.
Census funding update: House and Senate negotiators have not met
formally to reconcile differences between their respective versions
of the Commerce Department funding bill, which includes the Census
Bureau. Federal agencies not covered by spending bills already
signed into law continue to operate under a temporary funding
measure that runs through October 21.
GAO testifies about address development program: The U.S. General
Accounting Office (GAO) gave the Local Update of Census Addresses
(LUCA) program mixed reviews in testimony before the House
Subcommittee on the Census on September 29. Subcommittee members
also heard from Dr. Prewitt and representatives of several state,
county, and city governments that participated in the LUCA program.
According to the nonpartisan audit agency, local governments
participating in the 1998 address list review ('LUCA 1998') offered
7.74 million changes - including 5.4 million additions -- to the
Census Bureau's preliminaryaddress lists. Based on a survey of LUCA
1998 participants, the GAO testified that many local governments
were satisfied with LUCA materials and technical assistance but that
some governments rated these and other program components "less
favorably." "LUCA's overall impact on the accuracy and completeness
of the address list will not be fully known until after the census,"
the GAO concluded.
For copies of "2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had
Mixed Results to Date" (GAO/T-GGD-99-184), call the GAO at
202/512-6000 (TDD: 202/512-2537) or visit its web site at
<http://www.gao.gov>. For copies of other testimony, call the
Subcommittee on the Census at 202/226-1937 (majority staff) or
202/225-5051 (minority staff).
Questions about the information contained in this News Alert may be
directed to TerriAnn Lowenthal at 202/484-2270 or, by e-mail at
terrian2k(a)aol.com . For copies of previous News Alerts and other
information, use our website www.census2000.org
<http://www.census2000.org>. Please direct all requests to receive
News Alerts, and all changes in address/phone/fax/e-mail, to the
Census 2000 Initiative at Census2000(a)ccmc.org or 202/326-8700.
Please feel free to circulate this information to colleagues and
other interested individuals.
To all:
Please note that as of October 1998, the Niagara Frontier Transportation
Committee (NFTC) has changed its name to the Greater Buffalo-Niagara
Regional Transportation Council (GBNRTC). General e-mail should be sent
to staff(a)gbnrtc.org. We can also be reached via the Web at
www.gbnrtc.org.
Thank You
Richard Guarino, AICP
IS Coordinator
The following is the complete list of agencies that have asked for extensions
to October 29, 1999. Please notify any errors or omissions to
ctpp(a)fhwa.dot.gov.
Thank You,
Nanda Srinivasan
Alabama
Alabama Department of Transportation,Emmanuel L. Oranika, Ph.D
Birmingham Regional Planning Commission,Marshall Farmer
Calhoun Area MPO,Jack Plunk
Huntsville MPO,James E. Moore
Montgomery Division of Planning, Programming and T,Steven Harrison
North-Central Alabama Regional COG,Leon Felts
Northwest AL -Council of Local Government,Melissa Bailey
South AL Regional Planning Commission/Mobile MPO,Kevin Harrison
Alaska
Anchorage Metro. Area Transportation Study,Jon Spring
Arizona
Flagstaff MPO,David Wessel
Yuma MPO,John Gross
California
Association of Monterey Bay Area Government,Todd Muck
Merced County Association of Governments,Mathew Fell
Sacramento Area COG,Gordon Garry
San Joaquin County COG,James Worthley
San Diego Association of Governments,Karen Lamphere
San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council,Mike Harmon
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments,Bill Yim
Stanislaus council of Governments,Chip Sellers
Colorado
Denver Regional COG,Larry Mugler
Grand Junction-Mesa County MPO,Cliff Davidson
North Front Range Trans. & Air Quality Planning Co,Suzette Thieman
Pikes Peak Area COG,Mary Frye
Pueblo Area Council of Governments,Don Vest
District of Columbia,Metropolitan Washington COG
Martha Schwalenstocker
Florida
Brevard County MPO,Laura Carter
Broward County MPO,Roger DelRio
Charlotte County -Punta Gorda MPO,Lisa Beever/Maureen Swens
Indian River County MPO,Jacob Riger
Lee County MPO,Glen Ahlert
Martin County MPO,David Karwaski
Naples-Collier County MPO,John Bussiere
Ocala-Marion County MPO,Ann Mcgassic
Palm Beach County MPO,Paul Larsen
Pensacola Urbanized Area MPO,Nick Nickles
Polk Transportation Planning Organization,Tom Deardorff
Sarasota-Manatee MPO,Keith Drake
Georgia
Atlanta Regional Commission,Stefanie Allen
