Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails – Daylesford to Macedon Ranges

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Final Report July 2013

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...... 3 1.1 Report Format ...... 3 2. Background ...... 4 3. Vision and Aspirations ...... 8 4. Target Markets ...... 9 5. Shire and Regional Tourism Priorities ...... 10 6. Significance to the Local / Regional Tourism Industry ...... 10 7. Current Cycle Touring Activity ...... 11 8. Competitive Strengths ...... 12 9. Estimated Tourism Demand and Economic Impact ...... 13 10. Other Benefits ...... 15 11. Land Tenure Studies ...... 16 12. Possible Trail Network Layout ...... 18 13. Staged Implementation ...... 36 14. Use of the Operational Rail Corridor ...... 38 15. Infrastructure Requirements ...... 41 16. Proposed Management Model ...... 46 17. Design Guidelines ...... 48 18. Estimated Development Costs ...... 55 19. Maintenance ...... 58 20. Trail Promotion and Marketing ...... 59 21. Potential Barriers ...... 62 22. Action Plan ...... 63 23. Conclusion ...... 66 24. Appendix 1: Clarkefield to Malmsbury ...... 67

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

1. Introduction The Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails project is a joint initiative of Hepburn Shire Council, Ballarat City Council, Macedon Ranges Shire Council, Central Goldfields Shire Council, Department of Planning and Community Development and Department of Transport.

Tracks and trails are recognized as important community assets that offer a broad range of physical activity participation opportunities, with a strong focus on recreational walking, bushwalking, running, cycling and mountain bike riding.

The Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails project provides an integrated and coordinate approach to major trail master planning and maximise opportunities for social, recreational and tourism benefits from each of the selected projects.

There are four individual projects that are considered in the Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails project, these are:

 The Ballarat - Maryborough Heritage Trail which aims to provide an on-road cycling connection utilising back-country roads between Maryborough to Ballarat (via Creswick and other small towns);  The Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail (DMRT), linking Daylesford to Woodend utilising a combination of rail corridor and (where required) alternative routes;  The Black Hill Mountain Bike (MTB) Park (e.g. municipal MTB Park); and  Creswick Trails initiative which includes a combination of mountain bike trails, shared trails and walking paths throughout the Creswick forest.

The aim of the project is to establish a strategic action plan for each of the four identified projects in order to guide further implementation of each, including identification of key priorities, indicative costs, benefits and ongoing management options.

This report relates to the Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail (DMRT) initiative.

1.1 Report Format The project reports have been presented in the following volumes:

 Volume 1: Summary Report o Description: Overall synopsis of key findings and summary action plan for each of the four selected projects.  Volume 2: Selected Project Reports (x4). o Description: Stand alone overview of key findings and directions for each individual project.  Volume 3: Background Reference Material o Description: Selected support material and reference documents, including design guidelines.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

2. Background The Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail is a proposed rail trail connecting Daylesford and Woodend, via the towns of Musk, Lyonville and Trentham. Like all rail trails, it proposes to re- use an old, decommissioned railway alignment to create a shared-use pathway for pedestrians and cyclists.

The proposed rail trail will cross over two municipalities, Hepburn Shire and Macedon Ranges Shire. The overall length of the proposed rail trail is approximately 43.1km. Around 26.5km (or 61.5% of the entire distance) is within the Hepburn Shire and 16.6km (or 38.5% of the entire distance) is within the Macedon Ranges Shire.

The proposed rail trail has been variously referred to as the Daylesford to Woodend Rail Trail, the Central Highlands Rail Trail and the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail in previous reporting. The title Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail (DMRT) is the name used in this report.

For Macedon Ranges Shire (MRS), the concept of the rail trail is broader than a connection from Daylesford to Woodend. Whilst this is the primary component under investigation as part of this project, MRS harbour bigger aspirations for use of the active rail corridor for shared-use pathway construction to provide off-road connections between major settlements within the Shire, i.e. between Clarkefield to Malmsbury, incorporating the section between Woodend-Carlsruhe Station which may form part of the DMRT. (Please refer to Appendix 1).

The following information is from the ‘Rail Trail Establishment Guidelines’ published by Rail Trails Australia. It defines a rail trail as:

‘…a trail that closely follows (preferably on) the formation of a former railway line or runs beside an active railway for the majority of its length. What sets rail trails apart from other trails are that they are gently graded and have a history. All should at least be suitable for walking and depending on the surface, can also be used by mountain bikes, hybrid bikes, prams and wheel chairs, and even four wheel “gophers”.'

As noted in the definition above, it is the gentle gradient of these former railways that make rail trails a popular option for recreational and commuter use.

In most cases in Australia, when a railway has been decommissioned the steel rails or tracks are removed, as these are reasonably valuable. In some cases the sleepers, which historically were made of wood (but are often now made of concrete), are also removed. In other cases, where the sleepers have been left in place, they were often stolen or have simply rotted away.

With the tracks and the sleepers removed, the underlying trackbed remains. The trackbed was generally surfaced with ballast, a type of quarried aggregate stone or gravel, laid over the underlying earth and levelled and compacted to ensure stability and proper drainage. On

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

some decommissioned railway lines, the ballast still remains in place, while on others it has been physically removed for other purposes or it has been covered over with earth, organic matter or vegetation.

It is the trackbed itself that is of most use and value for the purposes of a rail trail. In effect, all that needs to be done to build a rail trail on a former railway is to remove any vegetation, remove any infrastructure that remains (including tracks and sleepers if they remain), scrape back any organic matter or soil that has covered the trackbed and re-surface it with an appropriate material for the rail trail.

Some existing rail trails in Australia include short detours off the actual railway alignment. These detours may be necessary for a number of reasons:

 A former railway bridge is too unsafe to use and too expensive to replace.  The former railway land is not accessible – it may have been leased or sold and cannot legally be accessed.  There is a feature or attraction close by which it is desirable to include along the route.  Access to sections of active rail corridor (i.e. sections that continue to be used for rail services) may not be approved/achievable.

Key Stakeholders:

The Central Highlands Rail Trail Working Group (CHRTWG), a Trentham based group of volunteers, has been integral in driving the project this far. This group is passionate about seeing the old railway line reclaimed and turned into a recreational trail for both locals and visitors. CHRTWG have been working with the both Shire's and local communities to gather support for the project. They have lobbied and consulted with many stakeholders including:

 Trentham Residents and Traders Association, now trading as Friends Of Trentham Station;  Trentham Business and Tourism Group;  Railtrails Australia;  Bicycle Network;  Hepburn Shire Council;  Macedon Ranges Shire Council;  Daylesford Spa Country Railway;  VicTrack;  Department of Transport;  Tourism Hepburn;  Daylesford Macedon Ranges Regional Tourism Board;  Great Dividing Trail Association;  Conservation Volunteers;  Coliban Water;

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

 Blackwood Special Schools Outdoor Education Centre;  Community Groups; Lyonville, Tylden, Carlsruhe.

Key allies with CHRTWG in promoting the construction of the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail are Bicycle Network1 and Rail Trails Australia. Both organisations have provided assistance to CHRTWG and have been instrumental in advocating and preliminary planning for the project.

On their webpage (www.bicyclenetwork.com.au) Bicycle Network (BN) describe themselves as ‘…a charity that promotes the health of the community. We work with our supporters to get “More People Cycling More Often” and measurably grow the bike riding world’. Figure 1 and Figure 2 below show a brochure prepared by BN in early 2011. This brochure is intended to be printed on A3 paper and folded up into a small pocket-sized map. It shows the proposed route and discusses some of the benefits and highlights of the route.

Figure 1. Bicycle Network brochure (page 1)

1 Formerly known as Bicycle Victoria.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Figure 2. Bicycle Network (page 2)

Rail Trails Australia (RTA) is a not-for-profit organisation which works for the development and promotion of a rail trail network Australia-wide. RTA have published guidebooks for rail trails in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania which promote the concept of rail trails and facilitate their use. On their website (railtrails.org.au) they state:

‘Rail Trails Australia is part of a growing international movement to develop and promote rail trails. Similar groups operate in Canada, the USA, New Zealand, southern Africa and the European Union.’

Furthermore, they list the following points, which summarise the type of support they can provide to communities wishing to develop rail trails:

 Engaging the community in supporting trail development.  Advocacy to all levels of government.  Expanding and marketing the network.  Supporting committees of management.  Sponsoring conferences and workshops to enhance skills and assist new rail trail development.  Developing technical documents to assist groups setting up and maintaining rail trails.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

3. Vision and Aspirations The tourism vision for the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail is for a family friendly, outdoor experience of cycling through the bushland, hills and pastoral land between Woodend and Daylesford (or vice versa) preferably utilising the designated rail corridors2. Cyclists will be able to enjoy a variety of local produce outlets, mineral springs, cafes and wineries at Woodend, Daylesford and a number of interesting villages and points of interest dotted in between.

The trail will take around 3-3.5 hours to ride from Woodend Station to Daylesford (around 44 km), cyclists will be able to conduct a return trip in a day from Woodend or Daylesford, or cycle one way, stay overnight at the end of the trail and return the next day. Alternatively, users may choose to ride small sections of the trail and experience more of the natural and cultural attractions along the way and stay at local villages. Finally, users could base themselves at one of the smaller villages and conduct shorter return trips over a two-three day period, e.g. Trentham to Daylesford on one day, and Trentham to Woodend the next (this way luggage and vehicles can remain at the same accommodation property for the duration of the stay).

With the wide variety of tourism experiences along the route, cyclists could enjoy a food and wine themed cycle, or explore heritage features of the area, or conduct a ride that focuses on natural attractions, flora and fauna. Or a mix of all of these.

The trail can be used by walkers and runners staying at any of the towns enroute. (A survey undertaken for the Lilydale-Warburton Rail Trail in 2011 indicated that 15% of trail users walked the trail.) The trail would be accessible to people with a disability, as well as those with prams and walking frames, etc.

The trail could be used as a base to host a range of community events and activities, such as family days, fun-runs etc, as well as organised group rides.

The proximity of the trail to Melbourne (only 1¼ hours to Woodend), beautiful scenery, range of food and wine options, as well as the natural and cultural features will all be key drivers in the success of the product from a tourism perspective.

Complementary experiences:

The popular towns of Woodend and Daylesford have an extensive range of visitor facilities and services, including accommodation options, restaurants, markets and retail outlets. Trentham also has a considerable range of visitor services and a small selection of quality accommodation. There is a Farmers Market at Trentham on the 3rd Saturday of every month which could provide an added incentive to visit.

2 Subject to formal approval and appropriate lease/licensing with Vic Track and other relevant authorities.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Smaller villages such as Bullarto and Lyonville have several accommodation options. Musk has a small, excellent selection of wineries, local produce outlets and mineral springs. Tylden has a general store and café for topping up on supplies.

There is potential to package a ride on the rail trail with a trip on the historic Daylesford Spa Country Railway between Daylesford and Musk with 6 trains departing Daylesford every Sunday.

There is a V/line train service from Melbourne to Woodend (Bendigo line) which runs hourly or more frequently during peak periods from Monday to Friday, and almost hourly on weekends. Cyclists could enjoy a car-free experience of the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail.

It is worth reiterating that for Macedon Ranges Shire (MRS), the concept of the rail trail is broader than a connection from Daylesford to Woodend. Whilst this is the primary component under investigation as part of this project, MRS harbour bigger aspirations for use of the active rail corridor for shared-use pathway construction to provide off-road connections between major settlements within the Shire, i.e. between Clarkefield to Malmsbury, incorporating the section between Woodend-Carlsruhe Station which may form part of the DMRT.

4. Target Markets Research undertaken for other rail trails in Victoria indicates that the significant majority of visitors to rail trails tend to be Victorians, but there is often a small percentage of interstate and international visitors as well.

Due to the proximity of Woodend and Daylesford to Melbourne (only 1 ¼ hours Melbourne- Woodend), it is likely that the capital city will be the primary source of visitors to the rail trail, and ensure its frequent use.

Tourism Segments:  Family and friends groups.  Organised groups such as recreational cycling clubs  Couples and individuals (often 50+ years).  Nature-based visitors, including walkers and runners.

Visitor Origin:  Melbourne.  Regional Victoria, especially Ballarat and Bendigo.  Potentially some interstate and international cyclists.

