HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20130924
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
September 24, 2013
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Air Quality Update
II. Bag Update
III. Rubey Park Update
1
AIR MONITORING IN ASPEN, COLORADO
2013 ANNUAL REPORT
September 18, 2013
Jannette Whitcomb
Overview of Aspen’s Air Monitoring Program
The City of Aspen has been monitoring particulate matter (PM10) for twenty five years and in
2010 Aspen started monitoring ground level ozone. The air monitors are used as a tool to
improve and protect the air from pollution. Our PM 10 monitor played an integral role in
verifying that the air quality measures the community adopted in the mid 80’s were working.
These measures include mass transit, paid parking, regulations on wood burning fireplaces and
restaurant grills. The ozone monitor provides city staff information on how Aspen is or is not
impacted by traffic congestion and the oil and gas extraction and production in our region.
Also, with our monitors staff is able to answer local air quality concerns during regional air
quality events, such as a wildfire or dust storm.
Ground Level Ozone
Ground level ozone is a secondary pollutant that forms in the air rather than being directly
emitted, such as from a tail pipe. For ozone to become a health issue it requires the right mix of
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Volatile Organics (VOC) that get “cooked” by sunlight or UV. The
sources for these precursor pollutants are both natural and man-made, including gas drilling
activities and regional traffic. Weather patterns play an important role in producing ozone.
Wind can transport precursor pollutants to Aspen from where they originate. There are also
regional weather events that can cause high levels of ozone, such as warm high pressure
systems or large scale air stagnation (an air mass that is parked over the same area for several
days causing the pollution to build up).
Clinical and epidemiological studies have shown that breathing ozone can cause adverse health
effects at levels as low as 60 ppb over an 8-hour period. Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of
health problems including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and congestion. It can worsen
bronchitis, emphysema, asthma and reduce exercise performance.
Particulate Matter
Particulate matter (PM) is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets.
Particle pollution is made up of a number of components, including acids (such as nitrates and
sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles.
P1
I.
2
The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. EPA is
concerned about particles that are 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller because those are
the particles that generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once inhaled,
these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects.
• PM 10 is "inhalable coarse particles," and can be found near roadways and dusty
industries.
• PM2.5 is "fine particles," and can be found in smoke and haze. These particles can be
directly emitted from sources such as forest fires, or they can form when gases emitted
from power plants, industries and automobiles react in the air.
The National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Through the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants, including ozone and particulate
matter. Currently, the standard for ozone is an 8-hour average of 75 ppb (parts per billion),
PM10 is a 24-hour average of 150 ug/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter), and PM2.5 is a 24-hour
average of 35 ug/m3.
In 2013, air monitoring of ozone and PM10 demonstrated that Aspen continues to maintain air
quality below these standards. Currently, staff does not have the capability to monitor PM 2.5.
Monitoring Results
This year, Aspen had 17 days with ozone 8-hour averages at or
above 60 ppb with May 31, 2013 recording the highest average of
the year of 67 ppb. See Table 1 for all of the 2013 ozone 8-hour
averages at or above 60 ppb. In comparison last year we had 29
days above 60 ppb with one day at the EPA standard of 75 ppb.
Last year was an exceptional year for forest fires and dust storms;
natural events are known to increase ozone levels.
Table 1 is a summary of the 8-hour ozone averages for the past 12
months that were at or above 60 ppb.
Date
Ozone level
(ppb)
24-Apr 60
25-Apr 60
26-Apr 63
27-Apr 62
30-Apr 62
16-May 63
17-May 65
18-May 65
19-May 60
24-May 61
25-May 60
30-May 64
31-May 67
1-Jun 60
5-Jun 65
11-Jul 62
16-Aug 60
P2
I.
3
This year, Aspen had zero days above the EPA PM10 24-hour
standard of 150 ug/m3 as well as zero days above the Aspen Area
Community Plan target of 35 ug/m3.
Table 2 is a summary of the highest PM10 24-hour averages for
the past 12 months.
Where are we going and why?
Currently, staff is in the process of improving our air monitoring program as well as expanding
to monitoring PM2.5. The ability to expand our particulate monitoring came from researching a
replacement for the current PM10 monitor. The current PM10 monitor is past its life
expectancy and is no longer supported. In researching a replacement, the GRIMM
PM10/PM2.5 monitor came highly recommended by the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment Air Quality Division (CDPHE). This monitor while providing measurement of
both PM10 and PM2.5 it is also known for its ease in operation and maintenance. It also costs
around the same as other monitors that only measure PM10. Contract for the purchase of this
monitor is planned for a December City Council meeting.
The goal of the improvement process is for improved efficiency in program management,
especially with our air scientist contracts as well as improving the quality of our data. Currently
staff has separate contracts for the ozone and PM10 monitors. By combining the contracts as
well as clarifying deliverables we will see savings on time and travel as well as improved data
management. A new contract for air scientist consultation is planned for a December City
Council meeting.
In addition to the improved program management, staff has identified the need to improve the
quality of our data. Currently the methods we use do not allow us to compare our results to
other monitors in the region as well as the state. By improving the quality of our data the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) will also be able to use our
data for forecasting and health advisories. The City of Aspen’s Environmental Health and
Sustainability Department is committed to providing the best data possible within our means.
As experts, CDPHE staff has assisted City staff with our air monitoring program and
improvement process. In order to assure continued support and quality data, staff is
recommending the City of Aspen formalize our partnership with a Memorandum of
Date
PM10 level
(ug/m3)
Nov. 27 32.4
Sept. 21 31.6
Oct. 31 30.2
Sept. 22 29.8
Sept. 18 28.4
Feb. 4 28
Nov. 16 26.7
Nov. 28 26.7
Jun. 13 26.2
Feb. 19 26.1
P3
I.
4
Understanding (MOU). The MOU will define roles and expectations such that a quality
affordable monitoring program can be established that maximizes limited resources while
expanding Colorado’s air monitoring network. Attached is the draft copy of the MOU for your
review.
With this MOU, Aspen’s data will be included in the state’s air monitoring network. This will
increase the range of the state’s forecasting capabilities and provide a universal, one stop shop,
for the public to view Colorado’s air quality. And, real-time data for both ozone and particulate
matter will be available to our community.
Financial Impacts
As part of the 2014 budget process, the Environmental Health and Sustainability Department is
requesting an ongoing supplemental of $3760. This will increase the total operations and
maintenance budget for the air monitoring program from $15,330 to $19,090.
P4
I.
P5
I.
P6
I.
P7
I.
P8
I.
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ashley Perl, Department of Environmental Health and
Sustainability
THRU: CJ Oliver, Environmental Health and Sustainability
Director
DATE OF MEMO: September 19, 2013
RE: Update on Single Use Bag Reduction Program
Request of Council: This worksession is intended to update City Council on the
plastic bag ban and paper bag fee program. No action is requested or required at this
time.This is the first update to City Council on the bag program since the passage of the
policy in October of 2011 and implementation in May of 2012.
Background:
Since 2008, the Aspen City Council has provided support for programs that reduce the
use of single use paper and plastic bags. From 2008 until 2011, Council supported staff
in implementing programs that encouraged residents and visitors to voluntarily switch to
using reusable bags. These programs included the Aspen Telluride Bag Challenge, the
CAST Reusable Bag Challenge, the Aspen High School hotel bag program, and many
others.
Moving From Voluntary to Policy: Following three years of voluntary programs, staff
provided evidence to Council showing only a small increase in shoppers using reusable
bags, and at that time, Council began exploring policy options that would require the
community to make the shift to using reusable bags. Prior to transitioning from voluntary
campaigns to a more directive policy approach, the City of Aspen worked with the
Community Office for Resource Efficiency to produce a comprehensive report detailing
numerous potential policy options. In addition, staff worked closely with neighboring
towns to construct a cohesive, valley-wide approach to bag policy.
Passage of Ordinance: After a period of research and Council discussions, City
Council passed Chapter 13.24 of the municipal code, banning plastic bags at local
grocery stores and mandating the collection of a $0.20 fee per bag for paper bags
distributed at check out. This ordinance was passed in October of 2011 and went into
effect May 1, 2012.
Outreach Campaign: Leading up to the implementation date, the Environmental
Health Department planned an extensive outreach campaign to provide both residents
P9
II.
Page 2 of 4
and visitors with free reusable bags and information about the ban. Aspects of this
outreach campaign are still in place today to provide continued education and
resources to the Aspen community and visitor population.
The outreach campaign included radio and newspaper advertising as well as signs,
banners and flyers distributed in town. In addition, staff created numerous ways for
community members to get involved and act as ‘bag ambassadors’. Community
members signed up to be an ambassador and spent time giving away reusable bags at
grocery stores, walked around town talking to individual businesses about the changes,
and wrote letters to the editors of local and national papers to spread the word.
One of the comments received from the community during this time was that most
locals have too many reusable bags and residents requested the City develop a way to
give those extra bags to others who might need them. To address this concern, staff
installed eight ‘bag banks’ around town at locations frequented by locals such as gyms,
the farmer’s market and liquor stores. The bag banks are still in place today and provide
a location for locals to deposit extra reusable bags and a withdrawal option for those
looking for a bag to get one for free.
Additionally staff worked closely with both grocery stores and offered assistance with
signs and banners to educate customers. These resources are still available to grocers
seeking assistance with continued education efforts.
Outreach Success: Thanks to the City’s extensive outreach campaign detailed above,
locals and visitors had access to free reusable bags and received information about the
ban from a variety of different sources. Aspen’s outreach efforts have attracted the
attention of numerous towns across the nation that hope to implement their bag
reduction programs with similar success.
Key Aspects of Ordinance:
- Plastic Bag Ban. No plastic bags with handles are distributed at check out.
Produce bags are still permitted.
- Fee on Paper Bags. All paper bags distributed at check out require the customer
to pay a $0.20 fee per bag. Customers participating in food assistance programs
are exempt.
- Collection of Fee. Grocers collect the $0.20 and remit payment to the City of
Aspen monthly. Grocers are permitted to keep up to $100 per month of this fee
to fund program costs. For the first year, this amount was $1000 per month.
- Use of Fee. The City of Aspen finance department collects funds from grocers
and deposits the fees into a specific line item used only for ‘waste reduction
fees’. Uses of these funds is regulated by Section 13.24.050 of the municipal
P10
II.
Page 3 of 4
code and states that funds may only be used to provide reusable bags and
education to the public, administration of the program, or specific waste
reduction projects such as plastic bag recycling.
Comments from Grocers and Community: Both local grocers and ACRA were invited
to provide comments for this memo and have been encouraged to communicate with
City staff regarding any issues on an ongoing basis. No comments were received for
this memo. Staff will follow up with these crucial community partners to ensure any
remaining concerns are noted and addressed.
Staff is exploring ideas and incentive programs to encourage the grocers and their staff
to promote reusable bags on a more regular basis. Staff also feels an incentive
program would help achieve more compliance for check out staff to charge for paper
bags.
Staff also has plans to conduct more community surveys to gather data on community
reaction to and participation in the program.
Bag Numbers and Fees Collected: To date, the City has collected $44,826 in waste
reduction fees. Approximately $20,000 of these funds was used to pay for the initial
program outreach and implementation. During busy summer and winter months,
grocers distribute between 20,000 and 30,000 bags per month. In the slower months
that number drops to below 10,000. Unfortunately, staff cannot currently say what
percentage of a reduction this is compared to the previous use of bags before the ban.
Grocers would not provide bag use numbers to the City prior to implementation. It is
staff’s general feeling that the total number of single use bags being used by shoppers
has dramatically decreased due to the fact that most locals regularly bring their
reusable bag, and the complete elimination of plastic bags has deterred many from
paying for a single use bag. See Attachment A for more details on bag numbers and
fees.
Litigation:
The Colorado Union of Taxpayers (CUT), a non-profit entity located in Boulder,
Colorado, initiated litigation in Pitkin County District Court, challenging the Waste
Reduction Fee, claiming that it is an illegal tax in violation of TABOR. The City believes
the fee is valid. The case is proceeding on cross-motions for summary judgment (no
disputed facts), has been fully briefed, and is awaiting a decision by Judge Nichols.
Council may refer to the confidential memo from the City Attorney’s Office for more
information on the pending litigation.
Discussion:
Moving forward from here, staff does not recommend making any substantial changes
to the program until Judge Nichols makes a decision about the pending litigation. Staff
will continue to provide free reusable bags to shoppers and conduct outreach, as
needed, with grocers and community partners.
P11
II.
Page 4 of 4
In addition to continued outreach efforts, staff will design a plan to audit the grocery
stores for compliance. Of the comments received from the community, some have been
concerns or observations that grocery stores are not always charging customers for
paper bags. The City has no way of confirming these reports or of enforcing the
ordinance until an audit has been completed.
Staff will create a plan to audit grocery stores and will move forward with that plan in
2014. Staff will also keep Council updated on the status of the litigation and any
significant findings of the grocer audits. Council should anticipate another update from
staff closely following any decision on the pending litigation.
The Department of Environmental Health and Sustainability recently hired a new staff
member to fill the vacancy of the Sr. Environmental Health Specialist position left by
Ashley Perl, the new Climate Action Manager. Liz O'Connel, the new waste specialist
will oversee the bag program and the waste reduction ordinance. Questions may be
directed to the Department of Environmental Health and Sustainability or CJ Oliver, the
director.
Council Action: No Council action is required.
Attachments:
Attachment A – Budget worksheet
Attachment B – Ordinance language
P12
II.
Attachment A: Budget Worksheet
MonthBags DistributedFees Collected by City
May‐125417$791.00
Jun‐123663$2,185.00
Jul‐1225322$3,770
Aug‐1226751$4,053
Sep‐1215965$2,383
Oct‐1212174$1,925
Nov‐129088$1,355
Dec‐1233692$5,452
Jan‐1330564$4,910
Feb‐1323430$3,512
Mar‐1324916$3,792
Apr‐1310552$1,578
May‐138580$1,284
Jun‐1315675$3,160
Jul‐1325075$4,669
Total 270864$44,819.00
P13
II.
Chapter 13.24
WASTE REDUCTION
13.24.010 Definitions.
For purposes of this Chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them:
Disposable Paper Bag. The term Disposable Paper Bag means a bag made predominately
of paper that is provided to a customer by a Grocer at the point of sale for the purpose of
transporting goods.
Disposable Plastic Bag. The term Disposable Plastic Bag means any bag that is less than
two and one-quarter mil thick and is made predominately of plastic derived from petroleum or
from bio-based sources, provided to a customer at the point of sale for the purpose of
transporting goods. Disposable Carryout Bag does not mean:
(a) Bags used by consumers inside stores to:
(1) Package bulk items, such as fruit, vegetables, nuts, grains, candy or small
hardware items;
(2) Contain or wrap frozen foods, meat, or fish;
(3) Contain or wrap flowers, potted plants, or other items where dampness may be a
problem; and,
(4) Contain unwrapped prepared foods or bakery goods;
(5) A non-handled bag used to protect a purchased item from damaging or
contaminating other purchased items when placed in a recyclable paper bag or
reusable bag.
(b) Bags provided by pharmacists to contain prescription drugs;
(c) Newspaper bags, door-hanger bags, laundry-dry cleaning bags, or bags sold in
packages containing multiple bags intended for use as garbage, pet waste, or yard
waste bags;
Grocer. The term Grocer means a retail establishment or business located within Aspen
City limits in a permanent building, operating year round, that is a full-line, self-service market
and which sells a line of staple foodstuffs, meats, produce, household supplies, or dairy products
or other perishable items. Grocer does not mean:
(a) Temporary vending establishment for fruits, vegetables, packaged meats and dairy.
(b) Vendors at farmer’s markets or other temporary events.
(c) Location where foodstuffs is not the majority of sales for that business.
(d) Location where the facility is less than 3500 sq. ft.
Reusable Bag. The term Reusable Bag means a bag that is:
(a) Designed and manufactured to withstand repeated uses over a period of time; and
P14
II.
(b) Is made from a material that can be cleaned and disinfected regularly; and
(c) That is at least 2.25 mil thick if made from plastic; and
(d) Has a minimum lifetime of seventy five uses; and
(e) Has the capability of carrying a minimum of eighteen pounds.
Waste Reduction Fee. The term Waste Reduction Fee means a City fee imposed and
required to be paid by each consumer making a purchase from a Grocer for each Disposable
Paper Bag used during the purchase.
13.24.020 Prohibitions
On and after the effective date:
(a) No Grocer shall provide a Disposable Plastic Bag to a customer at the point of sale.
(b) Nothing in this section shall preclude persons or Grocers from making Reusable Bags
available for sale or for no cost to customers.
13.24.030 Paper Bag fee requirements
(a) Grocers shall collect from customers, and customers shall pay, at the time of
purchase, a Waste Reduction Fee of $0.20 for each Disposable Paper Bag provided to the
customer.
(b) Grocers shall record the number of Disposable Paper Bags provided and the total
amount of Waste Reduction Fee charged on the customer transaction receipt.
(c) A Grocer shall not refund to the customer any part of the Waste Reduction Fee, nor
shall the grocer advertise or state to customers that any part of the Waste Reduction Fee will be
refunded to the customer.
(d) A Grocer shall not exempt any customer from any part of the Waste Reduction Fee
for any reason except as stated in Section 13.24.070, below.
13.24.040 Voluntary Opt In
(a) Any store or business with a City of Aspen business license may voluntarily opt in to
the Waste Reduction Program and apply the ban and Waste Reduction Fee to its
business by applying with the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department.
13.24.050 Retention, remittance, and transfer of the Waste Reduction Fee
(a) A Grocer may retain 25% of each Waste Reduction Fee collected up to a maximum
amount of one thousand dollars ($1000) per month within the first twelve (12) months of the
effective date of this ordinance and one hundred dollars ($100) per month for all months
thereafter.
(b) The retained percent is limited to allowable use for the Grocer to:
(1) Provide educational information about the Waste Reduction Fee to customers;
(2) Train staff in the implementation and administration of the fee; and
(3) Improve or alter infrastructure to allow for the implementation, collection and
administration of the fee.
(c) The portion of the fees retained by a Grocer pursuant to this ordinance shall not be
classified as revenue for the purposes of calculating sales tax;
P15
II.
(d) The remaining portion of each Waste Reduction Fee collected by a Grocer shall be
paid to the City of Aspen Finance Department and shall be deposited in the Waste
Reduction and Recycling Account.
(e) A Grocer shall pay and the City of Aspen shall collect all Waste Reduction Fees at the
same time as the City Sales Tax. The City shall provide the necessary forms for
Grocers to file individual returns with the City, separate from the required City Sales
Tax forms, to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.
(1) If payment of any amounts to the City is not received on or before the
applicable due date, penalty and interest charges shall be added to the amount
due as described in Section 13.24.080.
(f)The Waste Reduction Fee shall be administered by the City of Aspen Environmental
Health Department.
(g) Funds deposited in the Waste Reduction and Recycling Account shall be used for the
following projects, in the following order of priorities:
(1) Campaigns conducted by the City of Aspen and begun within 365 days of the
effective date of this act, to:
(A) Provide reusable carryout bags to residents and visitors; and
(B) Educate residents, businesses, and visitors about the impact of trash
on the City’s environmental health, the importance of reducing the
number of disposable carryout bags entering the waste stream, and
the impact of disposable carryout bags on the waterways and the
environment.
(2) Ongoing campaigns conducted by the City of Aspen to:
(A) Provide reusable bags to both residents and visitors; and
(B) Create public educational campaigns to raise awareness about waste
reduction and recycling;
(C) Funding programs and infrastructure that allows the Aspen community
to reduce waste and recycle.
(D) Purchasing and installing equipment designed to minimize trash
pollution, including, recycling containers, and waste receptacles;
(E) Funding community cleanup events and other activities that reduce
trash;
(F) Maintaining a public website that educates residents on the progress of
waste reduction efforts; and
(G) Paying for the administration of this program.
(h)No Waste Reduction Fee collected in accordance with this ordinance shall be used
to supplant funds appropriated as part of an approved annual budget.
(i) No Waste Reduction Fee collected in accordance with this ordinance shall revert
to the General Fund at the end of the fiscal year, or at any other time, but shall be
continually available for the uses and purposes set forth in Subsection (g) of this
Section without regard to fiscal year limitation.
P16
II.
13.24.060 Required Signage for Grocers.
Every Grocer subject to the collection of the Waste Reduction Fee shall display a sign in a
location outside or inside of the business, viewable by customers, alerting customers to the City
of Aspen imposed ban and fee.
13.24.070 Exemptions
A Grocer may provide a Disposable Paper Bag to a customer at no charge to that customer if the
customer provides evidence that he or she is a participant in a Colorado Food Assistance
Program.
13.24.080 Audits and Violations
(a) Each Grocer licensed pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter shall maintain
accurate and complete records of the Waste Reduction Fees collected, the number of
Disposable Paper Bags provided to customers, the form and recipients of any notice
required pursuant to this Chapter, and any underlying records, including any books,
accounts, invoices, or other records necessary to verify the accuracy and completeness of
such records. It shall be the duty of each Grocer to keep and preserve all such documents
and records, including any electronic information, for a period of three (3) years from the
end of the calendar year of such records.
(b) If requested, each Grocer shall make its records available for audit by the City
Manager during regular business hours in order for the City to verify compliance with the
provisions of this chapter. All such information shall be treated as confidential
commercial documents.
(c)Violation of any of the requirements of this act shall subject a Grocer to the penalties
set forth in this Section.
(1) If it is determined that a violation has occurred, the City of Aspen shall issue a
warning notice to the Grocer for the initial violation.
(2) If it is determined that an additional violation of this Chapter has occurred
within one year after a warning notice has been issued for an initial violation, the
City of Aspen shall issue a notice of infraction and shall impose a penalty against
the retail establishment.
(3) The penalty for each violation that occurs after the issuance of the warning
notice shall be no more than:
A) $50 for the first offense
B) $100 for the second offense
C) For the third and all subsequent offenses there shall be a
mandatory Court appearance and such penalty as may be determined by the Court
pursuant to Section 1.04.080.
(4) No more than one (1) penalty shall be imposed upon a Grocer within a
seven (7) calendar day period.
P17
II.
(5)A Grocer shall have fifteen (15) calendar days after the date that a notice of
infraction is issued to pay the penalty.
(6)The penalty shall double after fifteen (15) calendars days if the Grocer does not
pay the penalty; or fails to respond to a notice of infraction by either denying or
objecting in writing to the infraction or penalty.
(d) If payment of any amounts of the Waste Reduction Fee to the City is not received on
or before the applicable due date, penalty and interest charges shall be added to the
amount due in the amount of:
(1) A penalty of five percent (5%) of total due, not to exceed ten dollars ($10)
each month.
(2) Interest charge of one percent (1%) of total penalty per month.
Section 2. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 3 Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4 Effective Date.
This ordinance shall take effect on May 1, 2012.
P18
II.
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John Krueger and Lynn Rumbaugh, Transportation
THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: 09/20/2013
MEETING DATE: 09/24/2013
RE: Rubey Park Remodel Project – Design Recommendation
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Transportation staff is seeking Council direction and approval on a design alternative for the
Rubey Park Transit Center remodel project. Once direction is received, the recommended
alternative will be developed to a schematic level. Final design of the alternative will commence
before year’s end, with a grant-funded construction project planned for spring 2015.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
A remodel of the Rubey Park Transit Center was identified as one of City Council’s priorities as
part of the updated Aspen Area Community Plan. City Council approved a contract with
Bluegreen for the development of Rubey Park schematic design alternatives in April 2013. Since
project commencement, Council members have been provided with periodic updates, and some
Council members have attended outreach events at Rubey Park.
BACKGROUND:
When Rubey Park was designed and constructed thirty years ago, no one imagined that it
would serve as the Grand Central Station of the valley. Use of the RFTA valley and City local
routes has grown to over 4 million passengers per year, making RFTA the second largest
transit system in Colorado.
P19
III.
Page 2 of 4
Rubey Park serves as the main and busiest terminus for these operations, and handles up to 400
bus turnovers daily in peak season. This heavy use, in addition to the deterioration of the
building and site, require upgrades necessary to imp rove not only the functionality of transit
operations, but also the experience of existing and future riders.
A consultant team, led by Aspen -based Bluegreen, is tasked with developing a schematic
design for t he remodel. Working alongside the Bluegreen team is a staff working group
comprised of RFTA and numerous City of Aspen Departments including Transportation,
Engineering, Parks, Community Development, Parking and Asset Management. Another
important component of this project has been public input w hich has been accomplished via a
number of open houses, focus groups, website visits and email communication.
The design process includes three phases that aid in a comprehensive understanding of the
daily and seasonal operations and use of Rubey Park as a transit facility. These phases lead to
the final deliverables for the project and include:
1. Existing Conditions: Review of the existing facility
2. Needs Analysis: Discussion of needs with a variety of user groups
3. Schematic Design: Development of design best able to meet a variety of needs
Using the information developed in phases one and two, the design team developed three
concepts for the Rubey Park remodel project. These concepts were vetted by the staff team as
well as the public and the input received was used to craft the recommended alternative that
will be presented to Council. The phases listed above have resulted in a final recommended
schematic design for the remodel of Rubey Park. This design meet s the current and future
needs of transit operations, as well as significantly improves the exterior and interior transit
experience for locals, commuters, visitors and staff. It create s a unique, comfortable and
functional amenity that reflects the current values of Aspen.
DISCUSSION:
Given the spatial parameters of Rubey Park, it is important to understand that not all of the
P20
III.
Page 3 of 4
identified needs can be accommodated within the site. In order to develop a successful
solution for Rubey Park, it was necessary for the design /staff team prioritize the criteria to
establish a balanced solution. The principal criteria to realize a successful design are
summarized as follows:
Increase bus parking capacity to better account for peak ridership need.
Expand the amount of f lexible bus parking spaces (i.e. staging or layover bus).
Improve safety by minimizing pedestrian and vehicular conflicts.
