Comments on: Chatham, Orange study regional plans to deal with transportation issues

By: lotusmedia 2.0 » Blogs make journalists better

lotusmedia 2.0 » Blogs make journalists better — Mon, 14 May 2007 19:39:34 +0000

[...] Carrboro Citizen recently ran a story about growth in Chatham and Orange Counties. While reading it, I thought the author wrote “Chapel Hill North” when she was in fact [...]

By: Susie

Susie — Mon, 14 May 2007 17:27:29 +0000

I checked the numbers and 1.5% is actually the projected annual growth rate for Chapel Hill’s population — the increase from 2005 to 2035 (from 52,394 to 81,297) is estimated at 55%, according to Triangle JCOG projections.
The Chatham County employment increase is also incorrect — 0.7% is the annual growth rate, 24% is the projected increase over the 30 year period.
Thanks for pointing this out. I’ve corrected the information in the story, and I’ll be sure to keep my numbers straight next time.

By: Editor

Editor — Mon, 14 May 2007 16:50:44 +0000

Thanks. Fixed the Carolina North reference. Good golly.
I’ll check on the growth rate. I imagine it is an annual number.

kmr

By: OrangePolitics.org

OrangePolitics.org — Mon, 14 May 2007 16:45:37 +0000

Orange wants Chatham to help with park…

Last Tuesday Orange County Commissioners asked Chatham County to help pay for the Southern Community Park planned near the the county line.

……

By: Ruby Sinreich

Ruby Sinreich — Mon, 14 May 2007 16:44:52 +0000

Thanks for this story. The projections are fascinating and a serious wake up call for planning!

When you say “Chapel Hill North bearing down on Orange County…” I think you mean _Carolina_ North. Chapel Hill North is almost all built out and, while some neighbors object, probably won’t have a regional impact on our economy or transportation network.

By: PH

PH — Mon, 14 May 2007 14:47:43 +0000

“Chapel Hill’s population is estimated to grow from about 52,000 to about 81,000, about 1.5 percent, over the same time period”

Last time I did math, a population growth rate from 52,000 to 81,000 was much more than 1.5%. (More like 64%).