I eagerly await the day that Jim Walden gets disbarred for his blatant abuse of the pro bono requirements. Disgusting. He sullies the names of good lawyers everywhere.

What a jerk.

Just so there's no doubt, this is what Gibson Dunn attorney Jim Walden wants to get rid of:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/57669969@N08/5607291266/in/pool-ppwbikelane#/photos/57669969@N08/5607291266/in/pool-1690942@N22/

"At some later point, CB6's actions, and inaction, will be judged against a broader context, including the evident problems with DOT's data."

Is he threatening the community board?

At some later point Jim Walden's words and actions will also be judged against a broader context, including his apparent willingness to lie and behave unethically, his personal political ambitions, and his attempt to kill a project that makes kids and seniors safer, is overwhelmingly supported in our community and has properly undergone years of democratic process to come to fruition.

I don't notice any of the above "attackers" proving that Jim Walden's problems with the DOT data are inaccurate or exaggerated. Just ad hominem attacks by zealots. How surprising!

Mark,

At some point, people should be able to shout down an attacker like Jim Walden and NBBL. They want nothing more than to remove a project that has wide community support and that is a proven safety success.

Jim Walden's problems with the DOT's data are inaccurate and exaggerated.

http://www.streetsblog.org/2011/03/17/ppw-plaintiffs-cherrypicked-data-to-attack-dots-bike-lane-evaluation/

I'm not a zealot, just a parent who knows that crossing two lanes of traffic with my daughter in tow is easier and safer than crossing three. Even if I have to stop to look both ways across a bike lane.

Congratulations on Jim Walden for uncovering this conspiracy. For a long time now, I thought that this was just an overwhelming number of disconnected local residents who for diverse reasons actively support the PPW bikelane by passing comment in a variety of media whenever a privileged minority exploits their wealth and power to subvert sensible urban planning. Now I see that the 700 people who rode on the weekend in support of the bikelane are in fact being orchestrated by the DOT via internet thingamajigs . But surely Jim Walden needs to do more pro bono investigating. Some very intelligent conservatives last year revealed that support for biking is in fact part of a global conspiracy being orchestrated by the UN through its ICLEI agents. Communism is not far around the corner. And we are all old enough to remember that threat.

Booooo

"Some very intelligent conservatives last year revealed that support for biking is in fact part of a global conspiracy being orchestrated by the UN through its ICLEI agents. Communism is not far around the corner. And we are all old enough to remember that threat."

You will be known by the friends you keep, Jim Walden, Esq.

I think the invasion of Iraq was based on lies. Can I get Jim Walden to represent me for free and sue the government to undo the war.

I've walked young children across streets. The lights along PPW are long enough to manage to walk a young child across 3 traffic lanes, especially if one waits for the beginning of a green light. If your child walks so that this presents a real challenge, then I would assume that said child is young and small enough to pick up and carry across the street.

Feel free to come babysit for me, Mark.

I would, David, but I didn't MAKE the little one. I'm not a big believer in that whole "it takes a village" thing.

cant expect credibility when you use the ny post editorial staff as a reference....bottom line is that the bike lane works, families are using it, hard to ride with a six year old in the park when there are bicycle clusters flying by at fifty mph..embrace the changes or you get run over...

Sometimes the Post staff knows what they are talking about and, apparently, so does Walden's analysts. There are several lanes in the park for bikers to use. Shouldn't you be able to keep right to avoid the onslaught of biking hordes? It appears that you are using the bike for recreation and that's what parks are for, not the city streets. You can't possibly be riding alongside your 6 year old in the PPW bike lanes since they are too narrow for this. Or, the PPW lanes are so little used that they really aren't needed anyway.

What is the real issue here with the PPW bike lane? Is it safety, is it inconvenience, or is incorrect date being given to the community?? OR is it simply change? Even if incorrect data was given... does that really matter in the big picture of things. As someone who drives a car and rides a bike, I rarely use PPW. Cars drive to fast and tend to go in and out of lanes to get ahead and catch the lights, which is dangerous for other cars, bicyclists and pedestrians. Park Slope has more cyclists, kids and delivery people, why not give them their own space to hopefully ride safely. I've noticed that many people have commented on the safety issues around the bike lane. I'm curious... since the bike lane was put in, have there even been any accidents involving pedestrians or cyclists?

Has anyone figured out why Jim Walden would take this silly case on a pro-bono basis? What is his angle?

"Even if incorrect data was given.... does that matter?" Yes Victoria it does. It's not a smart idea to justify the government using "incorrect" data to determine a policy. If your government is lying to you do you really think that is a good precedent to establish? Where does it stop? This time it might suit your interests but maybe not so much in future cases. I'm thinking of things like WMD and the war in Iraq. I'm not saying these statistics are incorrect, I'm saying open the books have transparency and let's see. All that Mr Walden is asking for is that the DOT bring forward all of their data collection and analysis for public viewing. The predictable response here is that you people attack him and demand he be shut up and then you follow with what you think are clever absurdist remarks, things alluding to government conspiracies, communism and the war in Iraq. While you think they are clever they are incredibly juvenile and just trivialize your argument. If you are so sure that the bike lane has improved safety then I would think you would welcome having all the data laid out for public perusal. If the studies prove your argument then the issue would be settled once and for all. As it is your attacks on Mr Walden give credence to his charge that there has been a concerted effort between the DOT and the bloggers to "counter attack and neutralize" the bike lane's opponents. As Louis Brandeis said "Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant".

#Jim- here's crazy notion- maybe he thinks government should be open and transparent. I saw that he is also involved in a pro bono case attempting to stop the city from giving over the tobacco warehouse at Brooklyn Bridge Park which is part of a public park to a private interest, St Ann's Warehouse theater. If the city gets its' way it will be giving a public space to private enterprise. (Boy he is conniving isn't he?)

This angle... "the current bike lane configuration on PPW is very rare" is just strange. It is very rare IN NEW YORK CITY. But not elsewhere. Why is it that folks in NYC can't handle it? Seriously?

We're that "exceptional" (and not in a good way) that we can't possibly navigate a separated, two-way bike lane??

Tyler- he has asked here for the facts to be presented before a judge so that the statistics are made transparent. If they are indeed correct then there isn't much of an argument to be made against the lane. So why keep fighting that? Let a judge decide. And yet you say it shouldn't be brought to court at the same time you hold up what you call the facts to defend it. Do you not see the dissonance there? All I say is have an open debate in an impartial court. Why is that so unacceptable?

tyler, you totally nailed this....the people who started this group have nothing better to do than attempt to slow progress....there are so many positive and green reasons for more bike lanes like this one...we need to thank the regressive ppw residents who started this whole thing for their concern, get on our bikes, and move on..

Again... HOW exactly is this bike lane "dangerous"?! I really can't get past this. Where does one find this conclusion in any data, DOT or otherwise?

Tyler and Neil, You go off on all these other things. What Mr Walden called for is a court to give an impartial decision based on all the clearly presented information. Tyler you say "I never said a court can't decide this" (and I than you for that permission) so then that takes care of what Mr Walden asked for. So why is it necessary to demonize him?

And Tyler, "how exactly is the bike lane dangerous? You folks have said it makes things safer. That is the whole rationale for this. Let's take it to court and see. Simple. And if you really have a convincing case you don't need to resort to name calling and accusations as to motives. It really comes across as rather juvenile.

Well said kevin

Thank you Neil.

Tyler-I will repeat once again- the bike lane was justified by the notion that it would increase safety on PPW. That is what everyone cites in arguments on this and other websites. If the decision was based on distorted statistics that is a very bad precedent to accede to even if it suits your personal desires. And it seems that there is evidence that that may be the case. And while it is always mentioned that there were community board meetings leading to this decision I am pretty well informed regarding goings on in the neighborhood I wasn't aware of any of this until just before the DOT went into action painting the streets. Might it be that the pro bike folks initiaited the action and kept themselves well informed of meetings etc through your blogs and networks? Something that the rest of us were not privvy to? And Tyler there is certainly no monopoly of "anti-social behavior" on the NBBL side. Why is it shameful to disagree with you? Maybe a little tolerance is in order.

