No case: why are so many NIMBY’s protesting against rail infrastructure?

[generalnerd]

I have noticed as of late that many more anti-rail nimbys have been making statements. This might just be because they have discovered social media, but with projects like East-West rail and HS2 you have not insignificant amounts of residents protesting against a railway line, with many claiming it as ‘bad for the environment’ or ‘ruining their kids future’ or ‘having no case’ (as seen in my posts title)

Why might this be? In a time when the rail network is full to the brim, why are people seemingly so anti rail?

Feel free to move this if it is better in another category

Some examples include:

South Cambridgeshire residents speak of East West Rail concerns

There are calls for an inquiry into a planned railway line that will go through south Cambridgeshire.

www.bbc.com

Case against HS2 – STOP HS2 – The national campaign against High Speed Rail 2

'Everyone here is worried' - concerns over new Hull park and ride plans

"This is the wrong development for this site," according to a local councillor

www.hulldailymail.co.uk

 

[Horizon22]

I have noticed as of late that many more anti-rail nimbys have been making statements. This might just be because they have discovered social media, but with projects like East-West rail and HS2 you have not insignificant amounts of residents protesting against a railway line, with many claiming it as ‘bad for the environment’ or ‘ruining their kids future’ or ‘having no case’ (as seen in my posts title)

Why might this be? In a time when the rail network is full to the brim, why are people seemingly so anti rail?

They are NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard). It is not exclusive to any one area and their arguments are often non-sensical.

 

[JonathanH]

In a time when the rail network is full to the brim, why are people seemingly so anti rail?

Not everyone thinks the network is "full to the brim". Adding additional capacity, rather than spreading the load and using it more effectively is an expensive option.

 

[Bald Rick]

Why might this be? In a time when the rail network is full to the brim, why are people seemingly so anti rail?

It’s not anti rail. It’s anti development of any kind. If it was a road, a housing estate, or some electricity pylons, it would be the same. I’m reminded of the scene in Gavin & Stacey where Gavin’s mum is trying to organise a protest a new phone mast being erected nearby, but gets frustrated because she can’t call her friends about it due to a rubbish signal…

It is a salutary reminder for anyone who proposes building any sort of new railway, including reopening old lines, that there is always some very significant and organised resistance, even for projects that are overwhelmingly in the public interest.

 

[Merseysider]

Why might this be?

Sometimes it's as simple as people having a negative personality in general and complaining about anything and everything possible.

 

[12LDA28C]

Because often these are people that don't use rail, would never dream of catching a train to go anywhere and haven't got the imagination or intelligence to understand that improvements to national infrastructure need to be made that might not actually benefit them directly. All they can see is the inconvenience to them during the period of construction. This is perfectly illustrated by various communities situated along the route of HS2 who moan that the countryside is 'being destroyed' but there won't even be an HS2 station in their own town / village / hamlet.

 

[roadie]

When the railways were originally built their were plenty of Nimbys amongst the major landowners that wanted the railway diverted away from their properties its not something new.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It just seems though that NIMBYism while not unique to the UK seems particularly virulent in the UK.

 

[1D54]

People with too much time on their hands and in most cases need to get a life, as stated above, these people interfere in all walks of life and it is certainly not exclusive to the railways.

 

[birchesgreen]

When the railways were originally built their were plenty of Nimbys amongst the major landowners that wanted the railway diverted away from their properties its not something new.

Indeed, though also a couple of landowners who made it a condition that a station was built for their use in return for the line going through their land.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

As a railway enthusiast, I honestly wouldn't like to back onto a railway line, especially some of one's nearer London. Take the GEML from Shenfield, you probably have a train Every 2 minutes from about 6 am to 11 pm plus the heavy freight throughout the night.

The arguments against are often fictitious but it get why people don't want it. That's where the government has to be strong and basically have a national approach.

 

[generalnerd]

As a railway enthusiast, I honestly wouldn't like to back onto a railway line, especially some of one's nearer London. Take the GEML from Shenfield, you probably have a train Every 2 minutes from about 6 am to 11 pm plus the heavy freight throughout the night.

i have noticed issue with people who live near the lines being built at all’ they have a reason, the main issue is when people complain about it being built, despite it not being near them…

———-

I think it can also be seen with what I call retroactive nimbyism. People who move near to a theme park (say Alton towers) and then complain about the noise, despite knowingly moving into a theme park. It’s the same with trains, locally ive seen/heard about local residents complaining to their local councillor about potential increased freight traffic on the line to hull docks, despite the line itself being older than most of the residents!!

 

[Bald Rick]

It just seems though that NIMBYism while not unique to the UK seems particularly virulent in the UK.

Not really, it’s just that we have a lot more ‘BYs‘ to deal with as the country is much mire densely populated that almost all the rest of Europe.

Take the GEML from Shenfield, you probably have a train Every 2 minutes from about 6 am to 11 pm

Less than every 60 seconds in the peak on average.

 

[Magdalia]

When the railways were originally built their were plenty of Nimbys amongst the major landowners that wanted the railway diverted away from their properties its not something new.

