[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
on Basin Water and Related Land Resources Studg Outlook to the Huds River Year 2000 Technical Paper I Nouember 1977 H U D S 0 N R I V E R B A S I Nl@ 10 L E V E L B, L AW NADT ERRE S A0NUDR CR EE SL AS TT EUDD@// OUTLOOK TO THE YEAR 2000 TECHNICAL PAPER #1 NOVEMBER 1977 HUDSON RIVER BASIN STUDY GROUP NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ROOM 422 50 WOLF ROAD ALBANY, NEW YORK 12233 U . S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICE'S CENTER 2234 SOUTH HO@")ON AVENUE COARi.ESTON , SC 29405-2413 PREPARED BY WILLIAM W. HORNE THE NEW YORK STATE STUDY MANAGER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD PHONE- (S18) 457-3864 OR 457-386S ?.ropr-'::ty of C@?;c LID.@ra--ry PREFACE We are pleased to present this technical paper which is the result of a decision to obtain maximum use of the information gathered in support of the Hudson River Basin Study. This is the first in a series of papers that should offer a leg-up to planners, program managers and citizens with an interest in water and related land resources in the Hudson Basin. William W. Horne, Study Manager HUDSON RIVER BASIN LEVEL B STUDY PROFILES OF GEOGRAPHIC, LAND USE, DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC FACTORS TO THE YEAR 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE FOREWORD v CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION - THE REGION'S HERITAGE I-1 AND FACTORS INFLUENCING ITS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OUTLOOK CHAPTER II GEOGRAPHIC AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC FACTORS, HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND TRANSPORTATION PROFILE TO THE YEAR 2000 GEOGRAPHIC AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC FACTORS II-1 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS . . . . . 11-2 TRANSPORTATION PROFILE TO THE YEAR 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-4 CHAPTER III PROFILE OF EXISTING LAND USE AND FUTURE LAND USE TO THE YEAR 2000 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE PROFILE FOR THE HUDSON BASIN AS A WHOLE. . . . 111-7 EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE PROFILE BY SUB-REGIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-12 Mohawk Sub-Region . . . . . . . . . . 111-12 Adirondack Sub-Region . . . . . . . . 111-14 Capital Sub-Region . . . . . . . . . 111-16 Catskill Sub-Region . . . . . . . . . 111-20 Mid-Hudson Sub-Region . . . . . . . . 111-23 CHAPTER IV DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE TO THE YEAR 2000 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1 PAST AND CURRENT TRENDS . . . . . . . . . IV-1 POPULATION PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . IV-7 CHAPTER V THE ECONOMIC PROFILE AND OUTLOOK TO THE YEAR 2000 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1 NATIONAL AND NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE . . . V-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER V THE ECONOMIC PROFILE AND OUTLOOK TO THE YEAR 2000 LEVEL OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN THE HUDSON RIVER BASIN, 1960 TO 1974 . . . . V-4 Character and composition of Economic Activity . . . . . . . . . . . V-5 Location of Economic Activity . . . . . V-6 COMPETITIVE POSITION OF THE BASIN . . . . V-7 Basin's Economic Prospects . . . . . . V-11 ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL AND HUDSON RIVER BASIN ECONOMIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-11 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OUTLOOK STATEMENT FOR THE HUDSON RIVER BASIN-EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-12 Industry Trends in the Hudson River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-14 Regional Trends in the Hudson River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-17 i v FOREWORD The Basin and the Study The Hudson River Basin is one of the most important water resources areas of New York State. About two-thirds of the State's population utilizes the water and related resources of the Basin for water supply, waste disposal, power generation, recreation and other water-related purposes. The Basin covers 13,365 square miles, or about 27 percent of the State. It in- cludes small portions of four other states: New Jersey, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, but 95 percent of the Basin is in New York State. The Basin population is about 2.5 million and is expected to double by 2020 with most of the population growth in the lower Hudson Valley. The Basin is in close proximity to the New York metropolitan area population of 12 million. Water-related needs of this large number of people will create tremendous pres- sures on the resources of the Basin, such as for the direct use of the Hudson River estuary for water supply, power generation and other purposes. The Adirondacks and Catskills also are unique resource areas in the Basin that are subject to intensive use pressures from the metropolitan area. To make the best use of the water and related land resources of the Hudson Basin, New York State initiated a comprehensive, Level B study in January, 1976. Neighboring states are represented on the study management board, and the effort has been approved by the United States Water Resources Council. The Study is funded through the authority of the "Water Resource Planning Act," PL 89-80. The end product of this effort will be a report submitted to Congress which will: --Assess existing and projected water and related land resources needs and problems; --Analyze the extent to which present plans and programs resolve identified needs and problems; --Recommend actions to meet remaining unresolved needs and problems which are appropriate to the scope of this study. The areas of Study (or selected focuses) based on an assess- ment of the priority needs and problems are: 1. Water Management, 2. Recreation, 3. Flood Damage Reduction, 4. Dredged Material Disposal, 5. Institutional Arrangements for Water Supply, and 6. Consistency. v The Study Framework The Level B Study process involves a number of steps and products in the development of the final report to be submitted to Congress. The following schedule shows the relationships of the various plan activities: Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Needs and Problems Initial Plan First Cut Plan Implementation Focus Selection Mixed Objective Plan Concerns Plan of Study Comparison of Plans Report The Study Process The Principles and Standards for Water and Related Land Resources Planning,1 which became effective on October 2-5, 1973, provides the governance for defining the planning objectives of all water and related land resources studies, including Level B type studies. "The overall purpose of water and related land resources planning is to promote the quality of life, by reflect- ing society's preference for attainment,,2 of the following national objectives: --"to enhance national economic development by in- creasing the value of the Nation's output of goods and services and improving national economic efficiency." --"to enhance the quality of the environment by the management, conservation, preservation, creation, restriction, or improvement of the quality of certain natural and cultural resources and eco- logical systems.,,3 These objectives, as established in the Principles and Standards, are to provide a guide for Federal, State, and local interests to conserve, develop and utilize their water and related land resources in an efficient and timely manner. The Hudson River Basin, Level B, Study is directed towards bringing together in one dynamic effort the priority water resource problems and recommended solutions in the Hudson River Basin. Basic Study activities are being carried out by work groups of Federal and State employees, assisted by local govern-' ment and citizen contribution provided through public meetings and workshops. 1 Federal Register, Monday, September 10, 1973, Volume 38, Number 174 2 Principles and Standards, Federal Register, Monday, September 10, 1973, Volume 38, Number 174,1 P.6 3 Ibid. vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION - THE REGION'S HERITAGE AND FACTORS INFLUENCING ITS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OUTLOOK HUDSON RIVER BASIN LEVEL-B STUDY CHAPTER I THE REGION'S HERITAGE AND FACTORS INFLUENCING ITS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OUTLOOK INTRODUCTION Historically the Hudson River Basin, as part of the older industrialized Northeast region of the country, has enjoyed the economic progress associated with abundant natural resources and the fortuitous location of the New World colo- nization. The Basin's early development was rooted in a struggle by Europeans for control of its strategic location natural transportation routes to inland areas of an emerging nation, and accessible natural resources. As the Basin grew in settlements and economic activity, it served as a gateway west. During the past half-century, the Basin provided for expansion of our cities into suburbia and served as a mecca for a variety of developments, including recreation and tourism. Today, however, the economic fortunes of the Basin are intimately inter-woven with national policies and sub- national economic development prospects. Located within the most densely populated region of the country, the Basin shares the common problems of the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states. Overview of Factors Influencing Future Development Numerous cross-currents of social and economic change are impacting and shaping public policies in the Hudson River Basin. Concurrently, private sector actions are beiqg greatly influenQed by structural shifts in the nation's economy and are having, to varying degrees, a resultant negative impact on the economic well-being and development potential of the Basin. In this regard, the Basin, as a major sub-region of New York State, is being influenced by factors and forces impacting the State as a whole and the New England and Mid- Atlantic Regions of the country. The current economic strain - both in terms of government ability to respond to social needs, as well as private sector decisions to locate or expand in the Northeast, in the State of New York, and in the Basin itself, will have great impact on future development prospects. Clearly, therefore, national policy shifts towards sub-national problems and needs - policies which recognize re-development as well as development needs - will be major factors and influences on future settlement patterns, economic activity and land use in the Basin. 1-2 In a recent publication jointly prepared by the five Mid-Atlantie states (Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New, York, Pennsylvania) entitled Mid-Atlantic Economic Development. Region, Prospectus for Develo2ment-Challenges and Opportunities for the Mid-Atlantic Region,* the trends and issues impacting the five-state area were summarized as follows: Structural and regional economic shifts which aecom- panied the suburbanization process during the post- World War II period, hit the eastern cities hardest because of their disproportionate share of the nation's manufacturing industry and aging infra- structure. The changing demographic patterns in central cities in the region have resulted in the expansion of a labor force which is relatively unskilled and immobile. Combined with a steadily dimishing supply of jobs, this has created a long-term serious unemployment problem. Although empirical evidence indicates the region does have areas of moderate to extreme affluence, the larger cities of-the mid-Atlantie states are among the most economically devasted areas in the nation. High unemployment in the region - and unacceptably high unemployment rates in urban areas - are seriously aggravating the critical private and public financial functions which are already under economic stress. During the expansionary period the late 19601s, the region's manufacturing payrolls failed to keep pace with the national gains. Similarly, during the early 1970's the region's manufacturing sector lagged behind the nation's cyclical upswing. While poverty has been traditionally perceived as being concentrated in rural areas, the focus of the poverty problem has shifted to urban areas. The con- centration or incidence of poverty, (i.e., proportion of population below poverty line) in central cities is now almost 25 percent greater than the U.S. as a whole and virtually equal to rural areas. An application for designation under the provisions of PL 94-188.00, as Title V Regional Action Planning Commission, February 1977. 1-3 The share of the nation's population in the central cities of the Middle Atlantic states declined from 6.8 to 6.3 percent between 1969 and 1974, while the share of poor increased from 8.0 to 8.6 percent, The share of poor in the Middle Atlantic central cities is not only disproportionately greater than the share of population, but the disparity has increased since 1969. The pro- portion of total population in the Middle Atlantic central cities is now 38 percent greater than the nation and 15 percent greater than all other central cities in the U.S. Per capita money income data adjusted to eliminate inflation, indicate there has been limited real economic growth in the Middle Atlantic states during the 1970's (6.9 percent) as compared to 11.1 percent for the nation. The economic malaise is even more pronounced in central cities than the three states as a whole. Central city per capita money income of the Middle Atlantic states is virtually unchanged between 1969 and 1974. Growth in median family income in the central cities of the Middle Atlantic states has fallen substantially below the national growth rate since 1970. When in- flation is eliminated from the data, real median family income in the central cities of the three states has actually decreased by 2 percent and is now only 88 per- cent of the U.S. average, lagging well behind the nation in absolute terms. The per capita income differential between the Northeast and the nation is more than offset by the cost of living, so that the relative real per capita income in the Northeast (adjusted to eliminate regional price differ- ences) is now lower than the U.S. average (Index = 100), the same as the South (99), and below the North Central (103) and West (108) . A relative shift to a greater reliance on transfer payments, along with a slowdown in the growth of earnings and property income, indicates a deterioration in the economic development of the mid-Atlantic region. The sluggishness in the earnings growth is mainly attributed to a broad based slowdown in manufacturing earnings, which mirrors the drastic decline in manufacturing employment, relative increase in unemployment rates and outmigration of capital and labor. 1-4 The earnings base is probably most broadly related to a measure of economic production of all sources of personal income when adjusted to eliminate inflation. In constant dollars, the earnings base actually declined 1 percent between 1970 and 1975 in the five-state region, indicating a likelihood of a decline in absolute production in the region, as well as a serious lag of economic growth behind the nation. While the economy of the mid-Atlantic region is reasonably well diversified, most major industries in the region have been declining relative to the nation as a whole. Many areas within the region have unbalanced economies dominated by industries suffer- ing severe declines in recent years. The region's loss of almost three quarters of a million (714,000) manufacturing jobs - or almost one-sixth of the jobs in the manufacturing sector over the recent five-year period, 1970-75, stands out as the single most important and disturbing finding of a preliminary analysis of recent job trends by major industrial sectors. From another perspective, losses in the manufacturing sector (714,000) in the seventies more than offset the substantial job gains in the region's finance (33,000), services (309,000), and government (333,000) growth sectors. Reflecting the growth and investment lag, the region also lost almost 100,000 construction jobs - or nearly one-seventh of the jobs in the construction sector - in the early seventies. The greatest absolute job losses in the region occurred in the apparel and textile products, electrical equip- ment and supplies, primary metals, and food products industries. These four sectors accounted for one-half of the manufacturing job losses in the first half of the seventies. Since the economy of the mid-Atlantic region developed earlier than most other regions, key elements of its economic infrastructure were developed around an industrial, transportation/communication and energy technology different from today's and, in certain ways, unsuited to the needs of modern business and industry. 1-5 Once it was essential for a company's operations to be highly centralized in the urban centers of the mid- Atlantic states. The exodus of business from the central cities, aided and abetted by technological change, has contributed to the physical and economic decay of the cities which, in turn, has made them even less desirable as places to do business. The development of the Interstate Highway System has facilitated the establishment of production facilities in areas remote from major population centers and lacking in rail service. These express highways have expanded the potential labor market area for a given industrial plant and facilitated the movement of goods by truck. The impact of changing production technology favoring a single-level manufacturing plant over a multi-story facility has had equally significant effects on urban areas in competition with suburbs and exurban areas for business and industry location. Indices which attempt to measure capital flows highlight the mid-Atlantic region's development lag in the seventies. Such indice8 indicate the migration of capital from the region has reached serious dimensions. Total private non-residential construction expenditures measured in current dollars, has fallen since 1970. This indicates a drastic decline in the volume of construction activity in view of the substantial price inflation affecting the industry. The mid-Atlantic region's share of total private non- residential construction in the nation has fallen from 17.1 percent in 1970 to 8.7 percent in the first quarter of 1976. The volume of residential construction as measured by housing units, has plummeted. The region's share of the nation's housing starts has fallen from 13.6 percent in 1970 to 9.2 percent in the first quarter of 1976. Preliminary evidence indicates the rate of renewal of capital stock in the region's manufacturing sector has been below the average for the United States. One measure of the rate of renewal is the ratio of capital 1-6 expenditures to value added. Yearly since 1963, the ratio of capital expenditures to value added in the manufacturing sector was lower in the mid-Atlantic region than that for the United States. Preliminary analysis of declining manufacturing sectors indicates a failure to reinvest at levels adequate to maintain current production levels. During the period 1971-73 the five states lost almost 100,000 workers, with the loss concentrated in the 19-39 age group and in the manufacturing and wholesale and retail trade - industries showing long- term secular decline in the region. Demographic trends within individual metropolitan areas have caused additional problems common to the region. Suburban sprawl has led to the demand for increased public services across a broader geographic area, increasing fiscal demands on state and local governments. Also, disparities in tax bases between jurisdiction in metropolitan regions require new initiatives to insure balanced growth within urban areas. Over 72 percent of the region's population now lives in urbanized areas whereas SS percent of the total United States population lives in urbanized areas. The population density of the region's central cities is over three times higher than the national average for central cities. The region's 'population growth has declined substan- tially since 1970, both absolutely and relative to -the nation. Virtually all of the net out-migration of over 950,000 persons from metropolitan areas during 1970-75 were from the central cities. The concentration of minorities in the central city population is increasing faster in the region than in the United States as a whole. The region's rate of poverty reduction has been slower than that experienced by the rest of the nation. Some mid-Atlantic states, in fact, exhibit a rate less than half the national rate in the sixties. 1-7 There are two major effects of the region's slower rate of poverty reduction. First, the region is increasing its relative share of the nation's poor. Second, because of the higher relative cost of living in the mid-Atlantic region, a significantly higher percentage of the states' governmental expenditures are directed toward providing support for the poor. Cities of the region have disproportionately high concentrations of people receiving public assistance. The mid-Atlantic states have a higher than average population of their populations receiving public assistance, accounting for 30 percent of AFDC payments and 32 percent of Medical Assistance payments in the nation. Since 1970 the Northeast region has not kept pace with national housing stock improvement rates. In 1974 the percentage of renter-occupied households with more than one person per room in the Northeast and the central cities in the region exceeded the national average, a dramatic reversal of the situation in 1970. While the percentage of households within central cities nationally with inadequate plumbing declined from 3.2 percent to 2.2 percent between 1970 and 1974, percentages of households within central cities in the Northeast remained at 3 percent. For renter-occupied households, the proportion of households in the Northeast in which gross rent is over 2S percent of gross annual household income is 44 percent, exceeding the national average of 40 percent. Another way of viewing the relationship of income to housing cost is by evaluating the increase in income over time compared to the increase in housing costs. For both owner and renter occupied households the in- crease in the measure of household income in the North- east was less than that for the nation, while the increase in the measure of cost was greater. Educational achievement indices indicate that, while the region as a whole generally compared favorably with the nation, the central cities of the region lagged behind their respective states. 1-8 In older cities, there is more functional illiteracy, and less years of school completed than in the nation as, a whole. Central cities have considerably lower achievement scores, higher drop-out rates, less ability to hold students until graduation and lower proportions of graduates going on to college than the respective state averages. Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and Delaware ex- ceeded national death rates in the nation's two leading causes of death - heart disease and cancer. The region's largest cities have death rates for heart disease and cancer that are higher than their respective states or the nation. The region's central cities have higher infant death rates and higher neo-natal death rates than the nation. Age-specific death rates for cancer in the region are higher than in the nation. Federal funding for transportation draws resources out of the region. Federal revenues from the region's ports (from duties and other levies on goods and materials) are not reflected in the level of federal port investments, particularly in landside facilities. Federal assistance and joint state action is needed to upgrade limited access highway if they are to continue to serve the region's transportation needs safely and adequately. The region's lack of-indigenous energy supplies cause it to be proportionately more than twice as dependent on costly imported oil as the rest of the nation. In 1974, purchased fuels and electrical costs in the mid-Atlantic region were more than 38 percent above the national average. After 20 years of gradual decline, the region's energy costs, as a share of manufacturing value added, in- creased precipitously after 1974, and now represent as much as 20 percent of wages. 1-9 Vastly higher relative energy costs in the region throughout the last two decades appear to be a major incentive to the outmigration of energy intensive industry. As a result, the region now must specialize in less energy intensive manufacturing and service industries. Even energy intensive manufacturers in the region use less energy per worker and per dollar value added than their industrial counterparts in the remainder of the U.S. The mid-Atlantic states share a legacy of past neglect of installed pollution capacity in automobiles, factories, sewage systems, refuse dumps, etc. Federal environmental standards and regulations have imposed a more severe burden on the mid-Atlantic region than elsewhere. For example, minimum ambient air quality standards require a greater level of clean-up in the region due to its greater concentration of industry and people. Since it often costs more to upgrade an old plant to meet these standards than to build a new plant with cleaner technology, firms choose to leave the region and invest elsewhere. Federally mandated environmental quality standards require substantial outlays for many older industries in the mid-Atlantic region; however, limited federal support is available to assist in meeting these standards. These outlays for environmental clean-up contribute to the increased cost of doing business in the region. Joint action is necessary to effectively address the interstate character of many environmental problems (including water pollution, solid waste disposal, port congestation, offshore drilling impacts) especially in major metropolitan areas such as New York City and Pennsylvania and to avoid creating competitive dis- advantages between the states. In Fiscal Year 1975, the region experienced a net out- flow of over nine billion dollars to the Federal Government. From 1960 to 1975, the five states lost a dispropor- tionately large share of their defense employment - a 31.1 percent reduction (compared to 5.8 percent nationally) translating into a loss of 97,93S jobs. At an average annual salary of about $10,000, this translates into a loss of almost one billion dollars in payrolls. I-10 In 1975, the five middle Atlantic states accounted for 19.6 percent of the nation's population but only 9.1 percent of total defense employment. The five state's share of total United States defense contracts has dropped from 20.7 percent in 1971 to 17.4 percent in 1975. The region's relative position in defense contracts is further aggravated by the loss of personnel and installations, as the services of many supporting industries are no longer needed. The above excerpt from the Mid-Atlantic States Title V application highlights the need to view local economies and future development prospects on a broader scale. The Hudson River Basin, other regions of the State, and the State as a whole, to a great degree, are tied to the economic fortunes of the entire Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. National policy changes towards economic development and balanced growth between and among the several sub-national economies will surely be a factor in the Basin's future development outlook. The Basin is fortunate, however, in that much of the area has not been developed, and the opportunity exists for local action and self-determination as to the patterns of develop- ment in the decades ahead. The following chapters describe in more detail the current development of the Basin and the outlook for change to the year 2000. CHAPTER II GEOGRAPHIC AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC FACTORS, HISTORIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND TRANSPORTATION PROFILE TO THE YEAR 2000 HUDSON RIVER BASIN LEVEL-B STUDY CHAPTER II GEOGRAPHIC AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC FACTORS, HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND TRANSPORTATION PROFILE TO THE YEAR 2000 The first section of this chapter presents a geographic and physiographic overview of the Hudson River Basin and relates these factors to development patterns. The second section describes the historical development patterns of the Hudson River Basin. The third section describes the present transportation system of the Hudson River Basin and profiles the transportation trends in the Basin to the year 2000. GEOGRAPHIC AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC FACTORS The Hudson River Basin covers 13,365 square miles. Ninety-five percent of the area is in New York State, with small portions in New Jersey, Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut. The Basin consists of three sub-basins of approximately the same size. These are: the Upper Hudson from the headwaters to the confluence with the Mohawk River at Cohoes, the Mohawk, and the Lower Hudson extending south from Cohoes to the Battery in New York Harbor (excluding the drainage of the Hackensack and Passaic Rivers). The Hudson River begins on the southern slopes of the high peaks country of the Adirondack Mountains and flows 300 miles southward to the Atlantic Ocean. The Mohawk River, which joins the Hudson at Cohoes, drains about 3,500 square miles of the east central portion of New York State. Much of the Mohawk is incorporated in the Barge Canal System extending about 100 miles from Cohoes to Rome. The Basin has several prominent topographic features. The central and upper Hudson is bordered by three primary moun- tain ranges, the Adirondacks to the north, The Taconic Ranges on the east, and the Catskills to the west and south. Between these ranges there are polling hills and uplands extending to the middle reaches of the Mohawk and Hudson River Valleys. Along the rivers are moderate terrain and river bottomlands used for human settlement and agriculture. The southern part of the Hudson Basin grades from the Catskills to the more moderate Shawangunk Range. Figure II-A shows the land form regions for the Basin. The Appalachian Upland consists of the Catskill Mountains, Delaware Hills and Helderberg Hills. The New England Upland consists of the Taconic Mountains, Hudson Hills, and Manhattan Hills. The Adirondack Upland is made up of the Adirondack Mountains and hills. The Hudson-Mohawk lowland consists of the Hudson, Mohawk and Wallkill Valleys and the Shawangunk Mountains. Figure II-A LAND FORM REGIONS IN THE HUDSON BASIN 'ST LAWRENCE V. X I C N "A 9 10 MA.'LTOn 11 Ak alw?Go S-A !OFJ@NS TON LAC@AR '10A ON G iNIIM t '--'NTARIO 4 @O C' :"o 5\ '01 ILIVIN STON, LAL'i 141! 1@1,, , I OISE I /LIVIN I-L 1,C'.CATj @ND r ICIAEN@J'r I SCHUYLZR ?K IN I 0 01 0 0 1 0 Ak 4 @Urll Is ALLEGANY DELAW A. Adirondack Uplmd ,Vpal achdan Upland B. C. New --igland Upland D . 1R.Liscr.-,,bhm& Lowland 0 Tug Fill Plateau E. GE j" Source: Thonpson, Jotn H. , edit, GeoZ;raphy of NL-w Ybek State, j;LCN,Ai NtW 110@x 11 Syracuse University Press, l9bb. N.. Y.'k CAY", @-UkIN% 10 I As$ C--P .0 TI" 11-2 The topography of the Basin has affected its develop- ment patterns. Major corridors of development have followed the main water routes. The Mid-Hudson and Mohawk corridors link the metropolitan complexes. The Champlain corridor ex- tends from Albany northward toward Montreal. Transportation has traditionally occurred along these corridors, since travel across these corridors has been greatly hindered by surrounding mountainous or hilly terrain with steep slopes. The topography of the Basin, consisting of ancient parent materials and more recent glacial debris, has a wide range of soils. The soils most suitable for agriculture are generally found on the gently rolling terrain and narrow valleys along the middle Mohawk and middle Hudson Rivers. The agri- cultural potential of the soils of the rest of the Basin is fair to poor except for locally favorable sites. In addition to topography and soils, climate is a factor in resource development. The upper Hudson Basin has long, cold and snowy winters and short mild summers. The lower Hudson Basin has longer summers and milder winters. The Mohawk Basin, located about midway between these two areas, has variable weather conditions with characteristics of both. The average annual temperature ranges from 50OF in the southern part of the basin to 40OF in the Adirondacks. The average annual preeipita- tion varies from 34 inches in the center of the basin to more than 50 inches in the southern Adirondacks. The least restrictive part of the area's climate is the year-round availability of precipitation. Prolonged droughts are rare, but short dry periods may temporarily hamper agricul- ture and cause restrictions on use of forested areas for recrea- tion. The greatest climatic limitation for agriculture is the% short growing season in the northern part of the Basin (less than 100 days in parts of the Adirondacks). However, the cold, snowy winters in the north provide favorable conditions for the winter sports industry. The broad zones of climate are a primary factor in the distribution of the basin's forest lands. The timber industry is most significant in the northern part of the Basin where hard- woods occur at the base of the mountains and a mixture of soft- wood spruce and fir is found at higher elevations. These forest resources support both a timber and pulpwood industry in the northern part of the Basin. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS The Hudson River Valley has historically been the primary site for human settlement and economic development in the Hudson Basin study area. The Hudson River provides easy north-south transportation. East-west transportation in most parts of the Basin has been limited by hilly terrain. His- torically, the Hudson Basin's location between New England and the interior of the continent has made it a favorable site for commercial activity. The primary centers for development have been New York City and Albany. 11-3 The Dutch, who settled the Basin in the first half of the seventeenth century, made New Amsterdam (New York City) the main political and economic center of their New Netherland Colony. Albany, because of its crossroads location at the confluence of the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers, became an impor- tant trading center between European merchants and Indians in Western New York State. The Duteh sparsely settled the area between New York City and Albany with the patroon system --- large grants of land to people who would establish 50 settlers within four years. The Dutch established only a few villages in this area and did so mainly because Of diffiCL11- ties with Indians. The English fleet took over New Amsterdam in 1664 and made New Netherlands the colony of New York. During the eighteenth century, the English and New Englanders settled the area between New York City and Albany. Unlike the Dutch, these groups developed several river villages, such as Poughkeepsie, Newburgh, Kingston, Hudson, and Troy. Agricultural settlement was largely oriented to the Hudson Valley with its better soils and ready access to markets. During the late 1700's and early 18001s, great numbers of settlers migrated to the western areas of New York State. Most of these people traveled through Albany and enhanced that city's position as a crossroads trading center. By 1810, these migrants had settled most of the interior of the Hudson River Basin, except for upland parts of the Adirondacks, Catskills, and Tug Hill Plateau. By 1820, New York City had achieved national preeminence, since it was the nation's largest city, its most important port, its financial center, and its leader in manufacturing. During the 1800's, the economies of the river communities were strengthened by transportation improvements. The completion of the Erie Canal in 182S strengthened the Hudson-Mohawk axis of traffic and suppressed the competitive east-west turnpike developments. Raw materials transported on the new Champlain and Delaware and Hudson canals prompted establishment of ironworks at Troy, which became one of the nation's largest manufacturing centers. The main railroad networks, including important lines between New York City and Albany, were established by the late 1800's. The rail lines took much passenger and freight business from canals. However, the canals continued to be well suited for the transport Of low-valued bulk goods and provided competition to keep railroad rates from going higher. During the twentieth century, greater concentrations of population occurred in fewer urban areas mostly in the New York City and Albany metropolitan areas. Suburban and exurban areas grew the most, while central portions of larger cities generally stagnated or declined in population. The 11-4 populations of most smaller cities, such as Utica, Amsterdam, Troy, Cohoes, Hudson and Kingston stagnated. Smaller cities heavily dependent on the textile or carpet industry have been most affected by the closing of manufacturing plants. Motor vehicle and highway development encouraged suburban, exurban, recreation and second home developments. The railroad network contracted, since much passenger and freight business was lost to autos, buses, and trucks. Much of the core sections of the metropolitan areas have deteriorating residential, commercial and industrial areas, although some redevelopment has occurred in the last decade. The cores have extensive vacant land especially along river-fronts which provide potential for major infill develop- ments. Most of the suburban sectors are developed with low density (about 4,000 persons per square mile) sprawl. How- ever, considerable open space occurs in some suburban areas. Open space dominates most of exurbia. Since urban centers were initially located in the middle of productive agricul- tural areas, much of this open space is active or potential agricultural land. Although low density tract development is responsible for some exurban development, considerable new growth is clustered around traditional small communities. Thus, metropolitan areas are characterized by generally low density suburban sprawl with dispersion of business and industry out from the centers into the suburbs. TRANSPORTATION PROFILE TO THE YEAR 2000 Transportation systems in the Hudson Basin are highly developed compared with other areas in the United States. During the past 25 years, the overwhelming development has been in air and highway transportation. Superhighways provide easy access from these metropolitan areas to recreational land. The New York State Thruway and the Taconic State Parkway provide quick access to the middle Basin. From Albany the distant areas of the upper Basin can be reached by the Thru- way which follows the Mohawk and by the Northway which follows the lowland corridor to Montreal. State, authority and inter- state highways represent 12% of all roads in the region, but carry about half of the total automobile and truck traffic. Airports are fairly evenly distributed over the region except in the Catskills and Adirondacks. The major airports are in the New York City Metropolitan area and in Albany. The main waterway is the Hudson River which is navigable to ocean-going vessels as far north as Albany. The upper Hudson is linked to the Great Lakes via the Erie Canal and connected to Lake Champlain and the St. Lawrence via the Champlain Canal. 11-5 Railroad passenger traffic has declined sharply since the 1940's and even with increased Amtrak service, passerLger volumes have not yet reached the levels of earlier decades. Railroad freight traffic has stabilized in recent years. The Conrail freight system has abandoned some rail lines in the Hud- son Basin. New York State is opposing abandonment of the rail line between Poughkeepsie and Maybrook, since this provides a link between New England and New Jersey in the lower Hudson Basin. The Delaware and Hudson Railroad has expanded its trackage in Southern New York State and serves as the only freight competition for Conrail in the Hudson Basin. The major transportation developments in the Hudson River Basin to the year 2000 will most likely involve im- provements to existing systems. The emphasis will be on rail and mass transit rather than on continuing highway expansion. During the next several years, Amtrak will begin high speed (105 mph) passenger service in the Empire Corridor (New York City to Albany to Buffalo). The New York City to Albany corridor will have this service first. The State will fund the upgrading of track and Amtrak will provide the high speed turbo trains. Amtrak will also build a new rail passenger train shop facility in the city of Rensselaer. The upgraded track will also aid Conrail freight service. Increased Federal and State funding is likely for mass transit includ- ing additional bus service and rail commuter lines. Sharply increased gasoline prices and other Federal measures to reduce automobile travel will probably decrease the need for additional superhighway construction. However, rehabilitation and upgrading of present highways will take place as needed. The Interstate 88 expressway from Binghamton to the Albany-Schenectady area is scheduled for completion by 1981. Since access to expressways is a major factor in commercial and industrial siting, this highway may spur development in areas easily accessible to it (Albany, Schenectady, and Schoharie Counties in the Hudson Basin). Developments in air travel will involve increasing the capacity of airports in the Albany and New York City areas in an environmentally acceptable manner. Commuter service to smaller airports will probably increase to a moderate extent. Improvements will be made to general aviation airports which are essential to the preservation of local or regional econo- mies. Expansion of Stewart Airport, near Newburgh, will provide air passenger and cargo service for the New York City metropolitan area. However, considerable opposition from residents of the Newburgh area will probably prevent Stewart Airport from becoming as busy as those in the immediate New York City area. 11-6 The State and/or the Army Corps of Engineers will rehabilitate and upgrade the Barge Canal System according to the availability of Federal funds. Improvements to the Barge Canal, Amtrak, Conrail and mass transit systems along with higher gasoline prices should partially relieve con- gestion on the highways. CHAPrER III PROFILE OF EXISTING LAND USE AND FUTURE LAND USE TO THE YEAR 2000 HUDSON RIVER BASIN LEVEL-B STUDY CHAPTER III PROFILE OF EXISTING LAND USE AND FUTURE LAND USE TO THE YEAR 2000 INTRODUCTION This section presents a generalized profile of exist- ing and foreseeable future land use for the Hudson River Basin as approximated by county boundaries. Foreseeable future land use is derived from selected significant land use characteris- tics that may impact alternative future developments (to the year 2000). The source of data about existing land use is the 1968 State Land Use and Natural Resource (LUNR) Inventory which is maintained by the State Economic Development Board. The LUNR Inventory classified all of the State's land into Sl categories of area land use which were mapped on transparent overlays at 1:24,000 scale. Sixty-eight items of supplemental point specific land use data were mapped on a separate set of over- lays at the same scale. Both types of data were computerized into a one square kilometer grid storage system which, in combination with access programs, can be used to produce tabular summaries or shaded, computer-graphic maps. The present data analysis is based upon summaries of the 1968 LUNR Inventory data by county which are available from the State Economic Development Board. The LUNR Inventory data was used because it is the only data which was of uniform quality and categories and consistent age across the entire Hudson River Basin area (even though more recent data exists for parts of the Hudson Basin area). Information about significant land use characteristics that may impact alternative future developments was obtained from a variety of sources. The State Economic Development Board maintains information about the economic viability of farm areas in statistical and mapped form. Information about the amount of land in agricultural districts under the State's agricultural districting law was obtained from the State De- partment of Environmental Conservation. Information about the amount of land owned by known private users and governmental agencies for outdoor recreation purposes was obtained from the State Office of Parks and Recreation. Information about the amount of State-owned land in each county was obtained from the Bureau of Land Management in the State Office of General Services. Particularly in relation to the identification of significant land use characteristics that may impact alterna- tive future developments, it may be useful to provide some additional information to the reader on each of the data sets used for that purpose. 111-2 The method which was used to computerize land use information for the 1968 LUNR Inventory was also intended to make possible the compatible computerization ofuther types of mapped data, One of the maps which was computerized into the LUNR Inventory format was the end result, along with an extensive accompanying report, of a 1968-70 study of the economic viability of farm areas. The farm areas study was conducted for the now-discontinued State Office of Planning Coordination by Professor Howard Conklin, Robert E. Linton, and others of the State University of New York College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University. The data about the economic viability of farm areas is available in statistical form from the State Economic Develop- ment Board. It is being used because, for the purposes of estimating future land use patterns, it seems safe to presume that land which is economically viable for agriculture will be more likely to continue in that use. Factors considered in the economic viability of farm areas study included: - soil resources, topography, climate and water resources - location, markets and access roads - the level and condition of farm invest- ments in real estate and non-real estate items - the present and most probable levels of farming skills - the feasibilities and rates of adopting new technologies - competition from substitute products and other regions, and local income alternatives - patterns of farm ownership and operation - levels of farm community morale, urban influ- ences, and government policies affecting farming. For the economic viability of farm areas study, all farms in the State were classified as being of "high," "medium,?? or "low" economic viability, or "not commercially farmed" and then, for mapping purposes, the data was generalized to 1:250,000 scale. For the purposes of the present analysis of significant land use characteristics that may impact alternative future developments, only areas which were of "high" or "medium" viability were considered likely to continue in farm use until the year 2000. "High" viability areas in 1968 were considered likely to continue indefinitely in farm use, while only two-thirds of the llmediwTC viability farms were considered likely to continue as full-time farms into the next generation - though a significant portion of the 111-3 land might continue in part-time farm use. "Low" via- bility farm areas were excluded from the analysis because they are likely, according to the study, to pass into rural residence or other non-farm uses by the year 2000. The data about "high" and "medium" economic viability farm areas is supplemented and reinforced by data from the State Agricultural Resources Commission about the amount of land in agricultural districts in each county. Under a 1971 State law, landowners who together own at least 500 acres of land can form a special district for taxation if they continue to use their land for agricultural purposes. The agricultural district protects the participating landowners from non-agricultural land tax assessments and from taxation for costs encumbered by governmental units for non-agricul- tural developments in other parts of their jurisdiction. Entrance into an agricultural district is significant for two reasons from the point of view of predicting future use. One reason is that the land is reviewed by several governmen- tal agencies regarding the future economic viability of the area for agricultural use. Another is that when the district is formed it has an eight-year renewal period. If a landowner withdraws land from active agricultural use during the period, certain tax penalties are incurred by that landowner. Each eight years, the agricultural district must be renewed and the landowners at that time have the option to individually withdraw from the district without penalty. Overall, only 14Yo of the State's land and 12% of the land in the Hudson Basin is currently in agricultural districts (the data used is current to December, 1976). However, as a fairly reliable predictor of future use, these are significant proportions of the land when combined with other known factors. In some counties - Mont-gomery, for example - as much as 83% of the county's area is in agricultural districts. Although no data on renewals is yet available, it is expected that entry into agricultural districts reflects a fair amount of commitment to agriculture on the landowner's part (i.e., it is expected that most agricultural districts will be renewed beyond their initial eight year tenure). Agricultural districts have been created at a fairly steady pace since the law took effect in 1971. For the purposes of this study, districts which were certified (i.e., approved to begin on a certain date) were considered equal to those which were actually operating. Lands which are used, and owned, for recreational purposes also seem to have a reliable future use that would continue to the year 2000 in most cases and given ownership 111-4 for a recreational purpose, particularly by a governmental agency, but also by large private owners such as clubs, would be likely to have significant impacts on alternative future developments. The State Office of Parks and Recreation, for the purposes-of its ongoing Statewide Comprehensive Recreation Plan (SCRP), maintains an up-to-date file of information. about the ownership of lands for recreational purposes by various levels of government and by private owners of large tracts. The ownership of lands by the State Government seems to be an area of difficulty in this file in that it is not entirely clear which lands are "recreational" and which are not. It is also not clear from the data available which lands are those which are under the "forever wild" provision of the State's Constitution (that being a very reliable indication of future use since considerable political change would have to occur in the State before that provision would be changed). Within the recreational category, it would seem that the progression of reliability of future use continuing to the year 2000 would be most reliable for State-owned lands, slightly less reliable for recreation lands owned by more local units of government, and least reliable for lands in private use. This is based on the amount of people who would have to change their attitude in order to change the use of the lands, at least theoretically. For the purposes of the current study, data about State recreational ownership and data about recreational ownership by others (non-State governmental units and private owners) were the two categories used for analysis. The last set of data used to attempt to predict signi- ficant land use characteristics that may impact alternative future developments was data about State Government-owned lands in general. Such lands are not distributed evenly throughout the State and may be reliably expected to have significant impacts upon alternative future developments. Results of the analysis show, for example, that the Hudson River Basin area is composed of 21% State-owned lands, whereas the State as a whole is composed of about 12% State-owned lands. Some counties have almost no State-owned lands, while Hamilton County, for example, in the Adirondack Sub-Region has the State's highest proportion of State-owned lands at 621/o. Although it is not possible at this time to determine the exact status of all State-owned lands, it is clear that the vast majority are owned by the Department of Environmental Conservation (approximately 919/6 of the total), followed by approximately 7% of State-owned lands owned by the Office of Parks and Recreation, and the remaining approximately 2% 111-5 divided among 23 other State agencies including Correctional Services, Mental Hygiene, State University and the Power Authority of New York as other leading owners. In using the data which is presented in the re- mainder of this section, it seems safe to conclude that pro- bably all lands owned by the State Office of Parks and Recreation are included in the data on lands owned by the State for outdoor recreation purposes since the inventory of recreational lands includes all developed recreational sites and immediately associated lands. Similarly, the lands identified by the recreational inventory as owned by the Department of Environmental Conservation are also developed sites, particularly campsites and immediately associated lands which are administered by that Department. It will also be safe to conclude that most of the lands which account for the difference between the figures for recreational lands and those for all State-owned lands are accounted for by the Department of Environmental Conservation (given that that Department administers 919/o of all State-owned lands and that the differences between the total figures and the recreational figures are too large to be accounted for by the other 23 agencies who administer 20/6 of the State lands). It would seem that many "forever wild" lands would fall into that data area as well as many reforestation areas and other woodlands which are owned by the State. The reliability of prediction of future use for lands which are not designated "forever wild" would not be as extremely high as for the "forever wild" lands, but it would seem likely that the State would continue to keep these lands in an undeveloped state until the year 2000 for watershed management purposes. Con- trolled lumbering and other woodcutting is allowed on many State lands which are not designated "forever wild". It might be useful to note that the right-of-ways of State-owned highways other than the State Thruway are not included in the present analysis of State-owned lands although they are to some extent reflected in the transportation category of the 1968 LUNR Inventory land use data (includes highway right-of- ways generally over 100 feet wide). The analysis of existing land use and prediction of future land use to the year 2000 from significant land use character- istics that may impact alternative future developments which begins below will be based upon the five major data sets discussed above. Relatively reliable analysis of future land use can be made for about 36% of the Hudson River Basin area using data about lands owned for outdoor recreation purposes, lands in agricultural districts, and State-owned lands in general. Information about the economic viability of agri- cultural lands adds an indefinite amount of predictability to the 36%, depending upon how much of the "high" and "medium" viability agricultural lands is in agricultural districts which varies sharply from county to county (if it is in an agricultural district it is already accounted for in the 36% figure). 