| |
| | USCA1 Opinion 06-1029 |
 | | On appeal the FTA and MBTA urge that, nonetheless, the district court’s decision may be affirmed because section 110(f), like section 106, is only triggered when there has been an “adverse effect,” and that the section 106 “no adverse effect” finding (that we have already sustained) means that section 110(f) is inapplicable. |
 | | Guidelines promulgated under the ADA require that "accessible route[s] shall, to the maximum extent feasible, coincide with the route for the general public." 49 C.F.R. pt. |
 | | Plaintiff NABB also met with the MBTA twice more—once on August 5, 2003, when the design plans were 75 percent complete, and once on March 3, 2004, prior to final federal approval. |
| www.ca1.uscourts.gov /cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1029.01A (5848 words) |
|