Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay, Inc. v. Federal Transit Authority Citation: Neighborhood Ass'n of The Back Bay, Inc. v. Fed. Transit Admin., 407 F. Supp. 2d 323 (D. Mass. 2005), aff'd, Neighborhood Ass'n Of The Back Bay, Inc. v. Fed. Transit Admin., 463 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2006). Law Interpreted/ Governing Law: Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; 49 C.F.R. § 37. Fact Summary: defendants, the Federal Transit Authority and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, sought to make certain accessibility improvements to Copley Station, one of the oldest subway stations in the country. Plaintiffs intervened, alleging that the improvement trial violated Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. Issue: whether defendants’ plan for improving accessibility to Copley Station as required under Title II of the ADA violated relevant sections of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Department of Transportation Act. Holding: defendant’s determination that there was no adverse effect under the National Preservation Act met the procedural requirements contained in that Act. The defendants here invested time in identifying the historic properties encompassed by the accessibility improvement project and met with and considered the suggestions of the affected parties. Additionally, the finding that there was no adverse effect was supported by appropriate documents, including a report made by the defendants’ under Section 106 of the Act. Additionally, the procedural requirements imposed by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act which mandates a consideration of the impact on the historic properties and a determination about other feasible and prudent alternatives were adequately followed. Here, the potential effects on historic properties were greatly weighed, but it was ultimately determined that no feasible and prudent alternative existed. Relevance to Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Other Non-Motorized Transportation: This case addresses the potential conflicts between the transportation facility accessibility requirements of the ADA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. Transportation improvement projects meant to increase accessibility will likely move forward as long as the impact on historic properties and other prudent alternatives are considered.
Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay, Inc. v. Federal Transit Authority Citation: Neighborhood Ass'n of The Back Bay, Inc. v. Fed. Transit Admin., 407 F. Supp. 2d 323 (D. Mass. 2005), aff'd, Neighborhood Ass'n Of The Back Bay, Inc. v. Fed. Transit Admin., 463 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2006). Law Interpreted/ Governing Law: Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; 49 C.F.R. § 37. Fact Summary: defendants, the Federal Transit Authority and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, sought to make certain accessibility improvements to Copley Station, one of the oldest subway stations in the country. Plaintiffs intervened, alleging that the improvement violated Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. Issue: whether defendants’ plan for improving accessibility to Copley Station as required under Title II of the ADA violated relevant sections of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Department of Transportation Act. Holding: defendant’s determination that there was no adverse effect under the National Preservation Act met the procedural requirements contained in that Act. The defendants here invested time in identifying the historic properties encompassed by the accessibility improvement project and met with and considered the suggestions of the affected parties. Additionally, the finding that there was no adverse effect was supported by appropriate documents, including a report made by the defendants’ under Section 106 of the Act. Additionally, the procedural requirements imposed by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act which mandates a consideration of the impact on the historic properties and a determination about other feasible and prudent alternatives were adequately followed. Here, the potential effects on historic properties were greatly weighed, but it was ultimately determined that no feasible and prudent alternative existed. Relevance to Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Other Non-Motorized Transportation: This case addresses the potential conflicts between the transportation facility accessibility requirements of the ADA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. Transportation improvement projects meant to increase accessibility will likely move forward as long as the impact on historic properties and other prudent alternatives are considered. trial
AppendixC_CaseSummaries.docx