Smart ATMs Give Consumers More Flexibility

New smart ATM’s allow consumers to do more than withdraw cash in traditional $20 increments.  In fact, consumers can take out as little as $1 to as much as $1,000 in nearly any combination.

That’s right, if you need $589, you can withdraw five $100 bills, four $20s and nine George Washington’s.  Or if you prefer, you can take 10 $50 bills, 17 $5 bills and four singles.  Get the picture?

The machine allows customers to withdraw custom denominations in increments of $1, $5, $20, $50 and $100 bills, depending on the location. Plus, at these new smart ATMs you can also load a pre-paid card and pay some bills.

These new smart ATMs are perfect for the starving student, customers who want to avoid waiting in lines to see a teller or any ATM regular.

Taylor Darden, who works at an Arlington mall right across the street from one of these new machines, called the smart ATM “fancy” and said she likes having more control of what she withdraws.

 “You can get a certain amount out that you want exactly,” she said.

Wendy Peyton is a budget-conscious and busy mother of five. For Peyton, the benefits include not having to withdraw any more than she needs and the time she saves.

“I could easily do a transaction in two minutes and be in and out,” said the Mansfield resident. “With five kids, and sometimes waiting in the car, so it makes it really easy to get in and out.”

The screens look like giant iPads and your personal information is protected by a privacy screen if you move from side to side.

Right now consumers can find these machines at two new Chase branches in Arlington and Irving.  They’ll also be available at a new branch in Flower Mound opening in March.  But Chase plans on adding more.

“We have 400 of these great machines across the country and we’ll be looking at doubling that here within the next 12 months, so before the end of the year,” said Ryan Siegmund, a Chase district manager in Arlington.

There are other banks also using technology to give customers more options.  PNC has ATMs that dispense $1 bills. More than half of the banks’ 7,200 ATMs have been upgraded and the rest will be done this year.  However, there are no branches in Texas.

In Asia, Citi recently introduced a next-generation banking machine.  It allows customers to do almost all their banking without visiting a branch, including opening accounts and applying for loans.

Some banks in other states are using virtual tellers, who help customers via video conference at ATMs.  And new software developed by NCR Corporation will soon allow customers to initiate cash withdrawals from their bank accounts via smart phones and complete the transactions when they arrive at an ATM and scan a 2-D barcode.

Fortunately these don’t reflect the majority opinion, but there’s enough there to suggest civic virtue and personal morality are awfully elastic concepts so far as some Melburnians are concerned.

It’s true the system has many failings that disadvantage users and make fare dodging an easier choice. As a matter of policy, those shortcomings need to be corrected to minimise opportunistic (and strategic!) fare evasion.

But the inadequacies of the system don’t provide a moral justification for not paying. For all its shortcomings, the system offers travel way, way below the real financial cost. It’s an absolute bargain.

But even if it weren’t, it’s as unethical to shirk paying the fare as it is to shoplift or drive-off from a petrol station without paying. It’s unprincipled behaviour – it should really be called theft, not evasion.

A big part of the problem is the way the system’s designed. Like many other transit systems around the world, modern technology permits vehicles to operate without stops being staffed.

That saves money that can be applied instead to other purposes, like more frequent services and longer hours of operation. These sorts of improvements attract travellers to transit.

To work, the system has to be designed to make purchasing tickets extraordinarily easy. But it also relies on effective enforcement, primarily by inspectors.

Prospective free-riders have to calculate the risk – the probability of being caught multiplied by the size of the penalty.

A key reason to have a valid ticket is uncertainty about whether or not an inspector will materialise. We know from experience with RBT campaigns that a high probability of detection is a significant deterrent.

I’m disappointed the Public Transport Users Association has again elected to play the populist card by focussing on the inspectors rather than the evaders.

Complaining about inspection “blitzes” shifts the argument to the means and away from the ends. It reminds me of drivers who insist the sole purpose of speed cameras is to raise revenue.

In my view, the Association should’ve loudly condemned fare evasion on the grounds that it’s inequitable and bleeds the public transport system of much-needed revenue. It should’ve supported lawful efforts to detect evaders, not quibbled about a “blitz”.

In his comments to The Age, Mr Morton also argues that putting more staff on stations would be a better solution to the problem. I don’t agree – putting staff on stations to check tickets would be expensive.

This is 2013 – the technology exists to save hundreds of millions of dollars that can be better applied to other more strategically important transit purposes. However getting that benefit relies on effective deterrents to fare-cheating.