Chatham County-Savannah Metropolitan Planning Comm,Mark Wilkes
Columbus MPO,Michael Felschow
Rome-Floyd County Planning Commission,Tom Sills
Illinois
Bi-State Regional Commission,Lalit Patel
Chicago Area Transportation Study,Dean Englund
Macon County Reg. Planning Commission,Paul McChaney
McLean County Reg. Planning Commission,Abbie Moore
Springfield-Sangamon County RPC,Veralee Williams
Indiana
Kokomo-Howard County Governmental Coordinating Cou,Larry Ides
Northwestern IN Regional Planning Commission,Lauren Rhein
Iowa
Iowa Department of Transportation,Phil Mescher
Johnson County COG,Kevin L. Doyle
Kansas
Lawrence-Douglas MPO,Aaron Bartlett
Kentucky
Kentuckiana Reg. Planning and Development Agency,Lori A. Kelsey
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet,Charles Schaub
Louisiana
Lafayette City -Parish Consolidated Government,Scott Ledger
N.O. Regional Planning Commission,James Harvey
Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Governments,Lloyd Falgout
Maine
Androscoggin Valley COG,Jesse Jacobs
Maine Deparment of Transportation,William Croce
Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation Study,Karen Martin
Southern Maine RPC,Tom Reinauer
Massachusetts,
Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Dev.,Paul Mission
Michigan
Genesse County MPC,E. Raymond Lenze
Southeast Michigan COG,Edward Limoges
Minnesota,
Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area,Robert J. Paddock
Mississippi
Gulf Regional Planning Commission,James Wilkinson
Montana
Montana Department of Transportation,Lynn Zanto
Nebraska
Lincoln-Lancaster MPO,Mike Brienzo
Nevada
Washoe County RTC,Judy Althoff
New Hampshire
Nashua Regional Planning Commission,
Salem/Plaistow MPO,Tom Falk
New Jersey,
South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization,Tim Chelius
New Mexico,
Santa Fe MPO,Reed Liming
New York
Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study,John Sterbentz
Capital District Transportation Committee,Deborah Stacey
New York Metropolitan Transportation Council,Kuo-Ann Chiao
Niagara Frontier Transportation Commission,Richard Guarino
Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council,Danielle Zebley
North Carolina
Capital Area MPO/LPA,J. Scott Lane
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO,Felix C. Nwoko
Goldsboro Urbanized Area MPO,Don Chapman
Greensboro Department of Transportation,Kenneth King/Tyler Meyer
Greenville Urban Area MPO,Ronald Svejkovsky
North Carolina Department of Transportation,Mike Bruff
Transportation Advisory Committee -Fayetteville,Rick Heicksen
Transportation Advisory Committee -Ashville,Ron Fuller
Transportation Advisory Committee -Winston-Salem,Michael Freeman
Transportation Advisory Committee -Gastonia,Elizabeth Grad/RobertCook
Transportation Advisory Committee -Concord,Sarah LaBelle
Transportation Advisory Committee -Jacksonville,Rhonda Rogers
Transportation Advisory Committee -Burlington,Bob Harkrader
Transportation Advisory Committee -Rocky Mount,Bob League
Western Piedmont COG,Taylor Dellinger
Wilmington Urban Area MPO,Chad Ives
Ohio
Clark County-Springfield Transportation Study,Lamar Daniel
Mid-Ohio RPC,Nancy Reger
OH-KY-IN Regional COG,Don Burrell
Stark County Area Transportation Study,Jeff Dotson
Toledo Metropolitan Area COG,Don Freeman
Oregon
Lane Council of Governments,Bud Reiff
Pennsylvania
Berks County Planning Commission,Michael D. Golembiewski
Centre Region MPO,Thomas P. Zilla
Erie Area Transportation Study,Jake Welsh
Lehigh Valley Transportation Study,Joseph Gurinko
Reading Area Transportation Study,Michael D. Golembiewski
Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission,Kirk Brethauer
South Carolina
Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester COG,Don Hatley
Central Midlands COG,Ben Mauldin
Florence Area Transportation Study,Robbie Ervin
Greenville County Planning Commission,Jim D'Amato
South Carolina Department of Transportation,James Y. Campbell
Spartansburg County Planning Commission,Bill Lonnon
Waccamaw RPC,Mark Hoewleler
South Dakota
Rapid City Area MPO,Patsy L. Horton
Tennessee
Bristol MPO,Rex Montgomery
Chattanooga-Hamilton County MPO,Greg Weathersby
Jackson MPO,Keith Donaldson
Johnson City MPO,Alan Bridwell
Kingsport TN/VA MPO,Bill Albright
Texas
Amarillo MPO,Gary Holwick
Austin Transportation Study,Daniel Yang
Brownsville MPO,Enrique Trejo
Corpus Christi MPO,Muhammad Amin Ulkarim
El Paso MPO,Charles Kooshian
Harlingen-San Benito MPO,Jennifer Detloff
Hidalgo MPO,Edward L. Molitor
Kileen-Temple Urban Transportation Study,Molly Bosley