111-6 In the case of the present analysis, the remainder of the future land use must be accounted for by an examina- tion of existing land uses and other physiographic features where applicable and the application of economic and demo- graphic trend information to the physiographic base. In addition to the economic and demographic analysis, a more statistical principle is useful to examine before analyzing existing land use and attempting to predict from it. That principle is that when comparing land use statistics between areas, the significance of given absolute differences in percentages between figures for different characteristics is affected by the intensity of use associated with the category and the degree of the category's prevalence. For example, the absolute difference between two regions in their forest or agricultural land uses might be 49/o, which is relatively insignificant since those uses each generally account for 20% or 40% of the uses in a given area. However, the same amount of difference in a highly intensive urban land use such as high density residential, commercial or industrial might imply that one region was of much different character than the other. This is partly because the signi- ficance of the change tends to vary somewhat with the percentage it forms of an area (i.e., it is easier to double a 1% figure*than a 40% figure) and partly because urban 'Land uses tend to be linked with one another; i.e., a large amount of high density residential land would imply the existence of other urban land uses such as commercial or industrial. The principle applies conversely when predicting future land use. Increases in economic activities, for example, which are tied to less intensive land uses such as forestry or agricul- ture may produce more significant percentage changes in land use statistics than increases in more intensive urban uses which do not consume quite as much land as a rule when their level of activity increases. Viewing the future pattern of land uses from a generalized trend perspective alone, local and county land use studies have revealed that the growth of suburban and exurban land uses in New York State has continued since 1.968 even though the State's population level has remained rela- tively stable. This trend could be expected to apply in a moderate way to the Hudson River Basin area. The relatively high proportion of the State (about 18%) and the Hudson River Basin (about 14%) in brushlands reflects a long-standing trend toward the abandonment of low and some medium viability agricultural lands. Since about 1974, however, it is believed that this trend has slowed significantly and even begun to reverse itself. The causes of this are the end of the Federal 111-7 agricultural subsidy program which kept viable farmlands out-of-production, the better competitive position of Northeastern United States farmers as transportation costs have risen for products traveling to the major Northeastern markets from other parts of the country, and greater national emphasis and support for the exportation of United States agricultural products. The next portion of this analysis presents a generalized existing and future land use profile for the Hudson River Basin as a whole. The statistical pattern of existing land use for the Hudson River Basin is contrasted with that for New York State as a whole in order to highlight special characteristics of the Basin land use pattern. The last major portion of this analysis presents existing and future land use profiles for each sub-region of the Hudson River Basin. Data in the accompanying tables is detailed to the county level and, where appropriate, sig- nificant land use patterns within sub-regions are also pre- sented in the text. To highlight sub-regional land use patterns, statistics for the sub-regions are discussed with respect to both the overall pattern for New York State and the overall pattern for the Hudson River Basin. EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE PROFILE FOR THE HUDSON RIVER BASIN AS A WHOLE According to the 1968 LUNR Inventory, the Hudson River Basin area is composed of about 14% active agricultural lands as compared with an average figure of about 22% active agri- cultural lands for New York State as a whole. The Hudson River Basin is composed of about S3% forests (generally over 30 feet in height) and about 149/6 brushland, while the State as a whole falls about 37% into the forest category and about 18% into the brushland category. Wetlands and water each form about 3 3/45/8 of the Hudson River Basin, while they form about 4% and 4 1/21/o respectively of the Statewide land use totals. In these categories, the Hudson River Basin is therefore some- what below the State average for active agriculture and relatedly below the State average for brushlands, sharply above the State average for forest areas generally over 30 feet in height, and roughly equal to the Statewide averages for wetlands and water surface area. Among the residential land uses, the Hudson River Basin has about 0.3% high density residential land and about 1.1% medium density residential land reflecting a somewhat lower level of concentration than the State as a whole which 111-8 has about 0.7% high density residential and 1.3% medium density residential. The more generally exurban and rural character of residential patterns in the Hudson River Basin is evident in that the Basin average of low density and other (strip residential, etc.) residential areas at 1.8% exceeds the Statewide average of 1.4%. In the commercial category which includes primary urban/suburban strip commercial development and shopping centers (downtown central city commercial areas are in a central business district category included under "commercial," but are more intensive in their use of land and less extensive in their statistical impact), the Hudson Basin area average of about 0.5% exceeds the Statewide average of 0.4%. In industrial and extractive land uses, the Hudson Basin at 0.2% each is somewhat below the Statewide averages of 0.3% and 0.40% respectively. At 1.7% public and semi-public land uses (educational, health, correctional and other facilities either owned publicly or used primarily by the general public), the Hudson Basin exceeds the State's 1.1% average for such land use. Outdoor recreation land uses are measured by the 1968 LUNR Inventory primarily as developed sites and readily associated lands (some ownership information was used for this category of the LUNR Inventory land use classification system). The Basin average for outdoor recreation as measured by the LUNR Inventory is 1.3% as opposed to the same category for the entire State at 1.2%. As measured by the LUNR Inven- tory, transportation land uses are right-of-ways generally over 100 feet wide for roads, large canals and railroads and extensive facilities for transportation such as railyards and airports. Streets and most railroad tracks are counted as part of their surrounding land uses. In the transportation category the Basin average equals the State average of 0. 5%. Inactive or under-construction uses are statis-, tically dominated by the inactive agricultural lands which are grouped with the under-construction uses for the purposes of the LUNR Inventory generalized county summaries. In this category, where inactive agricultural lands are not brushland, but rather generally fields without brush Which are part of the agricultural rotation cycle, the Hudson River shows a 1968 average of 4.3%, which is below the State average for that year of 6.7%. This relationship is consistent with the greater proportion of agricultural lands in the State as opposed to the Hudson Basin as discussed above. 111-9 To round out the profile of agricultural land uses in the Hudson River Basin, the 1968 LUNR Inventory point land use data for the headquarters of dairy, poultry and other farms was put into a number of farms per square mile basis for each county in the Hudson River Basin. In spite of some very high figures where farm patterns are tied with major metropolitan markets such as New York City and the Capital Region around Albany, the Hudson River Basin is significantly below the State as a whole with .55 dairy farms per square mile as opposed to a Statewide average of .75 dairy farms per square mile, about equal to the Statewide average in poultry farms at .02 per square mile for both the State and the Basin, and below the Statewide average again for other farms with .41 per square mile for the Basin and .65 per square mile for the State as a whole. Review of the selected indicators of significant land use characteristics that may impact alternative future develop- ments reveals that the Hudson River Basin at about 20% is significantly below the Statewide average of about 29% of land in the high and medium viability classes of the economic viability of farm areas study. The Basin figure of 20% eom- pares with a figure of about 33% high and medium viability agricultural lands for the remainder of the State outside of the 21 counties of the Hudson River Basin area. The landowners of the Hudson River Basin have shown interest in agricultural districting which is somewhat disproportionate with the amount of high and medium agri- cultural viability lands. Though the amount of high and medium viability agricultural lands in the Basin is below the State average of 9%, the amount of land that has been entered into agricultural districts in the Basin more closely approximates the State average with 12% for the Basin and 1494, for the State. The relatively small average size of the agricultural districts in the Hudson River Basin (about 14.6 square miles each) compared to the Statewide average (about 21.3 square miles each) probably reflects the relatively rough topography of the region which tends to isolate farming areas from one another. In lands which can be reasonably expected to persist for at least 10 to 20 years in outdoor recreation uses, the Hudson River Basin a1C 3% of its surface area is somewhat below the State average of 49/6 of its surface area for developed State-owned recreation sites. In non-State and privately- owned recreational lands the Hudson Basin average equals the State average at 3% of both land surface areas. III-10 However, with reference to the proportions of all State-owned lands (including recreational lands), the Hudson River Basin at about 21% State-owned lands is quite signifi- cantly above the overall State average of about 12% and logically above the average for counties outside the Hudson Basin area which is 7%. The explanation for this is pri.- marily the Adirondack and Catskill Park areas where there are extensive holdings of land by the State. High proportions therefore particularly show for all of the eoun- ties in the Adirondack Sub-Region as-well as for those such as Fulton and Herkimer of the Mohawk Sub-Region which extend northward into the Adirondack area. Similarly Greene County shows a relatively high proportion in the Catskill Sub-Region and Ulster similarly high proportion in the Mid-Hudson Sub- Region on the Southern fringe of the Catskill mountain area. The presence of nearly half of the relatively large Harriman State Park in relatively small Rockland County creates a fairly high proportion of State-owned lands there and to a lesser extent in larger neighboring Orange County where somewhat more than half of the Harriman State Park is located. Overall, the combination of agricultural district lands, non-State owned recreational lands and all State-owned lands makes possible a quite reliable prediction of use of lands in those three categories in the Hudson Basin to the year 2000 that comprises 36% of the land area of the Basin. The similar figure of reliably predictable land uses for the State is about 29%. Beyond the readily predictable 36% of the Hudson River Basin, there are the high and medium agricultural viability figures which could add as much as about 5% more of the land area of the Hudson Basin to the readily predictable category. Brushlands as they existed in 1968 are to a certain extent likely to be included in some of the other figures, but since they comprised about 14Yo of the Basin in 1968 and they are very unlikely to go back into active agricultural production., perhaps an additional 10% of the land area of the Basin can be expected to revert to forest by the year 2000 if not a good deal sooner. All together, the above total about 51% of the Basin land area. Water uses are unlikely to change drastically and under recent State laws both freshwater and tidal wetlands are protected from urban development. These two categories add approximately another 8% to the predictable portion of the analysis. Although State-owned lands combined with other recreational lands probably comprise about 40% of the woodland- forest land uses of the Basin, at least half of the remaining 12.5% of woodlands-forest must be on topography which is unsuitable to urban development, perhaps owned by lumber companies, desirable for watershed purposes or otherwise committed in one way or another to forest uses. This adds perhaps another 6% to the predictable land uses of the Basin to the year 2000. The predictable figure now conser- vatively approaches 65%. Existing urban or other developed land uses comprise at least another S% of the Hudson Basin area. Given that such uses are quite likely to persist to the year 2000, the final predictable proportion, again conservatively, arrives at about 70% of the land. The remaining 30% is, of course, quite significant as theoretically anything could happen to it and 30% land use change in a major watershed area could have very, very sig- nificant impacts upon watershed management practices and problems. However, it would seem quite likely that the Hudson Basin will not experience radical changes in its land use patterns. Agricultural land use patterns seem to be stabilizing with radical changes unlikely without major technological changes in that area. Depending on factors such as fuel supplies, it can be reasonably expected that long-term trends toward greater suburbanization or exurbani- zation of the Hudson Valley particularly between New York City and the nothern reaches of the Capital Sub-Region is likely to occur. There have been expectations of urban growth particularly in the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region, but that growth is somewhat subject to the exigencies of government policies particularly at the State and Federal levels. It therefore seems likely that between the present and the year 2000 urban and suburban and exurban land uses in the Hudson Basin will expand from present levels, though not drastically, particularly because of energy shortages and New York State's currently difficult competitive economic position. Agricultural uses are likely to shrink somewhat as marginal farms are abandoned to other uses, but this shrinkage is also unlikely to be drastic because long-term trends toward abandonment in the Northeastern United States now seem to be slowing and perhaps reversing themselves at least for lands of "medium" or "high" economic viability. State- owned and other publicly-oriented lands would seem likely to at least remain stable and perhaps continue to expand slightly where there is demand for them around major urban areas. 111-12 EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE PROFILE BY SUB-REGIONS Mohawk Sub-Region: Existing and Future Land Use Profile Existing Land Use Profile At about 24Y6 active agricultural lands, the Mohawk Sub-Region is about 2% above the Statewide average and about 10% above the Hudson River Basin average for active agri- cultural lands. At about 44yo forest, the Mohawk Sub-Region is about 7% above the Statewide average, but still about 9% below the average for the Hudson River Basin as a whole. In brushlands, the Mohawk Sub-Region at about 16% falls above the 14.3% average for the Hudson Basin but below the State- wide average of about 18%. The Mohawk Sub-Region slightly exceeds both the Statewide and Hudson Basin averages for areas of wetlands but is slightly below both the Statewide and Hudson Basin averages for water surface areas. Reflecting its fundamentally rural character, the Mohawk Sub-Region is significantly below the Statewide averages for all categories of developed land use. The wide prevalence of dairy farming in the Mohawk Sub-Region probably also accounts for a low figure for the inactive or under- construction category which is primarily composed of agricul- tural lands in the inactive phase of the rotational cycle which does not apply as significantly to dairy farming as to other types of farming. Even though the Hudson River Basin land use pattern is more rural in general than that for the State of New York, the Mohawk Sub-Region also shows generally less developed urban categories than the Hudson River Basin. The Mohawk Sub-Region, however, is second only to the Capital Sub-Region in its approximation of the overall State and Basin land use patterns among the Sub-Regions in the Hudson Basin area. Within the Mohawk Sub-Region, Fulton and Herkimer Counties stand out as being preponderantly forest and brush- land, whereas Montgomery and Oneida Counties reflect greater emphasis upon agriculture -- particularly upon dairy farming where they have the highest density of dairy farms per square mile of any counties in the Basin. Herkimer County's relatively high figure for dairy farms per square mile reflects a strong emphasis of that county also. The Mohawk Sub-Region is uniformly below the State and Basin averages for density of poultry farms and has relatively strong showings for other types of farming only in Montgomery and Oneida Counties, respectively. Future Land Use Profile The Mohawk Sub-Region shows a slightly above Statewide average figure for the amount of high and medium viability agricultural land -- reflecting the large amounts of such lands 111-13 particularly in Montgomery County, but also in Oneida County. The Sub-Region has a proportion of lands in agricultural districts about equal to the Statewide average and somewhat above the Hudson River Basin average. This reflects primarily a preponderance of such districts for Montgomery County (83% of the County surface area) with only an average figure for Oneida County and no districts in either Fulton or Herkimer Counties at this time. With a total of about 5% of its total surface area in developed outdoor recreation sites according to the State Office of Parks and Recreation inventory, the Mohawk Sub- Region is somewhat below the Hudson Basin average of 6% and the Statewide average of 7%. Fulton, Herkimer and Montgomery Counties are well below the State and Basin averages at only 3% each, but Oneida County brings up the average with 8% of its land area in developed outdoor recreation sites. State-owned lands comprise about 20% of the Mohawk Sub-Region compared with overall averages for the Hudson Basin of 21% and the State of 12%. Montgomery and Oneida Counties have well-below average percentages of State-owned lands, whereas Fulton and Herkimer Counties which include parts of the Southern Adirondack area have nearly double the Basin average and four times the State average of State- owned lands. With a total of about 36% of its land area in rela- tively predictable land uses that are likely to persist to the year 2000, the Mohawk Sub-Region appears to be above average in the Hudson Basin in stability and predictability. Mont- gomery County stands out as an area of exceptional agricul- tural activity and a very high level of commitment to agricul- tural districts (83% of the land area). Without major changes in the State's economic position, either positive or negative, the Mohawk Sub-Region may be expected to follow the general pattern of moderate urban, suburban and exurban expansion, agricultural and recreational stability or slight expansion, and general stability in other land use patterns that is currently anticipated for the Hudson River Basin as a whole. Given the role of the Mohawk Sub-Region in the nation's economy in the past, a strong economic resurgence is con- ceivable, but moderate economic expansion and a general stabilization of associated land use patterns in the Sub- Region seems more likely to be the pattern which will continue to the year 2000. 111-14 Adirondack Sub-Region: Existing and Future Land Use Profile Existing Land Use Profile Of all of the sub-regions with@n the Hudson River Basin area, the land use pattern of the Adirondack Sub-Region differs the most from the statistical patterns of the over- all Hudson River Basin and of the State of New York. Wood- lands - forest comprise about 820/6 of the Adirondack Sub- Region and woodlands - brushland comprise about another 49/6 of the sub-regional land use pattern. Taken together with a general absence of agriculture or urban development in the Adirondack counties, the land use pattern with about 86% forests and brushland becomes strikingly different than the pattern for other areas of the Hudson Basin or the State. The comparable figures for forest land are about 53% for the Hudson Basin and 37% for the State (the Adirondack area contributes significantly to the higher average in forests for the Basin as opposed to the State). For brushlands, the comparable figures are about 149/6 for the Hudson Basln and about 18% for the State. Since brushlands are associated with bygone agricultural uses, and the Adirondack area has relatively little agricultural use, it is consistent that the Adirondack Sub-Region should have lower brushland figures than the Hudson Basin or the State. In active agricultural uses, the Adirondack Sub- Region had only just over 1% active agricultural lands, most of which was in Essex and Warren Counties because Hamilton County showed less than 0.5% of its land area in active agricultural use according to the 1968 LUNR Inventory. The figures for active agricultural use in 1968 for the Hudson Basin and the State are about 14Y6 and 22% respectively. Related inactive agricultural and under-construction lands for the Adirondack Sub-Region were only 1.1% of the total sub-regional area as compared with averages of about 4Y6 for the Hudson Basin and about 7% for the State. In other existing land use categories, the Adirondack Sub-Region is about equal in wetlands at about 4% to the Hudson Basin average of about 3 3/4 *9/6 and the State average of just about 4yo. The Adirondack Sub-Region exceeds both the Hudson Basin and the State averages for water surface areas with nearly 6% of its area in water surface while the Hudson Basin has only about 4Yo and the State only about 4 1/2% in water sur- face area. III-is The Adirondack Sub-Region is particularly below both Basin and State averages for urban/intensive land uses such as high density residential, commercial, industrial and others. The only exception to that pattern is Warren County which, though still below Basin and Statewide averages, more closely approxi- mates them and even exceeds the Basin and Statewide averages for commercial land at about 0.6% as opposed to averages of about 0.5% for the Hudson Basin and 0.4% for the State as a whole. Essex County is the only Adirondack Sub-Region County which shows evidence of significant agricultural activity relative to its size with about .07 dairy farms per square mile and about .14 other farms per square mile in 1968. Warren County follows with about .02 dairy farms and about .04 other farm headquarters per square mile in 1968. Future Land Use Profile The relatively low proportion of high and medium agri- cultural viability lands which form about 0.1% of the Adiron- dack Sub-Region occur entirely in Essex County where the Sub- Region's only present (9.6 square mile) agricultural district is also located. The agricultural district also forms about 0.1% of the total area of the Sub-Region. The State Office of Parks and Recreation inventory of developed outdoor recreation sites reveals that all developed outdoor recreation sites (both public and private) form about 6% of the land surface area of the Adirondack Sub-Region as compared to about 6% of the total area of the Hudson River Basin and 7% of the total area of the State. The greatest proportion of developed outdoor recreation sites lie in llY6 of the land surface area of Hamilton County while Essex and Warren Counties only have about 3% of each of their areas in that use. State-owned lands in general, including the State-owned developed outdoor recreation sites, form 47% of the Adirondack Sub-Region which is the highest such proportion among the Sub- Regions of the Hudson River Basin and is more than double the proportion for the Sub-Region with the second largest proportion of State-owned lands. That proportion compares with a figure of about 21% State-owned lands for the entire Hudson River Basin area and about 12% for New York State as a whole. Hamilton County at about 62% State-owned lands has the highest proportion of any county in the Hudson River Basin, while Essex County qualifies for second highest with about 41% State-owned lands. Warren County with about 31% State-owned lands has the fourth highest proportion in the Hudson River Basin, being behind Herkimer County in the Mohawk Sub-Region which has about 3S% State-owned lands. 111-16 Looking forward in time to the year 2000 for a future land use profile, it appears nearly certain that the Adiron- dack Sub-Region will continue to maintain its exceptionally high proportion of forest lands which are important contribu- tors to the stability of the water systems of the entire Hudson River Basin area. That stability is partly assured by the 47% State-owned lands in the Sub-Region, by the preva- lently rugged topography with a fairly delicate ecological base that portends disaster for the whole Basin if it is violently disturbed and by the interests of the many private land owners of timber lands for commercial and recreational use. The economy of the Adirondack Sub-Region has long been in need of stimulation and development @o that those people who wish to live in the Sub-Region and earn their livelihoods there are able to do so comfortably and enjoyably without disturbing the ecological base or the recreational and water- shed significances of the area. The Adirondack Sub-Region is capable of accepting considerably greater expansion in urban-oriented land uses without great ecological or other problems if expansion is done carefully and it seems that existing urban-oriented land uses will continue and probably expand somewhat significantly as the year 2000 approaches. The Sub-Region will be likely to continue to depend on outside sources for most agricultural products since it has only a very small proportion of high and medium viability agricultural lands. Some response to improving agricultural trends in the State should probably be expected, however. Capital Sub-Region: Existing and Future Land Use Profiles Existing Land Use Profile Of all the five sub-regions of the Hudson River Basin, the Capital Sub-Region most closely approximates the land use pattern of New York State as a whole. No category in the Capital Sub-Region differs from the same category for the entire State by more than 3%. The distribution of amounts of land uses for the Capital Sub-Region does differ somewhat, however, from that for the Hudson River Basin as a whole. With about 219/8 of its total area in active agricul- tural lands, the Capital Sub-Region is slightly below the Statewide average figure of about 22%, but significantly above the average figure for the entire Hudson River Basin which is about 14%. The major difference between the Capital Sub-Region and the Statewide land use distribution patterns is in the category of forests where the Capital Sub-Region at about 40% forests is above the Statewide average of about 37% but very significantly below the average for the Hudson River Basin as a whole which is about 53%. At about 19 112% brush- land, the Capital Sub-Region is slightly above the Statewide average of aboutID71/2% and more above the Hudson River Basin average of about 149/6. In wetlands and water surface area, the Capital Sub-Region is below Hudson Basin and Statewide averages, with about 3% wetlands and 2% water surface area 111-17 while the Hudson River Basin averages about 3 3/4% wetlands and about 4yo water and the State averages over 4yo wetlands and about 4 112% water surface area. The Capital Sub-Region is slightly below the State- wide averages for high and medium density residential lands, but above the Statewide averages for low density and other residential, commercial and transportation-related lands. It is about equal in industrial lands to the Statewide average and slightly below the Statewide averages for extractive, public and semi-public, and outdoor recreation lands. The Capital Sub-Region is generally above the averages for the entire Hudson River Basin area in urban-oriented land use categories except for low density and other residential lands, public and semi-publie lands and developed outdoor recreation lands according to the 1968 LUNR Inventory land use study. In all of the latter categories the Hudson River Basin average exceeds the Statewide average so that the Capital Sub-Region pattern more closely approximates the pattern for the State than it does the pattern for the Hudson River Basin area. Within the Capital Sub-Region, more rural land uses tend to predominate in Rensselaer, Saratoga and Washington Counties with Washington County showing the greatest propor- tion of forested lands. Reflecting declining agricultural activities, Albany and Schenectady Counties show the greatest proportions of brushland. The data on the types of agricultural activity from the 1968 LUNR Inventory show the Capital Sub-Region exactly equal to the Statewide average of .75 dairy farms per square mile and .02 poultry farms per square mile, but above both the Basin and State averages in other farms with .78 other farms per square mile for the Sub-Region and .41 per square mile for the Basin and .65 per square mile for the State. The Sub-Region exceeds the Basin average of SS dairy farms per square mile and equals the Basin average of .02 poultry farms per square mile. Within the Sub-Region, the greatest concen- tration of dairy farms lies in Washington County. Albany, Schenectady and Washington Counties make strong showings in poultry farming, and there is a fairly equal distribution of other types of farms among the five counties which compose the Sub-Region. Future Land Use Profile According to the 1968-70 study of the economic via- bility of agricultural lands as computerized into the LUNR Inventory, about 29% of the Capital Sub-Region falls into the high and medium farming viability categories. That proportion 111-18 is equal to the Statewide average, but is the highest Sub- Regional proportion in the Hudson River Basin which aver-ages 20% high and medium viability overall. The highest pro-, portion of high and medium viability farmland areas is in Washington County with 53% of its area in those categories followed by Rensselaer County with 27%. The Capital Sub-Region is somewhat above the Basin and State averages for the percentage of its land in agri- cultural districts with about 15% of its land in agricultural districts as opposed to the Basin average of about 13% and the Statewide average of about 149/6. The areas of concentration of agricultural districts follow the Sub-Regional pattern of distribution of high and medium farm viability lands with Washington and Rensselaer Counties leading the way with about 33% and 14% of their surface area in agricultural districts respectively and Schenectady County having none and the others falling midway between the extremes. According to the State Office of Parks and Recreation inventory of developed outdoor recreation sites, the Capital Sub-Region has about 49/. of its overall surface area in developed outdoor recreation sites as opposed to the higher percentages of 6% for the Hudson River Basin area as a whole and 7% for New York State. The Capital Sub-Region is also exceptionally low in its overall percentage of State-owned lands which is about 49/o. The Hudson Basin as a whole has about 21% State-owned lands and the State as a whole is composed of about 12% State-owned lands for comparison purposes. Albany and Saratoga Counties show particularly high percen- tages of all outdoor recreational lands within the Sub- Region at 7% and 6% respectively. State-owned lands are con- centrated primarily in Albany, Saratoga and Washington Counties with about 49/o each, while Rensselaer County shows 2% and Schenectady County about 1% State-owned lands. All State-owned lands and all non-State-owned recreational lands comprise a total of 8% of the Capital. Sub-Region. Certified or operating agricultural districts add about 15% of predictable land uses to that figure, totalling to about 23% of the Sub-Region. The total area of high and medium viability agricultural lands is about 29% of the Sub-Region, and given that only two-thirds of medium viability agricultural lands are expected to continue to the year 2000; perhaps another 10% can be added to yield about 33% predictable land uses to the Sub-Region. Forest lands and brushlands together compose about 59% of the Capital Sub-Region, but they are not known to be 111-19 used in a fashion that particularly suggests what the uses might be in the future. However, unevenness of topography and other factors probably allow the addition of about another 20% to the total of predictable land uses for the Sub-Region, raising the total to a very rough 53%. Water surface area adds about 2% to that figure, and the proportion of wetlands that may not be included in other already mentioned categories may add another I or 2% to the predictable total. In sum, perhaps 5S% to 60% of the Capital Sub-Region's future land uses can be reliably predicted. The Capital Sub-Region's regional planning process has revealed that the Sub-Region is capable of absorbing a much larger urban-oriented or other population than it now has from the point of view of the physical characteristics of the land area though such a population would clearly not be agriculturally self-sufficient given current technology. The future land use pattern of some 40% to 45% of the Capital Sub-Region therefore depends primarily upon economic factors. At present, the Capital Sub-Region's urban-oriented economy seems to be gradually and steadily expanding at a moderate rate and it seems likely that that process would continue to the year 2000. Therefore an associated continuing urban- oriented land use will probably continue to the year 2000. Agricultural land uses on a commercial scale may be expected to remain approximately stable or perhaps expand somewhat as the world's long-term needs for food put greater pressure on now idle agricultural lands. The Capital Sub- Region has large areas, composing a significant proportion of the lands for which reliable predictions are not being made, which are not being intensively used. Over time it seems that the Capital Sub-Region will generally experience an intensification of its land uses for these now essentially idle areas. Depending on developments in the energy supply field, low-intensity exurban land uses and non-commereial (part-time) agricultural and lumbering use of those lands might be anticipated. 111-20 Catskill Sub-Region: Existing and Future Land Use Profiles Existing Land Use Profile Composed of Greene and Schoharie Counties, the Catskill Sub-Region is a predominantly rural area with fairly rugged and some very rugged topography. In spite of the rugged areas of the topography, however, the Sub-Region still has nearly 18% of its land in active agricultural use according to the 1968 LUNR Inventory. This figure compares with an average of active agricultural land of about 14yo for the Hudson Basin area and about 22% for the State. The decline of former agricultural lands into brushland in the past decade is reflected in the relatively high figure of about 26% brushland for the Catskill Sub-Region compared to figures of about 14% for the Hudson Basin and about 18% for the State. Forested lands comprise about 47% of the Catskill Sub-Region which exceeds the Statewide average of about 35% forests but is below the Hudson River Basin overall average of about 53% of its surface area in forests. At about 1.3% wetlands and 1.2% water surface area, the Catskill Sub-Region has only about a third of the Basin and State averages for those categories. The Basin averages for wet- lands and water are about 3 3/4Y6 and 4Yo respectively, while the Statewide averages for wetlands and water are about 4 1/0 and 4 112% respectively. The Catskill Sub-Region is uniformly below both the Basin and Statewide averages for almost all urban-oriented land use categories except extractive land uses where the Sub-Region average slightly exceeds the average for the Basin as a whole. The Catskill Sub-Region also slightly exceeds the Hudson Basin average for lands under-construction combined .with inactive agricultural lands. This reflects the fairly high level of agricultural activity in the Sub-Region with a fairly equal distribution of active "other" farms between the two counties. It may also reflect the amount of aban- doned agricultural lands in the Sub-Region in 1968 which had not yet reached the level of overgrowth that would have qualified them as brushland to the LUNR Inventory photo- interpreters. The types of farms in the Sub-Region include a well above average density of dairy farms in Schoharie County with an average of about 1.30 dairy farms per square mile as opposed to the Hudson Basin average of .55 dairy farms per square mile and the Statewide average of .75 dairy farms per square mile. Greene County is below average in dairy farms per square mile at .36. Schoharie County is slightly above 111-21 average in poultry farms also with .03 per square mile, while Greene County is at about the Basin and State averages for poultry farms per square mile at .02. Greene and Schoharie Counties show almost equal figures for other types of farms per square mile with .44 and .45 respectively, averaging .44 which exceeds the Hudson Basin average of .41 other types of farms per square mile but is below the State- wide average figure of about .65 other types of farms per square mile. Future Land Use Profile The Catskill Sub-Region has about 16% high and medium viability agricultural lands according to the 1968 study by Professor Conklin and others at the State University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell Univer- sity. The 16Yo figure for the Catskill Sub-Region is below both the figure for the Hudson Basin of about 20% and the Statewide average figure of about 29%. The figure of 16% for the Sub-Region portends a continuing decline in agricultural land uses toward the year 2000 because the figure of about 18% active agricultural lands plus lands likely to be in the agricultural rotational cycle yields a total of about 20% to 22% agricultural lands in the Sub-Regional area in 1968. The rather bleak outlook for agricultural land use probably applies to a greater extent for Greene County than for Schoharie County as Schoharie County has about 29% high and medium viability agricultural lands while Greene County has only 9% of its area in such lands. Both Greene and Sehoharie Counties are about equal in brushlands which shows that Schoharie County must originally have had a larger agricultural base than Greene County as it still retains about 26% of its land in active agricultural use in spite of its about 29% of land area in brushlands. The greater per- sistence of agriculture in Schoharie County seems to be reflected in that about 29% of its land area is currently in agricultural districts as opposed to only S% of the lands in Greene County being so designated. In addition to the general interest in agriculture in Schoharie County, some of the lands which have been entered into agricultural districts may have been entered as a defense mechanism against the possible use of valley sites for power plant and dam construction which would change the use of agricultural lands, the most viable of which lie in the valley bottoms in some parts of the Sub-Region. The State Office of Parks and Recreation inventory of recreation lands indicates that the total amount of 111-22 developed recreational sites in the Catskill Sub-Region forms about 8% of its land area with the greatest concen- tration of such lands in Schoharie County with 11% as opposed to Greene County's S%. The average figure of developed outdoor recreation lands for the Hudson Basin is 6% of the land area as opposed to the similar figure.for New York State of 7% of its land surface area. According to the Bureau of Land Management of the State Office of General Services, State-owned lands comprise a total of 13% of the Catskill Sub-Region compared with figures of 21% for the Hudson Basin as a whole and 12% Statewide. Greene County has the greater concentration of State-owned lands with 17% as opposed to the 9% of the land surface area of Schoharie County which is owned by the State. For the Catskill Sub-Region as a whole there are fairly significant barriers to rapid economic development because of the topography. Viewing the future of the Sub- Region toward the year 2000, agricultural stabilization and perhaps resurgence are not inconceivable. Large proportions of forested lands are likely to remain and the amount of land in forests over 30 feet in height is likely to expand considerably as the 26% of the Sub-Region which was in brush- land in 1968 gradually grows into forest. With better forest management, forest related industries, agriculture and recreation with some increased industrial and public and semi-public facilities would be likely to form the backbone of the Sub-Region's economy, and, therefore, the controlling elements in the Sub-Region's land use pattern. More urban-oriented land use patterns can be expected to flourish particularly in Greene County along the Hudson River because that area is better connected to State and national transportation systems such as highways and the Hudson River. Current trends seem to favor more scattered industrial patterns and the particular advantage of water transporta- tion of bulk materials favors the area's extractive industries. The Catskill Sub-Region area may also experience some essentially exurban influences as parts of it are within commuting distance of employment centers in the Capital Sub- Region. Other land uses in the region such as State-owned lands and existing urban-oriented development seem likely to persist-and expand gradually as demand for them gradually increases. 111-23 Mid-Hudson Sub-Region: Existing and Future Land Use Profiles Existing Land Use Profile The Mid-Hudson Sub-Region of the Hudson River Basin is a fairly diverse area which includes suburbs and exurbs (essentially rural areas from which people commute to jobs in urban centers) of New York City in its southern extremes and more essentially rural areas further north in Dutchess, Ulster and Columbia Counties. The Sub-Region includes picturesque areas which are popular for second homes or homes with long commuting distances for people who work in New York City, particularly those who for one reason or another may not have to travel to the Central City area every day of the work week. The Mid-Hudson Sub-Region also has an active economy not directly related to New York City and potential for economic growth in the future. According to the 1968 LUNR Inventory, the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region is composed of about 13% active agricultural lands as compared to similar figures for the Hudson Basin of about 14% and New York State as a whole at about 22% active agricultural lands. With just over 17% of its land area in brushlands, the Mid-Hudson Sub- Region has slightly more brushlands on average than does the Hudson Basin as a whole which has about 106 and about the same amount as New York State which has about 17 112% of its land surface in brushlands. The brushlands reflect a declining pattern of agriculture in marginal farms for the State and the Sub-Basin during the past several decades. The Mid-Hudson Sub-Region has about 5 1/2% of its land area in inactive or under-construction lands, adding perhaps at least another 49/8 to the total of either agricul- tural lands or to agricultural lands which may be tending toward brushland. Agricultural lands in the Sub-Region are primarily concentrated in Columbia, Dutchess and Orange Counties with some additional lands in Ulster County but very few in Putnam, Rockland and Westchester Counties where there is more urban-oriented development. The abandonment of agricultural lands to brushland is prominent in all counties where active agricultural lands are still fairly plentiful, but brushlands also show relatively high percentages of about 15% in Putnam and Ulster Counties and about 12% in Westchester County reflecting previous agricultural uses of the land. Forested lands compose about 39% of the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region, which is a smaller proportion than that for the Hudson Basin as a whole which has about 53% of its surface 111-24 area in forested lands, but is still above the Statewide average of about 37% forested lands. The forested lands are fairly evenly distributed throughout the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region with several counties closely approximating the Sub-Regional average. Ulster and Putnam Counties stand out with about 64Y6 and 54Yo forested lands respectively, while relatively low percentages of about 19% and 27% are present in Rockland and Westchester Counties respectively. The Mid-Hudson Sub-Region has about 3.6% of its surface area in wetlands, which is almost equal to the Hudson Basin average for that category which is about 3.7% and somewhat below the Statewide average which is 4.2%. The wetlands in the Mid-Hudsoa Sub-Region are relatively evenly distributed with the highest proportions in Putnam and Dutchess counties with 5.8% and 5.1% respectively. In water surface area, the Mid-Hudson Sub-Basin average is 4.3% of the Sub-Region's surface area which is slightly above the Hudson Basin average of 3.9%, but slightly below the Statewide average of 4.6% of the State's surface area in water. The distribution of water surface area among counties in the Sub-Region is fairly even except for Putnam, Rockland and Westchester Counties at about 6Y6, 13% and 12% respectively because of the widening of the Hudson River which occurs in that area in combination with large amounts of lakes also in those counties. In most of the more urban-oriented land use categories, the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region tends to exceed both Hudson Basin and Statewide averages largely due to the influence of Rockland and Westchester Counties. The Mid-Hudson Sub-Region is slightly above the Hudson Basin average for high density residential lands with 0.49/6 as opposed to the Basin average of 0.3%, but it is still at about half of the Statewide average for high density residential lands which is about 0.7%. In medium density residential lands, the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region at 2.69/6 is more than double the Hudson Basin average of 1.19/6 and just about double the Statewide average of about 1.3%. Similarly, at about 4.3% low density and other extensive residential lands, the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region has more than double the Hudson Basin average of 1.8% of such lands and more than triple the Statewide average of 1.4% low density and other residential lands. Similarly, in other urban-oriented categories the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region also is considerably above the Hudson Basin and Statewide averages. In commercial land area, the 111-25 Sub-Region averages about 0.8yo as opposed to a 0.5% approxi- mate average for the Hudson Basin and about 0.4yo for the State. In industrial lands-at about 0.3% the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region exceeds the Hudson Basin average by about 0.1% and approximately equals the Statewide average. In extractive land uses, the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region at 0.3% exceeds the Hudson Basin average of 0.2% but is below the Statewide average of 0.4yo. In public and semi-public land uses, the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region average of 1.8% is slightly above the Hudson Basin average of 1.7% but well above the Statewide average of 1.1%. In outdoor recreation land uses as measured by the 1968 LUNR Inventory, the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region average is about 3.5% which is nearly triple the Hudson Basin average of 1.3% and the Statewide average of 1.2%. As measured by the LUNR Inven- tory, most of the outdoor recreation lands are in Rockland County which has about 24yo of its land in developed outdoor recreation sites (probably related to the Harriman State Park complex). As might be expected, the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region also exceeds the Hudson Basin and Statewide averages of transportation land uses which are equal at 0.5% with a Sub-Regional average of 0.7%. To round out the profile of existing land uses in the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region with data about the types of farms in the Sub-Region, it is notable that the Sub-Region is below the Hudson Basin average of .55 dairy farms per square mile and the Statewide average of .7S such farms per square mile in spite of the fact that such high figures as .83 and .75 dairy farms per square mile occur in Orange and Columbia Counties respectively. In poultry farms, the Mid-Hudson Sub- Region is above the Hudson Basin and Statewide averages of .02 poultry farms per square mile with a Sub-Regional average of .03 poultry farms per square mile. Larger concentrations occur in Orange and Ulster Counties with about .06 and .04 poultry farms per square mile respectively. In "other" types of farms, the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region at .60 other farms per square mile exceeds the Hudson Basin average of about .41 but is somewhat below the Statewide average of .65 other farms per square mile. Columbia, Orange, Dutchess and Ulster Counties, respectively, show higher figures for other farms per square mile with Columbia County the highest at about 1.2 and the others clustered at about .50 to .70 other farms per square mile. Future Land Use Profile About 26% of the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region is classified as high and medium viability agricultural lands according to the 1968 study by Professor Howard Conklin and others. 