Dmitry,

 

It has been an entire decade since I worked on the TAZ geography here in Minneapolis-St. Paul, so my memory is not as sharp on the subject.  The software used in ‘TAZUP’ at the time was not as thorough, so to speak, as that used this time around.  Visually scanning the map that was on the computer screen before you often required ‘zooming in’ to locate missing polygons; they were often rather difficult to spot.  I do not recall that the software had any ‘checks and balances’ like it did for the 2010 work effort.  Consequently, the situation you indicated could quite possibly have taken place.  I believe that I had a few instances like you described.  Fortunately, they were tiny slivers.

 

Good luck with the work!

 

Bob Paddock

Transportation Planning

Metropolitan Council

Bob.paddock@metc.state.mn.us

651 / 602-1340

 

 

 

 

From: ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Messen, Dmitry
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 8:57 AM
To: 'ctpp-news@chrispy.net'
Subject: Re: [CTPP] 2000 Census Traffic Analysis Zones

 

Nanda,

Yes, I know about the generalization; however, it is my understanding that it results in the simplification of the lines and shouldn't alter the polygon topology. Nevertheless, we'll go ahead and process the TIGERLine files. But the question remains: did the Census standards for Traffic Analysis Zones in 2000 geography specifically allow non-contiguous zones (other than the islands, of course)?

 

From: ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Srinivasan, Nanda
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 8:03 AM
To: ctpp-news@chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] 2000 Census Traffic Analysis Zones

 

Dmitry:

When you use the GIS shape file from http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/bdy_files.html you are using a “generalized GIS file.”  The limitations of these files are listed on the CB website as follows:

“The generalized files have a much smaller file size than the original file extraction from the Census Bureau's TIGER database, resulting in faster download and processing times.

Limitations

Because of coordinate thinning:

  1. Cartographic boundary files should not be used for geocoding;
  2. Some offshore, redundant, zero population and housing land areas may be absent from the files;
  3. Cartographic Boundary files are not necessarily vertically integrated with previous boundary file sets.”

For smaller geographies such as TAZs, you are better off using a detailed shape file/Any other GIS file derived from TIGER directly.

Thanks

Nanda

 

From: ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Messen, Dmitry
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 8:45 PM
To: ctpp-news@chrispy.net
Subject: [CTPP] 2000 Census Traffic Analysis Zones

 

Would anybody know what the deal was with the 2000 Census Traffic Analysis Zones?

I am working with CTPP 2000 Table 3 data. To do some spatial analysis, I turned to census boundary files for traffic analysis zones (http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/bdy_files.html). I quickly realized that 63 out 2639 zones for the Houston region are represented by 2+ non-adjacent polygons. Does this happen in other regions as well? Was this delineation done purposefully or perhaps these are simply errors stemming from TIGERLine 2000?

Any input will be much appreciated.

 

Thank you.

 

Dmitry Messen

H-GAC

dmessen@h-gac.com