Cases, by Vehicle and Client Type Vehicle Type Assisting Case Name

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Cases, by Vehicle and Client Type Vehicle Type Assisting Case Name Cases, by Vehicle and Client Type Vehicle Type Assisting Case Name Client Type Status Transit Bus defendant Albarez v. Utah Transit Authority child dismissed Transit Bus plaintiff Hill v. San Diego Transit disabled (alcoholic) settled Transit Bus plaintiff Rios v. LACMTA elderly settled Transit Bus plaintiff Herrera v. LACMTA infant settled Transit Bus plaintiff Hill v. Sacramento Regional Transit District physically challenged settled Transit Bus plaintiffs* Beauchamp et. al v. LACMTA/ATE-Ryder wheelchair occupants settled Transit Bus defendant Williams v. City of Fresno schoolchild settled Transit Bus defendant Canady v. City of Fresno schoolchild settled Transit Bus plaintiff Thomas v. LACMTA elderly settled Transit Bus defendant Hargrove v. Laidlaw disabled (obesity) settled Transit Bus defendant Kalantaryan v. Mora et. al elderly settled Transit Bus plaintiff Collins v. New Jersey Transit adult settled Transit Bus plaintiff Spates v. LACMTA adult settled Transit Bus plaintiff Bass v. LACMTA disabled (obesity) settled Transit Bus plaintiff Moore v. Bi-State Development Corporation schoolchild for plaintiff Transit Bus plaintiff Mann v. City of Santa Monica adult bicyclist settled Transit Bus plaintiff Hosmer v. Ann Arbor Transportation Authority developmentally disabled settled Transit Bus defendant Wrye v. Pinellas County School Board schoolchild settled Transit Bus plaintiff Sanchez v. South Orange Avenue Bus Lines adult dismissed Transit Bus plaintiff Fonseca v. LACMTA adult settled Transit Bus plaintiff Lupino v. City of San Francisco elderly settled Transit Bus plaintiff Burton v. Sacramento Regional Transit District wheelchair occupant settled Transit Bus plaintiff Porraspita v. New York City Transit Authority adult settled Transit Bus plaintiff Steinemann v. New York City Transit Authority child settled Transit Bus plaintiff Borja v. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority wheelchair occupant settled Transit Bus plaintiff Cary v. San Diego Transit elderly for plaintiff Transit Bus plaintiff Evans v. SEPTA adult settled Transit Bus plaintiff Rodriguez v. First Transit child settled Transit Bus plaintiff Blanco v. New York City Transit Authority adult pending Transit Bus plaintiff Jones v. First Transit adult settled Transit Bus plaintiff Carranza v. LACMTA physically challenged/elderly withdrew Transit Bus plaintiff Fletcher v. San Mateo Transit child withdrew Transit Bus plaintiff Ford v. Kansas City Area Transportation Authority adult dropped Transit Bus defendant Biggs v. Kansas City Area Transportation Authority elderly motorcyclist settled Transit Bus plaintiff Carulli v. New Jersey Transit elderly pending Transit Bus plaintiff McClendon v. LACMTA elderly for defendant Transit Bus defendant Paladino v. Whitehall Properties, Inc. elderly settled Transit Bus plaintiff Raymond v. Broome County Transit adult pending Transit Bus plaintiff Gomez v. NYCTA adult pending Commuter Bus plaintiff Sorensen v. Fuji Express adult settled Transit Bus pliantiff Gilanyi v. New Jersey Transit adult pending Commuter/Express Bus plaintiff Jackson v. New York City Transit Authority adult pending Theme Park/Transit Bus plaintiff Byrne v. Walt Disney World disabled pending Transit Bus plaintiff Whitney v. New York City Transit Authority scooter occupant pending Transit Bus defendant Ruble v. Laidlaw, Valley Metro wheelchair occupant settled Transit Bus defendant Kazantseva v. Whatcom Transportation Authority elderly pending Transit Bus defendant Grant v. Greenberg adult pending Transit Bus plainiff Marroquin v. NYCTA adult pending Transit Bus defendant NYCTA v. Celia driver for plaintiff Transit Bus plaintiff Fuentes v. OCTA adult pending Transit Bus defendant Rufo v. Greenberg adult settled Transit Bus plaintiff Zellars v. City of Charlotte adult pending Transit Bus plaintiff Cliffton v. City of San Francisco elderly settled Transit Bus plaintiff Conti v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority developmentally-disabled child pending Transit Bus plaintiff Robinson v. City of Santa Monica elderly pending Transit Bus plaintiff Warschau v. New York City Transit Authority adult pending Motor Coach plaintiff Lohmann v. Cappa & Graham et al. adult settled Motor Coach plaintiff Blake v. Bells elderly settled Motor Coach plaintiff Lai v. Sino Express adults (20) settled Motor Coach defendant Totino v. Newburgh School Board driver dismissed Motor Coach plaintiff Bradley v. C&J Trailways adult settled Motor Coach plaintiff Tarack v. Harran adult for defendant Motor Coach plaintiff Zanes v. Cyr Bus Lines elderly settled Motor Coach plaintiff Smith v. Fox Bus Lines elderly settled Motor Coach defendant Bryant, Ramirez v. West Valley Charter schoolchildren, attendant settled Motor Coach plaintiffs Stillian v. Greyhound et. Al adults (multiple) withdrew Motor Coach plaintiff Byrd v. Arrowlines, Inc. adult settled Motor Coach decedents Maxwell v. ABC Companies adults, schoolchildren settled Motor Coach plaintiff Fitzpatrick v. Greyhound adult settled Motor Coach plaintiff O'Neill v. Bethany Limousine, Inc. elderly pedestrian settled Motor Coach plaintiff Demich v. Supreme Coaches, et. al adult pending Motor Coach plaintiff Peter Pan v. ATU union dropped Motor Coach plaintiff Gillian v. McRae Motorcoach adult settled Motor Coach plaintiffs Hemsley v. MCI et. al adults, elderly withdrew Motor Coach defendant Simpson v. Senior Travel Services, Inc. elderly pending Motor Coach plaintiff Thomasen v. Academy Coach adult settled Motor Coach plaintiff Farrell v. Adirondack Lines adult pending Airport Shuttle plaintiff Backstein v. Hudson General adult settled Airport Shuttle defendant Norman v. Bentley Hedges et. al elderly settled Hotel Shuttle plaintiff Vines v. Columbia HCA wheelchair occupant for plaintiff Prison Shuttle plaintiff Jacks v. City of New York prisoner settled Personal Car (Respite Care) plaintiff Herring v. State of Arizona develomentally disabled child settled Hospital Shuttle plaintiff NYC Health & Hospital Corp v. Bluebird et. al product defects settled Residential Shuttle plaintiff Mercier v. Blue Woods Management, Inc. disabled settled Airport Shuttle plaintiff Bearer v. First Transit elderly pending Airport Shuttle plaintiff Calkins v. Cloud Nine Shuttle bicyclist pending Paratransit plaintiff Pederson v. Union Transit developmentally disabled / wheelchair settled Paratransit defendant Atwell v. American Ambulance Association wheelchair occupant settled Paratransit plaintiff Leach v. Provide-A-Ride wheelchair occupant settled Paratransit defendant Stewart v. Ketron/Triage et. al frail elderly settled Paratransit defendant McGowan v. Laidlaw wheelchair occupant never filed Paratransit plaintiff Marney v. Star Shuttle developmentally disabled adult for defendant Paratransit plaintiff Forest v. VPSI/Chrysler Corporation adult settled Paratransit plaintiff Dahms v. City of L.A./ATE-Ryder schoolchild settled Paratransit plaintiff Johnson v. APT wheelchair occupant settled Paratransit plaintiff Cayetano v. Bell Cab et. al developmentally disabled settled Paratransit decedent Berg v. Care Ambulance Company wheelchair occupant settled Paratransit plaintiff Roche v. SEPTA wheelchair occupant settled Paratransit plaintiff Jones v. ATC/Vancom developmentally disabled child settled Paratransit plaintiff Travis v. SEPTA elderly with walking aid settled Paratransit defendant Gouldborne v. Approved Ambulance Company elderly