5 ms·

Would the cost of running the system be reduced if it were changed? If not, the cost would need to be accommodated where the interest's been lost. I don't see

Would the cost of running the system be reduced if it were changed? If not, the cost would need to be accommodated where the interest's been lost. I don't see a net cost reduction. Perhaps there's a welfare effect, I don't know; living where cards, phones (QR code or NFC) or bank card (NFC) are all accepted and have been for several years, most passengers still opt for transport card but a non small amount prefer phone but that's my completely localised anecdote. Would costs be increased through transaction or implementation fees for capital not yet depreciated? Implementation doesn't need to mean new hardware either, it includes tooling, software, but goes beyond to different workflows needing testing from fumbling for phones vs fumbling for cards to customer support - were the results from the trial run you mentioned published? Is there any compelling urgency?

ggm 3y ago
I suspect no, there is no net cost reduction, and yes, there is a net loss of interest earned solely for increased costs of s/w change and deployment. But the reason behind this, is customer drive: UX suggests people want to use phones, and visitors feel disadvantaged having to step out of transport queues to find a (diminishing count, hard to find) place to buy a card with stored value which winds up being tossed away or lost with cash left on it, rather than paying their bill by CC or phone. Octopus users may still acquire cards: I bet they get cards associated with their login to some reconciliation scheme, or rebalance scheme. London casual use by tourists would tend to visacard swipe by now I would think, but I don't have the numbers. Possibly a better pricepoint for commuters willing to sink funds into a prepaid card.