SECTION 5 - LANDOWNER ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS

5.1 Introduction

Adjacent landowners are traditionally - and understandably - nervous about trails close to their properties. It is important that these concerns are seriously addressed before any trail conversion takes place. Many landowners resent having things imposed on them, or feeling as if they have no say in what is happening around them. Many landowners are resistant to change of any sort, let alone one they perceive will have detrimental impacts on their lifestyle as well as on their farming operations. It needs to be appreciated that opposition will never completely cease - some people will never be convinced.

Conversely, adjacent landowners who understand and support the reasons behind a trail, and who see that the trail is going to be well organised and efficiently managed, will prove to be extremely valuable partners in years to come. Indeed, some of them will take advantage of business opportunities offered by conversion.

5.2 The Issues

The following extensive table (Table 5.1) documents the majority of issues generally raised (about rail-trails), some comments and possible solutions. The possible solutions proposed are not a substitute for detailed field analysis of problem and solution, but do provide a starting point for discussion.

It should be noted that not all landholders will be in agreement about the nature of and extent of potential problems.

Table 5.1 Landowner concerns and possible solutions

IMPACT/ISSUE/PROBLEM	SOLUTIONS SUCCESSFULLY USED ELSEWHERE/COMMENTS FROM EXPERIENCE ELSEWHERE
Impacts on adjoining land owners lifestyles
Crime - Trespassing, vandalism and theft. Landholders often express a range of concerns in regard to the issue of trespassing on to farmland, especially where the railway corridor is remote from farm buildings and public roads.	Comments Crime Numerous studies have concluded rail-trails do not generate crime. Research and anecdotal evidence suggests conversion of rail trails tends to reduce crime by cleaning up the landscape and attracting people who use the trail for legitimate reasons such as recreation and transport (it is recognised that, on many parts of the corridor at the moment, the crime rate is zero). The manager of the Murray to the Mountains Rail Trail (Victoria) has received no reports of trespassing, theft or vandalism since establishment of the trail. Similarly, the Collie to Darkan Rail Trail has had no incidents of crime (a trail with similar land ownership, land use and topographic circumstances). The Clare Valley (South Australia) Riesling Trail has had 2 "incidents" along the trail in over 14 years of operation (one of these, a burglary, would have occurred regardless of whether the trail existed at the rear of the property. The other, an incident involving an unrestrained dog 'attacking' stock in an adjoining paddock, is one which can be avoided by trail users following trail 'rules'). The Rails to Trails Conservancy work in the USA includes testimonials from law enforcement officers in a number of jurisdictions confirming expected/perceived crimes simply do not occur. (See sample testimonials in Appendix 2). Possible solutions Crime prevention Design solutions to minimise theft include installation of security (and additional) fencing and planting. (See plans and drawings of Appendix 3 for illustrations of elements of good design, and ways of mitigating landowner concerns - both privacy and crime prevention). Trail design can eliminate overgrown vegetation and tall shrubs which minimises hiding places and creates long sight lines. Security lighting at trail heads and parking areas adds security. Emergency phone boxes and emergency vehicle access helps increase user security. Keeping trail corridors clean and well-maintained increases sense of community ownership and "passive surveillance" reducing minor crime such as litter, graffiti and vandalism. Plantings of tree-lined corridors along parts deemed "vulnerable" by adjoining landowners could also provide a way of reminding trail users to stay on the trail - these provide a form of visual fence. Many trails have a signposted Code of Conduct as a means of reinforcing what is expected of trail users and highlighting inappropriate behaviour. Prohibiting motor vehicle use (by regulation and design) reduces property crime. Locked management access gates are a proven method of restricting access on to a trail. Volunteer or professional trail patrols ranging from informal monthly clean-ups and maintenance crews to daily patrols. The Murray to the Mountains Trail (NSW) has a fulltime trail manager, part of whose responsibilities include a daily traverse along the trail on a 4-wheel motorbike.
Loss of privacy for adjoining landowners Often residences have been constructed in close proximity to the railway corridor. Landowners living near to or alongside the proposed rail-trail anticipate that noise and reduction of privacy will occur.	Privacy Some effective design solutions are possible, and have been used to good effect on other rail-trail projects. Re-routing the trail off the formation away from the affected residence onto an adjacent road or elsewhere in the rail corridor. Substantial additional vegetation planting to provide a visual barrier between the trail and the residence. Installation of screen fencing to obscure views of houses from the trail.
