Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regional Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Littleton staff recommend — and council favors — Mineral station for Front Range Passenger Rail
Summary
City staff presented cost, engineering and planning comparisons for two possible station sites and recommended the Mineral station; councilmembers expressed support and asked staff to communicate a nonbinding preference to the Front Range Passenger Rail District while noting railroad coordination and further analysis would be required.
City staff told the Littleton City Council on March 17 that, based on an evaluation matrix and station-area planning, the Mineral RTD station is the stronger site for a potential Front Range Passenger Rail stop than a downtown location.
"We are at a point where we've been identifying a location here in Littleton," Deputy City Manager Kathleen Osher said, summarizing the district’s service-development work and staff’s local analysis. Staff and consultants evaluated four broad criteria — rail service, station-area planning and opportunities, costing and implementation — and found Mineral scored higher overall than downtown.
Staff and a Front Range consultant highlighted multiple factors: Mineral has a larger RTD parcel (roughly six times the downtown site), greater potential for structured parking, fewer floodplain and National Environmental Policy Act complications, and more recent public-works and multimodal investments that align with a station-area buildout. Kenneth Davis, senior transportation manager, said downtown poses uncertain platform and hydraulic constraints: a 700-foot passenger platform could create costly impacts to the Littles Creek flume and Alamo Bridge and might require land acquisition.
Rachel King, economic development director, and staff’s outside analysts estimated Mineral’s private-development potential at roughly $750 million of economic impact over 30 years under feasible development scenarios; staff said district/CDOT funding would likely cover the required platform infrastructure at Mineral but that city-led station amenities would represent an additional and variable local cost.
Representatives from CDOT and the district clarified that any municipal statement is nonbinding and that host-railroad coordination remains essential. Joan Lyons of CDOT said the city’s preference would be weighed by the district, but that railroad approvals and further technical work would be required.
After discussion, multiple council members voiced support for the Mineral station on cost, risk and regional-access grounds and asked staff to prepare a letter of preference (not a binding commitment) to share with the Front Range Passenger Rail District. No formal ordinance, contract, or funding commitment was adopted at the meeting.
What’s next: Staff will continue station-area coordination with the district and host railroads and return to council with more detailed cost estimates and potential funding options if the project proceeds. Councilmembers noted that if circumstances or funding resources change, the choice could be revisited.
