Impacts of the Americans with Disabilities Act on Transit Agency Liability (2018) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 34-43
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 34... ...
34 B Regulations Applicable to Paratransit Service The ADA mandates that regulations must require that each public entity that operates a fixed route system provide paratransit and other special transportation services to any individual with a disability who is unable, as a result of a physical or mental impairment … to board, ride, or disembark from any vehicle on the system which is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; … who needs the assistance of a wheelchair lift or other boarding assistance device (and is able with such assistance)
|
From page 35... ...
35 eligible persons shall be origin-to-destination service." Section 37.3 defines origin-to-destination service to mean "service from a passenger's origin to the passenger's destination" but states that an entity providing paratransit service may provide it "in a curb-to-curb or door-to-door mode." If a provider of paratransit service "chooses curb-to-curb as its primary means of providing service, it must provide assistance to those passengers who need assistance beyond the curb in order to use the service unless such assistance would result in a fundamental alteration or direct threat."504 The FTA explains that [t] he goal behind [the]
|
From page 36... ...
36 according to the U.S. General Accounting Office, one the most common problems for transit agencies in implementing the ADA's paratransit requirements is determining eligibility for paratransit service.516 It may be noted that forty of the forty-four transit agencies responding to the survey that provide paratransit service acknowledged that the federal regulations and/or FTA Circular 4710.1 provide a standard process and/or identify specific information needed for the agencies to determine an individual's eligibility for paratransit service.517 Nevertheless, thirty-one agencies responding to the survey have adopted their own standard process and/or requirements for determining paratransit eligibility.518 Chapter 9 of the FTA Circular provides guidance on eligibility for complementary paratransit service.519 Under 49 C.F.R.
|
From page 37... ...
37 Based on the "low threshold for a qualifying disability under the amended ADA," the court held that Deister met the ADA's definition of disabled because he had an "episodic disability that substantially limits a major life activity when active."535 Individuals with disabilities, including those with a temporary or episodic disability, presumably should not be subject to "unreasonable travel expectations" that impair their ability to travel to or from fixed transit stops and locations.536 For example, it would not be reasonable to expect an individual with a disability to navigate a route on crutches that require "considerable exertion" or to expect an individual with a disability to navigate a route when snow or icy conditions prevent the person from getting to or from stops and stations.537 As the FTA Circular points out, in these and other situations requiring a decision on eligibility, complementary paratransit "[r] eviewers become the ‘reasonable people' making such judgments."538 F
|
From page 38... ...
38 Likewise, the agencies' responses differed regarding who makes the determination whether an individual is eligible for paratransit service.549 Appendix C includes details provided by transit agencies on who conducts assessments and makes determinations of individuals' eligibility for paratransit service.
|
From page 39... ...
39 with disabilities.569 The plaintiffs sought to compel DART to make a reasonable modification to its paratransit services to require alley pick-up for Jason. The Meltons, who appealed the district court's grant of a summary judgment to DART, argued that the district court should have applied a "‘meaningful access' standard to evaluate the Meltons' claims of denial of access."570 First, because the Meltons failed to demonstrate that DART discriminated against Jason on the basis of his disability, the Fifth Circuit did not decide whether a meaningful access standard should be applied.571 Second, the appeals court held that the ADA does not require public transit agencies providing approved paratransit services to the public to accommodate the individual needs of individuals with disabilities.
|
From page 40... ...
40 The court noted that, pursuant to the Act, see 42 U.S.C.
|
From page 41... ...
41 the trial court applied a "flawed analytical framework…."600 The court contrasted Washington state's "vague standards" with the "specific" federal standards.601 Important for the court was that "[t] he ADA addresses discrimination in public transportation by requiring public transit agencies operating fixed route systems to provide paratransit and other special service transportation to disabled persons on a comparable level to the service provided for nondisabled users."602 Moreover, "[t]
|
From page 42... ...
42 accessible."618 Thus, "if an individual wishes to take trips that require her to use key stations which have not been made accessible, she is eligible for paratransit under 49 C.F.R.
|
From page 43... ...
43 standard and delete[d] the sentence concerning ‘common wheelchair' from the part 37 definition of wheelchair, as well as from section 37.165(b)
|
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.