Grinches are supposed to steal Christmas and not bike lanes.

I agree with you, Kevin Beers. It seems, though, that the bike lobby does not want an open disclosure of data. They simply want their way based upon selected data and DOT conclusions. They base their case on the arguments and prejudice of Sadik-Khan who, as you may remember, could have declared a state of emergency when the snowstorms hit in December, but decided to let havoc prevail on our streets instead. (Who also directed the limited DOT resources to hand shovel bike lanes in Manhattan while Brooklyn, Queens, and SI streets were still clogged by snow and a variety of abandoned vehicles.)

I suggest you reread my post, chuck. What I stated was, "You can't possibly be riding alongside your 6 year old in the PPW bike lanes since they are too narrow for this. Or, the PPW lanes are so little used that they really aren't needed anyway." Cyclists should not be riding two abreast in a single direction on the PPW lanes since they are really only wide enough for one cyclist to ride safely. If the poster is riding alongside his child, then he is in the lane designated for the opposite direction. If they are riding single file on PPW, then they could easily do that inside the park itself, despite the "hordes" of cyclists of whom the father assures us he and his son need to be afraid.

Tyler Tyler Tyler, you just don't seem to like transparency. Mr Walden wrote this letter to explain what the nature of this case is and why he is bringing it. I think it's unfair to characterize it as propaganda. And why shouldn't this opinion and this information be disseminated to our neighbors so they can have an educated view of the debate? You seem to want to control the nature of the discussion and present only what serves your interest. What would you call that? Propaganda?

Now you're just getting silly. Shouldn't the public be informed of issues being debated in a court case?

You really do like a veil of secrecy.

As a resident of Park Slope I was completely surprised by the appearance of the bike lanes, merits aside, and even more surprised when I read that this was an issue that was widely (paraphrase) discussed prior to the Community Board's approval. I, like many of my neighbors, was unaware the bike lanes were being contemplated.

Dear People Who Support Infrastructures that Support Alternatives to Cars,
We really need to admit that the game is up. Our conspiratorial "veil of secrecy" has been exposed. The forces of transparency that are using litigation to take debate out of the fora of elected representatives have laid our conspiracies bare. Kevin couldn't have been clearer: "Might it be that the pro bike folks initiated the action and kept themselves well informed of meetings etc through your blogs and networks? Something that the rest of us were not privvy to?" He knows about our communication tools now! I felt for sure that he and his wealthy colleagues with pro bono lawyers would never discover the way in which people who are concerned about these issues independently use the remarkably hard-to-access World Wide Web, powered by that highly exclusive club, Twitter. 'We,' who have had so much in common beyond the fact that we like to ride without fear (as opposed to those good folk who have almost no direct relation to former DOT commissioners) must now come clean. Let's put an end to this ridiculous comment trail. They know. They know that we know that they know (that it has all been caught on a Louise's camera - 'it' being that we are all Sadik-Kahn's cousins, and that we all started The Tea Party to cast doubt on global warming to prevent regulatory measures that would have limited extreme weather events like the snow storm, just so that New York could be thrown into a car drivers' nightmare.)

Cameron you are so so droll, a regular Jonathan Swift. But thanks to Tyler for illustrating an example of just exactly the kind of blog that I was speaking of-streetsblog. Your timing couldn't have been more perfect. I wasn't aware of it but I just went on and it's full of pro bike lane stuff. No obviously it wasn't conspiratorial, something that was kept secret from us but rather something that bike zealots knew of and used to disseminate their information. Most of us didn't have the heads up to know what was going on in the community board meetings.

Tyler, Sadik-Khan is a take charge woman who makes things happen virtually overnight. The DOT commissioner is the one who had the authority to declare a state of emergency even before our emperor's recent delineation of the change of command. That Sadik-Khan chose not to exercise her authority is indicative of her lack of concern for vehicular transportation when it does not involve her pet projects.

