Comment & Analysis: The idea that a project is established in local and national policy should hold some weight, but the An Coimisian Pleanala Inspectors Report on the N6 Galway City Ring Road shows little willingness to analyse the validity of such policies or how they conflict with other policies. At least not in terms of the outcome of similar roads all around the world.The Government is moving, as part of the Critical Infrastructure Bill 2026, to gut the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 by allowing authorities to set aside requirements to consider our legally binding climate commitments when making their decisions. It seems the Galway ring road will be added to a list of Critical Infrastructure. This is a reality-bending move where critical projects are not subject to full assessment based on their climate impact. In a joint statement today, Galway County Council, Galway City Council and Transport Infrastructure Ireland said they welcome the decision of An Coimisin Pleanla to grant approval for the N6 Galway City Ring Road (N6GCRR).They said: The N6 GCRR is a core component of the wider transport solution for Galway City and County, complementing BusConnects, ongoing rail enhancements, Active Travel and the continued delivery of other major transport initiatives under the Galway Transport Strategy (GTS).But who actually believes the other measures will fully balance out or even counter the effects of the second ring road? It seems the planning inspector and the planning board do. In his report, Toms Bradley, a senior planning inspector at An Coimisian Pleanla, wrote:With regard to the significant adverse impact on carbon emissions and climate, it is noted that this arises due to the sensitivity of the receiving environment. Noting the role of the proposed development in facilitating the implementation of active travel and public transport measures as set out in the GTS and its role in supporting the compact and more sustainable development of the city, it is not considered that the proposed development would undermine, or be contrary to Irelands climate obligations, given that climate action requires a broad sectoral and economy-wide approach. Ireland has committed to becoming climate neutral / zero emission by 2050, and carbon emissions associated with necessary infrastructural projects such as the proposed development can be mitigated through reductions in other areas as mechanisms such as demand management measures in CAP25 , carbon tax and carbon budgets are developed and will be increasingly mitigated in the operational phase as electric vehicles are adopted.First, on Ireland has committed to becoming climate neutral / zero emission by 2050 we know that the Government has all but abandoned attempts to meet its 2030 targets, and none of its actions to date on transport indicate any correct course. In fact, any notion that the Government might, for example, allow more transport emissions by balancing that out with fewer emissions in other sectors, such as farming, has no place in reality, based on the current direction the Government has taken.This is not good planning; its the kind of wishful-thinking planning that has left housing being built, but promises around public transport and other infrastructure left unfulfilled decades later.In addition, while maybe outside the remit of a planning inspector, if the Government is a broad sectoral and economy-wide approach was being taken, surely a planner should be provided with evidence of this before recommending for approval or, in the case of the board, approving? Reliance on other projects to reduce emissions is at best fancifulIn his report, Bradley accepts the claim that the second ring road is needed to progress sustainable transport infrastructure in Galway, but this has little basis in reality. Even the data presented by Galway City Council and Galway County Council make it clear that the new ring road will increase traffic volumes and congestion. The reliance on other projects such as active travel and public transport projects to reduce traffic and emissions is at best fanciful.The claim that the road will facilitate the implementation of active travel and public transport measures set out in the decade-old Galway Transport Strategy has little basis in reality look at Dublin, for example: The M50 was finished many years ago, yet public transport provision in the city is below that which was promised 25 years ago. Even within the M50, nearly every meaningful active travel project is still a struggle to build, with many motorists, politicians, and even sometimes national planners doubting the validity of reallocating space from cars to active travel and public transport.In Galway, some councillors are losing their minds over construction-related traffic issues on active travel projects. This is not a problem confined to Galway, but these overreactions to temporary impacts and basic safety measures, such as making cornering slower, do not inspire high confidence in sustainable transport projects being rolled out smoothly in the city. The national government and the National Transport Authority also have a part to play. While in-line bus stops where buses stop in line with traffic rather than in a bus bay are better for public transport priority, this measure is not suited to Galway at present, where bus loading times are extremely slow due to driver interactions being required for every passenger. Induced demand is not debatable anymoreDublins M50 and its expansion are also a case in point of road building and widening, causing induced demand and increasing the types of travel patterns that are increasingly hard to serve by public transport, cycling, or walking.Following years of the effect being documented by researchers, there are now lots of explainers on induced demand, including videos from VOX, Adam Something, Not Just Bikes, CityNerd, the Global Cycling Network and others. The fictional Australian TV show Utopia, which humorously covers the dysfunction of providing infrastructure, gives a quick overview: This effect of induced demand has been known about since the 1930s, and as Adem Something explains, since then, politicians around the world have been doing their best to pretend it doesnt exist. In more recent decades, it has become clearer and clearer that the opposite is also true in urban areas space can be taken from cars and reallocated, and we people switch to sustainable modes. Traffic can be reduced by providing workable, attractive alternative modes of transport. But in reply to the issue of induced demand, Bradley does not dismiss the effect but rather wishes it away and says: I am comfortable with the role of the road within the strategic picture that has been set out in the GTS [Galway Transport Strategy] and its holistic approach.But the problem is that the planners are not assessing the Galway Transport Strategy a decade-old policy on the verge of being replaced. The delay in replacing it is likely due to the councils involved wanting to secure the new roads approval first.As covered on this website before, we know that most of the traffic is not bypass traffic. We know this not because of research or any claims by any group, but rather from solid data on the pre-bypass situation, again provided by councils. IMAGE: Data from the councils Executive Report for the project showing volumes of motor traffic around Galway City, including how just 35% crosses the River Corrib, and just 5% of the total is bypass traffic. Graphic by Limerick Cycle Design.Worryingly, there are some signs that the planning inspector is either clueless about induced demand or underplaying it, as