Improve/increase passenger amenities such as covered seating areas, expanded restroom
facilities, improved way finding, etc.
Improve the existing structure to address RFTA’s functional and operational
requirements, issues of mass and scale that are important to the community and
enhanced visibility and circulation across and through the site.
Create a green, more park-like atmosphere.
The recommended design embodies a balanced s olution that best satisfies the design criteria of
enhancing the rider experience and comfort at Rubey Park, improving RFTA operations, and
enriching Aspen’s downtown environment. The recommended design is supported by RFTA
and City of Aspen Staff, and ho nors the input of the Aspen community.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
The $200,000 schematic design phase of the Rubey Park remodel project has been funded by the
Elected Officials Transportation Committee. Staff will request EOTC funding for final design at
the October 17, 2013 meeting. Construction funding for the project to date will be a
combination of:
State FASTER Grant (2015): $1,000,000 (tentative award to City of Aspen)
FHWA FLAP Grant (2015): $2,000,000 (awarded to RFTA)
City of Aspen (2015): $500,000
RFTA (2015): $500,000
Other local funding: TBD once final design is completed
P21
III.
Page 4 of 4
It is important to note that the grant funding listed above is contingent on completing final
design, funding the local match and meeting a stringent timeline of spring 2015 construction.
Project delays may result in loss of grant funding.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
The City of Aspen has established a goal of keep traffic congestion at 1993 levels in perpetuity
for the preservation of both community character and air quality. A well-functioning transit
system is key to the ongoing success of this goal and is dependent upon a pleasant and functional
transit center.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends the selection and development of the recommended design to schematic level,
followed by the retention of a design team to complete final design and construction documents
on a timeline aimed at spring 2015 construction.
NEXT STEPS:
1. Development of alternative to schematic design: October 2013
2. EOTC request for funding for final design: October 2013
3. Team selected for final design/construction documents: December 2013
4. Final design: Winter 2013/2014
5. Land use & permitting: 2014
6. Construction: Spring 2015
ALTERNATIVES: Council could provide an alternative direction for design. Council could
also choose not to move forward with the project. It is important to note that delays in design
that impact the spring 2015 construction schedule could result in loss of grant funding.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Schematic Design Report
P22
III.
Rubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
Rubey Park
Remodel
Preliminary Outreach &
Schematic Design Report
PREPARED fOR THE CITy Of ASPEN
DRAfT JUNE 14, 2013
P23
III.
Rubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
P24
III.
SECTION ONE
Introduction
SECTION TWO
Existing Conditions
SECTION THREE
Needs Analysis
SECTION fOUR
Schematic Design / Recommendations
SECTION fIVE
Appendix
Bus Rider Survey
Existing Conditions Diagrams
Needs Analysis Diagrams
Schematic Site Plan(s)
Schematic Architectural Floor
Plans
Schematic Design Matrix
Rubey Park
Remodel
Preliminary Outreach &
Schematic Design Report
Rubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
P25
III.
1-1Preliminary IntroductionRubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
PRELIMINARY 09/20/2013
Introduction
WHY REMODEL RUbEY PARk?
When Rubey Park was designed and constructed thirty years
ago, no one imagined that it would serve as the Grand Central
Station of the valley. It is a key landmark and directional
tool, as well as the first experience many visitors have within
the historical urban core of Aspen. As more and more people
have chosen to ride the bus, both to and from Aspen on RFTA’s
regional bus routes and within Aspen on the city’s local bus
routes, use has grown to over 4 million passengers per year.
Typically about 30% of the work force in Aspen arrives by
transit each day. In the Winter RFTA moves thousands of skiers
between Aspen and the other three ski resorts. Bus ridership
will increase even more now that the VelociRFTA Bus Rapid
Transit service is being implemented.
Rubey Park serves as the main terminus for these operations,
and handles up to 400 bus turnovers daily in peak season.
This heavy use, in addition to the deterioration of the building
and site, require upgrades necessary to improve not only the
functionality of transit operations, but also the experience of
existing and future riders.
A consultant team, led by Aspen-based Bluegreen, has been
tasked to develop a schematic design for the remodel. The
design process will provide a vision for Rubey Park that
carefully integrates transportation planning efforts, community
ownership and buy-in, economic viability and functional
and artful spaces that respect the historical character of the
city. A collaborative approach, built upon active listening,
comprehensive analysis, and fresh ideas will be employed to
realize the important redevelopment of this signature public
space. At the heart of the collaboration are design charettes,
The RFTA and city bus
operations have grown
to service over 4 million
passengers per year.
P26
III.
1-2 Preliminary Introduction Rubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
09/20/2013 PRELIMINARY
Rubey Park serves as the main transit hub
for buses, shuttles, and courtesy vehicles
within the downtown core of Aspen. Its
central location provides efficient access
to places of employment, shopping,
dining, and recreation.
work sessions and public outreach where the design team's
expertise will be combined with the knowledge of City staff and
input from locals, commuters and visitors. The public, staff
and stakeholders' input will be collected and used to inform the
design process—ensuring that the proposed solutions represent
the values of the Aspen community.
The design process includes three phases that aid in a
comprehensive understanding of the daily and seasonal
operations and use of Rubey Park as a transit facility. These
phases will lead to the final deliverables for the project and
include:
P27
III.
1-3Preliminary IntroductionRubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
PRELIMINARY 09/20/2013
1. Existing Conditions Phase
2. Needs Analysis Phase
3. Schematic Design Phase
Each of these phases will be accompanied by interactive public
outreach meetings, advisory team meetings, project team
meetings, and periodic informational memorandums to City
Council. At the public outreach meetings, participants and
stakeholders review the products of each phase and share
comments and thoughts on what needs to be done as a part
of the rehabilitation. Additionally, attendees will be able to
share feedback on what they see and hear by photo tagging—
recording comments with photos that are sent to the project’s
email account—and by speaking with staff recorders, who will
document comments for participants. Through this process,
a final, recommended schematic design for the remodel of
Rubey Park will be shaped. This design will meet the current
and future needs of transit operations, as well as drastically
improve the exterior and interior park/transit experience for
locals, commuters, visitors and staff. It will create a unique,
comfortable and functional urban amenity that reflects the
current values of Aspen.
Conflicts between private vehicles and
buses on Mill and Galena Streets can
make bus operations challenging.
ACkNOWLEDGEMENTS
Aspen City Council Members
Mayor Steve Skadron
Adam Frisch
Art Daily
Ann Mullins
Dwayne Romero
Elected Officials Transportation Committee
P28
III.
1-4 Preliminary Introduction Rubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
09/20/2013 PRELIMINARY
City of Aspen Transportation Department
John Krueger- Transportation Director
Lynn Rumbaugh- Transportation Programs Manager
Staff Working Group
Scott Miller - City of Aspen Capital Asset Director
Tyler Christoff - City of Aspen Engineering
Stephen Ellsperman - City of Aspen Parks
Scott Chism - City of Aspen Parks
Dan Nelson - City of Aspen Parks
Tim Ware - City of Aspen Parking
Blake Fitch - City of Aspen Parking
Dan Nelson - City of Aspen Parks
Jessica Garrow - City of Aspen Community Development
Randy Ready - City of Aspen
David Peckler - Town of Snowmass Village
GR Fielding - Pitkin County Engineering
Brian Pettet - Pitkin County
Miker Hermes - RFTA Director of Properties and Trails
Nick Senn - RFTA Engineering
Consultant Team
Bluegreen
Studio B
Fehr & Peers
HNTB
Sopris Engineering
P29
III.
1-5Preliminary IntroductionRubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
PRELIMINARY 09/20/2013
P30
III.
2-1Existing ConditionsRubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
PRELIMINARY 09/20/2013
Existing
Conditions
LOCATION
Located in northwestern Colorado in Pitkin County, near
the head of the Roaring Fork Valley, the Rubey Park Transit
Center is centrally situated in Aspen's urban core and is the
southernmost terminus for the Roaring Fork Transportation
Authority's (RFTA) regional bus system. The City of Aspen
owns the Rubey Park, located at 450 East Durant Street. The
site is flanked on the west by Mill Street and Wagner Park, and
on the east by Galena Street. Rubey Park is just south of the
Cooper Street Pedestrian Mall and is the hub of transportation
for the City.
BACKGROUND
In 1970 the property for Rubey Park was conveyed to the City
and in 1988, the current Rubey Park facility was built to provide
indoor/outdoor waiting areas for buses, restrooms, landscaping,
a driver's lounge and a ticketing information kiosk. Annual
maintenance and minor improvements have been ongoing since
that time, but many features are beyond repair.
CURRENT CONDITIONS & OPERATIONS
Today, the City of Aspen (COA or the City) leases the property
to and contracts with RFTA to operate a fare free, eight
route transit system that carries approximately 1-million
passengers annually. RFTA also operates services throughout
the Roaring Fork Valley and along Interstate-70 to Rifle,
carrying approximately 4-million passengers annually. RFTA is
Colorado’s second largest transit system. In September 2013,
RFTA will significantly expand its services by introducing the
nation’s first rural Bus Rapid Transit system (BRT). Growing
ridership has resulted in activity levels that exceed the
comfortable capacity of the facility.
Rubey Park is becoming
functionally inadequate
for transit operations
and is physically
deteriorating.
P31
III.
2-2 Existing Conditions Rubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
09/20/2013 PRELIMINARY
Shopping carts often make their way to
Rubey Park from City Market providing
additional clutter and complicating
operations and maintenance.
The site is functionally inadequate and is physically
deteriorating beyond repair. Over the past ten years,
increased demand and limited improvements (beyond
annual maintenance) has resulted in functional, safety and
maintenance deficiencies that include:
• Tripping and slipping hazards due to cracked and uneven
pavement and icing from overhangs and brick pavers.
• Congestion from undersized driver break rooms, inefficient
indoor passenger waiting areas and under-designed
bathrooms that require constant attention.
• Inadequate space and circulation for buses that results in
conflicts between buses, pedestrians, bicyclists, and private
vehicles.
P32
III.
2-3Existing ConditionsRubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
PRELIMINARY 09/20/2013
• Limited lighting and deteriorating concrete walls that pose
safety risks.
Functionally, Rubey Park cannot adequately accommodate and
safely support bus, rider or transit operation needs. Buses
often need to utilize adjacent and remote parking locations that
require additional turning movements in a congested, tourist-
oriented area. The drivers are frequently forced to unload
their passengers in a staging area designated for another
bus. Consequently, arriving buses often find all twelve staging
areas occupied and are forced to unload passengers in unsafe
areas, wait in travel lanes, stage in unauthorized areas and/
or circulate through the City until space is available. They mix
with other traffic—including hotel shuttle vans, delivery trucks,
taxis and cars and often travel in circles through downtown
waiting until a staging space is available. Sometimes buses
are sent out of town to wait at the Brush Creek Intercept Lot,
approximately 7 miles away.
"Rubey Park consists of twelve staging areas and six diagonal
parking spots. The directional design for buses... becomes
impeded for a variety of reasons depending on the time of day.
Between the hours of 8–10 am, the twelve staging areas at
Rubey will serve eighty-six departures and ninety-four arrivals.
This 2-hour period highlights some of the departure/arrival
conflicts which develop due to the limited number of staging
areas." (Chris Belmont, RFTA Supervisor; Letter from March
22, 2010).
"The six diagonal parking spots at Rubey are utilized by buses
between runs, back-up buses, and buses with operators on
short breaks. An additional four buses can park on Durant
Ave, in front of Wagner Park, and these spots are reserved
for operators with alternate duties (e.g.-city route lunch relief
operators). The usefulness of the parking spots, particularly
the six diagonals, is highly valued in Rubey Park operations.
The buses which are allowed to occupy these spots cannot
Walls and lights have deteriorated beyond
repair
P33
III.
2-4 Existing Conditions Rubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
09/20/2013 PRELIMINARY
be subjected to the time restraints involved in the ‘dead-
heading/not-in-service’ procedure most buses perform." (Chris
Belmont, RFTA Supervisor; Letter from March 22, 2010).
These functional and spacial constraints make it difficult for
transit operations to run effectively, efficiently and safely.
Site maintenance ranges from irrigation and landscaping,
holiday lighting, snow removal, street and sidewalk cleaning,
trash removal, recycling and removal of abandoned bikes
and City Market carts. The City of Aspen Parks Department
provides primary maintenance of the park and describes
snow removal and mitigation as one of the most challenging
maintenance and cost issues for their team. Currently, planting
islands north of the staging areas are utilized for snow storage.
"Snow removal always begins at Rubey Park for safety and the
need to keep busses moving efficiently and on schedule. The
work often requires 4 workers for 2-hrs, plus vehicles/fuel/snow
salt/etc. There are great cost associated with snow mitigation
at Rubey Park (Dan Nelson, City of Aspen Parks; Public
Outreach Day One Meeting Record, May 24, 2013).
Concrete sidewalks, raised planters, curbs, sprinkler heads and
roadways surrounding the facility are cracked and crumbling
creating tripping hazards. Much of this is due to snow removal
techniques of plowing, ice removal and salting. Planters for
mature trees and other plantings limit flexibility for passenger
seating, circulation and queuing and inhibit visibility for safety
enforcement. Trees along Durant are in conflict with adjacent
bus staging. Outdoor passenger waiting and sitting areas lack
shelter, comfort and flexibility. Amenities for trash, recycling,
newspapers, bicycles, lighting and skis are lacking and/or
inadequately organized throughout the site, creating a messy
appearance. Poor lighting creates a safety hazard and lack of
adequate signage creates confusion for the non-seasoned rider.
The interior layout of the facility lacks flexibility and
functionality for adequate passenger seating and queuing at
Spalling and compromised concrete traps
water and ice and creates tripping and
slipping hazards.
P34
III.
2-5Existing ConditionsRubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
PRELIMINARY 09/20/2013
the information desk. Monitoring from the information desk
to the waiting areas is limited due to lack of visibility, which
complicates safety enforcement. Public and staff toilets, the
loft and some staff areas do not fully comply with accessibility
requirements, including being undersized. Staff areas lack
adequate space for customer service functions such as
ticket sales and information as well as undersized space for
comfortable break areas and storage. The building is in need
of attention to bring it up to date for accessibility, safety and
functionality.
ARCHITECTURE
After almost thirty years of service, the Rubey Park's structure
does not adequately support the current and anticipated
operations of RFTA. The building also falls short in satisfying
the current Aspen Community vision, especially in regards to
sustainability. Increased population, changing technologies
and enhanced levels of service impose severe challenges to the
limitations and physical condition of the existing Rubey Park
building.
Ongoing maintenance by the City of Aspen has extended
the useful life of the building. To the extent possible, code
Staging in back of the transit building for
annual interior maintenance in May of
2013.
P35
III.
2-6 Existing Conditions Rubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
09/20/2013 PRELIMINARY
complying improvements have been implemented over the
years to maximize the life/safety protection of RFTA patrons
and other users. However, full code compliance is difficult to
achieve within the existing physical constraints of the current
structure. The Existing Conditions Assessment included in
the report appendix indicates that the facility grades between
“poor” and “fair” for compliance with the International Building
Code, the International Energy Conservation Code, the
International Fire Code and ADA Accessibility requirements.
The Existing Conditions Assessment also considers the
functional and aesthetic qualities of the building’s physical
components including the Building Envelope, Building Systems,
Interior Finishes, Furnishings & Equipment and Overall Building
Function or Program. Since operational effectiveness is a
priority for RFTA and the City of Aspen, ongoing improvements
have resulted in an average grade of “fair” for the functional
aspect of all existing building components. On the other hand,
the grade for the aesthetic quality of the building components
ranges between “poor and “fair” as a result of intense use,
aging finishes and the ad hoc installation of electrical,
mechanical and data systems throughout the building.
In addition to the Existing Conditions Assessment, dialogue
with RFTA administration and staff, appointed and elected
city officials, local commuters and other concerned citizens
contributed to the evaluation of the existing building. This
evaluation has identified that staff areas of the building are
significantly deficient in two ways. First, existing staff areas
are too constrained to accommodate the efficient operations of
current and future use by RFTA. Second, new programmatic
requirements and functions – like on-site training – cannot be
appropriately accommodated within the existing building.
Interior view of RFTA staff area.
P36
III.
2-7Existing ConditionsRubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
PRELIMINARY 09/20/2013
Exterior view of Rubey Park Transit
Center.
Main level floor plan. NTS
Upper level floor plan. NTS
P37
III.
3-1Needs AnalysisRubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
PRELIMINARY 09/20/2013
Needs
Analysis
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Understanding community and user needs is essential to
developing a successful and comprehensive plan for Rubey
Park. This input was collected using the following means:
• Survey: A public survey was issued to riders at Rubey
Park as well as being offered online at the City of Aspen's
website. The survey results are included as an appendix.
• Outreach Day: Stakeholder group meetings and a public
open house were held all day at Rubey Park to create a
dialogue and obtain feedback concerning the operations
and features of Rubey Park. Stakeholder group meetings
included RFTA employees, City of Aspen staff, commercial
and residential neighbors of Rubey Park, elected officials
and board members. Meeting records are included as an
appendix.
The survey results indicate that 96.8% of the community
strongly likes the location of Rubey Park, but that many of the
features and operations of Rubey Park need to be improved.
Below are the percentage of respondents that indicated certain
improvements to be "very important" or "somewhat important":
• Restroom Improvements (92%)
• Designated pathways for pedestrians (91%)
• Electronic real time bus signage (90%)
• More shelters outside (86%)
• Security features (85%)
• Larger indoor waiting rooms (81%)
• Increased lighting (81%)
During the open house, the community provided similar
comments to the survey results. The recurring themes or
requested improvements to Rubey Park are summarized below:
Functional and physical
improvements are
needed to realize
community and user
needs and goals for
Rubey Park.
P38
III.
3-2 Needs Analysis Rubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
09/20/2013 PRELIMINARY
• Better signage of bus schedules and route maps.
• Enlarged RFTA employee break space.
• Improved waiting areas.
• Cleaner restrooms.
• More park or plaza like character.
• Strengthened relationship to the pedestrian mall.
• Enhanced nighttime lighting.
• Increased sightlines through Rubey Park.
• Corrected circulation through the alley.
• Loading area(s) for hotel shuttles and taxis.
EXTERIOR SPATIAL NEEDS
The Rubey Park footprint is 31,063 square feet. In its present
state 95 percent of Rubey Park is occupied by the following
seven program uses:
• Bus staging parking (18%)
• Bus layover parking (9%)
• Bus circulation (20%)
• Rider waiting areas & seating (18%)
• Planted areas (16%)
• Pedestrian walking zones (9%)
• Structure (5%)
The spatial needs of Rubey Park were determined by using
established transit center design standards, sustainable
development standards, community input, current functional
site patterns, and anticipated future demand of Rubey Park.
The complete existing and desired spatial matrix is located
within the report appendix. Per the established metrics, the
aforementioned seven programs propose a total amount of
38,757 square feet of space. The breakdown of the seven
program percentages for the future are the following:
• Bus staging parking (18%)
• Bus layover parking (26 %)
• Bus circulation (20%)
• Rider waiting areas & seating (14%)
• Planted areas (30%)
The community most commonly
expressed a desire to improve the quality
and quantity of restrooms at Rubey Park.
Long planters divide the site creating
barriers for pedestrian movement.
P39
III.
3-3Needs AnalysisRubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
PRELIMINARY 09/20/2013
• Pedestrian walking zones (9%)
• Structure (6%)
Notably the desired space of the seven programs exceed the
actual property size by roughly 23 percent.
The spatial analysis of Rubey Park's outdoor and indoor spaces
is illustrated in a diagram on the following two pages.
The diagram above illustrates the
arrangement of bus staging and layover
parking spaces. In total there are 20
spaces that can accommodate buses
today and during the peak winter
demand, and one that is not used
because it is not well configured.
Not to Scale
N
BUS PARKING CAPACITY & DEMAND
FIGURE 9
LEGEND
Bus Parking Capacity
Staging Spaces
Wagner Park Overflow/Staging
Peak Winter Bus Parking Demand
11-12
6
Mi
l
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ga
l
e
n
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Durant Avenue
4
4 Overflow Spaces
6 Diagonal Spaces
1
(not used)
2
3
14151617
4
5
67
(possible space for fifth bus)
1112
98
13
10
P40
III.
3-4 Needs Analysis Rubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
09/20/2013 PRELIMINARY
NE
E
D
S
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
SP
A
C
E
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
B
l
u
e
g
r
e
e
n
S
t
u
d
i
o
B
F
e
h
r
&
P
e
e
r
s
H
N
T
B
S
o
p
r
i
s
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Au
g
u
s
t
19
,
2
0
1
3
6% of
rubey park
space
4 spaces
11 spaces
8 spaces6 spaces
18 spaces
12% of
rubey park
space
9% of
rubey park
space
5% of
rubey park
space
20% of
rubey park
space
16% of
rubey park
space
9% of
rubey park
space
17% of
rubey park
space
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
(
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
)
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
(
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
)
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
(
u
n
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
)
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
(
u
n
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
)
ta
b
l
e
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
ta
b
l
e
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
1.
9
2
0
s
q
f
t
.
3,
8
4
0
s
q
f
t
.
2,
8
8
0
s
q
f
t
.
0
s
q
f
t
.
0
s
q
f
t
.
16
2
s
q
f
t
.
48
6
s
q
f
t
.
97
2
s
q
f
t
.
0
s
q
f
t
.
1,
6
0
1
s
q
f
t
.
6,
1
5
0
s
q
f
t
.
4,
9
7
8
s
q
f
t
.
2,
9
6
4
s
q
f
t
.
5,
4
6
2
s
q
f
t
.
0
s
q
f
t
.
26
2
s
q
f
t
.
3
s
q
f
t
.
3
s
q
f
t
.
11
s
q
f
t
.
39
6
s
q
f
t
.
52
s
q
f
t
.
44
s
q
f
t
.
44
s
q
f
t
.
5,
4
7
5
s
q
f
t
.
0
s
q
f
t
.
0
s
q
f
t
.
20
s
q
f
t
.
90
s
q
f
t
.
24
s
q
f
t
.
22
4
s
q
f
t
.
16
s
q
f
t
.
15
0
s
q
f
t
.
0
s
q
f
t
.
28
s
q
f
t
.
0
s
q
f
t
.
6
s
q
f
t
.
0
s
q
f
t
.
existing space program
gross square feet: 31,063
proposed space program
gross square feet of determined program space: 40,269
total program space that exceeds existing site area: 9,552
bu
s
s
a
w
t
o
o
t
h
b
e
r
t
h
s
bu
s
s
a
w
t
o
o
t
h
b
e
r
t
h
s
bu
s
l
i
n
e
a
r
b
e
r
t
h
s
bu
s
l
i
n
e
a
r
b
e
r
t
h
s
bu
s
l
a
y
o
v
e
r
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
bu
s
l
a
y
o
v
e
r
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
ta
x
i
/
h
o
t
e
l
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
b
e
r
t
h
ta
x
i
/
h
o
t
e
l
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
b
e
r
t
h
RF
T
A
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
RF
T
A
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
ci
t
y
o
f
a
s
p
e
n
o
f
fi c
i
a
l
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
as
p
e
n
p
o
l
i
c
e
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
AD
A
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
AD
A
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
pu
b
l
i
c
m
e
t
e
r
e
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
pu
b
l
i
c
m
e
t
e
r
e
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
/
u
n
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
z
o
n
e
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
/
u
n
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
z
o
n
e
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
bu
s
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
a
c
e
bu
s
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
a
c
e
bu
s
r
i
d
e
r
w
a
i
t
i
n
g
z
o
n
e
s
bu
s
r
i
d
e
r
w
a
i
t
i
n
g
z
o
n
e
s
sn
o
w
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
sn
o
w
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
ex
t
e
r
i
o
r
d
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
f
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
/
a
s
p
e
n
t
a
p
ex
t
e
r
i
o
r
d
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
f
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
/
a
s
p
e
n
t
a
p
tr
a
s
h
r
e
c
e
p
t
a
c
l
e
s
tr
a
s
h
r
e
c
e
p
t
a
c
l
e
s
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
p
t
a
c
l
e
s
(
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
p
t
a
c
l
e
s
(
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
p
t
a
c
l
e
s
(
p
u
b
l
i
c
)
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
p
t
a
c
l
e
s
(
p
u
b
l
i
c
)
bi
k
e
r
a
c
k
s
bi
k
e
r
a
c
k
s
sk
i
r
a
c
k
s
sk
i
r
a
c
k
s
we
c
y
c
l
e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
we
c
y
c
l
e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
ne
w
s
p
a
p
e
r
k
i
o
s
k
s
ne
w
s
p
a
p
e
r
k
i
o
s
k
s
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
r
o
u
t
e
m
a
p
/
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
r
o
u
t
e
m
a
p
/
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
am
e
n
i
t
y
m
a
p
am
e
n
i
t
y
m
a
p
bu
s
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
ex
t
e
r
i
o
r
r
e
a
l
t
i
m
e
b
u
s
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
ex
t
e
r
i
o
r
r
e
a
l
t
i
m
e
b
u
s
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
bu
s
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
pl
a
n
t
i
n
g
pl
a
n
t
i
n
g
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
z
o
n
e
s
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
z
o
n
e
s
5,
2
8
0
s
q
f
t
.
0
s
q
f
t
.
8,
6
4
0
s
q
f
t
.
25
0
s
q
f
t
.
16
2
s
q
f
t
.
16
2
s
q
f
t
.
48
6
s
q
f
t
.
97
2
s
q
f
t
.
32
4
s
q
f
t
.
2,
0
0
5
s
q
f
t
.
6,
1
5
0
s
q
f
t
.
9,
3
1
8
s
q
f
t
.
2,
9
6
4
s
q
f
t
.
4,
4
0
0
s
q
f
t
.
8,
2
1
3
s
q
f
t
.
24
s
q
f
t
.
2
s
q
f
t
.