wheelchair occupant settled Paratransit plaintiff Cecchetti v. San Joachin Regional Transit District wheelchair occupant settled Paratransit plaintiff Reynolds v. Access Services, Inc. physically disabled elderly settled Paratransit plaintiff Hartman v. Miami Valley Regional Transit Authority scooter occupant settled Paratransit plaintiff Coleman v. Kings Paratransit wheelchair occupant settled Paratransit plaintiff Warren v. Seattle DOT/METRO wheelchair occupant settled Paratransit plaintiff Sharp v. Pioneer Towers scooter occupant settled Paratransit plaintiff Weber v. Dean Transportation developmentally disabled adult for plaintiff Paratransit plaintiff Blanton v. NW Alabama Mental Health scooter occupant settled Paratransit plaintiff Oppreicht v. Union Cab scooter occupant settled Paratransit defendant Pollard v. Krapf Jr. & Sons, Inc. wheelchair occupant settled Paratransit defendant Strobel v. Monroe Medi-Trans wheelchair occupant pending Paratransit plaintiff Gordon v. Des Moines MTA wheelchair occupant settled Paratransit plaintiff Pokalsky v. SEPTA et. al wheelchair occupant settled Paratransit plaintiff Toledo v. Second Home Medical Care Adult Center wheelchair occupant settled Paratransit plaintiff Tolbert v. United Transportation wheelchair occupant settled Paratransit defendant Boorstin v. Transportation Concepts, Inc. elderly settled Paratransit plaintiff Browning v. Fresh Air Accessible Service wheelchair occupant settled Paratransit plaintiff Butler v. United Cerebral Palsy Research Center developmentally disabled adult settled Paratransit plaintiff Lawlor v. Comsis, MV Transportation wheelchair occupant settled Paratransit plaintiff Hermann v. SEPTA disabled settled Paratransit plaintiffs* Anderson v. Rochester-Genesee RTA disabled settled Paratransit plaintiff Samuels v. PTM Management, Inc. disabled settled Paratransit plaintiffs Byrne v. Walt Disney World disabled pending Paratransit plaintiff Mason v. Laidlaw disabled settled Paratransit defendant Morgan v. Anatco wheelchair occupant pending Paratransit plaintiff Henry v. SCR et. al disabled pending Paratransit plaintiff Moore v. Community Transit
Recommended publications
  • A Guide to Paratransit Services
    A Guide to Paratransit Services Welcome to DART Mobility Management Services, where it’s our pleasure to serve you! While reading through the pages of this guide, you will get a basic understanding of Paratransit service, what it is, and how it will work for you. Our desire is to provide independence for riders just like those who use DART’s fixed route buses and trains, but are unable to do so. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to provide you with a 5 Star Customer Experience as well as being your transportation provider now and into the future! WHAT IS DART PARATRANSIT SERVICE? DART Paratransit Service is an origin to destination, curb-to-curb, public transportation service for people with disabilities who are unable to use DART fixed route buses or trains. We provide reasonable modification of policy and practice upon request to ensure that our transportation services are accessible to people with disabilities. Paratransit is a shared-ride service operated with modern, accessible vehicles. DART Paratransit also offers a feeder service, for those individuals who can take Paratransit to the nearest bus or rail terminal, and continue to their destination by bus or rail. Feeder service must be taken to the nearest practical bus or rail terminal that will get you to your final destination. For those riders who can use feeder service, the fare is just $0.75 for each one way trip versus $3.00 on a regular Paratransit trip. DART also offers free travel training, along with travel ambassadors, to persons with disabilities who are capable of riding accessible bus and rail services.