As to the lanes in PP, I doubt whether there are many parents taking their toddlers out for bike rides during rush hour. Many parents actually work during those times. I certainly agree that riding with kids in the park with cars zipping by is unwise. I haven't noticed that the recreation lanes in PP are so terribly crowded even during rush hour, but perhaps I have just gone there on the wrong days. If people want to ride at any hour of the day with no interference by cars, then perhaps PS is not the ideal residential area for them. Suburbia might be more appropriate ... but there are very few designated bike lanes there, aside from inside parks.

As to the data itself, it appears that the DOT has cherry-picked and massaged it to draw the conclusions that favor its own goals. Walden's letter states that his experts have analyzed the raw data and that they show problems with the DOT's "interpretation." Surely everyone should want to have ACCURATE information.

Oh, look, sorry, I totally understand now. Those who think the bikelane is dangerous just didn't know how to use Google, or how to read a local newspaper, so they missed all the consultations. That's absolutely reasonable. And I 100% agree: anyone who maintains a website to share an interest is clearly a zealot. So, come on, let's let the cars run down the bike lane again and do the whole thing over. We could even run some empirical tests this time: get some older people and kids to try to cross PPW with 3 lanes of traffic, and then, if they made it the first time, let's get them to try it again with a bike lane. Let's get Sadik-Kahn herself to be one of the road-crossers: that would be fun! Let's make a day of it, with hot dogs and balloons. That's what democracy is all about - not this litigious web zealotry.

Anyone who uses PPW on a regular basis does not need any data to see that the bike lane has slowed traffic and that it is an enhancement that we should all embrace: It promotes a healthier lifestyle, and cuts our reliance on cars. I don't find it a burden to look both ways, and when do so, there is no danger. I don't have to ride a bike (and I rarely do) to see the benefits of this to our entire community. I've been to many community meetings on this and the majority of those opposed to it live on PPW. Change can be hard, but it is time to look beyond our own front doors to the community at large.

Like it or not, PPW is a wide street and wide streets were generally planned to move traffic along fairly rapidly as opposed to the narrower side streets and avenues. Vehicular traffic is an essential part of modern life. We're not in Amish country here. I'm not sure that slowing or clogging up traffic is something that everyone would endorse. In case you did not realize it, when cars take 20 minutes to go a given distance, they spew more pollution along that route than they would if they took only 10 minutes. As to the improvement in the air around Times Square, I'm sure the pedestrian mall, which is barely used about half the year, has merely shifted traffic to other streets and further increased the air pollution they experience.

As much as Sadik-Khan wanted to obscure it, the DOT/MTA data showed that bus routes that were affected by the p. mall changes experienced increased trip times. Since one of the goals of MASS transit is to move the many city workers to their destinations, this is not exactly a plus. But isn't it wonderful that some people can sit in the middle of Times Square or Herald Square! I'm really confused about Herald Sq though; isn't there a PARK there with lots of seating?

In any event, Steve, it's not the job of our city agencies to cherry-pick data. We are supposed to have confidence that they are telling us the truth. Did you really appreciate Dubya's WMD rationale? Oh, do you ride your child to school during snow, rain, and cold?

I live on PPW and consider the bike lane a huge improvement. I am grateful to DOT for their good work in this regard. The city-wide reductions in traffic fatalities, particularly over the past 4 years are NOT disputed by anyone, as far as I know. The protests of NBBL seem to me to reflect only the fact that a few folks have plenty of time on their hands to agitate and sulk.

I am really surprised Patch would publish Jim Walden's kooky letter on the PPW bike lane. I actually didn't even read the thing. I stopped where he demands the Chair and District Manager of CB6 read his letter out loud at the Community Board meeting! If he and his clients had attended the meetings they claim never happened on the bike lane, they would know that this is completely out of order for how the Community Board runs. Citizens not on the board don't get a chance to speak unless they sign up for Community Time at the end of the meeting. I think it is wildly inappropriate of him to insist otherwise, and I think Patch made a bad call publishing his rant.

