Personally, I think this is the way transit planning should be done:
1. Come up with a binding, long-term regional land use and transportation plan that sets out corridors for intensification, but doesn't describe in any way, shape or form, what technology will be used, nor the exact alignment nor the stations. Determine, however, what level of service impacts will be if employment and residential densities are increased by X percent. Also run a sophisticated model of travel demand, trip assignment and route assignment across the region based on the increased employment and residential numbers
2. For each transportation corridor in the land use plan, determine the mode based on travel demand and trip characteristics (distance traveled, where to?). This is done on a case-by-case basis (so line by line) and is not meant to champion one mode over another. Get international engineering firms to bid on the design, build and operation of the line in a transparent process. If the best submission meets all the detailed demand and planning requirements but happens to be some unexpected mode, so be it.
3. Get public input in station area precinct design and how to best integrate the station with area surroundings and local travel modes.
Here is how you should not plan for transit:
1. Champion a mode and suggest where it will go without any analysis of whether it fits with existing travel characteristics, future travel characteristics based on long-range land use plans, not have an idea of how much it costs or how you will pay for it, and have no idea who will operate it and how they will operate and manage it.