THE case for a light rail system for Dublin has not yet been proved, says the Dublin Chamber of Commerce.
The Government plans to construct lines from Tallaght, Dundrum and, eventually, Ballymun. But the chamber argues that chaos could result from the imposition of light rail transit (LRT) on a city that cannot accommodate it.
The chamber says it has not been proved that LRT is the best system for Dublin - that it would necessarily represent the best value or reduce congestion.
The chamber asks whether the system is appropriate for a city of Dublin's configuration; whether the full cost has been assessed; whether it will achieve the maximum benefit and whether alternatives have been considered.
Light rail systems have worked successfully in many cities, the chamber acknowledges.
However, it asserts that most of those cities are characterised by wide boulevards and sufficient diversionary routes and off street parking, enabling them to accommodate LRT systems without displacing other traffic.
In a submission the chamber identifies Sheffield in England as an example of how the establishment of a fixed rail system in a city with insufficient street capacity and lack of alternative facilities for traffic can be highly problematic.
The chamber also claims that the estimated cost of the Dublin system - £200 million - refers only to construction and installation, and does not take into account its general economic impact.
Key streets will be closed for up to two years; access to businesses on those streets will still be restricted after the installation of the system; a substantial reduction in turnover is expected; and the rate of business closures can be expected to escalate sharply, it argues.
In Sheffield certain streets were closed for 18 months to two years and a downturn of 80 per cent in retailing was reported, the chamber says. In Strasbourg the real cost was far in excess of the capital expenditure involved.
The full economic impact must be computed into any cost benefit analysis. "We are not aware that these factors have been taken into account in developing Dublin's LRT plans."
The chamber questions whether the proposed system will attract people away from cars. "For the same price as constructing two lines, almost 25 quality bus corridors could be provided serving every major hinterland in and out of the city centre."
Metros are another solution, it suggests.
"We could, for instance, opt for simple but effective bus only roadways with canyons for buses segregated by concrete or rubber dividers. We could graduate from this to a guided bus system such as those which operate successfully in Leeds, Adelaide, or Ipswich."
Slot guided buses, or vehicles which can operate on both tyres and tram tracks, are other options.
Such systems could overcome most of the disruption, costs and delays involved in digging up inner city streets, its says.
The chamber also suggests a combined LRT and metro system, which it suggests might prove to be surprisingly inexpensive.
The Government must reassess the matter, the chamber says. "Investment in public transport is the only way Dublin's traffic problem can be adequately dealt with. Whichever system is decided upon will affect the shape and prospects of the city profoundly."
The submission concludes: "LRT may be the best solution for Dublin's traffic problems, but if so the case must be proven. This cannot be done until the questions raised in this paper are satisfactorily addressed."