    [Show full text]
  • Reduced Cost Metro Transportation for People with Disabilities
    REDUCED COST AND FREE METRO TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES Individual Day Supports are tailored services and supports that are provided to a person or a small group of no more than two (2) people, in the community. This service lends very well to the use of public transportation and associated travel training, allowing for active learning while exploring the community and its resources. While the set rate includes funding for transportation, it is important to be resourceful when possible, using available discount programs to make your funds go further. METRO TRANSIT ACCESSIBILITY CENTER The Metro Transit Accessibility Center (202)962-2700 located at Metro headquarters, 600 Fifth Street NW, Washington, DC 20001, offers the following services to people with disabilities: Information and application materials for the Reduced Fare (half fare) program for Metrobus and Metrorail Information and application materials for the MetroAccess paratransit service Consultations and functional assessments to determine eligibility for MetroAccess paratransit service Replacement ID cards for MetroAccess customers Support (by phone) for resetting your MetroAccess EZ-Pay or InstantAccess password The Transit Accessibility Center office hours are 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. weekdays, with the exception of Tuesdays with hours from 8 a.m. - 2:30 p.m. REDUCED FAIR PROGRAM Metro offers reduced fare for people with disabilities who require accessibility features to use public transportation and who have a valid Metro Disability ID. The Metro Disability ID card offers a discount of half the peak fare on Metrorail, and a reduced fare of for 90¢ cash, or 80¢ paying with a SmarTrip® card on regular Metrobus routes, and a discounted fare on other participating bus service providers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relative Risks of School Travel a NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE and GUIDANCE for LOCAL COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2002 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*
    Special Report 269 Special Report 269 The Relative Risks of School Travel A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE AND GUIDANCE FOR LOCAL COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2002 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* Chairman: E. Dean Carlson, Secretary, Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka Vice Chairman: Genevieve Giuliano, Professor, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, University of Southern California, Los Angeles Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board William D. Ankner, Director, Rhode Island Department of Transportation, Providence Thomas F. Barry, Jr., Secretary of Transportation, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee Michael W. Behrens, Executive Director, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin Jack E. Buffington, Associate Director and Research Professor, Mack-Blackwell National Rural Transportation Study Center, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Sarah C. Campbell, President, TransManagement, Inc., Washington, D.C. Joanne F. Casey, President, Intermodal Association of North America, Greenbelt, Maryland James C. Codell III, Secretary, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort John L. Craig, Director, Nebraska Department of Roads, Lincoln Robert A. Frosch, Senior Research Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Susan Hanson, Landry University Professor of Geography, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts Lester A. Hoel, L.A. Lacy Distinguished
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Committee
    San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE June 4, 2004 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 1 Action Requested: APPROVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS Meeting of May 21, 2004 The meeting of the Transportation Committee was called to order by Chair Joe Kellejian (North County Coastal) at 9:10 a.m. See the attached attendance sheet for Transportation Committee member attendance. 1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Madaffer (City of San Diego) and a second by Mayor Pro Tem Monroe (South Bay), the Transportation Committee approved the minutes from the May 7, 2004, meeting. Motion Carried. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS None. Chairman Kellejian indicated that due to time constraints, the Committee will now discuss item #6 - Transit Operator Preliminary FY 2005 Budgets and Five-Year Projections. 6. TRANSIT OPERATOR PRELIMINARY FY 2005 BUDGETS AND FIVE-YEAR PROJECTIONS (RECOMMEND As part of SANDAG’s expanded role in the development of transit operator budgets, a series of budget items relating to transit operations has been scheduled through June. In February, the Transportation Committee approved the FY 2005 transit operator guiding principles and objectives, in March the transit operator revenue estimates were approved, and information was provided in April on FY 2004 year-end projections as well as the five- year preliminary projections. This month’s report presents the transit operator preliminary FY 2005 budgets. Staff introduced Paul Jablonski, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), who will discuss MTS’ FY 2005 Budget along with Karen King, Executive Director of the North San Diego County Transit Development Board (NCTD), who will discuss NCTD’s FY 2005 Budget.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Cycle Sharing Systems a Planning Toolkit for Indian Cities
    Ministry of Urban Development Government of India Public cycle sharing systems A planning toolkit for Indian cities National Public Bicycle Scheme December 2012 ii Public cycle sharing systems: A planning toolkit for Indian cities Contents Foreword / 1 What is cycle sharing? / 2 Project prerequisites / 4 Institutional roles and responsibilities / 6 Coverage area / 8 Stations / 10 The cycle / 14 Operational systems: designing for the user / 16 Outreach & marketing / 22 Financial analysis / 24 Cycle sharing planning process / 26 Frequently asked questions / 28 Appendix 1. Supporting infrastructure / 30 Appendix 2. Capital cost components / 32 iv Public cycle sharing systems: A planning toolkit for Indian cities Foreword The Ministry of Urban Development is committed to helping cities develop high quality transport systems that offer sustainable mobility options for their residents. These systems should reflect the spirit of India’s National Urban Transport Policy, which emphasises the importance of moving people, not vehicles. Public cycle sharing can play a key role in improving last-mile connectivity as well as modal share of cycling besides raising the image of cycling in Indian cities. Cycling is green and healthy, and it reduces the burden on our strained road networks. The public bicycling schemes that are popular in western countries are a relatively new concept in India. In the last few years, several Indian cities have shown interest with setting up such systems. The Ministry of Urban Development recognises that non-motorised modes of transport, like cycling, are an important part of making urban transport more sustainable. To launch the National Public Bicycle Scheme and to build capacity for the implementation and operation of cycle sharing systems, the first consultation meeting held last year received overwhelming support and commendation.