With increasing interest in environmentally-friendly holidays, and the potential to travel to Woodend by train for a car-free holiday, it is likely that the rail trail will particularly appeal to

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

this growth sector. It may therefore be useful to identify accommodation and other tourism businesses that are operating / designed using sustainability principals to promote this to the market segment.

Due to the availability of quality boutique accommodation in Woodend and Daylesford, and the variety of food and wine, and nature-based experiences enroute, the trail has the potential to appeal to the interstate market. Experiences could be packaged and promoted through regional marketing initiatives.

5. Shire and Regional Tourism Priorities While there is no mention of developing the rail trail in the Destination Daylesford Strategic Tourism Plan and Action Plan 2008-2018, it is listed as a priority project in the Hepburn Shire Walking and Cycling Strategy, 2011.

Hepburn Shire’s Economic Development Business Plan, 2012, also states that the Council supports “the development of various walking and cycling trails in the Shire including the Domino Trail and the Daylesford-Woodend rail trail.”

While the trail is not listed in the Macedon Ranges Tourism Strategic Plan, 2011, Council has indicated its support to examine the potential and feasibility of the trail.

The strategic plan of Daylesford and Macedon Ranges Tourism (DMR), which includes both Hepburn and Macedon Ranges Shires, states that the primary marketing and product development focus for the region is the spa and wellbeing sector. Discussions with DMR have indicated that promoting nature-based activities that support health and wellbeing, such as the rail trail, would align with these marketing directions.

6. Significance to the Local / Regional Tourism Industry Consultation undertaken for the project has indicated that there is a lack of longer distance off-road and easy cycling trails in / around Woodend and Daylesford to cater for a range of markets. Existing off-road cycling trails are around 30 minutes long and often do not meet cycling tourists’ needs. The family market seeks safe trails with easy gradients for children, while other segments are particularly seeking a longer off-road cycling experience.

The proposed rail trail will provide a critical piece of infrastructure for the family market which will assist the towns of Daylesford, Trentham, Woodend and other villages enroute to attract and retain families in their townships. This will provide benefits to a wide range of tourism businesses and the general community.

Daylesford and Macedon Ranges Tourism has recognised the economic potential of the rail trail and its capacity to support the region’s towns and villages. The organisation would

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

include it in marketing campaigns that target the higher yielding Socially Aware and Visible Achiever family market segments (please refer to Volume 3: Background Reference Material for more details on these segments).

The trail will also be conveniently located for visitors to Kyneton to enjoy, thus spreading the economic benefits more broadly than just townships located on the main route.

Consultation with Bicycle Network has indicated that they consider this rail trail proposal a top priority rail trail campaign outside Metropolitan Melbourne, and is a project of State-wide significance.

7. Current Cycle Touring Activity While there is no statistical data on cycle tourism activity in the Hepburn and Macedon Ranges Shire, consultation for the project and other anecdotal evidence indicates there is a strong cycling culture in both Shires.

Wombat Mountain Bicycle Club based at Woodend is very active in the local community and has built an extensive series of mountain bike (MTB) trails in the Wombat State Forest that attracts around 300 riders a week from outside the region. However, these trails are of the more extreme, challenging variety that would not suit the inexperienced family cycling market.

There are a number of major cycling events in the Macedon Ranges Shire, often involving road cycling, including the MAD Ride (the oldest recreational bike ride in Victoria), Ride For Bikes, the Mount Macedon Challenge, the Gisborne Rotary – Macedon Ranges Challenge, and the Jayco Herald Sun Tour. There are also many other cycling events organised by community groups and private businesses.

The Macedon Ranges Cycling Club has a long and proud history in the region. Racing was conducted in the middle of the Kyneton Race Course from 1898. The club continues to conduct a range of track and road cycling events throughout the Shire and there may be opportunities for possible future use of the proposed Rail Trail for selected activities.

Daylesford also has a strong cycling culture using networks of sealed and unsealed roads, which are supported by cyclists using the Goldfields Track. The local bike shop in Daylesford is very busy, particularly on weekends, responding to requests for information about cycling trails and facilities. They also conduct social rides in the area. The lack of sealed shoulders on local roads makes road cycling less safe for inexperienced riders and much less appealing for family markets.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

In summary:

 Staff at visitor information centres and bike shops in Woodend and Daylesford all state there is unmet demand for an off-road, easy and accessible cycle trail that provides several hours of enjoyable riding.  Inquiries come primarily from the family market, but also middle-aged and more senior couples and individuals.  Inquiries for bike hire are on the rise in both Woodend and Daylesford.  The Domino Trail at Trentham is a 3-hour walking circuit that incorporates parts of the railway easement that would be included in the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail. While no visitor statistics are available, the Visitor Information Centre staff at Trentham have stated that it is a very popular experience, particularly on weekends with families, groups and couples.

8. Competitive Strengths The key elements of the rail trail that will support its success are:

 Woodend is only 1 ¼ hours from Melbourne and accessible by train; Daylesford is only 1 ½ hours from Melbourne.  The splendid scenery through undulating hills, paddocks and bushland of the Central Highlands which is superior to many other rail trail destinations within 1½ hours of Melbourne.  Popular tourism townships located at each end of the trail, and interesting, ‘characterful’ villages and small businesses in between that provide unique visitor experiences.  A ready family market at each end of the trail and a lack of family-oriented activities.

Potential Linkages with Existing or Proposed Trails:

The Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail could potentially link with the Goldfields Track providing a cycling experience all the way to Ballarat (and potentially onto the Ballarat-Skipton Rail Trail) or Bendigo.

However, anecdotal feedback about the Goldfields Track indicates that the quality of trail in many sections is much more rugged than a rail trail and may attract a different type of cycling market. It is reasonable to assume that there will be a small level of overlap in the markets of the two trails but not necessarily a full complement.

Mountain bikers are unlikely to be interested in the rail trail as it would not provide a sufficiently challenging experience. As a result, there is unlikely to be much market demand for connections to the proposed Creswick Trails network or Black Hill MTB Park.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Potential Linkages with Existing Services:

As identified above, an experience of the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail could also include a trip on the Daylesford Spa Country Railway on Sundays. Packages could be developed to encourage this.

It would also be valuable to promote the connections to the V/line train service in Woodend to encourage visitors to take a car-free trip.

Hepburn Shire Council and Moorabool Shire provide access to a “Trail Rider” (all terrain wheelchairs) that can be booked in advance and picked up from the Daylesford Visitor Information Centre so the trail can be enjoyed by people with a significant physical disability.

9. Estimated Tourism Demand and Economic Impact NB: Please refer to Volume 3: Background Reference Material for comprehensive details, methodology and assumptions used in estimating Usage of the Proposed Trails, and Economic Impacts of the Proposed Trails.

Findings of the estimated demand and economic impact analysis of the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail include:

 Local residents in the Shires of Hepburn and Macedon Ranges are expected to conduct between 4,460 to 6,690 visits on the trail per annum.  Between 31,300 and 62,580 visitors are expected to use the trail per annum.  The trail is expected to generate between $2 million and $4.1 million per annum in direct and indirect expenditure, which would support between 25 and 51 new jobs in the local economy.

New Tourism Business Opportunities:

While it is anticipated that many people interested in cycling the route would bring their own bicycles, a proportion of the market may require bike hire when they arrive in Woodend, Daylesford or Trentham, or organise bike hire in advance. As the popularity of the trail develops, it is anticipated that there would be enough demand to sustain the establishment of new bike hire services at Daylesford and possibly Trentham, potentially as an extension to an existing business. Woodend Cycles already operates a bike hire service and would be prepared to increase the range of bikes to suit rail trail cycling if the trail was developed.

Daylesford, Woodend, Trentham and nearby Kyneton, currently have a wide range of accommodation and other visitor services with the rail trail likely to provide patronage to support existing businesses.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Camping is occasionally permitted in Trentham at the Trentham Sports Ground (subject to Reserve Committee of Management approval). The rail trail may provide a new market to support expansion of camping activities, however consideration will need to be given to relevant approvals and regulations.

A business in the area has expressed interest in operating a shuttle service for the rail trail to collect / drop off riders, bikes and luggage, and to operate as a rescue service when needed. Packages could be developed that combine bike hire, shuttle service, luggage transfer, accommodation and possibly meals. This would be particularly useful for interstate markets.

Consultation for the project has also found that the rail trail would be likely to inspire the development of new community based cycling and sporting events.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

10. Other Benefits Aside from the anticipated tourism and economic benefits outlined in Section 15, the proposed rail trail is also likely to facilitate a range of social, recreational and health benefits for residents and visitors.

Social:

 Participating in physical activities brings people together; it enhances opportunities for social connections, gatherings and informal interaction.  Encouraging use of the rail trail will help address social isolation, disadvantage (i.e. through provision of a low cost, informal physical activity participation opportunity) and enhance community connectedness, pride and belonging.  Facilitating community events around the trail will provide opportunities for community gatherings, volunteerism and positive social outcomes.  Attracting additional tourism expenditure will support local businesses and encourage community pride and secondary investment.  Providing physical and social connections between small towns and villages.

Recreational:

 The proposed trail will provide a low cost, informal physical activity participation opportunity for residents and visitors.  Walking, cycling, running and bush walking all rank in the top-ten most popular physical activities undertaken by Victorian adults aged 15 years and over3. Development of the rail trail will facilitate opportunities for increased participation.

Health Benefits:

 There are a range of mental and physical health benefits associated with regular contact with nature and participation in physical activities, including (but not limited to) reduced incidences of: o Cardio vascular disease, o Cardiopulmonary disease, o Obesity, o Diabetes, o High blood pressure, o Anxiety, and o A range of mental illnesses.

3 Australian Sports Commission, Exercise Recreation and Sport Survey (ERASS), 2010.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

11. Land Tenure Studies In April 2010, Hepburn Shire Council prepared a report titled ‘Railway Corridor Land Tenure Summary - Creswick to Daylesford Line & Daylesford to Carlsruhe Line’. This report was prepared for internal purposes and identifies land within the railway corridor that:

 Is owned by VicTrack (State Government Authority);  Is subject to a VicTrack Lease (owned by VicTrack but leased to external party);  Is not subject to a VicTrack Lease (vacant);  Has been disposed of (sold or gifted).

The report summarises the current situation as follows:

‘The Creswick to Daylesford and Daylesford to Carlsruhe rail corridor is currently being used for a wide range of purposes by a number of different individuals and organisations. The following key points deliver a summarised representation of the corridor:

 Approximately 30% of the corridor has been disposed of (sold or gifted);  Approximately 15% of the corridor is still “classified” as an Operational Tourist Railway;  VicTrack Reserves contain a combination of “leased” and “unleased” land.’

While this report deals with some complex land tenure issues, the key messages that can be drawn from this report are:

 All the rail corridor from Daylesford heading east along the line to the edge of the Hepburn Shire boundary is still owned by VicTrack (that is, none of it has been disposed of);  A portion of the rail corridor is still in use today as a tourist railway (Daylesford to Bullarto, operated by Daylesford Spa Country Railway);  The majority of the line is currently under lease. The report states that ‘The majority of these leases do not have a documented expiry dates and are continuous with an automated monthly term renewal process set in place by VicTrack.’

In March 2012, Macedon Ranges Shire Council prepared a similar land tenure report looking at the eastern end of the Carlsruhe to Daylesford line, where it passes through the Macedon Ranges Shire. This report was titled ‘Railway Corridor Land Tenure Summary – Carlsruhe to Daylesford Line’.

The key messages from this report were:

 All the rail corridor from Carlsruhe Station heading west along the line to the edge of the Macedon Ranges Shire boundary is still owned by VicTrack (that is, none of it has been disposed of);

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

 The majority of the line is currently vacant (not under lease). In many cases, it appears that the buffer areas on either side of the original railway line have been leased, but the central strip (where the actual railway line would have been located) remains vacant. This will require further confirmation and discussions with the adjacent leaseholder and landowner.

Figure 3 below shows a typical scenario for how the VicTrack lease parcels are structured, with a central strip type covering the actual former railway alignment and a wider strip on either side, presumably as a buffer between the former railway and the adjacent private land.

