BASHING the Luas seems to have become the blood sport of this year's silly sea on. The initial round of sniping by Dublin Chamber of Commerce has been augmented by heavy artillery, with such big guns as Garret FitzGerald and Bobby Molloy drawing up to fire on and possibly even sink the capital's best chance in years to acquire a decent public transport system.

Others, such as Fianna Fail's Seamus Brennan, are now clambering on board the siege train, arguing that the money must be found to put Luas underground.

The most extraordinary intervention was made by Niall Andrews, Fianna Fail MEP for Dublin. According to him, the light rail project is so "daft" that it could become "the greatest economic white elephant for years".

Mr Andrews should know better. As a regular visitor to Strasbourg, he must at least have seen, if not actually used, its very impressive new light rail system. As a politician, he must also be aware that the popularity of Strasbourg's socialist mayor, Catherine Trautmann, who championed the introduction of light rail to the city, went up by 20 points in the last local elections.

How could this have happened if light rail was the "disaster" many of its Dublin critics are now forecasting? And, contrary to another of their claims, Strasbourg is not a city with boulevards so wide that it could easily sacrifice two traffic lanes to the trams Rue des Francs Bourgeois, one of the principal spines of its historic core, is actually narrower than Dawson Street and is now given over entirely to public transport.

Nor is it true, as Bobby Molloy claims, that one third of the line runs underground a short stretch of it does, to pass under the mainline station. What's more, major extensions to the system are now being planned.

The tram is Strasbourg's pride and joy. Every aspect of the system has been designed dawn to the last detail, from the high quality stations, paving and street furniture to the futuristic trams which resemble elongated oval bubbles, with nearly shop sized windows, gliding through the city's historic streets.

According to the French newspaper, Liberation, the popularity of the tram in Strasbourg and elsewhere is linked to its positive impact on the urban environment. "It's principal appeal is not technical, but almost poetic, symbolising light, fast and open transport... It has democratised the city."

In Zurich, which has more BMWs per square mile than Dublin could ever hope to have, the gnomes do not insist on driving into town they use the city's extensive tramway network which, needless to say, runs like clockwork. As a result, there is no traffic congestion on the streets of Zurich and the same is true of Geneva, as I recently confirmed.

They are but two of more than 300 cities worldwide with street running light rail systems. What is so uniquely different about Dublin that so many people the widely travelled Garret FitzGerald included have come to believe that it can't work here?

AND where were all these johnny come lately critics when the Dublin Transportation Initiative was in session, examining all thee options to tackle the city's steadily worsening traffic problems?

In 1994, the DTI came dawn strongly in favour of light rail as part of its balanced programme of transport investment after the most extensive consultation process ever undertaken by any public body. Its dedicated chairman, Pat Mangan, also declared more than once that the DTI was an integrated package, which needed to be implemented in toto rather than "cherry picked" by vested interests.

The option of putting light rail underground, now being heavily canvassed, was considered by the DTI and its consultants, Steer Davies Gleave, and rejected for a variety of reasons, not least the additional cost.

Seamus Brennan must also be well aware of the fact that it was a Fianna Fail government which decided, as long ago as 1987, that the DART would not be extended to serve Tallaght and other outlying areas, via an underground in the city centre, because of the cost. So why should Mr Brennan now believe that it's worth re-examining yet again?

More importantly and this is the crucial point why should public transport in Dublin be forced underground while private cars have the free run of the city's streets?

By taking space away from such traffic and dedicating it permanently to public transport, Luas promises the same civilising effect as the light rail systems in Strasbourg, Grenoble and numerous other places. Indeed, the introduction of such a modern, and very visible, means of transport is by far the best way of giving the city centre back to the people, instead of requiring them to travel around in a hole in the ground.

Of course, there will be disruption while Luas is being installed. But other cities have been through that, too, and survived to prosper. And anyone who thinks that tunnels can be harmlessly burrowed through the city centre, as if by unseen moles, would have their delusions shattered by Semaly/EPO's thorough study, published last week.

The scramble by the Chamber of Commerce and others to denounce this work as "superficial", when they seem quite prepared to go along with an inadequately researched and costed underground plan, the so called Unified Proposal, speaks volumes about their real agenda.

The real agenda of the "Bash the Luas" bandwagon it seems to me, is to ditch light rail altogether and divert the £220 million into building an Eastern Bypass motorway.

It is not just the temporary disruption to some of the streets while the system is being installed which so exercises the Chamber of Commerce and its car driving council their opposition is based on a belated recognition that Luas represents the biggest land grab by public transport in Dublin's recent history and, like Garret FitzGerald, they cannot envisage how cars will be able to get around with so much space reallocated to light rail.

They ignore the fact that an elaborate traffic management plan is being prepared to cater for Luas in always that would avoid creating gridlock. They also ignore the essential truth that traffic finds its own level in an urban environment.

The more road space you create, the more it will fill up with cars and you end up with even higher levels of congestion. Conversely, restricting the amount of road space will have the effect of reducing traffic volumes, which is surely in the public interest. That's why every civilised city has stopped throwing roads at the traffic problem and switched the emphasis to public transport.

FOR the writing is surely on the wall for cars in the city.

After licking the smog problem, thanks to Mary Harney's coal ban, we now find that Dublin has breached EU maximum limits and World Health Organisation guidelines on nitrogen dioxide pollution, which is bad news for asthma victims, in particular.

And the recent report by Dublin Corporation's air quality monitoring unit leaves no room for doubt that this is largely due to the unprecedented number of cars on the road, as more and more people are lured by the promise of "personal mobility" and the social status that seems to go with it.

Investing £220 million in Luas will help to tilt the balance and give Dublin the type of high quality public transport system which many commuters would be happy to use.

After all the reports, analysis and public consultation by the DTI, the only thing which ought to be open for debate at this stage is precisely where the lines should run.

I happen to agree with Garret FitzGerald that the route linking Tallaght with the city centre should come in through Kimmage and Harold's Cross, rather than more circuitously via the Naas Road and Kilmainham. These are issues of detail for the forthcoming public inquiry.

But let us not, so late in the day, start challenging the whole concept of a street running light rail system. Assuming that the first two lines serving Tallaght and Dundrum are installed as planned, the public clamour for more of the same to serve other parts of the city will be quite deafening. And when this happens, the politicians including those who are now to the fore in

Luas bashing will have to respond.