Talk:Paratransit

¹¹¹¹¹¹

Question
Should users be forwarded for a request from "Demand Responsive Tranport"?

Terminology
Is "paratransit" exclusively a US term? I'm British, and had no idea what it meant until I read this article. 86.143.51.249 00:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The term "paratransit" is used in US and Canada to describe transit solution for people with disability. In this article it is mixed with other alternative transportation modes, especially on call transport. But, except in one online dictionary (the one quoted), I cannot find anywhere where this term refer to something different than transit related to disability. What are the references that confirm the usage of this term for something else than disable person transportation service? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.164.254.252 (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Dispute
That section is persuasivly written to favor paratransit, where someone like me would much rather have light rail. It seems to persuasive to me. :p WaltBren (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Confusion
This confuses transit for the disabled and on-demand transit, which in many communities are completely and totally different things. Some communities indeed have on-demand transit that has nothing to do with the disabled; it's used to service areas where there aren't enough users to justify a fixed bus route at certain times of day. This really needs to be fixed. --NellieBly (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made a small change to the Terminology section to clarify the definition of Paratransit as an alternative specifically for the disabled. A change to the introductory paragraph of the article may be appropriate, but I'm not sure how it should be worded. Folklore1 (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Access-A-Ride
I recommend a page be created for the New York City paratransit program. It is, by far, one of the biggest such operations in the USA. --Ookamo (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

- Agreed. I can attest that Access-A-Ride has quite a history of its own when it comes to program formatting changes, controversy, and shortcomings. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Future of paratransit
The first paragraph of this section addresses a subject much broader than paratransit. I think it should be revised to fit the scope of this article or removed.Folklore1 (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph describes a controversy that seems part of the history of paratransit rather than its future. Perhaps it should be moved to a new section of its own. Specific examples of the controversy with citations would be helpful, resolving a concern about the neutrality of this paragraph. Folklore1 (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed a confusing paragraph that quoted, without reference, part of a copyrighted article about "xTransit." The paragraph I removed quoted an article on the Ecoplan website: xTransit: Our WorkPad. It's relevance to Paratransit was unclear to me. Folklore1 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

After revising what was the second paragraph of this section, I moved it to a section of its own: Paratransit in Developing World Cities. Folklore1 (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the first paragraph from this section. It seemed beyond the scope of the article, as well as a point of view without reference to a source. With that revision, I also removed the Point of View tag. If you feel the tag still applies, please leave a note explaining what else you think the article needs to resolve this condition. Folklore1 (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Paratransit Growth
The article currently contains the following unreferrenced statement: "Since the passage of the ADA, paratransit has been the fastest growing mode of public transit in the US." I would expect rapid growth in response to ADA, and the statement may be true. However, I was unable to find a referrence that could be cited to support this claim. Perhaps it's true when measured from passage to the ADA to the end of 2009, but www.lightrailnow.org reported that LRT lead transit industry growth in 2006. Folklore1 (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the statement about "fastest growing mode" with more conservative text for which I had a source. Folklore1 (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed
After adding several citations and revising the text, I removed the RefImprove tag. If you think the article needs more references, please identify specific locations where you would like to see citations. Folklore1 (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Globalize Tag
Removed tag after updating article with clarification on the term "paratransit" in the US, and adding references to similar services outside the US — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubid20pk53 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Confused article
This article doesn't seem to know exactly what it's about. Is it about the services specifically for the disabled, or is it about the wider topic of transport services which run on demand without timetables? I think this needs some kind of split or better clarification. Also the term Paratransit is unknown outside North America, which about 90% of the article is about. G-13114 (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I would Oppose the split on the ground that Demand-responsive transport, which is the wider topic of transport services which run on demand without timetables, has its own article already. Caleb M1 (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Why exactly do you want to split off the section of the paratransit article into a separate article about where it concerns disability?

Oppose. This embodies exactly what is most wrong with paratransit and disability transport service itself. It's never comprehensive because people keep foisting off responsibility for getting things done to some other body because they feel they don't have time to make a priority of doing a complete job of it themselves. People in some municipalities leave responsibility for executing accessible transport service, and as is so often the case, the cost ends up being borne by the consumers, whom everybody knows are least able to bear it and need support the most. That page just needs proper filling out, with attention paid to detail. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

"Technology" section ends mid-sentence
The title is the issue. 73.0.39.34 (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)