Figure 3. Typical leasehold arrangements of Vic Track land (courtesy of Macedon Ranges Shire Council)

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

12. Possible Trail Network Layout The project team visited the site on a number of occasions to investigate the proposed route on the ground. Sections of the proposed route were investigated on foot, by bicycle and by vehicle.

It should be stated that the entire route was not physically inspected by the project team as part of this project. At this early stage in the development of the proposed DMRT, much of the land proposed to be used is still held under lease by a range of leaseholders (primarily for agricultural purposes), who have not been formally consulted about the proposal. As such, the project team could not gain access to large sections of the proposed route.

Even where the VicTrack land has not been formally leased and is listed as vacant (see previous discussion), fencing does not always reflect this status. In many cases, adjacent landholders have fenced across land that is technically vacant VicTrack leasehold land, effectively occupying it and preventing access.

Where the project team was able to gain access to the proposed corridor, it appears to be in good condition. In some areas heavy vegetation growth has covered the trackbed, but in the majority of examples, the corridor passes through open farmland and the trackbed is covered only with grass. Some areas were observed where the sleepers are still in place, but this appears to be the exception, rather than the rule.

At least two large bridges were observed that will require further investigation, including preliminary assessment and design by engineers. These were the Coliban River bridge and the Little Coliban River bridge. Other bridges may be present along the route that will need to be assessed by engineers and potentially rebuilt or refurbished, but as the entire route could not be inspected, the exact number of bridges remains unclear at this time.

The area through which the rail trail passes is a mix of Eucalypt forests and open farmland. It has good scenic values and offers plenty of opportunities for sightseeing and tourism along the way. The main tourism facilities (cafes, restaurants, accommodation, attractions) are clustered at the three main towns of Daylesford, Trentham and Woodend, but there are also many attractions along the route. The terrain is mostly gently rolling hills, becoming flatter towards the eastern end of the route.

The route will cross over many minor roads and a handful of major, busy roads. All road crossings will require appropriate signage and infrastructure, but the major road crossings will need to be treated with extra caution and comply with relevant Australian Standards and Vic Roads requirments.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Overall Route:

For the purposes of this project, the proposed rail trail will be considered in five different sections4. The sections are:

Section Name Distance Approx. % in each LGA Section 1 Daylesford to Bullarto 9.4km 100% HSC (using the rail corridor) Section 2 Bullarto to Lyonville 3.7km 100% HSC Section 3 Lyonville to Trentham 6.3km 100% HSC Section 4 Trentham to Carlsruhe Station 17.4km 44% HSC, 56% MRSC Section 5 Carlsruhe Station to Woodend 7.0km 100% MRSC (using the rail corridor) Total 43.8km 27.07km or 62% is HSC. 16.68km or 38% is MRSC

These sections are shown in Map 1 – each section is given a different colour, as indicated in the map legend.

These sections were chosen based on the characteristics of each section – the current use, the current land status, the ease of construction etc.

Note that the route follows two operational railway lines – the Spa Country Railway, a tourist railway that operates weekend services (priamirly Sunday's) between Daylesford and Bullarto and the busy Melbourne – Bendigo railway between Carlsruhe Station and Woodend.

Map 1. Overall Route of the Daylesford Macedon Rail Trail

4 NB: Section numbering is not an indication of priority. Potential staging of implementation for each Section is discussed in the following chapter.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Section 1 – Daylesford To Bullarto:

Start Daylesford Station Finish Bullarto Station Distance via railway line 9.4km Elevation at start 616m Elevation at end 761m Estimated number of road crossings 8 LGA 100% HSC

Section 1 of the proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail begins at Daylesford and extends southeast to Bullarto. It is 9.4km and climbs 145m over the entire distance. This section of the former railway is still operational. The Daylesford Spa Country Railway currently operates weekly tourist services on this existing rail line. Daylesford Spa Country Railway lease the land from VicTrack.

Given the current operational use of the rail corridor, the actual railway trackbed is not available for the construction of the proposed rail trail as it is in other places along the line.

This leaves the following three broad options for this section of the proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail:

 Option 1 – Construct a trail adjacent to the operational train track, within the railway corridor leased by the Spa Country Railway from VicTrack.  Option 2 – Identify an alternate route, using existing roads, tracks or paths, completely outside the railway corridor.  Option 3 – Exclude this section of the rail corridor from the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail altogether.

Option 1, constructing a new trail adjacent to the train tracks and within the railway corridor remains the preferred long-term option as it is the shortest route (approximately the same as the actual railway at 9.4km), it is the most consistent with the overall concept of a rail trail, it provides the alignment with the most gentle gradients and minimises potential conflicts with road vehicles. However, it is acknowledged that this option is not preferred by the Spa Country Rail group due to a range of operational, management and safety factors that would have significant impacts on their capacity to continue to operate the Tourist Railway (it is worth noting that the Spa Country Railway is a designated Historic Museum in Victoria, i.e. not just for the locomotives and carriages, but rather the entire rail corridor from Daylesford to Bullarto.

Option 2, to identify an alternate route outside the rail corridor, using existing roads, tracks or paths, has been investigated and two possible routes have been identified. These will be discussed in greater detail below. Unfortunately, neither of the two alternate routes

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

represent ideal alignments, both are substantially longer and include steeper gradients than the railway corridor.

Option 3 to start/end the rail trail at Bullarto (potentially connecting to passenger services run by the Spa Country Rail) was also considered by the project team. However, it was agreed that Daylesford is the tourism centrepiece of the area, with the majority of accommodation and attractions, and the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail needs to start/finish there.

Map 2. Section 1. Daylesford Station to Bullarto Station

The two different alternate routes are described below.

Alternate Route 1 is 12.4km long. The average gradient is approximately 3.2% and there are some steeper hills up to 10%. The route is described as follows (starting at Daylesford and travelling east towards Bullarto):

 0 – 2.0km, Daylesford-Trentham Rd – Starting from the corner of the Midland Highway and the Daylesford-Trentham Rd. Construct path adjacent to the Daylesford-Trentham Rd. Road reserve is quite wide on northern side of the road, with gentle gradients and nice

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

scenery (see Figure 4 below). This path would also serve as a link to the Daylesford Cemetery.  2.0km – 4.2km, Leitches Creek Rd – Use existing sealed road.  4.2km – 12.4km, Osborne Rd – Use existing unsealed road. Finish at corner of Daylesford- Trentham Rd and South Bullarto Rd.

Figure 4. Broad road reserve beside the Daylesford-Trentham Rd

Alternate Route 2 is 12.3km long. The average gradient is approximately 2.9% and there are some steeper hills up to 10%. The route is described as follows (starting at Daylesford and travelling east towards Bullarto):

 0 - 2.4km, East St – Start at corner of East St and Daylesford-Trentham Rd. Use existing sealed road;  2.4km – 3.7km, Wombat Dam Rd – Use existing sealed road;  3.7km – 5.9km, Coopers Lane – Use existing unsealed road;  5.9km – 6.7km, School Rd – Use existing unsealed road;  6.7km – 8.2km, Daylesford-Trentham Rd – Use existing sealed road;  8.2km – 10.8km, Cantillons Rd – Use existing unsealed/sealed road;  10.8km – 11.7km, Mossops Rd – Use existing sealed/unsealed road;  11.7km – 12.3km, South Bullarto Rd – Use existing sealed road. Finish at corner of Daylesford-Trentham Rd and South Bullarto Rd.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Table 1 below provides a high-level assessment of each option having regard to user safety, likely capital and operational costs, amenity/user experience, consistency with the concept of a Rail Trail (including product positioning) as well as other advantages or disadvantages of each.

Table 1. Section 1 – Route Option Assessment

Indicative Ongoing Consistency with User Safety Amenity/User Ranking and Route Capital Cost Maintenance Rail Trail Concept Other Other (High, Medium, Experience Summary Option (High, (High, (High, Medium, Advantages Disadvantages Low) (Comment) Comment Medium, Low) Medium, Low) Low) Within the High Very high Medium High High Most direct Requires Council Preferred active rail Assumes Including trail Including The Daylesford Preferred option and shortest acceptance of Development of corridor. appropriate safety construction, regular Spa Country for promoting an route. legal responsibly a shared use measures fencing, road inspection of Railway has a integrated Rail Limited for land pathway within including fencing crossings, fencing, minimal Trail tourism grade management the active rail and road possible low vegetation operating product. variation and corridor remains crossings. level bridges management, schedule and adds to ease maintenance. the 'best fit' over small bridge has good scenic of cycling. Requires option, however creeks and crossings and and historic Off-road, comprehensive it is also likely to boggy areas path repairs as appeal. It minimal pre-planning and attract the and planning required. provides the conflict with formal approval highest capital costs. opportunity for vehicles. process from rail cost and require users to use the Appears to operators / acceptance of rail trail in one be adequate authorities. ongoing direction and width in the maintenance catch the existing and tourist railway corridor to management in the other. establish the responsibilities trail. by Council. This option will also require the most complex pre-planning and approvals prior to proceeding. Alternate Low Medium Low Medium Low Creation of a Approximately Next Preferred Route 1 Mostly follows A 2km long Largely limited Although this shared use 3km longer than This option (magenta) open roads, and section of to periodic route trail adjacent the railway provides limited requires crossing shared-use road repairs maximises use to the corridor. appeal to likely of the busy trail is and scheduled of relatively Daylesford- Steeper than the target markets Daylesford- proposed to maintenance. quite roads, Rail Trentham Rd railway corridor. due to on-road Trentham Rd at be constructed Trail cyclists to the Requires riders sections and Bullarto. beside the (i.e. target Daylesford to cross over the interface with Daylesford- market) prefer Cemetery Daylesford- traffic. However Trentham Rd. off-road trails. would serve Trentham Rd at if an off-road Some sections a wider Bullarto. sealed path of existing community Includes could be roads are quite purpose than substantial established rough and just the sections of open within the road steep. intended roads. reserve of the Enjoyable Daylesford Daylesford- scenery and Macedon Trentham Rd some Ranges Rail this may help interesting Trail; overcome this tourism Route passes issue and attractions. close by the provide a trail Daylesford that connects Cider Tavern Daylesford and Leitches township with

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Conclusion:

Despite the likely high capital cost and requirement to address management and operational factors posed by the ongoing operation of the Spa Country Railway, development of a shared pathway within the active rail corridor remains the 'best-fit' in terms of a strategic rail trail tourism product for Section 1.

Alternate Route 1 utilising the Daylesford-Trentham Road reserve may present a viable alternative, however this is also likely to attract moderate capital cost and requires more detailed investigation beyond the scope of this project. This route may also offer broader benefits for the local community by providing a safe cycling/walking connection to the local cemetery.

Alternate Route 1 should be pursued as the short-medium term solution for this section, or until such a time as detailed planning and stakeholder agreement can be reached to utilise the Spa Country Railway corridor for establishment of a shared use pathway adjacent to the active line.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Section 2 – Bullarto to Lyonville:

Start Bullarto Station Finish Lyonville Distance via Railway Line 3.7km Elevation at start 761m Elevation at end 736m Estimated number of road crossings 1 LGA 100% HSC

Section 2, from Bullarto Station to Lyonville Station is 3.7km long via the railway alignment. It passes through a mix of forests and farmland and descends 25m over the entire length of the section.

The Hepburn Shire Council’s ‘Railway Corridor Land Tenure Summary’ shows the entire section as being leased to the ‘Friends of Trentham Station’ group.

Field observations suggest that some sections of the rail corridor are being occupied by adjacent landholders without a formal lease in place.

Map 3: Section 2 Bullarto Station to Lyonville

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Section 3 – Lyonville to Trentham:

Start Lyonville Finish Trentham Station Distance via Railway Line 6.3km Elevation at start 741m Elevation at end 697m Estimated number of road crossings 2 LGA 100% HSC

Section 3, Lyonville to Trentham, is 6.3km long. It has a gentle downhill profile, descending 44m over the entire distance. The Hepburn Shire Council’s ‘Railway Corridor Land Tenure Summary’ shows the entire section as being leased by the ‘Friends of Trentham Station’ group.

