Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 1 of 29

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE (VFI), )

et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

COMMONWEALTH OF

)

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT

)

OF TRANSPORTATION, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Civil Action No. 06-78 Erie

MEMORANDUM OPINION

McLAUGHLIN, SEAN J., District J., On March 28, 2006, Plaintiffs, an entity known as Voices for Independence
(“VFI”) and several disabled persons, filed a class action complaint in the abovecaptioned case against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (“PennDOT”) and Allen D. Biehler, the Commonwealth’s Secretary of Transportation (collectively, the “Commonwealth Defendants”). The complaint alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq. (“ADA”), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701, et seq. (“Rehabilitation Act”), arising from PennDOT’s failure to install federally mandated curb ramps along PennDOT highways located in the cities of Erie and Meadville, Pennsylvania. On September 7, 2006, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint joining the cities of Erie and Meadville as Defendants in the case.1

1 The City of Erie had previously been sued in related litigation for alleged ADA violations relative to defective curb ramps located on city-owned streets. See Barrier Busters v. City of Erie, Pennsylvania, No. 1:02cv203 (W.D. Pa.). The City of Meadville had likewise been sued in related litigation for alleged ADA and Rehabilitation Act violations occurring along city-owned streets. See Voices For Independence v. City of Meadville, Pennsylvania, No. 1:04cv328 (W.D. Pa.). These lawsuits were previously resolved in part through the entry of certain consent decrees.
Initially, the cities of Erie and Meadville were not named as Defendants in the instant litigation because the curb ramps at issue herein are located along state

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 2 of 29
Presently pending before the Court are a motion for summary judgment filed by the Commonwealth Defendants and a motion for partial summary judgment filed by the City of Meadville, Pennsylvania. Our jurisdiction is premised on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motions will be denied.
I. BACKGROUND VFI is a membership organization which seeks to promote increased opportunities for the disabled to live independently throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. VFI’s mission includes promoting disabled persons’ access to housing, employment and recreation. The fourteen individual Plaintiffs are all disabled persons living in and/or traveling through Erie and Meadville or their surrounding areas who cannot ambulate without wheelchairs or other assistive devices. Certain of the individual Plaintiffs have sight impairments and therefore require the use of detectible warnings. The gravamen of Plaintiffs’ complaint is that, since at least January of 1992, Defendants have engaged in a continuing pattern and practice of failing to install, repair or adequately maintain curb ramps at intersections and sidewalks throughout the Erie and Meadville areas as mandated by the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA and their implementing regulations. Because of Defendants’ failure, it is alleged, Plaintiffs and those persons employed or served by VFI cannot ambulate or travel safely on the streets or sidewalks in and around Erie and Meadville. Consequently, these individuals must frequently travel in the stream of traffic and along the curb until they can locate a private driveway or business to re-enter the sidewalk.
highways that run through those jurisdictions. The cities were later joined, however, as a result of PennDOT’s contention that it has no legal responsibility to remediate noncompliant ramps in locations where state roads intersect with municipal roads. PennDOT has essentially maintained that its responsibility ends at the curb face and that the adjoining sidewalks or curb ramps are the responsibilities solely of the local municipalities.
2

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 3 of 29
Plaintiffs’ complaint asserts two separate causes of action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the ADA (Count 1) and the Rehabilitation Act (Count 2). In their complaint, Plaintiffs seek both declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, they request a court order directing Defendants to retrofit their intersections and sidewalks to make them readily usable and safe for disabled persons. They also seek an order directing Defendants to enact a detailed system that will ensure compliance with all federal law in the future.
On December 22, 2006, the Commonwealth Defendants and the City of Meadville entered into a court-approved settlement agreement with the Plaintiffs, pursuant to which the City of Meadville and PennDOT agreed to share responsibility for the remediation of non-compliant ramps at intersections where future road resurfacing work is to be performed.2 In addition, the Defendants agreed to a schedule to retrofit those existing non-compliant ramps which should have been remediated as part of resurfacing work performed within the 2-year period predating litigation.3 With respect to older, noncompliant ramps, no agreement could be reached as to whether the applicable statute of limitations would relieve the Defendants of their legal obligations to undertake remediation.
Accordingly, under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties have reserved the right to file dispositive motions on the following legal question: whether claims relating solely to noncompliant curb ramps which were altered, installed, replaced or repaired after January 26, 1992 (the effective date of the ADA) but more than two
2 The City of Erie is not a party to this agreement. 3 PennDOT’s “two-year look-back period” would begin on March 28, 2004, as this litigation was commenced on March 28, 2006. Meadville’s “two-year look-back period” would apparently begin on November 10, 2002 to correspond with the commencement of litigation in Civil Action No. 04-328. See n.1, supra.
3

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 4 of 29
years prior to the commencement of litigation are barred by any statute of limitations.4 The parties have since filed their motions and briefs concerning this limited legal issue and the matter is now ripe for disposition.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is only appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material fact and if the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, we view the facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and draw all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor. Saldana v. Kmart Corp., 260 F.3d 228, 232 (3d Cir. 2001); Gottshall v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 56 F.3d 530, 533 (3d Cir. 1995). When a defendant moves for summary judgment on the basis of an affirmative defense for which it would bear the burden of proof at trial, the defendant must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial. C.A.R. Transportation Brokerage Co., Inc. v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted); Paramount Aviation Corp. v. Agusta, 178 F.3d 132, 146 (3d Cir. 1999). Thus, “the moving party has the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact on each issue material to its case.” C.A.R. Transportation Brokerage Co., Inc., 213 F.3d at 480. Assuming the moving party meets its initial burden of proof, the non-moving party must set forth specific facts, by affidavits or otherwise, showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
4 The City of Meadville’s motion only concerns its legal obligations with respect to curb ramps located at PennDOT intersections. As noted previously, the City’s obligations with respect to curb ramps located on city-owned intersections were resolved by the consent decrees entered at Civil Action No. 04-328. See n.1, supra.
4

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 5 of 29
III. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs’ ADA claim, as set forth in their first cause of action, arises under §§ 202, 226 and 227 of Title II of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132, 12146, and 12147. Pertinently, § 12132 states that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.5 Such discrimination includes the “construct[ion]” of a “new facility to be used in the provision of designated public transportation services” that is not “readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.” Id. at § 12146. Discrimination also occurs when “alterations” made to an existing facility fail to ensure, “to the maximum extent feasible,” that “the altered portions of the facility are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.” Id. at § 12147. Under the regulations promulgated pursuant to the ADA, the following provisions have relevance here: Curb ramps.
(1) Newly constructed or altered streets, roads, and highways must contain curb ramps or other sloped areas at any intersection having curbs or other barriers to entry from a street level pedestrian walkway. (2) Newly constructed or altered street level pedestrian walkways must contain curb ramps or other sloped areas at intersections to streets, roads, or highways. 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(e). Precise engineering specifications for curb ramps are set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (“ADAAG”), 28 C.F.R. Part 36, Appendix A, compliance with which is deemed to satisfy the requirements of § 35.151 and the ADA. See id. at § 35.151(c). Alternatively, the
5 There is no dispute for present purposes that the individual Plaintiffs are “qualified individuals with a disability” and that VFI serves and represents the interests of such individuals, nor is there any dispute that Defendants are “public entities.”
5

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 6 of 29
public entity may depart from the ADAAG standards “when it is clearly evident that equivalent access” is provided. Id.
Plaintiffs’ second count arises under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act which, for present purposes, is “materially identical” to the ADA. Grzan v. Charter Hospital of Northwest Indiana, 104 F.3d 116, 123 (7th Cir. 1997). See also McDonald v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare, Polk Center, 62 F.3d 92, 94-95 (3d Cir. 1995). Thus, both Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act have been construed to protect access for disabled persons to public services and the protections afforded by the two statutes are generally interpreted to be coextensive. See, e.g., Koslow v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 301 F.3d 161, 166 n.3 (3d Cir. 2002) (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA offer similar protections for persons with disabilities; Title II applies to all state and municipal governments, while § 504 applies to those agencies or departments receiving federal funds); Doe v. County of Centre, Pennsylvania, 242 F.3d 437, 446 (3d Cir. 2001) (protections found in the ADA and in the Rehabilitation Act are interpreted similarly; ADA is construed as granting at least as much protection as that which is provided by the regulations implementing the Rehabilitation Act).
For purposes of the instant motions it is not disputed that, since January 26, 1992 – the effective date of the ADA – a number of curb ramps have been installed along state roads within or around the City of Meadville, certain of which do not comply with the aforecited federal mandates. A question thus arises as to whether claims based on these noncompliant curb ramps are now time-barred where the curb ramp in question was not subject to a “triggering event” (meaning an act of new construction or alteration) within the applicable limitations period.
We begin by noting that neither the ADA nor the Rehabilitation Act contains a statute of limitations. Both sides here agree, as does this Court, that the most appropriate and analogous limitations period is the two-year period applicable to personal injury actions brought under Pennsylvania law, 42 PA. C.S.A. §5524. See
6

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 7 of 29
Foster v. Morris, No. 05-4765, 208 Fed. Appx. 174, 2006 WL 3712949 *2 (3d Cir. Dec. 18, 2006) (“Because the ADA does not contain a statute of limitations, it too borrows the state limitations period for personal injury actions”) (citation omitted). See also Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, No. 03-cv-1577, 2006 WL 3392733 at *11 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 17, 2006); Smith v. City of Philadelphia, 345 F. Supp. 2d 482, 485 (E.D. Pa. 2004); Barclay v. Amtrak, 343 F. Supp. 2d 429, 433 (E.D. Pa. 2004); Howard v. Mendez, 304 F. Supp. 2d 632, 635 (M.D. Pa. 2004); Saylor v. Ridge, 989 F. Supp. 680, 686 (E.D. Pa. 1998). As this action was commenced against PennDOT on March 28, 2006, it is PennDOT’s position that Plaintiffs can seek relief only as to curb ramps constructed or altered after March 28, 2004. Similarly, the City of Meadville contends that Plaintiffs can seek relief only as to curb ramps installed within two years of the commencement of litigation.
Plaintiffs acknowledge the general applicability of a 2-year statute of limitations; however, they maintain that they can still pursue claims arising prior to that period under the “continuing violation” doctrine, which is an “equitable exception to the timely filing requirement.” Cowell v. Palmer Tp., 263 F.3d 286, 292 (3d Cir. 2001). Under the continuing violation doctrine, as applied by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, “when a defendant’s conduct is part of a continuing practice, an action is timely so long as the last act evidencing the continuing practice falls within the limitations period.” Id. (quoting Brenner v. Local 514, United Broth. of Carpenters and Joiners of Am., 927 F.2d 1283, 1295 (3d Cir. 1991)). The doctrine will only apply, however, where the plaintiff can establish that the defendant’s conduct is “more than the occurrence of isolated or sporadic acts.” Id. (quoting West v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 45 F.3d 744, 755 (3d Cir. 1995)). This inquiry involves consideration of at least three factors, to wit: (1) subject matter – whether the violations constitute the same type of discrimination, tending to connect them in a continuing violation; (2) frequency – whether the acts are recurring or more in the nature of isolated incidents; and (3) the degree of permanence – whether the act had a degree of permanence such that it should have triggered the plaintiff’s
7

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 8 of 29
awareness of and duty to assert his rights and whether the consequences of the act would continue even in the absence of a continuing intent to discriminate. Id. (citing West, 45 F.3d at 755 n.9). This third factor is the most important and requires consideration of the policy rationale behind the statute of limitation; “[t]hat is, the continuing violations doctrine should not provide a means for relieving plaintiffs from their duty to exercise reasonable diligence in pursuing their claims.” Id. at 292, 295.
As Plaintiffs point out, this Court applied the continuing violations doctrine in prior litigation against the City of Erie in which the plaintiffs alleged that the City had violated Title II of the ADA by failing to construct curb ramps along city streets. See Barrier Busters v. City of Erie, Pennsylvania, 1:02cv203 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2003) (Doc. # 28). The Barrier Busters case involved allegations, like those raised here, that, since 1992, the defendant had been engaged in resurfacing city streets and repairing or constructing city sidewalks but, in so doing, had either failed to install curb ramps or had constructed them improperly. The City of Erie had defended the claims partly on statute of limitations grounds, arguing that the plaintiffs’ request for relief should be barred insofar as it involved non-compliant curb ramps predating the 2-year statute of limitations period. The plaintiffs countered that the City’s violations constituted an over-arching pattern or practice of discrimination which was continuing through to the present time and that their claims relative to older curb cuts should therefore be considered timely.
With respect to the plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief, this Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and denied the City’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the class could pursue its claims even with respect to noncompliant ramps constructed more than two years prior to the commencement of litigation under the “continuing violation theory.” In arriving at that recommendation, the Magistrate Judge first determined that “the [City’s] continuing failure to install ADAcompliant curbs is the same violation repeated numerous times throughout the entire time period, thus easily satisfying both the subject matter and the frequency prongs of the Cowell test.” (Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, dated March 26,
8

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 9 of 29
2003 [Doc. # 19] at p. 6; see also Order adopting Report and Recommendation, dated Aug. 8, 2003 [Doc. # 28].)
Although analysis of the third Cowell prong – the “degree of permanence” – was less obvious and straight-forward, the Magistrate Judge determined that this prong also cut in favor of allowing plaintiffs to pursue their injunctive claims. Noting that the “degree of permanence” prong requires consideration of the policy rationale behind the statute of limitations, the Magistrate Judge observed that the statute of limitations is “intended to put defendants on notice of adverse claims and to prevent plaintiffs from sleeping on their rights.” (Report and Recommendation at p. 6.) She reasoned that
it would be difficult [for a plaintiff] to know the date on which a city street has been altered and to bring an action for non-compliance under the ADA within the two year period. Holding that each incident of repaving triggers its own statute of limitations frustrates the purpose of the ADA and potentially allows the City to escape years of liability for alleged noncompliance with a statute designed to correct a long history of discrimination by public entities.
(Report and Recommendation at p. 6.) The Magistrate Judge therefore concluded, and this Court agreed, that the Cowell factors collectively supported application of the “continuing violation theory” relative to the class’s equitable claims.6
Here, Defendants’ primary argument in support of a summary judgment is that the continuing violations doctrine cannot be applied in this case in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002). That case involved a former employee of Amtrak, Abner Morgan, Jr., who sued Amtrak under Title VII for alleged acts of racial discrimination and retaliation. In Morgan’s case, the statute required him to file an employment discrimination charge with the Equal
6 While the Magistrate Judge found that the “degree of permanence” prong weighed in favor of applying the “continuing violation” doctrine to the class’s claims for injunctive relief, she found that the same considerations did not apply with respect to the individual plaintiffs’ claims for monetary damages. This Court declined to adopt that portion of the Report and Recommendation in light of the fact that the plaintiffs ultimately withdrew their damages claims, thus rendering the issue moot. Here, we are not presented with any prayer for monetary relief.
9

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 10 of 29
Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days after an “alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). Morgan had filed an administrative charge with the EEOC and had cross-filed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing on February 27, 1995, alleging that during his tenure with Amtrak, he had been “consistently harassed and disciplined more harshly than other employees” because of his race. 536 U.S. at 105. Specifically, Morgan claimed that he had been wrongfully suspended and charged with insubordination, denied training, falsely accused of threatening a manager and, ultimately, terminated from his job. Certain of the discriminatory acts about which Morgan complained had occurred within the 300-day period prior to the filing of his administrative charge, while others had occurred more remotely. Amtrak defended, in part, on the argument that it was entitled to summary judgment with respect to all incidents occurring more than 300 days prior to the filing of Morgan’s EEOC charge.
The Supreme Court held that a Title VII plaintiff raising claims of discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts (e.g., termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire) must file his charge within the appropriate time period established in § 2000e-5(e)(1) – either 300 or 180 days, as the case may be. See 536 U.S. at 122. Thus, because “[e]ach discrete discriminatory act start[ed] a new clock for filing charges alleging that act,” 536 U.S. at 114, Morgan could not litigate any of the discrete acts of discrimination that were alleged to have occurred outside of the 300-day filing period.
With respect to Morgan’s hostile work environment claim, however, the Court held that this cause of action would not be time barred “so long as all acts which constitute the claim are part of the same unlawful employment practice and at least one act falls within the time period.” 536 U.S. at 122. The Court explained that “[a] hostile work environment claim is composed of a series of separate acts that collectively constitute one ‘unlawful employment practice.’” Id. at 117 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1)). Consequently, so long as one act forming part of the claim occurs within the filing period, the entire time period of the alleged hostile environment may be considered for purposes
10

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 11 of 29
of establishing the employer’s liability, regardless of the fact that some of the component acts may fall outside the statutory time period. Id. As the Court noted, “[t]he statute does not separate individual acts that are part of the hostile environment claim from the whole for the purposes of timely filing and liability.” Id. at 118. Accordingly, “[i]n order for the charge to be timely, the employee need only file a charge within 180 or 300 days of any act that is part of the hostile work environment.” Id.
The Defendants read Morgan for the proposition that discrete discriminatory acts, such as the “construction” or “alteration” of a non-ADA-compliant curb site, are not actionable if time-barred, even though they may be related or linked to similar, more recent acts occurring within the limitations period. Moreover, Defendants interpret postMorgan case law as giving an ever-widening affect to the Morgan Court’s holding and, in essence, limiting application of the “continuing violation” doctrine almost exclusively to hostile work environment claims. In other words, under Defendants’ theory, the construction or alteration of any given curb site is an individual and discrete act which triggers the commencement of the running of the statute of limitations; Plaintiffs’ failure to timely challenge any acts of new construction or alterations that were fully completed more than 2 years prior to the commencement of litigation therefore renders such claims time-barred. Defendants challenge the Court’s contrary ruling in Barrier Busters, supra, on the ground that the Court’s analysis therein failed to apply or even consider the Supreme Court’s holding in Morgan.
Plaintiffs, not surprisingly, insist that the Defendants have misread Morgan as having a broader effect than it was intended to have. Plaintiffs contend that Morgan has no application in the instant case, which involves an alleged “over-arching pattern or practice” of discrimination. Plaintiffs further maintain that there has been no material change in the law concerning the “continuing violations” doctrine since our prior ruling in Barrier Busters.
The posturing of this debate thus requires us to revisit the analysis we adopted in Barrier Busters and to consider whether, and to what extent, Morgan effectuated a
11

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 12 of 29
change in Third Circuit law relative to the “continuing violations” doctrine. Having outlined the essence of both Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ positions on the matter, we conclude that both sides are partly correct: that is, we agree with the Plaintiffs that Morgan did not fundamentally change the law in this circuit as it pertains to the “continuing violations” doctrine; however, upon revisiting the reasoning of Barrier Busters, we are inclined to agree with Defendants that the doctrine does not apply to these facts. That having been said, we conclude, based on other reasons explained more fully below, that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment lacks merit and must be denied.
We first address the parties’ dispute as to what effect, if any, Morgan has on the law of this circuit as it pertains to the “continuing violation” doctrine. As noted above, we conclude that the legal standards for determining whether a defendant’s alleged misconduct constitutes a continuing violation has not changed in this jurisdiction. Even prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Morgan, the focus of “continuing violation” jurisprudence in this circuit was on whether the defendant’s challenged conduct constituted something more than “isolated and sporadic acts” of intentional discrimination. Cowell, 263 F.3d at 286. See also West v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 45 F.3d 744, 755 (3d Cir. 1995) (“The relevant distinction is between the occurrence of isolated, intermittent acts of discrimination and a persistent, on-going pattern.”). In making this determination, our circuit court of appeals has utilized the three-factor approach adopted in Cowell and discussed, supra, which derives from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decisions in Barry v. Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ., 715 F.2d 971, 981 (5th Cir. 1983) and Waltman v. International Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 474-75 (5th Cir. 1989). See Cowell, 263 F.3d at 292; West, 45 F.3d at 755 n. 9. That approach has continued to be used by our circuit court of appeals in cases post-dating Morgan. See, e.g., Foster v. Morris, No. 05-4765, 208 Fed. Appx. 174, 178, 2006 WL 3712949 at **3 (3d Cir. Dec. 18, 2006); Thorpe v. Grillo, No. 00-3171, 80 Fed. Appx. 215, 220, 2003 WL 22477890 at **4 (3d Cir. Oct. 31, 2003); Shenkan v. Potter, No. 02-
12

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 13 of 29
3508, 71 Fed. Appx. 893, 895, 2003 WL 21649506 at *2 (3d Cir. June 13, 2003); Lipschultz v. Logan Assistance Corp., Nos. 01-1564, 01-1565, 50 Fed. Appx. 528, 530, 2002 WL 31357636 at **2 (3d Cir. Oct. 21, 2002). In fact, a panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has directly stated, albeit in a non-precedential opinion, that Morgan did not abrogate prior Third Circuit case law relative to continuing violations. See Shenkan v. Potter, supra, 71 Fed. Appx. at 895 n. 3, 2003 WL 21649506 at **2 n.3 (“Shenkan contends that our continuing violations case law was ‘abrogated’ by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Morgan, but nothing in Morgan supports that remarkable assertion.”). See also Riddell v. Slippery Rock University, No. Civ. A. 04-108, 2006 WL 2773414 at *12 n.6 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2006) (noting that Morgan affirmed and did not disturb the main principle underlying the Third Circuit’s treatment of the “continuing violations” doctrine; the “key issue” in determining whether the doctrine should be applied in a Title VII case is “whether the acts at issue are isolated, intermittent acts or are instead part of a persistent, on-going pattern of discrimination.”).
Having concluded that Morgan did not materially alter the legal landscape of the “continuing violation” doctrine in this circuit, we nevertheless conclude that the facts at bar do not warrant application of the doctrine in this case. We begin by observing that the doctrine is construed in this circuit as a “narrow exception” to the timely filing requirement. See MFS, Inc. v. Township of South Annville, Civil Action No. 1:05-CV1371, 2006 WL 3254535 at *3 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 9, 2006). Consequently, while there are numerous cases in this circuit wherein the “continuing violation” doctrine has been raised or discussed, there are far fewer cases in which our court of appeals has found the doctrine to be applicable. See, e.g., West, 45 F.3d at 755 (hostile work environment claim); Brenner v. Local 514, United Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners of Am., 927 F.2d 1283, 1296 (3d Cir. 1991) (alleged breach of union’s duty of fair representation under the National Labor Relations Act); Centifanti v. Nix, 865 F.2d 1422, 1432-33 (3d Cir. 1989) (§ 1983 procedural due process claim); Bronze Shields, Inc. v. New Jersey Dept. of Civil Serv., 667 F.2d 1074, 1081 (3d Cir. 1981) (employment discrimination claim);
13

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 14 of 29
Jewett v. Int’l Tel. and Tel. Corp., 653 F.2d 89, 91 (3d Cir. 1981) (employment discrimination claim).
Of the three factors discussed in Cowell for determining whether the doctrine should apply, the most important is the third factor – degree of permanence. See Cowell, 263 F.3d at 292. To review, this factor inquires whether the alleged wrongful act had a degree of permanence which should trigger the plaintiff’s awareness of and duty to assert his/her rights and whether the consequences of the act would continue even in the absence of a continuing intent to discriminate. Id.
The inquiry seems to be directed at distinguishing between discreet, actionable acts of misconduct and persistent, on-going ones. It recognizes that there may be situations where the illegality of a defendant’s conduct becomes apparent only over a period of time and, in such cases, an otherwise diligent plaintiff should not be penalized for his or her delay in filing suit. See Foster v. Morris, Fed. Appx. at 177-78, 2006 WL 3712949 at *2 (“The continuing violations doctrine is an equitable exception to a strict application of a statute of limitations where the conduct complained of consists of a pattern that has only become cognizable as illegal over time.”). On the other hand, where the conduct consists of a discreet and actionable injury of which a reasonable plaintiff would have been aware, the doctrine has no application. See Seawright v. Greenberg, No. 05-5295, 2007 WL 1170704 at *3 (3d Cir. April 20, 2007) (continuing violations theory does not apply in cases where the plaintiff is aware of the injury at the time it occurred) (citation omitted); Morganroth & Morganroth v. Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.C., 331 F.3d 406, 417 n. 6 (3d Cir. 2003) (same) (citing Kichline v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 800 F.2d 356, 360 (3d Cir. 1986)). Thus, “causes of action that can be brought individually expire with the applicable statute of limitations period.” O’Connor v. City of Newark, 440 F.3d 125, 128 (3d Cir. 2006).
Though application of the “continuing violations” doctrine may not be strictly limited (as Defendants suggest) to employment discrimination cases involving hostile work environment claims, see Cowell, 263 F.3d at 292 (recognizing applications of the
14

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 15 of 29
doctrine in other contexts), such claims present the quintessential scenario where application of the doctrine is perhaps most often appropriate. In fact, the Third Circuit has recognized that “[t]here is a natural affinity between the two theories,” and “[a] number of courts... have remarked upon the correlation between the two.” West, 45 F.3d at 755 (citations omitted). As the Supreme Court explained in Morgan:
Hostile environment claims are different in kind from discrete acts. Their very nature involves repeated conduct. ... The “unlawful employment practice” therefore cannot be said to occur on any particular day. It occurs over a series of days or perhaps years and, in direct contrast to discrete acts, a single act of harassment may not be actionable on its own. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S. Ct. 367, 126 L. Ed. 2d 295 (1993) (“As we pointed out in Meritor [Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67, 106 S. Ct. 2399, 91 L. Ed. 2d 49 (1986),] ‘mere utterance of an ... epithet which engenders offensive feelings in a[n] employee,’ ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted), does not sufficiently affect the conditions of employment to implicate Title VII”). Such claims are based on the cumulative effect of individual acts.
536 U.S. at 115 (alterations and parentheticals in the original). Accordingly, our circuit court of appeals has held in one pre-Morgan Title VII case
that the continuing violation doctrine would apply to an employee’s sex discrimination claim premised upon a hostile work environment theory but would not apply to her discrimination claims premised upon the employer’s failure to promote and train her. In Rush v. Scott Specialty Gases, Inc., 113 F.3d 476 (3d Cir. 1997), the court ruled that the plaintiff could litigate her hostile work environment claim, despite the fact that the claim had not been included in her previous EEOC complaint and that some of the evidence in support of her claim predated the limitations period. The court concluded that the continuing violations doctrine applied to the plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim because, among other things, there was evidence suggesting that the acts of harassment had intensified after the plaintiff filed her EEOC charge, and she did not realize the pervasiveness or severity of the misconduct early on. 113 F.3d at 482-83. In reaching its holding, the Court of Appeals recognized the “natural affinity” between the continuing violations theory and hostile work environment claims, which “results from acts of ... harassment which are pervasive and continue over time, whereas isolated or
15

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 16 of 29
single incidents of harassment are insufficient to constitute a hostile environment.” 113 F.3d at 482 (quoting West, 45 F.3d at 755) (ellipsis in the original).
While the court in Rush ruled that the plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim were viable under the continuing violations theory, it ruled that her failure to promote and train claim was distinct and addressed “discrete instances of alleged discrimination” not susceptible to a continuing violation analysis. 113 F.3d at 483-84. The court explained that
Scott’s promotion of Knoll and hiring of Carpenter were independent events that put Rush on notice to file a charge of discrimination. Rush knew from the settlement agreement that she was to be considered for the next available Lab tech II position. If she believed Scott was not considering her for available positions as promised, she should have reacted at that time. Waiting to see what would happen next was pointless; the harm, if any, already was inflicted. Id. at 484. Thus, the “degree of permanence” prong under Cowell is concerned with determining whether the defendant’s acts were sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice that an actionable injury has occurred. This involves consideration of the policy rationale behind the statute of limitations – i.e., the doctrine “should not provide a means for relieving plaintiffs from their duty to exercise reasonable diligence in pursuing their claims.” Cowell, 263 F.3d at 295. In short, “if prior events should have alerted a reasonable person to act at that time the continuing violation theory will not overcome the relevant statute of limitations.” King v. Township of East Lampeter, 17 F. Supp. 2d 394, 416 (E.D. Pa. 1998), aff’d, 182 F.3d 903 (3d Cir. 1999) (TABLE, NO. 98-1806). See also MFS, Inc. v. Twp. of South Annville, 2006 WL 3254535 at *4 (quoting King). In a case more factually analogous to the case at bar, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the continuing violations doctrine did not apply to toll a prisoner’s claim under the ADA relative to non-compliant conditions in a county prison. In Foster v. Morris, supra, the plaintiff was a partial paraplegic who sued over conditions at a county prison which lacked handicap accessible facilities, including a wheelchair accessible toilet and showers. The plaintiff had been temporarily housed at the prison
16

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 17 of 29
for various lengths of time over a period of years. As a result of the prison’s conditions, the plaintiff had to use his sink to bathe himself and had difficulty using the toilets. On one occasion, he had fallen in the shower and injured his back; on other occasions, he had soiled himself and/or developed rashes and pressure sores. In reviewing the district court’s order granting summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, the court of appeals considered, and rejected, the plaintiff’s argument that the continuing violations doctrine tolled his ADA and related claims. Focusing on the third prong (i.e., the “most important” one) of Cowell’s 3-factor test, the court noted that the “violations at issue in Foster’s suit – e.g. lack of grab bars on his toilet and wheelchair accessible shower – had a degree of permanence such that they put Foster on notice of his duty to assert his rights each time he was transferred to Franklin.” 208 Fed. Appx. at 178; 2006 WL 3712949 at **3. Accordingly, the court held that the plaintiff could pursue his ADA and related claims only insofar as they pertained to violations occurring within the limitations period. Id.
Although the facts of Foster are not precisely on point with the facts at issue here, the court’s interpretation of Cowell’s third prong is both instructive and applicable to this case. Like the non-compliant conditions which existed at the prison in Foster, a noncompliant curb ramp is the type of condition which partakes of permanence and should trigger an awareness on the part of a qualified plaintiff who is denied access that he should assert his rights. In addition, the consequences of a public entity’s failure to install a proper curb cut continues irrespective of any continuing intent on the part of the public entity to discriminate. Once a defective curb site is installed, the consequences for disabled persons encountering that site continue whether or not another defective curb cut is installed elsewhere. Accordingly, while the first two Cowell factors (subject matter and frequency) support a finding that the continuing violation doctrine applies in this case, the third and most significant factor cuts against such a finding.
In arriving at this conclusion, the Court acknowledges its prior ruling to the contrary in Barrier Busters. As we previously discussed, the Magistrate Judge’s Report
17

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 18 of 29
and Recommendation in that case suggested that the “degree of permanence” factor weighed in favor of applying the continuing violation doctrine because “it would be difficult [for a plaintiff] to know the date on which a city street has been altered and to bring an action for non-compliance under the ADA within the two year period.” Barrier Busters v. City of Erie, Pennsylvania, No. 1:02cv203 (Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [19] at p. 6.) The Magistrate Judge further reasoned that, to hold that each incident of repaving triggers its own limitations period would “frustrate[] the purpose of the ADA and potentially allow[] the City to escape years of liability for alleged noncompliance with a statute designed to correct a long history of discrimination by public entities.” Id. While this Court adopted that aspect of the Report and Recommendation in Barrier Busters, on further reflection we find the reasoning unpersuasive and we therefore decline to employ it here. That is because we conclude that the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning was premised on an erroneous assumption – i.e., that, unless the “continuing violation” doctrine applies, the statute of limitations begins running as against all potential plaintiffs from the date that a particular curb site is “altered” or “constructed” within the meaning of the ADA. As we explain in more detail below, the Defendants here likewise rely on that flawed premise, which we reject as contrary to both the applicable law and the remedial purposes underlying the ADA. Accordingly, the Court declines to follow the ruling of Barrier Busters in this case.
Finally, we acknowledge Plaintiffs’ argument that the continuing violations doctrine continues to have vitality in cases such as this where there are allegations of an “overarching discriminatory pattern and practice” on the part of the Defendants. Whatever the validity of this argument might be, the principle seems to find support largely from courts outside of this circuit, including the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose pronouncements do not govern our consideration of the issue. For example, Prior to Morgan, the Sixth Circuit viewed continuing violations as falling into two categories of “narrowly limited exceptions” to the usual rule. The first category, sometimes referred to as the “serial violations component“ of the continuing violations
18

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 19 of 29
doctrine, “arises where there is some evidence of present discriminatory activity giving rise to a claim of a continuing violation; that is, where an employer continues presently to impose disparate work assignment or pay rates between similarly situated employee groups.” Deck v. City of Toledo, 56 F. Supp. 2d 886, 893 (N.D. Ohio 1999) (quoting E.E.O.C. v. Penton Industrial Pub. Co., Inc., 851 F.2d 835, 838 (6th Cir. 1988)). “[T]his category requires a ‘current’ as well as ‘continuing’ violation: at least one of the forbidden discriminatory acts must have occurred within the relevant limitations period.” Id. (citing Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 394-95 (1986)). The second category involves cases where there is a continuing “over-arching policy of discrimination.” Id. (citing Janikowski v. Bendix Corp., 823 F.2d 945, 948 (6th Cir. 1987)).
In Sharpe v. Cureton, 319 F.3d 259, 268-69 (6th Cir. 2003), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Morgan overturned the prior circuit law addressing serial violations: “i.e., plaintiffs are now precluded from establishing a continuing violation exception by proof that the alleged acts of discrimination occurring prior to the limitations period are sufficiently related to those occurring within the limitations period.” 319 F.3d at 268. While the second category of continuing violations – involving a “longstanding and demonstrable policy of discrimination” – remains a viable theory in the Sixth Circuit, id., it requires the plaintiff to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that some form of intentional discrimination against the class of which plaintiff was a member was the [defendant’s] standard operating procedure.” Id. at 269 (quoting EEOC v. Penton Industrial Pub. Co., 851 F.2d at 838). But see Deck, 56 F. Supp. 2d at 894-95 (city’s failure to oversee contractors who installed noncompliant curb ramps could constitute continuing violation as an “over-arching policy of discrimination under the ADA, despite the lack of any specific intent to discriminate). In any event, to the extent the Sixth Circuit would recognize the Defendants’ alleged “over-arching policies of discrimination” as continuing violations, that principle is not controlling precedent in this circuit and we decline to follow it. Instead, we must follow the clearly established principles governing
19

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 20 of 29
the applicability of the continuing violations doctrine in this circuit as set forth in Cowell and its progeny, which we have already discussed above.7
In sum, the foregoing discussion leads us to the following conclusions. We agree with Plaintiffs that Morgan does not necessarily control the facts of this case and does not necessarily limit application of the continuing violation theory solely to hostile work environment claims. Moreover, we find the Supreme Court’s ruling in Morgan to be entirely consistent with, and affirmative of, the law of this circuit as it pertains to the continuing violations doctrine. However, we also conclude, contrary to our prior ruling in Barrier Busters, that the continuing violation doctrine has no application to the type of misconduct alleged here.
Notwithstanding the latter conclusion, we find Defendants’ theory as to the untimeliness of Plaintiffs’ claims unpersuasive for other reasons. First, Defendants’ theory is premised upon a flawed assumption as to when the Plaintiffs’ causes of action accrued. Second, a defense premised upon the expiration of the statute of limitations is not conclusive in a case such as this which seeks only equitable relief.
(i) Underlying Defendants’ statute-of-limitations argument is their assumption that a discrimination claim under Title II of the ADA accrues with each act of newly constructing or altering a curb face. Since 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(e) requires that “newly constructed or
7 Plaintiffs also rely on the Supreme Court’s decision in Haven Realty Corporation v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982), wherein the Supreme Court applied the continuing violations doctrine to claims brought under the Fair Housing Act for alleged on-going acts of racial steering in the leasing of apartments. In Havens, the Court concluded that, “where a plaintiff, pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, challenges not just one incident of conduct violative of the Act, but an unlawful practice that continues into the limitations period, the complaint is timely when it is filed within 180 days of the last asserted occurrence of that practice.” 455 U.S. at 380-81. As this language suggests, the Supreme Court’s ruling was narrowly tied to the Fair Housing Act, and the decision has not been relied upon in this circuit as giving broad effect to the continuing violations doctrine.
20

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 21 of 29
altered” streets, roads, highways, and walkways contain curb ramps, and since the failure to include such curb ramps is considered an act of discrimination for purposes of Title II, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132, 12146 and 12147, the Commonwealth Defendants conclude that the relevant “triggering” event for statute of limitations purposes is the act of new construction or alteration. In support of this position they cite Kinney v. Yerusalim, 9 F.3d 1067 (3d Cir. 1993), wherein the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that the resurfacing of a city street constitutes an “alteration” for purposes of § 35.151(e), and must therefore be accompanied by the installation of an appropriate curb cut. See 9 F.3d at 1075.
While we agree with Defendants that it is acts of “new construction” and/or “alterations” which trigger a public entity’s duty to install the requisite curb cuts and, while we further agree that the failure to install the required curb cuts constitutes an act of discrimination under Title II of the ADA, we conclude that Defendants’ statute of limitations argument misses the mark. The issue of when a defendant’s duty arises (and/or when it is breached by perpetration of a discriminatory act) is distinct from the issue of when a plaintiff’s injury arises or when his cause of action begins to accrue. Though we acknowledge the Kinney decision as binding precedent, it does not answer the question as to when a claim premised upon a defective curb cut begins to accrue. Notably, the Third Circuit decided Kinney approximately 20 months after the effective date of the ADA, so there was no question presented in that case as to the timeliness of the plaintiffs’ claims or the date upon which those claims accrued.
For federal claims, the accrual date is governed by federal law, irrespective of the source of the statute of limitations. Miller v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., 475 F.3d 516, 520 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Romero v. Allstate Corp., 404 F.3d 212, 221 (3d Cir. 2005)). Where there is no controlling federal statute, accrual is determined by resort to the federal “discovery rule,” which holds that the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the injury that forms the basis of his claim. Id. (citing Romero at 222).
21

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 22 of 29
Recognizing this principle, the City of Meadville nevertheless argues that the Plaintiffs cannot benefit from the “discovery rule” because “both the acts of the installation of [non-compliant] curb ramps and the acts of repaving were completely open, visible and public.” (Def. City of Meadville’s Mem. [29] at p. 21.) We do not agree with this interpretation of the discovery rule which, in essence, would mean that a plaintiff’s cause of action premised upon the installation of a defective curb ramp automatically accrues on the very date of the installation.
For one, the Defendants’ theory ignores the fact that a completed tort under Title II of the ADA requires more than merely an act of discrimination. Section 202 of Title II states that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. To state a claim under Title II, a plaintiff must establish the following elements: (i) that he or she is a qualified individual with a disability; (ii) that he or she suffered some act of discrimination by the public entity (i.e., was either excluded from participation in some service, program or activity or was denied the benefits thereof); and (iii) that such discrimination was by reason of his or her disability. See Weinreich v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 114 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 1997); Kornblau v. Dade County, 86 F.3d 193, 194 (11th Cir. 1996); Darian v. University of Massachusetts Boston, 980 F. Supp. 77, 84 (D. Mass. 1997); Williams v. Wasserman, 937 F. Supp. 524, 528 (D. Md. 1996); Civic Ass’n of Deaf of New York City, Inc., v. Giuliani, 915 F. Supp. 622, 634 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).8 Thus, a cause of action is not complete for purposes of Title II until a plaintiff – a qualified individual with a disability –
8 The elements required to prove a claim under the Rehabilitation Act are, in material part, the same. See Rogers v.Department of Health and Environmental Control, 985 F.Supp. 635, 638 (D.S.C. 1997), order aff’d, 174 F.3d 431 (4th Cir. 1999); Darian v. University of Massachusetts Boston, 980 F. Supp. 77, 84-85 (D. Mass. 1997); Williams v. Wasserman, 937 F. Supp. 524, 528 (D. Md. 1996); Lincoln Cercpac v. Health and Hospitals Corp., 920 F. Supp. 488, 497 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
22

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 23 of 29
is denied access by virtue of a defective curb cut, irrespective of the date on which the curb was defectively installed.
Similarly, the Defendants’ theory fails to acknowledge the jurisdictional prerequisite that a plaintiff have standing to litigate the case or controversy at hand. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (“[T]he core component of standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.”). Standing consists of three components:
(1) the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact – an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of-the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Town of Piscataway v. Duke Energy, 488 F.3d 203, 208 (3d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). In the context of an ADA claim, the first prong (“injury in fact”) is satisfied where the plaintiff is aware of discriminatory conditions and avoids a public accommodation because of that awareness. See Access 4 All, Inc. v. Trump International Hotel and Tower Condominium, 458 F. Supp. 2d 160, 167 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). See also Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods, Inc., 293 F.3d 1133, 1136-37 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[O]nce a plaintiff has actually become aware of discriminatory conditions existing at a public accommodation, and is thereby deterred from visiting or patronizing that accommodation, the plaintiff has suffered an injury.”). For purposes of obtaining injunctive relief, standing is satisfied where the plaintiff can demonstrate a “plausible intention or desire to return to the place [of the injury] but for the barriers to access.” Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York v. Trump Int’l Hotel & Tower, No. 01 CIV. 5518 (MBM), 2003 WL 1751785 at *7 (S.D.N.Y. April 2, 2003) (citing cases). By the same token, a plaintiff cannot demonstrate standing where he lacks a concrete and specific intent to return to the non-compliant site. See, e.g., Lamb v. Charlotte County, 429 F. Supp. 2d 1302, 1309 (M.D. Fla. 2006) (plaintiff failed to
23

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 24 of 29
credibly or sincerely allege future injury, and therefore lacked standing to obtain injunctive relief against county that maintained non-ADA compliant public buildings where, among other things, plaintiff lived 75 miles from the site in question, had only infrequent contact with the site, had no connection to it and no family or friends located nearby, stated no immediate or concrete plan to return there, and had a litigious history); Ross v. City of Gatlinburg, Tennessee, 327 F. Supp. 2d 834, 842 (E.D. Tenn. 2003) (plaintiffs lacked standing where, despite alleging “difficulty” and “problems” with parking and navigating city streets, they failed to identify particular noncompliant sites and failed to specify how they had personally been excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, a municipal service, program or activity). See also Access 4 All, Inc., 458 F. Supp. 2d at 168 (“[T]he failure to allege an intention or desire to return to the place where a plaintiff encountered an ADA violation or merely alleging an intention to return ‘some day’ merits dismissal [of the complaint].”) This limitation makes good sense: “because injunctions regulate future conduct, a party has standing to seek injunctive relief only if the party alleges a real and immediate – as opposed to a merely conjectural or hypothetical – threat of future injury.” Lamb, 429 F. Supp. 2d at 1310 (emphasis in original) (citation omitted).
Thus, to obtain relief under Title II of the ADA, the Plaintiffs in the instant case must be able to demonstrate that they are being denied access to particular locations in and around the Cities of Meadville and Erie because of the absence of federally mandated curb ramps at specific sites within those jurisdictions. As to any particular non-compliant curb site, however, it is conceivable that a particular qualified individual with a disability might not be able to demonstrate the requisite injury until some point in time, well beyond the two-year post-installation period, when previously unforeseen circumstances bring him or her into contact with that non-compliant site. It is not farfetched to imagine, for example, that a disabled individual’s change in employment or residence might bring him into contact with non-compliant curb sites with which he previously had no contact nor any sincere need or desire to traverse. Under the
24

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 25 of 29
Defendants’ theory, such a plaintiff, having only recently acquired standing to challenge the violation, would be forever barred from doing so if the curb site had been constructed or altered more than two years previously. Similarly, a disabled person who had only just recently relocated to Erie or Meadville from another state would be forever barred – through no fault of his own – from challenging non-compliant curb sites that had been defectively constructed or altered more than two years prior.
Furthermore, the Defendants’ implied suggestion that prospective plaintiffs should preemptively investigate and prosecute defective curb-cuts is impracticable and would place an unfair burden on disabled persons – individuals for whom, as the ADA recognizes, the very act of getting around is often difficult. As the Third Circuit observed in Kinney,
[t]he lack of curb cuts is a primary obstacle to the smooth integration of those with disabilities into the commerce of daily life. Without curb cuts, people with ambulatory disabilities simply cannot navigate the city; activities that are commonplace to those who are fully ambulatory become frustrating and dangerous endeavors. At present, people using wheelchairs must often make the Hobson’s choice between travelling in the streets – with cars and buses and trucks and bicycles – and travelling over uncut curbs which, even when possible, may result in the wheelchair becoming stuck or overturning, with injury to both passenger and chair.
9 F.3d at 1069. Quite obviously, it is these difficulties which the ADA seeks to redress by requiring curb cuts in the first place. Nonetheless, Defendants would have us place an affirmative burden on disabled persons such as the Plaintiffs to navigate and seek out defective curb cuts far and wide in order to file suit within two years of their installation. Such a result strikes this Court as unduly burdensome and contrary to the remedial purposes of the statute.
For all of these reasons, we reject Defendants’ theory that the Plaintiffs’ cause of action under Title II of the ADA accrued on the date that the defective curb sites in question were actually constructed or altered. We decline to read into the ADA a per se rule that charges all prospective Title II plaintiffs with constructive knowledge of the defective curb site as of the date the site is constructed or altered. Rather, under the
25

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 26 of 29
federal “discovery rule,” a cause of action as to any particular plaintiff accrues when the plaintiff knows or should know of the injury which forms the basis of his Title II claim. See Miller v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., 475 F.3d at 520. In the context of this case, this means that, as to any given Plaintiff, his or her cause of action under Title II accrued when the Plaintiff discovered or should have discovered that a particular curb face denied him or her proper access in violation of the ADA. As the foregoing suggests, the date on which a cause of action may have accrued is unique as to any particular plaintiff and, indeed, as to any particular curb cut. In fact, in some situations, the accrual date might conceivably predate the completion of the defective curb ramp’s “construction” or “alteration,” depending on the circumstances of the case. See, e.g., Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania, supra at *14 (plaintiff’s cause of action under Title II of the ADA relative to public subway station, which lacked an elevator in alleged violation of the ADA, accrued no later than the date on which plaintiff had been informed that the defendant intended to proceed with planned construction at the public subway station and that the defendant would not be installing an elevator at that site). Suffice to say that the precise accrual dates at issue in this case cannot be definitively determined on the limited record before us.
For present purposes, however, the limited state of the record redounds to the Plaintiffs’ benefit. Because expiration of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, the Defendants bear the ultimate burden of proof on the matter. Ebbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 319 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2003). Accordingly, in moving for summary judgment on the basis of that defense, Defendants bear the initial burden of producing evidence that would entitle them to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial. See C.A.R. Transportation Brokerage Co., Inc., 213 F.3d at 480; Paramount Aviation Corp., 178 F.3d at 146. Defendants thus bear the initial burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of material fact concerning the date on which the statute of limitations began to run in this case. See Ebbert, 319 F.3d at 108 (defendant’s burden of proving expiration of the statute of limitations “clearly requires
26

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 27 of 29
proof of the lawful start date for the limitations period,” and defendant’s failure to meet this burden rendered summary judgment inappropriate); Richard B. Roush, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan v. The New England Mutual Life Ins. Co., 311 F.3d 581, 585 (3d Cir. 2002) (to prevail on its summary judgment motion on statute of limitations grounds, defendant that was sued under ERISA had to prove that plaintiff had actual knowledge of the alleged breach of fiduciary duty more than three years before his action was filed). Accord Edwards v. Princes Cruise Lines, Ltd., 240 F.R.D. 546 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (defendant cruise line, having been sued by passenger for alleged ADA violations and having moved for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, met its initial summary judgment burden of proving that plaintiff failed to comply with the contractual six month statute of limitations period by introducing evidence that the plaintiff had waited nearly two years to file suit).
Here, Defendants have not carried their initial burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 of demonstrating the absence of a genuine fact relative to the date on which the various Plaintiffs’ claims accrued in this case. Accordingly, their motion for summary judgment must be denied.
(ii.) We further conclude that Defendants’ statute of limitations defense is somewhat misplaced in light of the fact that Plaintiffs are seeking only equitable relief here. “Traditionally and for good reasons, statutes of limitations are not controlling measures of equitable relief,” Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 396 (1946), but they are relevant for purposes of determining whether a defendant can assert the equitable defense of laches. Id. The affirmative defense of laches consists of two elements: (1) inexcusable delay in bringing suit, and (2) prejudice to the defendant as a result of the delay. Santana Prod., Inc. v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc., 401 F.3d 123, 138 (3d Cir. 2005) (Lanham Act claim). In this circuit courts have held that, once the statute of limitations has expired, the defendant “enjoys the benefit of a presumption of inexcusable delay
27

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 28 of 29
and prejudice,” id. at 138 (quoting EEOC v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 735 F.2d 69, 80 (3d Cir. 1984)), and the plaintiff acquires the burden of disproving both elements. Id. at 139-40 (citing additional cases). Conversely, some courts have found that laches is not a viable defense to a claim that is filed within the applicable limitations period. See Marchionni v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, No. Civ. A. 98-6491, 2000 WL 124564 at *2 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2000) (§ 1983 claim) (citing cases).
Here, however, Defendants have not asserted the affirmative defense of laches and, even if they had, this defense would not provide grounds for an award of summary judgment. Because the record here does not support a finding that the relevant statute of limitations has expired, there can be no presumption of inexcusable delay by the Plaintiffs and prejudice to the Defendants. See Highland Tank & Mfg. Co. v. PS International, Inc., 393 F. Supp. 2d 348, 357 (W.D. Pa. 2005) (where review of the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) did not demonstrate that statute of limitations barred plaintiff’s claim, court would not presume inexcusable delay and prejudice to defendant).
IV. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing reasons, the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment will be denied.9 An appropriate order follows.
9 The Court acknowledges the parties’ submissions concerning the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., — U.S. —, 127 S. Ct. 2162 (2007). However, that decision does not affect our disposition of the instant motions in light of our analysis as set forth above.
28

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 37 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 29 of 29

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE (VFI), )

et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

COMMONWEALTH OF

)

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT

)

OF TRANSPORTATION, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Civil Action No. 06-78 Erie

O R D E R AND NOW, to wit this 28th day of September, 2007, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [25] for summary Judgment filed by Defendants the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and Allen D. Biehler and the Motion [27] for Partial Summary Judgment filed by the City of Meadville, Pennsylvania are DENIED.

cm: All counsel of record.

/s Sean J. McLaughlin Sean J. McLaughlin United States District Judge

29

 
 Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 68 Filed 07/20/12 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; ALLEN D. BIEHLER, P.E., in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Defendants

) Civil Action No.: 06-78 Erie ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION RESPECTING PENNDOT’S VIOLATIONS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS REGARDING OMITTED CURB RAMPS

AND NOW, the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, HEBERLE & FINNEGAN, PLLC and the ELDERKIN LAW FIRM, file the following Motion Respecting PennDOT’s Violations of Settlement Agreements Regarding Omitted Curb Ramps, respectfully representing as follows:

INTRODUCTION 1. It is undisputed that, pursuant to the Settlement Agreements entered in this matter, ADAAG-compliant curb ramps must be installed whenever PennDOT resurfaces or alters a state highway adjacent to sidewalks in the Cities of Erie and Meadville. See Settlement Agreement December 22, 2006, ¶2 [Doc. 22]; Settlement Agreement April 19, 2007, ¶2(a) [Doc. 32].

