Cashless-only buses - TfL consultation

[Rachael]

I agree, people do need options. I just wondered how people chose to top up their cards. The minimum top-up is £20 which I agree is a lot when you are keeping a close eye on your budget.

[Annie.]

I only ever top up £5.00 at peters

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Rachael]

Yes, the minimum top up if you do it manually is £5, and £20 for auto top up from your bank account. Sorry, I wasn't clear.

[JulietP]

If by "register" you mean give your name and contact details, then that's not quite accurate. You can buy and use an unregistered oystercard for PAYG without ever giving your details.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[alywin]

I think one of my concerns is those poor people (and I mean poor) who can't actually scrape together enough cash in one go to actually *buy* the Oystercard in the first place *and* top up £5 at the same time. They're the ones I see already having to fork out £1 over the odds to get on the bus in the first place - and I saw quite a few where I used to live. It's fine for those of us who can just pop to the nearest ATM and get out another tenner, but not so good for someone who's only got £3.40 left to last them for the rest of the week.

[Tim Lund]

Generalising, this is a case of whether society does better to require everyone - businesses included - to help its vulnerable members those actual times they are in need - e.g. when struggling to find change for a bus ride - or to set up a system in which the vulnerable are given whatever resources (money) they need, allowing them to use this as they decide, and allowing service providers like TfL to serve customers as a whole, and have the state and charities look after the vulnerable.

[hairybuddha]

Anecdote is often a very poor basis for policy formation so I think this discussion might benefit from reference to the consultation:

TFL say cash payments are expected to be less than 1% of all fares on the buses this year.

The cashless fare is £1 cheaper than cash - So, far all of these poor people who might not be able to afford a £5 deposit for an Oyster card. I would ask, how can they afford not to get one?

And the kicker: The cost to TFL of managing cash fares is £24 million. Just think of all the ruinous litigation against flashman property developers that could pay for!

Given all of that I find it very difficult to see a reason why this shouldn't go ahead.

[marymck]

If TFL can't make a profit from people paying bus fares, they're clearly doing something wrong. This isn't about "poor"people."Poor" people often have freedom cards. This is about serving customers. Anyone can find themselves in a situation where they have not enough money on their oyster card. Or they've changed handbags and left it at home. Or their plans suddenly change and unexpectedly they have to take a bus.

It's not rocket science to have fares in round numbers of whole pounds, to make it easier for people to find the right money or to make change giving easier.

I suspect bus drivers just don't like selling tickets.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[hairybuddha]

£24 million in order to help less than 1% of your service users. That is bad policy and bad economics.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[marymck]

£24 million in order to help less than 1% of your service users. That is bad policy and bad economics.

It's not that I disbelieve them; but I'm curious how a figure of £24 mill. is reached. That seems extraordinary for accepting money and giving out a small piece of paper.

Exactly Rod. If bus companies are losing money by selling tickets today, how did they manage to make money in the past? If these figures are true, then the people who set up their systems are incompetent at best.

1% is 60,000 passengers a day. That is £144,000 per day. How can they manage to make a loss on an income of 52 and a half million a year?!?

This is interesting ...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transpor ... 30333.html

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Rachael]

Mary - the fact that money will be saved by not taking cash does not mean that they are currently losing money on cash fares. Just that the handling of cash fares (counting up, banking, fuel used while idling at bus stops etc) has an associated cost.

[Tim Lund]

Having cash around also makes drivers much more vulnerable.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Tim Lund]

Is 2.50 in loose change going to be enough? How much do those reinforced screens cost? Do they put people off, sending a message 'you are entering a war zone'?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[marymck]

Mary - the fact that money will be saved by not taking cash does not mean that they are currently losing money on cash fares. Just that the handling of cash fares (counting up, banking, fuel used while idling at bus stops etc) has an associated cost.

But £76M? (Takings £52.5M + loss £24M) That's bonkers. They must be extremely incompetent.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[marymck]

Having cash around also makes drivers much more vulnerable.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

In which case passengers must be in constant danger. Yet expected stand there unprotected by security screens and wave our Cashless credit cards about.

The only time I've ever seen anybody thumping one of those screens was when a driver wouldn't let her on because she tried to walk straight past without paying. The driver wouldn't move, so after much profanity (probable profanity , as she was yelling in what sounded like an eastern European language) she got off the bus and kicked it. I think she hurt her foot more than the bus.

I don't think they'll remove the screens when the drivers stop taking fares.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Rachael]

Mary - the fact that money will be saved by not taking cash does not mean that they are currently losing money on cash fares. Just that the handling of cash fares (counting up, banking, fuel used while idling at bus stops etc) has an associated cost.

But £76M? (Takings £52.5M + loss £24M) That's bonkers. They must be extremely incompetent.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. There is no 'loss'. They take £52m (by your estimate below), it costs £24m to handle, they make a profit of £28m on those cash fares (this is a gross oversimplification of course, but I'm just not sure why you are adding those two figures together).

[marymck]

Mary - the fact that money will be saved by not taking cash does not mean that they are currently losing money on cash fares. Just that the handling of cash fares (counting up, banking, fuel used while idling at bus stops etc) has an associated cost.

But £76M? (Takings £52.5M + loss £24M) That's bonkers. They must be extremely incompetent.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. There is no 'loss'. They take £52m (by your estimate), it costs £24m to handle, they make a profit of £28m on those cash fares (this is a gross oversimplification of course, but I'm just not sure why you are adding those two figures together).

I thought they were saying it was a net cost? If I misunderstood and they're still making a profit, I don't see what their problem is. Apart from poor systems and accounting. There's no way it should cost that much.

But, according to the link I posted earlier, the same accountants are saying 21,000 people nominated by employees to have free travel (partners, friends, someone they've met down the pub) costs nothing. So maybe they should just give us all free travel

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Rachael]

I agree £24m seems like a huge figure. Digging a bit deeper, it seems that this figure represents not only the current cost of handling, but all savings that can be implemented in other areas of their operations when they no longer have to handle cash (see http://www.londonreconnections.com/2013 ... ric-beeps/). Not surprisingly, tfl want to make this figure seem as big as possible.

If I am reading this correctly, the £24m does not represent the current cost of handling. It represents the extra money they expect to have on their balance sheet once cash is eliminated. They are not the same. The consultation does imply the former, but you can say (although it is a bit weasley) that the true cost is the actual handling cost, plus what they could be saving elsewhere.

[Tim Lund]

In which case passengers must be in constant danger. Yet expected stand there unprotected by security screens and wave our Cashless credit cards about.

Don't see why - the people in danger will be the ones known to have cash on them - i.e. the drivers.

I don't think they'll remove the screens when the drivers stop taking fares.

Why wouldn't they? It will save TfL money on any new bus designs.

[Annie.]

Tim, I admit I try not to use public transport, however if I have the misfortune of having to, some of the Dross that get on the bus would have a field day if the Drivers no longer had screens, Do you use the bus a lot?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]