Like "Mark," Jim Walden and his clients Iris Weinshall, Norman Steisel, Louise Hainline and Lois Carswell know that if they repeat their claims about DOT lying about data enough times in as many p as possible, many people will believe those claims regardless of whether they are true or not.

Anyone who has taken even a cursory look at Walden's claims about DOT data knows that Walden is the one who is "cherry-picking," "fudging," or just straight-up lying about PPW data. More important, this whole question of DOT's data on PPW is really not the main issue. For years, the community has asked DOT to reduce speeding, make pedestrian crossings safer and improve bike access on PPW. Based on last night's unanimous vote at the Community Board, the community believes that DOT's redesign of PPW is accomplishing these goals and that DOT is doing a good job in collaborating with the community to make the project even better. It will take a few years to collect enough data to really know for sure. Walden's yammering about "data" is meant to distract from the fact that the project is working and the community likes it.

I could go into detail about the ways in which Walden has misrepresented DOT data and other facts. Instead, I'll do the same thing Walden does. I'll say: Jim Walden and his clients are fudging the data. They aren't telling the truth. Jim Walden can't be trusted. He is a profoundly bad actor in our community.

Likewise, I'll second Joanna's comment that I am surprised that Patch would publish this scurrilous garbage. I will, however, save it for my letter to the Brooklyn Bar Association. Jim Walden should be dis-barred.

Messr. Walden, I represent Douchebags for Driving and Mothers Against Aging Hippies and I want to personally applaud your efforts on the behalf of the poor, set upon driver residents of PPW. Bravo. Keep up the good work.

Brooklyn Dad, what you say seems to me a perfect reason for bringing the matter to court. If Mr Walden is "distributing scurrilous garbage", if he is "misrepresenting DOT data", and not "telling the truth" isn't an impartial court the best place to expose this behavior. Who knows maybe the judge will disbar him on the spot. I would think you would want that vindication. Or do you want to just keep venting on Patch?
And brooklynbreeder, thanks for keeping classy.

And on it goes.

Tyler, the link you gave refers to air quality levels in the city overall and only gives specifics for the Times Square mall area. Of course that are, with traffic removed, has less air pollution. That's a no-brainer. The data cited does not talk specifically about the neighboring streets that are absorbing the former Times Square traffic. Maybe the health dept got this stuff right for that one area, but remember that the air around ground zero was also supposed to be safe to breathe after 9/11; remember how that turned out. If something sounds too good to be true ... it often isn't.

By the way, I don't drive, don't own a car, and have never driven. I use my bike a lot to get around Brooklyn and also mostly use pubic transportation for everything else. I've been doing this for my 40+ years here in Brooklyn. Still, I do realize that it is important to move vehicular traffic quickly and efficiently. I can't believe that you have never seen traffic backups along PPW under this new design. You're never there when people are picking up and dropping off their kids or when deliveries are being made or when access-a-ride vehicles are making pickup and dropoffs.

Yes there are backups when people double park. Double parking causes backups everywhere. We need more loading zones for that kind of short term convenience free parking.

Kevin Beers, you know as well as I do that the frothing contributors here are really not interested in discovering truth; they just want things THEIR way. Who needs to be bothered with pesky facts and data? Whatever comes out of the mouths of Bloomie and Sadik-Khan MUST be the truth. They would never prevaricate and fudge.

Imagine the audacity of The Patch to publish Jim Walden's letter to the community board! Even if reading the letter to the board is out of order, it took spectacular gall on Walden's part to send a letter to them. Obviously that man should be disbarred.

Yep Mark he is insidious and must be crushed. He is a threat to the American way of life, what with his trying to present a different side to the story. HE MUST BE DIS-BARRED. AND if he gets his way double parking will be rampant, rampant I tell you. I am so tired of the diatribes that are posted here. The same stuff over and over.

