Residents urge Littleton to preserve crusher-fine spur trail instead of concreting

Residents and community groups urged the Littleton City Council on March 18 to abandon plans to pave the railroad spur trail along the north side of Mineral Avenue with an all-concrete path and instead preserve or adopt a dual-surface option.

The issue drew multiple public comments at the start of the meeting. “Why would the city decide to destroy one of Littleton's premier soft trails by replacing it with a 16‑foot wide swath of concrete that will cost upwards of $725,000?” said Ned Stern, a resident of West Briarwood Avenue, summarizing surveys his group conducted of trail users.

Stern and other speakers said trail users prefer crusher fines or a dual surface with parallel crusher‑fine and concrete lanes, and pointed to survey results they cited from South Suburban and the project’s outreach that, they said, showed strong preference for non‑concrete surfaces. Mary Ann Combs, who identified herself as a resident in Councilwoman Peters’s district, asked council to reverse the decision and questioned the city’s stated reason that the project must proceed to avoid losing grant money.

City staff acknowledged the concern but said the Mineral Avenue spur is part of a larger safety package. The city manager told council that the project includes multimodal and safety improvements at Mineral and Jackets Hill Road and that federal and state partners have tied grant funding to the project as designed. The city manager said the grant ratio is roughly 5:1 for state and federal funds to local contributions, and that the trail segment is a component of that funded package.

Speakers urged more public outreach, suggested reallocating paving materials to other sidewalks or school routes, and asked council to consider a change order or a redesign that would preserve crusher‑fine surfacing. Frank Atwood, another resident, questioned whether the city’s decisions followed public records and warned of political consequences at upcoming elections if the trail change moved ahead.

Council members and staff said they had heard the public comment and that further explanation of the grant constraints and project design would be discussed in upcoming materials. No formal action on the trail design was taken at the March 18 meeting.

The debate combined technical questions about grant requirements and design with community preferences about trail surfaces and neighborhood impacts, and councilmembers said they would follow up with additional information and outreach.