ctpp-news September 1999

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

10 participants
17 discussions

by Srinivasan, Nanda <FHWA>

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

25 years, 2 months

RE: [CTPP] re: Statewide TAZes

by Granato, Sam

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@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/ > *******************************************************

25 years, 2 months

ZIP code tabulation areas

by Ed Christopher

****** 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.)

25 years, 2 months

Re: [CTPP] Census 2000 News Alert

by Chris Herrick

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

25 years, 2 months

APDU'99 Annual Meeting

by Chuck Purvis (MTC)

To: CTPP-News This announcement is being distributed to a number of listservs. Please forgive duplication through cross-postings. ===================================== APDU'99 Annual Meeting APDU'99: 24th Annual Conference of the Association of Public Data Users, will be held October 24-27, 1999. The location is the Holiday Inn Hotel & Suites, Historic District Alexandria, 625 First Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. This year's theme is "Responsible Data Use: Protecting the Future of Public Data?" A preliminary program, accommodations, and registration information is available via the APDU homepage (http://www.apdu.org) in the section "What We Do." Note that the cutoff for hotel reservations at the conference rate is Friday October 8 and the cutoff for receiving a reduced conference registration fee is Tuesday October 5. Individuals who normally receive a printed conference brochure should have already received those materials. For information on joining APDU or further information about the conference, contact: Teresa Hall Allen / TeresaH(a)smdi.com, phone: (703)-807-2327 APDU was founded in 1976 to serve the users, producers and disseminators of government statistical data by assisting users in the identification and application of public data; establishing communication linkages between data producers and users; and bringing the perspectives and concerns of public data users to bear on issues of government information and statistical policy. APDU consists of representatives from many academic, governmental, commercial and private sectors. Some APDU'99 conference highlights include keynote speaker Ken Prewitt, Director, Bureau of the Census; and sessions on statistical literacy, public policy perspectives on the year 2000 Census, public access to scientific data (revisions to OMB Circular A-110), the impact of welfare reform legislation on states, electronic products from the 2000 Census, and intensive hands-on roundtable sessions on the American Community Survey, UNICON's CPS applications, promoting statistical policy, and PDQ- Explore. This year's conference co-chairs are Lisa Neidert of the University of Michigan (lisan(a)umich.edu) and Steve Dienstfrey of Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc.(s.dienstfrey(a)srbi.com). We look forward to seeing you at APDU'99!

25 years, 2 months

Census 2000 News Alert

by Ed Christopher

From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org> Government Auditors Examine Census 2000 Funding Request Senate Weighs in on 'Marital Status' Question; Race Tabulations Set for Redistricting Data The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) last week issued a report on the increased cost of Census 2000 following a Supreme Court decision that forced the Census Bureau to revise its plan. The analysis, requested by House Census Subcommittee Chairman Dan Miller (R-FL), examines the extra $1.7 billion the Bureau says it needs in fiscal year 2000 (FY00) to conduct a traditional census, without sampling methods, for purposes of congressional apportionment. The Bureau's original FY00 budget request was for $2.8 billion; it revised the Census 2000 plan after the Supreme Court ruled in January that federal law barred the use of sampling to produce the population totals used for congressional apportionment. GAO auditors found that the $1.7 billion requested cost increase "resulted primarily from changes in assumptions relating to a substantial increase in workload, reduced employee productivity, and increased advertising." They noted that the Bureau expected to visit 46 million instead of 30 million unresponsive households under the revised plan, including 12 million whose characteristics would have been estimated under the original census plan, and another 4 million addresses identified as vacant or nonexistent by the Postal Service. New quality control programs, such as re-interviewing a sample of households, also added to the cost, although the GAO said it is not clear if the new activities would increase census accuracy. Overall, the expected workload increase resulted in higher cost estimates for salaries and benefits, travel, data processing, supplies, and infrastructure requirements (such as office space and telephone capacity). The Bureau's revised budget request for FY00 also includes an extra $72 million for more advertising, which it hopes will increase public awareness and voluntary response. However, the Bureau did not assume any potential cost savings from a better-than-expected response rate, the GAO said. The GAO reported that a 20 percent reduction in assumed productivity for enumerators - from 1.28 to 1.03 households per hour - contributed substantially to the added cost. According to the GAO, the Bureau did not provide documentation to support the productivity rates, relying instead on "senior management judgments" that the Bureau described as "very conservative." In a letter to the GAO commenting on a draft of the report, Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt said the productivity assumptions "represent prudent management," citing "an unyielding calendar" and a "mail response rate [that] is largely out of our control." Overall, the Bureau concurred with the information set forth in the GAO study. In a statement issued after the study was released, Dr. Prewitt said, "I can report to the American public that we have the budget right, our plan is launched, and we are on schedule and on track for Census 2000." He called on Americans to "take ownership of this census" to produce the most accurate and cost-effective count possible. According to the Bureau's written statement, GAO found that only $104 million, or six percent, of the $1.7 billion cost increase was not related to the prohibition on sampling for congressional apportionment purposes. The GAO also reported that the projected cost per housing unit for Census 2000 is four times greater than in 1970 and twice as much as in 1990. The GAO calculated (in constant fiscal year 1998 dollars) a cost of $13 per housing unit for the 1970 census, $31 for 1990, and a projected $56 for 2000. (Census costs are based on the full cycle of census planning, implementation, and data dissemination, which for Census 2000 will run from 1991 - 2003.) Congressional reaction to the GAO study was sharply divided. In a written statement, Rep. Miller said "the Bureau appears to be on shaky fiscal ground." As evidence, he said the Census Bureau "ignor[ed]" the 1997 requirement that the Bureau prepare for a census with and without sampling methods, "lower[ed] productivity rates without justification," and failed to include any cost savings that might result if more advertising increases response rates. "Contrary to claims from the Commerce Department, faulty Bureau assumptions and questionable cost estimates by Bureau managers are not the result of the Supreme Court's decision," Rep. Miller said. The chairman said the Bureau should receive its full funding request for the coming year, but that a thorough audit of the agency might be necessary in the future. "[I]f not for the Republican Congress," he concluded, "the entire census would have been completed illegally and cost billions to repeat." The census subcommittee's senior Democrat, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), also released a written statement, saying the GAO "verified the accuracy of the Census Bureau's financial plan" for Census 2000. "[T]he GAO determined that the Census Bureau's internal cost model calculations were both accurately drafted and reasonable projections," the congresswoman stated. Referring to the likelihood that Congress will have to pass a short-term spending bill to keep most federal agencies running beyond the end of the fiscal year on September 30, Rep. Maloney said the Bureau "needs and deserves funding which is adequate, consistent, and predictable." To obtain copies of "Census 2000: Analysis of Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Amendment" (GAO/AIMD/GGD-99-291), write to U.S. General Accounting Office, P.O. Box 37050, Washington, D.C. 20013; call 202/512-6000; or visit the GAO website at <http://www.gao.gov>. The first copy of each report is free. Census questions still target of congressional concern: The U.S. Senate approved an amendment to the Transportation Department spending bill, expressing its collective opinion that the Census Bureau should continue to ask all Americans about their marital status by collecting the information on the census short form that goes to all households. The Census 2000 long form that will be sent to one in six households includes a question on marital status. Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC), sponsor of the resolution, said, "It is irresponsible for the U.S. government to suggest or imply that marriage is no longer significant or important, but that is precisely the message that will go out if marital status is eliminated from the short form. ..Americans should be disturbed that the U.S. Census Bureau obviously no longer regards marriage as having any importance." The non-binding 'Sense of the Senate' resolution was adopted on September 15th by a 94 - 0 vote. In a statement on the Senate floor the next day, Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) said that moving the marital status question from the short form (in 1990) to the long form (in 2000) was "hardly a frivolous decision," but rather was an effort by the Bureau "to comply with Congressional mandates." The long form produces data for areas as small as 'block groups,' while short form data is produced for areas as small as blocks, a level of detail that is needed primarily for redistricting. Following the 1990 count, Congress criticized the length of the census forms and directed the Census Bureau to reduce the amount of data gathered. In response, the Bureau and the Office of Management and Budget (which oversees federal data activities) decided to collect only data mandated or required by Federal law or Federal court decisions in the 2000 census. The marital status question was moved from the short to the long form because the data is not needed at the block level. As required by law, the Census Bureau submitted to Congress on March 31, 1997 (three years before Census Day) the subject matters it intended to include on the short and long forms. It submitted on March 30, 1998 (two years before Census Day) the actual questions it would include on each form, also as required by law. The Bureau did not receive any comments from Congress on the proposed shift of the marital status question. When the Senate adopted the Helms resolution on September 15, 1999, the Census Bureau had already printed almost 250 million questionnaires for Census 2000. 'Sense of Congress' resolutions do not have the force of law. The Helms amendment does not actually require the Bureau to change the forms. 'Sense of Congress' provisions in spending bills often are dropped by House-Senate conference committees that must produce a final measure; however, USA Today reported on September 23rd that members of the House Family Caucus might champion a similar resolution in that chamber. Race/ethnic tabulations set for redistricting data: After consultations with the U.S. Department of Justice and other stakeholders, the Census Bureau has decided to provide data for 63 race categories, combined with the separate Hispanic origin responses, in the block-level data transmitted to the States for redistricting by April 1, 2001. The 63 categories represent all of the possible single and multiple responses to the race question (there are five distinct races, plus "Some other race"); each category is then identified as "of Hispanic origin" or "not of Hispanic origin." (Hispanic is considered an ethnicity, not a race, in the federal standards on the collection of race and ethnic data.) The redistricting files (often called P.L. 94-171 data, after the public law requiring the information) also include voting age tabulations (18 years of age and over). Census Bureau staff are continuing their discussions about how to tabulate responses to the race question for all other Census 2000 data products. Other tabulation methods being considered include the "all inclusive" distribution (multiple-race responses would be assigned to each of the selected single race categories, resulting in totals that exceed 100 percent of respondents), and the "single race" distribution (single race responses would be reported independently, and all multiple-race responses would be included in a category called, "Two or more races.") State legislative activity update: The State of Alaska has asked the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) to approve a new law prohibiting the use of census numbers derived with sampling methods for post-census redistricting. Alaska enacted Senate Bill 99 last spring after Governor Tony Knowles (D) returned the measure without his signature to the state legislature, allowing the broader redistricting bill to become law despite his opposition to the anti-sampling provision. Alaska is one of 16 states covered in whole or in part by section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires approval from USDOJ for any changes to election law. The 'pre-clearance' process is intended to prevent changes that have the purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote of racial, ethnic, or language minorities. Because Alaska has only one representative in Congress, the new law would affect the redrawing of state Senate and House of Representatives district lines if it passes USDOJ muster. USDOJ has 60 days after a state submits the law to approve or disapprove the measure, or to ask for additional information. Congressional hearing scheduled on address list program: The House Subcommittee on the Census will hold a hearing on September 29 to review the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) program. The LUCA program was designed to involve local governments in developing the nationwide address list (called the 'Master Address File,' or MAF) for Census 2000, essentially replacing the pre-census and post-census Local Review operations used in 1990. The hearing is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. in room 2247 Rayburn House Office Building. 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.