111-26 That percentage exceeds the about 20% of the overall Hudson Basin which was so classified by the same study, but it is somewhat less than the average of about 29% of the whole State of New York which was classified high and medium viability for agriculture, The highest proportions of economically viable agricultural land are assigned to Columbia (about 53% of the surface area), Orange (about 43%), Dutchess (about 30%) and Ulster (about 10%) Counties, while Putnam, Rockland and Westchester Counties were-thought to have no areas which were large enough to be mapped as high or medium viability agri- cultural lands (it must be remembered that much more than the raw potential-of the soils were considered in the study of economic viability of farm areas). As might be expected, the pattern of agricultural districts in the Sub-Region very closely follows the pattern of distribution of economically viable farmlands. Overall, the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region has about 21% of its surface area in certified or operating agricultural districts. That figure compares with the averages of about 12% of the Hudson Basin and about 14% of the State in agricultural districts. Within the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region, the proportions of surface areas of counties in agricultural districts are Columbia (about 51%), Dutchess (about 34Yo), Orange (about 229/6) and Ulster (about 10%). The inventory of recreational lands of the State Office of Parks and Recreation shows that about a total of 8% of the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region is in all developed outdoor recreation lands compared to figures of 6% for the Hudson Basin and 7% for the State. Rockland and Putnam Counties have the greatest concentrations with 28% and 11% developed outdoor recreation sites respectively, while Westchester County follows with 9% and Columbia and Ulster Counties with 7% each. The pattern of State-owned lands is somewhat different with the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region having about 9% of its overall surface area owned by State agencies. That figure compares with the Hudson Basin average of 21% State-owned lands and the overall State average of 12% of such lands. Especially high concentrations of State-owned lands occur in Rockland County (about 23%) and Ulster County (about 20%), while other counties in the Sub-Region have about half of the State- wide average or less. The figure of about 21% of the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region in agricultural districts probably approximates fairly well the proportion of the Sub-Region which is likely to be in agricultural use until the year 2000. It is consistent with 111-27 the Sub-Region's total of about 26% of its surface area in high and medium viability agricultural lands if correction is made for the prediction that about a third of the medium viability agricultural lands are expected to go out of full-time commercial use within the next generation. Adding the amount of State-owned lands in the Sub- Region (about 9%) and the amount of non-State owned re- creational lands (about 4Y6) to the agricultural district lands yields a total of about 34Y6 of the surface area of the Sub-Region. Water and wetlands comprise about an additional 8% of the total surface area which should be reduced by about 30% (the proportion likely to be included in other predictable uses) to roughly 6% to yield a new total of about 40%. An additional about 12% of the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region is in already existing developed and urban-oriented land uses which are likely to persist and gradually expand to the year 2000. Similarly, topography and other factors make it appear likely that at least half of the Sub-Region's area of about 39% forest lands would persist to the year 2000. That figure must be reduced, however, because it includes State-owned lands, so that perhaps only a further 15% of the remainder of the Sub-Region's future land use pattern can be so accounted for. The final total of predictable surface area then finally reaches about 67% - in keeping with the figure of between 65% and 70% of predictable land uses for the whole Hudson Basin. The remainder must be predicted for the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region using economic and demographic trend information. Briefly stated, it seems that at least an additional 10% of the Sub-Region, particularly in the lower four counties of the Sub-Region, could be consumed by expanding urban-oriented land use. Favorable governmental policies would accelerate and reinforce this growth. The remainder could be extensively accounted for by further abandonment of marginal agricultural lands to brushland, by forests persisting as forests to a greater extent than can be reliably predicted, and by brush- land growing into forest which in itself is a likely outcome for about 17% of the 20% of the Sub-Region which is not now accounted for. @4 TABIF ITT-A MILLS IMI) USE IT I [U@ 5ASO U e 08 Fohawk Sub-Region 3636.0 879.2 1588.7 571.6 164.8 130.1 9.7 21.7 40.7 10.2 4.3 7.1 23.7 13.4 17.1 153.6 F,ultan 530.0 53.5 300.4 75.1 23.2 36.7 2.3 1.8 8.0 1.3 0.4 1.2 1.8 2.0 0.2 22.2 Herkirer 1451.7 238.9 865.3 158.3 80.3 46.9 0.7 2.8 10.3 2.4 0.8 1.7 2.9 2.5 3.4 34.6 montgonery 408.4 212.9 63.6 69.7 3.3 1.4 1.1 2.6 3.1 1.3 0.5 0.9 2.1 o.8 6.1 39.1 - neida 1245.9 373.9 359.4 268.5 58.0 45.1 5.6 14.5 19.3 5.2 2.6 3.6 16.9 8.1 7.4 57.8 "ronklack Sub-Region 4638.5 57.7 3812.6 184.3 189.5 269.6 1.0 2.9 24.8 9-8 1.5 4.0 3.8 18.4 6.6 52.0 Essex 1907.5 52.2 1516.1 99.6 44.6 122.5 - 1.2 10.5 3.3 0.8 2.8 2.1 8.3 4.0 39.3 Hamlton 1800.6 - 1549.3 32.1 121.8 86.5 - 0.2 4.8 1.3 - 0.2 0.3 3.0 0.1 1.0 Warren 930.4 5.5 747.2 52.6 23.1 60.6 1.0 1.5 9.5 5-2 0.7 1.0 1.4 7.1 2.5 11.7 capital Sub-Region 3088.2 640.5 1235.5 598.2 57.8 63.4 16.3 40.9 45.7 18.7 10.4 10.3 25.1 30.5 25.2 229.1 Aii-Y 530.4 98.1 140.6 143.3 11.2 8.1 6.2 14.9 10.8 6-4 4.2 2.6 9.5 8.5 6.6 59.5 R 6.1 12.1 3.2 1.4 2.0 4.8 5.1 2.4 43.1 .--r.sselaer 665.3 122.9 288.0 131.1 23.3 11.7 3.1 Saratoga 83G.4 109.4 430.8 128.3 37.2 28.4 2.3 6.1 15.8 3.1 1-2 2.4 4.4 13.5 8.0 45.6 Schenectady 208.4 41.6 46.9 55.4 3.3 1.3 3.9 10.7 5.6 2.2 2.4 0.7 3.9 2.2 4.9 23.3 Washington 847.7 263.5 329.2 140.1 22.8 13.9 0.8 3.1 1.4 3.8 1.2 2.6 2.5 1.2 3.3 52.6 Catslul'. Sub-Region 1277.8 224.5 596.6 333.3 16.2 15.1 0.7 2.9 10.0 5.2 1.3 3.2 3.0 6.1 2.0 57.8 Greene 654.4 60.4 365.3 155.5 8.5 11.0 0.1 2.4 5.7 4.7 1.2 2.3 1.5 5.3 1.7 28.9 Sc@dharie 623.4 164.1 231.3 177.8 7.7 4.1 0.6 0.5 4.3 0.5 0.1 0.9 1.5 0.8 0.3 28.9 hid-IlLdson Sub-Region 4392.4 580.2 171L 3 754.9 159.7 190.0 19.1 114.6 187.0 35.1 13.3 13.3 78.2 152.1 30.5 235.4 Cblu-rbia 646.7 174.1 214.0 143.9 30.5 13.9 0.4 2.0 7.0 1.1 0.5 1.7 2.3 11.0 3.1 35.9 Dutchess 822.9 155.0 274.8 184.9 42.4 28.1 2.1 12.8 31.3 5.7 2.7 3.7 8.7 16.2 4.3 49.9 Orange 836.3 150.6 261.2 170.4 34.1 24.4 1.8 15.0 25.7 6.9 2.1 2.3 33.3 42.4 5.3 60.8 Pum-un 245.6 7.4 54.3 14.8 5.8 6.3 0.1 6.8 14.1 1.1 0.2 0.4 2.1 6.9 1.6 5.9 Rockland 199.0 3.2 37.4 7.0 4.8 25.2 1.2 17.9 21.5 3.3 2.0 1.3 8.3 47.5 3.1 15.6 Uster 1155.8 81.8 739.0 171.3 28.8 35.8 3.1 6.8 25.2 7.2 1.6 2.5 5.3 5.4 - 3.1 39.0 Westchester 486.1 8.1 130.6 57.6 13.3 56.3 10.4 53.3 62.2 9.8 4.2 1.4 18.2 22.7 10.0 28,3 Totall Hudson 'Uver 38 293 221 81 728 Basin Area 17,033 2,382 8,945 2,442 628 668 47 183 308 79 31 Total- New York State 159 247 382 161 2593 outside Hudson Basin 32,341 8,443 9,393 6,258 1,448 1,606 297 449 428 138 106 Total New York State 49,374 10,825 18,338 8,700 2,076 2,274 344 632 736 217 137 197 540 603 24" 3321 TABIE &I-B 44 PEP= OF CXNTY IAM USE HUDSCN RAS3N -@a Mhawk Sub-Region 3636.0 24.1 43.7 15.7 4.5 3.6 0.3 0 6 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.4 0 5 4.2 Fulton 530.0 10.1 56.7 14.2 4.4 6.9 0.4 0:3 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 4.2 Herkirrer 1451.7 16.5 59.6 10.7 5.5 3.2 - 0.2 0.7 0.2 - 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.4 montgaTexy 408.4 52.1 15.6 17.1 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 1.5 9.6 Oneida 1245.9 30.0 28.8 21.6 4.7 3.6 0.4 1.2 1.6 0.4 0.2 0.3 1.4 0.6 0.6 4.6 Adiromiark Sub-Region 4638.5 1.2 82.2 4.0 4.1 5.8 - 0.1 0.5 0.2 - 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 1.1 Essex 1907.5 2 7 79.5 5.2 2.3 6.4 - 0.1 0.5 0.2 - 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 2.1 Harrilton 1800.6 86.0 1.8 6.8 4.8 - - 0.3 0.1 - - - 0.2 - 0.1 Tt.'arren 930.4 0.6 80.3 5.6 2.5 6.5 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.3 1.3 Capital Sub-Region 3088.2 20.8 40.0 19.4 3.2 2.1 0.5 1.3 1.5 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.8 1.0 0.8 7.4 Albany 530.4 18.5 26.5 27.0 2.1 1.5 1.2 2.8 2.0 1.2 0.8 0.5 1.8 1.6 1.2 11.2 Rensselaer 665.3 18.5 43.3 19.7 3.5 1.8 0.5 0.9 1.8 o.5 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.4 7.2 Saratoga 836.4 13.1 51.5 15.3 4.4 3.4 0.3 0.7 1.9 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.6 1.0 5.5 Schenectady 208.4 20.0 22.5 26.6 1.6 0.6 1.9 5.1 2.6 1.1 1.2 0.3 1.9 1.0 2.4 11.2 Washington 847.7 31.7 38.8 16.5 2.7 1.6 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.4 6.2 Catskill Sub--Region 1,277.8 17.6 46.7 26.1 1.3 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.2 4.5 @654.4 9.2 55.8 23.8 1.3 1.7 - 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.3 4.4 Gree-ne - 0.2 O.'l 0.1 4.6 Schoharie 623.4 26.3 37.1 28.5 1.2 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 Mid-Hudson Sub-region 4392.4 13.2 39.0 17.2 3.6 4.3 0.4 2.6 4.3 0.8 0.3 0.3 1.8 3.5 0.7 5.4 colunIbia 646.7 26.9 33.1 23.0 4.7 2.1 0.1 0.3 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.7 0.5 5.6 Ditchess 822.9 18.8 33.4 22.5 5.1 3.4 0.3 1.6 3.8 0.7 0.3 0.5 1.1 2.0 0.5 6.1 Orwige 836.3 17.9 31.1 20.3 4.1 2.9 0.2 1.8 3.1 0.8 0.2 0.3 A.0 5.0 0.6 7.2 Putnam 245.6 3.0 54.3 14.8 5.8 6.3 - 2.8 5.7 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.8 2.8 0.7 2.4 Rockland 199.0 1.6 18.8 3.5 2.4 12.6 0.6 9.0 10.8 1.7 1.0 0.6 4.1 23.9 1.6 7.8 ulster 1155.8 7.1 63.9 14.8 2.5 3.1 0.3 0.6 2.2 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.3 3.4 Westchester 486.1 1.7 26.9 11.8 2.7 11.6 2.1 11.0 12.8 2.0 0.9 0.3 3.7 4.7 2.1 5.8 Total Hudson River Basin Area 17,033 14.0 52.5 14.3 3.7 3.9 0.3 L 1 1.8 0.5 0.2 0.2 L7 1.3 0.5 4.3 Total New York State outside Hudson .5 Basin 32,341 26.1 29.0 19.4 4.5 5.0 0.9 1.4 1.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.2 0 8.0 Total New York State 49,374 21.9 37.1 17.6 4.2 4.6 0.7 1.3 1.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 1.1 1.2 0.5 6.7 r? co rT 0 ;0 U U) 11 1< 10< 5 k R IV A. w F@ 41 W W to 00 00 0,W c;% a, N 00 co a, 0 0 10 00 01 41 01 4 W 00 Ln %D w kD Ln @4 41 W a, W 00 w0OW . . . . w Thtal Areas of Counties and Regions F, .11, F ?I ?1!j @- 1.4 P@ CO 0 M 4-1 4- CO 41 41 41 C, (Square Miles) @j 00 - 41 4.1 O'w.co , - 0 . @- @ - 1968 UNR Inventory Number of - - W 00 co - @ @ 1@ V@ @Ln W -a, "A, 10 0 0 a 0 Dairy Farm 0 -4 N 0 N CD K) 1968 UM Inventory Number of a, Poultry Farm 0. co@ C, H -j a- "M "W 10 co 0 WON 1968 LM Inventory Number of Other 0 -4 W @W, , - - Z c@ o a, WC, 10 Farm Ln 4. %0 L' w 0% Agricultural Viability Rating %.A V, 0 0 0 41 411@A ID 0 0 Q ?. . . @' .. . ?' BIGH (Square Miles) 0 C@ C% 4@ W W V1 W 0 0 ID 01 n 1-1 co W L@ w Agricultural Viability Rating a, W 0, F NMnM (Square Miles co 0 '00 w N w 10 41 W W 00 w @0 CD co @w w Go 00 co Total High and Mediun Agricultural @O 100 , 0, . . @' !0 . r Viability (Square Miles) 0, 0 @w 0 t. 10 0 a cy@ 0 a, L@ W (71 Number of Certified or operating 0 aN CO O@O 10 1 Agricultural Districts "Co C, w 01 41 0 0 ID I !- . . . ` '04% '-Dj io w @6 Area of Certified or Operating .9@ Ln 4.n 41 CIO 00%0 10 00 @0 Go %0 CO @w a, a, t4 10 1- 0 W W Agricultural Districts (Acres) ca -j ID I-,@ 4P, 4 W ioo oo @!w v, w Area of Certified or Operating a, 1j %0 !j F @0. Go 61 @-o a co W 41 "W" Agricultural Districts (Square Miles) Cn MI 111. MID nap En 0 U; 8 , Ef) En 0 0 0 2V 41 W En W I" IQ CO OD 01 W Q W Z@ W CY, I cc 0 a, a W @ m a, 41 ID @10 -4 41 a W 01 W04 W00W @D ?,!@ @j @I ?D ?I 71otal Areas of Counties and Regions CD 0 0% WD W N 4.1 a% 0 (Square Miles) _C011-0 10 4@ ... . . . . Recreation Lands Owned by NYS co @ @ z @ %D %0 00 W W "@' 0141 10- a, o @@ 1 1 1 1 '0 Parks and Recreation (Acres) 4.,. 10 0 CD 10 10 wa,@" Recreation Lands Owned by NYS 00@ 01 01 OD 41 DeParMient of Environnental co 000-0,0 a, co 00 0W co 0Conservation (Acres) OD 00 - a, 0, C;, 010 10 00,0 a, Re reation Lands Owned by State 0 Univer ity of New York (Acres) Recreation Lands Owned by NYS co 41 Dept. of IYansportation (Acres) CD W All NYS Owned Recreation Lands a, W "0" 0, 10 X, 0 3 a, co r: . . . @o (Acres) w tA a, a-o w 'D W 4.1 co C, %,D 41 L, @ 41 '"m W W 0 aW -00 co 0 41 41 W 41 0 f: @10 0. All NYS Owned Lands - Recreation e@D@,F and Other Types (Acres) 0, W 0 00 WW Coco 10 41 - " m @ a, a, 0 @ C. LI C. 0, 0 W@ @ a, @ CD a, @ @ @ " - W W co a, W 00 10 1 W CD M An Recreation Lands N3r state 0% 0% 0% a, CD 10 %0 10 W 00 c. - co 'm Owned (Acres) 010 - 0 0 a, W 0 @ 41 W rQ a, - m 01 W @ 41 a, 0 10 10 TABLE III-D cn g OUITOOR RFCREATION ZO (a - , @4 DATA - $4 (U .4-4J @k M GITM 4J Cn' BE wMS K ID %7,W-D FOR UUfLwX :9V@ 10, g M@ 2 g '4 FU-P-d'OSES (n REMATIOZ HUDSON BASIN 9 @4 a) 0 En In -4 @bhawk Sub-Region 92.8 77.7 170.5 724.4 .03 .02 .05 .20 Fulton 4.6 13.5 18.1 121.3 .01 .03 .03 .23 Herkimer 13.5 27.9 41.4 504.7 .01 .02 .03 .35 nmtgcqwry 10.4 3.8 14.2 9.7 .03 .01 .03 .02 Oneida 64.3 32.6 96.9 87.8 .05 .03 .08 .07 Adirondack Sub-Region 159.7 126.3 286.0 2,200.3 .03 -.03 .06 .47 Essex 33.0 23.8 56.8 783.5 .02 01 .03 .41 Hamilton 108.7 88.1 196.8 1,124.7 .06 :05 It .62 'Arren 18.0 14.5 32.5 292.1 .02 .02 :03 .31 Capital'Sub-Region 47.5 87.5 135.0 110.7 .02 .03 .04 .04 Albany 15 7 22.3 38.0 20.1 .03 .04 .07 .04 Renssel@ter 15:7 14.0 29.7 16.2 .02 .02 .04 .02 Saratoga 10.5 37.0 47.5 36.4 .01 .04 .06 .04 Schencctady 1.1 4.9 6.0 1.3 .01 .02 .03 .01 Washington 4.4 9.2 13.6 36.7 .01 .01 .02 .04 Catskill Sub-Region 72.0 32.4 104.4 169.0 .05 .03 .08 .13 Greene 4 8 29.8 34.6 113.9 .01 .05 .05 .17 SchohaiLie 67:2 2.6 69.8 55.1 .11 .11 .09 Ydd-HLdson Sub-Region 156.2 177.2 333.4 392.6 .04 .04 .08 .09 Columbia 13.2 0.3 13.5 11.0 .02 .05 .07 .02 Dutchess 12.0 30.0 42.0 22.5 .02 .02 .03 Orange 48.9 27.5 76.4 60.5 .01 .04 .05 .07 Putnam 19.1 7.2 26.3 15.3 .08 .03 .11 .06 Rockland 46.8 9.0 55.8 45.7 .24 .05 .28 .23 Ulstcx 14.5 62.1 76.6 230.8 .01 .05 .07 .20 Westchester 1.7 41.1 42.8 6.9 __ .08 .09 .01 Thtal Hudson River 528.2 501.1 1,029.3 3,597 .03 .03 .06 .21 Basin Area Tdtal NQW YOIR State Outside Hudson Basin 1,352.2 1,012.4 2,364.6 2,208 .04 .03 .07 .07 Total New York State 1,880.3 1,513.5 3,393.8 5,805 .04 .03 .07 .12 TABLE 111-E LAND USE PRN71Z BY RF=aM---NMSM! RIWR USIN STUDY (pape 1) C4 @0- to Ca U) Active Agriculture 21.9 14.0 -7.9 24.1 +2.2+10.1 1.2 -20.7 -12.8 20.8 -1. 1 +6.8 17.6 -4.3 +3.6 13.2 -8.7 -0.8 woodlands - Ebrest 37.1 52.5 +15.4 43.7 46.6 -8.8 82.2 +45.1 +29.7 40.0 +2.9 -12.5 46.7 +9.6 -5.8 39.0 +1.9-13-5 woodlands - 1 26.1 +8.5 +11.8 17.2 -0.4 +2.9 Bru.-Idand 17.6 14.3 -3.3 15.7 -1.9 +1.4 4.0 -13.6 -10.3 19.4 +1.8 +5. Wetland 4.2 3.7 -0.5 4.5 +0.3 4,0.8 4.1 -0.1 +0.4 3.2 -1.0 -0.5 1.3 -2.9 -2.4 3.6 -0.6 -0.1 Water 4.6 3.9 -0.7 3.6 -1.0 -0.3 5.8 +1.2 +1.9 2.1 -2.5 -1.8 1.2 -3.4 -2.7 4.3 -0.3 +0.4 Residential - High Density 0.7 0.3 -0.4 0.3 -0.4 -- -- -0.7 -0.3 0.5 -0.2 +0.2 0.1 -0.6 -0.2 0.4 -0.3 40.1 Residential M-ediun Density 1.3 1.1 -0.2 0.6 -0.7 -0.5 0.1 -1.2 -1.0 1.3 -- +0.2 0.2 -1.1 -0.9 2.6 +1.3 +1.5 Res'dential. - low ;;;@ity and ouer 1.4 1.8 +0.4 1.1 -0.3 -0.7 0.5 -0.9 -1.3 1.5 +0.1 -0.3 0.8 -0.6 -1.0 4.3 +2.9 +2.5 3mvercial 0.4 0.5 +0.1 0.3 -0.1 -0.2 0.2 -0.2 -0.3 0.6 +0.2 40. 1 0.4 -- -0.1 0.8 40.4 +0.3 Industrial 0.3 0.2 -o.1 0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -- -0.3 -0.2 0.3 -- +0.1 0.1 -0.2 -0.1 0.3 -- +0.1 Extractive 0.4 0.2 -0.2 0.2 -0.2 -- 0.1 4.3 -0.1 0.3 -0.1 +0.1 0.3 -0.1 +0.1 0.3 -0.1 +0.1 TAKE III-E rA%V USE PROFIM BY REGI-ONS - FUMSM MER BASIN STMY (page 2@- C C >0 Cn 49 U, U, U@ (n @4 .,I U) En U) En U1 Ln U)9 4 -1. 1� 0 r 0 - 14 U1, 1 @-14 -4 . 1@1( 1@1 45 0 Public and Semi- Public 1.1 1.7 40,6 0.7 -0.4 -1.0 0-.1 -1.0 -1.6 0.8 -0.3 -0.9 0.2 -0.9 -1.5 1.8 +0.7 +0.1 Cutdoor Recreation 1.2 1.3 40.1 0.4 -0.8 -0.9 0.4 -0.8 -0.9 1.0 -0.2 -0.3 0.5 -0.7 -0.8 3.5 +2.3 +2.2 ,.Lzarmportation 0.5 0.5 -- 0.5 -- -- 0.1 -0.4 -0.4 0.8 40.3 40.3 0.2 -0.3 -0.3 0.7 +0.2 +0.2 Inactive or ltdar Constructim 6.7 4.3 -2.4 4.2 -2.5 -0.1 1.1 -5.6 -3.2 7.4 -10.7 +3.1 4.5 -2.2 +0.2 5.4 -1.3 +1.1 Variability -- -- 43.7 -- 17.6 24.9 - 90.2 64.4 - 11.4 32.3 - 35.4 31.5 - 21.4 25.9 TAKE III-F t3l @4 FUTURE USE PROFILE 0 AGRICULTURE J@ 44 HUDSON @TV 14 44H 00 . I 19 BASIN W a HO a) N @4 41 W 10 41 -g S cy, a, g@ -g @ -4 -4 -4 9 4'T P. Mohawk Sub-Region 109 .01 .31 .31 .14 15.7 .36 Fulton :37 - 24 14 - - .26 Herkimer .72 01 :19 :22 5.2 .37 Montgomery 2.03 01 .54 .60 83 48.5 .86 Cneida 1.52 .01 .42 .39 .14 7.0 .24 Adirondack Sub-Region .03 - .06 .01 .01 9.6 .51 Essex .07 - .14 .03 .03 9.6 .45 Hamilton - - - - - - .71 Warren .02 - .04 - - - .33 Capital Sub-Region .75 .02 .78 .29 .15 15.7 .22 Albany .47 .03 .88 .15 .08 13.7 .14 Rensselaer .69 .02 .76 .27 .14 18.5 .18 Saratoga .50 .02 .61 .18 .05 21.9 .13 Schenectady .55 .04 .80 .09 - - .03 Washington 1.28 .03 .87 .53 .33 14.7 .38 Catskill Sub-Region .82 .02 .44 .16 .14 21.7 .30 Greene .36 .02 .44 .05 .04 11.7 .26 Schoharie 1.30 .03 .45 .29 .24 25.0 .33 Mid-Hudson Sub- Region .42 .03 .60 .26 .21 13.2 .34 03lumbia, .75 .03 1.19 .53 .51 33.3 .58 Dutchess .48 .03 .67 .30 .34 15.8 .37 83 .06 69 .43 .22 8.7 :07 - :17 - - - .01 .01 .12 Ulster .20 04 55 .16 .10 5.6 .35 Westchester .01 :01 :07 - - - .09 Tbtal Hudson River Basin Area .55 .02 .41 .20 .12 14.6 .36 Thtal New York State outside Hudson Basin .86 .02 .77 .33 .15 26.7 .25 7btal New York State .75 .02 .65 .29 .14 21.3 .29 CHAPTER IV DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE TO THE YEAR 2000 HUDSON RIVER BASIN LEVEL-B STUDY CHAPTER IV DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE TO THE YEAR 2000 INTRODUCTION The Hudson River Basin, comprised for the purposes of this study of counties stretching along the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers from Westchester and Rockland Counties in the southern part of the State to Essex County in the North and to Oneida County in the Mohawk Valley, consists of a representative eross-seetion of New York State counties (see Figure IV-A). Within the region are found metropolitan, suburban and rural counties, and the growth of the region as a whole reflects the changing growth patterns by type of county within New York State and, indeed, the nation as a whole. The purposes of this paper are to describe the current and past demographic trends in the Hudson River Basin, relating those trends to State and national trends, and to assess the probable future population growth of the region and its component counties. PAST AND CURRENT TRENDS Population change in the Hudson River Basin during the Twentieth Century (1900-1970) has generally followed the pattern of population change in New York State and the nation as a whole, as shown in Figure IV-Bl, but the Basin grew at a slower rate than the State until approximately 1950. As a consequence, the population in the Basin declined from 19.2% to 15.7% of New York State's population during the period 1900-1950. The relative growth rates of the State and the Hudson River Basin reflect factors that were shaping national popu- lation growth patterns during the Twentieth Century. During 1900-1920, large numbers of foreign immigrants came to the United States and many of them settled in New York City and other large metropolitan areas of the East. As this wave of immigrants declined, the decennial rate of growth of the Hudson River Basin began to converge toward the State rate. By 19SO, the trend toward suburbanization of metro- politan populations was well underway and the Hudson River Basin began to grow at approximately the same rate as the State as a whole, but by 1970 the Basin was more closely approximating the growth of the nation. Figure IV-A 0 1CUNTON Hudson River Basin ST. LAWRENCE Adir % ESSEX '1@lohawk solk" S, ib- g.-N JEFFER LAI:f ONTARIO -region 4 LEWIS 11 w 11 Capi I A HAMILTON Ito 0 "611 A wEaO 0 %1FULT-ON SARATOIA 0 :ORLEANS ,% 0 11Alt, ION NI AG, 0 WAYNE SIDA I HT, KI N V I -;L 0 1 OUO@ AGAj 0 -(;NlAR'0 ON1 0 -4 1-411AMO Pub-regio AA-, It i I "LIVINGSTONI [email protected] - 1 .1 CHOHAR1 ALIANY LAXE 101f I I M@@llltltir, - 11 Is % ',ERIE I@OATIA , - ND ICHENANC OMPKINS t SCHU 0 6.,-! EE J` N 01 1 100 0 1 1 _UA@. LC ATTAR AUGVS IALLEGANY OFLAWARE 0 lqid-H ULSTER --VI. DUTCHU". SUL 0 T A-M LONG I NEW 0 K N.. INASIAt@ D! k@ RICHMON 9 @Z@- Figure JV-D Percent Change in Population 1900-1975 Percent Figure IV-Bl United States New York State Hudson River Basin %% YE A P, Figure IV-B2 Mohawk Adirondack Capital Catskill Mid-fludson R. C.- x -\X/ 0 Jq30 114D IWO tw filb IV- 2 During the period 1970-75, the population of the Hudson River Basin increased by 3.0%, but the population of New York State declined by -0.7%.. As of 1975, 18.1% of New York State's population resided in the Hudson River Basin. The various sub-regions of the Basin have, in general, followed the overall pattern of Basin growth, but there have been exceptions, as shown in Figure IV-B2, especially in the Catskill sub-region and the Mid-Hudson sub-region. The Mid-Hudson sub-region maintained a relatively high growth rate through the depression, in contrast to the generally depressed growth in the State and the Basin during the thirties. During the period of rapid suburbanization of the fifties and sixties, growth in the Mid-Hudson sub-region accelerated rapidly and by 1970, 57.0% of the population in the Basin resided in the Mid-Hudson sub-region. The Catskill sub-region has exhibited a decidedly upward long-term trend in growth. Starting from a position of rapidly declining population in the early decades of the Century, the Catskill sub-region had, by 1970, become the only sub-region in the Basin with an increasing rate of population growth. During the period 1970-75, the Catskill sub-region was the most rapidly growing sub-region in the Basin. The post-1970 period has seen a general decline in growth throughout New York State and in the Hudson River Basin. With the exception of the Catskill sub-region, all sub-regions in the Basin have experienced the decline. The reasons for the decline lie in national patterns of population change and in patterns of interregional population distribution away from the urban centers of the industrial Northeast. The years since 1970 have been characterized by a marked change in the demographic trends of the nation and of the Northeast census region. Declining birth rates have slowed the rate of population increase nationally and shifting patterns of population distribution within the nation have greatly altered past trends of interregional population growth. The demographic trends of the Hudson River Basin can be understood only within the context of these nationwide patterns of population change. The nation's industrial heartland, roughly corres- ponding to the U.S. Bureau of the Census's Northeast and North Central regions, has grown by 1.49/o during 1970-7S, but the South and West have grown by 8.4% and 8.7% respectively during the same period, as shown in Table IV-A on the next page. IV- 3 Table IV-A Percent Change in Total Population by Census Region, 1970-75 United States 4.8 Northeast 0.8 North Central 1.9 South 8.4 West 8.7 The causes of this differential growth lie in two related trends -- growth of large metropolitan areas and black migra- tion -- both of which have changed dramatically since 1970. Between the Second World War and 1970, one of the most .clearly established trends has been the increasing metropoli- @anization of the population, especially in the urban Northeast. Related to this -trend over the same period was a movement of blacks from the rural farms of the South to-the urban centers of the North. This black migration went to the central cities of large metropolitan areas -- partially replacing whites who were extending the suburban boundaries of the same metropoli- tan areas. It was this extension of suburban boundaries thac provided the stimulus for growth in the Hudson River Basin -- especially in the Mid-Hudson district. Since the benchmark year of 1970, however, both of these trends have reversed. The large metropolitan areas which kept pace with the nation in population growth during the fifties and sixties lag the nation in the seventies. Concomitant with this relative metropolitan decline is the fact that more blacks now move from the Northeast to the South than vice versa. These trends have led to absolute declines in the population of central cities in spite of the fact that the black migration has been partially offset by migration of Spanish-speaking people. The impact of this broad pattern of national population redistribution has been particularly severe in New York State. The State declined in population by over 150,000 people since 1970, or -0.7%, while the nation increased by 4.8%. Appendix Table IV-A shows population and percent change for New York State and the component counties of the Hudson River Basin for census years between 1900 and 1970. The national trends become even more apparent when metropolitan population growth is considered. The growth rate of the metropolitan population of the United States de- clined much more rapidly during 1970-75, as compared to the sixties, than the growth rate of the total population. The impact, again, of this national pattern has been strong in New York State and in the Hudson River Basin, as shown in Table IV-B. TABIE IV-B Percent Change in Total Population by Residence 1960-1975 1960-70 1970-75 United States Total 13.4 4.8 Metropolitan 17.1 3.4 Nonmetropolitan 4.1 5.5 New York State Total 8.7 -0.7 Metropolitan 8.8 -1.4 Nonmetropolitan 7.6 5.3 Hudson River Basin Total 14.4 3.0 Metropolitan 14.6 1.7 Normetropolitan 13.7 8.3 IV-4 The metropolitan population of New York State declined by -1.4% during the period 1970-75, and the metropolitan population of the Hudson River Basin grew at less than one- fourth the rate of the sixties during the same period. The obvious corollary is that because the growth of the metro- politan population has lagged that of the total population, the growth of the remainder, the nonmetropolitan population, has exceeded that of the total. This growth in nonmetro- politan population seems to be the dominant population trend of the seventies. Additional insight into the metropolitan-nonmetro- politan population shifts can be gained by examining population change inside and outside central cities within metropolitan areas (see Figure IV-C for metropolitan counties). The trend since 1950 is shown in Table IV-C for New York State, the Hudson River Basin, and the individual metropolitan areas within the Basin. The data for the period 1970-75 show a clear break with the data for the two previous decades. In all cases there has been a dramatic slowdown in the growth of those parts of metropolitan areas that lie outside of central cities. Growth in these areas in the fifties and sixties accounted for all the metropolitan growth in New York State, but in the seventies the growth seems to be occurring beyond the boundaries of existing metropolitan areas. The impact of the national and regional trends of population distribution on the sub-regions of the Hudson River Basin have been rather dramatic. As noted previously, the Catskill sub-region had the highest population growth in the Basin during 1970-75. The growth occurred equally in Greene and Schoharie Counties, both of which increased by 15%. In the Mid-Hudson sub-region, the fastest growing counties were Putnam and Ulster. In all these cases, except Putnam, the counties are rural and beyond the boundaries of any metro- politan area, and Putnam was added to the New York SMSA only since 1970. The components of population change over time in the Hudson River Basin have also reflected the national shift to lower birth rates and the concomitant increased net out- migration from the Northeast and New York State. The components of change in the Basin are shown in Table IV-D. 0 fizure cotInt'i e sin 14etro .- , @a I son R;-ver the JAU -t i Cali O'lAclo w Al ik Y " tt 41 tlLA J, IL -41 L"'j Ind. 0 O;LPhA "o 0" t4z@, JL; TABLE IV-C Percent Change in Population Inside and Outside Central Cities 1950-1975 1950 - 60 1960 - 70 1970 - 75 New York State Inside Central City -2.0 -0.6 -5.8 Outside Central City 38.4 20.8 3.9 Hudson River Basin Inside Central City -2.5 -8.9 -5.0 Outside Central City 27.0 21.5 3.2 Albany-Schenectady-Troy SMSA Inside Central City -6.7 -7.9 -4.3 Outside Central City 24.6 19.5 6.0 Poughkeepsie SMSA Inside Central City -7.3 -15.6 -1.3 Outside Central City 43.8 37.7 6.6 Utica-Rome SMSA Inside Central City 7.6 -9.0 -7.1 Outside Central City 25.7 13.6 1.8 IV-5 TABLE IV-D Components of Population Change in the Hudson River Basin 1960-1975 (Thousands) 1960-70 1970-75 Net Change 402 96 Natural Increase 239 67 Births 552 233 Deaths 313 166 Net Migration 160 29 Avg. Annual Net Migration 16 5.5 The impact of the decline nationally in the number of births is clearly shown in Table IV-D. Births during 1970-75 Eire approximately 20% lower than births for a comparable period in the sixties. Likewise, net migration, on an average annual basis, is approximately one-third of the level of the sixties. Another way of viewing the shifts is to note that in the sixties 40% of total net change was accounted for by net migration, while in the first half of the seventies only 30% of total net change was accounted for by net migration. In the Hudson River Basin the effects of lowered fertility and shifting migration patterns have reinforced each other and have resulted in dramatically lowered overall population growth in the Basin. The national shifts in fertility and migration have resulted in a shift in emphasis from natural increase to net migration as the dominant component of population change in various sub-regions of the Basin since 1960. The components of change by sub-region are shown in Table IV-E. In all sub- regions, except the Mid-Hudson, the dominant component of change during 1960-70 was natural increase (births minus deaths). During 1970-75, however, the dominant component of change in three sub-regions was net migration. The exceptions are the Capital sub-region, which has been dominated by Saratoga County, and the Mid-Hudson sub-region. An extreme example of this shift is the Catskill sub-region where net migration accounted for over 90% of the total growth. The distribution of population growth and net migration among the sub-regions over time is shown in Table IV-F. The Mid-Hudson sub-region has accounted for the largest share of the Basin's growth and also the largest share of the net migration to the Basin. The Catskill sub-region, however, increased its share of growth substantially in the severities and accounted for over one-fourth of the net migration to the TABLE IV-E Components of Population Chage in the Hudson Basin Region By Districts, 1960-70, 1-970--75 (In Thousands) District 1960-70 1970-75 Mohawk At Period Start 439 449 At Period Close 449 445 Net Change Over Period 10 -4 Natural Increase 34 8 Births 85 34 Deaths -51 -26 Net Migration -24 Adirondack At Period Start 84 89 At Period Close 89 92 Net Change Over Period 5 4' Natural Increase 7 2 Births 8 Deaths -6 Net Migration -2 2 Capital At Period Start 706 775 At Period Close 775 798 Net Change Over Period 69 23 Natural Increase 57 16 Births 141 59 Deaths -84 -43 Net Migration 12 .7 Catskill At Period Start 54 58 At Period Close 58 67 Net Change Over Period 4 9 Natural Increase 2 1 Births 9 5 Deaths -8 -4 Net Migration 2 8 Mid-Hudson At Period Start 1503 1818 At Period Close 1818 1883 Net Change Over Period 315 65 Natural Increase 141 40 Births B-9 rl 7 Deaths @158 -87 Net Migration 173 25 NOTE: Changes may not add due to rounding TABLE IV-F Distribution of Population Growth and Net Migration Within the Hudson River Basin by Sub-Region 1950-1975 (Percent) 1950-60 1960-70 1970-75 Growth Net Migration Growth Net Migration Growth Net Migration Mohawk 9.6 0.3 2.S _1S.1 -4.4 -43.2 Adirondack 1.1 -1.9 1.3 - 1.3 3.8 S.8 Capital 15.0 -1.3 17.1 6.9 23.7 23.5 Catskill 0.5 -0.3 1.0 1.4 9.2 27.9 Mid-Hudson 73.8 103.2 78.2 108.1 67.7 86.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 IV-6 Basin. The Capital sub-region accounted for over one-4ifth of the region's growth during 1970-75, but most of that growth occurred in Saratoga County which, by itself, accounted for 22% of the Basin's total growth. Without Saratoga County, the Capital sub-region would have increased only slightly in population during 1970-75. Patterns of net migration for counties over time show essentially the effects of the broad changes discussed previously. During 1970-75, as shown in Table IV-G, all metropolitan counties, with the exception of Saratoga, Putnam and Rockland, had relatively low levels of net in-migration or they had net out-migration. Dutchess and Westchester County's levels of net in-migration dropped precipitously, on an average annual basis, from the levels of the fifties and sixties. On the other hand, counties like Greene, Schoharie, and Ulster have accelerated their average annual rate of net in-migration. It appears that there is a sub- stantial redistribution of population taking place within the Basin as well as within the United States. Patterns of population change by age are usually less dramatic than the other aspects of population change already discussed primarily because changes in the age distribution are heavily dependent on changes in events like births and deaths. Migration can obviously have an impact on the age distribution, but that impact is usually overshadowed by the effects of various birth cohorts as they age. The effect of the large birth cohorts of the fifties and sixties, combined with declining birth cohorts of the seventies, is to produce a population that becomes, on the average, older as time goes on. This effect will become increasingly important in New York State and the Hudson River Basin. The population by broad age groups in the Basin is shown in Table IV-H, along with the percent change by age between 1960 and 1970. The largest increase is found in the 5-19 age group and reflects the high number of births during the fifties and early sixties. The 0-4 age group actually declined in number between 1960 and 1970, reflecting the beginning of the decline in births in the late sixties. An age group that is becoming increasingly important, the 65+, increased faster than the total population during 1960-70, reflecting, in part, migration of elderly persons into the Hudson River Basin from areas like New York City. More detailed tables showing population by age for sub-regions and counties in the Hudson River Basin are found in Appendix Table IV-B. TABLE IV-G Annual Average Net Migration to Counties of the Hudson River Basin 1950-60, 1960-70, 1970-75 District County 195o-6o ig6o-70 1970-75 Mohawk 53 -2.4o6 -2,54o Fulton -324 -63 280 Herkimer -110 -291 -40 Montgomery -627 -248 -60 Oneida 1,114 -1,8o4 -21720 Adirondack -385 -201 340 Essex -392 -327 -20 Hamilton -19 21 40 Warren 26 105 320 Capital -263 1 233 1 380 Albany 792 @N Rensselaer -360 -88 -4oo Saratoga 485 2,249 3,000 Schenectady -800 -180 -108o Washington -380 -24 (2) Catskill -59 231 1 562 Greene 1-29 11-6 Schoharie -187 115 660 Mid-Hudson 20)884 17,326 4 819 Columbia 147 220 _:_Li@o Dutchess 2,340 2,6o4 1,16o Orange 1,501 2,034 2,740 Putnam 889 2,082 1,943 Rockland 3,445 7 170 2,000 Ulster 1,738 1:28o 2,24o Westchester 10,824 2,o46 -5,581 (2) Fewer than 10 persons. TABLE IV-H Population by Age in the Hudson River Basin 1960-1970 Age 1960 1970 Percent Change 0-4 2883,667 263V029 -8.9 5-19 694,700 906,707 30.5 20-44 867,907 973,244 12.1 45-64 634.%672 6999159 10.2 65+ 3009189 345,918 15.2 TOTAL 2,786,135 3,188,057 14.4 IV- 7 POPULATION PROJECTIONS The pa.st and current trends in the Hudson River Basin will obviously have a large impact on the future population of the Basin. The Economic Development Board has evaluated past population trends for the counties in the Basin, New York State, the Northeast Census region and the United States in making the Official Population Projections for New York State Counties (January 1978). The results of the projections are summarized in Table IV-I. The Total Hudson River Basin is projected to grow at an increasing rate between 1975 and 1990, approaching an average growth rate of slightly less than 1.0% per year during 1985-90. After 1990 the projected rate of growth drops slightly. The overall projected growth rate in the Basin is consider- ably less than the growth during the fifties and sixties although, as shown in Table IV-I, the projected growth of the Basin is higher than projected growth for the state as a whole. The projected distribution of growth by sub-region within the Basin reflects the economic and demographic trends of the seventies and, in some ways, is a departure from the growth pattern of the sixties. The Catskill sub-region has the highest projected growth rate in the Basin throughout, but the growth is expected to drop off somewhat after 1980. The Mid-Hudson sub-region is projected to increase its rate of growth somewhat over the growth suggested by current trends. All of the component counties in this sub- region are projected to grow, with the exception of Westchester. The Capital sub-region is also projected to grow at a moderate rate due primarily to continued growth in Saratoga County. The remaining counties in the Capital sub-region ar&projected to grow only slightly over the period. The Mohawk sub-region is the closest to stability in the Basin. There is very little growth projected for the Mohawk sub-region through 1990. In the review of projected growth for the sub-regions in the Hudson River Basin it is easy to see the impact of the on-going demographic changes. All of the sub-regions except the Catskill and Adirondack sub-regions are projected to grow at a much slower rate than in the sixties. Thus, all of the Basin's metropolitan counties are projected to grow relatively slowly or to decline. The rural counties in the Catskill and Adirondack sub-regions are expected to increase their rate of growth as a result of the shift of population TABLE IV-I PROJECTED POPULATION IN THE HUDSON RIVER BASIN by Sub-Region, 1970-2000 (thousands) Population 1970 1975 1980 198S 1990 1995 2000 Mohawk 449 445 441 442 444 446 448 Adirondack 89 93 97 101 106 ill 114 Capital 775 797 820 848 879 911 939 Catskill S8 66 73 81 88 94 101 Mid-Hudson 1,818 1,884 1,957 2,053 2,16S 2,276 2,384 Total Basin 3,188 3,28S 3,388 3,S2S 3!1682 35838 31,985 New York State 18,241 18,084 18,082 18,343 18,761 19,236 19,712 Percent Change 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-2000 Mohawk -0.9 -0.8 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.4 Adirondack 4.5 4.4 4.8 4.7 4.2 3.4 Capital 2.8 2.9 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.1 Catskill 14.0 11.0 9.8 8.8 7.8 6.7 Mid-Hudson 3.6 3.8 4.9 5.S 5.2 4.7 Total Basin 3.0 3.1 4.1 4.5 4.2 3.8 New York State -0.9 0.0 1.4 2.3 2.5 2.5 IV-8 to non-metropolitan counties. Increased net in-migration to these rural counties, both from within the Basin and from the rest of New York State,, should sustain the growth of these counties for some time. Demographically speaking, the character and outlook of a region are embodied in the age structure of the region at a given point in time and in the dynamics of the age structure over time. For this reason the age structure of the Hudson River Basin is portrayed graphically in Figure IV-@D for four points in time. Coniparison of the age structure in the Basin in 1970 to the projected age structure in 2000 clearly shows the effects both of past demographic changes and the impact of the projected levels of fertility and migration in the Basin. Comparable data for sub-regions and counties can be found in Appendix Table IV-C. In 1970 the population age structure of the Basin was narrow in the middle-ages and relatively wide at the base. the S-19 age groups represent children born during the period 1950-1966, which included the peak years of the so-called "baby boom" of the sixties. It was this increase in fertility rather than any migration patterns which produced the bulge in the 5-19 age groups in the Basin in 1970. The relatively smaller 0-4 age group on the other hand, is a direct result of the beginning of the decline in fertility which was underway by 1967. The median age of the Basin-in 1970 was 32.9 years, which indicates that the Basin was older, on the average, than the United States, which had a median age of 27.9 years in 1970. By 1980 the bulge produced by the "baby boom" children has moved into the 15-29 age groups, but the base of the age structure, the 0-9 ages, has become relatively smaller. This shrinkage of the base is due to the much lower fertility of the seventies as compared to the sixties. Note, however, that the women born during the "baby boom" are well into the child- bearing age groups by 1980. The labor force age population of the Basin is projected to increase rapidly during 1970-80 as the "baby boom" cohorts move into the prime working years. Fiqurc IV-D Population by Age, 1970-2000 (Percent) 1970 AGE M A L E FEMALE 35 + M F 80 84 M FF 75 - 79 Ml F F F 70 - 74 MM FFF .65 6'9 60 64 MMMM FFF'FF 55 59 M.MMMM FFFFFF 50 54 MMMMM FFFFFF 45 49 MMMMMM F F F F F F 40 44 MMMMMM FFFFFF -35 39 MMMMMM FFFFFF 30 3*4 MMMMM FFFFFF 25 29 MMMMMM FFFFFF 20 --24 M MM MMM FFFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFFF -5 - 9 [email protected],F-F 0 - 4 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF -9-8, 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1---2----3.---4 -5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP - -MEDIAN-AGE- 1-980 AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 80 8 FF 75 79 MM FFF 70 74 MMM FFFF 65 69 MMMM F F F F F 60 64 MMMM FFFFF 55 59 MMMMM FFFFFF 5 0 MMMMM FFFFFF 45 49 MMMMM FFFFF 40 44 MMMMM FFFFF -.35 --- 3*9 M M MMMM FFFF F F 30 - 34 MMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMf4MMM FFFFFFFFF 20 - 24 MMMM MMM M MM FFF F F FF F F 15 - 19 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 10 - 14 MM M M MMM M F F F F F F F F 5 - 9 -- M M M M.M.M M ..-.F F F F F F - 4 MMMMMMM FFFFFF 10- 9 8. -7 6 .5 @4. @ 3- 2 .- -1 . -0 - I - 2 -3-4-5- 6-7- -8-9. -10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 33.2) Figure IV-D (Cont.) 1990 AGE A L E F E M A L E 85 + rl, F F 80 - 84 rl FF 75 - 79 Mi I'l F F F 70 - 74 MMM FFFF 65 - 69 MMMM FFFFF 60 - 64 MMMM FFFFF 55 - 59 MMMM FFFFF 50 - 54 MMMM FFFFF 45 - 49 MMMIMM FFFFFF 40 - 44 MNIMMMMK FFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 30 - 34 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 25 - 29 ilMMMMMMMM FFFFF-FFFF 20 - 24 MMPAMMMMM FFFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMM FFFFFF 1 U - 14 M P) M M M M FFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE :z 35.7) 2000 AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F F 80 - 84 M F F 75 - 79 MM FFF 7U - (4 MM,%l FFFF 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 60 - 64 MMMM FFFF 55 - 59 M M ri in m r r r r- r 50 - 54 MMMMMM FFFFFFF 45 - 49 M m M M M M M F F F F F F F F 40 - 44 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 30 - 34 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 25 - 29 MM."4MMM FFFFFF ,nn - 24 MMMMMM FFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 10 - 14 N[IMMMMM FF@FFFF 5 - 9 MIIMMMMM FFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMMM FFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 '10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 39.1) IV-9 The median age of the population is projected to be only slightly higher in 1980 than it was in 1970. Although the median age in the Basin is higher than the median age of the United States as a whole, the Basin is not aging as rapidly as the nation during this period. The projected median age of the Basin in 1980 is 33.2 years as compared to the U.S. projected median age of 30.2 years.1 The age structure of the Basin in 1990 is marked by two related characteristics. On the one hand, there is the continued aging of the "baby boom" cohorts which are now 25-39, and on the other hand there is a slight relative in- crease in the 0-9 age groups. This relative increase in the youngest age groups is an "echo" of the "baby boom" cohorts of women as they move through child-bearing. This "echo" is expected to occur in spite of the fact that fertility for individual women is projected to remain at relatively low levels. The "echo" is a product primarily of the relatively large numbers of women moving through the child-bearing ages. One result of the aging of the population is a projected increase in the median age to 3S.7 years in 1990. The pro- jected median age for the United States is 32.8 years. By 2000 the population age structure of the Basin will have aged further with the "baby boom" cohorts now in the 35-49 age groups. The birth "echo', evident in the projected 1990 age structure has subsided and the Basin is well on the way to population stability since the distribution of the population below the 30-34 age group varies only slightly among the age groups. The projec-ted median age of the population is 39.1 years, a sharp increase over 1990 and considerably higher than the United States, which is projected to be 35.5 years. The Hudson River Basin population in year 2000 is pro- jected to be relatively stable at the younger ages and increasing rapidly at the older ages. The labor force age population is projected to be older also, as there are relatively fewer entrants into the labor force age population. The population over 65 years of age is projected to increase substantially over current levels and will, in all likelihood, continue to increase for many years after 2000. The continued aging of the population in the Hudson River Basin is likely to be the single dominant demographic force by the year 2000. 1 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 704. (series II projections) CHAPTER IV APPENDIX TABLES Appendix Table IV-A Population and Percent Chancre 1900 - 1970 1900 1910 1920 . 