20
s
q
f
t
.
20
0
s
q
f
t
.
24
s
q
f
t
.
22
4
s
q
f
t
.
32
s
q
f
t
.
15
0
s
q
f
t
.
28
s
q
f
t
.
3
s
q
f
t
.
P41
III.
3-5Needs AnalysisRubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
PRELIMINARY 09/20/2013
NE
E
D
S
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
SP
A
C
E
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
B
l
u
e
g
r
e
e
n
S
t
u
d
i
o
B
F
e
h
r
&
P
e
e
r
s
H
N
T
B
S
o
p
r
i
s
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Au
g
u
s
t
19
,
2
0
1
3
6% of
rubey park
space
4 spaces
11 spaces
8 spaces6 spaces
18 spaces
12% of
rubey park
space
9% of
rubey park
space
5% of
rubey park
space
20% of
rubey park
space
16% of
rubey park
space
9% of
rubey park
space
17% of
rubey park
space
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
(
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
)
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
(
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
)
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
(
u
n
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
)
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
(
u
n
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
)
ta
b
l
e
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
ta
b
l
e
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
1.
9
2
0
s
q
f
t
.
3,
8
4
0
s
q
f
t
.
2,
8
8
0
s
q
f
t
.
0
s
q
f
t
.
0
s
q
f
t
.
16
2
s
q
f
t
.
48
6
s
q
f
t
.
97
2
s
q
f
t
.
0
s
q
f
t
.
1,
6
0
1
s
q
f
t
.
6,
1
5
0
s
q
f
t
.
4,
9
7
8
s
q
f
t
.
2,
9
6
4
s
q
f
t
.
5,
4
6
2
s
q
f
t
.
0
s
q
f
t
.
26
2
s
q
f
t
.
3
s
q
f
t
.
3
s
q
f
t
.
11
s
q
f
t
.
39
6
s
q
f
t
.
52
s
q
f
t
.
44
s
q
f
t
.
44
s
q
f
t
.
5,
4
7
5
s
q
f
t
.
0
s
q
f
t
.
0
s
q
f
t
.
20
s
q
f
t
.
90
s
q
f
t
.
24
s
q
f
t
.
22
4
s
q
f
t
.
16
s
q
f
t
.
15
0
s
q
f
t
.
0
s
q
f
t
.
28
s
q
f
t
.
0
s
q
f
t
.
6
s
q
f
t
.
0
s
q
f
t
.
existing space program
gross square feet: 31,063
proposed space program
gross square feet of determined program space: 40,269
total program space that exceeds existing site area: 9,552
bu
s
s
a
w
t
o
o
t
h
b
e
r
t
h
s
bu
s
s
a
w
t
o
o
t
h
b
e
r
t
h
s
bu
s
l
i
n
e
a
r
b
e
r
t
h
s
bu
s
l
i
n
e
a
r
b
e
r
t
h
s
bu
s
l
a
y
o
v
e
r
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
bu
s
l
a
y
o
v
e
r
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
ta
x
i
/
h
o
t
e
l
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
b
e
r
t
h
ta
x
i
/
h
o
t
e
l
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
b
e
r
t
h
RF
T
A
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
RF
T
A
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
ci
t
y
o
f
a
s
p
e
n
o
f
fi c
i
a
l
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
as
p
e
n
p
o
l
i
c
e
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
AD
A
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
AD
A
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
pu
b
l
i
c
m
e
t
e
r
e
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
pu
b
l
i
c
m
e
t
e
r
e
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
/
u
n
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
z
o
n
e
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
/
u
n
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
z
o
n
e
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
bu
s
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
a
c
e
bu
s
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
a
c
e
bu
s
r
i
d
e
r
w
a
i
t
i
n
g
z
o
n
e
s
bu
s
r
i
d
e
r
w
a
i
t
i
n
g
z
o
n
e
s
sn
o
w
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
sn
o
w
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
ex
t
e
r
i
o
r
d
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
f
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
/
a
s
p
e
n
t
a
p
ex
t
e
r
i
o
r
d
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
f
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
/
a
s
p
e
n
t
a
p
tr
a
s
h
r
e
c
e
p
t
a
c
l
e
s
tr
a
s
h
r
e
c
e
p
t
a
c
l
e
s
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
p
t
a
c
l
e
s
(
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
p
t
a
c
l
e
s
(
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
p
t
a
c
l
e
s
(
p
u
b
l
i
c
)
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
p
t
a
c
l
e
s
(
p
u
b
l
i
c
)
bi
k
e
r
a
c
k
s
bi
k
e
r
a
c
k
s
sk
i
r
a
c
k
s
sk
i
r
a
c
k
s
we
c
y
c
l
e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
we
c
y
c
l
e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
ne
w
s
p
a
p
e
r
k
i
o
s
k
s
ne
w
s
p
a
p
e
r
k
i
o
s
k
s
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
r
o
u
t
e
m
a
p
/
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
r
o
u
t
e
m
a
p
/
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
am
e
n
i
t
y
m
a
p
am
e
n
i
t
y
m
a
p
bu
s
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
ex
t
e
r
i
o
r
r
e
a
l
t
i
m
e
b
u
s
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
ex
t
e
r
i
o
r
r
e
a
l
t
i
m
e
b
u
s
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
bu
s
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
pl
a
n
t
i
n
g
pl
a
n
t
i
n
g
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
z
o
n
e
s
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
z
o
n
e
s
5,
2
8
0
s
q
f
t
.
0
s
q
f
t
.
8,
6
4
0
s
q
f
t
.
25
0
s
q
f
t
.
16
2
s
q
f
t
.
16
2
s
q
f
t
.
48
6
s
q
f
t
.
97
2
s
q
f
t
.
32
4
s
q
f
t
.
2,
0
0
5
s
q
f
t
.
6,
1
5
0
s
q
f
t
.
9,
3
1
8
s
q
f
t
.
2,
9
6
4
s
q
f
t
.
4,
4
0
0
s
q
f
t
.
8,
2
1
3
s
q
f
t
.
24
s
q
f
t
.
2
s
q
f
t
.
20
s
q
f
t
.
20
0
s
q
f
t
.
24
s
q
f
t
.
22
4
s
q
f
t
.
32
s
q
f
t
.
15
0
s
q
f
t
.
28
s
q
f
t
.
3
s
q
f
t
.
P42
III.
3-6 Needs Analysis Rubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
09/20/2013 PRELIMINARY
Existing Bus Spaces
The current configuration of the 11-12 staging spaces—where
riders load and unload a bus—are:
• Durant Avenue South: 3 spaces
• Durant Avenue North: 4-5 spaces
• Saw tooth: 4 spaces (only 3 are functional)
• Galena Street: 1 space
Currently six diagonal layover spaces are incorporated at
Rubey Park. The layover spaces accommodate bus parking for
drivers on lunch relief, spare skier buses to be put into service
on demand, spare buses to replace buses that experience
mechanical issues while en route, and unanticipated show-up
buses. In addition to the six layover spaces at Rubey Park,
there are four overflow parking spaces adjacent to Wagner
Park. Total bus parking capacity is 21-22 spaces.
Future Demand of Bus Spaces
The Future Demand assumes Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
operations and peak winter demand. At this time, there are no
additional routes or increases anticipated for the next twenty
years, other than potential additional Burlingame route service.
There are typically 11 buses loading or unloading at Rubey Park
at any one time in the peak hour. In the recent past there
was more demand, but with recent changes to scheduling and
the introduction of BRT, the capacity is anticipated to remain at
11 or 12 staging buses. In addition to the bus staging spaces,
there is the need for 18 bus layover spaces. In summary, the
existing number of staging and layover spaces does not meet
the anticipated needs of bus parking at Rubey Park. In order to
meet the foreseen needs a total of 18 additional layover spaces
need to be added to Rubey Park. Total bus parking demand is
29 spaces.
Circulation Conflicts Due to Existing Site Layout
The current site configuration requires pedestrians walking
from downtown Aspen to cross two bus circulation lanes before
The current configuration of the layover
bus parking spaces requires bus drivers
to tightly align and park their bus. This
creates unsafe conditions for drivers
standing between buses, especially
when buses are moving in and out of the
parking spaces.
P43
III.
3-7Needs AnalysisRubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
PRELIMINARY 09/20/2013
entering Rubey Park. This diagonal pedestrian movement
complicates the operations of Rubey Park as it requires
vigilant management by Rubey Park staff to ensure pedestrian
safety. The alley on the north side of Rubey Park also creates
operational conflicts. Service and delivery vehicles parked in
the alley create a condition that requires buses to drive through
Rubey Park to circumnavigate the blocked alley. Other vehicles
often use the bus circulation, internal to Rubey Park, as a short
cut.
Exterior Amenity Needs
To improve the rider experience at Rubey Park, it is vital to
augment the existing site with essential site features. These
features include:
• Covered seating
• Table seating
• Drinking fountain
• Bike racks
• Ski racks
• Wecycle Station
• Bus signage / regional route maps
• Wayfinding signage
The current configuration of Rubey Park
leads to circulation conflicts between
buses, delivery vehicles, and private
automobiles.
NEE
D
S A
N
A
L
Y
SIS
EXI
S
T
I
N
G C
OND
I
T
I
ONS
Rubey
Park
Rem
o
del
Ci
t
y
o
f
Asp
e
n
B
l
ue
g
ree
n
St
ud
io B
Feh
r
&
Pee
rs
HNT
B
Sopr
is
Engine
e
r
ing
July
1
0,
2
013
Not to Scale
N
HH
LEGEND
H
M
10-55+m
2
Parked Buses
Parked Cars
Number of Parked Bicycles
Delivery Vehicles
Parked Hotel Shuttle
Parked Motorcycles
Layover (mins) of Parked Buses
Conflict Areas
M
10-60+m
HH
Peds vs. Vehicles
Delivery Vehicles vs. Cars
Peds vs. Vehicles
Cars vs. Buses
Peds vs. Vehicles
2
92
PM PEAK HOUR EXISTING CONDITIONS
SUMMER
Not to Scale
N
H
17 (76)
11 (51)
AM & PM PEAK HOUR EXISTING PEDESTRIAN CONDITIONS
LEGEND
Pedestrian Volumes
Pedestrian Paths
AM (PM)
H HH HH HH
HH
HH
HH
HH
HH
SUMMER
71 (122)
56 (182)61 (111)
28 (66)
22 (32)17 (45)6 (5)3 (3)6 (2)
20 (20)
20 (20)
20 (20)20 (20)
20 (20)
Not to Scale
N
AM & PM PEAK HOUR EXISTING CONDITIONS
LEGEND
Traffic Volumes
Stop Sign
Lane Configuration
Percent Bus & Shuttle
AM (PM)
L
AM% (PM%)
L
L
L
L
1 (2)
109 (194)
6 (14)
9 (25)0 (0)6 (21)
L
L
L
L
21% (11%)
28% (28%)
7% (8%)
0% (2%)
14 (20)0 (1)9 (11)
1 (1)
113 (138)
7 (17)
15 (26)
109 (194)
8 (15)
16 (25)1 (1)8 (18)
25% (14%)
0% (0%)
6% (9%)
8% (7%)
4 (9)0 (0)1 (2)
11 (14)
113 (138)
21 (17)
SUMMER
P44
III.
3-8 Needs Analysis Rubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
09/20/2013 PRELIMINARY
As expressed in the public survey 86 percent of respondents
stated that it is very important to increase the amount of
outdoor covered seating. Presently, the exterior covered seating
at Rubey Park only accommodates 17 people. This amount
is significantly below transit center design standards. There
needs to be covered seating to accommodate 130 riders per
design standards. This equals roughly 30 percent of peak hour
ridership. Spatially to meet this need about 400 square feet
should be dedicated to covered seating. During the public
outreach efforts, the community requested that there be
additional outdoor table seating in addition to the existing table
seating provided for RFTA staff.
There are presently no exterior drinking fountains at Rubey
Park. Public comment expressed the need to add an Aspen Tap
Station for Rubey Park users.
The current bike and ski rack storage capacity is not maximized
due to the awkward placement of racks on site, and the rack
design that makes it difficult to efficiently park bikes. Site
walls, trash receptacles, and pedestrian circulation zones
impede the straightforward use of the bike and ski racks. A
reorganization of the layout, placement, and design of the racks
will increase the rack capacity.
Rubey Park currently houses a Wecycle station that holds 10
bikes. The current station size is expected to be maintained.
The extensive level of management and direction provided
by RFTA staff enables the current bus loading operations to
function. Ninety percent of survey respondents stated that it
is "very important" or "somewhat important" to increase the
amount of real time bus signage at Rubey Park. Better signage
regarding bus schedule and routes will permit Rubey Park users
to innately navigate to and from buses without the direction
required currently from RFTA staff.
Better bus signage at Rubey Park.
including real times signs that let riders
know when there bus is arriving, will
enable users to intuitively use the bus
service at Rubey Park.
P45
III.
3-9Needs AnalysisRubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
PRELIMINARY 09/20/2013
The needs assessment for staff areas of
Rubey Park facility revealed the need to
increase RFTA staff space.
