The most ambitious infrastructure project in human history severing the American continent in half was completed in 1914 by the United States after 10 years of construction. Today, it can take nearly that long to simply secure approval to build a single transit line, housing development, or energy project. Somewhere between the era that constructed the Panama Canal to present day, the United States lost its ability to build. This isn’t a failure of engineering, capital, or willpower, but policy. 

Few cities capture this conflict more clearly than Los Angeles, a city battling severe housing shortages, worsening traffic congestion, and ongoing climate risks. Yet projects meant to address these issues spend years trapped in bureaucratic red tape, permitting processes, and regulatory reviews before a single foundation is set. Proposals like LA Metro D-line with broad public support sit under environmental reveal for over a decade—and Los Angeles is far from alone. (Seplow, 2022). 

Across the country, regulatory systems governing infrastructure developments have grown so complex that delay has become the new status-quo. Environmental reviews, multi-layered permitting requirements, and fragmented governance structures routinely push projects back several years, or even decades. The most comprehensive

federal review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) takes on average 4.5 years to complete (Council on Environmental Quality 2020; Hochman 2024). The lengthy process of navigating federal permitting alone costs billions of dollars in lost investment and stalls developments local communities urgently need (Sternfels, Kumar, and Boland 2025; Kersey 2025). 

The housing crisis accentuates this failure even more. The United States currently faces a shortage of 3.7 to 3.8 million units, the gap sitting at the heart of the affordability crisis pushing homeownership further out of reach of younger Americans (Freddie Mac, 2025). A major reason supply has not kept up with growing demand is due to hyper-restrictive zoning and layered approval processes. Every additional step, from planning commission, to legal challenges, to environmental reviews add time and cost until some projects simply do not happen at all. In 2024, Los Angeles County lost a proposed 43-unit supportive housing complex for seniors in San Dimas after withholding key funding approvals, allowing the project to stall until the developer walked away (LA Public Press 2024). Following the Palisades fires in 2025, Malibu struggled to rebuild communities due to the California Coastal Act of 1976 which implemented stringent coastal regulations, environmental regulations, and bureaucratic bottlenecks. (California Coastal Commission). This has led to the recovery of Malibu communities stalling with only 2% of applications being approved as residents battle regulations and high costs, with many Malibu residents forced to sell their homes due to the lengthy process and costs related to permitting the re-construction of their homes (Flemming, 2025).

This same dynamic also continues to undermine the nation’s climate goals. Building renewable energy such as wind farms, solar installations, and transmission lines require the navigation of federal, state, and local permits, spending two-to-four years in NEPA review before breaking ground, some never making it that far (Fraas 2025; Resources for the Future 2025). In 2026, the Kaskaskia Wind Project in Illinois—a planned 500-megawatt facility—was indefinitely delayed after permitting timelines caused it to lose its grid-connection spot resulting in $10 million of sunk costs (Climate Power 2026; EUCI 2024). 

Environmental laws like NEPA exist for real reasons, but have drifted into procedural mazes that have slowed down essential developments with no improved outcomes. Fixing this does not require gutting our environmental protections. It requires making the process work. 

1. Time Limits: Congress should set firm time limits for federal environmental requirements, like a two-year cap for major environmental impact statements. Open-ended timelines have become a de-facto veto, trapping projects in limbo for years. Predictability is what makes oversight functional and allows for developments to no longer stall. 

2. Consolidation: Permitting authority from the municipal, to state, to national level should be consolidated across agencies. Right now, a single project can require independent approval from half-dozen federal and state bodies, each with its own timeline and requirements. A coordinated one-stop permitting process reduces duplication, resolves conflicts, and gives communities a clear point of accountability. 

3. Categorical Exclusions: Infill housing, transit upgrades, and small-scale renewable installations do not need the same years-long review process as major industrial facilities. Reserving intensive review for projects where environmental stakes are highest frees up capacity across the board allowing for the more efficient development of low-impact projects that benefit our communities. 

Many projects that could define the next generation of American progress remain trapped in bureaucratic bottlenecks. The interstate highway redefined the nation’s economy in a single generation. The Apollo program placed humans on the moon in less than a decade. There is a difference between a country that can meet its housing and climate challenges, and one that keeps drafting plans it can’t build.

Acknowledgement

The Institute for Youth in Policy would like to acknowledge Kayleen Kim for editing this op-ed.

References

“California Coastal Commission.” n.d. Www.coastal.ca.gov. https://www.coastal.ca.gov/laws/. “EXECUTIVE OFFICE of the PRESIDENT COUNCIL on ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.” 2020. https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/nepa-practice/CEQ_EIS_Timeline_Report_2020-6-12.pdf. Hochman, Thomas. 2024. “NEPAstats.” Greentape.pub. Green Tape. December 29, 2024. https://www.greentape.pub/p/nepastats. 

“Housing Supply: Still Undersupplied by Millions of Units.” 2025. Freddiemac.com. 2025. https://www.freddiemac.com/research/insight/housing-supply-still-undersupplied. 

“How Long Does It Take? National Environmental Policy Act Timelines and Outcomes for Clean Energy Projects.” 2024. Resources for the Future. 2024. https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/how-long-does-it-take-national-environmental-po licy-act-timelines-and-outcomes-for-clean-energy-projects/. 

“Metro K Line: Crenshaw Corridor History and Resources.” 2022. Metro’s Primary Resources. September 17, 2022. https://metroprimaryresources.info/metro-k-line-crenshaw-corridor-history-and-resource s/. 

Mitchkersey. 2025. “Time to Fix America’s Permitting Problems and Let America Build.” Clearpath.org. November 18, 2025. 

https://clearpath.org/our-take/time-to-fix-americas-permitting-problems-and-let-america-b uild/. 

“Renewable Energy Projects Are Facing Increased Delays, Cancellations, and Big Losses – EUCI.” 2024. Euci.com. 2024.

https://www.euci.com/renewable-energy-projects-are-facing-increased-delays-cancellatio ns-and-big-losses/. 

Rode, Erin. 2024. “How LA County Squashed a Supportive Housing Project for Seniors.” LA Public Press. LAPP. August 22, 2024. 

https://lapublicpress.org/2024/08/san-dimas-la-verne-supportive-housing-senior-barger-la county-homeless/. 

“ROUND UP: Three Clean Energy Projects Were Canceled or Delayed Last Week Thanks to Trump’s War on Clean Energy | Climate Power.” 2026. Climate Power. February 17, 2026. https://climatepower.us/news/round-up-three-clean-energy-projects-were-canceled-or-del ayed-last-week-thanks-to-trumps-war-on-clean-energy/. 

Sternfels, Bob, Adi Kumar, and Brodie Boland. 2025. “Unlocking US Federal Permitting: A Sustainable Growth Imperative.” McKinsey & Company. July 28, 2025. 

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/unlocking-us-federal-per mitting-a-sustainable-growth-imperative. 

TNS. 2025. “Malibu’s Recovery Stalls as Red Tape and Fire Damage Collide.” Governing. October 23, 2025. 

https://www.governing.com/urban/malibus-recovery-stalls-as-red-tape-and-fire-damage-co llide.