This should be called what it is; a line with bad design. You can go all over the world to find weird legacy systems with strange characteristics. Boston, Philly, and San Francisco run subway-surface trollies, for instance. But nobody deliberately chooses to build things like that anymore, because they don't make sense. In these cities, these services are notoriously unreliable due to their mixed-traffic segments. San Francisco is proposing an overhaul of the MUNI system to improve reliability by creating a transfer between the surface and subway sections. In Toronto, they have overhauled the traffic rules of their streetcar system in order to get cars out of the way.A line that operates as what we call "light rail" for 90% of its length but runs in mixed traffic for 10% is totally reasonable for our population density patterns, and it makes a lot of sense in this corridor.
Deliberately building rapid transit that runs in mixed traffic in the most congested part of the corridor literally makes no sense if you are prioritizing the quality of transit service. It's like if you built an office tower without an elevator. Just a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the transit investment.
I know I'm a broken record on this, but I promise you, I am not confused about the types of modes and how they blur together. We use terms like LRT and streetcar to communicate, sometimes they help and sometimes they hinder. But what matters is the actual quality of the service. That means a corridor that serves the right nodes in an efficient way, a mode that provides the right capacity and capability, and an alignment that doesn't hinder access or service.