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

Hi Viplav: I am sure Michael's suggestion is very helpful, but I would also hope that the population numbers for each block in OK is available at the Amercan factfinder site in tabular format. You would then only need to get a data dictionary together that specifies what the status of each block is: (1) in or not in an UA or (2) in or not in an UC and (3) rural. You might have to have SF-2 or SF-3 to do this as SF-1 would not have this information but I believe that for defining UA non UA blocks, the new updated tiger files will be the only way to assemble this data. I assume you would have to do this for every urbanized area that was entirely or partially within OK. (Gee, doing this population comparision for a large number of different states would indeed be a daunting task) I believe someone must have already done (or is planning to) do these UA non UA bock assignments for the entire US if they plan on doing the detailed UA non UA maps but I am not sure how or when this product will be finished or what the final product would cost. Assigning the HPMS highway data stations in your state to an urban or non urban status would indeed be an interesting exercise that requires that the UA non UA boundary maps to be overlayed on top of the HPMS station point (or highway segment) map. And of course a very good and accurate map of your sample HPMS data stations would have to be available to do this I would think your state DOT must have such a map, but it might not be in tiger format. I am not an expert on such HPMS map issues, but certainly such census maps should be available soon or are already available in electronic form already (perhaps at some cost) , but as to the HPMS station maps` I am far less certain. You do indeed have a very intersting task. I am sure many on this list will have a more specific methodology and I am very interested in this effort you have undertaken. The use of HPMS data by the transportation community based on which data stations are assigned to UA's and which ones are not assigned to UA's (i.e rural) is indeed an interesting study in many states. Just how and when this is actually accomplished for the new UA boundaries I am not sure. If these new UC's that have been defined revise the urban non urban status of lots of HPMS data stations then indeed many states DOT's have an intersting task ahead of them. I do believe I did read some reference that FHWA does not expect that Yr 2000 UA non UA data definitions will be used right away in the apportionment issues for federal highway funds. Again I hope that someone on this list will be able to get you better answer that question. Ed Herlihy Transportation Consultant Reston, Va ----- Original Message ----- From: "596 - Michael Leblanc" <mleblanc(a)lafayettegov.com> To: "'941 - Mike Hollier'" <mhollier(a)lafayettegov.com>om>; <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> Cc: <vputta(a)incog.org> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 4:48 PM Subject: RE: [CTPP] Adjusted Urbanized Area: Viplav Putta Inquiry