You keep claiming that the EIS did not claim that rail was an alternative to traffic congestion.  The truth is the EIS did claim. 
Problem here is you actually have not nor never read the EIS.  To prove my point. Tell us, Rick Tubania, what is the title of Chapter 5 or Chapter 1 of the EIS?  Thought so.  
Nevertheless, you are actually voicing the existence of a "Plan" to build rail as an alternative to traffic congestion.  What is that Plan, RT?  The EIS is it not, RT?
Yes, RT.  You did acknowledge the existence of a "Plan" when you wrote 
**** "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. ****
Now then.  The EIS considered Managed Lane, an elevated guideway from Waipahu to Honolulu for mass transit buses not to relieve traffic but as an alternative for buses and HOV to traffic congestion.