As we head into the final stretch of the presidential race, it is paramount we shift our focus where it belongs: policy.
Infrastructure deserves to be at the top of that list, not because it is a sector I know well, having been involved in such projects as Boston's South Station and the Port of Miami Tunnel, but because of infrastructure’s multi-faceted role in creating jobs, driving economic growth, increasing our country’s competitiveness and improving our citizens’ quality of life.
But perhaps more importantly, as the water crisis in Flint and recent train derailments have demonstrated, investing in infrastructure has increasingly become about public safety.
While both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump claim to be pro-infrastructure, it is Clinton who has a more realistic, more detailed and therefore more viable plan.
Clinton's infrastructure plan calls for $275 billion in additional spending over five years, a plan she intends to pass within the first 100 days in office.
Her plan would also create a national infrastructure bank, where $25 billion of that would go to support loans and loan guarantees that could add up to an additional $225 billion, making the total plan a potentially $500 billion federally backed investment.
Last week, Trump said he wants to spend at least twice as much on infrastructure as Clinton.
But Trump has yet to provide any specific plan for his infrastructure spending for America.
Clinton would focus not only on transportation but also on water, clean energy, ports, broadband and aviation.
And aside from having a well-formulated plan, Clinton also has the experience, the support and the respect from within her own party to execute it.
That’s something to keep in mind when, on election day, we decide what we want our future to look like post-Nov. 8.
Former Administrator, FAA,
Former Acting Administrator, FHWA