49 C.F.R. § 37.121
Requirement for comparable complementary paratransit service
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, each public entity operating a fixed route system shall provide paratransit or other special service to individuals with disabilities that is comparable to the level of service provided to individuals without disabilities who use the fixed route system.
(b) To be deemed comparable to fixed route service, a complementary paratransit system shall meet the requirements of §§ 37.123-37.133 of this subpart. The requirement to comply with § 37.131 may be modified in accordance with the provisions of this subpart relating to undue financial burden.
(c) Requirements for complementary paratransit do not apply to commuter bus, commuter rail, or intercity rail systems.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Walter v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 434 F. Supp. 2d 346 (E.D. Pa. 2006).
Walter v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 434 F. Supp. 2d 346 (E.D. Pa. 2006). “Instead, she argues that 49 C.F.R. § 37.121 (c) only exempts entities that solely provide commuter rail services.”
Fell v. Spokane Transit Auth., 128 Wash. 2d 618 (Wash. 1996). “” 56 Fed. Reg. 45,601 (1991). DOT emphasized comparability of service for the disabled: "The ADA does not attempt to meet all the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities .”
Boose v. Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Oregon, 587 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2009). “§ 12143 (c)(3); 49 C.F.R. § 37.121 (b). Although the Secretary has apparently decided that paratransit systems should make reasonable modifications to be considered comparable, he has yet to issue the final rules that would impose such a requirement.”
Shaw v. People Ex Rel. Chiang, 175 Cal. App. 4th 577 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). “, 49 C.F.R. § 37.121 (2008).) But provision of transportation for public school children is not providing school children with access to public transportation.”
Brooklyn Ctr. for Indep. of the Disabled v. Bloomberg, 980 F. Supp. 2d 588 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “See also 49 C.F.R. § 37.121 (requiring that “each public entity operating a fixed route system” to “provide paratransit or other special service to individuals with disabilities”).”
Tandy v. City of Wichita, 208 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (D. Kan. 2002). “At 49 C.F.R. § 37.121 , the pertinent regulations suggest that “each public entity operating a fixed route system shall provide para-transit or other special service to individuals with disabilities that is comparable to the level of service provided to individuals without…”
Neff v. Via Metro. Transit Auth., 179 F.R.D. 185 (W.D. Tex. 1998). ““Customer” means any person with a disability who uses the VIA fixed route system or the VIAtrans para-transit service provided pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 37.121 . G. “Eighth Day Data” refers to VIA’s standard system of collecting data, including data from driver logs, on an eight…”
Anderson v. Rochester-Genesee Reg'l Transp. Auth., 206 F.R.D. 56 (W.D.N.Y. 2001). “§ 12143 (a)(2) and 49 C.F.R. § 37.121 (b): The second claim alleges that defendants have maintained waiting lists for paratransit service, in violation of 49 C.”
Broadway Cab LLC v. Emp. Dep't, 336 P.3d 12 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “49 CFR § 37.121 . TriMet operated its Lift Demand Response Accessible Cab Transportation Services (LIFT) program as comparable transportation to ADA-qualified customers.”
Anderson v. Rochester-Genesee Reg'l Transp. Auth., 337 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2003). “See 49 C.F.R. § 37.121 et seq. Two of the Secretary’s implementing regulations are of particular relevance here.”
Medrano v. City of San Antonio, 179 F. App'x 897 (5th Cir. 2006). “See 49 C.F.R. § 37.121 (a) (providing that “each public entity operating a fixed route system shall provide paratransit or other special service to individuals with disabilities that is comparable to the level of service provided to individuals without disabilities who use the…”
Paulino-Santos v. Metro. Transit Auth. (S.D.N.Y. 2024). “With respect to “response time,” which the ADA requires to be “comparable, to the extent practicable” 3 to service provided to individuals without disabilities, Section 37.”
— 49 C.F.R. § 37.121(c) — 1 case
Walter v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 434 F. Supp. 2d 346 (E.D. Pa. 2006). “Instead, she argues that 49 C.F.R. § 37.121 (c) only exempts entities that solely provide commuter rail services.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.