The challenge of welding several independent and geographically distinct political jurisdictions into a single transportation service has been beyond the grasp of many U.S. cities. The rewards of such a feat are tempting-- a wide-spread regional network of coordinated transportation service, an end to misaligned bus routes based on town boundaries rather than travel needs, and the economic advantage of spreading overhead costs such as the outlays for transit management and vehicle maintenance. Additional advantages include increased ability to attract federal dollars and a broader base for marketing of transportation services. Private bankrupt transit properties can be rescued and rationalized when several jurisdictions pool their financial resources. These benefits are offset, however, by the inherent problem of the public systems' requirement for public funding, and the subsidy must somehow be apportioned to the residents of separate and frequently competing political jurisdictions. Sharing the cost of the deficit is required but, in the nature of multijurisdiction areas, the units of government are independent and cannot commit one another to future action without recurring appropriations by the individual jurisdictions. The determination of a basis for distributing the subsidy requirements is a difficult and politically sensitive task. This report explores the manner in which eight cities addressed the problem of sharing costs. (Author)

Media Info

  • Media Type: Print
  • Features: References; Tables;
  • Pagination: pp 12-20
  • Monograph Title: Critical Issues in Urban Transit Finance and Management
  • Serial:

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 00330084
  • Record Type: Publication
  • ISBN: 0309030749
  • Files: TRIS, TRB
  • Created Date: May 21 1982 12:00AM