MTA Transit Cuts Challenged by Disabled New Yorkers and Their Advocates

Claim that the MTA's June 27th Service Cuts Violate Americans With Disabilities Act and Disproportionately Impact Mobility-Impaired New Yorkers

BROOKLYN, N.Y., Aug. 17 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, plaintiffs RueZalia Watkins, Anthony Trocchia, and Clara Reiss, all people who are unable to travel long distances on their own or make use of the subway system because of their mobility impairments, along with Disabled In Action of Metropolitan New York and The Brooklyn Center for the Independence of the Disabled Inc., both non-profit agencies that advocate on behalf of disabled New Yorkers, filed suit against the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) and New York City Transit (NYCT). They are challenging cuts to the City's bus system and its complementary paratransit system that leave them without public transportation service comparable to that provided to non-disabled people, in violation of their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  The plaintiffs are represented by South Brooklyn Legal Services (SBLS) (a program of Legal Services NYC), the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG) and Emery, Celli, Brinckerhoff and Abady.  Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction reversing the MTA and NYCT service cuts and restoring paratransit services.

The lawsuit challenges city-wide service cuts implemented by the MTA and NYCT beginning on June 27, 2010, cutting eighty-nine bus lines.  These service cuts have forced transit passengers either to travel a greater distance to an alternate bus route or to travel by subway rather than by bus.  For Plaintiffs, however, both of these options are impossible, thus imposing a greater hardship on people with disabilities than on people without disabilities.  And they cannot rely on the City's already overburdened paratransit system – Access-A-Ride – because rather than ensuring that additional resources are devoted to Access-A-Ride in anticipation of the increase in demand occasioned by the reduction in bus service, the Defendants have instituted or approved significant cuts to the system.  There are approximately 138,000 individuals approved for Access-A-Ride and disabled riders made 5.8 million trips on Access-A-Ride in 2008; the June 27th transit cuts are estimated to eliminate 26,000 trips on Access-A-Ride each year.

The individual plaintiffs all are mobility-impaired and travel either via wheelchair or with a walker.  Plaintiff RueZalia Watkins uses a manual wheelchair and lives in Brooklyn. Prior to the cuts, the buses were her main means of transportation and she routinely used the B39 bus to travel from her home in Brooklyn to her work in Manhattan.  She utilizes Access-A-Ride, but deficiencies with this service mean that she must miss work obligations, and work on the weekend to make up for it.  

Plaintiff Anthony Trocchia has Spinal Muscular Atrophy Type 3, uses a motorized wheelchair, and is eligible for Access-A-Ride.  Prior to the Defendants' cuts to bus service, Mr. Trocchia relied on the bus system to travel from his home in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, to Manhattan.  Gaps between platforms and subway cars make it almost impossible for him to use the subway.  And the subway lines identified as replacements for his lost bus (J, M, Z), either do not have fully accessible stations in Manhattan, where he must go for doctors' appointments and other meetings, or do not run on the weekend.  Advance booking required for Access-A-Ride means that there is no possibility of spontaneity or flexibility to deal with life's contingencies, such as a medical appointment being delayed.  "Either they didn't analyze the impact that these cuts were going to have on people with disabilities or they just don't care," says Plaintiff Clara Reiss, who lives in Manhattan.  Ms. Reiss uses a walker because of the after-effects of polio.  As the result of cuts to Access-A-Ride, Ms. Reiss' eligibility has been made contingent on the weather, even though her disability is not affected by the weather.

The plaintiffs' lawsuit asserts that the Defendants' actions violate both the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  The ADA mandates that public entities may not discriminate against people with disabilities and may not deny them the benefits of services provided to people without disabilities.  And the law makes it clear that it is "discrimination" for a public entity which operates a fixed route system to fail to provide paratransit services that are "comparable to the level of designated public transportation services provided to individuals without disabilities using such system."  This includes response time, which also must be comparable, to the extent practicable, to the level of designated public transportation services provided to individuals without disabilities. 42 U.S.C. section 12143(a) (2).  Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination against a protected class by any program which receives federal assistance.  

Said Marty Markowitz, the Brooklyn Borough President: "Some of these routes may not be the most heavily used, but they are absolute lifelines for riders with disabilities or who are elderly. There is simply no reasonable way for people with mobility and accessibility issues who cannot take the subway—especially considering many stations are not ADA-compliant—to get around with cuts to these vital bus routes and Access-A-Ride."

Plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the Defendants' failure to provide people with disabilities with access to public transportation violates the ADA and Section 504 and a permanent injunction directing the Defendants to restore bus service and maintain Access-A-Ride service necessary to provide to people with mobility impairments access to public transportation comparable to that provided to non-disabled riders.

SOURCE Legal Services NYC