    [Show full text]
  • ADA Paratransit Riders Guide August 2016
    SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) RIDER'S GUIDE WELCOME ADA paratransit service is door-to-door, shared-ride transportation for individuals who are unable to use the Sacramento Regional Transit District's (RT) bus and light rail system (also referred to as fixed-route), either all of the time or some of the time, because of a disabling condition. This guide is designed to help you understand Americans with Disabilities (ADA) paratransit service and your responsibilities while using it. GENERAL INFORMATION The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 requires all public transportation agencies like RT to provide specialized transportation that is comparable to the public transit bus service for individuals who are unable, due to a disability, ride fixed-route public transit. Service is available on a pre-arranged basis for any trip purpose within RT’s designated service area. If you feel that you may be eligible for ADA paratransit service, you must apply through RT’s Accessible Services department and be found eligible for the service according to ADA guidelines. Accessible Formats This ADA service Rider's Guide is available in large print, Braille, Spanish and on CD and audio tape, by calling 916-557-4685 or TDD 916-557-4686 (for hearing impaired). It is also available online at www.sacrt.com. Recertification of Eligibility RT recertifies registered clients every three to five years. A person’s ADA paratransit eligibility letter will indicate his/her ADA paratransit service eligibility expiration date. ADA Paratransit Service for Visitors A "Visitor" is an individual with a disability who does not reside in RT’s service area.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Bankruptcy Court Western District of New York
    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE: : Jointly Administered : Case Nos. 01-14099 K LAIDLAW USA, INC., : through 01-14104 K LAIDLAW INC., : LAIDLAW INVESTMENTS LTD., : Chapter 11 LAIDLAW INTERNATIONAL FINANCE : CORPORATION, : LAIDLAW TRANSPORTATION, INC. and : LAIDLAW ONE, INC., : : Debtors. : DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 1125 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE FOR THE THIRD AMENDED JOINT PLAN OF REORGANIZATION OF LAIDLAW USA, INC. AND ITS DEBTOR AFFILIATES GARRY M. GRABER HODGSON RUSS LLP One M&T Plaza, Suite 2000 Buffalo, New York 14203 (716) 856-4000 - and - RICHARD M. CIERI THOMAS C. DANIELS JONES DAY North Point 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190 (216) 586-3939 PAUL E. HARNER EDWARD B. WINSLOW MARK A. CODY JONES DAY 77 West Wacker Suite 3500 Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692 (312) 782-3939 January 23, 2003 ATTORNEYS FOR DEBTORS AND DEBTORS IN POSSESSION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT, DATED JANUARY 23, 2003 SOLICITATION OF VOTES WITH RESPECT TO THE THIRD AMENDED JOINT PLAN OF REORGANIZATION OF LAIDLAW USA, INC. AND ITS DEBTOR AFFILIATES ________________________ THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF LAIDLAW USA, INC. ("LAIDLAW USA") AND ITS DEBTOR AFFILIATES LISTED ON EXHIBIT I (THE "DEBTOR AFFILIATES" AND, COLLECTIVELY WITH LAIDLAW USA, THE "DEBTORS") BELIEVE THAT THE THIRD AMENDED JOINT PLAN OF REORGANIZATION OF LAIDLAW USA AND ITS DEBTOR AFFILIATES, DATED JANUARY 23, 2003 AND ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT II (THE "PLAN"), IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF CREDITORS AND OTHER PARTIES IN INTEREST. ALL CREDITORS ENTITLED TO VOTE THEREON ARE URGED TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE PLAN. A SUMMARY OF THE VOTING INSTRUCTIONS IS SET FORTH BEGINNING ON PAGE 110 OF THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT.
