I'm not a fan of zones for Toronto. But that aside, I really think you are seriously underestimating Metrolinx's goals. I don't think they just have it as a goal to make it easier for 905ers to get into the city. I would think they are a little more ambitious than that.
Also, I'm suprised you've never heard anybody express dissatisfaction with the fare system inside Toronto You've never heard anybody say, "It's stupid I have to pay $3 to go two stops/10 mins on the bus."? Or, "How come GO gives discount to MiWay riders but not to TTC?" I've heard quite a few people say those things. The only people who avoid discussion on fares are politicians. They don't actually want to deal with an issue that might cost them votes.
If I recall a 10 cent fare increase (or there about) would raise the $20 million for a 2 hour transfer based system. That indirectly charges quick shorter trips at a lower rate than longer trips for a marginal increase in fares and with a very simple system.
There's no GO co-fare simply because Metrolinx doesn't want to give the subsidy that they give other transit systems to the TTC because of how much money it'd cost them. If they want to pay for it we could have a co-fare tomorrow with no change in fare system.
As TheTigerMaster has pointed out we have zone boundaries today in the form of the municipal boundaries. Right now the cost for crossing the zone boundary is an extra fare. I understand the appeal of having a lower cost to cross zones as they exist today, but rather than having Metrolinx subsidize that it feels like you'd prefer the TTC do so (by charging more for travel for longer trips within the city and less for trips cross-border).
You suggest that it's not just to the benefit of 905ers since there'd be benefit to people travelling from Toronto to the 905. I'd expect that it'd help more of the former than the later, but regardless, the expectation seems to be that it should be those travelling medium to long distances within Toronto that ought to be paying for that. Fundamentally I think that's where we disagree.
If one of the city's big goals is to switch more people over to using transit, then any of the proposed schemes seem counterintuitive. A few of the big problems:
a) The Metropass is already extremely expensive on the basis of the multiplier it uses. Presumably any zone based system would either require an even more expensive Metropass (to account for the higher fares for moving city wide) or would have to be zoned itself. That seems like it'd be a huge barrier to getting people to rely on transit. Just imagine your regular home to work route passes through 2 zones so you have a 2 zone Metropass, but then an event you want to travel to will take you through three zones. Now you no longer have an 'all you can eat' pass and instead constantly would have think about the upcharges - however small - for going further. Sure there are per km expenses for driving, but psychologically it feels a lot worse when you essentially have a meter running in from of your eyes instead of popping into the gas station and buying $20 or $40 in gas every so often. Let's not forget that the Metropass plays a huge role in encouraging more regular transit use ('I've paid for it so I might as well use it').
b) It's more complex. Sure, we can have a computer calculate a complex pricing scheme behind the scenes, but I don't think it'd feel very good to not know what your trip will cost you until after you do it. What if you forget to tap out with a zoned system? Heck, what if you're running late and you exit via the bus bay at a subway station instead of through the proper exit inside the station? Presumably you'll be charged the maximum fare. That won't feel good.
c) I don't think Metrolinx is talking about charging $3 or $3.50 for 'long' trips within the city, I think they're looking at charging $4.50-$6. I don't have the presentation open in front of me, but I believe they imply that trips 16km+ ('long trips') should be treated like GO trips. We have huge debates over 5 or 10 cent fare increases. Clearly this sort of thing won't fly.
d) It's been mentioned before, but zones encourage weird behaviour to save money. There's no upcharge to take the bus but there is one for a subway? A certain proportion of people will do that to save money. If I take a weird roundabout route I avoid going through an extra zone? Great! Now we're encouraging people to spend more time on bus routes to save them money. It'd be one thing if it were a handful of people, but if you end up running more bus service as a result you're doing something wrong, and anecdotally I think that more than a few people will do this sort of stuff if it'll save them a bit of money. Heck, I'll bet you today that a non-trivial number of people today take a particular routing for their trips such that they can have stopovers at transfer points without having to pay a second fare.
Sure it'd be nice to have cheaper fares across municipal boundaries, but the proposed solutions seem like convolute attempt to make that work with no additional subsidy that to me has a ton more negatives than positives. And for what? As TheTigerMaster has suggested, all we need to do is have Metrolinx provide a subsidy for cross border travel and nothing else would have to change.