Laredo Urban Transportation Study,Gabriel Del Bosque
Longview MPO,Scott Sopchak
Lubbock MPO,Nancy K. Harvieux
North Central Texas COG, Gustavo Baez
Permian Basin RPC,Jerry Tschauner
Port Arthur MPO,Bob Dickinson
San Angelo MPO,Michael Smith/Katherine W
San Antonio-Bexar County MPO,David Kruse
Texas Department of Transportation,Al Luedecke
Texoma COG,Robert Wood
Victoria MPO,Raymond Miller, Jr
Waco MPO,Christopher Evilia
Wichita Falls MPO,Jason Van Essen
Utah
Mountainland Association of Governments,Shawn Eliot
Wasatch Front Regional Council,Wayne Bennion
Vermont
Chittenden County MPO,Joseph Segale
Virginia
Central Virginia Planning District Commission,Lee Hood Capps
Crater Planning District Commission,Joe Vinsh/Lee Downey
Hampton Roads Planning District Commission,Mike Kimbrel
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission,David Roberts
West Piedmont Planning District Commission,Robert W. Dowd
Washington,
Benton-Franklin Regional Council,Kevin S. Daly
Cowlitz-Wahkiakum COG,Jeff Wilkins
Whatcom County COG,Ron Cobellis
Yakima Valley Conference of Governments,Wallace F. Webster
West Virginia
Bel-O-Mar Regional Council,Rakesh Sharma
KYOVA Interstate Planning Commission,James Roueche/Salahmeh S
WV Dept. of Transportation/ Div. Of Highways,Jack Pascoli
WWW Interstate Planning Commission,Vincent Post, III
Wisconsin
Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission,Jeffrey C. Agee-Aguayo
Dane County RPC,Chris Johnson
Marathon County MPO,David Mack
Wausau MPO,David Mack
Wisconsin Department of Transportation,Don R. Uelmen
Sub: StatewideTazs
The statewide component of the CTPP will have the county and place/MCD as
default geographic reporting units, just as in the 1990 CTPP. We have
discussed including tracts as a possibility to be added, but have not decided
on including it as a geographic reporting unit in the CTPP data structure as a
default.
A county can have TAZs defined by only one entity (the State DOT or the MPO)
in the present stage because TIGER allows only one geographic layer. However,
we are in the process of setting up a system where State DOTs can, at a later
stage, go in and define State TAZs in the metropolitan areas for their
statewide modeling. These State TAZs will be used for CTPP 2000, but will not
be included in TIGER. This effort will succeed the TAZ-UP and Work-Up effort
and will take place in 2001.
Nanda Srinivasan
Mr. Herrick;
The 1990 statewide CTPP used county and cities over 2,500 for place of work,
and also township level for place of residence coding. I imagine that's
what you'll get in 2000 if you do nothing at this point, but perhaps the
Census people on this list can correct me. If you are going to do statewide
modeling, what you should do is the same thing any urban MPO staff should do
- first determine what network you want to model and then partition your
state into zones based on access to this network. My guess is that city to
city would not be good enough for you, except for the smallest of towns.
Even what Mr. Purvis describes is more convenience than criteria, but as he
notes there's not much time left. If you don't have the time, then look at
what you'd like to model for one typical rural county in Kansas and figure
out which level of existing Census geography seems to best match the access
pattern, then ask for that level as the TAZ level.
Sam Granato
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck Purvis (MTC) [SMTP:cpurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 11:25 AM
> To: Chris Herrick; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
> Subject: [CTPP] re: Statewide TAZes
>
> Chris:
>
> I believe that Caltrans (California Department of Transportation)
> will be building any new statewide travel analysis zones on
> MPO-defined zones in our metropolitan areas; and census tracts in
> non-metropolitan areas. This should be adequate for purposes of
> developing a statewide TAZ system. <The 4,000 census zones I've
> defined in my region of 6.8 million people, will probably be
> collapsed to about 300 statewide TAZes by Caltrans.>
>
> On the other hand, it may prove useful to request block group level
> TAZes in non-metro counties. If I were the county planner in Lake
> County (the non-metro county just north of my Napa County in Calif.)
> I would much prefer to get CTPP data at the block group level than
> tract level (this assumes the absence of TAZes for non-metro
> counties!)
>
> I would hope that the default option for Statewide TAZes are
> finer-grained than counties!! That doesn't make sense to me.
>
> My recommendation would be to monitor the TAZ development in your
> MPOs; then tally up the number of census tracts and block groups in
> each of your counties. Depending on the level of detail, and the
> needs of your local non-metro county planners, decide on either
> tracts or block groups. Either that, or define TAZes on a
> block-by-block basis for your entire state. That sounds like a six
> person month effort to be completed in 30 days from today....
>
> I'm uncertain about the rules established by the Census Bureau, but I
> believe they're only going to allow one set of TAZes for each county.
> So, in metropolitan counties, it's apparently up to the MPO and State
> DOT to negotiate the finest-grained system that meets or exceeds the
> needs of both <I should be corrected if I'm wrong.>
>
> cheers,
>
> Chuck Purvis, MTC
>
>
> > What are other states doing with updating their TAZs in preparation
> > for the 2000 census? It is my understanding that if a state does
> > not submit a TAZ update the counties will be used as TAZs for CTPP
> > purposes.
> >
> > The type of data we would be interested in at this point would be
> > journey to work trips for county to county, city to city, and city
> > to county. We do not currently have a statewide model but are
> > interested in possible looking into the benefits of building one.
> > Please inform me on what direction we should take.
> >
> > Chris Herrick, P.E.
> > Statewide Planning Engineer
> > Kansas Department of
> > Transportation
> >
> *******************************************************
> e-mail: cpurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov
> Chuck Purvis, AICP
> Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst, Planning Section
> Metropolitan Transportation Commission
> 101 Eighth Street, Oakland, CA 94607-4700
> (510) 464-7731 (voice) (510) 464-7848 (fax)
> WWW: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
> MTC DataMart: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/datamart/
> MTC FTP Site: ftp://ftp.abag.ca.gov/pub/mtc/planning/
> Personal WWW: http://home.earthlink.net/~clpurvis/
> *******************************************************
****** C E N S U S 2 0 0 0 B U L L E T I N ******
Vol. 3 - No. 18 Sept. 27, 1999
One of the lesser known new features of Census 2000 data tabulation is
the planned use, for the first time, of ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (TM)
(ZCTAs), a statistical entity developed by the Census Bureau as an
approximation of the U. S. Postal Service's ZIP (R) Codes.
ZIP Codes do not represent areas, but rather a network for the delivery
of mail. The Census Bureau has released prototype ZCTAs for the three
Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal sites (Columbia, S.C., and 11 surrounding
counties; Menominee County, Wis.; and Sacramento, Calif.).
Thus, the ZCTA will take its place alongside standard statistical
tabulation areas, such as regions, divisions, metropolitan areas,
urbanized areas, tribal statistical areas, county subdivisions, census
designated places, census tracts, block groups and census blocks, as
well as the legal and administrative areas for which the Census Bureau
traditionally publishes summary data.
The ZCTAs will be assigned in a computer-delineated process based on the
Census Bureau's address list at the time of the census. The Census
Bureau's address list itself is confidential under Title 13, U.S. Code,
and therefore is not available to the public. ZCTAs follow census block
boundaries, with the ZCTA code for each census block being the majority
ZIP Code for addresses within that census block. Automated processes
will extend ZCTA codes to blocks that have no addresses or no addresses
with ZIP Codes. This means that the Census Bureau will be able to
display the ZCTAs as polygons on maps.
For the Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal sites, ZCTA codes are assigned to
all land -- even that which is uninhabited -- and water areas, which
will be displayed with three-digit instead of five-digit codes. A
three-digit code indicates that the Census Bureau was not confident with
the assignment of a five-digit code based on information available in
its files.
The Census Bureau hopes data users will look at its implementation of
ZCTAs for the Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal sites and provide comments on
the resulting product. More information is available on the Internet at
http://www.census.gov/geo/ZCTA/zcta.html.
ZCTAs exclude unique, single-delivery-point ZIP codes for firms and
organizations, but do include dedicated Post Office Box ZIP Codes where
a main post office has only Post Office Box deliveries.
ZCTAs will be summary levels in both the 100 percent and sample data
files and should be available at the same time as the data for the other
summary levels, between June of 2001 and December of 2002. The Census
Bureau's new American Community Survey plans to tabulate data for ZIP
code tabulation areas once the 2000 ZCTAs become available.
(ZCTA is a trademark of the U. S. Bureau of the Census. ZIP is a
registered trademark of the U. S. Postal Service.)
What are other states doing with updating their TAZs in preparation for the 2000 census? It is my understanding that if a state does not submit a TAZ update the counties will be used as TAZs for CTPP purposes.
The type of data we would be interested in at this point would be journey to work trips for county to county, city to city, and city to county. We do not currently have a statewide model but are interested in possible looking into the benefits of building one. Please inform me on what direction we should take.
Chris Herrick, P.E.
Statewide Planning Engineer
Kansas Department of Transportation
