Talk:Paratransit

message: 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)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dispute 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Access-A-Ride 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Future of paratransit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Paratransit Growth 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Globalize Tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Confused article 

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