Facilities Plan Oldham County Sewer District Chapter 5 Population Projections

Similar documents
Oldham County Major Thoroughfare Plan

Multi Modal Transit Access Plan KIPDA ID # 239. Project Type: STUDY

Description: Widen I-64 to 6 lanes from I-265 to the KY 53 interchange in Shelby County.

Accounting for Growth: Policy Implications for the Partnership

3.0 Future Conditions

Pennsylvania Highway Statistics

Policy Number: Effective: 07/11/14 Responsible Division: Planning Date: 07/11/2014 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION AMENDMENT POLICY

Final Report August 2005

Nebraska Births Report: A look at births, fertility rates, and natural change

METHODOLOGY. Signalized Intersection Average Control Delay (sec/veh)

FINAL DESIGN TRAFFIC TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

MANITOBA'S ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY: A 2001 TO 2026 POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

PRELIMINARY DRAFT FIRST AMENDMENT TO VISION 2050: A REGIONAL LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN

ORDINANCE NO AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO NASSAU COUNTY, norida. WHEREAS, on the 28th day of January, 1991, the Board of County

Urban Planning and Land Use

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION ON OPTIONS FOR THE CREATION OF A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AREA IN THE SUGAR HOUSE NEIGHBORHOOD

How Policy Drives Mode Choice in Children s Transportation to School

Chapter 4 Traffic Analysis

September 9, Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission (PLDRC)

Bicycle-Pedestrian Master Plan Update

DOWNLOAD OR READ : THE RIVER BELOW PDF EBOOK EPUB MOBI

2012 Diamond Complex Assessment BLM administered: Battle Mountain, Ely, Elko districts

Redondo Beach Boat Launch Ramp Facility

Des Moines Area MPO Safety Performance Targets and Methodology

I Pedestrian Count Summary 1. II. Comparisons of Previous Years Data 3. III. Exhibits and Projections 5

ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS JANUARY 8, 2018 BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESENTATION JEFF CIMMERER CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

Existing and Future Conditions Assessment for the Clark County Thoroughfare Plan

Cleve Gaddis Gaddis Partners, RE/MAX Center & USA Management

Klamath Lake Bull Trout

NM-POLICY 1: Improve service levels, participation, and options for non-motorized transportation modes throughout the County.

Chapter 5 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION

CHAPTER 4: IDENTIFICATION OF ROAD SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES: TRANSPORTATION PLANNING MODEL

Halton Hills. Halton Hills. Milton. Oakville. Burlington

In each summer issue of Lake

Traffic Impact Study. Westlake Elementary School Westlake, Ohio. TMS Engineers, Inc. June 5, 2017

TRAFFIC STUDY GUIDELINES Clarksville Street Department

THE I-79 CORRIDOR. I-79 provides motorists with connections to the following major highways: I-80, PA 358, PA 965 and PA 208.

NC Demographic Trends Through 2035

Description: Improve I-71 corridor from I-64 to I-265. Approximately 9.1 miles.

Changing Demographics in the U.S. and the Impact on Congress

COMMERCIAL COASTAL WOODS RETAIL & COMMERCIAL NEW SMYRNA BEACH FOR SALE & FOR LEASE ANDY HAWKINS BRETT HARTUNG FOR MORE INFORMATION:

FAYETTE COUNTY. Fayette County Active Transportation Profile REGIONAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA

City of Homewood Transportation Plan

State of San Francisco Bay 2011 Appendix O Steelhead Trout Production as an Indicator of Watershed Health

2009 Master Plan & Reexamination Report Verona, New Jersey

Evaluating the Design Safety of Highway Structural Supports

Key Findings & Corridor Highlights

NC Demographic Trends Through 2035

SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA

a 20 year period. separate phases of development with staggered years)

Overview. Illinois Bike Summit IDOT Complete Streets Policy Presentation. What is a Complete Street? And why build them? And why build them?

Fairfax County Transportation Funding and Roadway Service Delivery Study. Study Update Transportation Advisory Commission

NOTICE OF 30-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT March 20, 2013

ADOT Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Summary of Phase IV Activities APPENDIX B PEDESTRIAN DEMAND INDEX

Demographic Change in North Carolina

CITY OF ALPHARETTA DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN TRAFFIC EVALUATION

Leasing and Sales Book COLEMAN S CROSSING. Marysville, Ohio

LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION MODELING IN THE BRISTOL URBANIZED AREA March 2008

Population & Demographics

APPENDIX W OFF-MODEL ADJUSTMENTS

Aurora Corridor to E Line

MOUNTAIN HOUSE SPECIFIC PLAN I 9.1 INTRODUCTION ASSUMPTIONS TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS PHASING 9.

