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".

How does that compare to the operational cost of developing an app, maintaining an app, paying for the infrastructure behind it, and having the payment processors take their cut, operate customer support etc?

If paying cash is more expensive for a company then so be it. One should not be forced to pay extra simply because one uses the official method of exchange provided by the State.

If legal tender is offered as a method of exchange then it should automatically be the best (least expensive).

Frankly, what's happened here is outrageous. By not legislating and outlawing this practice we've another instance of government ineptitude.

That's a public service that should serve everyone, no ?

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.

> 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.

Older people cost the NHS more than younger people but tax rates are the same so yes we can do socialism and it can be a good thing!

Then why should I have to pay more if I don't use Apple's and Google's smartphones? I use a GNU/Linux phone. Web app would work flawlessly.

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.

  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.

And?

Why shouldn't this (small) cost be mutualised? Why should everything be tuned and customised and priced to every single individual characteristics?

There's also operational cost to handling tons of different situations of people in every practical way of life.

EDIT: my point is that practicality is a clumsy way of disguising the fact that there is a objective, political choice behind it.