For simple ticket issuing transport systems, I can see a use for zones. But in today's computer society, it seems to me that much smarter systems could be easily built to accommodate those who don't take public transport only to the city centres. The take up of public transport could be greater.
It's technically feasible, but there are two big things holding it back:
(i) certainty - with the current system people know how much they'll pay. As opposed to going into a shop and only knowing how much things cost when you reach the checkout.
(ii) the human element - for this to work people must tag off as well as tag on. This is the system proposed for Melbourne. The larger number of different fare amounts available the more critical this is.
For the better part of 20 years, successive governments have botched the implementation of various ticketing systems here. Ticketing is an issue in Melbourne like in no other Australian city and there have been blockades in the streets about it. To reduce the chances of doing it again, they've chosen the low risk path of sticking with the existing simple and popular zone fare system.
The property price implications of moving from a zonal to a distance-based fare system (where sections are small) would be similar to but less marked than if school zoning was abolished. Places near premium schools (or inner-city) would still be more highly valued, but the drop-off would be gradual rather than dramatic since hard boundaries have been replaced with continuums.
Canberra is one example of a city that abolished bus zones (in favour of a flat fare). This ought to improve the position outer suburbs vis a vis inner suburbs, but I suspect that its impact on house prices was minimal.
Transport infrastructure and service levels (which are generally poor in much of Canberra) have more impact on usage (and thus amenity, which becomes built into property prices) than pricing structures. A partial exception would be the impecunious, who'd hardly be influencing the housing market, except as renters.
Peter
(you have no location)