Undeveloped Zoning Inventory February 2004

2.0 Ballpark District

Southern California Edison Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No E Rosemead, California (U 338-E) Cancelling Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No.

Yale Reservoir Kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) Escapement Report 2016

Target Shooting by Hunters and Their Use of Shooting Ranges: 1975, 1991, and 2011

Traffic Accident Analysis System Using GIS. No.1

WEST AMWELL TOWNSHIP Hunterdon County, New Jersey

Land Use Change on Non-Federal Land in Oregon and Washington

Richmond Area MPO Regional Transportation and Land Use Performance Measures 2013

Appendix D: Public Meeting Notice

SUMMARY MEMBERSHIP ANALYSIS FOR THE STATE OF. Trends of first-time 4 to 8 year-old male ice hockey players to

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL INTRODUCED BY DINNIMAN, COSTA, RAFFERTY, FOLMER AND MENSCH, NOVEMBER 1, 2017

Residential Jurisdistions of Attendees 1998 Breeders Cup Races in Louisville

Traffic Safety Facts. State Traffic Data Data. Overview

SUMMARY MEMBERSHIP ANALYSIS FOR THE STATE OF. Trends of first-time 4 to 8 year-old male ice hockey players to

SUMMARY MEMBERSHIP ANALYSIS FOR THE STATE OF. Trends of first-time 4 to 8 year-old male ice hockey players to

Sundance Associates 117 Greenvale Court Cherry Hill, NJ

SUMMARY MEMBERSHIP ANALYSIS FOR THE STATE OF. New Hampshire. Trends of first-time 4 to 8 year-old male ice hockey players to

APPENDIX M FOR THE JEFFERSON COUNTY PORTION OF THE VISION 2050 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS MILWAUKEE URBANIZED AREA INTRODUCTION

Abundance of Steelhead and Coho Salmon in the Lagunitas Creek Drainage, Marin County, California

Rail Station Fact Sheet Downtown Carrollton Station

The Burden of HPV Related Cancers in Kentucky

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION East 19 th St, Harper to O Connell Thursday, March 29, :00 PM City Commission Room, City Hall, 6 E.

Southeast Whitefish Transportation Plan

OTTAWA TRAIN YARDS PHASE 3 DEVELOPMENT CITY OF OTTAWA TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY. Prepared for:

Over the Edge. Forecasting beyond the Boundaries of the Regional Model

Presentation Comments and Questions

Deschutes Bull Trout

GARDNER PLAZA AT ST. ROSE St Rose Parkway And Coronado Center, Henderson, NV ,361-21,860 SF OF RETAIL SPACE

MISO Energy and Peak Demand Forecasting for System Planning

ADA Transition Plan. City of Gainesville FY19-FY28. Date: November 5, Prepared by: City Of Gainesville Department of Mobility

FINAL Caples Lake Fisheries Management Plan. Version 4.0

Gordon Proctor Director Policy on Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel on ODOT Owned or Maintained Facilities

DISCLAIMER FOR ALL CITY OF KISSIMMEE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATIONS

Analysis of AGFC Historical Crappie Trap-Netting Data. Aaron Kern and Andy Yung Arkansas Game and Fish Commission District 6 Fisheries Camden, AR

Approval of the Finding that the City of Hughson's Sphere of Influence Expansion is Logical and Orderly

Public Facilities & Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Roaring Fork and Colorado River Valleys Regional Travel Patterns Study. Transportation Analysis Zone Map of the Region

Transcription:

Facilities Plan Oldham County Sewer District Chapter 5 Projections Background The population information for Oldham County presented in this section was developed from data secured from the Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency (KIPDA) that was based upon information from the University of Louisville Urban Studies Center. The population projections were developed in five-year increments for the period from to 2030. Where applicable, modifications have been made to reflect updated data for the planning period of through and to address the OCSD planning area. Historical Trends Oldham County has the distinction of being one of the fastest growing counties in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Between 1970 and 1980, Oldham County experienced it greatest population growth since its formation in 1823. During this ten-year period, the County s population increased by 89.25 percent from 14,687 persons to 27,787 persons. This population increase made it the fastest growing County in the Commonwealth. From 1980 to 1990 the population increased 19.67 percent to 33,263, ranking the County second in the Commonwealth in population growth. And from 1990 to the population increased 38.85 percent to 46,185, ranking the County fifth in the Commonwealth in population growth. Table 5-1 presents the historical growth experienced by Oldham County. Table 5-1 Oldham County Growth 1960- Source: Year Percent Change 1960 13,338-1970 14,687 10.11% 1980 27,787 89.19% 1990 33,263 19.71% 46,185 38.85% United States Bureau of the Census, 1960- Census of ; Kentucky State Data Center 05369/062207 OMNI/Quest 5-1

