Talk:Clipper card

message: 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  Broken links, and out of date info.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)
thread_title: Big edits 

message: 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)
thread_title: Technical problems?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Not always technical problems

message: 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)
thread_title: Labor issues

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Technology needs expansion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why dual-interface? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Non-neutral parties removing criticism? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Name Change Now Official 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Clipper card. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Outdated criticism; unnecessarily negative