{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018569463548830812, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.466666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Fair Share: Allocation of Transit O&M Costs between Multiple Partners

This paper examines practices employed by transit agencies across North America to allocate light rail, heavy rail, and commuter rail operations and maintenance (OM measures applied to allocate costs; compensating revenues credited to the purchasing agency; and the workability of the arrangement. Attributes of workable arrangements include simplicity; equity; measurability; and sustainability. The research shows that there is a tradeoff between the simplicity of a funding agreement and the equitability of the resulting funding allocations. Simple arrangements also tend to use metrics that are easy to measure. As a result there may be benefits to utilizing a more simple approach, such as improved transparency and lower implementation costs. Conversely, the most equitable transit cost allocation arrangements tend to have complex methodologies that apply multiple metrics. These may end up being more sustainable in the long-term because they maintain a strong nexus between the benefits a jurisdiction receives from the transit system or project, and the amount of funding they are contributing. These agreements may also represent a long-standing regional consensus that is difficult to change by a single funding partner. If the arrangement fails to maintain an equitable allocation of costs, the arrangement is typically not sustainable, especially on a long-term basis.