There are six incorporated cities in Oldham County: Crestwood, Goshen, LaGrange, Orchard Grass Hills, Park Lake, Pewee Valley and River Bluff. LaGrange and Pewee Valley are the oldest cities in the county, having been incorporated in 1840 and 1837, respectively. The remaining five cities have all been incorporated since the 1970 census. All of the incorporated communities, except for LaGrange, are located within the 201 Facilities Planning for the Oldham County Sewer District. Table 5-2 provides current and past census data, if available, for the seven incorporated cities within Oldham County Table 5-2 Incorporated Cities Historical City 1960 1970 1980 1990 1960-1970 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990- Crestwood * * 531 1,435 1,999 -- -- 170% 39% Goshen * * * * 907 -- -- -- -- LaGrange 2,168 1,713 2,971 3,853 5,676-21% 73% 30% 47% Orchard Grass * * 1,047 1,058 1,031 -- -- 1% -3% Park Lake¹ * * * 263 537 -- -- -- 104% Pewee Valley 881 950 982 1,283 1,436 8% 3% 31% 12% River Bluff * * * 452 402 -- -- -- -11% *Not Incorporated at time of Census ¹ Park Lake was dissolved in 2006 and merged with Crestwood ² A small portion of the City of Prospect is located within Oldham County Source: United States Bureau of the Census, 1960- Census of ; Kentucky State Data Center The number of housing units has increased in conjunction with the population growth. During the most recent 10-year growth period from 1990 to the population growth was 38.85 percent while the growth in housing units was 39.2 percent. Future Projections Future population projections were secured from the Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency (KIPDA) for Oldham County. The data was originally developed by the University of Louisville Urban Studies Center and represents the official population projection for the County. projections were developed for the County for the period from to 2030 in 5-year increments. To determine population projections for the 62 subareas that comprise Oldham County, data from KIPDA that showed the population projections by Traffic Zones (TAZs) was also secured. The TAZs (43 areas) were used in conjunction with the subareas (62 areas) to determine population projections 05369/062207 OMNI/Quest 5-2

for the subareas. Initially a population density was developed for each of the TAZs. Next the TAZ map was superimposed on the subarea map to determine which TAZs comprised each of the subareas. The portion of each TAZ comprising a given subarea was multiplied by its corresponding population density and then all areas were summed to determine that subarea s population. This process was used for each of the subareas for each of the fiveyear increments to determine the population projections for the subareas. The Oldham County population projections are presented in Table 5-3. The table shows the population projections for the period from to by five-year increments. The data is also presented by watershed and subarea. The table also presents population projections for the LaGrange Utilities Commission facilities planning area. 05369/062207 OMNI/Quest 5-3

Table 5-3 Oldham County Projections by Watershed and Subarea Ohio River Watershed (Acres) Subarea BC 1,620.4 164 0.10 197 0.12 246 0.15 286 0.18 325 0.20 366 0.23 DH 3,109.1 154 0.05 175 0.06 197 0.06 215 0.07 236 0.08 253 0.08 EC 291.6 17 0.06 19 0.07 20 0.07 22 0.08 23 0.08 25 0.09 EC.1 388.1 29 0.07 31 0.08 32 0.08 34 0.09 35 0.09 36 0.09 EC.1.1 282.9 22 0.08 23 0.08 24 0.08 25 0.09 26 0.09 26 0.09 EC.1.1.1 3,825.4 299 0.08 313 0.08 326 0.09 338 0.09 349 0.09 359 0.09 EC.1.1.2 1,784.1 140 0.08 146 0.08 152 0.09 157 0.09 163 0.09 167 0.09 EC.1.2 1,969.7 139 0.07 148 0.08 157 0.08 164 0.08 172 0.09 178 0.09 EC.2 1,051.6 52 0.05 59 0.06 66 0.06 73 0.07 80 0.08 85 0.08 HU 2,309.7 2,397 1.04 2,710 1.17 3,062 1.33 3,349 1.45 3,641 1.58 3,932 1.70 MB 1,555.9 80 0.05 88 0.06 100 0.06 109 0.07 118 0.08 127 0.08 OH.1 1,351.8 248 0.18 309 0.23 402 0.30 475 0.35 550 0.41 625 0.46 OH.2 1,107.9 57 0.05 63 0.06 71 0.06 78 0.07 85 0.08 91 0.08 OH.3 3,152.9 247 0.08 258 0.08 269 0.09 278 0.09 288 0.09 296 0.09 OH.4 1,551.9 488 0.31 576 0.37 702 0.45 805 0.52 911 0.59 1,016 0.65 OH.5 643.6 76 0.12 203 0.32 395 0.61 554 0.86 711 1.10 870 1.35 PC 748.1 59 0.08 61 0.08 64 0.09 66 0.09 68 0.09 70 0.09 PC.1 820.9 64 0.08 67 0.08 70 0.09 72 0.09 75 0.09 77 0.09 PC.1.1 175.6 14 0.08 14 0.08 15 0.09 16 0.09 16 0.09 16 0.09 PC.1.1.1 1,116.7 87 0.08 91 0.08 95 0.09 99 0.09 102 0.09 105 0.09 PC.1.1.2 1,661.8 130 0.08 136 0.08 142 0.09 147 0.09 152 0.09 156 0.09 PO 3,042.0 1,882 0.62 2,697 0.89 3,835 1.26 4,777 1.57 5,723 1.88 6,668 2.19 TC 2,179.0 564 0.26 676 0.31 835 0.38 962 0.44 1,091 0.50 1,223 0.56 Ohio River Watershed Totals 35,740.7 7,409 0.21 9,060 0.25 11,277 0.32 13,101 0.37 14,940 0.42 16,767 0.47 05369/041007 OMNI/HDR Quest 5-4

Table 5-3 (continued) Oldham County Projections by Watershed and Subarea Harrods Creek Watershed (Acres) Subarea CC 1,002.1 999 1.00 1,153 1.15 1,336 1.36 1,544 1.54 1,722 1.72 1,899 1.90 DC 1,070.8 55 0.05 60 0.06 69 0.06 75 0.07 81 0.08 88 0.08 DC.1 193.2 10 0.05 11 0.06 12 0.06 14 0.07 15 0.08 16 0.08 DC.1.1 1,386.4 386 0.28 404 0.29 433 0.31 456 0.33 479 0.35 502 0.36 DC.1.2 1,585.2 287 0.18 315 0.20 358 0.23 397 0.25 439 0.28 472 0.30 DC.2 2,435.6 842 0.35 878 0.36 931 0.38 975 0.40 1,015 0.42 1,058 0.43 HC 606.1 218 0.36 242 0.40 275 0.45 303 0.50 331 0.55 359 0.59 HC.1 2,688.2 483 0.18 583 0.22 721 0.27 836 0.31 951 0.35 1,066 0.40 HC.1.1 2,912.1 305 0.10 391 0.13 509 0.17 608 0.21 706 0.24 804 0.28 HC.1.2 2,134.3 252 0.12 303 0.14 373 0.17 432 0.20 489 0.23 547 0.26 HI 517.5 93 0.18 117 0.23 148 0.29 174 0.34 201 0.39 227 0.44 NH 3,981.6 217 0.05 239 0.06 274 0.07 302 0.08 328 0.08 356 0.09 NH.1 2,524.9 383 0.15 479 0.19 626 0.25 748 0.30 854 0.34 968 0.38 NH.1.1 789.8 77 0.10 112 0.14 165 0.21 209 0.26 252 0.32 296 0.37 NH.1.1.1 5,715.4 607 0.11 648 0.11 705 0.12 750 0.13 797 0.14 841 0.15 NH.1.1.1.1 851.9 67 0.08 70 0.08 73 0.09 75 0.09 78 0.09 80 0.09 NH.1.1.1.2 1,431.0 207 0.14 230 0.16 268 0.19 298 0.21 328 0.23 358 0.25 NH.1.1.2 1,197.1 182 0.15 226 0.19 293 0.25 349 0.29 403 0.34 459 0.38 NH.1.2 1,534.8 332 0.22 377 0.25 437 0.29 487 0.32 538 0.35 587 0.38 NH.2 69.1 27 0.39 33 0.48 42 0.61 50 0.72 56 0.81 63 0.91 NH.2.1 1,652.0 975 0.59 1155 0.70 1,447 0.88 1,688 1.02 1,884 1.14 2,107 1.28 NH.2.2 2,009.5 2,472 1.23 2880 1.43 3,556 1.77 4,124 2.05 4,534 2.26 5,043 2.51 SH 752.0 69 0.09 100 0.13 143 0.19 179 0.24 215 0.29 251 0.33 SH.1 9,686.1 6,161 0.64 7378 0.76 8,969 0.93 10,257 1.06 11,575 1.20 12,881 1.33 Harrods Creek Watershed Totals 48,726.6 15,706 0.32 18,384 0.38 22,193 0.46 25,330 0.52 28,270 0.58 31,327 0.64 05369/041007 OMNI/HDR Quest 5-5

