Talk:SmartRider

Untitled

should this really be merged with Transperth, as i have extenended it to quite a long article --Djone2121 11:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed merge headline

Agreed. I removed the merge headline per Djone21, and because there was no good reason for merging listed here. splintax ^(talk) 14:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite needed?

Seems the texts are the same as the website, may we better rewrite this article to ensure the copyright status, otherwise somebody may consider the text that extened as copyvio. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 15:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Control Group Message

I got this message too, but is it really neccesary to have it as part of the article? No. I think it should be deleted ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 08:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Rewrtie

I'd think I was reading the SmartRider guide everyone got in the mail! Seriously though, it isn't neccessary.--M Johnson (talk • contribs) 10:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

UWA

UWA full time students now have access to Tertiary SmartRider.

Added information about controlled stations

I'm a UWA student who gets off at Warwick and Whitfords (both controlled stations) and as they're quite different from the other stations and mentioned seperately on the Transperth website I think they needed to be included.

I haven't deleted Warwick and Whitfords from the "Closed" list or added Kelmscott as an exception on the "Open" list because this is my first edit and I don't want to go deleting things until I've got the hang of it! Madge Carew 12:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Technical Information

I would really like to see the Technical Information section of this article expanded to see the type of technology in use, and more particularly a discussion's of the PTA's decision not to stick with using the defined stored value segment of the multi-application card form factor used for the system. I have some knowledge of this, but I do not have detailed enough information which would enable me to expand this section. Thewinchester 09:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

On reviewing this article today, I have found there is a section titled Criticism added to the article, with some discussion regarding privacy and design aspects of the system. These changes were made by Symode09 on December 17, 2006 between 12:59 and 13:08 UTC. First and foremost, this looks entirely based on original research violating WP:NOR and WP:V, and would also give rise to issues under WP:NPOV. Additionally, none of the statements or claims added here have any citations or references to support the claims and statements made. I have cleaned up the statements as much as appropriate and added the relevant fact templates in, but I will now also be inserting the POVSection and SectOR templates into the relevant point of the article. If the unverified claims remain after 14 days, then they will be removed from the article. thewinchester 06:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

this information is collected from criticism pages from identical systems used overseas. It does have some origional research, how can this be proven to comply with wikipedia?

symode09 01:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Put in a link to the other site...Hack 03:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Try and find academic or other sources that back up your view quoted in verifiable sources. I wouldn't doubt there's been an article or two in the West or the Sunday Times reporting criticism of the SmartRider (hell, there's plenty of scope for criticism - I was one of the triallers and happily went back to my MultiRider after it :)) Orderinchaos78 17:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Too bad you quoted The Worst Australian who never could get their facts right, particularly when it came to the default fare. I've updated the criticisms section to accurately reflect exactly how the default fare is applied. I too was a Control Group user (Second Tranche for those who know what that means), and i'd never go back to the ol' Multirider despite a few issues which were worked out in the space of a few calls to the lovely boys and girls at Serco handling the public side of the control group. thewinchester 08:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

All I got was excuses and non-answers out of anyone I tried to call with regards to problems I had with it - generally people trying to claim it did work, e.g. when my balance suddenly dropped by $27 for no apparent reason - and when it ceased to be free or discounted, I ceased to use it ... in the end it was costing me about 20% more than the Multiriders due to the errors which everyone (including bus drivers and Transperth station employees) seemed to be very aware of. Incidentally, the recent correction to the article re the four-zone thing is incorrect - I was charged four-zone default fare several times on a bus whose destination was a two-zone fare had I gone the entire route. Maybe they've changed (fixed) it since though. As a curiosity - did they EVER fix the gates on platform 5 at Perth? Orderinchaos78 06:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the issue. The gate line at MPH P5 was originally designed badly as it was placed way too close to the escalators thus would have caused issues with the full rollout with passengers bunching up. These were moved back some months ago and a larger 'lobby' area was created to alleviate the issue. As for faulty gates not working at times, these I believe were fixed around the same time. One of the things which is really annoying however considering the system is now in full rollout is the gate configurations are still not down pat when adjusted for peak hour flows. This will come with time. thewinchester 12:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Reworked

The wording of much of the article was quite awkward, and some parts looked like they'd been transported directly from promotional material by Transperth. Also, the tone of parts suggested a source which is now 3-4 months out of date. I put considerable work into fixing what is there - it probably still needs further work, as it reads in a somewhat disjointed and non-logical fashion, which is essential to fix along with sourcing/citation if we want this article to get beyond Start-class into B and beyond.

