Hocking Hills Cabins, Hocking Hills Cottages

Hocking Hills Inns

Are you concerned about the new bypass around the park and how the changes may effect the delicate environment around it? I have to admit, I ignored the entire issue until I received a few comments at my office last week. Everybody wants to know, so. . . I wanted to make sure that I sent the proper information out to those interested in the changes proposed. I contacted Larry Woodford, District Deputy Director of ODOT, District 10 and talked to both Larry and one of his staff, Stephanie. They are genuinely interested in how everyone feels about the proposals and would like to hear our thoughts. I believe this is our chance to let those who can influence decisions on future changes or potential damage of the park know just how we feel.  

Currently the bypass has three alternatives – Creating a new road around the three parking lot tiers cutting into the forested public land and use the old roadway as a service road.

1)     The least invasive route would take out the picnic area above the three tiered parking lot and a smaller section of woodland on either end.

2)     The next alternative is to leave the picnic area and go into the woodland, cutting a swathe close to the picnic area.

3)     The third alternative goes farther into the woods, taking out a huge section of woodland, changes the entrance into the gorge area and reconnects near the dining lodge road.

4)     A fourth alternative is to leave it as is.

The main reasons given for the proposed bypass are safety of pedestrians crossing the roadway, noise pollution, vehicle runoff and erosion. But the flip side is that there are many folks who feel that safety concerns could be addressed in a much less expensive form than those proposed. Maybe a pedestrian bridge could be utilized or we could build up Route 664 and provide a pedestrian tunnel under the road near the Visitor Center.(?)  

Current proposals will most likely have just the opposite effect and create a high negative impact on the natural wellbeing of the park – actually increasing runoff and causing more environmental problems by putting in more roads and taking out more forest. Both are well known to increase the erosion and harmful runoff from roadways and parking lots. (ie: tar, radiator fluid, gas, etc).  Without a natural buffer the noise problem will also either remain the same or even increase with the current proposal.

I’ve got to say, after shoving aside my ignorance on the issue, I believe we all have an investment in sustaining the natural beauty of our park. Many of our businesses rely on this same beauty to keep our customers coming back to the Hocking Hills. . .especially those visitors coming from Cincinnati, Columbus, Toledo and Cleveland who have already seen their own natural areas lost to parking lots, highways and strip malls. And even if your business doesn’t have anything to do with the park, you are, most likely, hikers, horse-back riders or bikers, hunters, leaf-gawkers or one of the hundreds of other things motivating us to live here.  

We simply must protect Old Man’s Cave for the future and we must protect the visitors traveling to the region. But we must also work together to find a way to do this without both wasting tax dollars (current proposal is estimated to cost anywhere from 3 to 7 million tax dollars!) on large, unneeded projects and cutting into the picturesque landscape that keeps our region one of the premier getaways in the Midwest.