i like bob usually have an answer or think i do<grin>. it is my understanding that in situations like this, bob would get data for the whole county if he wants, with his geography for the portion he defined and the st cloud geography for the portion that they defined. this i believe to be true. in effect, if an MPO wants CTPP flow data for an area outside the area where they defined the TAZs, they will get the lowest level geography that was defined for that area--be it tracts, block groups or some taz configuration. things that i am not clear on is if for some reason both bob and st cloud used a TAZ numbering system that for some reason was the same within their respective portions of the shared county how that would get sorted out--but i think i am over analyzing for now and getting into the weeds. to get a feel for what that geography may be, i would think that bob, or anyone for that matter, could look at the TAZs in tiger to see what is there. this should be the telling story. i will sit back and wait for phil salopek or one of our other census bureau friends to confirm and/or clarify what i think i understand about this part of the effort. another question that this raises for me, is when will the CTPP developers be asking MPOs for the areas that they want CTPP flow data for? i understand that there is request out from the census bureau now asking MPOs to verify what their MPO region is. i am reading that to be the area for which they defined TAZs. (this needs to be clarified as well). i think i better stop here and wait, before i wake up mr. purvis on the west coast and he adds another mountain of questions that i know he has ginned up. Bob Paddock wrote: