Really, the only people I see likely getting caught out on this are tourists leaving with unused balances. The argument that "they get the money sooner" seems like nonsense to me. They get the money when you put it on the card, either way.
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.
The DC metro system does not offer an "unlimited pass". Each trip costs what it costs, and deducts that amount from whichever card you have. There's two rate schedules, rush-hour (pricier) and non-rush (slightly lower price).
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.
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.