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 68 Filed 07/20/12 Page 2 of 10
2. During the years 2007 through 2010, PennDOT admittedly violated the Settlement Agreements by failing to install approximately 1,000 such ramps during its resurfacing work. When PennDOT’s multiple violations were uncovered in 2011, the parties discussed the most efficient and prompt means to rectify PennDOT’s breaches of its obligations. The parties then negotiated and entered into another settlement agreement (Fourth Settlement Agreement) requiring that PennDOT identify the location of each of these so-called “omitted ramps” so that the parties could then work on a time table to cure all of these violations. The Fourth Settlement Agreement, filed January 30, 2012, states as follows:
C. Installing ramps omitted during work performed since 2007 (1) In a written report, PennDOT shall identify all State street, road and highway intersections newly constructed or altered by PennDOT in the Cities of Erie and Meadville during the years 2007 through 2010, where curb ramps were not installed at each such intersection. The report shall specify at those intersections each location still containing curbs or other barriers to entry from a street level pedestrian walkway. PennDOT shall file with the Court and Plaintiffs' Counsel a report comprehensively listing each such location no later than thirty days from today.
Fourth Settlement Agreement, Section II(C)(1) [Doc. 56]. 3. PennDOT then breached this settlement agreement by failing to file the
required report. As a result, on May 23, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. See Doc. 59. This motion also addressed PennDOT’s announcement that
2.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 68 Filed 07/20/12 Page 3 of 10
it would no longer abide by the construction standards that were the basis of all of the settlement agreements (the ADAAG Standards).
4. Almost a month later, on June 20, 2012, PennDOT filed a document that purported to provide the information required under the Fourth Settlement Agreement. See Doc. 62 and its attachments. This listing identified a total of 686 omitted ramps within the City of Erie that PennDOT had planned to now install. However, this listing also identified some 26 intersections where PennDOT indicated it would not install any of the omitted ramps. The listing does not identify the number of ramps that will not be installed. Likewise, this document identified 262 ramps to be installed in the City of Meadville that were previously omitted and it identified 5 intersections where PennDOT indicated that it would not install the missing ramps.
5. Subsequently, on July 11, 2012, PennDOT produced another document entitled “Barriers to Remain, City of Erie” which identified some 49 locations where barriers to access existed but where PennDOT refuses to install required ramps. A copy of this listing is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The Barriers to Remain listing also contained some 11 new locations where ramps had been omitted but were not included in the report filed by PennDOT on June 20, 2012. PennDOT’s failure to include these intersections in its report was yet another violation of the Fourth Settlement Agreement.
3.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 68 Filed 07/20/12 Page 4 of 10
TIME TABLE FOR RAMPS NOT IN DISPUTE
6. PennDOT’s June 20, 2012 filing identifies a combined total of 948 ramps in the Cities of Erie and Meadville that should have been, but were not, installed during road work performed in 2007-2010. These omissions were violations of the Settlement Agreements. In recognition of this fact, PennDOT agrees to now install these ramps.
7. In discussions with PennDOT, Plaintiffs are informed that PennDOT will promise that the vast majority of all of these omitted ramps will be installed by the end of the 2013 construction season.
8. Plaintiffs hereby request that the court issue an order requiring that PennDOT cure its prior violations of the Settlement Agreements by installing all of these omitted ramps without delay and as soon as possible, but no later than the fall of 2013.
9. To permit Plaintiffs to monitor PennDOT’s progress in curing these violations, Plaintiffs request that the Court also direct PennDOT to file monthly progress reports that (a) lists the number and location of each ramp constructed that month and (b) provide the relevant measurements of each ramp and (c) state the estimate of ramps to be completed in each of the remaining months.
4.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 68 Filed 07/20/12 Page 5 of 10
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR OMITTED RAMPS
10. Based upon the authorities cited in Plaintiffs’ Motion To Enforce Settlement Agreement with PennDOT [Doc. 59] and Plaintiffs’ brief filed in support of that motion [Doc. 67], Plaintiffs also request that the Court issue an order requiring that PennDOT construct all such omitted ramps to be in compliance with the relevant provisions of the ADAAG, as identified and set forth in the Settlement Agreements entered in this matter.
11. Furthermore, there is an unresolved dispute between the parties as to whether PennDOT must install a total of six compliant ramps at unsignalized “T” intersections involving city-owned roadways. See Fourth Settlement Agreement ¶II(B)(2). At these intersections, the city streets terminate at the state road or highway and there is no traffic-control device for vehicles traveling on the state road. A total of four ramps could be installed to permit the crossing of the two legs of the state road and a total of two ramps to cross the city street. PennDOT has rejected any obligation to install all six ramps when it resurfaces a state highway at such “T” intersections. PennDOT has argued that it is “good enough” to provide only partial accessibility at such intersections.
12. The omitted ramp listings ( June 20, 2012 list and Barriers to Remain list) do not reveal whether PennDOT is leaving barriers in place at “T” intersections based upon its position that ADA accessibility does not require full access and does not mandate that all six ramps be constructed.
5.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 68 Filed 07/20/12 Page 6 of 10
13. It is the Plaintiffs’ position that the resurfacing of the intersecting state highway is an alteration that affects the usability of the entire intersection, requiring that all six ramps be installed. Therefore, Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an order requiring PennDOT to install 6 curb ramps at such “T” intersections.
PENNDOT MUST INSTALL ALL OF THE DISPUTED RAMPS
14. As stated above, PennDOT’s recent list of omitted ramps and its Barriers to Remain list reflect PennDOT’s decision to leave barriers in place and to refuse to install ramps at various locations in the Cities of Erie and Meadville. The Settlement Agreements provide a detailed process that must be followed when PennDOT seeks to deviate from its construction obligations under those agreements. This process, known by the parties by the acronym TIF (“Technically Infeasible Form”), is described as follows:
At any time during the term of this Settlement Agreement that . . . PennDOT believes that site conditions at any particular intersection scheduled for improvement prohibits or makes unnecessary construction or alteration in full compliance with each of the standards set forth above . . . [PennDOT], within 15 days of discovery of the matter, shall inform Plaintiffs’ counsel in writing. This writing shall list which engineer(s) have reviewed the intersection, the location of the intersection, and a statement of which standard(s) cannot be met, why not, and how much of a deviation from the standard(s) is contemplated. Unless due to factors beyond PennDOT’s control, this writing should also include a sketch of any
6.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 68 Filed 07/20/12 Page 7 of 10
proposed deviant curb ramp, with the proposed final measurements for each slope, cross slope, and lip. If Plaintiffs do not object in writing to the notice within 15 days from the postmark of the written notification, . . . PennDOT may presume that the deviation is acceptable to the Plaintiffs and may begin construction of that particular curb ramp.
Settlement Agreement December 22, 2006, ¶12 [Doc. 22]. See also Settlement Agreement April 19, 2007, ¶13 [Doc. 33].
15. The Settlement Agreements incorporate the ADAAG’s “technically infeasible” standard as the test for any claim that a curb ramp cannot be constructed.
Potential Exceptions Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Part 36, App. A §4.1.6(j). The parties agree that the ADAAG at 28 C.F.R. Part 36, App. A §4.1.6 and 4.1.1.5(a); 4.1.6(3); and 28 C.F.R. 35.151(c), to the extent applicable, shall be the standard to judge the validity of any defendant assertions that construction or alterations cannot or are not required to meet in full the construction and design standards set out in the paragraphs above.
Settlement Agreement December 22, 2006, ¶11 [Doc. 22]. See also Settlement Agreement April 19, 2007, ¶12 [Doc. 33].
16. This technically infeasible exemption is very narrow and it applies only when site conditions make it virtually impossible to comply with the ADAAG construction standards.
7.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 68 Filed 07/20/12 Page 8 of 10
Technically infeasible. With respect to an alteration of a building or a facility, something that has the little likelihood of being accomplished because existing structural conditions would require removing or altering a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structural frame; or because other existing or physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces, or features that are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements.
28 C.F.R. Part 36, App. A §4.1.6(j) Definitions.
17. With regard to PennDOT’s obligations to cure its past violations relating to
the 2007-10 omitted ramps, the Fourth Settlement Agreement provides a similar process that
must be followed if PennDOT contends that a barrier should not be removed.
In the rare circumstance that PennDOT believes that on a State street, road or highway it should leave in place a curb or other barrier to entry to a pedestrian level walkway, or that it should replace an existing ramp with a curb or other barrier, it must first adhere to the following procedure:
a. Written Notice. PennDOT shall within ten days of discovering the alleged site conditions which it believes supports such action, inform Plaintiffs’ counsel in writing via e-mail and hard copy. This writing shall identify the engineer(s) who have reviewed the intersection(s), shall identify the location of the intersection(s), and shall provide a statement of the circumstances which PennDOT believes supports its proposed action. The Parties shall allow 15 days from the postmark or e-mail notification to resolve the matter.
8.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 68 Filed 07/20/12 Page 9 of 10
b. Unresolved Disputes. In the event that the Parties cannot resolve a dispute concerning removing barriers at any such intersection(s), the Parties expressly agree that the Court expressly retains jurisdiction to resolve any disputes under the terms of this Order, as well as the Court’s earlier Settlement Agreement Orders. Either party may file a motion with the Court to address any unresolved issues. Any final resolution under this paragraph shall be treated as a decision by the Court.
Settlement Agreement January 30, 2012, ¶4 [Doc. 56].
18. PennDOT has failed to comply with the foregoing processes and thus PennDOT has once more breached its obligations under the Fourth Settlement Agreement.
19. As a result of PennDOT’s repeated violations of the settlement agreements, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court issue an order compelling PennDOT to install all of these disputed ramps immediately, and certainly by the end of 2013. At this late date, and considering the additional delays that it would cause Plaintiffs to suffer, PennDOT should not be given the opportunity to submit this dispute to the TIF processes.
Respectfully submitted, HEBERLE & FINNEGAN, PLLC. By /s/ J. Mark Finnegan
J. Mark Finnegan, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs 2580 Craig Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48103 (734) 302-3233
9.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 68 Filed 07/20/12 Page 10 of 10 ELDERKIN LAW FIRM By /s/ Craig A. Markham Craig A. Markham, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs 150 East Eighth Street Erie, Pennsylvania 16501 (814) 456-4000
10.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 68-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 1 of 5

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 68-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 2 of 5

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 68-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 3 of 5

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 68-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 4 of 5

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 68-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 5 of 5

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 68-2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; ALLEN D. BIEHLER, P.E., in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Defendants

) Civil Action No.: 06-78 Erie ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion Respecting PennDOT’s Violations of Settlement Agreements Regarding Omitted Curb Ramps, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows:
1. PennDOT shall construct curb ramps at all intersections identified in its report filed on June 20, 2012. [Docs. 62, 62-1 and 62-2]. These curb ramps shall be constructed in compliance with the ADAAG and shall be completed without delay, but no later than the end of 2013.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 68-2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 2 of 2
2. PennDOT shall file a report by the seventh (7th) day of each month regarding the work that it completed in the previous month on these ramps. These monthly reports shall provide the following information:
a. The locations and the number of ramps constructed in the prior month; b. The measurements of each ramp, in the format and providing the data provided in PennDOT’s annual ramp reports; c. A good-faith estimate of the number of ramps planned to be constructed in each of the months to follow.
3. With regard to these ramps, at all “T” intersections that involve an intersection between a state road or highway and a city road or highway, where the city road terminates at the intersection and where there is no traffic control device for vehicular traffic on the state road, PennDOT shall ensure that there are a total of six (6) ramps at all such intersections that comply with the ADAAG (four ramps crossing the state road and two ramps crossing the city road).
BY THE COURT ___________________________________
2.

 
 Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 56 Filed 01/30/12 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.,
Defendants.

} } } } No. 06-78 Erie } Judge McLaughlin } } } } } }

FOURTH SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

I. BACKGROUND On March 28, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against, inter alia, the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation ("PennDOT") alleging violations of Title ll of the Americans with Disabilities Act and of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, arising from PennDOT's failure to install curb ramps compliant with the applicable federal access provisions along PennDOT streets, roads or highways located in the Cities of Erie and Meadville, Pennsylvania.
The Court previously has approved and has expressly retained jurisdiction over the Parties to interpret and to enforce the terms of three Settlement Agreements between Plaintiffs and PennDOT. See Document 23, entered December 22, 2006, Document 33, entered April 19, 2007 and Document 51, entered March 4, 2009. Additional issues have arisen between the Parties regarding some of the application of the terms and conditions of those three documents, and the Parties have met to discuss these issues. The Parties have now agreed on the following terms to clarity these issues, have approached the Court, and the Court now finds as follows:
1

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 56 Filed 01/30/12 Page 2 of 8
II. AGREEMENT A. Intent of the Parties. The Plaintiffs and PennDOT now wish to clarify several issues
that have arisen during the implementation of the previously entered documents ## 23, 33 and
51. The requirements of the Parties' earlier Settlement Agreement Orders remain in full force and effect, except to the extent expressly set forth below.
B. Ramps Must be installed at all Intersections. (1) Beginning January I, 20 ll and thereafter, PennDOT shall ensure that within the Cities of Erie and Meadville newly constructed or altered State streets, roads and highways shall contain curb ramps crossing the State streets, roads and highways at all intersections containing curbs or other barriers to entry from a street level pedestrian walkway, in order to provide access from those intersections to the walkways. Each such project shall comply with all Americans with Disability Act requirements, including 28 C.F.R. § 35.15l(b), (c), (i)(l) and (i)(2), and 28 C.F.R., Part 36, App. A, the ADAAG. If future changes to applicable law are formally adopted by the appropriate regulating agency, the new standards are to be incorporated in this Settlement Agreement. All curb mmps that are part of State street, road and highway projects involving new construction, resurfacing or other alteration that triggers the installation of curb ramps shall be installed during the course of and/or prior to completion of such new construction, resurfacing or other alteration project. (2) Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, the Parties have been unable to agree on the disposition of curb ramps at Unsignalized T-intersections (the intersection of one roadway or highway with another roadway or highway that results in a perpendicular junction where one roadway or highway terminates). Accordingly, the Parties agree that the foregoing paragraph does not apply to Unsignalized T-intersections as heretofore described. Nevertheless, by signing this agreement, neither Party waives or abandons its position with respect to the implementation
2

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 56 Filed 01/30/12 Page 3 of 8
of curb ramps at Unsignalized T-intersections. The Parties further agree to engage in further consultations pursuant to Section H of this Settlement Agreement (relating to Continuing Discussions) in order to attempt to reach a consensus on this issue.
(3) For purposes of this Agreement, the junction of an alley or driveway with a State street, road or highway shall not constitute an intersection, unless the State street, road or highway at said junction is controlled by a traffic control device.
(4) In the rare circumstance that PennDOT believes that on a State street, road or highway it should leave in place a curb or other barrier to entry to a pedestrian level walkway, or that it should replace an existing ramp with a curb or other barrier, it must first adhere to the following procedure:
(a) Written Notice. PennDOT shall within ten days of discovering the alleged site
conditions which it believes supports such action, inform Plaintiffs' counsel in writing via email and hard copy. This writing shall identify the engineer(s) who have reviewed the intersection(s), shall identify the location of the intersection(s), and shall provide a statement of the circumstances which PennDOT believes supports its proposed action. The Parties shall allow 15 days from the postmark or email notification to resolve the matter. (b) Unresolved Disputes. In the event that the Parties cannot resolve a dispute concerning removing barriers at any such intersection(s), the Parties expressly agree and the Court expressly retains jurisdiction to resolve any disputes under the terms of this Order, as well as the Court's earlier Settlement Agreement Orders. Either party may file a motion with the Court to address any unresolved issues.
3

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 56 Filed 01/30/12 Page 4 of 8
Any final resolution under this paragraph shall be treated as a decision by the Court. C. Installing ramps omitted during work performed since 2007 (I) In a written report, PennDOT shall identifY all State street, road and highway intersections newly constructed or altered by PennDOT in the Cities of Erie and Meadville during the years 2007 through 2010, where curb ramps were not installed at each such intersection. The report shall specifY at those intersections each location still containing curbs or other barriers to entry from a street level pedestrian walkway. PennDOT shall file with the Court and Plaintiffs' Counsel a report comprehensively listing each such location no later than thirty days from today; (2) The Parties shall negotiate in good faith to establish a schedule to install where appropriate the omitted curb ramps at these locations. In the rare event that PennDOT believes that as to any locations on this listing it should leave in place a curb or other barrier to entry to a pedestrian level walkway, or that it should replace an existing ramp with a curb or other barrier, it must first adhere to the following procedure set forth in Section B(2) above. PennDOT will file any mutually agreed upon schedule with this Court no later than sixty days from today. If the Parties do not agree by this deadline, any party may file a motion with the Court to resolve the time frame for this retrofitting. D. "Pitcher's Mound" Issue. Beginning in Year 2011 and thereafter, PennDOT shall make all reasonable efforts to avoid altering or installing new curb ramps at intersections while also ending the construction season with the resurfacing unfinished, creating a non-flush transition where the new curb ramp meets the intersection. In the event that this occurs, PennDOT, within fifteen days of such an occurrence, shall notify in writing Plaintiffs' Counsel
4

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 56 Filed 01/30/12 Page 5 of 8
of the exact locations of each such occurrence, along with PennDOT' s proposal for creating a transition during the Winter. The Parties shall allow at least ten days to resolve the issue, and either party may file a motion or approach the Court thereafter if they are unable to reach a resolution.
E. "Undulating" Pedestrian Walkways. The Parties have discussed newly constructed pedestrian walkways where there are several rapid increases or decreases in running slopes of these walkways, including, but not limited to, where the walkways intersect with driveway aprons cutting through the walkway. Especially where two or more such driveway aprons are close to each other, this tends to create an "undulating" walkway, which can be difficult for mobility impaired pedestrians to navigate. PennDOT shall take all reasonable steps to minimize constructing walkway portions with running slopes exceeding 5%.
F. Accessibility Standards and Guidelines Controlling Settlement Order. According to the Settlement Orders already existing in this lawsuit (Documents 23 and 32), all portions of State streets, roads and highways newly constructed or otherwise altered by PennDOT shall comply with all Americans with Disability Act requirements, including 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(b),(c), (i)(l) and (i)(2), and 28 C.P.R. Part 36, App. A, the ADAAG. That version of the ADAAG is known as the "ADAAG 2004".
On September 15, 2010, the USDOJ formally adopted revised ADA standards, known as the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design (hereinafter referred to as the "201 0 Standards"). Thus, beginning March 15, 2012, the effective date of the regulations and the 2010 Standards, the 2010 Standards now establish the standard PennDOT must comply with during future construction or alterations of State streets, roads and highways located in the Cities of Erie and Meadville. However, if future changes to applicable law are formally adopted by the appropriate
5

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 56 Filed 01/30/12 Page 6 of 8
regulating agency, the new standards are to be incorporated in this Settlement Agreement for the curb ramps to be installed or reconstructed after the effective date of such changes.
G. Emergency or "Department Force Maintenance" work. The Parties have met to discuss concerns Plaintiffs have with PennDOT performing maintenance work on street sections pursuant to its "Department Force Maintenance". The Parties, solely for purposes of amicable resolution, have agreed to the following: PennDOT shall provide to Plaintiffs' Counsel, via email transmission, a listing of the locations of any such work performed each year within the Cities of Erie or Meadville. Within each listing, PennDOT will identify the State Route involved, the local name of the State Route involved and, if available, the intersection nearest to the starting point of the work and the intersection nearest to the ending point of the work. This listing shall be included in a separately listed section of the Annual Report PennDOT provides to Plaintiffs' Counsel. Plaintiffs reserve the right to file a motion with the Court to determine whether any such work by PennDOT triggers the requirement for PennDOT to install ramps as a part of such work.
H. Continuing Discussions. The Parties have met to discuss various issues and concerns that have arisen in the course of this litigation, including but not limited to Emergency or "Maintenance Budget" Alterations, the Pending Peach Street Corridor Project and PennDOT Design Standards and Technical Guidelines, and shall continue to meet as necessary to address and resolve any conflicts or disagreements. If, after meeting in good faith, the Parties are unable to resolve their conflicts of disagreements, any party may file a motion with the Court concerning such issue(s).
I. Fees and Costs. The Parties have met and have agreed upon an amount of compensation to Plaintiffs' attorneys. The Parties agree that this satisfies any and all claims for
6

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 56 Filed 01/30/12 Page 7 of 8
fees and costs in this lawsuit up to and through the dates reflected on the invoices. By paying this amount, no party waives any claims or objections to claims for fees and costs that plaintiffs may seek for future actions in this lawsuit.
J. Prior Settlement Agreements not Affected. This settlement agreement shall not affect nor alter-unless by its explicit language-any of the obligations, duties and/or requirements arising under or created by the settlement agreements or consent decrees which previously have been entered in this case. To the contrary, to the extent the terms and conditions of those prior settlement agreements are applicable, they are hereby incorporated by reference.
K. Retention of Jurisdiction. The Parties expressly agree, and the Court expressly finds that the Court shall retain jurisdiction concerning the interpretation of and compliance with this Settlement Agreement.
Read and Approved as to Form on this Z-7~ay of <j;l.,.., " ' - ) ,2012,by:
Scott A. Bradley, SDAG Litigation Section Office of Attorney General 6th Fl Manor Complex 564 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Attorneyfor PennDOT
7

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 56 Filed 01/30/12 Page 8 of 8
J. ark Finnegan, Esquire I •SERLE & FINNEGAN, PLLC. 580 Craig Road c Ann Arbor, Ml481 03
Craig A. ELDE , MARTIN, KELLY & MESSINA Jones School Square IS 0 East Eighth Street Erie, PA 16501 Attomeys for All Plolllt/ff&
8

 
 Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 20 Case 1:05-mc-02025 Document 136-1 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI),

)

MICHAEL L. EAKIN; JAY SHUFFSTALL;

)

CAROLYN A. CREHAN; KATHY A. HERTZOG;)

PAUL PECUNAS; SANDRA FULLER

)

MARY ANN PARSNIK; PAT WEAVER;

)

FELICIA BONGIORNO; MELVIN BORREO )

STEPHEN CLARK; TILL HRINDA-PATTEN )

MARY D. KRUG; and B. LYNNE VESTAL,

)

on behalf of themselves and all others

)

similarly situated

)

Plaintiffs,

)

V.

)

)

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;

)

ALLEN D. BIEHLER, P.E., in his official

)

capacity as Secretary of Transportation of

)

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

)

Defendant.

)

*******************************************

E Civil Action No.: 0 f.o - '1 ZS
HON: MAG. JUDGE:
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. The Cities of Erie and Meadville, Pennsylvania and their surrounding areas are not accessible to and readily usable by their citizens with disabilities. Among other things, Erie and Meadville's sidewalks and intersections are not safe, and people using wheelchairs for mobility must travel in the streets.
2. The Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (hereinafter PennDOT), has spent federal and state taxpayer dollars altering sidewalks and street

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 20 Case 1:05-mc-02025 Document 136-1 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 2 of 20
intersections and certain other facilities in ways that violate federal accessibility building guidelines and standards. Because PennDOT has failed to meet minimum accessibility standards, Plaintiffs and similarly situated class members with disabilities are denied access to PennDOT' s services, programs or activities, and must risk serious injury attempting to traverse Erie, Meadville and surrounding areas, or while attempting to use the facilities.
3. Beginning in 1973, under section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act, (the Rehab Act) Congress required PennDOT when receiving federal money to build or repair streets, sidewalks, bridges, buildings, parking lots, or any other service, program or activity, to meet detailed accessibility construction guidelines and standards codified in the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards. Later, in 1990 with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), Congress strengthened the law, ordering public entities, including PennDOT, to meet these same detailed disability accessibility construction guidelines, even when PennDOT did not use federal money to build or repair its streets, sidewalks, bridges, buildings, parking lots, or any other services, programs or activities. Both the ADA and Rehab Act also contain provisions requiring cities to make modifications in their services, programs and activities to make them readily accessible.
4. PennDOT has acted with deliberate and callous disregard offederallaw, and has consistently failed to ensure that newly constructed, reconstructed and existing sidewalks, intersections and certain other facilities are built to meet required minimum accessibility guidelines and standards.
2.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1 Filed 03/28/06 Page 3 of 20 Case 1:05-mc-02025 Document 136-1 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 3 of 20
5. PennDOT has engaged in a continuing pattern and practice of overarching discrimination against Plaintiffs and class members beginning at least in January 1992 and continuing to the present.
6. Plaintiffs file this class action lawsuit to seek court intervention to force PennDOT to live up to its federally mandated duties to ensure accessibility to its citizens with disabilities. Plaintiffs each live in Erie, Meadville or surrounding areas, and use services offered in those locales.
7. Plaintiffs ask the court to order PennDOT to retrofit its intersections and sidewalks to make them readily usable and safe for people with disabilities. Plaintiffs also ask the court to order PennDOT to put into place a detailed system to ensure that PennDOT complies with all federal law in the future so that the new construction and repairs will ensure mandated access for people with disabilities.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3).
3.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1 Filed 03/28/06 Page 4 of 20
Case 1:05-mc-02025 Document 136-1 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 4 of 20
9. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the defendant is located in the Western District and the events and/or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred in the District.
III. PARTIES
10. Plaintiff, Voices for Independence (VFI), is a membership organization which advocates to increase opportunities for independent living for persons with disabilities. It serves people with disabilities throughout Pennsylvania, including Erie, Meadville and surrounding areas in Pennsylvania. VFI's mission is to promote access and inclusion of persons with disabilities into housing, employment and recreation. PennDOT's failure to properly install curb ramps during resurfacing of streets and alteration of sidewalks frustrates VFI' s mission and purposes. VFI has diverted significant resources documenting violations by PennDOT and attempting to correct those illegal patterns of conduct.
11. Each named individual Plaintiff lives in and/or travels through Erie, Meadville, or surrounding areas of Pennsylvania. Each cannot ambulate without a wheelchair or other assistive devices, and some have sight impairments that require the use of detectible warnings. Each named individual Plaintiff is a person with a disability under the ADA and the Rehab Act.
12. Defendant PennDOT is a public entity as that term is defined under 42 U.S.C. 4.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1 Filed 03/28/06 Page 5 of 20 Case 1:05-mc-02025 Document 136-1 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 5 of 20
§ 12131(1); 28 C.P.R. § 35.104. Defendant Allen D. Biehler, P.E., has been the Secretary of Transportation for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania since year 2003. He has ultimate decision and policy making authority over the matters at issue in this lawsuit.
IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
13. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b)(2), Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a class of all persons with mobility or sight impairment disabilities as defmed by the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 and the Americans With Disabilities Act, who have used in the past, or will attempt to use in the future, the facilities, services, programs in the cities of Erie and Meadville and surrounding areas, that have been built, rebuilt or altered by PennDOT after January 26, 1992, the effective date of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief only, but not damages, on behalf of themselves and the class.
A. The class is so numerous that joinder of the individual members would be impracticable. Several hundred people who must rely on ambulatory devices such as wheelchairs, scooters, canes or walkers reside in Erie, Meadville or adjacent areas. Additionally, many nonresidents who must rely on ambulatory devices such as wheelchairs or scooters travel in those areas to go to work, to patronize businesses or to visit family and friends. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated would travel in those more often if PennDOT complied with the ADA and Rehabilitation Act and made those area's streets and sidewalks fully accessible to persons with disabilities.
B. The named Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives because they 5.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1 Filed 03/28/06 Page 6 of 20 Case 1:05-mc-02025 Document 136-1 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 6 of 20
are directly impacted by PennDOT's failure to properly install, repair or adequately maintain curb ramps. The interests of the named Plaintiffs are not antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the interests ofthe class as a whole. The attorneys representing the class are experienced in representing clients in class actions involving civil rights claims, including enforcement of the ADA, and other federal claims.
C. Common questions of law and fact predominate, including questions posed by Plaintiffs' allegations that PennDOT has failed to properly install, repair or adequately maintain curb ramps.
D. Claims ofthe named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims ofthe class because all class members and the named Plaintiffs are affected by PennDOT' s failure to properly install, repair or adequately maintain curb ramps.
E. PennDOT has acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate fmal declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
F. Notice of the pendency of this class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) is not required. It is contemplated that notice of any proposed dismissal or settlement shall be given to all members of the class in such manner as the Court directs pursuant to Rule 23(e).
V. FACTS
6.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1 Filed 03/28/06 Page 7 of 20 Case 1:05-mc-02025 Document 136-1 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 7 of 20
14. For at least the last 28 years, and continuing to the present, PennDOT has engaged in a pattern of operating or building new services, programs and/or altering existing services, programs without making those programs or services accessible to Plaintiffs and class members.
15. The individually named Plaintiffs and the persons employed by or served by VFI can not currently ambulate or travel safely on Erie, Meadville and surrounding area streets or sidewalks without ADA-compliant curb ramps because each uses a wheelchair or scooter. They must travel on streets or sidewalks installed or resurfaced by PennDOT since January 26, 1992 that contain no curb ramps, or contain curb ramps that are not accessible to persons with mobility impairments due to their improper design or maintenance.
16. In each year beginning January 26, 1992 and continuing to the present, PennDOT has resurfaced city streets and altered or constructed sidewalks in Erie, Meadville and surrounding areas, but has failed either to install those curb ramps which are necessary for persons using mobility devices to travel on the sidewalks or where ramps were installed, PennDOT failed to construct such ramps properly. As a result, when the named Plaintiffs attempt to cross many of the streets in these areas, they are forced to enter the stream of traffic and travel along the curb until they can locate a private driveway or other private business to re-enter the sidewalk.
17. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that PennDOT routinely either fails to install curb ramps when resurfacing, altering, or installing streets and sidewalks or constructs
7.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1 Filed 03/28/06 Page 8 of 20 Case 1:05-mc-02025 Document 136-1 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 8 of 20
any such ramps improperly. Therefore, Plaintiffs allege, upon information and belief, many recently resurfaced roads and sidewalks in the relevant areas lack curb cuts required by law, or contain improperly installed curb cuts which fail to meet the minimum design standards under federal law. These standards require each ramp to be built with the least possible slope, and do not allow a direct running slope of more than 8.3%, a cross-slope of more than 2%, and require a level landing at the top of the ramp with slopes of no more than 2%. The transitions from ramps to walks, gutters, or streets must be flush and free of abrupt changes. Some examples of noncompliant ramps found at or along roads controlled and/or resurfaced by or at the direction of PennDOT are set out below.
18. The Bayfront Connector, Erie, PA was resurfaced in 2005. The resurfacing went into the intersection at Bayfront Connector and 12th Street. There are 2 ramps at the southeast and southwest corners that were installed in 2005.
A. The southeast corner has one new diagonal ramp. The cross-slope is 5.5%
B. The sidewalk running along the east side ofBayfront Connector runs directly into the flared side of the ramp which has a running slope of 18.1% for over a 6 inch run. One of the Plaintiffs in this case fell out of her wheelchair as that Plaintiff attempted to cross this curb cut's excessive flared side.
C. The pedestrian crossing buttons for the traffic light at this corner are 51 inches high. The button for crossing 12th Street is placed at the back of the pole. There is no sidewalk behind the pole and the button hangs over a steep cliff. People in wheelchairs
8.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1 Filed 03/28/06 Page 9 of 20 Case 1:05-mc-02025 Document 136-1 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 9 of 20
(and many other pedestrians, including children) are not able to reach this button at all. Most wheelchair users are also unable to reach the other button for crossing the Bayside Connector that is placed too high on the pole.
D. There is a steep drop-off along the east edge ofthe sidewalk along the Bayfront Connector. Pedestrians are protected from the drop-offby a fence which runs along the sidewalk to the comer ofBayfront and 12th Street. However, the fence ends just before the pole with the crossing buttons. There is no fence around the pole or around the southern and eastern edges of the ramp landing. Anyone trying to use the buttons or trying to maneuver a wheelchair at the top of the ramp risks falling over the steep drop-off onto the broken rocks that have been placed there by PennDOT and their agents.
19. The sidewalk on the east side of the Bayfront Connector just south of the curb ramp has a direct slope of 17.2% for over a 16 inch run. As the sidewalk continues south across the over-pass, there are a series of gutters crossing the sidewalk that stop wheelchairs when their front wheels fall into the trenches. These gutters cannot be avoided and make the sidewalks not accessible to nor readily usable by Plaintiffs and similarly situated class members.
A. On the street adjacent to this sidewalk, a pedestrian approaching the comer at 12th Street cannot see that the curb goes around the comer to the diagonal ramp. There is no contrast between the edge ofthe curb and the concrete gutter and it appears that there is a ramp crossing the Bayfront connector. This curb should have a stripe painted along the top to alert pedestrian traffic to the curb and the missing ramp.
B. The ramp on the southwest comer facing east was installed in 2005.
9.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1 Filed 03/28/06 Page 10 of 20 Case 1:05-mc-02025 Document 136-1 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 10 of 20
The north facing ramp was installed slightly earlier. C. There is no level landing at the top ofthese ramps (Slopes of7.3%
X 3.3%). D. There is a ramped sidewalk between the two ramps with running
slopes of 12.5% for over a 6 inch run. E. The ramps have no detectable warnings.
20. At the intersection ofBuffalo Road and Pennsylvania Avenue, Erie, PA, the asphalt pedestrian walkway runs along the southeast side of Pennsylvania, crosses Pennsylvania at Buffalo Road and turns down along the southwest side of Pennsylvania and goes under the overpass to join with the Bayfront Connector. The pedestrian walkway and two ramps crossing Pennsylvania Avenue at Buffalo Road were constructed in 2005. The ramp on the southeast comer is a diagonal ramp. It has a counter-slope of6% and a 1 inch lip at the bottom ofthe ramp, and no level landing (landing has slopes of8.2% by 2.4%). The ramp on the southwest comer is a diagonal ramp. It has a counter-slope of5.7% and a 112 inch lip at the bottom ofthe ramp, a cross-slope of 6.3% and no level landing (landing has slopes of 10.2% by 8. 7%).
A. The counter-slope at the top of the pedestrian walkway is 8.8%, making it extremely difficult to maneuver off the ramp and onto the walkway. The beginning section of the walkway has a running slope of as much as 14%.
B. The pedestrian walkway, from Buffalo Road down the hill to under the overpass, has a cross-slope up to 3.5%. Starting about 3 feet from the top ofthe ramp, the walkway has a running slope exceeding 5% for a minimum of 18 feet. The running slope
10.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1 Filed 03/28/06 Page 11 of 20 Case 1:05-mc-02025 Document 136-1 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 11 of 20
along this section is between 5% to 10%. C. The surface of the walkway is not smooth and has "waves" in it which
causes wheelchairs traveling over it to bounce and rock. D. The geography along this section of the walkway is controlled and was
deliberately built-up for its installation. There is an abundance of space available for building the walkway with room for switchbacks and gentler slopes.
21. The City ofErie does not replace ramps at resurfaced intersections where a city road touches a PennDOT road. If PennDOT fails to replace ramps when they resurface these intersections, old, non-compliant ramps are never replaced. The following are examples of this situation, which can be found throughout the City.
22. At the intersection of McClelland Avenue and Buffalo Road there are seven old, non-compliant ramps. Buffalo Road was resurfaced by PennDOT in 2004-2005. McClelland Avenue was resurfaced by the City in 2002 -2003. The City resurfacing runs past the ramps crossing McClelland Avenue on the northeast and northwest corners of the intersection and PennDOT resurfacing runs through the entire intersection.
A. The northwest corner has a diagonal ramp with a running slope of 18%, a cross-slope of9.7% and no level landing (landing has slopes of5.7% by 6.2%). This ramp should have been included in both the City resurfacing on McClelland Avenue and PennDOT resurfacing of Buffalo Road.
B. The northeast corner ramp facing west has a running slope of 14%, a 11.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1 Filed 03/28/06 Page 12 of 20 Case 1:05-mc-02025 Document 136-1 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 12 of 20
cross-slope of 4.4% and steeply flared sides (34%) and no level landing. This ramp should have been included in the City resurfacing of McClelland Avenue.
C. The northeast comer ramp facing south has a 1 inch lip, steeply flared sides (20%) and no level landing. There is a bench for a bus stop at the top ofthe ramp where the level landing should be. This ramp should have been included in PennDOT resurfacing of Buffalo Road.
D. The southeast comer ramp facing north has a running slope of9.2%. This ramp should have been included in PennDOT resurfacing of Buffalo Road.
E. The southwest comer ramp facing north has a running slope of 13.5% and no level landing. This ramp should have been included in PennDOT resurfacing of Buffalo Road.
23. The City of Erie resurfaced Pennsylvania Avenue in 2005 and replaced the ramps along the resurfaced stretch until the intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and 26th Street. 26th Street is a PennDOT street. Two old, non-compliant ramps were left untouched even though the resurfacing runs into the intersection and includes the ramps.
A. The southwest comer ramp facing east has a running slope of9.6% and no level landing (landing has slopes of3.5% by 3.3%).
B. The southeast comer ramp facing west has a running slope of9.1 %, steeply flared sides (20%) and no level landing (landing has slopes of 4.1% by 4.2%).
24. PennDOT resurfaced Buffalo Road from Broad Street (Rt. 20) to the City
12.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1 Filed 03/28/06 Page 13 of 20
Case 1:05-mc-02025 Document 136-1 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 13 of 20
line. It did not install a single ramp along this stretch. A majority of these intersections have noncompliant ramps or are lacking ramps entirely. When the City of Erie resurfaces any of the streets touching Buffalo Road, it will also refuse to install curb ramps at these intersections, turning Buffalo Road into a permanent roadblock for anyone traveling in a wheelchair.
25. In Meadville, during year 2005, PennDOT resurfaced Chestnut at Main (Diamond Park) heading North. The intersections of Chestnut with North Main, Liberty and Grove each contain defective ramps that are not accessible to readily usable by Plaintiffs and similarly situated class members.
26. During years 2004-05, PennDOT rebuilt 38th Street in Erie from Peach Street to Glendale Avenue, including the adjacent sidewalks, near the Erie Zoo. The sidewalks have cross slopes exceeding 2%, and the curb cuts have cross slopes exceeding 2% and running slopes exceeding 8.33%, they lack level landings, and the entire project is not accessible to and readily usable by Plaintiffs and similarly situated class members.
27. Upon information and belief, these violations are examples of many similar violations committed by PennDOT in Erie, Meadville and their surrounding areas during years 1992 through present.
VI. CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: CLASS-WIDE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLAIM UNDER
13.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1 Filed 03/28/06 Page 14 of 20 Case 1:05-mc-02025 Document 136-1 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 14 of 20
TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
28. Plaintiffs bring this count under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) for class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief.
29. Title II of the ADA provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Title II ofthe ADA defines PennDOT as a "public entity." 42
u.s.c. § 12131(1).
30. One form of prohibited discrimination is the exclusion from a public entity's services, programs, or activities because of the inaccessibility of the entity's facility. The United States Department of Justice has issued binding program accessibility regulations that Plaintiffs now seek to enforce.
31. The Title II ADA access requirements are set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 149 (the general prohibition against discrimination); 28 C.F.R. § 150 (requiring accessibility offacilities existing prior to January 26, 1992, the effective date of Title II); and, 28 C.F.R. § 151 (requiring that facilities newly constructed or altered after January 26, 1992 be fully accessible).
32. Section 28 C.F.R. § 150(a) requires PennDOT to "operate each service, 14.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1 Filed 03/28/06 Page 15 of 20
Case 1:05-mc-02025 Document 136-1 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 15 of 20
program, or activity, (so) when viewed in its entirety, (it) is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. "The phrase 'services, programs, or activities' encompasses virtually everything that a public entity does." Johnson v. City of Saline, 151 F.3d 564, 569 (6'h Cir.l998).
33. Beginning in at least 1992, and continuing up to the present, PennDOT has engaged in a continuing pattern and practice of over-arching discrimination against Plaintiffs and class members by operating several of its services, programs, or activities which, when viewed in their entirety, are not readily accessible to and usable by Plaintiffs and other class members with disabilities. These services, programs, or activities include, among others, Erie, Meadville and surrounding areas' sidewalks, curb-ramps, and walkways.
34. In addition, Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act requires that when a public entity builds or alters any part of a facility after January 26, 1992, it shall to the maximum extent possible, be altered so that it is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12146 & 12147; 28 C.P.R. § 35.15l(a) & (b). Compliance with federal building and design standards provides a safe harbor to public entities, 28 C.F.R. § 35.151 (c).
35. Beginning January 26, 1992, and each year continuing to the present, PennDOT has constructed new services, programs or activities or altered parts of services, programs or activities in Erie, Meadville and surrounding areas, but has failed to ensure that those services, programs or activities are readily accessible to and usable by Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons with disabilities. For example, PennDOT has:
15.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1 Filed 03/28/06 Page 16 of 20 Case 1:05-mc-02025 Document 136-1 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 16 of 20
A. Resurfaced intersections and/or rebuilt sidewalks after 1992, without installing curb ramps that meet federal standards;
B. Installed after 1992, sidewalks and curb ramps that violate federal standards; and,
C. Operated after 1992, recreational or other services, programs or activities that are not accessible to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, including, but not limited to, intersections, cross-walk controls and detectable warnings.
36. The failures by PennDOT has made each of these existing and or newly altered services, programs or activities not readily accessible and usable by Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. By their actions complained of herein, PennDOT has intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs and class members due to their disabilities. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief ordering PennDOT to bring these and future services, programs or activities into compliance, and to pay attorneys fees and costs.
16.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1 Filed 03/28/06 Page 17 of 20 Case 1:05-mc-02025 Document 136-1 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 17 of 20
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: CLASS-WIDE CLAIM UNDER THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973
37. Plaintiffs bring this count for class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief. The Rehabilitation Act requires that-"[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability...shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal fmancial assistance." 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Upon information and belief, PennDOT receives Federal financial assistance. The Rehabilitation Act defines "program or activity" as "all of the operations of' a qualifying local government. 29 U.S.C. § 794(B)(1)(A).
38. Beginning with the effective date ofthe Rehabilitation Act, and continuing each year to the present, PennDOT has received federal money but has engaged in a continuing pattern and practice of over-arching discrimination against Plaintiffs and class members by denying the benefits of, or subjecting them to discrimination under several programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance. Among other things, PennDOT has:
A. Resurfaced intersections and/or rebuilt sidewalks after 1974, without installing curb ramps that meet federal standards;
B. Installed after 1973, sidewalks and curb ramps that violate federal standards; and,
17.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1 Filed 03/28/06 Page 18 of 20 Case 1:05-mc-02025 Document 136-1 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 18 of 20
C. Operated after 1973, recreational or other services, programs or activities that are not accessible to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, including, but not limited to, intersections, cross-walk controls and detectable warnings and walkways.
39. Each of these failures by PennDOT has made each of these programs or activities not readily accessible and usable by and others similarly situated. By their actions complained of herein, PennDOT has intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs and class members due to their disabilities. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief ordering PennDOT to bring these services, programs or activities into compliance, and attorneys fees and costs.
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff class seeks judgment against PennDOT as follows: 1. That the Court declare the rights and duties ofthe parties consistent
with the relief sought by Plaintiffs; 2. That Defendant, its agents, employees and all persons in concert or
participation with any of them be permanently enjoined from: a. Discriminating against persons with disabilities in the
construction, resurfacing, and maintenance of roadways and sidewalks; and b. Refusing or failing to comply with the requirements of the ADA
and the Rehabilitation Act and their implementing regulations;
18.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1 Filed 03/28/06 Page 19 of 20 Case 1:05-mc-02025 Document 136-1 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 19 of 20

3. That Defendant establish and implement an effective plan to insure, retrospectively and prospectively, that all construction, resurfacing, and maintenance of roadways and sidewalks--including but not limited to the installation of curb ramps or other sloped areas at all intersections of streets and/or pedestrian walkways--that has occurred any time after January, 1992 complies with the ADA and its implementing regulations;
4. That Defendant submit to the Court and class counsel periodic reports on implementation of the plan referenced immediately above;
5. That Plaintiffs recover an award of their reasonable attorneys fees, costs, and expenses.

require.

Plaintiffs further pray for such additional relief as the interests ofjustice may

Respectfully submitted,
HEBERLE & FINNEGAN
By /s/ J. Mark Finnegan
J. Mark Finnegan, Esquire
2580 Craig Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 (734) 302-3233

19.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1 Filed 03/28/06 Page 20 of 20
Case 1:05-mc-02025 Document 136-1 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 20 of 20 ELDERKIN, MARTIN, KELLY & MESSINA By /s/ Craig A. Markham Craig A. Markham, Esquire 150 East Eighth Street Erie, Pennsylvania 16501 (814) 456-4000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
20.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1-1 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 2

.&;.~U ~ - - · _ _. "'-' '-' '

...:J.U.I!J.I!J

c_p.. 06 - 7 ~ c

The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the infonnalion contain,r::(l~herein uttidlqr.-rePlaceiDWO'rf~t5mvOt!laJflng ~ic'"b 6li'Pfeadings or other papers as rec l·i!.w, except as providQd~\gal~~O;:Q)i{):Mlis foi;HQ~~dlb)'th'e Judit:i&rcDn'Terence Of1he United States in Sep~ember 1974, is required fort t~ie Clerk of Court for !"l{l"J)urpose oftmtiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
Voices for Independence, et al.

DEFENDANTS
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

(b) County of Residence of First Usted Plaintiff (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

County of Residence of First Us ted (IN U.S. PlAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF TI LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorney's (Finn Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Elderkin, Martin, Kelly & Messina 150 East Eightp Street Erie, PA 16501 (814) 456-4000
Jl. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

0

U.S. Government

Plaintiff

Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)

Attorneys (If.Known)

III. CITIZENSffiP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Piacc an wX" in One Boxfor

(For Diversity Cases Only)

aDd One Bo~ for Defend1

DEF

Citizen of This State

0

0 1 Incorporated or Prineipal Place:: 0 4

of Business In This State

0 2 U.S. Government Defendant

0 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Itemfll)

IV. NATUREOFSUIT (}'lace an "X" in One Box Onlvl

CONTRACT

TORTS

Citizen of Another State 0 2 0 2 Incorporated ond Principal

0 5

of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 0 3 0 3 Foreigrt Nation
re'

0 6

FORFEITVRI/PENALTY

BANKRUPTCY

OTHERSTATIITES

0 II 0 ln5urancc

PERSONAL JNJURY

PERSONALINJVRV D 610 Agriculture

D 42.2 Appeal 28 USC 158 0 400 Slate Reapportionment

D 120 Marine

0 310 Airplane

0 362 Personal Injury- 0 620 Other Food &: Drug

0 410Anlicrust

0 130 Miller Act

0 JIS Airplane Product

Med. Malpractice 0 625 Drug Related Seizure 0 423 Withdrawal

0 430 Buies and Banking

D 140 Negotiable lnstnament

Liability

D 365 Pcmnul Injury-

of Property 21 USC 88

28 usc 151

0 450 Commm:ell'CC Rateslc

0 I SO Recovery of Overpayment 0 320 Assault, Libel &

Producll.lability 0 630 Liquor Laws

0 460 Deportation

& Enforcement e>fJudgment

Slander

0 368 Asbestos Personal 0 640 R.R. &: Truck

PROPERTY RIGHTS

0 470 R.aclccteer lnfluenccd an

0 IS I Medicare Act 0 I 52 R""vcry uf D~tiulted
Student Loans
(Excl. Yetenm)

0 330 Federal Employers' l.lability
0 340 Marine 0 345 Marine Product

Injury Product

D

Liability

0

PERSONAL PROPERTY

0 370 Other Fraud

0

650 Airline Regs. 660 Occupational
Safety/Health 690 Other

0 820 Copyrights 0 830 Patent 0 840 Trademark

Corrupt Organizations 0 810 Selective Service 0 850 Securities/Commodities/
E.lf.chanp

!J I 53 Rcc::ovcry of Overpayment

l.lability

ofVeteran's Benefits

0 350 Motor Vehicle

0 371 Truth in Lending 0 380 Other Personal

LABOR

SOCIAL SECUR.ITV

0 875 Customer Challen~:e 12 USC34!0

J
:J
J
I I
I

I 60 Stockholders' Suits

0 355 Motor Vehicle

l'Topcr\y Damage

I 90 Other Contract

Product Uability

0 385 PropcJ1y Damage

I95 Contract Product liability 0 360 Other Personal Injury

Product l.lability

REAL PROPERTY

CIVIL RIGHTS

PRISONER PETITIONS

210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product uability 290 All Other Real PropeJ1y

0 441 Voting

0 442 Employment

0 443 Housing/

Accommodations

~0 44044

Welfare Other Civil

Rights

0 510 Motions 10 Vacate
Sentence Habeas Cmpus: 0 530 General 0 535 Death Penalty 0 540 Mandamus A Olhor D 550 Civil Rights D SSS Prison CoPdition

0 0 0
0 0 D

710 Fair Lober Standards 0

Act

Cl

720 l.abor/Mgmt Relations 0

0

730 Labor/MgmtRc:porting 0

861 HJA (!395ft) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DTWCIDIWW (405(g) 864 SSID Title XVl 865 RSI (405(g))

0 0 0
0 0

89 I Agricultural Aelll 892 &onomic St.abilization A
893 Environmental. Matters 894 Energy AUocalion Act 895 Freedom of
lnfonnation Act

&: Disclosure Act 740 Railway Labor Act

FEDERAL TAX SUITS

0 900Appeal of Fcc
De!cmlination Under

Equal Access to Justice

790 Other Labor Litigation

Cl

870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant)

0 950 Constitutionality of

791 Empl. Ret Inc. Security Act

0 871 IR&--Third Party 26USC7609

State Statutes 0 890 Other StJtulory Actions

.ORIGIN

(PLACE AN "X'' IN ONE BOX ONLY)

K 1 Original 0 Proceeding

2

Rc:moved from State Court

0 3 Remanded from Appel1ate Court

0 4 oRreinstated

0

5 Transferred from another district

Reopened

fspc:ciM

[. CAUSE OF ACTION

(Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you ate filing and write brief ~tatement of cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unles.s diversity.)

fif'VII::J'Z, 1(/lrv:J

0 6 Multidistrict

0

Appeal to District 7 Judge from

Litigation

Magistrate

Judgment

J. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
U. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND S UNDER F.RC.P. 23
(See instructions): JUDGE /I/\( l-f>rt16.ht:.t r-

CHECK YES only if demanded inc mplaint:

JliRY DEMAND:

CJ Yes

DOCKET NUMBER

'E
3-28-06
OFFICE USE ONLY
AMOUNT ____________ ;;CE!PT N - - - - -

runGE ____________ MAG.ruDGE __________________

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1-1 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 2

case 1:05-mc-02025 Document 136 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 2 of 2

JS44A

REVISED OcroBER. 1993

IN THE VNmD STATES DJSTJUcr COURT FOR11IE WISTER.N DISTIUcr OFPENNSYLVANIA

nBS CASE DESIGNATION SHEET MUST BE COMPLETED

PA.RTA

,V.

.

.

This calle belaap oa the ';A- Erio_ _ JohnsunvD---.:... PlltSburp) calendar. ·

I. ERIE c.u.ENDAR •lrRIIIII of:acdcm uose ia the COUDdcs ofC'mYford, .EIJc. Erie. Foresr., McKean. Veaan&a
or Wurea, ORm plaiDdff'or dc!mdut: resiclcs in one ofsaid couada.

2. JOHNSTOWN CALENDAK·llause ofactioa arose ill dlo couadcs ofBcdton:f. Blair, Qmbria, Clearfield or

pt 3.

Somerset, Complc:br

~OaRaallpUlaEiDCAdLffEoNrdDeAfcRll:dJaacterretisfYldtabainl ~oaCeIoUlsHaloafKCOifUaDqd,lers'O. SI

Ja

@

,f

1

i t:jt./i!Al.JF;r c/CoUDI)' llld

thd tbe g '"~i-fft redd.es in fflt f[f_~ M COmley.

4. Complete flea JOHNSTOWN CALENDAR:,!~ that tbe cause ofiCdoa arose u. _ _ _ _ _ __

Couaty md dJJIIfle

resides in

' Coamty.

PAR~ (You are co chcct ONE o(dut foUowiDJ) ID:).- dO?>

l.

nus cuds nJated co Number 0 Lf-- :?G). g JlldiC

bv\

.
'bet

~

c J\

•
I'""

2. _This cas. fs aoc rellted ~ 1 pendiDI or ramioalcd case.

DEFINITlONS OF RELATED CASES:

CIVIL: ClvU cases 1111 cleemed rc1lted wbca • c:asa flied relates 10 propeny iacludcd Ia aaodlcrsuit. or involves the

same issues of"fJa,. & pow~ out ofdie ume lnDSacdaas u anothersuit. or involves tbe va1idicy or ia1iia&c:mcm

ofa pau:m IDYOIYed Ia modlermfr.

EM:INENT DOMAJN: Cases fD COZidpous closely Jocaed &raUJIS and b cammoa owacnhlp srou.,. which wfll

lead thclaucha to CCIIIIOI.Idakll i«uial aba1l be deemed nlated.

.

RABJI:AS CORPUS A ClVILRIGHTS: AU habeas C01J1US petitioas Wed by the same iDdivfdaaJ abaU bet deemed

· rclccd. AU pru a CJvD RJpu ICdau byme ame illcllvidual lhal1 be dallied nlaed.

PARTC J. CIVIL CA.TEGORY (Place x fa only appUcable cate;ory).
1. ( ) AntiUusc uu:l Secarides Act CUes 2. ( ) Lahcr-Mmqcmeac Relations
3. c ) fJibca Colpus
4. ~ Civil JU&Idl
$. ( ) Pmaf. Copyrisbt,JIIId Tradcawi:
6. ( ) fmlnmtDamaia
7. ( ) AU other federal quesdon cases 8, ( ) AD pcnomiiDd prapcny damqe~cncucs, includlq DWitime, fELA. JODeS Act. Motor vehfdc,
ptoctucr:a Uabllily, U11111t, defm•tjon, maUcfous pr cn :ntion, llld liJso arrcu.
"9. ( ) IDS&iaiDCG IDdcmDJiy, CODU"Iet. and ~tber divenlty CUCL
10. ( ) CJovam:uat CoUccdoa Casa (shall Include HEW SIUdentLoau (Educatioa), VA Ovapaymcat,
0\ api)'IDCIIC ofSocial Security, EnUstmc:at 0\upa)IDCill(Aimy, Navy, de.). HUD 1.oaas. GAO
.1..D1m (Misc. T)'Jim), Mangqe FORCIDNra, S.S.A. Locu, ClvD Pcaalties IIDd Coal Mille PaWty IDd Jec'em•tfon Fees.)

NOTE: ALL SECTIONS OF DOm SIDES MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE CASE CAN BE PROCESSED.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1-2 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 4 AO 440 !Rev. sts£asarriirQ5rilUGi~ Document 136-2 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 1 of 4
~nii£tt ~tat£s ~istrirt @our±
__________WE_S_T_E__ RN _ _ _ _ DJSTRICT OF _ _ _P_E_N_N_S_Y_L_V__AN_I_A_ _ _ _ _ _ __

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, et al.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

v.

CASE NUMBER:

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al.

C J1

TO: ~Name and Address ol Delendanl)
Allen D. Biehler, P.E., Secretary ·of Transporation of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 555 Walnut Street 9th Floor, Forum Place. Harrisburg, PA 17120

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to file with the Clerk of this Court and serve upon

PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY (name and address)

Craig_ A. Markham,. Esquire 150 East Eighth Street Erie, PA 16501

an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within

~ 0

days after service of

this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fall to do so, judgment by default will be taken

against you for the relief demanded In the complaint.

CLERK BY DEPUTY CLERK

DATE

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1-2 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 4

Case 1:05-mc-02025

44o Ari

(Re~ 6/861 summons Jn a Civil Action

Document 136-2

Filed 03/28/2006

RETURN OF SERVICE

.Service of .the Summons and Complaint was made by mel

DAT.E.

NAME OF SERVER

TITLE

Page 2 of 4

Check one box below to indicate appropriate method of service

0 Served personally upon the defendant. Place where served :

0 Left copies thereof at the defendant's dwelling house or usual place of abode with a person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein. Name of person with whom the summons and complaint were left:

0 Returned unexecuted:

'

..

0 Other (specify):·

'.

TRAVEL

I STATEMENT OF SERVICE FEES SERVICES

!TOTAL

DECLARATION OF SERVER

,.

l declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information

c.ontained.

in

th.e

Retur.n.

of "S. erv.ice

and

Statement

of

S.ervic' e

Fees

is

t.

r '

u

e

and

co. rrec.t. .

..

''

Executed on
Datfl

Signature of Server

Address of Server

..
:
ll As to who may serve a summons see Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1-2 Filed 03/28/06 Page 3 of 4 AO 440 (Rev. 518~~~~,;}~11t<f..iiP~~ Document 136-2 Filed 03/28/2006 Page 3 of 4

~nit£a ~ta:t£s ~ istrirt Olourt

WESTERN

PENNSYLVANIA

-----------------DISTRICT OF-----------------

VOICES FOR INDEP~NDENCE, et·al.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

v.

CASE NUMBER: CJ.q 06 ~ 7 8 F

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al.

. TO: (Na1T111 and Add ran ol· Delendanl)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Office of Chief Counsel 555 Walnut Street 9th Floor, Forum Place. Harrisburg, PA 17120

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to file with the Clerk of this Court and serve upon

PIJ\INTIFF'S ATTORNEY (name and address)

Craig A. Markham, Esquire 150 East Eighth Street Erie, PA 16501

an answer to the complaint which Is herewith served upon you, within

~ 0

days after service of

this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fall to do so, judgment by default will be taken

against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

CLERK BY DEPUTY CLERK

DATE

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1-2 Filed 03/28/06 Page 4 of 4

Case 1:05-mc-02025 Document 136-2 Filed 03/28/2006

AO 440 {Rev 5/85) ·summons In a Civil Action

RETURN OF SERVICE

.Service of the Summons and Complaint was made by mel

DATE

NAME OF SERVER

TITLE

Page 4 of 4

Check one box below to indicate appropriate method of service

0 Ser\led personally upon the defendant. Place where served :

0 Left copies thereof at the defendant's dwelling house or usual place of abode with a person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein. Name of person with whom the summons and complaint were left:
0 Returned unexecuted:
..

0 Other (specify):·

. .

' .

TRAVEL

STATEMENT OF SERVICE FEES
,.SERVICES
DECLARATION OF SERVER

'TOTAL

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information

t:;ontained In the Return of'Service and Statement of $ervi.:;e Fees is true and. correct.

'

Executed on
Date

Signature of SetVer

Address of SetVer
:

1) As to who may serve a summons sea Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 1-3 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 1

-r _~;~ l TED S ~·-rE:::~
0 l :.::~ T ~~ J: C T C 0 U ~: T
~· ~~;::.~:::~ ,,,,:,:~
;'iar ch 28, 2~"\~6

5 t:-, \\rY\ F ~
R -e ~' f''~ o (.-;, -::)7 ~

 
 Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI),

) Civil Action No.: 1:06cv00078-SJM

MICHAEL L. EAKIN; JAY SHUFFSTALL;

)

CAROLYN A. CREHAN; KATHY A. HERTZOG;)

PAUL PECUNAS; SANDRA FULLER

)

HON. SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN

MARY ANN PARSNIK; PAT WEAVER;

)

FELICIA BONGIORNO; MELVIN BORREO )

STEPHEN CLARK; JILL HRINDA-PATTEN )

MARY D. KRUG; and B. LYNNE VESTAL, )

M.J. : PARADISE-BAXTER

on behalf of themselves and all others

)

similarly situated

)

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;

)

ALLEN D. BIEHLER, P.E., in his official

)

capacity as Secretary of Transportation of )

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, CITY OF )

ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA and CITY OF

)

MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA

)

FIRST AMENDED

)

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Defendants.

)

*******************************************************

First Amended Complaint

I. Preliminary Statement

1. The Cities of Erie and Meadville, Pennsylvania and their surrounding areas

are not accessible to and readily usable by their citizens with disabilities. Among other

things, Erie and Meadville’s sidewalks and intersections are not safe, and people using

wheelchairs for mobility must travel in the streets.