It must be frustrating to wake up the next morning to see people are still passionately in favor of something that they think is reasonable. It must be annoying to find that you have to keep posting the same thing over and over, increasing the pageviews of this small local media outlet, because the way you keep accusing everyone else of being a zealot or droll or conspiratorial just seems to have no impact. It must be bewildering to find that those you accuse feel exactly the same way about you.

But you know, that's what democracy feels like. People have differing views, they argue, wherever they can, more or less reasonably, often exaggerating for impact. At some point, the argument manifests as a change to our environment - a bikelane perhaps. And if people go on arguing, those against that change to our environment can organize to get the system to review and remove that change - I believe mayor-aspirant Weiner said at one point he'd rip the bikelanes up.

But what you don't seem to get is that people get really angry, over something as silly as a piece of bitumen painted green, when a few wealthy people decide to circumvent that system. Your neighbors feel really threatened when a few privileged people can ask a top quality lawyer friend of theirs like the PR-whizz-kid, Jim Walden, to do them a favor. Do I have access to someone who could write a cease and desists letter to bloggers, to front community boards that I can't be bothered attending? I don't even own a bike.

camerontw, perhaps you do not have access to a lawyer of Walden's quality ... but you do have a VERY powerful traffic commissioner and a know-it-all billionaire mayor on your side as well as a very large contingent of zealot cyclists (something alternatives??), so please don't play the injured martyr overwhelmed by vast resources. It must be really frustrating to you that your side can not have whatever you want despite the objections of long time PS residents. As to the "wealthy"people, I doubt whether there are very many PS residents who are poverty-stricken. If they were, we might be finding them living instead in Brownsville or East New York.

And Mark that's not to mention the bike blogger who had an inside line to that guy Russo at DOT who urged him on to attack anti bike lane people as selfish pigs and such. That was information that I believe was brought out by a Freedom of Information request.

Yes, Kevin, I'd forgotten about that. it's a shame how a few misguided, selfish, fabulously wealthy souls want to force their will on EVERYBODY else. Maybe those old fogies should be taken out back and shot.

Tyler, there is a big difference between "Times Sq" and "midtown sites." Which midtown sites are we talking about? Times Sq is a specific, relatively small area and midtown sites could be anywhere. That's one example of what I mean by cherry picking data.
But, if it supports YOUR point of view, then of course it must be accurate.

As to 9/11, that reference was to remind you that the government does not always give a full picture if that would conflict with their point of view. Sorry that my point went over your head.

Tyler, I believe that you STILL do not understand. If you average out the pollution standards for 150 sites (CITYwide) , you will not see peaking on individual streets. Your willingness to accept whatever the city tells you, so long as it agrees with your own viewpoint, merely indicates the limits of your perspicacity. As to belligerence, your comments really are far more indicative of that quality. Peter, a main point of Walden's letter (and NBBL/SFS' argument) is that the data has been pre-digested and summarized, averaged out in a way that supports only Sadik-Khan's prejudices. Walden't letter makes the case that a review of all the RAW data leads to different conclusions. (which spots were picked for averaging; what time periods were used; etc).

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, Tyler!
I went back to the city's report and it specifically says, "The Health Department, in partnership with Center for the Biology of Natural Systems at Queens College, City University of New York, is collecting air samples at 150 LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY." (emphasis added) Are you misreading or are you deliberately stating the same invalid argument again and again in attempt to make it seem true? There is nothing at all in the report to indicate that the city deliberately tried to measure pollution on the "new" bus routes or on streets where there has been increased traffic. The fact that they found decreased solution in the times Sq area, when traffic was diverted elsewhere is not exactly surprising.

I'm not sure how you could read, "When the expert examined the data, he found that crashes and injuries were falling precipitously until the installation of the bike lane - and then spiked after its installation" and come to the conclusion that, "Walden's preferred methods ... still shows improvements!!"

Chill, tyler!

Tyler, I hate to say that you are dense, but....
Where are these "midtown sites"? With the many tall buildings in Manhattan, each street is like a specific mini-climate. How many "midtown sites" are there out of 150 for the ENTIRE CITY and exactly where are they? No specifics means that erroneous or misleading conclusions can easily be drawn.

