Debate contribution: All-island Rail Network
Debate contribution by Mr Peter McReynolds on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter McReynolds
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 27 February 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- All-island Rail Network
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4237716
Read the official Assembly record
Text
— and I always hear complaints about rail infrastructure and public transport when I make the journey to the north-west. As Alliance Party infrastructure spokesperson, I have called for the Assembly to start thinking progressively about our infrastructure and about how sustained investment in our public transport network can improve our connectivity, stimulate economic growth and tackle the all-too-real climate emergency. A new, greatly enhanced and ambitious rail network carries significant benefits not just for communities across the island but for our shared environment. A key commitment under the New Decade, New Approach agreement, the all-island rail review reflects the strategic objective to mitigate the impacts of climate change, which have been and should continue to be a priority in the Assembly. Transportation is essential for the social, economic and environmental well-being of Northern Ireland, and it is essential that we take steps to transform public transport networks by investing in our existing rail assets and delivering more connections. We are, sadly, well known for our reliance on private car usage and our poor road network, with 70% of all journeys and 87% of journeys of over 1 mile being made by car. Transportation here is tailored to car usage, and that is reflected in the length of our public road network, which is over 25,000 kilometres, compared with 350 kilometres for our rail network. Before preparing my thoughts and speech ahead of today and to allude to what Mr Durkan said, I looked at graphics of our existing network to compare them with what the all-island rail network seeks to achieve over the next few decades. As someone who has lived in France, I find Northern Ireland's lack of rail in comparison with that of many European countries nothing short of a disgrace in 2024. It needs to change. If we continue to build and maintain a system that favours car usage, the cycle of car dominance will just continue, as is shown by the number of young drivers on our roads, which has not diminished but rather almost doubled over the past 10 years. We will not break the monopoly on private car use, because there are limited options for travel that suit the needs of our citizens. That is where an improved and enhanced rail offering comes in. Rail has no appeal as an option when end-to-end journey times are faster, more reliable and more cost-effective by car. The delivery of an all-Ireland rail network could see rail passenger numbers double: nearly three quarters of a million people would live within 5 kilometres of a railway station, and some journey times between towns and cities could be halved.
I thank the Member for his intervention. I absolutely agree: when I was reading through the proposal yesterday, I noted the significant impact that it would have on the City Airport in East Belfast as well. Better-connected cities and towns by rail is precisely the type of policy that the Assembly should advocate in order to promote a modal shift in how people move and decarbonise the transport sector, which is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the United Kingdom. In previous years, the expansion of the public transport network has been in line with population growth. The inadequacy of investment over the last decade means that commuters are less likely to use public transport than they were 10 years earlier. That is a step backwards during a climate crisis and when there is a requirement to move towards low-carbon mobility. This is an acknowledgement of the threat that climate change brings to our transport network, as was mentioned by Mr Stewart. Sustained increases in temperature, as well as heavy rainfall, test the resilience of roads, bridges and our rail network by damaging their structural integrity. Yet, there is no strategy for adapting transport infrastructure to a changing climate. It is, therefore, crucial that we start to invest in other modes of transport for the climate benefit but also to relieve the pressure on the current network. As we head towards 2030, green infrastructure that facilitates sustainable connectivity between major cities and regions across the island must be a priority. Historically, infrastructure planning has suffered from our inconsistent politics, which ensures that the vision and ambition of potentially transformative projects are rarely delivered on. We can no longer afford to let stop-start politics limit our efforts to move towards a low-emission transport network to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Alliance is happy to support the motion and the amendment. The plans, as we know, are ambitious and significant in cost. The more contributors who are willing to dig deep to fund them, the better.
777 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.94 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:40 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.