ctpp-news

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

2560 discussions

by Putta, Viplava

I have to add one more question to my previous list: should the state consider the population of revised/adjusted urbanized area for STP-UZA allocation? It (the Adjusted UZA) might be strictly for HPMS purpose only as most would suggest. Thank you everyone. I am sending this also to the MPO List - as some MPO experts may shed some more light on the practice. (for those on the MPO list: my original question was to do with: the State with co-operation from the MPOs shall fix urbanized area boundaries (smoothing out is the term used often) - for HPMS or other purposes). Following responses are self-explanatory. Viplav Putta INCOG ---------------------------------------- Nancy: I got the following responses on the issue of smoothing, which may help others (-VP): --------------------------------------------- Glen Ahlert [gahlert(a)swfrpc.org] The only guidance available from FHWA on this dates from 1991, and still contains a number of obsolete references. It will also leave a lot of your questions unanswered, I suspect. You can download it at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov//////legsregs/directives/fapg/g406300.htm. You might also want to talk to Bob Diogo (bdiogo(a)swfrpc.org) in this office, who has been trying to develop smoothed urbanized area and urban cluster boundaries for this area, about what he has learned and how he's gone about it. ----------------------------------------------- John Coil [jcoil(a)drcog.org] The FHWA requirement for smoothing urbanized areas (or creating transportation urban areas) was focused as an MPO function in 1975, 1983 and 1992. The MPOs needed to define the transportation urban areas and then the urban and rural functional classification to determine which roads were eligible for federal-aid secondary (rural) and federal-aid urban (urban) funding based on the 1974 Federal-aid Highway Act. The MPOs paid little attention to the HPMS data reporting requirements. With the advent of ISTEA in 1992, the need for transportation urban areas declined to just billboard locations, HPMS data reporting and speed limit controls. Since, the Census urbanized boundary now controls billboard locations and the speed controls have been removed. The only remaining need for transportation urban area definitions is the HPMS data reporting requirement. BUT, I think FHWA and many MPOs would like to have a consistent set of transportation urban areas for mapping and other planning functions. I do not know about the MPO interests in Oklahoma, but Denver MPO has no real interest in the urbanized/ transportation urban data reporting. We need data by the TMA to meet our Congressional transportation planning requirements. The 1990 Clean Air Act and ISTEA changed the geography we use in our planning and air quality conformity process. It is too bad that FHWA did not immediately change the HMPS data reporting requirements to match federal law. ---------------------------------------------------------- Mitchell, Steve R. [Steve.Mitchell(a)ahtd.state.ar.us] Go to the following link (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/faqa2cdt.htm#20 ) for information and contacts on the urbanized area boundary smoothing. It was a very big deal after the 1990 Census and ISTEA because there was a nation-wide functional reclassification of the entire roadway network. Back then there was guidance and workshops to help with the process. The FHWA Division offices (states) are now responsible for assisting the states and the information given out is very fragmented and confusing for everyone, not just those who haven't done it before. The information I have has never given a finite limit to the amount of adjustment...just that everyone involved must agree that it is reasonable. The smoothing affects what is classified as urban and rural by the State and Federal government which affects many things they do and could affect funding. The smoothing may be done for all areas classified as urban, not just urbanized areas above 200,000 population. The smoothing is supposed to be done in cooperation with the MPO in large areas. Make suggestions to your DOT as you think appropriate to make data management easier -----------------------------------------------------

