How Memorizing “$19.05” Can Help You Outsmart the MTA
iquantny.tumblr.com
iquantny.tumblr.com
I don't think this can be classified any other way than a scam. Sure, they scam you out of a couple of dollars, but they do it on a massive scale and at the expense of thousands upon thousands of people.
That was at the underground Victoria station ticket counter.
That's only for registered cards. Which makes perfect sense, because they're registered to an address to prevent people stealing them and returning them for cash
Bitcoin is already this way. All "cash" is associated with an address. To use that cash you need to be the owner of that address.
note: lose as in someone steals it.If it's totally lost the money is gone, as we know.
You don't have to register your card. If it is unregistered and someone steals it there is nothing you can do to recover any money on the card.
You can choose to register it, in which case you can transfer the balance to a new card in the case it is lost or stolen.
The rare user might prefer to buy Exactly One (or two or four) tickets, as they know they won't use the excess. This is similar to the frustration of a first-time user at the bay area ferries, where the process of registration, app installation, etc, is much less convenient than most parking.
The regular user, however, doesn't care as much about the initial overhead, as the convenience outweighs the overhead. A remainder balance on the card is less frustrating than for a tourist, as they know they're going to fill it up again.
That said, it would have been nicer if the transit company had phrased pricing in terms of Number Of Rides, rather than dollars (dollar amounts made up):
4 rides ($10.42)
10 rides ($21.37)
50 rides ($90)
100 rides ($180)So I assumed I'd need a "tourist" Oyster as I wasn't a resident. But when I looked in to it as a tourist you had to book well in advance so they can post a card to you - whilst if you ignore the "tourist" offering you can just pick up the card at your arrival station (Victoria for me, very easy, was from a machine IIRC). Also the charges seemed higher for tourists somehow and there seemed to be difficulties giving the card back and getting a refund - I could see no reason to have a tourist Oyster.
One of the kids travelled free, with me, as it happened which was great. The only problem is that the automated turnstiles wouldn't let us through separately without us paying twice (for which we'd need a different Oyster) and I got "munched" on a couple of occasions one of which gave me a very sore back, it was quite vicious.
Traveller beware!
Octopus cards never expire, as far as I can tell.
The US is, not surprisingly, way behind here.
Because of the unreliability of MetroCards and MetroCard readers, the MTA is planning to phase them out in a few years and replace their card readers with equipment that can directly read contactless (RFID) credit cards.
Additional fees (including the common "plus tax" at the store) are a scam and should be abolished. If that were the case, the MTA issue in the article wouldn't matter.
It should be made apparent how they accept money and what the associated fees are before you sign your lease. That's the only malice I see.
It's absolutely absurd. If I paid by credit card, by the end of the year I would have essentially paid an entire month's rent in fees.
If the agreement does not specify the form of payment, any form will be considered acceptable. If rent can be paid in person, the agreement must include the days and hours payment will be accepted. If rent can be paid only by mail, then it is presumed paid on the date it is mailed, if the tenant can show proof of mailing. If rent can be deposited at a financial institution, the owner must disclose the account number and name and address of the institution, which must be within five miles of the tenant's residence.
If you want to charge me $1000, then put the price at $1030 or whatever your fees come out to. Anything else is disingenuous.
People want lower prices, so one way companies can lower the price is to pass the credit card fee on to the consumer, while also giving them the option of using a different payment method with a lower fee.
Personally I would always pay with cash/e-check if there was a financial incentive to do so. Offering the same price for both is just silly since the cash customers are basically subsidizing the credit card customers.
A better way to do this is by offering a "cash discount", so the stated price is never added to, only subtracted.
And I'm not sure your point on "a very American attitude". I live in America, so... yes? When I tell someone my address, they don't look down their nose and say "that's a very American address". Of course it's American. That's where I live. Contrary to some opinions, American things aren't always automatically wrong just because they're American. I'm sure if I lived in Belgium I would pay tax and VAT and credit card processing fees and think nothing of it. But I don't live in Belgium. I'd have the same reaction if my landlord asked me to pay rent in Yen just because there was a favorable exchange rate for him.
And you're right- a better way to do it is to have the lowest fee added to the cost.
The issue in credit cards is that merchants are in fact required to hide the cost: they are not allowed to charge extra for credit card transactions. Likewise, they are not allowed to give a discount for cash transactions. ("Hidden charges are bad: so banks like them!")
The apartment building may in fact be breaking the merchant agreement by applying this charge. This is a good thing; vendors should fight against that hiding.
See, if rent is $1400 and you can pay exactly $1400 by any method: credit card, check or cash, then you're being ripped off if you don't use a credit card! They are pocketing the merchant fee that they would have had to pay on the credit transaction. Why would you care, it's $1400 to you either way, right? Wrong: if you use credit, you "earn" points. If you have a credit card that earns 2% of purchase prices in points, you get 28 points, and if these points can be be converted 1:1 for dollars in some way (like buying an airline ticket), that's 28 bucks! So it's like you're really paying $1372 for your rent, and getting a $28 kickback. The building coughs up a merchant fee, and some of that is kicked back to you in the form of points. Doesn't that person paying by check look like a complete sucker now, if the amount is the same for all methods of payment?
The card user is effectively getting a discounted rent, and supporting the leeching credit card company too, which gets a cut of the discount. Why should the building support that? If rent is $1400, it is not fair that someone pays only $1372, after getting a $28 kickback in points, which comes out of a $50 fee that the building has to pay. The building is robbed of operating income, which means that the rents are higher than what they should be.
Now vendors of goods like credit cards and pay the fees, and comply with the rules of hiding the fees, and not offering cash discounts. Why? Because credit cards encourage rampant consumerism. They bring in business.
The apartment building doesn't need this argument: you owe rent and that's it.
Interestingly, the IRS in the US evidently allows taxes to be paid by credit card. But there is a charge:
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Three-Ways-to-Pay-Your-Federal-Income...
The same arguments apply: without a charge, you'd be getting a tax break, analogous to the rent break. The government is not a store; it does not need to attract "customers" to pay taxes.
As of early last year, credit card surcharges are also now permitted by Visa/Mastercard: http://www.cardfellow.com/blog/checkout-fees-charging-credit...
This assumes you're in the US though, and you would have do get a kick out of yanking their chain, willing to play the game, etc, but it could be fun/funny.
They have a history of not making enough money, and everyone in NYC gets in a rage whenever the fare has to be hiked up. So if they're able to make some extra money off of tourists, for the benefit of all the regular New Yorkers, that's fine by me.
Except, you know, when they discovered that they had an extra $1.9B dollars (surprise!)
http://jalopnik.com/nycs-mta-finds-unexpected-1-9-billion-st...
This has happened in the past too, where they magically discovered a surplus. I'd have to dig for the reference.
They are terrible at bookkeeping is one reason New Yorkers hate the MTA.
Also, in conjunction with the good counter-points being made by others here, let's not forget his points rest upon free money. Without that bonus, he'd be a dollar short, not 5 cents. In fact, with option 3 (the $39 one), he literally received an extra subsidized ride. $39/2.5 is 15.6 => 15 rides. But with the free bonus he is able to take his 16th ride.
I suspect this has more to do with poor UI, than anything else. Take a look at the Citibike UI if you're not an annual member. You will have less hair after having used it. Makes the MTA one seem glorious.
I think there's a strong likelihood that the numbers 9, 19, and 39 were chosen because with the $1 card fee, they make nice round multiples of $10. Put a $20 bill in, get a $19 card.
Hah! That's a good one!
It's like those stores that always have half the store "50% off," they just always charge more and expect you to only buy the things on sale and feel like you got a great deal when in reality you paid what they expected you to pay.
i.e. that "free 5%" you get when buying a card comes is the same damn thing as just charging 5% less on the per ride costs in the first place. It's not free money at all. You just feel like it's free. Honestly, that "free money" only further supports the idea that the MTA is run more like a penny-pinching crony business than a public transport system.
There's a measurable difference between the bonus and no-bonus option, and in this case, that's 5%. That is the offer. Given the option between the two, I'll take the bonus knowing fully well in either scenario they are profiting.
AT&T's classic monthly rates factor in subsidization, and thus are substantially higher than ...whatever value you seem to be wishing that they charge - I sincerely hope not at-cost. If they offer a 5% discount, they're still profiting, but you're paying 5% less than you would have. That is something, and that is an offer.
The MTA is at least partly-funded by real-estate taxes.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Compare the 5% bonus with simply lowering the cost of fares an equivalent amount.
Of course, now that there's the $1 per card fee, it might not be a useful purpose, but that's a different argument.
First off, the bonus. For my purposes, I will call it "free", but as one response was so happy to point out, nothing is truly free, but I won't debate whether something should be provided at-cost or not here. However you feel, $2.5 is the price for one ride, and anything below that from the perspective of the buyer is essentially gratis. Assuming the bonuses were not there, for all three default payment paths, you would have $1.5 remaining. And hey, the lowest amount you can refill with happens to be a dollar! $1.5 + $1 = $2.5 = one perfectly balanced card.
Now for the price change. Cards were free, so essentially you really were paying for a balanced amount that would leave you with no remainder. Again, ignoring the bonus, you were essentially putting $10, $20, and $40 on your card - all values perfectly divisible by $2.50. Now cards cost a dollar. That's a different debate, but that explains the $1.5 pre-bonus dangler.
He goes on to mention, "If they really wanted to fix the issue, they could ask “How much do you want on your MetroCard” instead of “How much do you want to pay”. But don’t count on those changes coming to a MetroCard Vending Machine near you anytime soon, given how lucrative the current set up is."
But prior to the one dollar surcharge, that is essentially what it was doing. It's been updated to reflect the dollar surcharge, and it has always elected not to show the final amount + bonus. Including the bonus would be just confusing, especially if you were trying to pay with cash/coins. "Oh hey, I want $10 to be on my card, including the bonus." "Okay, please enter $9.524" Yes, that's right, it's not an even $9.5. 10 / 1.05 = 9.5238~
If there's any "answer" here, it's that they wanted the cheapest/smallest amount of software updates that they could get away with using their original software/ui.
Thats the ground state of this system as they have designed it.
As I mentioned, excluding the bonus, and prior to the dollar surchage, that wasn't really true. The values were perfectly divisible by $2.5.
But if you look at the author's own images, the "Other Amounts" button is pretty prominent. Short of a brand new auto-rebalancer option, what would you suggest? If my claim is true, and that they wanted to have the cheapest transition / software update they could manage, that option would violate that. They essentially changed a table of numbers (I assume) and most of their old UI was reusable.
The next cheapest option that would satisfy your requirement is to blow out all 3 quick options (and eliminate the bonus) and have only an "Other Amounts" path, essentially forcing manual re-balance.
Here's a much better way of "outsmarting" it: buy an MTA EasyPay Xpress card[1]. The card will be linked to your credit card, so you will never have to worry with insufficient fare again.
Plus you still get 5% every $5, with the convenience of auto-refill, and full protection if you ever misplace your card.
Way better than spending time counting pennies.
I think it's fair to call that a dark pattern, especially for a public service, it is simply a hidden tax for tourists.
Re: the tourists, Metro in DC has an approach that I assume is for charging tourists more, which is that paper farecards (instead of the reusable SmarTrip card) get a surcharge of $1 on each trip. They're very open about the surcharge, so if you don't like it, then you can get a SmarTrip; however, it would then take a pretty involved computation to end up with zero balance at the end.
I'm actually pretty favorable toward the DC policy. Increasing tourist revenue (who probably are going to be pretty willing to pay slightly more for limited subway use) in a tourist-heavy spot seems like a reasonable approach to subsidizing the heavier commuting users of the system. With Metro specifically that may not be a huge deal because so many people have their commuting paid for as a benefit, but I like the basic idea.
I suspect the reason advertised to the DC metro's govt. managers is that the paper fare card (the one that now has a $1 surcharge) is a disposable item. Once run down to zero, or rolled over to another card in a fare machine, the old paper card becomes trash. Therefore I suspect the govt. regulators were told the fee was an "encouragement" to save resources and buy the reusable plastic card vs. the throw away paper card.
Now, the fact that they get an extra $1, per trip, out of most all tourists (and locals) who don't notice the surcharge up front (it is advertised, just not that boldly...) was never really discussed at the regulator meetings.
https://smartrip.wmata.com/storefront
(although I don't think that price is attractive for basically anyone)
Oh, and if you want a plastic RFID card rather than magnetic paper that will fall apart within 3 trips, you need to spend $10 for $8 of fare. (EDIT: And another commenter mentioned something I'd forgotten: those paper farecards also come with a $1 surcharge per trip.)
http://wamu.org/news/10/10/15/metro_board_replacing_smartrip...