I left Criticism untouched as it is still under active consideration. It will be a challenge to source as, obviously, advocates of a system (government, Transperth etc) aren't going to publish criticism of their own plans, and a lot of the negative impacts have not received a wider audience yet. The system's 2-year-late implementation and the fact they've kept with the MultiRiders even after the implementation despite earlier published plans suggests it's not as trouble-free as they make out. Orderinchaos78 17:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I fixed some of the Criticism section, and added a Costs subsection to deal with queries I found in the West Australian and on Hansard. Orderinchaos78 06:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I expect better of you OIC. First, Multiriders have not been kept on after implementation because of troubles. It has always been the stated intention since they first planned the system (And I know because it was one of the key questions I asked as a member of the public on the major focus groups they ran on the system back in 2002) to keep multiriders on as part of a phased rollout, in much the same way they did with the older style of larger hole punch multirider they phased out in the very early 90's. The phase in plan of Smartrider calls for the multirider system to operate in paralell for a period of two months, done specifically to enable those with the multiriders to clear any outstanding travel and convert to the new system. After this date those who still have multiriders with valid trips can present them at appointed transperth locations to have the outstanding fares converted onto a smartrider. As for you claim about the system being two years late, again you're wrong. The system was originally slated to go live in December 2005, but as those who know about the system are more than well aware they as part of the first control group uncovered many more issues than they expected. A significant number of these were corrected, and then control group two was brought online in January 2006. There were additional changes in the full go live date for the public, as they were originally going to bring all users online at once. As is well documented in the article, they went to a staged go live as a means of further testing the system under even increasing usage patterns. It also needs to be said that this is the first system of it's kind to go live in Australia, and has had significantly less problems than other systems being proposed for Queensland, NSW, and Victoria. The majority of fare systems are zone-based, thus this posed significant mobile technology issues which for the most part had not been explored in the Australian context. I don't mind people having their say about the technology or deployment, but if you're going to shoot your mouth off then for your own sake get your facts straight. thewinchester 13:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the published plans that I have read dating from 2005 anticipated that the final stage, which would be public release, would coincide with the *cessation of sale* of Multiriders from that point forward. This has not happened. Of course the machines still accept them - parallel operation is an inevitable part of any rollout. But based on the published plans, what is happening now should theoretically not be happening. It didn't happen when the punch-hole ones got phased out - they simply stopped selling the old ones and started selling the new ones, although had machines to accept both for quite a while and offered 1-for-1 replacements of new and used ones. Secondly, I don't understand your comment re zones - both the old and new systems use zones, although the Planning Minister has in the last couple of weeks expressed a preference towards phasing that out (prematurely, IMO). Also your edit: "During the expanded control group phase the discount on default fares was removed to penalise a significant number of users who were continually failing to tag off." does not stack up - as an Adult SmartRider user in the expanded control group, even after the refunding stopped, the fare being charged was $2.64 every time - i.e. $3.00 (cash fare) less exactly 12%. I did query the fact this was not the 15% advertised with various Serco/Transperth people but never got anywhere (although this may have been anticipatory of the fare rise to $3.10, from which it is 15%). Finally, my edits the other night were to fix a very odd article with issues against every single Wikipedia policy. The article, as I said above, still has problems, but the purpose of the effort was to make the article move forward into something acceptable for Wikipedia, which will be a group effort from all of us - while some of us are opponents of the system as implemented and others are supporters, a lot of the basics in getting an article like this together are essentially common to both and the differences are at the margins. Orderinchaos78 08:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

Some parts were (some still are) entirely unsourced, and the "Reliability" section was a violation of WP:UNDUE - the West and the Business News links no longer worked, and the thing amounted to an incident that occurred on 27 March 2007, nine months ago. There is real concerns about reliability and functionality but the section needs to be written encyclopaedically. Many of the issues which were issues when I was a control group user were resolved by the full implementation thankfully. Orderinchaos 10:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SmartRider.PNG

Image:SmartRider.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not just in Perth

This page is a bit Transperth - oriented. According to the TransGeraldton page, the SmartRider system is also usable on TransGeraldton bus services and at least one other country town, which is not disclosed. Anyone mind updating the page with this in mind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.152.59.206 (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

SmartRider can also be used on TransBusselton in Busselton and Dunsborough, but I have no sources outside of wikipedia to confirm. 203.134.114.166 (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

SmartRider balance expiry

I've added an infobox to this article, one of the bits of info is credit expiry. I've had a SmartRider for a while and the credits never expired on it, I assume there is an expiry of never? Can't find anything on the Transperth website about it, I would guess they would have to mention if the credit did expire. --Matthew Thompson (alt) ^{talk to me bro!} 02:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Equipment

My understanding is that the driver consoles are being / have been replaced by new Wayfarer "Infigo" consoles as part of the real-time project.

Is this limited to Perth only or does it apply to the other SmartRider cities?

Anyway, this section of the article may need to be updated by someone who knows more about it than I do. MartinL-585 (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:SmartRider/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I am satisfied after reviewing the article this morning that it qualifies for a rating of B in line with the relevant quality scale. thewinchester 00:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on SmartRider. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090726074807/http://www.parkeon.com:80/uk/Wayfarer-150.html to http://www.parkeon.com/uk/Wayfarer-150.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wayfarer.co.uk/news/p050503.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)