2. The Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

(hereinafter PennDOT), Erie and Meadville have spent federal and state taxpayer

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 2 of 20
dollars altering sidewalks and street intersections and certain other facilities in ways that violate federal accessibility building guidelines and standards. Because Defendants have failed to meet minimum accessibility standards, Plaintiffs and similarly situated class members with disabilities are denied access to Defendants’ services, programs or activities, and must risk serious injury attempting to traverse Erie, Meadville and surrounding areas, or while attempting to use the facilities.
3. Beginning in 1973, under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, (the Rehab Act) Congress required Defendants when receiving federal money to build or repair streets, sidewalks, bridges, buildings, parking lots, or any other service, program or activity, to meet detailed accessibility construction guidelines and standards codified in the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards. Later, in 1990 with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), Congress strengthened the law, ordering public entities, including Defendants, to meet these same detailed disability accessibility construction guidelines, even when Defendants did not use federal money to build or repair its streets, sidewalks, bridges, buildings, parking lots, or any other services, programs or activities. Both the ADA and Rehab Act also contain provisions requiring cities to make modifications in their services, programs and activities to make them readily accessible.
4. Defendants have acted with deliberate and callous disregard of federal law, and has consistently failed to ensure that newly constructed, reconstructed and existing sidewalks, intersections and certain other facilities are built to meet required minimum accessibility guidelines and standards.
2.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 3 of 20
5. Defendants have engaged in a continuing pattern and practice of overarching discrimination against Plaintiffs and class members beginning at least in January 1992 and continuing to the present.
6. Plaintiffs file this class action lawsuit to seek court intervention to force Defendants to live up to its federally mandated duties to ensure accessibility to their citizens with disabilities. Plaintiffs each live in Erie, Meadville or surrounding areas, and use services offered in there.
7. Plaintiffs ask the court to order Defendants to retrofit their intersections and sidewalks to make them readily usable and safe for people with disabilities. Plaintiffs also ask the court to order Defendants to put into place a detailed system to ensure that they comply with all federal law in the future so that the new construction and repairs will ensure mandated access for people with disabilities.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3). 9. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because each Defendatn is located in the Western District and the events and/or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the District.
III. PARTIES 10. Plaintiff, Voices for Independence (VFI), is a membership organization which advocates to increase opportunities for independent living for persons with disabilities. It serves people with disabilities throughout Pennsylvania, including Erie, Meadville and surrounding areas in Pennsylvania. VFI’s mission is to promote access and inclusion of
3.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 4 of 20
persons with disabilities into housing, employment and recreation. Defendants’ failure to properly install curb ramps during resurfacing of streets and alteration of sidewalks frustrates VFI’s mission and purposes. VFI has diverted significant resources documenting violations by Defendants and in attempting to correct those illegal patterns of conduct.
11. Each named individual Plaintiff lives in and/or travels through Erie, Meadville, or surrounding areas of Pennsylvania. Each cannot ambulate without wheelchairs or other assistive devices, and some have sight impairments that require the use of detectible warnings. Each named individual Plaintiff is a person with a disability under the ADA and the Rehab Act.
12. Defendants PennDOT, City of Erie and City of Meadville are each public entities as that term is defined under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(l); 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. Defendant Allen D. Biehler, P.E., has been the Secretary of Transportation for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania since year 2003. He has ultimate decision and policy making authority over the matters at issue in this lawsuit.
IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 13. In Counts I and II, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b)(2), Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a class of all persons with mobility or sight impairment disabilities as defined by the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 and the Americans With Disabilities Act, who have used in the past, or will attempt to use in the future, the facilities, services, programs in the cities of Erie and Meadville and surrounding areas, that have been built, rebuilt or altered by PennDOT after January 26, 1992, the effective
4.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 5 of 20
date of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief only, but not damages, on behalf of themselves and the class.
A. The class is so numerous that joinder of the individual members would be impracticable. Several hundred people who must rely on ambulatory devices such as wheelchairs, scooters, canes or walkers reside in Erie, Meadville or adjacent areas. Additionally, many nonresidents who must rely on ambulatory devices such as wheelchairs or scooters travel in those areas to go to work, to patronize businesses or to visit family and friends. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated will travel in those more often when Defendants comply with the ADA and Rehabilitation Act and make those area’s streets and sidewalks fully accessible to persons with disabilities.
B. The named Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives because they are directly impacted by Defendants’ failure to properly install, repair or adequately maintain curb ramps. The interests of the named Plaintiffs are not antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the interests of the class as a whole. The attorneys representing the class are experienced in representing clients in class actions involving civil rights claims, including enforcement of the ADA, and other federal claims.
5.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 6 of 20
C. Common questions of law and fact predominate, including questions posed by Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants have failed to properly install, repair or adequately maintain curb ramps.
D. Claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class because all class members and the named Plaintiffs are affected by Defendants’ failure to properly install, repair or adequately maintain curb ramps.
E. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
F. Notice of the pendency of this class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) is not required. It is contemplated that notice of any proposed dismissal or settlement shall be given to all members of the class in such manner as the Court directs pursuant to Rule 23(e). V. FACTS
14. For at least the last 28 years, and continuing in to the present, Defendants have engaged in a pattern of operating or building new services, programs and/or altering existing services, programs without making those programs or services accessible to Plaintiffs and class members.
15. The individually named Plaintiffs and the persons employed by or served by VFI can not currently ambulate or travel safely on Erie, Meadville and surrounding streets or sidewalks without ADA-compliant curb ramps because each uses a
6.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 7 of 20
wheelchair or scooter. They must travel on streets or sidewalks installed or resurfaced by PennDOT since January 26, 1992 that contain no curb ramps, or contain curb ramps that are not accessible to persons with mobility impairments due to their improper design or maintenance.
16. In each year beginning January 26, 1992 and continuing to the present, Defendants have resurfaced city streets and altered or constructed sidewalks while failing either to install curb ramps necessary for persons using mobility devices to travel continuously along the sidewalks or constructing such ramps improperly. When the named Plaintiffs attempt to cross many of the streets in these areas, they are forced to enter the stream of traffic and travel along the curb until they can locate a private driveway or other private business to re-enter the sidewalk.
17. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants routinely either fail to install curb ramps when resurfacing, altering, or installing streets and sidewalks or construct any such ramps improperly. Therefore, Plaintiffs allege, upon information and belief, many recently resurfaced roads and sidewalks in the relevant areas lack curb cuts required by law, or contain improperly installed curb cuts which fail to meet the minimum design standards under federal law. These standards require each ramp to be built with the least possible slope, and do not allow a direct running slope of more than 8.3%, a cross-slope of more than 2%, and require a level landing at the top of the ramp with slopes of no more than 2%. The transitions from ramps to walks, gutters, or streets must be flush and free of abrupt changes. Some examples of non-compliant ramps are set out below. These are only example of many other virtually identical violations of law throughout Defendants’ jurisdictions.
7.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 8 of 20
18. The Bayfront Connector was reconstructed entirely by Defendant PennDOT in 2005. In this project, PennDOT completely rebuilt the road and sidewalks along both sides of the road. This reconstruction went into the intersection at Bayfront Connector and 12th Street. There are 2 ramps at the southeast and southwest corners that were installed in 2005.
A. The southeast corner has one new diagonal ramp. The cross-slope is 5.5%
B. The sidewalk running along the east side of Bayfront Connector runs directly into the flared side of the ramp which has a running slope of 18.1% for over a 6 inch run. One of the Plaintiffs in this case fell out of her wheelchair as that Plaintiff attempted to cross this curb cuts excessive flared side.
C. The pedestrian crossing buttons at this corner are 51 inches high. The button for crossing 12th Street is placed at the back of the pole. There is no sidewalk behind the pole and the button hangs over a steep cliff. People in wheelchairs (and many other pedestrians, including children) are not able to reach this button at all. Most wheelchair users are also unable to reach the other button for crossing the Bayside Connector that is placed too high on the pole.
D. There is a steep drop-off along the east edge of the sidewalk along the Bayfront Connector. Pedestrians are protected from the dropoff by a fence which runs along the sidewalk to the corner of the Bayfront Connector and East 12th Street. However, the fence ends
8.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 9 of 20
just before the pole with the crossing buttons. There is no fence around the pole or around the southern and eastern edges of the ramp landing. Anyone trying to use the buttons or maneuver a wheelchair at the top of the ramp risks falling over the steep dropoff onto the broken rocks that have been placed there by Defendants and their agents. 19. The sidewalk on the east side of the Bayfront Connector just south of this curb ramp has a direct slope of 17.2% for over a 16 inch run. As the sidewalk continues south across the over-pass, there are a series of gutters crossing the sidewalk that stop wheelchairs when their front wheels fall into the trenches. These gutters cannot be avoided and make the sidewalks not accessible to nor readily usable by Plaintiffs and similarly situated class members. A. On the street adjacent side of this sidewalk, a pedestrian approaching the corner at 12th Street cannot see that the curb goes around the corner to the diagonal ramp. There is no contrast between the edge of the curb and the concrete gutter and it appears that there is a ramp crossing the Bayfront Connector. This curb should have a stripe painted along the top to alert pedestrian traffic to the curb and the missing ramp. B. The ramp on the southwest corner facing east was installed in 2005. The north facing ramp was installed slightly earlier. • There is no level landing at the top of these ramps ( Slopes of 7.3% X 3.3%).
9.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 10 of 20
• There is a ramped sidewalk between the two ramps with running slopes of 12.5% for over a 6 inch run.
• The ramps have no detectable warnings. 20. Recently, PennDOT resurfaced Buffalo Road in the City of Erie. The
sidewalks were not modified as a part of this project. During the time period from 1992 through present, Erie has resurfaced virtually every street that intersects with Buffalo Road. Thus, if Erie had properly installed ramps while resurfacing the streets intersecting Buffalo Road, and PennDOT had installed proper ramps while resurfacing Buffalo Road, all intersections would now be fully accessible to Plaintiffs. Unfortunately, both Erie and PennDOT failed to act properly, and now the intersections and sidewalks along Buffalo Road are not accessible to Plaintiffs. As an example, at the intersection of Buffalo Road and Pennsylvania Avenue, the sidewalk runs along the southeast side of Pennsylvania, crosses Pennsylvania at Buffalo Road and turns down along the southwest side of Pennsylvania and goes under the overpass to join with the Bayfront Connector. The pedestrian walkway and two ramps crossing Pennsylvania at Buffalo Road were constructed in 2005. The ramp on the southeast corner is a diagonal ramp. It has a counter-slope of 6% and a 1 inch lip at the bottom of the ramp, and no level landing (8.2% X 2.4%).The ramp on the southwest corner is a diagonal ramp. It has a counter-slope of 5.7% and a ½ inch lip at the bottom of the ramp, a cross-slope of 6.3% and no level landing (10.2% X 8.7%).
A. The counter-slope at the top of the pedestrian walkway is 8.8%, making it extremely difficult to maneuver off the ramp and onto the
10.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 11 of 20
walkway. The beginning section of the walkway has a running slope of as much as 14%. B. The pedestrian walkway, from Buffalo Road down the hill to under the overpass, has a cross-slope up to 3.5%. Starting about 3 feet from the top of the ramp, the walkway has a running slope exceeding 5% for a minimum of 18 feet. The running slope along this section is between 5% to 10%. C. The walkway is not smooth and has “waves” in it which causes wheelchairs traveling over it bounce and rock. D. The geography along this section of the walkway is controlled and was deliberately built-up for its installation. There is an abundance of space available for building the walkway with room for switchbacks and gentler slopes. 21. As a continuing policy, when the Cities of Erie and Meadville resurface a street that intersects with a PennDOT street, Erie and Meadville refuse to replace defective (or non-existent) curb ramps where the resurfaced Erie or Meadville street meets the PennDOT street. Thus, hundreds of these old, non-compliant ramps are replaced by neither by Erie or Meadville nor by PennDOT, no matter how many times either or both of the intersecting streets are resurfaced. The following are examples of this situation, which exists throughout the Cities of Erie and Meadville: 22. At the intersection of McClelland Road (an Erie street) and Buffalo Road (a PennDOT street in Erie) there are seven old, non-compliant ramps. Buffalo Road was resurfaced by PennDOT in 2004-2005. McClelland Road was resurfaced by the City of
11.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 12 of 20
Erie in 2002 -2003. The City resurfacing runs past the ramps crossing McClelland Road on the northeast and northwest corners of the intersection with Buffalo Road and PennDOT’s resurfacing runs through the entire intersection. Thus, either Erie, PennDOT, or both, should have corrected all of the defective curb ramps at this intersection while resurfacing the two intersecting streets. But both Defendants failed to act. As a result:
A. The northwest corner of the intersection has a diagonal ramp with a running slope of 18%, a cross-slope of 9.7% and no level landing (5.7 X 6.2). This ramp should have been included in both the City resurfacing on McClelland Road and PennDOT resurfacing on Buffalo Road.
B. The northeast corner ramp facing west has a running slope of 14%, a cross-slope of 4.4% and steeply flared sides (34%) and no level landing. This ramp should have been included in the City resurfacing of McClelland Road.
C. The northeast corner ramp facing south has a 1 inch lip, steeply flared sides (20%) and no level landing. There is a bench for a bus stop at the top of the ramp where the level landing should be. This ramp should have been included in PennDOT resurfacing of Buffalo Road.
D. The southeast corner ramp facing north has a running slope of 9.2%. This ramp should have been included in PennDOT resurfacing of Buffalo Road.
12.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 13 of 20
E. The southwest corner ramp facing north has a running slope of 13.5% and no level landing. This ramp should have been included in PennDOT resurfacing of Buffalo Road.
23. The City of Erie resurfaced Pennsylvania Avenue in 2005 and replaced the ramps along the resurfaced stretch until the intersection of Pennsylvania Ave. and East 26th Street. East 26th Street is a PennDOT street. Because East 26th Street is a PennDOT Street, Erie failed to act and left in place two old, non-compliant ramps, even though the Erie’s resurfacing continued past the defective curb ramps into the intersection and included all of the street asphalt completely surrounding the two old defective ramps.
A. The southwest corner ramp facing east has a running slope of 9.6% and no level landing (3.5% X 3.3%).
B. The southeast corner ramp facing west has a running slope of 9.1%, steeply flared sides (20%) and no level landing (4.1% X 4.2%).
24. PennDOT in year 2005 resurfaced Buffalo Road in Erie from Broad Street (Rt. 20) to the Erie City line. But PennDOT left in place numerous defective curb ramps along this stretch. A majority of these intersections have non-compliant ramps or are lacking ramps entirely. Meanwhile, Erie has resurfaced every City street intersecting this resurfaced stretch of Buffalo Road. At each sidewalk where this City of Erie resurfacing touched Buffalo Road, Erie refused to install curb ramps at these intersections, turning Buffalo Road into a permanent roadblock for anyone traveling in a wheelchair.
13.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 14 of 20
25. Defendants Meadville and PennDOT act exactly in the same way. In Meadville, during year 2005, PennDOT resurfaced Chestnut St. (a PennDOT street) from at Main Street(Diamond Park) through Grove Street (all Meadville streets). Both PennDOT and Meadville left defective curb ramps in place at each of these intersections, although Defendants have resurfaced all of these intersections very recently. The intersections of Chestnut St. with North Main, Liberty and Grove Streets each contain defective ramps that are not accessible to readily usable by Plaintiffs and similarly situated class members. Defendants are repeating this pattern in year 2006, as PennDOT is resurfacing Park Street all across downtown Meadville. Because of this practice by Defendants, over one-half of the curb ramps in Meadville are defective, and there are no plans to correct these defective ramps during resurfacing during the next twenty years.
26. This is just the tip of the iceberg. For example, during years 2004-05, PennDOT rebuilt 38th Street in Erie from Peach Street to Glendale, including the adjacent sidewalks, near the Erie Zoo. The sidewalks have cross slopes exceeding 2%, and the curb cuts have cross slopes exceeding 2% and running slopes exceeding 8.33%, lack level landings, and the entire project is not accessible to and readily usable by Plaintiffs and similarly situated class members. Neither Erie nor PennDOT plan to correct these numerous defects, and Plaintiffs and class members are denied access to these brand new sidewalks, the zoo and other adjacent facilities.
27. Upon information and belief, these violations are examples of many similar violations committed by PennDOT in Erie, Meadville and their surrounding areas during
14.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 15 of 20
years 1992 through present. Plaintiffs now seek injunctive relief to correct these and all other similar inaccessible facilities as soon as possible.
VI. CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: CLASS-WIDE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLAIM
UNDER TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 28. Plaintiffs bring this count under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) for class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief. 29. Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Title II of the ADA defines each Defendant as a “public entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1). 30. One form of prohibited discrimination is the exclusion from a public entity’s services, programs, or activities because of the inaccessibility of the entity’s facility. The United States Department of Justice has issued binding program accessibility regulations that Plaintiffs now seek to enforce. 31. The Title II ADA access requirements are set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 149 (the general prohibition against discrimination); 28 C.F.R. § 150 (requiring accessibility of facilities existing prior to January 26, 1992, the effective date of Title II); and, 28 C.F.R. § 151 (requiring that facilities newly constructed or altered after January 26, 1992 be fully accessible). 32. Section 28 C.F.R. § 150(a) requires each Defendant to “operate each service, program, or activity, (so) when viewed in its entirety, (it) is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. “The phrase ‘services, programs, or
15.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 16 of 20
activities’ encompasses virtually everything that a public entity does.” Johnson v. City of Saline, 151 F.3d 564, 569 (6th Cir.1998).
33. Beginning in at least 1992, and continuing up to the present, each Defendant has engaged in a continuing pattern and practice of over-arching discrimination against Plaintiffs and class members by operating several of its services, programs, or activities which, when viewed in their entirety, are not readily accessible to and usable by Plaintiffs and other class members with disabilities. These services, programs, or activities include, among others, Erie, Meadville and surrounding areas’ sidewalks, curbramps, and walkways.
34. In addition, Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act requires that when a public entity builds or alters any part of a facility after January 26, 1992, it shall to the maximum extent possible, be altered so that it is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12146 & 12147; 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(a) & (b). Each of the sidewalks and intersections at issue in this lawsuit has been “altered” “by, on behalf of, or for the use” of each of the Defendants”. Id. Compliance with federal building and design standards provides a safe harbor to public entities, 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(c).
35. Beginning January 26, 1992, and each year continuing to the present, each Defendant has constructed new services, programs or activities or altered parts of services, programs or activities in Erie, Meadville and surrounding areas, but has failed to ensure that those services, programs or activities are readily accessible to and usable by Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons with disabilities. For example, PennDOT has:
16.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 17 of 20
A. Resurfaced intersections and/or rebuilt sidewalks after 1992, without installing curb ramps that meet federal standards;
B. Installed after 1992, sidewalks and curb ramps that violate federal standards; and,
C. Operated after 1992, recreational or other services, programs or activities that are not accessible to Plaintiffs and
36. The failures by each Defendant has made each of these existing and or newly altered services, programs or activities not readily accessible and usable by Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. By their actions complained of herein, Defendants have intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs and class members due to their disabilities. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief ordering Defendants to bring these and future services, programs or activities into compliance, and to pay attorneys fees and costs.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: CLASS-WIDE CLAIM UNDER THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 37. Plaintiffs bring this count for class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief. The Rehabilitation Act requires that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability...shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Upon information and belief, each Defendant receives Federal financial assistance. The Rehabilitation Act defines “program or activity” as “all of the operations of” a qualifying local government. 29 U.S.C. § 794(B)(1)(A).
17.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 18 of 20
38. Beginning with the effective date of the Rehabilitation Act, and continuing each year to the present, each Defendant has received federal money but has engaged in a continuing pattern and practice of over-arching discrimination against Plaintiffs and class members by denying the benefits of, or subjecting them to discrimination under several programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance. Among other things, each Defendant has : Resurfaced intersections and/or rebuilt sidewalks after 1974, without installing curb ramps that meet federal standards;
A. Installed after 1973, sidewalks and curb ramps that violate federal standards; and,
B. Operated after 1973, recreational or other services, programs or activities that are not accessible to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, including, but not limited to, intersections, cross-walk controls and detectable warnings and walkways.
39. Each of these failures by Defendants have made each of these programs or activities not readily accessible and usable by and others similarly situated. By their actions complained of herein, Defendants have intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs and class members due to their disabilities. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief ordering each Defendant to bring these services, programs or activities into compliance, and attorneys fees and costs.
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff class seeks judgment against Defendants as follows: 1. That the Court declare the rights and duties of the parties consistent with
the relief sought by Plaintiffs;
18.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 19 of 20
2. That Defendants, their agents, employees and all persons in concert or participation with any of them be permanently enjoined from: a. Discriminating against persons with disabilities in the construction, resurfacing, and maintenance of roadways and sidewalks; and b. Refusing or failing to comply with the requirements of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act and their implementing regulations;
3. That Defendants establish and implement an effective plan to insure, retrospectively and prospectively, that all construction, resurfacing, and maintenance of roadways and sidewalks--including but not limited to the installation of curb ramps or other sloped areas at all intersections of streets and/or pedestrian walkways--that has occurred any time after January, 1992 complies with the ADA and its implementing regulations;
4. That Defendants submit to the Court and class counsel periodic reports on implementation of the plan referenced immediately above;
5. That Plaintiffs recover an award of their reasonable attorneys fees, costs, and expenses.
Plaintiffs further pray for such additional relief as the interests of justice may require.
Respectfully submitted,
_/S/ J. Mark Finnegan J. Mark Finnegan Denise M. Heberle HEBERLE & FINNEGAN 2580 Craig Road
19.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 20 of 20
Ann Arbor, MI 48103 734-302-3233 734-302-3233 hffirm@comcast.net _/S/ Craig A. Markham___________ Craig A. Markham (38531) ELDERKIN, MARTIN, KELLY & MESSINA Jones School Square 150 East Eighth Street Erie, PA 16501 814-456-4000 814-454-7411 fax camarkham@elderkinlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs
20.

 
 Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 51 Filed 03/04/09 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE (VFI), MICHAEL L. EAKIN; JAY SHUFFSTALL; CAROLYN A CREHAN; KATHY A. HERTZOG; PAUL PECUNAS; SANDRA FULLER; MARY ANN PARSNIK; PAT WEAVER; FELICIA BONGIORNO; MELVIN BORREO; STEPHEN CLARK; llLL HRINDA-PATTEN; MARY D. KRUG;and B. LYNNE VESTAL; on behalfof themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs
vs. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; ALLEN D. BIEHLER, P.E., in his official capacity as Secretary ofTransportation ofthe Commonwealth ofPennsylvania, CITY OF ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA and CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendants

Civil Action No.: 06-78 Erie HON: SEAN J. MCLAUGHLIN

THIRD SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
I. BACKGROUND
On March 28, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation ("PennDOT") alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§12101, et seq. ("ADA") and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §701, et seq. ("Rehabilitation Act") arising from PennDOT's failure to install curb ramps compliant with the applicable provisions of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act along PennDOT highways located in the Cities of Erie and Meadville, Pennsylvania. On September 7, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint joining as Defendants the Cities ofErie and Meadville.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 51 Filed 03/04/09 Page 2 of 7
On December 22, 2006, this Court approved a settlement agreement between the Plaintiffs, the City of Meadville and PennDOT regarding, among other things, PennDOT's responsibility for constructing ADA compliant curb ramps in all future road projects in Meadville and PennDOT' s responsibility to remediate non-compliant ramps which were constructed or which should have been corrected in conjunction with prior road projects going back to March 28, 2004.
Similarly, on April 19, 2007, this Court approved a settlement agreement between the Plaintiffs, the City of Erie and PennDOT regarding, among other things, PennDOT's responsibility for constructing ADA compliant curb ramps in all future road projects in Erie and PennDOT's responsibility to remediate non-compliant ramps which were constructed or which should have been corrected in conjunction with prior road projects going back to March 28, 2004.
PennDOT disputed its liability for non-compliant ramps constructed prior to March 28, 2004 based upon the defense of the statute of limitations. On January 5, 2007, PennDOT filed a summary judgment motion on the issue ofthe statute of limitations. By memorandum opinion of September 28, 2007, this Honorable Court denied PennDOT's motion.
II. AGREEMENT A. Intent of the Parties. The Plaintiffs and PennDOT now wish to settle claims regarding PennDOT's remediation obligations and responsibilities under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act with regard to those ramps which should have been constructed or remediated in conjunction with road work or road projects going back to January 26, 1992.
2

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 51 Filed 03/04/09 Page 3 of 7
B. Ramps To Be Remediated Under This Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to its obligations under the previous settlement agreements identified above, PennDOT has completed and has attached hereto the following schedules:
1. Schedule E Erie. A listing of all intersections at which there are, or where there should be, curb ramps crossing state highways that were altered or resurfaced by PennDOT in Erie from January 26, 1992 to March 28, 2004. This listing shall include measurements for the curb ramps listed therein and an identification of those ramps PennDOT plans to remediate due to their non-compliant nature. 2. Schedule E Meadville. A listing of all intersections at which there are, or where there should be, curb ramps crossing state highways that were altered or resurfaced by PennDOT in Meadville from January 26, 1992 to March 28, 2004. This listing shall include measurements for the curb ramps listed therein and an identification of those ramps PennDOT plans to remediate due to their noncompliant nature.
C. Remediation Schedule. PennDOT shall, at its expense, cause all curb ramps listed in Schedule EErie and Schedule E Meadville to be installed, repaired and/or retrofitted to comply fully with the standards and requirements ofthe ADA and the Rehabilitation Act and all such work shall be completed by January 1, 2014.
D. Annual Report. On or before January 31 of each year during which this Settlement Agreement is in effect, PennDOT shall identify the work it performed in the year prior in satisfaction of its obligations under this Settlement Agreement. In this regard, PennDOT shall send to Plaintiffs' counsel, all defense counsel and to the Court, a written report which shall include for each curb ramp which was installed, repaired or retrofitted in the year prior (a) relevant ramp measurements and other data necessary to substantiate compliance with the ADA, (b) identification of the specific intersection and/or other identifiable street references for each ramp.
3

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 51 Filed 03/04/09 Page 4 of 7
This annual report shall also state the total number of ramps remediated under this Settlement Agreement during the year which is the subject of the report, the number of the ramps remaining to be remediated under this Settlement Agreement and the percentage of such ramps completed to date. This data shall be stated separately from all other data contained in the annual report and shall be conspicuously identified.
If the Plaintiffs conclude that PennDOT' s yearly rate of remediation makes it unlikely that PennDOT will complete all of the work required by January 1, 2014, then the Plaintiffs shall utilize the procedures established by the prior settlement agreements of December 22, 2006 and/or April 19, 2007 for unresolved disputes, which procedures include the filing of an appropriate motion with the Court. E. Prior settlement agreements not affected. This settlement agreement shall not affect nor alter any ofthe obligations, duties and/or requirements arising under or created by the previously entered settlement agreements or consent decrees which have been entered in this case. To the contrary, to the extent that the terms and conditions of those prior settlement agreements and/or consent decrees are applicable, they are hereby incorporated by reference. F. Retention of jurisdiction. This Court shall retain jurisdiction concerning the interpretation of and compliance with this Settlement Agreement.
4

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 51 Filed 03/04/09 Page 5 of 7
Read and Approved as to Form on this /~day ofFebruary, 2009, by:
Commonwealth ofPennsylvania Department of Transportation
5

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 51 Filed 03/04/09 Page 6 of 7

nJ

JVI.,A~

Read and Approved as to Form on this 3 - day ofFdnlulry, 2009, by:

Voices for Independence, (VFI,); Michael L. Eakin; Jay Shuffstall; Carolyn A. Crehan; Kathy A. Hertzog; Paul Pecunas; Sandra Fuller; Mary Ann Parsnik; Pat Weaver; Felicia Bongiorno; Melvin Borreo; Stephen Clark; Jill Hrinda-Patten; Mary D. Krug; and B. Lynne Vestal

Date: ;VJA~ 3, ~1961~

6

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 51 Filed 03/04/09 Page 7 of 7

3-~

/VI)£c,lr\

Read and Approved as to Form on this

day ofFebutary, 2009, by:

Voices for Independence, (VFI,); Michael L. Eakin; Jay Shuffstall; Carolyn A. Crehan; Kathy A. Hertzog; Paul Pecunas; Sandra Fuller; Mary Ann Parsnik; Pat Weaver; Felicia Bongiorno; Melvin Borreo; Stephen Clark; Jill Hrinda-Patten; Mary D. Krug; and B. Lynne Vestal
c,.!f!jt~~ 2
Date: f\!lA&.+I- 3( z_r;o 9

7

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM DocuPEmNeNnDtO5T1-1 Filed 03/04/09 Page 1 of 1
District 1-0
Schedule E Identification of Curb Ramps Adjacent to State Routes in the City of Erie

prepared by: RDZ 12-04-08

Contract

Length

Municipality Year

No.

SR

From Seq/Off To Seq/Off (Miles)

Erie

<2000 N/A

0005 (West 12th St.)

0480/0452 Pitt 0590/0290

Ave.

French St.

2.90

0005

Erie

2003 012292

(East 12th St.)

059010290 French St.

066012229 Lake Rd.

1.13

0005

(East 0620/1395 0670/0000

Erie

2005 72365

12th St.)

East Ave East Lake Rd 2.27

Erie

<2000 N/A

0008 (Pine Ave.)

0620/0459 Burton Ave.

0660/0696 26th St.

1.78

Erie

<2000 N/A

001 9 (Peach St.)

0370/0000 0390/0000 Grandview SL 38th St.

0.76

Erie

2003 1060

001 9 (Peach St.)

0390/0040 38th St.

0400/0150 Craig St.

0.53

Erie

<2000 N/A

0019 (Pcoch St.)

0400/0150 CroigSt.

0410/ 1685 PcochSt.

0. 57

Erie

<2000 N/A

0020 (West 26th St.)

0530/0000 Rudolph St.

0560/ 1446 Cherry St.

1.76

0020

0560/1446 0580/0100

Ene

2001 0 12259

(West 26th St.)

Cherry St.

Peach St.

1.27

Ene

2004 69958

0020 (Buffalo Rd.)

0630/0000 0690/0000 Bird

McKinley Ave

Dr.

2.75

Ene

<2000 N/A

0097 (Old French Rd.)

0 420/0000 Lakeview St.

0420/2681 38thSt

0.51

0097

0420/2681 0440/2077

Erie

2003 012295

(Old French Rd.)

3 8th S l

Pine Ave.

0 .83

Erie

2002 012285

0290 (Bayfront)

0010/0000 E. 003010000

12th St.

Broad St.

1.05

Erie

2003 012283

0290 (Baytront)

0030/0000 0060/0000

Broad Sl

McClelland

1.38

Erie

2001 012265

0290 (Bayfront)

006010000 007010000 E

McClelland

38thSI

0.35

0505

0030/0000 0050/ 1056

Erie

2003 012295

(Perry Highway)

Glenwood Pk. 38th St.

1.95

Ene

<2000 NIA

0505 (Perry Highway)

0050/1056 38th St.

007011481 26th St.

1.08

1001

027012134 0270/3063

Erie

<2000 NIA

(lake Pleasant Rd.)

34th St.

Pine Ave.

0 . 18

Erie

<2000 N/A

4014 (Grandview Blvd.)

0010/2985 Luck Kd.

0040/2508 f'each SL

1.42

Ene

<2000 N/A

401 6

0140/0000 Pill 0170/2041

(West 38th St.)

Ave.

Poplar St.

1.90

401 6

0170/2041 0180/0000

Ene

2002 012286

(West 38th St.)

PoplarS!.

Peach St.

0.08

Erie

N/A

N/A

401 6 (West 38th St.)

0180/0000 Peach St.

0200/0000 StaleSt

4016

(East 0200/0000 0270/0000

Erie

2006 75386

38th St..)

State St

McCelland

2.84

Erie

<2000 NIA

401 6 (West 38th St.)

0270/0000 0280/1722 Bird

McClelland

Dr

0.08

Erie

<2000 N/A

4017 (Pittsburgh Ave.)

0010/0000 0060/16 13 8th

38th St.

St.

1.96

Erie

2006 75837

Erie

2002 012804

4034 01M (Bayfront)
4034 A51 (Bayfront)

0010/0000 0090/0000 E.

Lincoln

6th St.

0090/0000 E 0090/2484 E.

6th St.

12th St.

3.65 0.47

lndocates doagonal curb ramp quantoty added to SR and Local totals

Totals = 35.45

Ramps X-ing SR's
18 23 10 18 0 16 12 40 15 57 4 4 10 0 14 0 3 0 0 35 33 36 32 6 12 16 12
467

Ramps X-ing L o c al ' s
12 27 15 40 2 9 16 44 20 14 1 39 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 48 8 32 96 4 12 16 12 525

·Ramps X-ing Both 12 19 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 41

Completed Completion SR Ramps SR Ramps Date 2013 w/ pending 2007-2008 SR Ramps issues

30

0

22

42

10

19

0

16

12

0

40

15

59

4

4

10

0

0

14

0

0

4

0

0

40

33

0

36

0

33

0

6

12

16

0

24

12
196.00
Complete

0
271.00
201 3

46.00
Pendong

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 51-2 Filed 03/04/09 Page 1 of 9 000000REVISED4F6228 09-25-08 RDZ w/ R. Williams and J. Smith Department of Transportation

City of Meadville 000000SUBMITED FINAL

ADA Remediation of SR'S City of Meadville MAP Data

STATE ROUTE Local Name

Intersecting State Route

Local Name Intersecting State Route

Intersecting Local Street

Intersection Quadrant

Comments

322

Linden Street

322

Linden Street

322

Linden Street

322

Linden Street

322

South Main Street

South Main Street South Main Street South Main Street South Main Street
Clark Road

322

Linden Street

SR 1001

Park Ave

322

Linden Street

SR 1001

Park Ave

322

Linden Street

SR 1001

Park Ave

322

Linden Street

SR 1001

Park Ave

Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest
Northeast
Southeast
Northwest
Southwest

PPB'S non Compliant PPB'S non Compliant PPB'S non Compliant PPB'S non Compliant
No PAR PPB'S non Compliant-Path of Travel-NO PAR - NE to SE
& NE to NW PPB'S non Compliant-Path of Travel-NO PAR - NE to SE
& NE to NW PPB'S non Compliant-Path of Travel-NO PAR - NE to SE
& NE to NW PPB'S non Compliant-Path of Travel-NO PAR - NE to SE
& NE to NW

Action

1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001

Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave

Willow Street Willow Street Willow Street Willow Street Poplar Street Poplar Street Poplar Street Poplar Street
Pine Street Pine Street Pine Street Pine Street

Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest

ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S

rdz September 16, 2008
LEGEND for Action
No action Meadville PENNDOT FINISHED JOINTLY

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 51-2 Filed 03/04/09 Page 2 of 9 000000REVISED4F6228 09-25-08 RDZ w/ R. Williams and J. Smith Department of Transportation

City of Meadville 000000SUBMITED FINAL

ADA Remediation of SR'S City of Meadville MAP Data

STATE ROUTE Local Name

Intersecting State Route

Local Name Intersecting State Route

Intersecting Local Street

Intersection Quadrant

Comments

1001 1001 1001 1001 1001

Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave

2012

Chestnut St

Arch Street Arch Street Arch Street Arch Street

Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Northeast

ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S

1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 27 27 27

Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave Park Ave North Street North Street North Street

2012 2012 2012
27 27 27 27
2037 886 886 886

Chestnut St Chestnut St Chestnut St
North Street North Street North Street North Street
Baldwin St N. Main St N. Main St N. Main St

Northwest

Southeast

Southwest

W. Center ST

Northeast

W. Center ST

Northwest

W. Center ST

Southeast

W. Center ST

Southwest

Walnut Street

Northeast

Walnut Street

Northwest

Walnut Street

Southeast

Walnut Street

Southwest

Northeast

Northwest

Southeast

Southwest

Randolph Street

Northeast

Randolph Street

Northwest

Randolph Street

Southeast

Randolph Street

Southwest

SEE SR 2037 (Baldwin ST)

Northeast

Northwest

Southeast

ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps (mid block) ramps (mid block) ramps (mid block) ramps (mid block)
ramps ramps ramps ramps ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps ramps ramps ramps ramps ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S

Action

rdz September 16, 2008
LEGEND for Action
No action Meadville PENNDOT FINISHED JOINTLY

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 51-2 Filed 03/04/09 Page 3 of 9 000000REVISED4F6228 09-25-08 RDZ w/ R. Williams and J. Smith Department of Transportation

City of Meadville 000000SUBMITED FINAL

ADA Remediation of SR'S City of Meadville MAP Data

STATE ROUTE Local Name

27

North Street

27

State

27

State

27

Washington

27

Washington

27

Washington

27

North Street

27

Washington

27

Washington

27

Washington

27

Washington

27

Washington

Intersecting State Route
886 27 27 2035 2035 2035 2035

Local Name Intersecting State Route N. Main St North Street North Street Liberty ST Liberty ST Liberty ST Liberty ST

Intersecting Local Street
Grant Grant Grant Grant Grant

Intersection Quadrant
Southwest Northeast Southeast Northeast Northwest Southwest Southeast Northeast Northwest Southwest Southeast East of Grant on SR 27

Comments
ramps & PPB'S ramps ramps
ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S

27

Washington

77

Hickory ST

Southeast

ramps & PPB'S Path of travelNO PAR NE to SE & SE to SW

27

Washington

77

Hickory ST

Southwest

ramps & PPB'S Path of travelNO PAR NE to SE & SE to SW

27

Washington

27

Washington

27

Washington

77

Hickory ST

886

Main Street

886

Main Street

886

Main Street

886

Main Street

77

Hickory ST

77

Hickory ST

77

Hickory ST

Randolph Street Randolph Street Randolph Street Randolph Street

Northeast Northwest
Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest

Offset south of intersectionramps & PPB'S Path of travelNO PAR NE to SE & SE to SW
ramps & PPB'S ramps & PPB'S
NO RAMPS ramps ramps ramps ramps

Action

rdz September 16, 2008
LEGEND for Action
No action Meadville PENNDOT FINISHED JOINTLY

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 51-2 Filed 03/04/09 Page 4 of 9 000000REVISED4F6228 09-25-08 RDZ w/ R. Williams and J. Smith Department of Transportation

City of Meadville 000000SUBMITED FINAL

ADA Remediation of SR'S City of Meadville MAP Data

STATE ROUTE Local Name

Intersecting State Route

Local Name Intersecting State Route

Intersecting Local Street

Intersection Quadrant

Comments

886

Main Street

2037 Baldwin Street

Northeast

ramps-MID BLOCK SCHOOL crossing-guarded

Action

886
886 886 886 2012 2012 2012 2012
2012
2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2034 2034
2034 & 2040

Main Street
Main Street Main Street Main Street Chestnut St Chestnut St Chestnut St Chestnut St
Chestnut St
Chestnut St Chestnut St Chestnut St Chestnut St Chestnut St Chestnut St Chestnut St Chestnut St
Alden Alden Alden Alden Spring Street Spring Street
Spring Street

2037
2035 2035 2035 2035
2037 2037

Baldwin Street
Liberty ST Liberty ST Liberty ST Liberty ST
Baldwin St Baldwin St

College crossing College crossing College crossing
Main Street Main Street Main Street Main Street Main Street
Grove Street Grove Street Grove Street Grove Street South Morgan South Morgan South Morgan South Morgan
Terrace Street

Northwest

ramps-MID BLOCK SCHOOL crossing-guarded

Mid-Block

ramps

Mid-Block

ramps

Mid-Block

ramps

Northeast

ramps

Northwest

ramps

Southeast

ramps

Southwest

ramps

EAST OF INTERSECTION @ Baptist Church

ramps

Northeast

ramps

Northwest

ramps

Southeast

ramps

Southwest

ramps

Northeast

ramps

Northwest

ramps

Southeast

ramps

Southwest

ramps

Northwest

ramps

Southwest

ramps

Southeast

ramps

Southeast

ramps

Northwest

ramps

Southwest

ramps

Northeast

Path of travel-NE to SE & SE to SW

rdz September 16, 2008 LEGEND for Action
No action
Meadville PENNDOT FINISHED JOINTLY

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 51-2 Filed 03/04/09 Page 5 of 9 000000REVISED4F6228 09-25-08 RDZ w/ R. Williams and J. Smith Department of Transportation

City of Meadville 000000SUBMITED FINAL

ADA Remediation of SR'S City of Meadville MAP Data

STATE ROUTE Local Name

2034 & 2040 Spring Street

2040
2040
2040 2035 2035 2035 2035 2035 2035 2035 2035 2035 2035 2035 2035 2035 2035 2035 2035 2035 2035 2035 2037 2037 2037 2037 2037 2037

Spring Street
Spring Street
Spring Street Liberty Street Liberty Street Liberty Street Liberty Street Liberty Street Liberty Street Liberty Street Liberty Street Liberty Street Liberty Street Liberty Street Liberty Street Liberty Street Liberty Street Liberty Street Liberty Street Liberty Street Poplar Street Poplar Street Baldwin Street Baldwin Street Baldwin Street Baldwin Street Baldwin Street Baldwin Street

Intersecting State Route

Local Name Intersecting State Route

Intersecting Local Street
Terrace Street

27 27 27 27 2012
2035 2035 2035 2035
886 886 1001 1001 1001 1001

North Street North Street North Street North Street Chestnut St
Poplar Street Poplar Street Poplar Street Poplar Street
Main Street Main Street Park Avenue Park Avenue Park Avenue Park Avenue

Lincoln Avenue Lincoln Avenue Lincoln Avenue
Arch Street Arch Street Arch Street Arch Street Pine Street Pine Street Pine Street Pine Street
Grove Street Fairmont Avenue

Intersection Quadrant

Comments

Southeast
Northeast
Southeast
Southwest Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest
Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Southeast Mid Block Northeast Northwest Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest

Path of travel-NE to SE & SE to SW
Path of travel-NE to SE & NE to NW RAMPS
Path of travel-NE to SE & NE to NW RAMPS
ramps ramps ramps ramps ramps See SR 2012 ramps ramps ramps ramps ramps ramps ramps ramps ramps ramps ramps ramps Huidekoper Park No PAR ramps ramps ramps ramps ramps ramps ramps

Action

rdz September 16, 2008
LEGEND for Action
No action Meadville PENNDOT FINISHED JOINTLY

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 51-2 Filed 03/04/09 Page 6 of 9 000000REVISED4F6228 09-25-08 RDZ w/ R. Williams and J. Smith Department of Transportation

City of Meadville 000000SUBMITED FINAL

ADA Remediation of SR'S City of Meadville MAP Data

STATE ROUTE Local Name

Intersecting State Route

Local Name Intersecting State Route

Intersecting Local Street

Intersection Quadrant

Comments

6

French Creek PIKE

ReynoldsBessemer

NO PAR LIMITED ACCESS ROADWAY

6

French Creek PIKE

Arch

Southeast/Complete

New Ramps 2008 Path of travel

6
6
6
6 2007 2101

French Creek PIKE
French Creek PIKE
French Creek PIKE
French Creek PIKE Thurston Road Terrace

Arch

WillowMercer St WillowMercer St

322

Linden Street

27

Washington St

Southwest/COMPLETE Southeast/COMPLETE Southwest/COMPLETE

New Ramps 2008 Path of travel
New Ramps 2008 Path of travel
New Ramps 2008 Path of travel
NO PAR LIMITED ACCESS ROADWAY NO PAR Bridge only

Action

rdz September 16, 2008 LEGEND for Action
No action Meadville PENNDOT FINISHED JOINTLY

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 51-2 Filed 03/04/09 Page 7 of 9 000000REVISED4F6228 09-25-08 RDZ w/ R. Williams and J. Smith Department of Transportation

City of Meadville 000000SUBMITED FINAL

ADA Remediation of SR'S City of Meadville MAP Data

STATE ROUTE Local Name

Intersecting State Route

Local Name Intersecting State Route

Intersecting Local Street

Intersection Quadrant

Comments

Action

rdz September 16, 2008
LEGEND for Action
No action Meadville PENNDOT FINISHED JOINTLY

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 51-2 Filed 03/04/09 Page 8 of 9 000000REVISED4F6228 09-25-08 RDZ w/ R. Williams and J. Smith Department of Transportation

City of Meadville 000000SUBMITED FINAL

ADA Remediation of SR'S City of Meadville MAP Data

STATE ROUTE Local Name

Intersecting State Route

Local Name Intersecting State Route

Intersecting Local Street

Intersection Quadrant

Comments

Action

rdz September 16, 2008
LEGEND for Action
No action Meadville PENNDOT FINISHED JOINTLY

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 51-2 Filed 03/04/09 Page 9 of 9 000000REVISED4F6228 09-25-08 RDZ w/ R. Williams and J. Smith Department of Transportation

City of Meadville 000000SUBMITED FINAL

ADA Remediation of SR'S City of Meadville MAP Data

rdz September 16, 2008

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 51-3 Filed 03/04/09 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI),

)

MICHAEL L. EAKIN; JAY SHUFFSTALL;

)

CAROLYN A. CREHAN; KATHY A. HERTZOG; )

PAUL PECUNAS; SANDRA FULLER

)

MARY ANN PARSNIK; PAT WEAVER;

)

FELICIA BONGIORNO; MELVIN BORREO )

STEPHEN CLARK; JILL HRINDA-PATTEN )

MARY D. KRUG; and B. LYNNE VESTAL,

)

on behalf of themselves and all others

)

similarly situated

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;

)

ALLEN D. BIEHLER, P.E., in his official

)

capacity as Secretary of Transportation of

)

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, CITY OF )

ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA and CITY OF

)

MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA

)

Defendants.

)

*******************************************

Civil Action No.: 1:06cv00078-SJM HON. SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN

Upon consideration of the Third Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that said Settlement Agreement is APPROVED.
____________________________________ JUDGE McLAUGHLIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-0c0v-7080-0S7J8M-SJMDocDuomceunmte5n1t-542 FFilieledd0033/0/094/0/2900P9ageP1agoef 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI),

)

MICHAEL L. EAKIN; JAY SHUFFSTALL;

)

CAROLYN A. CREHAN; KATHY A. HERTZOG; )

PAUL PECUNAS; SANDRA FULLER

)

MARY ANN PARSNIK; PAT WEAVER;

)

FELICIA BONGIORNO; MELVIN BORREO )

STEPHEN CLARK; JILL HRINDA-PATTEN )

MARY D. KRUG; and B. LYNNE VESTAL,

)

on behalf of themselves and all others

)

similarly situated

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;

)

ALLEN D. BIEHLER, P.E., in his official

)

capacity as Secretary of Transportation of

)

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, CITY OF )

ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA and CITY OF

)

MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA

)

Defendants.

)

*******************************************

Civil Action No.: 1:06cv00078-SJM HON. SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN

Upon consideration of the Third Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that said Settlement Agreement is APPROVED.
____________________________________ JUDGE McLAUGHLIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 
 Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 53 Filed 03/11/09 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE AND, PAUL PECUNAS; ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs

Civil Action No.: 04-328 Erie HON: SEAN J. MCLAUGHLIN

vs.

CONSENT DECREE

CITY

OF

MEADVILLE,

PENNSYLVANIA,

Defendant

Electronically filed

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE (VFI), MICHAEL L. EAKIN; JAY SHUFFSTALL; CAROLYN A CREHAN; KATHY A. HERTZOG; PAUL PECUNAS; SANDRA FULLER; MARY ANN PARSNIK; PAT WEAVER; FELICIA BONGIORNO; MELVIN BORREO; STEPHEN CLARK; JILL HRINDA-PATTEN; MARY D. KRUG; and B. LYNNE VESTAL; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs

vs.

COMMONWEALTH

OF

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION; ALLEN D.

BIEHLER, P.E., in his official capacity as

Secretary of Transportation of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, CITY OF

ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA and CITY OF

MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA,

Defendants

Civil Action No.: 06-78 Erie HON: SEAN J. MCLAUGHLIN

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 53 Filed 03/11/09 Page 2 of 10
CONSENT DECREE Plaintiffs and the Defendant City of Meadville, by and through their respective counsel of record, do hereby consent and agree to be bound by the following terms:
Background
Plaintiffs filed the second above captioned matter at CA 06- 78 Erie against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (PennDOT, the "PennDOT Case"), seeking to impose responsibility upon PennDOT for creating and maintaining curb cuts along state highways that pass through the cities of Erie and Meadville. Plaintiffs joined the Cities of Erie and Meadville as defendants in the PennDOT suit by a pleading filed on September 7, 2006. A related action, the first captioned above, had been filed at CA 04- 328 by Voices for Independence and others against the City of Meadville only on November 10, 2004.
The subject matter of these lawsuits, with respect to the City of Meadville, is the design of certain curb ramps within the city Meadville that are adjacent to city streets, intersections, or sidewalks that have been altered, installed, repaired, or replaced (the phrase "altered, installed, repaired, or replaced" shall hereinafter be referred to as "Altered").
On September 2, 2005 the City of Meadville, by and through a court approved settlement order entered in the action at CD 04- 328 (the "2005 Settlement Order"), committed to comply with controlling regulations concerning construction and retrofitting of curb ramps adjacent to its streets which were and are resurfaced beginning for 2006.
On December 22, 2006 the City of Meadville and PennDOT, by and through a court approved settlement order entered in the action at CD 06-78 (the "2006 Settlement Order"), agreed to share responsibility for the future design of curb ramps which are adjacent to city streets, intersections, or sidewalks that have been Altered, together with the retrofitting of those curb ramps found to have been designed improperly for the immediate two year period prior to the filing of this lawsuit. The 2006 Settlement Order sets forth guidelines from which to determine, at the intersection of a State Highway with a City Street, which ramps shall be the responsibility of the City of Meadville and which shall be the responsibility ofPennDOT.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 53 Filed 03/11/09 Page 3 of 10

The parties to the Settlement Order disputed whether the City and Commonwealth owed a duty to construct or retrofit certain curb ramps adjacent to those city streets, intersections, or sidewalks that were altered between January 26, 1992 and December 31, 2005, as and to the extent required to achieve compliance with ADAAG regulations. This Honorable Court denied, in an Opinion and Memorandum of Court, a pretrial motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the City and Commonwealth, seeking an order that their duties with respect to these curb ramps were subject to a two year statute of limitations.

All the intersections in the City of Meadville are reflected in the Ramp Retrofit Map which is incorporated into this order, labeled Exhibit 1. Each comer of each intersection has been colorcoded, as follows:

Green--

Curb ramp construction or retrofitting completed by the City of Meadville;

Purple--

Curb ramp to be constructed or retrofitted by the City of Meadville;

Blue--

Curb ramp compliance at this intersection is the responsibility ofPennDOT.

Or~ge-- Intersection is the shared responsibility of the City of Meadville and PennDOT.

Red--

Curb ramps for which no action is proposed

The comers marked in purple, and those comers of intersections marked in orange which are designated to be the responsibility of the City of Meadville under the 2006 Settlement Order are hereby designated to be the "Subject Meadville Curb Ramps." The City proposes complete retrofitting of all Subject Meadville Curb Ramps for which retrofitting is required to attain compliance as hereinafter set forth in paragraph 3 of this Order by December 31, 2013.

Subsequent to preparation of Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs have presented a schedule enumerating their objections to remediation which has been performed by the City of Meadville, principally as to curb ramps for which construction or retrofitting has been completed (code color green), which schedule, referred to herein as Plaintiffs October 30, 2008 schedule. Among the issues highlighted by Plaintiffs' 10/30/08 schedule is "counter slope", being the slope of the surface of the street immediately adjacent to a curb ramp. On the basis of Plaintiffs' October 30, 2008 schedule and the response of The City of Meadville, the parties have identified certain

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 53 Filed 03/11/09 Page 4 of 10

remediation work previously performed requiring correction or further remediation, and which has been identified and addressed in this Consent Decree.

The Plaintiffs in the above captioned matters, after conferring with the City of Meadville, by and through its elected officials, have agreed that resolution of this Action is in the best interests of both Plaintiffs and the City alike. To that end the Plaintiffs and the City hereby enter into this Consent Decree and submit themselves to the following:

Specific Terms of Decree

1. Identification of the Subiect Meadville Curb Ramps. The Plaintiffs hereby acknowledge that the comers labeled in purple on the document designated Exhibit 1 to this consent decree, and those comers shown in orange which are designated to be the responsibility of the City of Meadville under the 2006 Settlement Order constitute all of the Subject Meadville Curb Ramps.

Schedule 5 attached hereto designates a change to Exhibit 1 as previously filed with the

Court. The City shall, within 45 days, have Exhibit 1 revised by the notation thereon of

the matters enumerated in Exhibit 5, and shall file the same with the Court; the exhibit to

be labeled "Revised, Substituted .Exhibit 1, Dated

"

2. Resurfacing and Alteration. Commencing on January 1, 2009 , the City shall ensure that all the Subject Meadville Curb Ramps (expressly excluding, however, any curb ramps which are designated to be the responsibility of PennDOT under the 2006 Settlement Order) are retrofitted as and to the extent necessary to comply with the applicable requirements of the Americans with Disability Act, including, but not limited to, 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(b),(c), (e)(1) and (e)(2), as amended from time to time, except as otherwise proved herein.