But equating long life with infinite life isn't quite right here. Every card will stop being used some day. If the MTA know with certainty that X proportion of cards do EOL with Y USD on them, then they can safely consider X × Y as earnings and spend it immediately, ergo the moment of first top up is the true moment of shafting. I'd bet good money that the MTA's internal figures record earnings from excess balances by counting cards newly registered, not cards recently expired.
I studied econ at a good school, and I can tell you that an economist would 100% equate this with theft. Because it is.
edit:
This - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8274314 - is a very good point. Ensuring cards always have a meaningful balance on them is probably the best way to stop people treating them as disposable (I imagine their cost is non-negligible). If they're given out free, it's clever, but if you have to buy them (like London's Oyster cards) it's even more of a scam. To have a totally clear moral conscience the MTA should really let you return the card and cash out.
But if a balance remains it seems like one would be more likely to add more money to the card.
Not so with Oyster, mine hits zero or very close quite often. Difference there is you buy an Oyster card up front.
> Your MetroCard can be refilled with time and value for about one year. The MetroCard Vending Machine will tell you when the card expiration date is coming up, and will issue you a new MetroCard at no charge with all your purchases on it.
I haven't had my coffee today. I took that quite wrong at first.
The numbers, $9, $19, $39 are set so in the common case of someone paying with a $10 or $20, with the $1 card fee, no change needs to be refunded. The MTA machines only dispense change in coins, and because people are unlikely to pay with coins or small denomination bills like ones, a different default would mean more frequent refilling of the change reserves.
Also it would be way simpler to deduct a $1 fee from the chosen amount if a new card is needed, no?
> if a new card is needed
This is the "new card" screen. That question has already been answered if you get here. The "topping up" screen advertises $10/$20/$40 instead of $9/$19/$39 (making the intent perfectly clear).
Also while they now cost $1 for most of the program life they were indeed free.
Anyways regular users use unlimiteds, bank account backed cards, or do some fancy rolling over of tax advantaged cards for the most part.
edited from previous because I completely misread the part about auto expiry.
You can roll the balance of a nearly expired card onto a new card, but I don't know if there is a way to recapture your $1 card fee.
The real rip off in the UK is the rail season tickets nd the above inflation increases. For a lot less than I will be paying to travel 60 miles to London in Germany I could get country wide travel !
It is not theft, and this attitude is deeply disturbing.
If we're analysing it and getting it wrong - how can we reasonably assert that the average, passive consumer is correctly informed?
The use of the word 'theft' was evidently an almighty error here. How about:
Monopolistic profit-seeking behaviour which is enabled by the consumer's lack of information about the transaction and a purposeful complication of the transaction mechanism
Further, in what way does it "disturb" you? Are you terrified by the notion that maybe one day you'll try to sell me something and I'll scream theft? What a spine-tingling, yet wholly unlikely, nightmare that would be. And are we talking Girl Interrupted-disturbed, or something deeper?
I'm going to get blasted for saying this but what I find mildly disturbing is the willingness of people to jump to the defence of organisations which are trying to screw them (even after a blow by blow explanation of exactly how they're being screwed) just because they're publicly-run.
Hating on econ is trendy in this kind of scene at the moment, but most economists aren't these mystical agents fighting for some kind of fantasy right-wing utopia - just scientists that observe things and speculate on their properties. Economics is fundamentally the mathematical description of aggregate human behaviour, and so any paper with a new idea that makes it into popular culture is all too easily interpreted as some kind of manifesto for social change, after which the hate piles on thick and fast. It's an unfortunate misunderstanding that's creating biases which could ultimately end up depriving society of a lot of very useful knowledge.
These are two different sets of knowledge. For the buyer to be informed requires only that they know what they're getting (probably this rounds to three trips for $9 in the minds of most, I'd wager) and what they're paying (clearly marked). If it's worth it to them at the time of transaction, the transaction happens. Simple.
None of the rest of this stuff matters to the buyer. They've paid $9, they've got three trips, and there's a little bonus money left, encouraging them to keep the card instead of tossing it and worrying about the $1 for the next one later.
Suggesting that the buyer should be incensed at the seller because the seller is somehow unfair, but only in a way that didn't affect what was being sold and for how much, is more politics than economics.
No. 'Complete information' as it's called includes anything that would materially affect the buyer's consumption decisions. The article author sought out full information, figured out what was going on, and adjusted his behaviour accordingly. The fullness of the information he uncovered was so novel, in fact, it made to #1 on HN.
