Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Indianapolis’ public transit agency will increase basic fares 57% in 2026, marking the first time the cost has changed since 2009. IndyGo’s board unanimously approved the hike Thursday, along with the agency’s budget for 2026.
The basic-fare increase from $1.75 to $2.75 for fixed-route service is necessary for long-term financial health of IndyGo, officials say, because operating expenses have risen significantly since the last fare increase.
Expenses to operate an average bus in the system rose 71%, from $105 per hour in 2013 to $180 in 2023, according to IndyGo documents.
Currently, fares make up a small portion of IndyGo’s revenue. In 2025, the anticipated $5.9 million total for passenger fares is just 4% of the $146.7 million operating budget. The agency’s revenue comes mostly from property taxes, income taxes and federal and state assistance.
IndyGo CEO Jennifer Pyrz told reporters that the agency has been “filling in gaps” when it comes to revenue, and will likely continue to do so over the next year or two, but it can’t afford to maintain the $1.75 rate.
The operating budget will rise from $146.7 million in 2025 to $153 million in 2026.
“We cannot continue to just have less and less of our operations be funded by the fare box,” she said.
IndyGo’s board amended the fare-increase measure to delay a planned fee increase for the agency’s service for riders with disabilities, IndyGo Access, until July 1.
Users of the IndyGo Access service—many of whom are elderly, disabled and on fixed incomes—spoke out against the increases in public comment earlier this year.
Adairius Gardner, the board’s vice chair, said the amendment would give IndyGo additional time to educate riders with disabilities on the proposed IndyGo Access changes, as well as allow IndyGo and IndyGo Foundation staff to explore funding opportunities to provide financial relief to riders. An IndyGo spokesperson said that might entail finding a philanthropic partner to cover some of the cost of the increases.
Riders who use IndyGo Access face the steepest proposed increases because the buses, which come directly to rider homes, cost the most to operate.
The rate for IndyGo Access rides within three-quarters of a mile of an IndyGo route would increase from $3.50 to $5.50. For IndyGo Access rides scheduled 24 hours or more in advance and outside of the three-quarter mile area, the rate would increase from $7 to $11. And, for same-day IndyGo Access rides, the rate would increase from $10 to $15.
IndyGo’s 2026 spending plan
Along with the fare hike, IndyGo’s board also unanimously approved the agency’s budget for 2026.
It plans to spend $257.6 million on capital improvements. The largest piece of that is ongoing work on the Blue Line, at $170.7 million, followed by $45.7 to build a new fleet garage and $18.3 million for new buses.
The organization also plans to spend $1.2 million on safety and security, including camera upgrades.
IndyGo will pay more than half of those expenses, at 55%, with grants. It will pay for most of the rest with bonds and just 8% with local dollars.
IndyGo plans to spend $153 million in 2026 on operations, a 5% increase from the 2025 budget. That increase, which is about $7 million, includes paying for six new employees—four fare inspectors and two security specialists—who currently work for an outside contractor. The new employees will give the agency greater control over how fare enforcement and rider education are implemented, according to budget documents.
IndyGo is also spending money to improve 29th and 30th streets as part of the Department of Public Works’ two-way conversion.
IndyGo crafted the 2026 budget on the assumption that fare revenue would remain flat, at $5.9 million.
Pyrz told reporters budget writers couldn’t assume the board would pass the fare-increase proposal, and a drop in ridership after a fare increase is likely. Pyrz said that has been the case for IndyGo in the past and is common among all transit agencies.
The City-County Council Municipal Corporations Committee will consider the IndyGo budget proposal Sept. 17 at 5:30 p.m.
Update: This story has been edited to include additional information related to IndyGo Access rates.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Que Nate’s Flock wailing in agony
only 4% comes from fares? Thats incredible! The taxpayers pick the tab from there. Most inefficient form of transportation around. Be cheaper to bring in Waymo and pay the fares for riders!
Plus they darken the windows so you can’t see the empty seats. This is just ridiculous.
The per-passenger cost for taking one person at a time everywhere with hailed vehicles/microtransit/point-to-point, even if they are automated, is significantly higher than fixed route buses. It’s not even close.