Map 4. Section 3 Lyonville to Trentham

This section incorporates the existing Domino Trail. Section of the Domino Trail have recently been upgraded to improve functionality and use. A map identifying the Domino Trail is included on the following page.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Figure 5. Domino Trail map

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Section 4 – Trentham to Carlsruhe Station:

Start Trentham Station Finish Carlsruhe Station Distance via Railway Line 17.4km Elevation at start 697m Elevation at end 553m Estimated number of road crossings 7 (including two major road crossings – Trentham Rd and Tylden Woodend Rd) LGA 44% HSC, 56% MRSC

At 17.4km, Section 4 is the longest section of the proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail. It has a gentle overall descent, dropping 144m over the entire distance.

The Hepburn Shire Council’s ‘Railway Corridor Land Tenure Summary’ and the Macedon Ranges Shire Council’s ‘Railway Corridor Land Tenure Summary’ show the majority of the land as being vacant. The only leased sections are located:

 Just east of Trentham Station.  Near Fern Hill Station, on either side of James Lane.

Field observations show the majority of this land located in open farming country, with gentle rolling hills and an open, sunny aspect. Some sections of the railway alignment appear to be densely overgrown with vegetation (including blackberries and other weeds). In many areas the railway alignment appears to have been incorporated into the nearby farmlands, despite the actual status of the land being vacant.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Map 5: Section 4 Trentham to Carlsruhe Station

NB: Two major road crossings required: Trentham Rd and Tylden Woodend Rd.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Section 5 – Carlsruhe Station to Woodend Station:

Start Carlsruhe Station Finish Woodend Station Distance via Railway Line 7.0km Elevation at start 553m Elevation at end 566m Estimated number of road crossings 3 (including one major road crossing – Tylden Woodend Rd) LGA 100% MRSC (using the rail corridor)

Section 5 of the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail runs from Carlsruhe Station to Woodend Station. It is approximately 7.0km long. It is mostly flat, with a slight uphill climb of 13m towards the end at Woodend. The existing high speed Melbourne-Bendigo railway operates along this alignment. Train services can currently travel at speeds of up to 130km/h, however authorities plan for this to increase to 160km/h. There are no other examples of Rail Trails in Victoria adjacent to such high speed rail corridors.

As with Section 1, given the ongoing active rail services, the trackbed is obviously not available for the construction of the rail trail. Therefore alternative options include:

 Option 1 – Construct a trail adjacent to the operational rail line, within the operational Melbourne-Bendigo railway corridor;  Option 2 – Identify an alternate route, using existing roads, tracks or paths, completely outside the railway corridor;  Option 3 – Exclude this section from the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail altogether.

As with Section 1, Option 1 which involves constructing a new trail adjacent to the train tracks and within the railway corridor is the preferred position. Once again it is the shortest route (approximately 6.98km), it fits best within the concept of a rail trail and it provides the alignment with the most gentle gradients. Furthermore, initial visual inspections (although constrained by lack of access to the entire corridor) and review of aerial images suggests that there is likely to be adequate width within the corridor to meet authority requirements for buffer zones and safety infrastructure. Figure 6 on the next page shows a photo of the typical buffer area beside the Melbourne to Bendigo rail line.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Figure 6. Buffer between Melbourne to Bendigo rail line and adjacent private property

Option 2 involves using existing roads, tracks or paths. A range of possible alternative route options have been considered with the following three explored in more detail. It is acknowledged that there may be quite a number of possible route configurations, including combinations of the three investigated. Each of the three main options are discussed in greater detail below.

Option 3 to exclude this section from the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail altogether is not consistent with the core objectives of Macedon Ranges Shire Council for this project and is therefore not accepted. Macedon Ranges Shire Council has indicated that a long term aspiration to one day have a shared use path within the rail corridor linking Woodend to Kyneton for use as a recreational and commuter pathway by local residents and tourists. Section 5 of the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail will form a large portion of this potential future route.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Map 6: Section 5 Carlsruhe Station to Woodend Station, including alternative route options.

The three different alternate routes are described below.

Alternate Route 1 is 9.3km long. The average gradient is approximately 2.75%. The route is as follows (starting at Carlsruhe Station and travelling south towards Woodend):

 0km – 0.18km, Carlsruhe Station Rd – Starting from the Carlsruhe Station, on the south side of the Melbourne Bendigo Railway, where the Daylesford line comes in. Use existing unsealed road;  0.18km – 0.42km, Thompsons Lane – Use existing unsealed road;  0.42km – 1.33km, Dunbars Rd – Use existing unsealed road. Very rough. Becomes Crows Rd;  1.33km – 4.73km, Crows Rd – Use existing unsealed/sealed road;  4.73km – 4.98km, Tylden-Woodend Rd. Construct path adjacent to the Tylden-Woodend Rd. Road reserve is quite wide, with gentle gradients and sparse vegetation;  4.98km – 6.41km, Harpers Rd. Use existing unsealed road;  6.41km – 8.85km, Mahoneys Rd. Use existing unsealed/sealed road;

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

 8.85km – 9.27km, Corinella Rd. Use existing sealed road. Finish at Woodend Train Station.

Alternate Route 2 is 8.83km long. The average gradient is approximately 2.1%. This route follows the same route as Alternate Route 1 for the first 2.7km. The route is as follows (starting at Carlsruhe Station and travelling south towards Woodend):

 0km – 0.18km, Carlsruhe Station Rd – Starting from the Carlsruhe Station, on the south side of the Melbourne Bendigo Railway, where the Daylesford line comes in. Use existing unsealed road;  0.18km – 0.42km, Thompsons Lane – Use existing unsealed road;  0.42km – 1.33km, Dunbars Rd – Use existing unsealed road. Very rough. Becomes Crows Rd;  1.33km – 2.66km, Crows Rd. Use existing unsealed road;  2.66km – 4.83km, Russell Rd. Use existing sealed road;  4.83km – 8.73km, Calder Highway. Use existing sealed road. Alternately, construct path adjacent to the Calder Highway. Road reserve is quite wide in many places, with extensive tree plantings (avenue of honour). This path would also serve as a broader community facility;  8.73km – 8.83km, Forest St. Use existing sealed road. Finish at Woodend Visitor Information Centre.

Alternate Route 3 is 8.6km long. The average gradient is approximately 2.1%. The route is as follows (starting at Carlsruhe Station and travelling south towards Woodend):

 0 – 3.17km, Carlsruhe Station Rd – Starting from the Carlsruhe Station, on the south side of the Melbourne Bendigo Railway, where the Daylesford line comes in. Use existing unsealed road;  3.17km – 8.6km, Tylden-Woodend Rd. Construct path adjacent to the Tylden-Woodend Rd. Road reserve is quite wide, with gentle gradients and sparse vegetation. Finish at Woodend Visitor Information Centre.

Table 2 below provides a high-level assessment of each option having regard to user safety, likely capital and operational costs, amenity/user experience, consistency with the concept of a Rail Trail (including product positioning) as well as other advantages or disadvantages of each.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Table 2: Section 5 Route Options Assessment Indicative Ongoing Consistency with User Safety Amenity/User Route Capital Cost Maintenance Rail Trail Concept Other Other Summary (High, Medium, Experience Option (High, Medium, (High, Medium, (High, Medium, Advantages Disadvantages Comment Low) (Comment) Low) Low) Low) Within the High Very high Medium Concern about High Most direct and Requires Council Development of a active rail Assumes Including trail Including the appeal of Preferred option shortest route. acceptance of shared use corridor. appropriate construction, regular cycling / for promoting an Limited grade legal responsibly pathway within safety measures fencing, road inspection of walking integrated Rail variation adds for land the active rail including fencing crossings, fencing, adjacent to Trail tourism to ease of management corridor remains and road bridge over vegetation trains travelling product. cycling. and the 'best fit' crossings. Campaspe River management, at speeds up to Off-road, maintenance. option, however and planning bridge 160km/p.h. minimal conflict Requires it is also likely to costs. crossings and with vehicles. comprehensive attract the path repairs Appears to be pre-planning highest capital as required. adequate width and formal cost and require in the existing approval acceptance of corridor to process from ongoing establish the rail operators / maintenance and trail. authorities. management May establish a responsibilities by precedent for Council. additional trail This option will connections in also require the the Shire most complex utilising rail pre-planning and corridors. approvals prior to proceeding. Alternate Low (Relatively) Low Although this Low. Relatively Some sections This option is not Route 1 Incorporates Low Largely route gentle of busy roads. preferred due to (brown) some sections of Likely to be the limited to maximises use gradients. Some concerns busy roads and lowest cost periodic road of relatively Mostly quiet moderately regarding user blind crests option, largely repairs and quite roads, Rail back roads. steep gradients safety and limited along Mahoneys established scheduled Trail cyclists (i.e. along Mahoneys appeal of the Road. Also through signage maintenance. target market) Road, with blind route. requires crossing and line prefer off-road crests. the busy Tylden- marking on trails. Dunbars Rd is Woodend Rd. existing roads. Some sections very rough, with Some shoulder of existing a creek crossing sealing may be roads are quite that is likely to required, rough and offer be impassable subject to limited appeal. during winter. A detailed bridge or some investigation. type of engineering solution would be required. Alternate Low - Medium High Low The use of the Low. Shorter than Dunbars Rd is This option Route 2 Safety of this Particularly cost Once a sealed Calder Highway Alternate Route very rough, with provides limited (purple). route could be of establishing path is is not ideal. This 1. a creek crossing appeal to likely improved if a off-road shared established road is quite Includes larger that is likely to target markets dedicated use path in the to busy (although proportion of be impassable due to on-road shared use path Calder Highway appropriate the majority of sealed roads during winter. A sections and could be road reserve, as standards, the usage of than Alternate bridge or some interface with established off- well as shoulder ongoing this road occurs Route 1. type of traffic. However road within the sealing and line maintenance within 80km/h Mostly gentle engineering if an off-road Calder Highway marking on costs are and 60km/h gradients. solution would sealed path could road reserve. other roads. likely to be speed zones). Presents an be required. be established Creek crossing relatively This road opportunity to within the Calder and surface low. becomes the construct a Highway road treatments to main street of shared use reserve corridor Dunbars Road Woodend and is pathway within this may help are likely to be the main access the road overcome this

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Indicative Ongoing Consistency with User Safety Amenity/User Route Capital Cost Maintenance Rail Trail Concept Other Other Summary (High, Medium, Experience Option (High, Medium, (High, Medium, (High, Medium, Advantages Disadvantages Comment Low) (Comment) Low) Low) Low) high cost items. into Woodend corridor beside issue and provide from the north. the Calder a trail that Highway, which connects large would be a sections of great existing urban community areas (e.g. asset. Woodend to Finishes at the Woodend North). Visitor Information Centre. Alternate Medium High Low Relatively direct Low Only two turns, Large Whilst this option Route 3 Assumes Including Once a sealed route requiring so signage construction presents the most (green). establishment of shared use path is minimal requirements element, so high direct route a dedicated pathway and established navigation. are minimal and capital cost. connecting shared use creek/river to Assuming a navigation is Some small Woodend to pathway beside crossings. appropriate shared use path easy. creeks and Carlsruhe Station the Tylden- standards, can be Potential for rivers to cross (outside the rail Woodend Road. ongoing established broad adjacent to the corridor), is would maintenance within the road community Tylden- attract a high costs are reserve (but off- benefit and use Woodend Rd, capital cost and likely to be road), user of a dedicated which would provide limited relatively experience and shared use require bridges. broad community low. amenity is likely pathway benefit (i.e. does to be relatively running beside not connect high. the Tylden- existing urban Woodend Rd. areas). Finishes at Woodend Visitor Information Centre.

Conclusion: Despite the likely high capital cost, development of a shared pathway within the active rail corridor remains the 'best-fit' in terms of a strategic rail trail tourism product between Woodend and Daylesford.

Alternate Route 2 utilising the Calder Highway road reserve may present a viable alternative, however this is also likely to attract significant capital cost and requires more detailed investigation beyond the scope of this project. This route may also offer broader benefits for the local community by providing a safe cycling/walking connection between major urban areas (i.e. Woodend and Woodend North).

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

13. Staged Implementation A staged approach to development of the rail trail is proposed. This allows for the rail trail to be constructed and opened section by section. Each section has been described in the previous chapter. While one section is being constructed, the planning, detailed design and fund raising for the next section can occur simultaneously.