> Suggesting that the buyer should be incensed
I didn't, I spoke for myself alone
> only in a way that didn't affect what was being sold and for how much
This is a very shallow analysis. The point is that the passive consumer thinks they've paid $1 to cover the cost of the card and the rest of the credit is their 'property' (or asset, at least) when in reality it's highly likely that another ~$2 of said credit will fall into the ownership of the MTA. The effective price of the card is > $3 in that case. The moral problem arises if the MTA designed it this way, which the article suggests they did, and I'm inclined to agree.
You used the word Theft on purpose, maybe not consciously, but because it came to your mind first. It reflects your true opinions on the matter, and they are quite frankly disgusting.
Judging from your replies elsewhere you don't or can't comprehend just how repugnant your attitude is. It is not my social or legal responsibility to maximize MTA's revenue. The fact that it would even occur to a person like you (who studied economics) to classify "not getting ripped off" as theft makes me want to beat the shit out of someone.
As another commented mentioned, it's about charging a full dollar amount (after $1 new card fee) for people paying with cash.
Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/nyregion/mta-chief-signals... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/nyregion/mta-may-eliminate...
Sounds like bull. They could trivially offer whole-fare counts and give whatever price that represents with a "you save $x" note.
No thanks.
This applies for return journeys, so after the first leg of the journey you need to make sure there's 20 EUR left or you're screwed.
Caltrain works like this too, though the card will go $5 negative, so you need max fare - $5 on the card at all times.
Fair, per-kilometer pricing. Quoting from the english version of the page linked above[0]:
When you travel on credit, a boarding fare will be debited from your card when you
check in. When you check out, the boarding fare will be refunded and you will be
charged for the number of kilometres you travelled. If you do not check out, you
will pay the full boarding fare.
[0] https://www.ov-chipkaart.nl/reizen/tarieven/instapenbasistar...
What they should have done was update these price points alongside the price change that occurred to keep remainders at or under a dollar. A "fill to the next ride" option could also be a great way to even out the remaining cost. While this still isn't perfect and screws over tourists (particularly when they removed the 1 day unlimited!), I imagine this is non-issue for the majority of New Yorkers (myself included).
I also imagine there's good reason here. Imagine all the trash that gets created because someone will finish up their metro card completely. The extra $1 fee per new card was likely a newer solution to prevent people from throwing them in the streets or in the subway trench, and providing an odd remainder on the card may have been a historical way to do the same. Imagine, if you had an extra dollar sitting around on your card, you probably would reuse it, and not throw it out.
That said, the fact that anyone can get from Sunset Park to the Bronx Botanical Gardens (a 20+ mile drive) for 2.50 isn't so bad of a deal.
In Barcelona, where I live, the system is different. You buy a card with travels on it instead. One travel is a entry to the metro until you leave the metro. So if you buy a card with ten travels, you're sure to get ten travels. If you buy 50, you get 50. This seems like a much more reasonable system.
These systems are used because people don't want to line up and buy tickets before every ride.
Having credits for travels vs money on the card won't make any difference on how you buy the tickets. Only how easy it is for the consumers/users to use.
All I know is that I pay taxes for stuff upstate, but only NYC city taxes pay for NYCT.
Yes, most of the time we're just refilling the same card over and over, but these cards also have an expiry date of 1 year. This is still a good hack to keep in mind.
I have plenty of criticisms about the Metrocard system, but I've had no problems keeping my cards operational until they expire. I keep the card in a regular card slot in my wallet, use it 2-4 times a day and refill it once a month. No issues in years.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/financial-services-and-commerce...
That's awful.
I'm no expert in economics, but bear with me. The MTA operates a natural monopoly. In a natural monopoly you don't have competitors, so your customers can't turn to someone else to receive better service. Furthermore, the government has granted them the right to be the one provider in this market.
I think that this makes them somewhat of a public service. Normally quality of service comes from the pressure of competitors, but in this case there are no competitors. I think the government has a responsibility to see that this is clearly a dishonest tactic and fix it. If the government doesn't enforce honest practice, than it won't get enforced at all (because competitors aren't there to do it). (sorry for the somewhat confused argument, but there's really something wrong with this)
2. It is merciless. (Would the city really lose out if it gave three rides for $2.50 and then one for $2.45? They already have a 5% bonus (whose main purpose is to trick you into a -20% bonus) would a 5.03% bonus be unheard of?)