    [Show full text]
  • Mobility Center Getting Started
    Valley Metro Mobility Center Getting Started The Mobility Center is a state-of-the-art some practice using transit in a safe 1. To apply for ADA Paratransit/Dial-a-Ride When Will You Be Notified Regarding Location: multifunctional facility that simulates and controlled setting. For Valley Metro, service, call 602.716.2100. Your Eligibility? Valley Metro the look and feel of the Valley’s public the transit environment provides an 2. Request an ADA Paratransit application. You will receive an ADA Paratransit Van Buren St transit system. The Center provides opportunity for us to accurately evaluate eligibility determination letter within ADA Paratransit/Dial-a-Ride eligibility whether our buses and trains can 3. Complete the application. Then call 21 calendar days of your assessment. Mobility Center assessments and a Travel Training accommodate the specific needs of each 602.716.2100 to schedule an appointment FOR THOSE WITH ALTERNATIVE program for people with disabilities. customer who applies for ADA Paratransit for an in-person assessment. How Should You Travel to the TRANSPORTATION NEEDS Mobility Center? and to determine whether travel training Drop-off area Visitor parking What Should You Expect on the Day of on ground level Customers can take a “transit walk” might be a viable option. The Mobility Center is located in central Your In-Person Assessment? 48th St Phoenix with convenient access to 44th St through a simulated streetscape in an You will meet with a transit evaluator who indoor environment, which includes The Center provides
    [Show full text]
  • Support Material Agenda Item No. 6
    Support Material Agenda Item No. 6 Transit Committee Meeting March 12, 2020 9:00 AM Location: San Bernardino County Transportation Authority First Floor Lobby Board Room Santa Fe Depot, 1170 W. 3rd Street San Bernardino, CA 92410 DISCUSSION ITEMS Transit 6. San Bernardino County Transportation Authority and Omnitrans Consolidation Study and Innovative Transit Review of the Metro-Valley That the Transit Committee recommend the Board, acting as the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority: A. Receive and file an update on the Consolidation Study and Innovative Transit Review of the Metro-Valley. B. Approve a Budget Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2019/2020 budget to transfer State Transit Assistance Rail funds from Task No. 0309 - Transit Operator Support to Task No. 0425 - Special Projects and Strategic Initiatives, in the amount of $400,000. Attached you will find Task 1.3: Performance Review Report and Task 1.2: Agency Functional Assessment Report, provided separately for your review. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY CONSOLIDATION STUDY AND INNOVATIVE TRANSIT REVIEW TASK 1.3: PERFORMANCE REVIEW FINAL – February 25, 2020 WSP USA 862 E. HOSPITALITY LANE, SUITE 350 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 TEL.: +1 909-888-1106 WSP.COM Page Intentionally Left Blank San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Consolidation Study and Innovative Transit Review Task 1.3 — Performance Review February 25, 2020 Prepared for: SBCTA Prepared by: WSP USA QUALITY CONTROL Name Date (M/D/Y) Preparation Tom L./ Luke Y. 01/11/2020 Technical Review Billy H. 01/13/2020 Quality Review Billy H. 01/13/2020 Backcheck & Revision Tom L./ Luke Y. 01/13/2020 Approval for Release Billy H.
    [Show full text]
  • Winston-Salem Transit Authority Paratransit Compliance Review Final Report February 2016 Federal Transit Administration
    Winston-Salem Transit Authority Paratransit Compliance Review Final Report February 2016 Federal Transit Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration FTA ADA Paratransit Compliance Review: Winston-Salem Transit Authority (WSTA) February 2016 This page has been intentionally left blank to facilitate duplex printing FTA ADA Paratransit Compliance Review: Winston-Salem Transit Authority (WSTA) February 2016 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1 General Information ................................................................................................................................. 3 2 Jurisdiction and Authorities ..................................................................................................................... 5 3 Purpose and Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 7 3.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 7 4 Introduction to WSTA ............................................................................................................................. 9 4.1 Introduction to Complementary
    [Show full text]
  • Benchmarking Highlights
    Finance Committee - benchmarking highlights July, 2016 CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY SAFETY: RAIL Although safety performance has declined in 2015, Metrorail has better performance than peers on multiple measures for the last 3 years overall Safety and security incidents January 2013-August 2015 Collisions, derailments, and fires Security incidents Injuries and fatalities, excl. suicides Events per 1B unlinked passenger trips Events per 1B unlinked passenger trips Number per 1B unlinked passenger trips MTA 31 MTA 70 MTA 11 75 86 WMATA 32 MBTA 107 MBTA 13 79 92 BART 35 WMATA 141 BART 23 121 144 MBTA 39 BART 156 WMATA 8 244 252 SEPTA 67 CTA 322 CTA 21 464 485 CTA 69 SEPTA 543 SEPTA 26 517 543 Fatalities Injuries Ø 45 Ø 223 Ø 267 WMATA 5 / 6 3 / 6 5 / 6 6 / 6 2015 rank SOURCE: NTD 2 SAFETY: BUS Metrobus has more safety and security incidents and more injuries than peer bus agencies Safety and security incidents January 2013-August 2015 Collisions and fires Security incidents Injuries and fatalities, excl. suicides Events per 10B unlinked passenger trips Events per 10B unlinked passenger trips Number per 10B unlinked passenger trips MTA 2.2 King County 0.1 King County 0.2 5.0 5.2 LACMTA 3.5 NJ Transit 0.3 MTA 0.1 6.4 6.5 King County 4.2 MTA 0.4 LACMTA 0.1 7.4 7.5 MBTA 7.5 Denver 0.9 MBTA 0.2 13.0 13.2 CTA 7.9 LACMTA 1.3 CTA 0.1 18.5 18.6 NJ Transit 10.8 MBTA 1.5 Denver 0.6 18.4 19.0 WMATA 10.9 SEPTA 2.3 WMATA 0.1 23.9 23.9 SEPTA 12.1 CTA 2.7 NJ Transit 0.2 23.8 24.0 Denver 14.4 WMATA 2.8 SEPTA 0.1 26.5 26.7 Fatalities Injuries Ø 8.2 Ø 1.4 Ø 16 SOURCE: NTD 3 SERVICE RELIABILITY: 2A.
    [Show full text]
  • Equity and Shared Mobility Services Working with the Private Sector to Meet Equity Objectives Acknowledgements November 2019
    Equity and Shared Mobility Services Working with the Private Sector to Meet Equity Objectives Acknowledgements November 2019 SUMC expresses appreciation to interviewees from the following organizations: Chicago Department of Transportation, District of Columbia, Center for Community Transportation (Ithaca Carshare), Ridecell, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, Capital Metro, Zipcar, Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, and HourCar. Sarah Jo Peterson, 23 Urban Strategies, LLC, led the research for SUMC, which also included researchers Brian Holland, Erin Evenhouse, and Peter Lauer, under the direction of Ellen Partridge and Sharon Feigon. The paper was edited by Leslie Gray. © 2019 Shared-Use Mobility Center. All Rights Reserved. Shared-Use Mobility Center Chicago, IL 312.448.8083 Los Angeles, CA 818.489.8651 www.sharedusemobilitycenter.org Contents Executive Summary 01 Introduction 06 Equity in Shared Mobility Services: What Is It? 07 Types of Equity Initiatives and Programs 08 Equity Analysis across Multiple Dimensions 08 Understanding Public-Private Partnerships 12 Best Practices for Public-Private Partnerships 13 Opportunities to Meet Equity Objectives: 15 Vehicle Sharing Permitting and Partnerships 16 Concerns for Low-Income Communities 18 Focus on Bikeshare: Activists Organize to Advance Equity 20 Case Example 21 Focus on Carshare: Model Programs for Low-Income Drivers 26 Case Example 27 Vehicle Sharing as Part of a Multimodal Lifestyle 29 Opportunities to Meet Equity Objectives: 30 Sharing the Ride The Public Sector’s Role:
    [Show full text]