25 years, 2 months

Reg: TAZ Submissions.

by Srinivasan, Nanda <FHWA>

Attention: All agencies participating in theTAZ-UP Program Attached is a list of all agencies that have asked for an extension for submission of TAZ equivalency files to October 29, 1999. If your agency is not on this list, and you have not submitted your TAZ equivalency file, and would like to avail the extension, please send an e-mail to ctpp(a)fhwa.dot.gov by Friday, October 1, 1999. All agencies not on this list are expected to submit their plans by October 1. If you have already submitted your equivalency file to the Census Bureau and have received their confirmation on the transfer, please ignore this e-mail. Please direct all your questions (or notify any errors) on this issue to Nanda Srinivasan at 202 - 366-5021. Androscoggin Valley COG,Jesse Jacobs Association of Monterey Bay Area Government,Todd Muck Atlanta Regional Commission,Stefanie Allen Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission,Jeffrey C. Agee-Aguayo Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study,John Sterbentz Central Midlands COG,Ben Mauldin Central Virginia Planning District Commission,Lee Hood Capps Chatham County-Savannah Metropolitan Planning Comm,Mark Wilkes Chattanooga-Hamilton County MPO,Greg Weathersby Chicago Area Transportation Study,Dean Englund Columbus MPO,Michael Felschow Department of Planning and Community Development,Don Chapman Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO,Felix C. Nwoko Flagstaff MPO, David Wessel Genesse County MPC,E. Raymond Lenze Grand Junction-Mesa County MPO,Cliff Davidson Greenville County Planning Commission,Jim D'Amato Hampton Roads Planning District Commission,Mike Kimbrel Huntsville MPO,James E. Moore Johnson County COG,Kevin L. Doyle Kentuckiana Reg. Planning and Development Agency,Lori A. Kelsey KYOVA Interstate Planning Commission,James Roueche/Salahmeh S Lincoln-Lancaster MPO,Mike Brienzo McAllen/Pharr/Edinburg MPO,Edward L. Molitor Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area,Robert J. Paddock Mid-Ohio RPC,Nancy Reger Montana Department of Transportation,Lynn Zanto Mountainland Association of Governments,Shawn Eliot Naples-Collier County MPO,John Bussiere North Carolina Department of Transportation,Mike Bruff Northwest AL -Council of Local Government,Melissa Bailey Northwestern IN Regional Planning Commission,Lauren Rhein Ocala-Marion County MPO,Ann Mcgassic Palm Beach MPO, Paul Larsen Polk Transportation Planning Organization,Tom Deardorff Pueblo Area Council of Governments,Don Vest Regional Planning Commission,James Harvey Santa Barbara County Association of Governments,Bill Yim Santa Fe MPO,Reed Liming South AL Regional Planning Commission/Mobile MPO,Kevin Harrison Southeast Michigan COG,Edward Limoges Springfield-Sangamon County RPC,Veralee Williams Stanislaus council of Governments,Chip Sellers Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council,Danielle Zebley Transportation Advisory Committee -Burlington,Bob Harkrader Transportation Advisory Committee -Gastonia,Elizabeth Grad/RobertCook Transportation Advisory Committee -Greensboro,Kenneth King/Tyler Meyer Transportation Advisory Committee -Rocky Mount,Bob League Waccamaw RPC,Mark Hoewleler Wasatch Front Regional Council,Wayne Bennion Washoe County RTC,Judy Althoff West Piedmont Planning District Commission,Robert W. Dowd Yakima Valley Conference of Governments,Wallace F. Webster Yuma MPO,John Gross Thank You, Nanda Srinivasan

