IN view of Dublin's mammoth traffic problem, it is not surprising that transport is hotly debated. Dublin Chamber of Commerce, Dr Garret FitzGerald, politicians, including Bobby Molloy, Seamus Brennan and Niall Andrews, are among those who have voiced strong opinions about the Dublin Transport Initiative (DTI) and, in particular, the problems they foresee in the Light Rail Transit (LRT) system.

Most of the commentators who have expressed opinions are not experts in traffic management or transportation planning, but their views bare being put forward and accepted as facts. While it is important that the public expresses its views, a debate based on accurate information is essential, otherwise it is a pointless exercise.

With so much misinformed comment in the media coverage of the topic, there is a danger the public will lose sight of two fundamental points. Firstly, the DTI was based on the most comprehensive transportation study ever undertaken in Ireland, conducted over a six year period to 1994. Secondly, the LRT, or Luas, is an important element of the DTI strategy, but is only part of a comprehensive, integrated transportation plan to solve Dublin's chronic traffic problems.

The DTI strategy is now being implemented. The physical work has already begun. The first Transportation Programme (1994/99), with a budget of £626 million, has already started.

The Dublin Transportation Office (DTO) is actively co ordinating the work of the various transportation agencies in bringing this first phase of the strategy to fruition. Future programmes will build on this start. The strategy will be continually reviewed and refined to ensure the DTI's broad based objectives are achieved.

A firm foundation needs to be reestablished to correct misunderstandings and guide the current public debate. This is to be found in the underlying philosophy of DTI.

The DTI is based on a vision of Dublin for the new millennium, which is that of a "civilised city and its region shaped not by demand for transport but by the needs of the city and its hinterland as a place where people work and relax and enjoy their leisure time."

This is a radical departure from the traditional approach of providing for ever increasing traffic volumes which, at long last, has been recognised as unsustainable, leading to gridlock and damage to the city centre. The vision will not be realised if people do not change from using private cars to public transport, especially for routine journeys.

The major flaws in the debate to date are that, despite the extensive public consultation carried out by the DTI, most commentators appear not to understand the dramatic change in direction taken by DTI and fail to connect the individual transportation projects with the overall DTI strategy.

A prime example of this failure is the portrayal of the LRT project as "the solution" to Dublin's problems. It is, in fact, only one element of a package of initiatives which include 10 quality bus corridors, completion of the motorway system, extensions of DART, the Dublin Port tunnel and many other measures aimed at achieving the objectives for the city.

The detailed arguments about the LRT have also been flawed. Critics have listed capacity, impact on the road system, congestion at traffic signals, and disruption during and after construction, as reasons why the system should go underground.

The critics are wrong. The LRT capacity is a function of the number of LRT vehicles in operation. With the extensive public transport network being installed (LRT, buses, DART) the demands on any single corridor will not exceed the capacity that can be provided. An LRT line can carry up to 16,000 persons per hour in each direction. By comparison, DART is now carrying about 4,000 per hour per direction at peak.

Do the critics seriously contend that at some stage the demands on the LRT system will be four times what DART is carrying now Dublin is not a high rise city like London or New York and does not require the type of system those cities need.

The issue of impact on other road traffic is again misunderstood. The DTI strategy requires a significant rearrangement of traffic in the city centre to enhance the economic vigour of the city to counter the competition from out of town attractions.

These changes are not dictated by the LRT. The LRT system and the other public transport facilities being provided are an integral part of the overall plan for the city centre.

To put the LRT system in perspective, the total length of on street sections of the two lines amounts to only 8.5km out of a total network in the Greater Dublin Area of 3,500km. All of this has been well studied and is being refined as the detailed designs of the various projects develop.

Regarding the emotive debate on the subject of disruption during construction - it has to be accepted that there will be disruption. However, it will affect only short sections for relatively short periods. In terms of physical scale, the LRT construction work is orders of magnitude smaller than an equivalent tunnelled system.

What about the huge quantity of material which would have to be moved to tunnel the city centre? What about the huge excavations associated with the city centre stations and the dramatic effect the access ramps to the tunnels would have on the adjacent built up areas? Tunnelling also causes disruption.

All of these arguments have been put forward by those lobbying for an underground system. But why do we want to go underground when we can provide a safe, accessible friendly system on the surface?

Underground stations are not perceived as accessible by a growing number of mobility impaired and disabled people, the elderly and parents with shopping and buggies. They are not perceived as safe waiting environments despite the best efforts of the transport operators.

A surface LRT system is very accessible and is much more flexible. Tram stops can be spaced as close as 500 metres apart. They are easily and cheaply constructed, allowing the system to adapt to a changing city. By contrast, underground stations must be at least I.5km apart and the construction of additional stations at a later date is impractical.

Cost is a factor in every project. Much has been made of the comparative costs of underground and surface LRT. It has been said that LRT was selected because it is cheaper to construct. This is not so. If the funds required to build an underground system were available today, we would still opt for a surface LRT system.

The present LRT proposals are for a three line core system. This must be seen as a beginning. Future plans will extend the system. If the initial system capacity is quickly exceeded then it is only a matter of increasing the rolling stock to meet the needs. {CORRECTION} 96082700036