Table 5-3 (continued) Oldham County Projections by Watershed and Subarea Floyds Fork Watershed Floyds Fork Watershed Totals (Acres) Subarea AC 2,604.2 3,910 1.50 4,119 1.58 4,251 1.63 4,348 1.67 4,452 1.71 4,562 1.75 AR 2,168.3 1,090 0.50 1,138 0.52 1,195 0.55 1,246 0.57 1,295 0.60 1,343 0.62 CF 3,623.3 1,950 0.54 2,231 0.62 2,567 0.71 2,843 0.78 3,128 0.86 3,404 0.94 CF.1 2,714.9 1,909 0.70 2,225 0.82 2,685 0.99 3,059 1.13 3,440 1.27 3,821 1.41 CF.2 3,416.6 2,258 0.66 2,572 0.75 3,012 0.88 3,373 0.99 3,735 1.09 4,100 1.20 FF 98.0 78 0.80 79 0.81 80 0.82 80 0.82 81 0.83 81 0.83 FF.1 3,368.0 1,688 0.50 1,761 0.52 1,849 0.55 1,927 0.57 2,002 0.59 2,076 0.62 FF.1.1 3,169.7 591 0.19 636 0.20 689 0.22 734 0.23 777 0.25 821 0.26 FF.1.1.1 2,360.2 276 0.12 302 0.13 332 0.14 356 0.15 380 0.16 404 0.17 FF.1.1.2 983.2 145 0.15 159 0.16 174 0.18 187 0.19 200 0.20 212 0.22 FF.1.2 18.5 3 0.16 3 0.16 4 0.22 4 0.22 4 0.22 4 0.22 GR 945.1 124 0.13 152 0.16 195 0.21 230 0.24 265 0.28 300 0.32 NF 1,847.9 148 0.08 183 0.10 237 0.13 281 0.15 324 0.18 369 0.20 NF.1 2,575.9 315 0.12 415 0.16 570 0.22 697 0.27 822 0.32 951 0.37 NF.2 1,390.6 170 0.12 224 0.16 307 0.22 376 0.27 444 0.32 513 0.37 31,284.3 14,654 0.47 16,198 0.52 18,147 0.58 19,741 0.63 21,349 0.68 22,962 0.73 OCSD TOTALS 115,751.6 37,769 0.33 43642 0.38 51,617 0.45 58,171 0.50 64,558 0.56 71,056 0.61 LUC Facilities Planning NH.1.1.1 439.0 75 0.17 80 0.18 87 0.20 93 0.21 98 0.22 104 0.24 NH.1.1.1.2 659.6 162 0.25 181 0.27 210 0.32 234 0.35 257 0.39 281 0.43 NH.1.1.2 355.6 122 0.34 150 0.42 196 0.55 232 0.65 269 0.76 306 0.86 NH.1.2 1,824.8 3,353 1.84 3,814 2.09 4,424 2.42 4,927 2.70 5,435 2.98 5,932 3.25 NH.2.1 283.4 459 1.62 544 1.92 681 2.40 794 2.80 886 3.13 991 3.50 CF.1 3,718.4 2,746 0.74 3,201 0.86 3,863 1.04 4,403 1.18 4,950 1.33 5,499 1.48 CF.2 2,514.3 1,270 0.51 1,446 0.58 1,695 0.67 1,897 0.75 2,101 0.84 2,307 0.92 FF.1.1.1 120.7 92 0.76 101 0.83 111 0.92 119 0.98 127 1.05 135 1.12 NF 340.2 136 0.40 169 0.50 219 0.64 259 0.76 300 0.88 341 1.00 LUC TOTALS 10,256.0 8,416.1 0.82 9,686.1 0.94 11,484.7 1.12 12,957.7 1.26 14,423.6 1.41 15,895.6 1.55 COUNTYWIDE TOTALS 126,007.6 46,185 0.37 53,328 0.42 63,102 0.50 71,129 0.56 78,982 0.63 86,952 0.69 05369/041007 OMNI/HDR Quest 5-6