23 years, 6 months

RE: [CTPP] Adjusted Urbanized Area

by Kazimi, Zia

Hello Viplava. Here in Montana we had some of the same questions you have. In particular, we had trouble reconciling new Census definitions (Federal Register/Vol.67, No. 51 - March 15, 2002) with what currently exists in USC Titles 23 and 49 relating to urban areas. My understanding is that FHWA is looking into this and will provide further guidance on establishing urban boundaries and the "smoothing" criteria states can use relating to census blocks and urban clusters. With respect to establishing urbanized boundaries, FHWA HQ has asked that we follow the same federal-aid policy guidelines used for the 1990 census. These guidelines (Chapter 4 - Urban area Boundaries) can be found at the link attached below. You will note that the urbanized boundaries under these guidelines CAN encompass fringe areas having residential, commercial, industrial, transportation terminals, and national defense significance if they lie within a reasonable distance (no qualifications on what this distance can be). One of the goals for Census 200 was to bring the urban area criteria back to a single set of rules and eliminate any subjectivity in delineating the new UA and UC census boundaries. I don't know if this is the same goal FHWA has in designating urban and urbanized boundaries - especially if we use the 1990 criteria. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov//////legsregs/directives/fapg/g406300.htm -----Original Message----- From: Putta, Viplava [mailto:vputta@incog.org] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1:53 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] Adjusted Urbanized Area "The Federal Highway Administration approves adjusted urbanized-area boundaries that include the census-defined Urbanized Area plus transportation centers, shopping centers, major places of employment, satellite communities and other major trip generators near the edge of the Urbanized Area, including development expected to be in place shortly." Our state (Oklahoma) is conducting this exercise currently with all towns in Oklahoma. I am trying to find out more about this practice. Can someone point me to the federal register/the directive related to this? - Is the sole purpose here is to get the HPMS representation right or should we know more about the usage in apportionment. - What are the limits of such 'smoothening' the urbanized area by the above definition? - Is this intended for all towns/cities (both in and outside of the TMA?) - When the DOT 'smoothen' the boundary I assume they should include block group if they decide to go out and any other parameters one should be aware of? Thanks. Viplav Putta INCOG

23 years, 6 months

RE: [CTPP] Adjusted Urbanized Area: Viplav Putta Inquiry

by 596 - Michael Leblanc

Hello Viplav Putta: I have attached a copy of the federal register that has the control totals (the population within the urban area) for all of the mpo areas in the US. It also describe each urban area and what happened to it. This is a text file; you can get a better looking pdf by search for this reference in google: [Docket Number 010209034-2084-04] You will have to download the most recent tiger map and find all of the urban area census blocks. These block's population should total to the control total that is listed in the attached document. Go to Census bureau site. I have no idea what smoothing is; basically if a block touches another block with a common boundary or a common corner (!!!!!), its in the urban area. You can quickly get odd shaped urban area that have no relation to reality, but that's the rules. Good luck. Mike LeBlanc, AICP, Planner II Lafayette Consolidated Government Traffic and Transportation Dept. Lafayette, Louisiana -----Original Message----- From: 941 - Mike Hollier [mailto:mhollier@lafayettegov.com] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:33 PM To: Mike LeBlanc Subject: Fw: [CTPP] Adjusted Urbanized Area Mike - - - You might want to pass your experience on to this guy. Mike H. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Putta, Viplava" <vputta(a)incog.org> To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:52 PM Subject: [CTPP] Adjusted Urbanized Area > "The Federal Highway Administration approves adjusted urbanized-area > boundaries that include the census-defined Urbanized Area plus > transportation centers, shopping centers, major places of employment, > satellite communities and other major trip generators near the edge of > the Urbanized Area, including development expected to be in place > shortly." > > Our state (Oklahoma) is conducting this exercise currently with all > towns in Oklahoma. I am trying to find out more about this practice. > > Can someone point me to the federal register/the directive related to > this? > > - Is the sole purpose here is to get the HPMS representation right or > should we know more about the usage in apportionment. > > - What are the limits of such 'smoothening' the urbanized area by the > above definition? > > - Is this intended for all towns/cities (both in and outside of the > TMA?) > > - When the DOT 'smoothen' the boundary I assume they should include > block group if they decide to go out and any other parameters one should > be aware of? > > Thanks. > > Viplav Putta > INCOG >

