IBJNews

IndyGo ends commuter bus route from Greenwood

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Due to low ridership, the IndyGo Commuter Express route from Greenwood to downtown Indianapolis will end Dec. 1.

IndyGo officials announced the termination of the service at yesterday’s Greenwood City Council meeting. The route was averaging just 32 riders per day and had cost $40,000 more than it has collected in fares, Associated Press reported.

A federal grant funds 80 percent of the cost to operate the IndyGo express routes from Greenwood, as well as from Carmel and Fishers, while the municipalities are responsible for the remaining amount.

The routes from Carmel and Fishers have attracted enough riders to spare the cities from contributing additional funds, IndyGo said. But in Greenwood’s case, passenger revenue has been too low to cover Greenwood’s portion of the grant match. 

The commuter express routes were designed to last about three years, or until funding is exhausted.

The Greenwood route was launched in March, during a time when gas prices were much cheaper than they were when bus service began from Carmel and Fishers, which likely contributed to low interest in the route, IndyGo said.

Also, the initial plan to have the route run along the U.S. 31 corridor failed when IndyGo was unable to secure a parking agreement in the area to accommodate passengers. In addition, the U.S. 31 corridor already has an IndyGo bus route servicing it, forcing the commuter express to start instead from an alternative location on State Road 135.

Officials from IndyGo and Greenwood said they will continue to explore options for commuters in the event further funding opportunities become available.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT