There is no big problem with going through courts to make sure the project has sufficiently good cost-benefit ratios.

The problem is, that alternatives are not priced comparably, thus the economics simply favors them. (Such as driving or flying.)

If tunneling would be cheaper (in concrete construction costs), then those could go ahead, because there's not much issue about it, it's about as straightforward as flying. (Of course below a certain depth, so no noise and structural concerns arise.)