Namma Metro
Credit: Special arrangement
The prospect of another Namma Metro fare hike – this time, a 5% automatic increase in February – has led to widespread public consternation. Although the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) has not formally announced the hike, the outrage is understandable. Fares were sharply increased last year after a long gap, with some routes seeing increases of up to 71%. Another hike in 12 months was bound to provoke resistance. In principle, an annual, modest adjustment is not unreasonable. Such small, predictable revisions are far preferable to infrequent but steep shocks. The 2025 hike made the Namma Metro one of the country’s most expensive systems, and even a 5% increase now feels punitive, especially to daily-wage earners and lower-middle-class commuters.
What should have been a technical discussion on fare policy has instead become a political football. BJP MP Tejasvi Surya has called the proposed hike unscientific and anti-people. He has questioned the Fare Fixation Committee’s calculations, alleging arithmetic errors, an outdated base year for costs, and exaggerated increases in maintenance expenses. He has also highlighted that a ten-kilometre ride in Bengaluru costs far more than in cities such as Delhi or Chennai, arguing that high fares undermine the very purpose of mass transit by pushing commuters back to private vehicles. The ruling Congress has responded by shifting the focus squarely to the legal structure. It argues that under the Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002, fare fixation lies with a statutory committee appointed by the Centre and that its recommendations are binding. As BMRCL is a joint venture with a Union government-appointed chairperson, the state insists it has no authority to roll back fares. BMRCL, on its part, argues that periodic fare revisions are necessary to meet rising electricity and maintenance costs, staff salaries, debt-servicing obligations, and to reduce operational losses.
Lost in this blame game is the commuter. Public transport cannot be allowed to become a luxury. Globally, metro systems survive not on fares alone but on sustained government support and innovation. European cities heavily subsidise travel: London cross-subsidises through congestion charges on private vehicles; Singapore separates capital costs from operations; Hong Kong keeps fares in check by developing and monetising real estate around stations. For Namma Metro, the path forward lies in balance: predictable and transparent fare policy, aggressive non-fare revenue through property development and advertising, operational efficiency, and public funding that recognises mass transit as a social good. Growth and financial sustainability are important, but access and equity must remain at the core of Bengaluru’s Metro story.