Some examples of 1840s NIMBYs.

• the Liverpool Street-Cambridge line between Newport and Great Chesterford, climbing out of the river valley and needing two tunnels to avoid Audley End House
• Lord Harborough's curve and the battle of Saxby, see here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c624d2nkzvmo​

​

In 1844, a battle was even fought on the grounds.

Railway engineer George Stephenson had mapped out a route for the Syston & Peterborough Railway, but problems arose when surveyors reached the estate of Lord Harborough, whose ancestral home of Stapleford Hall was nearby.

According to county council officials, external, the railway men tried to avoid causing offence by following the Oakham Canal towpath, but this made matters worse as Lord Harborough was a shareholder in the canal.

His servants and estate workers set about removing the surveyors by force, leading to days of fighting.

Melton local historian Brian Fare said: "There were rumours the earl brought some cannons out, but they weren't actually fired."

The railway ended up rerouted on a tight bend around the land - known as Lord Harborough's Curve.

​

• Perhaps the most famous 1840s NIMBY was William Wordsworth who wrote a poem about the railway to Windermere:

Is then no nook of English ground secure
From rash assault? Schemes of retirement sown
In youth, and ’mid the busy world kept pure
As when their earliest flowers of hope were blown,
Must perish; – how can they this blight endure?
And must he too the ruthless change bemoan
Who scorns a false utilitarian lure
’Mid his paternal fields at random thrown?
Baffle the threat, bright Scene, from Orresthead
Given to the pausing traveller’s rapturous glance:
Plead for thy peace, thou beautiful romance
Of nature; and, if human hearts be dead,
Speak, passing winds; ye torrents, with your strong
And constant voice, protest against the wrong.

But NIMByism has not been a constant presence. I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s when we built lots of things: new towns, motorways, pylon lines, pipelines, reservoirs etc. The turning point was possibly the Roskill Commission report on London's Third Airport in 1971 when the Cublington recommendation being overturned was a major victory for NIMBYs.

And roads are still an exceptional case. For example there has been very little NIMBYism about the recent A14 upgrade around Huntingdon or the current Black Cat-Caxton Gibbet project. There are few examples of anti-road NIMBYism: Twyford Down near Winchester is a well known example, but for the NIMBYs it was a failure.

Because often these are people that don't use rail, would never dream of catching a train to go anywhere and haven't got the imagination or intelligence to understand that improvements to national infrastructure need to be made that might not actually benefit them directly.

This neatly sums up the issue regarding NIMBYs opposing East West Rail. Look for example at the villages of Harston, Haslingfield and Barrington near Cambridge. The railway will change their local environment irrevocably, and will cause a huge amount of disruption during construction. Yet few of the people living there will ever use the railway. Good luck trying to explain to them the indirect benefits in terms of how higher tax receipts and government spending from economic growth will benefit them, or more tangible local indirect benefits such as reduced traffic on local roads or better staff recruitment and retention at the 3 (soon to be 5) hospitals on the Biomedical Campus.

One of the consequences of having had 15 years of no economic growth, preceded by another 15 years where most of the growth was concentrated in and around London, is that most people have no idea what economic growth looks like.

 

[AlterEgo]

It just seems though that NIMBYism while not unique to the UK seems particularly virulent in the UK.

The UK has high levels of private property ownership and is very conservative; British people often like to "live in a museum" as I call it.

 

[RT4038]

The UK has high levels of private property ownership and is very conservative; British people often like to "live in a museum" as I call it.

The UK has high levels of private property ownership by individuals - they have a fear that their largest asset is going to lose value (either directly [noisy, unsightly, disruptive etc development affecting their property] or indirectly [ their area becomes less desirable for whatever reason]).

I don't think UK levels of so-called NIMBYism are any greater than elsewhere with similar levels of development - just look at the delays and objections to German neubaustrecke, to the France-Italy and Brenner base tunnels etc. The US is in a similar position in the denser populated areas. It is not just NIMBYism it is also Eco-ism (if that is a term, but you know what I mean)

It is not just new railways though, new main roads, housing, abbatoirs, nuclear waste reprocessing facilities, crematoria, sewage works, wind farms, take away food outlets etc etc all receive vociferous objections from locals in proportion to their size and actual or perceived nuisance/ risk to property values. Railway enthusiasts on a Rail Forum are often blind to, or discount, the negative effects of rail infrastructure and operations and can't understand how their beloved railways are not so well received by others.

 

[sor]

don't forget mobile masts. That's the clearest sign of the NIMBY rot. You could make cases that rail lines or roads can create noise where it didn't previously exist, but mobile masts are the most benign thing out there. Doesn't stop people complaining about "the effect on the view" or the alleged health effects (that have yet to materialise in 40 years of cellular mobile telephony)

Of course those same people then complain about the crap mobile coverage. Perhaps even when travelling on a train!

 

[3141]

The fact that Britain, and England particularly, is a densely-populated country is another factor. In relation to the size of the country there are more people with backyards which they don't want development in. But it's in the more populated areas that development of one kind or another is most likely to be needed.