Plaintiffs, their agents and representatives, shall first calibrate any smart level or similar device at a calibration site, to be created and maintained by Meadville, before performing slope measurements.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 53 Filed 03/11/09 Page 5 of 10
3. Specific Resurfacing Obligations. The City shall retrofit the Subject Meadville Curb ramps by December 31, 2013. The City is concerned that it has agreed to additional remediation to the certain curb ramps identified upon the Plaintiffs October 30, 2008 schedule and to incorporate certain previously unanticipated remediation steps into its ongoing remediation program (e.g. adjusting street crowns at certain intersections) the costs of which are substantially in addition to the previously anticipated remediation costs undertaken by the City. Until specific design of individual curb ramp renovations is accomplished, it is impossible to evaluate the true economic impact of the items giving concern to the City. If and to the extent that the City fmds its concerns to be sustained by actual experience in remediating the curb ramps identified upon the Plaintiffs' October 20, 2008 schedule and in retrofitting the remaining Subject Meadville Curb ramps the parties agree that the City may seek reasonable extensions of the time in which to complete the renovations of the Subject Meadville Curb Ramps either by agreement of the Plaintiffs or by application to the Court in the absence of any such agreement.
The City reserves the right in certain areas (e.g. Benson Avenue neighborhoods) to review the need for sidewalks and to remove sidewalks when determined to be appropriate and any and. all of the Subject Meadville Curb Ramps marked upon Exhibit 1 shall no longer be remediated from and after the removal of the sidewalks formerly serviced thereby. Plaintiffs reserve the right to assert and to litigate any legal objections they may have to any sidewalk removals conducted by the City pursuant to this paragraph.
In addition, the City further reserves the right to not remediate any Subject Meadville Curb Ramps that are technically infeasible to remediate in accord with applicable law. In this regard, the City shall comply with the provisions of paragraphs 8 and 9 of this Consent Decree.
4. Limitation of Liability for Curb Ramps triggered by repaving before January l, 2006. The Parties acknowledge that the commitment set forth in paragraphs 1-3 hereof incorporates all obligations of the City of Meadville as to curb ramps, the responsibility for constructing or remediating which was triggered by activities of the City of Meadville

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 53 Filed 03/11/09 Page 6 of 10
performed between January 26, 1991 and January 1, 2006, and also obligations triggered by actions during 2006 and 2007, as to which curb ramps have not yet been constructed or remediated.
5. Bidding Requirements. The City shall ensure that all bids and contracts for the work of retrofitting the Subject Curb Ramps shall reference the applicable requirements of the Americans with Disability Act, including, but not limited to, 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(b),(c),(e)(1) and (e)(2).
6. Annual Reports of Proposed Work. On or before March 31, 2009, and on each March 31 thereafter until all remediation work required hereby is completed, the City shall send a written report to Plaintiffs' Counsel, listing those specific curb ramps from the Subject Meadville Curb Ramps that the City proposes to retrofit in the year following.
7. Annual Reports of Compliance. On or before January 31 of each year during which this settlement is in effect, ending with January 31 of the year following the year in which all remediation work required by this Order is completed, Meadville shall send a written report which shall include detailed measurements to Plaintiffs' Counsel, identifying all those specific curb ramps from Exhibit 1 which were remediated during the prior year. The measurements of slopes shall be taken at the points indicated in the template labeled exhibit 2, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
8. Dispute Resolution: Potential Exceptions Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Part 36, App. A§ 4.1.6(0. The parties agree that the ADAAG at 28 C.F.R. Part 36, App. A § 4.1.6, and 4.1.1.5(a); 4.1.6(3); and 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(c), to the extent applicable, and Chapter 4 generally, as amended from time to time, shall be the standard to judge the validity of any City assertions that construction or alterations cannot or are not required to meet in full the construction and design standards set out in the paragraphs above. On all curb ramps, any otherwise applicable detectable warning requirements shall be modified to only require full width warning for two feet of running ramp length. Any time during the term of this Consent Decree that the City believes that site conditions at any particular intersection prohibits or makes unnecessary the full compliance with each of the standards setout above the retrofitting of any particular ramp from among the Subject

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 53 Filed 03/11/09 Page 7 of 10
Curb Ramps, the City of Meadville shall inform Plaintiffs' Counsel in writing. This writing shall list which City representatives have reviewed the intersection, the location of the intersection, and a statement of which standard(s) can not be met, why not, and how much of a deviation from the standard(s) is contemplated. The City shall include a detailed drawing(s) of each such proposed deviant ramp, with the proposed fmal measurements for each direct slope, cross- slope, lip and level landing. If Plaintiffs, by their authorized representative, consent to the deviation, or if Plaintiffs do not object in writing to the deviation within 15 days from the postmark of the written notification, the City of Meadville may presume that the deviation is acceptable to the plaintiffs and may begin construction of that particular ramp.
9. Unresolved Disputes. In the event that the plaintiffs object to the proposed deviation, the parties expressly agree that this Court shall have jurisdiction to resolve any disputes under the terms of this paragraph. If the dispute cannot be resolved during the 15 day period from the plaintiffs objection, the parties may submit written letter briefs to this Court with requests for such factual hearing opportunities as the submitting party(ies) may believe to be -required for a proper resolution to the dispute. When one side submits such a brief, the other side may, if it desires, submit an opposing brief within 10 days.
10. Performance of Further Retrofitting as to Ramps Previously Remediated by the City of Meadville. Exhibit 3 incorporated herein is a schedule of ramps previously reconstructed or remediated by the City of Meadville (Exhibit 1, green code) and which have been identified as requiring ad~itional remediation. The City of Meadville shall perform the corrective work designated on Exhibit 3 on or before January 1, 2010.
As to retrofitting involving remediation of truncated domes (benefitting the sight impaired) which were cast in the concrete surface of curb ramps, and which domes have been determined to be unsatisfactory, the City of Meadville will be deemed to have performed satisfactory correction if shall have ground down the domes in a 2' x 4' area only of the ramp and shall have affixed a mat, made of plastic or other appropriate material, displaying truncated domes at least .2" in height; and the City of Meadville shall

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 53 Filed 03/11/09 Page 8 of 10
not be required to grind down or remove truncated domes occurring beyond the designated 2' x 4' area or to take other corrective action with respect to such domes.
As to the City's identification of green color coded intersections, the parties currently disagree as to whether the green-coded intersections listed below require remediation by the City of Meadville and whether these intersections, therefore, should be listed on Exhibit 3 or Exhibit 4 attached hereto. It is anticipated that the parties will attempt to resolve their differences as to these intersections. However, notwithstanding anything stated to the contrary herein, it is agreed that the Plaintiffs preserve and do not waive or release any rights to litigate the issue of whether these green-coded intersections are compliant with the ADA and/or its implementing regulations. The green-coded intersections in dispute are as follows:
a. Water & Chestnut b. Market & Chestnut c. Allegheny & Main d. Park & Ravine e. Park & BenAvon f. Market & Arch
11. Expedited Performance of Remediation of Certain Counter-Slope Problems. Exhibit 4 incorporated herein is a schedule of counter-slope and/or slope conditions, which do not or may not appear in Exhibit 3, and which have been identified for expedited further remediation. The City of Meadville shall perform the corrective work indicated on Exhibit 4 on or before January 1, 2010.
12. Prior Decrees. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Decree shall not affect any obligations, duties or rights created by or under any of the previously entered consent decrees in the referenced matters.
13. Use of Third Partv. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude any party from making a timely request for resolution of a dispute by a mutually agreed upon third party.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 53 Filed 03/11/09 Page 9 of 10
a. If such a resolution is sought, the requesting party must notify the other parties within the 15-day period from the communication of any objection.
b. The parties will then have 15 days to agree upon the third party; if an agreement cannot be reached, then the underlying dispute shall be resolved by the procedures set forth in Paragraphs 8 and 9 without any further delay.
c. If resolution of a dispute is sought under this paragraph, the parties agree to be bound by the decision made by the mutually agreed upon third party.
14. Retention of Jurisdiction. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce all terms ofthis Consent Decree.
15. Procedure Required for City Action. The parties acknowledge that the City of Meadville can only be bound by a legislative act of the City Council of the City of Meadville taken at a properly called public meeting. The parties further acknowledge that the negotiation of this agreement by any elected or appointed official of the City of Meadville has been done solely for the convenience of all parties in developing a document for review and possible action by the City Council. The City shall not be bound or in any way prejudiced by the action of any elected or appointed official in the negotiation, review, commenting upon or preparation of a draft of this Agreement for review and possible action by the City Council.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 53 Filed 03/11/09 Page 10 of 10

-dt Read and Approved as to Form on this~ day of MP.R..~

'2009, by:

\.~
David L. Hotchkiss, Esq. (22490)

J. ~. ~~ga4;nt:::r~

Culbertson, Weiss, Schetroma & Schug, P.C.

Denise M. Heberle (42453)

201 Chestnut St., Suite 200

HEBERLE & FINNEGAN, PLLC.

Meadville, PA 16335

2580 Craig Road

(814) 336-6400

Ann Arbor, Ml48103

(734) 302-3233

(734) 302-3234 fax

Craig ELD-n""' .. ,....,_ , MARTIN,
KELLY & MESSINA Jones School Square 150 East Eighth Street Erie, PA 16501 (814) 456-4000 (814) 454-7411 fax

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 53-1 Filed 03/11/09 Page 1 of 1
EXHffiiT1
Color-coded map of ramps to be repaired within the City ofMeadville

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 53-2 Filed 03/11/09 Page 1 of 1
E>< '"' rs IT 2.

............

...

.:.... r I ': . .... ...... .

.I '

:

~ >: ,; j"'J~:.·.::..'

·.·. .r· .. !~a('••.

•

•• • :

••• •. •
a •••

~: ~ ~.

.. ••: ;·.• •\.

.. • .. ; • ~.

'1,

:,;I

:;, .:

I

I lC I '. '

.. •I
\ :·

.··...~..

<

....
<

...

. ..

'•• • •
.. ... . . ...

.... J.
,

r

....• ~

.,.... ··.

.~

...

I

II

·.·.··. .... ·.·"

I

I

:

•••

:·
,

'•

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 53-3 Filed 03/11/09 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 3

LOCATION
Willow St. & Cottage St. Water St. & South St. Park Ave. & South St. Chestnut St. & Cottage St. Center St. & Cottage St. Walnut St. & East St. Walnut St. & Cottage St. Randolph St., Water St. & Market St. Water St. & Center St. Morgan St. & Whitter Ave. Morgan St. & Winfield Ct. Lincoln Ave. & Sport Complex Market St. & South St. Walnut St. & Grove St. Market St. & Arch St. North St. & Grove St. Market St. & Center St. Lincoln Ave. & Spring St. Reynolds Sf. & Terrace St. South Main St. & South St. Willow St. & Market St. Lincoln Ave. & Lyon St. Lincoln A1Je. & Kearney St. Lincoln Ave. & Race St. Randolph St. & Cottage St. Willow St. & Main St. Chula Ct. & Davis St. Water St. & Cherry St. North St. & Grove St. Reynolds St. & Terrace St.

ORIENTATION
SE SW Ne,·se
NE,SE SE,SW SE,SW NE, NW, SE, SW NE,NW NE, NW, SE, SW NE, NW, SE, SW NE,SE SE,SW SE,SW NW,SE,SW NE, NW, SE, SW NE,SW NE, NW, SE, SW NE, NW, SE, SW NE,NW NE,NW NW,SW NE, NW, SE, SW NE, NW, SE, SW NE, N\N, SE, SW NE, NW, SE, SW NE, NW, SE, SW
sw
NE NE NE, SE NE, SE

DOME#
2 2 2 2 2 4 2 8 3 2 2 2 3 4 2 4 8 3 2 2 4 8 8 8 4 1 1 1 4 2

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 53-4 Filed 03/11/09 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 4

LOCATION
Arch St. &Grove St.
Chestnut St. & Morgan St. North St. & Grant St. North St. & Grove St. North St. & Penn St. Randolph St. & Cutler St. Randolph St. & Grant St. Randolph St. & Jefferson St. Randolph St. & Madison Ave. Randolph St. & Water St. Reynolds St. & Terrace St. Terrace St. & Boileau Pl. Walnut St. & Grove St. Willow St. & Main St. Willow St. &Water St. Pine St. & Morgan St. Arch St. & Water St. Lincoln Ave. & Lyons St. Lincoln Ave. & Kearney St.
Lincoln Ave. & Sports Complex Lincoln Ave. & Race St. North St. & Grove St Reynolds St. & Terrace St. Willow St. & Main St. Washington St. &Graff Ave.

ORIENTATION
SE street slope on Arch St. &Grove St. NE street slope on Grove St. NW street slope on Arch St. SW street slope on Arch St. SE street drop off NE, NW street slope on Grant St. NW street slope on North St. NE, NW street slope on Penn St. · NE, NW street slope on Cutler St. - brick SE, SW street slope on Grant St. NW street slope on Randolph St. NE, NW street slope on Madison Ave. SE street slope on Water St. SE street slope on Reynolds St. SE street slope on Boileau Pl. All street & Ramp slopes on Walnut & Grove SE street slope on Main St. & Willow St. SE street slope on Wat~r St. NW, SW street slope on Pine St. SE street slope on Arch St.and Water St. NW street slope on Lyon St. NW street slope on Kearney St. NE cross slcme of ramp Cross slope SE street slope on Race St. SW street slope on Grove St. Ramp slope Street slope Ramp slope

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 53-5 Filed 03/11/09 Page 1 of 1
SCHEDULES
MARCH 2009 CONSENT D ECREE
CA 04-328 CA 06-78 The markings appearing on Exhibit 1 at the intersection of Sherman and Clover Sh·eets (4 corners) shaH be changed from Red (Curb ramps for which no action is proposed) to Purple (Curb ramps to be constructed or retrofitted by City of Meadville) on the revised, final Exhibit 1 to be filed with the Court by the C ity ofMeadville.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 53-6 Filed 03/11/09 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI),

)

MICHAEL L. EAKIN; JAY SHUFFSTALL;

)

CAROLYN A. CREHAN; KATHY A. HERTZOG; )

PAUL PECUNAS; SANDRA FULLER

)

MARY ANN PARSNIK; PAT WEAVER;

)

FELICIA BONGIORNO; MELVIN BORREO )

STEPHEN CLARK; JILL HRINDA-PATTEN )

MARY D. KRUG; and B. LYNNE VESTAL,

)

on behalf of themselves and all others

)

similarly situated

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;

)

ALLEN D. BIEHLER, P.E., in his official

)

capacity as Secretary of Transportation of

)

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, CITY OF )

ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA and CITY OF

)

MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA

)

Defendants.

)

*******************************************

Civil Action No.: 06-78 Erie HON. SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN

CONSENT DECREE

The foregoing Consent Decree between Plaintiffs and Defendant, City of Meadville, Pennsylvania, dated March 11, 2009, is hereby APPROVED and ENTERED.

________________________________ Judge Sean J. McLaughlin United States District Court

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-0c0v-7080-0S7J8M-SJMDocDuomceunmte5n3t-574 FFilieledd0033/1/111/0/2900P9ageP1agoef 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI),

)

MICHAEL L. EAKIN; JAY SHUFFSTALL;

)

CAROLYN A. CREHAN; KATHY A. HERTZOG; )

PAUL PECUNAS; SANDRA FULLER

)

MARY ANN PARSNIK; PAT WEAVER;

)

FELICIA BONGIORNO; MELVIN BORREO )

STEPHEN CLARK; JILL HRINDA-PATTEN )

MARY D. KRUG; and B. LYNNE VESTAL,

)

on behalf of themselves and all others

)

similarly situated

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;

)

ALLEN D. BIEHLER, P.E., in his official

)

capacity as Secretary of Transportation of

)

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, CITY OF )

ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA and CITY OF

)

MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA

)

Defendants.

)

*******************************************

Civil Action No.: 06-78 Erie HON. SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN

CONSENT DECREE

The foregoing Consent Decree between Plaintiffs and Defendant, City of Meadville, Pennsylvania, dated March 11, 2009, is hereby APPROVED and ENTERED.

________________________________ Judge Sean J. McLaughlin United States District Court

 
 Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 59 Filed 05/23/12 Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; ALLEN D. BIEHLER, P.E., in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Defendants.

) Civil Action No.: 06-78 Erie ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH PENNDOT

1. This is a class action lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (“PennDOT”), the City of Erie, Pennsylvania and the City of Meadville, Pennsylvania alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§12101, et seq. (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§701, et seq., arising from PennDOT’s failure to install curb ramps compliant with the applicable federal law and regulatory provisions.

2. This motion seeks to compel PennDOT to abide by and honor settlement agreements that have been entered and approved by the court with respect to the construction specifications of ADA compliant curb ramps.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 59 Filed 05/23/12 Page 2 of 15
3. Specifically, PennDOT has breached the Settlement Agreements in three ways. One, PennDOT omitted installing approximately 1,000 curb ramps (hereinafter the “omitted curb ramps”) when it resurfaced several hundred intersections throughout Erie and Meadville. Two, PennDOT has failed to file with the Court a detailed listing of the exact number and exact location of each of the omitted curb ramps. And three, PennDOT now is refusing to comply with the governing specifications that are included in the Settlement Agreements—specifically for curb ramp cross slope.
II. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS
4. The Plaintiffs and PennDOT have entered into a series of four (4) settlement agreements to resolve in a piecemeal fashion various disputes regarding PennDOT’s violations of the ADA. Under the Settlement Agreements, PennDOT has two obligations that are relevant to this motion. One, whenever PennDOT repaves a state route, it must install ADA compliant curb ramps at all intersections to permit people to cross that state route. Two, these curb ramps must be constructed according to the specifications found within the federal regulations known as ADA Accessibility Guidelines (“ADAAG 2004” and subsequently “ADAAG 2010”).
5. The first Settlement Agreement was filed December 22, 2006 and it resolved the dispute over PennDOT’s obligations regarding ramp installation and remediation relating to all future road resurfacing work in the City of Meadville. In relevant part, the Agreement states:
2.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 59 Filed 05/23/12 Page 3 of 15
PennDOT shall insure in the year 2007 and thereafter [during the effective term of this settlement agreement] that whenever PennDOT alters any PennDOT state highways or portions of state highways that are adjacent to sidewalks located within the City of Meadville, PennDOT agrees to install curb ramps that cross state highways at crosswalks on such altered or resurfaced state highways. Each such project shall comply with all Americans with Disability Act requirements, including 28 C.F.R. §35.151(b), (c), (e)(1) and (e)(2) and 28 C.F.R. Part 36, App. A, the ADAAG.
Settlement Agreement, ¶2 [Doc. 22] (emphasis added). See, Order granting motion to enter settlement agreement, Dec. 22, 2006 [Doc. 23].
6. The Second Settlement agreement was filed April 19, 2007 and it similarly
resolved the dispute over PennDOT’s obligations regarding ramp installation and remediation
relating to all future road resurfacing work in the City of Erie. In relevant part, the Agreement
states:
PennDOT shall insure in the year 2007 and thereafter [during the effective term of this settlement agreement] that whenever PennDOT alters any PennDOT state highways or portions of state highways that are adjacent to sidewalks located within the City of Erie, that curb ramps are installed at pedestrian crossings that cross state highways on such altered or resurfaced state highways. Each such project shall comply with all Americans with Disability Act requirements, including 28
3.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 59 Filed 05/23/12 Page 4 of 15
C.F.R. §35.151(b), (c), (e)(1) and (e)(2) and 28 C.F.R. Part 36, App. A, the ADAAG.
Settlement Agreement City of Erie and PennDOT, ¶2(a) [Doc. 32] (emphasis added). See, Order approving settlement agreement, April 19, 2007 [Doc. 33]
7. The Fourth Settlement Agreement was filed January 30, 20121 and it set forth a process to resolve the dispute over PennDOT’s failure to install the approximately 1,000 omitted curb ramps. In relevant part, this Agreement states:
C. Installing ramps omitted during work performed since 2007 (1) In a written report, PennDOT shall identify all State street, road and highway intersections newly constructed or altered by PennDOT in the Cities of Erie and Meadville during the years 2007 through 2010, where curb ramps were not installed at each such intersection. The report shall specify at those intersections each location still containing curbs or other barriers to entry from a street level pedestrian walkway. PennDOT shall file with the Court and Plaintiffs' Counsel a report comprehensively listing each such location no later than thirty days from today.
Document 56, at Section II(C)(1).
On March 2, 2012, the thirty-day deadline for the detailed report expired, but PennDOT failed to file with the Court the mandated written report. In February, 2012, PennDOT
1
A third Agreement was filed March 4, 2009 [Doc. 51], and it dealt only with certain reporting requirements. Its provisions are not relevant to the issues raised in this motion.
4.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 59 Filed 05/23/12 Page 5 of 15
did provide a listing that it described as an incomplete and unverified work-in-progress. However, PennDOT has failed to produce the final version of the report required by the Settlement Agreement.
8. Consistent with the earlier Settlement Orders, the Fourth Settlement Agreement specifically set forth the design specifications for all curb ramps.
Beginning January 1, 2011 and thereafter, PennDOT shall insure that within the Cities of Erie and Meadville newly constructed or altered state streets, roads and highways shall contain curb ramps crossing the state streets, roads and highways at all intersections containing curbs or other barriers to entry from a street level pedestrian walkway, in order to provide access for those intersections to the walkways. Each such project shall comply with all American with Disability Act requirements, including 28 C.F.R. §35.151(b), (c), (e)(1) and (e)(2) and 28 C.F.R. Part 36, App. A, the ADAAG.
Fourth Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, ¶2(b)(1) [Doc. 56] (emphasis added). See Order approving settlement agreement, May 11, 2012 [Doc. 58].
9. This Agreement also recognized that the ADAAG 2004 had recently undergone some changes that were to be effective March 15, 2012. In this regard, the Agreement states:
5.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 59 Filed 05/23/12 Page 6 of 15
On September 15, 2010, the U.S. D.O.J. formally adopted revised ADA standards, known as the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design (hereinafter referred to as the “2010 Standards”). Thus, beginning March 15, 2012, the effective date of the regulations and the 2010 Standards, the 2010 Standards now establish the standard PennDOT must comply with during future construction or alteration of state streets, roads and highways located in the Cities of Erie and Meadville.
10. Thus, the two issues are framed. One, by failing to file with the Court the required detailed written report of the omitted curb ramps, PennDOT is delaying the process for installing the 1,000 curb ramps it omitted. Two, PennDOT has notified Plaintiffs that when it does install the omitted curb ramps, PennDOT will ignore the ADAAG. Instead it will build ramps pursuant to its own, very lenient policy that will produce inaccessible cross slopes.
IV. PENNDOT’S VIOLATIONS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS
A. PennDOT now refuses to comply with ADAAG
11. Despite the fact that PennDOT has already built 1,023 curb ramps according to the ADAAG, and that all of the Settlement Agreements with PennDOT require that PennDOT construct ramps in compliance with the ADAAG 2004 and later, the ADAAG 2010, PennDOT has now informed the Plaintiffs that it will no longer abide by these Settlement Agreements and that it will no longer follow either the ADAAG 2004 or the ADAAG 2010.
6.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 59 Filed 05/23/12 Page 7 of 15
12. Specifically, PennDOT now refuses to abide by the ADAAG 2010 restriction that the cross slope of a curb ramp can be no greater than 1:48 (2.07% slope). Instead, PennDOT will now follow its own, much more lenient, policy that would permit a curb ramp’s cross slope to have the same grade as the profile of the adjoining road even if that creates a cross slope greatly in excess of 2%. See Letter of Scott A. Bradley, Esquire, Senior Deputy Attorney General dated March 15, 2012, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
13. A critical physical characteristic of a curb ramp that is subject to strict ADAAG specification is the grade of its slopes. The slope that is at issue here is the cross slope. This refers to the grade of the ramp surface that runs perpendicular to the pedestrian path of travel over the ramp. This is contrasted with the running slope, which is the ramp’s grade running parallel with the path of travel. Both the grades of the cross slope and the running slope are strictly limited because, as each gets steeper, it presents significant safety issues for people in wheelchairs.
14. The parties adopted the ADAAG as the governing construction specifications because the ADAAG contains detailed construction specifications for curb ramps, including the permissible slopes of the ramps. With regard to permissible cross slope of a curb ramp, the ADAAG 2004 provided:
7.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 59 Filed 05/23/12 Page 8 of 15
4.8.6 Cross Slope and Surfaces. The cross slope of ramp surfaces shall be no greater than 1:50 [2%].
28 C.F.R. Part 36, App. A, Section 4.8.6.
15. The ADAAG 2010 changed the permissible grade of a cross slope slightly to 1:48 [2.07%]
403.3 Slope. The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20. The cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48.
36 C.F.R., Chapter 11, Part 1191, App. D, 403.3. See also id. at 406.1 (curb ramps shall comply with Section 405.3); 405.3 (cross slope of ramps shall not be steeper than 1:48).
16. PennDOT has supplied an illustrative drawing that confirms that PennDOT will now construct curb ramps with cross slopes that greatly exceed 2%. The PennDOT drawing shows a cross slope that increases to 14%–which is seven (7) times the cross slope permitted by ADAAG 2010. A copy of the PennDOT drawing is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
17. PennDOT attempts to justify its violation of the Settlement Agreements by arguing that PennDOT’s more lenient policy is consistent with the 2011 version of a draft document from the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (“Access Board”), entitled Public Rights of Way Access Guidelines (“PROWAG”). The 2011 draft version of the PROWAG has not been adopted by the Access Board, nor by the U.S. Department
8.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 59 Filed 05/23/12 Page 9 of 15
of Justice, nor by the U.S. Department of Transportation and it has not been made part of any governmental regulation.
18. The PROWAG 2011 draft provision that is relied upon by PennDOT would impose a 2% cross slope maximum, except at intersections that have no traffic controls or at midblock crossings. At uncontrolled crossings and at mid-block crossings, the PROWAG 2011 permits the curb ramp’s cross slope to be greater than 2% in order to match the road surface profile:
R304.5.3 Cross Slope. The cross slope of curb ramps, blended transitions, and turning spaces shall be 2% maximum. At pedestrian street crossings without yield or stop control and at mid-block pedestrian street crossings, the cross slope shall be permitted to equal the street or highway grade.
19. PennDOT’s new policy, however, is a radical departure from even the draft PROWAG 2011. Attorney Bradley’s letter of March 15, 2012 explains that PennDOT views the PROWAG 2011 as offering non-binding “guidance” and that PennDOT sees the cross slope limitation at controlled intersections as being “most appropriate for new construction” only. Therefore, PennDOT’s policy is that when curb ramps are being remediated or installed at “existing stop or yield controlled crossings”, PennDOT will have the ramp’s cross slope exceed 2%, without any upper limit, in order to meet the roadway profile.
9.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 59 Filed 05/23/12 Page 10 of 15
PROWAG is Merely a Preliminary Draft, Not the Law – PennDOT Agreed to Meet Adaag
20. The Access Board was created by Congress to provide technical assistance to achieve accessible design, including the promulgation of guidelines and requirements for standards under the ADA. See 29 U.S.C. §792(b)(2), (3). The Access Board authored the ADAAG 2004 and ADAAG 2010. After completing the required rulemaking process, including public comment, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Transportation formally adopted first the ADAAG 2004 and later, the ADAAG 2010 as their accessibility standards for compliance with Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. DOJ’s adoption of ADAAG 2004 is found in 36 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. A and adoption of ADAAG 2010 is found in 36 C.F.R. Pt. 1191, App. B and App. D. For the DOT, See 49 C.F.R. § 37.9, originally citing to ADAAG 2004, 36 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. A, and now citing to ADAAG 2010, 36 C.F.R. Pt. 1191, App. B and App. D.
21. The preliminary nature and uncertain future of PROWAG 2011 is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the Access Board has been proposing and later withdrawing various versions of the PROWAG for almost twenty years. The Access Board’s first PROWAG draft was issued December, 1992. A second, revised version was then issued in June, 1994. In June, 2002, the Access Board released its third draft PROWAG. A fourth draft PROWAG was released in November, 2005. Then, in July, 2011, the Board issued its fifth revised PROWAG and invited public comment. At this point, the PROWAG 2011 still has not been adopted as a
10.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 59 Filed 05/23/12 Page 11 of 15
governing regulation, and it does not have the weight or power of law. If history is any guide, it is extremely likely that the recent round of public comments will result in additional changes before a final version of the PROWAG is officially adopted as a binding regulation–if it is ever adopted.
22. During the years that the various drafts of the PROWAG were being issued and revised, the ADAAG has been in full force and effect and PennDOT, and the cities of Erie and Meadville, have built nearly seven thousand (7,000) curb ramps according to the requirements of the ADAAG. Specifically, prior to PennDOT’s recent unilateral rejection of the Settlement Agreements, during the years 2007 through 2011, PennDOT built approximately 1,023 curb ramps in the Cities of Erie and Meadville that complied with all of the ADAAG’s mandates, including the 2% cross slope specification. See PennDOT’s Annual Reports 20072011, including measurements for each curb ramp.
23. Likewise, during the years 2003 through 2011, the City of Erie has built more than 5,000 curb ramps, hundreds of them within the PennDOT right-of-way, that complied with all of the ADAAG specifications, including the 2% cross slope limitation. See Erie’s Annual Reports 2003-2011, including measurements for each curb ramp.
24. During the years 2008 through 2011, the City of Meadville has built approximately 397 curb ramps, many within PennDOT’s right-of-way, with ADAAG compliant
11.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 59 Filed 05/23/12 Page 12 of 15
cross slopes. See Meadville’s Annual Reports 2008-2011, including measurements for each curb ramp.
25. PennDOT’s violation of the requirements of the Settlement Agreements and its recent subtitution of its own curb ramp policy, will result in the future construction of hundreds of curb ramps with radically steeper cross slopes – up to 7 times and beyond the cross slope permitted by ADAAG 2004 and 2010 – and at intersections that are prohibited even by the draft PROWAG 2011. PennDOT’s violation of the Settlement Agreements will thus cause the Plaintiff class to encounter dangerous curb ramps and thereby deny the Plaintiffs the accessibility guaranteed by the ADA.
26. Based upon the foregoing, the Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court enter an order requiring that PennDOT abide by the settlement agreements and adhere to ADAAG specifications with regard to cross slope and to otherwise comply with the requirements under the Settlement Agreements, including but not limited to the requirement that all curb ramps be built to the maximum extent feasible so as to be readily accessible to and usable by Plaintiffs (28 U.S.C. §35.151(b)).
27. Recently, the Third Circuit analyzed 29 C.F.R. §35.151(b), and its requirement that any “alteration”, such as resurfacing of an intersection, requires that the intersection be made “readily accessible to and usable” by Plaintiffs “to the maximum extent feasible”. See D.I.A. v. SEPTA, 635 F.3d 87 (3rd Cir. 2011), analyzing Kinney v. Yerusalim, 9
12.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 59 Filed 05/23/12 Page 13 of 15
F.3d 1067(3rd Cir. 1993) cert. den. 511 U.S. 1033 (1994). Clearly, ignoring the ADAAG and its 2% cross slope maximum, and choosing to build curb ramps with inaccessible cross slopes exceeding 14%, is not making the intersections readily accessible to Plaintiffs to the maximum extent feasible, and runs afoul of the dictates of 29 C.F.R. §35.151(b).
28. The Plaintiffs also request that this Honorable Court enter an order awarding attorney’s fees and costs to the Plaintiffs in an amount to be later determined.
B. PennDOT’s Failure to Provide Report Regarding Omitted Ramps
29. During years 2007 through 2011, PennDOT breached the terms of the Settlement Agreements by choosing to omit ramps at many intersections that were repaved.
30. PennDOT has acknowledged these violations of the Settlement Agreements. The parties negotiated the manner and method to efficiently remedy PennDOT’s failure to install these omitted curb ramps, and this resulted in the Fourth Settlement Agreement.
31. However, PennDOT now has violated the Fourth Settlement Agreement by failing to file a detailed report that identifies and lists all of these omitted curb ramps.
13.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 59 Filed 05/23/12 Page 14 of 15
32. The Plaintiffs request that the Court order PennDOT to file with the Court the mandated detailed written report setting forth the exact number and location of each of the omitted curb ramps as required by the Fourth Settlement Agreement, Section II(C).
Therefore, Plaintiffs respectfully move that the Court enter an Order finding:
a. PennDOT has violated the terms and conditions of the Fourth Settlement Agreement, specifically the mandate of Section II( c) to file a detailed report listing that identifies curb ramps wrongfully omitted during paving that was done in 2007-2010;
b. Within 15 days of the filing of the Court’s order, PennDOT shall file the Section II( c) report with the Court;
c. Within 15 days following PennDOT’s filing the required detailed written report with the Court, PennDOT shall take all steps reasonably necessary—including participation in meetings and the attendance of representatives who have final decision making authority-to cooperate in good faith to determine, if possible, a mutually agreed upon listing of each and every curb ramp that PennDOT omitted installing at these intersections, and a mutually agreed upon timetable for installing each;
14.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 59 Filed 05/23/12 Page 15 of 15
d. PennDOT shall follow and fully comply with all other terms and conditions of the Fourth Settlement Agreement, including PennDOT’s obligation to design and construct curb ramps that comply with ADAAG 2010;
e. Plaintiffs shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs;
f. All other relief the Court deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted, ELDERKIN LAW FIRM By /s/ Craig A. Markham
Craig A. Markham, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs 150 East Eighth Street Erie, Pennsylvania 16501 (814) 456-4000
HEBERLE & FINNEGAN, PLLC. By /s/ J. Mark Finnegan
J. Mark Finnegan, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs 2580 Craig Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48103 (734) 302-3233
15.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 59-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 59-2 Filed 05/23/12 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 59-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 59-3 Filed 05/23/12 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; ALLEN D. BIEHLER, P.E., in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Defendants.

) Civil Action No.: 06-78 Erie ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER

AND NOW, upon consideration of the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement with PennDOT, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED as follows:
1. PennDOT has violated the Fourth Settlement Agreement, specifically Section II(C) requiring that it file a written report identifying curb ramps omitted during the years 2007 through 2010. PennDOT is hereby directed and ordered to file the required report within seven (7) days of the date of this Order.
2. The parties shall then negotiate in good faith to establish a schedule to install omitted curb ramps. Such negotiations shall commence within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order.
3. PennDOT shall abide by and follow all other terms of the Fourth Settlement Agreement, including adherence to the construction specifications established by ADAAG 2010

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 59-3 Filed 05/23/12 Page 2 of 2 until such time as new or different regulations have been officially adopted by the Department of Justice and/or the Department of Transportation.
4. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in upholding and enforcing the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Counsel shall file a motion for an award of attorney’s fees and costs for consideration by the Court.
BY THE COURT ___________________________________
2.

 
 CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn2t223 FFilieledd1122//2212//200606PagPea1geof11o8f 18

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn2t223 FFilieledd1122//2212//200606PagPea2geof21o8f 18

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn2t223 FFilieledd1122//2212//200606PagPea3geof31o8f 18

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn2t223 FFilieledd1122//2212//200606PagPea4geof41o8f 18

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn2t223 FFilieledd1122//2212//200606PagPea5geof51o8f 18

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn2t223 FFilieledd1122//2212//200606PagPea6geof61o8f 18

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn2t223 FFilieledd1122//2212//200606PagPea7geof71o8f 18

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn2t223 FFilieledd1122//2212//200606PagPea8geof81o8f 18

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn2t223 FFilieledd1122//2212//200606PagPea9geof91o8f 18

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn2t223 FFilieledd1122//2212//200606PagPea1g0e o1f01o8f 18

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn2t223 FFilieledd1122//2212//200606PagPea1g1e o1f11o8f 18

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn2t223 FFilieledd1122//2212//200606PagPea1g2e o1f21o8f 18

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn2t223 FFilieledd1122//2212//200606PagPea1g3e o1f31o8f 18

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn2t223 FFilieledd1122//2212//200606PagPea1g4e o1f41o8f 18

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn2t223 FFilieledd1122//2212//200606PagPea1g5e o1f51o8f 18

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn2t223 FFilieledd1122//2212//200606PagPea1g6e o1f61o8f 18

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn2t223 FFilieledd1122//2212//200606PagPea1g7e o1f71o8f 18

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn2t223 FFilieledd1122//2212//200606PagPea1g8e o1f81o8f 18

Sean J. McLaughli n

Digitally signed by Sean J. McLaughlin DN: cn=Sean J. McLaughlin, c=US, o=United States District Court, ou=United States District Judge Date: 2006.12.22 09:41:13 -05'00'

 
 CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn3t233 FFilieledd0044//1199//200707PagPea1geof12o1f 21

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn3t233 FFilieledd0044//1199//200707PagPea2geof22o1f 21

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn3t233 FFilieledd0044//1199//200707PagPea3geof32o1f 21

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn3t233 FFilieledd0044//1199//200707PagPea4geof42o1f 21

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn3t233 FFilieledd0044//1199//200707PagPea5geof52o1f 21

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn3t233 FFilieledd0044//1199//200707PagPea6geof62o1f 21

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn3t233 FFilieledd0044//1199//200707PagPea7geof72o1f 21

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn3t233 FFilieledd0044//1199//200707PagPea8geof82o1f 21

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn3t233 FFilieledd0044//1199//200707PagPea9geof92o1f 21

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn3t233 FFilieledd0044//1199//200707PagPea1g0e o1f02o1f 21

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn3t233 FFilieledd0044//1199//200707PagPea1g1e o1f12o1f 21

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn3t233 FFilieledd0044//1199//200707PagPea1g2e o1f22o1f 21

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn3t233 FFilieledd0044//1199//200707PagPea1g3e o1f32o1f 21

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn3t233 FFilieledd0044//1199//200707PagPea1g4e o1f42o1f 21

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn3t233 FFilieledd0044//1199//200707PagPea1g5e o1f52o1f 21

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn3t233 FFilieledd0044//1199//200707PagPea1g6e o1f62o1f 21

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn3t233 FFilieledd0044//1199//200707PagPea1g7e o1f72o1f 21

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn3t233 FFilieledd0044//1199//200707PagPea1g8e o1f82o1f 21

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn3t233 FFilieledd0044//1199//200707PagPea1g9e o1f92o1f 21

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn3t233 FFilieledd0044//1199//200707PagPea2g0e o2f02o1f 21

CasCea1s:e061-:0cv6-0c0v-007080-7S8J-MSJMDoDcoucmuemnetn3t233 FFilieledd0044//1199//200707PagPea2g1e o2f12o1f 21

Sean J.

Digitally signed by Sean J. McLaughlin DN: cn=Sean J. McLaughlin,

c=US, o=United States District
McLaughlin Court, ou=United States District Judge

Date: 2007.04.19 15:53:56 -04'00'

 
 Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84 Filed 04/18/13 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), on behalf ofthemselves and all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; ALLEN D. BIEHLER, P.E., in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, CITY OF ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA and CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

) Civil action No.: 1:06cv00078

)

) HON: SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN

)

)

MAG. JUDGE BAXTER

)

)

)

)

)

FIFTH SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
I. BACKGROUND On March 28, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation ("PennDOT") alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, arising from PennDOT's failure to comply with these laws, and their implementing regulations, when PennDOT installed curb ramps along PennDOT highways located in the Cities of Erie and Meadville, Pennsylvania. The Court previously has approved and has expressly retained jurisdiction over the parties to interpret and to enforce the terms of four Settlement Agreements between Plaintiffs and PennDOT. See (Doc. # 23), entered December 22, 2006; (Doc. # 33), entered April 19, 2007; (Doc. # 51), entered March 4,2009; and (Doc. # 56), entered January 30, 2012.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84 Filed 04/18/13 Page 2 of 7
During the last year, the parties have litigated and/or negotiated pursuant to the Fourth Settlement Agreement (Doc. # 56). On January 29,2013, the Court ruled on some ofthese matters. See Minute Entry, January 29, 2013. The parties have agreed to the terms of an additional Settlement Order, the Court has considered these, and the Court now finds as follows:
II. AGREEMENT A. Earlier Settlement Agreements Remain in Effect. The requirements of the Parties' earlier Settlement Agreement Orders (Docs. # 23, 33, 51 and 56) remain in full force and effect, except to the extent expressly set forth below. B. Specific Locations and Curb Ramps to Be Installed. 1). PennDOT's Listing of ramps to be installed. The Parties attach hereto the "PennDOT Curb Ramp Inventory for the City of Erie," see Attachment A, and the "PennDOT Curb Ramp Inventory for the City of Meadville," see Attachment B. These Inventories were prepared by PennDOT to provide the information required by the Fourth Settlement Agreement (Doc. # 56), at Section II(C)(1), respecting curb ramps that had been omitted by PennDOT during previous repaving work. These listings identify the location and the number of curb ramps that PennDOT has agreed to install. Accordingly, PennDOT shall install each curb ramp that is listed on each inventory in accordance with the provisions contained in the prior settlement agreements between the Parties. 2). Deadline. PennDOT shall ensure that each listed curb ramp shall be installed no later than the end of year 2013 (December 31,2013). However, PennDOT has advised Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs are aware that the PennDOT Curb Ramp Inventory for the City of Meadville includes the SR 0027 (North Street) A02 Project in the City of Meadville (found at Attachment B, at Lines 6 to 12). This is a major road reconstruction project which is currently under contract and scheduled for
2.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84 Filed 04/18/13 Page 3 of 7

two (2) years, beginning in 2013 and ending in 2014. Consequently, approximately thirty (30) curb

ramps in this project are scheduled for construction in 2014.

C. Replacement of Certain Curb Ramps Built From Year 2009 Through 2012.

Previously, PENNDOT constructed non-compliant curb ramps in the City ofMeadville and the City

of Erie with portions of cross slopes exceeding two (2) percent. These curb ramps, which are

identified below, will be replaced in accordance with the provisions contained in the prior settlement

agreements, they are as follows:

In the City ofMeadville, the following non-compliant curb ramp locations will be removed

and replaced:

•

SR 2034 (Spring Street) and Lord Street, Curb Ramps servicing SR

2034 at the northwest, northeast, southeast and southwest comers

(four State Curb Ramps).

•

SR 0027 (State Street) and Grove Street, Curb Ramps servicing SR

0027 at the northwest and northeast comers (two State Curb Ramps).

•

SR 0886 (North Main Street) and the Lords Gate (Alleghany College

Crossing), Curb Ramps servicing SR 0886 at referenced crossing Left

and Right of Centerline (two State Curb Ramps)

In the City of Erie, the following non-compliant curb ramp locations will be removed and

replaced:

•

SR 4016 (38th Street) and Ellsworth Street, Curb Ramp servicing

Ellsworth Street (Local Ramp) at the northeast comer (one Local

Curb Ramp).

•

SR 40 17 (Pittsburgh Avenue) and 32nd Street, Curb Ramps servicing

SR AO17 at the northwest and southeast comers (two State Curb

Ramps).

3.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84 Filed 04/18/13 Page 4 of 7
D. Technically Infeasible Forms submitted by PennDOT in 2012. PennDOT has withdrawn all TIF requests submitted in 2012. Going forward, in the event that PennDOT believes that a TIF is necessary for any curb ramp listed in Attachment A and in Attachment B, PennDOT will submit a new TIF request in accordance with the TIF provisions set forth in the prior settlement agreements between the Parties.
E. Progress Report. No later than August 15,2013, PennDOT shall provide to Plaintiffs' Counsel via email a written progress report identifying PennDOT's best estimates of the progress of curb ramp construction for the curb ramps identified in Attachments A and B.
F. "Traffic Warrant" Intersections. At several intersections inside the Cities ofErie and Meadville, PennDOT has proposed to leave curbs in place at certain comers. These intersections in the City of Erie are listed on Attachment A at Lines 1,3,4,5,6,8, 10, 11, 17,20,93, 143, 153, 158, 164, 170, 171, 173, 174; and in the City of Meadville on Attachment B at Line 1. PennDOT asserts that this is necessary due to existing ''traffic warrants" for the affected intersections but Plaintiffs disagree. At these intersections, and solely in consideration for this particular Settlement Order, Plaintiffs agree that PennDOT may proceed as set forth on the relevant lines on Attachments AandB.
G. Continuing Discussions. The Parties have met to discuss various issues and concerns that have arisen in the course of this litigation, including but not limited to the following items:
1. Pedestrian Access Route (PAR) Intersections: These intersections and comers in the City of Erie are set forth on Attachment A, at Lines 14, 15, 16, 18, 19,23,25,59, 104, 105,106,107,110,111,112,113,126,127,163,166,167,168,169,171,172,173,174; These intersections and comers in the City of Meadville are set forth on Attachment B, at Lines 33, 45,51,62.
4.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84 Filed 04/18/13 Page 5 of 7
2. "Next Paving Cycle" Intersections: At three intersections inside the City of Erie-State Route 97 (Old French Rd.) at its intersections with Cypress St., E. 33rd st. and E. 31 st St. PennDOT is proposing to take until the next paving cycle to install these curb ramps. These intersections and comers are set forth on Attachment A, at Lines 96, 100, 102;
3. Two "Proximity" Intersections: At two intersections inside Erie, PennDOTasserts that their proximity to another intersection rules out installation of some curb ramps. Plaintiffs disagree. These intersections are Peach Street (SR 19) at Walker Street East and 38th Street (SR 4016) at Wayne Street. These intersections and comers are set forth on Attachment A, at Lines 43, 139;
4. Running Slopes Exceeding Five Percent (5%): The parties will continue to meet and address issues related to PennDOT construction of sidewalk segments with a running slope that exceeds 5%.
The Parties shall continue to meet as necessary to address and resolve these and any other
conflicts or disagreements that may arise. If, after meeting in good faith, the parties are unable to
resolve their conflicts ofdisagreements, any party may file a motion with the Court concerning such
issue(s). H. Attorneys Fees. The parties have met and have agreed upon the amount to be paid to
Plaintiffs' attorneys. This amount shall be paid within sixty days ofthe date this agreement is filed.
The parties agree that this payment satisfies any and all claims for fees and costs in this lawsuit up
to and through April 5, 2013 [date on Invoices]. By paying this amount, no party waives any claims
or objections to claims for fees and costs that plaintiffs may seek for future actions in this lawsuit. I. Prior Settlement Agreements not Affected. Except to the extent expressly set forth
herein, this settlement agreement shall not affect nor alter any of the obligations, duties and/or
requirements arising under or created by the settlement agreements or consent decrees which
previously have been entered in this case. To the contrary, to the extent the terms and conditions of
those prior settlement agreements are applicable, they are hereby incorporated by reference.
5.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84 Filed 04/18/13 Page 6 of 7

J. Retention ofJurisdiction. The parties expresslyagree, and the Court expressly finds that the Court shall retain jurisdiction concerning the interpretation of and compliance with this Settlement Agreement.

g Read and Approved on this I

-#
""day

of

April,

2013,

by:

Scott A radley, Esquire
Office ofthe Attorney General 564 Forbes Avenue 6th Floor, Manor Complex Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 (412) 565-3586 Attorneys for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation

6.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84 Filed 04/18/13 Page 7 of 7
Read and Approved on this 18th day of April, 2013, by:
ELDERKIN LAW FIRM /s/ Craig A. Markham
Craig A. Markham, Esquire 150 East Eighth Street Erie, Pennsylvania 16501 (814) 456-4000
HEBERLE & FINNEGAN, PLLC /s/ J. Mark Finnegan
J. Mark Finnegan, Esquire 2580 Craig Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 (734) 302-3233 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-1 Filed 04/18/13 Page 1 of 8

City of Erie

12-14-11 REVISED: 7-26-12. 1-23-13. 2-4-13

Curb Ramp Inventory

S. McMasters

I I County I RSotauttee IntSeersge/Octfifon

Intersecting Local Street Name

ERIE

5

I 0501/0J0V0V0V

LINCOLN AVE

~I
'tI~
I CD 0 ~N~· 5 .§ -~isl z0 ]

:1
E ~
.~
'0

:1

ljf! ~
II:
s s

~ ~~ ~; ;: 8

UI
'0

~ ~

~

.z

..

:1 ~
II:
S
.S
UI
'0

"T". Plus. and Signalized Intersections

PA Miller

'tI
~

:1
E ~

:1
E ~

icii
CI (i)

. ..~ S S UI '0 '0

Location (quadrant)

I I" 1 r

SE and NE

Comments lSi!;inallNarrant. Equal access for all users is provided on 2 of the 4 legs of the signalized intersection. Prohibited crossings to remain on the west and

-

SW and SE

north legs in accordance with the signal permit No pedestrian access route ex~ on the northwest quadrant.

ERIE ERIE

5

053010000 CRANBERRY ST

5

053010721

RASPBERRY ST

"" I 1 """rotor"" '"

Y

SW and NW 1SE and NE 11 existing compliant ramp

y

NWand NE/SW

V I

I~::e~~~":;f~~~~~: ~~c:!~s;:~:~: i~~e:~!O~::n~ ~~:c:,~e~:~~:~:~:~b::!~:g:~~::~~~:':nC::~: ~:r:rs ~

ERIE ERIE ERIE

5

05301_14•4•3_ 1 CASCADEST

5

0530•1_2_ 16M 6 1

PLUMST

5

0540/.0M 00M 0 1

LlBERTYST

y I u y y

I _
v 1 V 1

I~=::r;:h~::'::~~::=~~d:::~~ce:ni~~~V:~:~~~;~~~rd~~~ii:::~e::.':: :::=0~~~~':~0! ~:~::~ I==:S":::::::' ~:r:i~~=~~:~:;~~m=::==~·f=;~;~~;:;~~:~~~~~rc:;:~~:~~o:se~~~~:!~ce:estJian
I~"=. :c~~~:-::::iedAl~~:ha~~~~':~:e~:= ~~h;~:::~t:~:::~~ ~~~!'i~e:~u:~;~:d=t~~=~~d for
Signal upgrades andlor replacements. thus requiring a new signal permit. Field viewed on June 6. 2012 with VFI.

ERIE ERIE

5

055010000

POPLARST

5

055Q'-~~-

,....'........ ,...'I ...~

VI "V 1

Y

SW and NW I SE and NE 12 existing compliant ramps

y 1v I

NW/SE

I~~~~e~~~~":;f~~~~~: ~~c:!~s~:~:~:~ i~~e:~i!~~~~~::c:,":~:~~:=::~b::!~:g:~~:d~~~~~a~=~: ~:~rs ~

feasible without impacting the existing ramps placed in 2007 with the 5-11 M project. Based on prior correspondence between VFI and the Department

regarding diagonal ramps. the existing diagonal ramps can remain but pedestrian push buttons needed upgraded to the maximum extent feasible. Also

since PennDOl's policy regarding diagonals has evolved since th~ project was constructed. upgrading diagonal ramps will be considered with future

projects that trigger the ramps andlor with projects that impact pedestrian access routes/movements. Along with diagonal ramp upgrades. prohibited legs

and associated accessibility features (ramps. ped push buttons. ped heads. etc.) will be evaluated through a future engineering study and the warranted

features will be installed in a future project that addresses the need for signal upgrades andlor replacements. thus requiring a new Signal permit Field

1 ERIE 1

1 0550114421 WALNUT ST

I Y 1 1 2

SW 1SE

viewed on June 6. 2012 with VFI. 12 existing diagonals on northside. 1 ex~ting compliant ramp on SEquadrant. 1 new diagonal on SW quadrant added since inventory was completed. Qty

-

SW

~~~~ceit

1-~-1r--=::"::::........jI--=---;-===+-;:;';:=:::":"':::':"'-+--+-+--1I----1I---;--I-"':-+-:-+"::""'f-----------l~::e~~~":;f:h~~: ~~C:!~s~:~:~:i~~e:~:~~::~~::c:,":~:~:~~:~b::!~:g~a~~:~~~~~a~=~: ~:~rs is

t--::--II-:=:--II--::--i-:-::==+--:-::-=~=--+---f--+--II---II--i--I--:-:--+--=--f-.."....+---------Ifeasible without impacting the existing ramps placed in 2007 with the 5-11M project. Based on prior correspondence between VFI and the Department

1-....:..;.-1r--=::..::::........jI--=---;-==:.:..=.;+-..:.::.;~=.;::.:....-+--+-+--1I----1I---;--I-...:.-+-+..::.....f-----------lregarding diagonal ramps. the existing diagonal ramps can remain but pedestrian push buttons needed upgraded to the maximum extent feasible. Also

since PennDOl's policy regarding diagonals has evolved since th~ project was constructed. upgrading diagonal ramps will be considered with future

projects that trigger the ramps andlor with projects that impact pedestrian access routes/movements. Along with diagonal ramp upgrades. prohibited legs

and associated accessibility features (ramps. ped push buttons. ped heads. etc.) will be evaluated through a future engineering study and the warranted

features will be installed in a future project that addresses the need for signal upgrades andlor replacements. thus requiring a new signal permit

12

ERIE

13

ERIE

14

ERIE

15

ERIE

16

ERIE

17

ERIE

5

0621/1751

BREWSTER

5

0631/0000 PENNSYLVANIA

5

0631/0706

BRANDES AVE

5

0631/1015

HESS AVE

5

0631/1718

PAYNE AVE

5

064011962

DOWNING AVE

Y

4

2

Y

4

2

Y

0

0

Y

0

0

Y

0

0

1 18

ERIE 1

I

I

19 J. ERIE.l

5 1 0651/00001

I

I

5 .1 0651/0964.1

BACONST SENECAST

-YYl 1 01

I

I0I I

I Y 1 10I

1 1
I I 1 I

Y
-y 1
I I I I

SW and NW 1 SE and NE
NW and NE SW and NW 1 SE and NE
NW and NE

No PAR. No Pedestrian Access Route exists (other than the shoulder/roadway). therefore no prohibited crossings exist.

No PAR. No Pedestrian Access Route exists (other than the shoulder/roadway). therefore no prohibited crossings exist.

No PAR. No Pedestrian Access Route exists (other than the shoulder/roadway). therefore no prohibited crossings exist.

3
1 1
I "T I I

SWandNW/NE NWandNE/SW

Signal Warrant. Equal access for all users ~ provided all legs of the signalized intersection. No Pedestrian access route on southeast quadrant (other than shoulders/roadway). therefore no prohibited crossing ex~. Associated accessibility features (ramps. ped push buttons. ped heads. etc.) will be evaluated through a future engineering study and the warranted features will be installed in a future project that addresses the need for signal upgrades andlor replacements. thus requiring a new signal permit No PAR. No Pedestrian Access Route exists (other than the shoulder/roadway). therefore no prohibited crossings exist.
Pedestrian Access Route ex~ only on the north side of SR 5. No pedestrian access route on the south side of SR 5. therefore no prohibited crossings. 2 existing local ramps.

Page 1 of8

EXHIBIT

,;

.D

j

A

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-1 Filed 04/18/13 Page 2 of 8

City of Erie Curb Ramp Inventory 'T', Plus, and Signalized Intersections

12-14-11 REVISED: 7-26-12, 1-23-13,2-4-13 S. McMasters
PA Miller

,.,
c
0
i i
.E

County

State

SeglOff

Route Intersection

Intersecting Local Street Name

~~
=l&,:.;§.
US!
~i

!.
E
8!
~
',0.,

;!.
II::
!
1/1
,'0.,

i~~i!j :i
~~~
~Q.

!.
E
8!
~
-I
,'0.,

!.
E
.s8s!
1/1
,'0.,

'C
~~

!.
E
8!

!.
E
8!

!: ~ !

e.En 'e

-I
,'0.,

1/1
,'0.,

Z

20

ERIE

5

066010000

FRANKLIN AVE

Y

2

Location (quadrant)

Comments

SW and SE

Signalized Tee intersection, Signal Warrant. Equal access for all users to be provided on 2 of the 3 legs of the signalized intersection. Barrier to remain on the north leg of SR 5 in accordance with signal permit. Adding a crossing for 1 leg will require partial Signal upgrade (lacking junction boxes and access to poles through existing foundations) to accommodate additional pedestrian heads and push buttons. Existing ramps for SR 5 (west leg) are accessible. Proposed local crossing for Franklin Avenue. Existing non-compliant pedestrian push buttons will be upgraded to the maximum extent feasible. Prohibited legs and associated accessibility features (ramps, ped push buttons, ped heads, etc.) will be evaluated through a future engineering study and the warranted features will be installed in a Mure project that addresses the need for Signal upgrades and/or replacements, thus requiring a new signal permtt.

21

ERIE

22

ERIE

23

ERIE

24

ERIE

25

ERIE

26

ERIE

27

ERIE

5

0661/0366

5

0661/0979

5

0661/1874

8

062010459

8

062012398

8

063010354

8

064010890

GLADSTONE TENTHST
SEVENTHST BURTON AVE
EAST AVE PERRYST
36THST

Y

4

Y

2

2

Y

0

0

Y

2

1

Y

4-0

Y

2

1

Y

28

ERIE

8

064011341

29

ERIE

30

ERIE

8

0650/0498

8

0650/1142

31

ERIE

8

0650/1469

32

ERIE

19

037010413

35THST
32NDST HOLMESST
MARVIN MILLER AVE

Y

0

0

Y

2

Y

2

1

Y

2

33

ERIE

19

0371/0000

WEST GRANDVIEW (SR 4014 and TR 657)

Y

34

ERIE

19

037110839

SHERIDAN AVE

Y

4

2

35

ERIE

19

037011430

WESTGATE DR

Y

4

2

36

ERIE

19

0381/0000

HILLCREST AVE

Y

4

2

37

ERIE

19

0381/0000

HARDING

Y

2

2

38

ERIE

19

0381/0051

MEAD AVE

Y

2

39

ERIE

19

038010411

MERLINE

2

Y

4

40

ERIE

19

0381/0696

AVERLONAVE

2

Y

4

2

41

ERIE

19

038011154

39THST

42

ERIE

19

0381/1042

LlBERTYST

43

ERIE

19

0381/1778

WALKER

Y

2

44

ERIE

19

0391/0000

38TH SR4016

Ramps on SR 4016

45

ERIE

19

0391/0424

MAPLE AVE

Y

4

2

4 4
3 1

SW and SE 1NW and NE SW and SE SWandNW

2 existina compliant ramps. Portions of sidewalk removed by others. 2 existing compliant ramps
No PAR. Pedestrian Access Route exists only on the west Side of SR 5. No pedestrian access route on the east side of SR 5, therefore no prohibited

crossing. 2 existing local ramps.

SW and NW NW
SWandNW

3 existing compliant ramps

4 existing compliant ramps. No Pedestrian Access Route on the southwest quadrant State crossing exists on at the east side of East Ave and local

crossing exists for East Ave.

.

3 existing compliant ramps

NW

SW and NW 1SE and NE

SW and SE 1NW and NE

Driveway. 4 existing compliant ramps. Existing driveway on the north side is a barrier for crOSSing SR 8. CroSSing exists on the south side of SR 8. Local i

crossing exists for 35th Street Field viewed on December 19, 2012 wtth VFI; current ramp locations acceptable.

i

SWandNW

4 existina comPliant ramps

SEand NE

4 existing compliant ramps (1 local to be replaced)

SE

SWandNW

4 existina compliant ramps

I

Y

4

SW and SE 1NW and NE

4

SW and NW 1SE and NE

NWand NE/NW

9 total ramps proposed, 5 of the 9 are located in Millcreek Twp.

NE SW and SE 1NW and NE

SWandNW SW and SE 1NW and NE

SEand NE SW and SE 1NW and NE
SEandNE
SWandSE

Due to proximity of Harding and Mead Ave, 8 total ramps proposed. See 19-A08 plan sheet 56 of 61.

SWandNW NW and NE

Due to proximity of Harding and Mead Ave, 8 total ramps proposed. See 19-A08 plan sheet 56 of61.

SWandNW SW and SE 1NW and NE

Y

2

SEand NE SW and SE 1NW and NE
SWandNW
NW and NE

Due to proximity of 39th and Liberty, 10 total ramps proposed. See 19-A08 plan sheet 58 of 61.

Y

4

SW and SE 1NW and NE Due to proximity of 39th and Liberty, 10 total ramps proposed. See 19-A08 plan sheet 58 of 61.

4

SW and NW 1SE and NE

Safety Issue. Due to proximity of W 38th and Walker, 10 total ramps proposed. A signalized intersection (Peach Street, SR 19 and 38th Street, SR 4016)

is located just north of Walker Blvd. Vehicles stopping at the light for 38th Street stack up to and adjacent to Walker Blvd.causing a potentially unsafe

SEandNE

pedestrian crossing of SR 19. Due to the proximity ofthe SR 4016 intersection, no crossing of SR 19 at Walker Blvd. is proposed. See Pedestrian

Accommodation at Intersection Checklist dated February 1, 2013, approved February 11, 2013. See 19-A08 plan sheet 59 of 61.

Y

4

SW and SE 1NW and NE

4

SW and NW 1SE and NE

SW and SE 1NW and NE

SWandNW

Page 2 of8

;==========;:T,'C:===============__=..=._.=.__=_..=.. ....__._..._... '" . -..... =._.=..=_=. =r_+=."=".'.-.=..T'I~-=-.======'-='-="=.=_.=._.=._..

=~=

+ ................... ~·._.~_ ..__ ........._=~O=~_:___·.___==..__~,~=.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-1 Filed 04/18/13 Page 3 of 8

County

State Route

SeglOff tersectic

Intersecting Local Street Name

46 I ERIE
47 I ERIE

19 I 0390/0662

CHERRYSl

I 19

0391/1112 I SHUNPIKE AVE

~i
1~
~l
c c
CD.!!
u,s¥
g] z

!. ~
;II:
.o.
Y

RICHLEY AVE (and 34th Street)

49 I ERIE

19 I 0390/2118 I

50

ERIE

19 I 040010311

51

ERIE

19 I 040010354

52 I ERIE I 19 I 10411/0000

53 I ERIEl 19l04f1700001

54 ~

19 I 041010293 I

55

ERIE

19

041010393

56 "ERiE

19

041010393

~

~

~ I 041010823

~

~

19 I 04101132;

MARSH ST METZAVE
31STST MYRTLEST ORCHARD ST
29THSl GOODRICH
HILL AVE

I Y

4

2

Y

4

2

Y

4

42
I Y I I4I

I I ~

Y I

I 2

2

"L

~

~

Y I

I 24

2

~_ _L~

2

60

ERIE

20 I 05301124;

ELLSWORTH

61

ERIE

20 I 0531/143i

BERSl

62

ERIE

20 I 053011956

HARVARC

63

ERIE

20 I 053112156

HAYBARGER

-~~

ERIE

20 I 053012551

OAKWOOD

66

ERIE

20

0540/0402

AUBURN

6;

ERIE I 20

0540/0856

EMERSON

~ I ERIE I 20 I 054011156

69 _ I _~~~

20 I 0541/1422

BAUR

70

ERIE

20 I 054011563

PEBBLE

71

ERIE

20 I 054011830 I

MELROSE

72

ERIE

20 I 055010307

73

ERIE

20 I 0550/0643 .. I __(;~BE;~~'LSJ

74

ERIE

20

0560/0726

POPLAR SOUTH

Y

4

2

Y

4

2 Y I I4

~

Y I I4

2

'l

~

2

Y

4

2

Y

4

2

Y

4

2

Y

4

2

'l

~

~

Y I I4

~
Y I J_A_

-"'---~

Y

2

!. ~
II:

'a
~

a ci; c
'0 eCnD

'It

Y

4 ~

4

Y
Y
2

City of Erie Curb Ramp Inventory "T", Plus, and Signalized Intersections

12-14-11 REVISED: 7-26-12, 1-23-13,2-4-13 S. McMasters PA Miller

!.
~

I

Location (quadrant)

I>

It

Comments

3 3

SWandMN/NE SW and SE I NW and NE SW and NW I SE and NE
, i:::Ind SE I NW i:::IlIU
SW and NW I SE and NE SW and SE I NW and NE

SWano

'_an9~~

SWano

'_ancLN~

I SWandSE/NWandNE IDueto proximity of Myrlle and 31st Street

See 19-ADA plan sheet 14 of 16.

NW and NE

SWarv:... •••

SW

INE

I 1

:anc SE

Sill

SW

SW and NW

SW and SE I NW and NE

SE and NE

IDuetoproximityofMyrlieand31stStreet

See 19-ADA plan sheet 14 of 16.

I"n:;on..::::: TlelO view.

~ Ira111pS.

No PAR. See Photo. No Pedestrian Access Route exists on the north side of SR 20 (other than the shoulder/roadway), therefore no prohibited crossing.

'ane

SW

INE

'ane

SW

INE

lane

SW and NW I SE and NE

11 existing

SW and NW I SE and NE NW and NE
: and NE

1Driveway. Local crOSSing

I ramps.

SR 20. ; I':' CI LJc::IIIICI lUI \;1I.",J:)0:.1I19 ; proposed

120.

::;wan

: and NE

Sv-{,U)

andNE

SWan

andNE

SWan

andNE

SWane

andNE

lane

SW and NW I SE and NE

larv:.

SW and NW I SE and NE

SW and NW I SE and NE

SW and NW I SE and NE

SW and SE

Page 3 of8

= = = = = =..... _._..._._..........

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-1 Filed 04/18/13 Page 4 of 8

r

'a

County

State

SeglOff

Route Intersection

Intersecting Local Street Name

11
icii
C)

ii5 C
0 Z

a.
E
I.
]

1 a.
~
] i
1/1

j
'i ! §!i

£
~

a.
E
I.

~~~

'0
'It

'0
'It

~c..

'0
'It

a.

~ a:

':aa

S S

icii

1/1
'0

C)
en

'It

75

ERIE

20

056010726

POPLAR NORTH

Y

4

76

ERIE

20

056011040

77

ERIE

20

056011347

78

ERIE

20

056011904

79

ERIE

20

0560/2624

80

ERIE

20

0570/0359

81

ERIE

20

057010988

82

ERIE

20

061011131

83

ERIE

20

061011583

HAZEL MAPLEST SIGSBEE SCHELY COCHRAN GOODRICH MONROE JACKSON

Y

2

2

Y

4

2

Y

4

2

Y

4

2

Y

2

1

Y

2

Y

2

1

Y

0

0

84

ERIE

20

0610/1816

VANBUREN

Y

0

0

85

ERIE

20

064010320

KILPATRICK

Y

24

2

86

ERIE

20

084011227

SCHAALL

Y

4

2

87

ERIE

20

065010000

CAMERON

Y

4

2

88

ERIE

20

065010131

THOMPSON

Y

2

89

ERIE

20

065010339

BROOKLYN

Y

2

2

90

ERIE

20

065010779

N. McCAIN

Y

4

2

91

ERIE

20

065010880

S. McCAIN

4

2

92

ERIE

20

065011586

JUNEST

Y

4

4

93

ERIE

20

0650/1948

FRANKLIN AVE

Y

94

ERIE

20

0660/0756

HARRISON AVE

95

ERIE 97 197 042011040

42NDST

96

ERIE 97(197) 0420/1215

CYPRESSST

97

ERIE 97 197 042012152

39THST

98

ERIE 97 197 0440/0000

MAIDEN LANE

99

ERIE 97 197 044010130

33RDST

100

ERIE 97(197) 044010295

101

ERIE 97 197 0440/0622

33RDST 32NDST

Y

4

2

Y

0

0

Y

0

0

Y

2

Y

2

Y

0

0

Y

0

0

Y

2

City of Erie
Curb Ramp Inventory
"r', Plus, and Signalized Intersections

12-14-11 REVISED: 7-26-12, 1-23-13,2-4-13 S. McMasters PA Miller

a. a.

E

E

I.. I.

~

S oS

-I

1/1

'0 '0

'It

'It

0 0

Location (quadrant)

Comments

SW and tom 1SE and NE
SEand NE SWandSE SW and tom 1SE and NE SW and SE SW and tom 1SE and NE SW and SE SW and tom 1SE and NE SWandSE SWandtom
SW SEand NE SEand NE
SE

2 existng compliant ramps Driveway. Existing driveway on the west side is a barrier for crossing SR 20. Proposed crOSSing on the east side of SR 20. Proposed local crossing for Hazel street. Field viewed on December 19 2012 with VFI'. Drooosed ramo locations acceptable.
3 existing compliant ramps. 4 existim compliant ramps. 3 existing compliant ramps. Driveway. 4 existing compliant ramps. Existing driveway on the east side is a barrier for crossing SR 20. Crossing exists on the west side of SR 20. Local crossing exists for Jackson Street Field viewed on December 19, 2012 with VFI; current ramp locations acceptable.

Driveway. 4 existing compliant ramps. Existing driveway on the west side is a barrier for crossing SR 20. Crossing exists on the east side of SR 20. Local crossing exists for Van Buren street. Field viewed on December 19,2012 with VFI; current ramp locations acceptable.

SW and tom 1NE and SE SWandSE
SW and tom 1SE and NE tom and NE
SWand tom 1SE and NE SWandSE SW/SE SWandtom tom and NE
SW and tom 1SE and NE tom and NE
SW and tom 1SE and NE SW and SE
SW and tom 1SE and NE SW and SE 1 tom and NE
SW and tom 1SE and NE SW and SE
SW and SE SW and SE
tom andNE

Added 2 state ramps per 12119/12 field view.
4 existing compliant ramps. Driveway. Existing driveway on the eastside is a barrier for crossing SR 20. Proposed crossing on the west side of SR 20. Proposed local crOSSing for Brooklyn Ave. Field viewed on December 19 2012 with VFI'. Droposed ramp locations acceptable.

Signal Warrant. Equal access for all users to be provided on 2 of the 3 legs of the signalized intersection. Barrier to remain on the east leg of SR 20 in accordance with signal permtt. Adding a crossing for 1 leg will require a signal upgrade to accommodate addttional pedestrian heads and push buttons. Existing ramps for SR 20 (west leg) are accessible. Proposed local ramp for Franklin Avenue (northeast quadrant). Existing non-compliant pedestrian push buttons will be upgraded to the maximum extent feasible. Prohibtted legs and associated accessibility features (ramps, ped push buttons, ped heads, etc.) will be evaluated through a future engineering study and the warranted features will be installed in a future project that addresses the need for signal upgrades and/or replacements, thus requiring a new Signal permit

Driveway. 4 existing compliant ramps. Existing driveway on the north side is a barrier for crossing SR 97. CrOSSing exists on the south side of SR 97.

Local crossing exists for 42nd street. SR 97 (197)-01M project constructed in 2011. Field viewed on December 19, 2012 with VFI; current ramp locations

acceptable.

Driveway. 4 existing compliant ramps. Existing driveway on the north side is a barrier for crossing SR 97. CrOSSing exists on the south side of SR 97.

Local crossing exists for Cypress street. SR 97 (197)-01 M project constructed in 2011. Field viewed on December 19, 2012 with VFI; propose 2 addttional !

ramps for next paving eycle.

I

4 existim compliant ramps

4 existim compliant ramps

Driveway. 4 existing compliant ramps. Existing driveway on the south side is a barrier for crOSSing SR 97. CrOSSing exists on the north side of SR 97.

Local crOSSing exists for 33rd street SR 97 (197)-01M project constructed in 2011. Field viewed on December 19, 2012 with VFI; current ramp locations acceptable.

Driveway. 4 existing compliant ramps. Existing driveway on the south side is a barrier for crossing SR 97. CrOSSing exists on the north side of SR 97.

Local crossing exists for 33rd street. SR 97 (197)-01M project constructed in 2011. Field viewed on December 19, 2012 with VFI; propose 2 addttional

ramps for next paving cycle.

4 existingcorm)liant ramps

Page 4 of8

... . . ;i~ii••01j~i"~ijJ ~ :;-;;."",~,,;:;;~=~;·~·.-;;:[T=;;.;;'":'F'-P-"t'.

...',, H..... " __ .,~,,_ ••.•~'M~ •• __' ••>-~"_ ... ~_;;:j.~_.,_

, --.>._ "'-••_...._

•__,__

._._._w..... ~~.........~"__•• ___ '¥~__••• __."

~.~

y"" __ h""~..

.~~.____ .... _ ••_""

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-1 Filed 04/18/13 Page 5 of 8

.
g'0" j
.5

~

'tJ

~

County

State

Seg/Off

Route Intersection

Intersecting Local Street Name

'clii
01

fi,5 c

0

!.
E ~
!."0.

!.
E ~
~
..1/1
"0

1 ~
'ei d! i~ ~~~
~D..

!.
E ~
!."0.

!. ~
sII::
..S
1/1
"0

'tJ
:!l ici
01 (i)

Z

102

ERIE 97 197 044011003

31STST

Y

0

0

103

ERIE 97 197 044011738

29THST

Y

0

0

104

ERIE

505

0060/0427

105

ERIE

505

006010913

106

ERIE

505

0060/1233

MARSHST CRAIGST METZAVE

Y

0

0

Y

0

0

Y

0

0

107

ERIE

505 006011487

NORMAN WAY

Y

2

1

108

ERIE

505 0070/0324

29THST

Y

4

2

109

ERIE

505 007010733

HILLRD

Y

4

2

110

ERIE

1001 027011469

EGRANDVIEW

Y

0

0

111

ERIE

1001 027012134

E43RDST

Y

0

0

112

ERIE

1001 027012446

E42NDST

Y

0

0

113

ERIE

1001 027012738

E 41ST ST

Y

0

0

114

ERIE

4016 0140/0872

SCHAPER AVE

Y

4

4

115

ERIE

4016 0141/1398

STOUGH AVE

Y

4

2

116

ERIE

4016 014012087

GARDEN AVE

Y

4

4

117

ERIE

4016 0150/0000

ELLSWORTH ST

Y

2

1

118

ERIE

4016 015010374

HARVARD AVE

Y

4

2

119

ERIE

4016 0150/1050

CHARLOTTE

Y

4

2

120

ERIE

4016 0150/1338

OAKWOOD

Y

4

2

121

ERIE

4016 015012940 WASHINGTON AVE

Y

4

122

ERIE

4016 017010719

123

ERIE

4016 0170/0886

CASCADEST AVER LON

2

Y

4

2

Y

2

124

ERIE

4016 0171/1447

125

ERIE

4016 017112182

PLUMST POPLAR

Y

2

2

Y

4

2

126

ERIE

4016 019010000

MYRTLEST

Y

2

127

ERIE

4016 019010271

ELIOT ROAD

Y

0

City of Erie Curb Ramp Inventory "T", Plus, and Signalized Intersections

12-14-11 REVISED: 7-26-12, 1-23-13,2-4-13 S. McMasters P.A Miller

!. !.

E ~

E ~

~
! 1/1
. ."0 "0

Location (quadrant)

Comments

SW and SE SW
SW and SE / NW and NE SEand NE
SW and SE / NW and NE SWandNW
SW and NW / SE and NE SW and SE / NW and NE SW and NW / SE and NE
NW and NE SW and NW / SE and NE SW and SE / NW and NE
SWandNW SW
SW and NW / SE and NE NWandNE
SW and NW / SE and NE NW and NE
SW and NW / SE and NE NWandNE
SW and NW / SE and NE NW and NE
SW and NW / SE and NE NW and NE
SEandNE NW and NE SW and NW / SE and NE NWandNE
NW/NE

Driveway. 4 existing compliant ramps. Existing driveway on the north side is a barrier for crOSSing SR 97. Crossing exists on the south side of SR 97. Local crossing exists for 31st Street SR 97 (197}-01M project constructed in 2011. Field viewed on December 19, 2012 with VFI; propose 2 addttional ramps for next paving cycle.
Sight Distance. 4 existing compliant ramps. Prohibited crOSSing on the north side due to inadequate sight distance (existing sight distance is 135', required sight distance is 140'). Existing crOSSing on the south side. Existing local crossing for 29th St.. Field viewed on December 19, 2012 with VFI; current ramp locations accej)table. No PAR on east side of 505. 2 existing local ramps. Pedestrian Access Route exists only on the west side of SR 505. No pedestrian access route on the east side of SR 505 (guiderail), therefore no prohibited crossing.
No PAR on east side of 505. 2 existing local ramps. Pedestrian Access Route exists only on the west side of SR 505. No pedestrian access route on the east side of SR 505 (guiderail), therefore no prohibited crossing.
No PAR on east side of 505. 2 existing local ramps. Pedestrian Access Route exists only on the west side of SR 505. No pedestrian access route on the east side of SR 505 (guiderail), therefore no prohibited crossing.
1 existing compliant ramp NW quadrant. No PAR NW to NE and NE to SE (No PAR in northeast quadrant). Ramp on SE quadrant to be bui~ with Norman Way Bridge Project in 2013. (1S and 1L constructed in 2012 with 505-211 project) See Norman Way plan sheet 12 of 13

No PAR. No Pedestrian Access Route exists (other than the shoulder/roadway), therefore no prohibited crossing. Field viewed on December 19, 2012 with VFI" VFI~oposed level landings with DWS. PennDOT does not agree.

No PAR. No Pedestrian Access Route exists (other than the shoulder/roadway), therefore no prohibited crOSSing. Field viewed on December 19, 2012

with VFI" VFI prooosed levellandinas with DWS. PennDOT does not aaree.

No PAR. No Pedestrian Access Route exists (other than the shoulder/roadway), therefore no prohibited crOSSing. Field viewed on December 19, 2012

with VFI· VFI proposed levellandifl!lS with DWS. PennDOT does not aQree.

;

No PAR. No Pedestrian Access Route exists (other than the shoulder/roadway), therefore no prohibited crossing. Field viewed on December 19, 2012

with VFI· VFI proposed levellandifl!lS with DWS. PennDOT does not aQree.

2 new local ramps constructed adjacent to existing sidewalk (may need reconstructed).

5 existing compliant ramps.

City completed 2 locals, may need reconstructed.
No crossing on west side due to proximity of Cascade Street Prohibited crossing to remain on the West Side of Averlon Avenue due to the skew angle and proximity of Averlon Avenue with Cascade Street (6 ramps proposed for Cascade Street, Tee intersection). Field viewed on December 19, 2012 with VFI; 2 addttional ramps added crossing SR 4016 on the east side of Averlon Ave. Existing compliant local ramps. Driveway. Existing Driveway on the west side is a barrier for crOSSing SR 4016. Proposed crossing on the east side of SR 4016. Proposed local crOSSing for Plum Street Field viewed on December 12 2012 with VFI propQ$ecJ ramp locations acceptable.
No PAR SW and SE quadrants. Pedestrian Access Route exists only on the north side of SR 4016. No pedestrian access route on the south side of SR 4016Jotherthan roadway/shoulders\. therefore no prohibited crossing. See Photo. (Ramps constructed} 4 existina compliant ramj)§. No Pedestrian Access Route southwest quadralltJQLhexJhan roadway/shoulders), therefore noprohibited crossing. State

Page 5 of8

••• _:::;;::;:;:: ..........._ ....~'

,.;;o.;'-~O;;:-"'I''''b"-;~.;~;.;;~,... _,"

~ _ _ ",._,.,_ •. ,,'_ ""':~'''_'''"'''~__''~ •.__

'""_ .•"._. ~.•._._.~,,_~,...... ~.•.."._.~

_.~. ....I. ___,__.~_~..... __"..... _.___h.~ _ ....'"._.,~.

....~,.v~ ......,.__ ,•.•._._ _- -.::.;,;.;.~

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-1 Filed 04/18/13 Page 6 of 8

City of Erie Curb Ramp Inventory
-r', Plus, and Signalized Intersections

12-14-11 REVISED: 7-26-12, 1-23-13,2-4-13 S. McMasters
PA Miller

County

State

SeglOff

Route Intersection

Intersecting Local Street Name

f-i
'a~ II) 0
~~

:t
E ~

. ~j
Ci}¥
gi

~
'0

i :t
E
~

j
'i 1 i

:t
E ~

. ..~ ..s!
II)

§i:
~.a;;

'0 ~D..

'0

:t
~ a:
.s !
..II)
'0

'a
~
'cii
01 U;

Z

0

128

ERIE

4016 019010385

SASSAFRAS ST

Y

2

1

129

ERIE

4016 019010654

TRASK AVE

Y

4

2

130

ERIE

4016 020010410

FRENCH

Y

3

1

131

ERIE

4016 020011140

HOLLANDST

Y

2

132

ERIE

4016 021010260

133

ERIE

4016 021010603

134

ERIE

4016 0210/1001

135

ERIE

4016 0221/0669

136

ERIE

4016 022011127

137

ERIE

4016 022111357

138

ERIE

4016 022011576

139

ERIE

4016 0231/0125

FRUITST SUNSET PARADEST ASHST BRIGGS AVE REEDST LEWIS AVE
WAYNEST

1

Y

4

2

Y

4

2

Y

4

4

Y

4

2

Y

4

2

Y

4

2

Y

6

2

Y

0

0

140

ERIE

4016 0231/0996

PERRYSTN.

Y

4

2

141

ERIE

4016 0231/0803

PERRYSTS.

Y

4

2

142

ERIE

4016 023011302

LAKE PLEASANT

Y

34

2

143

ERIE

4016 023011581

EAST AVE

Y

144

ERIE

4016 0230/1880

STANLEY AVE

Y

4

2

145

ERIE

4016 023012176

PENNSYLVANIA

Y

4

4

146

ERIE

4016 0240/0000

ESSEX AVE

Y

2

2

147

ERIE

4016 024010491

BRANDES AVE

Y

4

4

148

ERIE

4016 024010814

BURTON AVE

Y

149

ERIE

4016 0240/1134

DEXTER

150

ERIE

4016 024011478

TUTTLE AVE

151

ERIE

4016 0241/1981

WARSAW AVE

Y

4

2

Y

4

Y

4

4

:t :t

E ~

E ~

. .. ~ ..s! II)
'0 '0

Location (quadrant)

Comments

SE and NE NE
SW and NW 1SE and NE SW and SE

crossina on the east side of SR 4016 and local crossina on the north side for Eliot Road. See Photo. 5 existing compliant ramps.
Tee intersection with VA Hospital Driveway. 3 existing compliant ramps. Median on east side.

SW and NW

3 existing compliant ramps.

NW

SW and NW 1SE and NE

SW and SE

SW and NW 1SE and NE

SW and SE

SW and NW 1SE and NE City completed 2 locals, may need reconstructed.

SW and SE 1NW and NE

SW and NW 1SE and NE City completed 2 locals, may need reconstructed.

NWandNE

SW and NW 1SE and NE City completed 2 locals, may need reconstructed.

SWandSE

SW and NW 1SE and NE

NWandNE

SW and NW 1SE and NE 1 2 additional ramps for median.

Median

SW and SE

Safety Issue. 2 existing local ramps. A signalized intersection (Pine and SR 4016) is located just west of Wayne street. Vehicles stopping at the light for

Pine street will stack up to and adjacent to Wayne Street causing a potentially unsafe pedestrian crossing of SR 4016. Due to the proximity of Pine Street,

no crossing of SR 4016 at Wayne Street is proposed. See Pedestrian Accommodation at Intersection Checklist dated December 21,2012, approved

January 9, 2013. CUrrent local ramps for Wayne Street should be updated by the city. Field viewed on December 19, 2012 with VFI, VFI proposed state

ramps at this location and PennDOT does not 8!lree based on the results of the Pedestrian Study.

SW and NW 1SE and NE

NWandNE

SW and NW 1SE and NE

SWandSE

SWand NW/SE

Added 1 State Ramp

SWandSE

0

Signal Warrant. Equal access for all users is provided on 3 of the 4 legs of the signalized intersection. ProhiMed crossing to remain on the west side of

SR 4016 in accordance with signal permit. Adding crossing for 1 leg will require complete signal upgrade to accommodate additional pedestrian heads and

push buttons. Existing ramps constructed with SR 5-ADA project let in 2009. Since these are new ramps, existing non-compliant pedestrian push buttons

0

will be upgraded to the maximum extent feasible. ProhiMed legs and associated accessibility features (ramps, ped push buttons, ped heads, etc.) will be

evaluated through a future engineering study and the warranted features will be installed in a future project that addresses the need for Signal upgrades

and/or replacements thus requiring a new Signal permit. Field viewed on June 6 2012 with VFI.

SW and NW 1SE and NE

SW and SE

SW and NW 1SE and NE

SWand SEI NW and NE SWandNW

Driveway. Existing Driveway on the east side is a barrier for crossing SR 4016. Proposed crossing on the west side of SR 4016. Proposed local crossings

SEandSW

for Essex Avenue. Field viewed on December 19 2012 with VFI, proposed ramp locations acceptable.

SW and NW 1SE and NE

(

SW and SE 1NW and NE

1

SW

6 existing compliant ramps.

1

SW

SW and NW 1SE and NE

SWandSE

SW and NW 1SE and NE

SW and SE 1NW and NE

SW and NW 1SE and NE

Page 6 of8

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-1 Filed 04/18/13 Page 7 of 8

City of Erie Curb Ramp Inventory 'T', Plus, and Signalized Intersections

12-14-11 REVISED: 7-2S-12, 1-23-13,2-4-13 S. McMasters PA Miller

~

~

I I It I County

RSotauttee IntSeersgelOctfifon

Intersecting Local Street Name

CI

U;

c

0

Z

i T T i 152

ERIE

4016 0251/0000

153 , ERIE , 4016 ,025010316,

MAXWELL AVE DAVISON AVE

T y
I I

154

ERIE

4016 025011225

MARION

Y

155

ERIE

4016 025011862

FARGOST

Y

156

ERIE

4016 026010000

PAGEST

157

ERIE

4016 0260/0334

CONRADST

Y

158

ERIE

4016 0261/0490

ZIMMERMAN RD

159

ERIE

4016 0261/0992

MCCAIN

Y

160

ERIE

4016 026011813

NANCY AVE

Y

161

ERIE

4016 0260/2172

CARNEY AVE

Y

162

ERIE

4016 026012519

ENGLISH AVE

Y

163

ERIE

4016 0280/0000

RICE AVE

Y

164

ERIE

4017 001010000 38TH ST (SR 40161

165 I ERIE I 4017 I 001012062 I

32NDST

1 a.
E
~

a.
E ~

j
'i ] ~

a.
E ~

~

Een

~i! ~~~

~

'0
'It

'0
'It

~Q.

'0
'It

2 4
2

4 2
4 2
4 2

Y ;;'4

4 2
4 2
4 2
4 2
3-2 1

a.

a.

E ~

~
~

E ~

E i

en '0

C
eCn I

~
'0

'It

'It

y

2 Y

Y
I Y I

a.

E

~

E I

Location (quadrant)

I

en

'0

'It

Comments

I I I o I
0
0

SW and SE SW and NW / SE and NE
SW and SE
SW and NW / SE and NE SWandSE
SW and NW / SE and NE SWandSE SWandNW
NW and NE / SW and SE SW and NW / SE and NE
SWandSE
SW and NW / SE and NE NWandNE
SW and NW / SE and NE SWandSE
SW and NW / SE and NE SWandSE
SW and NW / SE and NE SW and SE
SWandNW/NE SW

,Signal Warrant. Equal access provided on 3 of the 4 legs of the signalized intersection. Barrier to remain on the west side of SR 4016 in accordance with signal permit Adding crossing for 1 leg will require complete Signal upgrade to accommodate addttional pedestrian heads and push buttons. Existing ramps constructed with SR 5-ADA project let in 2009. Since these are new ramps, existing non-compliant pedestrian push buttons will be upgraded to the maximum extent feasible. Prohibited legs and associated accessibility features (ramps, ped push buttons, ped heads, etc.) will be evaluated through a future engineering study and the warranted features will be installed in a Mure project that addresses the need for Signal upgrades andlor replacements, thus requirillQ a newsiQnal permtt. Field viewed on June 6,2012 with VFI.
Driveway. Existing Driveway on the east side is a barrier for crossing SR 4016. Proposed crossing on the west side of SR 4016. Proposed local crossings Ifor Page street. Field viewed on December 19, 2012 with VFI; proposed ramp locations acceptable (added 2 local ramps).
,Signal Warrant. Equal access for all users is provided on 3 ofthe 4 legs ofthe signalized intersection. Prohibited crossing to remain on the east side of SR 4016 in accordance with Signal permtt. Adding crOSSing for 1 leg will require complete signal upgrade to accommodate addttional pedestrian heads and push buttons. Existing ramps constructed with SR 5-ADA project let in 2009. Since these are new ramps, existing non-compliant pedestrian push buttons will be upgraded to the maximum extent feasible. Prohibited legs and associated accessibility features (ramps, ped push buttons, ped heads, etc.) will be evaluated through a future engineering study and the warranted features will be installed in a future project that addresses the need for signal upgrades and/or replacements, thus requiring a new signal permtt Field viewed on June 6, 2012 with VFI
No PAR. No Pedestrian Access Route in the northeast and southeast quadrants. Proposed crossing on the west side of SR 4016 and proposed local
Iramp in the southwest quadrant. See Photo.
JSignal Warrant. Equal access for all users is provided on 3 of the 4 legs of the signalized intersection. Prohibited crossing to remain on the east side of SR 4017 in accordance with signal permtt. Adding crossing for 1 leg will require complete signal upgrade to accommodate additional pedestrian heads and push buttons. Prohibited legs and associated accessibility features (ramps, ped push buttons, ped heads, etc.) will be evaluated through a future engineering study and the warranted features will be installed in a Mure project that addresses the need for Signal upgrades andlor replacements, thus Ir~uiri!l!l a newsienal ~rmit. 7 existing compliant ramps

I I I I 166

ERIE

4017 0040/0887

I I I I 167

ERIE

4017 0040/1171

22NDST 21STST

I Y I1 I I I I I I IY I

I I I I 166

ERIE

4017 006010735

MANOR DR.

Y

2

I I I I 169

ERIE

4017 0060I10n WEST:~PlAZA

Y

2

, 170

ERIE I 4017 I 0060/0000 I W 8TH ST (SR 4018)

2

II I I1 I I
Y

I I I I
0

NE
SE SE SE and NE
SWandSE SWandNW

PAR only in NE quadrant. No Pedestrian Access Route (other than roadway/shoulders), except in northeast quadrant· Access to Pedestrian Access Route provided by proposed local ramp in northeast quadrant. See Photo. No PAR. 1 existing compliant ramp NE quadrant No Pedestrian Access Route (other than roadway/shoulders) on the west side of SR 4017. Existing state and local ramps in northeast quadrant. proposed state and local ramps in south east quadrant. See Photo.
No PAR. No Pedestrian Access Route (other than roadway/shoulders) on the west side of SR 4017. Proposed local crossing for Manor Drive. See Photo.
Driveway and No PAR. Driveway and no Pedestrian Access Route in northeast quadrant. Propose state crossing on the south side of Manor Drive and proposed local crossing for Manor Drive. See photo.
Signal Warrant. Equal access for all users is provided on 2 of the 4 legs of the signalized intersection. Prohibited crOSSing to remain on the west and south legs in accordance with the Signal permit Adding crossings for the 2 legs will require complete signal upgrade to accommodate additional pedestrian heads and push buttons. Prohibited legs and associated accessibility features (ramps, ped push buttons, ped heads, etc.) will be evaluated through a future engineering study and the warranted features will be installed in a Mure project that addresses the need for Signal upgrades andlor replacements, thus requiring a new signal permtt.

Page 7 of8

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-1 Filed 04/18/13 Page 8 of 8

City of Erie
Curb Ramp Inventory "r', Plus, and Signalized Intersections

12-14-11 REVISED: 7-26-12, 1-23-13,2-4-13 S. McMasters PA Miller

t..-,

County

I I state

Seg/Off

Intersecting Local

Route Intersection

street Name

.~ ~

C>

iij

zoC:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t'"
c:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

!
.o..

.c!o
~
.o..

'Z.0-) -~ ~
Z0 a:

:;
•In

"iii
0
~
.0..

.,
a.
~ c::
Q)
1;; (j)
.o..

..,
lS
"
m c
C>
iij

.,
a.

l!l.

c~::

~ c::

!

Q)
1;; (j)

.o.. .o..

Location (quadrant)

171

ERIE 4034 I 001210000

LINCOLN AVE

Y

SE

I I I I I I I _ I I 172

ERIE

4034 0040/0015

CRANBERRY ST

Y

0

I I I 173

ERIE 4034 1007011140

HOLLANDST

I I I 174

ERIE 4034 10085/0000

PORT ACCESS

160 I 323

I Y
I Y
53 I 64

I I0I
I I0 I o
22 I 28

Comments
Signal Warrant No PAR SW quadrant. Existing diagonal NE Quadrant. Existing compliant Ramp NW quadrant. Equal access for all users is provided on 2 of the 4 legs of the signalized intersection. Prohibited crossings to remain on the west side of SR 4034 and on the south side of Uncoln street in accordance with the signal perm~. No pedestrian access route exists on the southwest quadrant Also since PennDOT's policy regarding diagonals has evolved since this project was constructed, upgrading diagonal ramps will be considered with future projects that trigger the ramps andlor with projects that impact pedestrian access routes/movements. Along with diagonal ramp upgrades, prohibited legs and associated accessibility features (ramps, ped push buttons, ped heads, etc.) will be evaluated through a future engineering study and the warranted features will be installed in a future project that addresses the need for signal upgrades andlor replacements, thus requiring a new signal perm~. 1:1~:h ~ting crossing provided on the southside of SR 4034. No pedestrian access route exists on the northeast quadrant. Field viewed on June 6,
I~~~~~~:~r~~:~::~~:~~':n~~~~~~~~a~f::~~~e:~:;~~r;,a~=~=e~~::~~~~::~~~u~~~~i~i~:~=O:~deof
crossing of Holland street at this intersection. Field viewed On June 6, 2012 with VFI. !SignalWarrant Equal access for all users provided on 2 of the 4 legs of the signalized intersection. Prohibited crossings to remain on the west and south side of SR 4034 in accordance with the signal perm~. Guiderail and no pedestrian access route on the south west quadrant

Total ramps to be

constructed

650

Intersections reviewed by: Rod Fasenmyer, PennDOT Project Manager Scott McMasters, PennDOT Highway Designer Bob Zareci<y, PennDOT ADA Coordinator Paul A Miller, P.E., PennDOT Plans Development Engineer
Locations noted reviewed by the following on June 6, 2012: Alan Dunfee, VFI (available for the morining portion of the field view Rick Hoffman, VFI Michael Simko, VFI Rod Fasenmyer, PennDOT Project Manager Scott McMasters, PennDOT Highway Designer Bob Zarecky, PennDOT ADA Coordinator Paul A Miller, P.E., PennDOT Plans Development Engineer
Locations noted reviewed by the following on December 19, 2012: J. Mark FinniQan, Esquire Craig A Markham, Esquire Rick Hoffman, VFI Scott A Bradley, Senior Deputy Attorney General Bob Zareci<y, PennDOT ADA Coordinator Paul A Miller, P.E., PennDOT Plans Development Engineer

Page 8 of8

Ut

PHASE

, ,T

I ,

! •

I,?- I.. II< I. 5,S ie Iv

11

R

'.7"8
9, '0
-FIXED

I. i2

~, 1-1 0-

MAX 10-,

17

MEMOR! 0""0«

.~ CA

~I~
2 I 3 ,~ IG IV I . rii~ IG y
3 12 10-
Is ION :Kn
",Lv

.H ....

"•",c."..". ,
,

"''''''

CYCLE l£HGTH tSEC)

&:30 10 g;]4

90

J:OO TO 6«»

'0

1f,~T~ 80

MAX CRt£.OJ

!

2

.,EO 20 10

52 IS

(OS~EcCs;) (f 32 JJ 20

(DCOHtROU..(R IS lNTE1i:COffl'itCTED WITH At)JAC(NT SIGNAlS 10 PROv<DE TR.lFFIC PROGIIESSlON Ott 12tH STREET. NWO SlIP£RVlSED BY THE
~ MASUR CCNTitOLlER At 12tH M'D G.ii[!NGAAO(N. "" OFFseT RVEi1£NCEJJ TO THE END Of' (B/M)
r.;;EEN AT WEST 12TH STREET At{) GREEto/GARDEN ROAO

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 1 of 45

w
mI~~
• y
R
0"
Ofr

;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~< ~

S£ItVtC£. TYFE 9

__

A'D

,..-.;.;;:;:.-----

40 M,P.H.

NEXt S!GWlL 700' AT ~E.tf'fGAAOCN
,R~O,_

Permit No.~ Snee!_'_Of_'_
Dot. Issued~ Dot. Revised U:.a:27
GENERAL NOTES
er !:iST.&I..LA1ION. OPERATION AND U,i;lIlTENMlC( OF THIS TRAFfiC
SlCN,tL SHAll IN ACCORQmCE W1TI-i P£WNS'rlVAN!A OEP.4At· 1f£Nl OF TRIWSPORTAllON R£GULA..TIONS: ON on"rcl~ TR#'f!C CONTROl DEV!ces... .'iO uotJjFtCATt(!N Of lHl5 INSlll.lA't1Ort IS pEAYlnED: UNttss prnM .lP~OVAL IS CRAN'U:'O.IN WRtTJNG. BY THE otPARTI,IHtL
lL.l ~tE:twiCr to(CE$SARY fOR PROP[R VlSl8llITY OF T\1t
or S!Q,lALS.INCLUI)WC tR!1dWlNC TRE:ES.IS THE RtsPONSl8!l..IT'I'
111: p!:RM!T1Et.
er. AU SIGNS HIO PO\VEMrNi WIlKING5 tNOI.CATEt) Of'.l THIS OIIAWl\lC
AA£ Cc.."ISIOERtO PilaT or lHE P[I<J,.4"t ~ SJ./Al,l INStll.t.£D
AN\) MA!NTAINW BY THE p[IUlITTE(. VNtESS 01J.1!;RW!S( INOICAJEO. HC(pr lH!: LONQT!.1:)!N,J.L PA\t1.:MENT MAAAIMiS ON STATt Ml;W~ WAYS 'tIo'H'lC)1 WIt\. & /ol~·H.IiH(D aY TKt 0E~AR1/.lCNT.
POST IlOUNTEO Sl'GNA/..S SHAlt. BE INSl AUtO WlTtl 11-£ SiGNAl
H!,ID$ A ~IN!KIM Of 2 F£(T 9flifM> TJ.!f :rACE: or TH£ CIJR8 Oft
(CCE: OF THt WoutC£R. SJJ>lPORT POLIS 'OR OVEffi4tAl/ SIGNALS Sf-MI..l AL.SO HAV!: 4 ~UJ,j I-IORllom IlL ClrAJ'l4'l.C[ Of 2 n:u,
TJ-!! BOlTOI.I OF SIGII1"'- M:;AD$ IHO SIGNS ERE(T£:O OVER lHE RO.lOWA¥ SHAlL 9( 17 ff:El ABOVE Tut Ro,t,oWA.:(.lH( BOnou
e.r Of" pas1 \,IO\JNTft) S!CNIL H[>lDS SH,Il.l HOT tESS lH.IN I()
n:El NCR MOAE lH4'l '16 rEEl ..aavr T)E' S(jEW~1( OR P,I,VE· IdE.NT CRlbE, 'H"£ ~M 1-I000ZON."f1l. OISTJ.NC[ StTWIEN SlCtI)l KE,ID$ wrA~€n At RlCHT "'~Gl.t'S TO THt .APf'RO>'CH $HN.l BE e reET •
IN olDO{T10N TO ntis SIGNAL PERMIT, TIi! pEfMlTE£ SHALl.
08TNN 1; HlGHWAV OCCUPM-I:CY PERMIT ?ruQR TO kif OPENlPfCS
BElHIi ~AD£ IN' OR lJ1(otR A..'Y PORTION or II STATE WQ.!,WAY.
THIS MAWINtl C~Ol BE I.JS€O AS A C:ON$TRlJtl'fON ORA'NIHC lAAESS TKE PERMITtEE COWi..IE'S W\lH THE: PRQ-VI'SlDNS OF ACT 2S1. PJilEVE:NTIOH OF CM4AGE TO vrotRGRO\kolt) OT1LITlrS, P.~R 10 IN'ST ~lAT!ON CONSUlT 'MTH UTIlITY COMPN>ftE:S TO R[SOlVE
AAY AAOSlEp.lS IYHlCH U,I,Y S( CRE..\'!EO IJUE TO lHt l.OCA11Ol'l O£ UllllTlrS,
PI.~',I[MtNl 'MAAKlN'GS 5~L SE PI,.,l,CED t,'4 "-CCOliOANc£' WOH 111£: O£PAATM(NT !)r TRNi5PORTATIOl'i P....VEMltH ~".Ri(lhG H~<

#1

5, IS 1,2:.3, '" ",a,a, '10
" NOTE; AL.L SIGNALS n ~ ~ \15CRS

500' TO i OF \'2 TH srttT
0- 40 9

LEGEND

UA$1 ARM

STRAJH POLE

P£OrSfAL.

vw.;C!JLNt SfGNAL \iUI)

PEDEStRIAN S1GWL. HEAl)

SIGN VDfCU: CET£CIOR

W.lJ," ~

.,A.ItfCilON bOx P£tI[STRINI PtiSH BUTTOO/SlGN COOTA;OLlER ASStWBLy
sou:; '!'tlfllE loNE/WlOTH

aWl"" ~ 8R01fEN WHITE LlN£IWfDTH Y/.. "· SOUD YElLOW LINE/WIDTH

BY'''''' BllQ.I(EN YEt.L.OW U!iE/WlOHI

Oy,4"· COOS1.£ $OlIO YIUOW L!Nt/WlOTH
...... PRf:...£l.iPTJON: (Rcp> DE'vlCE RADIO eotcmOll!D

CO!lN1Y
ERIE
""'''''e;'fy OF ERIE
~ECT1ON
LINCOLN AVE. AND
S.R. 0005,I2TH STREET
EVlEWEO

• SCAlE IN Fr.

4.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 2 of 45

....<;S'lS"'.''-_Sl'teet _'_of _ , _

#3

! ,

0' I I-'

J1_

I .

SUM" """~'\ ~"''''~- aNN

,12'

lW",

Sl~:;'"~.;T:",:5c~~,"~.~"~",,,,~t~~~d!""'~"m~/~"~";;=~~~t.~~~;~~~~",,~/,~~~~~=~W~~~k-~I~tf~5~~~~i~~~~~~~~~"'~"'·~'·~~r~~~·~~'!,J"",",,"'~·,,,f.""~"\(K."~".J::Fi::@"~«=::: ,-',135'TO ... Si1EEO

1<''' L1MlT :.

4~1J~,,-

"""" '"\.

- , - c ; - .""DE".Ll>..

-..-.'.:£;-2:"' 6'

" ~ ' , , , , .,. --.

[! ~ 1\
/ l"" !:;1'
V• <,~;~;"'In~~~~

III:

wtO"-..,

t:::.- \..li't'~ M I!U5 ({.1m StJ;ffn

..

- ...

'21' TO ",XT S l _ " COSCruJE ST.-

STM1 WQFU!: ST:"';2'5.B:+;14
S.R. oot5 srG. 0SJa OFFSET iH'J3 SJl.em SEG.!531.CFf5ET 64'U
S.ft eees. src. AI."'C
SIGNS

\ ::::'s,,!~~'1

.""

8

cE~.~.: ::::~~i=:n~~i~:::~;:;;:':~i5:Ti'}LrT'" CfrOIl&
YElLay 'ILL "'W' IlEO,

Ci~./

Iif.':
i!

s~~P~1

:-"tll'

~ ~JJ~~~~i/~

ANJ £i.I1EEN L.£.o.lEHS£S iJNQ.U01~ ARRl.l\lSl.

LY

.Q7

SI~S '5. Ii. 7 r:(;I S ItIllL '!lME Tl..Mi.tL VfSOfiS.

@

(.. ~'~iIl@[!])
, U

SiGNAlS .q" !0.lJ.1Z, 13 00 14 lffil flAY;:

YHlTE IlAUUtiC I'Wi NiJ ~ kMtO 1,.E.'J.. tENSEs.

~ ,

SIQNAI.~
tZ.J,-I
5.7 fW!l

!

<!,

,~

I
,

f0
afe 0 , ,I ./

qD~
g

SIGNALS
'I,{).1I.
., 12.nAMJ H
J"
Qtm::rQR ®n:

.~..
l
l.

11~

,

l£.J --lL

~¥f>llnER5 FaR !.C!t?s , Ii.fla.!C;" II '#'l.!, mllE otl.!rf tJ~S.

~i<l~Jz~cl

.:.

!~t"x>j

c:i"
~
=w~s~
Qc..a: NV'lC

I

LifTO5P !YO'R i';;"<~T=

TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLAt!

w ~r AAH IE'xtSIJNG/ V9!lctlli"lR SiGNAl I£AO
~ V-t.H1t1.lt.AF1 StrlW. t6IO j£XI'STlN(,1 • PECESH!:Iut SICjNAL f£AIJ • EkEflG£NC'f FREQ!f'HOlf S!G'iI)l • PEQ£SliUA» PlISn S1JTTCN I SICN ~ U!:iS,?OS! HCUtl!O
~ SlGJ./, O~ERHEAO I'"a.WTHI

'tEklo.e DEtECTOR

~ JUHCTtCN BOX
~ ~r Ism:

· •

tsQmN...TwACwU;nElER

ASSE'H6t.Y UliE / V101H

MOIlEN \lfiHE U:'€ I ..:Oili OOU8I"E St'l-TD YELLOW WE I '!lim>!

~ aTil!h' ro.a

l*- ~ S"'!<:EAD 9£!;TR'lJ,"I RAOIIJ M-(f(NNA

i "'"'' ERIE

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 3 of 45

i ,

.

PermIt. No. 5'i5S ~Sh~et -l....of _ _, _

#4

; i i i , !

I ,

4

I~L

I ~~
;~;:N~~

D<3te b,ued .2±!!.-Otl.le Remed ~

t ,!

""" .'

~

~i:" 0:1"

..... !-ow

~_I2ii;fS3l

£ DETAIL
tt,l;l
r9ffi-.G)
"~.am
rom

l
{

i~~!~

~

g.

~

l
~
JS~.'F

r~r !~

DETAIL fA

~j
)-WIO'

I I"" I

~VJ"

,,,

-

-

;'

-

-

-'

- ".

I n< !

:,.

--

SIGNALS

SIGNALS

I~' ,,."",

ElGNs
""'.'~

lSl I·Ht ,lEFT ,AN, ...~r 'U'l.' 'v

I ,,'::-..
,"'.311'

OJ iR,.-:,slU IWAlK"" p€1iso",\'S~:':'O~""" ",,,It'

-3." 1.,-;;;;
1••

INIl

, CROSSINC

IU~'

II"",·'./,<r ,

IA"'"L
I6H
• - \ItilTE

lust

ILK

Iv", IN

Ie"",.

LEeE'" ON C....fEN

I .....~
"".,~
I """.

,a~
, , ,
, , I

£'<:'':1' S,6. i M£} B

'i,JaIL
12.1.3 A:NO H

(J
g 0
~

[IJ}

~

stCN~5 S. t;; 7 ~ t'! ~U.L !'AVE 11£.0. 'ffll,D\f AN!!

G1IE£M 1..£.0. !..£S'S£S

'

5!CNAl,S '!.10. H. i2.ll 11,""0 H W[tL W\.\'E wHlf£ ....ALKING /'IAN PJD 0i'tAIiGE HAt4) L.E.O. lENSES.

s::tc~s 5, b. 1 AMJ e wltl MV! rt.'ma '115OO'S,

f'en£5TAl., ~ HAST ~ IExlSnNID ~ IJE.HICUlMi SIeNA!. HEAt) ~ vOOOAAA SIGNAL HEAD /EX,ST!!fO) M PEOESTRIMl S!CUAl,. HElm ~ E~Y PR£EHPTtQN SICHAL • !>EO€S1R!AN PO'STI SUTTON I SIGN ~ SIGn. f'tisr MOtJNttO ~ SIGH. 01liRHEW HOUIHEI)
» VEHICLE Di T.E£.l(M:
- JWCHl:lU BOX
- ctM)Q:!T I SIZE ~ CCNiRtlLlEIl ASS€M'6l y » stltlO \l'}iJl£ UNE / Yllltfl: • BROKEN WHITE UN!: / 'WHH~ • CMU SCLJO tELLO'll LINE I llJ'JlH ~ SCL10 YE!.LO\oI' UNe I 'I{lOTH
lIm.1T'( f>O.~
SPREAO S?ECT;Hl,iI"I AAiJJO MHENNA

TRAFFIC <:;tr,NC>! PLAN
- 5.R. eRas {12tH SmEET1M(j

_ _ _ _ _ _ • _ _ _ w _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • ~---'·-----~_~_~_~_~

~

~

~

_~_

_ _ _ _ _ ~_._~_~_~_"

~_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _

• ___ ~ ___ ._._" _._.__

___

• _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~_~_~_~

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 4 of 45

· I

, i
I

l\

j :;

j
i i
i
! !

~
i"••
:;
~

I

• i
!

g

I
i ,
I

§
i

! j
I

, i
j
i

! i

i

,i ~

I
i
, i

~
~

I ~

"Ii ~ ~

; I
1 i

;!;:i
S

"i N

; i

~
L

·! ~ ~

I

i i

~

,,i,
;
! ,
!
1

~
~
• "
~ g

,"i
, i

I••;

I
i

~

!
!

~

I
I

" ~

;,1 ,~
.,l~

I ~

ii ~;j

,:~

ii:

I
i

i
i ,

, i

! I I

-2.c.f ....;)5~2IlL_'Shertt _ _,_ _

#5

.:~ ;.
~

a..1 I!iS/".I!~

~ ..

;!~

;!'i"!

~

,

If, topT·

,~ ~-~

--u L.c..J SP.i#,.MIr.

~

• .-I'

/>,~

•

"

Drt4'

---+

/>. Jli

! e1-/eJ~/1
r,~
~
l-

~

~~ lIrL
I<:

~

~

15

tr

]'1 ~I~!il
-U ~.:.

to. TI'PE I Kl.MllIi

ELECTRIt'Al S£1\V1CE. TYP€ B tt:lOlnEO

C/4'

(J'I'

•

=110-1£,.","

1~l
" '~-
:t

-._OISJ".,.
11",~ C<'ol

OETAIl .&
.1.~H,~.®

}
, en'

"" U" ;! "'BI+
" ' - ~~~ l1-.,ohw-s/

-.IS" ~
"-BI+ ~ {/e;~~ <!II;

•
z

,~

~

IY~

,
+216
I ""- -- SW/6'

Q-ilH 5l/f£!!.!....

D114'
)='11/6'

IJUfqOO NO!E
J.V1Plrnrns FOR LOOPS 1 ~J 1
....ILl. ~J;.v£ O£LAl' TL'1£RS

SIGIiS

,,~
""*"' Sw.dl)l"d I1l Rlih36m>

~'f'tQl't
- EDUCATIONIiL PUSH SUtTON rM
W'AlK!NG P£RSON S!{;HAL

""N;dll
'1'~1Z'

''''
2

Iil R10-lfru

- EOUCATlONAl PUSH sUnON !'()1
WAlKING FffiSCH S-lGNI'<L

'?dZ'

•

A'l-JA

RQ-3SR

.

!'tq~3SL 03~4

10'3~4T

I!!J !R3-1t.

NO !'£otS!RIAN CROSSlt6

24'«2:'

2

us£ CROSSWALK PLAOUf:. RIGHT 16'dl'

I

USE CROS5l:fAU: PlMlJE, LEn Watt lZv.
,,~
- - LEfT LMit HOST :U,qNU::n

1S'x12"
i?'~1S'
i l l3B'~W -

, , , I
-

SIGNALS
l,2.1.J 5,ij..,7ANOB

P.o.T. SiA. 9-+e0.ea !'1,.,\.JH ST. LT. ~

P.u.1. 511\. et5l'.fi l"U!M ST.Rr.

S,R. $11:.

m900s5

S£G. eSJ{! CFFSl:T 215<> SEC. 0531 OfFSET 21SZ

OCIAil &

J.S~ ....

~

~

'" SIGNALS
q.!I.l!.
nt:1ll1' , [,2,13 ANtI H

]

I

iM!jJ/J"
8Z.

~ l

~

1

~

U t l J $J!l&tl N'WE$·

"'>

U SlGlW.S 50 G, 1 At-£') a. 'III:..L ~¥[ lWf.n. nsp.;;s..

'=of S!{h"W.S 'S.S,.1 AND e itlt.l. \-?AVE- Aen. YE1.tC" AUD:

li
'!
~
~
~i 1 ;;,::i,'l.~ l~"

WE:H L.E.a.U:'NSES<

"~ 2"~ ~~$

"i"1'.
if", g..8~

~
fA OH4!L

~
r ~
ILsrH ..... ("I .!'

1.6pllltght...,r·Y~ tina 4U'TO NC-XT Sl~ liT UBERTY SmEn-sPeED UMjf ,. .~ MPH CMOE"'~

.41
_- ,G! ,l
~I:::-<-:.~.
~C""
®
"'IS' 91J/S' 01'/4'
1/4'
...'."...

~
PWEsrm.
I-W3T ARI'! f£XIS1~ vOOCtl.AA SIGNA!. HEAD VEHicm.AA SlGHi1l t£AO t€XtSHma f'El)ESrFUA.'i Sl~ H£/IO~NCY PREEWnON 5IGN!!lL flED€STRIM1 PUSH SUTTON I SfQ.l SIGN. POST MOUtmtI SIGN.OVEi'U-lEAD HCIJ/i'lEO VEH!CLE W-TEc:r~ JUHCTION BO:(
CCNOOif I su:e
t;.ONTROl..t!R ASSEMSt1 SCUO 'WlllT£ UN£. ! 'ffli'lnt eROKt:N Im1!E llNi: I wlOTlt OOUBLE: SO'..,lO "TtLHlIo/ UME J 1J1OTH
St!O!IUuCnYPELi,RLOEW LIM; I \i!OTH
S?RE~C- S?£CiP.u.~ RAD!O ANTENNA
D-416

(tUfI1.
"" lUIl.Clf'Alrrn tITY CF ERiE
i~CT*,
SA eeoo U2!!! 'SrRt~fi 40..."'0 PLUM sr~

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 5 of 45

Ilfr.lL If:.

;i~
l<l

~

~
ill

~ 11
~ a ~ ~

~

In IlfTAlL

t.,SSTN

Perl'fl\t. NQ. ~4aa Shee\ -1...of - 1 O"t.e IsslJlld ..J:.:!!:!.IL.Oot.e: Re\ll)ed ~

#6

]
t
l
~

;;;
~
'~"
~

!

= J-ewrs. .£R. IN!M aNN
m:tp:n);\ NQTJ:S AMPt.IFlL!FiS FOR lID'S 5. G M[J 15 tH'=!u I8
\jILL ~yt eEl.A'!' n~.

5lGNS

Ii] RlIHBil.J
C R''F;ltl
~-JM !l'J~2SL
03:-4 I 03-4 I

E:OI.)CA.TlOMl PlISH SUTTON FM lrtAlldNG PERSt!N S{CUJ;1,.
NO Pe-OCSTAIAN CROSStM:i US£ C!IDSSWALK P1.AtluE. RIGHT
US£ CAOSS1if;LK Pl..M'lUE, LEFT
V"i\ 12th llbo<!Ij

~l!I2"
2~'o::24'
IS'ol2' lS'dZ" 1'Z'.dS' Eiir.!6'

ft:Fll.

LEFl LAAe: >lVST TURN LEn

33"...30' .1

I ~ >oHJf€. REl"tEcr;;,mIZ8J t£G£NO eN Gt!€E'N fiERECTCF/IZEO BN:k(jROl'l~

SIGNAlS
1, J AltO S

SIGNALS
'J,l8,Jl.12

Sl:tlM!. NOT"'$!
a SI&NlIlS I. 3. 5. 6. ? M4) MIt!.. HAVf J<E:O. lEU,OW A.'I!J C-REEN
L.t.D.lE~S UiIot:lOOfN(; AR!'I'!il{SJ.
a SiGNALS I. 3. 'j.~. 7 4J\O \iP_'~ I'£iit 1'IHa 'l'l~
~'fE

-,
;$" a--.£'~
I¥rl" r-' /lIiJ,doJ

4-, ,.j -c,.,.~~ ~,
alilG.' C!v/4'
...•..

~Q ~f MiM (O'.!ST!M;1 vDltC'.K.AA SJ~ HEAD ~mnNG-}
VEH1ClA,P$! SICNAl J+EM PEGEStRI.QN: ~l~ HEAG EML~r P~T!ON SlGN'AL PWESTMAN PUSH BttnQ7,! I S!GN SICi~ P[!ST /I!Ql.mTED
SIGN.O'i£RHEAO kOl'NTEO
'iUilCLE O!,tcrCA JIlifCH!l4 eo;.; COM:ltJtT I SIZE
CONTRQt.ER ASSEMBL'! SCl.,fl,l ~m: LIN:: I 1o'l!HH SIlOKEN 'WHHE LINE / WJ{)TH 00,lBLE. sOt.m YaLO~ L!Nt ( ""lOil-!
1[l'tL!f'f P!l.£ S;>RE.AO SPECTMlJt{ i'AlJiO tlMTE.NN/t

'-"""',
ERIE
~ClJ'It!H,
elf)' Cf !RlE
IK'!!i&CnlJt SJt ~ (11TH STREEt: ~ $.A. .Ql~

_______D_-_4_17.___________ .___________________ 0_._._

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 6 of 45

. ~

#8

~

•

~i•
Ii
;t

L I il ~

]1- P '
II
~

I z
I ~ !lc
~~iii:~:;~N~ " tN. W:J"

~ be~-Q:~

N_~

"",<["'\,:I

-
-

-;;iij~

""""...1

till!
,!~~i"L

I!l

I

fil

,

,,,

,e-,'

pntrIm MnE
A.~U.FiERS FOR lCCf>S I iHRU 4 AND '{ THRtJ 12 "'~I.!.. HAVE OflAY TIMERS,

~

~~ MAST ARM 10lSTll'l:Gl ~ r>rn::STAl. PClE

-@ -'];> (f)

- 'JS;{C!JI.J'IR S!&<t4... yt~O
vanctLAA smHJ\l. «EAt!' IEx!ST!liGl

----e (JJ PEDes-rmAN' S1\.i.'IM. HeAt!

~l

-

E.MU!.WICY AAEl::l4'ftcn StOW... PEOESTRtAA PUSH eLlT~rm I 5,CJ<i
SIGN,. ?(1ST HOVNTED S!liJ'.OVEFlut'AO HQUNTEO 'JEHtcU: O£lECTOli:

JVNCnQ.! SOX
'';/4'~ -:tltrur I SIZE
w~, ~ CGNTRCLLttc ASSE1'!SL Y S11C \iHm; lINE I \flori{ BWf6' i3ACKEJI 'lrnITE liNE J ",roTH
,cr/~' ~ oo:.'ilLE SOUD Y:Ell.OW liNE I 'J:-Q!H 1lY.'.,JTl MlE i'f-- ~ SFR£~O S?EC~Rt;H R4C:J ,c."n::-.'i.Il

HArFle SIGNAl PI AN
51.",

o-il:e

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 7 of 45

f
i

• ~

i , ; I i

.2.
2
g

I
, i
I

l'
~ Q
it

• !
, I I, ~

I I
J ,
I

• i I
, I

I
,!: ~

!
• i

i ~

,1lJ!

~

1
I

l

i ~ ~

i g

l,,,

v i 1:

(~Hr¢(-or.Y4:Jtt._~

1U ..,

T 1

1515' iO NEXr SIGJ.'M. -'I f CHEi'itiY S!R(ti

-
'<"Ill"

- SP£fO L.i~ll '" 40 HP"I"
GRACE:o- .~

-

Si"'~"
£al(lfi'

L
I

1
]>

I \
. lJILJ

-

-

(ihf. t!l11l
-!ill8m"

ai, Tm 1MWlfllt; ELEctRICAl. SUI';'ltt. Tr!>E a HC(llHEO

\

/

l.E£.J

I
:... y

-

It
;;

-

OYl,,· "

~

- - stIIvtt' ,. riJG1R.

-

-

rSWi'S'

-

i~ ---

)-wr;

I..

r""

il2'

.<R. eMS UN" STllEET.'

/I'

I %

t ~ K:

iii'

r-

;~

"~I ~w

~I!!
. x~

;~"; "

~i :i "

,,--~

OW
ltIli

~~ ~~

3:r13

f ,-

~

~ I~ 1\

~

~

} '"

~
~

~

I~'Ilh.. 'J-

OXI~;?: ~ ~A\ I~,.,;·

7/1." "

1 ...,

~~~f

-

~~ r-"'<'"
@' ~&

l'!J",~,

,
m

I I '''''"'''''

li!f..J lit

>\-.,.. ,.'

;"

1
I I
ULl
r V/"

/ ~b ~~l

-'

-

i'\

-",,,,J

--~~

I.,.

- - ' - f'er~'lt No. S'l5'l Sheet -Lor
Oote hsutld ~Oote Rev1sed 1-124T

J.~li'I¢t.cl"Y~l.J""~

J-

1
!

m

I
I

-i

fir

-

M.11l!b5 q;fH sr,l{ff1J

2-;;;-

-

r - UL.J

aW / 5'

-

: ~

= ~.
~EY & CtW:$IR. t../

121' "fil!£Xi SIGN;!l i'fHr~!L£ Sl1,H:T=--SFEW l.1Mif ' 413 M?J.I:

MAGE ~ -B,3l

ru

IE~~ii"M 1 •• 1........ /cn~~ -g - !s:;;:;;s.,

,"'''''

115& 1156.

t.(J~ ~l"..,r·¥"!';V z",..
!

!
P,!J,t. "~".,, '<.R. _ ,
~=. l.~:.;E¥:'

Iu,'
1/

(sa !,"C
"q,,,

"-
I ...

. "~

~® 1 ( .> 1\! ~ SIGNS

,....... '" CE • - , Is!!::,

"''''~'''"

! ,:~'..

m $} ~ I~~ } i"IS'"'' !VALKING "RS~~~~~TON "'" Q'.!2" l

SIGNALS
/,,z..J# 5. S. i AAtt 6-

SlCNALS
'-ltI, 11. \2.
13 ~ 14

@",Ill

,

w

l.:.'

DETOlL &.

c-m"'",'3,",,.3, ~ "" """ .W;,.' ,,,,,, ~~0 [[} !J!~i ~I • .
-- - -. -- - ---~-.

,'li-OS<\J
OR': !lR
RR·'
iON
)3"

['''-''!N!) p£~VsSHlCNBAULTTON feR '¥..It

l

.Ml

I CROSsI""

,

I I'iMi

, ....12

I

"..,12'" IM_

TIlIlU

, lEFT

' :li1"~
I 3Il',l!

TE

!lEQ"lll "" GeEE"

. .---~--~.---.---~-.- ~---.

~-~---.-------~

$lWA!. M)TES;
~~s6.. '1 ~ a lULL fo!.we REO. Y£U.O\oI I'lND GREEN

Sil.ltiAlS S. S, 1 AAO B WILL ~VE It.1tf,"\El lIiSCRS-

I

I

VSHIn~ES"''tP.,L1~2l, ~11.~ 12.11I\A"mA1l

14 If!! l C;l.ANGE

HA'tE
I-'#(C

CW.

LENSeS •

-- --- --- -- -. -. --- .- .-.---~-.---.----

~-.

--. -. - ... - -~-- ~ ----"

-~.

-~-.-.

l
~
~
,
w 0 «
~ Q

DElATe /h,

~ _. - --- -~ --_. -. -~ .. -

$\ '~" 'oy

\.llii:iQ
_ . a · ~sr ARM CEXlSTnf.ll
.& - PEDESTAl PCI..£

VFliltlJlAA SIGNAl HEft(} ~C1.l.AR $1GlW.. HEArl !£;(lSTtNGl
;:~ OESmlMl S!~ HEAD ·~ 9\fRC~NC'( ?R!::€HPHCH SIGNAl..
• PEOEsrRtAN PUSH SUTTON I 'Slut.] • SICH.. \'OS! MOONT(O w SlGN. Q'I£..fIJfE~ HOUN1E!J
~l - V£}jlO.E GETtCTOR ~ ..JUNCTION aox

=..C/4·~ * ~li / sU~ • COU'!'ROlL£R 4SSEMSl'f VIS' ~ SOlm loMa£ UlfE I YlOm

e:.uS' w MO'KEN WHrTE UNE I !(!OiH

tlY/.' - OOUStE SDlJO m~lO" Ur.'i I W1DTK

• ~ u"fil.!TI' PetE

I+-

SAA£40 S:.eC!fWM RAO!C' J;N;E.~N4

TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLAN
«0.1:'(,
,~,
1'I.IAt;hU'il:
em rF Eros:
""""'-SA. 2005 !121!i St~ETl ilI(i:
~
~

0"41"

#10

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 8 of 45

!

i
!
I
i i
, i , I

I

I

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i i

i

iIe~ •

IN

!'t•!

I~

! i

.!:!
;I~
q:

i~

j •

1 ,

~
~

! :;

( rmma ur8e,"D," I DlI

. ,l~
II~_
..1 u
,-"

II!

!~

d i
i "
!E ;11i~~ ,1, ~

-
-

Is;o/b
.'-" .

-

-
-

mr

/

!ii~:.~

5,!CNAl 'fliEs.;.
SIGNAlS S. 6, 1 ~ g WILL ..AVE m:o, 'fELLOW fINtl GA'EOt
L£1I. L£J&$.

i •

stGlMLS S. 6.1 AND 6 Will ~~ ltmN!l VI~.

,!.!!

"SliiJlAlS ~ Ut, U. 12.13 fINO 14 "lLl woE

!~

VrtlT£ 'IAU<:ltN MAA A,"'O C!'ltl."''GE HAND U:,O. LEh'SES.

l~

! ~

!~I

SIGNALS

Iffi'"'

12>=

; i i i i
, i
I
, i

iIii-

'''''-- '"R
rRo':I:--;
lDJ.4'

IND I"", IUSE
If,";;t"J.-"',;.

CRossm

fRi'-"

IN" TUIl!l en IlEO

fO';71

1,m LANE MUST T"," LEFT

<lI\£'" , - "H!lE "''CO< ""'"•• lEGem ON

-, , "'.,., ,
,~
I,,;;,, I
-17;i,; i
, ! 5-<'.'" 1 :lIl".,.'
I , I "".".

SfGNALS

&:. etTAIL

}

+~
I

DErAIL .&l
OfTfCIPf! NQTE A.'9UflERS FOR LXi'S. ! iAAV S Will M\I£ DElAY :n::l-!ZRS

#11

~ I " - I

-'

::.-

I~

ms S.R.

!li'lH Sllif'EfI

~

TRAFFTr <;lGWII PI AN

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 9 of 45

MX • MAXIMUM Il:EGIU

£MtRCt»cY vEI1CI.E PREEMPTION NOTE

suPPLr Hi EM(RCENCY VEHIClE PREEMPTION UHll WHICH

SAtC:QltU1£JANCn:ESS.TOHPEOII1NTREERCEWNtINCCON~TRSOtCllt.UEJR. fPRROEMEMmPTIO£NU£\WENCY

VOFE'HI,C., LCEO. NCFM-IJ.ISC£llNtGHE?HCAOSNt1R~ Otl.£URl.J1t.FI2HII!ClHCEON"tGRROEIE.tNE"R IN1ERV}L

IN1'(RVA,. TIMINGS. TO PROWl( A. "YELLOW" ClUNG( 1KtERVJt,

me HI "H..L REO" mTERVH. RE$lA.1NC 1H 'tHE SELECTeO

STREEl BECQt.eIG "GREtN"' 'WfTH ,ILL OTHERS R£~

"RED", If" PREEMPTED OOR1NG lH( IUT£RVN.,. AND PROCEED

AmSYOO£T.tE~R DlHi.EmROVV..E...

lOA£' ou PROVlOE

t

TAHP( RcEREt~t"I.OUNPOiNNOITCtARTMIOINHATTIOONTloUr: SPRtlEtECwlPtTO!ONs:tRSEiCENTALWRlTnH~JRN

10 NORMA!.. OPERj\liO~.

II Y G

il-
..

I(2) .r @ .-

"

SIGNALS I.Z.!i,u

SiGNAL.$ 3 ....7,9

s:;::t
00
ffI

SIGN TABULATI0 N

CUCRIPTroN

Rl~"L. ~~:~ t:;. ,=,

no R9-3

P£OES'fR1AN CR'OS$lNG

.0.SIZE
"1"B.~>,0i'-
WIRING DIAGRAM

@-&-@-.

,

~. .5J:Ll.4

I~~~ '!"l =~

i

&, 0-0

~ONTROlLER ASSEMBl~.J
0- Signof tie!ld

TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNAL

GENERAL NOTES

w.fcrll. C(ltrata and rnalnt.Qin lhese $1..,1'1015 lfl oecotdooct with fM PeMqtlVl1ma Deportm.ent of TfQns.;:or!atlon ~1.llattoM

lho~ govern the ~iqn. lOeolioro ood opefgficn 1)1 signs

5i;r\(lls and I7K1.fkin9'O

•

Mount 5lQfIOl l'wJads (J mll1imum of 17 tt otlOw! the root!....o' Ins!oH TY9~ 'a' illedricm $lIrvi~e 0fI pole rIO 2.

"
¢- _.
.•..... " . " "[
L",,,Gortc.IU... ~n..' u ..n ._-,
1

•.. _--- ---=..=-.!....---.--.--:::.~

"",.1-

1.. .... uti "' ....U

#17
I /
ERIE
1M...."'.... !>f
~~.
0712

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 10 of 45

~
§
~
~
~
g
~
~ £
54

De toi I
(8)

"IUSY

0 Oet'; II
00 ..

\.

G=i> 13

3'
-': W(i!8'1i
m.. 0 =..• Oer(n ! I\P..Y -<
-.-<
<J:1J 13

NAoLT~Et SPECiAL SIGNS NAVE 2.0~ RAorus. o.o~ &oROER. BlACK ON IHtle

~ Dora I !60f Polem

- - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - h - - - - - - - - r -•. --------·--·--·-------il-t~.·.,"".

- , GRAOE ~

52' CCl'IC:. Dr.

--
, l,Er.4L RIll" UHE

"

(:!j

®1 ".
~ CD

;.i.IGN~lS
® ". I®l ".
CD (J) @

@© © ©@

stCNALS I

5!G!W-lj l,l.JI.S &- 7

S[CN..u.S 5 &; e

SIGflALS I TH~ I! EGU!PP!C _!Til TtlMEL YlSe«s

TYPE 8 SIGHA!"S 9,lO,H. & 12

DSlailhOf Po Ie l:5.}.

PE.iUltT NO. f t~Ol

SHE.ET :

2 of l

#20

1,,
I

N
tiH]

m
f

&,.I, I

\" I

~
N

(

-1\t-f
I~ nD1mJ

~ .it.
e~ m
N

..!:
~
,
~

100'
10;1 10' 10'1'0'

~

~
,, w~
~
• I

0
;;

• WATCH Uti

SeE A-A

, ,
I •

LEGEND

V ~
OetoilAor Palau>

- -_ _a .& _ IlASTARM SiGN.AL &. S lGH :SUPPORT .... -e &. .. STRAIN POI.ElNfSSEMGER cABLE
____ ® ~ VEHICULAR SICJriAl MUD
___ @ .. f'EO£STR1AN SIGHAl. lIE.AO
m .,u. M OVERHEAn JIOUHTl:O SI{;N
. . . m- POST YOOHTEo S[(iN
OIJ VEHltl.E OETEcrtfl, --H '0 - PEDEStRIAN puSH BuTTrMlSfCH ~

rl3 CCI'ITROlHR AS5E1iat,.

III - o

JUHCTlC'A'( DOlI'

eft" - COHOO1T1SUE

W/&" SOltO RHll£: LlHEI1Il0TH

6./6-~ - BROUN IIHTE lINElfl0fH

'tI~. - SOLIO ytllO. UHE/ltOTH

flTl" ~ - 8RC!KEN YELtClIf LINI:./'lf10TH

soue Df/4"" - f)ClIelE

TELLOI U~E/IIDTH

<9 ...11 - uTlLJ1'I' flll...e ~ ElIERGE:KCY YfCHtC1.E" PREEWT ION _ - Q!PftESS!D cuRS

PENHSllYAKtA DePARTMEKT OF T~SPORTATJOH DISTRICT l~O TRAFftC UNlT

COUNTY; Eli lE
WJHICIPAl..ITY' t City ~ ERIE
EAST 12TH STfI££1 is.A. 00(5)
~~o fRANKLIN AVENUE

DISTRiCT TRAFFlC ENGINEEA

DAn

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 11 of 45 <t 8M ELEV 825.10
60.0 RT STA 974+45.0 SURVEY &. CONSTR SHOT #41 DO" CUT IN CONe. BASE

"1"-"0"

#37 & #38

ERIE

0019 CITY OF ERIE
REw.l!ONS

S£CilON
AOe

56 OF 61

DAn:

BY

10 u.
0
"'>"-'
i":"'J"I'': z"""F=' .,
15
"
8ALOHfN RUBINO ASSOCYATES

o

25

50

SCALE IN FEET

FAIR ~'m"~LlC

A
~ TAl ACOlIISl17ON ca LLC

LEGEND
~ CURB RAMP STAlE
~ CURB RAMP LOCAL
SUR\fEY BOOK NOS. 20046, 20047 &: 20048

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 12 of 45 <t BM ELEV 815.81
41.0' LT STA 986+30.5 SURVEY &: CDNSTR
SHOT IJ45 "0" CUT IN CONe BASE

DiSTRICT
1-0

#41 & #42

,w'"
ERIE

ROUTt
0019

"A"0'8" 58 Of 61

CITY OF ERIE

RE\oISIONS

AUTOZON£ INC
Q
'0
2ii

:~~

kVJj '
"::r,'

~
;:.~

0'"1
"':t

s,R. 0019 (PfACH STl?£El/

I ,

RIGHT-Or-WAY LINE

GARY Af!L1ER

/ /
/

b 25

50 I

SCALE IN FEET

/

,,'

i"f"!

,

I

PUB/C:)J.()/{W Pfj':7.;;J
B.§:,;X!
;;; "0 -
'~"
r>ww-
~
is
" w
~
%
'"Z
0 U
A
CHURCH ANO
MURDOCK ElEC1RICAL

LEGEND ~ CURB RAMP STATE ~ CURB RAMP LOCAL
SURVEY BOOK NOS. 20046, 20047 lit 20048

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 13 of 45

TE-672 (9-10)
PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATION AT INTERSECTIONS CHECKLIST
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ALL INFORMATION IN BLUE OR BLACK INK

~ pennsylvania z.~ OEPARH1ENT Of TRANSPORTATION
w w w.doLst.1te. p ... .u s

#43

As specified in the MUTeD, Section 4E, an engineering study shan be conducted to determine the need for pedestrian accommodation at signalized intersections and the related design and operational features. Based on the engineering study and engineering Judgment, proper documentation shall be made at all new Signalized intersections and modifications to existing signalized intersections. This documentation shall be provided with guidance from this checklist When pedestrian accommoda~ons will not be provided at an intersection, signalized or not, proper justification must be documented. Below is a checlliist of information thai may be relevant in the determination 01 pedestrian needs and warranted accommodations at an intersection. Not all of the information below Is required to make a determination. This form can be used 10 summarize the needs and accommodations of a corridor or a single intersection.

-

"

c

DATE

I OISTRI CT

February 1, 20 13

MUNIC IPALITY

City of Erie

SUBMITTED BY

Paul A. Miller, P.E.
CITY

Oil City

I In\e!'l!ectlOl) _B~~ground InforJ1iiltlcm: 4"~t;?;:;:~,~\~~ i&~~ c~;~i11"ot!1:, ; , COUNTY

1-0

IINTERSECTION

Erie

SR 0019 & Walker

STREET ADORESS

ISTATE
PA

I"P

~

Prolect.,Overview

255 Elm Street

I TELEPHONE NUMBER

.- 16301
; -

,814-67,8-71-07-

o Provide a Project Description and Scope of the Project.
Bike/Ped Checklist Completed. Ves 0 No

Cu rb ramp and sidewalk project to update missinQand non-compliant ramps and sidewalk

Existing Facility DescrlJ1.tlon . '"",..

-'<'-"""~ .'!.J' .."",:-!.

,;~

Ves

No

[!J

0

0 0

0

[!J

[!J

0

0

[!J

0

[!J

0

[!J

0

[!J

0 I!l
m 0

Are pedestrian facilities present (i.e., sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, etc.)? Are there descriptions of each quadrant 01 the existing intersection (photos afe strongly recommended)? Are near-by land uses documented? Are pedestrian facilities near the intersection (i.e., sidewalks, bus stops, trails, etc.)? Is there current evidence of pedestrians using the intersection (worn paths, observed activity)? Were special accommodations made in the past for pedestrians at the intersection ? Are restrictions for pedestrians present? (No Ped signs, limited crossings) Is this a defined walking route or safe route to school route? Are physical restrictions or right-of-way restrictions present?
Pefltll / 39"1 If pedestrian signals are present, is proper traffic signal timing designated for pedestrians at the intersection?

Proposed Facility De scription 't- i'.

~'s

.<.\;~<

-

.' ~<,~,

Ves

No

0 m

Will the proposed improvemenlS generale new or additional pedestrian traffic?

0

[!J

Does the proposed facility introduce possible additional restrictions for pedestrians?

0

[!J

Are new or existing pedestrian signals proposed al the intersection ?

0

[!J

Are sidewalks proposed as part of the project?

0 0

Are detailed descriptions of changes to each quadrant documented?

El 0

Do near-by land uses change as part of the project?

I!l 0
"

Are additional pedestrian facilities proposed for the intersection?

.. . -
,j

'"

'''''-Olitret"aih _Effo r' t\<s;. - ", ~~• s.1,; ~.

..,.., 1

Has contact and discussion concerning pedestrian accommodations at the intersection been made with the following?

' 2"

~""~--"~.i'ft

Ves

No

0

[!J

Municipality (5)

0

[!J

Transit Organization (s)

0 0

School District (5)

0

[!J

Public Meeting (s)

0

[!J

Emergency Services

[!J

0

0 0

Advocacy Groups Other (s)

Curb ramg and sidewalk groject to ugdate missing and non-com(1liant ram(1s

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 14 of 45
TE-672 (9- 10)

#43

(The information below may be useful in the determination of pedestrian needs and warranted accommodations al uncontrolled interseclfons. Not all of the information is required to make a determination. The minor roadway informalion may also be needed in some situations.)

Roadway classificallon:

Urban Regional Arterial

Roadway Typology: _ _ __ --'S"u"'b"-u"'rb=a"'n"C"e"-n:!t"'e:!-r_ _ __
Speed Umil (MPH): _ __ _ _ _---=4"'0'---_ _ _ _ __

Design Speed :

40

ADT ______________~2~1~,7~2~1______________

Percentage of Trucks:

8

Travel lanes: _ _ __ _"4'-'w"-~"'h"_"le"ft'-t,,u"-r!!n-"la"'n"'e"__ _ _ __

Is there a sight distance deficiency? D Yes DNa
II yes, explain. _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __

Sidewalk: [!] Ves 0 No

Shoulders: 0 Yes [!J No

Curb: [!] Yes 0 No

Is parking permitted on the roadway? DYes [!] No Municipal recommendalion :_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Pedestrian generators ?

Country Fair I Citizen's Bank

Dislanee 10 nexl available crossing:

150'

Was a crash analysis completed? [!} Yes 0 No

2.) To Arelherepedeslnanerashes? [!] Yes DNa

NtITHU C~A•• ~ELMIb C/Mtl~" (\. WALll-£2,

Has a pedestrian gap analysis been performed at the location? 0 Yes [!] No

Itp-Imp dot state pa YS/lransferffiaffic SignalsJUnsignalized Intersection Ped Cales from HCS xls)(
Are Ihere other geometric concerns? II yes, explain: The intersection of Walker Blvd_ is approximately 150' south of the 38th Street intersection which is currently being upgraded with new ADA compliant pedestrian facilities_ Attached is a copy of the traffic signal permit and pictures of northbound traffic which consistently backs up through the Walker Blvd _intersection. Pedestrians attempting to cross at Walker would encounter walking between vehicles and vehicles exiting the Country Fair driveway. Snow on the sidewalks indicated that no peds were attempting to cross Peach SI. at Walker.

Yes

No

[!]

D

D

[!]

G [:J

[!]

D

[!]

D

D G

[!]

D

[!]

D

G D

Is there proper pedestrian timing established at the intersection? Is an aU-pedestrian phase recommende d in the study? Are the crosswalks in alignment vvith curb ramps? Are pedeslrian signals visible Irom the proposed erosswaJkJcurb ramp locations? Are countdown pedestrian Signals present? Has the need for Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) been determined from the study? Are pushbuttons proposed to be within the current ADA criteria? Are all pushbutton locations accessible to all pedestrians? 00 all features satisfy applicable state and federal requirements?
2

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 15 of 45

#43

TE-672 (9-10)

I ; : i:,,> ,~':' -r'" f "

", ~~lI1en~auoris/JilStl1iCjltioi;i :~' [;\' ';' ~

k,\i"..j,:;-;_",

_, ,":}.t,-,~·,.I,'Ci'F3',,,~j

l
I,

..

.- "

.,

The recommendation is to not place pedestrian facilities that cross Peach Street at Walker Boulevard, With the

stacking of northbound Peach Street traffic. the potential crossing at Walker Blvd would create blind spots for pedestrians

and also conflict with vehicles exiting Country Fair onto Peach Street. Adequate pedestrian facilities exist at the

Peach Street I 38th Street crossing with countdown pedestrian signals,

District Tra,ffic Engineer Approval
-r~ J J1CCiLJ 2/7/13

District Traffic Engineer

Date

AI/slstsnt District 'Exiicili,iy_~ i~pprOval ;-;i;)
~ C \\O~, ~L/lJ

District ADE of Design. Maintenance or Services

Date

3

SIGNAL NOTES
~EV~~~~~~~S il¥~AL¥u~N~l3v1s~R~:1,8 & ,1 TO 2.SICNALS 3,1,1 & 8 TO BE EQUIPPED WITH BACKPlATES. 3.StGNAlS 3.4,7,8 & 11 TO BE EQUIPPEO ~ITH LOUVERS .
ItHERCONHECT _ LEOAL RIGHT-OF-WAY
.'2-6'11"
LEGAL RI'''''·-OI--WAr

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 16 of 45

#43
PERl'" T NO. _-,4",2",',,-5_ _ SHEET __2__ Of __'__ DATE ISSUED 10-5-55 DATE REVISED \ - 23-06
SIGNALS

+y- y +G G
3. 7

TYPE 8
~

1.2." ,5. 6 ,8 ,11

9.10.1 1,12.
13.1" ,IS ,16

11 600' TO 5 JGNAl _
AT CHERRY STREET

RIG/ff-OF-WAY LINE

SICN STANDARD

•

RIQ-12

03-1

C

R3-7L

, 0

R3-2 RI-!

F

R3 -5L

G R3-6SR

03-<4

J

RIO·II

RIO-3B

RJ-SS
• RIO-<4

SIGN TABULATION
DESCRIPTION LEFT TURN YIELD ON CREEN •
" 38th
lEFT LANE !.lUST TURN LEFT NO lEFT TURN
STOP SICN LEFT TURN SIGN
OPT IONAl RICHT TURN SIGN PEACH HO TURH OH RED EDUCATIONAL PEOESTRIAN SICN STRAICHT-THROUCH SICN PUSH BUTTON FOR WALK SICNAL

004' "

..i' , \' ~

~

,.i"
"

-

SIZE
30-x36· 60·x IS 30")(30· 24 · x24 ·
30 ·x 30 ~
30 ~x36 " 30 ·x36<4& ·xl'· 2-'4 ·x30 · 9-xI230·xl&-
9 "x I2 ~

QlJAN. 2 2 3
2 2 2 2 2
,

-A:.
-_CeAD:.
-CD
.... I!l .L1!l CIJ
-+It!!
ro1m81
-11::/"'W/.. • 8W/ ""
YI.. " 8Y!4 •
DYI" "

LEGEND
MAST oARIII
PEDESTAL
VEHICUlAR SIGNAL HEAD PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL HEAD EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION POST MOUNTED SIGN OVERHEAD MOUNTED SIGN VEHICLE DETECTOR PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON/S ICN CONTROLLER ASSEWBLY JUNCTION BOX CONDUIT/SIZE SOLID WHITE LINE/WIDTH BROKEN WHITE LINE/WIDTH SOliD YELLOW LINE/WIDTH BROKEN YELLOW LINE/WIDTH DOUBLE SOliD YELLOW LINE/WIDTH

3 M CONOUIT TO THE INTERSECTION OF S.R. <4016 (3BTH STREETI AND CHERRY STREET FOR FUTURE USE.
COUNTY _ I-, '~R~I~' ___________________________ t.lJN ICIPAlI TV I..J;CJ.JTLYUOFtL'IilRjJILIi''-_ _ _ _ _ _ __ INTERSECTION I WEST 38TH STREET (S.R.4Q161 AND
PEACH STREET (S.R.OOI91

D-469

a R~'NO'O • f) A t:v..{. fJQ !J2",-..I' DISTRICT TRAFFIC ENCINEER

I~ DATE DATE

0'

25'

50'

75'

SCALE I

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 17 of 45 SR 0019 and Walker Blvd

#43

#43 Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 18 of 45

#43 Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 19 of 45

#43 Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 20 of 45

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 21 of 45

OIS'ffiICT
1-0

#43

ERIE

0019

,,-
Aoa

"'" 59 OF 61

CITY OF ERIE

RE\IlstONS

DAn::

fly

8S'lAf

;;;

"-
0

~

>'"-

""'oZ"'r'

+

0

"<""z''
8

~~

B';.7l.t

p

~:!
A "<I
3:1
~~!

CHURCH AND
I,WRDOCK ElECTRICAL

w. ROBERT MARTlN. ET At

AOAM &' CA THERIN£ 1£'IIN lRUST,
ARlElL£ TEPPER lRUST, ANO
JANICE L£VfN UTA 'IE mUST

,990 _____-+_ _ _ _ _ _ +991
T

s.H. 00'9
(PEACH SlRE£T)

A
ClENWOOO PET HOSPITAl

/ /
./

/
/ / / / /' /'
/

o

25

50

!2S

SCALE IN FEET

PI 5TA 994+82.57

;;;

is

0
~

~
or
'z"
0

-- ,:..f"

" w
=z >

F

uis

~:~A~
ERIE ZOOlOClCAl
SOCIETY

LEGEND
~ CURB RAMP STA1'E ~ CUR8 RAMP LOCAL
SURVEY BOOK NOS. 20046. 20047 lie 20048

SEE MATCH LINE BELOW

1

'

I

:

q :
32S

1[;313_S ____ _

I

r1 30$ Lj

~

! ~:J:

1 !

"o''-~>

11 ""''''~-
d 1
:las

NORMAN WAY

1 1
265 ~

MUZ AVE
~27L----

I

I:21S

1

1

~-

SHUNPlK£ AVE

AVE

----1.1l~

SEG 0390/095
SEC 0391/0990
SR 0019
CITY OF ERIE ERIE COUNTY

145,
1 I 1 1
:

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 22 of 45

CURB RAMP LOCATIONS
\
SR 0019 {PEACH STI
STATE LOCATIONS {51 35,31.38,40-49.51-54

MIT OF WO

S

10

SR 0019

CITY OF ERIE

ERIE COUNTY

1 1 I 1
53Sq1

SEC 0410 SR 0019
0:54?Si"- __ _

1 1
5150

HILL AVE
:$1521.----

1 1 I 1 1 I 1
____D50LII
GOODRICH sr
----48CiZl

1525 1 I 1 1 1 I 1
1 I 1 I I
0495

48S1

I

1

1

I

I

1

1

1

1

1

I

I

1

, \
\

.._-

-

l~1.----::-::1-I ----

"

I/OOREHEAD

ST

LOCAL LOCATIONS (Ll t4-21 t 23, 25, 21, 29, 3t~ 34, 36, 39 7 40, 43, 45, 48, 50, 52. 54

ORCHARD ST
iSJ43L----
143S 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I
[JIIS
I I 1 I I
038S I I I 1 1
0 355
1 I I
1 1 1 1 SEE MATCH LINE ABOVE

#52 & 53

DISTRICT

COUNTY

ROUTE

S E c n ON

SHEET

1-0

ERIE

0019

ADA

14 OF 16

CITY OF ERIE

___.___ ~i~+-

~R=EV~I:S~IOO~S_______~I~D~'~TE~I~'~Y_~

r----f----------------------+

LEGEND

015 - STATE LOCATION NUMBER

OIL - LOCAL LOCATION NUMBER

o

5 I NGlE TYPE RAMP

lSI - SHARED TYPE RAMPS
EXISTING PAINTED CROSSWALK

NO SCALE

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 23 of 45
SR 20 (W 26th Street) and Hampton Ave
~ ••,

#59

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 24 of 45

a MOVEMENT, SE~UENCE TIMING

I -- -- FOR SOLID STATE ACTUATED CONTROLLER 1

J~ ;;h '""t

"

TIMING PLAN

c:

I AVERAGE, 70 67

2

~67 e

y

3

GG YR

RR R R

R " R R

y

4

G!G Y R

'-6 R R R R

-G ts:.
GGY R

y R

33 o

fiutl

3.0 ,$

o GENERAL NOTES JH'STALUTIM~ OPeRA.lIOfh\ND WlJNTEN.aNCt: OF T~ESE SICHALS .KAll 8E IN ACCORDANCE IfTH PENNS'I'lVANJA O£PART)IEN-T OF TRAH5PORfATlON REGULATIONS tovERNltiG THE. DEStGN, LOCATION ANtI VPERlTlON OF SIGNS, StCWAl5 .lHO 1i.fJUl;1NGS.
,",0 WOOtFICAnOHS OJ; THt!. INSTAu"AT1Oi1 ARE
PERUIT1EO UNtiSS PRIOR APPROVAL IS G~TEO, 1N
IIUTfNG f S-V tHE SECRetARY Of 1lI:ANSPOfl:T,ATlDfi. All JlAINTEIWiCE .aRK, INClUOfHG TRHAIlHG TREE'S-,
NeCESSARY FM PROPER Yi5t51l..tTY OF THE SIGNS J.HIl SIGNAlS 15 THE RESPOHSIStLlTY CF THe PERWI1TEE.
ALL SIGNS AnD PAVEKeHT tlARK:tKGS JHDlCATEO ON 'fH!$ ORAtING -.RE CONSIOfRED PArtT OF TilE PERIIIT AND SHAlt BE INSTALLED Mm UAINTA1HEO At.(OR:OINCLY.

MfSNUtlPWPNORCTLEPAORlEASNCFEOROFO2VEFREHIESATDBESHICJNNDALSllISEHFAAlCl EJoIoAsV:E

A THE

CURB OR fO FEU FRO» THE IEDOe OF THE TRA\'ElEC

,qDAOIAY~

SlCN"AL.S EAECTEO OVER TNE ROAQIAY SHALL "A'VIi A CLEARANCE OF 11 FEET A.BaVE TllE IrOAOWAY..

~e WtHIWUW HOAIlONTAl DJSTANCE BETIE.£N stCiNALS ~ u.eAS~ED AT RICHl ANGlES TO THE APPROACH, StiAI-I. BE. 8 FEET.

PDRTRAOHWVISIINSGIDORNAUSWNLiNOEGFSSACCTAHTNEN. nOPfzE6,leWpulRm!EBEVlENCATSOJWOANlCIEOOSFNS.OTnARfNUtACT(imEIO, eN

TO IJ}jCER~C/UNO UTILITlE$, EFFECTIVE DAn JUNE 10.

-.u i9S1. PRlOR TO CONS1RUCfJON C<msuI..l WITK UT(llTY

C06iP'AiilES TO ReSOLVE ANY PROSLeus. WHICH

Be

cREATED DUE TO THE LOC4TION OF UTiLIT1ES.

IN ADDITioN TO THIS TR.fFlC SIGNAL PERMiT, tHE

PERMITTEE SMALL 081A1N A If JC14.A.Y OCClJPAfCC" PERlIn PRtOR TO ANT OPENINGS BElltC WOE
IN 00 U"IDER ANY PORTION ~ .I. STAlE HIGH....Y.

PfRMIT No\I, I:!iEl9

1SHEET 2: Of 2
"

#93

TIMING PLAN SCHEDULE

DA'(OF WEtt<

TIME Of" DAY

nMlNO FL....

t AVERAGE" 70.

e.:OOAM - 9:00AM 11 AM P£41<

70

70

a:OOPM-I2:00M

70

SATURDAY AND
....."..,

lAVERAGE 10

1IIS1EIVSECOOllARY COl~ROllER 'UPEliVISES TI< COOTROUERS AT IIllfFAlO R!l. (S,R. 0(20) 'XcCLEUA'ID A\'£. ~'ID Y«lfLlAIIO AVE. • FAlRJIlUKT PKY. VIA 7-<:CllOOCTOR lIA.llll')Rf IlITERCO!I1iECr.

i J

I

I

Cor"rlrol~r 10 b.e (:cardinQI~d wlff! sl'Q1Ial 'Of Suffnlo Reed Clild Mt C!ellcnd /J.w.

\
...........

0:/l'C WqJ,t

r-

I
!

L~~:~w L~".l~ I J --- I

-I; Gl ®
SIGfIlALS 1,2.3.5.6

08 ®@i
SIGNAL
4

TUNNEL VISORS

SA 0020/00.01'948 FRAHKUN AVE,

~ OCNT WALl(

=l ' -

.4'12"

WALK'

-

SIGN#ALS

'.'

o EIlERGENCY PREEIoPTI ON NOTE

PROVlO:E E&lERGENty VEHlct.E PR1:EIIIPTlOH EiWl"~
1I£HT 1M THE COHlROLlER t'ABJNEl~ lJP~ PREEMPTION uTILIZE TllE CCMTRotlER' S IkTERNAL PFi:EEIG'TiON: SEQUeNCES TO PR(}VlnE THE j:'OLLCWINCt
A. A YELLOW Cl.EARANc:£ INTERVAL FOR All CONFLlCTj"lC GREEN fltD1CATfGm FO(.lOWEO BY AN ALL RED
l"TERVAL~
B. A Fl.A5HtHC "tlOH' T WAlK" INTE.RVAL FOR ANY "• .All(" INDIC.,TlON..
C. TUE QUT OF .1(1' FlA$HING "COWl VAL"" INTERV.lL. D. THE OUT OF ANY YEllOW ClE.lRiNCE INTERVAl. E. Tna: OUT OF' .4NY All RED ClEAAAHCE.

UTILIZE COtiTROU.,ER T1WINIiS FOR INT!:RVAts ElEfNC ClEARE.D.

UTfUlE THE FOLlOYII'tC PREEMPTION SEQUeNCEl

FIRST. A F(.ASHtHG -COWl .A.U" FOR ANY "WALk"

tHIHCATIOtt. NeXT! ... YettO. ClEAIU.."ItE mTERVAL

IF A CONFLJCTlNG PHASE IS CAlLED.

THEN, 4N ALL RSO INTERVAL IF PREcstleD 8Y A

yeLI..OI CLEARA.NCE.. THEN~ .I. GRE£N !NOfeATJOH ON

TtoHE

SE~ECfED
ALL -OnteR

STREET .1TN
STlU:eTS AND

A ReO InDiCATION GIvEN
A STEADY "OON'T Ut,K"

lJi01CATJON ON AU.. PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS FOR THE

OORATIOH OF tHE PRf£ilPTtOH~

UPON TER"lNAllON OF PREEYP"nON t SIGNAl.. IS
to RE1URJ( TO HORVAt OF'EUTiON.

LEGEND
-====- Ii::. - Melt Arm
_ _ _ ~ - Sw:in Pr.!!e

• I - Pldnfo;l

---.. ! - VehicullW S'Qrn:l1 HeCla

--c ~ - P4<1esttiol'l StQf'QI Hired

c.m::J - - ~ -S;O' 'Vehk;le: QII!II!Cfcr

ill - Jl./nc;tiol\ 80.0.

CD - -ti

~e$lnon F'lISl't BvIlC/'l/S.W'

Cc cao - CotIlrotler Asum/::llJ

W/4" - Scr,d Wl'lile Lift!! /Widll'l

eWI4'" - Btfiken 'Nl1ile Lme/Wi.olh YI4" - Solid \'el~ Ul'l~/W,d!n B't't4" - srQk6J'1 Y{lII,.,. l...I"II!/W,dll'\ DY/4" - O~bjl!l Solid Y6110w L,I"\e/<"N!lh

II - EJ;;$tlnil Utrtlty PCI. .......... _ Emefoenc:y V.t~l1::le- Pleem,,,
Ccn',rmo-t'1)I'\ L 'QII!

C/Z~- C;ondllit I Sue

0-728

~-Co-un-ty---------------~
I - - - - "E= RIE ' - - - - - -
I. Municwottt)' ____ _ ~C~IT~Y_9·F~E~R~IE~ ______ ·Intersection "§!IEf~LD ROAD (S.R 0020) 8
F~A!lKLIN AVENUE

ReCM'.mended:

1t6.A:"...'f."."...,.!E':'A~-i.~4.4t"""c,...- ~ ~'-811

Districf Troffic ..;t'\gineer

Dale

, I Sc:cte: 20 . M

t

BM-2 ELEV, 761.75' S.R 0505 SURVEY BASELINE 19' LT. STA, 1066+60 NAIL IN POLE #E4626
UMIT OF CONCRETE SLOPING SLAB
NORMAN WAY CR 7302

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 25 of 45

I
!
I
I

45'14'59" LT.

"2~

".. 39.49'

-

if;-' -----

R "'" 50.00'

,

E "" 4.17'

I

PC STPo 1+13.7:i

PT STA 1+53.2'1
""----/r-/ -

/
Ci/or CfTY ERIE i

BM-1 ELEV. 765.34' NORMAN WAY SURVEY BASEllNE rS' l T. STA. 2+00
NAIL IN .!:P:;e0!o!LE'-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _J

&
SHARON M, PASSMORE

----E

\ ANGLE 89" 3'

~

~ MEET

DA VlD F. Oi£TEMAN

\

SR 0505 CONS~
PI STA 1067+80.12 L;,.= 24"20'00" RT
T "'" 49.81' L = 98.11' R "" 231.01' PC STA 1067+30.31 PT SlA 106B+28.42
NO SUPERELEVATION

\
~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ -l! - - \ - -

P[NNSYL VANIA GAS

&
MARGARET HARRIS

=
1. SEE ALSO PLANS FOR SANITARY SE'NER UNE REPLACEMENT PLANS & DETAILS
2. SURVEY fit NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. SEE SHEET 5 FOR SURVEY iit INFORMATION

SR 0505 CONS1R ~

PI STA 106~92.15 6.= 4'45'OO~ RT

"\ \

T "" 23.79' L "" 47.56'

\
\

R "'" 537,69' PC STA 1065+68.36

PT STA 1066+15.92

NO SUPERELEVAT1QN

o

25

50 FEET

#107

[XISONG STRUCTURE D~
STA: 0+54.34
our TYPE.' STEf:L STRiNGER 37'-7 1/2" OUT TO SPAN: 50'-0" CLEAR OPf"NfNG CLEAR ROADWAY yWD7H: 22'-6" EXISTING WA T£RWA Y OPENING: 371.2 SF

PROPOSED STRUCTURE DATA
STA: 0+54.34
TYPE: SPREAD 48" X 24" pis BOX BEAM
SPAN: 51'·_6H SKEW; 90'OO'OO~ ROADWAY WlDTH: 26'-0" CURB TO CURB STRUCTURE NO.: 25-,2829 RECOMMENDED: PROPOSED WATERWAY OPENING: 378.5 SF

HYDRAUYC DATA

DRAINAGE AREA "" 9.52 SQ. ML

DESlGN FLOOD:

FREOUENCY "'" 10 YEARS

MAGNITUDE "" 1508.6 CFS

VELOCITY "'" 6.70 FPS

ELEV

= 756.05

100 YEAR FLOOD

RISK ASSESSMENT:

MAGNITUDE "" 2421.5 CFS

VELOCITY "'" 7.90 FPS

[LEV

=- 757.68

INLET DESIGNATION TABLE
1-1 CITi OF ERIE INLET RIM ELEV: 760.82 INV N: 755.82
1-2 CITY OF ERIE INLET RIM ELEV: 760..32 INV E: 754.44INV W: 754.44 INY S: 754,44
1-3 CrN OF ER!E INLET R!M ELEv: 762,80 INY E: 756.52 INV W: 756.52

SURVEY BOOK 112310-1

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 26 of 45
SR 4016 (West 38th) and Myrtle

#126

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 27 of 45
SR 4016 (West 38th) and Eliot Road

#127

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 28 of 45

TE-672 (9-10)
PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATION AT INTERSECTIONS CHECKLIST

r.- P.~~~;~~~?N~!~TATION #139

PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ALL INFORMATI ON IN BLUE OR BLACK INK

,.<,- ·1 ')t,,:t l +

As specified in the MUTeD, Section 4E, an engineering study shall be conducted to determine the need lor pedestrian accommodation al signalized intersections and the related design and operational features. Based on the engineering study and engineering judgment, proper documentation shall be made at all new signalized intersections and modifications to existing signalized intersections. This documentation shall be provided with guidance from this checklist.
When pedestrian accommodations will not be provided at an intersection, signalized or not. proper justificalion must be documented . Below is a checklist of information that may be relevant in the determination of pedestrian needs and warranted accommodations at an intersection. Not all of the information below is required to make a determination. This form can be used to summarize the needs and accommodations of a corridor or a single intersection.

DATE

IDISTRICT

Oecember2 1,2012

MUNICIPALITY

City of Erie

SUBMiTTED BY

Paul A Mi ller, P.E.

CITY

Oil City

Intersection Background Information

1COUNTY

1-0

Erie

I INTERSECTION
STREET ADDRESS
STATE
PA

I ZIP

SR 40 16 & Wayne

255 Elm Street

I TELEPHONE NUMBER

16301

814-678-7107

Project Overview

Provide a Project Description and Scope of the Project.
Bike/Ped Checklist Completed. D Yes [!] No

Curb ramQ only Qroiect to uQdate missing and non-comQliant ramQs

Yes

No

[!] 0

0 0

0

[!]

[!] 0

0

[!]

0

[!]

0

[!]

0

[!]

0 0

0 0

Yes

No

0

[!]

0

[!]

0

[!]

0

[!]

0

[!]

El [!]

0 0

Existing Facility Description
Are pedestrian facilities present (Le. , sidewalks, curb ramps , crosswalks, pedestrian signals, etc.)? Are there descriptions of each quadrant of the existing intersection (photos are strongly recommended)? Are near-by land uses documented? Are pedestrian facilities near the intersection (I.e., sidewalks, bus stops, trails, etc.)?
Is there current evidence at pedestrians using the intersection (worn paths, observed activity)? Were special accommodations made in the past tor pedestrians at the intersection?
Are restrictions for pedestrians present? (No Ped signs, lim ited crossings) Is this a defined walking route or safe route to school route? Are physical restrictions or right-at-way restrictions present? If pedestrian signals are present , is proper traffic signal liming designated for pedestrians at the intersection?
Proposed Facility Description
Will the proposed improvements generate new or additional pedestrian traffic? Does the proposed facility introduce possible additional restrictions for pedestrians? Are new or existing pedestrian signals proposed at the intersection? Are sidewalks proposed as part of the project? Are detailed descriptions of changes to each quadrant documented? Do near-by land uses change as part of the project? Are additional pedestrian faci lities proposed for the intersection?

Outreach Efforts

Has contact and discussion concerning pedestrian accommodations althe inte rsection been made with the following?

Yes

No

0

[!]

Municipality (s)

0

[!]

Transit Organization (s)

0

[!]

School District (s)

0

[!]

Public Meeting (s)

0

[!]

Emergency Services

[!] 0

Advocacy Groups

0 0

Olher (s)

TE-672 (9-10)

#139 Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 29 of 45
Intersection Details

(The information below may be useful in the determination of pedestrian needs and warranted accommodations at uncontrolled intersections. Not all of the information is requ ired to make a determination . The minor roadway information may also be needed in some situations.)

Roadway classification : Roadway Typology: Speed Limit (M PH): Design Speed: ADT: Percentage of Trucks : Travel lanes:

Urban Principal Arterial
Suburban Center 35
35 12,941
3 4 with left turn lane

Is there a sight distance deficiency? If yes, explain .

D Ves DNo

Sidewalk: [!] Yes DNo

o Shoulders: Ves [!] No

Curb: [!] Yes 0 No

Is parking permitted on the roadway? 0 Yes [!] No
Municipal recommendation:

Pedestrian generators?

Distance to next available crossing :

o Was a crash analysis completed?

Ves D No

CVS, Arby's 70'

Are there pedestrian crashes? D Ves 0No

Has a pedestrian gap analysis been performed at the location? D Ves 0No
!lg:lIflQ·Qgl ·s:lale:·l2a.uS/trans:fe:rLIraffic Signals:/!Jns:ignalize:d Inte:rs:e:!;;:liQn P!i:Q C~lgs: frQm HQS·xls:x
Are there other geometric concerns? If yes, explain: Th e intersection of Wa~ne Street is a~~roximatel~ 70' East from the signalized intersection of East 38th I Pine Avenue . Attached is a copy of the signal permit and a picture of traffic which
consistently backs up to Wayne Street during all hours of the day. There is only room for 2 vehicles and creating another 38th Street crossing at Wayne would not be recommended or in the interest of safety. Proper pedestri an
facilities exist at East 38th I Pine Avenue with DWS and pedestrian push button poles.

Ves No

!!l 0

0

0

l:J 0

0

0

0

0

0 0

0

0

0

0

l:J 0

Pedestrian Traffic Signals (if applicable)
@ :3 ~ !1> 'i>rre&- Y CI-> I '1\ e..
Is there proper pedestrian timing established at the intersection? Is an all-pedestrian phase recommended in the study? Are the crosswa lks in alignment with curb ramps? Are pedestrian sig nals visible from the proposed crosswalk/curb ramp locations? Are countdown pedestrian signals present? Has the need for Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) been determined from the study? Are pushbuttons proposed to be within the current ADA criteria? Are all pushbutton locations accessible to all pedestrians? Do all features satisfy applicable state and federal requirements?
2

TE-672 (9- ' 0)

#139 Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 30 of 45

Recommendations/Justification

The recommendation is to not place pedestrian facilities that cross East 38th Street at Wayne street due to close

proximity of existing pedestrian facilities at East 38th Street and Pine Avenue. There are currently no pedestrian accidents

at either intersection and the stacking of Westbound vehicles at Pine Street would hinder the pedestrian movements and

possibly lead to an unsafe condition with pedestrians mixing in between the traffic. There are benches for the bus stop

which could be moved to allow more room for pedestrian movements at East 38th I Pine Avenue.

District Traffic Engineer Approval

-r~ J!1(rY.J-

Ijqj 13

District Traffic Engineer

Dale

Assistant District Executive Approval

l! <V~I\~~~~

q \.~

District ADE of Design , Maintenance or Services

Date

3

o
+.017% EAST .38'" SrREFf Speed Lim,"" ~~"P.H
3 , G.IS' TO NE )('T 5 1GNi\,L
l.R. 25140
o

1~7e P.M. PEAK HOUR TRA.FFIC FLOW
EA..ST 38t1:1
UI Z
~

5T. BLVD. L. R . 2.5140

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 31 of 45

SIGNAL LENS t>-5SEMBLY

®
Ie" G)

Parkir.q SIGNALS N'
1,2 .3,4,Gii,7( B

® I'@
'-=-

SIGNALN'o
SIGNA.LS 1 ,'2,3~4 S~"'LL HA.VE BA.CKPLA..TES.

ALL SIGNA.LS TO BE. It..OJUSTA.8LE
ALL
PEOE5TR11\N StGN.e...t..5
~" '12"/
~::r4' "2" r------=~--+---~

#139
GENERAL NOTES
1.) IN5TAlLb..TION,OPER.\TION AND MA.1NTENANCE
OF nlESE S IGN>.LS 5HtI..,.L BE IN ,l\,CCOR~NCE WITH PENN5'fLVANI,Ia" DEPARTMENT Or TRA.N~PORTATLON REGULP-TIONS C.OVERWING THE DESIGN, LOC~TION ANO OPERA.TION OF SIGNS, SIGNALS AND ...,ARK,NGS.
2...) NO MOQIFICA.TION5 OF THIS INSTa.LLt>.T\ON
ARE PERMITTED UNLESS PRIOR ,b.PPROVAL I~ GRA.NTEO, IN WRITING" BY THE SECRETARY OF TRo.NSPORT.o..1"ON. SIGNA.LS ERER.TEO OVER THE ROA.DWA,'" SHALl.. HA.\lE A. MINIMUM CLEA.RA.WCE OF Ii FEET ABOVE, THE ROA.OWA't'.