Land value devaluation	Comments Research and anecdotal evidence suggests conversion of rail trails tends to either have a positive impact or a neutral impact on land values. It is positive where land use is changing to more intensive uses (eg. rural production to rural living/rural residential).
Stress and concerns about the impacts of trails on farmers lifestyles and incomes An element of uncertainty in both the short-term (until a decision is made) or the long-term (from rail-trail operations)	Comments Any change is difficult and causes stress for many people, especially where it is a change to the way people have operated their businesses and lifestyles for many years. All public infrastructure projects create stress and concerns for those who will be negatively affected (or perceive they will be negatively affected). The experience in railtrail projects elsewhere is that the problems that adjoining landholders believe will occur do not occur. They are managed primarily by ongoing consultation and good design. Possible solutions Staging of the project so that landholders and the responsible committee can see how sections work and what problems and issues arise and then react accordingly in subsequent stages is one possible way to minimise the concerns of landholders (given that these concerns may be felt differently by different people in different parts of the corridor).
Impacts on farming practices	For the majority of its length, the former railway corridor traverses agricultural land. Some farmers use the railway corridor for the movement of stock. Some adjoining farmers may have a lease that allows them to graze their stock on the railway corridor. In several other instances, farmers move their stock from one side of the railway corridor to the other - from one paddock to another paddock.
Landowners are often concerned about the possibility of increased fire risk along the railway with fires spreading unimpeded along the corridor and considered that additional fire protection will be required if the reserve is used for a rail trail. Also concerned that there would be poor access for emergency vehicles, and there is lack of obvious refuge areas and water points (in case of fire).	Comments Some fences have been erected across the corridor, providing a barrier to the movement of any emergency vehicles, such as fire trucks, which might need to access the corridor. A number of bridges along the corridor are missing at present, providing another major obstacle to the passage of emergency vehicles. Possible solutions Development of an effective fire management plan in close consultation with the local Bush Fire Brigade. Areas of the trail deemed high fire risk can have more active management controls including re-construction of bridges to carry 13.5 tonne fire tenders. Clearly signposted refuge spots (directional, "advance notice - fire refuge spot 500 metres ahead" - and at-site signs) can be constructed at regular intervals depending on fire risk "zone". Trail closure during periods of fire bans - as occurs on the Hume and Hovell Track in NSW. Smoking on trail can be prohibited. (Note: trail users are usually people interested in healthy pursuits and are therefore non-smokers). Bridges with missing decks can be rebuilt, enabling all trail users (and emergency vehicles) access across creeks, rivers and wet areas. The development of the trail will in most cases require the removal of fences which have been put across the railway corridor. Their removal will result in unimpeded access along the corridor for emergency vehicles. The management of grasses along the corridor (contributing to fire risk) is one which will be overseen by a Committee of Management appointed for such decisions. The choices will be to continue to allow grazing by sheep and cattle where appropriate, or to slash the grasses at regular intervals, or to spray when and where appropriate. Generally, the development of the rail-trail will create a situation in which fire services will be better able to deal with any emergency situations which arise along the railway corridor. It will be imperative that all emergency services have access to all padlocks on all gates along the rail trail, and locks should be keyed alike.
Growth of weeds with grazing reduction	Possible solutions The management of grasses along the corridor is one which could be overseen by a Committee of Management appointed for such decisions. The choices will be to continue to allow grazing by sheep and cattle where appropriate, or to slash the grasses at regular intervals, or to spray when and where appropriate. Parts of the corridor could be leased to adjoining landholders to allow grazing. Grazing on sections of the trail could be allowed at regular intervals (overnight - controlled with electric fences, some weekdays when activity is quiet, some times of the year - either during low levels of activity or high growth periods). Preparation of a regularly reviewed Trail Management Plan covering all maintenance issues prepared in advance of construction. Focus of maintenance - erosion, vegetation regrowth and signage damage. Division of maintenance into regular inspections and simple repairs and once/twice yearly programs undertaking larger jobs such as vegetation control.
