HOC-664 Hocking Hills StudyStakeholder Meeting

August 15, 2008Hocking Hills State Park

Welcome, Introductions, and Purpose of Meeting

Meeting Purpose

• Update project stakeholders on the status of the Hocking Hills Study

• Present the Draft Preliminary Engineering Study

• Seek discussion/comment on the recommendations of the study and begin moving toward concurrence

Project Summary

• Study portion of the project to complete Steps 1-4 of the ODOT PDP for Minor Projects

• Project kick-off was held on October 21, 2006

• Public involvement meeting was held June 25, 2007– Preliminary alignments for the relocation alternative were

presented to the public and legislative representatives

– Based on comments received at this meeting, a pedestrian bridge alternative, which had been previously considered, was brought back as an alternative for further evaluation

• The Preliminary Engineering Study was then developed to further evaluate the alternatives and recommend a preferred alternative for advancement into detailed design

Preliminary Engineering Study

Purpose and need Statement (cont’d)

• Given the existing alignment of SR 664 and the safety and environmental concerns it creates, the following Purpose and Need Statement was developed.

The purpose of the Hocking Hills Study is to improve motorist and pedestrian safety on SR 664 in the vicinity of the Old Man’s Cave section of Hocking Hills State Park while considering future transportation and recreational needs. In order to fulfill this purpose, an effective solution must address the following needs as identified by the project team and stakeholders:

• Correct geometric deficiencies to maximize safety features where pedestrian safety is most compromised.

• Achieve effective and appropriate integration of the roadway and park for the benefit of both pedestrians and motorists.

Purpose and need Statement (cont’d)

• In addition to the identified needs, goals and objectives were established to help ensure that the interests and concerns of all project stakeholders are successfully met. The project goals include:

– Protection of the gorge and park setting from potential environmental damage resulting from the proximity of SR 664. Concerns include noise and water pollution and damage from vibration

– Incorporation of context sensitive solutions to improve the aesthetic character of both the state park and SR 664 and to reduce the permanent footprint of the project.

Overview of Alternatives

• Two build alternatives, along with the No-Build, are described and evaluated in the Preliminary Engineering Study.– No-Build: Required by the PDP to serve as baseline in

comparison of other alternatives. Simply involves maintaining the existing facility and carrying out any committed work.

– Alternative A: Relocates approximately 1 mile of SR 664 to new alignment north of the main parking lots. Is a hybrid of options B and C presented at the public meeting last June. The existing alignment would be abandoned and converted to a new use consistent with park development plans.

– Alternative B: Pedestrian bridge extending over SR 664 from the main parking lots to the south side of the road near the picnic shelter and visitor’s center.

Overview of Alternatives

Overview of Alternatives

• Two build alternatives, along with the No-Build, are described and evaluated in the Preliminary Engineering Study.– No-Build: Required by the PDP to serve as baseline in

comparison of other alternatives. Simply involves maintaining the existing facility and carrying out any committed work.

– Alternative A: Relocates approximately 1 mile of SR 664 to new alignment north of the main parking lots. Is a hybrid of options B and C presented at the public meeting last June. The existing alignment would be abandoned and converted to a new use consistent with park development plans.

– Alternative B: Pedestrian bridge extending over SR 664 from the main parking lots to the south side of the road near the picnic shelter and visitor’s center.

Overview of Alternatives

Overview of Alternatives

• Two build alternatives, along with the No-Build, are described and evaluated in the Preliminary Engineering Study.– No-Build: Required by the PDP to serve as baseline in

comparison of other alternatives. Simply involves maintaining the existing facility and carrying out any committed work.

– Alternative A: Relocates approximately 1 mile of SR 664 to new alignment north of the main parking lots. Is a hybrid of options B and C presented at the public meeting last June. The existing alignment would be abandoned and converted to a new use consistent with park development plans.

– Alternative B: Pedestrian bridge extending over SR 664 from the main parking lots to the south side of the road near the picnic shelter and visitor’s center.

Overview of Alternatives

Evaluation of Alternatives:Purpose and Need

No-Build Alternative A Alternative B

Improves Pedestrian and Motorist Safety

No

Yes – Eliminates pedestrian safety concerns and all

geometric deficiencies but one

No – Is unlikely to improve pedestrian

safety* and corrects no geometric deficiencies

Improves Integration of

Roadway and ParkNo

Yes – Allows for expansion of visitor’s

center and parking, and creation of recognizable

and uniform park entrances. Creates

smooth transition from auto-oriented to

pedestrian-oriented areas

No – Conflicts with park planning efforts by precluding future expansion of park

facilities. Further disrupts the park setting by

introducing a large bridge over the road in the middle of the park.

* - Based on research of pedestrian bridge usage (National Center for Safe Routes to School)

Evaluation of Alternatives:Goals and objectives

No-Build Alternative A Alternative B

Reduces Pollution From Run-Off (Application of

BMP’s)No Yes No

Improves Aesthetics for Park Visitors and

MotoristsNo

Yes – Screens the road from view of the park. Better matches rest of Hocking Hills Scenic

Byway. Includes context sensitive design solutions to establish a more natural

feel to the road.

No

Reduces Potential Vibration Issues (Based on Distance to Gorge)

No Yes No

Reduces Noise Impacts on Park (Based on Distance to Gorge)

No Yes No

Evaluation of Alternatives:Environmental Impacts

No-Build Alternative A Alternative B

Potential Indiana Bat Roost Trees Impacted

No 74 0

Unique/High Quality Habitat Impacts

No No No

Stream Impacts (Linear Feet & Anticipated Permit)

No1,475 – Individual 404/401 Permit

0

Impacts to Observed Endangered Species

No No No

Potential for Cultural Resource Impacts

No No No

Section 4(f)/6(f) Impacts No

Moderate – Large land conversion, but small

impact to park facilities

Moderate – Small land conversion,

but large impact to park facilities

Evaluation of Alternatives:Impacted Land, Facilities, & Cost

No-Build Alternative A Alternative B

Footprint of Completed Project (Acres)

0 4.97 0.12

Estimated Cost $0 $5,454,630 $960,000

Land Impacted By Project Construction (Acres)

0 19.20 0.12

Impact to Park FacilitiesPrevents

future improvements

Low – Temporary access changes at east & west ends of

park. Removed parking lot adjacent to

Culp Rd. Converts existing SR 664 to

walking path & allows for improvements to

existing facilities.

High – Removes 60-65 parking spaces and

eliminates west drive from

highest demand lot. Prevents

future improvements.

Overview of Alternatives