10'
OETECTOR
SYSTE~ 'C 10'

4 ~ WHITE CH~NELI'Z.ING

o

0

EMERGENCY PREEMPTION

THE CanROllfR SHALL BE. EQUIPPED WIlH [l"lRGENCY PRfU1.TlOH EQUfPt'EHT. WHEH PllW'flEO BY N/. EtERGEHCY VEH ICL£ A S£UCTIVE FLASHING YEllIN INTERVAl Of 3 SECONDS MINI'IJ" WI~l 8I:GIN tli THE CROSS STREET. IF A WAll( INDICAIiON IS BE ING DISPLAYED ON AJjY (ROSS WAt~, AFlASHlliG
DOH'T WAlk INTERVAL OF 9 SECONDS MIHII1JH SHALL BE DISPLAY[D
STARTING COHCURllfHTlY WITH THE SELECTI VE YELLOW IS USED. IF THE SIGNAL IS DISPLAYING A FlASHING DO,'T W!Lk WHEH
PREEf'fTED. THE TOTAL T11£ THE FLASHING oOln .. Au: IS DISPLAYED SHALL Bt HOT LESS TH~~ 9 SECOODS. FOlll>Il ' GTHE

PEDESTRIA.N
f-' - -S...I.GNAL
pmr AvE. LR. 88
CI)RV[ DATA
/!J srA . 49 ~4:J. 50 ~ • fBr-1l" d ~ 2°./1"117.
rOt -I I~-OO' ~ 114.1&'

~ ~s, LE.CTRIC~L DISTRIBUTION. a C'\ SERVICE, T"{PE "l,

SElECTIVE YEllOW. IF USED, AJj ALL IIfD SHAll il DISPLAYED

L • 228.n'

UNTIl THE EXPIRATIDH OF THE FlASHING DOH'T WALk. FOll"" ING

THE EXP IRAIIOH OF THE ClEARANCE IHTERVALS AGIUN IHDICAIIDH

IS GIVEH TO THE STREET OH WHICH THE ~'1ERGEHCY VEHICLE IS APPROACHING AAD A IIfD IHDICAIIOH TO TRE CROSS STREET. ALSO

I

ill'~:t11.
<1l<

R • "2!J.65' GROUND L INE.

FOLLOW I'G THE EXPIRAIiOH OF THE mARMCE IHTf RVAlS HAIL
I SAFE IHDICAIIO' WIlL BE DISPLAYED BY THE PREEIPTIOIi IHDICATIIlHS
FOR THE STIifET lIN WHICH THE EI1'RGEHCY VEH ICLE IS APPROACHING.

TYPICAL MOUNTING
HEIGHTS
lEGEND

TRAFFIC SIGNA.L POLE W/MAST ARM

I - PEDESTAL

CONTROLLER
o "a JVNCTION BOX

PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL LOOP DETECTOR GROUND MOUNTED SIGN ADVEfHlSING SIGN

c:;.,<:,
/
/
PROPOSED SIGNS SEE SIGN LISTING ON SHE ET 3 Of 3

o

-+ TRAffiC SIGNAL
-+! TRAFfiC SIGNAL WITURN AqROW

UTILITY POLE
PEDES TR IAN PUSHBUTTON e $ tGN(RIO· " J
EMERC(P~CY VEHICLE PREEMPTI ON DEVIC E

E. 38th ST. L.R.2SI40 and
PINE AVE. L.R. 88 (T.R.8)

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 32 of 45

SR 4016 (East 38th) and Wayne Street

#139

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 33 of 45

~.~

r------------------------------------------------------"---------------------------------------------------------c--------------------------------------r---------------'

AOJACEHT TRAFFIC SIGNALS

PERMIT NO. Tell SHEET NO.2 01 3

..r-----'-1-~:_------r_----------------r:~

E)1Sr~!.636· ttl E(J~t ~a Sttfl!! & 8<Jrf(,n Avenue

'A'ESr~f.63r !O EO$! 3e 51tHt a Pille A'ffltlll

NOAtH·5.94S· II; El'lsl 26 SitU! B ro,,1 A'tel'll.lc

'fbi. 1I\WlMC1.1.D1il,1& iQ'U;'e<:Ifm.c:ted wiUl. .4j..:~t. .1.;n.au .lcq 38t.b St.l:..t
..It.h t!I. XUlt.n' locni14 at fob.

J,r.\,tu....c:dot:\ f>t 38th ttr. .C &cd ow

4'

Fl'encb I".".

.. 5

.....}lQ\I;,.

.....
.'70

OFFSET 15 S.COIIDS
"• Y I.- G

S191'1M I 'tt"' II

.. '

... iUI a"1<1ft11.s' ....S«S

#143

NOTE:
Tf:fI C\)lih~!er lilt;l~ oe .~i;lP.d .itl'l t:trItrgtner ptttm~1ic,rI tw'OJllttlT. 'o\'btn ;:reem;ltrl by QtI e:mCfQ,I\C't vtl'l.it.!41 fI »,ilethe HO'hi1l9 OW 'ltfltfllO'l of 6 steomi!
lrI,nimufll 0/1& a "t~tlwe: reno. .",tlnol of :3 Ut4f1d-S miJ\in'Nl\'I ';[1 ttqin lll!'\f"9 tQ.!'!(:~unlly tin In. -::tns il/te! if tr.t (tUI strut is 4'IPIay-lng tl grU!I iMl.i.c:tlIf....fI. FcUo.in; t.J:p:itD'i~n of ttle eltC:flve yelle. iIlltr"G! ~ ltd ir.l1icclion sNl1! ~. (llsployed fot o-il Ilpp'OOt~U \l1It!! !l'lll FOW j(lfl!,vo! uQirn. f.,HC.....nq llwl
upfrotjen 01 1M FO'N In1r:l'Ql, a Ilfun irul'icl;tiol'l is <il'>l'''' Ie Ibt !!Jut on w!>..th flit, ."".t~'lI\ty nhi()1 i$
>(l~rol.'!:\'IU\.q ilI14 0 ft4 il'l~el;flOn fO 111t eren :sitUL
Wlllt~ Iii, O'lt~tfi'l Cp?t¢Q~h :$ 1i;>lin>1 a Ilcrm(l1 OW
..,,;m il!.t~IY~!. ,tit 1f!ttllvt J:iJW ;"hn<:l! "HI /'la' !:e
20'

40'

-_.,- - •.:;J "~-:~ llH

ADD BAR SCALE
• I , 0111. DON'T WALl< FED. Sa;·

,

T"N~_';IlU!~/'(#,R..t.sJ,

.rNd'J=~..f"-.v I

TRA"IC SrGl'W. PEfl.Mrr A,Pl.fCATlON
SIG"ALIZATIOH pl.. ..N EA$T ~. $7A£ET tl...1t Ul""O.
fAST IVEN'VE
j.~~:, ;;:.....,r.::·,~~.r

I flDJIlCENT TRflFFIC SIGNJlLS
EI7Sr-/.fJilS' to ('4tf J.& Sll"~e;' (}f"'yt .stJ"t~'
i '/./$Sr~ '. 7'~' 1;;' C<II'/ 3S S(I'NI' g""r.,,,, .QY'('I'I"'~

'--' .

•

=J+=J +

~0'.=~~G
= _1 _

·

~'c_< S"w".)i
_=:J_·-.L--,C•.ru~.:.·.:.":..r::··:;';;"=~:~~---,,;:"f!~;!.·t;

·

4~

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 34 of 45

i •.
1'1;1. 1ntlil'lil<::t1on h i-Rtlleectu!oc:tfld ",i 't.h ~j=tllt; at'lf&4.lS lil<;n'il' JEtll liUtilot. vi t.h w'oo I14l1t,.. l¢elltt'4 .!It tha lnt"flls eUa" ct lath Stt'ut a."Id 01" r~Bneh ft.e.ed.
~", ....l(e S t...+ i o n

- __'../1 ....J-
.T

!

,r_-_+J,c-;~. -

~
!>.

c--l

•
6 '1 & ., 10

.0.• • • • R y •

•

ow

! eff

#153

-- ,~

OJ 01> p.4utw1411 4~t"4Ho... o"ly
R.O.W'O·

d",
.\, I'~Llil-t.'JS.f-t>-p JT--rI.;.o. .JI --.-·...I .....I...-----

:

,1,

, , , ,

, '

<!:i-.'-

Ii
OFFSE T 15 0«0"'"

j

S''f;"4lS I Jh'Ll 8 wI!'" 6~ ,,,~(t:t ~ittU

N .. (du,tnlU'l Sit""l" ".a," ~"b"'

LEGEND

·1•
--·. w __ ..

R£v. NO. OAT~
I

v
REVISIONS

*

~,"E LIIII(

_IiCjlJ5kJ(,:;!JA-.t~n"

- ,.~..~~~~u

ay

OEPARTM£NT OF PUBLIC WORI<S

BUREAU- OF TRAFFIC ENG1WEER1NG

CITY OF ERIE

ERIE .PENNSY~VANIA

rRU.GIC SXN4L pER/.nr NPPi/CAT/fM/

~AST -'8 STR~ET (J.R.ZSlfO)
.,,,/ onVISoN IIYE"UE

'0'
j

r

ORAWN 8

OAli

SHEtT NO -I--Of-L..... 'ORAWING NO.

i

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 35 of 45
- ·~..----..

#158

LOT
, \

,.'
----'

I
I I

'. '~!- ..F:UMPS !
..,tONe.

\
- ~AS?H'U

AOJACEN'r TRAFFIC SIGNALS
*E~T- 017' tr.> Eo!>t 38 S:rtfl a. H-Ort Stftet
EAst- :1:,:33.2' Ie ~llif 3a St(u·, a Mc;Cllf!cll;1 >'I."er:.'J,..

VACANt

LOT

eus STOP

,,-
,,-
iEASJ 38 SIRE¢T H
! 54 A$phclt Po,,' ..
-',:-->,-.:t---------i,f.:..-__-,,-. - _ - - - - -
'/

-se.A L.f.-

HOUSE.
It: 3ets \
\
/., /,

." "'.. a: c::J

LEGEND

'lI S!O!!I£r

fIRE itl'C~"11T

~

U.l~!H

" TI't£

1.._ -"-P~MTt

e ...-
.~

LIOMT S"I'JltlO.lPlfl l'!lAFJlC !jIG'" BILLBOARD

c::::J LODP OfifitTOft

$~IIUU/H!DGt

= -sOme 1£ fOil

-.,.,- tiIHV£W.\T

Y"" - - - - UTClI.BAJIII(

-.....Tlu,r~lt S!(;".\~

..,

::;._t.£ _ ••• __ •• SfO,..At.

\>£!l£TlIf,~'~ 'i!4~AL

o

(Cit tA:Q\.,-f.1t

-\)

¥ P
>'\<9< •.

t•".:,-:;.;""~-"

.0 "COO' i>Ol.i£ - - ...."F ; ,t

Q

W(1.-1. "111.£ _

ric~5!'t~tOW

•

!oICItAt. PO!ot _

t~~'" Q.U

REV. NO. OAIE

REVISIONS

BY

DEPARTMENT OF PUSLIC WOR<S

BUR£AU OF TRAFFIC ENG!Nl!e:Rl~G

CtT.Y' OF ERIE

eRIe, PEN~S·f1..'1.AN!A

TRAFFIC S!GNltl. PER'.ItT .,\J>?l.\C,lT!ON SfGH~llZATmN J:ilAN

I

r,k5T JoB srRfETfut l~A Qj

~

cn-d ZI/odMEO;JMAN .AO n

QRAW'N t!f-?-IJL_" !1A'!'£JS:'!§~ J_ SC>i-tf :':'::..20'
Stif,ET NC,~.L_CF_.2.- iJIP'H'NG IL-. Ej:u_

I o;:PR")vt,:; at "

.J:::;;.;..:_:,:~·~i£'~Oi':

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 36 of 45
SR 4016 (E 38th) and Rice

#163

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 37 of 45

l
I

I

~" .,...."

!

#164

I !
'1 !

!
l
I

NOTE:

THIS ORAIIING CAtNlT 8£ USED AS A CCNS~ IlIWIlNG ltUSS lJ£ l'ERMITTEE

CQlFUE$ WITH THE I'ROVlSIONS OF ACT Z81,

~.!CH OF _

TO ~

1.m!IJI1'i!ES. EFFECT.!VE DATE;, Affil\. 10,1975.

-SCALE-

ot

20'

.ADJACENT TRA~f:,C SIG~j.4l5

t:otH ~ ot,5C';'
" l'i~ST ~2..SI~) "'" :"j};"fH. ~.':1.€'"

~!e':
'''''I"!'
'«Hi

3,?- :;ft!~.!
"" S'r<lH !;t'~tl

•a 'J'ttrO;:";F, t.·.d¢l~H" 1 ~~. '+zH f. j::'\~~~I,,;, ~~!:,\,.';

~-"''>~;:'I':I,,:,..,-i t

~;

w >

r;;0'
;f. ,
-;;:
~.....;

-" <

.·•, ,i., 1

, ~ • 0
~

<

;
~

'.
~

.... .>

,~

," • r,O,

40'

:

F'.r"'.-!c~ldCl1- S;y.,:w;
c - ;'

I

t
I
I
!
i
I
I

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 38 of 45
SR 4017 (Pittsburgh Ave) and 22nd Street

#166

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 39 of 45
SR 4017 (Pittsburgh Ave) and 21st Street

#167

......., •

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 40 of 45
SR 4017 (Pittsburgh Ave) and Manor Drive

#168

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 41 of 45
SR 4017 (Pittsburgh Ave) and West Erie Plaza

#169

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 42 of 45

1
I. I.

~ ~
P.'''Nr. DlAG.AM

I I
i\ \ \ \ \ \.~), \ \

N01£: U)OP DI'KCTOH "It AJfO'ZI. to U O'llCOaEtTU DUIUJlI "tU.sn I . I.
t.ooP EJtfE~:at: TO Bit mlCOIII.&CI'EO e". . . f'tI.AIU t a l
.tU.$TER CONTROI.1..E:R FOR SIGNAL AT WEST ERIE PlAZA.
oF'l"sn 0.$£(;.
tYCLt 70 $£C.

SUINJ.L t

~2.l.4A SI........ 9.10.11.12 6,.7,1!1

HaU' AU. vntcuW S"'NAI.S AM AUJM1Nt11f WITH lUtINEt. mOft$

SIGNS

i.~

i ::!~

m i "-SL LOPT T".«

I "'...-

til ......

:;;r"". , -

: :::.Lil:~I:

III RIO-"

.....

m .,.",

1t

[ .......

I!Il • '''''11

, ..Ill> ......

..au

1. .-

LEGEND

...•. o - 'it>IClLNI""" ~

&&&~-.

IlAST ""'
........ P<lU
<PED<StJ<.

H£.ID

-no- iIo

@ @..

'lIDOC"I --

.uc_!IOX
PUI£$_ ......

BUTT""'_ _

C!1:I - ' C1lHI1I<lU!lI ..sa,B.Y W" .. '" sCUt 'WHf[ ~TH (B'I' OTHERSI
BW/... • IIROkDf WKf'E I..N:fWDnt(BY OTHERS)
Y/4" .. sa..o 't!lloW' L.N:IWIJt1ttBY OTHERS'
BY/."' .. BRQ:£H TELLOW L.N:IWD1'H.(B't OTHERS) pil."" tJo.D.E sa.D"m.t.OW UlUWOTH{BYOTHERSl ...... PRE.o.TJCIH (RtPl DEVICl fItHIO ~ I f"n

.' .....

NO S:GNA!.. wITHIN ONE MILE
1

I

.I

~ ALL I,DOP DETECTORS SHAll. BE iO\6~

,
t:
ONLY
lftS~1L

EWERGENCY PREEr.t'r I~ NOTE
PAQY'iOE EUERGEHCY VEHICLE F'REEWPTIOH £QUtP~ lIENT Itt mE CCfHROlt.ER CABINET. UP~ PREEWP110N UTlll~E THE CQMTROLlER'S INTERMAL PREEUPT1DN
SEQUENCES TO PROVIDE THE Fot.1.0IJ~
A. , yEtlow elE~CE iNTERVAL FoR ~l CONFLiCTING GREEH INCICATtONS FOLLOWED BY AN ALL RgO
INTERVAL.
B. A FLASHING ~~'T 'AtK 6 INfERVAL FOR ANY ....;\\,.K" INDICATION. C. Tl~ OUT OF ANY ~L&SNtHG -DON" .~Ke IN1ERV~. £I. TillS OUT Of' ANY 'fEUOJ C1.EARANCE ItfTERVAl..
E. TIM! OUT OF AHl' ALL REO- ctEA-RANCE•
UTILIZE CONTROLLER TIyiNGS FOR IMTERVM,S BflNG
CL£AflEP.
UTIliZE THE FOLlOIINC PRfEUPflON SE~NC£I F {RS-f t A FLASHiNG "'!lON'T WALK" FOR ANY "WAl.K" IHnICArION~ NEXT, 1 YELLOW CllARkNC£ IMTER~Al JF A CONF!.lCTtNG PHASE IS CALLED. THEN. AN All Reo InTERVAl JF PRECEDED 81 A TYHEElLSOE.LECCLTEAEfDU.SNTCRc~EETTH1E1NT.HJ.AtRREEEOKININDDICIACTAITOiNONGlOvNE~ 1Q- ALL OTHER StAaSTS AND A. SlEAOl "'000' T 'Al.l" INDICATIQN ON All peDeSTRIAN SIGNALS FOR THE
DUfiAT ION- OF THE PAEEWPTfON. UPON THE COUHETlOH 0$' tHE PRE£)'PTIOM. SEA-vICE
- " " , PHASE 3. Tt(EU ll'lE. ~AI.. IS TO R£nRN TO N(),I!'IoU.i.

, #170

G!=NERAl NOTES

UfSTAlUT1ON..t we'RATlOH AND JlAtNTENANCE OF
THESE SiCNALS ~HA1.L BE IN 4CCORDA~ ..ITH f£NN$)'t,.V4f41A t)EPARTWEN'l' OF TRANSPORTATION RECUlI;,TJOWS GOVERNING tHE p£5IGN. LOCATION
AND CPERATtCN OF- SIGNS. SICHALS ANt) UARUNQ.S.

NO WODIF)CAT101i1S OF nils ItfSTALLAl10N ARE

PERWITT€O IRfT ING ~ t

nUNflHES£SSPERCIROERUkAYPPROOFVATLRANtSSPGORRATNATTEIOONf .

I~

ALL WllNTEHANCf IORI. INCLuOING lRIWWING TREES~

NfCUSARl' FOR PROPER Y.!SilSILlTY OF TH! SlGHS ANO StGHAtS IS 1ME RESPONS!81LtTy OF THE PERMITTEE.

M,L stCir6 Mm f'AVE~Nt MARKINGS tHOleAl£!) ON nus flRA.tNQ IRE CfJNSIDeRED- PART OF THE PEFUflT AND SHALL 8€ lHSUllED- AHD UA1NTAtNEO ACCOROJNCLY.

UIHSIUWPWPoaClLEPACRlEASNCEF-Oal'i:-O-V2"ERFEHEEATDSfS.HIC}NNCAl.STHSEHAFLA.Cl EHAOVFi:

A THE

ClSiB OR 10 FEET FROY THE. eDGe OF THE TR"YELEO

RO.lOI4'1' •

SfGHAlS ERECTEO OYER THE R(lAO"Al' SHALL HAVE A CLEARANCE OF 11 fEET ABOvE. THE- ROAC'lfA'f.

TH£ Wl~lHUN k~RI2ONTAL OIST~CE BETfEEN SIGNALs. USAS~EO AT AICHT AHCl£$ TO T~E APPROACH. SHAll
e ~£ F'EET~
THIS DRAWING CANNOT BE USEO AS A CONSTAUCrfON ORA.(NG UNLESS THE PERutTiEE CONPLJES WITH THE PROVIS[~S I)f ACT 112, PREVEnrtOH OF- O,uu,ce TO UNDERGROUND uTtttTtES. EfFECTIvE DAlE JUNS to, 1981.. PRtOR 10 CON$l'ilUCTtcm CONSUlT WITH UTlL 11'1' C~ANtES TO RES~lYE AMY PR08lEYS ,"lCH Y~t BE CREUeP ouE. TO HIE l.OCATiON OF utiLITIES.

IN ADDITION TO THIS 'tRAFFIC StCMAl PEtUltT. TilE
PER~ltlEE SHilL OSTAlN A HIGHWAY OCtUPANC~
PERMtt PRIOR TO ANT OPENINGS BEINe "Act IN OR UNDER illt" PORTION Ot= A S;TJ,TE HfGHU'f.

-
Jar
r~·

1't!.O'"lltK.

OVERHEAD
LANE CONTROL
SIGNS TYPicAl.. POST u:x.IKf

I
r"I-=",, )'I
L.J

0745

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 43 of 45

. ~ .

?(RVIl NO, ...J~:Q1L~ s"'Et 1 ---L-,_ Jf _-'-_

#171

o

jJm; l5$tJtrJ. ~:2L_~ OAlr R~\i!SED-1:::!I.~

.
;;
"

~NO StGNPl. WiTHiN \ MILE

W/S"

S.R. 4034w.B. BY/fO"T 3-5 jd.P,H.

6~ ~~ .________=:..__=BAYFRONT PARKY$.Y.

SIGNING

'" ....
"lOCI.

OESCIlfPTlt¥!:

III 1U-1I..

LVT UtII'! UT TUI\'lI: un

II ~lO-U . 1.00T 'I'\IbI nao 0If ~
a 1II1t)-"'1t P~1f WTTQff J.OIl "Alit I!tMou.

111 IIto-·tt PlISH !lUTlOitf tOft rA.l.( SICilIA!.

iii R3~5$

$lR,UetrT ~

III .N
a Ill-51.

1«1 PalIiS1RUit "~I,t«; lEFT lUtH

I I Jt1~'SIt

0'P1'!0flI.L R1CMT Mit

SIZE
lO'"Xlg'"
!O~,.
''''J01:" '*";12:"
. ,o~,
t&~xie" ]O~ ..
,.ro")I:!,.

R
R

8°0
@@®

§=WALK 4'1'" WALK

4,13

j.2.~.,!5,6.l,e

$,10.

n,12

NOTEr AlL $ICNAlS TO 1-\.J,.\lE "tUNNEL vISORS

SIGNALS 3."1 Af'0 13 TO 9£ OPfJC,M.lY FlRQGRAWMtD.

- 2 . . 00X

BOO' TO NEXT SIGNAL !GR£ENGARDEN loVe:.} -----+

JS M,P.H.

S.R.4034 LSW/4"

R/W UHE

10' X 6' S~O£WALK SLaCK

LEGEND

.. T_ ~
-: ~: -

&sTRNtf POLE. pEDESTAL.
vIMCl..l.JIR SIGNAl HEAD.
@- p£D£STA!AN. SI<itW. tiE#o.

~-: ~m=· -. aD- v£HQ..! OCTECTOR:. »ICrKlH eo•.

ill"> - PEDESTRJNt PUSH SUTlQN.fSIGN.

121- CQNTROUER ASSEt&.Y.

V1l4" ~ SOUl wtlTE lR£/WlDlH.

ElYU4" ... pQKD4 Wffi't JJEj'\¥l,)TH.

--'f/4" ~
6Y/4" ~
il'f'." ~

SOUJ) '1£llOW·.t..HiWi)TI-i.

8RQKt.t4 'fEUOW Uf£I'MO~,

nota.E SOlI) 'YELLOW l.Jt€/W1IJTH.

otvu PRt-fl,IP"TJOti (RCP)

fUoDKI CONTROlLED.

CounTY:

ERIE

Munlclpallty, CITY QF ERIE

Intersection: S.R.4034 iBAYFRONT PARKWAY]

AND LINCOLN AVENUE

0-779

$colQ

!O 0 to 50 FEET

LEGEND

1,110$1 ..... StRAIN PetE PEDESTN..
VtHI.CUl.AR SfCSAt. HE,tO

WI4"·

P£OESTtuAH SlGKAl. HEm SlGN
\/EHlctE DETECTOR
.JUNCTION, eox
PEtlESTRf.MI PUSH SUTTON/SICH CCNTRClltR ASSEWLY
SOllO WHnE Ui£f'\!(10'tl'f

BW/"" * BRoK[U WHITE tIllE/WIDTH VI"" ~ SOlID 'f!Ll.QW l\NE/WlOTH
By'... • BROKEN YElLOW UNE/WI'O'tt{
D'1I"" ~ DCUBLE SOl1!'J 'rELLO..... UN£lWlOTi"I
. . . . Fr;!~EJ,iPT[Qt{ (RCP) OEV1CE RJ,OtO C(lHTRCtLEO

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 44 of 45
t
4034
..... "..., 110 $(;lU,l.5 _

PE~J,ilH NO. 25-048 {lATE ISSUED tz~t!5-91

SHEU--1- QF_~l!....._ OAle: itEvlsEO 5,:",~-OT

GENERAL NOTES

INSTAltAT1ON, opeRATIoN. 'H~ WAINTEHANtE OF THEse SICNALS SKill ~E IN ACCORDAWCE 11TH PENNSYLVANIA DEPAR1~NT OF TR~NSPORT.TI0N REGUlATIONS GOVEIUftNG THE OE'SI~N. lOtAHON. ANO OPERATttm OF
Sl¢NS t stGNAL$, ANO P.lVVleNT UARIINCS.

NO ~OIflCATt0H5 OF THE INST.LLJrION ARE

PERWITTEO WRtTlH'II.(

8U'tN1LlEI£SSSPERC~IOrRrAARPYP~OOFVAtRLAN(sSPOGRRATNATTEIODN

IN tlR

HiS

REPReSENTATIVE.

\lA.tNTENANtE, 1000K CH ALL lPPRQACJlES TI) THE
SIGNaliZED INtERSECTION NECESSARy FOR PROPER
vi51BILITt OF THE SIGN AND SIGN~LS. INCLUOIHG rRUAllMt OF lllEES. IS THE RESPQflSlBtLlTY OF T1IE PERil} TTEE.

#173

AU. SlGNS.
MARKl
PART

AJ,lPS.stOEw,ttlS ANU PAVElolENT
1ONANDTHSISHAOlRl AaWsINSUIASTREAt.Ct.EOONSAIONEI,)REO

YAtNr~1

PERUITTEE IN 4CCQAOANCe WITH

PEHNSYl

~TueNT OF rRl~S?O~;ATtON

PeXuCetE.PtCTAIOTNlOSN

68 A~E

1LOOHFGFIlTcUU&LINlAAl'APAFVFlEWC~ECNOTNTURAOlRKOiNEGVISC£S~

ON STATE "lGKKAYS~ WHICK A~E UA!NTA!NEO 8Y THE

O!!PARTU£HT.

SuPPORT POlES FOR CJVEIiI-lEAO SIGNALS Ji~O SIGHS SHALL MAYf A utNlWUY CLEAR~NCE OF 2 FEET BEH1NO THE F~E OF THE CUA9 OR 12 FEET FRO~ THE EDGE OF THE TRAVELLED IiOAOtiAY to £01;E OF SIJPPORT POLE.

SIGNALS
""""-"
~
R
"-./
8 8 EBl0

I

I

I

I

I

I
f "

I

12"
R
f8 e
CD @

TYPE. 9

WDOALNKT

'Vi'
1{TYP,}

!ME ~JNlMUW HaRIZ~NTAL ~1$i!HCE eeTteEN SICNALS~ ue.SUAEO AT RIGHT ANGtE5 TO ~E APPROACH f SiiAlL St: 8 FEET.
nus ORAWING CANNOT se USED AS A CONSTRtlCTlJN DRA'lUG UNLeSs tHe PERVliTEE COMPLIES WITH Th~ PREVISION OF THe tATEST ACT PREVENTING OAUAGE ro uunERCROUND UTILITIES 9RtOR TO CONSTRUc1rON. CONSULT WITH UTILITY COWPANres TO RESOLVE ANY p!l.OfJt.ews THAT lIAr BE CREATED oue TO 1HE lOCATiON OF UTII..ITIES.

D·791

eOUNTY I

E~tE

.u;tcIPALllY: IH1ERSEcrtON l

city OF £RIE SR ~034 (SAY-fRONT f.ARKWAYI
ANO HOlLAun' STREeT

lAtiNICl?A!.. QFFICIAL

n~:~.11:1t.4£
D!$UJCT TRAFFIC ENGINEER

SCALE t

E
25

o

Z5

OAiE
i 50

f !1! J9-27 AT "-

417-50 RT

-

(Jill)@J9-27 AT 1£ STA 41>4-*00 RT J8-27 AT .. STA 410.50 RT

~

1-\
~\

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-2 Filed 04/18/13 Page 45 of 45

f"EmJIT NO. 025..-0134
ClATE 1SS\JtD 1MM8

",_.c SHEET ~_2__

3=-_

o-.n RE.VlS£D &2O:Q"

#174

GENiiW, Niii:l:s
IJfITA1U11ON.omtA.noM,AND~0f1mSllSlOKAt!
$IUll.BBlN~WJl1{mofM.y..uu.oPAJmIE)IT(l¥
.vm ~AJKJH'BBi\!l.AlWHS~'M1DmGN,t.OCIJI01'l•
O'mlAncK Of's:!G!aSXlN.t.lA,...QQ:l JAYDCEMT ~
NO YODIFlC4lmHS OfTlmllGfAIlAn:tlAlEI"EJl,Q1'1't=:UNm1S I'JlOIl API'ID'iAL L'5GlAN1ID, Il'IWJU!lMQ.BY"fKB$EOlfAn OJ' ~AnOH ORmUftl.l!SSNrAlIW.
~'WQU.OM.w.AJ7II,U.OJ;ES"fOlHI~ ~WllC:&UA.k'iIQ,I'I«II'!J.VI!ilBILMOFnmD!iR!~SQW.1. IKCL1.ID!IfOTlIlIdICMIQOIt1I!IS...lSmJ~DI'ltQI:~
AlL [gQt! A.1O» rA.'VbCEN1'.NA.Il:kI!IlNDICAlmCN1MS JaAwmo A.RiI-
~P.AJO'lJPnftl-l"fll)(ITA)r(USlWJ..tN$T.w.tJ)A)lDWAIHlAH» BYnmI'EDGT1!EDI~WD'HJ'ElCIm,.YA.'*UtlD'Al!nolENtOF ~.AJKJH1"I.'8IJC,\'llOtf,,~~CQ1CI:i ~~~'A.~~aK:rtAlIRKmWA'Y3.
vnamAUw.mrrIJREDBYtHlW.u:nmtT, .
or oa $t1I'I"OI«f'Ot!SFOk~SIGIW.S.umSQG SH.W.HAYBA
IGNDWJr4a..B.U.AHCI OF lPmr-m£lKD 1JIBIACa T8I CD;!J 11 FEET BOM'J'RD ttlGB OflHl'1'JtA'YUED ~,.\y 'ro DX1EQ! MPOIO'POU!.

nmNJlllllmlROlmJMrAL DMmCII smtIl'!)fDJN.W.wwwtD AT u;m ~ TC'InmAPl"lU»Cll,.SM,W..-IlB' Ffl!'l'
.nm,DM1WIO~A\iSE'D.uA~IJlA'WDIG Cf(1...GS.I nm~CQIO'llE!wt1H1H!!~OP11I! u.TES!" AJ:l
~~1'O~llW!l11t1lJ'lml.PSLlQlro~, CIJl'C5IJI.T"""'tmLn'Yt":OIiP»IDi$1'Ou:sa.,W~I'MIll!WSTHATMAY.
. ClEAnD DVB'm'fHBLOCtt.T(af OF lJInl!!m,

SIGNALS
I"

DASHED
TRACER
UNE. W/4"

LEGEND

-=»& - M..t """
--- @ ~ V«Iicwar S9'ot Head

-.- @ .. Pe;:jeavian stgnctHeod

-I Iel ~ Ov.,.hood Siyn

..... ~ - Potl lI<l""l,d Si9"
c:::riL) - Vemc'.e OatectQt

-C/4"- - ConduVSiza

ill" --H-

Pedo3tricn Pl.IIiJh

Button/Sign

- - PreempliQt'l (Rep) Ol8vic-. Radio

ContJdled

I8J - Contro!lSf" AsMtl'lbly

W/4" • Solid Wh:it. line/Width

a'll 14" .. Srokan White tine/Width

9

'f/4" .. Solid Yeaa. Urtt/Wldlh

SY/4" - Brol<en Yellow LiM/WIdth

OY/4" ~ Double Selid yt!low Une/Width
I.±l ~ .h.tnc:tlon 8101'

- - - Deprsssed Curb

~- Guide, Roil
¢--- - '""""",,,, D-907

".12,13.14 AA Slgnats To ~ (q,j,pped Wit.h 1l.iMOI VisQ-n,

Erie M-loinicipdity:
City of Erie
Intersection: Port Access Road and East 8-ay Drive
at 8oyfront Parkway

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-3 Filed 04/18/13 Page 1 of 5

City Of Meadville

Curb Ramp Inventory

'It
o c ~
CD
f .! .E

County

~.=!
i

Seg/Off Intersection

Intersecting Local Street
Name

~ jCD..

Cl.

'~C ~

~II)

CIS 0
e.c2In..»5"!i

~It:
._0.J

Zr' 0 :

0

'It

= ~
E ~

'C
19

~ c

CIS .~.

EC ~

en '0
'It

ZCcoCDi.,QCai;.:

~ E ~
i
'0 '0
'It 'It

~ ~

'Oil)
=>CDooz..Q,:. 0 ~ «11)0
tCD.f--

E ~ iuoii
...I
'0

E ~
ien
'0

'It 'It

~

II)
Cl.

'Ng~-

E ~

E ~

:;;;S
C .. CD~
U)

iuoii
...I
'0

!en
'0

'It 'It

Location (quadrant)

12-14-11, Revised 3-22-13, 4-4-13 DATA- S. McMasters; Revised by PA Miller
COMMENTS

CRAWFORD I 6

0540/0000

ARCH ST

Y oo

Signal Warrant. Equal access for all users provided on 2 of the 4 legs of the signalized intersection. Barrier to remain on the north and west legs in accordance with the signal permit. Prohibited legs and associated accessibility feature (ramps, ped push

I - - - - - - t - - - - + - - - - - t - - - - - - - i - - - + - - I t - - f - - - - - + - + - - I I - - t - - - - + - - + - - t - - - + - - t - - - t - - + - - t_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-tlbuttons, ped heads, etc.) will be evaluated through a future engineering study and the warranted features will be installed in a

CRAWFORD I 6

0541/0000

ARCHST

2

CRAWFORD

I

North Street*

N/A

WATER STREET

Y oo
Y 6

NW and NE I SW and SE I NE and SE

future project that addresses the need for signal upgrades and/or replacements. Field viewed on May ii, 2012 with VFI; proposed ramp locations acceptable (to be constructed by the city). See Photos. SR 27-A02 Project. *North Street and Water are both local roads. Tee Intersection.

3

CRAWFORD I North
Street*

N/A

MULBERRY STREET

Y

2 o

SWand SE

SR 27-A02 Project. *North Street and Mulberry Street are both local roads. Local access provided across Mulberry Street. Crossings not provided for North street due to proximity to Water Street and Mulberry Street is an alley without stop control on North Street. Field viewed on May 29,2012 with VFI; proposed ramp locations acceptable.

4

CRAWFORD

I

North Street.

N/A

MARKET STREET

Y 8

NWand NE/SWand SEI SR 27-A02 Project. *North Street and Market Street are both local NE and SE I NWand SW roads.

5

CRAWFORD 27 0010/0292 N. COTTAGE ST

Y

2

NWandSW

Driveway. SR 27-A02 Project. Existing driveway on the east side is a barrier for crossing SR 27. Proposed crossing on the west

t - - - - - t - - - - - + - - - + - - - - - + - - - - - - - f - - - - t - - + - - + - - - - + - - I t - - t - - - t - - - - t - - + - - + - - + - - - I - - t - - - t - - + - - - - - - - - - - i l s i d e of SR 27. Proposed local crossings for N. Cottage Street.

4

NW and NE 1SW and SE Field viewed on May 29, 2012 with VFI; proposed ramp locations

acce..1!!able.

6

CRAWFORD 27 0010/0644

MAINST

Y

6

NWand SW I NE and SE I SR 27-A02 Project, anticipated completion 2014. NWand NE

2

SWand SE

Driveway. SR 27-A02 Project, anticipated completion 2014.

7

CRAWFORD 27 0010/0896 GARDENST

Y

2

NEand SE

Existing driveway on the west side is a barrier for crossing SR 27.

t---_+------t---+-----t-------+---It---+-t-----1~-t---t--+_--_+--t--+---t---+--f--t--t----------tIProposed crossing on the east side of SR 27. Proposed local

2

NWandNE

crossings for Garden Street. Field viewed on May 29,2012 with

VFI; proposed ramp locations acceptable.

8

CRAWFORD 27 001011016 CHANCERY

Y

2

NEand SE

Driveway. SR 27-A02 Project, antiCipated completion 2014. Existing driveway on the west side is a barrier for crossing SR 27.

I - - - - + - - - - - - t - - - + - - - - + - - - - - - + - - - I - - + - - I - - - - - - - j f - + - - I - - + - - - - + - + - + - - - I - - - + - + - + _ - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 I P r o p o s e d crossing on the east side of SR 27. Proposed local

2

9

CRAWFORD 27 0010/1301

LIBERTY

SWandSE

crossings for Chancery Lane. Field viewed on May 29,2012 with VFI; proposed ramp locations acce.J!!able.

Y

6

NW and SW I NE and SE I SR 27 A02 Project, anticipated completion 2014. SWand SE

2

NWand NE

Page 1 of5

EXHIBIT
I B

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-3 Filed 04/18/13 Page 2 of 5

'*oc"
;:: u
G)
f .! .E

County

.!
~

&

Seg/Off

.! Intersection

III
fi)

Intersecting Local Street
Name

~ j.'CCt!D?.:..

Q.
EI/)

Q.
EI/)

- c:
f~tI ~0

ae:l:l aI:I:I ia.!

U. - l.!f

.3U

III

fi)

c.5

........

0:

0 0

z t" '*" '*"

~ ~ 'C c:
cm ftI e.f. Ci};;
c,E 00.. Z

City Of Meadville Curb Ramp Inventory

I/) Q.
E ~
ien
'0

~ ~

01/)

=>CD

.

z...

'

=
Q.

<C 0 I/)

'

" 0

~~ G) -

E ~ iua
.3
'0

E
~
!en
'0

'C
.~I

~
E ~

I/) Q.
E
~

~ .. S Cii
.C~'~" .u3
U) '0 '0

'*"

'*" '*"

'*" '*"

Location (quadrant)

12-14-11, Revised 3-22-13, 4-4-13 DATA- S. McMasters; Revised by PA Miller
COMMENTS

10 CRAWFORD 27 0010/1547

EAST ST

Y

2

NEand SE

Driveway. SR 27-A02 Project, anticipated completion 2014. Existing driveway on the west side is a barrier for crossing SR 27.

t - - - - + - - - - - + - - - + - - - - - + - - - - - - - + - - - - - I f - - + - I - - - - - 1 - - + - - + - - + - - - - + - - + - - + - - + - - - + - + - - t - - - . , t - - - - -_ _ _ _-tIProposed crossing on the east side of SR 27. Proposed local

2

SWandSE

crossings for East Street. Field viewed on May 29,2012 with VFI; proposed ramp locations acceptable.

11

CRAWFORD 27 0020/0000

NORTHST

Y

2

NEand SE

Driveway. SR 27-A02 Project, anticipated completion 2014. Existing driveway on the north side is a barrier for crossing SR 27. Proposed local crossing for North Street. Field viewed on May 11, 2012 with VFI; proposed ramp locations acceptable. See Photos.

12

CRAWFORD 27

0020/0164

KENNEDY

Y

2

NWandSW

Driveway. SR 27-A02 Project, anticipated completion 2014. Existing driveway on the south side is a barrier for crossing SR 27.

t - - - - + - - - - - + - - - + - - - - - + - - - - - - - + - - - t - - + - + - - - - + - - - 1 - - + - - + - - - - + - - + - - + - - + - - - + - - + - + - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - I l p r o p o s e d state crossing for State Street. Proposed local crossing

I I I I I 13 CRAWFORD 27 0020/0469 MOHICAN PL

Y

2
I2 I
2

NWand NE NE and SE NWand NE

for Kennedy Street. Field viewed on May 11, 2012 with VFI; proposed ramp locations acceptable. See Photos.
IDriveway. Existing driveway on the southwest quadrant is a
barrier for crossing SR 27. Proposed crossing on the north side of SR 27. Proposed local crossing for Mohican Place. See Photo.

14 CRAWFORD 27 0020/0678 STEWARTST

Y

4

NW and SW 1NE and SE

2

NWand NE

15

CRAWFORD 27 0020/0829

GROVEST

Y

4

NW and SW 1 NE and SE

2

SWandSE

16 CRAWFORD 27 003010275

PENNST

Y

4

NWand SW 1 NE and SE

2

SWandSE

17 CRAWFORD 27 003011914 HARTMANST

Y

2

NEand SE

Driveway. Existing driveway on the west side is a barrier for

t - - - - + - - - - - + - - - + - - - - - + - - - - - - - + - - - + - - + - - + - - - - + - - - - I f - - I - - - + - - - - + - - + - + - - + - - - I - _ + _ _ + _ - + -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-tlcrossing SR 27. Proposed crossing on the east side of SR 27.

Proposed local crossing for Hartman Street. Field viewed on May

2

SWandSE

11, 2012 with VFI; proposed ramp locations acceptable. See

Photos.

18 CRAWFORD 27 0040/1286

GRAFFST

Y

2

NWandSW

2 existing compliant ramps

2

19 CRAWFORD 77 0010/0554 BRAWLEY AVE

y

4

NWand NE NWand SW 1 NE and SE

2

SWandSE

Driveway. Existing driveway on the south side is a barrier for

20

CRAWFORD I 886

0010/1150

BALDWINST (2037)

Y oI 0

crossing SR 886. Existing crossing on the north side of SR 886. Existing crossing for Baldwin Street. Field viewed on May 11, 2012 with VFI; existing ramp locations acceptable. See Photos.

21

CRAWFORD I 886 0010/1643 CHURCH ST

22

CRAWFORD I 886 0010/2086

HENRYST

Y

Y

4

4

4

NW and NE 1SW and SE NWand SW 1NE and SE NW and NE 1 SW and SE

Page 20f5

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-3 Filed 04/18/13 Page 3 of 5

City Of Meadville Curb Ramp Inventory

12-14-11, Revised 3-22-13, 4-4-13 DATA- S. McMasters; Revised by P.A. Miller

'II:

S ~c I~!! Cou

o

nty

a:

II)

S.

1 ff

Intersectmg

IntSeersgeOct.ion Local Street

! II)

Name

c -

t/)

.9 '~~CcCaD~:1~:l!ii "- I i..

C :2

/I)
Q~ . a: iii
U

/I) Q.
~ E ocSa U)

0 C .:5
Z~

.0. . . . . .0. 'II: 'II:

"I-'~tCC ~:I1)D:IS-~~I);-~~l..i .i9aUQ/~iI:i).

/I)
~Q. a: ocSa U)

0c1,1a. .0......0.

Z

'II: =II:

/I)

/I)

o!l Q~. ~Q.

~>-

Z
l5

4( /I)

II)

D: .0..
f-

a:
iii
.U9

a:
ocSa U)

?;. ....0. '0

=II: =II:

/I)

/I)

.'tgt ~-

Q~ . a:

Q~ . a:

C.ci~.l.~i .9iUii

ocSa U)

U)

.0... '0

=II: =II:

Location (quadrant)

COMMENTS

I

23

CRAWFORD 886 0010/2170

LOOMIS ST

2

Y

24

24

CRAWFORD 886 0010/2432 SHERMAN ST

Y

2

1

25

CRAWFORD 886 0010/2831 E.COLLEGE ST

Y

4

2

26

CRAWFORD 886 0010/3351 PROSPECT ST

Y

2

27

CRAWFORD 886 0020/0501 ALLEGHENY ST

Y

28

CRAWFORD 886 0020/0518

LIMBER RD

4 2

NEand SE
NW and NE 1 SW and SE
SWand SE SE
NWand NE 1 SW and SE NEand SE NWand NE
SWand SE 1 NW and NE
NE and SE

2 existing compliant local ramps. 91:1e ts the PFElIEiFRit) sf HeAl'} street, AS FaFRps pFspsseEi SA the s~l:Ith siEle at SR 88S. See . photo. Added 2 state ramps per Apnl4, 2013 conference call With VFI. 4 existing compliant ramps. 1 local ramp maybe impacted with new state ramJ!.
4 existing compliant ramps. Allegheny and Limber form a skewed plus intersection (8 total ramps required). 2 existing compliant local ramps at Allegheny Street.

Byllesby (Tee-east) and Ben Avon (Tee-west) create an offset

29

CRAWFORD 886 0020/1200 BYLLES8Y AVE

Y

2

NWand NE

plus intersection. Existing compliant local ramps for Byllesby

I---_-----__---I-----__------f.---+---I--+----I--~_f-_I---+-+-_I_-+_-___lf__+-+-+---------...,

Avenue. and Ben

Proposed State crossing NWand Avon. Propose local ramp on SW

NE between 8y1lesby quadrant of Ben Avon

30

CRAWFORD 886 0020/1242 BENAVON ST

Y

1

Street. Existing local ramp NW quadrant of Ben Avon Street.

SW

Field viewed on May 11,2012 with VFI; proposed ramp locations

acceptable. TIF maybe required if running slope exceeds 8.33%

for state ramp on the east side. See Photos.

31

CRAWFORD 886 0020/1751 HAMILTON AVE

Y

32

CRAWFORD 886 0020/2033 CARROLL AVE

Y

33

CRAWFORD 886 0020/2665 SUNSET DR

Y

4 2
4 2
3 2

34

CRAWFORD 1001 0050/0925 BEN AVON ST

Y

0 0

SW and SE 1 NW and NE SE and NE
SWand SE 1 NW and NE SWand NW
SW and SE 1NE SEand NE

No PAR. Shoulder only in the northwest quadrant. See photo.
No PAR. Pedestrian Access Route only exists on the east side of SR 1001 (Park Avenue). 2 existing local ramps. Field viewed on May 11, 2012 with VFI; existing ramp locations acceptable. See

35

CRAWFORD 1001 0050/1314

WOOD ST

Y

0 0

I photos. No PAR. Pedestrian Access Route only exists on the east side of SR 1001 (Park Avenue). 2 existing compliant local ramps. Field viewed on May 11, 2012 with VFI; existing ramp locations

acceptable. See photos.

36

CRAWFORD 1001 0030/0000

NORTH ST

37

CRAWFORD 1001 0030/0601 RANDOLPH ST

Y

2

38

CRAWFORD 1001 0030/1334

LOCUST ST

Y

4

2

39

CRAWFORD 1001 0040/0427

LOOMIS ST

Y

4

Y

6

2

NW and NE 1 SW and SE 1 SR 27 A02 Project. West Leg of North Street is a local road.

NEand SE

NWand SW

SWand SE

6 existing compliant ramps.

SWand SE 1 NW and NE

SWand NW

SWand SE 1 NW and NE 2 existing compliant ramps.

Page30f5

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-3 Filed 04/18/13 Page 4 of 5

'II: c
~
U II)
I!!
..!:

County

.!
~
{}.
.;
U)

Seg/Off Intersection

Intersecting Local Street
Name

~ ~ .'-CCtD:!?c;GO.

a. E
IIV/)

c~a ~0

"
ii

~- ~r! ~U

Zr0:

0

'II:

a.
E
Ii.
i
'0
'II:

~·I ~ ~" ~c

Ia/).

'9;; ccma

r!
eGO

o ..

IV U

.; .9

c,E
OD.,

'0

Z

'II:

a.
E
Ii.
i
'0
'II:

40

CRAWFORD 1001 0040/0519

SMITHST

Y

2

City Of Meadville Curb Ramp Inventory

a. a.

01/) E E

«=>.Z..:
CD"o.

0
I/)

" 0

~t- II) -

Ii.
ii
U
.9
'0

Ii.
irn
'0

'II: 'II:

a. Ia/).

~" ~

IEi.

E
Ii.

i CciS .is..
~.;

ii
.U9

en '0

rn
'0

'II: 'II:

12-14-11, Revised 3-22-13, 4-4-13 DATA - S. McMasters; Revised by P.A. Miller

Location (quadrant)

COMMENTS

SWandSE

Driveway. Existing driveway in the northeast quadrant is a barrier for crossing SR 1001. Proposed crossing on the south side of SR 1001. 2 existing compliant local ramps. See Photo.

41

SWand SE 1 NW and NE 2.existing compliant local ramps. 1 local ramp maybe impacted

r----jr------t----t------I-------t---t-.--1I--f----4-+-+-+---+-+-+--+---I--~I__-I-~I_---__::=_,.--....:...---.:.:.::._IWith new state ramp.
SW

I I I I I I 42 I CRAWFORD I 1001 I 0040/1453 I PROSPECT ST I y

43 CRAWFORD 1001 0040/1891

JOHN ST

Y

I 2 I
21

II 1

I 1

SW and SE
SWand SE SW

14 existing compliant ramps. 14 existing compliant ramps. 1 local ramp maybe impacted with new state ra~

44 CRAWFORD I 1001 005010000 I ALLEGHENY ST

Y

2

NWand NE

16 existing compli~nt ra~s.

Driveways and No PAR. Existing driveways on the southwest

45 CRAWFORD I 1001 0050/0621 I RAVINE ST

Y

o

quadrant are barriers for crossing SR 1001. No pedestrian access route in the northwest quadrant. 2 existing compliant local

ra~s. See Photo.

46 CRAWFORD I 2012 I 0010/1158 I ORCHARD PL

Y

4

NWand SW 1NE and SE

2

NWand NE

47

CRAWFORD I 2012 I 0020/0000

ERNST PL

Y

2

NEand SE

Driveway. Existing driveway on the west side is a barrier for crossing SR 2012. Proposed crossing on the east side of SR

I----+-----+---+----+------+-----jr--+--I---~-+-f_-+_---+-+-+--f_--+-+--f_~1_--------_412012. Proposed local crossing for Emst Place. Field viewed on

2

NWand NE

May 11, 2012 with VFI; proposed ramp locations acceptable. See

Photos.

4 existing compliant ramps (Porter Street Intersection adjacent to

48 CRAWFORD I 2012 I 0020/0395

ALDENST

Y

2

NE and SE

Alden and Chestnut Streets.) Local ramps on Chestnut Street
I(east side} local responsibility. See photo.

Due to proximity, eastern ramps for Arch Street and westem

49 CRAWFORD I 2012 I 0020/1389

ARCHST

Y

2

NWandSW

ramps for Charlton Street are the same. 10 total ramps required for Arch and Charlton Streets, 2 existing compliant ramps for SR

2012. See photo.

50 CRAWFORD I 2012 I 0020/1451 I CHARLTON ST

Y

4

NW and SW 1NE and SE ISee comment above.

2

I I I I I 51

CRAWFORD 2034 0110/1576 TERRACE ST

I I I Y I I2 I

I I I I I I I I 52 I CRAWFORD I 2035 I 0040/0684 I GROVE ST

Y

I 4 I

53 CRAWFORD 2035 0040/1072 FAIRMONT AVE

Y

2 2

I I

54 CRAWFORD I 2035 I 0050/1164 CLINTON CT

Y

4

I I I I

SWandSE

SW 1 NE

IN~ ~AR. No ~edestrian access route in northwest quadrant. 3

NE

eXisting compliant r~. See Photo.

I NWand SW 1 NE and SE 12 existing com..p!i~nt ram~s.

~~ :~~ ;~

12 existing compliant ramps.

NWand NE 1 SW and SE 12 existing compliant ramps.

Page 4 of5

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-3 Filed 04/18/13 Page 5 of 5

City Of Meadville Curb Ramp Inventory

12-14-11, Revised 3-22-13, 4-4-13 DATA - S. McMasters; Revised by P.A. Miller

'II: c o
t;
CD
f .! .5

County

oS
:::J
Ii
~
Ci)

Seg/Off Intersection

Intersecting Local Street
Name

~ G
.'ta!

)~::s

a. 8.
IEn E

-as

C 0

aII::I ~

~ ~

Ui
•

f!! S

igii
..J

.!
~

C .5
Z0!:'"'

'0 '0
'II: 'II:

."
IS

~ c

==.t~-I-cl¥~ ~.:Gs.O~=iu0ii

Zoc

-
D.

0 'II:

8.
E ~
~
'0
'II:

8. Ian.

=«G>-)0z"-.o.211.1 0" ~~ ICnD •0

E ~
iuii
.9
'0

E ~
~
'0

'II: 'II:

Ian. 8.

"!~

E ~

E
~

~~
eGO
U=i ~

iuoii
..J
'0

!en
'0

'II: 'II:

Location (quadrant)

COMMENTS

1 1 1 1 55 CRAWFORD 2035 0050/1854 CENTER ST

2

Y

14 1

I 14 NWandSW NW and NE 1SW and SE

existing compliant local ramps. Steps and grade differential are

potential barrier for crossing on the north side. Consider either a

NE

TIF for running slope or elimination of the crossing on the the north side. See photo. Local ramp may be impacted with new

state ramp.

Due to proximity of Church Street to the signalized intersection of

56

CRAWFORD 2037 001010782 CHURCHST

Y oo

Baldwin and Park Avenue, no additional ramps proposed for Church Street and Baldwin Street. Local crossing exists for Church Street. Field viewed on May 11, 2012 with VFI; existing

ramp locations acceptable. See photos.

Due to proximity of Mount Hope Street to the signalized

57

CRAWFORD 2037 002010097 MT HOPEST

Y oo

intersection of Baldwin and Park Avenue, no additional ramps proposed for Mount Hope Street and Baldwin Street. Local crOSSing exists for Mount Hope Street. Field viewed on May 11,

58 CRAWFORD 1 2037 1 003010000 1REYNOLDS AVE Y

4

2012 with VFI; existing ramp locations acceptable. See photos. NWand NE 1SW and SE

2

59

CRAWFORD 1 2037 1 003010140 1W. COLLEGE ST

Y

4

2

SWandNW NW and NE 1SW and SE
NEand SE

60

NWand NE

4 existing compliant ramps. 1 local ramp maybe impacted with

r------t----------t-----+---------t---~~~--_t------~~--~------4_~~~--_4------~--~--+_--~--~--~ __ ~--~--------~~~----~new&areramp. NW

61

CRAWFORD 1 2037 1 003010551 1 PROSPECT ST

Y

4

NWand NE 1SW and SE

2

NEand SE

62

CRAWFORD 1 2037 1 003011042

GLENWOOD AVE

Y

2

SWandSE

No Par. DrivewayslParking lots and shoulder on the north side of the intersection. See photo.

SW

58 1111

11 1 16 1196

5 8 1 13

201 181 38

Intersections reviewed by:
Rod Fasenmyer, PennDOT Project Manager Scott McMasters, PenhDOT Highway Designer Bob Zarecky, PennDOT ADA Coordinator Paul A Miller, P.E., PennDOT Plans Development Engineer

Total ramps to be constructed
Locations noted reviewed by the following on May 11, 2012 Alan Dunfee, VFI Rod Fasenmyer, PennDOT Project Manager Scott McMasters, PennDOT Highway Designer Bob Zarecky, PennDOT ADA Coordinator Paul A Miller, P.E., PennDOT Plans Development Engineer
Page 5 of5

247
Locations noted reviewed by the follOWing on May 29, 2012 Alan Dunfee, VFI Rick Hoffman, VFI Mike McMullen, P.E., PennDOT Project Manager Bob Zarecky, PennDOT ADA Coordinator

__ __ _ - · ...•... ._._._.

..

. _ . _ - - - - _...

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-4 Filed 04/18/13 Page 1 of 21

.~_T·lj~r£j.c~~ ~/L'-'1..'I 'I APPROACH GRADE -0.0%

SPEED LIMIT 40 M.P.H. NEXT SIGNAL APPROXIMATELY-+..

I I

L..~2'_1
I "'"' I __-,

3050 FEET AT REYNOLDS

II

1,1,
_ _--L---.L_ _

,~
~r
T ,
\
\

.x .x

I ~I

:::il

~ CI "'\

3<

\

I
~21-C/l"
I I

I 12' 12'

'1

v"1\ -Jr-i

i

I

~ -..-II~
~ ~I

I
I

12'· ~ 12' 12' I

~ I~! (1-''''-'1-''::-'

i §~ ~

- I, ( ,

O., 0::

.
1

.
,

!

l~ '

>- ,,-lcom

>-

o
It)
x
io

t
\
\
\
\.
'" \ ,

jTYPE I MOUNTING
I
3-CI2"

.