Loss of access to grazing paddocks Farmers use the corridor to move stock between paddocks	Possible solutions Land swaps - the proposed trail could be taken around the perimeter of the farming land. Use of old style railway gates that can be closed on either the rail corridor (to allow livestock to be moved across the corridor) or on the paddocks when the livestock are in one or other paddocks. This also reduces the human/cattle interaction. Construction of fences (if desired by the landowner) - see below. There may be other farming practices, such as usage of the railway embankment as an access driveway, and tracks for tractor movements, which could continue unhindered by the development of the proposed rail-trail. Discussions with all farmers will reveal other uses to which the railway corridor is put. For each and every existing agricultural use, there is likely to be a solution that can be used to enable the trail to proceed, and the farming practice to continue. The overall width needed for the trail would be in the order of 10 metres. 5-10 metres either side of the original formation (containing the railway embankment and/or cuttings) could be regarded as 'surplus to requirements'. It may be possible for the 'spare' metres either side of the rail-trail corridor to be re-fenced and be leased to the adjoining landowners. An annual fee could be directed into trail maintenance activities. The land leased to the adjoining landowners would then be grazed together with the rest of the farm, and thereby serve to keep grasses and weeds low.
Interactions between nervous livestock and trail users including dogs. Farmers whose properties adjoin the corridor are often concerned at unrestrained dogs being allowed along the proposed rail-trail, and causing difficulties for their livestock.	Comments It is well recognised that people walking dogs is a pastime with considerable physical and mental health benefits, and therefore there could be some sections of the trail where this activity is permitted. Possible solutions On other trails, dogs are usually either banned altogether, or trail users are required by regulation to keep their dogs on a lead at all times. Only those sections of the trail which pass through a town, or are on the outskirts of a town, should be areas where dogs are permitted (on the proviso that they be kept on leads). Ongoing monitoring of this situation should occur, and should farming practices change, or should adjoining farmers give their consent, additional sections of the trail could become available for dogs on leads. With respect to interaction between people and livestock (particularly around lambing and calving seasons), appropriate information will discourage people from going off the trails onto farm property and thus placing themselves in close proximity to livestock, particularly in birthing season.
Chemical applications Farmers are often concerned that weed spray will drift across the trail (particularly given they spray on days that are slightly windy) affecting users who may later take civil action. Aerial spraying and fertilizing raised similar issues for farmers. Concerns about delays to spraying timetables as a result of trail users.	Comments Farmers have the same obligations as any other chemical user in preventing drift and potentially causing damage to adjacent land. For other trails, this has not been an issue. On the Lilydale to Warburton Rail Trail (Vic), grapes and flower growers are in very close proximity to the trail - they are in fact tenants renting rail trail land. Spray drift has not been an issue of concern. The same applies to the Riesling Trail in SA (again, most adjoining land owners are grape growers). Possible solutions It is anticipated that heavy use of the trail in the "agricultural sections" will primarily be confined to weekends. Spraying "rosters" agreed to between farmers and a Committee of Management could manage spraying and confine it, as much as possible, to weekdays. It is acknowledged that this is not always possible due to nature of ownership, on-site presence of farm owner/manager, and climatic factors; it is one solution. Notifications on trail literature (permanent and temporary - such as web sites) can spell out issues about spraying and indicate to users what they are likely to encounter at any time on the trail. It is understood that chemicals usually used in spraying are not of such toxicity that incidental exposure for short periods on a one-off or irregular basis (the likelihood of exposure of trail users) will cause any long-term health effects.
Chemical-free status of livestock / biosecurity issues There are concerns that the use of rail reserve by cyclists will increase the risk of contamination of livestock. Farmers argue that chemical control of the corridor by another (e.g. trail committee/manager) means that chemical application will not be under the landholder's control.	Comment This issue was raised in the Goulburn River Rail Trail project in Victoria. Advice from the Department of Primary Industries (Victoria) was that a trail should not jeopardise the landowner's ability to sign the National Vendors Declaration. The rail trail would be considered in the same way as any public thoroughfare would be. Farmers have no control over who uses and what is done on adjoining roads so they have 'no knowledge' unless they are notified (the Declaration specifies that "to the best of a farmers knowledge and from information they have control over that their livestock comply with the conditions on the declaration"). Trail users are no different to road users in that people may trespass onto private land but most are unlikely to cause significant damage, unless there is some malicious intent. Again, the farmer has to have some knowledge of this before the declaration is declared false. Cars and particularly tractors moving at high speed would disperse more dirt from roads and tracks than collective effort of numerous bikes. Possible solutions In respect of chemical control of the corridor, two options are available that would allow farmers a level of knowledge. The first is that the adjacent landowner sprays the corridor as it runs through their property, reaching an agreement with the Committee of Management for suitable recompense. The second option is cooperative flow of information - the trail manager lets adjoining farmers know in advance what they will be spraying and when they will be spraying.
