Sir, - I must take issue with G. Harvey (October 18th) and John Devlin (October 29th). There is a straightforward reason why even the best bus-lane system would not give all the benefits of light rail.
The number of passengers using any form of transport depends on its quality - that combination of comfort, convenience and reliability which is partly subjective but makes a real difference to the numbers carried.
This quality is essential to entice motorists out of their cars. A good bus service would attract some of them, but a light or heavy rail system would attract many more.
We are dealing here with the same fallacy that closed so many railways in the past. It was assumed (wrongly) that the number of passengers would stay the same as buses replaced trains. With rail investment, a fear of extravagance often stops us paying for a system that really works.
I haven't seen any response to Jim Nolan's proposal (October 16th) for dual-powered trains that can work by either diesel or electricity. There is no reason why this can't be done. Britain's class 73 engines are an example.
But let us not forget the main reason why great lengths of railway in other countries are electrified: to reduce running costs. Dual-powered trains have their place in the context of an expanding electrified network, not as a substitute. Let us not be afraid to spend money now to cut down on future running costs. - Yours, etc.,
Mulgrave Street, Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin.