I really do not understand the devotion to LRT. It is cheap when compared to "heavy rail," but it is slow (55mph?) and limited in capacity since all the lines and platforms are designed for a max of 3-car trains. Furthermore, as implemented in LA, it precludes the use of mid- and long-distance passenger trains as well as freight.

Although it seems unlikely at present, I could imagine a time in the future when we will regret not being able to operate local freight service in urban areas. We may not be producing as much as we once were in a place like Los Angeles, but we are certainly consuming more, while urban density is increasing and traffic is getting worse.

In any case, the Gold Line didn't have to be either Metrolink or LRT. It could have been a heavy-rail compatible EMU system which would have been faster and capable of greater capacity, and better suited to operations over the miles and miles to Ontario. Alternately (or in addtion) LRT could have used the LA&SL ROW, which back in the 90s had few encroachments. The tracks could have run elevated above the ATSF line through downtown to the 210, or better, a subway beneath Colorado to PCC or Sierra Madre Blvd. Just think how many more people an LRT line beneath Colorado would serve then those awful stations in the middle of 210. And before you call BS on how expensive a tunnel beneath Colorado would have been, I'll point out we built a tunnel beneath East 1st, and it's probably less dense.

As for the Harbor sub, it is very possible to build a transit system alongside an active railroad. Elevated double-track BART lines were built above the ATSF Oakland Branch and the Western Pacific mainline. LAMTA, however, has consistantly made short sighted decisions that have precluded expansion or an integrated approach to rail transportation.