Los Angeles Metro’s recent debut of three new subway stations along Wilshire Boulevard on May 8 marked the first significant subway expansion in the city in decades. The extension of the D Line, initially funded by voters in 1980, took 46 years to complete, highlighting longstanding challenges in California’s transit development process. The delay has been a source of frustration, as many who originally supported the project will not live to benefit from it.

The protracted timeline and high costs of transit projects in California stand in stark contrast to other global cities such as Madrid. The Madrid Metro, which serves the entirety of the city with affordable fares around $1.65, is currently extending Line 11 by four miles underground at roughly $110 million per mile—a fraction of the nearly $900 million per mile spent on the D Line extension. Madrid’s project is also expected to be completed within four years, underscoring significant differences in transit project management and regulatory environments.

Experts attribute these disparities largely to California’s complex and fragmented permitting and approval processes. In the state, multiple local agencies and interest groups wield significant influence, often resulting in delays and increased costs. For instance, the Beverly Hills Unified School District expended over $15 million from school bond funds in litigation aimed at halting portions of the D Line project beneath Beverly Hills High School. Although the district ultimately lost its legal battles, the lawsuits contributed to extensive project delays.

Similarly, the San Francisco Bay Area’s transit development offers parallel examples of stalled progress. In 1962, Marin County withdrew from the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system prior to construction, leading to a long-abandoned Geary Subway project that would have served dense urban neighborhoods. More recently, BART’s extension to downtown San José, initially projected to open in 2026 with a cost of approximately $4.7 billion, now faces an estimated $12.75 billion budget and a 2037 completion date.

These delays and disputes carry significant economic consequences. Traffic congestion in Los Angeles contributed to an average of 86 hours of delay per driver annually, with losses exceeding $1,500 per commuter in time and productivity. Nationwide, congestion costs the economy over $85 billion annually. In the Wilshire corridor alone, more than 30,000 bus riders endure lengthy commutes exacerbated by delays in expanding higher-capacity rail options.

California has recently taken steps to streamline development processes in related areas. Senate Bill 79, enacted to override local zoning restrictions near transit stations, allows the state to approve apartment projects that cities may otherwise block. Advocates argue that a similar approach could apply to transit infrastructure, proposing measures such as strict permit timelines, limited environmental review exemptions, and expedited legal processes to curtail disruptive litigation.

While reforms to the permitting and approval framework could shorten timelines, experts emphasize that transit cost disparities also stem from factors like in-house engineering capacity, standardized station designs, and procurement efficiencies—areas where California lags behind international counterparts. Addressing these systemic issues, alongside legislative reforms, is seen as essential to enabling the state to build transit infrastructure more effectively.

With gubernatorial candidates focusing on housing affordability and cost of living, transportation advocates suggest that easing transit project development should be prioritized. Streamlining regulatory hurdles may prove to be a crucial step toward making transit construction more affordable and efficient, thereby supporting broader efforts to address California’s housing and economic challenges.