DUBLIN'S light rail project is still more or less on track, despite the vicissitudes of recent months. Though now well behind schedule and threatened with further delay because of the European Commission's insistence on another study, political support for LUAS "has never been stronger", according to its planners.
There is a widespread view that the availability of major EU funding for the £200-million-plus project represents a once off opportunity to provide the city with a modern public transport system, in line with an all embracing strategy laid down by the Government sponsored Dublin Transportation Initiative.
The Minister for Transport, Mr Lowry, has been roundly attacked by Fianna Fail for his failure to disclose, until recently, that the European Commission had requested that the phasing of the project be reexamined in particular as to whether Ballymun might have a claim, on socio economic grounds, to be included in the first phase.
After months of haggling over the terms of reference, consultants are to be appointed shortly to carry out this study. Until they are finished, CIE will not be able to apply to the Minister for a light rail order, which means that the public inquiry scheduled for the autumn will not be held until early next year, putting the project back further.
Were the consultants to conclude that Ballymun, rather than Dundrum, should join Tallaght in the first phase, this would also represent a setback because all the detailed design work done so far by CIE's light rail project team relates to the Tallaght and Dundrum routes, leaving Ballymun on the back burner.
But at least the necessary legislation has now been published. This provides a single statutory approval process for light rail transit (LRT), exempting it from planning control.
The mandatory public inquiry will deal with all planning, environmental and transport issues, with the Minister having the final say.
Public support for LUAS remains strong. A three month survey of over 10,000 Dubliners found that 95 per cent of them backed light rail.
Of course some concerns were raised, such as the effect construction would have on business and traffic in the city. But only a tiny 1 per cent of the participants said they favoured alternatives such as monorail, an underground or trolley buses.
LRT is also strongly supported by the Dublin City Centre Business Association as well as the Tallaght Chamber of Commerce and the Dundrum Business Association.
"Our members are aware that there will be disruption during the construction phase of LRT, but we feel that managed pain will be well worth the gain," said the DCCBA.
Indeed, the DCCBA played a leading role in the campaign to bring LRT to Dublin because it sees a high quality public transport system as the key to making the city centre more accessible.
The Chamber of Commerce, while claiming to favour better public transport, has been primarily lobbying for the Eastern Bypass motorway.
As soon as the LRT project was launched last December, the chamber began voicing its concerns about the prospect of "massive and prolonged disruption" to the city's streets and suggesting that articulated buses, or even an underground rail system, might be better.
Either way, it wants the current plan "reviewed".
The chamber was represented on the DTI Consultative Panel, which met on 13 occasions over a period of two years to review the preparation of its £1.2 billion strategy to tackle Dublin's traffic problems. Nobody can recall its representatives forcefully raising these concerns then the Eastern Bypass was their agenda.
Last March, in a speech which he said was designed to "clear the air" about LRT, Mr Lowry reiterated that it was an integral part of the DTI package.
"We cannot just decide to opt for buses or an underground as an alternative to on street light rail. If we were to do that, we would have to reviews its impact on the whole strategy."
The underground option is being heavily canvassed by promoters of a scheme billed as the "Unified Proposal", engineers Cormac Rabbitt and Rudi Monaghan. Indeed, their lobbying has been so successful that whole chunks of their documentation were retailed by members of the Seanad in a debate on the issue last February.
Prof Simon Perry, dean of the School of Engineering at TCD and a light rail enthusiast, recalled that "every opportunity" was given by the DTI's "massive" consultation programme for alternatives to be considered. This included "detailed studies" of both guided busways and the possibility of the city centre LRT going underground.
"For the most powerful reasons possible - including overall cost, personal safety and the need to reduce the horrendous effects of pollution and congestion - street running LRT emerged as the only dependable, viable means of mass transit for the backbone of the Dublin of the future," Prof Perry said.
The DTI consultants, Steer Davies Gleave, concluded that putting the DART underground in the city centre and extending it to serve Tallaght and other suburbs, as proposed by CIE in 1975, would be "prohibitively expensive - an estimated £600 million - and, in any case, could not be implemented within an acceptable timescale.
Tunnels are very expensive to construct, with major excavations needed to create stations, which would also be disruptive. Underground trains are more difficult to reach, requiring lifts for disabled access.
They can also present security problems, especially at night, whereas surface operation is safer, giving passengers a view of the city streets.
Mr Tony Young, a British transport consultant, recalled that a tunnel was proposed in the 1970s to connect Manchester's two mainline railway stations, Piccadilly and Victoria. But the city's Metrolink light rail system, opened three years ago, "has proved so popular that no one would seriously suggest putting it underground now."
According to Prof Perry, "All innovative ideas, particularly where they involve change of habit and some disruption during introduction, arouse objections."
He cited the "forecasts of doom and desolation" which preceded the pedestrianisation of Grafton Street, but said its success had led to a dramatic rise in retail property prices.
Similarly, with LUAS, "we can rest assured, through the clearest evidence of transport patterns elsewhere, that street running LRT is the only way that the centre of Dublin can recover and thrive," he said.
Or, to quote the Minister, "Other cities have built successful LRT systems and survived the experience. Dublin can also do this."
Mr Lowry has made it clear, however, that the construction programme would have to be planned with great care to manage and minimise disruption.
The number of cities around the world with LRT systems now exceeds 300. And the systems in Manchester, Grenoble and Strasbourg - all recent - have proved so successful that they are actively planning new lines. (In the case of Manchester, a £110 million extension was approved only last January).
"There can be no better recommendation than this," said Mr Donal Mangan, the chief executive of Dublin Bus and LRT project director. "These cities have all faced the practical problems of implementation and come through at the other end. Why should Dublin be any different?"
