Opinion ID: 202414
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Inbound Elevator

Text: 66 Plaintiffs first argue that the placement of the inbound elevator on the steps in front of the Library constitutes a direct use of an historic site for which there is a prudent and feasible alternative under section 4(f)(1). Since the defendants agree that the elevator uses the historic site, the only issue is whether there is a prudent and feasible alternative. 67 In Overton Park, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between feasibility and prudence. A feasible alternative is one that can be built as a matter of sound engineering. 401 U.S. at 411, 91 S.Ct. 814; see also Druid Hills Civic Ass'n v. Federal Highway Admin., 772 F.2d 700, 715 (11th Cir.1985). Here, appellees do not contend that the alternative location, away from the library steps, could not be built. Rather, they maintain that that alternative is not prudent. 9 68 It is well settled that an alternative is not prudent if it does not meet the transportation needs of a project. 10 The transportation needs of the project include ADA compliance. The FTA determined that placing the handicap accessible elevator entrance 150 feet from the main entrance would create a segregated handicap entrance and violate ADA regulations. 11 69 The FTA's conclusion in this respect is not arbitrary or capricious. Guidelines promulgated under the ADA require that accessible route[s] shall, to the maximum extent feasible, coincide with the route for the general public. 49 C.F.R. pt. 37, app. A 4.3.2(1). With respect to Key Stations (such as Copley) [t]he circulation path, including an accessible entrance and an accessible route, for persons with disabilities shall, to the maximum extent practicable, coincide with the circulation path for the general public. 49 C.F.R. pt. 37, app. A 10.3.1(1), 10.3.2(2). 12 These regulations respond to Congress' concern that historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2) (2000). 70 While plaintiffs correctly point out that the regulations thus only require that the path coincide with that of the general public to the extent that this is feasible and practicable, 13 we read those qualifications as directed only to engineering and cost considerations and not to concerns of historic preservation. Cf. Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 411, 91 S.Ct. 814. Rather, the ADA deals elsewhere with historic preservation issues, directing the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB) to issue supplementary guidelines that include procedures and requirements for alterations that will threaten or destroy the historic significance of qualified historic buildings and facilities as defined in 4.1.7(1)(a) of the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards [UFAS]. 49 C.F.R. pt. 37, app. A, § 4.1.7. The ATBCB has adopted such guidelines, See 36 C.F.R. part 1191, app. B § 202.5. The DOT has adopted similar guidelines in the UFAS, section 4.1.7(a) of which provides that: 71 [a]lterations to a qualified historic building or facility shall comply with [ADA accessibility requirements including the routing requirement] unless it is determined in accordance with the procedures in 4.1.7(2) that compliance with the requirements for accessibility routes . . . would threaten or destroy the historic significance of the building or facility in which case the alternative requirements in 4.1.7(3) [providing for alternative minimum requirements for accessibility routes] may be used for the feature. 72 Plaintiffs contend that placing the elevators on the side steps of the Library would threaten or destroy the historic significance of the Boston Public Library. We need not in this case delineate the precise scope of the required threaten or destroy finding. It is sufficient for present purposes to conclude that a project that will not have an adverse effect under sections 106 and 110 cannot threaten or destroy the historic significance of the project for purposes of section 504 of the ADA. This is a situation in which the historic preservation statutes have spoken more specifically to the topic at hand than the ADA. Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 121, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000). There is no suggestion here, and it is indeed inconceivable, that the ADA was designed to be more protective of historical properties than the primary historical preservationist statutes themselves (sections 106 and 110).
73 We also reject plaintiffs' contention that the FTA violated the requirement of section 4(f)(2) that it undertake all possible planning to minimize harm to the. . . historic site . . . . 74 Although the language of 4(f) does not define the set of alternatives that must be considered when performing a 4(f)(2) balancing, we agree with our sister circuits that have held that an agency need only consider alternatives that are feasible and prudent. 14 Here, as we have already discussed, plaintiffs have failed to establish that the agency failed to consider a prudent alternative to placing the inbound elevator on the Library steps (i.e. an alternative that would achieve ADA compliance). 15