Think about it from their shoes. Why would you actively spend resources to replace an existing "working" system to develop and implement a new and more efficient system which nets you less resources?
One reason could be to enable novel fare systems, like London has with its Oyster network.
You can travel around (scanning your contactless debit / credit card) without thinking about how much you’re paying, safe in the knowledge that the system caps your daily / weekly spend to predefined limits, essentially making it never more expensive than a daily / weekly travel card would be. The caps are automatically calculated for the zones you travel in.
It’s a very nice experience as a rider. Especially beneficial to visitors who can just scan through the gates as any Londoner would, no ticket purchase required.
As for the rationale to implement such a system — well, it’s ultimately a public service. All revenue generated is reinvested into the network, in London at least. The economic value of a fast, efficient, painless transit system that everyone uses, regardless of class or wealth, most surely outweighs any lost breakage revenue.
You can travel around (scanning your contactless debit / credit card) without thinking about how much you’re paying, safe in the knowledge that the system caps your daily / weekly spend to predefined limits, essentially making it never more expensive than a daily / weekly travel card would be. The caps are automatically calculated for the zones you travel in.
It’s a very nice experience as a rider. Especially beneficial to visitors who can just scan through the gates as any Londoner would, no ticket purchase required.
As for the rationale to implement such a system — well, it’s ultimately a public service. All revenue generated is reinvested into the network, in London at least. The economic value of a fast, efficient, painless transit system that everyone uses, regardless of class or wealth, most surely outweighs any lost breakage revenue.