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@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
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
We have converted our 2000 urbanized area boundaries and examined them in
ArcView. It appears that our urbanized area has shrunk in many areas
compared with the 1990 Census urbanized area. There are declines
particularly around less occupied areas (we have a lot of marshes here in
Charleston) adjacent to and surrounded by urban areas. Some changes are
harder to explain, particularly in rapidly developing parts of our region
that moved from being "urban" to "rural" by Census definition.
This came as somewhat of a surprise to us. We had calculated our boundaries
based on the draft regs published last year, and the final ones look
dramatically different for our region.
Could anyone give a basic explanation of the change in philosophy between
designating the 1990 and 2000 boundaries? As the region's MPO, we need a
good explanation (suitable for the layperson) to tell our local folks,
particularly in areas that have much more growth than they did 10 years ago
but are now called "rural."
Thanks.
Haila R. Maze, AICP
Senior Planner
Berkeley Charleston Dorchester Council of Governments
5290 Rivers Avenue, Suite 400
North Charleston, SC 29406
(843) 529-0400
(843) 529-0305 fax
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert LaMacchia [mailto:robert.a.lamacchia@census.gov]
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 2:05 PM
To: Ctpp-News Maillist
Subject: [CTPP] UA TIGER/Line files now available
The UA Census 2000 TIGER/Line files are now available at:
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tigerua/ua_tgr2k.html
<http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tigerua/ua_tgr2k.html>
Bob LaMacchia
Geography Division
U. S. Census Bureau
The release of the new UAs has inspired a lot of questions about their effects on transportation planning and programming. The FHWA has a couple of good web pages on FAQs:
Specifically for UZA and UC
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/faqa2cdt.htm
And a couple of layers up, but a broader swatch of transportation planning
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/
Happy hunting!
Liz Hartmann
MnDot Office of Investment Management
Elaine,
Helpful stuff. Have you heard any date/timeframe for announcement of
new/updated TMA boundaries? I would also appreciate it if you (or anyone
else) can provide me with the basics on how the TMA update process will be
carried out. I presume that it will be based on the new UZA boundaries, but
I haven't seen anything on how the TMA boundaries will be modified to
reflect the 2000 census numbers.
Thanks.
Brian Lakeman
Genesee Transportation Council
-----Original Message-----
From: Elaine Murakami [mailto:Elaine.Murakami@igate.fhwa.dot.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 11:10 AM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net; wschaefer(a)ci.madison.wi.us
Subject: Re: [CTPP] Effective Date of New UAs
Here is response from Sheldon Edner of FHWA:
The designation for all UZAs was effective upon publication by the Census
Bureau. New TMAs (UZA over 200,000 for first time) are effective, for
transportation planning purposes, upon designation by the Secretary of
Transportation.
Regarding the use of FTA funds, please contact FTA.
Regarding STP attributable funding, FY 2003 funding will be apportioned to
the States in October, 2002 and will provide the first STP attributable
funding for new TMAs. If the newly designated UZAs were part of an MPO
(which was a TMA) before the publication of the Census information, they
were already eligible for STP funding. If they have become part of the MPO
(TMA) for the first time, they are eligible to use STP funding as soon as
(starting after October1, 2002) projects utilizing those funds are included
in a plan and TIP. Communities do not apply to FHWA for these funds, they
are available as a result of the MPO planning process and the inclusion of
projects utilizing them in plans and TIPs. Funding is made available
through the State DOT.
Sheldon Edner
FHWA Office of Metropolitan Planning
Please remove my name as I am no longer working for NDDOT in a planning
related position.
dbentz(a)nd.state.us
Duane R. Bentz, PE
Associate Staff
North Dakota Department of Transportation
May 14, 2002
Here is response from Sheldon Edner of FHWA:
The designation for all UZAs was effective upon publication by the Census Bureau. New TMAs (UZA over 200,000 for first time) are effective, for transportation planning purposes, upon designation by the Secretary of Transportation.
Regarding the use of FTA funds, please contact FTA.
Regarding STP attributable funding, FY 2003 funding will be apportioned to the States in October, 2002 and will provide the first STP attributable funding for new TMAs. If the newly designated UZAs were part of an MPO (which was a TMA) before the publication of the Census information, they were already eligible for STP funding. If they have become part of the MPO (TMA) for the first time, they are eligible to use STP funding as soon as (starting after October1, 2002) projects utilizing those funds are included in a plan and TIP. Communities do not apply to FHWA for these funds, they are available as a result of the MPO planning process and the inclusion of projects utilizing them in plans and TIPs. Funding is made available through the State DOT.
Sheldon Edner
FHWA Office of Metropolitan Planning
