Re: [CTPP] Urban/Rural criteria

John I am happy to answer your questions regarding the criteria as applied to the Greenville area, but I will leave to the transportation community the answers/responses to your questions concerning Rock Hill area. In addition, if anyone has specific questions concerning the delineation of their urbanized area, please send those questions direcly to us at : ua(a)geo.census.gov You are correct in that we created two separate UAs (Greenville and Mauldin-Simpsonville) because the criteria specify that they be separated if their point of contiguity is no greater than a point-to-point connection or if a hop or jump is needed to connect the areas. These criteria only are applied where the two areas have an initial core population of 50,000 or greater, therefore, it is not applied between UA-UC or UC-UC. With regards to the separation of the Greenville UA and the Clemson UC, the two areas were not linked because both areas had jumped along the same road connection between the two areas, and the distance along the remaining road connection that separates the areas was more than 0.5 miles (more than a permitted hop connection), requiring an addtional jump connection, which the criteria do not permit. Again, please let me recommend, that if you have specific questions regarding the delineation of UAs or UCs in your area, such as the above questions regarding Greenville/Clemson, please send them directly to us at: ua(a)geo.census.gov. Dave Aultman Geography Division U.S. Census Bureau (301) 457-1099 "Gardner, John F" <GardnerJF(a)dot.st To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net ate.sc.us> cc: Sent by: Subject: [CTPP] Urban/Rural criteria owner-ctpp-news@c hrispy.net 05/31/2002 09:28 AM Perhaps someone with Census can answer these two questions. The new urban/rural classification method had some interesting results in South Carolina. One of our UAs (Greenville) was split into two UAs, with a very narrow band of "rural" area (along the I-85 corridor, where there's little or no population in the blocks adjacent to the freeway) dividing the new Mauldin-Simpsonville UA from the Greenville UA, which it was part of in 1990. I assume that the two UAs were not combined because contiguity could only have been achieved with a "hop" connection, and the urban/rural classification rule specifies that otherwise separate UAs won't be combined using a "hop". 1) Is that correct? And, 2) does the "no hop" rule apply for UA-UC combinations and UC-UC combinations? We have what appears to be a single block discontiguity between the Greenville UA and Clemson UC, also. Now, a general question for the list: The Rock Hill, SC UA lost a significant part of its 1990 urban area to Charlotte, NC. Transportation planning for the portion of the Rock Hill UA that was "lost" to Charlotte is currently handled by the Rock Hill MPO. This creates some interesting and potentially troublesome planning and political issues. Has anyone else had a similar experience, where part of a small UA was "absorbed" by an adjacent larger one? John Gardner, AICP SCDOT Office of Planning PO Box 191 Columbia, SC 29202-0191 (803) 737 - 1444 gardnerjf(a)dot.state.sc.us -----Original Message----- From: Jim Bash [mailto:jbash@uic.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 5:31 PM To: Patty Becker Cc: Andrew PICKARD; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] 2000 demo. profiles: 100% data CMSA/MSA/PMSA are in the text file. I'm 99% sure that the Chicago PMSA was also a PDF profile but I don't want to dig into the 91meg zipped profiles for Illinois right now to find out:-) Of course only the portion of MSA/CMSA within a state is reported. There is supposed to be a national file out eventually with the full CMSAs. jim b On Wed, 29 May 2002, Patty Becker wrote: an released statewide Cook in ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------