So on 'environmental grounds' they want the more capable and
efficient over head system replaced by an inadequate and possibly
dangerous ground level system.

I've seen a number of 'environmental' objections over the years
(don't mess up my view) that when implemented have resulted in a less
efficient system. (Particularly route changes that result in tougher
grades, hence greater energy use).

Some one should go through such objections and attach a long term
running cost to them, both in maintenance and 'carbon cost' of on
going energy use implications.