Missing place codes in AL, AK, CA, KY, LA, MO - There are some records in summary levels 072 (St-Co-Cosub-Place/Remainder), 082 (St-Co-Cosub-Place/Remainder-Tract), and 160 (St-Place) where the place code fields have inadvertently been left blank. These records have been omitted from the CDs distributed with the CTPP Access Tool (CAT) software, so they will not be noticed. However, their omission will result in summary levels 072 and 082 not summing up to the correct county total, since some data are missing from these summary levels. The records with a blank place code field have been included in the ASCII datasets. The place code field on these records should have been filled with nines (not in a place or in a place of <2,500) and for most tables could be combined with that data if desired. We will fix these place codes for the final release of Part 2.
Incorrect or "illegal" county subdivision, place, tract and block group codes - In some rural counties there are records on the file that contain workplace codes that do not actually exist within the county shown. This problem resulted from a bug in our extended place of work allocation system that assigned codes from the wrong county. We have located and corrected the problem but are not going to rerun the tables until we produce the final version of Part 2. In addition to the illegal codes themselves, the error sometimes results in records with blanks in some geography fields. The records with missing codes are generally omitted from the data on the CAT software CDs, but will be present in the ASCII datasets. Omitting the records means that some summary levels on the software CDs may not sum up to the county totals correctly.
Missing TAZ codes - In a few cases there are taz summary level records (940) that have blanks in the taz field. This is a result of the error in the extended place of work allocation system described in note 2 above. These records have been omitted from the CAT software data files but will be found in the ASCII data sets.
There was an error in our definition of MPO regions that resulted in two MPOs in Indiana being combined, the Northeastern Indiana RCC (2761) and the Northwestern Indiana RPC (2961). We corrected the data files for these two MPOs on the Indiana Part 2 CD. We did not correct the map files for selecting geography though, so the map still shows them combined and you have to select MPO 2961 from the geography list to access the data. We also did not get a correct label for MPO 2961 put on the records. However, the data are correct for the two areas on the IN disc. We did not correct the data for these two MPOs on the Illinois disc (there are some IL counties in MPO 2961), though, so the data for these two MPOs from the IL disc should not be used.
In the Idaho dataset there is an error in the MPO region summary level (930) for MPO 3461, the Bonneville MPO. Tables 1 through 46 are ok, but some of the tables from 47-66 are missing from the 3461 record. Because of an error in our MPO list, the missing tables were run for the MPO code of 3460 instead of 3461. The data are correct in both cases, but the two records (3460 and 3461) need to be retrieved and combined in order to get all the tables for the Bonneville MPO.
Three files were inadvertently omitted from the Part 2 CD documentation folder (\docs). The first of these, user notes.txt, contains general information about the data in CTPP 2000 and some important facts about using it. The file residuals.doc explains what we mean by residual workplace categories, where they occur, how the data are identified, and how users can access the data. Lastly, allocation.doc provides an overview of the process we use to allocate or assign workplace locations to workers we could not fully geocode. Copies of these files will be provided to you through some other means since they are not on the CDs. At that time we will also include electronic versions of the paper documents that were included in the CD shipment.
Although the explanation of the residual workplace categories (residuals.doc) correctly states that residuals can occur in summary level 082 (St-Co-Cosub-Place/Rem.-tract), due to an oversight residuals were not implemented for this summary level. Therefore the residual records for this summary level are not labeled as such and there is no counter for them. However, it is still possible to select these records from the geography list and display them in the CTPP Data Browser.
Some of the MSA/CMSA and PMSA names shown in this initial release of Part 2 are wrong. We will correct these for the final versions of Part 1 and Part 2.