For example: Dallas, TX offers point-to-point microtransit, but they only do so in the farthest reaches of their service area because microtransit/hailed vehicles can’t scale. They’re only useful in extremely low-density, low-demand contexts (exurban areas, rural areas, and some industrial zones). The average microtransit/hailed vehicle carries about 3 people per hour, while the average bus carries 17 people per hour. The per passenger subsidy cost to DART (the Dallas transit authority) for fixed route buses is about $5, while the subsidy per-passenger on microtransit/hailed vehicles is $24.
It’s simply not cost-effective.
Transportation welfare–imagine any business that collected only 4% of their fees for a $146.7 million OPERATING budget. We need to let this business go under! The balance of their operating costs come mostly from property & income taxes (~60%); federal funding (~20%) and state assistance.
We need to let it be known that Indianapolis taxpayers are over financing this disaster. The 2025 budget request for wages alone (no benefits, taxes, etc.) was $59,924,187. Too many executives.
Not to mention the new bus stop islands in the MIDDLE of heavy traffic thoroughfares like Washington Street. Image the cost for building all those islands for three or four ‘routes’ so people can have transportation from one side of town to the other. And the passengers pay $2.75. These islands take up too many lanes that restrict traffic in high-traffic areas. The Indianapolis Metro Planning Organization (IMPO) needs to conduct a safety study on these structures and the lack of safety for IndyGo passengers trying to get to and from the streetsides to the islands. This is not a safe situation for the few riders they have.
They’ve already conducted safety studies. The number of crashes along the Red Line decreased following its implementation.
I’m generally not interested in the hyperbole. Mid-street transit stops are things all over the world, stop acting like Indy is the first place to do it and is so crazy for it. The pearl-clutching is far too much, so you can drop your faux-concern act.
I honestly don’t care that IndyGo gets the funding it does; quite frankly, I think it should get a lot more. Compared to our peers, Indy is still WAY below typical spending on public transit per capita. I would be very interested to know how many executives you think IndyGo has and how much they get paid compared to their hundreds of operators and mechanics. I can promise you that it won’t make a dent in that $59 million, so I’m just going to write that off as a bad-faith argument from you.
Indy’s lack of a regional transit network has put us at a severe economic disadvantage. It’s a big reason why a lot of companies don’t want to bring their talented, higher-wage employees here.
No. Please understand that transit is a service not a for profit enterprise. And please understand that Indianapolis is a poor city with a significant number low income people who rely on transit. Please do you due diligence and recognize that transit does not make money anywhere in the world except perhaps Hong Kong orTokyo, major cities, multiple millions of people, where transit moves the bulk of tripmaking because thr roadway network is saturated and expansion infeasible.
So Indy must increase fare. I opine that IndyGo should have neen increasing fares periodically as cost have risen. An alternative plan is to raise fares every two to four years. However, not raising fates since 2009 seems to be poor planning.
Do your due diligence. Other than truly major cities such as New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC and San Francisco — all of which have extensive transit networks that were never allowed to diminish to as dreadful a state as Indianapolis under the Goldsmith administration — post operating ratios (percent costs covered by fares) of 20% to 50%. Most metro have operating ratios of around 10%. Some smaller metros are exemplary with expansive networks, high ridership, and more cost efficient systems : Denver, Portland, Minneapolis!
Do you fit diligence. Indianapolis has been rock-bottom last in the US for transit for a long time due to underinvestment and lack of a consistent income. Since passage of thebtransit tax, Indianapolis, rather IndyGo, can develop a financial and operating plan based on anticipated tax revenues BUT fare revenue is also key and should be increased. The Goldsmith era implemented a short-sightrd and disastrous plan to decrease frequencies (meaning a bus every 30 min in rush hour instead of every 15) to save money. Sounds logical, huh? But what resulted was a significant drop in ridership that totallyboffset any cost savings. And Indianapolis and IndyGo suffered under the transit starvation scenario: the fewer rider/less service downward spiral. Whenever Indianapolis wanted to save money, taking money from transit was the “answer.”
Now IndyGo has vastly improved transit. Transit tax revenues provide a stream of income And transit fares must become a higher share of the total.
