You are correct when you note there was no mention of transportation at the conventions. It’s pretty short shrift that policy makers aren’t paying attention to the easiest way to create jobs and improve infrastructure. It is also ironic given that nearly every attendee of both the Republican and Democratic conventions shared a single commonality – they arrived at their destination on an airline. And nearly every industry represented at each gathering relies on the airline industry in some capacity to serve its constituents or create opportunities for their own sectors. Yet the necessity of a healthy, vibrant airline industry was not discussed by either major candidate or included in either party’s platform. That is a problem because nobody wants to do the hard work. The good news is that there are some members of Congress that are looking to change that.

The airlines are enablers of commerce, connecting businesses and communities of all sizes and types with each other and a rapidly expanding global marketplace. They are doing so with record safety and efficiency and despite rising fuel costs, a huge increase in its tax and regulatory burdens, and a decade of financial losses. If government officials are looking for ways to boost the overall economy, they should look no further than our U.S. airlines.

By rationalizing the tax and regulatory policies that impact the airlines, policymakers would provide a shot in the arm that will lead to increased job creation across the industry and those it supports. As a start, the commercial jet fuel tax that was meant to be temporary back in the 1990s should be repealed, as it was for all other modes of transportation. This tax has stayed in place as fuel costs, the top financial concern for the airlines, have skyrocketed. It has also remained as other taxes associated with air travel have increased while ticket prices have not kept pace with inflation. As with any industry, a smarter tax policy will help the airlines grow and create more better- paying jobs.

Curtailing or eliminating the full-fare advertising regulation is another no-brainer. This rule may sound transparent. In fact, it has the opposite effect by enabling the government to hide the ball on what consumers are really paying for their fare and what percentage of their ticket price is going to Washington.

The U.S. airline industry is in its safest period in history. It moves millions of people and millions of tons of freight every day. Perhaps this allows policy makers to take it for granted and simply forget how critical the industry is to the economy at large. But this should not be the case. A strong, healthy U.S. airline industry will benefit every industry it touches. And that will benefit the American economy in substantial ways.

Unfortunately, the Republican and the Democratic National Conventions barely touched upon transportation. While frustrating for advocates, it's hardly surprising that transportation policy hasn't been a major issue this election. The realities of life for people of low-income -- like whether you can get a bus home from your second job -- aren't registering with pundits and campaign directors primarily interested in faceless statistics.

During a recession, campaigns tend to be built around simple soundbites and the focus turns away from planning and projects. As a country, we are facing a fiscal cliff where mandatory cuts to programs combined with the possible expansion of the Bush-era tax cuts for the very wealthy could lead us into another, deeper recession. Obama and Romney are currently battling to prove who is more able to lead us economically. In Obama's speech at the DNC, he said the word “jobs” fifteen times. Even though this year's election will be determined by who we believe can create jobs and pull America out of the recession, surprisingly little has been presented to the public. We saw President Obama's creative thinking outlined in the American Jobs Act, which contained several items from the TEN/Gamaliel transportation campaign, including more funding for the training of low-income people and minorities in construction careers, but we've seen little in writing from Gov. Romney.

Transportation has, so far, been largely ignored by both campaigns -- but there is still space for transportation policy in the national conversation. Gamaliel is releasing a study on September 13th which references the Moody’s Economic Analytics findings: every dollar spent on transit funding increases the GDP in the following year by $1.44. The study also outlines how community organizing can be a major jobs creator, especially when focused on infrastructure, affordable housing, and transit funding issues. If we as transit advocates want to shift the election's focus to transportation, we'll need to focus our message on the incredible job-creating potential of transportation improvement. During his acceptance speech at the DNC, Obama noted the need for “a real, achievable plan that will lead to new jobs, more opportunity and rebuild this economy on a stronger foundation.”

Transportation improvement can be that foundation.

While there is a temptation to continue to debate national transportation issues "inside the Beltway," it is unlikely that the interest of transportation stakeholder and advocacy groups and of think tanks will be enought to motivate federal policy makers to address these matters again in the next year or two. Congress will act on surface transportation again only if they feel pressure from their constituents to do so, and that pressure seems unlikely to develop to any significan degree during the current campaigns.

Unless and until there is a broad national consensus around the need to invest in America's infrastructure, even in challenging economic and fiscal circumstance -- indeed, especially, in such times-- and to reform fundamentally transportation programs and planning processes, we cannot expect further significant Congressionl action on these subjects. .

The current Presidential and Congressional campaigns present opportunities for broad-ranging debates on national transportation policy and funding, but, alas, it appears unlikely that these will be significant issues in the next two months. It appears equally unlikely that the Congress that is elected in November will have much enthusiasmi about re-engaging surface transportation authorization legislation, despite the fact that MAP-21 will expire on September 30, 2014, that is, during the life of the next Congress. While some Congressional leaders, notably, Senator Boxer, Chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW, have pledged to go right back to work on the next surface transportation bill early next year, a series of extensions of MAP-21 seems a more likely scenario. Still, few outside of the current Congress expected that MAP-21 would be enacted before the Election, so perhaps I am being too pessimistic about the chances for progress in the next year or two.

One thing seems clear: funding for surface transportation investment will remain severely constrained for the immediate future. Only in the context of negotiations about a "grand bargain" over the nation's budget deficits and growing debt might there be some chance to address the issues of establishing sustainable user-based revenues and/or of identifying other sources of funding for transportation and other infrastructure investment.

While I remain skeptical that such a grand bargain wll be achieved anytime soon, I am confident that the nation's policy leaders will talk seriously about transportation funding and investment only in the setting of such broader fiscal discussions. Hopefully, transportation issues will be addressed during the campaign and in the new year in that setting, if not on their own terms.