The actual answer is there's operational cost to handling cash, or payment methods beyond the ones that cover 99.9% people well. You pay more for the extra hassle the whole system has to serve that .1%
You may not like or disagree with it. But it's the true answer.
And for some transactions that makes sense. But for something that is supposed to serve everyone, and where there is a (natural) monopoly, that cannot be and acceptable answer.
Also, having your entire economy depend on companies that are not under your control, and that are even actively being weaponised, that seems like a stupid thing to do.
Also, nothing in all of that precluded a web app.
It'll take a couple of years but people will figure it out eventually.
There are operational issues with phones (e.g. batteries running out).
This has nothing to do with handling cash. It is to do with the elimination of paper tickets for monthly passes. Where I live you can pay cash for one off tickets, but they refuse to sell you paper monthly tickets.
Are you implying that there isn't an operational cost for maintaining the infrastructure to support cashless payments or that it's cheaper? Unless I see actual numbers I am not convinced and that 1% you mention sounds completely random to me and not really "the true answer".
You dont have to handle cash directly, you can have kiosks that are dedicated to adding cash to a public transit card and they will solve the problem you are talking about.
First: You can have kiosks (in central locations like metro stations) or you can have dedicated points like where a market collects the cash and they add the balance that way.
Second: The public transit company? we aren't splitting the atom here.
> The actual answer is there's operational cost to handling cash...
Really? From TFA:
When comparing the prices of First’s weekly bus pass in my area, which is available to purchase on the bus, and its monthly pass, which is exclusive to its app...
If the reason were "operational cost to handling cash", you'd expect that cost to be substantially less for the one where you handle cash only once per month than the one where you have to handle it four times per month, no?
£264.00 per year, per head extra, is operational theft, and it will be MUCH higher than 1% of rides, and further more , cash rides will exist in perpetuity as there is NO OTHER WAY to deal with edge cases and contingencies of public transport, making the 'extra' cost look more like some wienie frustrated managers little play at despotism.
I don't know Britain, but in my part of America the extra costs of taking credit cards are so high that most gasoline (petrol) stations give a ~3% discount to customers paying with old-fashioned paper cash. And I know little grocery stores with signs by their register, asking customers to please pay with cash - because margins are tight, and the bank takes an X% cut of every credit card payment and a Y% cut of every debit card payment.
I don't' know what "that" you're referring to, but in the USA it is against the payment processor agreement to give a discount for cash. So not illegal, but a contract breach.
> ...but in the USA it is against the payment processor agreement to give a discount for cash. So not illegal, but a contract breach.
This may be true, but State and Federal law prevail. In California, this [0] looks to be the relevant regulation:
1748.1. (a) No retailer in any sales, service, or lease transaction with a consumer may impose a surcharge on a cardholder who elects to use a credit card in lieu of payment by cash, check, or similar means. A retailer may, however, offer discounts for the purpose of inducing payment by cash, check, or other means not involving the use of a credit card, provided that the discount is offered to all prospective buyers.
Most mom-and-pop places I shop at here in San Francisco either offer discounts for paying in cash or have signs up suggesting that folks pay in cash so the business keeps more of the transaction.
The gas stations doing it have large, permanent roadside signage displaying the different prices for "Cash" vs. "Credit". So there may be exceptions in the fine print of those payment processor agreements. Or the gas stations all know the laws giving them such rights, which the agreements can't override. Or something.
I find it weird that you have to pay every time you get on a bus in the UK it seems?
Are there no passes? e.g. in Budapest I have a monthly public transport pass and I just board the vehicle when it arrives without having to validate or purchase a ticket every time.
I have the same issue but regarding paying for groceries. I have to pay more because I don't have access to the grocery store's coupon app because I don't use a smartphone.
Because the transit authority has to work at taking your fare. Vs. the easy route of trusting a cheap & convenient app ecosystem (helpfully run by SpyCo, CreepTech, and DataHarvest Ltd.) do all the hard bits. While the authority basks in feeling cool and trendy. Plus, smartphone fare fraud looks really complicated (vs. counterfeit metal tokens or whatever) - so the authority feels no pressure to do anything about it.
Less cynically, a good national policy might be to treat all "excess" revenues collected by organizations providing better deals to those passing various wealth/class/fluency tests ("has bank account", "has smart phone", etc.) as "poor taxes". Which are totally legal...but must be accounted for in excruciating detail, and every last farthing turned over to the greedy nitpickers staffing the Poor Tax Dept. of His Majesty's Revenue Authority. Every month, no excuses. So, to avoid that monthly misery for their so-privileged selves, the managers at every org with the paper power to collect poor taxes work hard to make sure that they are not doing so.
You may not like or disagree with it. But it's the true answer.
Also, having your entire economy depend on companies that are not under your control, and that are even actively being weaponised, that seems like a stupid thing to do.
Also, nothing in all of that precluded a web app.
It'll take a couple of years but people will figure it out eventually.
This has nothing to do with handling cash. It is to do with the elimination of paper tickets for monthly passes. Where I live you can pay cash for one off tickets, but they refuse to sell you paper monthly tickets.
Really? From TFA:
If the reason were "operational cost to handling cash", you'd expect that cost to be substantially less for the one where you handle cash only once per month than the one where you have to handle it four times per month, no?This may be true, but State and Federal law prevail. In California, this [0] looks to be the relevant regulation:
Most mom-and-pop places I shop at here in San Francisco either offer discounts for paying in cash or have signs up suggesting that folks pay in cash so the business keeps more of the transaction.[0] <https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-civ/division-3/...> The official place to find this would probably be [1] , but that's super down for me at the moment, so I link to something unofficial.
[1] <https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...>
Are there no passes? e.g. in Budapest I have a monthly public transport pass and I just board the vehicle when it arrives without having to validate or purchase a ticket every time.
Less cynically, a good national policy might be to treat all "excess" revenues collected by organizations providing better deals to those passing various wealth/class/fluency tests ("has bank account", "has smart phone", etc.) as "poor taxes". Which are totally legal...but must be accounted for in excruciating detail, and every last farthing turned over to the greedy nitpickers staffing the Poor Tax Dept. of His Majesty's Revenue Authority. Every month, no excuses. So, to avoid that monthly misery for their so-privileged selves, the managers at every org with the paper power to collect poor taxes work hard to make sure that they are not doing so.