Agenda - 05-19-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

IV. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS The necessary forecasts of zonal landuse for the study's design years of 2000 and 2010 were developed in 1986. Based on review of these data by local governing bodies, adjustments were made where appropriate prior to the building of the corresponding travel demand trip tables. Figure 4.1 illustrates the planning districts for which data were aggregated for subarea analysis. Districts 1 through 11 comprise the Durham County portion of the study area; 12 n Orange County's portion; 18 through 20 - Chatham County; and 21. 22 - northwest ke County. Table 4.1 lists housing and employment for 1985. Tables 4.2 and 4.3 contain the corresponding projected values for 2000 and 2010, respectively. Table 4.4 compares these data for 1985 and 2000. Table 4.5 compares 2000 and 2010. Table 4.6 compares 1985 to 2010. District comparisons between earlier year value being 100% Years are made by the County and study area comparisons (e.g., 00 to 200 = 200%, 100 to 1000 given in terms of annualized 1000%).s and each county's percentage share of the study area's growth rates of the landuse categories forecasted. projected increase in each DURHAM COUNTY Durham County encompasses nearly two thirds of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carr Urban Area. The following describes born employment; projections of future present patterns of population, housing and assumptions upon which the population, housing and employment; and general the specific projections of population nand employment for the eleven districts 4.3 show make up Durham County. is that Existing Patterns of Housing and Employment The population in 1985 of the Durham Coup eestimated at about 154,300 �' portion of the study area was ,600 people, who resided in nearly 56,800 housing units and group housing units. About 45 percent of these housin central area between Cornwallis Road, the US 15-501 B g units are in a (District 1 and 4). Another 27 YAass, 1-85, and L'S 70 r (District 5) and northwest (District 2) of this central area. Most f the remain n t 28 percent are scattered in suburban areas to the north. east ad south. The housing density generally decreases toward the north eastern and southe n edges of the Durham County portions of the study area. Patterns of employment in Durham County are substantially residen- tial patterns. Of the 94,600 jobs in the Durham County different form resirea, nearly 27 percent are located in and around the Research Triangle Park (District 4.1