Impacts of the Americans with Disabilities Act on Transit Agency Liability (2018) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 24-29
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 24... ...
24 Section 37.9(a) of the DOT regulations states that "a transportation facility shall be considered to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities if it meets the requirements of [part 37]
|
From page 25... ...
25 D Claims Arising out of Alleged Inaccessible Facilities Only one transit agency responding to the survey had a claim or case in the past five years that alleged that a new facility its agency constructed and/or used for public transportation service violated the ADA.329 Only four transit agencies responding to the survey reported that they had claims or cases in the past five years that alleged that their agency's alteration of an existing facility violated the ADA.330 However, since the enactment of the ADA, transit agencies have had cases that alleged that their agency did not comply with the ADA when constructing or altering transportation facilities.
|
From page 26... ...
26 The court ruled that SEPTA violated Title II of the ADA, as well as the Rehabilitation Act, when it made alterations at the foregoing locations without making the facilities readily accessible to persons with disabilities and affirmed the district court's grant of a summary judgment for DIA.346 E New and Existing Stations for Use in Intercity or Commuter Rail Transportation Section 12162(e)
|
From page 27... ...
27 members encountered were not simply isolated or temporary interruptions caused by maintenance or repairs.362 The court found that BART's management decisions had "resulted in a pervasive pattern of neglected maintenance" that repeatedly violated the ADA.363 BART's promise to change its conduct was "not sufficient to overcome the strong record of its past neglect."364 The court held that the plaintiffs had satisfied the requirements for preliminary mandatory injunctive relief, first, because there was a strong likelihood of success on the merits of the plaintiffs' ADA claims, and, second, because the "[i] njuries to individual dignity and deprivations of civil rights constitute irreparable injury."365 The court also rejected BART's argument that the plaintiffs' action was moot.366 In Neighborhood Ass'n of the Back Bay, Inc.
|
From page 28... ...
28 regulations "requires that light rail systems confined entirely to a dedicated right-of-way provide level boarding, and establishes standards for new vehicles in new stations, new vehicles in existing stations, and retrofitted vehicles in new and key stations."379 The FTA Circular explains the requirements for rapid rail380 and light rail platforms.381 In September 2011, DOT added § 37.42 to its regulations. The section states in part: (a)
|
From page 29... ...
29 other extraordinarily expensive structural changes [were] necessary to attain accessibility."391 The ADA requires public entities operating rapid and light rail systems and commuter rail systems to identify key stations that must be altered "to ensure a basic degree of usability by individuals with disabilities."392 Commuter authorities must consult with individuals with disabilities and organizations representing them when designating key stations.393 The authorities must consider factors such as whether ridership is high and whether a station serves as a transfer or feeder station.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.