Talk:Clipper card

Big edits

Hey Guys, I there was a lot of old stuff on this page! Broken links, and out of date info. I just made a bunch of changes and encourage everyone to take a look. JonathanCross (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Technical problems?

What are these technical problems people speak of? I got a TL card with autoload (thus for free) through the translink website and used it for the first time on an ACT bus over a week ago with no problems. What's going on here? —lensovet–talk – 07:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• AC Transit refused to mail out its pilot program cards for a couple of months. These were not obtained through the TransLink website, but were the result of signups on actransit.org, and were free regardless of whether autoload was included or not because the recipients agreed to fill out surveys to evaluate TransLink performance. I got my card through GGT so I had it earlier, but I had to pay cash a couple of times in December and January. It's only in the last two weeks that I've been able to consistently pay with my card; hence, the technical problems were resolved and AC Transit is mailing their cards accordingly. Bayberrylane 05:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• I attempted to purchase an TransLink card in January 2008 for use with Golden Gate Transit (I lived in Santa Rosa at the time). Due to technical glitches, I was never able to order one online (and I did try filling out the survey that Beyberryline mentioned), nor was I able to purchase one from the various stores that sold them locally. I eventually got a TransLink card without autoload (it cost $5 plus the prepaid fares, but soon paid for itself with the discounted GGT fare). I subsequently used it on Routes 72 and 80 and on the ferry with no difficulty, although I have not made any further attempts to set up autoload on it. 75.101.11.20 (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not always technical problems

I think that it's good to point out that some of the problems with Translink does not stem from MTC that operates the program or mechanical and technical glitches. In my experience as a pilot tester in 2002 for Muni metro, and sometimes on BART, GG Ferry, and VTA is that the train/bus operators, station agents, and fare inspectors have a lack of training.

I need to also note Translink card use may be less useful at terminal bus stops because I've noticed that the Translink equipment runs on the energy of the bus engine and not the vehicle's battery. Once the system is turned-on, it takes a few minutes for the program to warm-up before it is able to accept the fares. Also, since transit agencies turn-on their buses and immediately take-on passengers to save fuel and not to make a large disruption to the residential neighbors with idling engines; trying to collect and enforce electronic fares may not be the most convenient thing for everyone. Akit 07:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never had a problem taking the 7 at del norte BART right after it powers up after its break. I have had trouble getting drivers to select the local fare for me on Transbay routes which i am not taking all the way to San Francisco. They insist its okay and then it charges me the transbay and not local fare and then they don't seem to care. Also if it doesnt work once or twice theyll start demanding money instead of putting in a decent effort at making it work. But its just lack of practice, the card should be mandator, no cash fares at all, thats what many places do. Transantiago is one.Cholga^talK! 23:20, 13 August 2007

>>>>Mandatory, eh, to make life difficult for Tourists and occasional riders. I'm not sure that's the solution but would love to see external links to anyone's argument for that. If you mean a mandatory replacement for other types passes, that's another question.Critical Chris (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What would be the problem with mandatory TransLink cards if stations, airports, and major terminals also sold the cards? They're also available at local stores. I would think that would cover the vast majority of tourists. bluemonq (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Labor issues

I don't work for BART or AC Transit, but I can't imagine there's not labor issues at play in terms of BART not rolling out TransLink acceptance in the BART system. After all, BART's own EZ RIDER card has it's own associated staff to administer that program and there may be duplicate jobs at multiple agencies on the chopping block. An exploration of this angle would be an interesting read. Critical Chris (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Technology needs expansion

How exactly does the individual bus communicate with the central database? Cellular network for busses?

Also, does MUNI technically accept Translink cards as of yet? It sometimes works, sometimes does not. It's entirely unpredictable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.79.20 (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

MUNI as a whole has yet to officially accept TransLink cards. The TransLink system is available for use with MUNI Metro; in fact, when I'm in San Francisco I tend to stick to the Metro for this reason. I have had no issues with Metro access; I have not attempted to use the card with the rest of the network. bluemonq (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why dual-interface?

One of the things that seems to distinguish this scheme from the many other transportation smart card systems is the fact it is dual interface (contact and contactless). Most such systems are contactless only (see for example Octopus card or Oyster card).

The article needs some explanation as to what factors lead to the decision to go dual interface, and a description of which interface is used where. Do different Bay Area transit authorities use different interfaces, or is this more a functional distinction (eg. contactless to use, contact to top-up). -- Starbois (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-neutral parties removing criticism?

There's a suspicious looking anonymous edit from 8-Dec-2008:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TransLink_%28San_Francisco_Bay_Area%29&diff=256682953&oldid=254320754

This removes links to critical articles, and also removes (admittedly non-neutral POV) criticism.

This was by 198.94.158.50, which resolves to one of the local government agencies involved in the project:

IP Address: 198.94.158.50 
Hostname: abag-net2-ws50.abag.ca.gov 
IP address owner:  Assc. of Bay Area Gov. (ABAG) 
101 8th St
Oakland
CA 94607-4756 

Questionable post?

Pvercello (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree; I'll revert this change and make a note on the user's talk page. Vectro (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

The word "TransLink" also means a transit agency in Vancouver BC.

The word "TransLink" per the Bay Area is in the process of being changed to "Clipper". I personally think this is a stupid name change, but WikiPedia strives to be neutral, so the upcoming name change ought to be recognized here.

198.144.192.45 (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert

Name Change Now Official

The name is now official, and in the San Francisco Bay Area, it has been confirmed on it's current official website. Residents who have the Translink card in the Bay Area was notified by mail about a couple of months before the change is official. CHAK 001 19:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHAK 001 (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Clipper card. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140813182027/http://www.contracostatimes.com/traffic/ci_12571572 to http://www.contracostatimes.com/traffic/ci_12571572

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Clipper card. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.contracostatimes.com/traffic/ci_12571572
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110504231738/http://www.mtc.ca.gov/news/current_topics/10-10/clipper_chinese.htm to http://www.mtc.ca.gov/news/current_topics/10-10/clipper_chinese.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806101356/http://www.mtc.ca.gov/meetings/archive/ to http://www.mtc.ca.gov/meetings/archive/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Outdated criticism; unnecessarily negative

Some of the criticism of implementation delays are still in the present tense. I could change the tense, but I don't know how useful it is to tell readers in 2019 that it was delayed more than a decade from when it was first piloted in 1999 or that it was slower to implement than those of other cities.

Meirav (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)