This approach has the added advantage that construction can commence on key segments, providing unique experiences in their own right, whilst incrementally advancing the overall vision for the rail trail. Once each stage is complete it can be opened for use, which will help showcase the concept to the local community as well as potential funding partners. Usage data can begin to be gathered and management capabilities, processes and experience refined.

The recommended order of staging is:

1. Stage 1 – Section 3, Lyonville to Trentham

With this section already open and only requiring some minor resurfacing works, bridge works and signage (incorporating DMRT and Domino Trail branding), it provides the easiest section to implement. Minimal approvals or permissions will be required to commence on this section and it should also comprise one of the least cost stages.

2. Stage 2 – Section 2, Bullarto to Lyonville

At just over 3km in length, this section is the shortest and should be fairly straight-forward to implement. There will be no leasing issues to be resolved other than possible fencing/encroachment issues where adjacent landholders have fenced across the railway corridor.

3. Stage 3 – Section 4, Trentham to Carlsruhe Station

Section 4 is the longest section and will require a significant construction project. As most of the actual railway corridor in this section appears to be vacant, gaining access to the land should not be a major impediment. However discussions may be required with adjacent landholders who may have inadvertently fenced across the railway corridor.

4. Stage 4 – Section 1, Daylesford to Bullarto

This section should ideally be constructed within the Daylesford Spa Country Railway corridor. This stage has been deliberately scheduled towards the end of the implementation program in order to provide more time to work through the complex operational issues and further detailed design investigations. Approvals to construct a rail trail within the rail corridor will require substantial planning and consultation with VicTrack and Daylesford Spa Country Railway, beyond the scope of this project. This remains one of the most important sections of

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

the entire proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail, as it provides the critical linkage to Daylesford. If the preferred route within the railway corridor cannot be achieved, then the next preferred option (on-road) can be pursued for implementation.

5. Stage 5 – Section 5, Carlsruhe Station to Woodend

Similar to above, Section 5 has been scheduled towards the end of the implementation period as it is believed to be the most complex in terms of the planning and approval requirements.

Throughout the implementation of the project, it is important to ensure that all signage and communications deliver a consistent message that the project is to be implemented in stages. At end of each completed section signage should be installed stating the intended construction date of the adjacent section.

In line with Macedon Ranges Shire Council aspirations, future stages could consider extension of the shared-use pathways within the active rail corridor to provide a continuous connection between Clarkefield to Malmsbury (incorporating the Woodend to Carlsruhe Station section of the DMRT). Please refer to Appendix 1.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

14. Use of the Operational Rail Corridor The recommended route for the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail in Section 1 and Section 5 is within the corridor of an operational railway. In Section 1 it is the Daylesford Spa Country Railway and in Section 5 it is the Melbourne to Bendigo Railway. It is acknowledged up-front that formal approval for access and use of these sections will be required from Vic Track, existing rail operators and relevant agencies. A comprehensive risk assessment, technical audit and formal application process will be required to be implemented prior to possible approval by the relevant authorities.

Vic Track has emphasised that it is unable to provide any form of approval until such times as clearances have been received from each of the transport businesses which includes Vic Track property (where the land is leased to other parties); Department of Transport, Public Transport Victoria and the rail operators (Vline and the Tourist and Heritage Rail operator) being the land managers for the purposes of rail operations.

While both of these sections present greater challenges for construction than the other sections where the railway has been decommissioned, both sections appear to have the capacity to accommodate a shared use pathway within the railway corridor. Some alignment challenges exist in sections where the railway is built up on high embankments or crosses over watercourses, but these issues can largely be resolved through the use of typical trail construction techniques (e.g. boardwalks, bridges, elevated causeways etc). The exact route in both these sections will need to be carefully resolved in detailed planning with relevant authorities having regard to the operational, management and safety requirements.

Notwithstanding the challenges and approval requirements associated with these sections, MRSC in particular is keen to pursue the establishment of shared user pathways within the active rail corridor along the entire length from Clarkefield to Malmsbury, with the section from Woodend Station to Carlsruhe Station forming part of the overall Daylesford-Macedon Ranges rail trail product. Establishing a shared user pathway within the rail corridor would assist MRSC to connect almost 85% of the Shire using off-road trails.

The Action Plan presented in chapter 22 outlines the approval and planning steps required by Vic Track prior to development within the rail corridor, including:

 Consultation with Vic Track, rail operators and relevant authorities to achieve in-principle support for the concept.  Detailed Risk Assessment of the proposed route (indicative cost $5-$8k).  Detailed Technical Assessment of the proposed route (indicative cost $5-$8k).  Assessment of possible bridge crossings or alternative route options (construction cost implications to be determined).  Establishment of an appropriate license agreement (may incur legal costs).

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

 Establishment of detailed construction designs for the proposed pathway, including road crossings and barrier fencing (indicative costs $10-$15k, NB: detailed designs for new or modified bridge crossings may incur additional costs).  Construction of the proposed pathway (indicative costs $770,000 i.e. from Woodend Station to Carlsruhe Station, pending outcomes from assessments outlined above).

Rail Trails Australia’s ‘Rail Trail Establishment Guidelines' provides the following information relating to ‘Rails-with-Trails’, their name for situations such as this where a trail is built beside an operational railway:

'Rails-with-Trails or rail-side trails offer the chance to extend the rail trail experience by having trails besides an operating railway where the right-of-way permits this.

Many suburban railway lines have rail side trails besides them in Melbourne, Perth and Sydney, which we understand are on railway land though managed by councils. As far as we are aware there are no rail side trails running besides operating government railways outside urban areas.

The Bellarine Peninsula Rail Trail, near Geelong, is a popular rail trail and it runs besides the operating steam tourist railway for half its length.

This rail side trail concept is becoming increasingly important in Victoria as rail corridors are now regarded as transport corridors that should be used for other forms of transport including walking and riding. Rail Trails Australia is on a committee with the Victorian Department of Transport to develop standards for rail side trails besides tourist railways.

Obviously safety and liability must be considered but precedents have been set, even besides busy suburban railways.’

As part of the planning process for this project an initial meeting has been held with representatives of Vic Track, VLine and PTV (Public Transport Victoria) in order to discuss options, requirements and possible in-principle support for access to the active rail corridor.

Key outcomes from this meeting included:

 VLine’s default position is NOT to authorise access to the rail corridor for a shared pathway.  However, subject to a formal application process, including comprehensive Risk Assessment and Technical Analysis, authority may be granted. If granted, consideration needs to be given to:

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

o Fencing the shared pathway, allowing 3m buffer from the closest active rail plus sufficient width for VLine maintenance vehicles, then fencing. The area from the fence line to boundary of the active corridor could potentially be available for a shared pathway. o Fencing needs to be developed in accordance with VLine standards (costs are to be borne by Council). o Need to consider cost allowance for road crossing treatments to relevant standards, or alternative treatment (i.e. diverting the trail to roads on approach to rail crossings). o (NB: VLine advised that pedestrian crossings generally cost in the order of $250k each. There are at least two crossings on the current active line from Woodend to Carlsruhe station). o Adequate river crossing over the Campaspe River (cost to be determined). o Management and leasing arrangements (i.e. lease/license with MRSC). o Acceptance by MRSC of ongoing maintenance responsibilities for the shared pathway. o Acknowledge that the shared pathway may be impacted upon by any future requirement for extension of the active rail (i.e. additional rail line), therefore alternative options (likely to be on-road) will need to be available in case required for future use. o Consider locations and potential impacts on existing utilities and services (above and below ground).  A high-level assessment of possible alternative routes will be required in order to demonstrate why the Rail Corridor is considered the preferred route (i.e. as presented in Table 2).  The formal application process and (later) detailed design/construction drawings will incur a range of application fees and technical report costs (likely to be in the order to $10- $15k).

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

15. Infrastructure Requirements The following section considers requirements for bridges, fencing and signage.

Bridges:

Rail Trails Australia’s ‘Rail Trail Establishment Guidelines' provides the following information about bridges on rail trails:

‘Bridges add greatly to the interest of a rail trail but are potentially the most costly pieces of infrastructure. Ideally your trail has a few bridges that have concrete supports, steel or concrete girders and a concrete deck requiring only some handrails to be fitted. However the odds are that the bridges will be any combination of wood, steel and concrete, in various stages of deterioration or have been removed altogether.

A report on the state of all bridges, works required to make them safe and/or trafficable and this cost should be obtained. All bridges should be checked by qualified people and costs obtained to bring them up to standard required by regulations. If the cost of these works is beyond available funding the options of diversions or low level crossings has to be investigated. These are generally undesirable as they detract from the rail trail experience particularly long diversions or short and steep low level crossings. Though sometimes a long low level crossing provides an opportunity to really appreciate the bridge, especially the old wooden trestle bridges. One example is the Nowa Nowa trestle bridge on the East Gippsland Rail Trail in Victoria.‘

There are several bridges within the study area that fall within this category (i.e. require significant refurbishment in order to be trafficable for the rail trail). The preferred option where practical is for the original rail bridges to remain in place, however in the short term alternative track diversions are likely to be required.

Where a bridge has been removed altogether or is deemed to be completely beyond refurbishment, either a diversion trail (least preferred) or a new bridge (most preferred) is required. Bicycle Network (BN) provided the following indicative costs for bridges based on their experience with other rail trail projects. While the costs generally increase with increasing bridge span, the cost to design and construct a 2.5m wide, modern bridge capable of carrying typical rail trail traffic is about $3,500 per metre (even for spans up to 50-60m). So, a 50m bridge would cost around $175,000, while a 20m bridge might cost around $70,000.

As it was not possible to survey the entire proposed route of the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail as part of this project, the exact number, length and condition of bridges is not known.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

However, the CHRTWG provided a report from a previous investigation undertaken by Integrity Testing Pty Ltd on the Domino Trail bridges near Trentham during August 2009. This report reached the following conclusions about the six bridges it investigated:

 The Coliban Bridge looks feasible to be incorporated into a foot bridge but the structural elements will require verifying and testing to their respective capacity.  Bridge Two a similar comment applies, however the rail reinforced deck presents a stronger option to be retained as a trail bridge, though the hand rails will need up grading.  Bridge Three has failed and given that there is a by-pass should be fenced off and permanently closed.  Bridge Four a culvert is sufficient.  Bridge Five the original rail deck to be divided from the present foot bridge by an internal balustrade. The cantilever foot bridge needs testing to verify that it is suitable for pedestrian traffic.  Bridge Six. The prevention fences need to be up graded to prevent further access to the bridge deck.

Figure 7: Coliban River Bridge.

There is least one other large bridge that will need assessment, the bridge over the Little Coliban River near Rippers Lane in Tylden. This bridge is shown in Figure 8 below.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Figure 8: Little Coliban River Bridge will require assessment prior to use on the DMRT.

Map 7: Locations of known bridges.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Fencing:

Rail Trails Australia’s ‘Rail Trail Establishment Guidelines’ provides the following information about fencing along rail trails:

‘Fencing along rail trails appears to be a case by case nature. Most trails in Victoria are fenced when abutting private land which keeps stock in the right place and discourages trespassing. This also gives the options of temporary agistment of stock in some sections to keep vegetation under control and to assist adjacent farmers. Many trails or some sections of them are regarded as natural heritage areas so livestock are not permitted at all. The rail trail usually pays for fencing alongside crown land if required and some rail trails have also assisted adjacent private landholders with fencing, typically by providing materials.

There are many different methods of limiting unauthorised access to rail trails. Cars are relatively simple to exclude with little inconvenience to trail users as they can only usually get on at road crossings and are wide vehicles. Keeping out trail bikes at road intersections requires more elaborate and expensive devices that often inconvenience trail users. Furthermore, if trail bikes can enter the Rail Trail at other parts of the trail (which is usually the case) these measures are relatively superfluous. It may be more effective to actively police the trail when problems occur as usually the offenders are locals.’

The fencing requirements for the proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail are hard to assess until a complete physical assessment of the entire route can be done. Fencing will be required for a number of reasons along the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail:

 To separate the rail trail corridor from adjacent leasehold, freehold or public land on either side of the trail.  To provide a physical barrier between the rail trail and the active railways in Section 1 and Section 5.

