The truth is you are guilty of the very same accusations you make.  
Yes, you explain except your explanation is flawed and actually prove you wrong.  
For example. You explained that the EIS made no mention of rail being an alternative to congestion except that you were provided with excerpts from the EIS  that actually used traffic congestion as basis for rail.  
Furthermore you yourself preached about "the plan to build a mass transit system, to give people an alternative to commute/travel who don’t drive and without being stuck in traffic.  
So there was a plan, which you told him did not exist.