Increased risk of livestock disease transfer	Comment This issue was raised on work done for the Goulburn River Rail Trail in Victoria. Advice from the Department of Primary Industries (Victoria) was that footrot is spread by introducing infected sheep. Possible solutions Wandering sheep should not graze the trail. If any grazing is allowed, it will only be by sheep from the farms adjacent to the corridor. Self-closing gates along boundaries should prevent stock moving from one landholding to another.
Fencing of the corridor Farmers often believe that the rail-trail project will result in them needing to pay for additional fencing. Some sections of the railway reserve may currently be unfenced and farmers have adopted their practices to suit - moving livestock and machinery across, moving vehicles across, developing watering points on both sides etc. Farmers believe fencing will cause problems with farming practices and not fencing will create havoc with livestock/trail user interactions, liability etc. Farmers believe there will also be time consumed in checking gates regularly after trail users pass through. Farmers believe fencing will require them to check and maintain fences on a regular basis.	Comments The vast majority of the railway corridor appears to be fenced, and that fencing appears to be in relatively good condition. It is evident that this railway reserve was originally fenced on both sides for its entire length. Possible solutions Fencing may be appropriate in some places and not in other places - this depends on a number of factors. Fencing of the corridor may be required - where fencing is put in place, the installation of livestock crossing points (such as stock underpasses) may be necessary to allow livestock to move between paddocks (or part-paddocks). It is understood that livestock quickly get used to having to cross at certain points to get to watering points or fresh herbage. The cost of fencing, where required and requested, should be negotiated with each individual landowner during the one-on-one consultation process recommended in this report. Where fencing is not required/requested, trail users will be made aware of this fact as they enter a property. Trail information will include warnings about unfenced sections and educate users about possible issues and appropriate behaviour. Vegetation lines may also act as "visual" fences if appropriate. One recommended option is for the rail-trail project to supply the materials needed for re-fencing, and for the adjoining landowners to install the fences themselves with the materials supplied to them. This however is not the only way forward. It is recognised that some farmers may want the corridor fenced and some may not want it fenced. Self-closing gates on boundary fences and at road crossings points will assist in managing straying stock (and unauthorised trail users).
Restricted pest baiting Due to safety concerns (dogs and children accidentally eating baits) and consequent loss of stock and native wildlife	Possible solutions Trails to be dog-free in areas of agricultural activities. Trail users to be aware of agricultural practices - information to be included in all material on rail-trails.
Impact of trail users
Management of litter and toilet waste	Comment Landowners whose properties adjoin the former railway corridor expect high levels of litter. It has not been a problem elsewhere. The Lilydale to Warburton Rail Trail (Victoria) is kept spotless, with little or no visible signs of litter. The Gippsland Plains Rail Trail was involved with Clean Up Australia Day, but their involvement was curtailed because they effectively had nothing to do. The Clare Valley Riesling Trail (in SA) is also litter-free. Possible solutions Thoughtful placement of rubbish bins at trailheads and between stops on the trail. Regular maintenance patrols by council staff or volunteers, or the trail manager. Installation of composting toilets where appropriate (note these will mostly be at trailheads located in towns/villages along the way - 25 to 30 km intervals recommended for rail-trails). There are already toilets at Torbay and Elleker halls.
Farm safety Farmers are concerned that farms are unsafe work places and people are being invited into such unsafe workplaces. Allied to this are concerns over potential danger to children in particular from unpredictable livestock.	Possible solutions Good design and appropriate information (as discussed above) will discourage people from going off the trails onto farm property and thus placing themselves in dangerous work environments or in close proximity to unpredictable livestock. Particular attention to the trail design issues around sites where agricultural buildings are close to the rail-trail (some of these solutions are discussed above in the section on crime prevention).
Trail Management issues
Funding for construction Who is going to pay for trail project?	Comment Many Federal and State Government funding programs are available for tourism/recreation projects such as trails. Numerous trails around Australia have been funded by major grants worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Major companies, such as mining companies, have contributed to trail projects. Volunteers and other low cost resources, including prison crews, can be brought into trail construction and maintenance projects. Entire construction costs for trails are rarely born by local government, therefore minimal impact on ratepayers (even though ratepayers do benefit directly from trails, and indirectly by visitors spending in the community).
