I totally disagree with this somehow being "unfair" to property owners. Railroads have, and continue to get the short end of the stick on many things. This dates back to when railroads were thought of as "big business" who had plenty of money to deal with issues that benefited the public, hardly the case today for most shortlines in particular.

For instance, in Oregon and other states it is the railroad's responsibility to build and maintain fences to keep any adjacent landowner's livestock off the right of way. So ranchers aren't held accountable for their cattle on the railroad (and the railroad has to pay for any they kill), yet imagine if that same rancher let his cattle wander freely elsewhere? (even open range and grazing permits have limits)

For public crossings, the railroads are typically responsible for inspection and maintaining both the crossing surface itself and any crossing signs or signals. There might be government grants to install or upgrade new crossings, and Oregon does provide some limited annual assistance for maintenance costs. For private crossings (whether road or utility), the railroads are responsible for all costs unless they collect something from the person they are allowing an easement for. And don't forget, crossings are a maintenance pain and extra cost for railroads. You have the xing surface itself to maintain, it takes substantially more work to change ties or surface a crossing, there are usually drainage issues, and they are a huge liability as the railroads typically lose most xing or trespasser lawsuits. And don't forget, your "friendly" state and FRA inspectors will write you up fro every missing sign, rough crossing or missed inspection.

What has happened in the past, is that many railroads didn't bother collecting any annual fee to allow and maintain a private party's access across the railroad's property. Now that it has become a substantial cost, especially for shortlines, they have started to identify who is using the crossing and charge an annual fee that represents the costs of the crossing or easement.

As far as the whole adverse possession argument that gives them some kind of rights - guess what? Oregon Revised Statutes Section 105.618:

"A person may not acquire by adverse possession, as defined in ORS 105.620, property owned by a railroad or used for a railroad operation."