23 years, 6 months

Adjusted Urbanized Area

by Putta, Viplava

"The Federal Highway Administration approves adjusted urbanized-area boundaries that include the census-defined Urbanized Area plus transportation centers, shopping centers, major places of employment, satellite communities and other major trip generators near the edge of the Urbanized Area, including development expected to be in place shortly." Our state (Oklahoma) is conducting this exercise currently with all towns in Oklahoma. I am trying to find out more about this practice. Can someone point me to the federal register/the directive related to this? - Is the sole purpose here is to get the HPMS representation right or should we know more about the usage in apportionment. - What are the limits of such 'smoothening' the urbanized area by the above definition? - Is this intended for all towns/cities (both in and outside of the TMA?) - When the DOT 'smoothen' the boundary I assume they should include block group if they decide to go out and any other parameters one should be aware of? Thanks. Viplav Putta INCOG

23 years, 6 months

Re: [CTPP] TIP/STIP management application

by Steven.Bowman＠DOT.STATE.IA.US

The Iowa County Engineers Association Service Bureau (ICEASB) with the support of the Iowa Department of Transportation and the Iowa Research Board has developed such a project. Please visit the ICEASB website or contact Mr. De Vries. Contact: Steve De Vries 515.244.0779 http://cfapps.iceasb.org/DocumentLibrary/default.cfm Steven Bowman Iowa Dept. of Transportation 800 Lincoln Way Ames, Iowa 50010 Ph.515.239.1337 "Daryl Scott" <dscott(a)swrpa.org To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > cc: Sent by: Subject: [CTPP] TIP/STIP management application owner-ctpp-news@c hrispy.net 07/24/02 09:41 AM Do any transportation planners at MPOs use a TIP/STIP management application that they would highly recommend to other MPOs? The South Western Region Metropolitan Planning Organization has an outstanding contract with a consultant to develop an application to manage the TIP/STIP for the planning region. The application should be able to generate various reports designed for public officials and the general public, keep track of official decisions about projects, store important comments, and have some document management capabilities. I need to provide detailed application specifications to the consultants before they begin work. I hope to get some good ideas from members of this list serve. If you use an excellent TIP/STIP application, please send me some documentation about the program? Thank you in advance for your assistance. Regards, Daryl -- 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

23 years, 6 months

Call for Abstracts: 2003 Conference on Transportation Planning Methods

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP-News; TMIP Listserv Abstracts for this TRB conference are due this Friday, August 16. Ninth Conference on the Application of Transportation Planning Methods Baton Rouge, LA, April 6-11, 2003 Conference website: http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRBConference/ Call for Abstracts (pdf format): http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRBConference/ConferenceDocuments/CallforAbstracts.… Send abstracts to Dick Walker of Portland Metro. His address is in the Call for Abstract PDF file. "The goal of the conference is to provide an outlet for new techniques and methods without the time lag associated with traditional journals and conferences. The program emphasizes practical, innovative, and timely technical and policy approaches to transportation planning."

23 years, 6 months

Summary File 3 Data released for Seven More States

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP-News, August 13, 2002 Summary File #3 (Long Form, Sample data) has been released for an additional six states plus the District of Columbia: Alabama, Colorado, District of Columbia, Maryland, Nebraska, Rhode Island and Utah. Data released in the previous week include: Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Vermont and West Virginia. SF3 data for an additional seven states are planned for release on 8/20/02: Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Oregon. And, new information for tody: SF3 data will be released for seven states on 8/27/02: Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico and Ohio. The following "Press Release" link will be updated by the Bureau over the next month to provide expected release dates for the remaining states. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/sumfile3.html BE SURE TO DOWNLOAD THE SF3 DOCUMENTATION FROM THE ABOVE LINK. For "power users" interested in SPSS and SAS code to work with these databases, visit the State Data Centers web site at: http://www.sdcbidc.iupui.edu/Profiles/SF3/sf3.html The 77 files that comprise each state's set of SF3 files is fairly intimidating, so I would recommend becoming friendly with American FactFinder when your state's data becomes available. American Factfinder: http://factfinder.census.gov/ Chuck Purvis, MTC *********************************************** Charles L. Purvis, AICP Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst Metropolitan Transportation Commission 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607-4700 (510) 464-7731 (office) (510) 464-7848 (fax) www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/ Census WWW: http://census.mtc.ca.gov/ ***********************************************

