While the development of urban public transport (UPT) is considered a priority for promoting the ecological transition, the Covid-19 health crisis has affected its operation. Existing literature has focused mainly on the use of different modes of transport, changes in mobility practices and the way governments managed the crisis. This article focuses on the effects of covid-19 on the supply and financing of UPT and analyses whether this crisis has given rise to new dynamics in the mobility organising authorities (AOMs). Using data from 95 AOMs (35% of all AOMs in 2019) and a survey on 39 AOMs (14%), three main results are established. First, there is a big fall in fare revenue. However, this decrease is easily offset by a change in the mobility tax (versement mobilité), government subsidies and an increase in the contribution from local authorities. Second, the AOMs seem confident about the funding for future prospects, in particular through an expected increase in UPT patronage and a stability, or even an expected growth, in the mobility tax in the future. As a result, the health crisis does not seem to have encouraged the AOMs to find new resources to finance the development of their UPT services in the medium to long term. Third, and finally, the health crisis appears to have imply new dynamics in the AOMs, in particular in their investment priorities, by raising the importance of developing the use of bicycles. Although the health crisis does not appear to have had a major impact on the resources and expenditure of UPT, there are at least three risks to its funding in the future. The first concerns the repayment of the advances of the French State to compensate the impact of the health crisis. As the representative of AOMs points out, it may have a major impact on future investment. The second risk relates to employment trends in France. As many AOMs rely on VM for their funding, any shock to employment would mean a drop in resources for UPT. While the employment market seems to have been in brilliant health since the health crisis, several indicators point to the fragility of this trend. Finally, the third risk relates to the new resources that can be mobilised to develop UPT. Indeed, traditional resources are increasingly challenged, as for instance, the mobility tax which has been the subject of various criticisms in recent years. While these criticisms may seem debatable, given that the payers of mobility tax are relatively unknown and that public actors are significant contributors, and dangerous for the development of UPT, it nevertheless seems legitimate to ask about the new resources likely to contribute to this increase in supply. Although various reports identify different new possible resources (reform of mobility tax, road pricing, land value-capture, etc.), they still seem to lack any in-depth analysis of the implications of mobilising these new sources of funding in terms of yield (what amounts are involved? ), efficiency (what are the perverse effects of these new sources of funding?), acceptability (to users of UPT, citizens, businesses) or equity (who would really pay?).