he writes, The applicant has modelled a 2% increase in car mode share, i.e. induced traffic/demandWhile induced demand is often discussed in terms of modal share, it should not be explained as such, as above it is highly misleading. Modal share can have no material change in car mode share as the inspector thinks will happen under the wider transport plans, and still, there can be induced demand as demand is based on actual numbers of vehicles, not a percentage share of traffic. Car mode share in Galway is also starting from a very high base. Staying still or moving only slightly is not progress toward sustainable travel patterns itll be a sign that our planning system has again failed us. Its ok to eat a whole cake; you can go for a run laterThe inspector writes:induced demand may be a factor and will likely occur, there is a wider strategy in place, the GTS and CAP25 [Climate Action Plan 2025] Demand Management Measures, to mitigate it and that the issue of demand management needs to be looked at holistically in the context of the wider transport strategy for Galway and governmental climate actions. The Commission will note that demand management and behavioural change measures need to be considered along with infrastructure improvements like the proposed development in order to address induced demand.The inspectors thinking in his report on induced demand feels like eating too many sweet treats, promising yourself youll start a diet next week, and maybe starting to exercise too. Later in his report, he notes continued concern about induced demand from observers. This time as well as mentioning the GTS, he also says, However, induced demand is a global concern Im not even sure what that means? Flooding is a global concern, so do we dismiss the effects for that reason? Im left with the impression that the planning inspector might not actually fully understand induced demand. At the very least, he knows it cannot be dismissed, so hes instead pretending that the wider transport plans will fix it its clear that public transport and active travel cannot fix it alone, and demand that Galway will not even have some of the key demand management tools that he references. AlternativesOn alternatives, Bradley writes:I note Friends of the Irish Environment and the submission of others which question the consideration of alternatives again. The applicant has suitably addressed the Five Cities Demand Management measures therein incorporated into scenarios) and Galway Light Rail (a complementary scheme to the proposed development). Notwithstanding these measures, the applicant has identified traffic, which is not conducive to walking, cycling or public transport (including Light Rail) and is considered strategic traffic difficult to serve by public transport. In the modelling it is noted that two thirds of the traffic using the N6GCRR would cross the River Corrib, in the morning peak hour, to access destinations outside of the city boundary.Therefore, there is a wider need to be met for the proposed development which would complement any future light rail and demand management measures. I note other recommendations in the Five Cities Study which includes Galway for demand management measures including congestion charging, parking levies and low traffic neighbourhood. These are noted and the applicant is alert to these and has factored them in its modelling given they are largely linked to the demand management measures in CAP25.For starters, is he just accepting major induced demand? Where is all of this extra traffic going to come from if the road, as he claims, is going to support compact growth? As with so much of the Inspectors Report, this just does not make any sense. Even if hes thinking a good chunk of that traffic is destined to locations like the Galway Technology Park, which are outside the city boundary but not outside the continuous urban areas, how would this complement light rail rather than compete with it? The mention of the Five Cities Demand Management Study is apt, given that,as recentlyreported, the Government has just gutted the studys outputs. Measures like congestion charges and workplace parking levy, which are mentioned by the inspector, have been at best again deferred. Given his report pre-dates this, Bradley, in fairness, might have remained optimistic that the Government might have delivered some demand management measures. But why would he think measures like congestion charges would be applied to Galway? Even many transport experts think Dublin is nowhere close to being ready for a congestion charge at least not until MetroLink and Dart+ are fully delivered. So, why would anybody bet on congestion charges for a small city in the west of Ireland? The Inspectors Report is repeatedly mindblownly devorced from reality. Again, referring to the demand management strategy and referring to the outdated Galway Transport Study, Bradley states: This study in my view reaffirms the requirement to implement a national demand management strategy which is beyond the applicants control. It in no way undermines the need for the N6GCRR.If demand management measures are needed to contain the ill effects of a yet-to-be-built road (which is a strange line of thinking to start with), then would the lack of such measures not undermine the case for the new road? In terms of roads or sustainable transport, Bradley claims: I do not believe it to be an either or scenario. But in what world could this be true for a city with a population of well under 100,000 people and at most 30-40k people west of the city?In truth, the above paragraphs shatter reality in a way. Planners seem to be unable or unwilling to comprehend that you cannot expect the national Government to spend something close to or more than 1.5 billion on a new urban road for Galway and then spend another 1 billion or more on light rail. The actual planning for compact development that would be needed to justify modern light rail in Galway is the total opposite of what the new road would do. On the basis of the above I am satisfied that the proposed development chosen is the one which best meets the stated scheme objective, to support as urban compact growth and contribute to reducing transport congestion and emissions in Galway by enabling a modern high-quality road network which removes car trips through the city centre. I am, therefore, satisfied that any alternative means of meeting the community need have been considered and are not demonstrably preferable to thatset out in the application.This kind of thinking might have held some water when it was only sandal-wearing environmentalists who objected to massive urban road building that will just induce traffic. But its 2026, theres no excuse for this now. What was known about induced demand in the 1930s and written about even more in the decades that followed is now far more common knowledge. If this road is built and demand is induced, the planning board and inspector will have no defence that the effect was unknown. The planners are, however, giving cover to politicians who can now point at their report that laughably claims that an urban dual carriageway will support urban compact growth, contribute to reducing transport congestion, and enable the removal of car trips through the city centre.His mention of freeing up space in the city is nearly as if the four-lane Quincentennial Bridge and the associated ring roads which are clearly not part of the city centre did not exist. They do. Much like so much of whats covered above, the inspectors report just does not match reality. Unless the main photo on this article looks like a city centre location to anybody else?