23 years, 6 months

RE: [CTPP] Historical Census Data

by Daryl Scott

The Census Bureau posts 1980, 1990, and 2000 data at http://www2.census.gov/. I found technical documentation for 1990 and 2000, but I was not able to find any documentation for 1980 data. Thus, I have not been able to incorporate the 1980 data yet. Does anyone know where I could find technical documentation for the 1980 data? Thanks, Daryl -- 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 -----Original Message----- From: Adam Garms [mailto:ajgarms@dmampo.org] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 3:56 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] Historical Census Data We have been looking for historical census data and have had a difficult time. The data we are specifically looking for is population and housing information at the block level for 1990. But we would also like to find data from 1980 if possible. We are trying to look at some of the trends in our area that have changed over time. Part of the study area for one of the projects is in a rural area and data at block group and track levels are very broad and difficult to determine trends. If anyone has any suggestions on where we could find this data it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your help. Thanks, Adam J Garms Transportation Planner Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Merle Hay Centre 6200 Aurora Avenue, Suite 300W Urbandale, IA 50322-2866 Telephone: 515.334.0075 ext. 202 Facsimile: 515.334.0098 AJGarms(a)dmampo.org

23 years, 7 months

RE: [CTPP] Changes in Workers per HH and Vehicles per HH (long po st)

by John Coil

The travel behavior inventory conducted in the Denver region (1997) obtained a count on the number of (paid and volunteer) jobs a person had. The data implied about 7.5% of the employed household population had 2 or more jobs. Some reported as many as 4 other jobs. While clerical employees were the largest group with second jobs, none reported more than 1 additional job. Those employed as "professionals" accounted for 46% of the employed with 2 or more other jobs (3+ totals jobs). -----Original Message----- From: David Abrams [mailto:dabrams@mrgcog.org] Sent: July 08, 2002 4:28 PM To: 'Chuck Purvis'; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] Changes in Workers per HH and Vehicles per HH (long po st) Albuquerque (not one of your 36 largest MSAs) also had a decline in workers per household from 1.235 to 1.188. We looked at the employment number compared to the employment data coming from the Department of Labor. We found that the number of workers (326,775) was somewhat less than the NMDOL estimate of Nonagricultural Employment (354,883). The NonAg number does not count agricultural or self-employment both of which are included in the number of workers (employed residents). In 1990, the number of workers reported by the Census exceeded the estimate of NonAg employment. We are thinking that there may be a major increase in persons working two jobs. If this is more widespread than Albuquerque it could have considerable consequences. To my knowledge there is not data collected on workers working multiple wage jobs. A question for Chuck Purvis: Did you control for the change in household size when you compared the workers to households ratios for 1990 and 2000. Dave Abrams Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments

23 years, 7 months

Historical Census Data

by Adam Garms

We have been looking for historical census data and have had a difficult time. The data we are specifically looking for is population and housing information at the block level for 1990. But we would also like to find data from 1980 if possible. We are trying to look at some of the trends in our area that have changed over time. Part of the study area for one of the projects is in a rural area and data at block group and track levels are very broad and difficult to determine trends. If anyone has any suggestions on where we could find this data it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your help. Thanks, Adam J Garms Transportation Planner Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Merle Hay Centre 6200 Aurora Avenue, Suite 300W Urbandale, IA 50322-2866 Telephone: 515.334.0075 ext. 202 Facsimile: 515.334.0098 AJGarms(a)dmampo.org

23 years, 7 months

Jump to page:

2026

2025

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