Clipper 2.0 F*cking Sucks

Clipper’s “next-generation” rollout has been… less than successful. Since the December 15 debut of Clipper 2.0, a rash of malfunctions has plagued paying riders with recurring disruptions. Many can’t access their account information, purchase a monthly pass, or move their existing account to the new interface. Clipper 2.0 promised new features like shared family accounts, discounted transfers, and most convenient, instant availability of loaded funds. Nearly a month into version 2.0, all Clipper has delivered their customers is repeat disappointment.

And San Diego-based software giant Cubic may be why.

KQED reported Clipper customer frustrations on December 12, two days after their long-awaited update went into effect. “ I tried probably dozens of times yesterday and several times today and have gotten into various points in the system, but have still not been successful at activating it,” El Cerrito Councilmember Rebecca Saltzman told KQED. Saltzman previously served on BART’s Board of Directors. KQED also reached out to Clipper’s customer service line. But when the call connected, an automated message played: “We currently cannot look up customer information.” Login efforts online were similarly rebuffed: “We are unable to migrate your account to the new Clipper account system.” 

Transit users who routinely purchase monthly passes have seen them refused or ignored by the system when tagging on. Commuters whose employers issue or reimburse transit passes have found their accounts blocked, leaving them ineligible for benefits once deadlines pass. Clipper’s crash continues to frustrate riders throughout a region in which 24 transit agencies subscribe to the single-payment system. Clipper’s unenviable job of uniting these agencies, which all charge their own unique fares, is like braiding Medusa’s writhing hair. The bottleneck leaves passengers at the whim of whoever can help Clipper with this Herculean task. But for one tech company, it’s a perfect opportunity to exploit a client and extract private data. 

In 2010, Cubic Transportation Systems, a subsidiary of Cubic Corporation, began installing their digital Clipper-branded fare instruments across Bay Area transit agencies. BART, Muni, Caltrain, AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit, and Golden Gate Ferry joined in first. They even passed out free Clipper cards at Walgreens and Embarcadero BART. Problems ensued. The following year, Cubic accidentally released the email addresses of 1,674 customers. A “classic human error,” as Cubic described it, nonetheless revealed that the company possessed our private data. 

Cubic is the unseen hand counting trips, transfers, and turnstiles for transit agencies around the United States and beyond. They’re in NYC’s Metrocard, Los Angeles’ TAP card, Boston’s Charlie Card, London’s OysterCard, Sydney’s Opal card, and SF’s Clipper card. The corporation expanded in the 2010s, gaining additional clients in Vancouver and Singapore. A single company has more access to our bank information and daily whereabouts than some government agencies. How is Cubic using our data, and to what end? 

The answer can be found way back in March 2011, eight months before Cubic’s first email leak. 

If “the same thing occurs” wherever Cubic operates, Bay Area residents have been sending their travel and spending habits to them for fifteen years. One 2018 article detailing the $394 million contract Cubic struck with Clipper’s parent company, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, suggests as much. “[Cubic] aims to collect data on city management and integrated commuter payment and information to streamline travel networks.” 

Step back in time with me to the Year of Our Lord 2005. Enter Nokia brick phones, Gwen Stefani, palpable frustration at George W. Bush’s re-election. What a time to be alive. If you were living in San Francisco, you’d never heard of a Clipper card (“Like the basketball team?”). You had a stash of floppy magnetic BART tickets in your pocket at all times, 5¢ here, 10¢ there. If you were more responsible, you loaded money on one ticket and used it until it ran out, cracked, or the machine ate it. The most miserly would consolidate their BART tickets and go to Lake Merritt BART for an exchange. 

The only multi-agency transit pass available came via Clipper’s predecessor, TransLink. The card was wildly unsuccessful, as the sheer difficulty of uniting so many agencies with the technology available at the time. By 2007, after over a decade of delays and software issues, they managed to bridge AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit, and Golden Gate Ferry. That’s where Cubic entered the game, at the request of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in 2010. 

Cubic already had a chokehold on North America’s public transit sector when MTC reached out. Their widespread use seemed to legitimize their success, making them an attractive candidate. Two US cities with appreciable public transit networks that do not employ Cubic technology are Seattle, Washington and Portland, Oregon. Seattle’s cute killer whale-themed ORCA card as well as Portland’s Hop fastpass are managed by German technology-based company, Init. Cubic is founded and headquartered in San Diego. Interestingly, San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) did work with Cubic, but no longer, having switched to Init in 2024. 

It is currently unconfirmed whether Cubic is responsible for the ongoing glitches. It seems likely. SFMTA indicated Cubic technology involvement with their “back-end” system, which catalogs “a customer’s profile, ride history, fare category, membership in institution, products and other such characteristics.” (Clipper Executive Board review notes, Jan. 2025) Cubic ignored KQED’s request for comment last month like they did the SF Chronicle when they reached out in 2024. That year, if you recall, saw the “indefinite” postponement of a long-anticipated contactless debit or credit card payment option. 

Cubic wasn’t just quiet about the failure, they were glaringly absent from a consequent company meeting. Mind you, that came well after MTC reportedly awarded Cubic $461 million in the 2018 contract. Strangely, ExecutiveBiz reported a conflicting figure: $394 million. Still it seems Cubic’s preferred response is none whatsoever, not even to settle a  $67 million discrepancy. 

When Clipper did the impossible and unified the different San Francisco Bay Area public transit agencies, incredible progress was made. But if convenience comes with terms the supplier isn’t willing to disclose, we might wait to open our wallets. I can’t help wondering if Clipper is part of a scheme to mine public data. In their silence, the wildest of suspicions grow. It’s possible Cubic is trying to get their story straight before they tell us what they’re doing with our information.

Or perhaps they need more time to find what they’re looking for.