42 U.S.C. § 12147

Alterations of existing facilities

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) General rule

With respect to alterations of an existing facility or part thereof used in the provision of designated public transportation services that affect or could affect the usability of the facility or part thereof, it shall be considered discrimination, for purposes of section 12132 of this title and section 794 of title 29, for a public entity to fail to make such alterations (or to ensure that the alterations are made) in such a manner that, to the maximum extent feasible, the altered portions of the facility are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, upon the completion of such alterations. Where the public entity is undertaking an alteration that affects or could affect usability of or access to an area of the facility containing a primary function, the entity shall also make the alterations in such a manner that, to the maximum extent feasible, the path of travel to the altered area and the bathrooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving the altered area, are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, upon completion of such alterations, where such alterations to the path of travel or the bathrooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving the altered area are not disproportionate to the overall alterations in terms of cost and scope (as determined under criteria established by the Attorney General).

(b) Special rule for stations(1) General rule

For purposes of section 12132 of this title and section 794 of title 29, it shall be considered discrimination for a public entity that provides designated public transportation to fail, in accordance with the provisions of this subsection, to make key stations (as determined under criteria established by the Secretary by regulation) in rapid rail and light rail systems readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.

(2) Rapid rail and light rail key stations(A) Accessibility

Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, all key stations (as determined under criteria established by the Secretary by regulation) in rapid rail and light rail systems shall be made readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, as soon as practicable but in no event later than the last day of the 3-year period beginning on July 26, 1990.

(B) Extension for extraordinarily expensive structural changes

The Secretary may extend the 3-year period under subparagraph (A) up to a 30-year period for key stations in a rapid rail or light rail system which stations need extraordinarily expensive structural changes to, or replacement of, existing facilities; except that by the last day of the 20th year following July 26, 1990, at least ⅔ of such key stations must be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.

(3) Plans and milestonesThe Secretary shall require the appropriate public entity to develop and submit to the Secretary a plan for compliance with this subsection—(A) that reflects consultation with individuals with disabilities affected by such plan and the results of a public hearing and public comments on such plan, and(B) that establishes milestones for achievement of the requirements of this subsection.(Pub. L. 101–336, title II, § 227, July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 343.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Subsec. (a) of this section effective 18 months after July 26, 1990, and subsec. (b) of this section effective July 26, 1990, see section 231 of Pub. L. 101–336, set out as a note under section 12141 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: Disabled in Action v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 635 F.3d 87 (3rd Cir. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Disabled in Action v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 635 F.3d 87 (3rd Cir. 2011). · cites it 10× “42 U.S.C. § 12147 (a) (2010) (emphases added).”

Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 539 F.3d 199 (3rd Cir. 2008). · cites it 6× “See 42 U.S.C. § 12147 (b); 29 C.F.R. § 37.47 .”

Woods v. Centro of Oneida, Inc., 103 F.4th 933 (2d Cir. 2024). · cites it 6× “Specifically, Woods contends that the district court failed to address his alteration claim under 42 U.S.C. § 12147 and his program-access claim under 42 U.”

Frame v. City of Arlington, 575 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2009). · cites it 6× “Title II, however, neither explicitly commands, nor implies, an accrual date for the plaintiffs' claims. In the absence of either explicit or implicit statutory guidance, the plaintiffs urge us to apply the discovery rule, under which a claim accrues when a plaintiff knows or…”

Hip Heightened Indep. an v. Port Auth. of New York &, 693 F.3d 345 (3rd Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “” This requirement appears in 42 U.S.C. § 12147 (a) and 49 C.F.R. § 37.”

Walter v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 434 F. Supp. 2d 346 (E.D. Pa. 2006). · cites it 3× “42 U.S.C. §§ 12147 (b)(1), 12162(e)(2)(A)(I).”

Cupolo v. Bay Area Rapid Transit, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 1997). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 12147 (b)(1). BART does not contest that members of the Plaintiff class who use wheelchairs are qualified individuals under the ADA or that it must comply with Department of Transportation regulations concerning the accessibility of specified “Key Stations” within…”

Neighborhood Ass'n of the Back Bay, Inc. v. Fed. Transit Admin., 463 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2006). “42 U.S.C. § 12147 . In 1992 the Copley Square station was identified by the MBTA as a key station, and plans were made to modify the station to make it wheelchair accessible.”

George v. Bay Area Rapid Transit, 577 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2009). “See 42 U.S.C. § 12147 (b)(1); id. §§ 12134(a), 12143, 12149, 12164.”

Martin v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 225 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (N.D. Ga. 2002). “42 U.S.C. § 12147 (b)(1). Plaintiffs contend that MARTA discriminates against the disabled by failing to maintain the elevators in the train stations.”

Rosa v. Lewis Foods of 42nd Street, LLC, 124 F. Supp. 3d 290 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). “2008) (interpreting Title II of the ADA and quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12147 (a)) (alteration omitted).”

Am. Council of the Blind v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 133 F. Supp. 2d 66 (D.D.C. 2001). “See 42 U.S.C. § 12147 (b)(2)(B). On September 3, 1992, WMATA requested a finding of equivalent facilitation for its existing platform edge.”

Show all 22 citing cases →

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.