As to spiking or not spiking, the DOT article to which you link gives some data to support your point, but also shows large increases, year-to-year, in bike crashes for August, September, and )especially) November. Not exactly straightforward. Of course, the DOT "before" data is the average over a 3 year period, so how valid their conclusions are is a matter of debate. I believe this, as well as other questions, is causing Walden, NBBL, and S4S to bring their lawsuit.

No one is questioning the actual working of the monitors. Well, who knows, perhaps someone is, but I am not. However, the link you cite talks about "random" placement of monitors. A relatively small random sample is unlikely to detect differences in SPECIFIC locations, especially when those locations are mini-environments.

Actually, Chicken, data collected over the longest period of time is not necessarily the best. One could go back a century and average that period. Almost surely, there would be a HUGE percentage increase in crashes when that is the reference period. A year to year comparison, however, might be more valid. I can't tell since the data are not there, but there still remains that pesky 133% increase for November as well as the two other months of fairly large increases.

Tyler, since those other monitoring sites are NOT exactly where the traffic was redirected, your point is moot. One cannot draw firm conclusions based on questionable data just as one does not pave roads over quicksand. The fact that I believe the DOT does whatever it can to obfuscate the situation (many situations, not just Times Sq and PPW) makes me highly dubious of whatever they say. You know, in court, if the judge catches you in a lie your credibility is pretty much shot. Do I and NBBL/S4S/Walden want to see these lanes shot down? Yes, but that does not mean that our arguments are invalid.

Who has more to lose? The pro-bike movement or the wealthy, well-connected old people on PPW?

I would like someone who supports the project to acknowledge that it's not perfect and that we ought to be working together to find a way to make sure it's actually is safer out there, not just for bikers and the tots they shamelessly parade at the CB6 meetings, but for everyone.

I agree that we should look for ways to reduce auto use and increase viable alternatives' infrastructure, but how can you be so smug in your assertions that it's safer when the evidence, empirical and anecdotal, suggests otherwise?

What the bikers don't seem to realize that by betting everything on this configuration and being so intransigent about wanting to even consider possibility that it could be made safer, could end up costing them far more than this bike land. If NBBL/SFS lose, they simply go away. But if the bike advocates lose, it's going to cast a long shadow over any future bike lane innovations. Wouldn't it be smarter to consider making this lane more conventional so NBBL and SFS will just go away and we can continue building the infrastructure in other locations around the city? I'm sensing from reading the newspapers that the people who have generally accepted the installation of bike lanes as an immovable object are beginning to realize that they might just be able to push back, and they like it.

Just a thought.

Tyler you need to get out of your room and go for a bike ride.

Jim Walden absolutely should be disbarred because of this. I hope a full investigation shows why he chose to take this case pro bono and what political connections he hoped to please. The case has little to no merit, even from the perspective of someone whonis agnostic on the subject of bike lanes.

Are you a stalker Tyler? That kinda creeps me out.

Okay, stop right now, All. Googling somebody does not constitute stalking. Filing a lawsuit is not the way to solve a neighborhood issue. I think you should all meet up for coffee at Tea Lounge and reaffirm that you are all people who care about the neighborhood...and most essentially, that you are all real flesh & blood humans who shouldn't rely exclusively on this kind of virtual discourse to talk about something very important.

My wife, my kids and I totally enjoyed our safe ride north on the PPW bike lane to the greenmarket on Sat, then turned into the park for the ride south home where a rude spandexista snapped at my kids for not steering straight even though they were. Would a smile kill you, Lance?

I commend CB6 members and their dedicated, volunteer service to the community. Jim Walden's law firm ought to be ashamed of themselves for letting him take the case pro bono (if it's because of a political relationship, then admit it), and then phoning it in---not bothering to appear in person : "At some later point, CB6's actions, and inaction, will be judged against a broader context, including the evident problems with DOT's data. " This veiled threat is unconscionable.