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
----------------------------------------
I got the following responses on the issue of smoothing, which may help
others (-VP):
---------------------------------------------
Glen Ahlert [gahlert@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@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@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
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
----------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell, Steve R. [Steve.Mitchell@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
-----------------------------------------------------