FEDERAL · 42 U.S.C. · Chapter SUBCHAPTER II—PUBLIC SERVICES

Paratransit as a complement to fixed route service

42 U.S.C. § 12143
Title42The Public Health and Welfare
ChapterSUBCHAPTER II—PUBLIC SERVICES
Partsubpart i—public transportation other than by aircraft or certain rail operations

This text of 42 U.S.C. § 12143 (Paratransit as a complement to fixed route service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
42 U.S.C. § 12143.

Text

(a)General rule It shall be considered discrimination for purposes of section 12132 of this title and section 794 of title 29 for a public entity which operates a fixed route system (other than a system which provides solely commuter bus service) to fail to provide with respect to the operations of its fixed route system, in accordance with this section, paratransit and other special transportation services to individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, that are sufficient to provide to such individuals a level of service (1) which is comparable to the level of designated public transportation services provided to individuals without disabilities using such system; or (2) in the case of response time, which is comparable, to the extent practicable, to the lev

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Olmstead v. L.C.
527 U.S. 581 (Supreme Court, 1999)
710 case citations
Abrahams v. MTA Long Island Bus
644 F.3d 110 (Second Circuit, 2011)
26 case citations
Keirnan v. Utah Transit Authority
339 F.3d 1217 (Tenth Circuit, 2003)
25 case citations
Boose v. TRI-COUNTY METRO. TRANSP. DIST. OF OREGON
587 F.3d 997 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
20 case citations
O'CONNOR v. Metro Ride, Inc.
87 F. Supp. 2d 894 (D. Minnesota, 2000)
11 case citations
Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Law School Admission Council Inc.
896 F. Supp. 2d 849 (N.D. California, 2012)
10 case citations
Storman v. Sacramento Regional Transit District
70 F. App'x 438 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
5 case citations
Anderson v. Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority
206 F.R.D. 56 (W.D. New York, 2001)
4 case citations
Walter v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
434 F. Supp. 2d 346 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2006)
4 case citations
Brinn v. Tidewater Transportation District Commission
242 F.3d 227 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)
2 case citations
Morataya v. Metro RTA
(N.D. Ohio, 2020)
Britt v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth.
2025 NY Slip Op 05187 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Latham v. Acton
(D. Alaska, 2020)

Source Credit

History

(Pub. L. 101–336, title II, §223, July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 340.)

Editorial Notes

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date
Subsec. (a) of this section effective 18 months after July 26, 1990, and subsecs. (b) to (f) 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.

Paratransit System Under FTA Approved Coordinated Plan
Pub. L. 114–94, div. A, title III, §3023, Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1494, provided that: "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 37.131(c) of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, any paratransit system currently coordinating complementary paratransit service for more than 40 fixed route agencies shall be permitted to continue using an existing tiered, distance-based coordinated paratransit fare system, if the fare for the existing tiered, distance-based coordinated paratransit fare system is not increased by a greater percentage than any increase to the fixed route fare for the largest transit agency in the complementary paratransit service area."

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 U.S.C. § 12143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/42/12143.