Continuing the thread: Having TAZ's which are limited to not crossing county boundaries will not pose a problem for us in Lansing, however it would be useful if TAZUP could display multiple counties for reference while we're working on boundary files, since the county boundary may be the TAZ boundary for adjacent TAZ's, and it would be useful to be able to only have to do one line to close each polygon. We would have a problem however, if TAZ boundaries are not permitted to cross other jurisdictional boundaries, such as cities, townships, CDP's etc., but Counties will not be a problem for us. Further it would be extremely useful if we could do statwide TAZ packages at the same time as we are doing urban TAZ boundaries, and I understand from Wende O'Neill the current release schedule would not permit this. For us, this in essence means we will probably have to do the whole exercise twice, once for urban TAZ's, and once for statewide TAZ's, which will double the amount of effort required, and may create another type of nesting problem, since urban TAZ's may or may not be accurately nested in Statewide model TAZ's for our multiple county MPO areas. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net [mailto:owner-ctpp-news@chrispy.net]On Behalf Of Murakami, Elaine <FHWA> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 4:32 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] TAZ definition for CTPP--reply to Chuck's message 1. when?--we are hoping that the software and the TIGER/Line 98 CDs will ship at the end of January. MPOs and State DOTs will have six months to return the files to the Census Bureau. 2. Minimum threshholds? We are still waiting to hear from the Census Bureau Disclosure Review Board. When I went to APDU, there was some discussion that Block Group recommendation was to have threshhold of about 600 persons. However, Phil Salopek of Census Bureau Journey to Work thinks that CTPP may not have to meet the same requirements.