INTERIOR SPATIAL NEEDS
The spatial needs of the Rubey Park building were determined
based on current functional shortcomings, user and community
input, and building code criteria. The analysis represents the
minimal modifications that can best support RFTA’s goal of
efficient and effective operations for its riders, staff and the
Aspen community.
The Needs Assessment outlines an increase in public space
— the waiting room and public toilets — from the existing
857 square feet to 1,165 square feet. This additional space
is intended to increase the size of the public toilets to satisfy
periods of high demand and to provide full accessibility as
required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The
Existing Conditions analysis determined that current square
footage for indoor waiting space is, for the most part,
satisfactory.
The Needs Assessment for staff areas of the Rubey Park facility
reveals that the following areas require space increases to
successfully support RFTA operations:
• Ticket/Information Desk: In order to accommodate two
staff positions, an increase in size — from 37 square feet to
60 square feet — is required.
• Drivers' Lounge: Increased RFTA service has resulted in
increased use of the existing drivers' lounge. Current and
projected demand can be met by an increase of this space
from 91 square feet to 141 square feet.
• Staff Toilets: The Existing Conditions analysis and staff
comments have shown that one staff toilet at 20 square
feet is a major deficiency in the existing facility. The Needs
Assessment, current building codes and ADA requirements
indicate that an increase to two toilets at 49 square feet
each is necessary.
• Drivers' Training: This program space does not currently
exist at the Rubey Park facility although RFTA does engage
in this activity to the extent permitted by the limited
P46
III.
3-10 Needs Analysis Rubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
09/20/2013 PRELIMINARY
existing building. It is desirable to have a dedicated training
area of 144 square feet to maximize driver down time while
at Rubey Park.
The proposed Space Program represents a Needs Assessment
generated by the participation of RFTA administration and staff,
City of Aspen officials, commuters and other stakeholders. It is
intended to benefit local and visiting RFTA patrons by providing
a facility that is comfortable, welcoming and that supports an
efficient level of service and operations by RFTA. Overall, the
proposed space represents a 38% increase in building area –
from the existing 1,601 gross square feet to 2,207 gross square
feet. Finally, a reinvigorated Rubey Park Transit Center must
also satisfy the community’s needs in terms of character and
The current size and configuration of the
drivers' lounge does not meet the need of
RFTA drivers on break.
P47
III.
3-11Needs AnalysisRubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
PRELIMINARY 09/20/2013
vision.
UTILITY NEEDS FOR RUBEY PARk
The following bullets summarize the existing utility services to
Rubey Park as well as any potential improvements that may be
required to sustain the proposed remodel plans.
• Source Gas: A 6-inch plastic main line runs north along
South Galena Street and then west down city block 90. The
site is served with a 3/4-inch or 1-inch plastic service line.
No increase in size to this line is anticipated at this time.
• Comcast: Comcast does not currently provide service to
the site; however cable appears to be available from a
pedestal located along the north side of the alley. Conduits
can be routed to the building to provide cable service.
This excludes fiber optic service since Comcast does not
currently have fiber optic service in the immediate area.
• City of Aspen Electric: The electric service to the site is a
200 amp service that is extended from a recently upgraded
transformer located along the north side of the alley. The
electric department indicated that the existing service could
likely increase to a 320 or 400 amp service; however the
existing transformer cannot be upgraded where it currently
sits because the size of the vault underneath it would need
to be increased. This cannot happen because of the parking
lot to the east. Additional conduits may be required to
accommodate any increase in service sizing.
• Century Link: The site is served from an existing pedestal
located near McDonald's. Fiber optic is available from
a vault located at the southern end of the Mill Street
pedestrian corridor. Fiber optic service is needed to meet
future demand.
• Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD): Rubey
Park is currently serviced with a 4-inch PVC line. It is
recommended that this line be investigated to determine
the integrity of the service prior to any constructed
improvements.
P48
III.
3-12 Needs Analysis Rubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
09/20/2013 PRELIMINARY
• City of Aspen Water Department: The water main is a
6-inch cast iron pipe that runs along Durant Avenue. A curb
stop is located south of the main entrance to the Rubey
Park building. The existing water service within the second
floor mechanical room is a 2-inch copper pipe. If building
improvements are to include a fire suppressant system, this
existing service size should be adequate. The irrigation to
the site is served off the potable system and appropriate
backflow preventers are in place.
SUSTAINABILITY GOALS FOR RUBEY PARk
The design improvements for Rubey Park are intended to be as
ecologically sensitive as possible, in keeping with community
expectations. The sustainable design parameters set for the
Rubey Park Remodel are established from the city's Urban
Runoff Management Plan, the USGBC LEED version 4.0, and
city building code requirements.
It is not the intention of the design team to seek LEED
certification with the remodel of Rubey Park, but to use
the LEED standards as a guideline towards sustainable
development. LEED is the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design program established by the US Green
Building Council, a national organization promoting sustainable
planning, design, construction and operational practices.
The sustainable goals for the remodel of Rubey Park include:
• Avoid development in environmentally sensitive lands.
• Locate improvements within existing neighborhoods and
provide access to quality transit.
• Decrease water-borne pollutants and decrease the amount
of urban stormwater run-off.
The sustainablility goals of Rubey Park
are meant to preserve Aspen's celebrated
landscape and enhance the quality of life
for Rubey Park users by meeting and/or
exceeding building code requirements.
P49
III.
3-13Needs AnalysisRubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
PRELIMINARY 09/20/2013
• Maintain Aspen's dark skies.
• Increase the energy and resource efficiency of the building.
• Reduce the use of intensively extracted materials.
• Enhance the quality of life and health of Rubey Park users.
The comprehensive list of sustainable strategies and goals for
Rubey Park are located with the report appendix.
P50
III.
4-1Schematic DesignRubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
PRELIMINARY 09/20/2013
Schematic
Design
DESIGN PROCESS
Through the previous design phases and utilizing various
methods, the design team developed an understanding and
defined the vital functional and spatial design criteria for Rubey
Park. The criteria to realize a successful design are detailed in
the Needs Analysis chapter, but fundamentally summarized as
follows:
• 29 bus parking spaces to account for peak ridership need
(i.e. Christmas week, Spring Break, Food & Wine Festival,
etc.)
• Flexible bus parking spaces (i.e. staging or layover bus).
• Increased safety of Rubey Park by minimizing pedestrian
and vehicular conflicts.
• A green, park-like atmosphere.
• More covered seating.
• Improved existing structure to address the identified
functional and operational requirements of RFTA.
• Rectify the issues of mass and scale that are important to
the community.
• Provide better site amenities for users such as expanded
toilets and covered waiting areas.
• Enhance the view corridors and circulation across and
through the site.
Given the spatial parameters of Rubey Park, it is critical to
understand that not all of the quantified needs of Rubey Park
can be accommodated within the site. In order to develop a
successful solution for Rubey Park, it was necessary for the
design team prioritize the design criteria to establish a sensible
design objective. This process required the working staff and
consultant design team to develop design alternantives that
The design schemes
represent a spectrum
of solutions that satisfy
the design criteria
to enhance the rider
experience and comfort
at Rubey Park, improve
RFTA operations,
and enrich Aspen’s
downtown environment.
P51
III.
4-2 Schematic Design Rubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
09/20/2013 PRELIMINARY
comprise of and illustrate different tradeoffs. The resulting
design alternatives demonstrate the weighted values of each
particular design tradeoff. The crafted design alternatives
present a spectrum of solutions that range from maximizing the
bus storage capacity to reserving a greater amount of space
for trees, plantings, and park-like amenities. Ultimately, the
recommended design solution proposed for the Rubey that
fairly meets all of the assessed needs in a balanced manner.
The consultant design team developed a multitude of different
site and structural arrangements and then assessed the
designs’ fulfillment of the established design criteria. A select
few design schemes successfully embodied the established
The design team produced many
different schemes and then tested the
schemes against the design criteria
to determine the feasibility of each
successful solution.
P52
III.
4-3Schematic DesignRubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
PRELIMINARY 09/20/2013
design principles. The design team further refined these select
designs to illustrate the potential layout of all programmatic
features. The design features (e.g. linear bus parking,
sawtooth bus parking, structures, covered seating areas,
planting areas, etc.) encompassed in each scheme do not
relate or satisfy equally to all three design goals. In essence,
the inclusion of a sawtooth bus parking space creates a more
flexible parking space but also predicates that there will be less
total bus parking because of its greater spatial portion. Lastly,
the design team incorporates flexible covered seating at Rubey
Park to provide a unique experiential amenity not found in the
surrounding public spaces. The diversity of elements further
upholds Rubey Park's value as an essential, vibrant and unique
downtown amenity.
The design schemes were presented to the stakeholders and
the community at two distinct public outreach events. The
feedback to the arrangement of design features provided the
design team with further insight concerning the optimal design
configuration. This optimal scheme or the recommended
design embodies a balanced solution that best satisfies the
design criteria of enhancing the rider experience and comfort at
Rubey Park, improving RFTA operations, and enriching Aspen’s
downtown environment.
Stakeholder and community input
provided further insight into the
arrangement of site features for the
recommended Rubey Park design.
P53
III.
4-4 Schematic Design Rubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
09/20/2013 PRELIMINARY
DESIGN 1
This scheme permits the reuse of the existing building footprint.
The interior is reconfigured to provide a modest increase in
waiting area and to improve circulation and visibility within this
space. New spaces–including larger public toilets and RFTA
staff areas-are provided by expanding the existing facility to
the north at the back of the current building. All functions are
incorporated within one structure which maintains its current
and familiar look from Durant Street. A detached sheltered
seating area is anticipated to the east of the expanded existing
transit facility.
• 18 bus parking spaces & 2 cut-away parking spaces.
• 18 flexible bus parking spaces.
• Sawtooth parking along Durant requires significant street
improvements. Street improvements will resolve winter
time predicament of buses sliding on ice build up.
• 6 incidences of pedestrians crossing vehicular paths.
• The most amount of space dedicated to planting and
street trees to create a park like atmosphere. Stormwater
mitigation is managed at source.
• A new outdoor covered waiting area is provided at the
east end of the site. Movable chairs and tables provide for
flexible seating arrangements beneath overhead structure
and tree canopies.
• The footprint and building envelope of the existing structure
are reused.
• The functional, aesthetic and code deficiencies identified in
the Existing Conditions Analysis of the existing structure will
require mitigation.
• Issues of roof drainage and snow shedding identified in the
Existing Conditions Analysis remain a challenge.
• Minimal impacts to building mechanical systems and
service access result from all functions being located in one
structure and within one building envelope.
• Views from the interior waiting area are obstructed to the
north by other facility functions.
The design matrix located
within the appendix details
the total comparison of
incorporated program features
against the established
program needs.
P54
III.
4-5Schematic DesignRubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
PRELIMINARY 09/20/2013
P55
III.
4-6 Schematic Design Rubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
09/20/2013 PRELIMINARY
DESIGN 2
The constraints of the proposed bus parking and driving lanes
in this scheme do not permit the reuse of the existing structure.
New construction is proposed to be located in three separate
volumes on the site. Near Durant Street, one volume contains
the interior glazed waiting area and ticket/information counter
while another separate volume accommodates public toilets.
A new clock tower anchors the composition and provides a
wayfinding landmark. These elements are connected by an
extended roof that unifies the architecture, allows for generous
outdoor covered waiting areas, and maximizes circulation and
views through the site. RFTA staff areas are housed in a third
volume located adjacent to the alley.
• 23 bus parking spaces.
• 18 flexible bus parking spaces.
• 8 incidences of pedestrians crossing vehicular paths.
• The majority of space dedicated to planting and street
trees is located on the northern island buffering Rubey Park
from alley. Stormwater mitigation is managed by directing
stormwater to biorention areas located on northern island.
• Generous covered outdoor waiting areas are provided across
the site. Movable chairs and tables provide for flexible
seating arrangements beneath overhead structure.
• The existing building is not reused in this scheme.
• New construction eliminates the need to mitigate the
existing facility’s functional, aesthetic and code deficiencies
identified in the Existing Conditions Analysis.
• New construction allows for appropriate treatment of roof
drainage and snow shedding issues on the site.
• Separate volumes housing the waiting area, public toilets
and RFTA staff areas require enhanced mechanical systems
and service access.
• The glazed interior waiting area maximizes 360° views
around the site.
The design matrix located
within the appendix details
the total comparison of
incorporated program features
against the established
program needs.
P56
III.
4-7Schematic DesignRubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
PRELIMINARY 09/20/2013
P57
III.
4-8 Schematic Design Rubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
09/20/2013 PRELIMINARY
DESIGN 3
This scheme allows for the partial reuse of the existing building
on the site. The constraints of the proposed bus parking
and driving lanes require that the existing north extension
of the current building be demolished, and these functions
are relocated to a new volume to the west of the existing
structure. The interior waiting area and the ticket/information
counter remain in the existing space. Expanded public toilets
are accommodated in a new volume to the east of the existing
structure. These elements are connected by an extended roof
that unifies the original and new architecture.
• 28 bus parking spaces.
• 23 flexible bus parking spaces.
