Can the TA be sued for violating ADA rules if the 2009 'doomsday' cuts go through?

[Shortline Bus]

I Have a question. If in worst case scenrio, the MTA proposed plans of totallying scrapping or reducing routes near subway lines that are now yet wheelchair or ADA acessible could the agency lose a lawsuit?

 

I mean i think the agency would could lose hunderds of millions in a lawsuit from the ADA community since most of the stations in the outerboroughs are not accessible.

 

 

The worst ideas is to cut the B25(Fulton St via "A & C' lines)Q56(Jamaica Ave "J" line)BX4(Westchester Ave via '6' line)and B37(nearby to 4th Ave/Brooklyn "R" line)routes.

 

Even Manhattan routes are not safe as the MTA also plans to cut late night M1, M2, M42 and M104 services too.

 

Instead in worst case scernio only late night service on existing 24/7 lines near the subway such as the B37, B25, Q56 and BX4 should be cut.

 

While the M1, M2 and M104 should still have 24/7 service but increase M104 'owl' headways to every hour.

 

What you guys think?

[Forest Glen]

As long as they operate Paratransit and all city buses are ADA they can't be sued.

[tkx2510]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Danger hiptop 4.6; U; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920)

 

Cutting bus routes including the B25 to Fulton Street and the Bx4 to Westchester Avenue and the other routes will be the biggest mistakes in their life. I don't if the can get sued but they will lose money big time, and the Mayor Bloomberg need to do something about this budget cut.We nned those routes to get by. Im surprise they didn't talk about discontining the B41 to Flatbush Avenue to Downtown Brooklyn and Kings Plaza, and the Bx5 to Bruckner Boulevard and Story Avenue to Pelham Bay and Southern Boulevard.

[KeystoneRegional]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Radioguy]

Increasing AAR fare to MORE than base MTA fare should be a basis of a suit. Most paratransit riders are stretching their budgets as-is. In fact most are eligible, and have, half-fare metrocards. They already are inconvenienced by the fact paratransit buses are not equipped with fareboxes, and certainly don't need to have to pay even more out of pocket.

 

Just imagine it. Paratransit riders attempting to afford to continue keeping medical appointments by taking buses and climbing stair for subway rides. Not only will the increased wheelchair riders delay buses, the falls and possible deaths associated with these individuals attempting to get a subway at EL or subterranean stations having to walk stairs to platforms they could fall off.

 

If this happens, someone might actually die due to it. I find it hard to believe they even proposed it.

[aemoreira81]

Increasing AAR fare to MORE than base MTA fare should be a basis of a suit. Most paratransit riders are stretching their budgets as-is. In fact most are eligible, and have, half-fare metrocards. They already are inconvenienced by the fact paratransit buses are not equipped with fareboxes, and certainly don't need to have to pay even more out of pocket.

 

Just imagine it. Paratransit riders attempting to afford to continue keeping medical appointments by taking buses and climbing stair for subway rides. Not only will the increased wheelchair riders delay buses, the falls and possible deaths associated with these individuals attempting to get a subway at EL or subterranean stations having to walk stairs to platforms they could fall off.

 

If this happens, someone might actually die due to it. I find it hard to believe they even proposed it.

 

The ADA of 1990 allows for transit operators to charge up to double the fare for ADA demand response (paratransit) service. As such, there would be no basis for a suit.

 

Similarly, if the MTA were to enforce the 3/4 mile rule (i.e., paratransit service is only available on 3/4 mile of either side of a route during the same days and hours during which said fixed service operates, that is also no basis for a suit.

 

The problem with the service cuts being proposed is that the right ones are not being proposed (the MTA has acknowledged that the B25 and Bx4 in particular exceed loading guidelines).

 

With this said, you will probably end up seeing bridge tolls on both free East River and Harlem River bridges, whether you like it or not (except on the Alexander Hamilton Bridge, which carries I-95 and US-1 are unlikely, as they would require multiple federal approvals, never minding that new tolls can onlt be unidirectional). The only thing that could stop tolls from being imposed is if a significant amount of money (think at least hundreds of millions) would have to be repaid to Washington.

[Radioguy]

The ADA of 1990 allows for transit operators to charge up to double the fare for ADA demand response (paratransit) service. As such, there would be no basis for a suit.

 

Unfortunately, I knew that posting. However, unlike suburban paratransit services, AAR in NYC serves not only the disabled, but a disabled population that is nearer, or below the poverty line. Also, paratransit in suburban areas are more justified in charging a higher fare since their ridership is lower and it's harder to recoup operating costs. That means a fare increase constitutes a hardship to NYC AAR riders unlike those in other municipalities. I'm no lawyer, but I bet some lawyer could form a case on this alone, despite the other issues at hand here.

 

Similarly, if the MTA were to enforce the 3/4 mile rule (i.e., paratransit service is only available on 3/4 mile of either side of a route during the same days and hours during which said fixed service operates, that is also no basis for a suit.

 

That may be within their right, but as above, I beleieve the NYC AAR ridership rely on paratransit services more as an ambulette service compared to desiring trips purely to locations served by particular subway stations or bus stops. I think you'd find many trips would need to consist of many transfers between bus and subway that most able-bodied individuals would consider less than convenient.

 

The problem with the service cuts being proposed is that the right ones are not being proposed (the MTA has acknowledged that the B25 and Bx4 in particular exceed loading guidelines).

 

With this said, you will probably end up seeing bridge tolls on both free East River and Harlem River bridges, whether you like it or not (except on the Alexander Hamilton Bridge, which carries I-95 and US-1 are unlikely, as they would require multiple federal approvals, never minding that new tolls can onlt be unidirectional). The only thing that could stop tolls from being imposed is if a significant amount of money (think at least hundreds of millions) would have to be repaid to Washington.

 

In that balance of scales, paratransit is more worthy of preservation than toll-free access to bridges, although I don't like that one bit either.