Regarding those environmental reviews: it takes time to look at everything, and it's impossible in many cases to say what's important before looking at everything. However, there are other ways to do things.

A major difference between public and private projects is that the laws and regs require public projects to follow a strict "waterfall" process, where things must be done in sequence and in public. So, the public knows (if they know where to look) when a project is scheduled in planning and programming work; they know when preliminary environmental and design work is done through programming and public review procedures; they see final approval with the EIR or equivalent document; the permits are done in public AFTER that; the detailed design and right of way acquisition is done in public AFTER that; and of course the construction is done AFTER all of that. No overlap is normally allowed (some design-build arrangements being exceptions, and not universally effective).

Private projects do things in parallel depending on the developer's assessment of risk. When private money is involved, time is the greatest risk factor because it affects financing cost and how soon income can be generated. So for private developers the land is owned before starting the development process (not purchased after environmental), much of the final design is done for or during the environmental process, and for practical purposes, they're ready to throw dirt and start building the day everything's approved rather than a year or 2 later. That gives the impression that they're more efficient; sometimes, they are, but really they're doing the same work, but in parallel rather than in sequence. Also, of course, most of it's done outside of public view.

Should we do public projects more like private? Maybe, but carefully, because there IS risk involved that public work usually has to avoid, and a certain lack of transparency. Just sayin'