03-10-2023, 04:13 PM
They provided them widely and freely as long as they did due to almost all of their customers wanting them at the time. If one bank didn't offer ATMs, customers would have left en masse to other ATM-providing banks; i.e. it was worth it for the banks to wear the cost of providing ATMs because it was essential for retaining customers. Now, however, with relatively fewer customers caring whether or not their bank provides ATMs (I genuinely don't even know the location of a single ATM) it is no longer worth it for them to provide so freely as ATM availability is unlikely to be a major consideration for many potential customers. It is the same deal with branches (again, I don't even know where my "local" branch is) where they are gradually being closed down as fewer & fewer customers care about them.
As for "there are always several people using or waiting...", it stands to reason that with a significant reduction in ATMs, the few remaining ATMs are still well utilised. Also, I'm guessing that banks keep track of each ATMs use, with that being a factor in which ones they get rid of first. So, if your one is usually busy, hopefully for your sake that is one of the last ones to go.
As for "there are always several people using or waiting...", it stands to reason that with a significant reduction in ATMs, the few remaining ATMs are still well utilised. Also, I'm guessing that banks keep track of each ATMs use, with that being a factor in which ones they get rid of first. So, if your one is usually busy, hopefully for your sake that is one of the last ones to go.