Signage:

Signage is an important component of a successful trail network. It performs an important risk management function of informing trail users about potential risks they will encounter along the trail. Effective signage aids navigation and can also be an important tool for educating users about specific risk issues, proper behaviour, designated uses and local flora/fauna.

In 2004 Rail Trails Australia released a document titled ‘Signage Development For Rail Trails’. This should be referred to as the guiding document on signage requirements for the proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Signage along rail trails consists of a number of different types of signs. Some of the key points from the Rail Trails Australia guide are summarised here:

Regulatory Sign

 Identifies legal responsibilities of trail users. For example, ‘no trailbikes’.

Warning Sign

 Advises trail users of known hazards, necessary for trail safety. For example, ‘road ahead’.

Behavioural Sign

 Indications of trail courtesy, aimed at avoiding conflict between users and encouraging co- operative behaviour. For example, ‘move off the trail when stopped’.

Information Sign

 Provides information to individual trail users that: o Assists in their orientation and navigation to destinations. For example, ‘Queenscliff Station 15 km’. o Enhances their effective use of the trail. For example, ‘gravel surface next 10 kms’.  Marker Signs may also be required to assist with emergency management (i.e.. identification of reference points locating where you are within the overall trail).

Interpretative Sign

 Provides descriptive information to identify and inform the trail user. Typical examples include historic sites, locations of historic events, areas of ecological environmental or geological significance, significant flora and fauna and significant vistas. For example, ‘Walhalla Goldfields Rail Trail Site of Derailment – 1915’.  Cultural heritage interpretive signs.

Promotional Sign

 Provides information advertising businesses or organisations who may have contributed to, or stand to gain financially from the rail trail. For example, ‘Clare Cottage Bed and Breakfast’.

Temporary Sign

 Provides information of a temporary nature. For example, ‘Bridge Closed for Repairs’.  Furthermore, it also suggests the development of a specific logo for individual Rail Trails and provides guidance for how it should be used.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

The Rail Trails Australia signage guide should be referred to when developing the overall signage strategy for this project.

Other infrastructure:

A range of other infrastructure may be required as the rail trail develops over time including park furniture (i.e. seating), drinking taps and public toilets. However in the short-medium term these items are considered a low priority, particularly given the availability of public toilets and drinking water at existing and former train stations (e.g. Woodend, Trentham, Bullarto, Lyonville and Daylesford).

16. Proposed Management Model Rail Trails Australia’s ‘Rail Trail Establishment Guidelines' suggests that management models vary from state to state and even between rail trails in the same state. The guide suggests:

'The biggest factor is usually the interest of the local Councils(s). Even with full council involvement in the management, consider establishing a “Friends of the Rail Trail” group.

Victoria has the most advanced rail trail network in Australia and many of these trails now have local volunteer friends groups to assist with maintenance and events. It helps give a sense of community ownership of the trail, which amongst other things may deter vandalism and provides good local promotion. Any group should be incorporated, which is generally a prerequisite for receiving any grants and some donations.

It has been our observation that totally volunteer groups developing a rail trail of more than a few kilometres in length make very slow progress without a paid position to source funding, manage donations of labour and materials etc...generally the greater the local (and sometimes state) government involvement the better the result.'

All railway land in Victoria is owned by the government corporation Vic Track. Vic Track no longer surrender unused railway land back to the Crown so all new rail trails will be on land leased from Vic Track. All examples to date have been leased to Councils including Rutherglen to Wahgunyah and Murchison to Rushworth.

The usual situation is Vic Track will retain ownership of the land and lease it to a local Council (or license within the active rail corridor) for the purpose of establishing a rail trail. Local Council's will then generally work with a Friends Group to plan and construct the trail. A range of protocols and operational procedures can be put in place to maximise the role of the

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

volunteer groups in supporting ongoing management and maintenance, however legal responsibility ultimately rests with the lessee.

The Murray to Mountains Rail Trail in northeast Victoria is frequently looked at as one of the most successful rail trails in Victoria, if not Australia and provides an excellent model for the proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail. The Murray to Mountains Rail Trail crosses over three municipalities – Alpine Shire, Indigo Shire and the Rural City of Wangaratta. The trail includes 94km of dedicated, off-road, sealed asphalt rail trail and some on-road linkages. Around 40% of the trail is within the Alpine Shire, about 20% in Indigo Shire and about 40% within the Rural City of Wangaratta.

The Murray to Mountains Rail Trail is managed by a Committee of Management established under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978. The committee is comprised of representatives from each of the three Council's. This committee also includes three sub-committees to provide input and expertise on specific areas. These are:

 User Group Sub-committee, including representatives of bike clubs and the cycling community.  Cycle tourism Sub-committee, including representatives from the local tourism association (it appears that this sub-committee may not exist anymore, with the cycle tourism function moved into the regional tourism association).  Technical Sub-committee, including council engineers and maintenance personnel from each council.

In summary, it is recommended that a similar model be applied to the proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail, with both Macedon Ranges Shire Council and Hepburn Shire Council being the main representatives on a dedicated Committee of Management, and taking formal maintenance responsibilities. With a strong local working group under the CHRTWG, it is essential that this group is also included in the management structure. This could be achieved through a number of options:

 Formal representation on the main Committee of Management, or  Formal representation on a Sub-committee reporting to the Committee of Management (this option is preferred as the main Committee of Management should primarily involve those agencies with legal responsibility for the land).

Each Council will be required to develop and adopt an Operations Manual (or similar) outlining core maintenance tasks, schedules and responsibilities. Furthermore, the Operations Manual will need to consider policy and management protocols for issues such as (but not limited to) fire danger, emergency access, stock crossing, vehicle access, vegetation management, etc.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

17. Design Guidelines Rail Trails Australia’s ‘Rail Trail Establishment Guidelines' provides the following information about the actual design and construction of rail trails:

'One of the most important decisions, as generally trail surfacing is the biggest cost in construction of a rail trail apart from bridges. Many factors to consider, including the amount and type of users to be attracted, available construction budget and maintenance budget. If used by cyclists the trail surface should be a minimum of 2.5m and preferably 3m wide if practical.

(If the trail is to be used by horses) ideally a separate dirt path besides the main trail should be provided for horses where the corridor permits this. Horses and riders prefer the separate path, especially if the main trail is very hard, it reduces maintenance on the main trail and separates bikes and horses. With long distance horse trails watering facilities must also be considered and some trails even have holding yards.‘

Interpreting and building on this information, the project team recommends the following specifications for the design and construction of the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail, in those areas where the trail will be constructed on the actual track bed of the old railway:

1. Equestrian: Horse use of the Rail Trail is not proposed in the first instance, however could be considered for certain sections in the longer term. If the trail is to cater for use by horses it should be via a separate dirt path beside the main rail trail. (Analysis of Rail Trails Australia's website shows that 15 of 26 rail trails in regional Victoria and 2 of 11 in the Melbourne region allow horse riding on or adjacent to rail trails). There are many good reasons to separate horses from the main rail trail:  The impact of horses on the actual tread of the trail is much greater than pedestrians or cyclists. Heavy usage by horses can break up a compacted crushed rock surface in time, causing the surface to become loose and rough.  Horses are easily spooked by cyclists and can be dangerous to both their riders and other trail users. A separate trail for horses is in the best safety interests of all trail users.  Droppings from horses can be messy and unpleasant for other trail users to deal with. 2. Trail Width: The width of the trail should be 3m where possible, narrowing to 2.5m if necessary. This may be dictated by the width of the actual trackbed or there may be instances where narrow cuttings or raised embankments make achieving a 3m width not feasible. 3m is considered wide enough for 1-2 pedestrians or cyclists to travel

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

side by side, and still allow room for another trail user to pass comfortably on the other side. 3. Trail Surface: While there are a few examples of asphalt surfaced rail trails, the normal model is for the trail to be surfaced with gravel or fine crushed rock. The use of asphalt can drastically reduce the cost of ongoing maintenance, however it also significantly increases the initial cost of construction. Development of a crushed rock surface is considered appropriate for the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail.

Ideally, the trail surface should be comprised of two layers of material, specifically the wearing course (the upper layer) and the base course (the lower layer).

In areas where the track ballast remains in place and is stable and flat, it may suffice as the base course. If there is no track ballast in place, then a new base course should be laid. The base course should be approximately 100mm thick (uncompacted) and properly compacted by appropriate mechanical means (e.g. drum roller or vibrating plate compactor). Typically, the base course may have a maximum aggregate size of up to 30-40mm. A typical product that is used for base course is called ‘road base’ and varies from location to location, depending on what is available. Road base costs vary, but are typically around $30 per cubic metre. Over a 100m stretch of trail, at 3m width and 100mm depth equates to approximately 30m3 (or about 48 tonne) of base course material.

The wearing course is the upper layer, and the surface upon which people walk or ride. The wearing course should be laid approximately 50mm thick (uncompacted) and properly compacted by appropriate mechanical means (e.g. drum roller or vibrating plate compactor). It should have good compaction qualities and exhibit good traction once laid and compacted. The maximum aggregate size should be no more than 20mm, as larger aggregate is less likely to compact properly, becoming loose and slippery to walk or ride on. A typical product that is used for the wearing course is granitic sand. It is best to choose the wearing course from what is available locally to keep costs down. A suitable product available within reasonably close proximity is a product referred to as Waubra Granitic Sand. It is quarried at Waubra, approximately 60km west of Daylesford and costs approximately $50 per cubic metre (including cartage costs to the general area). Over a 100m stretch of trail, at 3m width and 50mm depth, approximately 15m3 (or about 22.5 tonne) of wearing course material is required.

4. Trail Profile: The profile of the trail is its appearance in cross-section. Typically, the trail should be built with a gentle, rounded or convex profile. That is, it should be higher in the middle than on both edges. This slight mounding of the trail allows it to shed water off to the sides. The mounding should be almost unnoticeable, perhaps 10-20mm higher in the middle at most, creating an almost imperceptible slope

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

towards the outside edges of the trail. Achieving this in practice requires specialized machinery and experience and is critical to ensuring proper drainage off the trail. The original track bed of the railway will most likely exhibit a plateau type profile – flat across the top and tapering away on the sides to drainage ditches – which will support the mounded trail profile well.

In some rare situations however, a mounded or convex profile is not ideal. Where the trail is cut into a steep side slope it may be better to direct all water towards the lower side of the trail, rather than directing it equally to both sides of the trail. This is achieved by implementing a trail profile that is straight, but slightly angled towards the lower edge of the trail. Again, this angle should be very slight – so slight as to be virtually unnoticeable to the trail user. This needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, as in most instances the original railway would have been built with drainage measures in place to deal with the water.

5. Trail Gradient: The trail gradient will be dictated by the existing track bed of the original railway. Most railways were designed and constructed to keep the track gradient at 1 in 40, or in rare cases 1 in 30. This equates to 2.5% and 3.3% respectively, which to most people would appear almost flat and level. These gradients are within acceptable boundaries for wheelchair usage. Any access trails or alternate routes should ideally try to maintain the same low gradients. 6. Vegetation: The surrounding vegetation should be trimmed back to create a corridor that is at least as wide as the trail and approximately 3m high and maintained accordingly. Any vegetation that protrudes into the actual trail corridor can influence the behaviour of trail users. For example, a low hanging branch may force trail users towards the outside edge of the rail trail, where the edges may be less stable, resulting in damage to the tread. Vegetation can also cause injury to trail users. Thick vegetation growing along the edges of a trail, particularly on a bend, can also limit forward visibility for trail users, increasing the chance of collisions. Requirements for vegetation management and maintenance will need to be considered following a detailed vegetation assessment and management plan for the trail corridor. 7. Road Crossing Treatments: Where the proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail crosses over roads, appropriate infrastructure to slow down trail users will need to be installed. These treatments are in essence physical barriers such as bollards and turnstiles that cannot easily be negotiated at speed by cyclists or runners, causing them to slow down as they approach the road. Vic Roads and Bicycle Network can provide further advice on best practice road crossing treatments in this regard. This infrastructure also serves a secondary purpose of preventing vehicular access to the rail trail corridor.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

In those areas where the rail trail may eventually run beside operational railways (i.e. Section 1 and Section 5), the trail will require more extensive design and construction, as it will not have the track bed of the old railway to use. In these areas, the exact trail alignment should be determined by expert trail designers following detailed field investigations and consultation with VicTrack and Daylesford Spa Country Railway and other relevant stakeholders. Furthermore, in these areas, the specifications above apply, however additional considerations include:

1. Trail Width: It may not be possible to achieve the same 3m width, as these sections will not have a dedicated track bed to follow. Native vegetation, waterways, property boundaries and other physical constraints may limit the available width. The trail should be no narrower than 2m. 2. Drainage: The trail should not substantially alter the surface flow of water and should not direct any concentrated flow of water towards the railway or any railway infrastructure. 3. Trail Gradient: While the general goal in designing the exact alignment for Section 1 and Section 5 should be to maintain similar gradients to the rest of the rail trail (that is, generally less than 3.3%), in reality this will not be possible without very extensive and very costly earthworks. An alignment should be determined with trail gradients below 5-8% at all times.

Road Crossing Treatments:

The project team has identified at least twenty-one roads which the proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail will need to cross. Most of these are minor rural roads, usually unsealed and carrying very little traffic, however there are three major road crossings that have been identified. The treatment of these road crossings, with regard to signage and other infrastructure, is critical to the safety of trail users and needs to be carefully assessed.

Austroads is the association of all Australian road transport and traffic authorities. Austroads promote improved transport outcomes by providing expert technical input to national policy development on road and road transport issues.

In 2010, VicRoads adopted the latest Austroads guidelines for use in Victoria. These guidelines are arranged into several series. The most relevant guides for cycling are:

 Guide to Road Design: o Part 2: Design Considerations o Part 4: Intersections and Crossings o Part 6A: Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths o Part 6B: Roadside Environment  Guide to Traffic Management:

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

o Part 4: Network Management; o Part 5: Road Management; o Part 6: Intersections, Interchanged and Crossings; o Part 7: Traffic Management in Activity Centres.

VicRoads publish a series of information bulletins on design standards for cycling infrastructure called ‘Cycling Notes’. Much of the information in the bulletins is also contained within the new Austroads guides, however these bulletins and guidelines provide additional advice and information. One of these bulletins, ‘Cycle Notes No. 16, August 2005, Safe Road Crossings for Off-Road Paths’, provides the basis for the information presented here on the best treatment for road crossings on the proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail.

This document presents a number of different treatment types, for different scenarios. The most likely crossing type that will be used for the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail is the General Crossing Treatment. The usage of this treatment is summarized below:

General crossing treatments involve paths effectively terminating when they reach a road and then recommencing on the other side of the road.

Who has priority?

At general crossing treatments, motorists have priority over path users. Path users must give way to motorists and are required to wait until a suitable gap appears in the traffic stream before they can cross.

Motorists should be advised that there is a crossing ahead with the erection of signs indicating that bicycles cross ahead.

Application

General crossing treatments are a suitable treatment for roads that carry less than 3,000 vehicles per day. These include local roads, collector roads and low volume, rural highways.

It is critical that adequate sight distances are provided to enable path users to safely choose gaps in the traffic stream and for motorists to know that the path is ahead.

It is also important to consider the inclusion of bicycle hand rails and cyclist/ pedestrian refuges to assist cyclists in crossing the road.

Figure 1 below illustrates the key requirements of a General Crossing Treatment. Some key features to note are that the only infrastructure required is signs (for both motorists and trail

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

users) and hand or holding rails. The use of bollards and chicanes and other barrier-type infrastructure is no longer supported.

Figure 1. Figure 4 from Vic Roads Cycle notes No. 16: Safe Road Crossings for Off-road paths

Figure 2 on the next page shows an example of one of these treatments in place on the Murray to Mountains Rail Trail. This example has quite extensive hand rails in place. These hand rails serve multiple purposes:

1. They act as hand rails for cyclists to lean against while waiting for vehicles to pass; 2. They act as a visual reminder that users are approaching a road crossing; 3. They funnel trail users into single file, likely causing faster trail users like cyclists to slow down; 4. They prevent vehicle access to the rail trail.

Figure 2. Road crossing on Murray to Mountains Rail Trail (photo from Bicycle Network)

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

18. Estimated Development Costs

Bicycle Network (BN) and the Central Highlands Rail Trail Working Group (CHRTWG) have suggested a preliminary budget estimate of $4.5 to $5 million to develop the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail. This is based on the estimated 43km length of the trail and BN’s experience that rail trails generally cost around $100,000 per kilometre. For example, the 134km Goulburn River High Country Rail Trail project received $13 million in Federal funding and $1 million State in funding. This $100,000 per km cost provides an indicative allowance for trail construction (including basic drainage, earthworks and surfacing) as well as minor bridge works and crossings. It does not include allowance for any additional specialist planning, including vegetation assessments or detailed design works.

In addition to the trail construction, the following items need to be factored into any price estimates:

 Cost of further planning, design and approval requirements prior to construction, including native vegetation assessments.  Road crossing treatments.  Bridge repairs/construction (including engineering assessments and design).  Signage.

Two different types of trail construction will be required for the entire project. These can be described as:

1. Machine built trail, 100mm base course, 50mm wearing course, 3m width, on existing track bed. Typical industry costs for this type of construction are estimated at approximately $90 per metre of trail, including all materials (as discussed in previous section). This type of construction will be used in those areas where the proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail will be constructed on the existing trackbed of the old railway. 2. Machine built trail, 100mm base course, 50mm wearing course, 2.5m width, built on undisturbed natural ground surface. Typical industry costs for this type of construction are estimated at approximately $110 per metre, including all materials (as discussed previously). This type of construction will be used in those areas where the proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail will not be constructed on the existing trackbed of the old railway (that is, Section 1 and Section 5, where the preferred long-term option for the trail is to be built beside the operational railway).

Table 3 on the next page shows the estimated trail construction costs.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Table 3. Trail Construction Cost Estimate

Section Length (km) Cost per metre Cost Estimate % each LGA 1 (within the rail corridor) 9.4 $110.00 $1,034,000 100% HSC 2 3.7 $90.00 $333,000 100% HSC 3 6.3 $90.00 $567,000 100% HSC 4 17.4 $90.00 $1,566,000 44% HSC, 56% MRSC 5 (within the rail corridor) 7 $110.00 $770,000 100% MRSC TOTAL 43.8 $4,270,000 62% HSC 38% MRSC

Table 4. Allowance for Other Costs

Item Quantity Allowance Comment Road Crossing 21 min. (21 x $2,500 NB: This does not include allowance for road treatments ea) = $52,500 crossing within the active rail corridor. Treatment requirements for these crossings will be subject to the proposed detailed Technical Assessment. Rail Trail NA $50,000 Final signage costs will be influenced by the final Signage confirmed route (i.e. within or outside the rail corridor in Sections 1 & 5) as well as the scope of interpretive information to be developed. The adjacent figure is to be used as a guide only. Bridges TBC TBC Cost estimates for bridge works will be subject to engineering assessment and Technical Assessment of active rail sections. Other Planning 1 $30,000 Engineering Assessment of existing bridges. 1 $50,000 Detailed construction documentation. 3 $5,000 each Risk Assessments of entire route (for Vic Track). 2 $14,000 Technical Assessments of active rail sections (for Vic Track). 1 $50,000 Native vegetation assessment for entire route. Marketing & NA $22,000 Recommended funding for initial 3 years. $5,000 per Promotion annum thereafter. TOTAL $283,500

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Total indicative capital costs:

 Trail Construction $4,270,000  Allowance for other items $283,500  Total $4,553,500 (ex GST)

It should be noted that these are indicative cost estimates only, based on approximate industry rates. The estimates do not include GST or any expenses which a contractor would typically charge (e.g. mobilization expenses, accommodation etc.).

Costs for bridge infrastructure and results from the active rail corridor Risk Assessment and Technical Assessments are yet to be determined.

The table below provides an indicative breakdown of likely costs apportioned to each municipality. It should be noted that this does not mean that each LGA will be solely responsible for all capital costs as external grants and funding should be pursued. Experience from other rail trails suggests that external funding (i.e. Federal and State Government) may contribute in the order of 50%-75% of total project costs.

Hepburn Shire Council indicative costs:

Section / Item Estimated Construction Approx. % HSC Total Cost HSC Cost 1 $1,034,000 100% $1,034,000 2 $333,000 100% $333,000 3 $567,000 100% $567,000 4 $1,566,000 44% $689,040 5 $770,000 Nil Nil Allowance for other $283,500 62% $175,770 costs (as above) Total $4,553,500 $2,798,810

Macedon Ranges Shire Council indicative costs:

Section / Item Estimated Construction Approx. % MRSC Total Cost MRSC Cost 1 $1,034,000 Nil Nil 2 $333,000 Nil Nil 3 $567,000 Nil Nil 4 $1,566,000 56% $876,960 5 $770,000 100% $770,000 Allowance for other $283,500 38% $107,730 costs (as above) Total $4,553,500 $1,754,690

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

19. Maintenance Maintenance is an important consideration for rail trails. The ongoing cost of maintaining the proposed Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail needs to be factored into the decision making process from the outset.

The Murray to Mountains Rail Trail provides some key learning's about maintenance:

 The original funding for construction of the rail trail was a combination of Federal, State and Local Government funding. The funding was provided under the proviso that each of the Councils would agree to maintain the trail, at their own cost, for seven years. This seven year commitment is now well and truly past, however each council continues to maintain the trail where it passes through their municipality, using their own in-house personnel mostly and contractors less frequently.  Alpine Shire report that they spend approximately $30,000 annually on maintenance. Wangaratta City spends about the same amount. Indigo Shire's spending is much less, as they manage a smaller portion. This money is an ongoing recurrent expenditure item. In total, it is likely that the overall annual maintenance bill amounts to around $75,000.  In places, the Murray to Mountains Rail Trail is only 1.5m wide, which is acknowledged as being too narrow. In addition to ongoing maintenance works, the trail is also being incrementally widened.  The Murray to Mountains Rail Trail has an asphalt seal across its entire length. Alpine Shire claim that it reduces their ongoing maintenance liability (that is, the re-surfacing frequency for an asphalt trail is much lower than that of a gravel trail) and opens the trail up to a wider user audience.  Additional patch-ups of the asphalt seal are done from time-to-time when nearby road projects have surplus asphalt.

There are a large number of factors that will influence the level of maintenance required including levels of use, initial construction standards and materials used, climatic conditions and vandalism to name a few. Given the early planning stages for this project, it is difficult to provide an accurate likely maintenance figure. However, based on examples from elsewhere (e.g. Murray to Mountains Rail Trail and other trail projects) suggests an amount of 1-3% of the initial capital cost should be applied to ongoing annual maintenance. On this basis, the annual maintenance is likely to be in the order of $42,700 - $128,100 for the fully constructed trail (split approximately 62% HSC and 38% MRSC, based on the estimated trail construction cost of $4.27million (refer to Section 18).

Maintenance costs will also be impacted on by required vegetation management. Costs for vegetation maintenance will be informed by a detailed vegetation assessment and detailed designs for the actual path construction (i.e. route within the corridor). Pending the outcomes

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

from these two steps, annual vegetation maintenance costs could be in the order of $50,000 (split approximately 62% HSC and 38% MRSC).

The maintenance figures should be considered a broad guide only and will need to be reviewed pending development of a detailed Asset Management/Maintenance Plan for the rail trail once constructed.

20. Trail Promotion and Marketing The following promotional material will be critical to marketing the proposed rail trail.

Brand Pyramid:

 Prepare a brand pyramid for the route that identifies the emotional connectors between the trail and its visitors (what will motivate people to cycle the route, what they are seeking in the experience, etc). The ‘brand essence’ identified through this process can be used to inform the selection of language, graphic design features and imagery that would be used to promote the trail to ensure that promotional activities are consistent in the story they tell and the impressions they create.

Graphic Design Elements:

 Develop graphic design elements - a logo, e-signature feature (for use in emails sent by stakeholders and local businesses and organisations interested in promoting the trail), and 6-8 high quality images.

Brochure / Map:

 Include the rail trail in cycling brochures included in the region.  Prior to the next reprint, prepare a DL flyer to stock in visitor information centres, bicycle shops, accommodation properties, etc.