3. To achieve fairness, this system burdens the entire city with a cognitive load.
It's not theft, it's fraud. "But how can it be fraud?" you clamor, all of the terms are spelled out clearly. The fraud is not in the financial transactional terms, but in the trust to place in our leaders.
We entrust them to choose fares and design a fare-paying system that is merciful, fair and doesn't enforce an undue cognitive load. This system violates that trust. How can they expect the public to remain peaceful and satisfied while they're deliberately infringing on our trust in this way?
I just put the $2.50 back on it (and renew my unlimited) as I'm leaving at my destination.
I guess for those who don't ride enough for an unlimited to be worth it are gotcha'd this way.. I ride 20 times a week, though (break-even on a 7-day card is 12 times a week; monthly is 6.4 times a week. I tend to lose my card occasionally, though, and the hurt from losing a $112 card is a LOT higher than losing a $35 card. Yes, they have a recovery system. No, I've never gotten it to actually work).
Now, just to remember to refill the 5 bucks when I run out of that...
Side note: I never really understood why they don't have MC booths _inside_ the station. My assumption is it's too costly between maintenance, and security when the machine needs to be emptied vs. how much they stand to make from it. But, ever since they introduced the credit/debit only machines, it seems like it could save people a bunch of time when they only realize _after_ they've swiped, that they are out of cash.
I guess my MTA experience has changed much today after all.
I wonder if there's a difference between starting out with cash vs starting out with an unlimited (when getting the card). I don't see why that would matter though.
Not unlimited time
Every time I am in NY to visit, there is a stack of cards waiting for me - so I will spend 20 minutes in the morning down at the train station filling each of the tickets up to a sane number.
If you add money to the card, they give you 5% extra. Good luck getting 5% out of your savings account.
If you add only $2.50 to the card, then they receive no gift. The problem is waiting in line to add $2.50 to the card before every ride, which is why nobody does that.
It is much cheaper and easier to use than Wash DC. Also, the train frequency even at 11 PM and later is every few minutes in Manhattan. Just wish we had the Verizon WiFi access that the DC Metro has....
If you work 20 days a month, and use the train to commute to and from the office, then you're paying $100/mo just to commute. If you take the train just 5 times outside of your daily commute per month, you start getting free rides. I don't think I ever met someone when I lived in NYC who was buying prepaid cards instead of unlimited ride cards.
The "left behind" balance on prepaid cards are the same dark pattern as every gift card in existence: the issuers bank on some (most?) balances being lost or leftover or forgotten.
If I want to write something on a credit card, I put some clear tape over the ink afterward.
I've never seen a MetroCard, but based on photos online, it looks like heavy paper stock with a glossy finish. So a sharpie and some clear tape should do the trick for the lifetime of the card.
Or, really, the practice of requesting email addresses and mailing list subscriptions in exchange for coupons, etc.?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/nyregion/unspent-metrocard...
That's the same tactic used by banks at a different scale, if everybody attempted to claim all the money in their accounts (during a bank run for instance) the whole thing would collapse, but they know it's not normally likely to happen so they keep only a fraction of the total savings available at any time.
You can just buy a $20 card, pay $21, get the bonus, and then add on the remainder of the next closest $2.50 block, in a second transaction, by using the "Other Amounts" option, which permits any amount greater than $1 (including change, as in $1.99). If you can't fathom the math for this, while thinking on your feet, too bad for you.
And yeah, this takes longer, and people waiting behind you might be impatient. But this is New York, so everyone else can go fuck themselves.
MTA = Metropolitan Transportation Authority in NYC
The clipper card system used in the Bay Area by BART etc is technically capable of this as well, but it hasn't been implemented and probably never will :(
I will use this next time I'm in NYC visiting, I'm frequently leaving with small dollars or change, and I end up losing the card or forgetting about it [as MTA's plan]
Reusing cards, or buying cards for anything other than cash, is basically like an automated license plate scanner.
Use cash, and switch cards regularly. Never give them your name or bank card to associate with their unknown record in the facial biometrics database.
I would be unsurprised to learn that this is used to get people to reuse cards in an effort to persist a unique identifier for facial matching, as the video data can be correlated with swipe logs.