For both parties
1. Have there been any cases where a court found defendants liable for failing to comply with a SIP provision but did not order injunctive relief?
2. If the Court orders injunctive relief, is it necessary or appropriate for the Court to appoint a special master or court monitor in this case?
3. When did MUNI adjust its ridership figures for 1982/83, and for what purpose?
For Plaintiffs
4. How do you respond to Defendant's argument that it would be improper to order them to comply with all of the steps in TCM 2's implementation schedule, given that the Court previously found no liability for three of those steps?
5. Are you suggesting that Defendant will have to make significant changes to the RTP in order to comply with TCM 2? If so, what evidence (as opposed to mere speculation) do you have that the projects in the current RTP are insufficient to achieve a 15% ridership increase within the next five years?
6. Even if subsequent events, such as a slower economy or fare increases by transit operators, would impact ridership forecasts, do you contend that the Court must order MTC to revise their forecasts every time some potentially significant event happens?
7. You argue that the Court should not consider any expenses MTC would have to incur in order to comply with the injunctive relief you propose. However, wouldn't the Court have to consider such costs as part of its inquiry into the balancing of harms?
8. You appear to contend that the only way MTC can comply with TCM 2 would be to fund the projects that AC Transit and MUNI have proposed as a result of your settlements with them. Does TCM 2 require this, or are you simply offering it as one potential option? That is, couldn't MTC fund other transit projects and still achieve the 15% ridership increase required by TCM 2?
For Defendant
9. Even if the Court is not obligated to issue an injunction in this case, can you cite to any authority to indicate that it would be an abuse of discretion to order injunctive relief?
10. Given that the Court has already ruled that the only option besides compliance with a SIP provision is to seek the provision's removal by the EPA, how can the Court now decide not to require you to comply with TCM 2?
11. If, as you assert in your opposition papers, the current RTP projects will produce a forecasted ridership increase beyond that which is required by TCM 2, why would it be so burdensome to amend the RTP to add a section addressing how you will achieve a 15% ridership increase within five years?
12. Why shouldn't the Court use the ridership figures reported by MUNI in 1983 (rather than the adjusted figures), since these were the figures on which the 15% target was set?