• 10 incidences of pedestrians crossing vehicular paths.
• The least amount of space dedicated to planting and street
trees. Stormwater mitigation is managed by directing
stormwater to biorention areas located on northern island.
• Generous covered outdoor waiting areas are provided across
the site. Movable chairs and tables provide for flexible
seating arrangements beneath overhead structure.
• A significant portion of the footprint and building envelope
of the existing structure is reused.
• The functional, aesthetic and code deficiencies identified in
the Existing Conditions Analysis of the existing structure
will require mitigation for the reused portion of the existing
building.
• Issues of roof drainage and snow shedding identified in the
Existing Conditions Analysis remain a challenge for reused
portions of the existing building.
• In the areas of new construction, the appropriate treatment
of roof drainage and snow shedding on the site can be
addressed.
• Separate volumes housing the waiting area, public toilets
and RFTA staff areas require enhanced mechanical systems
and service access.
The design matrix located
within the appendix details
the total comparison of
incorporated program features
against the established
program needs.
P58
III.
4-9Schematic DesignRubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
PRELIMINARY 09/20/2013
P59
III.
4-10 Schematic Design Rubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
09/20/2013 PRELIMINARY
DESIGN RECOMMENDATION
The recommended design scheme utilizes the same structural
program of design option 3. However, this scheme includes
the inner sawtooth parking spaces similar to option 2. The
inclusion of the sawtooth spaces increases the amount of
unencumbered bus parking. Secondly, the amalgamation of
these two design features increases the amount area dedicated
to plantings and street trees, enlarges the flexible seating
areas, and arranges more room for rider waiting areas. This
scheme best balances the operational needs of RFTA, dedicates
considerable space to improving the rider waiting experience,
and sustains the aesthetic character of downtown Aspen.
• 25 bus parking spaces.
• 20 flexible bus parking spaces.
• 8 incidences of pedestrians crossing vehicular paths.
• A sensible amount of space dedicated to planting and street
trees. Stormwater mitigation is managed by directing
stormwater to biorention areas located on northern island.
• Generous covered outdoor waiting areas are provided across
the site. Movable chairs and tables provide for flexible
seating arrangements beneath overhead structure and tree
canopies.
• A significant portion of the footprint and building envelope
of the existing structure is reused.
• The functional, aesthetic and code deficiencies identified in
the Existing Conditions Analysis of the existing structure
will require mitigation for the reused portion of the existing
building.
• Issues of roof drainage and snow shedding identified in the
Existing Conditions Analysis remain a challenge for reused
portions of the existing building.
• In the areas of new construction, the appropriate treatment
of roof drainage and snow shedding on the site can be
addressed.
• Separate volumes housing the waiting area, public toilets
and RFTA staff areas require enhanced mechanical systems
and service access.
• The glazed interior waiting area maximizes 360° views
around the site.
The design matrix located
within the appendix details
the total comparison of
incorporated program features
against the established
program needs.
P60
III.
4-11Schematic DesignRubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
PRELIMINARY 09/20/2013
P61
III.
5-1AppendixRubey Park Remodel
OUTREACH & SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT
09/20/2013
Appendix
CONTENTS
Bus Rider Survey 5-2 to 5-7
Existing Conditions Diagrams 5-8 to 5-15
Needs Analysis Diagrams 5-16 to 5-21
Schematic Plans & 5-22 to 5-35
Recommended Design
Design Matrix 5-36 to 5-37
Sustainable Goals and 5-38 to 5-41
Strategies
P62
III.
5-3
5-
2
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
Appendix
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
09/20/2013
09
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
3
P63III.
5-5
5-
4
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
Appendix
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
09/20/2013
09
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
3
P64III.
5-7
5-
6
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
Appendix
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
09/20/2013
09
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
3
P65III.
5-9
5-
8
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
Appendix
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
09/20/2013
09
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
3
No
t
t
o
S
c
a
l
e
N
H
H
LE
G
E
N
D
HM
10
-
5
5
+
m
2
Pa
r
k
e
d
B
u
s
e
s
Pa
r
k
e
d
C
a
r
s
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
P
a
r
k
e
d
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
s
De
l
i
v
e
r
y
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
Pa
r
k
e
d
H
o
t
e
l
S
h
u
t
t
l
e
Pa
r
k
e
d
M
o
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
e
s
La
y
o
v
e
r
(
m
i
n
s
)
o
f
P
a
r
k
e
d
B
u
s
e
s
Co
n
f
l
i
c
t
A
r
e
a
s
M
10
-
6
0
+
m
H
H
Pe
d
s
v
s
.
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
De
l
i
v
e
r
y
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
v
s
.
C
a
r
s
Pe
d
s
v
s
.
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
Ca
r
s
v
s
.
B
u
s
e
s
Pe
d
s
v
s
.
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
2
9
2
PM
P
E
A
K
H
O
U
R
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
SU
M
M
E
R
No
t
t
o
S
c
a
l
e
N
H
17
(
7
6
)
11
(
5
1
)
AM
&
P
M
P
E
A
K
H
O
U
R
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
E
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
LEGEND Pedestrian Volumes Pedestrian PathsAM (PM)
H
HH
HH
HH
HH HH
HH HH
HH SUMMER
71
(
1
2
2
)
56
(
1
8
2
)
61
(
1
1
1
)
28
(
6
6
)
22
(
3
2
)
17
(
4
5
)
6
(
5
)
3
(
3
)
6
(
2
)
20
(
2
0
)
20
(
2
0
)
20
(
2
0
)
20
(
2
0
)
20
(
2
0
)
No
t
t
o
S
c
a
l
e
N
AM
&
P
M
P
E
A
K
H
O
U
R
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
LE
G
E
N
D
Tra
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
St
o
p
S
i
g
n
La
n
e
C
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
B
u
s
&
S
h
u
t
t
l
e
AM
(
P
M
)
L
AM
%
(
P
M
%
)
L
L
L
L
1
(
2
)
10
9
(
1
9
4
)
6
(
1
4
)
9
(
2
5
)
0
(
0
)
6
(
2
1
)
L
L
L
L
21
%
(
1
1
%
)
28
%
(
2
8
%
)
7%
(
8
%
)
0%
(
2
%
)
14
(
2
0
)
0
(
1
)
9
(
1
1
)
1
(
1
)
11
3
(
1
3
8
)
7
(
1
7
)
1
5
(
2
6
)
10
9
(
1
9
4
)
8
(
1
5
)
16
(
2
5
)
1
(
1
)
8
(
1
8
)
25
%
(
1
4
%
)
0%
(
0
%
)
6%
(
9
%
)
8%
(
7
%
)
4
(
9
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
2
)
1
1
(
1
4
)
11
3
(
1
3
8
)
21
(
1
7
)
SU
M
M
E
R
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
P66III.
5-11
5-
1
0
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
Appendix
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
09/20/2013
09
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
3
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
P67III.
5-13
5-
1
2
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
Appendix
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
09/20/2013
09
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
3
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
P68III.
5-15
5-
1
4
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
Appendix
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
09/20/2013
09
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
3
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
ma
i
n
l
e
v
e
l
sc
a
l
e
:
3
/
1
6
”
up
p
e
r
l
e
v
e
l
sc
a
l
e
:
3
/
1
6
”
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
c
e
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
gr
o
s
s
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
:
1
,
6
0
1
g
s
f
ne
t
s
i
z
e
o
f
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
a
r
e
a
s
:
w
a
i
t
i
n
g
r
o
o
m
-
6
3
7
n
s
f
me
n
’
s
r
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
-
1
0
3
n
s
f
wo
m
e
n
’
s
r
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
-
1
1
7
n
s
f
ti
c
k
e
t
/
i
n
f
o
-
3
7
n
s
f
dr
i
v
e
r
’
s
l
o
u
n
g
e
-
9
1
n
s
f
st
a
f
f
t
o
i
l
e
t
-
2
0
n
s
f
of
fi c
e
-
6
3
n
s
f
ve
s
t
i
b
u
l
e
-
6
6
n
s
f
lo
f
t
l
o
u
n
g
e
-
1
6
3
n
s
f
me
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
-
8
0
n
s
f
ex
t
e
r
i
o
r
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
in
t
e
r
i
o
r
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
no
r
t
h
no
r
t
h
st
a
f
f
a
r
e
a
s
pu
b
l
i
c
a
r
e
a
s
st
a
f
f
a
r
e
a
s
P69III.
5-17
5-
1
6
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
Appendix
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
09/20/2013
09
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
3
NE
E
D
S
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
62
%
of
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
a
n
t
s
a
r
e
Va
l
l
e
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
61
%
of
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
a
n
t
s
tr
a
v
e
l
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
ne
a
r
l
y
e
v
e
r
y
d
a
y
82
%
fi
n
d
i
t
e
a
s
y
t
o
f
i
n
d
th
e
b
u
s
t
h
e
y
w
a
n
t
to
b
o
a
r
d
.
I
t
i
s
al
w
a
y
s
i
n
/
n
e
a
r
t
h
e
sa
m
e
p
l
a
c
e
Wh
y
a
r
e
y
o
u
a
t
R
u
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
t
o
d
a
y
?
40
%
32
%
13
%
9%
3%
go
i
n
g
ho
m
e
go
i
n
g
to
w
o
r
k
or
s
c
h
o
o
l
ot
h
e
r
go
i
n
g
to
p
l
a
y
/
re
c
r
e
a
t
e
sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
or
d
i
n
i
n
g
Ho
w
d
o
y
o
u
g
e
t
t
o
y
o
u
r
f
i
n
a
l
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
?
84
%
8%
5%
2%
0.
5
%
wa
l
k
ot
h
e
r
bi
k
e
ta
k
e
an
o
t
h
e
r
bu
s
ca
b
/
ho
t
e
l
sh
u
t
t
l
e
25
1
to
t
a
l
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
re
t
u
r
n
e
d
050
10
0
15
0
20
0
25
0
30
0
Improved restrooms
More shelters outside
Larger indoor waiƟng rooms
More/beƩer food and beverage
choices
Security features (cameras,
emergency phone, etc.)
Police presence
Designated pathways for
pedestrians
Electronic real Ɵme bus
informaƟon
Covered bicycle parking
Increased lighƟng
Ho
w
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
d
o
y
o
u
t
h
i
n
k
i
t
i
s
t
o
m
a
k
e
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
?
Very important Somewhat important Not important
050
10
0
15
0
20
0
25
0
30
0
Location in town
The view
Building
Restrooms
Outdoor waiting areas
Indoor waiting areas
Having a clerk available
Bus stop signage (to find your bus)
Directional signage (to find your way
to town)
Landscaping
Bicycle storage
Lighting
Walking/pedestrian areas around my
bus
Walking/pedestrian areas connecting
to the Mall/McDonalds
Crossing areas on Durant Street
Pl
e
a
s
e
c
h
e
c
k
t
h
e
c
o
l
u
m
n
t
h
a
t
b
e
s
t
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
s
w
h
a
t
y
o
u
th
i
n
k
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
o
f
R
u
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
.
Gr
e
a
t
Go
o
d
e
n
o
u
g
h
Co
u
l
d
b
e
b
e
t
t
e
r
No
t
n
e
e
d
e
d
Un
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
I
d
o
n
'
t
c
a
r
e
P70III.
5-19
5-
1
8
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
Appendix
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
09/20/2013
09
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
3
NE
E
D
S
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
6%
o
f
ru
b
e
y
p
a
r
k
sp
a
c
e
4
s
p
a
c
e
s
11
s
p
a
c
e
s
8
s
p
a
c
e
s
6
s
p
a
c
e
s
18
s
p
a
c
e
s
12
%
o
f
ru
b
e
y
p
a
r
k
sp
a
c
e
9%
o
f
ru
b
e
y
p
a
r
k
sp
a
c
e
5%
o
f
ru
b
e
y
p
a
r
k
sp
a
c
e
20
%
o
f
ru
b
e
y
p
a
r
k
sp
a
c
e
16
%
o
f
ru
b
e
y
p
a
r
k
sp
a
c
e
9%
o
f
ru
b
e
y
p
a
r
k
sp
a
c
e
17
%
o
f
ru
b
e
y
p
a
r
k
sp
a
c
e
pedestrian seating (covered)pedestrian seating (covered)pedestrian seating (uncovered)pedestrian seating (uncovered)table seatingtable seating
1.920 sqft.
3,840 sqft.
2,880 sqft.
0 sqft.
0 sqft.
162 sqft.
486 sqft.
972 sqft.
0 sqft.
1,601 sqft.
6,150 sqft.
4,978 sqft.
2,964 sqft.
5,462 sqft.
0 sqft.262 sqft.
3 sqft.
3 sqft.
11 sqft.
396 sqft.52 sqft.
44 sqft.44 sqft.
5,475 sqft.
0 sqft.
0 sqft.
20 sqft.
90 sqft.
24 sqft.
224 sqft.
16 sqft.
150 sqft.
0 sqft.
28 sqft.
0 sqft.
6 sqft.
0 sqft.
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
gross
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
:
3
1
,
0
6
3
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
s
p
a
c
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
gr
o
s
s
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
o
f
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
p
a
c
e
:
4
0
,
2
6
9
to
t
a
l
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
p
a
c
e
t
h
a
t
e
x
c
e
e
d
s
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
t
e
a
r
e
a
:
9
,
5
5
2
bus sawtooth berthsbus sawtooth berths
bus linear berthsbus linear berths
bus layover parkingbus layover parking
taxi / hotel shuttle berthtaxi / hotel shuttle berth
RFTA operations parking spaceRFTA operations parking space
city of aspen offi cial parkingaspen police department parking
ADA parkingADA parking
public metered parkingpublic metered parking
commercial loading / unloading zonecommercial loading / unloading zone
structurestructure
bus circulation spacebus circulation space
bus rider waiting zonesbus rider waiting zones
snow storagesnow storage
equipment storageequipment storage
exterior drinking fountain / aspen tapexterior drinking fountain / aspen tap trash receptaclestrash receptacles recycling receptacles (operations)recycling receptacles (operations)
recycling receptacles (public)recycling receptacles (public)
bike racksbike racks
ski racksski racks
wecycle stationwecycle station
newspaper kiosksnewspaper kiosks
regional route map / scheduleregional route map / schedule
amenity mapamenity map
bus signage exterior real time bus signageexterior real time bus signage
bus signage
plantingplanting
pedestrian walking zonespedestrian walking zones
5,280 sqft.
0 sqft.
8,640 sqft.
250 sqft.
162 sqft.
162 sqft.
486 sqft.
972 sqft.
324 sqft.
2,005 sqft.
6,150 sqft.
9,318 sqft.
2,964 sqft.
4,400 sqft.
8,213 sqft.
24 sqft.
2 sqft.
20 sqft.
200 sqft.
24 sqft.
224 sqft.
32 sqft.
150 sqft.
28 sqft.
3 sqft.
P71III.
5-21
5-
2
0
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
Appendix
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
09/20/2013
09
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
3
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
gr
o
s
s
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
:
1
,
6
0
1
g
s
f
pu
b
l
i
c
a
r
e
a
s
(
n
e
t
)
:
8
5
7
n
s
f
st
a
f
f
a
r
e
a
s
(
n
e
t
)
:
5
2
0
n
s
f
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
s
p
a
c
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
gr
o
s
s
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
:
2
,
0
0
5
g
s
f
pu
b
l
i
c
a
r
e
a
s
(
n
e
t
)
:
9
9
7
n
s
f
st
a
f
f
a
r
e
a
s
(
n
e
t
)
:
6
7
4
n
s
f
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
t
a
f
f
a
r
e
a
s
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
r
e
a
s
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
s
t
a
f
f
a
r
e
a
s
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
r
e
a
s
ti
c
k
e
t
/
i
n
f
o
dr
i
v
e
r
s
l
o
u
n
g
e
st
a
f
f
t
o
i
l
e
t
o
f
fi c
e
v
e
s
t
i
b
u
l
e
l
o
f
t
l
o
u
n
g
e
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
me
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
wa
i
t
i
n
g
r
o
o
m
me
n
’
s
r
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
wo
m
e
n
’
s
r
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
ti
c
k
e
t
/
i
n
f
o
dr
i
v
e
r
s
l
o
u
n
g
e
st
a
f
f
t
o
i
l
e
t
o
f
fi c
e
v
e
s
t
i
b
u
l
e
l
o
f
t
l
o
u
n
g
e
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
me
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
wa
i
t
i
n
g
r
o
o
m
me
n
’
s
r
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
wo
m
e
n
’
s
r
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
st
a
f
f
t
o
i
l
e
t
dr
i
v
e
r
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
37
n
s
f
9
1
n
s
f
2
0
n
s
f
6
3
n
s
f
6
6
n
s
f
1
6
3
n
s
f
4
0
n
s
f
4
0
n
s
f
63
7
n
s
f
10
3
n
s
f
11
7
n
s
f
14
4
n
s
f
4
9
n
s
f
4
9
n
s
f
6
3
n
s
f
6
6
n
s
f
1
6
3
n
s
f
4
0
n
s
f
4
0
n
s
f
63
7
n
s
f
10
3
n
s
f
11
7
n
s
f
60
n
s
f
14
4
n
s
f
NE
E
D
S
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
P72III.
5-23
5-
2
2
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
Appendix
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
09/20/2013
09
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
3
SC
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
DE
S
I
G
N
DE
S
I
G
N
1
:
S
I
T
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
P73III.
5-25
5-
2
4
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
Appendix
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
09/20/2013
09
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
3
SC
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
DE
S
I
G
N
DE
S
I
G
N
1
:
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
D
E
S
I
G
N
P74III.
5-27
5-
2
6
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
Appendix
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
09/20/2013
09
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
3
SC
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
DE
S
I
G
N
DE
S
I
G
N
2
:
S
I
T
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
P75III.
5-29
5-
2
8
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
Appendix
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
09/20/2013
09
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
3
SC
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
DE
S
I
G
N
DE
S
I
G
N
2
:
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
D
E
S
I
G
N
P76III.
5-31
5-
3
0
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
Appendix
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
09/20/2013
09
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
3
SC
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
DE
S
I
G
N
DE
S
I
G
N
3
:
S
I
T
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
P77III.
5-33
5-
3
2
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
Appendix
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
09/20/2013
09
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
3
SC
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
DE
S
I
G
N
DE
S
I
G
N
3
:
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
D
E
S
I
G
N
P78III.
5-35
5-
3
4
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
Appendix
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
09/20/2013
09
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
3
DE
S
I
G
N
RE
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
scale 01020north
ke
y
1
w
a
i
t
i
n
g
r
o
o
m
2
w
o
m
e
n
’
s
r
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
3
m
e
n
’
s
r
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
4
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
5
v
e
s
t
i
b
u
l
e
6
t
i
c
k
e
t
s
&
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
7
R
F
T
A
o
f
fi c
e
8
d
r
i
v
e
r
’
s
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
r
o
o
m
9
d
r
i
v
e
r
’
s
l
o
u
n
g
e
10
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
r
o
o
m
11
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
12
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
p
t
a
c
l
e
s
-
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
13
b
u
s
s
a
w
t
o
o
t
h
b
e
r
t
h
14
b
u
s
l
i
n
e
a
r
b
e
r
t
h
15
b
u
s
l
a
y
o
v
e
r
b
e
r
t
h
16
t
a
x
i
/
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
17
fl e
x
i
b
l
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
18
fl e
x
i
b
l
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
19
A
D
A
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
20
p
u
b
l
i
c
m
e
t
e
r
e
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
21
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
/
u
n
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
z
o
n
e
22
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
23
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
a
r
e
a
24
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
z
o
n
e
s
25
b
u
s
r
i
d
e
r
w
a
i
t
i
n
g
z
o
n
e
s
26
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
(
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
)
27
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
(
u
n
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
)
28
t
a
b
l
e
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
29
a
s
p
e
n
t
a
p
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
30
t
r
a
s
h
r
e
c
e
p
t
a
c
l
e
s
31
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
p
t
a
c
l
e
s
32
b
i
k
e
r
a
c
k
s
33
w
e
c
y
c
l
e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
34
s
k
i
r
a
c
k
s
35
n
e
w
s
p
a
p
e
r
k
i
o
s
k
s
36
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
r
e
a
l
-
t
i
m
e
b
u
s
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
37
b
u
s
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
38
r
o
u
t
e
m
a
p
/
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
39
a
m
e
n
i
t
y
m
a
p
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
v
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
t
r
a
v
e
l
al
l
e
y
w
a
y
du
r
a
n
t
a
v
e
n
u
e
de
a
n
s
t
r
e
e
t
mill street
galena street
18
19 19 19
202020 20 20
21
21
34
22
22
23
28
15
1
5
15
15
15
13
1
3
13
13
16
2 3
9
4
45 7
10
8
14
14
14
1
4
1
4
14
14
14
14
1
4
14
14
11
1
2
16
1616 21
33
35
35
36
36
31
31
17
21
30
30
25
25
26
38
2424
27
29
37
26
32
32
39
P79III.
5-37
5-
3
6
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
Appendix
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
09/20/2013
09
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
3
DE
S
I
G
N
M
A
T
R
I
X
program need
bus sawtooth berths (11)
bus linear berths (0)
bus layover berths (18)
bus flexible staging/layover
bus full-size berths
taxi/hotel shuttle parking (1)
rfta operations parking (1)
coa official parking (1)
ada parking (4)
public metered parking (14)
no net loss of metered parking
no net loss of on-street parking
commercial loading/unloading
zone (1)
structure (2207sf)
structure grant intent
bus circulation space (6150 sf)
bus unencumbered movement
bus only circulation
bus/pedestrian conflicts
planting (9318 sf)
pervious paving
stormwater treatment area (430
cf)
impervious area (22650 sf)
pervious area (4430 sf)
pedestrian walking zones (2964
sf)
bus rider waiting zones (4400 sf)
pedestrian seating-covered (396
sf)
pedestrian seating-uncovered (0
sf)
table seating (44 sf)
snow storage (8213 sf)
equipment storage (24 sf)
exterior drinking fountain/aspen
tap (2 sf)
trash receptacles (20 sf)
recycling receptacles-operations
(200 sf)recycling receptacles-public (24 sf)bike racks (224 sf)ski racks (32 sf)WE-cycle station (360 sf)newspaper kiosks (28 sf)regional route map/schedule (3 sf)amenity map (3 sf)exterior real-time bus signage (3 sf)bus signage (11 sf)
existing
3
8 or 9
6
11 or 12
20
0
0
1
4
14
na
na
0
1601 sf
na
6150 sf
12
6
4978 sf
na
0
22650 sf
4430 sf
2964 sf
5462 sf
52 sf
262 sf
22 sf
5475 sf
0 sf
0 sf
20 sf
90 sf 24 sf 224 sf 32 sf 360 sf 28 sf 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf 6 sf
design 1
16
2
7
18
18
1
1
1
4
9
-5
-10
1
2207 sf
remodel
0 sf
18
6
5237 sf
0
730 cf
21843 sf
5237 sf
10000 sf
4430 sf
2050 sf
396 sf
44 sf
5000 sf
24 sf
2 sf
24 sf
200 sf 24 sf 240 sf 360 sf 360 sf 40 sf 3 sf 3 sf 18 sf 27 sf
design 2
8
15
12
18
23
1
1
1
4
12
-2
-3
0 improved
2207 sf
new
11405 sf
11
8
5187sf
0
1850cf
21893sf
5187sf
6012sf
3965sf
378sf
281sf
44sf
4869sf
24sf
2sf
24sf
200sf24sf240sf360sf360sf12sf3sf3sf6sf27sf
design 3
0
28
17
23
28
1
1
1
5
18
4
0
1
2207 sf
remodel
12405 sf
8
10
2345 sf
2085 sf
1708 cf
22650 sf
4430 sf
5440 sf
5672 sf
345 sf
371 sf
44 sf
2755 sf
24 sf
2 sf
24 sf
200 sf 24 sf 240 sf 360 sf 360 sf 24 sf 3 sf 3 sf 6 sf 27 sf
design recommendation
4
21
5
20
25
1
1
1
4
11
-3
-7
3
2207 sf
remodel
10230 sf
8
8
2853 sf
1577 sf
1708 cf
22143 sf
4430 sf
6750 sf
5724 sf
415 sf
301 sf
44 sf
4202 sf
24 sf
2 sf
24 sf
200 sf 24 sf 240 sf 360 sf 360 sf 64 sf 3 sf 3 sf 6 sf 27 sf
ex
c
e
e
d
s
n
e
e
d
me
e
t
s
n
e
e
d
do
e
s
n
o
t
m
e
e
t
n
e
e
d
Th
e
s
p
a
t
i
a
l
n
e
e
d
s
o
f
R
u
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
w
e
r
e
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
u
s
i
n
g
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
ce
n
t
e
r
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
,
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
,
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
i
n
p
u
t
,
cu
r
r
e
n
t
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
i
t
e
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
,
a
n
d
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
f
u
t
u
r
e
d
e
m
a
n
d
o
f
R
u
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
.
T
h
e
ma
t
r
i
x
a
b
o
v
e
q
u
a
n
t
i
fi e
s
t
h
e
s
p
a
t
i
a
l
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
e
a
c
h
d
e
s
i
g
n
o
p
t
i
o
n
an
d
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
z
e
s
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
m
e
e
t
s
,
e
x
c
e
e
d
s
,
o
r
i
s
d
e
fi c
i
e
n
t
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
n
e
e
d
.
P80III.
5-39
5-
3
8
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
Appendix
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
09/20/2013
09
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
3
SU
S
T
A
I
N
A
B
L
E
G
O
A
L
S
AN
D
S
T
R
A
T
E
G
I
E
S
P81III.
5-41
5-
4
0
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
Appendix
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ru
b
e
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
OU
T
R
E
A
C
H
&
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
E
P
O
R
T
09/20/2013
09
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
3
SU
S
T
A
I
N
A
B
L
E
G
O
A
L
S
AN
D
S
T
R
A
T
E
G
I
E
S
P82III.