_

-

-

-

-

-

-

_

.

_

-

-

-

_

__ .

.....-

-

-

, ,I
" ,\ \

ELECTRICAL SERVICE, TYPE 8 TO POLE NO.1

. _ - _ . _ - - - _..
PERMIT NO. 7331 DATE ISSUED 2125/98

SHEET 2 of 3

#1

DATE REVISED 2116/99

GENERAL NOTES
INSTALLATION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF THESE SIGNALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGULATIONS GOVERc"'lNG THE DESIGN, LOCATION, AND OPERATION OF SIGNS, SIGNALS, AND PAVEMENT MARXINGS.
NO MODIFICATIONS OF THIS INSTALLATION ARE PERMITTED UNLESS PRIOR APPROVAL IS GRh"TED. IN WRITING, BY THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE.
MAINTENANCE WORK ON ALL APPROACHES TO THE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIO)[ NECESSARY FOR PROPER VISIBILITY OF THE SIGNS Ai'm SIGNALS, INCLUDING TRIMWNG OF TREES, IS THE RESPONSffiILITY OF THE PERMITTEE.
ALL SIGNS AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS INDICATED ON THIS DRAWING ARE CONSIDERED PART OF THE PERMIT AND SHALL BE INSTALLED A"ID MAINTAINED BY THE PERMITTEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PUBLICATION 68, OFFICIAL TRAFFIC-CONTROL DEVICES. EXCEPTIONS ARE LONGITUDINAL PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON STATE IDGHWAYS, WHICH ARE MAL'ITAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT.
SUPPORT POLES FOR OVERHEAD SIGNALS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM CLEARANCE OF 2 FEET BEHIND THE FACE OF THE CURB OR 12 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE TRAVELED ROADWAY TO EDGE OF SUPPORT POLE.
VEHICULAR SIGNALS ERECTED OVER THE ROADWAY SHALL HAVE A CLEARANCE OF 17 FEET ABOVE THE ROADWAY. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, POST MOUNTED VEHICULAR SIGNALS SHALL HAVE A CLEARANCE OF NOT LESS THAN 8 FEET NOR MORE THAN 15 FEET ABOVE THE SIDEWALK LEVEL OR PAVEMENT GRADE AT THE CENTER OF THE HIGHWAY IF NO SIDEWALK EXISTS. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS SHALL HAVE A CLEARANCE OF 8 FEET ABOVE THE SIDEWALK LEVEL.
THE MINIMUM HORIZONTAL DISTANCE BETWEEN SIGNALS, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE APPROACH, SHALL BE 8 FEET.
THIS DRAWING CANNOT BE USED AS A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING UNLESS THE PERMITTEE COMPLIES WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE LATEST ACT PREVENTING DA..\1AGE TO UNDERGROUND UTILmES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONSULT WITH UTILITY COMPANIES TO RESOLVE ANY PROBLEMS THAT MAY BE CREATED DUE TO THE LOCATION OF UTILITIES.

APPROACH GRADE +1.81%

C/2"}
RlGl'If

Of

"Ill'

LJNE

~~\

L£GM- RR.S/rJrt Track CIrcuIt

RR. Track CIrcuit Cgblnet·--

RR.Preemp/lon InterCf)(ll>ec/ Cable

\

SPEED LIMIT 25 M.P.H.

NO SIGNAL WITHIN ONE MILE

/

APPROACH GRADE -1.13%
SPEED LIMIT 25 M.P.H.

/

NEXT SIGNAL APPROXIMATELY 380 FEET AT WATER ST.

SIGN TABUL AnON

PLAN
SYMBOL
A

DESCRIPTION LEFT TURN ONLY

B

OPTIONAL RIGHT

SIZE
W x H

NOMENCLATURE

-.•:t'. <

30"X36"

R3-5L

30"X36"

R3-6SR

DO NOT ENTER OPPOSING TRAFFIC HAS
EXTENDED GREEN NO PEDESTRIAN CROSSING

36"X36" 30"X36" 24"X24"

RS-1 RlO-20 R9-3

F

NO LEFT TURN •

30"X36"

SPECIAL

G

NO RIGHT TURN •

30"X36"

SPECIAL

LEF T TURN ONL Y • LEFT LANE MUST TURN LEFT YIELD

30"X36" 30"X30" 36"X36"

SPECIAL R3-7L Rl-2

DOUBLE ARROW

30"X30"

W12-1

PUSH BUTTON FOR WALK SIGNAL .,._-

R10-4

PUSH BUTTON FOR WALK SIGNAl' --II>

R10-4

LEFT TURN YIELD ON GREEN STOP HERE ON RED

30"X36" 24"X30"

Rl0-12 R10-6L

• INTERNALL Y ILLUMINATED BLANK OUT SIGNS

12' , C
I
(~
c'

12" ,

I

I

0

8 0)

@ 0

SIGNALS

1.3.5

ri - 12" -I
0
0)
0
SIGNALS
2.4.6,7,8

~Ii-I , I
·8"
11
®
<3)
CD
SIGNALS
9,10

SIGNALS 5,6,7.8,9,10 EQUIPPED WITH BACK PLATES SIGNALS 11,12 LENS ARE LUNAR WHITE

iox
<0
8"
@
®
SIGNALS
11,12

I~
I
\ !J 2-Cl1'j I
~]~.
~
SIGNALS
13,14,15,16

APPROACH GRADE -0.5% SPEED LIMIT 40 M.P.H. NEXT SIGNAL APPROXIMATELY
1889 FEET AT MERCER ST. PLAN LEGEND :....:::.=...::.-=--!::!::~:.!.!~

~~
f- K8l
O.L.P. o G.V.

~N
OVERHEAO SIGN STREET LIGHT POLE GAS VALVE

I
••_ _...
•

~
~
f:!:j"
~

MAST ARM STRAIN POLE PEDESTAL

o W.V. WATER VALVE
D P.M. PARKING METER

Cl F.H. FIRE HYDRANT

O.M.H. MAI+IOLE

.!!5 UTILITY POLE

o.<;>-

EXISTING STRAIN POLE TREE

r7~Tj INLET
L,,::~L.LJ
cr-w-- WATER

0--- , , - SEWER

0--- E - ELECTRIC 0---- ,; ---~- GAS

---I..__--I..... IC.V\ CD

I (4) I

----j 0

-J..-..1)1 0
[gJ

-

W/4"

BW/4"

VEHCULAR SIGNAL HEAO PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL HEAO VEHCLE DETECTOR
PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON I SIGN CONTROLLER ASSEMBLY SOLID WHITE LINE / WIDTH BROKEN WHITE LINE I WIDTH SOLiD YELLOW LINE I WIDTH

o--EU - ELECTRIC (UNDERGROUND)

BY/4"

BROKEN YELLOW LINE I WIDTH

0-- TU - TELEPHONE (UNDERGROUND>

0'1'/4"

OOUBLE SOLID YELLOW LINE / WIDTH

Q-'''r ... . TELEPHONE (AERIAL)

- ...i.!>::l< EXISITNG LUMINAIRE

PROPOSED TURN ARROW

ill JUNCTION BOX
C/2" CONDUIT I SIZE

r~~~.~.:::?"i PARKING SPACE

c/

~_, TO BE REMOVED

"* -

LUMINAIRE

0-237

County:
CRAWFORD
Municipality:
CITY OF MEADVILLE
Intersection:
MEAD AVENUE S.
FRENCH CREEK PARKWAY (S.R. 0006)
Reviewed:
CJ"", I .. C;1.",..,
Date

Scale:

Dote
2~5i~~i0iiiiiiiiiii2ii5iiiiiiiil~~510
Feet
TRACED BY _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ClNAL BY _ _ _ _ _ __

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-4 Filed 04/18/13 Page 2 of 21

#1

Existing or proposed ramp

Barrier to remain

Arch Street & SR 6 Resolution:
Existing and proposed ramps provide desired level of access. Intersection configuration in accordance with existing signal permit.

Barriers to remain on 2 legs of the intersection because sidewalk does not exist. Remaining local ramps to be constructed by the City of Meadville.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-4 Filed 04/18/13 Page 3 of 21

#11 & #12

North Street & State Street Resolution: Proposed ramps provide desired level on connectivity
Barriers to remain on State Street due to existing driveways.

Existing or proposed ramp

Barrier to remain

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-4 Filed 04/18/13 Page 4 of 21
SR 27 and Mohican Place

#13

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-4 Filed 04/18/13 Page 5 of 21

#17

Existing or proposed ramp

Barrier to remain

Hartman Street & Washington Street Resolution:
Provide 2 ramps for local crossing of Hartman Street and provide 2 ramps for state crossing of Washington Street.
Access to be provided for 2 of the 3 legs.
Barriers to remain at 1 leg due to existing driveway.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-4 Filed 04/18/13 Page 6 of 21

#20

Existing or proposed ramp

Barrier to remain

Baldwin Street & N. Main Street Resolution:
Existing ramps provide desired level of access and crossing functions adequately with school crossing guard.
Barriers to remain at leg on N. Main Street due to existing driveway and safety/sight distance concerns relating to excessive distance of stop bar from potential crossing.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-4 Filed 04/18/13 Page 7 of 21
SR 886 and Loomis Street

#23

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-4 Filed 04/18/13 Page 8 of 21

#29 & #30

Existing or proposed ramp

Barrier to remain

Ben Avon Street, Byllesby Avenue & N. Main Street Resolution:
1) Corner of Byllesby Avenue and North Main: Construct ramp to cross North Main, use existing level landing area. A TIF will be required since the running slope will most likely exceed 8.33%
2) Corner of Ben Avon and North Main: Construct a new state and local ramp.
Access will be provided parallel to North Main (both sides). Barriers to remain due to grade differential between sidewalk and road.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-4 Filed 04/18/13 Page 9 of 21
SR 886 and Sunset Drive

#33

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-4 Filed 04/18/13 Page 10 of 21

#34

Existing or proposed ramp

Barrier to remain

Ben Avon Street & Park Avenue Resolution:
Existing ramps provide desired level of access.
Barriers to remain since parallel sidewalk does not exist on Park Avenue opposite of Ben Avon Street.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-4 Filed 04/18/13 Page 11 of 21

#35

Existing or proposed ramp

Barrier to remain

Wood Street & Park Avenue Resolution:
Existing ramps provide desired level of access.
Barriers to remain since parallel sidewalk does not exist on Park Avenue opposite of Wood Street.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-4 Filed 04/18/13 Page 12 of 21
SR 1001 and Smith Street

#40

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-4 Filed 04/18/13 Page 13 of 21
SR 1001 and Ravine Street

#45

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-4 Filed 04/18/13 Page 14 of 21

#47

Existing or proposed ramp

Barrier to remain

Ernst Place & Chestnut Street Resolution:
Provide 2 ramps for local crossing at Ernst Place and provide 2 ramps for state crossing of Chestnut Street.
Access will be provided for 2 of the 3 legs.
Barriers to remain at 1 leg due to existing driveway.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-4 Filed 04/18/13 Page 15 of 21
SR 2012 and Alden Street

#48

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-4 Filed 04/18/13 Page 16 of 21
SR 2012 and Arch Street

#49

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-4 Filed 04/18/13 Page 17 of 21
SR 2034 and Terrance Street

#51

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-4 Filed 04/18/13 Page 18 of 21
SR 2035 and Center Street

#55

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-4 Filed 04/18/13 Page 19 of 21

#56

Existing or proposed ramp

Barrier to remain
Church Street & Baldwin Street
Resolution:
Existing ramps provide desired level of access.
Barriers to remain at perpendicular crossing of Baldwin Street due to traffic signal layout, lane configurations, and phasing.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-4 Filed 04/18/13 Page 20 of 21

#57

Existing or proposed ramp

Barrier to remain
Mount Hope Street & Baldwin Street Resolution:
Existing ramps provide desired level of access.
Barriers to remain at perpendicular crossing of Baldwin Street due to traffic signal layout, lane configurations, and phasing.

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-4 Filed 04/18/13 Page 21 of 21
SR 2037 and Glennwood Avenue

#62

Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 84-5 Filed 04/18/13 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI),

)

MICHAEL L. EAKIN; JAY SHUFFSTALL;

)

CAROLYN A. CREHAN; KATHY A. HERTZOG )

PAUL PECUNAS; SANDRA FULLER

)

MARY ANN PARSNIK; PAT WEAVER;

)

FELICIA BONGIORNO; MELVIN BORREO

)

STEPHEN CLARK; JILL HRINDA-PATTEN

)

MARY D. KRUG; and B. LYNNE VESTAL,

)

on behalf of themselves and all others

)

similarly situated

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;

)

ALLEN D. BIEHLER, P.E., in his official

)

capacity as Secretary of Transportation of

)

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, CITY OF )

ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA and CITY OF

)

MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA

)

Defendants.

)

Civil Action No.: 06-78 Erie HON. SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN

ORDER
AND NOW, upon consideration of the Fifth Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that said Agreement is APPROVED and is hereby entered as an Order of this Court. The Court expressly retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement.
____________________________________ Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin United States District Judge

 
 Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 85 Filed 04/19/13 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI),

)

MICHAEL L. EAKIN; JAY SHUFFSTALL;

)

CAROLYN A. CREHAN; KATHY A. HERTZOG )

PAUL PECUNAS; SANDRA FULLER

)

MARY ANN PARSNIK; PAT WEAVER;

)

FELICIA BONGIORNO; MELVIN BORREO

)

STEPHEN CLARK; JILL HRINDA-PATTEN

)

MARY D. KRUG; and B. LYNNE VESTAL,

)

on behalf of themselves and all others

)

similarly situated

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;

)

ALLEN D. BIEHLER, P.E., in his official

)

capacity as Secretary of Transportation of

)

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, CITY OF )

ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA and CITY OF

)

MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA

)

Defendants.

)

Civil Action No.: 06-78 Erie HON. SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN

ORDER
AND NOW, upon consideration of the Fifth Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that said Agreement is APPROVED and is hereby entered as an Order of this Court. The Court expressly retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement.
_s__/_S_e_a_n___J_.__M__c_L_a_u_g__h_l_i_n____________ Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin United States District Judge

 
 Case 1:06-cv-00078-SJM Document 58 Filed 05/11/12 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI),

)

MICHAEL L. EAKIN; JAY SHUFFSTALL;

)

CAROLYN A. CREHAN; KATHY A. HERTZOG;)

PAUL PECUNAS; SANDRA FULLER

)

MARY ANN PARSNIK; PAT WEAVER;

)

FELICIA BONGIORNO; MELYIN BORREO )

STEPHEN CLARK; JILL HRINDA-PATTEN )

MARY D. KRUG; and B. LYNNE VESTAL,

)

on behalf of themselves and all others

)

similarly situated

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;

)

ALLEN D. BIEHLER, P.E., in his official

)

capacity as Secretary of Transpmiation of

)

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, CITY OF )

ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA and CITY OF

)

MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA

)

Defendants.

)

*******************************************

Civil Action No.: I :06cv00078-SJM HON. SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN

ORDER

Upon consideration ofthe Fourth Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, [Doc. 56] it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that said Settlement Agreement is APPROVED.

JUDGE McLAUGHLIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 
 Case 1:06-cv-00078-BR Document 93-1 Filed 11/23/16 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, ET AL., Plaintiffs

Civil Action No.: 04-328

vs.

HON. BARBARA ROTHSTEIN

CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE (VFI), ET AL, Plaintiffs
vs.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.,
Defendants

Civil Action No. : 06-78 Erie HON. BARBARA ROTHSTEIN

ORDER AND NOW, this _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 2016 upon presentation and .consideration of the foregoing, the Joint Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted. Each case and all claims against the City of Meadville shall be dismiss~d, with prejudice, and marked closed. AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

J

 
 Case: 1:06-cv-78 As of: 11/28/2018 08:42 PM EST 1 of 17
U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania (Erie) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06−cv−00078−BR

CLOSED

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI) ET AL v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL Assigned to: Judge Barbara Rothstein related Cases: 1:02−cv−00203−SPB
1:04−cv−00328−BR
1:11−cv−00016−MRH
Case in other court: Third Circuit, 07−04195
Third Circuit, 07−04319 Cause: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/28/2006 Date Terminated: 03/11/2009 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI)

represented by Craig A. Markham Elderkin, Martin, Kelly & Messina 150 East Eighth Street Erie, PA 16501−1819 (814) 456−4000 Fax: (814) 454−7411 Email: camarkham@elderkinlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Mark Finnegan Heberle & Finnegan 2580 Craig Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 (734) 302−3233 Email: hffirm@comcast.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MICHAEL L. EAKIN

represented by Craig A. Markham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Mark Finnegan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JAY SHUFFSTALL

represented by Craig A. Markham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Mark Finnegan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CAROLYN A. CREHAN

represented by

Case: 1:06-cv-78 As of: 11/28/2018 08:42 PM EST 2 of 17

Craig A. Markham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Mark Finnegan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff KATHY A. HERTZOG

represented by Craig A. Markham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Mark Finnegan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff PAUL PECUNAS

represented by Craig A. Markham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Mark Finnegan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff SANDRA FULLER

represented by Craig A. Markham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Mark Finnegan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MARY ANN PARSNIK

represented by Craig A. Markham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Mark Finnegan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff PAT WEAVER

represented by Craig A. Markham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Mark Finnegan (See above for address)

Case: 1:06-cv-78 As of: 11/28/2018 08:42 PM EST 3 of 17

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff FELICIA BONGIORNO

represented by Craig A. Markham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Mark Finnegan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MELVIN BORREO

represented by Craig A. Markham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Mark Finnegan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff STEPHEN CLARK

represented by Craig A. Markham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Mark Finnegan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JILL HRINDA−PATTEN

represented by Craig A. Markham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Mark Finnegan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MARY KRUG

represented by Craig A. Markham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Mark Finnegan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
B. LYNNE VESTAL on behalf of themselves and all others

represented by Craig A. Markham (See above for address)

Case: 1:06-cv-78 As of: 11/28/2018 08:42 PM EST 4 of 17

similarly situated

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Mark Finnegan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Defendant ALLEN D. BIEHLER P.E., in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Defendant CITY OF ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA
Defendant CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA

represented by Scott A. Bradley Office of the Attorney General Litigation Section 1251 Waterfront Place Mezzanine Level Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 565−3586 Email: sbradley@attorneygeneral.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Scott A. Bradley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gerald J. Villella Dailey, Karle & Villella 900 State Street Suite 310 Erie, PA 16501 (814) 453−4651 Email: gvillella@erie.pa.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David L. Hotchkiss Steptoe & Johnson PLLC 201 Chestnut Street Suite 200 Meadville, PA 16335 (814) 336−6400 Email: Dave.Hotchkiss@Steptoe−Johnson.com TERMINATED: 06/21/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary M. Alizzeo Shafer Law Firm 360 Chestnut St. Meadville, PA 16335 814−724−4540 Fax: 814−724−4545 Email: galizzeo@shaferlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text

Case: 1:06-cv-78 As of: 11/28/2018 08:42 PM EST 5 of 17

03/28/2006
03/28/2006 05/26/2006 05/26/2006 05/26/2006 05/26/2006 05/30/2006
05/30/2006 05/30/2006 06/29/2006 06/29/2006 06/30/2006 06/30/2006

1 COMPLAINT against all defendants ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 06−279.), filed by JAY SHUFFSTALL, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, KATHY A. HERTZOG, PAUL PECUNAS, SANDRA FULLER, MARY ANN PARSNIK, FELICIA BONGIORNO, MELVIN BORREO, STEPHEN CLARK, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, MARY KRUG, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), MICHAEL L. EAKIN. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet # 2 Summons # 3 Receipt of payment)(sdp) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
Summons Issued as to COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ALLEN D. BIEHLER. (sdp) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
2 SUMMONS/Return of Service Returned Executed by FELICIA BONGIORNO. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL served on 3/30/2006, answer due 4/19/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit service)(Markham, Craig) Modified on 5/30/2006 to edit office served(dm). (Entered: 05/26/2006)
3 SUMMONS/Return of Service Returned Executed by FELICIA BONGIORNO. ALLEN D. BIEHLER served on 4/6/2006, answer due 4/26/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit service)(Markham, Craig) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
4 SUMMONS/Return of Service Returned Executed by FELICIA BONGIORNO. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION served on 4/6/2006, answer due 4/26/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit service)(Markham, Craig) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
5 SUMMONS/Return of Service Returned Executed by FELICIA BONGIORNO. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL served on 4/3/2006, answer due 4/26/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit service)(Markham, Craig) Modified on 5/30/2006 to edit office served (dm). (Entered: 05/26/2006)
6 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, filed by KATHY A. HERTZOG,, MARY ANN PARSNIK,, MICHAEL L. EAKIN,, MARY KRUG,, PAUL PECUNAS,, SANDRA FULLER,, FELICIA BONGIORNO,, STEPHEN CLARK,, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI),, JAY SHUFFSTALL,, CAROLYN A. CREHAN,, MELVIN BORREO,, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN,, B. LYNNE VESTAL, by COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ALLEN D. BIEHLER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
7 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ALLEN D. BIEHLER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
8 ORDER granting 6 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION answer due 6/29/2006; ALLEN D. BIEHLER answer due 6/29/2006. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 5/30/06. (nk) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
9 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ALLEN D. BIEHLER.(Bradley, Scott) Modified on 6/30/2006 (sdp). JURY DEMAND not listed in document. JURY DEMAND REMOVED until Request filed. (Entered: 06/29/2006)
10 PRELIMINARY SCHEDULING ORDER Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 7/13/2006; Proposed Pretrial Order due by 8/14/2006; Case Management Conference set for 8/23/2006 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom C before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 6/29/06. (nk) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE. re 9 Answer to Complaint ERROR: Jury demand is not present in the document CORRECTION: to file a Request for Jury Demand. This message is for informational purposes only. (sdp) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
11 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ALLEN D. BIEHLER. (Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 06/30/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-78 As of: 11/28/2018 08:42 PM EST 6 of 17

08/14/2006 08/18/2006 08/22/2006 08/22/2006 08/22/2006 09/07/2006
09/07/2006
09/07/2006 09/08/2006
09/08/2006 09/13/2006 09/13/2006

12 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
TEXT NOTICE of Case Management Conference; PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE Case Management Conference previously set for 8/23/06 has been RESCHEDULED for 8/22/2006 AT 10:00 AM in Courtroom C before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter. (nk) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
TEXT NOTICE of Status Conference; PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT a Status Conference is set for 9/13/2006 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom C before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitues the Court's order or notice on the matter. (nk) (Entered: 08/22/2006)
Text Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin : Case Management Conference held on 8/22/2006. Case Mangement Order to follow; Stats conference set for 9/13/06 at 9:30 am. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitues the Court's order or notice on the matter. (Court Reporter Ron Bench.)(nk) (Entered: 08/22/2006)
13 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Discovery due by 12/19/2006 Plaintiff Pretrial Statement due by 1/8/2007. Defendant Pretrial Statement due by 1/29/2007. Summary Judgment due by 1/8/2007. Response to Summary Judgment due by 1/29/2007. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 8/22/06. (nk) (Entered: 08/22/2006)
14 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants. all defendants, filed by JAY SHUFFSTALL, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, KATHY A. HERTZOG, PAUL PECUNAS, SANDRA FULLER, MARY ANN PARSNIK, PAT WEAVER, FELICIA BONGIORNO, MELVIN BORREO, STEPHEN CLARK, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, MARY KRUG, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), MICHAEL L. EAKIN. (Attachments: # 1 Summons City of Erie# 2 Summons City of Meadville)(Markham, Craig) (Entered: 09/07/2006)
15 STIPULATION re 14 Amended Complaint, CONSENT TO FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT by JAY SHUFFSTALL, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, KATHY A. HERTZOG, PAUL PECUNAS, SANDRA FULLER, MARY ANN PARSNIK, PAT WEAVER, FELICIA BONGIORNO, MELVIN BORREO, STEPHEN CLARK, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, MARY KRUG, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), MICHAEL L. EAKIN. (Markham, Craig) (Entered: 09/07/2006)
TEXT NOTICE of Status Conference. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Status Conference set for 9/13/2006 will be held at 9:15 AM in Courtroom C before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. The Attorney General's office will participate by phone. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitues the Court's order or notice on the matter.(nk) (Entered: 09/07/2006)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE. re 15 Stipulation,. ERROR: Signature on document and filer do not match. CORRECTION: Attorney advised of signature requirements. Attorney to resubmit the document using the Errata event. This message is for informational purposes only., CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE. ERROR: Wrong event selected. CORRECTION: The proper attorney should refile this as a consent. (sdp) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
Summons Issued as to CITY OF ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA, CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA. (sdp) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
Text Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin : Status Conference held on 9/13/2006. Another Status Conference will be held on 10/6/06 at 2:30 pm. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Courts order or notice on the matter. (Court Reporter Ron Bench.) (nk) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
TEXT NOTICE of Status Conference set for 10/6/2006 02:30 PM in Courtroom C before Sean J. McLaughlin. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Courts order or notice on the matter.(nk) (Entered: 09/13/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-78 As of: 11/28/2018 08:42 PM EST 7 of 17

09/15/2006
09/15/2006
09/27/2006 09/29/2006
10/02/2006
10/02/2006 10/04/2006 10/12/2006
10/12/2006 10/19/2006

16 SUMMONS/Return of Service Returned Executed by JAY SHUFFSTALL, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, KATHY A. HERTZOG, PAUL PECUNAS, SANDRA FULLER, MARY ANN PARSNIK, PAT WEAVER, FELICIA BONGIORNO, MELVIN BORREO, STEPHEN CLARK, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, MARY KRUG, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), MICHAEL L. EAKIN. CITY OF ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA served on 9/14/2006, answer due 10/4/2006. (Markham, Craig) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
17 SUMMONS/Return of Service Returned Executed by JAY SHUFFSTALL, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, KATHY A. HERTZOG, PAUL PECUNAS, SANDRA FULLER, MARY ANN PARSNIK, PAT WEAVER, FELICIA BONGIORNO, MELVIN BORREO, STEPHEN CLARK, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, MARY KRUG, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), MICHAEL L. EAKIN. CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA served on 9/14/2006, answer due 10/4/2006. (Markham, Craig) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
18 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by CITY OF ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA.(Villella, Gerald) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
NOTICE of Hearing Status Conference; PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a TELEPHONIC status conference has been scheduled for 10/2/2006 at 1:30 PM before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Attorney Markham will initiate the call, with all counsel on the and call the conference line at 814−464−9615. Also, please take note that the Status Conference previously set for 10/6/06 at 2:30 pm has been changed to 11:00 in Courtroom C, before the Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Courts order or notice on the matter(nk) (Entered: 09/29/2006)
Text Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin : Status Conference held on 10/2/2006. Status Conference previously scheduled for 10/6/06 at 10:00 am has been RESCHEDULED for 10/12/06 at 9:00 am. Oral Order that Parties are to meet and confer with their positions before the next Status Conference. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter.(Court Reporter Ron Bench.) (nk) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
Text NOTICE of Status Conference set for 10/12/2006 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom C before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter.(nk) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
19 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Hotchkiss, David) (Entered: 10/04/2006)
20 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin : Status Conference held on 10/12/2006. City of Meadville and Commonwealth in two weeks from today shall submit a proposed settlement agreement as to their positions. Plaintiff and the City of Erie will identify the intersections that remain in dispute within the next two weeks. Telephonic Status conference will be held in following weeks. Notice of Status Conference will be sent. (Court Reporter Ron Bench.) (nk) Modified on 10/13/2006 (dm). (Entered: 10/12/2006)
TEXT NOTICE of Telephonic Status Conference set for 11/2/2006 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom C before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a telephonic status conference has been scheduled; Attorney Markham will initiate the call, with all counsel on the line and call the conference line at 814−464−9615. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter(nk) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
TEXT NOTICE of TELEPHONIC Status Conference set for 11/2/2006 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT the telephonic status conference set for 11/2/06 has been moved to 10:00 AM before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Attorney Markham will initiate the call, with all counsel on the line and call the conference line at 814−464−9615. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter (nk) (Entered: 10/19/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-78 As of: 11/28/2018 08:42 PM EST 8 of 17

10/26/2006 11/02/2006 11/02/2006 11/15/2006
11/17/2006 11/17/2006 12/06/2006
12/07/2006 12/12/2006 12/21/2006 12/22/2006 12/22/2006

21 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Proposed by CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Proposed Settlement Agreement)(Hotchkiss, David) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
TEXT Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin : Status Conference held on 11/2/2006. Telephonic Status Conference scheduled for 11/17/06 at 9:30 am. Attorney Markham will initiate the call. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter(Court Reporter Ron Bench.) (nk) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
TEXT NOTICE of Telephonic Status Conference set for 11/17/2006 at 9:30 AM in before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Attorney Markham will initiate the call will all counsel on the line and call the Conference line at 814−464−9615. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter(nk) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
TEXT NOTICE of Status Conference; PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE scheduled for 11/17/2006 will be at 8:30 AM before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Attorney Markham will initiate the call with all counsel on the line and call the Conference line at 814−464−9615. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter.(nk) (Entered: 11/15/2006)
Text Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin : Status Conference held on 11/17/2006. Final Settlement conference is set for 12/6/06 at 1:00 pm. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter. (Court Reporter Ron Bench.) (nk) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
TEXT NOTICE of Settlement Conference; PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a Settlement Conference is scheduled for 12/6/2006 at 1:00 PM in Courtroom C before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter.(nk) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
Text Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin : Status Conference held on 12/6/2006. Defendant's City of Meadville and the States Summary Judgement due 30 days from today; Plaintiff's response due 30 days thereafter. Another Status/Settlement conference for City of Erie, Penn Dot and Plaintiff is scheduled for 1/3/07 at 2:30 pm. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter.(Court Reporter Ron Bench.) (nk) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter. NOTICE of Settlement Conference set for 1/3/2007 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom C before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. (nk) (Entered: 12/07/2006)
TEXT NOTICE of Settlement Conference; PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Settlement Conference in this case has been RESCHEDULED for 1/17/2007 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom C before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter.(nk) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
22 Joint MOTION for Entry of Settlement Agreement by CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Settlement Agreement)(Hotchkiss, David) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
23 ORDER granting 22 Motion for Entry of Settlement Agreement. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 12/22/06. (nk) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
24 TRANSCRIPT of Settlement Conference Proceedings held on 12/6/2006 before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Court Reporter: Ron Bench. The parties have five (5) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court or the court reporter/transcriber. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by

Case: 1:06-cv-78 As of: 11/28/2018 08:42 PM EST 9 of 17

01/05/2007 01/05/2007 01/05/2007 01/05/2007 01/05/2007 01/08/2007
01/17/2007 01/17/2007 01/31/2007
03/05/2007 03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/27/2007

1/9/2007. (dm) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
25 MOTION for Summary Judgment by COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ALLEN D. BIEHLER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
26 BRIEF in Support re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ALLEN D. BIEHLER. (Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B − Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment# 2 Exhibit A − Affidavit of Joseph A. Chriest# 3 Certificate of Service)(Hotchkiss, David) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
28 STATEMENT OF FACTS 27 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,. by CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Hotchkiss, David) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
29 BRIEF in Support re 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA. (sdp) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE. re 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment ERROR: Document should have been filed as two separate documents. CORRECTION: Attorney advised in future that documents of that nature are to be filed as separate documents. Clerk of Court docketed Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. This message is for informational purposes only. (sdp) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin : Settlement Conference held on 1/17/2007. Case did not settle; Another settlement conference is set for 1/31/07 at 1:30 PM before the Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Courts order or notice on the matter. (Court Reporter Ron Bench.) (nk) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
NOTICE of Hearing: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a Settlement Conference has been set for 1/31/2007 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom C before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Courts order or notice on the matter.(nk) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin : Settlement Conference held on 1/31/2007. Parties have 30 days from today to file a settlement agreement. Defendant's to supply within 14 days to Plaintiff's counsel a proposed draft of settlement; Plaintiffs to return to Defendant's proposed draft within one week of receipt. Deadlines for responses to summary judgment motions postponed until settlement agreement is filed. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Courts order or notice on the matter (Court Reporter Ron Bench.) (nk) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
NOTICE of Telephonic Status Conference set for 3/12/2007 at 1:30 PM in before Sean J. McLaughlin. Attorney Markham will initiate the call with all counsel on the line and call the conference line at 814−464−9615. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter.(nk) (Entered: 03/05/2007)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the telephonic Status Conference set for 3/12/07 is CANCELLED. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter. (nk) Modified on 3/9/2007 (sdp). (Entered: 03/08/2007)
NOTICE of Status Conference set for 3/27/2007 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom C before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter.(nk) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin : Status Conference held on 3/27/2007. Plaintiff to file a Brief in Opposition to Penn Dot within twenty (20) days for today. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This

Case: 1:06-cv-78 As of: 11/28/2018 08:42 PM EST 10 of 17

04/16/2007
04/16/2007
04/19/2007
04/19/2007 04/19/2007 05/25/2007 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 06/01/2007 06/11/2007

text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter. (Court Reporter Ron Bench.)(nk) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
30 BRIEF in Opposition re 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Meadville and PennDOT with opposition filed by JAY SHUFFSTALL, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, KATHY A. HERTZOG, PAUL PECUNAS, SANDRA FULLER, MARY ANN PARSNIK, PAT WEAVER, FELICIA BONGIORNO, MELVIN BORREO, STEPHEN CLARK, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, MARY KRUG, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), MICHAEL L. EAKIN. (Markham, Craig) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
31 RESPONSE To Concise Statement of Facts filed by JAY SHUFFSTALL, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, KATHY A. HERTZOG, PAUL PECUNAS, SANDRA FULLER, MARY ANN PARSNIK, PAT WEAVER, FELICIA BONGIORNO, MELVIN BORREO, STEPHEN CLARK, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, MARY KRUG, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), MICHAEL L. EAKIN. (Markham, Craig) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
32 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Signed by All Parties and filed by JAY SHUFFSTALL, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, KATHY A. HERTZOG, PAUL PECUNAS, SANDRA FULLER, MARY ANN PARSNIK, PAT WEAVER, FELICIA BONGIORNO, MELVIN BORREO, STEPHEN CLARK, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, MARY KRUG, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), MICHAEL L. EAKIN. (Markham, Craig) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
33 ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT of CITY OF ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA and PENNDOT, signed by Judge McLaughlin on 4/19/07. (nk) Modified on 4/30/2007. (tt) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
NOTICE of Oral Argument on Motion 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment: TAKE NOTICE THAT an OralARGUMENT is set for 5/30/2007 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom C before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter.(nk) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT the oral argument set for 5/30/07 is CANCELLED. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Courts order or notice on the matter. (nk) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
34 NOTICE by CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA re 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Notice of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Case# 2 Certificate of Service)(Hotchkiss, David) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
ORDER Response re 34 Notice of Supplemental Authority filed by City of Meadville; ORDERED that the Plaintiff's file a response to the Order on or before 6/13/2007. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 5/31/07. (nk) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
35 NOTICE by COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ALLEN D. BIEHLER re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment (State Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Ledbetter Slip Opinion))(Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
ORDER Response re 35 Notice of supplemental authority. Plaintiff's Response to Motion due by 6/14/2007. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 6/1/07. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter.(nk) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
36 REPLY BRIEF by JAY SHUFFSTALL, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, KATHY A. HERTZOG, PAUL PECUNAS, SANDRA FULLER, MARY ANN PARSNIK, PAT WEAVER, FELICIA BONGIORNO, MELVIN BORREO, STEPHEN CLARK, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, MARY KRUG, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), MICHAEL L. EAKIN to 34 35 Notice of Supplemental Authority filed by JAY SHUFFSTALL, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, KATHY A. HERTZOG, PAUL PECUNAS, SANDRA FULLER, MARY ANN PARSNIK, PAT WEAVER, FELICIA BONGIORNO, MELVIN BORREO, STEPHEN CLARK, JILL

Case: 1:06-cv-78 As of: 11/28/2018 08:42 PM EST 11 of 17

09/28/2007 10/26/2007
11/05/2007 11/06/2007 11/09/2007
02/22/2008 02/22/2008 03/17/2008
03/31/2008 03/31/2008 06/09/2008

HRINDA−PATTEN, MARY KRUG, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), MICHAEL L. EAKIN. (Markham, Craig) Modified on 6/12/2007 (sdp). (Entered: 06/11/2007)
37 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 25 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and Allen D. Biehler; denying 27 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendant the City of Meadville, Pennsylvania. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 09/28/07. (kas) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
38 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 37 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, by CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 720231. The Clerk's Office hereby certifies the record and the docket sheet available through ECF to be the certified list in lieu of the record and/or the certified copy of the docket entries. The Transcript Purchase Order form will NOT be mailed to the parties. The form is available on the Court's internet site. (Hotchkiss, David) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
40 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA re 38 Notice of Appeal,, NO TRANSCRIPT (Hotchkiss, David) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
Record complete for Appeal purposes. (sdp) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
41 NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL by JAY SHUFFSTALL, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, KATHY A. HERTZOG, PAUL PECUNAS, SANDRA FULLER, MARY ANN PARSNIK, PAT WEAVER, FELICIA BONGIORNO, MELVIN BORREO, STEPHEN CLARK, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, MARY KRUG, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), MICHAEL L. EAKIN to 37 order. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 732862. Representing Attorney: Craig A. Markham. The Clerk's Office hereby certifies the record and the docket sheet available through ECF to be the certified list in lieu of the record and/or the certified copy of the docket entries. The Transcript Purchase Order form will not be mailed to the parties. The form is available on the Court's internet site.Appeal Record due by 11/9/2007. (Markham, Craig) Modified on 11/13/2007 (sdp). (Entered: 11/09/2007)
43 STATUS REPORT re Compliance with Settlement Agreement by CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2007 Ramp Report − Meadville) (Hotchkiss, David) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
44 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA re 43 Status Report re Compliance with Settlement Agreement (Hotchkiss, David) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
45 ORDER of USCA as to 38 Notice of Appeal, filed by CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA, 41 Notice of Cross Appeal, filed by FELICIA BONGIORNO, SANDRA FULLER, PAUL PECUNAS, MELVIN BORREO, KATHY A. HERTZOG, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), MARY ANN PARSNIK, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, PAT WEAVER, MARY KRUG, MICHAEL L. EAKIN, STEPHEN CLARK, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, JAY SHUFFSTALL (tmk3) The appeals are dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The District court's order denying motions for summary judgment is not a final order. (Entered: 03/17/2008)
46 STATUS REPORT (2007 Schedule A−Meadville) by COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ALLEN D. BIEHLER. (Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
47 STATUS REPORT (2007 Schedule A − Erie) by COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ALLEN D. BIEHLER. (Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
NOTICE of Status Conference set for 7/8/2008 at 1:30 PM before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Attorney Finnegan and Attorney Bradely may partipate by phone. Attorney Finnegan shall initiate the call with Attorney Bradely on the line and call the conference line at 814−464−9615, all other counsel will shall be present in person. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter.(nk) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-78 As of: 11/28/2018 08:42 PM EST 12 of 17

07/08/2008
08/04/2008
09/03/2008
11/06/2008 11/20/2008 11/21/2008 11/21/2008 03/04/2009
03/09/2009

Text Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin: Status Conference held on 7/8/2008. The Court entered an oral order on the record scheduling a settlement conference for Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. in the within case. Counsel for Plaintiffs and the City of Meadville shall be present at that time, along with a representive of the City of Meadville possessing final settlement authority. To the extent that matters have not been finally resolved between the Plaintiffs and PENNDOT as of that date, Counsel for PENNDOT shall be present at 1:00 p.m. for the settlement conference, along with a PENNDOT representative possessing final settlement authority. The City of Erie is excused from this settlement conference. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter. (Court Reporter: Ron Bench) (kas) (Entered: 07/08/2008)
NOTICE of Settlement Conference set for Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. Counsel for Plaintiffs and the City of Meadville shall be present at that time, along with a representive of the City of Meadville possessing final settlement authority. To the extent that matters have not been finally resolved between the Plaintiffs and PENNDOT as of that date, Counsel for PENNDOT shall be present at 1:00 p.m. for the settlement conference, along with a PENNDOT representative possessing final settlement authority. The City of Erie is excused from this settlement conference. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Courts order or notice on the matter (nk) (Entered: 08/04/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin: Settlement/Status Conference held on 9/3/2008. Meadville/Penndot parties to have their draft to Plaintiff's c counsel on or before 10/3/08. Settlement Conference is set for 11/6/08 at 10:00 before Judge McLaughlin. If there is an agreement between the parties, then Attorney Bradley will participate by phone, if not he will attend the conference in person. Attorney Bradley will contact the Court as to how he plans on attending this conference the Friday before November 6, 2008. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter (Court Reporter: Ron Bench) (nk) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
48 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin: Settlement Conference held on 11/6/2008. Tentative settlement reached between Plaintiff's and City of Meadville. Parties will submit a proposed consent decree within two weeks. (Court Reporter: Ron Bench) (nk) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
49 STATUS REPORT by CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA. (Hotchkiss, David) (Entered: 11/20/2008)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 49 Status Report. ERROR: no caption, no signature, incorrect date. CORRECTION: attorney is going to resubmit with corrections. This message is for informational purposes only. (sdp) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
50 AMENDED DOCUMENT by CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA. Amendment to 49 Status Report. (Hotchkiss, David) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
51 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Third) Between Plaintiffs and Commonwealth of Pa, Dept. of Transportation, by JAY SHUFFSTALL, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, KATHY A. HERTZOG, PAUL PECUNAS, SANDRA FULLER, MARY ANN PARSNIK, PAT WEAVER, FELICIA BONGIORNO, MELVIN BORREO, STEPHEN CLARK, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, MARY KRUG, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), MICHAEL L. EAKIN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sch E, Erie, # 2 Exhibit Sch E Meadville, # 3 Proposed Order) (Markham, Craig) (Entered: 03/04/2009)
52 ORDER GRANTING 51 Settlement Agreement, filed by FELICIA BONGIORNO, SANDRA FULLER, PAUL PECUNAS, MELVIN BORREO, KATHY A. HERTZOG, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), MARY ANN PARSNIK, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, PAT WEAVER, MARY KRUG, MICHAEL L. EAKIN, STEPHEN CLARK, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, JAY SHUFFSTALL. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 3/9/09. (nk) (Entered: 03/09/2009)

Case: 1:06-cv-78 As of: 11/28/2018 08:42 PM EST 13 of 17

03/11/2009
03/11/2009 09/02/2010 01/30/2012
05/11/2012
05/11/2012 05/23/2012
05/25/2012 06/14/2012 06/14/2012 06/20/2012 06/21/2012 06/21/2012

53 CONSENT DECREE by JAY SHUFFSTALL, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, KATHY A. HERTZOG, PAUL PECUNAS, SANDRA FULLER, MARY ANN PARSNIK, PAT WEAVER, FELICIA BONGIORNO, MELVIN BORREO, STEPHEN CLARK, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, MARY KRUG, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), MICHAEL L. EAKIN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Proposed Order) (Markham, Craig) (Entered: 03/11/2009)
54 Approved Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 3/11/09. (nk) (Entered: 03/11/2009)
55 EXHIBIT OF MAP SHOWING THE NATURE AND STATUS OF CURB RAMP RETROFITTING IN THE CITY OF MEADVILLE by CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA. (IN EXHIBIT ROOM IN CLERK'S OFFICE) (sdp) (Entered: 09/02/2010)
56 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT With PennDOT (4th Agreement) by FELICIA BONGIORNO, MELVIN BORREO, STEPHEN CLARK, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, MICHAEL L. EAKIN, SANDRA FULLER, KATHY A. HERTZOG, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, MARY KRUG, MARY ANN PARSNIK, PAUL PECUNAS, JAY SHUFFSTALL, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), PAT WEAVER. (Markham, Craig) (Entered: 01/30/2012)
57 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT proposed order by FELICIA BONGIORNO, MELVIN BORREO, CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA, STEPHEN CLARK, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, MICHAEL L. EAKIN, SANDRA FULLER, KATHY A. HERTZOG, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, MARY KRUG, MARY ANN PARSNIK, PAUL PECUNAS, JAY SHUFFSTALL, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), PAT WEAVER. (Markham, Craig) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
58 ORDER Granting 56 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT With PennDOT (4th Agreement). Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 5/11/12. (nk) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
59 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by FELICIA BONGIORNO, MELVIN BORREO, STEPHEN CLARK, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, MICHAEL L. EAKIN, SANDRA FULLER, KATHY A. HERTZOG, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, MARY KRUG, MARY ANN PARSNIK, PAUL PECUNAS, JAY SHUFFSTALL, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), PAT WEAVER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Proposed Order) (Markham, Craig) (Entered: 05/23/2012)
ORDER Response re 59 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, Response to Motion due by 6/14/2012. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 5/25/12. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (nk) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
60 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 59 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by ALLEN D. BIEHLER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
61 ORDER granting 60 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 59 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed Responses due by 6/21/2012. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 6/14/12. (nk) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
62 STATUS REPORT by ALLEN D. BIEHLER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (City of Erie Curb Ramp Inventory), # 2 Exhibit B (City of Meadville Curb Ramp Inventory), # 3 Exhibit (Instructions), # 4 Exhibit (Example)) (Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
63 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Hotchkiss, David) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
64 RESPONSE to Motion re 59 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed filed by ALLEN D. BIEHLER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT

Case: 1:06-cv-78 As of: 11/28/2018 08:42 PM EST 14 of 17

06/21/2012 06/25/2012 07/05/2012 07/11/2012
07/20/2012
07/20/2012
07/25/2012
08/27/2012 08/30/2012 08/30/2012 09/05/2012

OF TRANSPORTATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit s A−C) (Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
65 ORDER granting 63 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney David L. Hotchkiss terminated. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 6/21/12. (nk) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
66 NOTICE of Appearance by Gary M. Alizzeo on behalf of CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA. (Alizzeo, Gary) (Entered: 06/25/2012)
NOTICE of Status Conference set for 7/25/2012 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom C before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Court's order or notice on the matter. (nk) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
67 REPLY to Response to Motion re 64 Response to Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreements filed by FELICIA BONGIORNO, MELVIN BORREO, STEPHEN CLARK, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, MICHAEL L. EAKIN, SANDRA FULLER, KATHY A. HERTZOG, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, MARY KRUG, MARY ANN PARSNIK, PAUL PECUNAS, JAY SHUFFSTALL, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), PAT WEAVER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 3, # 2 Exhibit 4, # 3 Exhibit 5) (Markham, Craig) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
68 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement Respecting Omitted Curb Ramps by FELICIA BONGIORNO, MELVIN BORREO, STEPHEN CLARK, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, MICHAEL L. EAKIN, SANDRA FULLER, KATHY A. HERTZOG, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, MARY KRUG, MARY ANN PARSNIK, PAUL PECUNAS, JAY SHUFFSTALL, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), PAT WEAVER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Proposed Order) (Markham, Craig) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
69 BRIEF in Support re 68 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, Respecting Omitted Curb Ramps filed by FELICIA BONGIORNO, MELVIN BORREO, STEPHEN CLARK, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, MICHAEL L. EAKIN, SANDRA FULLER, KATHY A. HERTZOG, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, MARY KRUG, MARY ANN PARSNIK, PAUL PECUNAS, JAY SHUFFSTALL, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), PAT WEAVER. (Markham, Craig) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin: Status Conference held on 7/25/2012. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION response to 68 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement Respecting Omitted Curb Ramps due on or before 8/27/12. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Courts order or notice on the matter (Court Reporter: Ron Bench) (nk, ) (Entered: 07/26/2012)
70 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 68 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement Respecting Omitted Curb Ramps by COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
71 RESPONSE to Motion re 68 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement Respecting Omitted Curb Ramps filed by ALLEN D. BIEHLER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. (Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
72 BRIEF in Support of 71 Response to Motion filed by ALLEN D. BIEHLER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit s A−C, # 2 Exhibit D, # 3 Exhibit s E−F, # 4 Exhibit G) (Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
ORDER denying as moot 70 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 9/5/12. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (nk) (Entered: 09/05/2012)

Case: 1:06-cv-78 As of: 11/28/2018 08:42 PM EST 15 of 17

09/13/2012 10/01/2012 11/08/2012 11/21/2012 12/18/2012 12/21/2012 12/21/2012 12/21/2012 12/21/2012 12/27/2012
01/14/2013 01/29/2013

73 NOTICE of Filing Inspection Certifications by CITY OF ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit) (Villella, Gerald) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
74 REPLY to Response to Motion re 71 Response to Motion filed by FELICIA BONGIORNO, MELVIN BORREO, STEPHEN CLARK, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, MICHAEL L. EAKIN, SANDRA FULLER, KATHY A. HERTZOG. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Markham, Craig) (Entered: 10/01/2012)
75 SUPPLEMENT by ALLEN D. BIEHLER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION to 72 Brief in Support − Other. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit s H−I) (Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
76 REPLY BRIEF re 75 Supplement Of PennDOT filed by FELICIA BONGIORNO, MELVIN BORREO, STEPHEN CLARK, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, MICHAEL L. EAKIN, SANDRA FULLER, KATHY A. HERTZOG, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, MARY KRUG, MARY ANN PARSNIK, PAUL PECUNAS, JAY SHUFFSTALL, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), PAT WEAVER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2) (Markham, Craig) (Entered: 11/21/2012)
ORDER that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania file a Sur−Reply to 76 Reply Brief on or before 1/4/2013. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 12/18/12. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (nk) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 59 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed, 68 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement Respecting Omitted Curb Ramps: Oral Argument set for 1/29/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom C before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Text−only entry. No PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (nk) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
77 MOTION for Extension of Time to File , MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 76 Reply Brief, by ALLEN D. BIEHLER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
78 ORDER granting 77 Motion for Extension of Time to File ; granting 77 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 59 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement, 68 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement Respecting Omitted Curb Ramps. Sur−Reply due by 1/14/2013. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 12/21/12. (nk) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 59 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed, 68 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement Respecting Omitted Curb Ramps: Oral Argument set for 1/29/2013 will be held at 1:30 PM in Courtroom C before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Text−only entry. No PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (nk) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
79 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference Proceedings held on 7/25/12 before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Court Reporter/Transcriber Ron Bench, Telephone number 464−9613. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter/transcriber or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 1/3/2013. Redaction Request due 1/17/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/28/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/27/2013. (sdp, ) (Entered: 12/27/2012)
80 Sur−Reply re 76 Reply Brief, filed by ALLEN D. BIEHLER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. (Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin: Motion Hearing held on 1/29/2013 re 68 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement Respecting

Case: 1:06-cv-78 As of: 11/28/2018 08:42 PM EST 16 of 17

01/30/2013
01/31/2013 02/22/2013 04/18/2013 04/19/2013 06/03/2013
02/04/2014

Omitted Curb Ramps filed by FELICIA BONGIORNO, SANDRA FULLER, PAUL PECUNAS, MELVIN BORREO, KATHY A. HERTZOG, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), MARY ANN PARSNIK, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, PAT WEAVER, MARY KRUG, MICHAEL L. EAKIN, STEPHEN CLARK, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, JAY SHUFFSTALL, 59 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed filed by FELICIA BONGIORNO, SANDRA FULLER, PAUL PECUNAS, MELVIN BORREO, KATHY A. HERTZOG, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), MARY ANN PARSNIK, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, PAT WEAVER, MARY KRUG, MICHAEL L. EAKIN, STEPHEN CLARK, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, JAY SHUFFSTALL. MOTIONS GRANTED for the reasons set forth on the record. (Court Reporter: Ron Bench) Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes a Minute of the Court or Notice on the matter. (nk) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
81 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings on Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Court's Order) held on 1/29/13 before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Court Reporter/Transcriber Ronald Bench, Telephone number 464−9613. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter/transcriber or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 2/6/2013. Redaction Request due 2/20/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/4/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/30/2013. (sdp, ) (Entered: 01/30/2013)
82 STATUS REPORT (Annual Reports for 2012) by ALLEN D. BIEHLER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (City of Erie), # 2 Exhibit B (City of Meadville)) (Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
83 STATUS REPORT by CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Alizzeo, Gary) (Entered: 02/22/2013)
84 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FIFTH, filed by FELICIA BONGIORNO, MELVIN BORREO, STEPHEN CLARK, CAROLYN A. CREHAN, MICHAEL L. EAKIN, SANDRA FULLER, KATHY A. HERTZOG, JILL HRINDA−PATTEN, MARY KRUG, MARY ANN PARSNIK, PAUL PECUNAS, JAY SHUFFSTALL, B. LYNNE VESTAL, VOICES FOR INDEPENDENCE, (VFI), PAT WEAVER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− Erie Inventory, # 2 Exhibit Erie Inventory attachments, # 3 Exhibit B−Meadville Inventory, # 4 Exhibit Meadville Inventory attachments, # 5 Proposed Order) (Markham, Craig) (Entered: 04/18/2013)
85 ORDER APPROVING SETTLMENT AGREEMENT. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 4/19/13. (nk) (Entered: 04/19/2013)
86 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Pltf's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement Proceedings held on 1/29/13 before Judge Sean J. McLaughlin. Court Reporter/Transcriber Ron Bench, Telephone number 464−9613. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. For redaction purposes, or otherwise, during this 90 day period a copy of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter/transcriber or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. Notice of Intent for Redaction of Personal Data Identifiers due by 6/10/2013. Redaction Request due 6/24/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/5/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/3/2013. (sdp, ) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
87 STATUS REPORT by ALLEN D. BIEHLER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (City of Erie), # 2 Exhibit B (City of Meadville)) (Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 02/04/2014)

Case: 1:06-cv-78 As of: 11/28/2018 08:42 PM EST 17 of 17

02/07/2014 01/30/2015 02/04/2015 02/05/2015 01/28/2016 01/28/2016 11/23/2016 11/25/2016
11/28/2016
01/30/2017 01/30/2018

88 STATUS REPORT by CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Alizzeo, Gary) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
89 STATUS REPORT (PennDOT Annual Reports) by ALLEN D. BIEHLER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (City of Erie), # 2 Exhibit B (City of Meadville)) (Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
Case reassigned to Judge Barbara Rothstein. Chief Judge Sean J. McLaughlin no longer assigned to the case. (sdp) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
90 STATUS REPORT by CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2014 ADA Report) (Alizzeo, Gary) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
91 STATUS REPORT by CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A 2015 ADA Report) (Alizzeo, Gary) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
92 STATUS REPORT by ALLEN D. BIEHLER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (City of Erie), # 2 Exhibit B (City of Meadville)) (Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
93 Joint MOTION to Dismiss All Claims Against City of Meadville by CITY OF MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA. (Alizzeo, Gary) (Main Document 93 replaced on 11/25/2016) (nk) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/25/2016: # 1 Proposed Order) (nk) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re 93 Motion to Dismiss. ERROR: Proposed Order was made part of main document. CORRECTION: Attorney advised that in future proposed orders are to be made attachments to the main document. This message is for informational purposes only. (nk) (Entered: 11/25/2016)
94 MINUTE ORDER: Upon presentation and consideration of the foregoing, 93 Joint Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED. Each case and all claims against the City of Meadville shall be dismissed, with prejudice, and marked closed. Signed by Judge Barbara Rothstein on 11/28/2016. Text−only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text−only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (jds) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
95 STATUS REPORT by ALLEN D. BIEHLER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (City of Erie), # 2 Exhibit B (City of Meadville)) (Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 01/30/2017)
96 STATUS REPORT by ALLEN D. BIEHLER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (City of Erie), # 2 Exhibit B (City of Meadville)) (Bradley, Scott) (Entered: 01/30/2018)