One thing that hasn’t really been discussed is the possibility of having both, much like the busway has now. What would be wrong with having say daily, weekly and monthly passes and a small number of zones, but retaining a standardised stage system for short trips discrete trips (say city, inner, outer, and regional zones, with about three stages to cross any one zone). Cash fares would be for stage trips or daily’s only, and people could use credit on thier farecard to buy stages, and if they reach the daily pass price for the zone(s) their travel has been in they are automatically upgraded to a day pass.
This would keep things cheap for those short distance single trips and for tourists or one off users, while regular users would still have a strong incentive to get onto a pass.

Very interesting discussion by the way – nice work @jarbury.

Is ARTA looking at re-vamping things like this? Or just driving existing fares through a new electronic system initially.

As for advantages for fewer zones, clearly this simplifies matters and also probably provides a better deal for those who are travelling from further away. In Auckland you might make all the isthmus plus the lower North Shore your first zone, and then everywhere beyond that a second zone (with ex-urban places being a third zone). This would mean that the cost of travelling from somewhere like Otahuhu to the city is likely to decrease, with compensation from someone travelling from, say Herne Bay to the city. I guess that the city gains more from getting a long car trip to be turned into a public transport trip than a short car trip – so perhaps there is justification for some level of cross-subsidy from that point of view.

As for advantages for more zones, I guess the advantages is that there would be more of an “equitable” feeling about how fares are calculated – in that you really do pay depending on how far you travel. More zones would make a system more complicated, but in a way because short trips would be comparatively cheaper you are potentially encouraging people to locate closer to their work – or more specifically in the inner suburbs – because a single zone/stage trip is relatively cheap. Arguably, this could contribute more towards our growth strategies, while a “flatter” system with higher subsidies for longer trips would potentially encourage more urban dispersal.

I guess that perhaps my judgement is clouded by the fact that I currently enjoy paying only $1.44 per trip into the city for work, and a flatter (fewer zones) system would probably bump that up quite significantly. But it certainly is an interesting debate to have.

I think Waiheke is now undeniably a part of metropolitan Auckland (as evidenced by those 1,000 regular commuters) and it should be part of the metro fare system. Due to the distance and separation involve I think it sits naturally in the group of ‘satelite towns’ in terms of fares. I would therefore have the price of the waiheke ferry aligned with the price of a train to Pukekohe or Kumeu, or a bus to Orewa/Whangaparoa.

There is no such thing (except for Michelle Boag’s passport transport).
The Waiheke ferry service certainly should be included. It provides commuting services for 1,000 people a day – much more than many bus routes in Auckland, and is unsubsidised (unlike many bus routes in Auckland – for which Waiheke Islanders ARE expected to pay ARC transport rates for like everybody else)