1 Jul
2008
1 Jul
'08
9:24 a.m.
I, too, hope UZA will receive more attention than last time. My impression
is that in 2000, Census moved away from considering several factors and went
with what was easiest and most straightforward for Census, not what was most
reflective of the reality on the ground; in essence they sacrificed accuracy
for consistency and simplicity. In our region, that meant that the Research
Triangle Park, with about 50,000 workers (but where no one lives with the
possible exception of some computer programmers with cots in their cubicles)
is "not urban," nor are the surrounding office parks and the adjacent
Raleigh-Durham Airport, despite this agglomeration being the most congested
portion of our region. This hole in our region resulted in us having 2
separate UZAs and corresponding MSAs (Raleigh and Durham) whereas we had
previously been one MSA.
John Hodges-Copple, Planning Director
Triangle J Council of Governments
PO Box 12276
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
919-558-9320
johnhc(a)tjcog.org
www.tjcog.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Reinauer" <treinauer(a)smrpc.org>
To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 9:56 AM
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