I was just a tad disingenuous when I made my post. You're right: all states are in a funding bind, but the fact that New Hampshire came out so poorly probably says something about the clout of the state's representation down in DC. Example: Alaska has the fourth lowest population, but placed third with funding for highway and transit projects: just over $1 billion, if you can believe that. The residents can thank Don Young for that.
It also speaks volumes about the state's vision on transit. To get ANY federal money, you have to make a proposal! Is anyone proposing anything lately besides widening I-93 [for example]? And if you look at interstate widening projects anywhere in the past, it's been proven that within two or three years, the traffic jams are back to where they were three years prior. Highways are a pretty ineffecient way to move people in high volumes, and they're expensive to build for the return you get back. I-90 in Chicago is a prime example that I experienced when I lived there.
I grew up in Methuen, not far from the Pelham Inn, and have a good grasp of some of the issues in NH. Granite Staters don't like taxes, unless the tourists pay them.
However, when it comes to quality of life issues like effecient public transit, states have to kick in a little to match what Uncle Sam has to give them. It seems NH doesn't get it.
And we haven't even addressed America's love affair with their cars. I've never seen an HOV lane filled to capacity in rush hour!