If you believe Mayor Mufi Hannemann's claims that he "saved" 4,000 jobs at Pearl Harbor, that he "saved" the Pro Bowl three times, that he "persuaded" Disney and Trump to build their multimillion-dollar developments in Ko Olina and Waikiki, respectively — then nothing written here about rail transit will make a difference.

But if you are a businessperson like my wife, Vicky, whose company experienced a 98 percent increase in sewage fees over 2007 (81.88 percent) and 2008 (17 percent) and was notified that there will be a 16 percent increase in 2009, or if you are like Frank Young, an auto mechanic who saw the real property tax on his two shops increase from $11,000 in 2000 to $33,000 in 2006, or if you are an ordinary working person struggling to pay your mortgage or your rent and are worried about paying higher taxes, you should demand the city provide the information you need to help you make an informed decision before voting on Hannemann's $3.7 billion ($5 billion when adjusted for inflation) rail proposal.

Here are some questions:

• Is the proposed transit system cost effective?

Not according to the city's 2000 draft environmental impact statement. In analyzing then-Mayor Jeremy Harris's proposed bus/rapid transit system, the 2000 draft EIS concluded: "The light-rail alternative was dropped because subsequent analysis revealed that bus/rapid transit ... could accomplish virtually all of the objectives of light rail at substantially less cost."

Under Hannemann, however, Parsons Brinkerhoff produced a 2006 Alternatives Analysis that declared that "rail transit" was the most cost-effective mode of transportation for O'ahu.

Why such a reversal of opinion? A closer look at the 2006 AA suggests an answer. There are several flaws in the 2006 AA but the most egregious is that Parsons Brinkerhoff excluded the bus/rapid transit alternative, which the city's 2000 draft EIS concluded was more cost-effective than rail.

I doubt the omission was a mistake. Parsons Brinkerhoff, which was paid $10 million to do the 2006 AA, also did the 2000 draft EIS. The flip-flop is symptomatic of the conflicts of interest that emerge when the same consultant is used to analyze two vying projects and huge fees ($100 million-plus) are at stake.

• Will rail transit reduce traffic congestion?

Traffic congestion will get worse regardless of the system. The city's 2006 AA concluded that by 2030 without rail transit traffic congestion will be 64 percent worse and with rail 57 percent — a 7 percent reduction for a $5 billion-plus train. Because the bus/rapid transit system (at a cost of roughly $1 billion) was not considered in the 2006 AA, the public will never know how much it would have reduced traffic congestion compared to rail.

• Where is the city's draft EIS?

The draft EIS is mandated by the federal government. It provides a wealth of information to policymakers and the public. It includes the latest ridership projections, updated construction and operating and maintenance costs and information from which taxpayers will have a better idea of what it will cost them in increased real property and/or general excise taxes.

Usually, the draft EIS is released about the same time as the Alternatives Analysis. The AA was released on time in 2006. But the draft EIS, also scheduled for release in 2006, was delayed. City officials promised City Council members that it would be released by April 2007. But more than a year later and with the election on the rail-transit proposal days away — the city still has not released it.

Despite the $2.5 million spent in taxpayer money and the labor unions spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to tout rail, the recent Advertiser poll showed support for rail transit has dwindled from 66 percent to 51 percent and opposition to rail increased from roughly 30 percent to 43 percent. This downward trend for rail transit is not surprising. The public is beginning to realize that there are too many unanswered questions. Advertiser columnist David Shapiro succinctly put the issue in perspective:

"When we add inevitable cost overruns and necessary extensions to West Kapolei, the airport, Waikiki and the University of Hawai'i, the project will cost at least a couple of billion more than the $5 billion that will be raised by the half-percent O'ahu excise tax and federal funds. There also will be tens of millions in annual operating and maintenance costs. The city has offered little information on where this money will come from. Another excise tax hike? Higher property taxes? Voting without knowing the answers feels like writing a blank check."

Ben Cayetano is the former governor of Hawai'i. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.