Of course they were "soundly rejected" because the EIS was rigged for rail.  There is no way that rail which would entail not only double the cost of "Managed Lane" but also entail yearly expenses in the millions to pay for operations and maintenance of rail would be superior considering that both accomplishes the same purpose - "An alternative to Traffic Congestion".  Of course all taxpayers would prefer to avoid paying higher property tax with rail when another system that accomplishs the same thing as rail is billions cheaper.  It is obvious that you are ignoring the fact that estimates by the EIS on cost and the GET were dubious or fake as demonstrated by the events that transpired several years later. Agreed that it is not that simple. And probably more expensive to do.  But that is a matter for discussion - not a sweeping brush off.  For there is the matter of trains already purchased. And the matter of steel rails installed, etc.