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 Mohawk 274,179 312,614 350,650 369,405 370,902 394,877 439,315 449,190 Fulton 42,842 44,534 44,927 46,560 48,597 51,021 51,304 52,637 Herkimer 51,049 56,356 64,9q2 64,006 59,527 61,407 66,370 67,633 Montgomery 47,488 57,567 57,928 60,076 59,142 59,594 57,240 55,883 Oneida 132,800 154,157 182,833 198,763 203,636 222,855 264,401 273,037 Aalrondack 65,597 70,054 67,514 72, (1 E--2-74,4 01 78,396 83,569 88,747 Essex 30,707 33,458 31,871 33,959 34,178 35,086 35, 300 34,4631 @am4lton 4,947 4,373 3,970 3,929 4,188 4,105 4,267 4,714 Wa r . . ren 29,943 32,223 31,673 1::171 36,131 44,002 49,402 Capital 4-40,833 493, 872 -5- -3-,5-1-5 '6 55 577,975 63 01 1 3::520 705,9/9 114,819 Albany 165,571 173,666 186,106 211,953 221,315 239,386 272,926 286,742 Rennselaer 121,697 122,276 113,129 119,781 121,834 132,607 142,585 152,510 Saratoga 61,089 61,917 60,029 63,314 65,606 74,869 89,096 121,764 Schenectady 46,852 88,235 109,363 125,021 122,494 142,497 152,896 161,078 Washington 45,624 47,778 44,888 46,412 46,726 47,144 48,476 52,725 ------ rT- 54,069 47,099 45 53,988 5T,886 Cats-, 58, 332 '47, 48,738 51,448 Greene 31,478 30,214 25,796 25,808 27,926 28,745 31,372 33,136 Schoharie 26,854 23,855 21,303 19,667 20,812 22,703 22,616 24,750 M175-ludson 553,504- 683 '682 726,286 951,907 1,053,510 1,160,238 1,503,284 1,817,717 Columbia 43,211 43,658 38,930 41,617 41,464 43,182 47,322 51,519 Dutchess 81,670 87,661 91,747 105,462 120,542 136,781 176,008 222,295 Orange 103,859 116,001 119,844 130,383 140,113 152,255 183,734 221,657 Putnam 13,787 14,665 10,802 13,744 16,555 20,307 31,722 56,696 Ulster 88,422 91,769 74,979 80,155 87,017 92,621 118,804 141,241 Rockland 38,298 46,873 45,548 59,599 74,261 89,276 136,803 229,903 westchester 181,257 28 5 344,436 520,947 573,558 625,816 808,891 894 406 1,392,4 5 1,61j, -462 2,786,115 3.189-1;9 'S5 Yotal Basin 4 @i 1 1,705,064 2,005,400 2 - 1 2 C; . S2 62,121 Vew York State 7,268,894 9,113,614 10,385,227 12,588,066 13,479,142 140830,192 16,782,304 18,241,584 of NYS 19.2 17.7 16.4 15.9 15.8 15.7 16.6 17.5 SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population AppendiX Table IV-A (Cont.) Population and Percent Change 1900-1970 (numbers in thousands) 1900-10 1910-20 1920-30 1930-40 1940-50 1950-60 1960-70 Mohawk Sub-Region 14.0 12.2 5.3 0.4 6.5 11.3 2.2 Fq1ton 3.9 0.9 3. 6 4.4 5.0 0.6 2.6 Herkimer 10.4 15.3 --'.S -7.0 3.2 8.1 1.9 Montgomery 21.2 0.6 3.7 -1.6 0.8 -4.0 -2.4 On e i d a 16.1 18.6 8.7 2.5 9.4 18.6 3.3 Xdirondack Sub-Region 6.8 -3.6 6.1 Y-.r-5 .74 6.6 6.2 Essex 9.0 -4.7 6.6 0.6 2.7 0.6 -1.9 11ami I ton -11.6 -9.2 -1.0 6.6 -2.0 3.9 10.5 N'a r r e n 7.6 -1.7 7.9 5.4 8.9 12.2 12.3 Sub-Region 12.0 4.0 10.3 2.0 10.11 10.9 9.8 Albany 4.9 7.2 13.9 4.4 8.2 14.0 5.1 Ronsselaer 0.5 -7.5 5.9 1.7 8.8 7.5 7.0 Saratoga 1.4 -3.0 5.5 3.6 14.1 19.0 36.7 Schenectady 88.3 23.9 14.3 -2.0 16.3 7.3 5.4 Washinaton 4.7 -6.0 3.6 0.5 0.9 2.8 8.8 CatsT'_I_IT-S_uF--RCgIon -7.3 -12.9 -3.4 7.2 5.6 4.9 7.2 GrE-ene -4.0 -14.6 0.0 8.2 2. 9 9.1 5.6 S@:hoh3r_ie -11.2 _io.7 -7.7 5.8 9.1 -0.4 9.4 Sub-Region 23.5 6.2 31.1 io.7 10.1 29.6 2 GGIG . Co 1 i.:7@b @ a 1.0 -10.8 6.11 -0.4 4.1 9.6 8.9 DU tch, ass 7.3 4.7 14.9 14.3 13.5 28.7 26.3 Orange 11.7 3.3 8.8 7.5 8.7 20.7 20.6 Putnam 6.4 -26.3 27.2 20.5 22.7 56.2 78.7 Rockland 22.4 -2.8 30.8 24.6 20.2 84.7 68.1. ulster 3.8 -18.3 6.9 8.6 6.4 28.3 18.9 W,@,_-tchester 511.6 21.7 51.2 10.1 9.1 29.3 10.6 Total Basin 15.9 5.6 17. 6 6.0 9.2 20.0 14.4 N 1 ew York State 25.4 14.0 21.2 7.1 10.0 13.2 8.7 SOURCE; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population Appendix Table IV-B Population by Age, 1960 Total 0-4 5-19 20-44 45-64 65+ Mohawk 439,315 46,380 112,029 134,638 93,712 52,556 Fulton 51,304 4,947 12,968 14,345 11,933 7,111 Herkimer 66,370 6,947 17,349 19,668 14,023 8,383 Montgomery 57,240 4,975 13,839 16,521 13,771 8,134 Oneida 264,401 29,511 67,873 84,104 53,985 28,928 Adirondack 83,569 9,1 9 22,672 23,175 18,531 167611 Essex 35,300 3,969 9,939 9,863 7,467 4,062 !Iamilton 4,267 398 1,129 1,117 .1,053 570 Warren 44,002 4,812 11,604 12,195 10,011 5,380 C a p i-t a-r- 705,979 74,656 1 7'@, 4 @7 216,540 157,579 78,715 Albany 272,926 28,474 67,093 84,005 63,600 29,754 Rensselaer 142,585 14,876 37,269 42,868 31,096 16,476 Saratoga 89,096 10,172 24,186 27,418 18,124 9,196 Schenectady 152,896 15,677 36,715 48,088 34,974 17,442 Washington 48,476 5,459 13,224 14,161 9,785 5,847 Catsk.111 53,988 5,139 14,314 14,372 12,554 7,609 Greene 31,372 2,884 8,024 8,256 7,557 4,651 Schoharie 22,616 2,255 6,290 6,116 4,997 2,958 Kid-Hudson 1,503,284 153,311 367,198 479,182 352,296 151,297 Columbia 47,322 4,455 12,052 13,116 11,071 6,628 Dutchess 176,008 18,443 39,565 58,177 39,731 20,092 Orange 183,734 19,277 45,799 57,587 40,112 20,959 Putnam 31,722 3,569 8,163 9,523 7,327 3,140 Ulster 118,804 12,67i 29,078 37,046 25,463 14,343 Rockland 136,803 16,253 35,933 46,605 26,705 11,307 Westchester 608,891 78,440 196,608 257,128 201,887 74,828 Total Basin 2,786,135 288,667 694,700 867,907 634,672 300,189 New York State 16,782,304 1,691,000- 4,029,633 5,482,307 3,891,774 1,687,590 SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population Appendix Table IV-B (Cont.) Population by Age,_1970 Total 0-4 5-19 20-44 45-64 65+ Mohawk 449,190 37,657 127,322 127,561 102,851 53,799 Fulton 52,637 4,316 14,366 14,105 12,820 7,030 Herkimer 67,633 5,686 19,198 18,580 15,729 8,440 Montqomery 55,883 4,085 14,386 14,668 14,398 8,346 Oneida 273,037 23 570 79,372 R0,208 ""' 4 19,983 Adirondack 88,747 7,972 26,397 24,270 19,33 9 10,769 Essex 34,631 2,976 10,470 9,282 7,642 4,261 Hamilton 4,714 353 1,281 1,160 1,205 715 Warren 49,412 4 113 14,646 13,828 '0 2 "19 Capital 774, 28 219,737 233,708 169:1:7 Albany 286,742 22,026 78,272 87,506 65,433 33,505 Rensselaer 152,510 13,011 44,395 45,276 31,986 17,842 Saratoga 121,764 12,116 37,260 38,617 23,259 10,512 Schenectady 161,078 12,808 43,563 47,278 38,244 19,185 Washington 5 2 ; B7 F2 65 `9 6 16,247 15,031 10 50491 ' "5 Catskill r, 7 1 , , @ 16,170 15,616 12 'S 8,234 Greene 33,136 2,519 8,924 8,948 7,755 4,990 Schoharie 7,846 6,668 3,244 2 7;0 5 516,481 572,089 ,Rid-Hudson 5 IA@,90?8 3954::;! 186,137 Columbia 51,519 4,141 14,405 14,106 11,622 7,245 Dutchess 222,295 19,270 63,196 74,382 43,013 22,434 Orange 221,657 19,429 64,932 68,609 44,780 .23,907 Putnam 56,696 5,768 17,741 18,186 10,035 4,966 Ulster 141,241 11,722 40,617 44,544 27,791 16,567 Rockland 229,903 21,399 75,028 76,977 40,412 16,087 Westchester 894,104 66,286 240,562 275,285 217,040 94,931 Total Basin 3,188,057 263,029 906,707 973,244 699,159 345,918 New York State 18,236,967 1,486,74i 4,953,85C 5,799,441 4,036,173 1,960,752 SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP - FULTON 1970 1975 1980 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 1984 21 52 2164 4 316 1985 3885 1898 3882 2192 2097 4289 5 - 19 746? 6904 14366 7279 6931 14210 6708 6487 13195 6194 6C32 12,126 2 -@ - 44 6746 7359 14 105 7939 80 9 2 160 31 9332 9298 18630 10490 10323 20813 45 - 64 6094 6726 12820 6038 6987 1 @Vs 5 7 C16 6719 1 ? 4 2 5 5381 6216 11597 65+ 2889 4 14 1 7 f) 3 1) 3124 4425 7549 1387 1.775 8162 3665 5361 9026 T 0 T AL 25343 27294 52637 26365 28 535 54700 27117 29177 56?94 279?2 30029 57951 1990 1995 ? 0 f) 0 2005 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MAL E FEMALE TOTAL MAL E FEMAL E TOTAL MALE FEMAL E TUTAL 0 - 4 2 ? 15 ? 120 4335 ? 17 9 2n84 4263 @ 10 3 2n 1 o 41 1 3 ?rl ; 1 1951 3992 5 - 19 6174 5912 12086 6377 6105 12482 6554 6275 12829 6463 6134 12647 20 - 44 1 1 log 1091 4 22023 1 1262 10804 22066 10754 10410 21154 10273 10029 2 0 3 0 22 45 - 64 54 32 6110 1 1562 5 8 9 [) 65H 12470 7138 7662 14800 8434 8826 1 .7260 65+ 3777 5 712 9489 3716 582? 9538 3510 5512 90. 1 2 339? 5 2) 5 8597 TOTAL 28707 30 7R 9 59495 294?4 31 195 60819 30159 31949 619ng 30,503 32195 62793 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD A P R I L 1976 POPULATION PYRAMIDS FULTON 1970 1980 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F F 85 + M F F 80 - 84 M F F 80 - 64 M F F 75 - 79 MM FFF 75 - 79 MM F F F 70 - 74 MMM F FFF 70 - 74 MMMM F F F F F 65 - 69 MMMM FFFFF 65 - 69 MMMMM FFFFFF 61 - 64 MMMMM FF FF F F 60 - 64 MMMMM FFFFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMMM F FFFF F 55 - 59 M M MM M FF F F F F 5@ - 54 MMMMMM FFFFFFF 50 - 54 MMMMM FFFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMMM FFFF F F F 45 - 49 MMMM FF F F F 49 - 44 MMMMM FFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMM FFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMM FFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMM F F F F F F 30 - 34 MMMMM F F FF F 30 - 34 MM MMM.'A FFFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMM F F F F F F 25 - 29 MMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F 21 - 24 MMMMMM FFFFF F F 20 - 24 MM MM MMM M F FF F F F FF is - 19 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 10 - 1 4 M MM MMMM r4MM FF FF F F F F F 10 - 1 4 MMMMMMMM F F F F F F FF 5 - 9 MMMMMMAMM FFFFF F F F F 5 - 9 M. MM M Mlv M FF F F F F F 0 - 4 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 32.8) (MEDIAN AGE - 32.7) 1 99n 2000 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M FF 85 + M F F 80 - 84 MM F FF 80 - 84 MfA F F F 75 - 79 MMM F F FF 75 - 79 MM F F F F 70 - 74 MMMM FFFFF 70 - 74 MMM FFFFF 65 - 69 MMMM FFFF F F 65 - 69 MM.M -F FF F 60 - 64 MMMM FFFFF F 6C - 64 MMMM F F F F 55 - 59 MMMM FFFF F 55 - 59 M MMMM FFFFFF 50 - 54 MMMM FFFFF 50 - 54 MMMMMM F F F F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMM F F F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F 40 - 44 MMMMMM FFFF F F F 40 - 44 MMMMMMrO.M FFFFFFFF @5 - 39 MMMMMM.MM FFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMM.MM FFFFFFF 30 - 34 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 30 - 34 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMMMM FFFFF F F 25 - 29 M M M M M M FF F F F F 20 - 24 MkIMMMMM FFFFF F F 20 - 24 M A v'A M M FF F F F 15 - 19 M M M M M M FFFF F F 15 - 19 MMMMMMM FF F F FF 10 - 14 MNIMMMMM FF FF F F F 1 tO - 1 4 M MM r-MMM FF F F F F F 5 - 9 MMMMMMrl FFFFF F F 5 - 9 MMM MMMM FFF F F F F 0 - 4 MMMMMMM FFFFF F F 9 - 4 M M. M M M M MI. FFF F FF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION SY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 35.0) (MEDIAN AGE = 37.9) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP HERKIMER 1970 1975 1980 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 2916 277C 5686 ?556 2447 5 0 r) 3 24 1 Q 2316 4735 2592 2481 5073 5 - 19 9886 9312 19198 9396 8857 18M 8480 8023 16503 7541 7201 14742 2n - 44 9055 9525 18580 10062 10133 20245 1 1539 1 1396 22935 12842 12532 25374 45 - 64 7514 8715 157?9 7493 8198 15871 6902 7 9 2 P 14822 6425 7331 13756 65+ 3513 49P7 S440 3493 5 r) 5 3 8546 3685 54 75 9 1 6 r' 4006 6071 10077 TOTAL 3?894 34 749 67633 3 2 9 9 34928 6791 8 3 3 " 2 5 35130 69155 3 3 4 Cl 05 35616 69022 1990 1995 20DO 2005 MAL E FEMALE TOTAL MAL E F EMAL E TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL M A L E FEMALE TOTAL -0 - 4 2662 2547 5209 2 585 2473 5058 2471 2363 4 8 @ 4 2 367 2264 4631 5 - 19 7 30r) 6993 1 4 ? 93 7471 7159 14630 7653 7335 1498?1 7539 722 7 14766 23 - 44 1 35 11 13079 26590 1 3558 1 3057 26615 12917 1 2477 25394 12261 11677 24138 45 - 64 6364 704 2 13406 6849 7468 14 31 7 8237 8673 16 9 10 9584 9960 19544 65+ 4136 66nl 10737 4167 6809 10976 3861 6594 10455 3749 6376 10125 TO T AL 33973 36262 7 !) 2 3 5 34631 36966 71596 351 79 37442 7 ? 5 @k 1 35500 37704 73204 NYS ECONOMI C DEVELOPMENT BOARD APRIL 1978 POPULATION PYRAMIDS HERKIME, 19?c 1980 AGE MAL E. FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85 + M F F V - 84 M FF 80 - 84 M FF 75 - 79 MM FF F 75 - 79 MM FF F 70 - 74 MMM FF FF 70 - 74 MM M. F F F F 65 - 69 MMM FF FF 65 - 69 MMMM F F F F F 60 - 64 MMMM FF FF F 6n - 614 MMMMM F F F F F F 55 - 59 MMMMMM FFFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFFF 5 r' - 54 MMMMMM FF FF F F F 50 - 54 M M M M M FF F F FF 45 - 40 MMMMMM FFFFFFF 45 - 49 mmm-m FFFFF 4@ - 44 MMMMMM FFFFFF 49 - 44 MMMMM FFFFF 35 - Y4 MMMM FFFFF 35 - 39 MM+%)Wl FFFFFF 3 n - 34 M M M M M FF FFF 30 - 34 M MM M M,,'Oy FFFF F F F ? 5 - 29 M MM M M M F F F F F F 25 - 29 MM MM M N! r,!,! FF F F F F F F 21 - )4 M M M Mki M FF F F F F F ?0 - 24 M M MM M M M PM F F F F F F F F 15 - 19 M M M MMM M NI M F F FF F F FF 15 - 19 M M M rl M M M M. M FF F F FF F F F 10 - 1 4 MMMMMMMMNIM FF FFF F FFF F 10 - 1 4 mm mm m mm m FFFF F F F F 5 - 9 MMM MM.'-lM %1M M FF FFF F FF F 5 - 9 MMAMMMM FF F F FF F 1@ - 4 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 0 - 4 MWNIMmlyim FFFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION 9Y AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 31 .1 (MEDIAN AGE = 31.7) 199C 2onn AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + -M FF 85 + M FF 80 - 94 M FF 80 - 84 (A M FF F 75 - 79 MM FF FF 75 - 79 M M F F F F 7@ - 74 MMM FF F F F 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 65 - 69 MMMM FFFFFF 65 - 69 MMM, FFFF 60 - 64 MMMM FFFFF 60 - 64 MMNM FFFF 55 - 59 MMMM FFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFF 51) - 54 M M MM M F F FFF 50 - 54 MMMMYM F F F F F F 45 - 49 M MmM m FF FF F F 45 - 49 MMMMMMMN, FF F F F F F F 4@ - 44 MMMMMM FFFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMM FF FFF F FF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMM F FF F F F F F 3r' - -34 MMMMMMMk*M FFFFFFFF 30 - 34 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 25 - ? 9 M %VA M *4 MIPA M F F F F F F FF 25 - 29 ',', r1i M MM M F F F F Ff 71) - @ 4 M M M MMM M FF F F F F F 20 - 24 Wl M M r-l M F F F F FF 15 - 19 MMMMMMM FF FF F F 15 - 19 M 1 fl M. Y,:,l M FFF F F F 111 - 14 M',l M M MM ',l FF FFF F F 10 - 14 M MM M M IM, M FF F F FF F 5 - 9 MMMMAMM FF FF F F F 5 - 9 M M N1 M m FFF F F F F - 4 MM.'AMMMMM FF FFF F F 0 - 4 M.M M M M i*-M FF F F FF F 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 ? 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION 8Y AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 14.3) (MEDIAN AGE = 37.5) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP MONTGOMERY 1970 105 1980 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 2151 1934 4085 1925 184 3 3768 1875 1794 3669 1967 1883 -3850 5 - 19 7382 70n4 14386 6744 6299 13043 6239 5868 12107 5860 5485 11345 20 - 44 7033 7635 14668 7833 8034 15867 8907 8850 17757 10003 9776 19784 45 - 64 6806 7592 14398 6500 7450 13950 5988 6963 17951 5353 6343 11696 65+ 3467 4879 8346 3453 5954 8507 3673 558-1 9253 3 9 30 6105 10035 T 0 1 A L 26839 29044 55883 26455 28680 55135 26682 2 99 5 5 55737 271 13 29592 56710 1990 1995 2000 2005 -MALE FEMALE T 0 T A L MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 1985 1 gno 3885 1880 1799 3679 1832 1752 35Ft,4 1782 1 704 3486 5 - 19 5746 5495 1 1241 58P7 5557 11364 5799 5554 11352 5655 5419 1 1072 20 - 44 10551 in189 ?0 740 10499 100?7 20526 9906 9451 19387 9464 9118 18582 4 5 - 64 5215 5951 1 1 166 5732 6352 12034 6982 7393 143 75 8184 8412 16596 65+ 4061 6545 10606 1968 6652 10620 3655 6379 1 0@1 3 4 3318 5971 9289 TOTAL 27558 30090 57638 27886 30387 5 8 ? 7 3 29173 30559 58732 28491 30624 59025 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD APRIL 1979 POPULATION PYRAMIDS MONTGOML 1970 1980 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 35 + M F F 85 + M FF 8) - 84 M F F 80 - 84 M FF F 75 - 79 MMM FFFF 75 - 79 MM FfFF 7C - 74 MMM F F F F F 70 - 74 MMMM FF F F F 65 - 69 M MM M F F F F F 65 - 69 M M M M @M FF F F F F 61 - 64 MMMMM FFFFFF 60 - 64 MMMMMM, FFFFFFF 55 - 59 MMMrAMM FF F F F F F 55 - 59 m m m %,. m m FF F F F F F 5 rl - 54 MMmr-IMMM FF FFF F F 50 - 54 m mm m;A FFFF F F 45 - 49 MMMMMM FFFFFFF 45 - 49 MMMM FFFFF 41 - 44 MM'41v,'4 FF F F F F 40 - 44 m ri m m FF F F F '15 - 39 MAMM F F F F F 35 - 39 M M M M N1 FF F F F 30 - 34 MMMM FFFF 30 - 34 MMMM.AMM FFFFFFF 25 - 29 MM%lMM FFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMMM.M FFFFFFFF @ I - 24 M M MMM M FF FF F F F 20 - 24 M M %I.M M rl M M FFFF F F F 15 - 19 MMMMMMMMM FF FF F F FF is - 19 M M MA Mll M M FFFF F F F 11 - 1 4 MMMMMMMMM FF FFF F FF F 10 - 1 4 M M M I M,%l V1 M FFFFF F F 5 - 9 M MM M M A M M FF FFF F F F 5 - 9 MMMMMN'," FFFF F F F 4 M M 'A, M M A M M F F F F F F F 0 - 4 mmmmmm V, F F F F F F 1C 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1C 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 " 1 ? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION qY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 36.3) (MEDIAN AGE = 34.6) 1990 2000 AGE MALE FEVIALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F F F 85 + M FFF 80 - 84 MM FFF 80 - 84 MM FF F F 75 - 79 MMM F F F F F 75 - 79 MMM F F F F F 71) - 74 M %IM 'A F F F F F F 70 - 74 MIN', M F F F F F 65 - 69 MMMMM F F F F F F 65 - 6 q MMM FFF F F 6'@ - 64 m m mm M F F F FF F 69 - 64 MMMM FFF F 55 - 5 9 MMMM FF FFF 55 - 59 M M M M tv FFFFF 5f? - 5 4 MMMM FF FFF so - 54 M MM M M N1 M FFF F F F F 45 - 49 MMAMM FFFFF 45 - 49 AMMMMMMY FFFFFFFF 4 -:'@ - 44 mmmm,4ym FF F FF F F 40 - 44 M M M M M 1-1 M.M. FFF F F F FF 35 - -19 M M.M M M '-I t-l M FF FFF F FF 35 - 39 M M M M M. M V FFFFF F F 3 0 - 34 MMMMMNifAM FF F F F F F 30 - 34 M M M M ',lt-l M, FFF F F F 5 - ? 9 m m mm m mi m F F F F F F F 25 - 29 M M M *A M V' fFF F F F @ - 24 -m M M WA M FF FFF F 20 - 24 M M 10. M M M FFFFF 15 - 19 MM MMM I F F F F F F 15 - 19 m m m m ro, m, F F F F F F 1 1@ - 14 MMMMMmM F F FF F F 10 - 14 MAM M V M fA FFF F F F F 5 - 9 WA M MWA M FF FFF F F 5 - 9 M ,M M M Y. M FFFF F F 3 - 4 MMMMMMM FF F FF F F 0 - 4 M M M CA, M M F FF F FF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 01 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP P E R C F N T P 0 P U L A I 1 0 N 8 Y A G EGROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 36.8) (MEDIAN AGE = 39. 6) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP ONEIDA 1970 1975 1990 1995 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL r 9767 9346 19113 @W - 4 12020 11550 ?3570 10029 9599 19628 9500 9092 18592 5 - 19 40266 391n6 79372 36899 35664 72563 32045 3 0 8.'l 4 6?849 28254 27052 55306 20 - 44 39597 4r6 1 1 80?08 42737 42374 85111 4 5990 45430 91420 49348 48456 97804 45 - 64 29674 31230 59904 27925 30842 58767 26103 28741 54844 24339 26822 51161 65+ 12187 17796 29983 12469 la736 312 ? 5 1 3;> 5 3 20282 33535 13662 21268 34930 TOTAL 132744 10293 273037 130C59 137?35 267294 126891 134349 261240 1 25370 1 32944 258314 1990 1 995 209 0 ?005 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 3 - 4 9731 9309 19040 9182 8782 17964 8769 8395 17154 3224 7864 1608a 5 - 19 25766 25631 5 ? 3 9 7 26828 25709 52537 26731 ? 561 5 52346 25898 24815 50713 2 '-) - 44 5024-1 48805 99135 47578 46759 94337 44564 4 3742 883r6 415 85 4074 3 82328 45 - 64 23935 26132 49967 26634 27?97 51-631 3 0 3 ? 1 3 1 ?) 6 62027 34 1 1 3 35429 69542 65+ 14034 ?2269 36303 13755 22355 361 10 131 86 21636 34822 12660 20958 33618 TOTAL 12 4 606 132?36 256342 123977 131602 255579 123571 131084 254655 1 22480 129809 252289 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD APRIL 1978 POPULATION PYRAMIDS ONEIDA 1970 1980 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE - FEMALE 85 + M F 85 + M FF 81 - 84 M F F 90 - 84 M FF 75 - 79 MM FFF 75 - 79 MM FFF 70 - 74 MM FFF F 70 - 74 M W, M FF F F 65 - 69 MMM F FF F 65 - 69 M WO M, FFF F F 6 n - 64 MMMM F FF F F 60 - 64 M M M 1-1 M. F FF F F F 5 5 - 59 MMMMM F FFF F F 55 - 59 MMMtAM F FF F FF 50 - 54 M M M M M M FFFFF F 50 - 54 M M M M M FFFF F 45 - 49 MMMMMM F F FF F F 45 - 49 M M W, M M FFF F F 4'1 - 44 MMMMM FFFFFF 40 - 44 MMKPM FFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMM FFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMVM FFFFFF 31 - 34 MMMMM FFFFF 30 - 34 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 25 - 29 M%IMMM%l FFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMMfAM FFFFFFFF P') - ? 4 MMMMMMM FFFF F F F 20 - 24 m m m m m mm, r.'M FFF F F F F F 15 - 1 9 M M MM M M M M M FFFF F F FF F 15 - 19 M,'AMMMMMN'M FFF F F F F F F 10 - 14 MMMMMVMMMM FFFFFFFFFF 10 - 14 MM.'-lMMW%'r-l FFFFFFFF s - 9 M M M M I MM A M M FFFF F FFF F F 5 - 9 W-11AM Mr@ M FFFF F F F 0 - 4 MMMMMMMMM F FFF F F FF 0 - 4 M. MA NIM N' M FFF F F F F 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 ? 1 n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10, 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION RY AGE GROUP PERCENT PCPULATION RY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 29.0) (MEDIAN AGE = 31.5) 1990 2 Orl 0 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M FF 85 + M FF 9@ - 84 M FF 80 - 84 M FFF 75 - 79 MM FFF 75 - 79 MM FF FF 70 - 74 MMM FF F F F 70 - 74 M M '-' FF F F 65 - 69 MMMM FFF F F 65 - 69 M r-P, vl FFF F 60 - 6 4 M MM %I FFF F F 60 - 64 M M P! @*,l FFF F F 55 - 59 MMM'A FFFFF 55 - 59 MMMIKIM FFFFFF 59 - 54 MMMMM F FFF F 50 - 54 MMMM"MM FFF F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMM F FFF F F 45 - 49 M M M MIM M M M F FF F F F F F 40 - 44 MMMMMMMM FFF F F F F 40 - 44 M M M M M M 1v M FF F F F F F F 35 - 39 MMMMMMMM F FF F F FFF 35 - 39 M M M M M M M M FFF F F F F F 30 - 34 MMMMMMMM FFF FF FFF 30 - 34 N M M M M. M, M FFFF F F F 25 - 29 MMMMMM,4M FFF FF F FF 25 - 29 M MINI M r. M FFF F F F 20 - 24 MM WAM M M FFF F F FF 20 - ? 4 MMMMMM FFF F F F 15 - 19 MMMMMMM F FF F F F 15 - 19 M M M M M M V FFF F F F 19 - 14 MMMMMMM FFFF F FF 10 - 1 4 M M f-l M M. M m FFF F F F F 5 9 M M M M M M *4 FFFFF FF 5 9 M M M M. M M M, FFF F F F F 4 MMMMM,'-IMM FFFF F F F 0 4 M MM M 'Alm.%' FFF F F F F 101 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 ;' 1 n 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 5 ? 1 01 ? 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION 9Y AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION :iY AGC GPOUP (MEDIAN AGE = 34.4 ) (MEDIAN A6F = 37.6) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP - MOHAWK SUB-REGION 1970 1975 198C 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL n@ - 4 19239 18418 37657 16495 15789 32284 15778 15100 30878 16518 15807 32325 5 - 19 64996 62V6 127322 60318 57751 118069 53472 51132 104654 47849 45770 93619 20 - 44 62431 65130 127561 68571 68683 137@54 75768 74974 150742 82683 81087 163775 45 - 64 490,98 53763 102851 47946 53667 1 n 16 1 3 44699 5034 3 950.42 41498 46712 88210 65+ 2?056 3174 3 53799 2?539 33@88 55V7 23998 36112 601 10 25263 38805 64068 TOTAL 217810 231 3RO 449190 215869 229178 445047 213715 22 771 1 4414?6 13 3 16 223181 441997 1 99r) 1995 2 1.10 0 2005 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEM .ALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 16593 15876 32469 1 5826 -15138 30964 15175 14510 29685 144 14 13783 28197 5 - 19 45986 44031 9 0 0 17 46483 44530 91013 46736 44779 91 51 5 45553 43645 89198 20 - 44 85411 83077 168488 82897 80647 163 5 4'4 78141 7 61 7@ C 15424 1 73533 71767 145350 45 - 64 411846 45255 86101 4 510 5 48397 93502 52678 55434 1091 1 2 60315 62627 122942 65+ 26-003 41127 67135 25606 41638 67244 24 212 40111 6432 3 P 31 19 38510 61629 TOTAL 214844 229366 4 4 4 ? 10 215917 ?30350 446267 216942 2 3 n_ 9 3 4 447876 216984 230332 447316 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD APRIL 1978 POPULATION PYRAMIDS MOHAWK S -REGION 1970 19$30 AGE MAL E- FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 M F 85 + M F F 81 84 M F F 80 - 84 M F F 75 79 MM FFF 75 - 79 M M. F F F 7 0 7 @, MMM F FF F 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 65 69 AMM F F F F 65 - 69 M M MM F F F F F 60 64 MMMM F F F F F 6.9 - 64 MMMMM F FF F F F 5 S 59 MMMMM FFF F F F 55 - 59 MMMMM F F F F F F 50 54 MMMMMM FFF F F F F 50 - 54 MMMMM F FF F F F 45 49 MMMMMM FFFFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMM FFFFF 4? 44 MMMMM F F FF F F 40 - 44 MMMMM, F F F F F 35 39 M M MM M F FF F F 35 - 39 M M M Mt-1 M F FF F F F 39 - 34 M MM ol M F FF F F 3 ll - 34 MMMMMMM F F F F F F F 25 - ?9 MMMMMM FFFFFF ?5 - 29 MMMMMMM.M FFFFFFFF ? @ - 24 MMMMMMM FFF F F F F 20 - 24 M ,M M M M'vl M M F FF F F F F F 15 - 19 M.'A M 'A M 'A M V M F F F F F F F F F 15 - 19 M M M MINI ol ol "'.'A F F F f F F F F 1 - 14 M M M -M M M M M',! M FFFFF F FF F F 10 - 1 4 M r-1 M',l M M N1 M F FF F F F F F 9 M *4 M %I M M M I FO *4 F FF F F F F F F 5 9 Mi%l M M M v M F FF F F F F 4 MMIMMMMMMM FFFFF F FF 0 4 M Pl M M M N' M F FF F F F F 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 n 1 ? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = @9.0) (MEDIAN AGE = 31. 5) 1990 2 000 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F F 85 + M F F 80 84 M F F 80 - 84 M F F F 75 79 MM F F F F 75 - 79 M F-m F F F F 73 74 MMM FFFFF 70 - 74 MMM FFFF 65 69 MMMM FFFFF 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 61 64 MMMM FFFFF 60 - 64 MMMM FFFF 55 59 MMMM F FF F F 55 - 59 MMMM.M F F F F F F 50 54 MMMM FFFFF 50 - 54 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 45 49 MMMMM F F F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMMMMM F FF F F F F F 49 44 MMMMMfAM FFFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 35 39 MMMMMMMM F FF F F F FF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMM F FF F F F F F 31) 34 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 30 - 34 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 25 29 M M *4 MM M 'P m F F F F F F F F 25 - 29 , I.,l r i r i r 1 MF F F F F F 79 @ 4 MMMMMMM F F F F F F F 29 - 24 MM M M M M FFFFFF 15 19 MMMMMMM F F F F F F 15 - 19 M MM M li M M F FF F F F 10 - 14 MMMMIVM FFFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMmM F FF F F FF 5 - 9 M M M M M f! M. F F F F F F F 0 - 4 MVMMMMM FFF F F F F 0 - 4 M MM M 'M M M F FF F F F 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN, AGE = 34.4) (MEDIAN AGE = 37.6) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP - ESSEX 1970 105 1980 1985 MALE FEMALE T 0 T A L MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 1517 1459 7976 1301 1245 2546 1331 1273 2604 1475 1411 2886 5 - 19 5369 5101 10470 5045 4856 9901 4637 4443 908 0 4232 4050 8282 20 - 44 4466 4 816 9282 5156 5260 10416 59C1 5976 11877 6732 6686 13418 45 - 64 @744 3398 7642 3730 4032 7762 3741 4120 7861 3685 4154 ?839 65+ 1785 2476 4261 2002 2739 4741 2189 2968 5157 2334 3191 5525 IOTAL 16881 17750 34631 17234 18132 35366 17799 1 8790 36579 18458 19492 37950 1990 1995 206C 2005 @MALE FEMALE T 0 T A L MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 1569 1493 3053 1535 1468 3003 145() 1386 2836 1416 1354 2770 5 - 19 4 145 3964 9109 4367 4180 8547 4554 4358 8912 4524 4 329 8853 ?0 - 44 7256 7 108 14364 7515 7236 14751 7258 7069 14327 7078 .6873 13951 49 - 64 3755 4201 7956 3893 4370 8263 4566 49?5 9491 5262 5545 10807 65+ ?369 3371 5739 2366 3461 5827 2354 3444 5798 2346 3477 5823 TOTAL 19084 20137 39?21 19676 20715 40391 20182 21182 41364 20626 21 578 42204 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD APRIL 1978 POPULATION PYRAMIDS ESSEX 1970 1990 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85 + M F F 811 - 84 M FF 80 - 84 M F F 75 - 79 MM FFF 75 - 79 M, M F F F 71 - 74 MMM F FF F 70 - 74 MMM FF F F 65 - 69 M Mf-l M F F F FF 65 - 69 MMMM FF F F F 69 - 64 MMMMM F F FF F 60 - 64 M M Mr-1 M FF F F F F 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFFF 53 - 54 M M M .74 rl.@ FF F F F F 50 - 54 MMMMM F F F F FF 45 - 49 MMMMM F FFF F F 45 - 49 MMMMM FF F F F 4') - 4 4 MMMMM FFFFF F 40 - 44 MMMMM F F F F FF 35 - 39 MMMMrA FFFFF 35 - 39 M MMMM F F F F FF 30 - 34 MMMMM F F F FF 30 - 34 MMMWAM F F F F FF 25 - 29 M M IMM @'A F F FF F F 25 - ? 9 MM MM NIMM rl F F F F F F F ;11 - ? 4 M MMM M F FFFF F 20 - 24 MM MM MrIM, M F F F F F F F F 15 - 19 MMMfOM M Wl M F F FFF FF F 15 - 19 MMM MM M MM M FFF F F F F F F 19 - 14 MMMMM%iMP4MMM FFFFFF F F F F F 10 - 1 4 M MA W-l V M t-I M FF F F F F FF 5 - 9 MMMMMMM'IMMM FFFFFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMMMM%l FFFFFF F F 0 - 4 M %i P? %R M '0 FFFF F F F 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 @ 1 ') 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 r) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION RY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 30.2) (MEDIAN AGE = 32.1) 1991, 20ro AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F F 85 + M F F 80 - 84 M F F 80 - 84 M F F F 75 - 79 MM FFF 75 - 79 MM FFFF 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 79 - 74 MMM F F F F 65 - 69 MMMM FFFFF 65 - 69 MMMM FFFF 60 - 64 MMMM FFFFF 60 - 64 MMMM FFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFFF 5.0 - 54 MMMMM FFFFF 50 - 54 M Ml M rt FF F F FF 45 - 49 M M -4 WA FFFFF F 45 - 49 MMMMMMMM F F F F FF F 40 - 44 M M WIM M F FFFF F 4 f) - 44 M M M M M M M M F F F F F F F F 15 - 39 MM(AMMMMM FFFFF FF 35 - 39 MMMMM'IMM FFF F F F F F 31 - 31. mmmmmmmm F FFFF F F F 30 - 34 M M M M 14. M M F F F F F F F 25 - ? 9 MMMMMMMM FFFFF F F F 25 - 29 M M M M V1 M FF F P FF 20 - 24 MMMf4MMM F FFFF F F 20 - 24 MA M i A M M FF F F F F 15 - 19 MMMMMM F FFFF F 15 - 19 M M MM M m M FFF F FF 10 - 14 M M Im M A M M F FFFF F F 10 - 14 MMMMMMMM FF F F F F F 5 - 9 M MM M M r4M Nl FFFF F F F 5 - 9 MMMMMMMP-l FF F F F F F 0 - 4 MMMMMMMM FFFF F F F F 0 - 4 MMMMMMf-*, FF F F F F F 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1) 12 3 45 6 7 8 9 10 1 r) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 01 ? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION 3Y tGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 34 .01) (MEDIAN AGE = 36.9) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP HAMILTON 1970 1975 1980 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MAL E FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 185 168 353 156 149 305 157 151 308 1 78 170 348 5 - 19 666 615 1291 669 606 1275 598 558 1156 523 492 1015 20 - 44 55? 6n8 1 160 659 69? 1351 794 796 1570 905 870 1775 45 - 64 578 627 1 205 562 633 1195 557 606 1163 517 604 1121 65+ 357 358 71 5 403 457 8 6 0 414 552 966 449 61 8 1067 TOTAL ?338 2376 4714 2449 2537 4996 2 5 1 P. 2653 5163 2572 2754 5326 1990 1995 20,10 2005 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL M A L E FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 4 184 176 360 1 76 168 344 161 154 31 5 152 144 296 5 - 19 505 484 989 525 504 1029 538 51 7 1055 520 498 1018 20 - 44 950 907 1 857 969 905 1873 910 84 7 1757 841 805 1646 45 - 64 543 612 1 155 565 634 1199 665 7? 7 1392 792 799 1591 65+ 436 651 1087 4 i 1 657 1068 390 639 1029 372 641 1013 TOTAL 2618 2830 5448 2645 2868 5513 2,664 2984 5548 2677 2887 5564 NYS E.CONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD APRIL 1978 POPULATION PYRAMIDS HAMILTON 1970 1980 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85+ M F F 80 - 84 MM FF 80- 84 MM FFF 75 - 79 M M F F 75- 79 MMMM F FF F 70 - 74 MMMM F F F F 70- 74 MMMMM F F F F FF 65 - 69 MMMMMMM FFFFFF 65- 69 MMMvM FFFFFFF 60 - 64 MMMMMM FFFFFFF 60- 64 MM MMM M F F F F F F 55 - 59 MMMMMM FFFFFFF 55- 5@ MMMMM FFFFFF 5 n - 5 4 MMMMMmM FF FF F F 50- 54 MMMMM FFFF FF 45 - 49 MMAMM FF FF F F 45- 49 M M 14M M F FF F F 40 - 44 MMMMM FFFFFF 40- 44 MMMMM FFFFFF 35 - 39 M M A M M FF FF F -15- 39 M M F@', tA M M FFF F F 30 - 34 M ". M;-- FF FF F 30- 34 M M M M, M FFF F FF 25 - 29 MWIMM FFFFF 25- 29 MMAMWIM FFFFFFF 21 - 24 MMM M F F F F F 20- 24 MMMMMMMM F F F F F F F is - 19 MMMMM4MM FF F F F F F F 15- 19 MMMMMMMM FF F F FF FF 10 - 14 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 10- 14 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMM'*'M FFFFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMM FFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 0 - 4 MAMMMM FFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 in 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION' BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 35.6) (MEDIAN AGE = 36.7) 1990 20011) AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + MM FF F 85+ MM F F F F 8n 84 MM FFFF 80- 84 MM FFFF 75 79 MMM FF FF F F 75- 79 MMM F F F F F 70 74 MMMMM FF F F F F 70- 74 MMM FF F F F 65 69 MMMM FFFFFF 65- 69 MMMM FFFFF 60 64 MMMMM FFFFFF 60- 64 MMMM FFFFFF 55 59 MMMMM FFFFF 55- 59 MMMMMM FFFFFF 50 54 MMMMM FF Ff FF 50- 54 MMMMMM FFFFFF 45 49 MMMMMM FF FF FF 45- 49 MMMMMMMM FFF F FF F F 40 44 MMMMM FFFFFF 40- 44 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 35 39 MMMMMMMM FF FF F F F F 35- 39 MM.MMMMMM FFF F F F F F 30 34 MMMMMMMM FrFFFFF 30- 34 MMMMMM FFFFFF 25 ?9 MMMMMIMM FF FF F F F 25- 29 1 MM (A M F F F F F 2@) ? 4 M M N M V, M F F F F F 20- 24 M M M r,M F F F F is 19 MMAMM FFFFF 15- 19 MMMMMM FFFFFF I 1 1 4 M MM A M M FF FF FF 10- 14 M M -M M M M, M FFFF F F F 5 9 M M M r-1 V* M F F F F F F 5 9 M W@ MiNIM M F F F F F F 0 4 MMMMAMM FFFFFF 0 4 MMMMMM, FFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 ? I (' 1 ? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION By AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 38.0) (MEDIAN AGE = 41.1) PROJECTED POPULATION-IN EACH AGE GROUP - WARREN 1970 1975 1980 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 ?354 2?89 4 643 2190 2097 4287 2173 2081 4254 2511 2403 4914 5 - 19 7512 7134 14646 7781 7387 15168 7448 7162 14610 6987 6758 13745 21 - 44 6494 7334 13928 7663 8321 15984 9374 9753 19127 11 157 11310 22467 45 - 64 4981 5511 10492 4988 5617 10605 4872 5571 1044 3 4719 5501 1021 1 65+ ? 3ng 3494 5793 2525 "17 8 1 6306 2623 4007 663C 2692 4132 6824 TO T AL 23650 25752 49402 25147 27203 52350 26490 28574 55064 28057 30104 58161 1990 1995 2nOO 2005 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 2731 2613 5344 2719 2600 5319 2691 2573 5264 2669 2 55 2 5221 5 - 19 7094 6827 13921 7619 7327 14946 81 36 7819 15955 8302 7974 16276 20 - 44 12440 12469 24909 13190 1 2904 26094 1 3094 12780 25874 12912 12690 25602 45 - 64 4 715 5555 10270 SC84 6106 11 190 6288 7196 13484 7840 854 1 16381 65+ 28n6 4279 7n85 28?8 4336 7164 2708 4233 6941 2606 4 133 6739 TOTAL 29786 31743 61529 31440 33273 64713 32917 3 1,60 1 67518 34 329 35890 70219 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD APRIL 1978 POPULATION PYRAMIDS WARREN 1970 1980 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85 + M F 80 - 84 M F F 80 - 84 M F F 75 - 79 MM FFF 75 - 79 MM FFF 79 - 74 MMM FFFF 70 - 74 MMM FFFF 65 - 69 MMM FFFFF 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 60 - 64 MMMMM FFFFF 60 - 64 MOMM FFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFF SO - 54 MMMMM FFFFFF 50 - 54 mmmmM FFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMMM FFFFFF 45 - 49 MMMM, FFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMM FFFFFF 40 - 44 mmr.,,M FFFFF 35 - 39 M M4M M FF FF F 35 - 39 M M. M M M FFF FfF 30 - 34 M M MAA M FF FF F 30 - 34 M,*l M M r-l M FFF F FF F ? 5 - 29 M r-l M M M M FF FF F F 25 - 29 M M M M M t, M M M FFF FF F F FF 2n - 24 MMMMMM FFFFFFF 20 - 24 MMMMAMMMM FFFFFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMMMM FF FF F F FF F 15 - 19 M M r4 rl M M m M m, @l FFF FFF F F F 10 - 1 4 MMMMMMMMMMM F F FF F F F F F F 10 - 14 M M M f-I M M V'M,-1 FFF F FF F F F 5 - 9 MMMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMMM'IMM FF FF F FF F F 0 - 4 M M M M M r.*. r-l M FFF FF F F F 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 in 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 01 ? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 28.9) (MEDIAN AGE = 28. 8) 1991 2000 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85 + M F 81 - 84 M FF 80 - 84 M FF 75 - 79 MM F F F 75 - 79 (0, M FFF 70 - 74 M M FF FF 70 - 74 N M FFF 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 65 - 69 MM FFF 60 - 64 MMMM F F F F 60 - 64 MMM F F F F 55 - 59 MMM FFFF 55 - 59 MMMM FFFF 50 - 54 MMMM F F FF 50 - 54 MMMMM FFF F FF 45 - 49 MMMMM FFFFF 45 - 49 MM4MMMM FFFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMM FFFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMMMMIM FFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMM,'4MM FFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMIMMMMIFAM FFFFFFFFF 30 - 34 MM%IMMMMMM F F FF F F F F F 30 - 34 MMMMMMMM FF F F FF F F 25 - ? 9 MMMMMMMMMM FF F F F F F F F 25 - 29 MMMMMPIM FF F F F F F 20 - 24 MMMMMMMM F F FF F F F F 20 - 24 MMMMMM FFF F FF 15 - 19 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMNIM FFFFFFF 1'3 - 14 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMIMM FFFFFFFF 5 - 9 M MM M M4M M FF FF F F F F 5 - 9 M M tv, MM M M M FF F F F F F F .1)- 4 MMMMf4MMMM FFFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMIMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 ? 1 1 1 2 7, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION r3Y AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 30.9) (MEDIAN AGE = 33.3) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP ADIRONDACK @IJBREGION 1970 105 1980 1985 M A L'E FEMALE TOTAL MAL E FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 4056 3916 7972 3647 3491 7138 3661 3505 7166 4164 3934 8148 5 - 19 13547 12950 26397 13495 12849 26344 12683 12163 24846 11742 11300 23042 @11 - 44 11 512 12 758 24 270 13478 14273 27751 16059 16515 32574 18794 18866 37660 ,5 '9303 1 Or)36 19339 928C, 10282 19562 9170 1 0297 19467 8912 10259 19171 - 64 11907 5226 7527 12753 5475 7941 13416 65+ 4451 6318 10769 4 9 30 6977 TOTAL 42869 45878 88747 44830 47872 927-02 46799 50017 96806 49087 52350 101437 1990 1995 2000 2005 -MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 9 - 4 4475 4282 8757 4430 4236 8666 4302 4113 8415 4?37 4050 8287 5 - 19 1 1744 11 ? 7 5 @3019 12511 12 i 1 1 24522 13228 1 2 67 4 25922 13346 12801 26147 20 - 44 20646 20494 41 1 30 21673 21045 42718 21262 206@?6 41958 20831 20368 41199 45 - 64 90 13 10368 19381 9542 11110 20652 11519 1 2 84 el 2 4 1: 6 7 13394 14885 28779 65+ 5610 8301 13911 5605 9454 14059 54 52 8316 13768 5 3 24 8251 13575 T 0 T A L 5 1488 54710 106 1 98 53761 56856 1 1061 7 55763 58667 1 1 4 4 3 C 57632 60355 11 7987 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD APRIL 1978 POPULATION PYRAMIDS ADIROND, SUBREGION 1970 1980 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85 + M F 83 - 84 M F F 80 - 84 m F F 75 - 79 MM F F F 75 - 79 M M FF F 7'.) - 74 MMM F F F F 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 65 - 69 MMMM F F F F F 65 - 69 M M M. M FF F f F 6') - 64 MMMMM F F F F F 60 - 64 MMMMM F F F F F 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFFF 5') - 54 MMMMM F FF F F F 50 - 54 M MM M M FF F F F 45 - 49 MMMMMM F FF F F F 45 - 49 MMMMM FF F F F 40 - 44 MMMMM FFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMM FFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMM FFFFF 35 - 39 mmmmm FFFFFF 30 - 34 MMMMM FFFFF 30 - 34 MMMM".M FFFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMM FFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF ?') - 24 MMMMM FF F F F F 20 - 24 M M;4,4 M M M,',l r-l FF F F F F F F 15 - 19 MMMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F F 15 - 19 MMMMMMMMM FF F F F F F F F 13 - 14 MMMMMMMMMM14 F F f F F F F F F F 10 - 14 Mmmmmmm!AM F F F f F F F F F 5 - 9 MMMMMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F F F 5 - 9 M M 74 M rA M M M FF F F F F F 9 - 4 MM-MMMMMMM F F F F F F F F F 0 - 4 M M MM M M M M FF F F F F F 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 ? 1 0 1 Z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY A.GE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 28.9) (MEDTAN AGE = 28.8) 1990 2000 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M FF 85 + M FF 89 - 84 M FF 80 - 84 M FF 75 - 79 MM FF F 75 - 79 MM FFF 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 65 - 69 MMMM FFFFF 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 60 - 64 MMMM F F F F F 60 - 64 Mmm F F F F 55 - 59 MMMM FFFFF 55 - 59 MMMM FFFFF 50 - 54 MMMM FFFFF 50 - 54 MMMMM FFFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMM FFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMM FFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 3'3 - 34 MMMMMMMMM FF F F F F FF 30 - 34 MMMMMF4MM FF F F F F F 25 ?9 MMMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F F 25 - 29 MMMMMMM F F F F F.F 20 24 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 20 - 24 MMMMMP FFFFFF 15 19 MMMM'AMM FFFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 10 14 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 5 9 MMMMMMMM F FF F F F FF 5 - 9 M M M.,'-l M M M M FFF F F F F F 4 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF in 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 ? 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 @ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 30.9) (MEDIAN AGE = 33.3) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP - ALBANY 1970 1975 1980 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL I - 4 1 1317 10709 2?026 9327 8927 18254 900.0 8614 1 761 4 9963 9534 19497 5 - 19 39544 390?0 78564 38016 36645 74661 33789 33066 66855 30369 29296 59665 20 - 44 41187 46027 87214 45590 49341 94931 51560 53592 105142 56729 58155 114884 45 - 64 30523 34910 65433 29865 34672 64537 ?8351 33218 61569 26823 31432 58255 65+ 1 1360 20145 33505 14124 ? 15 7 5 @5699 14757 23141 37899 15566 24804 40370 TOTAL 135931 150811 286742 136922 151 160 283082 1 37457 15 1621 @890?8 139450 153221 292671 1990 1995 2000 2005 MALE FEMALE T 0 T A L MAL E FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 1 n380 9930 2n310 10191 9748 19939 9586 9165 18751 9122 8723 17845 5 - 19 29559 28578 53137 30904 29807 60711 32258 3in74 63332 31963 30779 62742 20 - 44 58882 58948 117830 59033 56578 115611 56891 53041 109932 54173 49989 104162 45 - 64 27117 31 782 53899 28512 34715 63227 33166 40013 73179 39?05 45639 84844 65+ 16358 26180 42538 16757 26783 43540 16?69 26032 42301 15736 25160 40896 TOTAL 142296 155418 297714 14 5397 157631 303V8 1481 70 15 9 3 ? 5 307495 1501 99 160290 310489 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD APRIL 1979 POPULATION PYRAMIDS ALBANY 1970 1980 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85 + M F 8 -0 - 84 M F F 90 - 84 M FF 75 - 79 M M F F F 75 - 79 MM FF F 70 - 74 MMM F FF F 70 - 74 MMM FFF F 65 - 69 MMMM F FFFF 65 - 69 M M tv M F F F F F 6 @) - 64 MMMMM F F F F F 60 - 64 M M MMy FF F F F F 55 - 59 MMMMM F F F F F F 55 - 59 MMMMM FF F F FF 50 - 54 MMMMMM F FF F F F 50 - 54 M M MMIM FF F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMMM FFFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMM FFFFF 49 - 44 MMMMMM F FF F F F 40 - 44 MMMMM F FF F F 35 - 39 MMMMM F FF F F 35 - 39 MM M MM M FF F F FF 33 - 34 MMMMM FFFFF 30 - 34 MM M MM M FFF FF F F F ?5 - 29 MMMMMM FFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 20 - 24 MMMMM4MM F FFF F FF F F 20 - 24 MMMMMMMMMfAMM F F F F FF F F F F 15 - 19 Mil MM M M MM M F FF FF FF F F F is - 19 MMMMMMMMMM FF F F F F F F F F 13 - 14 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMvWM FFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMM.'lMM4MM F FF F F F F F F 5 - 9 IMM, 'A ill r-4, t I rF F F F F 0 - 4 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF J - 4 MMIMMMM FFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION, BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION 13Y AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 30.3) (MEDIAN AGE = 31.5) 1990 2000 A G E MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F F AS + M FF 89 84 M FF 80 - 84 M FF F 75 79 MM F FF F 75 - 79 MM FF F F 70 74 MMM FFFFF 70 - 74 MMM FFFF 65 69 MMMM FFFFF 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 60 64 MMMM FFFFF 60 - 64 MMMM FFFFF 55 59 MMMM FFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFFF 51 54 MMMM FF F F F 50 - 54 MMMMMM FF F F F F F 45 49 MMMM4 FFFFFF 45 - 49 MM,4MMMM FFFFFFFF 40 44 MMMMMM F F F FF F F 40 - 44 MMMMMMMM FF F F F F F F 35 39 MMMMMMM FF F FF FFF 35 - 39 MM M.141-1 MMM F F F F F F F F 30 34 MMMMMMMM F FF F F FF F 30 - 34 MMMMMfvM FF F F FF 25 29 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMM FFFFF 20 24 MMMMMMMMMM F FP FF F F F 20 - 24 MM f-I M M MMM F F F F F F F 15 19 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 10 14 MMM4MM FFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 5 9 MMMMMMM F FF FF F 5 - 9 MM M M N1 M M F F. F F FF 0 4 M MM M AM M F FF F F F F 0 - 4 M.M M,'A M M F F F F FF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 In 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 34.1) (MEDIAN AGE = 37.2) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP RENSSELAER 1970 1975 1980 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 6610 6401 13011 5737 5492 112?9 6010 5752 11762 6705 6415 13120 5 - 19 2?840 21554 44394 21483 20677 42160 19974 18977 38951 19 18 ? 17991 37173 20 - 44 22353 229?3 45?76 25907 25045 59952 29481 28430 57911 32740 31685 64425 45 - 64 14938 17048 3*19 8 6 14381 16557 30938 13618 1 5954 29572 1?901 14837 27738 65+ 7078 10765 17943 6956 10963 17919 6955 1 1 Of) 2 17957 71 41 11488 18629 TOTAL 73819 78691 152510 74464 78734 153198 76038 8011 5 1 56153 78569 82416 161085 1990 1995 2000 2005 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE T 0 T A L MALE F EMAL E TOTAL 0 - 4 6910 6516 13326 6743 6449 13192 6803 65D6 1 3 i n 9 6816 6518 13334 5 - 19 19665 18296 37961 2 08 9 3 19436 40319 21 761 20261 42022 21963 20443 42406 20 - 44 3-5040 337?4 69764 35547 3 3 -15 0 69397 34793 33205 67988 34666 3 2 7 ? 3 67389 45 - 64 12991 14945 27 736 14398 16478 30376 18177 19818 37995 21833 23730 45568 65+ 7318 11730 19048 7470 11789 19259 7337 1 1600 18937 7221 11235 18456 TOTAL 81724 8511 1 166835 85041 88002 173043 88861 91390 180251 92504 94649 187153 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD APRIL 1978 POPULATION PYRAMIDS RENSSELk 1970 1980 AGE MALE F EM A L E AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85 + M F 81 - $34 M F F 80 - 84 M FF 75 - 79 MM F F F 75 - 79 MM FF F 7" - 74 MM F F F F 70 - 74 M M M F F F F 65 - 69 MMM F F F F 65 - 69 MMM F F F F 60 - 64 M MIA M F FFFF 60 - 64 MMMM FF F F F 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFF 59 - 54 MMMMM F FF FF F 50 - 54 MMMMM FFF F F 45 - 49 MMMMM FFFF F F 45 - 49 Mmmm fFF F F 40 - 44 M MM M M FFFFF F 49 - 44 MNIMM FFF F F 35 - 39 MMMMM F FFFF ls - 39 M M, M M M FF F F F F 3 @' - 34 MMMMM F FF F F 30 - 34 M;4 M M P,"' M FF F F F F F 25 - 29 M M MM M M FFFFF F 25 - 29 MMMMMMMMM FF F F F F F F F 20 - 24 MMIAMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 20 - 24 MMMMM.MMMMMMM FFFFFFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMM'AMMM FFFFF F F F F 15 - 19 M M M'l M M M M M M FF F F F F F F F 19 - 14 MMMMIM741741NIM FFFFFFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMVIM FFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 0 - 4 M,4MMM,'AMM FFFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION' BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 28.4) (MEDIAN AGE = 28.7) 1990 2000 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85 + M F 81 - 84 M FF 90 - 84 M FF 75 - 79 MM FFF 75 - 79 MM FFF 70 - 74 MM FFFF 70 - 74 MM FFF 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 65 - 69 MMM FFF 6@ - 64 MMMM F F F F 6 0 - 64 MMM F FF F 55 - 59 MMM FFFF 55 - 59 MMMM FFFFF 53 - 54 MMMM F F FF 50 - 54 MMMMMM FFF F F F 45 - 49 MMMMM FFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMM FFFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 3 r) - 34 MMMMMMMMM F FFFF F F F F 30 - 34 MMMMMMM FFF F F F F 25 - 29 MMMMMMMIM FFFFFFFF 25 - 29 M.'AMMMM FFFFFF 20 - 24 MMMMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F 20 - 24 MMM,4MMMMM FF F F F F F is - 19 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMMIIM FFFFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 10 - 14 MM11flWIMM FFFFFFF 5 - 9 M M MM M M M M FFFFF F F F 5 - 9 MM Mill M11MM FFF F F F F r MMMMMAMM FFFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMAMMAMM FFFFFFF 4 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 C. 1 ? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION lY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION 3Y AGE GROUP (MEr)IAN AGE = 31.0) (MEDIAN AGE = 33.3) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP SARATOGA 1970 105 1980 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 6201 5915 17116 5678 5435 11113 6133 5870 12003 7481 7159 14640 0 - 4 22155 22141 44296 22566 22672 45Z38 21540 21546 43086 5 - 19 18399 19861 37260 29842 31615 61457 36100 37940 74040 18353 ?0 @64 39617 23621 25384 49305 14347 15608 29955 20 - 44 114 39 11920 23259 1 3C48 13672 267?n 13707 14690 28397 15513 45 - 64 4353 6159 10512 4948 7133 12081 5692 81?9 13821 6327 9186 65+ 916 85795 91439 177234 TOTAL 59745 63019 121764 69450 73765 143215 77940 8?976 160 2005 1990 1995 2010 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 8273 7914 16187 8566 819? 16758 8178 7821 15999 7989 7640 15629 0 - 4 21502 21552 43054 23402 23366 46768 2532C .25191 5051 1 25782 25625 51407 5 - 19 82596 40905 415?3 82428 40616 41 309 81925 20 - 44 39767 41295 81062 40718 41878 22nn4 24613 4661, 7 25907 28508 54415 45 - 64 16421 18001 34422 19116 21097 40203 7532 1 1833 19365 7883 12562 20445 65+ 6871 10235 17106 7373 11283 19656 103939 110981 214920 1091 77 115644 223821 tOTAL 92834 98997 191831 99175 105806 204981 t,,YS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD APRIL 1978 POPULATION PYRAMIDS SARATOG, 197.3 1980 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + F 85 + F 80 - 84 M F 80 - 84 M F 7S - 79 M F F 75 - 79 M F F 79 - 74 MM F F F 70 - 74 MM F F F 65 - 69 MMM F F F 65 - 69 M M V, F F F 60 - 64 MMM F F F F 6 0- - 64 MMMM F F F F 55 - 59 MMMMM F F F F F 55 - 59 M MMtO F F F F F 53 - 54 MMMMM F F F F F 50 - 54 MMMMM F F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMMM F F F F F F 45 - 49 MMM;AM F F F F F 41 - 44 MMMMMM FFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMPM FFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMM F FF-F F F 35 - 39 MMMMMMM F F F F F F F F 31 - 34 MMMMMM F F F F F F 30 - 34 MMMMMOMM F F F F F F F F ?S - 29 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 20 - Z 4 MMMMMM F F F F F F F F 20 - 24 M M M MA MAA M F F F F FF F F F F 15 - 19 MMMMMMMM F FF F F F F F F F 15 - 19 M M M M M M V- M M M F F F F F F F F F F F 10 - 14 MMMMMMMMMM%l FFFFFFFFFF 10 - 14 M M M M M M t-1 M M M F F F F F F F F F F 5 - 9 MMMMMMMMAMM F F F F F F F F F F F 5 - 9 MM MM M M te, M F f F F FF F F 9 - 4 MMMMMMMMMM FFF F F F F F F F 0 - M 1-1 M M M MM M F FF F F F F 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 26.5) (MEDIAN AGE = 2,@.?) 1990 2000 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + F 95 + F 80 - 94 M F 80 - 84 M F F 75 - 79 M F F 75 - 79 M F F 70 - 74 MM F F F 70 - 74 MM F F F 65 - 69 MMM F F F 65 - 69 MM F F F 6 r.) - 64 MMM F F F F 6 n - 64 MMM F F F F 55 - 59 MMMM F F F F 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFFF 50 - 54 MMMM F FF F 50 - 54 MMMMMM F F F F F F 45 - 4' 9 MMMMMM FF F F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMMM F F F F F F F 43 - 44 MMMMMMM FFF F F F F 40 - 44 MMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F 35 - 39 MMMMMMM F FFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F F 30 - 34 MMMMMMMMM FFF FF F F F F 30 - 34 MMM,'4MMtAM F F F F F F F F 25 - 29 MMMMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F F F 25 - 29 MMMMMMM FFFFF.FF 2') - 24 MM%iMM,*AMM FFF F F F F F F 20 - 24 MMM.4MM F F F F F F F 15 - 19 MMMMMMM FFFFFFFF is - 19 MMMMMMM F F F F F F F F 10 - 14 MMMMMMM F F F F F F F 10 - 1 4 *4MMMMMMM F F F F F F F F - 9 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF I - 4 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATIOV BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 30.4) (MEDIAN AGE = 31.5) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP SCHENECTADY 1970 1975 1980 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 6614 6194 12808 5447 5215 10662 5426 094 in620 6161 5895 12056 5 - 19 22515 21048 43563 20744 20061 40 83 5 17919 1 7450 35369 16266 15740 32006 20 - 44 22790 24488 47278 25134 25011 50145 2 9 0 2 9 28251 57280 3?691 31922 64513 1. 5- 64 17925 20319 39244 16812 19184 35996 15159 1 7600 32759 135 34 15866 29400 65+ 7672 11 513 19185 7814 12 ? 5 7 20071 8235 1 3176 2141 1 81 51 13350 21501 TOTAL 77516 83562 161078 75951 81728 1 57679 75768 31671 157439 76803 82673 159476 1990 1995 2000 2005 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 6437 6158 12595 6282 6007 12289 6075 5808 1 1883 601 3 5749 11762 5 - 19 1630 15984 32351 17655 1 72 36 34891 18729 13274 3 7r-O 3 18753 18292 37050 20 - 44 34516 333?0 67836 34737 33802 69539 33344 33366 66710 32080 32131 64211 45 - 64 13460 15543 290,03 14776 16 3 ? 