Liability Who is liable for the safety of users Farmers have also raised the question of increased insurance risks and consequent increase in premiums for them for both public liability and general insurance (upgraded fire insurance and theft)	Comment In recent years public liability has become a major issue right across the community. Trails are not immune from concerns related to liability, or from the resulting issues. Indeed, liability - who is liable and who will pay - is often raised as a potential 'problem' with rail-trail projects. Possible solutions Primary project partners must take responsibility and ensure that their role is clear and unambiguous. Single agency/committee of management takes liability responsibility along the full length of the trail regardless of ownership. Farmers do not carry any additional liability. Effective signposting at trail heads and access points indicating trail regulations and trail use rules and user responsibilities. In respect of farmers' general insurance, this has not been an issue in other rail-trails. Fire management plans address the possible fire risk increase, while reports of theft of property have been virtually non-existent (as noted above).
Unauthorised trail users Many respondents expressed concerns over whether motor bikes would use the trail - they were opposed to this use and queried how the trail could be protected from this use. There were also some concerns over horse use.	Comments Unauthorised access to the trail by users of cars, motor bikes, etc, was stated as one the major concerns of adjoining landowners (it is also a concern of potential trail users). Problems experienced on the High Country Rail Trail (near Wodonga) with unauthorised car access were raised. Possible solutions Prohibit motor vehicle and motor bike use through motor vehicle exclusion barriers and effective signage at each road crossing. (See drawings in Appendices) On the Lilydale to Warburton Rail Trail, as with other rail-trails in Victoria, a standard gate configuration has been designed for use at all road crossings and trailheads. The design allows unimpeded access by walkers, cyclists, people in wheelchairs, etc. The design is such that motor bikes cannot squeeze past the gate posts of the narrow maze. Access by authorised vehicles, such as management vehicles, adjoining landowners (where needed) and emergency vehicles is gained through an adjoining (locked) gate. Installation of these gates and fences at all road crossings is recommended, as they will effectively prevent access to the trail by unwanted and unwelcome people who may be intent on vandalism or theft, etc. Encourage reporting of vehicle/bike registration numbers of illegal users. Experience on the Murray to the Mountains trail was that motorbikes tended to use the same sections at the same time - enforcement was therefore relatively easy. Further investigation of the High Country Rail Trail issue indicated that, in fact, the Committee of Management had initially determined not to include barrier gates at road crossings and placed trust in the community surrounding the trail (a cost saving decision). The community abused this trust - installation of gates is now being considered. In this project, installation of barrier gates is recommended from the commencement of the project.
Ongoing maintenance and costs of maintenance Who is responsible, who will pay, what effect will it have on rates?	Possible solutions Preparation of a regularly reviewed Trail Management Plan covering all maintenance issues (including fencing) prepared in advance of construction is critical. The plan will provide a clear definition of who is responsible for what. A "Friends of ..." group (or a Committee of Management) will usually assume responsibility for maintenance. Proper design and construction will minimise ongoing maintenance costs. Focus of maintenance - erosion, vegetation regrowth and signage damage. Division of maintenance into regular inspections and simple repairs and once/twice yearly programs undertaking larger jobs such as signage repairs, culvert cleaning or vegetation control. Hazard inspection program (to limit liability and to define maintenance activities).
Environmental issues Who is responsible for environmental effects of rail corridor? Environmental issues include construction concerns - noise impacts on wildlife and vegetation destruction on rail formation.	Comment Development of the rail-trail will not change the existing situation - the existing formation will be used. The project may in fact provide an opportunity to apply for funding to address any current environmental issue (such as poor drainage). Additional culverts under the trail (through embankments) could be installed during trail construction, thereby improving drainage and water flow. With respect to construction concerns, good trail design and appropriate construction techniques on a site-by-site basis can mitigate environmental concerns. Significant vegetation stands on the boundaries of the formation should be untouched - vegetation growing between the rails is likely to be removed during construction (although alternative routes could be found should there be major concerns).
Responsibility for policing trail	Possible solutions Volunteer or professional trail patrols ranging from informal monthly clean-ups and maintenance crews to daily patrols. Preparation of a regularly reviewed Trail Management Plan contains a clear definition of who is responsible for what. Police and/or Council ranger patrols (including on bikes); or by trail manager on regular patrols.
Road crossings can be dangerous	Possible solutions Good design of crossing allowing good sight lines and movements of people en masse (to avoid one at a time crossing). Good signage on both road and trail. Road crossing details to conform with Australian Traffic Engineering standards (Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice - Pt 14 - Bicycles - Austroads)