They don't give any numbers on the amount of resistances to the expansion of the infrastructure, based on noise alone.
This reads like a "we did a cool thing" but without qualitatively demonstrating the merits for the need.
This reads like a "we did a cool thing" but without qualitatively demonstrating the merits for the need.
The result being that people still complain about fear of more noise when new infrastructure is proposed (despite freight trains having gotten quieter, too, due to the introduction of new brake shoes), but now they're also complaining about the visual blight, too. (And nobody cares about the views of the train passengers.)
Meanwhile in Switzerland for example the current state is that balancing noise reduction needs vs. the visual impact of noise barriers still is an official planning goal because apparently people haven't been screaming so loudly about noise and nothing else, so the Swiss tend to build fewer and lower noise barriers even today.
(Also purely empirically from my visits there, the UK also doesn't seem to build as many and as high noise barriers, even on infrastructure that has been newly built or rebuilt within the last two decades.)