3 31199 18530 18967 37497 22890 23338 46278 65+ 8n2l 13555 21576 7774 13434 21 208 7210 1 2851 20061 6675 12036 la7li TOTAL 78801 84560 163361 81224 86302 168126 83989 89266 173154 86416 91 596 178012 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD APRIL 1978 POPULATION PYRAMIDS SCHENEC 1970 1990 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85 + M F F 80 - 94 M FF 80 - 84 M FF 75 - 79 MM F F F 75 - 79 mM F F F 73 - 74 MMM F F F F 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 65 - 69 MMMM FFFFF 61 - 64 mmmm FFffF 60 - 64 MMMMM FFFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFFF 50 - 54 MMMMMM F F FF F F F 50 - 54 MM.MMM FF F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMMM FFFFFFF 45 - 49 MMMM FFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMM F F F F F F 4@ - 44 MMMM. F F F F F 35 - 39 MMIMM FF FF F 35 - 39 m m m (4 m m FFF FF F 33 - 34 MMAMM FF FFF 30 - 34 MMMMMMM FF F F F FF 25 - 29 MMMMMM FFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF ? 1) - 2 4 MMMM'AMM FfFFFFF ? 13 - 24 MMMMMAM:4MM FF F F F F F F F F 15 - 19 MMM"MMAMM FFFFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMMMIM FFFFFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMM,'IMM FFFFFFFFF 5 - 9 M.MIMMMIMM FFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMMM,4 F F F F f F F f I - 4 WiMm"Imm FFFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION, BY AGE GROUP (mEDIAN AGE = 11.9) (MEDI AN AGE = 31 .2) 1991) 2(1013 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + "A fF 85 + M F F 80 - 84 M FF 80 - 84 M FF 75 - 79 MM FFF 75 - 79 MM FFF 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 70 7 74 MM FF F F 65 - 69 mmm fFFFF 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 6@ - 64 MMMM FFFFF 60 - 64 M."M FFFF 55 - 59 MMMM FFFF 55 - 59 MMMM FFFFF 59 - 54 MMMM FFFF 50 - 54 MMMMMM FFFFFF 45 - 49 mmmmm F f f f T f 45 - 49 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 49 - 44 MMMMMM.%l FFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 30 - 34 MMMMMMM%IM.M FF FF FFF F F F 33 - 34 MM M M M. *4 M M FFF F F FF ?5 - 29 MMMAM1,MMM FFFFFFFFF 25 - 29 M M M W-1 M, M F F F F FF 20 - 24 M M M M MM M M F F FF F F F 20 - 24 MM V %M M, FFF F F F F 15 - 19 MMMMMM F F F F F F 15 - 19 M M M M r-l M M F F F F F F F 1 @' - 1 4 MMMMMM F F F F F F 10 - 1 4 M H M MM M M F F F F F F F 5 - 9 MMMMAMM FF FF FF F 5 - 9 M M M MM Mlm FFF F F F F 0 - 4 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 @ 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULAiION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION ny AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 33.0) (MEDIAN AGE = 35.7) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP WASHINGTON 1970 1975 1980 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FtMAL E TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 3 - 4 ?580 2387 4967 2121 2031 4152 2050 1962 4012 2336 2234 4570 5 - 19 9378 7869 16247 8571) 7897 16467 7904 7098 15002 7064 6278 13342 21 - 44 7654 7377 15031 8612 81 31 16743 9963 9378 19241 11 187 10607 21794 45 - 64 5146 5 399 10545 5271 5673 10944 5253 5830 1?()83 5207 5808 11015 65+ ?398 3537 5935 2555 3733 6288 2732 3939 6641 2927 4163 7090 TOTAL 26156 26569 5?775 27129 ?7465 54594 27R(I? 28177 55979 28721 29090 5781.1 1990 1995 2000 2005 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 3 - 4 @372 2268 4640 2296 2196 4492 2133 ?04,r) 4173 2060 1 97C 4030 5 - 19 68?3 6119 1 ?942 7088 6371 13459 7322 6596 13918 7125 6408 13533 ?0 - 44 11957 11242 23199 12027 11395 23422 11763 1 1070 22933 11 359 10499 21858 45 - 64 5450 5957 1 1407 604n 6360 12410 6961 72 31 14192 8 19 p 8587 16779 65+ 3n45 406 7451 3149 4598 7747 3164 4696 7850 3196 4710 7906 TOTAL 29647 29992 59639 3C600 3c9?0 61520 31343 31623 62966 31932 32174 64106 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD APRIL 1973 POPULATION PYRAMIDS WASHING. 1970 1980 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 m F 85 M F 80 84 M F F 80 84 M F F ? 5 79 MM F F F 75 79 MM F F F 7D 74 MMM FFFF 70 74 MPM FFFF 65 69 MMM F F F F 65 69 M M M M F F F F 6) 64 MMMM F F F F 60 64 M14MM F F F F F 55 59 MMMMM F F F F F 55 59 M M M M M F F F F F 50 54 MMMMM FF F F F 50 - 54 M M4 M M F F F F F 45, 49 MMMMM FFFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMM FFFFF 41 44 MMMMM F F F F F F 40 - 44 MMMMM F F F F F 35 39 MMMMM F F F F F 35 - 39 MMMAMM, F F F F F F 3') - 34 MMMMM F F F F F 30 - 34 MMMMMMM F F F F F F 75 - 29 MMMMMM FFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 2') - 24 MMMMMMM FF FF F F 20 - 24 MVIMMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F F is - 19 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF is - 19 P4MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 12 - 14 MMMMMMMMMMM FF F F F F F F F F F 10 - 1 4 MM M MM M MM. M F F F F F F F F F 5 - 9 M M MM M M MMAM M FF F F F F F F F F F 5 - 9 M M M M M M rv, M F F F F F F F 1) - 4 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GPOUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = ?7.4) (f4Fr)IAN AGE = 29.4) 1990 2000 AGE MAL E FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85 + M F 90 - 84 M F F 80 - 84 M F F 75 - 79 MM F F F 75 - 79 MM F F F 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 65 - 69 MMMM FF F F F 65 - 69 MMM F F F F 0 - 64 MMMM F F F F F 60 - 64 MMMM F F F F 55 - 59 M 14"M FF F F F 55 - 59 MMMMM F FF F F 51) - 54 MMMM F F F F F 50 - 54 MMMMMM F F F F F F 45 - 49 M M M MIM FF F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMMMM F FF F F F F 40 - 44 M M M;*4.'4 M M F F F F F F 40 - 44 M M M M tv, M M M F F F F FF F F F 35 - 39 MMMMr4MM FFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 31 - 34 MMMMMMMMM FF F F F F F F F 30 - 34 M M M,*4 MM M,14 F FF F F F F 25 - ;? 9 MMMMMMMM%l F F F F F F F F 25 - 29 MM MMM M F F F F F F 20 - 24 MMf4MMM4MM F F F F F F F 20 - 24 M M,*4 M M M,,%' F F F F F 15 - 19 MMMMMMMM F F F F F F 15 - 19 MMMMMMMM F F F F F F F 1 G, - 14 MMMMMMM FF F F F F F 10 - 14 MMMMMMMM F F F F F F F 5 - 9 MMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F 5 - 9 MMMMMMM F F F F F F F .0 - 4 Mf4MMMMMM FF F F F F F F 0 - 4 MMMMMMM F FF F F F 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION RY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION' RY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 32.4) (MEDIAN AGE = 36.1) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP CAPITAL SUB-REGION 1970 105 1980 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 4 33322 31606 64928 28310 27100 55410 28619 27392 56011 32646 31237 63883 5 - 19 111676 108352 220028 110968 107421 218389 102152 99263 201415 94421 90851 185272 20 - 44 112337 121079 233416 1 28864 132912 261776 149775 151@56 3C1031 1 69447 170209 339656 45 - 64 709 71 89496 169467 79377 89758 169135 76'188 87292 163380 72812 83551 156363 65+ 34861 52119 86980 36397 55661 920, 58 38371 59357 97728 401 12 62991 103103 TOTAL 372167 402652 774819 393916 412552 796768 395')05 424562 819565 409438 438839 848277 1 99n 1995 2000 2005 MALE FEMALE T 0 T A L MAL E FEMALE TOT AL MALE FE MAL E T 0 T A L MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 34272 32786 67058 34078 32592 66670 32775 31340 64115 3?000 30600 62600 5 - 19 93916 99 5?9 184445 99932 96216 196148 135390 101396 206786 105591 101547 207138 23 - 44 18016@ 1785@9 358691 182062 177503 359565 177686 172205 349891 1 72894 166651 339545 45 - 64 75339 .36128 161467 82842 94963 1 77805 98838 1 7 0642 209480 1 18032 129852 247884 65+ 41613 66106 107719 42523 67387 1 10410 41512 6 700 2 10851 4 40711 65703 106414 IOTAL 425302 454078 879380 4 4 14 37 469161 910598 .456201 8 2 53 5 938786 469228 494353 963581 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPmENT BOARD APRIL 1978 POPULATION PYRAMIDS CAPITAL .3-REGION 1970 1980 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85 + , M F 80 - 84 M FF 80 - 84 M FF 75 - 79 MM FFF 75 - 79 MM F F F 70 - 74 MM F FF F 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 65 - 69 MMVM FFFFF 60 - 64 MMMM F F F F F 60 - 64 MMMM F F F F F 55 - 59 M M MM M FFF F F F 55 - 59 M M MimM FFF F FF 50 - 54 M14 M MM M FFF F F F 50 - 54 MMMMM FFF F F 1.5 - 49 MMMMMM FFFFFF 45 - 49 MMMM FFFFF 40 - 4 4 MMMMMM FFF F F F 40 - 41. M MIM V M FFF F F 35 - 39 MMMMM FFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMM FFFFFF 30 - 34 MMMMM FF F F F 30 - 34 -Mm M M Pm M FF F F F F F 25 - ? 9 M M MMM M FFF F F F 25 - 29 MM MM M N, M M F FF F F F F F 20 - 24 M I'l M M M M r-l FFFFF F FF 20 - 24 M M M M M M M M P1 M M, FFFF FF FF F F 15 - 19 MMMMMMMMM FFF F F F FF F 15 - 19 MMMMMMMr4MM FFF F FF F F F F 10 - 14 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMM*4MMMMM FFFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 ? 1 n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = ?7.4) (MEDIAN AGE = 29.4) 1990 2CInO AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85 + M FF 80 - 84 M FF 80 - 84 M FF 75 - 79 MM F F F 75 - 79 MM FFF 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 65 - 69 MMM FFFFF 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 60 - 64 MMMM FFFFF 6a - 64 MMM FFFF 55 - 59 MMMM F F FF 55 - 59 MMMMM F F F F F 50 - 54 MMMM F F F F F 50 - 54 M M M M rA.%l F F F F F F F 45 - 49 M M M WA F F F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMMIAM FF F F FF F F 40 - 44 MMMMMM FFFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMM F F FFF F F F 35 - 39 MMMMMf*lM FF F F FF F F 30 - 34 MMMMMMMMM F F FFF F F F F 30 - 34 MMMMMMM FFF F F F F 25 - 29 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF ?5 - 29 MMMMMM FFFFF.F ? 0 - 24 M M M M M M M r-1 M F F FFF F F F 20 - 24 MMMMMMMM FF F F FF F is - 19 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF is - 10 MMMMM%IMV, FFFFFFF 10 - 14 MrAMMMMM F FFFFF in - 1 4 M M M fAlm M M FFFF FF F 5 - 9 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 1 ? 1 0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 ? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION 13Y AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 32.4) (MEDIAN AGE = 36.1) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP GREENE 1970 1975 i980 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOT A L7 MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 1295 1224 2519 1315 1260 2575 1406 1345 2751 1674 1 60Z 3276 5 - 19 4 753 4 171 8924 5171 4544 9715 5268 4609 9877 51 78 4489 9667 Z@9 - 44 4297 4651 8948 5288 55' 1? 10800 6473 6610 13C83 7743 7833 15576 45 - 64 3637 4 118 7755 3991 4498 8489 4212 4777 8989 4363 4863 9226 65+ 2212 2778 4990 2627 3470 6097 2912 4008 6920 3110 4488 7598 TOTAL 16194 1694? 33136 18392 19284 37676 2,02 71 21349 41620 22063 23275 45343 1990 1995 2000 2005 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL I - 4 1803 1 725 3528 1880 1799 3679 1889 1816 3695 1943 1857 3800 5 - 10 5447 4 771 10218 5875 5185 11060 6276 5574 11850 6448 5739 12187 20 - 44 @R627 8556 17183 9213 8929 18142 9457 9172 1S629 9645 9325 18970 45 - 64 4706 5?32 9938 5169 5802 10971 5968 6491 12449 7093 7613 14706 65+ 3224 4 774 7998 3305 4920 82?5 3303 494 1 8244 3 ? 9 1 4 852 8133 TOTAL 238n7 ?5958 48865 25442 26635 52077 26P93 2 7974 54867 284 10 29386 57796 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD APRIL 1973 POPULATION PYRAMIDS GREENE 1970 1980 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + m F 85 + M F F 80 - 84 M F F 80 - 84 MM F F F 75 - 79 MM FFF 75 - 79 MMM FFFF 71 - 74 MMMM F FFF 70 - 74 M M. M M. F F F F F 65 - 69 MMMMM FFFFF 65 - 69 MMM,"M FFFFFF 61 - 64 MMMMM FFFFFF 60 - 64 MM.Mrer,! FFFFFF 55 - 59 MMM-MMM FFFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFFF 50 - 54 MM,4M'A FFFFFF 50 - 54 MMMMM FFFFFF 45 - 4 k7 mmmmm FFFF F F 45 - 49 MMMMM F F F F F 40 - 44 MMMMM FFFF F F 40 - 44 M 10. M tv, M. F F F F F 35 - 39 MMMMM FFFF F 35 - 39 MMMNIfAM F F F F F F 3f) - 34 MMMMM FFFF F 30 - 34 MMMMMM F F F F F F F 25 - 29 WIMMM F FF F F F 25 - 29 A M fl M M F F F F F F F 20 - ? 4 M M MM M 4 F F F F F F 70 - 24 m m m m m m te. m F F F F F f F F 15 - 19 MMMMMMM'IMM FFFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMM.M,4MMMM FFFFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMrA:4,'4M F F F F F F F F F 10 - 1 4 @'-l M M r-l F F F F F F F 5 - 9 MMMMMMMMM FFFF F F FF F 5 - 9 t-1 M F F F F F F F 0 - 4 M M M M M M M M FFFF F F F 0 - 4 11 M M t-l M F F F F F F 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 9 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 r 1 @ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 34.1) (MEDIAN AGE = 34 fl) 1990 2 il 0 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F F 85 + M F F 81 - 84 MM F F F 80 - 84 MM F F F 75 - 79 MMM F F F F 75 - 79 MM F F F F 70 - 74 MMM F F FFF 70 - 74 MNIM F F F F 65 - 69 MMMM FFFFF 65 - 69 MMMM FFFFF 60 - 64 MMMMM F F F FF 60 - 64 MMVIM F F F F 55 - 59 MM A MM F F F F F 55 - 59 MMMM-M F F F F F F 53 - 54 MMMMM FFFFF 50 - 54 MMMMMM FFFFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMMM FFFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 40 - 4 4 MMMMMM F F F F F F F 40 - 44 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMM F FF FF F F 35 - 39 MMMMMMMM F F F F F F FF 30 - 34 MMMMMMMM F FFF F F F F 30 - 34 M vl M M M M M F F F F F F 25 - 29 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMM FFFFFF 21 - 24 M M M M M M M F FF FF F 20 - 24 MMMMMM F F F F F F 15 - 19 MMMMMMMM FFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMM FFFFF F 10 - 1 4 M WA W-l M M F F F F F F F 5 - 9 M M M,%l M M %I FFFFF F F 5 - 9 M W-1 M f-I M M F F F F F F F 0 - 4 MMMP4MMM F FfFF F F 0 - 4 MMM.MMMM F F F F F F F 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IC 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION 8Y AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 35.n) (MEDIAN AGE = 37.0) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP - SCHOHARIE i975 1980 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 4 1007 931 1938 993 951 1944 1184 1133 2317 1413 1351 2764 5 - 19 3938 3908 7846 4463 4@54 8717 4377 8895 4516 4472 8988 20 - 44 3270 3398 6668 4180 4384 8564 5406 5574 10980 6731 6730 13461 45 - 64 2449 205 5054 2592 2786 5378 2711 2958 5569 2763 2997 5760 65+ 1470 1 774 3244 1634 2100 3734 162C 2282 3902 1693 2492 4185 TOTAL 12134 12616 24750 1386? 14475 28337 15439 16224 31663 171 16 18042 35158 1990 1995 2noo 2005 MALE F EM A L E TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOT AL 0 - 4 1553 1496 3039 1602 1 .5 3 2 3134 1615 1544 3159 1704 1629 3333 5 - 19 4876 4962 9738 5474 5435 10909 5916 5860 1 1776 6129 6063 12192 20 - 44 7717 7617 15334 8501 8?23 167?4 8852 8344 1 7196 9023 8553 17576 45 - 64 2871 3145 6016 3117 3567 6684 3982 4669 8671 5345 5974 11319 65+ 1819 ?766 4585 1897 2944 4841 1948 3041 4989 1940 3142 5082 TOTAL 18836 19876 38712 20591 21701 42292 22313 23478 45791 24141 25361 49502 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD APRIL 1978 POPULATION PYRAMIDS SCHOHARt 1970 1980 AGE MAL6 FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85 + M F F 80 - 84 M FF 80 - 84 M FF ?5 - 79 MM FFF 75 - 79 MM FFF 7 rD - 74 MMM F FF F 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 65 - 69 MMMM FFFF 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 60 - 64 MMMMM FFFFF 60 - 64 MMMM FFFF 55 - 59 MMMM FFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFF 50 - 54 MMMMM F FF F F 50 - 54 MMMM F F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMMM FFFFFF 45 - 49 MMMM FFFF 40 - 44 MMMMM FFFFF 40 - 44 MMMM FFFF 35 - 39 MMMMM F FF F F 35 - 39 MMMMM F F F F F 31 - 34 MMMM FFFFF 30 - 34 MMMMM FFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMM FFFF F 25 - 29 IAMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F F 20 - 24 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 20 - 24 MMMMM MMMM'AM.PA FFFFFFFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMMMMMMM FFFF F F F FFFFFF 15 - 19 M MM M M M M M M M M MM M F F F f F F F F F F F F F F 10 - 14 MMMMPIMM-.',IMM FFFFFFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMMMM FFFF FF F F 0 - 4 M f-1 tl fl',l t-l M F F F F FF F 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 ? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 28.3) (MEDIAN AGE = 26.9) iggn 20nO AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M FF 85 + M FF 80 - 84 M FF 90 - 84 M FF 75 - 79 MM FFF 75 - 79 M t-l F F F 70 - 74 MM F F F 70 - 74 MM F F F 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 65 - 69 MMM FFF 6'.) - 64 MMM F F F F 60 - 64 MMM F F F 55 - 59 MMMM FFFF 55 - 59 MMMM FFFF 50 - 54 MMM FFFF 50 - 54 MMMM FFFFF 45 - 49 MMMM F FFF F 45 - 49 M M M M M M M F F F F F F F F 40 - 44 MMMMM FFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMMMMfO, FFFFFFFF 35 - 39 M M MM M MINI M FFFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMM14MMMM FFFFFFFF 3') - 34 MMMMMMMMM F FFF F F F F F 30 - 34 MMMMMMM F F F F F F F 25 - 79 MMMMMMMMM F FFF F F F F 25 - ? 9 MMMMMi*-l F F F F F F ?0 - 24 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 20 - 24 'AMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMMMMM FFFF FF F FF F F is - 19 M M MM M 14 M M M M 1 F F FFFF FF F F F 10 - 1 4 M M M M M M M F FFF F F F 10 - 1 4 M,'I,%l M M M M M F F F F F F F 5 - 9 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 5 - 9 M:A.*-IMMf,!M FFFFFFF 9 - 4 % MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 1 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = ?9.8) (MEDIAN AGE = 32.4) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP CATSKILL SUB-REGION 1970 105 1980 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 2302 2155 44 57 2308 2211 4519 2590 ?478 5r68 3087 2953 6040 5 - 19 8691 8079 16770 9634 8798 18432 9786 8986 18772 9694 8961 18655 20 - 44 7567 8 r) 4 9 15616 9468 9896 19364 1 1879 12184 24063 14474 14563 29037 45 - 64 6086 6723 12809 6583 7284 13867 6923 7635 14558 7126 7860 14986 65+ 1682 455? 8?34 4261 5570 9831 4532 6290 10,822 4803 6980 11783 TOTAL 28328 29558 57886 32254 33759 66013 35710 37573 732A3 39184 41317 80501 1990 1995 2000 2005 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 3356 3211 6567 3482 3331 6313 3504 3350 6854 3647 3486 7133 5 - 19 10 3 ? 3 96@3 19956 1 1349 10620 21969 12192 1 1434 23626 12577 11802 24379 20 - 44 16344 16173 32517 1 7714 17152 34866 18309 17516 35825 18668 17878 36546 45 - 64 7577 8377 15954 8286 9369 17655 99 5 0 11170 21 120 12 4 3 S 1 3587 26025 65+ 5043 7540 12583 5202 7964 13066 5251 7982 13233 5221 7994 13215 TOTAL 42643 44934 87577 46V33 48336 94369 49206 51452 in1658 52551 54 74 7 107298 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD APRIL 1978 POPULATION PYRAMIDS CATSKIL, UB-REGION 1970 1980 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85 + M F F 89 - 84 m F F 80 - 84 MM F F 75 - 79 MM F F F 75 - 79 MMM F F F 70 - 74 MMMM FFFF 70 - 74 MMM FFFFF 65 - 69 MMMMM FFFFF 65 - 69 MMMM FFFFF 60 - 64 M M 'AM M F F F F F F 60 - 64 MMMM F f F F F 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFF 50 - 54 MM rlM M F F FF F F 50 - 54 MMMMM F F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMM F F F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMM F F F F F 43 - 44 MMMMM FFFFFF 4n - 44 mmm@l rFFFF 35 - 39 M M MM M F F FF F 35 - 39 MMMMM F F F F F F 30 - 34 M M NIM M F F FF F 30 - 34 MM ft. V M,-' F F F F F F 25 - 29 M M MMM F F FF F F 25 - 29 MM MM M MM M. F F F F F F F F 21 - ? 4 MMMMMM FF FF F F F 2rl - 24 MMMM MM M M M M, F F F F F F F F F 15 - 19 MMMMMMMMMMM FF Ff F F F F F F 15 - 19 MM M MMM ANI MMM M F FF F F F F F F F F 10 - 1 4 MMMMMMMAMM FF FF F F F F F 10 - 14 MM MM M MM N F F F r F F F 5 - 9 M'IMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 5 - 9 M,',1'4.MMmM FFFFFFF M M M M. M. fAl M F F F F F F F - 4 MMKIMMMMM F F F F F F F 0 - 4 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION 31 AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 28.3) (MEDIAN AGE = 26.9) 1991 2000 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + m F F 85 + M F F 80 - 84 MM F F F 80 - 84 M F F 75 - 79 MM F F F F 75 - 79 MM F F F 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 65 - 69 mmmm FFFFF 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 6) - 64 MMMM F F F F F 60 - 64 MMM F F F F 55 - 59 MMMM FFFFF 55 - 59 MMMM FFFFF 50 - 54 MMMM F F F F 50 - 54 MMMMM F F F F F F 45 - 49 MMMM%i FFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMM F F F F F F 40 - 44 M14MMMMMM F F F f F F F F 35 - 39 MMMMMMM F F FF F F F F 35 - 39 MMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F 30 - 34 MMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F 30 - 34 M14MMMMM F F F F F F F ?5 - ?9 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMM FFFFF.F ? 0 - 24 M M M M M MM M F f FF F F F 20 - 24 M MM M M M M F F F F F F F 15 - 19 MMMMr.IM*,4MM FFFFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMAMMrAM FFFFFFFFF 10 - 14 M M M M MM M F F F F F F F 10 - 14 M M M M M. r-l M F F F F F F F 5 - 9 MMMMMtAMM F F FF F F F 5 - 9 M M,'4 M. M M M F F F F F F F C - 4 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 0 - 4 M,%IMMMMM FFFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY 4GE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 29.8) (MEDIAN AGE = 32.4) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP COLUMBIA 1970 1975 1980 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAIL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 2127 2014 4 1 41 1853 1773 3626 2D68 1980 4n48 2468 2 363 4831 5 - 19 7382 7023 14405 7663 7?47 14910 7172 6830 14 0 e 2 681 1 6523 13334 20 - 44 6777 73?9 14106 8297 8694 16991 10306 10572 20878 12427 12565 24992 45 - 64 5560 6n62 11622 5570 6218 11738 5499 6116 11685 54 53 604 4 1 1497 65+ 1190 4 r) 5 5 7245 3447 4548 7995 3550 491 2 8462 3594 5271 8865 TO T AL 25036 26483 51519 26830 28480 55310 28595 30490 59075 30753 32766 63519 1990 1995 2000 2005 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL n - 4 ?697 2591 5 278 2725 26n7 5332 2772 2652 5424 2829 2705 5534 5 - 19 7094 6927 13921 7976 7678 15654 8709 8376 17085 9057 8706 1 7763 2 n- - 44 14046 1401 1 28057 14901 14530 29431 14895 1 4515 29410 14885 14557 29442 45 - 64 5620 63n3 11923 6167 7103 13273 7870 8787 16657 9983 10837 20820 65+ 3613 5 392 9005 3594 5434 9028 3538 5349 8887 3520 5234 8804 TOTAL 3 3n 70 35114 681 84 35363 37352 72715 37794 37679 77463 40? 74 42089 82361 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD APRIL 1978 POPULATION PYRAMIDS COLUMBIA 1970 1980 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85 + M F F 8D - 84 M F F 80 - 84 M F F 75 - 79 MM F FF 75 - 79 M, M F F F 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 65 - 69 MMMMM FFFFF 65 - 69 MMMM FFFFF 61 - 64 MMMMM FFFFFF 60 - 64 MMMV, FFFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFF 51 - 54 MMMMM FFFFFF 50 - 54 MMMMM FFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMMM F FF F F F 45 - 49 m M M.1A M rF F F F 41 - 44 MMMMM FFF F FF 40 - 44 M M f-I M M FFFF F 35 - 39 MMMMM FFF F F 35 - 39 M M M M M FFF F FF 31 - 3 4 MMMMM FFF F F 30 - 34 MMMMMM FF F F F F F 25 - 29 MMMMMM FFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 2 01 - 24 MMMMM FFF F F F F 20 - 24 MMMMMMMMM FFF F FF F F F 15 - 19 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMMMt'4 FFFFFFFFF 11 - 14 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMIA FFFFFFF n - 4 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 C; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION 9Y AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 32.2) (MEDIAN AGE = 30.9) 1990 2 Or. 0 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F F 85 + M F F 80 - 84 M F F 80 - 84 M F F 75 - 79 MM F F F 75 - 79 MM F F F 7n - 74 MMM F F F F 70 - 74 M M. F F F 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 60 - 64 MMMM FFFFF 60 - 64 MMM FFFF 55 - 59 MMMM F F F F 55 - 59 MMMM F F F F F 50 - 54 MMMM FF F F 50 - 54 MMMMM FF F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMM FFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMM FFFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMMM FFF F F F FF F 35 - 39 MMMMMMMMM FF F F F F F F F 30 - 34 MMMMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F F 30 - 34 MM MM MINI M M FFF F F F FF 25 - 29 MMMMMMMMm%l F FF F F F F F F 25 - 29 M M M M fl. M M FFF F FF 20 - @ 4 MMMMMMM FFF F F F F 20 - 24 M M M MM M F FF F FF 15 - 19 M M MMM M F F F F F F 15 - 19 M M M M M M M FFF F FF F 10 - 14 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 5 9 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 0 4 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 0 -, 4 MVIMMMMM FFFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 () 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ln 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION GY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 32.8) (MEDIAN AGE = @5.4) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP - DUTCHESS 1970 1975 1980 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL r) - 4 9777 9493 19270 7777 7443 15220 8 f04 7852 16056 9827 9402 19229 5 - 19 31875 31 321 63196 33351 32340 65691 31236 296?1 60857 28386 26405 54791 29 - 44 37612 36770 74382 41334 40970 82304 47396 47946 95342 54842 55661 110503 45 - 64 20809 2P@04 43013 21604 23255 44859 23498 24559 48057 25656 26470 52126 65+ 9317 13117 2 ? 4 3 4 10525 14314 24839 10387 1 5507 25994 10426 16753 27179 T 0 T A L 109390 112905 22@295 1 14591 1 18322 232913 123721 125485 246206 1291 37 134691 263828 1990 1995 2000 2005 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE F E IMAL E TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 4 10938 10465 P 1 4 0,3 11328 10935 22163 10594 101 30 20724 10365 9912 20277 5 19 28487 263r8 54 795 31944 29585 61529 35553 32902 68455 36683 33815 70498 20 44 59891 60417 120308 61864 62125 123989 63039 62234 125273 62982 61400 124382 45 64 28226 29375 57601 31374 32676 64050 35236 38003 73?39 41666 45346 87012 65 + 10925 18038 @9963 1 1771 19636 31407 12903 ?1032 33985 14085 22896 36981 TO T AL 138467 144603 283070 1 48281 1 54857 303138 1 57325 164351 321676 165781 173369 339150 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD APRIL 1978 POPULATION PYRAMIDS DUTCHES- 1970 1980 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + F 85+ M F 9 r) - 84 M F 80- 84 M F F ? 5 - 79 M FF 75- 79 MM F F 70 - 74 MM F FF 70 74 K,.'A F F F 65 - 69 MMM F F F F 65- 69 MMM F F F F 69 - 64 MMMM F F F F F 60- 64 MMMM F F F F 55 - 59 MMMM FFFFF 55- 59 MMMM FFFFF 50 - 54 MMMMM F F F F F 50- 54 MMMMM F F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMMM FFFFF 45- 49 MMMMMM FFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMM FFFFFF 40- 44 MMMMMM FFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMM FFFFFF 35- 39 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 30 - 34 MMMMMMM F F F F F F 30- 34 M M M M 10, M M M F F F F F F F 25 - 29 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 25- 29 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 20 - 24 MMMMMMM F F F F F F F F 20- 24 MMMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F F F 15 - 19 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 15- 19 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFFF i n - 14 MMMMMMMMMM F FF F F F F F F F 10- 1 4 MMMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F 5 - 9 MMMMMMMMr4MM F F F F F F F F F F 5 - 9 MMMMMMM F F F F F F 0 - 4 MM.'44MMMMM FFFFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMf-lM!,lMM FFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 79.0) (MEDIAN AGE = 30.6) 1990 2000 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85+ F F 80 - 84 M F F 80- 84 M F F 75 - 79 M F F F 75- 79 M F F F 70 - 74 MM F F F 70- 74 M M, F F F 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 65- 69 MMM FFFF 60 - 64 MMMM FFFF 60- 64 MMMM FFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFF 55- 59 MMMMM FFFFFv 50 - 54 MMMMM FFFFF 50- 54 MMMMMM FFFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMMM F F F F F F 45- 49 MMMMMMM F F F F F F F 41 - 44 MMMMMMM FFF F F F F 40- 44 MMMMMMMMM F F F r F F F F 0 35 - 39 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 35- 39 MMMMMNIMMMM FFFFFFFFFF 3 @n - 34 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFFF 30- 34 MMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F 25 - 29 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFFF 25- 29 MMV.MMM FFFFFF ?.9 - 24 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 20- 24 MMMMMM FFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMM FFFFFF is- 19 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 13 - 14 MMMMMMM FFFFFF 10- 14 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMM F FF F F F F 5 - 9 MM M M M M M M F F F F F F F 0 - 4 MMMMMMMM F F F F F F F 0 - 4 MMMMMMM, F F F F F F 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 if) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 ? 1 0 1 @ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POrULATION OY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 32.7) (MEDIAN AGE = 36.0) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP - ORANGE 1970 105 1980 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 9818 9611 19429 9187 8794 17981 9763 9345 191CR 11686 11182 22868 5 - 19 34035 3,98q7 64932 36604 33336 69940 36276 33630 69906 35436 32836 68272 20 - 44 34009 34600 6S609 40316 40199 80515 49901 48916 98817 61145 59636 120781 45 - 64 21817 22963 44780 22933 24559 47492 24193 26220 50413 26006 28363 54369 65+ 10215 1369? 23907 11228 15590 26918 12453 17691 30144 13567 19950 33517 TOT AL 109894 111763 221657 12n268 122478 242746 1 32586 13 5K) 2 2693PS 147840 151967 299807 1990 1995 2000 2005 MALE FEMALE T 0 T A L MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE T 0 T A L MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 13539 12951 26490 14583 13949 29532 15181 14517 29698 15913 15127 30945 5 - 19 37625 34711 72336 42553 39457 82010 48292 44976 93268 52586 49102 101688 20 - 44 70977 68636 139613 78039 74542 1 5?581 82559 78815 161374 85566 82793 168359 45 - 64 28633 31924 60557 33131 37396 70527 41199 4 5826 8 70 2 5 52964 56606 109570 65+ 14764 22292 37056 1 5902 24620 40522 16926 26570 43496 18272 28989 47261 TOTAL 165538 170914 336052 184208 189964 374172 204157 210714 4 14861 225?06 232617 457823 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD APRIL 1978 POPULATION PYRAMIDS ORANGE 1970 1980 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85 + M F 80 - 84 M F F 80 - 84 M F F 75 - 79 MM F F 75 - 79 MM F F F 71 - 74 MM F F F 70 - 74 MMM F F F 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 65 - 69 MMM FFFf 61 - 64 MMMM F F F F F 60 - 64 MMMM f F F F 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFF 55 - 59 MMMM FFFFF 50 - 54 MMMMM FFFFF 50 - 54 MMMMM FFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMM FFFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMM FFFFF 4 0 - 44 MMMMMM F F F F F F 40 - 44 m m m m M F F F F F 35 - 39 MMMMMM FF F F F F 35 - 39 MMMMMM F F F F F F 13 - 34 M M M MM M FF FF F F 30 - 34 M MM M (A M M. F F F F F F F F 25 - 29 MMMMMM FF FFF F F 25 - 29 m mm mm fo, m m M. F FF F F F F F 20 - 24 m m m m m my, m FF FFF FF 20 - 24 mmmmmmmmmmM F F f F F F FFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMMri'-lMM FFFFFFFFF 1@ - 14 MMMMMMM;IMM FFFFFFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFFF 5 - 9 WIMMMMMM FFFFFFF 1) - 4 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 28.5) (MEDIAN AGE = 29.2) 1990 2 CIO 0 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M FF 85 + M F F 80 - 84 M F F 80 - 84 M F F 75 - 79 MM F F F 75 - 79 MM F F F 70 - 74 MM F F F 70 - 74 MM F F F 65 - 69 M M M F F F F 65 - 69 MMM F F F 60 - 64 MMMM F F F F 60 - 64 MMM F F F F 55 - 59 MMMM FFFF 55 - 59 MMMM FFFFF 50 - 54 MMMM FF F F F 50 - 54 MMMMM F F F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMM FFFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 4-1 - 44 MMMMMM FFFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 39 - 34 MMMMMMmMMM F F F F F F F F F 30 - 34 MMMMMMMM F FF F F F F F 25 - 29 MMM4MMMMMM FF F FF F F F F 25 - 29 MMMMMMM F F F F F F F 20 - 24 mmmmmmmmm rFFFFFFF 20 - 24 MMMMMMM FFFFFF 15 - 19 mmmmm,%lmm FFFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 13 - 14 MMMMMMM FF FFFF F 10 - 1 4 MM M M M M f-l (.1 F FFF F F F 5 - 9 MMM14MMMM FF FFFF F 5 - 9 n M %1.%l M MM M F FFF F F F 0 - 4 MMM.MMMMM FFFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMM(,l FFFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1.0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 31.6) (MEDIAN AGE = 34.4) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP - PUTNAM 1970 1,975 1980 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 3028 2740 5768 7361 2260 4621 2592 2481 5073 3426 3279 6705 5 - 19 9135 8606 17741 1 1705 10865 22570 11902 11124 23026 10771 10025 20796 2 0 - 4 4 8793 9403 181 86 1 1891 12058 23949 15683 1 5692 31375 19689 19465 39154 45. - 64 4901 51 34 19n35 5856 5975 11931 6815 69?0 13735 8083 8290 16373 65+ @ ? 18 2748 4966 2469 3 354 5923 2486 373 1 6267 2 4 c.6 4102 6548 TOTAL 28065 28631 56696 3428? 34512 68794 39478 39998 79476 44415 45161 89576 1990 1995 2000 2005 MALE FEMALE MALF FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL TOTAL 0 - 4 41 89 4on7 8196 4352 4162 8514 4 rj' 6 8 3890 7958 3864 3695 7559 5 - 19 10335 9825 20160 1 1803 11297 23100 13415 12928 26343 14982 13603 27685 2n - 44 2@939 22257 45196 24597 23702 48299 24701 24151 48852 24363 24063 48426 45 - 64 9477 in064 19541 10281 11287 21567 12173 1 295n 25123 14 767 15392 30159 65+ ?563 4257 6820 ?927 4584 7511 3243 50') 5 8248 3907 5823 9630 TOTAL 49503 50410 99913 53959 55032 1 08991 57600 5992-4 116524 60883 62576 123459 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD APRIL 1978 POPULATION' PYRAMIDS PUTNAM 1970 1980 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + F 85 + F 90 - 84 m F 80 - 84 M F 75 - 79 M F F 75 - 79 m F F 70 - 74 M M FF F 70 - 74 MM F F F 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 65 - 69 MM FFF 62 - 64 mmmm F F F F 60 - 64 MMM f F F 5 5 - 59 MMMM F F FF 55 - 59 MMMM F F F F 5 ) - 54 M @'AM M FF F F F 50 - 54 MMMMM F F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMM F F FF F 45 - 49 MMMmrlM F FF F F 4',) - 44 MMMMMMM FFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMmM FFFFFFF 35 - 39 Mmmmmmm FFFFFF 35 - 39 MM '.IM MMM M F F F F F F F F F 30 - 34 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 3D - 34 mmmmmmm FFFFFFFF 25 - 29 mmmmmm FFFFFFFF 25 - 29 mmmmmmMM FFFFFFFF 20 - 24 mmmm FF FF F F 2D - 24 MMM.14MMMM F FF F F F F F 15 - 19 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFFFF i n - 14 MMMMM MA M M MMM F F F F F F FF F F F 10 - 14 MM MMMM MM M MY M F F F F FF F F F F 5 - 9 mmMmmmmmmmmmM FF F F F F F F F F F F 5 9 F-11 IV, M M N1 F FF F F F F 0 - 4 MMMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFFF 0 4 mmmmmr-im FFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 n 1 @ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 27.5) (MEDIAN AGE = 28.9) 1990 20C.0 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + F 85 + F 80 - 84 m F 80 - 84 F 75 - 79 m FF 75 - 79 M FF 70 - 74 M FF 70 - 74 MM FF 65 - 69 mm FFF 65 - 69 MM FFF 60 - 64 MMM FFF 60 - 64 MMMM FFFF 55 - 59 MMMM FF FF 55 - 59 MMMMM F F F F F F 50 - 54 MMMMM FFFFF 50 - 54 MMMMM FFFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 40 - 44 mmmmmm FFFFFFF 4n - 44 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 35 - 39 mmmmmmmmm F F F F F F F F 35 - 39 MMMMMMAIAMIMM F F F F F F F F F F F F 30 - 34 MMMMMMMMMMM FF F F F F FF F F 30 - 34 MMMMC4MMMMM FF F F F F F FFF 25 - 29 MMMMMmmmmmm FFFFFFFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMM FFFFFF 21 - 24 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF ?0 - 24 MMMMM FFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMM FFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMM FFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMM FFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMIMMMMM FFFFFFFF 5 - 9 mmmmmmmm FFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF - 4 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 31.1) (MEDIAN AGE = 34.8) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP ROCKLAND 1970 1975 1980 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MAL E FEMALE TOT AL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 4 10773 10626 21399 8046 7702 15748 8671 8300 16971 11063 10585* 21648 5 - 19 38444 36594 75028 41604 39251 90855 37133 35505 72638 31599 30684 62283 20 - 4.4 36501 4014 76 76977 41731 44798 86529 51345 5 3165 104510 63314 63285 126599 45 - 64 20170 20242 40412 24630 24032 48662 28234 28359 56593 30230 32323 62553 65+ 6249 9838 16087 7499 11695 19194 8959 13798 22757 9782 14695 24477 TOTAL 112137 117766 229903 123510 127478 250988 134342 13 91 ? 7 273469 145988 151572 297560 1990 1 995 2000 2005 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 1?439 11899 24338 12492 11948 24440 11489 10987 22476 10797 10325 21122 5 - 19 31002 299,16 6n888 35124 33959 68983 38836 37409 76245 39228 37769 76997 20 - 44 71492 70934 142326 74062 72743 146805 73198 71474 144672 68970 68204 137174 45 - 64 31151 34997 66148 31829 37108 68937 36133 41510 77643 46537 50122 96659 65+ 11506 16489 27995 14096 19571 33667 15717 22919 38636 16227 25671 41898 TOTAL 157590 164105 321695 16 76n3 175?29 342832 175373 184299 359672 181759 192091 373,850 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD APRIL 1978 POPULATION PYRAMIDS ROCKLANL 1970 1980 AGE M A L E- FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + F 85 + F Kn - 84 M F 80 - 84 M F F 75 - 79 M FF 75 - 79 M F F 719 - 74 M FF 70 - 74 MM F F 65 - 69 MM F F F 65 - 69 MM F F F 63 - 64 MMM F F F 60 - 64 MMM F F F F 55 - 59 MMMM FF F F 55 - 59 M M tAMM F F F F F 51) - 54 MMMMM FF FF F 50 - 54 MM M MM M F F F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMMM FF F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMMM F F F F F F F 40 - 44 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 40 - 44 m.4mmmm rFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMM FFFFFFF 39 - 34 MMMMMM F F FF F F F 30 - 34 M MA M MM, M F F F F F F F 2 5 - 29 m m MM M F F F F F F F 25 - 29 M.'l MM M r-l M M F F F F F F F F F 2'@ - 24 M rt M r-l M FF FF F F 20 - 24 MMM ,MMMMMMM. F F F F F F F F F F 15 - 1 9 MMMMMMMM FF FFF F FF 15 - 19 M m M M MMA M,-l.M M F FF F F F F F F F F 10 - 14 MMMMMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMM.'IMNIMN, FFFFFFFFF 5 - 9 M M M M M M M M NIM M?-1'4 FF FF F F F F F F F F 5 - 9 MM M ", M, M F F F F F F 0 - 4 MMMMMMr-IMM FF FF F F F F F 0 - 4 M M M M M M F FF F F F 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6" 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 f) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION 8Y AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 27.1) (MEDIAN AGE = 29.2) 1991.) 2000 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 95 + F 85 + F 80 - 94 M F 80 - 84 M F 75 - 79 M F F 75 - 79 MM F F 79 - 74 MM F F 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 60, - 64 MMMMM F F F F F 60 - 64 MMMM F F F F F 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFF 55 - 59 MMMM FFFFF 50 - 54 M M4M M F F F F F F 50 - 54 MMMMM F F F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMM F F F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMM FFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFFF 30 - 34 MMMMMMMMMMM FF F F F F F F F F F 30 - 34 MMMMM-MMM F F F F F F FF 25 - 29 MMMMMMMMMMM FF FF F F FF F F F 25 - 29 M M M M M r0l F F F F F F 21.) - 24 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF ?0 - 24 MMMMM FFFFF 15 - 19 WO MMM M F F FF F F 15 - 19 M Wel M r1l, M M F F F F F F F 10 - 1 4 MMMMMM F F F F F F 10 - 1 4 M M f@ M M.'-! M. M. F F F F F F F 5 - 9 M M M AM M M FF FF F F F 5 - 9 M MM M i',l M M F FF F F F F 0 - 4 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMM FFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATIDN BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 32.1 ) (MEDIAN AGE = 36.4) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP - ULSTER 1970 105 1980 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 5970 5-752 11722 5081 4863 9944 5624 5383 11007 6533 6251 12784 5 - 19 20562 20055 40617 21336 20756 42092 19508 19318 38826 17939 17629 35568 20, - 44 22112 22432 44544 26545 26575 531 ?0 32494 3 ? I @ 3 64597 37959 37852 75811 45 - 64 1'3189 146n2 27791 14334 15639 29973 15301 16473 31774 16094 17052 33146 65+ 7060 9507 16567 73.94 10652 18036 7476 1 1556 19n32 7661 12264 19925 TOTAL 68893 72348 141 241 74680 78485 153165 80403 84833 165236 86186 91048 177234 1990 1995 ?000 2005 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 7125 6817 13942 6845 6547 13392 6521 6236 12757 6319 6043 12362 s - 19 18151 177?1 35872 19998 19486 39484 21'156 20514 41570 20958 2042 3 41381 20 - 44 41331 41167 8?698 41583 41305 82888 40369 40194 80563 38549 38841 77390 45 - 64 17346 18255 35601 19480 20895 40375 23341 24861 48202 28372 29793 58165 65+ 7865 12818 20683 8401 13463 21864 8628 13759 22387 8854 13982 22836 TOTAL 91818 96978 189796 96307 101696 193003 99915 105564 205479 1 03052 109082 212134 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD APRIL 1978 POPULATION PYRAMIDS ULSTFR 1970 1980 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85 + * M F F 83 - 84 M F F 80 - 84 M F F 75 - 79 MM FFF 75 - 79 MM F F F 71 - 74 MMM FFF F 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 65 - 69 MMMM FFFF 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 6'.1 - 64 MMMM F F F F F 60 - 64 MMMM FF F F F 55 - 59 MMMM FFFF F 55 - 59 M M M, M F F F F F 51) - 54 MMMMM FF FF F 50 - 54 M MM M. M FF F F F 45 - 49 M M MM M FF FF F 45 - 49 MMMMM FFF F F 49 - 44 M M MMM M FFFF F F 40 - 4 4 MMMMM FFF F F 35 - 39 MMMMMM FFFF F F 35 - 39 MM M 14M M F FF F F F 30 - 34 MMMMMM FFFFFF 30 - 34 MMMMMVMM FFFFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMMM FFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 21 - 24 MMMMMMM FFF F F F FF 20 - 24 M M P;M M M M M M, PM FF F F F F F FF F 15 - 19 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF Is - 19 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMM;4MMMMMM FFF F F FFF F F 5 - 9 M M M M fe, M F F F F F F 0 - 4 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 0 - 4 MM,4MMMM FFFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 ? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 29.0) (MEDIAN AGE = 31). 1) 1999 2000 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M FF 85 + M FF V - 84 M FF 80 - 84 M FF 75 - 79 M FFF 75 - 79 MM FFF 70 - 74 MM F F F 70 - 74 MM F F F 65 - 69 MMM F F F F 65 - 69 MMM F F F F 60 - 64 MMMM F F F F F 60 - 64 MMMM F F F F 55 - 59 MMMM FF FFF 55 - 59 MMMMM F F F F F 51 - 54 MMMMM FF FFF 50 - 54 MMMMMM FFF F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMMM F F F FFF 45 - 49 M M MM M M M M FFF F F F F F 40 - 44 M 1-1 M M IMM F FF FF F F F 40 - 44 MMMMMMMMMM FFF F F F F F F 35 - 39 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 30 - 34 MMMMMMMMPIM F FFFF F FF F F 30 - 34 MMMf4MMMM FF F F F F F F 25 - 29 MMMMMMMMNIM FFFFFFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMM FFFFFF 2 r) - 24 MMMMMMM:4 F F F F F F F F 20 - 24 MMMMMM F F F F F F 15 - 19 M f-I M MM M F FFFF F 15 - 19 M MM M *4 M M FFFF F F F 10 - 14 MMMMMM FFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMM FFF FF F F 5 - 9 MMMMMMM FFF F F F fj - 4 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMM FFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 3 3 . 0 ) (MEDIAN AGE = 36.7) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP - WESTCHESTER 1970 1975 198C 19 -85 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 33697 32611 66308 26520 25385 51905 23871 22848 46719 26008 24887 50895 5 - 19 121345 1 19297 241642 1 1383,1) 108499 2223?9 96702 929-16 189618 81439 78647 160086 20 - 44 127521 1 47858 275379 1 39959 1 51 960 291919 155241 163462 31 87C3 171774 176032 347806 45 - 64 10? 366 1 14747 217113 98393 1 1 Z998 211391 91573 106663 198236 84 389 99995 184384 65+ 3 @ 4 19 56545 94964 41295 61270 102565 43934 67448 111382 45235 72740 117975 TOTAL 423349 4 71158 894406 419997 4601 12 880109 411 Wl 453337 864658 408845 452301 861146 1990 1995 2000 2005 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - , 4 27414 26??6 53640 26959 25785 52744 24903 23717 485?0 2;1861 21859 44720 5 - 19 75743 72976 149719 78163 75103 153466 82853 79788 1 6?641 82516 79431 161947 20 - 44 179481 1 925?2 36?003 1 7505C 1 75897 350947 165992 1634r)3 329485 153530 152135 305665 45 - 64 81425 96 00 5 1 ? 7 4 3 0 87391 1 C 1 7 ? 3 1891 14 101051 116979 21803C 121434 134 395 255829 65+ 47193 77949 125042 49270 81648 129918 4 7 1 n 2 920,53 129165 44 716 80658 125374 T 0 T A L .411256 455578 P66834 415833 460356 876189 421801 4 6 6',l 4 887841 4 2 5 r) 5 7 468478 893535 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOP'MENT aOARD APRIL 1978 POPULATION PYRAMIDS WESTCHtL 0? 1970 1980 AGE MALE FEMALE AGt MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85 + F 80 - 84 M FF 80 - 84 M FF 75 - 79 M FF 75 - 79 MM FFF 70 - 74 MM FFF 70 - 74 MMM FFFF 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 65 - 69 MMMM FFFFF 63 - 64 MMMMM FFFFF 60 - 64 MMMMM FFFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMMM FFFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMMM FFFFFF 50 - 54 MMMMMM F F F F F F F 50 - 54 MMMMMM F F F F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMM FFFFFF 49 - 44 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMM FFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMM FF FFF F 35 - 39 MM M M W'A F F F F F F 31 - 34 MMMMM FFFFFF 30 - 34 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMIMM FFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 2.0 - @ 4 MMMMMM F F FF F F F 20 - 24 MMM MM MM M M FFFFFFFf 15 - 19 MMMMMAMM FFFFFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 1 ') - 14 MMMMMMMMMM FF FFF F F F F 19 - 14 MM MM M MIM M F F F F F F F 5 - 9 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 5 - 9 MIMMW-11-1 FFFFFF 9 - 4 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFF 0 - 4 M%IMMMM FFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 a 9 io 'PRCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 32.9) (MEDIAN AGE = 33.2) 199n 2000 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F F 85 + m F F .89 - 84 M F F 80 - 84 M F F F 75 - 79 MM F F F F 75 - 79 MM F F F F 7') - 74 MMM F F F F F 70 - 74 MMM F F F F F 65 - 69 MMMM FFFFF 65 - 69 MMM FFFFF 60 - 64 MMMMM FFFFFF 60 - 64 MMMM F F F F F 55 - 59 MMMM FFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFF 5D - 54 MMMM F F F F F 50 - 54 MMMMMMIV. F F F F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMM FFFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 49 - 44 MMMMMMM F F F F F F F F 40 - 44 MMMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F F 35 - 39 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMMM. FFFFFFFFF 30 - 34 MMMMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F F 30 - 34 MMMMM%IMM F F F F F F F F ? 5 - 29 MMMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F F 25 - 29 MMMMMM F FF F F F 20 - 24 MMMMMMM F F F F F F F 20 - 24 MMMMM F F F F F 15 - 19 MMMMMM FFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMM FFFFFF 11) - 14 MMMMMM FF F F F 10 - 14 MMMMMPAM F F F F F F 5 - 9 MMMMMM FFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMM FFFFFF 9 - 4 MMMMMM FFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMM FFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 ? 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 35.7) (MEDIAN AGE = 39.1) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP - MID-HUDSON SUBREGION 1970 1975 1980 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 75190 72847 148037 60825 5V20 119045 60793 58189 118982 71011 67949 138960 5 - 19 26?778 253783 516561 266093 252294 518387 239929 228944 468873 212381 202749 415130 2f) - 44 273315 298863 572183 310073 325254 635327 362366 371856 734222 421150 424496 845646 45 - 64 188812 2059S4 394766 193320 212676 405996 195113 21 538n 4 10493 19591 1 218537 414448 65+ 76668 109502 186170 93847 121423 205270 89745 134693 223938 92711 145775 238486 TO TAL 876763 940954 1817717 914158 969867 1 884025 147446 1009062 1956508 993164 1059506 2052670 1990 1995 2000 ?005 MALE FEMALE T 0 T A L MAL E FEMALE TOTAL M A L E FEMALE T 0 T A L MALE FEMALE TOTAL I - 4 78341 7494.6 153287 79284 75833 155117 75428 72129 147557 72853 69666 142519 5 - 19 208437 198254 4n6691 227561 216665 444226 248714 236893 485607 ? 5 5 110 242849 497959 ?0 - 44 4 69 15 7 460044 920201 470096 464844 934943 464753 454876 919629 448345 441993 890838 45 - 64 2CI878 226923 428801 219652 248188 467840 257003 288916 545919 315723 342491 658214 65+ 99429 157135 255564 104961 168956 273917 108057 176747 284804 109481 183303 292784 TOTAL 1047242 1 117302 2164544 1101554 1 174486 2276040 1153955 1229561 2383516 1 202012 1280302 2482314 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT dOARD APRIL 1978 POPULATION PYRAMIDS MID-VIUD@. 4 SUBREGION 1970 1980 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85 + M F 80 - 84 M F 90 - 84 M F F 75 - 79 MM F F 75 - 79 MM F F F 70 - 74 MM F F F 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 6') - 64 MMMM F F F F F 60 - 64 MMMM F F F F F 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFF 50 - 54 MMMMM F F F F F F 50 - 54 MMMMMM F F F F F F 45 - @ 9 MMMMMM F F F F F F 45 - 49 M M M.M IA F FF F F F 40 - 44 MMMMMM FFFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMM FFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMrlMM F F FF F F 35 - 39 MMMMMM F F F F F F F 31 - 34 MMMMMM FFFFFF 30 - 34 mmmmmmm FFFFFFFF 25 - 29 MMM-MMM FFFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 20 - ? 4 MMMMMM F F FF F F F 20 - 24 M MM M M M M M M F FF F FF F F F is - 19 MMMMMMMK F F F F F F FF F 15 - 19 M M MM MM M.Mm M F F F F F F F F F V) - 14 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMMMMM F F FF F F FF F F 5 - 9 MMMMMMM F F F F FF r o - 4 Mf4MMMMMM F F F F F F FF 0 - 4 MA M M M M F F F F FF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 32.9) (MEDIAN AGE = 33.2) 1990 2000 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85 + M F F 81 - 94 M F F 80 - 84 M F F 75 - 79 MM F F F 75 - 79 MM F F F 70 - 74 MM F F F F 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 65 - 69 MMM FFFF 6.1 - 64 MMMM FFFFF 60 - 64 MMMM FFFF 55 - 59 MMM M F F F F F 55 - 59 MMMMM F F F F F 51 - 54 MMMMM F F F F F 50 - 54 MMMMMIM FFFFFFF 45 - 49 M M M *4 M M F F F F F F 45 - 49 M M M M M M M F F F F F F F F 40 - 44 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F F 35 - 39 M M M M MM M M M M F F F F F F F F F 31) - 34 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFFF 30 - 34 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMM FFFFFF 20 - 24 MMMMMMMM F F F F F F F Z 0 - 24 MMMMMM F F F F F F 15 - 19 MMMMMM FFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMM FFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMM%ll FFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF r - 4 mmmmmmm FFFFFFF 0 - 4 MMMMMM FFFFFF 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 35.7) (.MEDIAN AGE = 39.1) PROJECTED POPULATION IN EACH AGE GROUP HUDSON RIVER BASIN 1970 1975 1980 1985 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TUTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 134109 128942 263051 111585 106811 2113396 111441 106664 218105 127426 121930 249356 5 - 19 461688 445390 907078 460508 439113 899621 418022 400538 818500 376087 359631 735718 20 - 44 467162 505884 973046 530454 551018 1081472 615847 626785 1242632 706553 709221 1415774 45 - '64 333260 365972 699232 336506 373667 710173 331993 370947 7U2940 326259 366919 693 1 ?8 65+ 141718 204234 345952 151974 222919 374893 161372 243979 405351 168364 262492 430856 TOTAL 1537937 1650422 3188359 1591027 1693528 3284555 1638675 1748913 3387588 1704689 1820193 3524882 1990 1995 2000 2005 MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL 0 - 4 137037 131101 268138 1,37100 131130 268230 131184 125442 256626 127151 121585 248736 5 - 19 370406 353722 724128 397836 380042 777878 426260 407196 833456 432177 412644 8448?1 20 - 44 762720 758307 1521027 774442 761191 1535633 760151 741393 1501544. 