Rozelle Interchange has taken a toll, but for Sydney transport, the road ahead looks grim

Commuters enduring the aftermath of the Rozelle Interchange opening will hardly be surprised by the scathing report of the parliamentary inquiry published this week, especially its finding that the design prioritised financial gain over community interest.

The report offers 17 recommendations aimed at remedying problems caused by the interchange and learning from its mistakes. While these are mostly sound, they don’t go far enough. Even if the Minns government adopts them all, residents will continue to suffer poorer access to jobs, education and services. Moreover, the government will still be able to commit similar acts of environmental vandalism and misuses of public funds in the future.

For instance, the inquiry heard evidence that the traffic forecasting undertaken for the planning application was manipulated to underestimate the volume of surface traffic entering the interchange from City West Link. To achieve this deceit, the traffic modellers assumed that Parramatta Road – which feeds City West Link – has only four traffic lanes. We all know it has six. NSW Planning approved the project, despite being informed of this egregious fraud.

Now, if a property developer were to submit a development application for a six-floor apartment building but provide overshadowing and other impact assessments for a four-floor building, the planning authority would likely reject it. Even if it were approved, neighbours could challenge the approval in court.

But the former Coalition government declared WestConnex and the Rozelle Interchange to be “State Significant Infrastructure”, having quietly changed our planning laws to block legal scrutiny of such projects. Without legislation to restore democratic legal oversight, governments can continue to deceive us about the traffic, health and environmental impacts of major infrastructure proposals with impunity.

The inquiry also heard evidence of how the former government misled the public about the purported benefits of the Rozelle Interchange and broader WestConnex scheme. For example, it promised reduced congestion. But by making it more attractive for more people to drive more often and for longer distances – and to move further from work – WestConnex has induced traffic growth and more congestion.

We were promised the revitalisation of Parramatta Road. But its traffic volume today is about the same as it was before WestConnex opened.

Less traffic on other suburban roads was a key selling point. But the new tolls on the old M4 and M5 motorways, introduced as a deal-sweetener for WestConnex’s privatisation, have forced thousands of cars and trucks onto local streets.

We were assured of economic benefits. However, the government sold off WestConnex at a multibillion-dollar loss. It then spent $4 billion on the Rozelle Interchange before gifting it to WestConnex’s corporate owners. The government is spending a further $10 billion on the airport link and Western Harbour Tunnel.

In addition, motorists and businesses will pay an estimated $65 billion in WestConnex tolls over the next 37 years, much of which will be paid by taxpayers through toll subsidies. Tolling reforms proposed in this week’s report by Allan Fels, the former Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman – including two-way tolling on the Harbour Bridge and tunnel – will do little to address massive inequalities in access and transport costs across Greater Sydney. The government’s refusal to replace tolls and vehicle registration with network-wide congestion pricing will mean our motorways will continue to be underutilised, while our local streets remain choked with traffic.

In another hit to the economy, WestConnex construction has contributed to skilled labour shortages. This has pushed up inflation, increasing construction costs of much-needed rail projects and housing.

When invited to give evidence before the inquiry, I was asked by a former minister about my proposed solution. In response, I sought clarification on the underlying problem requiring a solution. The former minister was unable to answer. I left the hearing wondering how a government could justify spending billions of public funds on a scheme that has inflicted so much harm and distress on the community, without having a clear objective in sight.

I would like the inquiry to have recommended that future major infrastructure proposals be reviewed by a genuinely independent body – not one chaired by a former state premier with links to toll road corporations. And that proposals must be accompanied by a clear problem definition, evidence that the proposed solution will work, and an assessment of alternative solutions. For example, to make it easier for essential workers to get to work, would it have been less costly and destructive to invest in affordable homes close to jobs?

Ultimately, the issues exposed by the Rozelle Interchange inquiry are symptomatic of larger systemic problems in our infrastructure planning. We must demand transparency and accountability from the state government. We need infrastructure that supports a sustainable, healthy and equitable future for all.

To achieve this, the focus of urban planning needs to change. We know continued attempts to speed up traffic at all costs results in more car dependence, traffic and congestion, as well as higher transport costs and emissions. Other global cities, including London, Paris and Seoul, have largely abandoned this antiquated planning ideology. They now prioritise proximity and access to jobs, education and services, and better health and wellbeing for all.

Dr Christopher Standen is a research fellow in urban development at UNSW Sydney.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform. Sign up here.