 

[Harpo]

The NIMBYism I least understand is over inland wind turbines. I’d be very happy to have some in view from my home.

 

[James H]

It's easy to issue sweeping condemnations of NIMBYism - but often to achieve sensible compromises about the impact of a development on a community/environment, it's necessary to engage in quite an assertive way.

 

[generalnerd]

Same! I know people who campaign for green energy but oppose local turbine projects (no specific project, just in general). The typical example of a nimby.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The NIMBYism I least understand is over inland wind turbines. I’d be very happy to have some in view from my home.

I know people who campaign for green energy but oppose local turbine projects (no specific project, just in general).

For most people the issue isn't the sight of the turbines, it is the noise. Right up close, the noise of a wind turbine is over 100dB. Even at distance they're still loud enough, about 45-50dB at 300 metres. And those are the declared sound levels by the manufacturers, so take them with a pinch of salt.

The World Health Organisation says anything over 40dB will disturb sleep and cause adverse health effects:

The WHO guidelines for night noise recommend less than 40 dB(A) of annual average (Lnight) outside of bedrooms to prevent adverse health effects from night noise.

So no, I wouldn't want wind turbines built half a mile from my house.

there is always some very significant and organised resistance, even for projects that are overwhelmingly in the public interest.

As I've said on the Heathrow expansion thread, it is interesting how "the national interest" always seems to miraculously swerve around the areas where the wealthiest people live. Take HS2, which goes underneath Amersham and the Chalfonts (lots of millionaires) and goes through Brackley (not many millionaires). And it was the same further north, the proposed route of HS2 into Manchester carefully avoided the richest bits of the Cheshire stockbroker belt.

It's always been the way. The London Ringways project suddenly died when they started considering the wholesale demolition of some rather nice parts of North London. When it was just the poors who were having the Westway flyover built by their bedroom window nobody gave a toss. When the A12 Eastern Avenue was upgraded in the 90s they flattened Leytonstone but tunnelled underneath leafy Wantead.

I get why developers take a pragmatic approach- you don't pick on people who can fight back- but still.

Starmer and Reeves both profess to hate "NIMBYs". Starmer owns £10M of prime development land in Surrey and has previously opposed developments near it as they might affect the value of his land. Reeves, so demanding of airport expansions, opposed the expansion of Leeds Bradford as it was near her house. Funny how these things go.

 

[BingMan]

The NIMBYism I least understand is over inland wind turbines. I’d be very happy to have some in view from my home.

And in earshot? Noisy beasts

 

[Harpo]

And in earshot? Noisy beasts

Understood, but it’s the current outright ban on siting wind turbines on land that baffles me.

 

[dangie]

And in earshot? Noisy beasts

And in eyeshot. Ugly beasts
Or more correctly they turn a beautiful landscape into an ugly landscape.

 

[JamesT]

Understood, but it’s the current outright ban on siting wind turbines on land that baffles me.

There isn’t a ban. The previous government had some stricter tests granting planning permission but in theory it was still possible. Labour ditched those last year.

 

[The Ham]

For most people the issue isn't the sight of the turbines, it is the noise. Right up close, the noise of a wind turbine is over 100dB. Even at distance they're still loud enough, about 45-50dB at 300 metres

Given the turbine is sat several meters above your head, few actually are exposed to the 100dB value.

Probably a more realistic value at the base would be around 60dB, maybe 70bB.

As such unless you are planning on camping at the base of a wind turbine, it shouldn't be much of an issue.

Even at 300m away you're not going to have many people which have to put up with that. Again, unless you're camping (as being in a building will reduce the impact) it's not going to be much of an issue.

As distance is a factor, most people will be living further away and within a building which will reduce the noise.

So no, I wouldn't want wind turbines built half a mile from my house.

Given half a mile is about 800m, the value would have fallen.

And in earshot? Noisy beasts

Motorways are almost as noisy and there's far more homes blighted by them then wind turbines.

 

[12LDA28C]

And in eyeshot. Ugly beasts
Or more correctly they turn a beautiful landscape into an ugly landscape.

Really? More ugly than, say, a coal-fired power station? I know which one I’d rather see in the landscape.

 

[The Ham]

And in eyeshot. Ugly beasts
Or more correctly they turn a beautiful landscape into an ugly landscape.

Probably no less ugly than the features of farming (like drystone walls, creation of pasture from natural landscapes, and large imposing buildings set in gardens at odds with nature) that's before you consider the cross crossing of our land by roads and telegraph poles.

(OK, I don't think that, but things which are seen as "traditional" or "part of our landscape" can be just as dominant in a landscape).

 

[generalnerd]

Probably no less ugly than the features of farming (like drystone walls, creation of pasture from natural landscapes, and large imposing buildings set in gardens at odds with nature) that's before you consider the cross crossing of our land by roads and telegraph poles.

(OK, I don't think that, but things which are seen as "traditional" or "part of our landscape" can be just as dominant in a landscape).

Exactly, eventually they will become a part of our landscape.