42 U.S.C. § 12148

Public transportation programs and activities in existing facilities and one car per train rule

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

(a) Public transportation programs and activities in existing facilities(1) In general

With respect to existing facilities used in the provision of designated public transportation services, 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 operate a designated public transportation program or activity conducted in such facilities so that, when viewed in the entirety, the program or activity is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.

(2) Exception

Paragraph (1) shall not require a public entity to make structural changes to existing facilities in order to make such facilities accessible to individuals who use wheelchairs, unless and to the extent required by section 12147(a) of this title (relating to alterations) or section 12147(b) of this title (relating to key stations).

(3) Utilization

Paragraph (1) shall not require a public entity to which paragraph (2) applies, to provide to individuals who use wheelchairs services made available to the general public at such facilities when such individuals could not utilize or benefit from such services provided at such facilities.

(b) One car per train rule(1) General rule

Subject to paragraph (2), with respect to 2 or more vehicles operated as a train by a light or rapid rail system, for purposes of section 12132 of this title and section 794 of title 29, it shall be considered discrimination for a public entity to fail to have at least 1 vehicle per train that is accessible to individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, as soon as practicable but in no event later than the last day of the 5-year period beginning on the effective date of this section.

(2) Historic trains

In order to comply with paragraph (1) with respect to the remanufacture of a vehicle of historic character which is to be used on a segment of a light or rapid rail system which is included on the National Register of Historic Places, if making such vehicle readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities would significantly alter the historic character of such vehicle, the public entity which operates such system only has to make (or to purchase or lease a remanufactured vehicle with) those modifications which are necessary to meet the requirements of section 12142(c)(1) of this title and which do not significantly alter the historic character of such vehicle.

(Pub. L. 101–336, title II, § 228, July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 344.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The effective date of this section, referred to in subsec. (b)(1), probably means the effective date of subsec. (b), which is effective on date of enactment of Pub. L. 101–336, which was approved July 26, 1990. The effective date of subsec. (a) is 18 months after July 26, 1990. See section 231 of Pub. L. 101–336, set out as an Effective Date note under section 12141 of this title.

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 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case: Woods v. Centro of Oneida, Inc., 103 F.4th 933 (2d Cir. 2024).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Woods v. Centro of Oneida, Inc., 103 F.4th 933 (2d Cir. 2024). · cites it 6× “§ 12147 and his program-access claim under 42 U.S.C. § 12148 . Woods further asserts that Centro violated 49 C.”

Stafford J. Coolbaugh v. State of Louisiana, on Behalf of la.dept. Of Pub. Saf. & Corr., on Behalf of La. Dept. Of Motor Vehs., 136 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 1998). “§ 12142 (a), which requires entities that purchase or renovate new buses or rail vehicles to ensure that such new or renovated vehicles be accessible to the disabled,' and 42 U.S.C. § 12148 (b), which requires that at least one car per train is accessible to the disabled.”

George v. Bay Area Rapid Transit, 577 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2009). “The transit riders respond by claiming that the safe harbor does not apply to claims that BART does not operate its facilities in an appropriate manner under 42 U.S.C. § 12148 (prohibiting operating service in a discriminatory manner).”

Schulz v. Bay Area Motivate, LLC (N.D. Cal. 2019). “15 Defendants argue the San Francisco Bikeshare Program is not a "designated 16 public transportation program," see 42 U.S.C. § 12148 (a), and, consequently, the 17 requirements set forth in Title II, Part B, do not apply to said program.”

Schulz v. Bay Area Motivate, LLC (N.D. Cal. 2020). “" See 42 U.S.C. § 12148 (a). 18 In its December 3 Order, the Court found the Bikeshare Program was not a 19 "designated public transportation program" within the meaning of § 12148(a).”

O.E. v. New Orleans Reg'l Transit Auth. (E.D. La. 2024). “84 42 U.S.C. § 12148 (a)(1); 49 C.F.R. § 37.”

George v. Bart (9th Cir. 2009). “The transit riders respond by claiming that the safe harbor does not apply to claims that BART does not operate its facil- ities in an appropriate manner under 42 U.S.C. § 12148 (pro- hibiting operating service in a discriminatory manner).”

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.