734821 718657 1453475 45 - 64 334653 377051 71 1704 365427 412027 777454 429988 479UIO QjbY93 520402 563442 1083644 65+ 176703 280209 456912 183897 294799 478696 184484 300158 464642 163856 303761 48707 TOTAL 1781519 1900390 3681909 1858702 1979189 3837891 1932067 2053199 3985266 19984 07 2120089 4118496 NYS ECONOMIC DEVELC-PMENT i3OAH0 APRIL 1978 POPULATION PYRAMIDS HUDSON RiVER BASlhf 1970 1980 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 85 + M F 85 + M F 911 - 84 M F F 80 - 84 M F F 75 - 79 M M F F F 75 - 79 MM F F F 7f), - 74 MM F F F 70 - 74 Mfe. M F F F F 65 - 69 MMM F F F F 65 - 69 MMMM F F F F F 60 - 64 MMMM FFFFF 60 - 64 MMMM FFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMM F FF F F F 55 - 59 M M M N 10, F F F F F F 50 - 54 MMMMM F FF F F F 50 - 54 M M M M M F F F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMMM FFFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMM FFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMM FFFFFF 40 - 44 mmmmm FFFFF 35 - 39 MMMAMM F FFFF F 35 - 39 MM M M N, M F F F F F F 30 - 34 MMMMM F FFF F F 3 0 - 34 M M M M M,'Am F F F F F F F F 25 - 29 M M M M M M F FFF F F 25 - 29 MMMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F F P D - ? 4 MMMMMM F F F F F F F 20 - 24 MMMMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F F 15 - 19 MMMM41MMMM FFFFFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMMMMM FFFFFFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 5 9 MMMMM,*IMMMM FFFFFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMM FFFFFF n 4 MMMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 0 - 4 MM;4MMMm FFFFFF 11) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 32.9) (MEDIAN AGE = 33.2) 199D 2000 AGE MALE FEMALE AGE MALE FEMALE 95 + M F F 85 + M F F 89 - 94 M F F 80 - 84 M F F 75 - 79 MM F F f 75 - 79 MM F F F 71 - 74 MMM F F F F 70 - 74 MMM F F F F 65 - 69 MMMM F F F F F 65 - 69 MMM F F F F 60 - 64 MMMM FFFFF 60 - 64 MMMM FFFF 55 - 59 MMMM FFFFF 55 - 59 MMMMM FFFFF 50 - 54 MMMM F F F F F 50 - 54 MMMMMM F F F F F F F 45 - 49 MMMMM FFFFFF 45 - 49 MMMMMMM FFFFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 40 - 44 MMMMMMMFM FFFFFFFFF 35 - 39 MMMMMMMM F FFF F F FF 35 - 39 MMM MM M M M M FFFFFFFFF 39 - 34 MMMMMMMf4MM F F F F F F F F F 30 - 34 MMMMMMMM F F F F F F F F 25 - 29 MMMMMMIMM FFFFFFFFF 25 - 29 MMMMMM FFFFFF 21 - @ 4 MMMMMMMM F F F F F F F 20 - 24 MMMMMM F F F F F F 15 - 19 MMMMMMM FFFFFF 15 - 19 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 19 - 14 MM474MM FFFFFF 10 - 14 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 5 - 9 MMMMMMM FFFFFFF 11 - 4 MMMMMMM F FF F F F F 0 - 4 M rl M M M F F F F F F 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP PERCENT POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (MEDIAN AGE = 35.7) (MEDIAN AGE = 39.1) CHAPTER V THE ECONOMIC PROFILE AND OUTLOOK TO THE YEAR 2000 I HUDSON RIVER BASIN LEVEL-B STUDY CHAPTER V THE ECONOMIC PROFILE AND OUTLOOK TO THE YEAR 2000 INTRODUCTION The Hudson River Basin can be viewed within the con- text of a larger region of Northeast states to develop a broader regional perspective of an economic outlook and to assess long-term economic trends and prospects within a national framework. The purpose of the national and North- east view is to provide a comprehensive review of the recent change in the nature, character and extent of the economic adjustment, and structural economic shifts affecting the profile of the Hudson River Basin in the seventies. It will also assist to identify some of the key factors influencing the region's near-term and longer term economic prospects. This paper presents an analysis of the profile of total employment for the Hudson River Basin from 1960 through 1974. The analysis begins with an assessment of economic activity to ascertain future levels of development. The change in the character of economic activity (employment) is measured through a study of the recent shifting industrial structure. The location and dispersion of economic activity among the sub-areas of the basin are also discussed. Finally, a review of economic prospects for the Basin is undertaken within the context of the national outlook. Specific potential factors are mentioned which will influence the competitive position on the region over the longer term. NATIONAL AND NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE The Hudson River Basin is situated within a larger region of Northeast states. The Northeast quadrant of the nation has been undergoing a long-term dispersal of economic activity since World War II. As a result, the Northeast has experienced a decline in its relative economic position to the nation and no longer leads in industrial development in the United States. The disparity between the rate of economic development in the Hudson River Basin and the nation is partly the result of an exporting of skilled jobs, invest- ment, capital, industries and people away from the Northeast during this period. At the same time, it has imported lower skilled and lower income people, searching for economic oppor- tunity, which eventually increased social service costs. The suburbanization process during the post-war period marked the beginning of a decline in economic activity in central cities in the Northeast. The migration of younger, V-2 white collar and relatively skilled labor force to suburban areas was followed by the relocation of manufacturing facilities from antiquated multi-story plants in urban centers to modern new space outside central cities, designed to take advantage of up-to-date technological innovations. Shifts in private sector employment have been observed from urbanized areas to non-metropolitan areas concurrently with shifts from the Northeast to the South and Southwest. Since the Northeast is disproportionately urban, its regional economic shifts have been more pronounced than other regions of the nation. This change in the regional economic competitive position of the Northeast in favor of the South and West has occurred for a number of reasons, such as: (1) the impact of construction of the interstate highway system and air travel in shrinking economic space, contributing to a highly in- tegrated national economy, mobility of popu- lation and suburbanization; (2) technological change, including: (a) evolving production technologies; (b) communication technology which permits greater decentralization of many activities; (c) manufacturing production line technology which requires spacious single floor facilities; (d) inability to quickly adapt to new teehno- logy with existing capital stock and land use patterns; (e) change in technology has altered location decisions (e.g. widespread adoption of air-, conditioning has largely erased climate handicaps and opened up Southern locations to industry). (3) aging, if not obsolescent, capital (plant and equipment) due to declining relative rate of return on capital from high taxes, high labor costs (wages) and energy costs, which, in turn, further reduces the efficiency and increases the cost of production; V-3 (4) migration of labor to areas where the present value of life-cycle, disposable (after-tax) income is greater; (5) increasing relative social consciousness (welfare burden) of large metropolitan areas, whose population is disproportionately located in the Northeast; (6) increasing importance of amenities as a*loeation factor, changing consumer tastes and lifestyles, and declining quality of life in urban centers (e.g., pollution, decline in public safety and property values, and decay of central cities); (7) rising relative per capita income-, declining relative cost of living and increasing living standard in the South and West in relation to the Northeast; (8) improved social status and labor market conditions of blacks in the South and the reversal of net migration of blacks from the South to the Northeast and North Central regions; (9) shifting markets in favor of the South and West which encourages further development by broadening their economic base and developing newer centers of economic concentrations; (e.g., some industries require a market size tfireshold before taking advantage of economies of scale); (10) changing labor market conditions (e.g., mechaniza- tion which displaced unskilled farm workers from the rural South and increased migration to the North to compete for fewer jobs) during the 1950's and 1960's resulted in the immigration of low skilled and low income people to the Northeast; (11) traffic congestion that affects transportation costs, particularly in larger metropolitan areas largely concentrated in Northeast; (12) high energy costs, as a result of increasing dependency upon foreign oil sources; (13) increases in agriculture and commodity prices shifting income and wealth to the South and West; (14) shifts in international trade creating trend toward lower employment in manufacturing; V-4 (15) lower land-costs in the Sunbelt and higher costs in Northeast to reconstruct already developed lands; (16) economic impact of a regional imbalance of federal policies which have drained the Northeast and Midwest of $30 billion and added $22 billion to the South and West in fiscal 197S alone; and (17) relatively high public sector (state and local government) expenditures and taxes has contributed to the reduction of the regional comparative advantage, particularly in New York State. The overall shift after 1970 was more pronounced than the strong expansionary decade of the 1960's which postponed the demise of marginal high-cost enterprises. An acceleration of the relative deterioration of economic activity was pre- cipitated during the 1969-70 recession and primarily took place in large SMSA's in the Northeast. Smaller central city counties have participated in the decline to a more limited extent, while non-metropolitan counties have tended to grow, although to a lesser degree in more recent years than the boom years of the 1960's -- a fact reflecting two national recessions since 1970, the latter being the most severe since the 19301s. The current trends of economic disparity between the Northeast and the nation continue during the recovery following the 1973-1975 recession. While national employment has shown considerable improvement, the Northeast has failed to show the same resilience. The Northeast recovery can be characterized as slow and hesitant, while improvement of regional comparative advantages are being masked by current public sector weakness. LEVEL OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN THE HUDSON RIVER BASIN, 1960 TO 1974 The Region trends reflect the cessation of growth in the nation's oldest and largest manufacturing metropolitan centers in the Northeast, the shift away from the Northeast to the Sunbelt and the continuation of suburbanization and exurbanization of central city activity. The Region is composed of several old but relatively small metropolitan areas such as the Albany-Schenectady-Troy, Poughkeepsie and Utica-Rom.e SMSA's, as well as part of the New York SMSA. The deterioration of large metropolitan areas does not directly impact the kegion. Therefore, the Region shares less of the economic malaise characteristic of the urban Northeast-such as an absolute secular decline in employment. During the 19601s, employment grew at a rapid enough rate to increase the regional share of U.S. total employment from 1.4% to 1.47%. Table V-A shows estimates of total. employ- V-5 ment by industry from 1960 to 1974. Loss of manufacturing jobs in the Region's metropolitan areas was.concealed by gains in the non-goods producing sectors, particularly services and government employment. The net result was an approximate increase of 244,000 jobs in the Region during the .1960-1970 decades. The Regional trend represents a gradual erosion in relative shares of total employment in the nation since 1970. While employment actually increased by 41,500 in the Region over the 1970-74 period, more than 6,300,000 additional jobs were added throughout the nation, bringing about a decline in the Region's share from 1.47 to 1.41%; of total jobs in the nation. The rate of growth of employment in the Region between 1970 and 1974 declined to about one-third the annual rate during the previous decade. This mirrors the dramatic slow- down in the national economy where the real gross national product and per capita income during the seventies have increased at less than one-half the average annual rate of the sixties. Character and Composition of Economic Activity An examination of the Region's economy on an industry by industry basis, suggests a gradual deterioration in the manu- facturing sector since the 1960's,,masked, to some extent, by continuing increases in the public sector in the latter half of the sixties and early seventies. The Region lost almost 34,000 manufacturing jobs (12% of all manufacturing in the Region) over--the recent four-year period of the seventies. The traditional dominance of manufacturing in the Hudson River Basin (33Y6 of total. employment in 1960) raises questions about the Region's future economic vitality. Job losses in the manufacturing sector (33,700) were greater than job gains in either retail trade (17,2S3), services (32,300), F.I.R.E. (7,900), or government (19,SOO). Employment increases in these nonmanufacturing sectors comprised most of the net increases in total employment of 41,SOO since 1970. The composition of industry change between 1970-74 differed from previous years. Table V-B reveals the per- cent distribution of total employment by major industry from 1960-1974. Agriculture, forestry and fishing and manufactur- ing showed a net decline over the whole period. Retail trade, services, F.I.R.E. and government not only expanded at the greatest rate since 1960, but accounted for more than the net growth since 1970. The Region's economy differs significantly in industrial composition from the 1960's. The primary or extractive sector of agriculture and mining now generates TABLE V-A MIAL EMPIDMM IN TIE HUDSON BASIN REGION 1960, 1970, AND 1974 Change Charge 1960-70 1970-74 Industry 1960 1970 1974 Number Percent Number Percent Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 33,550 23.052 22,894 -10,498 -31.3 -158 -0.7 Mining 2,217 2,702 2,273 485 21.9 -429 -15.9 Construction 38,167 52,742 52,387 14,575 38.2 -355 -0.7 Manufactu:ring 291,058 302,811 269,090 11,753 4.0 -33,721 -11.1 Transportation, Camunications & P.U. 49,538 62,479 61,035 12,941 26.1 -1,444 -2.3 Miolesale Trade 40,242 51,547 52,243 11,305 28.1 696 1.4 Retail Trade 144,036 192,348 209,601 48,312 33.5 17,253 9.0 F.I.R.E. 34,735 45,951 53,830 11,216 32.3 7,879 17.1 Services 144,498 212,515 244,777 68,017 47.1 32,262 15.2 Goverrmxmt 156,643 232,379 251,884 75,736 48.3 19,505 8.4 Total 934,684 1,178,526 1,220,014 243,842 26.1 41.488 3.5 Source: Regina B. Armsr=ng, 'Tiemgraphic and Econoffdc Trends in the Hudson River Basin Region 1960 to 1974"; U.S. Departamt of Comnerce, Bureau of Census. Bureau of Economic Analysis. v-6 2.1% of total employment as compared with 3.6% in 1960; the secondary or goods-produeing sectors of construction and manufacturing has fallen from 3S.2% to 26.4yo of total employment; and the service sector has risen from 58.49/o to 70.1% of all jobs by 1974. The largest components of the non- goods producing segment are government and services, which make up 40.3% of all non-goods producing employment. The transformation of the national economy from a goods producing to service oriented economy is reflected on the changing composition of the Region's economy. Retail trade, F.I.R.E., Services and Government have steadily increased their shares of total regional employment. Location of Economic Activity The Region encompasses three separate metropolitan areas (plus part of New York Metropolitan area) where the location of employment and population is most heavily con- centrated. Regional economic shifts from metropolitan to non-metropolitan areas and migration of industry to the South and West appear to have afflicted the Mohawk and Capital Regions the most of all the Sub Regions. Expansion in the Mid-Hudson and Catskill areas is a result of pressures from the adjacent New York Metropolitan area. The Adirondack growth is due to exurban expansion of nonmetropolitan areas, a phenomenon which is currently taking place throughout the Northeast and nation. Table V-C lists the distribution of total employment by area within the Hudson River Basin. The most rapid rate of growth occurred in the Mid-Hudson Region. Indeed, the Mid- Hudson accounted for more than two-thirds (67.3%) of the growth in total employment in the Hudson River Basin since 1960. The major industry breakdown of total employment by area since 1960 is in Table V-D. The distribution of industry concentration reveals distinct patterns of location in the three basic industriesprimary (extractive), secondary (goods producing) and tertiary (services) by Region. The extractive industries are concentrated in the Adirondack, Catskill, Mid- Hudson and Mohawk regions. Goods production industries are disproportionately located in the Mohawk Region. Service and government sectors dominate the employment pattern in the Capital region. TABLE V-B TOTAL EMPLOYMENT AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF CHANGE IN THE HUDSON RIVER BASIN BY SUB-REGION - 196010 1970, 19722 1974 Change Sub-Region Total Employment 1960-70 1970-74 1960 1970 1974 Number Percent Number Percent Mohawk 1502558 167,325 163,309 16,767 11.1 -4,016 -2.4 Adirondack 292367 353P199 363,892 52,832 19.9 1,693 4.8 Capital 2503@815 319,091 319$031 682276 27.2 -60 0.0 Catskill 15,362 17,992 20004 22630 17.1 2,312 12.9 Mid-Hudson 488s582 638$918 680,478 150,336 30.8 41,560 6.5 Hudson River Basin 9343,684 1,1782526 1$2202014 243,842 26.1 413,488 3.5 Source: Refer to Table 1. TABLE V-C PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL EMPLOYMENT BY MAJOR INDUSTRY IN THE HUDSON RIVER BASIN FOR 1960, 1970, AND 1974 Major Industry 1960 1970 1974 Hudson River Basin Region Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 3.6 2.0 1.9 Mining 0.2 0.2 0.2 Construction 4.1 4.5 4.3 Manufacturing 31.1 25.7 22.1 Transportation, Communications & P. U. 5.3 5.3 5.0 Wholesale Trade 4.3 4.4 4.3 Retail Trade 15.4 16.3 17.2 F.I.R.E. 3.7 3.9 4.4 Services 15.5 18.0 20.1 Government -16.8 19.7 20.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Refer to Table 1. TAmE V-D 1UrAL 12TWY'ENT By IINDUSTRY IN TIIE HUDSON RIVER BASIN BY SLIB-REC1014, 1960, 1970, 1972, 1974 Region 143jor Industry 1960 1970 1972 1974 @bhawk Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 7,892 .5,505 5,065 5,116 mining 198 226 230 232 Construction 3,054 4,042 3,681 3,681 Manufacturing 64,181 61,700 54,209 53,205 Transportation, Coaminications & P.U. 6,654 7,708 7,636 6,931 Wholesale Trade 5,132 6,337 6,014 6,454 Retail Trade 22,012 26,478 25,392 25,250 F. 1. R. E.' 4,603 5,975 6,018 6,565 Services 11,705 18,877 19,262 20,783 Govermw-nt 25,127 30,477 32,594 33,092 Total 15-0-.= R7.325 16-0@ 16373-0 Adirondack Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 835 530 570 599 Mining 1,010 912 368 368 Construction 877 1,883 1,564 1,848 @bnufacturing 7,672 7,688 7,142 7,247 Transportation, Cbminications & P.U. 1,619 1,730 1,713 1,356 Nbolesale Trade 1,160 1,361 1,481 1,554 Retail Trade 6,482 7,193 8,013 8,407 F.I.R.E. 1,591 2,001 1.984 1,984 Services 4,006 61428 6,765 7,568 Government 4,115 5,473 5,461 5,461 Total 79=. 35,199 T5-,Z6r 36,392 Capital Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 6,793 4,860 5,563 5,477 Mining 284 244 247 243 Construction 6,402 13,377 13,409 13,784 Manufacturing 77,704 73,482 68,135 6Z,354 Transportation, Cbmunications & P.U. 13,276 15,528 15,898 14,990 Wholesale Trade 12,526 17,801 17,166 16,516 Retail Trade 36,174 46,732 47,709 45,901 F.I.R.E. 9,737 12,232 14,219 14,907 Services 36,275 56,588 60,812 62,996 Government 51.644 78,247 81,664 81,863 Total TSO, 15 319,091 72 T, 27 S19,031 Catskill Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 5,563 3,163 3,386 3,451, Mirdiig 11 15 21 22 Construction 613 1,239 1,727 1,174 K-inufacturing 2,498 2,457 1,662 1,702 Transportation, Conmmications & P.U. 719 1,261 1,102 1,135 Wholesale Trade 577 496 427 500 Retail Trade 2,782 4,159 4,305 5,155 F.I.R.E. 365 336 301 398 Services 124 1,589 2,155 1,934 Goverment 2 110 3,277 4 348 4 830 Total 17 9-9 14' 2Y a TABLE V-D (cont'd.) TGIAL EVLOYMDU BY OWSTRY IN ITE IRMSON RIVER BASIN BY SUB-REGION, 1960, 1970, 1972, 1974 Region Major Industry 1960 1970 1972 1974 Mid-Hadson Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 12,467 8,994 7,692 8,248 Mining 714 1,305 1,530 1,408 Construction 27,221 32,201 33,110 31,900 Kanufacturing 139,003 157,484 141,416 144,582 Transportation, Cbminications & P.U. 27,270 36,252 36,069 36,123 Wholesale Trade 20,847 25,552 25,203 27,219 Retail Trade 76,586 107,786 113,885 122,888 F.I.R.E. 18,439 25,407 27,104 29,976 Services 92,388 129,032 135,691 151,495 Government 73,647 114,905 119,723 126,638 Total 488,582 638,918 al-,42-3 Z FO -, V7T Hidson River Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 33,550 23,052 22,276 22,894 Basin Mining 2,217 2,702 2,396 2,273 Region Construction 38,167 52,742 53,491 52,387 .knufacturi.ng 291,058 302,811 272,564 269,090 Transportation, Czmninications & P.U. 49,538 62,479 62,418 61,035 Wholesale Trade 40,242 51,547 50,291 52,243 Retail Trade 144,036 192,348 199,304 209,601 F.I.R.E. 34,735 45,951 49,626 53,830 Services 144,498 212,515 224,685 244,777 Governrwnt 156,643 232 379 243 790 251,884 '@i -U-2-OTOIT Total -9 W,-6 U U78:526 -U:: to @4 Source: Refer to Table 1 V-7 Major industry trends consistently show a manufac- turing employment decline in every area since 1970, while services and government activity have expanded in practically every area. Manufacturing employment has been in a long-term secular decline in the Hudson River Basin. The combination of these changes has brought about significant structural shifts in the Region's employment base over the last four years. In a number of areas, one or two declining industries have traditionally employed a substantial share of the manufacturing workforce. The loss of manufacturing jobs in certain industries has severely affected the economies of specific areas of the Basin. Declines in leather goods employment in the Mohawk sub-region is an example of a long- term decline among dominant industries. A second example is the loss of 55% of Utica-Rome's electrical equipment manufacturing employment since 196S. This industry accounted for nearly 19% of all manufacturing jobs in the area at its peak activity. Shifts in consumer preferences and iMplemen- tation in air transportation have also brought about a long-term decline of the resort industry in the Catskill. area. The reasons for a long-term decline among dominant industries are varied and complex. Several important factors believed to explain their economic decline include shifts in consumer preferences, changes in the cost.of conducting business, changes in taxes, advances in trans- portation, communication and industrial technology, as well as the growth of markets in other regions. COMPETITIVE POSITION OF THE BASIN The Hudson River Basin faces a number of competitive disadvantages which are also common to other geographic areas of New York State and the Northeast. The combination of' these problems are particularly serious since they singularly contribute to the perpetuation and acceleration of an eroding economic base. The evidence suggests that the Basin has been unable to attract a sufficient number of new firms and provide incentives for existing firms to expand to prevent a reduction. of manufacturing employment. Goods' producers are not only going through a process of suburbanization and exurbanization within the Basin but there is some out migration as well. A deterioration of the Basin's economic competitive posture relative to the nation is the result of a growing host of forces of comparative disadvantage. More recently, several forces of comparative advantage have also surfaced to counteract or retard the decline of the Basin's economic base. The combination and strength of these forces are the key determinants of the Basin's economic prospects and are discussed below. V-8 There are several national and international factors which have impeded the economic development of the Basin. First, a continuing transformation of the national economy from a goods producing to service oriented economy has occurred to a greater degree in the Northeast and the Basin. The Northeast is the only Census Region which has suffered a net loss of manufacturing jobs over the past fifteen years. One reason for the relative national decline in manufacturing is the increas- ing effect from international trade. Trends in international trade have led to a transfer of low wage, labor intensive manufacturing abroad, a factor particularly disadvantageous to New York State. A loss of manufacturing employment or basic export industries, or, substitution of local service industries tends to narrow the economic and tax base and suggests a possible reduction of regional competitiveness. The relative increases in energy, agricultural and commodity prices which occurred in the early seventies led to a significant redistribution of income from the large industrial metropolitan areas in the northern urban industrial left to the farm and energy states in the South and West. The future expectation is for relative high costs of energy to remain reasonably stable. This will result in a long term negative impact upon the economic development of energy intensive industries in the Basin, reflecting higher energy prices relative to the rest of the nation. Thus, the one long-range impact of the shift in relative natural resources prices is the continual out-migration of energy intensive firms from the Region. The Basin does not have a comparative advantage in energy, but should learn to make better use of existing energy resources by attracting manufacturing and service industries which are less energy intensive. The regional economic development effects of federal policies including procurement, payments to individuals, federal aid to states and regulatory policies continue to favor the economic development of the South. Over the past several decades, federal spending has -disproportionately aided those regions of the nation that were lagging behind in economic development. The real income of the South has vir- tually caught up to the Northeast, yet federal tax and spending policies continue to drain the Northeast (in amount of -$10.8 billion in 1975) and New York State (-$3.4 billion) to assist the poorer states in thu South ($11.5 billion) without accounting for cost-of-living differences. When differences in the cost of living are taken into account, the "real" income of Northeast residents is now virtually the same as residents in the South. Despite higher per capita income, the real income in the Northeast is no longer higher than the real income in the South, V-9 due, in part, to federal tax receipt deficits, higher state and local taxes, progressive tax structures, and higher energy costs, among others. In view of current regional economicrealities of the Northeast, New York State and the Hudson River Basin, the new initiatives by the Coalition of Northeast Governors, Mid-Atlantic states and others, may inspire action for a more balanced growth program for federal spending policy, which should provide a more generally favorable outlook for the economic development of the Basin. Several initiatives which could be pursued include a means to re.- structure the federal grant-in-aid programs to direct more funds to the Northeastl a movement to federalize welfare pro- grams to lessen the burden on State and local governments and a development of a regional list of federal capital expendi- ture projects from which the projects with the greatest economic development potential can be selected. The aging industrial cities and obsolescent economic infrastructure of the Northeast is also characteristic of the Hudson River Basin. This reflects, in part, a period of high relative costs of doing business in the Region, and a low rela- tive rate of return on capital. Such factors as regulatory costs, welfare and taxes have contributed to these higher costs. New York State's level of taxation creates a severe competitive disadvantage to business activity. According to the Tax Foundation, New York State residents have been the most highly taxed in the nation. In fiscal 1975, New York had a per capita tax of $1,025, which was 56 percent above the United States average of $6S6. But this is partly due to the fact that income in New York is higher than the U.S. However, New York State also leads the nation with a utilization rate or taxation capacity which was 35 percent above the national average utilization rate in 1975. These are some of the reasons it is suspected that manufacturing investment in new plant and equipment in New York State has not been maintaining its national share, eonsideriqg the region's industrial compo- sitions and age of existing capitalstock. The relatively high concentration of welfare families in New York's metropolitan areas has a major impact on state and local finances. Welfare payments account for a significant and increasing portion of local government expenditures, contri- buting to a continuing cycle of higher taxes and loss of employ- ment. Lower welfare programs in the South encouraged blacks to migrate North for economic opportunity after mechanization of Sunbelt agriculture left them jobless. The higher level of social consciousness of the Northeast increased welfare benefits when people became jobless. The Northeast's welfare burden increased disproportionately when the federal government failed V-10 to reimburse the states for most of the.additional benefits, thereby increasing the cost of government in the region and discouraging private sector investment. Higher population density and industrial concentration have caused severe environmental problems. Environmental regulations have added to the costs of already aging and obsolete plants by lowering the pre-tax rate of return in the Northeast. The effect has been to hasten the decision to shutdown and relocate or reinvest within the Region with a relatively smaller return on capital. The development of the Interstate Highway System has facilitated the establishment of production facilities in areas removed from major population centers (nonmetropolitan areas and the South and West). It is not only unnecessary for a business to operate in an urban area, but the traffic con- gestion and crowded facilities actually make it a less desir- able and more costly place to work. Access to large tracts of relatively inexpensive land, coupled with changing production technology has favored single-level manufacturing plants in suburban and rural areas accessible by major highways. Thus, urban areas, with their out-moded multi-story lofts, have been adversely affected by technological change. This has resulted in economic decay of central cities and economic shifts to suburban and exurban areas. While the Hudson River Basin is going through a period of transition, there are several important factors which are improving the Basin's competitive position. First, the re- trenchment of the public sector will initially reduce employment levels. The longer term effects, however, will be to check the comparative tax burden and allow the private sector Lo compete more effectively for labor. Lower relative taxes will reduce the relative cost of living, which translates into lower relative wages and salaries to maintain a constant rela- tive real income. The ratio of State and local government employment per capita is now dropping back into line with the national average. An apparent state fiscal adjustment policy is underway to lower the comparative tax burden and improve the competitive position. A significant turnaround is occurring in the relative wage/price relationships in the State. During the late sixties and early seventies, prices (as measured by the New York- Northeastern New Jersey Regional Consumer Price Index), rose more rapidly in the region than the nation as a whole. This index is now rising less rapidly-to make the region more competitive. Data from the new U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Cost Index, which is designed to measure changes in the rate of compensation of a standardized mix of labor services, provides additional evidence that the wage - labor cost factor is now working in the region's favor to where the relative pressure on prices from-labor costs has been abating. For the nine month period from the fourth quarter of 1975 through the second quarter of 1976, the Employment Cost Index in the V-11 Northeast was the lowest of all Census regions and showed an absolute gap of almost one and one-half percent as compared to the South and four percent as compared to the West. The Hudson River Basin offers a number of important and strategic assets such as a unique proximity to a number of large, national markets, good transportation network, good supply of highly skilled, technical and professional labor. This is a result of returns from investment in public education, diversity of living environments, a recreation center, abundant water supply and a well diversified industrial and commercial structure, all of which serve as a foundation for future economic development. Basin's Economic Prospects The long-term response of the Basin's economy depends on the extent which the series of comparative advantages and disadvantages influence the competitive position of the Region. In general these factors are improving in @ontrast to the last ten years. This may lead to increased investment and jobs in the Region. Nevertheless, the prospects of limited growth and economic adjustment appear to be realistic. The State and Hudson River Basin can continue to expect some economic difficulties in the near future. Thus, the employ- ment growth gap between the region and the nation is likely to continue. Employment is projected to experience a much slower rate of development in the Basin than the nation as a whole. The future strength of the private sector will depend upon the development of the national economy; the success of the collaborative efforts of government, labor and management; the success of state and local government management to scruti- nize and limit new expenditures and growth of public services in an effort to bring the level of services into a more com- petitive relationship with the State's fiscal capacity of the seventies, and to develop further efficiencies in current operations; and the success of regional cooperative actions to influence national policy and capitalize on the Region's many assets. The success of these factors to halt the exodus of industry and labor, on which the. growth of employment and revenues depends, will ultimately determine the economic future of the Region. ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL ANb HUDSON RIVER BASIN ECONOMIES Projections of Hudson River Basin economic activity will depend upon a set of underlying assumptions and a set of national projections. The employment projections are consistent with a revised set of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) employment projections to 1985 which take into account the 1974-75 recession and changes in energy prospects. V-12 A number of general assumptions are implicit in the estimating process of the BLS national projections and the New York State employment projections. The following assumptions are built into the industry employment projections. 1. There will be no major wars, national catastrophies or shifts in national priorities and the institu- tional framework of the American economy will not radically change. 2. Long-term economic, social, technological and scientific trends will continue, including values placed on work, education, income and leisure. Long-term economic growth will average slightly less than an annual rate of 3.8%. 3. The Arab oil embargo of 1973-74 has drastically changed the energy perspective to assume a higher price and lower consumption of energy. 4. The U.S. unemployment rate is projected to decline from 8.5% in 1975 to 4.7% in 1980 and 4.0% in 1985. The New York State unemployment rate is expected to reach 5.0% by 1985. 5. The rate of productivity change in the private sector is assumed to grow at an annual rate of 2.2% until 1980, an increase fo a rate of growth of 2.6% between 1980 and 1985. Several factors underlie the reduced productivity growth during the 1970's, such as the energy-related crisis, the impact of the cyclical downturn on productivity growth, and the expected cost of meeting pollution control and industrial safety requirements. After the economy has adjusted to higher energy prices and the initial investment in energy saving equipment, productivity growth rates may increase to the levels of the 1950's and 1960's. 6. Labor force is based on population projections and labor force participation rates for each age-sex group. The participation rates are an extrapolation of historical trends since the mid 1950's. Economic Development Outlook Statement for the Hudson River Basin Employment Projections The New York State Department of Labor has prepared pro- jections of total employment projections for ten major labor market areas and the remainder-of-state to the year 1985. These projections are closely tied to the assumptions underlying the national BLS projections. Although four out of the ten labor V-13 market areas in the State are within the area defined as the Hudson River Basin, employment projections are only available for three areas. They include the Albany--Schenectady--Troy, Utica--Rome, and Westchester--Rockland labor market areas. The employment level in the remainder of the Hudson River Basin (which is a subset of the remainder-of-state region for the New York State Labor Department employment projections) will be assumed to change at the same rate as the employment level in the remainder-of-state region. While these projections reflect the historical trends between the nation and the areas of the State, they also take into account circumstances which modify past relationships. The projections should be used to suggest most probable relative direction of employment change in the future, given certain assumptions, rather than as forecasts. Also, smaller area projections are also less reliable in their predictability than Statewise projections. Employment in the 1974-1985 period is expected to increase only slightly more slowly than in the 1960-1974 period (based on an annual compounded rate of growth). Between 1960 and 1974, total employment increased by 30.5% in the Hudson River Basin Region; between 1974 and 1985, it is expected to grow by 19.5% (or 218,200 jobs), which is an annual rate of growth only slightly less than the growth of the 1960's and early 19701s. The expectation of a lower rate of growth during the next ten years is based, in part, on the experience of the last two recessions on New York State's economy, the regional structural shifts which are expected to continue at a reduced level, and the impact of a national energy policy upon the nation. The annual rate of increase in total employment is anticipated to be around 1.6%, compared with an annual rate of increase of 1.8% between 1960 and 1974. The trend in the shift of employment from goods-related to service-related industries, which occurred during the 1960's and 1970's, will continue into the 1980's. The rate of increase in manufacturing is expected to be slightly positive between 1974 and 1985 (2.0%) due, in most part, to a cyclical recovery from the 1973-75 recession. In contrast, manufacturing employ- ment declined during 1960-1974. Continuation of migration of .manufacturing employment into the Basin for outlying metro- politan areas, along with limited expansion, should offset manufacturing employment losses. By 198S, one-quarter of all jobs in the Hudson River Basin will be in the goods-related industries, while three-fourths are expected to be in the service-related industries. Table V-E shows a projected change in the distribution of employment by sector to where manufacturing TABLE V-E NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOMM PROJECTIONS By MAJOR INDUSTRY HUDSON RI)JER BASIN, 1974 AND 1985 1974 1985 -1985 :Percent :Percent: Industry :Number :distri- :Number :distri-:NLmiber :Percent :bution :bution Total Nonagricultural EmployaLent .................. 1,119,500 100.0 1,337,700 100.0 218,200 19.5 Goods-related ............... 320,000 28.6 337,100 25.2 17,100 5.3 Contract construction ......... 49,400 4.4 61,000 4.6 11,600 23.5 Manufacturing ................. 270,600 24.2 276,100 20.6 5,500 2.0 Service-related ............. 799,500 71.4 1,000,600 74.8 201,100 25.2 Transportation, Comnzdcations and P.U ..................... 56,900 5.1 63,400 4.7 6,500 11.4 Wholesale and retail trade .... 229,600 20.5 276,400 20.7 46,800 20.4 Finance, insurance, and real estate ................. 49,200 4.4 63,500 4.7 14,300 29.1 Services, mining and miscellaneous ............... 212,600 19.0 289,700 21.7 77,100 36.3 Government .................... 251,200 22.4 307,600 23.0 56,400 22.5 V-14 employment is anticipated to decline from 24.2% of total employment to 21% of all jobs by 1985. The relative decline in manufacturing employment will be offset, to a large extent, by increases in services and government, which, together, will account for almost 45% of total employment. Thus, prospects are rated the best for nonmanufacturing industries which will account for the great majority of new jobs in the Basin in the future. Since productivity rises less rapidly in nonmanu- facturing than in manufacturing, employment growth favors nonmanufacturing sectors. Industry Trends in the Hudson River Basin Although overall growth will be only marginally slower than historical standards since 1960, there will exist a number of fast-growing industries such as F.I.R.E. (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate), services, government, and (to a more limited extent) other nonmanufacturing sectors. The largest increases in total employment will occur in the F.I.R.E. and services sectors where increases of approximately 29% and 36% res- pectively are anticipated. Agriculture accounts for only 2% of employment in the Hudson River Basin and this share has been steadily declining in recent years. Nevertheless, agriculture is particularly important in some areas such as the Catskill area, with 17% of total employment. The Region as a whole specializes in the production of dairy products and specialty crops (e.g., fruits). Employment in agriculture should continue its long-term decline with the loss of marginal farms. The annual rate of decline in the 1974-1985 time frame will likely be less than in previous decades. It is unlikely that the downward trend of this sector will be reversed in the near future. Inter- national and domestic demands for farm products is expected to remain strong, thereby moderating the decline in agricul- tural employment. The strength of a nation's economy can be related to its construction sector. An expanding economy will usually be associated with a strong construction sector. Construction in. the goods-related industry is likely to expand between 1974 and 1985 from the depressed level of the base period. The national increase in construction is likely to have an impact at the Basin level. Also, the number of households in the Basin is projected to increase over 32% from 1970 to 1985, thus providing a stimulus for housing demand. Demand for public utilities (e.g., energy conversion from oil to coal), commercial and maintenance of public sector structures as well as the need for more public sector and mass transit facilities should expand construction employment by over 18% by 1985 beyond the recession afflicted level of 1974. V-15 Manufacturing employment is projected to reverse a 1970-74 cyclical decline, when the number of jobs decreased by less than 1000, and grow by 5500 from 1974-198S. A number of competitive advantages including declining relative prices, wages and tax burdens should at least help to support manu- facturing employment. Any loss in employment in central city areas should be balanced by gains in suburban and rural areas. The transportation and public utilities sector repre- sents a number of widely divergent employment trends. The number of jobs on railroads and water transportation have been declining for quite some time, and in all likelihood, this trend should continue through the late seventies and decade of the eighties. Ports in other parts of the nation should continue to expand their facilities at a faster rate than the total Hudson River Basin. The growth in the Port of Albany and motor transportation in the Mid-Hudson Sub-Region may partly offset the relative decline of total transportation activity in the Basin. Employment in urban mass transit and the remainder of the transportation industry is expected to grow at a rate which is lower than the industry as a whole. The utility industry has been characterized by rapid pro- ductivity growth and low employment growth. The expectation of a relative rise in energy prices should slow the growth rate in utility employment even further. The increase in retail trade employment is expected to correspond closely to the growth in total employment. Employment in this sector is related to population levels and real median family income. A considerable variation of employment change is also expected by area, especially between central city areas and suburban-rural areas. Suburban and rural areas should experience growth in contrast to continued declines in central cities. Retail trade employment growth in rural areas will be hindered because the lack of industrial diversification already permits a disproportionate amount of retail employment in such areas. Wholesale trade is expected to grow less than retail trade. First, improved techniques of material -- handling and electronic data processing to facilitate control of customer accounts and inventories-should improve productivity and limit employment opportunities. With increasing economic development in the rest of the nation, the Basin is expected to continue to lose its share of national employment in wholesale trade. On the other hand, the Hudson River Basin is uniquely situated within the transportation network of the Northeast to handle a growing volume of activity in the suburban and exurban areas outside metropolitan New York with its excellent roads and Hudson River water transport system. V-16 The finance, insurance and real estate (F.I.R.E.) sector grew rapidly during the 1960-70 decade. Electronic data processing systems are projected to increase the growth of productivity in the banking, security brokerage, and in- vestment segments of F.I.R.E., so that employment is projected to grow less rapidly in the future. F.I.R.E. activity is closely oriented towards metropolitan locations. Any large scale movement to decentralize operations will improve the growth prospects within the Basin. Recent changes in commu- nication and data processing technology have increased the attractiveness of decentralization since financial and other corporate clerical operations can be conducted almost anywhere with up-to-date communication technology. New York State Labor Department projections show a growth rate close to 29% between 1974 and 198S for the F.I.R.E. sector. The services sector is expected to-grow the fastest of all sectors, nearly twice as fast as overall employment between the mid-seventies and mid-eighties. Services are currently underrepresented in many areas of the Hudson River Basin (i.e., as a proportion of the industrial mix) and their development potential is considerable in those areas. The miscellaneous business services, consumer credit agencies, protective services, services to buildings and dwellings, and employment services are expected to grow the fastest within the entire services sector. Professional services employment, which includes accounting and auditing services, legal, engineering, architectural services and medical and other health related services are also expected to outper- form the growth*of the entire services sector. Also, the Basin should continue to benefit from the trend of corporate head- quarters relocation into the region. In contrast, employment in personal services and private household work will probably decline by 198S. Growth in primary and secondary educational services will grow at a sharply reduced rate during the next ten years as opposed to the previous fifteen years. Growth will occur in areas where school age population is still expanding (e.g., Mid-Hudson sub-region) and in the speciality education sector. Employment by the higher education institutions will grow slightly faster than projected total employment. While State government employment is expected to remai' n reasonably stable in relation to total employment, local government employment will expand at the greatest pace of all government levels. Nevertheless, total government will be less than half the annual rate of the 1960's. Greater emphasis on local federal aid (e.g., revenue sharing) by Congress to channel more funds to local governments will assist to support V-17 local government employment growth. It is hoped that regional economic development efforts can halt the outflow of federal dollars from New York State, assist the Federal government to develop a balanced growth policy, and expand the current level of Federal government employment within the region. Regional Trends in the Hudson River Basin The greatest economic growth is expected to occur in more rural and exurban areas of the Hudson River Basin. While the total growth in nonagricultural employment is projected at 19.5%, the metropolitan areas of the Capital and Utica-Rome labor markets are anticipated to expand at a rate which is significantly below that projected for the entire region. The Westchester-Rockland area will grow at approximately the same rate as the region as a whole because of a continuation of suburbanization and exurbanization. However, the less developed areas of the Basin are expected to experience the most growth during the next ten years. In general, the more metropolitan sub-regions will probably expand less rapidly, sector by sector, than the Basin asa whole. Manufacturing employment is anticipated to actually decline in the Capital and Utica-Rome areas. The remainder of the Basin, which is predominately suburban and rural, should produce more economic growth in each of the broad sectors of the economy than the total Basin Economy. Thus, the economic trend of the next decade should result in a continuation of suburban and exurban patterns of growth in the Region, while the older industrial centers of business location will continue to become less attractive. TABLE V-F NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT GROWTH IN THE MAJOR AREAS OF THE HUDSON RIVER BASIN Percent Change in Total Employment Sub-Region 1974-1985 Capital (excluding Washington County) 12.0 Westchester-Rockland 18.5 Utica-Rome (Herkimer-Oneida) 6.6 Remainder of Hudson River Basin 32.0 Hudson River Basin 19.0 TABLE V-G NQNACRICULTURAL EMPLDYI@M PRaJEcrioNs By MAJOR INDUSIRY CAPITAL SUB-REGION, 1970 AND 1985 (excluding Washington County) 1974 1985 Cliange 1972T---1985 :Percent :Percent: Industry :Number :distri- :Number :distri-:NLmiber :Percent :bution :bution Total Nonagricultural Employamt .................. 