Follow members of the CTPP listserve:
Although this is not technically a CTPP issue, it is related. My
organization is trying to use the NJIT's new land use modeling software,
TELUM. We have spent a lot of time and effort putting together the data
inputs for this model, but cannot make it work reliably. So I am
querying my fellow MPO's and other transportation/land use modelers and
planners: has anybody had much luck with TELUM? For that matter, any
luck with TELUM's predecessors, DRAM and EMPAL?
I am trying to decide whether or not to continue using TELUM for our
upcoming transportation model. NJIT staff have been helpful, but they
are half a continent away and after two or three months of devoted
effort our model still crashes on calibration. I may have to scrap TELUM
and go back to conventional methods. I would appreciate any ideas, tips,
etc. Thanks!
Jonathan Lupton
Research Planner
Metroplan
Little Rock AR
501-372-3300
The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) plans on undertaking an ambitious effort to improve its travel modeling process. DVRPC plans on upgrading its software package, hardware, models, and data management process. As part of this effort, DVRPC is requesting proposals from qualified consultants for assistance in upgrading its travel demand modeling process. Please see the attached request for proposals (RFP) for more details.
We look forward to receiving your proposals on this matter
Thabet Zakaria
Deputy Director, Technical Services
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
Phone: (215) 238-2885
Email: tzakaria(a)dvrpc.org
Fax: (215) 592-9125
Just a reminder to everyone that when you use the ACS standard tables
from American FactFinder, for the tables on "journey to work" both for
residence geography and workplace geography, "08" is the key. B08xxx;
C08xxx; GCT08xxx, S08xxx, etc.
Michelle Jiles' article (pages 4 and 5) from the January 2008 issue of
the CTPP Status Report http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/status.htm includes
more detail.
Elaine Murakami
206-220-4460
Hi there,
I addition to Bill's questions below, I'd like to find out what if any
processes are underway or planned to better coordinate the
definition/establishment of the Fed urbanized areas with transportation
planning and funding (maybe coord between the Census Bureau, FTA and
FHWA).
It has always appeared that the UZA boundaries are established with no
consideration for transportation, but transportation funding is based on
UZA boundaries and the pop/lane miles/etc. within them. In Maine, for
example, the Maine Mall area is huge and probably be biggest traffic
generation area in the state. However, since no on lives there (certain
teenagers not withstanding), it is not included in the UZA. Nor is the
Portland Jetport, etc.
Although some "smoothing" often occurs in the UAZ boundaries, large
areas such as these usually are not incorporated. Any thoughts? --Tom
Tom Reinauer, Transportation Director
Southern Maine RPC & Kittery Area MPO
21 Bradeen St. Suite 304
Springvale, ME 04083
(207)324-2952 Ext. 18
(207)324-2958 fax
treinauer(a)smrpc.org
www.smrpc.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Moore [mailto:bmoore@pueblo.us]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:16 PM
To: 'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net'
Subject: CTPP Update - Another Question
This may not pertain directly to the CTPP, but is another 2010 Census
issue that may (again) have some significant effects on MPOs. At this
point, I don't think I've seen any discussions of the definitions or
criteria that will be used to define the various land areas comprising
an Urban Area.
Will they be the same as those used in the 2000 Census or are there also
plans to change some or all of them? How will the Census UA standards
handle annexations of vacant land into incorporated cities? (i.e. Will
the UA boundaries automatically adjust to the new corporate limits, or
will the population, distance, and density criteria "override" the
legal/institutional changes?) What about so-called "lariat" or
"flagpole" annexations in states where these are legal?
I'd appreciate any early insights anyone may have about this issue.
Bill Moore
MPO Administrator
Pueblo MPO/TPR
This e-mail transmission (including any attachments) contains
information that is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you received this e-mail
in error, we request that you contact us immediately by telephone or
return e-mail, and that you delete this message from your computer. If
you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly
prohibited.
Hi Everyone,
I am looking to find the most up to date CTPP disks. Can you please direct me to the contact person to obtain these? Thanks!
Angie Byrne
Transportation Planner
Western Arkansas Planning & Development District
Bi-State Metropolitan Planning Organization
1109 S. 16th Street
P.O. Box 2067
Fort Smith AR, 72902
Office: 479-785-2651
Fax: 479-785-1964
abyrne(a)wapdd.org
-----Original Message-----
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net
[mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net]On Behalf Of Tom Reinauer
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:56 AM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: [CTPP] RE: CTPP Update - Another Question
Hi there,
I addition to Bill's questions below, I'd like to find out what if any
processes are underway or planned to better coordinate the
definition/establishment of the Fed urbanized areas with transportation
planning and funding (maybe coord between the Census Bureau, FTA and
FHWA).
It has always appeared that the UZA boundaries are established with no
consideration for transportation, but transportation funding is based on
UZA boundaries and the pop/lane miles/etc. within them. In Maine, for
example, the Maine Mall area is huge and probably be biggest traffic
generation area in the state. However, since no on lives there (certain
teenagers not withstanding), it is not included in the UZA. Nor is the
Portland Jetport, etc.
Although some "smoothing" often occurs in the UAZ boundaries, large
areas such as these usually are not incorporated. Any thoughts? --Tom
Tom Reinauer, Transportation Director
Southern Maine RPC & Kittery Area MPO
21 Bradeen St. Suite 304
Springvale, ME 04083
(207)324-2952 Ext. 18
(207)324-2958 fax
treinauer(a)smrpc.org
www.smrpc.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Moore [mailto:bmoore@pueblo.us]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:16 PM
To: 'ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net'
Subject: CTPP Update - Another Question
This may not pertain directly to the CTPP, but is another 2010 Census
issue that may (again) have some significant effects on MPOs. At this
point, I don't think I've seen any discussions of the definitions or
criteria that will be used to define the various land areas comprising
an Urban Area.
Will they be the same as those used in the 2000 Census or are there also
plans to change some or all of them? How will the Census UA standards
handle annexations of vacant land into incorporated cities? (i.e. Will
the UA boundaries automatically adjust to the new corporate limits, or
will the population, distance, and density criteria "override" the
legal/institutional changes?) What about so-called "lariat" or
"flagpole" annexations in states where these are legal?
I'd appreciate any early insights anyone may have about this issue.
Bill Moore
MPO Administrator
Pueblo MPO/TPR
This e-mail transmission (including any attachments) contains
information that is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you received this e-mail
in error, we request that you contact us immediately by telephone or
return e-mail, and that you delete this message from your computer. If
you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly
prohibited.
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
