The PPW Bike-Lane Lawsuit is a Reality
The lawsuit over the Prospect Park West bike lane that’s been threatened for about a month has now been filed, and it asserts that the city acted “arbitrarily” in installing the lane and that it should be removed. Streetsblog, which has a link so you can download the filing in its entirety (PDF here), says…
The lawsuit over the Prospect Park West bike lane that’s been threatened for about a month has now been filed, and it asserts that the city acted “arbitrarily” in installing the lane and that it should be removed. Streetsblog, which has a link so you can download the filing in its entirety (PDF here), says the following about the meat and potatoes of the suit: “It argues that DOT acted in an ‘arbitrary and capricious’ manner, with conclusions made irrationally or in bad faith. It argues that the bike lane did not properly go through the necessary processes given the landmarked status of the Park Slope neighborhood and Prospect Park. And finally, it argues that an environmental review was necessary to assess the impact of the lane on the historic character of the area.” The Times’ story on the lawsuit, meanwhile, notes the political connections of the group behind the filing, who have “close ties to Iris Weinshall, the city’s transportation commissioner from 2000 to 2007 and the wife of Senator Charles E. Schumer” and that they’ve “produced e-mail correspondence…[seeking] to portray…an effort by the Transportation Department to coordinate criticism of the lane’s opponents.” A DOT spokesman tells the newspaper that the data it has released on how the lane has made Prospect Park West safer is legit. The lawsuit names the DOT and, separately, its commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan, as respondents.
Lawsuit Seeks to Erase Bike Lane in New York City [NY Times]
Opponents Sue City Over Prospect Park West Bike Lane [Streetsblog]
Lawsuit Filed Over Prospect Park West Bike Lane [PS Patch]
quote:
The fact that a former DOT head is leading the charge
did you seriously just call someone a dot head? :-/
*rob*
ty, I hate to quibble with you, but this is precisely the intent of pro bono work: To protect the entitlements of The Entitled.
Yeah — rich whiners ain’t what pro bono was meant for. And shouldn’t the other partners of the firm have put the kibosh on this so their brand wasn’t damaged?
Of course! Thanks, dave. I should have known. That explains why an otherwise reputable law firm would take on this frivolous lawsuit.
Also… who are these “Seniors”!? They must just be the crazy ones. Instead of having to race across 3 lanes of traffic with a crossing light that is two short.
They now have the same time to cross two lanes…. then STOP in the pedestrian buffer… look both ways…. then cross a short distance across a bike lane.
What is so “unsafe”?!
CGar, from a recent story, one of the partners is one of the NIMBYs and doing it pro bono. There was some discussion about whether this was what pro bono was meant for. It may have all been while you weren’t here for a few days.
And I love the plaintiffs: “SENIORS FOR SAFETY” and “NEIGhBORS FOR BETTER BIKE LANEs”.
You’d think Gibson, Dunn would have proofread the caption to avoid those typos. ^^^
And you’d think the seniors would be happy to use the bike lane for their scooters.
Can the city file a countersuit for this frivolous lawsuit and get back the costs of the DOT and other city agencies to answer this ridiculousness?
I guess I could support trolleys, but only horse drawn ones. Electric lines are out of character for the historic neighborhood.