295,600 100.0 331,000 100.0 35,400 12.0 Goods-related ............... 72,300 24.5 72,000 21.8 -300 -0.4 Contract construction ......... 13,300 4.5 15,000 4.5 1,700 12.8 Manufacturing ................. 59,000 20.0 57,000 17.2 -2,000 -3.4 Service-related ............. 223,300 75.5 259,000 78.2 35,700 16.0 Transportation, Commizdcations and P.U ..................... 15,500 5.2 16,200 4.9 700 4.5 Wholesale and retail trade .... 59,100 20.0 65,300 19.7 6,200 10.5 Finance, insurance, and real estate ................. 13,100 4.4 15,700 4.7 2,600 19.9 Services, mining and miscellaneous ............... 54,500 18.4 70,700 21.4 16,200 29.7 Goverrtment .................... 81,100 27.4 91,100 27.5 10,000 12.3 TABLE V-H NoNAGRicuLTuRPL Empwyi-@ - PRojEcriws By WOR INDUSTRY UTICA-RO11Z SISA, 1970 AND 1985 (Herkimer-Oneida Counties) 1974 1985 -1983- :Percent :Percent: Industry :Number :distri- :NLm-ber :distri-:Number :Percent :bution :bution Total Nonagricultural Eaployment .................. 113,400 100.0 120,800 100.0 7,400 6.6 Goods-related ............... 38,700 34.1 35,800 29.6 -2,900 -7.5 Contract construction ......... 3,500 3.1 4,300 3.6 800 22.9 @bnufacturing ................. 35,200 31.0 31.500 26.1 3,700 -10.5 Service-related ............. 74,700 65.9 85,000 70.4 10,300 13.8 Transportation, Communications and P. U ..................... 4,500 4.0 4,700 3.9 200 4.4 Wholesale and retail trade .... 20,300 17.9 22,200 18.4 1,900 9.4 Finance, insurance, and real estate ................. 5,100 4.4 5,800 4.8 7GO 13.7 Services, minihg and miscellaneous ............... 17,300 15.3 21,900 18.1 4,600 26.6 Government ..................... 27,500 24.3 30,400 25.2 2,900 10.6 TABLE V-I NONACRICULTURAL KNFLO)2,ENT PROJECrIONS BY MkJOR INDUSTRY WESTCHESTER AND ROa<IAM ODUNTIES, 1974 AND 1985 1974 1985 :Change 1974-1985 :Percent 7-Percent: Industry :Number :distri- :Number :distri-:Number :Percent :bution :bution Total Nonagricultural. Employment .................. 384,800 100.0 456' 100 100.0 79,300 18.5 GDods-related. ............... 101,500 26.4 105,800 23.2 4,300 4.2 Contract construction ......... 20,200 5.2 22,800 5.0 2,600 12.9 Manufacturing ................. 81,300 21.1 83,000 18.2 1,700 2.1 Service-related ............. 283,300 73.6 350,300 76.8 67,000 23.6 Transportation, Coimmunications and P.U ..................... 22,000 5.7 24,800 5.4 2,800 12.7 Wholesale and retail trade .... 87,200 22.7 103,600 22.7 16,400 18.8 Finance, insurance, and real estate ................. 18,900 4.9 24,100 5.3 5,200 27.5 Services, mining and miscellaneous ............... 85,900 22,3 114,800 25.2 28,900 33.6 Government .................... 69,300 18.0 83,000 18.2 13,700 19.8 TABLE V-J NONAGRICUMRAL E2,TLOYMENT PROJEMONS BY MAJOR INDUSTRY R3,%INDER OF HUDSON RIVER BASIN, 1974 and 1985 1974 1985 Xhange 7_974--198T :Percent :Percent': Industry Mumber :distri- :Number :distri-.Number :Percent :bution :bution Total Nonagricultural Employment .................. 325,700 100.0 429,800 100.0 104,100 32 Goods-related ............... 107,500 33.0 123,500 28.7 16,000 15 Contract construction ......... 12,400 3.8 18,900 4.4 6,500 52 Manufacturing ................. 95,100 29.2 104,600 24.3 9,500 10 Ser-vice-related ............. 218,200 67.0 306,300 71.3 88,100 40 Transportation, Communications and P.U ..................... 14,900 4.6 17,700 4.1 2,800 19 wholesale and retail trade .... 63,000 19.3 85,300 19.8 22,300 35 Finance, insurance, and real estate ................. 12,100 3.7 17,900 4.2 5,800 48 Services, mining and miscellaneous ............... 54,900 18.2 82,300 19.1 27,400 50 Government .................... 73,300 22.5 103,100 24.0 29,800 41 PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS ) ALBANY COUNTY NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2CGO CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 15788. 15395. 15306. 15033. 14556. 13756. 12796. 2 2000. - 3999. 6635. 7826. 8798. 9470. 9720. 9964. 10066. 3 4000. - 4999. 2175. 2425. 2611. 2,670. 2882. 3144. 2937. 4 5000. - 5999. 2548. 211@7. 2091. 2273. 2401. 2274. 2501. 5 6000. - 6999. 2240. 2421. 2305. 2050. 1926. 2073. 2084. 6 7000. - 799. 1556. 2157. 2293. 2351. 222. 1796. 1786. 7 8-003. - 8999. 1303. 1524. 2021. 2137. 2226. 2035. 1646. 8 9000. - 9999. 801. 1300. 1475. 1829. 1984. 2071. 1886. 9 10000. - 11999. 1040. 1584. 2194. 2637. 2947. 3425. 3618. 10 12000. - 14999. 750. 1188. 1653. 2095. 2682. 3388. 3382. 11 15000. - 2,4999. 650. i0118. 1391. 1950. 2452. 3412. 4601. 12 25000. - 49999. 104. 297. 433. 585. 715. 9DO. 1353. 13 53000. AND OVER 79. 1110. 137. 161. 181. 209. 235. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 35669. 39442. 42713. 4.5241. 46794. 48447. 49391. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1935 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 2442. 2034. 1901. 1769. 1639. 1461. 1304. 2 2000. - 3999. 4329. 3281. 2721. 2449. 2192. 1850. 1585. 3 4000. - 4999. 2680. 2177. 1940. 1624. 1355. 1233. 1021. 4 5000. - 5999. 3212. 2336. 2085. 1382. 1757. 1351. ilia. 5 6000. - 6999. 3578. 2795. 2241. 2036. 1820. 1622. 1305. 6 7000. - 7999. 4382. 3051. 2602. 2205. 1938. 1630. 1464. 7 8000. - 8999. 4861. 3529. 2937. 2462. 2166. 1770. 1516. a 90@0. - 9999. 5231. 3980. 3176. 2699. 2323. 1942. 11,98. 9 10000. - 11999. 9562, 8854. 7509. 6297. 5286. 4386. 3587. 10 12000. - 14999. 11906. 122@5. 12377. 11460. 10043. 7996. 62DO. 11 15000. - 24999. 14749. 20162. 24736. 29139. 32354. 31426. 28796. 12 250CO. - 49999. 3730. 8430. 12277. 15982. 19629. 27735. 33721. 13 50000. AND OVER 689. 1759. 2629. 3468. 4236. 5214. 8417.. TOTAL FAMILIES 71351. 74732. 79033. 83472. 86738. 89661. 91632. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1930 1935 1990 1995 2000 CLASS ih.'COME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 18230. 17479. 17207. 16802. 16195. 15217. 14100. 2 2COO. - 3999. 10964. 111C7. 11521. li919. 11912. 11814. 11651. - 4999. 4855. 4602. 4551. 4294. 4237. 4332. 3958. 4000. 4 5000. - 5999. 5760. 4523. 4176. 1;155. 4158. 3625. 3619. 5 6000. - 6999. 5818. 5216. 4546. 40F6. 37@6. 3695. 3389. 6 7000. - 7999. 5938. 520,S. 4895. 4556. 4060. 3476. 3250. 7 scoo. - 8999. 616@. 5053. 4858. 4599. 4392. 3805. 3162. ALBANY COUNTY a 9000. - 9999. 6032. 5280. 4651. 4;52,3. 4013. 3484. 9 locoo. - 11999. 10602. 104t3g. 9703. 8936. 8233. 7311. 7205. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000. - 14999. 126-56. 13483. 14030. 13555. 12725. 11374. 10062. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 24999. 153@9- 2120G. 26127. 313a9. 3q8O6. 34878. 33397. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 3834. 8717. 12715. 16567. 20344. 28M. 35074. 13 50000,.AND OVER 768. 1868. 2766 3629: 4417. 5423. 8652 TOTAL CONSU R UNITS 107020. 114174. 121746: 128713 13 3532. 138108. 141023: PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALSP FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS COLUMBIA COUNTY 1969 1975 1930 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999, 2038. 1931. 1889. 1364. 1817. 1729. 1629. 2 2000. - 3999. 777. 944, 1091. 1239. 1364. 1513. 1657. 3 4000 . - 49q9. 311. 3@8. 368. 562. 350. 332. 314. 4 5000 . - 5999. 309, 296. 307. 343. 357. 339. 316. 5 6000 . - 6999', 188. 293, 290. 2,18. 299. 338. 323, 6 7000 . - 7999 . 152. 179. 267. 286 . 231. 269. 308. 7 8000 . - 8999. 97. 150. 176. 2qo. 280. 269, 255. a 9000 . - 9999. 86. 109. 146, 174, 208, 268. 255. 9 10000 . - 11999. 83. 155. 199, 254 . 305. 371, 474. 10 12000 . - 14999, 80. 105. 160. 221. 277. 348. 422. 11 15000. - 2(v999. 27. 82. 135. 198. 280. 406. 533. 12 25000. - 49999, 24. 30. 35. @01 45. 71, 133. 13 50000 . AND OVER 8. 15. 21, 27 . 33. 41. 49. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 4180. 4637. 5084. 5536. 5396. 6294. 6668. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 629. 541. 496. 46'. 437. 378. 338. 2 2000 . - 3999. 1399. 1101. 9C@2 . 8@-;. 838. 731. 631. 3 4000 . - 4999. 708. 726 . '7 03 . 609. 525. 501 . 422. 4 5000 . - 5999. 893. 651. 676 . 721 . @ 10 . 552. 468. 5 6000 . - 6999. 1010. 820. 660. 641. 6 r, 4 . 685. 554. 6 7000 - 7999. 1137. 907 . 799. 693. 629. 654. 640 . 7 8000 - 8999. 1103. 998. 882. 797 . 727. 600 . 613. 8 9000. - 9999. 941. 1034. 952. 885. 794. 673. 560. 9 10000 . - 11999. 1759. 1853. 2002. 1952. 1812. 1569. 1293. 10 12000 . - 14999. 1588. 2270. 2547. 2777. 2984. 27q6. 2307. 11 15000 . - 24999. 1591. 2573. 3758. 5152. 6442. 7415. 7955. 12 25000. - 49999. 340. 909. 1@21. 1976. 2597. 4163. 5663. 13 50000. AND OVER 100. 210. 310. 419. 530. 674. 1178. TOTAL FAMILIES 13198. 14593. 161qS. 17976. 19719. 21341. 22622. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 i9ao 1935 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 2667. 2472. 23P5. 2331. 2254. 2107. 1967. 2 2000 . - 3999. 2176. 2045. 2033. 2128. 2202. 2244. 22Z8. 3 4000 . - 4999. loig. 1074. 1071. 911. 875. 833. 736. 4 5000. - 5999. 1202. 947. 983. 1064. 1067. 3ql. 784. 5 6000. - 6999. 1198. 1113. 950. 929. 993. 1023, 877. 6 7000 . - 7999. 12S9. 1086. 1066 . 979. 910. 923. 943. 7 8000. - 8999. 1200. 1148. 1058. 1037. 1007. 869. 868. COLUMBIA COUNTY a 9000. - 9999. 1027. 1143. 1098. 1059. 1002. 941. 815. 9 10000 . - ii999. 18q2. 2008. 2201, 2206. 2117. 1940 . 1767. DATA AND SYSTEP15 BUREAU 10 12000. - 14999. 1668. 2375. 2707. 2998. 3261. 3094. 2729, NY$ OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000 . - 24999. i6121. 2655. 3893. .3-. 67". 32l. '483. NVIMI- 12 25000 . - 49999. 364. 939. 1456. @D@@. 26@'2. @23@. @796. 13 50000 AND OVER 108 25. 331. 446. 563. 715. 1227. TOTAL CONSUkR UNITS 17378: 19,230. 21232. 23512. 25615. 27635. 29290. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVTDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS ) DUTCHESS COUNTY NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 8633. 8671. 9354. 4101GO. 11187. 11839. 12110. 2 2000. - 3999. 3441. 4199. 5167. 5984. 6781. 7566. 8164. 3 4000. - 4999. 1300. 1293. 1370. 1795. 2262. 2489. 2488. 4 5000. - 5999. 1222. 1253. 1338. lf,64. 1559. 1933. 2q59. 5 6000. - 6999. 1170. 1186. 1295. 1422. 1523. 1597. 1601. 6 7UOO. - 7999. 927. 1139. 1242. 1364. 1507, 1553. 1578. 7 8300. - S999. 661. 916. 1192. 1324. 1418. 1540. 1527. a 9000. - 9999. 417. 7@8. 1014. 12so. 1393. 1451. 1525. 9 10000. -11999. 911. 967. 1495. 2014. 2492. 2825. 2871. 10 12000. -14999. 576. 1'07. 1367. 1714. 2387. 3251. 3854. 11 15000. -24999. 440. 922. 1442. 2371. 3320. 4540. 6074. 12 25000. -49999. 82. 232. 394. 586. 803. 1363. 2164. 13 50000. AND OVER 31. 57. 87. 122. 161. 213. 275. TOTAL UNPEL INDIVIDUALS 19811. 22630. 267,57. 31740. 36799. 42160. 46690. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME-RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 1412. 1269. 1259. 1305. 1362. 1347. 1304. 2 2000. - 3999. 2766. 2252. 2053. 1991. 1930. 1695. 1585. 3 4000. - q999. 1567. 1351. 1328. 1334. 1379. 1404. 1092. 4 5000. - 5999. 2161. 1443. 1396. 1431. 1491. 1412. 1363. 5 6000. - 6999. 2127. 1944. 1461. 1512. 1528. 1551. 1400. 6 7000. - 7999. 2852. 1968. 2012. 1624. 1645. 1361. 1506. 7 8000. - 8999. 3361. 2281. 1996. 2130. 1@122. 1674. 1503. 8 9000. - 9999. 2927. 2751. 2113. 2112. 2269. 1737. 1625. 9 10000. -11999. 7656. 5770. 5694. 4900. 4482. 4-612. 3715. 10 12000. -14999. 8670. 10202. 9477. 9287. 9391. 7698. 66@1. 11 15000. -24999. 12737. 17326. 23245. 29662. 34472. 36231. 33364. 12 25000. -49599. 2517. 7499. 12678. 18870. 27416. 41179. 50@93. 13 50000. AND OVER 319. 1155. 2017. 3oq6. 4277. 5922. 13351. TOTAL FAMILIES 51072. 57211. 66729. 79204. 93464. 108023. 118987. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1980 1955 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 100;5. 9940. 10613. 11605. 12549. 13186. 13ql4. 2 2000. - 3999. 6207. 6451. 7220. 7975, 8711. 9261. 97q9. 3 4000. - 4999. 2867. 26@4. 2@98. 31@9. 3641. 3893. 3530. 4 5033. - 5999. 3333. 26@6. 2734. 2895. 3050. 33@5. 3822. 5 6000. - 6999. 3297. 31,10. 2756. 2934. 3056. 3118. 3001. 6 7000. - 7999. 3779. 3107. 3254. 2988. 3152. 3114. 3084. 7 8000. - 8999. 4022. 3237. 3188. 3454. 3240. 3214. 3035. DUTCHESS COUNTY 8 9000. - 9999. 33@4. 3<09. 3127. 3392. 3662. 3198. 3150. 9 10000 . -11999. 8567. 6737. 7189. 6914. 6974. 7437 . 6596. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000. -lq999. 9246. 11309. 10844. 11001. 11778. 10949. 10525. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. -24999. 13177. 18148. 24687. 32131. 37792. 40771. 39438. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. -49999. 2599. 7731. 13072. 19456. 28219. 42542. 52657. 13 50000. AND OVER 350. 1212. 2104. 316a. 4438. 6135. 13626. TOTAL CONSUMER UHITi 70883. 79841. 93486. 110944. 130262. 150183. 165677. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS ESSEX COUNTY NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 19,15 1980 1985 1990 1995 2DOO CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 1472. 1443. 1413, 1360, 1295. 1183. 1080. 2 2000. - 3999. 632. 761. 860. 924. 966. 1005. 1038. 3 4000 . - 4999. 239. 271. 290. 2284. 231. 272. 248. 4 5000. - 5999. 212. 233. 237. 254. 266. 245. 238. 5 6000 , - 6999. li7. 220 . 227. 2'2. 214. 230, 223. 6 7000. - 7999. 44. 135. 191. 216. 209. 195. 200. 7 8000. - 8999, 127. 49. 124. 153. T06. 192. 178. a 9000. - 9999. 57. 107. 43. 105. 125. 190. 175. 9 10000. - 11,199. 84. 132. 194. 149. 123. 208. 290. 10 12000. - 14999. 44. 92. 133. 180. 21t5. 216. 177. 11 15000. - 24999. 30. 56. 84. i35. 182. 260. 3j9. 12 25000. - @9999- 10. 13. 25. 32. 38. 46. 75, 13 50000. AND OVER 0. 2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 13. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 3108. 3519. 3830. 40L5. 4158. 4257. 4334. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1.975 1930 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. 1999. 424. 350. 313. 279. 251. 214. 192. 2 2000. 3999. 90q. 657. 534. 461. 401. 324. 277. 3 4000. 4999. 635. 461. 393. 312. 270. 244. 173. 4 5000. 5999. 697, 549. 452. 3as. 337. 245. 219. 5 6000. 6999. 748. 598. 511. A@5. 364. 329. 232. 6 7000 . 7999. 776. 633. 559. 478. 442. 330. 296. 7 8000. 8999. 767. 653. 583. 521. (t54. 403. 2@6. 8 9000. 9999. 672. 670. 605. 539. 489. 404. 354. 9 100@0. - 11959. 1067. 1243. 1243. ii@s. 1029. 886. 745. 10 12000. - 14999. 847. 1338. 1594. 1671. 1620. lct44. 1@33. 11 15300. - 24999. 865. 1353. 2073. 279". 33@ S. 3887. 3989. 12 25000. - 49999. 139. 4-59. 735. 978. 13-55. lj87. 2624. 13 50000. AND OVER 50. 95. 134. 168. 202. 244. 534. TOTAL FAMILIES 8591. 9064. 9726. 10167. 10602. 10941. 11196. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 19.30 1935 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 10,99. 1896. 1793. 1731. 1639. 1546. 1402. 1272. 2 2000. - 3599. 1536. !Q3. 1394. 1@135. 1367. 1329. 1315. 3 40CO. - 4999. 874. 732. 683. 596. 5,:J. 516. 426. 4 5060. - 5999. 929. 782. 689. 64a. 653. (190. @57. 5 6000. - 6999. F@5. sia. 738. 667. 578. 559. 455. 6 7000 . - 7999. 820. 768. 750. 694. 651. 525. q96. 7 3000. - 8999. 894. 707. 707 . 679. 660. 595. 474. ESSEX.COUHTY 8 9000. - 9999. 729. 777. 643. 644. 614. 594. 529. 9 10000 . - 11999. 115!. 1375. 1437. 1285. 1152. 1094. 1035. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12 0 0 U . - 14S99. 891. 1430. 1727. 1851. 1865. 1660. 1407. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15C00 . - 24999. 895. 1409. 2154. 2926. 3570. 4147. 43,38. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 149. 477. 760 . i 1. 0 . 1 19.7. 2033. 2699@ 13 50000 . AND OVER 50. 97. 138. 4 . '@10. 254. 547. TOTAL'CONSUMER UNITS il.699. 12583. 13556. 14192. 14760. 15198. 15500. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES C IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS FULTON COUNTY NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS tLASS INCOME RANGE 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 1 0@- 1999. 1397. 1826. 17@6. 1666. 1561. I@S7. 1229. 2 2000. - 3999. 1293. 1455. 1569. 1624. 1640. 1634. 1580. 3 @ 0 0 0 . - 4999. 403. 931. 572. 594. 604. 575. 521. 4 5000. - 5999. 243. @78. 443. 532. 531. 523. 516. 5 6000. - 6999. 201. 239. 330. 376. 430. 491. 443. 6 7000 . - 7999. 176. 200. 232. 276. 359. 359. 441. 7 8000 . - 8999. 98. 179. 193. 219. 218. 327. 304. 8 9000. - 9999. 85. i28. 176. 188. 20". 2GO. 298. 9 10000. - 11999. 86. 166. 233. 31@. 341. 358. 365. 10 12000. - lq999. 48. 104. 177. 240. 312. 404. 431. 11 15000. - 24999. 54. 83. 127. .187. 275. 392. 552. 12 25000. - 49999. 35. 51. 64. 77. 87. Ill. 139. 13 50000. AND OVER 0. IG. i8. 26. 34. 44. 53. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 4619. 5350. 5880. 6321. 6594. 6825. 6871. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOMERANGE 1 0.- 1999. 616. 557. 528. 504. 478. 436. 388. 2 2000 . - 3999. 1268. 1034. 895. 803. 717. 590. 463. 3 4000. - 4999. 718. 630. 595. 546. 499. 451. 403. 4 5000. - 5999. 1070. 679. 621. 578@ 553. 489. 411. 5 6000. - 6999, 1057. 984. 732. 612. 573. 512. A63. 6 7000. - 7999. 1241, 974. 945. 799. 589. 539. 467. 7 8000 . - 8999. 1403. 1087. 934. 911. 868. 550. 494. 8 9000. - 9999. 1123. 1215. 1038. 90i. 873. 813. 497. 9 10000. - 11999. 1972. 2240. 2379. 2092. 1347. 1614. 1454. 10 12000. - 14999. 1495. 2411. 283-7. 3167. 3213. 2E.26. 2304. 11 1@000. - 24999. 1431. 2300. 3356. 4565. 5683. 6826. 7585. 12 25000. - 49999. 358. 823. 1207. 1568. 1898. 2716. 3771. 13 50000. AND OVER 20. i19. @01. 278. 349. 440. 572. TOTAL FAMILIES 13772. 15053. 16268. 1732@. 18140. 18802. 19272. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1930 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANCE 1 0.- 1999. 2513. 2383. 2274. 2172. 2039. 1843. 1616. 2 2 0 C 0 . - 3999. 2561. 2439. 2464, 2127. 2357. 2224. 2043. 3 @COO. - 4999. 1121. 1161. 1167. 1140. 11.03. lC26. 924. 4 5000. 599. 1313. 1057. Ir.64. 1110. 10S4. 1012. 927. 5 6CO3. 6999. 1258. 1223. 1062. 9,,8. 1003. 1003. 906. 6 7000. 7999. 1417. 1174. 1177. 1075. 948. 898. 903. 7 8000. 8999. 1501. 1266. 1127. ii3o. 1086. 877. 798. FULTON COUNTY a 9@1@. 9)S9. 12ta. llir3. 12 t 4. 1OB9. 1075. ID13. 795. 9 10000. - 11999. 2058. 2@06. 2612. 2406. 2188. 1972. 1819. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000. - 14999. 1543. 2515. 3014. 3407. 3525. 3230. 2735. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 24999, 1485. 2383. 3483. 4752. 5958. 7218. 8137. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 393. 874. 1271. 16@5. 1985. 2827. 3910. 13 50000. AND OVER 20 129 219 @04 383 484 625 9, TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 183 2040!: 22148: 23645: 24734: 25627: 26143: PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS GREENE COUNTY NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. .1144. 1260. 1242. 1189. 1103. 994. 896. 2 2000 . - 3999. 562. 819. 974. 1055. 1098. 1130. 1022. 3 4000 . - 4999. 180. 263. 291. 321. 322. 296. 379. 4 5000 . - 5999. 170. 201. 246. 267. 268. 289. 267. 5 6000 . - 6999. 123. 191. 201. 216. 250. 230. 247. 6 7000. - 7999. 57. 151. 190. 191t. 184. 222. 208. 7 800G. - 8999. 102. 99. 159. 184. 181. 168. 202. 8 9000 . - 9999. 24. 80. 123. 156. 173. 167. 152. 9 10000 . - 11999. 49. 132. 167. 196. 274. 310. 297. 10 12000. - 14999. 18. 73. 136. 232. 237. 269. 365. 11 15000 . - 24999. 20. -38. 37. 137. 230. 370. 460. !2 25000. - 49999. 0; 10. 21. 30. 42. 61. 96. 13 50000. AND OVER 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 8. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 2449. 3317. 3837. 4177 . 4362. 4506. 4599. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANCE 1 0. 1999. 590. 551. 526. 500. 472. 426. 388. 2 2000 . - 3999. 882. 776. 704. 641. 578. 487. 435. 3 4000 . - 4999. @93. 432. 409. 3.1.5. 363. 333. 260 . 4 5300 . - 5@,9 . 614, 467 . 4233. 3 9 6 . 375. 334. 304. 5 6ul)0 . - 6999. 705. 572. 452. 423. 379. 347 . 307. 6 7000. - 7999. 703. 6@2. 562. 4@3. @14. 349. 317. 7 8300. - 8999. 781. 666. 613. 5@1. 4@1. 181. 317. 8 9000, - 9999. 631. 686. 645. 58;. 516. @86. 345. 9 10000. - 11999. 1236. 1328. 1345. 1240. 1168. 953. 752. 10 12000. - 14999. 955. 1652. 1834. 1911. 1840. 1631. 1388. 11 15000. - 24999. 1082. 1730. 2670. 3611. 4325. 4861. 4560. 12 25000. - 49999. 154. 603. 1010. 1403. 1931. 2319. 3717. 13 50000 . AND OVER 10. 61. 108. 153. 197. 250. 677. TOTAL FAMILIES 8836. 10166. 11@06. 12237. 12979. 13557. 14067. NUMBER OF C014SUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 1734. 1811. 1768. 1689. 1575. 1420. 1284. 2 2000 . - 3999. 14q4. 1595. 1678. 1696. 1676 . 1617. 1457. 3 4000 . - 4999. 673. 695. 700 . 706 . 685. 629. 639. 4 5000 . - 5999. 784. 668. 674. 663. 6tt3. 623. -571. 5 6000 . - 6999. 828. 763. 653. 639. 629. 577. 554. 6 7000 . - 7999. 760 . 793. 752. 642. 598. 571. 525. 7 8000 . - 89@,@ . 883. 765. 772. 725. 622. 549. 5 19 . GREENE COUNTY 8 9000. - 9999. 655. 766. 768. 741. 689. 1153. @97. 9 100@0. - 11999. 12&5. 1460. 1512. lq36. It,22. 12C3. 1049. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000 . - 14999. 973. 1725. 1970 . 2143. 2077. 1900 . 1753. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 24999. 1102. 1768. 2757. 374R. 4555, 5231. 5320z NOVEMBER 1974 1 1433. 1973. 28-550. 3813. 12 25000. - 49999. 154. 613. 1031. 13 50000. AND OVER 10. 61. los. 153. 197. 250. 685. TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 11285. 13483. 15143. 16414. 17341. 18063. 18666. FROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS HAMILTON COUNTY NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 5.- 1999. 213. 215. 220. 218. 2D5. 137. 168. 2 2000. - 5999. 144. 151. 159. 181. 194. 207. 216. 3 4000 . - 4999. 16. 73. 100. 82. 61. 50. 49. 4 5000. - 5999. 24. 17. 44. 91. 97. 74. @6. 5 6000. - 6999. 11. 25. 20. 17. 52. 91. 82. 6 7000. - 7999. 11. 12. 26. '3. 17. 31. 8q. 7 8000. - 8999. 24. 10. 11. 12. 25. 16. 20. 8 9000. - 9999. 0. 11. 12. 12. 20. 23. 14. 9 10000. - 11999. 20. 9. 22. 24. 23. 32. 43. 10 12000. - 14999. 0. 22. 19. 17. 27. 32. 31. 11 15000. - 24999. 0. 0. 10. 29. 34. 47. 66. 12 25000. - 49999. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 13 50000. AND OVER 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 449. 546. 644. 718. 755: 790: 8i9: NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 48. 43. 43. 43. 42. 40. 36. 2 2000. - 3999. 212. 156. 127. 108. 90. 62. 40. 3 4000. - 4999. 102. 105. 108. 97. 86. 80. 69. 4 5000. - 5999. 126. 94. 99. 109. lq7. 91. 75. 5 6000. - 6999. 143. 115. 99. 93. 101. 102. 92. 6 70,00. - 7999. 103. 128. 115. 105. 92. 92. 95. 7 80co. - 8999. 115. 107. 129. 116. 109. 88. 85. 8 9000. - '9999. 77. 99. 110. 131. 116. 105. 82. 9 ioooo. - 11999. 115. 165. 201. 206. 240. 231. 197. 10 12000. - 14999. 144. 154. 192. 261. 291. 297. 319. 11 150CO. - 24999. 61. 168. 268. 368. 484. 579. 638. 12 25000. - 49999. 15. 35. 55. 74. 94. 194. 315. 13 50000 AND OVER 5. 10. 14. 19. 23. 28. 38. TOTAL FAMILiES 1266. 1379. 1560. 1729. 1875. 1989. 2081. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 261. 258. 263. 261. 247. 227. 204. 2 2000. - 3999. 356. 307. 286. 239. 284. 269. 256. 3 4000. - 4999. 118. 178. 208. 179. 147. 130. 118. 4 5000. - 5999. 150. ill. 143. 199. 204. 265. 121. 5 6000. - 6999. 154. 140. 119. 110. 153. 193. 174. 6 7000. - 7999. 114. 140. 141. 128. 109. 123. 179. 7 8000. - 8999. 125. 118. 141. 140. 134. 104. 105. HAMILTON COUNTY 8 9000. - 9999. 77. 110. 122. 143. 136. 123. 96 9 10000. - 11999. 135. 174. 223, 230. 263. 263. 240: DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000. - 14999. 144. 176. 211. 278. 313. 329. 350. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 24999. 61. 16S. 273. 397. 518. 626. 704. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000 - 49999 15 35 55. 74 94 194 315 13 50000: AND OVEk 5: lo: 14. 19: 23: 28: 38: TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 1715. 1925. 2204. 2447. 2630. 2779. 2900. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS HERKIMER COUNTY NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 2249. 2087. 1989. 1892. 1730. 158@. 1360. 2 2000. - 3999. 1204. 1434. 1630. 1763. 1853. 1912. 1919. 3 4000. - 4939. 471. 487. 495. 524. 556. 554. 498. 4 5000 . - 5999. 359. 433. 453. 470. 468. 459. 430. 5 6000. - 6999. 210. 343. 390. 432. 429. 431. 389. 6 7000. - 7999. 182. 201. 310. 345. 396. 386. 380. 7 8000. - 8999. 192. 179. 197. 272. 318. 358. 347. 8 9000 . - 9999. 107. 181. 174. 192. 232. 294. 324. 9 10000. - 11999. 15 3. 237. 333. 339. 345. 397. 492. 10 12000. - 14999. 91. 175. 247. 347. 432. 461. 436. 11 15000. - 24999. 14. 8i. 160. 274. 394. 578. 762. 12 25000. - 49999.. 5. 9. 13. 15. 19. 46. 110. 13. 50000. AND OVER 4. 6. 7. 9. 10. il. 13. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 5241. 5853. 6398. 6875. 7232. 7471. 7510. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS lNCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 719. 623. 574. 531. 495. 432. 386. 2 2000. - 3999. 1357. 1024. 842. 760. 689. 576. 496. 3 4000 . - 4999. 764. 709. 653. 524. 421. 38i. 312. 4 5000 . - 5999. 1120. 682. 657. 638. 600. 421. 344. 5 6000. - 6999. 1175. 996. 691. 611. 600. 550. 417. 6 7000. - 7999. 1382. 1038. 941. 712. 579. 542. 498. 7 8000. - 8999. 1441. 1157. 978. 891. 740, 524. 491. 8 9000. - 9999. 1451. 1253. 1062. 928. 8@9. 620. 474. 9 10000. - 11999. 2646. 2581. 2376. 2086. 1814. 1555. 1196. 10 12000. - 14999. 2702. 3371. 3583. 3439. 3213. 2639. 2151. 11 15000. - 24999. 2093. 3823. 5537. 7233. 8675. 8946. 8659. 12 25000. - 49999. 3qO. 1075. 1689. 2264. 2911. 5056. 6352. 13 50000 . AND OVER 60 . 161. 245, 325. 401. 501. 1004. TOTAL FAMILIES 17250. 18493. 19823. 20942. 21987. 22743. 23280.. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 2968. 2710. 2563. 2423. 2275. 2016. 1746. 2 2000. - 3999. 2561. 2458. 2472. 2523. 2542. 2488. 2415. 3 4000. - 4999. 1235. 1196. 1148. 1048. 977. 935. 810. 4 5000. - 5999. 1479. 1115. 1110. 1108. 1068. 880. 82q. 5 6000. - 6999. 1385. 1339. 1081. 1043. 1029. 931. 806. 6 7000. - 7999. 1564. 1239. 1251. 1057. 975. 928. 878. 7 8000 . - 8999. 1633. 1336. 1175. 11633 . 1018. 882. 838. HERKIMER COUNTY 9000. - 9999. 1558. 1434. 1236. 1120. 1091. 914. 798 9 10000. - 11999. 2799. 2818. 2709. 2425. 2159. 1952. 1688: DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000 . - 14999. 2793. 3546. 3830. 3786. 3645. 3100. 2587. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 24999. 2107. 3904. 5697. 7507. 9069. 9524. 9421. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 345. 1084. 1702. 2280. 2930. 5102. 6962. 13 50000. AND OVER 64. 167. 252. 334. 411, 512. 1017. TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 22491. 24346. 26226. 27817. 29219. 30214. 30790. FROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS MONTGOMERY COUNTY NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 2DBa. 193D. 1823. 1683. 1542. 1345. 1135. 2 2000. - 3999. 1053. 1288. 1480. 1585. 1654. 1715. 1739. 3 4000. - 4999. 390. 428. 444. 452. 463. 451. 404. 4 5000. - 5999. 415. 379. 382. 403. 401. 386. 392. 5 6000. - 6999. 273. 398. 373. 349. 347. 365. 330. 6 700G. - 7999. 131. 262. 364. 368. 335. 333. 117. 7 8000 . - 8999. 109. 148 . 256. 319. 352. 309. 272. 8 9000. - 9999, 40. 112. 137. 245. 273. 323. 277. 9 10000. - 11999. 103. 115. 194. 226. 331. 473. 545. 10 12000. - 14999. 50. 114. 136. 1711. 229. 306. 433. 11 15000. - 24999. 13. 49. 96. 167. 224. 303. 413. 12 25000. - 49999. 4. 8. 11. 14. 17. 31. 65. 13 50000. AND OVER 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. TOTAL UNIREL INDIVIDUALS 4673. 5236. 5703. 599G. 6177. 6320. 6333. 4UMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 19a5 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 749. 670. 628. 585. 546. 483. 421. 2 2000. - 3999. 1293. 1112. 1007. 913. 831. 705, 582. 3 4000 . - 4999. 775. 638. 582. 547. 513. 463. 419. 4 5000. - 5999. 99a. 715. 657. 575. 5za. 477. 421. 5 6000. - 6999. 1168. 919. 766. 651. 596. 483. 437. 6 7000. - 7999. 1227. 1064. 896. 796. 651. 565. 446. 7 8000. - 8999. .165. 1116, 1031. 885. 798. 603. 513. 8 901@0. - 9999. lie-s. io9s. 1072. 981. 8zi. 730. 535. 9 lGooo. - 11999. 2193. 2176. 2088. 2C32. 1916. 1642. 1342. 10 12000. - 14999. 1967. 2713. 3G45. 2969. 2836. 2635. 2368. 11 15000. - 24999. 1744. 2863. 3947. 5092. 6089. 6957. 7193. 12 25000. - 49999. 245. 815. 1263. 1664. 2021. 2885. 4207. 13 50000. AND OVER 53. 121. 175. 222. 264. 323. 382. .TOTAL FAMILIES 14765. 16040. 17157. 17912. 18470. 18951. 19266. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE i 0. - 1999. 2837. 2600. 2451. 2268. 2088. 1828. 1556. 2 2000@ - 3999. 23q6. 2400. 2487. 2438. 2485. 2420. 2321. 3 4000. - 4999. 1165. 1066. 1026. 999. 976. 914. 823. 4 50CO. - 5999. 1413. 1114. 1039. 978. 929. 863. 813. 5 6000. - 6999. 1441. 1317. llq4. 1000. 943. 848. 767. 6 7000. - 7999. 1358. 1326. 1260. 1164. 986. 868, 763. 7 8000. - 8999. 1274. 1264. 1287. 1204. 1150. 912. 785. MONTGOMERY COUNTY 8 9coo. - 9999. 1228. 1210. 1209. 1226. 1154. IC53. 812. 9 10000 . - 11599. 2296. 2291. 2282. 2258. 2247. 2115. 1887. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000 . - 14999. 2017. 2827. 3181. 3140. 3065, 2941. 2801. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 24999. 1757. 2912. 4043. 5259. 6313. 7260. 7606. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 249. 823. 1274. 1678. 2038. 2916. 4272. 13 50003. AND OVER 57. 126. 182. 230. 273. 333. 393. TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 19438. 21276. 22865. 23902. 24647. 25271. 25599. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS ONEIDA COUNTY NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 i9go 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE i 0. - 1@99. 99qo. 9265. 8871. 85q7. 8138. 7462. 6696. 2 2000. - 3999. 5176. 511,91. 6695. 7192. 7538. 7L15. 7975. 3 4COO. - 4999. 1673. 2019. 2153. 2255. 2346. 2295. 2105. 4 5000. - 5999. 1525. 1565. 1696. 1978. 2029. 2012. 2074. 5 6000. - 6999. 1416. 1445. 1480. 1503. 1636. 1895. 1738. 6 7000. - 7999. 926. 1345. 1391. 1402. 1437. 1384. 1683. 7 8000 . - 8999. 627. 969. 1303. 1339. 1322. 1333. 1242. 8 9000. - 9999. 506. 699. 941. 1272. 1273. 1235. 1227. 9 10000. - 11999. 586. 969. 1274. 1613. 2057. 23@4. 2251. 10 12000. - 14999. @ri8. 699. 1045. 1337. 1716. 2171. 2720. 11 15000. - 24999. 229. 504. 828. 1241. 1761. 2443. 3203. 12 25000. - 49399. @3. 115. 119. 242. 301. 490. 799. 13 50000. AND OVER 8. 20. 30 . qo. 50. 62. 73. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 23073. 25605. 27886. 30011. 31604. 329q6. 33786. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 i995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 2589. 2230. 2052. 1928. 1798. 1578. 1386. 2 2000. - 3999. 4323. 38*9. 3385. 3038. 2792. 2325. 1937. 3 4009. - 4999. 29272. 23@9. 2143. 2966. 1783. 1627. 1362. 4 5000. - 5999. 3778. 2621. 2340. 2036. 2000. 1710. 1470. 5 6000. - 6999. 4675. 3369. 2634. 2331. 2117. 1833. 1594. 6 7000. - 7999. 5272. 409-8. 3192. 2722. 2288. 1975. 1656. 7 8000. - 8999. 5118. 4503. 3855. 3084. 2796. 2096 . 1788. a 9000. - 9999. 4743. 4641. 4212. 3800. 3036. 2511. 1893. 9 10000. - 11999. 9357. 8727. 8757. 8352. 7537. 59q2. 4588. 10 12000. - 14999. 10125. 11932. 12243. 12090. 12116. 10886. 8786. 11 15000. - 24999. 10364. 15839. 21104. 26623. 30938. 32137. 31814. 12 25000. - 49999. 1974. 5433. 8308. 11158. 11,795. 20953. 27464. 13 500CO. AND OVER 296. 359. 1327. 1790. 2219. 277o. 4609. TOTAL FAM I L I ES 66036. 7 Of,2 0 75552. 81068. 85220. 883q3. 90347. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 12529. 11495. 10923. 10475. 9936. 9040. 8082. 2 2000. - 3999. 9999. 9880. 10080. 10280. 10330. 1014o. 9912. 3 40GO. - 4999. 4595. 4368. 4296. 4-221. 4134. 3922. 3467. 4 5000 . - 5999. 5303. 4186. 4036. 4064. 4029. 3722. 3544. 5 6 G 0 0 .- 6999. 6091. 4814. .411;. 3884. 3753. 3728. 3332. 6 7000. - 7999. 6198. 5373. 4583. 4124. 3725. 35,19. 3339. 7 8000 . - 8999. 5745. 5472. 51--g. 4423. 4118. la29. 3030. ONEIDA COUNTY 8 9coo. - 9999. 5249. 5340. 51@3. 5072. 4309. @746. 3120. 9 10000 . 11999. 9943. 9696 . 100@1. 9965. 9594. 8286. 6839. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 13 12000. - lq999. 10543. 12631. 13288. 13477. 13832. 13057. 11506. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 i5ooo. - 24999. 10593. 16343. 21972. 27864. 326979. 34585'. "0". NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 2017. 5'48. 8497. 11400. 14096. 21443. @@2@@. '13 50000. AND OVER 304. 979. 1357, 1830. 2269. 2832. 4682. TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 891C9. 96025. 133438. 111079. 116824. 121289. 124133. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS ) ORANGE COUNTY NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 9379. 9360. 10019. 11499. 12708. 13105. 13075, 2 2000. - 3999. 5852. 7243. 8988. 10788. 12121. 12792. 13095. 3 4000. - 4999. 1188. 1525. 1813. 2969. 4551. 5819. 5811. 4 5Z00. - 5999. 1213. 1191. 1383. 1914. 2309. 3123. 5236. 5 6000 . - 6999. 957. 1210. 1284. 1459. 1774. 2350. 2379. 6 7000. - 7999. 685. 956. 1215. 1485. 1621. 1665. 2219. 7 8000. - 8999. 482. 727. 1024. 1359. 1647. 1676. 1663. & 9000. - 9999. 365. 547. 764. 1175. 1420. 1700. 1672. 9 10000. - 11999. 590. 770. 1084. 1550. 21;5. 2837. 3275. 10 12000. - 14999. 396. 721. 1035. 1429. 1936. 2634. 3489. 11 15000. - 24999. 168. 453. 845. 1553. 2420. 3546. 4774. 12 25000. - 49999. 37. 92. 152. 238. 337. 610. 1205. 13 50000 . AND OVER 16. 28. 42. 6'. 84. ill. 140. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 21328. 24823. 29683. 3748@. 45123. 51968. 58033. NUMBER OF FAM LIES 1969 1975 1980 1935 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCCME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 2039. 1852. 1879. 2106. 2285. 2254. 2192. 2 2000. - 3999. 4208. 3447. 3264. 3465. 3541. 3166. 2906. 3 4000 . - 4999. 2292. 2021. 2068. 2289. 2475. 25qO. 2109. 4 5Ha. - 5999. 2@@7. 2099. 2138. 2407. 2659. 25Z3. 2501. 5 6000. - 6999. 3362. 2641. 2246. 2500. 2706. 2754. 2589. 6 7000. - 7999. 349i. 2977. 2777. 2709. 2810. 2789. 2712. 7 8000. - 3999. 4494. 3144. 30eS. 3197. 3168. 2884. 2740. a 9000. - 9999. 3755. 3509. 3253. '564. 3564. 3141. 2839. 9 i 0 0 0 0 .- 11999. 8203. 7-65. 7535. 5563. 8125. 7543. 6463. 10 12000. - 14999. 848's. 107a4. 11698. 1@539. let5ll. 12c28. 11838. 11 15000. - 24999. 8949. 14175. 21434. 32435. 42328. 48987. 49364. 12 25000. - 49999. 1610. 4949. 8583. 13944. 21287. 35708. 49320. 13 50000. AND OVER 414. 942. 1533. 2417. 3456. 4733. 9913-. TOTAL FAMILIES 54262. 60005. 71546. 92135. 113415. 132010. 147486. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1930 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANCE 1 0. - 1999. 11468. 11212. 11898. 13605. 14993. 15359. 15267. 2 2000. - 3999. 10060. 10690. 12252. 114253. 15662. 15958. 16001. 3 4000. - 4999. 3480. 3546. 3896. 5258. 7026. 8359. 7920. 4 '000. - 5999. 4120. 3290. 3521. r132'-. 4968. 5706. 7737. 5 9 0 0 U .- 6999. 4319. 3851. 3530. 3959. 4480. 5104. 4968. 6 7000. - 7999. 4176. 3933. 4022. (194. 4431. 4454. 4931. 7 8000. - 8999. 4976. 3871. 4112. 4556. 4815. 4560. 4403. ORANGE COUNTY 8 9000. - 9999. 4120. 4056. 4017. 4739. 4984. 4341. 4511. 9 10000. - i1999. 3793. 8235. 8669. 911.3. 10320. 10380. 9738. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 1-0 12000. - 14999. 8884. 11505. 127;3. 14;68. 16447. 15=62. 15327. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 24999. 9117. 14628. 22259. 33988. 45248. 52'533. 54138. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 1647. 5041. 8735. lQ82. 21624. 1163-18. 50525. 13 50000. AND OVER 430. 970. 1575. 2479. 3540. 4844. 10053. TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 75590. 84828. 101229. 129615. 158538. 183978. 205519. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS PUTNAM COUNTY NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 1304. 1520. 1757. 20q2. 2298. 2469. 2556. 2 2000. - 3999. 428. 636. 859. 1068. 1274. 1469. 1632. 3 4000. - 4999. 131. 176. 212. 296. 386. 416. 459. 4 5000. - 5999. 179. 151. 180. 233. 257. 338. 417. 5 6000. - 6999. 107. 200. 161. 185. 231. 266. 291. 6 7000. - 7999. 105. 128. 224. 223. 202. 227. 267. 7 8000. - 8999. 114. 118. 138. 244. 265. 209. 222. 8 9000. - 9999. 76. 123. 132. 151. 251. 274. 209. 9 10000. - i1999. 110. 195. 277. 299. 328. 452. 551. 10 12000. - 14999. 146. 182. 251. 392. 493. 509. 548. 11 15000, - 24999. 66. 204. 363. 556. 802. 1054. 1254. 12 25000. - 49999. 40. 69. 102. 143. 188. 383. 654. 13 50000. AND OVER 16. 34. 55. 81. ill. 143. 195. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 2822. 3736. 4731. 5913. 7086. 8214. 9255. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 443. 429. 451. 483. 506. 486. 472. 2 2000 . - 3999. 808. 759. 783. 827. 853. 601. 737. 3 40'0. - 4999. 333. 415. 465. 509. 554. 567. 460. 4 5 0 @ 3 .- 5999. 321. 341. 438. 530. 575. 572. 556. 5 6000. - 6999. 537. 330. 373. 465. 585. 603. 560. 6 7000. - 7999. 732. 512. 365. 425. 4a2. 604. 5a7. 7 8000 . - 8999. 758. 668. 524. 410. 468. 493. 587. 8 9000 . - 9999. 960. 756. 685. 560. 453. 485. 490. 9 10000 . - 11999. 2156. 1761. 1681. 1657. 1412. 937. 933. 10 12000. - 14999. 2777. 3266. 3293. 3051. 3040. 2714. 1834. 11 15000. - 24999. 3572. 5326. 8603. 11826. 13837. 13778. 12150. 12 25000. - 49999. 677. 2348. 4401. 7082. 11207. 17284. 21153. 13 50000 . AND OVER 63. 323. 639. 1054. 1562. 2340. 5483. TOTAL FAMILIES 14187. 17734. 22706. 28&78. 35534. 41664. 46002. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 1747. 1949. 2208. 2525. 2804. 2955. 3028. 2 2000. - 3999. 1236. 1395. 1642. 1895. 2127. 2270. 2369. 3 4000 . - 4999. 464. 591. 677. 804. 940. 993. 919. 4 50CO. - 5999. 500. 492. 618. 763. 832. 910. 973. 5 6000 . - 6999. 694. .530. 559. 650. 816. 869. 851. 6 7 C 0 0 .- 7999. 837. 640. 589. 648. 684. 831. 854. 7 8000. - 8999. 872. 786. 662. 654. 733. 702. 809. PUTNAM COUNTY a 9000 . - 9999. 31036. 879. 817. 711. 704. 759. 699. 9 10000. - 11999. 2266. 1956. 1958. 1956. 1740. 1389. 1484. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000. - 14999. 2923. 3448. 3544. 3443. 3533. 3223., 2382. HYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15ocu. - 24999. 3638. 6030. 8966. 12382. 14639. 14832. 13404. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 717. 2417. 4503. 7225. 11395. 17667. 21807. 13 socoo AND OVER 79 357 694 1135. 1673. 2488. 5678. TOTAL CONSU@ER UNITS 17009: 21470: 27437: 34791. 42620. 49878. 55257. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS RENSSELAER COUNTY NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 8501. 7913. 7749. 7590. 7323. 6930. 6482. 2 2000. - 3999. 3308. 4116. 4884. 5378. 5734. 6137. 6496. 3 4000. - 4999. 1067. 1`84. 12q4. 1408. 1563. 1594. 1493. 4 5300. - 5999. 887. ;72. 1048. 1171. 1178. 1267. lq63. 5 6000. - 6999. 737. 826. 907. 955. 1012. 1116. 1045. 6 7000 . - 7999. 509. 692. 798. 837. 913. 895. 1028. 7 8000. - 8999. 392. 519. 673. 757. 767. 853. 819. a 9000. - 9999. 241. 407. 512. 660. 705. 727. 806. 9 10000. - 11999. 435. 526. 755. 909. 1100. 1285. 1348. 10 12000. - 14999. 209. 481. 631. 791. 995. 1247. 1(t99. 11 15000. - 24999. 161. 284. 493. 797. 1038. 1506. 2028. 12 25000. - 49999. 31. 81. 127. 172. 214. 325. q92. 13 50000. AND OVER 23. 33. @3. -2. 63. 71. 82. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 16501. 18034. 19864. 21457. 22652. 23953. 25086. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1.990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 1359. 1191. 1147. 1120. 1087. 999. 916. 2 2000. - 3999. 2548. 1967. 1707. 1583. 1454. 1219. 1055. 3 4000. - 4999. 1515. 1279. 1207. 1079. 951. 990. 7@0. 4 5000. - 5999. 1938. 1@48. 1277. 1219. 1194. @3. 823. 5 6000. - 6999. 2571. 1721. 1375. 1294. 1222, 1118. 944. 6 7000. - 7999. 2762. 2168. 1683. 1447. 1275. 1151. 1035. 7 8000. - 8999. 2902. 2337. 2120. 1663. 1515. 1194. 1065. 8 9000. - 9999. 2750. 2505. 2304. 21(tq. 1636. 1372. i105. 9 10000 . - 11@99. 5637. 5003. 4926. 4636. 43a3. 3375. 2606 . 10 12000. - 14999. 5820. 7168. M7. 7273. 7169. 6342. 5228. 11 15000. - 24999. 6213. 9379. 13071. 16849. 19394. 20884. 20597. 12 25000. - 49999. 1040. 3208. 5200. 7163. 9077. 14350. 18863. 13 50000. AND OVER 127. 431. 709. 983. 1250. 1618. 3139. TOTAL FAMILIES 37182. 39755. 44163. 48457. 52107. 55475. 58116. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1930 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 9860. 9104. 8S96. 8710. 8410. 7929. 7393. 2 2000. - 3999. 5356. 6083. 6591. 6961. 7188. 7356. 7551. 3 4000. - 4999. 2582. 2463. 2451. 2487. 2514. 2484. 2233. 4 5000. - 5999. 2825. 2320. 2325. 2389. 2372. 2230. 2291. 5 6000. - 6999. 3308. 25Q. 2232. 2249. 2234. 2234. 1989. 6 7000. - 7999, 3271. 2860. 2431. 2284. 2188. 2046. 2EI63. 7 8300. - 9999. 32@4. 2906. 2793. 24'0. 2232. 2047. 1834. RENSSELAER COUNTY a 9000. - 9999. 2991. 2912. 2316. 28@4. 2341. 2099. 1911. 9 10000 . - 11999. 6072. 5529. 5681. 5545. 5ci83 . 4660. 3954. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000 . - 14999. 6029. 7649. ac6a. BC69. 8164. 7'89. 6727. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 24999. 6374. 9663. 13564. 17646. ?0982. 22993. 22625. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 1071. 3289. 5327. 7335. 9291. 14675. 19355. 13 50000 AND OVER 150 464 752 1035 1310. 1689 3221 TOTAL CONSUflER UNITS 53683: 57789: 64027: 69934: 74759. 79428: 83202: PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS ROCKLAND COUNTY NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1980* 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 3874. 4043.* 4327. 4577. 4675. 4611. 4440. 2 2000. - 3999. 2372. 2827. 3347. 3804. 4153. 4455. 4542. 3 4000. - 4999. 867. i119. 1280. 1411. 1499 14'87. 1569. 4 5000. - 5999. 844. 906. 1097. 1349. 1380 1433 1435. 5 6000. - 6999. 915. 383. 966. 1034. 1252: 1365: 1345. 6 7000. - 7999. 680. 947. 947. 1017. 1054. 1173. 1316. 7 8000. - 8999. 419. 790 . 1017. 1003. 1034. 1042. I@C5. 8 9030. - 9999. 332. 578. 837. 1086. 1034. 1022. 1@05. 9 iC30G. - 11999. 659. 761. 1182. 1761. 2099. 21C6. 196S. 10 12000. - 14999. 546. 930. 1153. 1347. i898. 2665, 3024. 11 15COO. - 24999, 307. 779. 1454. 2273. 3042. 3637. 4705. 12 25000. - 49999. 68. 193. 334. 487. 643. 1273. 1992. 13 50000. AND OVER 26. 53. 85. 118. 151. 192. 284. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 11909. 14809. 18076. 21267. 23914. 26511. 28730. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 i995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANCE 1 0.- 1999, 1461. 1338. 1436. 1504. 1523. 1456. 1326. 2 2000. - 3999. 1956. 1660. 1593. 1608. 1570. 1434. 1309. 3 4000. - 49S9. 1065. 1023. 1010. 938. 907 . 854. 702. 4 5000. - 5999. 1346. 1010. 1054. 1108. '043. 865. 788. 5 6000. - 6999. 1478. 1246. 1044. 1098. il2l. 1047. 796. 6 7600. - 7999. 2050. 1359. 1298. 1091. 1106. 1069. 974. 7 8000. - 8999. 2123. 1640. 1385. 1378. 1123. 1055. 974. 8 9000. - 9999. 2364. 1959. 1500. 1432. 1395. 1053. 963. 9 10000. - 11999. 70,10. 4253. 4067. 3494. 2965. 2612. 2021. 10 12000. - 14999. 9555. 9823. 7948. 6611. 6126. 4781. 3766. 11 15000. - 24999. 16991. 21930. 27500. 31942. 32065. 27900. 21398. 12 25000. - 49999. 5039. 11947. 19552. 28352. 38535. 50221. 53876. '3 50000. AND OVER 467. 2254. 4186. 6432. 8761. 12344. 21893. TO@AL FAMILIES 53035. 61492. 73573. 86988. 98240. 106691. 110786. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1960 1985 1990 1995 20GO CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 5335. 5@31. 5763. 60&1. 6198. 6067. 5766. 2 2000. - 3999. 4328. 44&7. 4940. 5412. 5723. 5389. 5851. 3 4000. - 4999. 1932. 2142. 2290. 2349. 2406. 2341. 2271. 4 5000. - 5999. 2190. 1916. 2151. 2457. 2423. 2298. 2223. 5 6000. - 6999. 2393. 2129. 2010. 2132. 2373. 2412. 2141. 6 7000. - 7999. 2730. 2306. 2245. 2108. 2160. 2242. 2290. 7 8000. - 8999, 2542. 2430. 2402. 2381. 2157. 2097 . 2079. ROCKLAND COUNTY a 9000. - 9999. 2696. 2537. 2387. 2518. 2429. 2075. 1968. 9 '10000. - 11999. 7749. 5014. 5T49. 54155. 5064. 4718. '989. "T' AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 1200C. - 14999. 10101. 10753. 9101. 7958. 8024. 7@46 . 9790. @@S'OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 24999. 17'99. 22709, 289.54. 34215. 35107. 31.587. 26103. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 5157. 12140. 19886. 28839@ 39178. 51494. 55368. 13 50000. AND OVER 493. 2307. 4271. 6550. 8912. 12536. 22177. TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 64944. 76301. 91649. 109255. 122154. 133202. 139516. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS SARATOGA COUNTY NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1964 1975 '1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 4368. 4510. 4707. 4892. 5064. 5151. 5096. 2 2000. - 3999. 1560. 1968. 2349. 2602. 2848. 3101. 3279. 3 C003 . - 4999. 547. 621. 659. 773. 885. 904. 911. 4 50CO. - 5999. 524. 541. 586. 654. 669. 763. 864. 5 6000 . - 6999. 373. 520. 541. 554. 6io. 656. 649. 6 7020 . - 7599. 307. 387. '26. 540. '58. 574. 627. 7 8001. - 8999. 196. 323. M. 510. 937. 547. 536. a 9006 . - 9999. 189. 243. 332. 383. 491. 525. 523. 9 looco. - 11999. 220. 366. 469. 625. 722. 882. 1005. 10 12000. 14999. 134. 275. 444. 567. 703. 912. 1057. 11 15000. 24999. 122. 213. 356. 545. 823. 1147. 1570. 12 25COO. 49999. 6. 52. 97. 143. 193. 313. 460. 13 50000. AND OVER 0. 2. 3. 5. 1. 9. 19. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 8551. 10021. 11449. 12793. 1411;. 15q84. 16596. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 1189. 1100. 1C57. 1030. 994. 907. 842. 2 2000. - 3999. 1719. 1611. 1555. 1497. 1426. 1277. 1143. 3 4000. - ;999. 1176. t@9. 795. 915. 954. 915. 6t6. 4 5000. - 5999. 1440. 1128. 927. 786. 795. 807. 763. 5 6000. - 6999. 1680. 1365. 1128. 1041. 813. 747. 742. 6 7000. - 7999. 2147. 1547. 1370 . 1173. 1119. 800. 699. 7 8000. - 8999. 2220. 1840. 1517. 1377. 1210. 1069. 732. a 9000. - 9999. 2314. 2080. 1710. 1@22. 1370. ilis. 1000. 9 Iccoo. - 11999. 4853. 4356. 4145. 3991. 3114. 26724. 2200. 10 12000. - 14999. 5139. 6738. 6812. 6418. 6171. 5128. 4014. 11 15000. - 24999. 5284. 8994. 13082. 17275. 20030. 20551. 19346. 12 25000. - 49999. 940. 3111. 5190. 7378. 10370. 16084. 20898. 13 50000. AND OVER 94. 414. 720. 1042. 1373. 1791. 4019. TOTAL FAMILIES 30195. 35123. 40003. 45065. 49639. 53766. 57084. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 200.0 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 5557. 5610. 5764. 5922. 6058. 6C58. 5938. 2 2000 . - 3999. 3279. 3579. 3904. 4099. 4274. 4378. 4422. 3 4000. - 4999. 1?23. 1460. 1454. 1608. 1739. 1719. 1597. 4 5000. - 5999. 1964. 1669. 1513. 1440. 1464. 1570. 1627. 5 6000 . - 6999. 2058. 1885. 1669. 1595. 1423. 1403. 1391. 6 7000, - 7999. 2454. '19-34. 1896. 1713. 1677. 1374. 1326. 7 Hoo. - 8999. 2416. 2163. 1897. 1887. 1747. 1616. 1268. SARATOGA COUNTY a 9000. - 9999. 2503. 2323. 2042. 1905. 1861. 1643. 1523. 9 10000. - 11939. 5073. 4722. 4614. 4316. 3836. 3554. 3205. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 120CO. - 14999. 5273. 7013. 7256. 6985. 6874. 6040. 5071. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 24999. 5406. 92C7. 13438. 17820. 20853. 21693. 20916. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 946. 3163. 5287. 7521. 10563. 16397. 21358. 13 50000. AND OVER 94. 416. 723. 1047. 1380. 1800. 4038. TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 38746. 45144. 51457. 57858. 63749. 69250. 73680. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED 1NDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES ( IN 1970 tONSTANT DOLLARS SCHENECTADY COUNTY NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 19 9 9 5467. 5100. 4379. 4641. 4367. 3942. 3508. 2 2000 . - 3399. 3037 . 3360. 3610. 3789. 3842. 3858. 3841. 3 (j000. - 4999. 1184. 1232. 1267. 12q5. 1255. 1251. 1153. (1 5000 . - 5999. 1222. ii3o. 1090. 1127. 1143. 1064. 1050. 5 6 0 0 & .- 69c'9. 758. 1103. 1109. 1048. 992. 994. 965. 6 7000 . - 7999. 658. 717. 928. 1076 . 1012. 9io. 863. 7 8000 . - i999. 464. 625. 677. 756. 965. 934. 826. 8 9000 . - 9999. 306. 471. 603. 631. 635. 872. 850. 9 10000. - 11999. 538. 618. 765. 980. 1097 . 1123. 1349. 10 12000. - 14999. 363. 590. 761. 826. 935. 1197. 1364. 11 15000. - 24999. 284@ 467. 621. 394. 1136. 1464. 1789. 12 25000. - 49999. 29. i0s. 170. 230. 283. 354. 543. 13 50000 . AND OVER 18. 26. 32. 38. 42. 49. 54. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 14328. 15547. 16512. 17281. 17704. 18012. 18155. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANCE 1 0.- 1999. 1335. 1178. i109. 1071. 1023. 944. 854. 2 2000. - 3999. 2508. 1908. 1577. 1414. 1251. 1018. 815. 3 4000 . - 4999. 1580. 1267. 1151. 1010. 871. 77C. 660. 4 5000 . - 5599. 2222. 1423. 1251. 1122. 1057. 877. 693. 5 6000 . - 6999. 2463. 1951. 1470. 1254. 1130. 970. 842. 6 7000. - 7999. 2786. 2135. 1833. 1563. lis5. 1060. 873. 7 8000 . - 8999. 3009, 2356. 2027. 1788. 1638. i096. 961. a 9000 . - 9999. 3066. 2543. 2202. 1954. 1734. 1493. 987. 9 10000 . - 11999. 6126. 5377. 4836. 4362. 3890. 3261. 2660. 10 12000 . - 14999. 6950. 7694. 7726. 7285. 6686. 5695. 4684. 11 15000 . - 24999. 7989. 11130. 13961. 16968. 19287. 19805. 18717. 12 25000, - 49999. 1893. 4301. 6223. 8142. 9905. 13910. 18125. 13 50000 . AND OVER 310. 8i5. 1217. 1616. 1935. 2461. 3399. TOTAL FAMILIES 42237. 44075. 46,783. 49549. 51652. 53360. 54270. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANCE 1 0.- 1999. 6802. 6278. 5988. 5712. 5390. 4886. 4362. 2 2000 . - 3999. 5545. 5268. 5187. 5203. 5093. 4876. 4656. 3 4000. - 4999. 2764. 2499. 2418. 2255. 2126. 2021. 1813. 4 5000. - 5999. 3444. 2550. 2341. 2249. 2200. 1941. 1743. 5 6000 . - 6999. 3221. 3054. 2579. 2302. 2122. 1964. 1807. 6 7000. - 7999. 3444. 2852. 2761. 2639. 2207. 1970. 1736. 7 3000. - 8999. 3473. 2981. 2704. 2544. 2603. 2030. 1787. SCHENECTADY COUNTY 8 9000 . - 9999. 3372. 3014. 2805. 2535. 2369. 2365. 1837. 9 10000 . - 11999. 6664. 5995. 5601. 5342. 4987. 4@84. 4009. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000 . - 14999. 7313. 8284. 8487. Bill. 7621. 6892. 6048. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES I I ID u u u .- 24999. 8273. 11597. 14582. 17862. 20423. 21269. 20506. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 1922. 4409. 6393. 8372. 10188. 14264. 18668. 13 50000 . AND OVER 328. 841. 1249. 1654. 2027. 2510. 3453. TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 56565. 59622. 63095. 66830. 69356. 71372. 72425. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS SCHOHARIE COUNTY NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1930 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 1853. 2010. 2071. 2113. 2112. 2048. 1966. 2 2000. - 3999. 520. 805. 1025. 1161. 1264. 1357. 1438. 3 40GO. - 4999. lio. 169. 192. 257. 321. 335. Z13. 4 5000. - 5999. 64. ill. 139. ISO. 188. 233. 310. 5 6000. - 6999. 86. 69. 98. 117. 143. 178. 166. 6 7000. - 7999. 47. 90. 69. 83. 114. 118, 164. 7 8000. - 8999. 28. 59. 92. 74. 67. 105. 101. a 9000. - 9999. 21. 38. 61. 92. 76. 63. 100. 9 i0occ. - 11999. 65. 52. 71. 104. 146. 154. 118. 10 12000 . - 14999. 30. 82. 90. al. 99. 144. 200. 11 15000. - 24999. 6. 32. 75. 136. 181. 217. 26-1. 12 25000. - 49999. 6. a. 10. 11. 12. 28. 55. 13 50000. AND OVER 4. 7. 9. Il. 13. 16. 18. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 2840. 