So that's still quite similar to what we have here in Toronto. Steeles Avenue would be our Hudson River in this case.
Then I guess we should ignore that the Hudson River is a physical boundary as well as a state border, whereas development on either side of Steeles Avenue is entirely contiguous? Steeles is a random line on a map. It could just as easily have been drawn at Finch Avenue or Major Mackenzie Drive.
Help whose riders? You made it sound as if these schemes are neutral across the board, with no negative impact to existing riders. And let's not pretend the blame only falls onto the TTC - where is the regional leadership when it comes to revenue? I don't see Metrolinx willing to assume that financial risk or implement any revenue tools on their own.
First, I said the opposite in several posts: every fare system has pros and cons. The delusion TTC has is that since we've had the flat fare since 1973, those trade-offs are the best ones.
Secondly, as you (presumably) well know, Metrolinx has ZERO say. It's up to the province and they chickened out after 2 rounds of consultation. Shame on them, sure. But if you think TTC was hoping they'd succeed, or if you think they have any organizational interest in participating in regionalism, well I'd sure love to see evidence.
Let's not pretend for one second that farebox is the only challenge facing reverse commuters - or in fact the dominant problem facing commuters in general. I've said it before - you can't even ensure it is the dominant mode within the same transit jurisdiction - let's not get ahead of ourselves and think that zone fares will change that,
I would simply say that a better system will encourage more cross-border trips. It's an indisputable reality that all along Steeles Avenue are people who bike, drive and otherwise avoid local buses to get on the TTC. On the other side of the border, TTC riders stand on Yonge watching empty YRT buses going to Finch blow right by them.
That is, unquestionably, a scenario in which the economics are distorting travel patterns and disincentivizing transit use. I guarantee you, none of those people care what colour the bus is. They want to get where they are going efficiently and without paying a double fare.
Zone fares won't singlehandedly fix every problem, but they can certainly alleviate many of the ones we know are there.
If you are going to bring out the term "equity", you better be aware of the socioeconomic status of the ridership of the TTC - particularly those in the outlying suburbs and their predominant mode and destination.
I actually don't have to meet any of your prerequisites but be that as it may, I haven't advocated for any one of the Metrolinx proposals, specifically. For now I'm just saying we need better fare integration.
My argument is that you haven't demonstrated the amount of impact - fiscal, ridership, equity - a move to a finer grained zone system will create - with no illusion that we are currently operating a zoned system - just one with boundaries that doesn't necessarily strike one's fancy.
I didn't do that because I don't have to. I don't work for Metrolinx and so I don't have the spare time to analzye all that data to prove a meaningless point to you,. I didn't specifically advocate for zones, per se. but you're right - we do have have a kind of zoned system. But its boundaries are stupid because they are meaningfully politically and not in terms of actual movement of human beings. My example above proves the stupidity of the "zones," irrespective of people's "fancy." Those "zones" weren't devised with any forethought or indeed anything to do with public transit at all; they are an accident of history and from a time when the population, its distribution, growth and transportation patterns where entirely different.
We can adapt to the present reality and evolving future or keep slipping ever further behind.