Websites:

 Prepare a dedicated website for the rail trail (there are many examples of quality rail trail sites in Victoria). Promote the trail on regional tourism, Shire and local community websites with a click-through to the comprehensive site.

Include information about the attractions, facilities, accommodation, events, etc. available enroute, as well as touring times, degrees of difficulty, etc. to assist people to develop a customised itinerary to suit their needs.

 Feature the route in the relevant regional sections of the visitvictoria website, including Daylesford and the Macedon Ranges section.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

 Consider promoting the route in the Ballarat and Bendigo tourism websites, and Bicycle Tourism Network’s website.

Publicity:

 Through Daylesford and Macedon Ranges Tourism, invite travel journalists and journalists from cycle magazines such as Ride On, to experience the route and write about their journey. Alternatively, as part of regional tourism activities, contract a PR agency to prepare editorial and place articles.  Prepare a summary of the route experience (1-2 pages) to give to journalists in a media kit and to use in website copy.

Bicycle Books:

 Approach bicycle book authors to consider including the trail in their books and maps, such as ‘Bike Tours Around Victoria’ by Julia Blunden.

Working with Tourism Operators:

 Conduct briefings of tourism businesses along the route to encourage them to cater to rail trail tourists, e.g. provide a place to house bicycles overnight and promote the route on their websites and marketing materials.  When the relevant services are developed, prepare packages for interstate markets that include bicycle hire, a shuttle service, and accommodation.  Develop packages with the Daylesford Spa Country Railway for a Sunday ride on the rail trail which is promoted on the railway website, the rail trail website, regional websites and by other tourism businesses in the region.

Events Strategy:

 Develop an annual series of events to reinforce awareness of the rail trail which could involve any or all of the following: o A guided brewery, winery and pub ride. o Family social rides. o Cycling events that originate in the various towns along the route that are part of existing events. o Sporting competitions which involve the rail trail, such as triathlons or fun-runs.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Management Arrangements for Promotion:

Marketing of the rail trail should be overseen by a stakeholder group that involves the community reference group and participating Shires. Responsibilities and commitments should be articulated in a Memorandum of Understanding.

The cost of the initiatives above will depend on negotiations and current arrangements with DMR Tourism, Tourism Victoria and Bicycle Network.

It is recommended that $8,000-10,000 is made available to promote the trail in its first year (including website development), $6,000-7,000 in the second year, and $5,000 per year in subsequent years.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

21. Potential Barriers The table below highlights the key potential barriers to implementation of the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail concept and recommended mitigation strategies.

Likelihood of Impact on Potential Barrier Mitigation Strategy Occurring the Project Lack of capital funding to High High  Significant investment is required in order to implement recommendations. generate a new tourism product that has the potential to substantially contribute to the local economy.  If the concept is fully developed the investment pay-back period (in terms of economic benefit to the local community) is likely to be less than five years.  Development of the rail trail and associated infrastructure can be effectively staged in order to reflect available funding.  Explore opportunities for possible external funding options, including through SRV, RDV and RDA.  Explore possible sponsorship opportunities for individual trail sections (having regard to relevant Council policies). Lack of funding to support Medium High  Establishment of an effective Maintenance ongoing maintenance and Plan is critical to protecting the initial capital promotion. investment, minimising potential environmental impacts and enhancing visitor experiences (a key source of word-of-mouth promotion, including via social media).  Maintenance costs need to be viewed in light of the anticipated economic and community benefits that will be facilitated by the project.  Options to regularly monitor levels of use and user feedback should be explored in order to continually demonstrate the benefits of the product. Unable to address approval Medium Medium  Alternative route options for both sections requirements or reach have been identified as possible 'fall-back' agreement to access sections of positions. the active rail corridor (i.e.  Continue to work with relevant agencies and Section 1 & 5). stakeholders to address planning and approval requirements to access the active rail sections whilst other stages are being implemented.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

22. Action Plan The following section outlines the key next steps, strategic actions and priorities to implement the Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail project.

Ref Indicative Action Priority Responsibility # Cost Overall Actions 1 Confirm each Council's support and commitment to High Within HSC implementing the concept, including accepting land existing MRSC management, funding and maintenance responsibilities. resources 2 Confirm Vic Track and relevant rail authority conditional High Within Vic Track support for the project. existing HSC resources MRSC 3 Establish a Committee of Management and relevant sub- High Within HSC committee/s to oversee management and drive existing MRSC implementation of the concept (refer to Section 16). resources Vic Track 4 Establish a Communication and Consultation Plan to guide High Within HSC implementation activities and additional planning existing MRSC requirements. resources Vic Track 5 Once the trail (or sections thereof) is established, develop Low Within HSC a Rail Trail Management Manual, incorporating relevant existing MRSC policies, protocols and management procedures for resources Vic Track ongoing use, management and maintenance of the trail. Section 2, 3 & 4 of the overall trail: 6 Consultation with leaseholders. Seek consent to gain High Within HSC access to leased areas for the purpose of assessing the existing MRSC route and scoping construction requirements. resources 7 Assessment of all bridges by structural engineer to High Allowance HSC - 6 bridges are determine modification requirements and costs for Rail $10,000 known. Trail use (including consideration of alternative options should refurbishment of existing bridges prove uneconomic). 8 Undertake a native vegetation assessment for the High Allowance HSC proposed route. $30,000 MRSC (apportion to each LGA based on % of trail in each Shire). 9 Undertake detailed design documentation for High Allowance HSC construction of each section of the trail. 3 sections x MRSC $10,000 each (apportion to each LGA = $30,000 based on % of trail in each Shire). 10 Subject to Vic Track approval, begin the process to reclaim High Within Vic Track leasehold areas and establish new leases with each existing HSC Council. resources MRSC 11 Explore external funding opportunities. High Within HSC existing MRSC

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Ref Indicative Action Priority Responsibility # Cost resources 12 Construct each stage as funding becomes available. Ongoing To be HSC / MRSC / Steering determined. Committee Section 1 - Daylesford to Bullarto 13 Meet with the Spa Country Rail to discuss in-principle / High Within Vic Track conditional agreement for pursuing a shared use pathway existing HSC within the rail corridor. resources Spa Country Rail 14 Work with Vic Track and Spa Country Rail to commission High Allowance HSC an appropriate Risk Assessment of the corridor to $5,000 determine its suitability and options for possible establishment of a shared use trail. 15 Work with Vic Track and Spa Country Rail to commission High Allowance HSC an appropriate Technical Assessment of the corridor to $6,000 determine its suitability and options for possible establishment of a shared use trail. 16 Work with Spa Country Rail to address any management Medium Within HSC / Committee of or operational requirements that may result from the existing Management possible establishment of a shared trail within the rail resources corridor. 17 Subject to approval of the pathway by the transport Medium Within Vic Track businesses, prepare a pathway license between Vic Track existing HSC and Council covering the Daylesford-Bullarto section. resources Spa Country Rail 18 Undertake detailed designs for construction of the shared Medium Allowance HSC use pathway within the rail corridor. $10,000 (NB: Should the Technical Assessment determine that the trail is not viable in this section, or authority approval not be provided, detailed designs will need to be prepared for the alternative on-road route as described in the body of the report). 19 Construct each stage as funding becomes available. Ongoing To be HSC / Committee of determined. Management Section 5 - Carlsruhe Station to Woodend Station. 21 MRSC to meet with Vic Track, Vline and Public Transport High Within MRSC Victoria to seek conditional support for the establishment existing Vic Track of a shared use pathway within the active rail corridor. resources Vline PTV 22 Conduct a Risk Assessment by a person suitably qualified High Allowance MRSC and approved by the transport businesses to identify all $5,000 risks and Vline operational requirements associated with the proposal to establish a shared use pathway within the Vline operational rail corridor. 23 Work with Vic Track, Vline and relevant authorities to High Allowance MRSC commission an appropriate Technical Assessment of the $8,000 corridor to determine its suitability and options for possible establishment of a shared use trail.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Ref Indicative Action Priority Responsibility # Cost 24 Work with Vic Track, Vline and relevant authorities to Medium Within MRSC / Committee of address any risk management or operational existing Management requirements that may result from establishment of a resources shared trail within the rail corridor. 25 Subject to approval of the pathway by the transport Medium Within Vic Track businesses, prepare a pathway license between Vic Track existing MRSC and Council covering the Woodend to Carlsruhe Station resources section (or further if approved). 26 Undertake detailed designs for construction of the shared Medium Allowance MRSC / Committee of use pathway within the rail corridor. $10,000 Management (NB: Should the Technical Assessment determine that the trail is not viable in this section, detailed designs will need to be prepared for the alternative on-road route as described in the body of the report). 27 Construct each stage as funding becomes available. Ongoing To be MRSC / Committee of determined. Management

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

23. Conclusion The Daylesford Macedon Ranges Rail Trail will fill a gap in the market for a family-oriented visitor experience which is in demand in both Shires.

Supporting infrastructure, the range and quality of visitor experiences are all generally excellent, as is the proximity of the trail to likely source markets, particularly Melbourne. The potential economic, social and recreational benefits of the trail are significant, including enhancing connections and prosperity of small towns and villages.

Whilst it is acknowledged there is considerable capital cost to construct the entire Rail Trail (i.e. approximately $4.5 million), the anticipated economic benefits are also substantial, ranging from $2.1-$4.1 million per annum in additional tourism expenditure in the region. On this basis, the return on investment is almost 1:1, whilst supporting between 25-51 new jobs in the local economy.

The concept is widely supported by participating Councils, local residents, local business communities, Bicycle Network (Victoria) and the regional tourism board.

Staged implementation of the rail trail will provide a valuable tourism product in the region and support the long-term sustainability of smaller townships and local communities.

Establishment of the rail trail within the active rail corridor (i.e. Carlsruhe Station to Woodend) may also create a precedent and model for possible future expansion of the shared pathway within MRSC between Clarkefield to Malmsbury.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

24. Appendix 1: Clarkefield to Malmsbury As previously indicated, for Macedon Ranges Shire Council the concept of the rail trail is broader than a connection from Daylesford to Woodend. Whilst this is the primary component under investigation as part of this project, MRSC harbour bigger aspirations for use of the active rail corridor for shared-use pathway construction to provide off-road connections between major settlements within the Shire, i.e. between Clarkefield to Malmsbury, incorporating the section between Woodend to Carlsruhe Station which may form part of the DMRT.

As outlined in Chapter 14 Use of the Operational Rail Corridor, comprehensive technical assessment and approvals will be required prior to possible establishment of shared-use pathways within active rail corridors, particularly having regard to the high-speed Melbourne- Bendigo regional service which traverses MRSC.

Notwithstanding acknowledgement of requirements for detailed technical audits, risk assessment, approval processes and assignment of legal responsibilities (by way of license agreement with Vic Track) MRSC have expressed a desire to utilise the rail corridor for formalisation of an off-road shared pathway between Clarkefield and Malmsbury.

The route (using the active rail corridor) is identified in the map on the following page, incorporating the section of the DMRT between Woodend and Carlsruhe Station.

Utilising the rail corridor, the overall distance from Clarkefield to Malmsbury is approximately 53.2kms, which includes the 7km between Woodend and Carlsruhe Station. Based on a high- level benchmark of $100,000 per kilometre, the additional cost to construct a shared use pathway within the rail corridor is likely to be in the order of$4.6million (excluding the Woodend to Carlsruhe Station section which has already been included in figures previously presented for the DMRT).

Additional planning, technical assessment, safety audit and approval process requirements are also likely to be required which could add in the order of $50,000 to implementing these sections of shared pathway.

Approval to construct any shared pathway within the active rail corridor should not automatically be assumed. Comprehensive assessment and approval processes are required and Council will need to proactively collaborate with Vic Track and other rail stakeholders to fully investigate options available to achieve an off-road connection utilising the rail corridor.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Potential Shared Use Pathway extension within the active rail corridor: Clarkefield - Woodend, Woodend-Carlsruhe Station (part of DMRT) and Carlsruhe Station- Malmsbury.

Crossing Borders Tracks and Trails: Volume 2 Daylesford to Macedon Ranges Rail Trail

Jayson Moran [email protected] 0413 475 998

Melbourne Suite 129/199 Toorak Road South Yarra VIC 3141