Bear in mind some cities, Kansas City for example, charge no fares given that the operating ratio is low.
Libraries, parks, and freeways do not make a profit.
And just for comparison, the reconstruction of major freeway interchanges such as I-70 E at I-465 (how many times has this bern redone?), I-465 at I-69 in northeast Indianapolis, and the I-70/I-65 redo dowtown — cost much more that the Red and Purple BRT lines!
Freeways are important all would agree. But they don’t make money, nor do streets. Transit is important too. Yeah, we all pay taxes for roadways but thevtax revenue received is insufficient for ongoing and necessary maintenance (!) and in no way adequate for “more lanes.”
And roadway and interchange design is in the Dark Ages. Loop ramps rather than directional ramps, despite high volumes. Yes, a cheaper drsin but not a good design.
Indiana is historically conservative in funding and spending. The awful infrastructure is indicative thereof. You get what you pay for.
$156 mil divided by $20.00 per Uber trip= 624,000 rides around town. Lets ask Indygo what their ride count for this year is projected to be? Maybe we need to rethink our Public Transportation Options as well as all of the street level disruption for bus lines that the majority of taxpayers are $upporting but do not support.
Now, multiply all those trips by the number of cars and drivers that would be necessary to service them, factor in that many of those trips would need to occur during the same commute time, and consider that both Uber and Lyft use *demand based* pricing (i.e. the higher the demand, the more you pay). Those $20 trips would skyrocket in cost.
Also, consider the vast difference in carrying capacity between a car and a bus, and now imagine all those extra Uber and Lyft drivers scurrying around on the “delightfully” crummy Indianapolis roads with you . I am sure it would make for a fun commute for all!
There were 6.9 MILLION rides taken in 2024. So your plan would not only be 10x more expensive but increase the number of vehicles on the road – adding to congestion – by an order of magnitude. Indy go is a SERVICE for the city, not a profit generating device.
Don’t forget the Uber/Lyft aren’t “employees” who don’t get benefits. If they’re suddenly receiving taxpayer funds to operate a public service, that would have to change. You’ll need to factor in retirement benefits, health care, etc. Now scale that up to the number of drivers and mechanics that would be required to maintain a fleet of vehicles which can only carry about ~3 people per hour, on average, compared to 17 people per hour with a bus, and be flexible enough to meet said demand for tens of thousands of rides per day without overloading the surface transportation network with deadheading miles.
It doesn’t work.
What a waste of tax dollars.
IndyBloat needs to slash spending and get rid of busses to go to a more efficient Uber type system for riders. But then why would they need overpaid staff and union drivers?
Who is going to raise the money to pay for the thousands of extra cars and drivers that would be required to replace the bus rides? You do understand Uber uses demand based pricing, and if it had to provide all those extra rides the price per ride would skyrocket? Also, imagine all those extra cars on the road and the impact they would have on congestion and road wear and tear.
An Uber-type system is by no means efficient and would cost about 4x’s more per passenger in subsidies than fixed route buses.
Bernard. How much should drivers make. What does your analysis of operations suggest? Andc what’s is more efficient about Uber. How, in fact, would those of modest incomes pay for an Uber ride which certainly would be more than $2.75. Please cite an example where Uber has replaced all buses? And would Uber be subsidized by IndyGo for a ride that cost $10.75 but the user pays the transit fare of $2.75 — to be clear, a subsidy of $8.00.
What the vitriol against bus drivers. Should they work for minimum wage? $2 per hour ?
What is an overpaid staff person? What is your justification, based on data analysis of staff at other comparable transit agencies, that a particular position at IndyGo is overpaid.
And what is the rationale for Union berating. Should there not be a union. If companies had always provided employee wages and benefits and annual reviews in an equitable, fair and responsible manner unions may never have existed. But due diligence and a comprehensive review of history industrialization and labor management paints a different story and definitively conveys the need for unions based, for example, dangerous work conditions for which employers had no liability.
Just knew these comments would be full of folks who live in the suburbs crying about public transportation. You really love to see it. Keep crying, bc the city is only going to get more pedestrian and transit friendly. The days of building cities just for cars are behind us