A proposed initiative with plans to decrease the number of lanes on Atlantic Avenue in Atlantic City, New Jersey, is currently facing a legal contest. The challenge was launched by various casino operators and the renowned healthcare provider AtlantiCare. This legal action was instituted last year, but has gained prominence lately in response to the city’s commitment towards the project, colloquially termed “road diet.” The proposal intends to convert the four-lane Atlantic Avenue into a two-lane artery between New Hampshire and Boston Avenues.
Critics of the road diet are asserting that the city must obtain permission from the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA), a non-profit entity primarily responsible for championing tourism in Atlantic City. Besides AtlantiCare, other parties to the lawsuit encompass Tropicana, Resorts, Bally’s, Hard Rock, and Caesars. Since CRDA is in charge of tourism affairs in the city, the litigants maintain that CRDA’s approval should be sought before proceeding with the proposed project.
Another principal apprehension among the litigants is the potential for the road diet to provoke traffic gridlocks. This could, as a byproduct, obstruct the passage of emergency vehicles along Atlantic Avenue, imperilling access to AtlantiCare’s emergency services, thereby endangering lives.
Furthermore, the lawsuit insists that a thorough investigation regarding the impact of the project on traffic was not conducted. Ultimately, the casino operators along with AtlantiCare requested the court to impose an injunction, thus temporarily halting the road diet.
Countering the Accusations: The City’s Defense
The city, on the offensive, dismissed the allegations that the project requires CRDA’s consent, as reported by the Press of Atlantic City. Last week, Richard Trenk, the lawyer representing the city in this lawsuit, submitted a brief. He suggested that the plaintiffs have misconstrued CRDA’s roles, arguing, “The City had no obligation to seek approval from CRDA, as no statute or regulation necessitates approval from this body”. Moreover, the defense described that the project undertook a traffic study to estimate its implications on traffic.
Trenk also tackled concerns about potential delays to emergency vehicles because of the reduced traffic lanes. He stated that experts in conjunction with state and transportation agencies had analyzed the proposed project, affirming it would have no effect on the mobility of emergency vehicles. The city’s brief outlined: “Plaintiff cannot demonstrate any substantial irreparable damage in question,”.
The city’s defense urged the court to reject the demands made in the lawsuit instigated by AtlantiCare and the casino operators. The case will recommence before the court on January 26, 2024, where each party will represent their respective cases before Judge Michael Blee.
