The top candidates are all running on the premise that we’re going to get to an era of mobility in America again.
In fact, that’s a big part of their campaign platform.
But there’s a catch.
The two main candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, are both well known for their controversial statements.
Trump’s most recent comment about the deaths of six people in a shooting spree at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, in June was a direct response to the massacre at a Black Lives Matter protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August.
Trump said that if his opponent were elected, “we would do a massive round of deportations, mass arrests and mass incarcerations, right here in America.”
Clinton has repeatedly called for the creation of a national registry of Muslims, and she’s said that we shouldn’t deport the children of immigrants in the United States.
But in the past few weeks, there’s been a lot of talk about whether we’re on the brink of an American nightmare, as Trump’s campaign said.
That’s when we all should start worrying about our cars.
The top three contenders have each pledged to create a national infrastructure bank to finance projects that boost mobility and reduce congestion.
If all three of these candidates are elected, we’re talking about a period of years in which the country will have the kind of infrastructure we’re used to in places like London, New York, Paris and Berlin, said Jim O’Neill, an associate professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
But if there’s one thing that distinguishes this cycle, it’s the fact that the candidates are not taking any chances.
There’s no real discussion of how to fix the roads, or how to build them.
Trump and Clinton have both promised to invest in a “national infrastructure bank” to pay for highway projects, but they’ve never come close to getting any traction in Congress.
The idea that we can all get behind something like a national highway is a long-held wish of American voters, but it’s not really a reality.
While some of the candidates have tried to change that, they’ve only been able to do so by creating infrastructure banks and proposing a massive tax cut for the wealthy, which doesn’t have the backing of the majority of Americans.
The issue is, are they willing to take the risk of getting bogged down in the mess that we’ve got?
The answer is no.
The candidates are talking about their vision for a post-Traffic Safety Net America, but there’s no way they’re going back to a place where all roads are paved and highways are safe, O’Malley said.
In his speech on Wednesday, Clinton made it clear that she believes we should have more road projects than we currently have, saying that we need to create more highway capacity, not less.
And in the case of infrastructure, she pointed out that we don’t need to build more bridges or more tunnels to bridge gaps in our roads.
But even if we built more road capacity, she said, it would only take 10 years to build all the roads we need, which means we need new funding to expand roads, as well.
That means building roads and bridges and tunnels and filling them up again.
She also proposed a $1 trillion infrastructure program.
That would be a far cry from the $3 trillion Clinton said she wants to spend on roads.
In addition, she hasn’t said how she would finance her plans, so we won’t know for a while if she’s going to fund them.
Trump is taking a much more aggressive stance, calling for a $5 trillion infrastructure plan, and his campaign has already announced that it will be spending $1 billion on the first half of this year.
His plan, however, doesn’t address the issue of whether roads need to be paved, as O’Neil pointed out.
The reality is that the road building is a slow, tedious process, he said.
Trump has proposed $1.5 trillion for highways, which would cost $200 billion over the next 10 years.
We could spend $2 trillion on roads and have them built in 20 years.
That money would have been invested in the highways by the time the infrastructure bank was established, O’man said.
The money would be needed to repair the roads and rebuild them, but the money would still be needed by the year 2020.
O’Neal said that the only way we could fund a massive infrastructure program is if we all got behind it.
We have to get behind the infrastructure, we have to be a leader, we can’t sit back and take the blame, he added.
O’slan said that he thinks the Republican nominee is “talking a lot about how much we’ve lost, but I don’t think that’s the case,” pointing to the fact Trump hasn’t taken any new measures on transportation in his campaign.
We’ve spent all our money on roads, but we don´