3537. 4002. 4420. 4736. 4996. 5210. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE i 0.- 1999. 337. 314. 298. 288. 272. 239. 218. 2 2000. - 3999. 753. (SaQ. 621. 564. 496. 187. 329. 3 4000. - 4999. 431. 363. 353. 372. 373. 355. 256. 4 5000. - 5999. 465. 421. 380. 350. 351. 352. 327. 5 6000. - 6999. 369. 453. 420. 405. 354. 326. 319. 6 7000. - 7999. 553. 384. 450. 427. 414. 336. 300. 7 8000. - 8999. 417. 457. 385. 453. 427. 390. 305. 8 9000. - 9999. 448. 497. 413. 389. 447. 396. 359. 9 10000. - 11999. 793. 849. 947. 921. 739. 8i9. 742. 10 12000. - 14999. 675. 1089. 1249. 1305. 1425. 1217. 1032. 11 15000. - 24S99. 657. 1166. 1811. 2579. 3i93, 3590. 3740. 12 25000. - 49999. 143. 411. 660. 934. 1296. 2032. 2756. 13 50000. AND OVER 12. 60. 106. 155. 205. 267. 546. TOTAL FAMILIES 6048. 7144. 8093. 9142. 9997. 10706. 11229. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1980 1985' i990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 2190. 2330. 2369. 2401. 2384. 2287. 2184. 2 2000. - 3999. 1273. 1@85. 1646. 1725. 1760. 1744. 1767. 3 4000. - 4999. 541. 532 . 5q5. 629. 699. 690. 569. 4 5000. - 5999. 529. 532. 519. 530. 539. 585. 637. 5 6000. - 6999. 455. 521. 5i8. 522. 497. 504. 485. 6 7000. - 7999. 600. 474. 519. 510. 528. 454. 464. 7 8000. - 8999. 445. 516. 477. 527. 494. 495. 406. SCHOHARIE COUNTY a 9000. - 9999. 469. 535. 474. 481. 523. 459. 459. 9 10000. - 11999. 853. 90i. icig. 1025. 885. 973. 860. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000. - 14999. 705. 1171. 1:19. 1336. 1524. 1361. 1232. HYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 24999. 663. ii98. 1886. 2715. 3374. 3907. 4001. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25003. - 49999. 149. 419. 67G. 945. 13C8. 2060. 2811. 13 50000 AND OVER 16: 10667. 115: 13166: 218: 15283: 16114: TOTAL CONSUkR UNITS 8888 al. 12095 562 14733 702 439 PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS ) ULSTER COUNTY NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 7814. 8328. 8712.* 9063. 9131. 9136. 8941. 2 2000. - 3999. 2556. 3659. 46@9, 5322. 5836. 6@65. 6998. 3 4000 . - 4999. 705. 947. 1077 . 1323. 1562. 1671. 1599. 4 5000 - - 5999. 692. 734. 850. 1039. 1088. 1261. 1571. 5 6000. - 6999. 575. 723. 757. 776. 884. 1067. 1021. 6 7000. - 7999. 419. 605. 73 8. 765. 769. 785. 1002. 7 8000. - 8999. 298. 473. 622. 727. 756. 753. 723. 8 9000. - 9939. 230. 360. 4;3. 6@3. 697. 741. 721. 9 10000. - 11999. 570. 542. 708. 907. 1108. 1312. 1407. 10 12000. - 14999. 299. 717. 8?0. 330. 1020. 1312. 1590. 11 15000. - 24999. 198. 429. 796. 1325. 1766. 2238. 2740. 12 25000. - 49999. ii. 86. 163. 241. 318. 539. 878. 23 50000. AND OVER 3. 9. 13. 18. 21. 27. 32. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 14372. 17612. 20508. 23019. 24956. 27307. 29223. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0 .- 1999. 1709. 1521 . 1457. 1420. 1367. 1224. 1128. 2 2000. - 3999. 3112. 2779. 2657. 2550. 2413. 2102. 1835. 3 4000. - 4999. 1553. 1426. 1450. 1535. 1587. 1537. 121.9. 4 5000 . - 5999. 2068. 14@;. 1 c@ '51. 1469. 1509. 1526. 1433. 5 6000. - 6999. 2197. 1916. i4l,0. 1502. 1494. 1406. 6 7000. - 7999. 2291. 2036. 1966. 1605. 1536. lq4@. 1346. 7 8000. - P999. 2790. 2115. 2044. 2016. 1712. 1@87. 1350. a 9000. - 9999. 2327. 2296. 2110. 2094. 2045. 1579. 1387. 9 10000. - 11999. 4862. 4788. 4758. 4380. 4296. 3987. 3171. 10 12000. - 14999. 5143. 6638. 7125. 7493. 7356. 6q24. 5729. 11 150CO. - 24999. 5996. 9362, 13@61. 17834. 21210. 22874. 22021. 12 25000. - 49999. 1019, 3439. 5377. 3543. 12112. 18@02. 23190. 13 50000 . AND OVER 157. 505. &56. 1241. 1649. 2158. 4854. TOTAL FAMILIES 35224. 40285 . 46702. 5@687 . 60236. 66192. 70069. NU,MLER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 9523. 9849. 10229. 10483. 10498. 10360. 10069. 2 2000 . - 3999. 5668, 6@38. 7 ' 0 6 . 7372. 8249. 8567. 8833. 3 4000. - 4999. 2258. 2373. 2927. 2858. 3149. --12-03. 2318. 4 5000. - 5999. 2760. 2198. 2301. 2508. 2597. 2787. 3004. 5 6COG. - 6999. 2772. 2639. 2.247. 2218. 2378. 2510. 2427. 6 7000. - 7999. 2710. 2641 2704. 237G 2305. 2234 23@8. 7 8000 . - 8999. 3088. 2 5 88 2666 . 2743 2468. 2 2 4 0 2073. ULSTER COUNTY a 9000 . - 9999. 2557. 2656. 2603, 2727. 2742. 2320. 2108. 9 10000 . - 11@99. 5432. 5330. 5466. 5287. 5404. 5299. 4573. DATA AND 5YSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000 . - 14999. 5442. 7355. 7995. 8373. 8376. 7736. 7319. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15DOO. - 24999. 6194. 9792. 2425?. i9i59. 22976. 25ii2. 24761z NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 1030. 3525. 6040. 8789. 12430. 18941. 24068. 13 50000. AND OVER 162. 514. 1369. 1259. 1670. 2185. 4&36. TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 49596. 57897. 67210. 76706. 85242. 93499. 99292. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS WARREN COUNTY NUMBER @F UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969' 1975 19 8 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 1868. 1806. 1745. 1682. 1624. 1537. 1450. 2 2000. - 3999. 934. 1138. 1283. 1361. 1405. 1458. 1515. 3 4000. - 4999. 334. 336. 333. 372. 435. 494. 470. 4 5000. - 5999. 222. 303. 318. 317. 313. 324. 421. 5 6000. - 6999. 160. 213. 236. 306. 299. 296. 284. 6 7000. - 7999. 144. 156. 194. 209. 264. 283. 279. 7 81100. - 8999. 76. 142. 151. 173. 197. 241. 270. a 9000. - 9999. 90. 92. 136. 145. 153. i8a. 230. 9 10000. - 11999. 125.. 160. 168. 220. 267. 285. 332. 10 120CO. - 14999. 3a. 129. 202. 219. 234. 290. 367. 11 15000. - 2ft999. 72. 86. 115. 187. 264. 386. 507. 12 25003. - 49999. 28. 48. 65. 81. 97. 120. 150. 13 50000. AND OVER 11. 19. 26. 32. 39. 47. 57. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 4102. 462a. 4992. 5304. 5591. 5949. 6332. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1935 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 706. 583. 539. 513. 490. 441. 406. 2 2000, - 3999. 1121. 905. 826. 800. 777. 720. 653. 3 4000 . - 4999. 704. 539. 497. 463. 435. 419. 379. 4 5@. - 5S99. 91a. 612. 550. 502. 498. 437. 398. 5 6000 . - 6999. 962. 797. 620. 579. 524. 482. 431. 6 7000. - 7999. 1099. 829. 771. 655. 587. 515. 459. 7 8000. - 8999. 9317. 907. 800. 763. 693. 566. 490. a 90'Uo. - 9999. 946. 895. 857. 799. 766. 650. 538. 9 locco. - 11999. 1594. 1625. 1684. 1759. 1628. 1496. 1279. 10 120CO. - 14939. 1384. 1937. 2252. 2363. 2515. 2505. 2176. 11 15000. - 24999. 1618. 2275. 3212. 4363. 5528. 6340. 7081. 12 25000. - 49999. 401. 917. 1391. 1908. 2486. 3771. 5035. 13 50000 . AND OVER 62. 176. 279. 391. 509. 664. 1148. TOTAL FAMILIES 12432. 12997. 14278. 15863. 17436. 19006. 20473. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1939. 2574. 2389. 2284. 2195. 2114. 1978. 1856. 2 2000. - 3999. 2C55. 20@3. 2109, 2161. 2182. 2178. 2168. 3 ';OCO. - 4999. 1038. 875. 830. 835. 870. 9i3. 849. 4 5000. - 5999. 1140. 915. 868. 819. all. ?61. 819. 5 6000. - 6999. 1122. 1010. 876. 885. 823. 778. 715. 6 7000 . - 7999. 1243. 985. 965. 864. 851. 798. 733. 7 8000. - 8999.1 993. 1049. 951. 941. 890. 807. 760. WARREN COUNTY a 9000. - 9999. 1036. 987. 993. 944. 919. 838. 768. 9 10000 . - 11999. 1719. 1785. 1832. 1979. 1895. 1781. 1611. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000 . - lq999. 1422. 2066. 245et. 2582. 2749. 2795.. 2543. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 24999. 1690. 2361. 3327. 4550. 5792. 6726. 75,03. NOVEMBER 1974 12 250CO. - 49999. 429. 965. 1456. 1989. 2583. 3891. 5185. 13 50000. AND OVER 73. 195. 305. 423. 548. 711. 1205. TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 16534. 17625. 19270. 21167. 23027. 24955. 26805. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVrDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS WASHINGTON COUNTY NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 1617. 1567. 1526. 1501. 1466. 1403. 1326. 2 2000. - 3999. 801. 938. 1044. 1115. 1172. 1228. 1233. 3 4000. - 4999. '206. 312. 341. 366. 388. 370. 396. 4 5000. - 5999. 212. i93. 254. 329. 319. 342. 347. 5 6000. - 6999. 137. 204. 193. 192. 269. 303. 3C2. 6 7000. - 7999. 170. 142. 197. 190. 182. 230. 235. 7 8000. - 8999. 96. 153. 138. 193. 186. 173. 207. 8 9000. - 9999. 101. 150. 143. 123. 184. 177. 163. 9 10000. - 11999. 66. 185. 238. 293. 254. 303. 333. 10 12000. - 14999. 21. 78. 193. 273. 338. 393. '66. 11 15000. - 249@9. 58. 63. 94. 142. 270. 418. 964. 12 25000. - 49999. 21. (11. 59. 76. 93. 11.0. 124. 13 50300. AND OVER 0. 6. 12. 17. 22. 29. 43. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 3506. 4017. 4432. 4815. 5143. 5479. 5789. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 717. 603. 549. 510. 473. 404. 358. 2 2000. - 3999. 1016. 865. 802. 787. 772. 724. 639. 3 q000. - 4999. 859. 545. 465. 423. 387, 363. 334. 4 5000 . - 5999. 869. 769. 613. 463. 452. 379. 334. 5 6000. - 6999. 994. 778. 740. 697. 525. 426. 361. 6 7000. - 7999. 1059. 867. 747. 728. 711. 510. 392. 7 8000 . - 8999. 1232. 924. 832. 733. 716. 667. 457. 8 9000. - 9999. 1042. 1008. 878. 822. 720. 670. 614. 9 10000. - 11999. 1677. 2005. 1978. 1750. 1650. 1400. 1236. 10 12000. - 14999. 1559. 2118. 2550. 2885. 2853. 2396. 2037. 11 15000. - 24999. 1395. 2344. 3439. 4707. 6005. 7001. 7338. 12 25000. - 49999. 234. 725. 1155. 1604. 2108. 3-522. 4869. 13 50000. AND OVER 21. 89. 149. 21i. 273. 356. 758. TOTAL FAMILIES 12674. 23640. 14897. 16320. 17645. 18818. 19727. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 2334. 2170. 2075. 2011. 1939. 1807. 1684. 2 2000, - 3999. 1817. 1803. 1846. 1902. 1944. 1952. 1872. 3 4000 . - 4999. 1065. 857. 806. 789. 775. 733. 730. 4 5000. - 5999. 1081. 967. 867. 792. 771. 721. 681. 5 6100 . - 6999. 1131. 982 . 933. 889. 794. 729. 663. 6 7000 . - 7999. 1229. 1009. 0,44. 918. 893. 740. 677. 7 8000. - 8999. 1328. 1077. 970. 926. 902. 840. 664. WASHINGTON COUNTY 8 9000. - 9999. 1143. 1138. 1021. 950. 904. 847. 777. 9 10000 . - 11999. 1743. 2190. 2216. 2043. 1904. 1703. 1569. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000. - 14999. 1580. 2196. 2743. 3158. 3191. 2789. 2403. MY$ OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 24999. 31453. 2407. 3533. 4849@ 6275. 7419. 8002. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 255. 766. 1214. 1680. 2201. 3632. 4993. 13 50000 AND OVER 21 95, 161. 228. 295. 385. 801. TOTAL CONSUkR UNITS 16180: 17657, 19329, 21135, 22788. 24297. 25516. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE COUNTIES ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS ) WESTCHESTER COUNTY NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGS bf 0. - 1999. 24779. 24103. 24161' 24041. 23536. 22539. 21176. 2 2000. - 3999. lc,062 . 15076. 16242. 16725. 16849. 16747. 16359. 3 4000. - 4999. 5183. 5706. 5;54. 6280. 6532. 6380. 5849. 4 5000. - 5999. 4872. 4893. 5158. 5634. 5613. 5629. 5819. 5 6000 . - 6999. 4605. 4637. 4738. 4753. 4949. 5259. 4822. 6 7'0 0 0 . - 7999. 3767. 4393. 4543. 4546. 4564. 4393. 4786. 7 8000. - 8999. 3166. 3755. q315. 4402. e,304. 4260. 3933. a 900J. - 9999. 2336. 323c,. 3711. 4223. 4195. 4032. 3921. 9 10000. - 11999. 3779. 4816. 6141. 6853. 7489. 7768. 7382. 10 12000. - 14999. 2927. 4627. 5898. 7139. 8261. 9265. 9803. 11 15000. - 24999. 3036. 4671. 6708. 9is3. 11657. 14658. 17555. 12 25000. - 49999. 956. 1882. 2742. 3560. 4312. 5937. 8108. 13 50000. AND OVER 302. 584. 845. 1093. 1322. 1610. 1890. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 73770. 82377. 91156. 984'32. IGS583. 108477. 111403. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. 1999. 6527. 5743. 5417. 5266. 5091. 4755. 4336. 2 2000 . 3999. 9984. 7955. 6891. 6218. 5559. 4608. 4086. 3 4000. 4999. 5486. 4539. 4175. 39z@. 3697. 'sAza- 2687. 4 5000. 5999. 7003. 4795. 4345. 4669. 3885. 3465. 3119. 5 6000. 6999. 8348. 6067. 4610. 4295. 3956. 3628. 3193. 6 7000. 7999. 9880. 7004. 5741. 4664. 4181. 3689. 3301. 7 8000. - 8999. 10996. 8024. 6522. 5550. 4699. 3877. 33q8. 8 9000. - 9999. 11859. 8962. 7254. 6313. 5338. 4207. 3528. 9 10000 . - 11999. 26326. 20071. 17063. 14650. 12489. 10249. 8039. 10 12000. - 14999. 33388. 34087. 30819. 26543. 23712. 19248. 15075. 11 15000. - 24999. 62570. 71485. 80259. 88909. 91634. 85776. 74665. 12 25000. - 49999. 30718. 48039. 63431. 79517. 95660. 118534. 13G269. 13 50000. AND OVER 9492. 18869. 26987. 35365. 43384. 53190. 73215. TOTAL FAMILIES 232637. 245640. 263514. 285283. 303285. 318704. 328861. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 31306. 29846. 29578. 29307. 28627. 27294. 25512. 2 2000. - 3999. 24046. 23031. 23133. 22943. 22rO8. 21355. 20445. 3 4000. - 4999. 10669. 10245. 10129. 10204. 10229. 9308. 8536. 4 5000. - 5999. 11875. 9688. 9503. 9703. 9498. 9094. 8938. 5 6000. - 6999. 12953. 10704. 9348. 9048. 8905. 8887. 3015. 6 7000. - 7999. 13647. 11397. 10284. 9210. 8745. 8082. 8087. 7 8DOD. - 8999. 14162. 11779. 13837. 9952. 9003. 8137. 7281. WESTCHESTER COUNTY 8 9000. - 9999. 14195. 12196. 10965. 10536. 9533. 8239. 7449. 9 10000. - ii999. 30165. 24887. 23204. 21503. 19978. 18017. 15421. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000. - 14999. 36315. 38714. 36717. 33682. 31973. 28513. 24878. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 24999. 65606. 76156. 86967. 98092. 103291. 100434. 92220. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 31674. 49921. 66173. 83077. 99972. 124521. 138377. 13 50000. AND OVER 9794. 19453. 27832. 36453. 44706. 548@0. 75105. TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 306407. 328017. 354670. 3a3715. 40686a. 427181. 440264. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGIONS ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS ) UPPER HUDSON NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 43144. 41881. 41412. 40673. 39445. 37302. 34736. 2 2000. - 3999. 18745. 225,31. 25780. 27903. 29164. 3G409. 31i18. 3 4000 . - 4999. 6367. 7201 . 76@8. 8032, 8645. 8882. 8425. 4 5000 . - 5999. 6332. 6195. 63,32. 6950. 7136. 7138. 7684. 5 6000 . - 6999. 4984. 6059. 6159. 5953. 6009. 6441 . 6252. 6 7000. - 7999. 3593. 4835. 5667. 6011. 5878. 5446. 5742. 7 8000. - 8999. 2789. 3626. 4627. 51;6. 5593. 5547. 4961. a 9000 . - 9999. 1793, 2888. 3565. 4358. 4747. 5216. 5147. 9 10000 . - 11999. 2619. 3714. 5047. 62@5. 7263. 8381. 9119, 10 12000 . - 14999. 1682. 3012. 4138. 5224. 6469. 82i5. 9653. 11 15000. - 24999. 1337. 2286. 3381. 5011. 6689. 9217. 12207. 12 25000. - 49999. 239. 635. 973. 1302. 1608. 2194. 3336. 13 50000. AND OVER 136. 208. 270. 528. 379. 449. 529. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 93810. 105121. 115049. 123236. 129025. 134837. 138@09. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1935 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 9246. 8186. 7690. 7334. 6948. 6273. 5669. 2 2000, - 3999. 16699. 13470@ 11732. 10753. 9783, 826r*. 7038. 3 4000 .- 4999. 10076 . 8351 . 7735. 7007 . 6309. 5816. 4867. 4 5000 . - 5999. 12352. 91135. 8302. 7628. 7320. 6202. 5328. 5 6000 . - 6999. 1@601. 11580. 92q4. 8757. 7581. 6810. 59"3. 6 7000. - 7999. 16938. 12872. 11140. 9951. 8224. 7134. 62@1. 7 8000. - 8999. 17861. 14436. 12346. 10877. 9790. 7653. 6516. a 9000. - 9999. 17692. 15638. 13512. 12060. 10574. 8923. 6986. 9 10 0 c 0 .- 11999. 34126. 32036'. 30177. 27223. 24135. 20291. 16636. 10 12000 . - 14999. 36495. 44030. 45864. 44570. 42367. 36206. 29525. 11 15000. - 24999. 40740. 60297. 80392. 101230. 117297. 122325. 118789. 12 25000. - 49999. 8843. 22611. 34451. 46208. 58724. 866;4. 111721. 13 50000. AND OVER 1415. 3989. 6175. 8336. 10339. 13038. 22329. TOTAL FAMILIES 237584. 256681. 278759. 301134. 3194@,l. 335619. 347558. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 198D 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 52390. 50067. 49102. 48007, 46393. 43575. 40405. 2 2000, - 3999. 35444. 36051. 37511. 38656. 38947. 38673. 38156. 3 4000. - 4999. 16443. 15552. 15383. 15089. 14954. 1@698. 13292. 4 5000 . - 5999. 19234. 15380. 14634. 14578. 14456. 13340. 1301-2. 5 6000. - 6999. 19585. '17639. 15@03. 14310. 13590. 15251. 12165. 6 7000. - 7999. 20531. 17707 . 16807. 15562. 1410'. 12580. 11983. 7 8000 . - 8999. 20650. 18062. 16,973. 16073. 1538 13200 . 12477. UPPER HUDSON 8 9000. - 9999. 19485. 18526. 17077. 16 4 1 S . 1532 14139. 12133. 9 10000. - 11999. 36745. 35750. 35224. 33463. 31398. 28672. 25755. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000. - 14999. 38177. 47042. 50052. 49794. 48836. 44421. 39178. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 24999. 42077. 62533. 83773. 106241. 123986. 131532. 130996. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 9082. 23246. 35424. 47510. 60332. 88888. 115057. 13 50000. AND OVER 1551, 4197. 6445. 8664. 40768. 13487. 22858, TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 331394. 361802. 393804, 424370. 448466. 470456. 436467. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGIONS ( 1.4 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS ) UPPER MOHAWK NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1980 i985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 12189. 11352. 10860. 10439. 9918. 9046. 8056. 2 2000. - 3999. 6330. 7425. 8325. 8955. 9391. 9727. 9894. 3 4000 . - 4999. 2144. 2506. 26q8. 2779. 2902. 2849. 2603. 4 5000. - 5999. '1884. 1998. 2149. 2448. 2@97. 2471. 2554. 5 6000 . - 6999. 1626. 1788. 1870. 1935. '065. 2326. 2127. 6 7000 . - 799c. 1108. 1546. 2731. 1747. 1833. 1770 . 2063. 7 8000. - 8999. 819. ii;a. 1500. 1611. 1640. 1691. 1589. a 9000 . - 9999, 613. 880. 1115. 1464. 1505. 1529. 1551. 9 10000. - 11999. 739. 1206. 1607. 1952. 2402. 2741. 2743. 10 12000. - 14999. 509. 874. 1292. 1734. 2148. 2632. 3156. 11 15000. - 24999. 243. 585. 938. 1515. 2155. 3026. 3965. 12 25000. - 49999. 48. 124. 192. 258. 320. 536. 909. 13 50000. AND OVER 12. 26. 37. 49. 60. 73. 86. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS Z8314. 31458. 34284. 36386. 38836. 40417. 41296. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 3308. 2853. 2626. 2459. 2293. 2010. 1772. 2 2000. - 3999. 6180. 4913. 4227. 3848. 3481. 2901. 2433. 3 4000. - 4999. 3686. 3058. 2796. 2490. 2209. 2GO8. 1674. 4 5000. - 5999. 4898. 3303. 2997. 2724. 2600. 2131. 1814. 5 6000. - 6999. 5850. 4365. 3325. 2992. 2717. 2383. 2011. 6 7000. - 7999. 6654. 5066. r133. 3434. 2867. 2517. 2154. 7 8000. - 8999. 6559. 5660. 4833. 97'. 3536. 2620. 2279. 8 9000 . - 9999. 6194. 5894. 5274. 4729. 38,35. 3131. 2367. 9 10000. - 11999. 12CO3. 11308. 11133. 10438. 9351. 7497. 5734. 10 12000 . - 14999. 12827. 15303. 15826. 15529. 15329. 13525. 10937. 11 15000. - 24999. 12457. 19662. 26641. 33856. 39613. 4108@. 40473. 12 25000. - 49999. 2314. 6508. 9997. 13422. 16706. 26009. 34316. 13 50000. AND OVER 356. 1020. 1572. 2115. 2620. 3271. 5613. TOTAL FAMILIES 83286. 88913. 95380. 102010. 107207. 111086. llS627. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 i980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - iggg. 15497. 14205. 13486. 12898. 12211. 11056. 9828. 2 2000. - 3999. 12560. 123-38. 12552. 12803. 12872. 12628. 12327. 3 4000 . - 4999. 5830. 5564. 5444. 5269. 5111. 4857. 4277. 4 5000. - 5999. 6782. 5301. 5146. 5172. 5097. 4602. 4368. 5 6000 . - 6999. 7476. 6153. 5195. 4927 . 4782. 4709. 4138. 6 7000 . - 7999. 7762. 6612. 5834. 5181. 4700. 4287. 4217. 7 8000. - 8999. 7378. 6808. 6333. 5586. 5176. 4311. 3868. UPPER MOHAWK 8 9000 . - 9999. 6807. 6774. 6389. 6192. 5390. 4660. 3918. 9 10000 . - ii999. 12742. 12514. 127-0. 12390. 11753. 10238. 8527. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000 . - 14999. 13336. 16177. 17118. 17263. 17477. 16157. 14093. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000 . - 24999. 12700. 20247. 27629. 35371. 41768. 44109. 44438. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 2162. 6632. 10189. 136ao. 17026. 26545. 35225. 13 50000. AND OVER 368. 1046. 1609. 2164. 2680. 3344. 5699. TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 111600. 120371. 129664. 138896. 146043. 151503. 154923. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGIONS ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS ) N.Y. METRO (TRI-STATE) NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1980 1935 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- i999. 4C4634. 377078. 359314. 345251. 328466. 304444. 277717. 2 2000. - 3999. 2qO357. 259158. 27q290. 279824. 279079. 275613. 267805. 3 4000. - 4999. 93132. 93595. 92050. 95679. 100341. 99819. 91649. 4 5000 . - 5999. 9@i789. 86135. 83582. 84762. 81995. 81085. 86694. 5 6000. - 6999. 83776. 87224. 81543. 76709. 74913. 74507. 68377. 6 7000. - 7999. 73421. 77590. 80676. 77617. 72201. 66654. 66070. 7 8000. - 8999. 58068. 69215. 72927. 74714. 72927. 66065. 59759. a 9000. - 9999. 40846. 58589. 6q300. 68450. 68161. 66619. 59466. 9 10000. - 11999. 61@81. 81888. 103351. 115399. 120330. 121306. 117647. 10 12000. - 14999. @2141. 71152. 91780. 111373. 130238. 145635. 150530. 11 15000. - 24999. 41016. 62574. 89762. 12'843. 157886. 202326. 2497C4. 12 25000. - 49999. 14623. 25856. 34942. 4H92. 50213. 67745. 91256. 13 50000. AND OVER el3ii. 8273. 11416. 14165. 16544. 19488. 23691. TOTAL U4REL INDIVIDUALS 1253095. 1358427. 1441433. 1510878. 1553294. 1592306. 1610365. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 2999. 157746. 133715. 129877. 12(-295. 118299. 10@451. 100156. 2 2000. - 3999. 241135. 188642. 160700. 142954. 127062. 105ql6. 86747. 3 e@000. - 49S9. 137007. 111843. i02313. 92800. 83727. 74470. 64275. 4 5000. - 5959. 159496. 116695. 105091. 97778. 91708. 79912. 67860. 5 6000 . - 6999. 166888. 135310. 112608. 101005. 93575. 84294. 74098. 6 7000. - 7999. 178434. 143128. 126055. 111664. 97251. 86170. 76009. 7 8000. - 8999. 183561. 150987. 133014. 120303. 108951. 89405. 77803. a 9000. - 9999. 182323. 158612. 138365. 126612. 114415. 93623. 80155. 9 10000 . - i1999. 385535. 322739. 297775. 270101. 24;409. 212278. 180240. 10 12000. - 14999. 439Z@52 . 482887. 466741. 432833. 403347. 351127. 298409. 11 15000. - 24999. 655445. 813287. 971277. 1139475. 1238303. 1243337. 1149095. 12 2 5 0 0 0 .-49999. 204761 . 3936@59. 561917. 734519. 914499. 1204732. 1439300. 13 H000. AND OVER 48305. lOq7O2. 15194E 200167. 245676. 303180. 439468. TOTAL FAMILIES 3138488. 3264407. 3458183. 369q5O6. 3881222. 4042395. 4133620. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 562380. 515794. 489691. 46954-6. 446765. 413895. 377873. 2 2000 . - 3999. 481992. 447800. 434993. 422778. 406141. 38,019. 354552. 3 4000. - 4999. 226139. 205438. 194368. 188479. 184068. 17@2@9. 155924. 4 5000. - 5999. 251285. 202830. 188673. 182540. 173703. 160997 . 154554. 3 60CO. - 69S9. 250664. 222534. 194151. 177714. 168488. 118801. 142475. 6 7000. - 7999. 251&55. 220718. 206731. 189281. 169452. 192824. 142079. 7 8000. - 8999. 246629. 220202. 205941. 195017. 181878. 155470. 137567. N.Y. METRO (TRI-STATE) 8 9000. - 9999. 223169. 217201. 203665. 195062. 132576. 165242. 139621. 9 i 0 0 0 0 .-11999. 447016. 404627. 401626. 385500, 364739. 334084. 297887. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000. - 14999. 481993. 554039. 558521. 5@4206. 533585. 496762. 448939. HYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 24999. 696461. 875961. 1061039. 1263318. 1396189. 1446163. 1398799. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 219384. 422715. 596855. 777611.' 964712. 1272477. 15305,56. 13 50000. AND OVER 52616. 112975. 163365. 214332. 262220. 322668. 463159. TOTAL C04SUMER UNITS 4391583. 4622834. 4899516. 5205384. 5434516. 5634701. 5743985. PROjECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS ) ALBANY-SCHENECTADY-TROY NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 '1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. 1999. 36212. 34848. 34464. 33839. 32852. 31124. 29017. 2 2000. 3999. 15593. 18558. 21121. 22324. 23798. 24775. 25421. 3 4000. 4999. 5363. 5890. 6225. 6548. 7048. 73@q. 6898. 4 5GOG. 5959. 5595. 5209. 5i97. 5628. 5792. 5754. 6275. 5 6000. 699S-. 4386. 5268. 52@0. 4956. 4887. 5204. 5073. 6 7000. 7999. 3161. 42155. 4009. 5172. 4940. 4478. 4521. 7 8000. 8999. 2464. 3139. 4007. 4479. 4847. 4678. 4099. 8 9000. 9999. 1577. 2533. 3059. 3748. 4088. 4518. 4342. 9 10000. 11999. 2336. 3209. 4377. 5377, 6197. 7188. 7865. 10 12000. 14999. 1506. 2648. 3625. 4450. 5544. 7050. 8235. 11 15000. 24999. 1230. 2051. 2957. 4353. 5723. 7832. 10401. 12 25000. 49999. 174. 536. 843. 1144. 1422. 1923. 2913. 13 50000. AND OVER 124. 176. 222. 264. 299. 348. 401. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 79722. 88280. 962q6. 102792. 107437. 112216. i15561. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 19819 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 7074. 6223. 58@2. 5575. 5289. 4794. 4337. 2 2000. - 3999. 12397. 9879. 8569. 7856. 7154. 6069. 5180. 3 4000. - 4999. 7726. 6200. 5675. 5C95. 45fi4. 4176. 3526. 4 5000. - 5999. 9810. 6967. 6197. 5583. 5331. 4475. 3818. 5 6000. - 6999. 11460. 8751. 6930. 6276. 5531. 4940. 4270. 6 7000. - 7999. i3304. 9965. 8334. 7184. 6178. 5256. 4517. 7 8000. - 8999. 14157. 11228. 9532. 8175. 7327. 5732. 4737. a 9000. - 9999. 14549. 12206. lOq64. 9--oo. 7944. 6655. 5225. 9 10000 . - li999. 28371. 25766. 23504. 21@18. 18589. 15336. 12395. 10 12000. - 14999. 31782. 36608. 37397. 35410. 32905. 27786. 22494. 11 15000. - 24999. 35979. 52528. 68797. 85323. 97654. 99623. 94649. 12 25000. - 49999. 7848. 19865. 30153. 40329. 51002. 74964. 95814. 13 50000. AND OVER 1273. 3539. 5450. 7331. 9108. 11407. 19356. TOTAL FAMILIES 195730. ZG9725. 226944. 244455. 258606. 271213. 280368. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1980 1S85 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 43286. 41071. 40306. 39414. 38141. 35918. 33354. 2 2000. - 3999. 27990. 28437. '9690. 30680. 30952. 30844. 30601. 3 4000. - 4999. 13089. 12090. 11900. 11643. 11592. 11520. 10424. 4 5000. - 5999. 15406. 12176. 11394. 11211. 11123. 10229. 10093. 5 6000. - 6999. 15946. 14019. 12220. 11232. 10468. 10144. 9343. 6 7000. 7999. 16465. 14180. 132;3. 12356. 11118. 9734. 9138. 7 8000. 8999. 16621. lc,367. i:553 9. 12654. 12174. loeflo. 8886. ALBANY-SCHENECTADY-TROY 8 9000. 9999. 16126. 14739. 13523. 13048. 12032. 11173. 9567. 9 10000. 11999. 30707. 28975. 27881. 26395. 24786. 22524. 20260. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000. 14999. 33288. 39256. 41022. 39360. 38449. 34836. 30729. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 24999. 37209. 54579. 71754. 89676. 103377. 107455. 105050. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 8022. 20401. 30996. 41473. 52424. 76887. 98727. 13 50000. AND OVER 1397. 3715. 5672. 7595. 9407. 11755. 19757. TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 275452. 298005. 523190. 347237. 366043. 383429. 395929. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS ) POUGHKEEPSIE NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1930 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE. 1 3. - 1999. 8633. 8671. 9354. 10300. 12-187. li839. 12110. 2 2000. - 3999. 3441. 4199. 5167. 5984. 6781. 7566. 8164. 3 4000. - 4999. 1300. 1293. 1370. 1795. 2262. 2q89. 2488. 4 5000. - 5999. 1222. 1253. 21338. 1464. 1559. 1933. 2459, 5 6000. - 6999. 1170. 1186. 1295. 1422. 1528. 1597. 1601. 6 7000. - 7999. 927. 1139. 1242. 1364. 1507. 1553. 1578. 7 9000. - 8999. 661. 956. 1192. 1324. 1418. 1540. 1527. 8 9DOO. - 9999. 417. 743. loler. 12.30. 1393. 1(,51. 1525. 9 10000. - 11999. 911. 967. 1495. 2014. 2492. 2825. 2871. 10 12000. - 14999. 576. 1107. 1367. 1714. 2387. 3251. 3854. 11 15000. - 24999. 440. 822. 1442. 2371. 3-'20. 4540. 6074. 12 25000. - 49999. 82. 232. 394. 586. M. 1563. 2164. 13 50000. AND OVER 31. 57. 87. 122. 161. 213. 275. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 19811. 22630. 26757. 31740. 36798. 42160. 46690. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. lftl2. 1269. 12'9. 1305. 1362. 1347. 1304. 2 2000. - 3999. 2766. 2252. 20:)3. 1991. 1930. 1695. 1585. 3 4000. - 4999. 1567. 1351. 1328. 1334. 1379. 1404. 1092. 4 5000. - 5999. 2161. 1443. 1396. 1431. 1491. 1412. 1363. 5 6000. - 6999. 2127. 1944. 1461. 1512. 1528. 1551. 1400. 6 7000. - 7999. 2852. 1968. 2012. 1624. 1645. 1561. 1506. 7 8000. - 8999. 3361. 2281. 1996. 2130. 1822. 1674, 1508. 8 9000. 9999. 2927. 2751. 2113. 2112. 2269. 1737. 1625. 9 10000. 11999. 7656. 5770. 5694. 4900. 4482. 4612. 3725. 10 12000. 14999. 3670. 10202. 9477. 9287. 9391. 7698. 6671. 11 15000. 24999. 22737. 17326. 23245. 29662. 34472. 36231. 33364. 12 25000. 49999. 2517. 7499. 12678. 1C,670. 27416. 41179. 50493. 13 50000. AND OVER 319. 1155. 2017. 3046. 4277. 5922. 13351. TOTAL FAMILIES 51072. 57211. 66729. 79204. 93464. 108023. 118987. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 100;5. 9940. 10613. 11605. 12549. 13136. 13414. 2 2000. - 3999. 6207. 6451. 7220- 7975. 8711. 9261. 9749. 3 4000. - 4999. 2867. 2644. 2698. 3129. 3641. 3893., 35&0. 4 5000. - 5999. 3383. 2696. 2734. 2395. 3050. 3345. 3822. 5 60U0. - 6999. 3297. 3130. 2756. 2934. 3G56. 3148. 3001. 6 7000. - 7999. 3779. 3207. 3254. 2988. 3152. 3114. 3084. 7 8000. - 8999. 4022. 3237. 3188. 3454. 3240. 3214. 3035. POUGHKEEPSIE 8 9000. - 9999. 3344. 3499. 3127. 3392. 3662. 3188. 3150. 9 10000. - 11999. 8567. 6737. 7189. 6914. 6974. 7437. 6595. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000. - 14999. 9246. 11309. 10844. 11001. 11778. 10949. 10525. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 24999- 13177. 18148. 24687. 32033. 37792. 40771. 39433. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 2599. 7731. 13072. 19;56. 28219. 42542. 52657. 13 50000. AND OVER 550. 1212. 2104. 3168. 4438. 6135, 13626. TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 70883. 79841. 93486. 110944. 130262. 150183. 165677. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND C014SUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE STANDARD METRO?OLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS ) UTICA-ROME NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 12189. 11352. 10860. 10439. 9918. 0046. 8056. 2 2000. - 3999. 6380. 7425. 3325. 8955. 9391. 9727. 9894. 3 4000. - 4,999. 2`44. 2506. 26q8. 2779. 2902. 2849. 2603. 4 5000. - 5999. i384. 1998. 2149. 2448. 2497. 2471. 2554. 5 6000. - 6999. 1626. 1788. 1870. 1935. 2065. 2`26. 2127. 6 7000. - 7999. 1108. 1546. 1701. 1747. 1833. li70. 2063. 7 8000. - 8999. 819. 1148. 1500. 1611. 1640. 1691. 1589. 8 9000. - 9999. 613. 880. 1115. 1464. 1505. 1529. 1551. 9 10000. - 11999. 739. 1206. 1607. 1952. 2402. 2741. 2743. 10 12000. - 14999. 509. 874. 1292. 1734. 2148. 2632. 3156.. 11 15000. - 24999. 243. 585. 988. 1515. 2155. 3026. 3965. 12 25000. - 49999. 48. 124. 192. 258. 320. 536. 909. 13 50000. AND OVER 12. 26. 37. 49. 60. 73. 86. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 28314. 31458. 34284. 36886. 38836. 40417. 41296. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 3308. 2853. 2626. 2459. 2293. 2010. 1772. 2 2000. - 3999. 6180. 4913. 4227. 3843. 3481. 2901. 2433. 3 4000. - 4999. 3686. 3058. 2796. 2490. 2209. 2008. 1674. 4 5000. - 5999. 4893. 3303. 2997. 2724. 2600. 2131. 1814. 5 6000. - 6999. 51350. 4365. 3325. 2992. 2717. 2383. 2011. 6 7000. - 7999. 66.'4. 5066. 4133. 3434. 2867. 2517. 215(+. 7 8030. - 8999. 65 '1 9. 5660. 4&53. 3975. 3536. 262a. 2279. 8 9000. - 9999. 6194. 5894. 5274. Z728. 3885. 3131. 2567. 9 10000. - ii999. 120C3. 11308. 11133. 10438. 9351. 7497. 5784. 10 12000. - 14999. 12827. 15303. 15326. 15529. 15329. 13525. 10937. 11 15000. - 24999. 12457. 19662. 26641. 33856. 39613. 41083. 40473. 12 25000. - 49999. 2314. 6508. 9997. 13422. 16706. 26009. 34316. 13 50000. AND OVER 356. 1020. 1572. 2115. 2620. 3271. 5613. TOTAL FAMILIES 83286. 88913. 95380. laaala. 107ZO7. 111086. 113627. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCCME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 15497. 14205. 134?6. 12898. 12211. 11056. 9828. 2 2000. - 3999. 12560. 12338. 12552. 12803. 12872. 12628. 12327. 3 4000. - 4999. 5830. 5564. 5444. 5269. 5111. 4857. 4277. 4 5Q00. - 5)99. 6782. 5301. 5lq6. 5172. 5097. 4602. 4368. 5 6000. - 6999. 7476. 6153. 5195. @927. 4782. 4709. 4138. 6 7000. - 7999. 7762. 6612. 5334. 5181. 4700. 4287. 4217 7 80io. - 8999. 7'57 8 . 63@ls . 65:@3. 5536. 5176. 4311. 386al UTICA-ROMF a 9000. - 9999. 6807. 6774- 6389. 6192. 5390. 4660. 3918. 9 10000. - 11999. 12742. 12514. 12740. 12390. 11753. 10238. 8527. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 120'@G. - 14994. 13336. 16177. 17 1 izl. 17265. 17477. 16157. 14093. HYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 1500G. - 24999. 12700. 202@7. 27629. 35371. 41768. 44109. 44438. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 2362. 6632. 10189. 13680. 17026. 26545. 35225. 13 50000. AND OVER 368. 1046. 1609. 2164. 2680. 3344. 5699. TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 111600. 120371. 129664. 138896. 146043. 151503. 154923. - PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE HUDSON RIVER BASIN AREAS ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS ) MOHAWK SUB-REGION NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 16174. 15103. 14429. 13790. 13021. 11798. 10419. 2 2000. - 3999. 8726. 10168. 11374. 1216,1. 12685. 13076. 13213. 3 4000 . - 4999. 2937. 3465. 7,664. 3825. 3969. 3375. 3528. 4 5000 . - 5999. 25@2. 2755. 2974. 3383. 3429. 3380. 3462. 5 6000. - 6999. 2100. 2425. 2578. 2660. 2842. 3182. 2900. 6 7000 . - 7999. 1415. 2008. 2297. 2391. 2527. 2432. 2821. 7 8000. - 8999. 1026. 1475. 1949. 2149. 2210. 2327. 2165. 8 9000 . - 9999. 738. 1120. 1428. 1897. 1980. 2052. 2126. 9 10000 . - 11999. 928. 1487. 2034. 2492. 3074. 3572. 3653. 10 120CO. - 14999, 607. 1092. 1605. 2145. 2689. 3342. 4020. 11 15000. - 24999. 310. 717. 1211. 1869. 2654. 3721. 4930. 12 25000. - 49999. 87. 183. 267. 349. 42(T . 678. 1113. 13 50000. AND OVER 16. 11 41. 62. 83. 103. 127. 150. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 37606. 42044. 45872. 49197. 51607. 53562. 54500. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 4673. 4080. 3782. 3548. 3317. 2929. 2581. 2 2000 . - 3999. 8741. 7059. 6129. 5564. 5029. 4196. 3478. 3 4000 . - 4999. 5179. 4326. 3973.' 3583. 3221. 2922. 2496. 4 5000. - 5999. 6966. 4717. 4275. 3877. 36S I . 3097. 2646. 5 6000 . - 6999. 8@75. 6268. 4323. 4255. 3886. 3378. 2911. 6 7000 . - 7999. 9122. 7104. 5974. 5029. 4107. 3621. 3067. 7 8000 . - 8999. 9127. 7863. 6798. 5771. 5202. 3773. 3286. 8 9000 . - 9999. 8505. 8207. 7384. 6610. 5639. 4674. 3399. 9 10000 . - 11999. 16168. 15724. 15600. 14562. 13114. 10753. 8580. 10 12000. - 14999. 16289. 20427. 21708. 21665. 21378. 18986. 15609. 11 15000. - 24999. 15632. 24825. 339q4. 43513. 51385. 54866. 55251. 12 25000. - 49999. 2917. 8146. 12467. 16654. 20625. 31610. 42294. 13 50000 . AND OVER 429. 1260. 1948. 2615. 3233. 4034. 6567. TOTAL FAMILIES 111823. 120006. 128805. 137246. 143817. 148839. 152165. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 20847. 19188. 18211. 17338. 16338. 147'27. 13000. 2 2000. - 3999. 17467. 17227. 17503. 17728. 17714. 17272. 16691. 3 4000 . - 4999. 8116. 7791. 7637. 7408. 7190. 6797. 6024. 4 5,000 . - 5999. 9508. 7472. 7249. 7260. 7110. 6477. 6108. 5 6000 . - 6999. 10175. 8693. 7401. 6915. 6728. 6560. '811. 6 7000. - 7999. 10537. 9112. 8271. 7420. 6634. 6053. 9888. 7 8000 . - 8999. 10153. 9338. 87@7. 7920. 7412. 6100. 5451. MOHAWK SUB-REGICH 8 9000 . - 9999. 9243. 9327. 8ai2. 8507. 7619. 6726. 5525. 9 10000 . - 11999. 17096. 17211. 17634. 17054. 16188. 14325. 12233. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000. - 14999. 16896. 21519. 23313. 23810. 24067. 22328. 19629. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 24999. 15942. 25542. 35155. 45382. 54039. 58587. 60181. NOVEMBER 1974 12 2500 0 . - 49999. S004. 8329. 12734. 17003. 21049. 32288. 43407. 13 50000. AND OVER 445. 1301. 2010. 2698. 3336. 4161. 6717. TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 149429. 162050. 174677. 186443. 195424. 202401. 206665. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE HUDSON RIVER BASIN AREAS ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS ADIRONDACK SUB-REGION NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1995 1969 1973 1.930 1985 i990 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGP 1 0. - 1999. 3553. 3464. 3383@ 3260. 3124. 2912. 2698. .2 2000. - 3999. 1710. 2350. 2302. 2(,66. 2565. 2670. 2769. 3 4000 . - 4999. 589. 680. 723. 733. 777. 816. 767. 4 5000. - 5999. 478. 533. 599. 662. 676. 643. 705. 5 6000. - 6999. 308. 453. 503. 545. 555. 617. 589. 6 7000 . - 7999. i99. _@03. 411. 448. 490. 509. 563. 7 8000. - 8999, 217. '02. 287. 3,55. 423. A49. 468. 8 9000. - 9999. 147. @10. i9l. 262. 258. 401. 419. 9 10000. - 11999. 229. 301. @84. 39-. 4213. 525. 66' 10 12000. - lq999. 82. 2Q., 354. 41@. 506. 5:8. 579* 11 l5r00. - 24999. 11.2. 142. 209. 351. 480. 693. 972 12 25;00. - 49999. 38. 66 . 90. 113. 155. 166. 225: 13 50000. AND OVER 11. 21. 30. 38. Q. 57. 70. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 7659. 8693. 9466. 10047. 10504. 10996. 11485. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANG' 1 0. - 11178. 976. 895. 8335. 7?3. 695. 634. 2 2000. - 3999. 2237. 1718. 1487. 1369. 1268. 1106. 970. 3 4COO. - 4999. 1441. 11C5. 99a. 872. 791. 743. 626. 4 5000. - 5999. 1741. 1255. 1101. 998. 942. 773. 692. 5 6000. - 6999. IF,53. 1513. 1230. 1117. 989. 913. 755. 6 7000. - 7999. 1978. 1590. 141;5. 1238. 1121. 937. 850. 7 8000. - 8999. 1799. 1672. 1512. 1405. 1256. 1057. 871. a 9000. - 9999. 1695. 1664. 1572. 1@69. 1371. 1159. 974. 9 10000. - 11999. 2776. 3033. 3128. 310i. 2897. 2613. 2221. 10 12000. - 14999. 2375. 3429. 4038. 4295. 4.;26. 4246. 3725. 11 15000. - 24999. 2544. 3796. 5550. 7522. 9400. 10806. 11708. 12 25000. - 49999. 555. 1411. 2181. 2960. 3935. 5952. 7974. 13 50000. AND OVER 117. 281. 427. 578. 734. 936. 1720. TOTAL FAMILIES 22299. 23440. 25564. 27759. 29913. 31936. 33720. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0. - 1999. 4731. 4440. 4278. 4055. 3907. 3607. 3332. 2 2000. - 3999. 3947. 3768. 3789. 3835. 3333. 3776. 3739. 3 4000. - 4999. 2030. 1785. 1721. 1610. 1568. 1559. 1393. 4 5000. - 5999. 2219. i8ca. 1700. 1660. 16is. lQ6. 1397. 5 6000. - 6999. 2161. 1968. 1733. 1662. 1554. 1530. 134ct. 6 7000. - 7999. 2177. 1893. 1856. 1686. 1611. 1446. 1413. 7 8000. - 8999. 2012. 1874. 1799. 1760. 1684. 1506. 1339. ADIRONDACK SUB-REGION & 9000. - 9999. 1842. 1874. 1763. 1731. 1669. 1560. 1393. 9 10000. - 11999. 3005. 3334. 3512. 3494. 3310. 3138. 2896. DATA AND SYSTEMIS BUREAU 10 12000. - 14999. 2457. 3672. 4392. 4711. 4932. 4784. 4300. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 2@999. 2646. 3938. 5759. 7873. 981i@o . 11499. 12680. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 593. 1477. 2271. 3073. 4070. 6118. 8199. 13 50000. AND OVER 129. 302. 457. 616. 781. 993. 1790. TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 29948. 3213-3. 35030. 37806. 40417. 42932. 45205. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES' AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE HUDSON RIVER BASIN AREAS C IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS ) CAPITAL SUB-REGION NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2003 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 35741. 34485. 34167. 33657. 32776. 31182. 29208. 2 2000. - 3999. 15341. 18208. 20685. 22354. 23316. 2Q88. 24915. 3 4000. - 4999. 5179. 5774. 6122. 6462. 6973. 7263. 6?90. 4 5000. - 5999. 5393. 5028. 5069. 5554. 5710. 5710. 6230. 5 6000 . - 6999. 4250. 5074. 5053. 4799. 4809. 5142. 5045. 6 7000. - 7999. 3200. 4095. 4742. 4994. 4787. 4405. 4589. 7 8000. - 8999.' 2451. 3144. 3833. 43--3. 4681. 4542. 403q. a 9000. - 9999. 1638. 2551. 3065. 3M. 3999. 4372. 4228. 9 10000. - 11999. 2299. 3279. 4421. 5444. 6120. 7018. 7653. 10 12000. - 14999. 1477. 2612. 3632. 4552. 5653. 7137. 8168. 11 15000. - 24999. 1275. 2065. 2955. 4328. 5769. 7947. 10652. 12 25000. - 49999. 191. 569. 891. 1206. le,98. 2002. 2972. 13 50000. AND OVER 120. 177. 227. 273. 312. 367. 433. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 78555. 87061. 94970. 101607. 106403. 111375. 115017. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 7042. 6156. 5763- 550D. 5216. 4715. 4274. 2 2000. - 3999. 12120. 9632. 8364. 7730. 7095. 6088. 5237. 3 4000. - 4999. 7810. 6107. 5558. 4971. 4418. 4076. 3441. 4 5000. - 5999. 9681. 7001. 6153. 5471. 5255. 4+377. 3731. 5 6000. - 6999. 11286. 8610. 6954. 6322. 5510. 4383. 4194. 6 7000. - 7999. 13136. 9768. 8235. 7116. 6238. 5201. 4463. 7 8000. - 8999. 1@224. 11036. 9333. 8023. 7245. 5796. 4731. 8 9000. - 9999. 14403. 12116. 10270. 9141. 7783. 6595. 5304. 9 10000. - 11999. 27855. 25595. 23394. 20736. 18323. 1509- 12289. 10 12000. - 14999. 31374. 36013. 36902. 35326. 32922. 27547. 2'163. 11 15000. - 24999. 35630. 52009. 68289. 84938. 97570. 99667. 9@794. 12 25000. - 49999. 7837. 19775. 30045. 40269. 51089. 75601. 96476. 13 50000. AND OVER 1241. 3507. 5424. 7320. 9117. 11440. 19732. TOTAL FAMILIES 193639. 207325. 224684. 242863. 257781. 271080. 280829. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 42783. 40641. 39930. 39157. 37992. 35897. 33482. 2 2000. - 3999. 27461. 27840. 29049. 30084. 304il. 30376. 30152. 3 4000. - 4999. 12989. 118911. 11680. 11433. 11391. 11339. 20331. 4 5000. - 5999. 15074. 12029. 11222. 11025. 10965. 10087. 9961. 5 6000. - 6999. 15536. 13684. 12009. 11121. 10319. 10025. 9239. 6 7000. - 7999. 16336. 13863. 12977. 12110. 11025. 9606. 9052. 7 8000. - 8999. 16675. 14180. 13222. 12376. 11926. 10338. 8765. CAPITAL SUB-REGION 8 9000. - 9999. 16041. 14667. 13335. 12772. 11782. 10967. 9532, 9 10000. - 11999. 30154. 28374. 27815. 26130. 244q3. 22112. 19942. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000. - 14999. 32811. 38625. 40584. 39378. 38575. 34684. 30331. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 24999. 369_. 71244. 89266. 103 107614. 105446. NOVEMBER 1974 ' 1 '4074. 39. 12 25000. - 49999. 8028. @0344. 30936. 41475. .525'87. 77603. 99448. 13 50000. AND OVER 2361. 3684. 5651. 7593. 9429. 11807. 20165. TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 272194. 294386. 319654. 344470. 364184. 382455. 395846. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE HUDSON RIVER BASIN AREAS ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS CATSKILL SUB-REGION NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 19,80 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999 2997 3276 3313.. 3302 3215 3042 2862 2 2000. - 3999: 1082: 1624: 1999. 2216: 2362: 2487: 2460: 3 4000. - 4999. 290. 432. 483. 578. 643. 631. 692. 4 5000. - 5999. 234. 312. 385. 447. 456. 522. 577. 5 6000. - 6959. 239. 259. 299. 333. 393. 408. 413. 6 7000. - 7999. 104. 241. 259. 277. 298. 340. 372. 7 8000. - 8999. 130. 158. 251. 258. 249. 273. 303. a 9coc. - 9999. 45. 118. 184. 248. 249. 230. 252. 9 10000. - ii999. 11(t. 184. 238. 300. 420. 464. 415. 10 12000. - 14999. 48. 155. 226. 313. 336. 413. 565. 11 15033. - 24599. 26. 70. 162. 273. 411. 587. 721. 12 25000. - 49999. 6. la. 31. 41. 54. 89. 151. 13 50000. AND OVER 4. 7. 9. 11. 13. 16. 26. TOTAL UHREL INDIVIDUALS 5289. 6854. 7839. 8597. 9098. 9502. 9809. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 i995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 927. 865. 824. 78t. 74(+. 665. 606. 2 2300. - 3999. 1635. 1456. 1325. 1205. 1074. 674. 764. 3 4000. - 4999. 924. 795. 762. 757. 741. 688. 516. 4 5000. - 5999. 1079. 888. 808. 746. 726. 686. 631. 5 6000. - 6S99. 1074. 1025. 872. 828. 733. 673. 626. 6 7000. - 7999. 1256. 1026. 1012. 875. 828. 685. 617. 7 8000. - 8999. 1193. 1123. 998. 994. 868. 771. 622. 8 900G. - 9999, 1079. 1183. 1058. 974. 963. 782. 704. 9 icooo. - 11999. 2024. 22177. 2292. 2161. 1887. 1772. 1494. '-0 12000. - 14999. 1630. 2741. 3083. 3216. 3265. 2848. 2420.@ i' 15,100. - 24991). 17Z9. 2896. 4481. 6190. 7518. 8451. 8600. 1@ 25000. - 49999. 297. 1014. 1670. 2337. 3227. 4851. 6473. 13 50000. AND OVER 22. 121. 214. 308. 402. 517. 1223. TOTAL FkMILIES 14884. 17310. 19399. 21379. 22976. 24263. 25296. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 3924. 4141. 41,37. 4090. 3959. 3707. 346a. 2 2000. - 3999. 2717. 3080. 3324. 3421. 3436. 3361. 3224. 3 4000. - 4999. 1214. 1227. 1245. 1335. 1184. 1319. 1208. 4 5000. - 5999. 1313. 1200. 1193. 1193. 1182. 1203. 1208. 5 6000. - 6999. 1283. 1284. 1171. 1161. 1126. 1081. 1039. 7000. - 7999. 1360. 1267. 1271. 1152. 1126. 1025. 989. 8000. - 8999. 1328. 1281. 1249. 1252, 1116. 1044. 925. CATSKILL SUB-REGION 8 9000. - 9999. 1124. 1301. 1242. 1222. 1212. 1012. 956. 9 10000. - 11999. 2138. 2361. 2530. 2461. 2307. 2236. 1909. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000. - 14939. 1678. 2896. 3309. 3529. 3601. 3261. 2985. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 24999. 1765. 2966. 4643. 6463. 7929. 9038. 9321. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 303. 1032. 1701. 2378. 328i. 4940. 6624. 13 50000. AND OVER 26. 128. 223. 319. 415. 533. 1249. TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 20173. 24164. 27236. 29976. 32074. 33765. 35105. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE HUDSON RIVER BASIN AREAS ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS ) MID-HUDSON SUB-REGION NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 57821. 57956. 60279. 63386. 65352. 65428. 63927. 2 20CO. - 3999. 25q88. 34j84. 40343 * 44930. 48378. 51007. 52447. 3 4000 . - 4999. 9'35. 11114. 12079. 14436. 17142. 18594. i8089. 4 5000. - 5999. 9 31. 9424. 10313. 11976. 12563. 14056. 17253. 5 6000 . - 69@9. 8517. 9132. 9511. 9917. 110917. 12242. 11782. 6 7000 . - 7999. 6735. 83547. 9206. 9686. 9993. 10065. 11476. 7 8000. - 8999. 5237. 6969. 8484. 9299. 9704. 9749. 9428. 8 9 0 c 0 . - 9999. 3842. 5699. 7147. 8722. 9198. 9488. 9308. 9 10000 . - 119@9. 9702. 8206. 11086. 13638. 16016. 17671. 17928. 10 12000. - 14999. 4970. 8389. 10734. 13122. 16272. 19984. 22730. 11 15000. - 24999. 4242. 7440. 11743. 17459. 23287. 30129. 37635. 12 25000. - 49999. 1218. 2584. 3922. 5295. 6646. 10176. 315134. 13 50000. AND OVER 404. 783. 1148. 1521. 1883. 2342. 2865. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 148192. 170624. 195995. 223387. 247356. 270931. 290002. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE I * 0.- 1999. 14270. 12743. 12395. 12551. 12571. 11900. 11096. 2 2000. - 3999. 24'33. 19953. 18183. 17548. 16704. 14537. 13089. 3 4000 . - 4999. 13@04. 11501. 11199. 11137. 11124. 10831.' 8691. 4 5000 . - 5999. 16699. 11803. 11498. 11735. 11872. 10975. 10228. 5 6000 . - 6999. 19109. 14964. 11889. 12013. 12084. 11711. 10498. 6 7COO. - 7999. 22433. 16763. 14958. 12811. 12389. 11815. 11066. 7 8000 . - 8959. 25625. 18870. 16 4 4 1 . 15478. 13719. 12070. 11120. 8 9000 . - 9999. 25133. 21267. 17&67. 16960 . 1-858. 12875. 11392. 9 10000 . - 11999. 58112. 45961. 42850. 38596. 3581. 31509. 25645. 10 12000. - 14999. 69609. 77070. 72907. 69301. 67120. 56539. 47220. 11 15000 . - 24999. 112406. 142677. 178260. 217760. 242488. 242961. 220917. 12 25000. - 49999. 41970. 79130. 115943. 158287. 208314. 285541. 333964. 13 50000. AND OVER 11012. 24258. 36528. 49974. 63619. 81361. 129887. TOTAL FAMILIES 453615. 496960. 560918. 644151. 723943. 794625. 844813. @UNBER OF C014SUMER UNITS 1969 1975 1930 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOMF RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 72091. 70699. 72674. 75937. 77923. 77328. 75023. 2 2000 . - 3999. 53721. 54537. 58526. 62478. 65082. 65544. 65536. 3 4000 . - 4999. 22689. 22615. 23278. 25573. 28266. 29425. 26780. 4 5000, - 5999. 26030. 21227.. 21811. 233711. 24435. 25031. 27481. 5 6000. - 6999. 27626. 24096. 21400. 21930. 23001. 23953. 22280. 6 7000. - 7999. 29168, 25110. 24164. 22497. 22787. 21880. 22542. 7 8000 . - 8999. 30862. 25839. 24525. 24777. 23@23. 21819. 20548. MID-HUDSON SUB-REGION a 9000. - 9999. 28975. 26956. 25014. 25682. 25 0 55 6 . 22363. 20700. 9 10000 . - 11999. 6@814. 54167. 539,76. 52234. 51597. 49180. 43573. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000 . - let 99 9 . 7(.579. 85459. 83641. 82423. 83392. 76523. 69950. HYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES .11 15000. - 24999. 116648. 150117. 190003. 235219. 265775. 273090. 258552. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000e - 49999. 43188. 81714. 119865. 163582. 215460. 295717. 349098. 13 50000. AND OVER 11416. 25038. 37676. 51495. 65502. 83703. 132752. TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 601807. 667584. 756913. 867538. 971299. 1065556. 1134815. PROJECTIONS OF NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND CONSUMER UNITS BY MONEY INCOME CLASS FOR NEW YORK STATE HUDSON RIVER BASIN AREAS ( IN 1970 CONSTANT DOLLARS ) HUDSON RIVER BASIN NUMBER OF UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 116286. 114289. 115571. 117395. 117483. 114362. 109114. 2 2000. - 3999. 56347. 66634. 76703. 84130. 89@06. 93528. 95804. 3 4000 . - 4999. 18680, 2--465. 23071. 26039. 2950c. . 31179. 29966. 4 5003. - 5999. 17971S. l3b72. 193(@o. 22022. 22834. 24311. 23227. 5 6000. - 6999. 153'4. 17348. 17946. 18254. 19526. 21591. 20729. 6 7000. - 7999. 1M3. 14994. 16915. 17796. 18100. 17751. 19821. 7 8000. - 8999. 9057. 11948. 14860. 16414. 17271. 173,+0. 16398. 8 9000. - 9999. 6410. 9698. 12015. 14760. 15724. 16543. 16333. 9 10000 . - 11999. 10272. 13457. l8i63. 22267. 26043. 29250. 30314. 10 12000. - 14999. 7184. 12491. 16601. 20548. 25456. 31414. 36058. 11 15000. - 24999. 5955. 10434. 16280. 24280. 32601. 43077. 54910. 12 25000. - 49999. 1540. 342-1. 5201. 1064. 8757. 13111. 19595. 13 50000. AND OVER 555. 1026. 1476. 1926. 2358. 2909. 3544. TOTAL UNREL INDIVIDUALS 277301. 315276. 354142. 392835. 424968. 456366. 480813. NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1969 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 18090. 24820. 23659. 23222. 22631. 20904. 19191. 2 2000. - 3999. %8966. 39818. 35488. 33416. 31170. 26801. 23538. 3 4000. - 4999. 2&358. 23834. 22490. 21320. 20295. '9260. 15770. 4 5000. - 5999. 36166. 25664. 23835. '2827. 22476. i9908. 17928. 5 6000. - 6999. 41397. SZ377, 2576S. M35. 232G2. ?1558. 18994. 6 7000 . - 7999. 4792.5. 36251. 31624. 27069. 24683. 22259. 20063. 7 8000. - 8999. 51973. 40564. 35082. 31671. 28290. 23467. 20630. 8 9000. - 9999. 50815. 44437. 38151. 35154. 31614. 26085. 21773. 9 10000. - 11999. 106935. 92490. 8726e.. 79156. 71802. 61741. 50229. 10 12000. - 14999. 121277. 139680. 138638. 133803. 129111. 110166. 91137. 11 15000. - 24999. 167951. 226203. 29G524. 359923. 408361. 416751. 391270. 12 25000. - 49999. 53576. 109q76. 162306. 220507. 287690. 403555. 487181. 13 50000. AND OVER 12E2i. 29427. 445(il. 60795. 77105. 982SS. 159129. TOTAL FAMILIES 796250. 865041. 959370. 1073398. 1178430. 1270743. 1336823. NUMBER OF CONSUMER UNITS 1969 1975 i9sa 1995 1990 1995 2000 CLASS INCOME RANGE 1 0.- 1999. 144376. 139109. 139230. 140617. 140119. 135266. 128305. 2 2000. - 3999. 105313. 106452. 112191. 117546. 120476. 120329. 119342. 3 q 0 0 0 .- 4999. 47038. 45299. 45561. 47359. 49799. 50439. 45736. 4 5000 . - 5999. 54144. 45736. 43175. @4849. 45310. 44219. 46155. 5 6000. - 6999. 56781. 49725. 43714. 42789. 42728. 43149. 39713. 6 7COO. - 7999. 59578. 551245. 48539. 44865. 42783. 40010. 39884 7 8000. - 8999. 61030. 52512. 4j3@2. c-@035. 45561. (40307. 37028: HUDSON RIVER BASIN 8 9000. - 9999. 57225. 54135. 50166. 4991@. 47338. 42628. 38106. 9 10000. - 11999. 117207. 105947. 105427. 101423. 97845. 90991. 80543. DATA AND SYSTEMS BUREAU 10 12000. - 14999. 128461. 152171. i55239. 154351. 154567. 141580. 127195. NYS OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES 11 15000. - 24999. 173906. 236637. 306804. 384203. 440962. 459828. 446180. NOVEMBER 1974 12 25000. - 49999. 55116. 112896. 167507. 227511. 296447. 416M. 506776. 13 50000. AND OVER 13376. 30453. 46017. 62721. 79463. 101197. 162673. TOTAL CONSUMER UNITS 1073551. 1180317. 1313512. 1466233. 1603398. 1727109. 1817636. -- ---I DATE DUE GAYLORDINo. 2333 PRINTED IN U S A , III -36668 141079451 i.