think you need to stay on point - the issue is what is the correct amount of surcharge tax that individuals are paying for rail, and not about any alternatives to rail.   further the EIS did not claim that rail was an alternative to traffic congestion.  in fact, it stated that even with the train, traffic congestion would become worse.  that myth was created by you antis.  the train was determined to be the best mass transit system than the others you noted.  the plan was to build a mass transit system, to give people an alternative to commute/travel who don't drive and without being stuck in traffic.  one of the primary purposes was to reduce the need for a car, which would only increase traffic all over the islands, whereas the managed lanes could relieve traffic on the freeways but would still encourage the use of cars.  there are no new surface streets to be built in the city so adding more cars would only increase the traffic on the city streets; the train should have avoid this.