This afternoon, the City Attorney's office filed a brief [PDF] requested by Busch at a recent hearing on his authority to order the MTA to reverse the improvements it puts in place should he later determine the EIR -- a nearly 2,000 page document that cost $1.5 million to produce -- is not adequate:

If the court were to find that the Bicycle Plan EIR did not fully comply with CEQA, the Court, based on appropriate findings under Public Resource Code Section 21168.9(b) and after the parties presented evidence regarding the propriety and equity of such a remedy, could issue an order requiring the City to remove any bicycle facilities installed between the lifting of the Injunction and a hearing on the merits of the EIR.

It's troubling the judge would want to reverse the improvements (the City Attorney's office has constantly argued it's for the safety of bicyclists in San Francisco) but he essentially wants to make sure case law backs him up, and that he can lift injunction without first conducting the hearing requested by attorney Mary Miles. Last week, the City Attorney's filed a brief outlining which Bike Plan projects the MTA plans to implement in the first year.

The SFBC remains cautiously optimistic the judge will lift the injunction. Program Director Andy Thornley points out Busch would not have asked for the briefs if he wasn't about to offer some kind of relief.

"He wouldn't have asked for that information if he was not leaning toward giving the city a green light. It does seem very plausible that the judge will grant some if not all relief soon," said Thornley.

We'll be monitoring the court for its ruling, which could come as early as tomorrow. Follow us here and on Twitter.

MTA Chief Nat Ford should come clean about the budget deficit.

A few weeks ago, we brought you news that the MTA had yanked an update on the budget from the board's agenda at the last minute. Staff prepared a PowerPoint outlining the crisis but the MTA refused to hand it over to Streetsblog, arguing it was in draft form and therefore not releasable under the Sunshine Ordinance. So we retained a respected San Francisco media attorney to try and obtain the document on our behalf.

The MTA did produce the document [PDF] but it redacted the information in question, leaving eight pages blank. In an email, True claimed the Sunshine Ordinance "actually provides that portions of a draft document containing recommendations of the author may be withheld from disclosure. Since portions of the responsive draft document you have requested contain recommendations of SFMTA staff, the SFMTA is redacting any such recommendations from the document that we are providing you."

We filed a second "immediate disclosure request," arguing the document was legally deficient, with the expected result: the MTA again refused to turn it over without redaction. The draft argument is a common excuse that many city agencies use when they don't want to comply with the Sunshine Ordinance.

What is the MTA hiding? Why won't it be transparent about its budget deficit? As Craven-Green wrote in the letter to True, not only does the agency's refusal to release the document violate the letter of the law requiring disclosure, it also does the public a serious disservice:

The public has a right to know about the MTA budget deficit. Indeed they have a need to know. The MTA not only provides a critical service to thousands of public customers every day, but its financial state has a huge impact on the overall fiscal health of the City.

A budget update is on the agenda for today's MTA Board meeting, but the document [PDF] associated with the item, which was released less than 24 hours before the meeting (not the required 72 hours under the Sunshine Ordinance), reveals some numbers but is still vague. It admits the MTA has a $45 million mid-year deficit and that the agency has reduced it to $19.6 million through a variety of measures, but it does not give much detail.

The document claims MTA will reduce the gap by using $6.7 million in stimulus funds for operations, realigning Muni operator schedules to the tune of $1.5 million, reducing overtime by $5 million, and eliminating "250 positions for six months" which is estimated to save $12.3 million. Which positions will be axed, the agency didn't specify, and the consequences of the downsizing remain unclear.  Important questions remain unanswered about how a reduction in overtime and realignment in operator schedules will affect service hours, not to mention the maintenance and state-of-good-repair concerns.

Are these Muni service cuts in disguise? Will maintenance suffer? Will the reluctance to extend meter hours result in more fare hikes in the near future? How does it intend to solve the $19.6 million deficit? And where is the debate about the 400 pound revenue-gorilla sitting in the corner of the room: the proposal to extend parking meter hours?

In the agency's defense, True said that what's going on behind the scenes is a refining of projections.

"Our goal is to begin to address the financial challenge now to try to do everything we can to keep our books balanced this year and to minimize that impact." He admitted "there's no doubt the impact will be significant from these kinds of measures" and that the layoffs will "come from across the organization" and will include front line positions, although no operators will be let go.

"We'll have to take a look in the coming weeks and months what effect this will have on service."

Considering that some important revenue measures the agency was counting on to solve this year's deficit have fizzled, and the crisis seems to be growing, the MTA has every reason to be forthcoming and lay it all out to the public.  Other smaller transit systems are facing similar or bigger crises, and have appeared to be more candid about it. We suspect the MTA is not telling us the full story.

If the MTA doesn't clarify the impact of its proposed solutions on service, we fear Muni riders will suffer the consequences, and its financial problems will keep the agency in a perpetual crisis mode for some time to come.

"The rule is the public entity goes ahead while the review goes on," Superior Court Judge Peter J. Busch told a courtroom filled mostly with MTA representatives, reporters, SFBC staff and Rob Anderson. Busch's concerns were mostly procedural: Can he dissolve the injunction and then order the MTA to reverse bike projects if he later sides with the plaintiff's weak contentions the EIR doesn't comply with CEQA?

Deputy City Attorney Kristen Jensen argued passionately that the injunction needs to be lifted as soon as possible to make the city's streets safer for "bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists."

When pressed by the judge on what projects the city intended to go forward with immediately, the City Attorney's office replied that the MTA plans to move on painting sharrows and installing bike racks. Deputy City Attorney Audrey Williams Pearson said the MTA has determined it can paint 20 sharrows, install 5 bike racks and do 400 feet of striping per day.

The city was ordered to submit a brief on what projects the MTA plans to implement between now and when a final hearing is held to determine the adequacy of the EIR in March.

San Franciscans and New Yorkers have a lot in common when it comes navigating the mess of threatening autos on the streets. In my neighborhood near Polk Street, I've recently noticed a lot more aggressive drivers skirting the law, blocking crosswalks, failing to yield, and honking for no good reason.

In this latest Streetfilm from my colleague Clarence Eckerson, Streetsblog publisher Mark Gorton hits the streets of New York to illustrate how rampant the violations are, every day, every hour, in nearly every corner of the city:

Gorton points out that most drivers are not bad or mean people, but few seem to realize how their conduct behind the wheel inconveniences and endangers pedestrians. It's a level of rudeness and carelessness that we tend not to tolerate in other spheres of life, especially when you consider the risks involved in piloting a multi-ton vehicle. New Yorkers can get brusque or nasty on the subway, but you rarely see straphangers engage in behavior that poses an immediate danger to the people around them. So what is it about driving a car that lets people disregard the safety of others?