<<  <  >  >>

Page 17

percent) and Washington, D.C. (1,511 percent).28  Not

surprisingly, cities in most of those states are build-

ing major new rail transit projects.

· Two-thirds of the states received less than 80 per-

cent of what they put in, and more than half received

less than 60 percent.

· On a total dollar basis, the biggest winners were New

York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Washington, D.C., each

of which received hundreds of millions of dollars more

than their residents paid into the transit fund.

· On a per capita basis, the big winners were residents

of Washington, D.C., New York City, and Portland, each

of which got well over $20 in federal transit grants

for every dollar they paid into the transit account.

The differences between donor and recipient states are

exacerbated by the huge amounts earmarked for transit proj-

ects in ISTEA and subsequent appropriations bills.  Over the

past four years, congressional appropriators have earmarked

$3.5 billion for transit projects; more than half of that

amount has gone to just three states--California, Georgia,

and Oregon--that contributed just 15 percent to the mass

transit account.29  Add New Jersey, New York, and Texas and

the total earmarking comes to more than 75 percent.

So-called flexible funding is merely an open invitation

for big cities to fleece other American taxpayers and for

powerful members of Congress to divert federal funding to

their states and districts.

Congestion Mitigation

ISTEA does appropriate $1 billion per year for a con-

gestion mitigation and air quality (CMAQ) fund to help

cities reduce congestion and pollution.  Unfortunately, the

fund has two important counterproductive restrictions.

First, it cannot be used on "scrappage," the purchase for

scrap of older cars, even though older cars tend to be the

most polluting.  The dirtiest 10 percent of all cars--which

tend to be the oldest cars--produce about half of all pollu-

tion.30  A program that purchased and scrapped those cars

could go far in reducing pollution.

Second, in metropolitan areas that violate any federal

air quality standards, CMAQ funds cannot be spent on highway