Council & Business
15 May, 2026
Rail trail annual figure disputed
Central Goldfields Shire Council's high annual cost for the proposed rail trail has been disputed by the committee behind the project.
A proposed rail trail’s estimated six-figure annual cost has been disputed by the committee behind the project as “overstating” the figure by an “order of magnitude”.
Last month, project partners Central Goldfields Shire and Mount Alexander Shire councils gave their early support to the Castlemaine-Maryborough Rail Trail (CMRT).
However, Central Goldfields Shire Council’s preliminary estimates put the cost of operating, maintaining and renewing the project post-construction at $700,000 per year per council.
That’s based on an around two-decade projection which includes resealing the trail to maintain it sustainably.
The figure became the heart of councillor discussion at Central Goldfields Shire’s council meeting last month.
One councillor was “shocked” by the estimate who said it “ain’t gonna happen” in the current financial environment.
However, CMRT president Janice Simpson said council’s annual figures were misleading.
“Presenting long-term capital replacement as an annual operational burden risks overstating the financial impact by an order of magnitude,” she said.
Ms Simpson said annual maintenance costs generally range from $1000 to $2500 per kilometre, which was echoed in their 2023 feasibility study, and in Urban Enterprise’s (UE) report being considered by council at the April meeting.
UE put the figure at $1200 per kilometre or $73,200 per annum — around 10 times less than council’s estimate.
This figure doesn’t include other operating costs including signage, governance administration, trail activations, marketing, or advocacy.
Nor does it consider asset renewal, which is how council got to their six-figure annual estimate, which was considered beyond the scope of the report.
“Once these elements are included, annual operating costs will be materially higher than UE’s initial baseline,” council’s recommendation read.
However, Ms Simpson said asset renewal isn’t an annual expense and shouldn’t be presented as one.
“That is not an annual maintenance expense; it is a periodic capital renewal cost that would normally be funded separately,” she said.
According to the report, it’s likely asset renewal will be funded through external stakeholders “to reduce the financial burden”on each council.
“It is entirely appropriate for councils to scrutinise costs. However, public discussion must compare like with like,” Ms Simpson said.
Council’s early figures were also premature, according to Ms Simpson, who said there was still more information to come.
She said the project’s lead consultant, Fitzgerald Frisby Landscape Architects, hasn’t completed their maintenance review nor has the requested Quantity Survey been scoped.
“The real evidence shows the proposed rail trail is not an unsustainable financial burden. On the contrary, its operating costs are manageable, comparable with other community infrastructure assets, and likely lower than many people have been led to believe,” Ms Simpson said.
“Accurate information matters, particularly when discussing a once-in-a-generation regional project with the potential to deliver long-term tourism, health, economic and community benefits for both shires.”
Central Goldfields Shire Council declined to comment.