In 2020, SPUR documented regular delays in California’s construction of major transit projects, which we also found to be among the mostly costly in the world. In More for Less, we argued that the problems that lead transit projects down a path of cost escalation and delay happen long before they ever break ground. Put simply, the apparatus of project selection, planning, funding, and permitting is not designed to deliver projects quickly and cost-effectively.
That realization has become part of mainstream conversation, in part due to books such as Why Nothing Works by Mark Dunkleman, Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, and Recoding America by Jennifer Pahlka — books that give voice to many Americans’ palpable sense that things are no longer working for most people. And for these authors, that anxiety stems from the failure to build. They argue that scarcity is a problem of our own making and a symptom of a government that is paralyzed.
How Transit and Other Infrastructure Projects Got Bogged Down
The story of how the government became paralyzed is a tale of power and the rearrangement of progressive ideals. A period of “urban renewal,” which often involved displacing people with low incomes and people of color, was embodied by Robert Moses, the city planner whose legacy is reflected in many of New York’s roads, bridges, and parks. Many planners find themselves in awe of his city building but vexed by how he did it. The growth of bureaucracy and procedure is an understandable reaction to the deliberate erasure of entire neighborhoods that went unchecked in the middle of the 20th century.
This reaction is where a new report from Circulate San Diego in partnership with SPUR begins. Powerless Brokers: Why California Can’t Build Transit looks exclusively at the permitting processes to construct transit infrastructure. It argues that while corrections restrain government actors from repeating abuses of power, they often lead to new problems.
To be clear, permits are not inherently a problem. Nor are changes in scope or design inherently a problem — sometimes they improve a project. They only become a problem when permitting entities — such local jurisdictions, special districts, or regulatory agencies — use permits as leverage for unrelated gains or when permitting processes and conditions are opaque, arbitrary, or excessive.
When permits are used as leverage or permitting agencies impose many new conditions, project costs can skyrocket. Powerless Brokers illustrates that phenomenon with the California High-Speed Rail system and the requirements of two jurisdictions it would affect. The City of Shafter, located near Bakersfield, imposed what amounted to a “price to enter.” The city wanted grade separations to improve safety at intersections on the freight corridor — even though the high-speed rail train would operate in its own right of way and not use the freight tracks. This one concession added almost $20 million dollars to the high-speed rail project. Similarly, Madera County required or requested numerous changes to the project that led to a dozen change orders totaling more than $30 million.
Small projects are not immune from these dynamics. Consider the Monterey-Salinas Transit system’s plan to build a 6-mile busway within a dormant rail corridor as part of a 20-mile bus route through three coastal towns. The project was subject to review by five agencies, including the California Coastal Commission. In July 2021, MST’s governing board approved the Surf! Busway. Before obtaining a coastal development permit, the coastal commission required MST to study 12 new project alternatives, ultimately reverting to the original proposed by MST. Still, in July 2024, a commission staff report recommended denial of the coastal development permit for the project, identifying environmental and aesthetic impacts to the coastline. Prior to its hearing, MST filed a letter to correct what it described as “42 omissions, errors, and misunderstandings” in the commission report. After escalating the issue politically, the commission reversed its position and issued the permit. In total, the conditions and delays imposed by the commission increased the cost of the project by $10.5 million.
Permitting challenges are often hidden, but their impacts are felt widely. Taxpayers in one city are paying for the cost of exactions in another. Riders are still waiting for the train their grandparents voted to support. Lawmakers and transit agencies face waning public support.
How California Is Finally Fast-Tracking Transit Infrastructure
Powerless Brokers offers several recommendations for reform. They range from simple changes in practice to help transit agencies navigate permitting processes — such as providing a uniform permit application or creating expedited approval pathways — to bolder reforms such as reassigning permitting authority to the transit agencies, which is relatively common in other countries for some types of transit projects. Colin Parent, the primary author of the report, believes moderation is the answer. “I don’t think any serious policy proposal is suggesting that [the state] empower an unelected, unaccountable transit czar to be able to do whatever they want without asking for permission,” he said in at SPUR’s webinar Reducing Friction in Permitting Transit (link includes program recording). “That’s not the proposal. Instead, the proposal is to try and strike a better balance between the goals of centrally organized authority to do things and … disaggregated authority across multiple different individuals and agencies.”
Recent developments suggest that California may be eager to strike that balance. The state is on a transformative path to enhance government efficiency and accountability in its infrastructure projects, particularly transit projects. Recent legislative efforts underscore the state’s commitment to addressing systemic challenges that have historically plagued project execution.
One significant step toward reducing bureaucratic delays was SPUR-sponsored legislation that gave transit projects a temporary exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Senate Bill 71 (Weiner) seeks to extend this exemption to transit and so-called active (pedestrian- and cyclist-friendly) transportation projects to 2040.
The state’s recent creation of a Select Committee on Permitting Reform (thanks to Assemblymember Buffy Wicks) reflects a broader recognition of the need for streamlined processes across energy, housing, and transit sectors. The current legislative session has seen the introduction of 22 infrastructure streamlining bills, a clear indication that lawmakers not only are aware of the issues but are actively seeking solutions.
As part of the state’s recent budget negotiations, Governor Gavin Newsom introduced sweeping CEQA reforms for infill housing and updated the Permit Streamlining Act to accelerate critical energy and public works projects. These initiatives demonstrate California’s growing commitment to building a more effective government — one that prioritizes timely and cost-effective infrastructure development while maintaining public accountability. By embracing these changes, California is setting a precedent for how government can better serve its citizens and efficiently deliver essential services.
Many thanks to Arnold Ventures for its generous support of Powerless Brokers.