25 years, 2 months

IMPORTANT! Employer Files for Workplace Geocoding

by Phillip A. Salopek, Sr.

To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net cc: Subject: IMPORTANT! Employer Files for Workplace Geocoding The Census Bureau Population Division and ESRI are in the process of developing a custom extension to the ArcView GIS called Workplace-Update (Work-UP). MPOs and State DOTs (if interested) will be asked to use Work-UP to review and update the commercial employer database Census has leased from InfoUSA (formerly ABI). This file includes all sizes of employers, even those with 1-5 employees. The purpose of Work-Up is to take advantage of local knowledge to improve the database before it is used in workplace geocoding in Census 2000. This in turn will improve the quality of workplace data contained in the Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP). We expect that most agencies will find it less labor intensive to review the Census-provided employer file, rather than build a file from scratch as they were asked to do for the 1980 and 1990 censuses. However, some agencies may already have a locally-maintained employer file, which may be better (more complete and up-to-date) than the file Census has obtained. The question of how to deal with these local files has significant implications for the development work to be done in creating the Work-UP extension. We cannot guarantee that the Work-Up software will include a feature to use local employer files, but we would like a good estimate of how many MPOs and State DOTs will be affected if it is not included in the software. Therefore, if you have a local file we ask you to respond to the following questions. 1. Do you have a locally maintained employer file for your region that you would prefer to use? What counties does it cover? 2. To use the file instead of the Census employer file, you will need to re-format the file to meet the standard file structure (field names, field length, and position) Census is using in Work-UP. Your file will also have to be geocoded using TIGER/Line 98. Would you be willing to perform these tasks on your file before using Work-Up? 3. Do you think your agency would also be interested in reviewing the Census file, or would you only want your file used in Census 2000? If you have a local employer file which you would prefer to use, please send your replies to these questions to Clara Reschovsky at clara.a.reschovsky(a)ccmail.census.gov by close of business, Tuesday, September 28, 1999. We apologize for requesting such a quick response, but the development schedule for Work-UP is very tight and we need to address this issue now. Thank You.

25 years, 3 months

Re: [CTPP] UTPP documentation

by gloria_a_swieczkowski/pop/hq/boc_at_boc＠ccmail.census.gov

Dear Mr. Reim, Unfortunately, we only have the documentation for the 1980 UTPP in printed format. We would be happy to make a copy and send it to you. If you have scanning capability, it could be scanned and converted into a machine readable format. If you do not have scanning capability, please let us know and we could do this for you. Please let us know what you would like us to do. Gloria Swieczkowski Journey-to-Work and Migration Statistics Branch Population Division Bureau of the Census

25 years, 3 months

Attention: All agencies using TAZ-UP for TAZ definition for CTPP 2000

by Srinivasan, Nanda <FHWA>

To: All agencies using TAZ-UP for TAZ definition for CTPP 2000 By now most of you are completing the TAZ definition for the Census Bureau using TAZ-UP. As you proceed to complete your plans, please remember to store and archive your TAZ-UP directories. In early 2000, phase II of the TAZ definition program will be the opportunity for you to verify that TIGER/Line 99 has correctly added your TAZs, and for you to submit changes, if needed. Because the new version of TAZ-UP for the verification phase will use the files you submit in October *99, it is important to keep a copy of these files and have them available in January 2000. Also, please make sure you will have adequate room on your hard drive when TIGER/Line 99 files arrive January-March, 1999 because you will need to have both- Files processed from TIGER/Line 98 and the new files processed from TIGER/Line 99 for verification. Thank You, Nanda Srinivasan

25 years, 3 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-news September 1999